Saturday, July 21, 2012

In Which I Voice an Unpopular View

It happens every few years, it seems. Some screwed-up guy goes to a public place and shoots at random until people lay dead on the floor. The media goes crazy, vigils are held, and both pro- and anti-gun people talk until they are red in the face. Since Columbine, back in 1999, our generation has been familiar with this situation. Except for tighter airport security, it hasn't bothered most of our daily lives much.

When I woke up yesterday, I immediately heard about the shootings. Along with many other Americans, I checked updates all day, reading about the situation, the number of dead, and the shooter. Unlike other mass murders, this shooter was actually still alive at the end of it. Information poured in about him and eventually, about the victims. I had a brief online tussle about gun control, which I eventually conceded due to lack of interest. But then I looked a bit more closely at some of the stories that were coming out of the press. A couple barely escaped the theater with their 3-month old and 4-year old. A 6-year old girl was dead. And while I know that a theater isn't a place where you would expect violence and would ban your young children from, I immediately had to wonder: was a midnight showing of a violent movie really the best place for those small children?

I'm a first-time mother, and a single mother at that. I have a few people who I turn to for parenting advice, but for the most part, I just go along with what seems right and what works. Still, you need to have some sort of values when you're raising children. I innately know that my son's needs come before my own. There is no exception to this rule. If I am not hungry, but he wants dinner, he will get dinner. If I want to go to a concert, and I can't find a good babysitter, then I won't go to the concert. If he's sick, and I have an important day at work but can't find someone to watch him, I'll stay home from work. That's just how life is -- he's my #1. I've seen probably about five "grown-up" movies in a theater in the past 5 years; I only go when he's with my parents or sister-in-law. I can get the movie on DVD when it comes out. I made a choice to have a child, and that means that I am a parent above all else.

So what were these parents thinking when they took their tiny children to a violent movie? The Dark Knight Rises is rated PG-13. It's an action-adventure movie, so it's loud. It's almost three hours long. In addition, this was the premiere of the movie. People wore costumes, shouted, danced around and pushed and shoved. Have you ever been to a midnight premiere? It's crazy! It's like a movie in a nightclub. And it started at midnight. You know, the time when most children are sound asleep in their beds, and have been for hours. What would cause a parent to say, "Well, little Susie likes movies. And she's been really bored by the whole Winnie the Poo series. I bet she would love to see the midnight premiere of a super violent film!". What is in a parent's mind? "My newborn will sleep through the whole thing, probably. And if she starts to cry, no one will care. I'll just take her outside and leave my 4-year old inside."

I know that some people don't agree with me; they feel that people should take their children to any movie at any time. I've heard arguments that there may be extenuating circumstances; the parents may have their days and nights mixed up for the newborn, or they may think the child will sleep through everything. Katia Hetter, from CNN, argues that it's perfectly fine to take your newborn to a midnight showing of a movie. Katia Hetter is wrong. I don't care if you need a break. I don't care if you think your child will sleep. Suck it up and be a parent. Those children who were in danger of dying?  They shouldn't have been. And the little girl who died? She shouldn't have been there, and she shouldn't have died. And although it's not politically correct to blame their parents for bringing them to the movie, I soundly stand behind my belief that their lack of standards for their children were part of the reason that their children died or were in danger. Your child is dead, in part, because you put your own desires before the needs of your child. Harsh? Likely. But it's also true. The majority of parents do everything that they can to protect their children. Maybe other parents should start thinking about their children before they make decisions.

Mass murders will happen again and there's not much we can do to stop it. They will happen in malls and in schools and will be horrific. There aren't really many ways that we can protect our children; still, we can make decisions which will keep our children out of likely danger. A playground on a Tuesday afternoon = good for a child. A violent premiere at midnight = not so much. Are there any questions?

10 comments:

  1. That was one of the first things I thought. Adults putting their desire to see a film AS SOON AS IT OPENS before their children's well-being.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perfect and you couldn't have said it any better.
    The problem is the newer generations have no idea how to parent much less be parents. The child's welfare should always come first but far to often people are selfish and only think of themselves.
    I am one of those people who if someone brings a child to a movie, that it shouldn't be at, and it starts making noise will tell you to take it outside. This can also put the child in a bad situation because sometimes their parents might want to argue and then it's gets bad. So not only are the parents selfish only for themselves but they do not think of their kids or others that the kids will most times disturb.
    There is also the health of the children to think about, these type of movies are very loud and can probably do damage to a young child's hearing or just scare the hell out of them.
    How about if it's PG-13 parent or no parent anyone under 13 years of age is prohibited and the same goes for the other ages and ratings. It's that simple, if the parents are to stupid to do their jobs than someone else needs to.
    I could go on but will stop there as this point cannot be argued by anyone of even modest intelligence. If you have a child than be a parent not another selfish dumbass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree wholeheartedly. As for myself, my parents did not allow me to watch violence as a child - while the Vietnam war was on TV, we never watched the news.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There was respect, now there's none. This is dumb. "Those children who were in danger of dying? They shouldn't have been. And the little girl who died? She shouldn't have been there, and she shouldn't have died." egad.... And what of all the other children all across the country who were in the midnight showing and didn't die. Your logic is lame. It's quite a shame this coming from a "logical" atheist. Suck it. About the dumbest argument Ive ever heard.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And when the time comes that some sick f*k shoots up a play park... you will say what?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Adam (I presume): The difference is that going to a midnight showing of a movie like this is filled with reasons why it's a bad idea. It's a very violent movie that is unsuitable for kids, and having your young child in what is bound to be a very loud theatre (because of the theatre sound system) isn't going to give them quality sleep.

