Apparently, the main points presented in my last post were either intentionally missed or misunderstood, so let's do as the debate-hosting website owner purports is happening to us as a society, and "dumb down" my last post for greater mass appeal;)
(A debate, by the way, in which I did not even attempt to directly participate, posting only here and Crushie's blog in response.)
This post is then the Cliff's Notes version for everyone else: The attention-deficient, the lazy, the stupid, or just those so rigid/concrete in their thought processes, they are unwilling (or incapable) of conceding to any valid points made from any other perspective but their own.
First, it was important to note that biological predisposition was virtually ignored in the original discussion.
Secondly and most importantly, it should be noted that my last post was actually partially in agreement with Janina Davison Forder - social learning theory is a proven and valid argument.
However, a vital component of 'social learning theory' was missing, as it so often is when reported - behavior is conditioned response; therefore, it will only continue when consistently reinforced - by the person the child emulates, by their peers, or both.
There are only five responses we can give to a particular behavior, and we are giving one of these responses, whether we realize it or not - positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment, or ignorance/neglect of a behavior.
The consistent response you choose can make a world of difference with regard to the behavior you see out of your child, over time. This explains why ALL children do not emulate (or continue to emulate) what they see.
It's actually not always as simple as punishment or reward - consider the "temper tantrum." The proven appropriate and effective response to a temper tantrum to make it go away is actually consistent ignorance/neglect - because any attention given it, positive or negative, is still reinforcement of the behavior.
Each situation is different, however. Some behaviors, like aggression, will only increase if ignored/neglected.
The final point ignored was whether "media violence theory" itself is a societal moral problem, developing as a scapegoat to avoid accountability for our own behaviors and attitudes as their parents, educators, and peers.
Is the media simply reflecting in an artistic manner the already-existing attitudes, behaviors, and experience in our society and culture?For example, the website host and "borrower" of Janina's words himself posts pictures of attractive women daily at his site, according to his preference.
No, the pictures are not pornographic, but the message is still loud and clear: Women, subordinate to men, are objects made primarily for men to ogle at based on their physical appearance, desired only sexually.
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's go with that antiquated Judeo-Christian philosophy that the man is the head of the household. How did that become translated into women's only value being physical attractiveness and the production of children?
Why did God even give women a voice or brain at all - simply to be your "yes" girl?
If you read the same bible I did, I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about women and their physical attractiveness OR their sexuality. It was clear that Jesus loved women and valued their thoughts, ideas, feelings, and faith.
In fact, weren't women actually rewarded as such, for being the first to see Jesus at his resurrection?:)
Jesus stopped allowing hypocritical men to blame women for sexual sin 2000 years ago, preventing the stoning death of a prostitute by standing in front of her, asking those without sin to cast the first stone.
Amazing that despite Christ's actions, we still essentially 'stone' only women for sexual 'impropriety,' isn't it?
Perhaps if men stopped objectifying and valuing women based solely on physical attractiveness and sexuality, women won't value themselves merely for physical attractiveness and sexuality?
Lastly, my point is, and always has been, that there is much more to morality than sex OR violence - morality is also ethics, character and integrity.
Jesus actually preferred the company of known "sinners" and they became his disciples. Why?
Because they were open-minded to his message and were willing to examine and improve themselves first.
In contrast, the Pharisees were overly rigid in their way of thinking and refused to self-examine, already considering themselves morally superior, despite being secretly duplicitous and vainglorious hypocrites.
As far as morality, Jesus did not appear overly concerned with sex, marriage etc.
In fact, Jesus' largest concern morally appeared to be against the Pharisees' greed, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy.
What a shame, then, that Christ's 'Big 3' sins have actually become synonymous with today's Christians.
For factual information and actual studies on media violence from the world's leading social theorists, please see the links in the below posts.
For what Jesus actually said and verification of his biggest concerns with morality, read your own bible?
+copy.jpg){kind=small}