In earlier posts, I made the argument that things like drugs, pornography and even Facebook CAN banned inside our homes. In making the argument about banning things, There's been one comeback I'd like to address. That comeback is "You can't compare Facebook to drugs or porn." Well, I would disagree. First of all, Facebook has porn available all the time. Oh no, not the hard stuff, but take a look at all of those pictures posted and you're sure to find at least one person wearing something that leaves little to the imagination. And comparing it to drugs, that's a slam dunk. It's already been written about that Facebook has been found to be addicting.
But whether or not you agree that Facebook and drugs or porn are the similar, there's still significant dangers for letting a child use Facebook or any other social media.
1. Most children do not have the ability to think into the future. They will not be able to understand that what they write today will be seen by a potential employer in a few years. Let's not forget that many of the kids hope to be married some day. How will that conversation go with the future Mrs. or Mr. when they have to explain why a picture of such and such or why a post stating this and that was on their Facebook page?
2. Many, Many, Many people online are not who they say they are. Don't think your kid will talk to that creepy guy? You haven't seen enough 20/20 type shows.
3. Data is mined. Huh? You mean someone is watching my child? Oh yeah. Any idea why those ads started showing up in your email? Who's email address did they open the account with? Almost every story about what happens to Facebook data is BAD. 'They lost this set of data' or 'someone stole that set of data.' If you put in on the web - even in this blog, EVERYONE can see it and a LOT of people can get it.
4. The more the kids are using social media for relationships, the poorer those relationships are in the long run. You can't possibly interpret body language and voice inflection from reading a post or even looking at a photo - no matter how many emoticons you use. :) ;) :0
Perhaps none of the above concerns you. Well, it does me. I've watched or read the stories over and over and over how someone's life is impacted or even ruined and Facebook played a large part in those disasters. I plan to both protect and educate my children on the dangers of being involved with such a medium as Facebook. I'm not necessarily popular, but my family is also not suffering the ill effects of being involved with it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Yes, you can ban Facebook, part II
... Previously I talked about banning things in the home and some of the arguments against having a ban on a particular activity like Facebook, or the content of something like TV.
Another way parents get around banning something is to say "If my child is doing it, I'll just do it so I can monitor them."
Try using the argument regarding Facebook that sounds like this, "My child has a Facebook account so I need one to monitor him/her" and then replace Facebook with pornography or drugs. It would sound like this: "My son views pornography, so the best way for me to understand him is to view it myself." Or, "my daughter is smoking pot. The best way for me to understand her is to smoke it myself." REALLY?
Where does the idea come from that if a child is doing it, we as parents must be the followers and do the same? I would not allow myself to try drugs or view pornography on my own. So why would I do it just because my child was doing it? Going back to social media - why would I have to be on Facebook or any other social media just because I learned that my child is on it? Hmmm, I guess I don't, do I?
There is an argument that completely banning something can make it more tempting. I agree that this could be true, but by banning something, it also tells our children what we stand for. We can say to our kids, "We ban drugs, because we know how harmful they are for you." We can also say "We ban Facebook because there are many dangers in using Facebook that you are not aware of." (A topic for another post)
The crux of this discussion is "who's in charge?" Are we, the parents leading the way? Or are our children and society taking control?
Coincidentally, I read an opinion piece that has a different topic - How children dress - but it addresses the same argument of who's in charge. You can read the whole article here, but I will quote the part I found most interesting:
"I don't care how popular Lil' Wayne is, my son knows I would break both of his legs long before I would allow him to walk out of the house with his pants falling off his butt. Such a stance doesn't always makes me popular -- and the house does get tense from time to time -- but I'm his father, not his friend.
Friends bow to peer pressure. Parents say, "No, and that's the end of it."
The way I see it, my son can go to therapy later if my strict rules have scarred him. But I have peace knowing he'll be able to afford therapy as an adult because I didn't allow him to wear or do whatever he wanted as a kid."
Now that's a dad that's setting a standard! Eventually, therapy or not, his son will thank him for at least setting a standard. He will thank him because kids are always pushing against the boundaries or rules to see if we will stand firm and uphold them. They aren't just testing us. They actually want the boundaries so they will feel safe! Believe it or not, they really want boundaries, but the only way to see if they exist is to test them.
The bottom line of my last two posts is that as parents we can and should set standards. Is it hard work? Absolutely. Are we often alone. You bet. Are "bans" necessary some times? Oh yes.
So we have to ask ourselves - Do we want our kids merely to be our friends? Or are we more concerned about setting a firm foundation in their hearts as we work to build moral character while working on a relationship with them?
I'm with the dad in that article.
Another way parents get around banning something is to say "If my child is doing it, I'll just do it so I can monitor them."
Try using the argument regarding Facebook that sounds like this, "My child has a Facebook account so I need one to monitor him/her" and then replace Facebook with pornography or drugs. It would sound like this: "My son views pornography, so the best way for me to understand him is to view it myself." Or, "my daughter is smoking pot. The best way for me to understand her is to smoke it myself." REALLY?
Where does the idea come from that if a child is doing it, we as parents must be the followers and do the same? I would not allow myself to try drugs or view pornography on my own. So why would I do it just because my child was doing it? Going back to social media - why would I have to be on Facebook or any other social media just because I learned that my child is on it? Hmmm, I guess I don't, do I?
