Cartoon network, Tom and Jerry, and gay men (mildly controversial)

[beansprouts]

Why does a parent have to defend their right to choose when and how to teach their own children about certain issues?

[LauraGB]

I see that you have 12 year old children. Why not just tell them the truth? And then add whatever your faith and/or personal viewpoint compels you to add.

 

Well, at 12 I'm probably going to have to, but right now they are only 9 ;) . I haven't even completely told them all the rest of the story!

[LisaNY]

Why does a parent have to defend their right to choose when and how to teach their own children about certain issues?

 

Wait, what? Parents have rights??? :svengo:

[Jenny in Florida]

Why does a parent have to defend their right to choose when and how to teach their own children about certain issues?

 

Well, I don't think anyone is suggesting that parents must defend that right. However, letting them watch TV unsupervised is probably not going to make that possible.

 

Honestly, I don't think either of my kids has ever watched anything on Cartoon Network, but my impression of the channel just from the ads I've seen elsewhere is that it is not a squeaky-clean, family-friendly option. But then, I don't care for most of what airs even on networks that do purport to be "kid centric." So, I may not be a terribly good judge.

 

The funny thing is that I would have no problem with the "great time to be a gay man" thing. Our kids have a fair number of gay people in their lives and wouldn't think twice about such a thing.

[Blessedfamily]

Television is not to be trusted at any time, on any channel....

 

:iagree:For many reasons. I have found that even when I preview a show and it seems acceptable, I have no idea what surprises the next episode holds.

 

Why does a parent have to defend their right to choose when and how to teach their own children about certain issues?

 

They don't. Even when we go to Gymboree (famous for providing t.v. for kids while parents overspend), my dd5 will ask what I think before viewing any of their cartoon "shorts".

 

She has done this since 4 and the sales people "get a kick" out of her asking before each and every cartoon. They have shown nothing but respect, but even if they thought it was too restrictive I wouldn't care.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

Fortunately where I live this is not an issue. Were my children to see such a display yes it would be discussed, but the point is I live in an area where they will not see such a display and have managed to shelter my children from this.

 

 

 

Nothing like living in a part of the world were people are shunned, beaten, jailed or even killed for who they are. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm also confused about the holding hands thing... is it not tradition in many areas of the Middle East and even Central Europe for men to hold hands? Does this simple act mean one is gay?

Edited November 29, 2008 by Jenny in Atl

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Well, at 12 I'm probably going to have to, but right now they are only 9 ;) . I haven't even completely told them all the rest of the story!

I see I read your siggy wrong...And its not even that cryptic!

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Fortunately where I live this is not an issue. Were my children to see such a display yes it would be discussed, but the point is I live in an area where they will not see such a display and have managed to shelter my children from this.

 

Is it a "display" for men to hold hands? My dh hugs and kisses (on the cheek) his best friend. Is that a display indicative of ... well, something? When I was in my 20's I held hands with my friends of the same or opposite gender (usually in places with lots of people, so we wouldn't get separated), would that be a display? I would still do it today, but my hands are usually occupied with holding smaller hands. When my auntie was here visiting, we linked arms as we walked along. These actions are not, in and of themselves, "a display." Of course, we're a very affectionate family and not afraid of nonsexual touching.

Now, if a couple were, for instance, soul kissing in public, I would be a bit uncomfortable, in the "get a room" sense, regardless of the gender of the people involved. My children have seen such displays, and a simple, "well, they must love each other very much" was enough of an explanation.

[Remudamom]

Why does a parent have to defend their right to choose when and how to teach their own children about certain issues?

 

Because others are wiser than us, and know what's best for our children. Which is why they push their agendas on the Cartoon Network.

[Jenny in Atl]

Because others are wiser than us, and know what's best for our children. Which is why they push their agendas on the Cartoon Network.

 

And through politicians, local (mob rule) morality, etc. Everyone thinks they know what is best. No one group or individual has a monopoly on this mind set.