    Lastly, this is a choice made because the parent wants to do something and is neglecting the needs of their child. I fully agree with the idea that parents need some time to do some of the things they want to do and that especially parents that are still together need some time just for themselves to keep their relationship strong. However, if, as a parent, you're unable to find a babysitter, then you don't go.

    Furthermore, this isn't even just about just seeing a movie. This is about being one of the first people to see a movie. Going to the midnight release showing of a movie like this isn't even a situation where you have to go right then or you'll miss it. The theatres will be airing DKR for weeks.

    What happened that night with these parents was bad parenting not because their children ended up being in danger because some psycho shot up the place. It was bad parenting for fact that the parents made a choice that put themselves ahead of their children. If you want to live on your own terms and not worry about others, don't have kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This should never had been uttered and is my gripe. "Your child is dead, in part, because you put your own desires before the needs of your child. " That is stupid.
      That is not why their child is dead.... in any part...
      getting shot up anywhere is no reason not to take your kid. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10756161/
      or you're just never going to leave the house. but it seems you not even safe there, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

      Granted, taking kids to late night movies just cuz you can't wait, not the best parenting choice. That's the parent's prerogative. Judge all you want. Most of those kids will develop just fine and by any sense of whatever the hell it means in this country anymore, "normal"... I applaud you all for being high and mighty mothers and fathers being perfect and all (jeez you'd think you were the Jesus of parents the way you look down on people...) But nowhere in there should it be said, you're kid is dead because you made a choice to see a late night movie at the expense of "others'" pleasure. That's just stupid at its worst. Again, what about all those other kids who go to the concerts, late night movies, violent movies and video games, sex drugs and rock and roll, and turn out to be "normal" in their adult lives. They are probably perfectly good parents in every other way. Shit happens. Don't be a douche about it.

      Delete
  7. I agree to a certain extent. I think that no the children should not have been to a midnight showing if there young. I think however that taking your 12 year old son who is a batman fanatic to the movie because he really really wants to go, is a different story. You are assuming that all children there were forced to go because of their parents selfishness. I don't think that the young children should have gone because that is not right. I think however that an 11 or 12 year old child who wants to go and their mother or father gets tickets for the midnight showing because they truly want to make their child happy, is not such a bad idea. I am the mother to two boys who are 2 and 1, and I would never take them to a midnight showing until they were preteens. I would never take them to a pg 13 movie until they were preteens. I won't even take them to the movies now because there too young and can't sit through it. I agree with you that yes babies and young kids probably should not have been there. But 10, 11,12 is acceptable, and those are still kids too. Not every parent there is a selfish puke i'm sure. And I am really sorry that it happened. Whether or not you think they should have been at the theater the fact remains that they were. And while some of the parents were being irresponsible no one could have predicted what would happen. Had that psycho not been there, what's the worse that would have happened? There children would have been super tired the next day, and maybe learned a few new words from the movie, that they should not know. The movie theater at midnight, not a good idea for young kids. But this could still happen anywhere. A grocery store, a park, an elementary school. You just never know. While these parents did not make the best decision for their kids, it was not like they intentionally put them in harms way. It's not like they brought them to their drug dealers house or something wrong like that. What was suppose to be a harmless movie experience, ended very very wrong. And i'm sure these parents are all now filled with regret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with a lot of what you said. There is clearly a difference between having an experience like this with your 12-year-old Batman fanatic son/daughter where you're sharing the experience with them and dragging a 6-mo. old to the movies.

      I also do agree that you can't fault the parents for the deaths of their kids because this type of thing really could happen anywhere. I think Adam's point is valid there, as well. I question the judgment of the parents who would take young children to a movie like this, but I don't blame the parents of the 6 year old who died for that child's death; I only blame them for thinking it was a good choice to be at a midnight showing of a violent movie with a kid who should have been in bed hours before the movie even started. I'm sure those parents will blame themselves enough for their child's death that the rest of us don't need to do it as well.

      Delete
  8. Situation... a man is killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. The man killed would not have been killed if he had been wearing a seatbelt, but he wasn't. Whose fault is it? The answer seems to me to be: Both. Sure, the drunk driver caused the accident, but the man who died failed to take common sense precautions that would have prevented his own death.

    A movie theater is supposed to be a safe place. That does not mean that a movie theater at midnight during a dark, violent movie (this is NOT the cartoon Batman, we all know that) is no place for young children. To me, that is common sense. Logic has nothing to do with it, it's just common sense and I think it is absolutely a fair question to ask why there were children that young at a theater that late for a movie that adult in nature? When I saw a 6 year old had been killed my first reaction was "What the fuck was she doing there to begin with?"

    Our children need boundaries. Our children need rules. And our children need to know that there are times and places that they should not be somewhere. It isn't the children's place to set those limits. It is the parents' place. It's not the parents' fault that this lunatic went on a killing spree. But it is completely their fault that they, like the man in my scenario, did not take common sense steps to keep their children safe.

    ReplyDelete