There is an argument that completely banning something can make it more tempting. I agree that this could be true, but by banning something, it also tells our children what we stand for. We can say to our kids, "We ban drugs, because we know how harmful they are for you." We can also say "We ban Facebook because there are many dangers in using Facebook that you are not aware of." (A topic for another post)
The crux of this discussion is "who's in charge?" Are we, the parents leading the way? Or are our children and society taking control?
Coincidentally, I read an opinion piece that has a different topic - How children dress - but it addresses the same argument of who's in charge. You can read the whole article here, but I will quote the part I found most interesting:
"I don't care how popular Lil' Wayne is, my son knows I would break both of his legs long before I would allow him to walk out of the house with his pants falling off his butt. Such a stance doesn't always makes me popular -- and the house does get tense from time to time -- but I'm his father, not his friend.
Friends bow to peer pressure. Parents say, "No, and that's the end of it."
The way I see it, my son can go to therapy later if my strict rules have scarred him. But I have peace knowing he'll be able to afford therapy as an adult because I didn't allow him to wear or do whatever he wanted as a kid."
Now that's a dad that's setting a standard! Eventually, therapy or not, his son will thank him for at least setting a standard. He will thank him because kids are always pushing against the boundaries or rules to see if we will stand firm and uphold them. They aren't just testing us. They actually want the boundaries so they will feel safe! Believe it or not, they really want boundaries, but the only way to see if they exist is to test them.
The bottom line of my last two posts is that as parents we can and should set standards. Is it hard work? Absolutely. Are we often alone. You bet. Are "bans" necessary some times? Oh yes.
So we have to ask ourselves - Do we want our kids merely to be our friends? Or are we more concerned about setting a firm foundation in their hearts as we work to build moral character while working on a relationship with them?
I'm with the dad in that article.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Yes, you can ban Facebook!
I recently read some discussion about how much to control our kid's access to social media. The focus was on the question, "What do we do about access to Facebook?" Several items were written stating that the parents felt there was no way to ban social media at home.
I find it interesting that many parents think that they can not ban things in their own homes. The arguments used sound like this. "They'll just do it when I'm gone." or "They have friends to help them do it." Yep, those are very true statements, but that shouldn't prevent us from setting precedents in our homes - even if it means banning something.
It is a very hard thing to try and ban anything. If you ban something at home kids can and do access it elsewhere. But it is also true with: content on TV and radio, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and the list goes on. Most people ban drugs and porn. Others are mixed on alcohol and cigarettes. TV and radio are perhaps the closest thing to social media since they are content based.
By way of example, we have bans on many things in our home: TV, radio, and internet content, drugs, porn, and cigarettes. Once in a blue moon you might find alcohol in our home (and no, we don't share it with the kids).
So we've set a precedent and started with the standard that those items are banned in our home. We don't merely ban something. We communicate with our kids why we don't think it's a great idea for them to view, use, or participate in the things we've banned. (Side note: we don't use the word ban. We merely say we don't watch that or we don't participate in that.)
We also communicate that we don't want them to participate in those things when they are not at home. Do they always follow the rules? No. But do we always come back to the standard when we learn of their participation in a banned activity or content? Yes. That's where we start the discussion and work toward an understanding of why we've banned those things at home in the first place.
Do they follow the rules some of the time? Yes. And they talk about how good it felt to say to their friends something like "I'm not going to watch that because it's has things in it that aren't good for me to see." OR "I have to check with my parents before I play that video game." They're proud of themselves for standing up for something the family values at our home. We also use those times to praise them and teach them how good it is to stand up for the values of your family.
To be continued...
I find it interesting that many parents think that they can not ban things in their own homes. The arguments used sound like this. "They'll just do it when I'm gone." or "They have friends to help them do it." Yep, those are very true statements, but that shouldn't prevent us from setting precedents in our homes - even if it means banning something.
It is a very hard thing to try and ban anything. If you ban something at home kids can and do access it elsewhere. But it is also true with: content on TV and radio, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and the list goes on. Most people ban drugs and porn. Others are mixed on alcohol and cigarettes. TV and radio are perhaps the closest thing to social media since they are content based.
By way of example, we have bans on many things in our home: TV, radio, and internet content, drugs, porn, and cigarettes. Once in a blue moon you might find alcohol in our home (and no, we don't share it with the kids).
So we've set a precedent and started with the standard that those items are banned in our home. We don't merely ban something. We communicate with our kids why we don't think it's a great idea for them to view, use, or participate in the things we've banned. (Side note: we don't use the word ban. We merely say we don't watch that or we don't participate in that.)
We also communicate that we don't want them to participate in those things when they are not at home. Do they always follow the rules? No. But do we always come back to the standard when we learn of their participation in a banned activity or content? Yes. That's where we start the discussion and work toward an understanding of why we've banned those things at home in the first place.
Do they follow the rules some of the time? Yes. And they talk about how good it felt to say to their friends something like "I'm not going to watch that because it's has things in it that aren't good for me to see." OR "I have to check with my parents before I play that video game." They're proud of themselves for standing up for something the family values at our home. We also use those times to praise them and teach them how good it is to stand up for the values of your family.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)