[muffinmom]

I think the real issue here is not how you feel about homosexuality and when to talk to your kids about it, but whether it's OK for Cartoon Network to air advertising with adult themes in the middle of daytime children's programming.

[battlemaiden]

Wow. And the thread lives on. :D

 

A couple of points-

 

I didn't know about cartoon network. I naively believed it was a kid's station. I know better now. Regardless I don't let my kids surf channels unattended, I had screened the TV program- Tom and Jerry- and I thought it was appropriate. I made assumptions about the commercials. My bad.

 

Secondly, The commercial showed photos of gay men with their arms around each other looking overjoyed and cheerful- actually looking quite gay in the original sense of the word. The statement "it's a great time to be a gay man" was only the beginning of the commercial. What I don't appreciate is the attempt *normalize* a behavior I think is wrong. Simple as that. No worse than other commercials- like Pam said I'd like to hunt down the marketers of Cialis and hang them by their toe nails. But placed after a program that is most definitely directed towards children seems aggressive.

 

My 12 yo is mature enough to have a conversation about the topic. We can discuss and reason the topic. But *I* get to make the decision when the younger children are given the talk....because I'm the mom dagnabbit!

[lovemyboys]

I'm a major channel surfer. Not once have I seen a commercial like this on any other channel. :glare:

 

I agree that it is simply an opportunity for discussion. I was just surprised.

 

I agree, Jo. What I'm finding more and more with cable tv is that the barriers are very low there for ads, ads for shows from other networks, and the shows themselves.

 

The food channel used to be a safe favorite with ds here, but I keep my eye on it now that they carry ads from other networks (that I'm purposely avoiding, tyvm!) or PSAs with situations like you described. All of a sudden an ad comes on for a cable show with the stars/participants saying they'll kick everyone's a**. Wha?? What happened to food challenge?

 

Fwiw, cartoon network has definitely become a network to keep an eye on. They proudly switch to adult cartoons with adult themes in the evening hours.

 

Ds here was laughing a couple months ago when a campaign ad came on the cartoon network. He said, "Wow, they're really wasting their money, don't they know I'm not old enough to vote?" But with cable, who knows who's watching.

 

Makes me wistful for the days with tom&jerry cartoons, little house, the waltons, the wonderful world of disney on Sunday evenings, networks keeping "family hour" programming.....

 

If it's do-able with your budget, you might consider a dvr. With our cable package, it's an extra $10/month. That's been a wonderful time-saver and editor here. The only thing dc get from cartoon network these days is the clone wars/star wars animated 1/2 hour show that I tape and they can watch as often as they like.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

...because I'm the mom dagnabbit!

This is a word I would like to see more of in day to day life....dagnabbit!

Dagnabbit......Say it a few times and YOU will start feeling like a cartoon character!

dagnabbit!

dagnabbit!

dagnabbit!

Lovely, happy word to express not so happy feelings. Thank you.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Cartoon Network is iffy, at best. They have a lot of adult-oriented cartoons and commercials. We stay away from it. If you want Tom and Jerry, look around at WalMart and such. You can buy them super cheap on DVD.

 

I agree. I love DVDs of old programs best. I watch what my girls and watch and thought I was being very careful. We used to watch TVLand, but don't for the same reasons: commercials.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Fine. We discuss homosexuality and AIDS with those of our children who are developmentally ready. Cartoon network isn't the place I would have thought this organization would target. I have watched a good bit of TV lately (having my dh deployed tends to make me watch more), and I'm a major channel surfer. Not once have I seen a commercial like this on any other channel. :glare:

 

Jo

 

I think the organization knows and is targeting children. That is why they aired it on the channel they did.

[Gretchen in NJ]

It seems to me that such a network that knows that a huge portion of their viewership is made up of children should not include such things as part of advertisement. However, there are plenty of people in that field who want to be the ones to introduce these topics to our children. They don't seem to respect the right parents have to bring up these topics at the appropriate time for their family.

 

IMO, it's the whole "I know better what your children need to know (and when) than you do, and I have a 'moral' obligation to indoctrinate them"--a perspective that many of us homeschool to avoid.

 

Our society is increasingly disrespecting parental rights.

 

Exactly!

[Mommy22alyns]

I think the real issue here is not how you feel about homosexuality and when to talk to your kids about it, but whether it's OK for Cartoon Network to air advertising with adult themes in the middle of daytime children's programming.

 

 

 

:iagree: Cha-ching!

 

 

I'm a huge baseball fan. I looooove baseball and watch every game I can during the season. Unfortunately, Viagra and Cialis have decided that baseball games are primo advertising time. :glare: So I can't watch a simple baseball game during the day with my girls around without vigilantly jumping at the remote during every commercial break. Drives me nuts - don't we (baseball lovers) want to promote this as a great family pasttime and pass the love of the game down to our kids? Then why not keep the ED ads for night games at least? I really don't want to explain prematurely to Becca what ED means. :001_huh:

[pqr]

Nothing like living in a part of the world were people are shunned, beaten, jailed or even killed for who they are. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

What are you talking about???? I never stated that people are killed for who they are, I simply stated that where I live this is not the behavior that would be displayed in public. In the part of the world where I live no one is killed, shunned yes...killed no.

 

By the way..... yes, I actually enjoy living in an area where I do not have to explain that particular issue to my children.

 

As to people being shunned for who they are. Tell me, where this is not true? You would not want to be a Mormon in downtown San Francisco today.

 

Many shun certain individuals who they feel cross certain moral boundaries and I would lay very good odds that you do too. The only difference may be what we define these boundaries as being.

[Gretchen in NJ]

What are you talking about???? I never stated that people are killed for who they are, I simply stated that where I live this is not the behavior that would be displayed in public. In the part of the world where I live no one is killed, shunned yes...killed no.

 

By the way..... yes, I actually enjoy living in an area where I do not have to explain that particular issue to my children.

 

As to people being shunned for who they are. Tell me, where this is not true? You would not want to be a Mormon in downtown San Francisco today.

 

Many shun certain individuals who they feel cross certain moral boundaries and I would lay very good odds that you do too. The only difference may be what we define these boundaries as being.

 

So ture. It all depends on who is doing the shunning. Serval people have lost their jobs.

[Ria]

:iagree: Cha-ching!

 

 

I'm a huge baseball fan. I looooove baseball and watch every game I can during the season. Unfortunately, Viagra and Cialis have decided that baseball games are primo advertising time. :glare: So I can't watch a simple baseball game during the day with my girls around without vigilantly jumping at the remote during every commercial break. Drives me nuts - don't we (baseball lovers) want to promote this as a great family pasttime and pass the love of the game down to our kids? Then why not keep the ED ads for night games at least? I really don't want to explain prematurely to Becca what ED means. :001_huh:

 

I have to laugh...we have five sons. I'll never forget the day a Viagra commercial came on during football. The commercial itself didn't attract any undue attention, but the list of possible side effects literally had the boys cringing. Dh and I had to laugh! Now the boys mute those commercials when they see them. LOL.

 

Ria

[Melinda in VT]

So ture. It all depends on who is doing the shunning. Serval people have lost their jobs.

 

Do you have links? If so, could you PM me? (I'm thinking posting the links here might take this too close to the political.)

 

I'm aware of some boycots and a voluntary resignation, but no firings.

[BabyBre]

:001_huh: On cartoon network?

 

Whatever your opinions on this topic, do you think cartoon network is the appropriate place for that type of topic?

 

 

No, I don't feel it's appropriate at all, but neither are half the advertisements and programs on TV. Cartoon Network has been locked at our house for years. I'm not sure when it quit being for kids, but it's most certainly not anymore.

 

I turned the TV on one night and was shocked to see cartoon porn playing on Cartoon Network! I'm not kidding. It was a program called Robot Chicken. There were fuzzy spots where it counted, but what these characters were doing was NOT for innocent eyes. Thank goodness the kids weren't around as it was only 7:00 at night!

 

As it turned out, the description of the program in our cable guide was unrated and that's how the parental controls missed it. We've since switched cable companies and we can now block indivitual channels and/or programs as well as by rating. When I called the cable company to raise hell, they blamed the network who, in turn, blamed the cable company. Anyway, I was told to use my cable box's parental controls, and that it was 10:00 on the east coast!

 

For all the "safegaurds" in place out there, there's no substitute for parental supervision.

[sagira]

I just don't like CN because most of the cartoons are crap and kids really don't learn anything (good) from them.

:iagree:

[LaxMom]

Whatever your opinions on this topic, do you think cartoon network is the appropriate place for that type of topic?

 

No, but I don't think - as others have commented - most of their programming is appropriate for children.

[Peek a Boo]

Do you have links? If so, could you PM me? (I'm thinking posting the links here might take this too close to the political.)

 

I'm aware of some boycots and a voluntary resignation, but no firings.

 

 

ah yes... voluntary... like we voluntarily pay our taxes :D

 

and like she said: It all depends on who is doing the shunning.

[Tree House Academy]

Precisely why we do not have cable TV anymore. :( I am not against gay people (my mom has lots of friends and, unfortunately and ex husband who prefer(s) that orientation), but I do not need my kids told anything about alternative lifestyles by a cartoon television network. I will handle anything I need them to know at this age.

 

I have to also add that we banned Cartoon Network when my oldest was about 4. Even when we did have cable, the kids didn't get to watch that channel. I have never seen anything good or wholesome come from there.

[Melinda in VT]

ah yes... voluntary... like we voluntarily pay our taxes :D

 

and like she said: It all depends on who is doing the shunning.

 

Do you have inside information on the Eckern story?

 

I'll grant you, I've wondered if the resignation wasn't coerced. But I've also wondered if the theater company could have fired him, and maybe allowing him to resign was a kindness.

 

And I don't see this being a case of it depending on who is doing the shunning. Didn't some Christians call for a boycott of Disney in the 1990s because of their policies towards homosexuals among other issues? How is this different from homosexuals boycotting a theater company whose artistic director financially supported legislation they view as anti-homosexual? The only difference is that the homosexual community and its supporters were a larger percentage of the theater company's business.

[Peek a Boo]

Do you have inside information on the Eckern story?

 

you don't need inside info --do a basic search on all the liberal blogs and news stories/ comments --they were pretty vitriolic in their assessment of his stance. Yes, his resignation was voluntary to save the theater because of the boycott and vitriol they received. We pay our taxes voluntarily to avoid backlash. Same difference.

 

 

I'll grant you, I've wondered if the resignation wasn't coerced. But I've also wondered if the theater company could have fired him, and maybe allowing him to resign was a kindness.

 

possibly. but i was focussing more on whether he was coerced by his business or by the boycott itself.

 

And I don't see this being a case of it depending on who is doing the shunning. Didn't some Christians call for a boycott of Disney in the 1990s because of their policies towards homosexuals among other issues? How is this different from homosexuals boycotting a theater company whose artistic director financially supported legislation they view as anti-homosexual? The only difference is that the homosexual community and its supporters were a larger percentage of the theater company's business.

 

I didn't say it WAS different --those are both instances of one sector of the population shunning another.

Which is why it was brought up "it depends on who's doing the shunning." The boycott and letters in the theater instance were the direct reason for his resignation. He had no intention of resigning before that.

 

However, the Disney boycott was about the policies of a business. The theater boycott was about the actions of one individual acting on his own. They boycotted an entire theater because of one person's actions.