Rating: 
Summary: Preserving our children's childhoods should be our priority.
Review: Michael and Diane Medved's new book "Saving Childhood" operates on the premise that the key elements of childhood innocence: security; a sense of wonder; and optimism are birthrights that elude many of today's children. Protecting these basic rights is the prescription the Medveds offer to counter the everyday assault by the media, schools, peers, and even parents themselves, that interfere with healthy development. This book offers solid, if somewhat idealistic advice for parents who feel they are parenting upstream. In this "age of enllightenment" today's children view wars on television, read about children killing other children, and develop dangerous eating disorders as young as the age of nine. It is difficult to argue with the Medved's assertion that children receive more information than they can process and still feel good about the world at large. I would recommend this book to any parent trying to shelter their children from the barrage of adult information aimed specifically at children. In our family, no day is ended without each of us thanking God for his blessings; an American flag flies in front of our house. Security, a sense of wonder, and optimism are worth fighting for for our children.
Rating: 
Summary: Real concerns, naive response
Review: Michael Medved, the patron now attempts to convince America that the key to our collective survival lies in the need for cookie-cutter, complacent, conformity-minded children. How does a parent strip all individuality from a child? It's in here. How does a parent raise a paranoid, naive, utterly unprepared child? It's also in here. Remember parents, the enemy is reality, and it's best to tell your children that sex, independent thought, intellectualism, and complexity are all evil and must be avoided at all costs. Is there a national assault on innocence? Perhaps. But is it a better alternative to declare war on sanity?
Rating: 
Summary: Here we go again........
Review: Michael Medved, the patron now attempts to convince America that the key to our collective survival lies in the need for cookie-cutter, complacent, conformity-minded children. How does a parent strip all individuality from a child? It's in here. How does a parent raise a paranoid, naive, utterly unprepared child? It's also in here. Remember parents, the enemy is reality, and it's best to tell your children that sex, independent thought, intellectualism, and complexity are all evil and must be avoided at all costs. Is there a national assault on innocence? Perhaps. But is it a better alternative to declare war on sanity?
Rating: 
Summary: Not another depressing book!
Review: My husband and I devoured this book in three days, passing it back and forth. While it has the standard commentary on the problems with modern society (schools, media, peers, etc) it also exposes how the news media makes us believe things are worse than they really are. Regardless of the latest sensational teen murder sprees, most families and most communities are quietly passing on traditional values of self-control, childhood wonder and beauty, and religious morality. We liked the glimpses into the Medved's home life. We may even throw out our television.... maybe! :-) Don't watch the evening news, read this book and then go plan a day at the zoo with your kids. The world isn't a bad place after all!
Rating:
Summary: Frightening
Review: Rather than protecting children the Medved's are proponents of deception and sheltering them from the realities of life. They talk about the sense of wonder in children that should be preserved, but they advocate a more sinister agenda. The Medveds' ideal of an American utopia consists of close-minded, uninformed, and socially inept drones. With parents like this a child need not fear the horrors of the world, but rather those at home. Thank god that we live in a free society where tools like this can express their opinions, and educated and intelligent parents are free to ignore them. I recommend that everyone read this book for a great laugh.
Rating:
Summary: Innocence?
Review: The idea of childhood as an idealized, golden time of sweet innocence is actually relatively new, culturally speaking, and it was invented by adults. Anyone who actually remembers their school days without glazing them over in sentimental nostalgia knows that children are not little angels untroubled by the sins and cynicism of their elders. Kids are basically little animals that, hopefully with the careful guidance of loving parents, may someday develop into responsible, moral human beings. If you don't believe this, go observe the kids playing at your local elementary school when they don't think the teachers are watching. Listen to the things they call each other, watch them push and shove and show off. There's your "innocence".Not that kids are little adults, either. They haven't yet formed some of the necessary cognitive, moral, and emotional constructs to understand the complicated issues that adults must. But they're human beings, and are fully capable of all the worst of human nature. The catch is, it's only by facing that side of ourselves that we learn not to be ruled by it. Otherwise why did God bother to burden us with the ability to choose wrongly?--because without knowing what you reject, choice is meaningless. What the Medveds are preaching is not the preservation of innocence--a comforting illusion dreamed up by adults--but a doctrine of willful ignorance. I am not surprised that their daughter was so upset by troubling news reports. Their attempt to shield her has apparently made her sense of security and optimism that much more fragile, easily broken by the merest intrusion of the rest of the world. As those children grow, they will either have to continue to shut out anything that disagrees with their tunnel-vision view of the world, or completely restructure their thinking. I would rather teach my children to face this world's trials, eyes wide open, in compassion and love, then teach them to hide from it in fear masquerading as "innocence".
Rating:
Summary: Innocence?
Review: The idea of childhood as an idealized, golden time of sweet innocence is actually relatively new, culturally speaking, and it was invented by adults. Anyone who actually remembers their school days without glazing them over in sentimental nostalgia knows that children are not little angels untroubled by the sins and cynicism of their elders. Kids are basically little animals that, hopefully with the careful guidance of loving parents, may someday develop into responsible, moral human beings. If you don't believe this, go observe the kids playing at your local elementary school when they don't think the teachers are watching. Listen to the things they call each other, watch them push and shove and show off. There's your "innocence". Not that kids are little adults, either. They haven't yet formed some of the necessary cognitive, moral, and emotional constructs to understand the complicated issues that adults must. But they're human beings, and are fully capable of all the worst of human nature. The catch is, it's only by facing that side of ourselves that we learn not to be ruled by it. Otherwise why did God bother to burden us with the ability to choose wrongly?--because without knowing what you reject, choice is meaningless. What the Medveds are preaching is not the preservation of innocence--a comforting illusion dreamed up by adults--but a doctrine of willful ignorance. I am not surprised that their daughter was so upset by troubling news reports. Their attempt to shield her has apparently made her sense of security and optimism that much more fragile, easily broken by the merest intrusion of the rest of the world. As those children grow, they will either have to continue to shut out anything that disagrees with their tunnel-vision view of the world, or completely restructure their thinking. I would rather teach my children to face this world's trials, eyes wide open, in compassion and love, then teach them to hide from it in fear masquerading as "innocence".
Rating:
Summary: Lots of holier-than-thou wading to reach the worthwhile.
Review: There are some very valuable points to ponder brought up by the Medveds. Unfortunately they are over-the-top in sharing their own lives in a nauseating self-congratulatory way. Dr. Garbarino's "The Lost Boys" was a much better read, and I am optimistic that some sort of primer incorporating his and the Medved's points will be made available to the general public.
Rating: 
Summary: Important, but overdone
Review: This is an important book with some desperately needed themes in this society that is antagonistic toward childhood: In an effort to preserve the innocence of children, otherwise good information is not appropriate for children. Example: It's good to talk with your pre-adolescent about the changes her body will soon undergo, but that information is not appropriate, nor necessary, for younger children. Dovetailing this is the theme that popular culture is at odds with protecting the innocence of children. Example: Children should be encouraged to dream about becoming pilots when they grow up; they should not be encouraged to make actual cross-country flights at an age when they should still be believing in the Tooth Fairy. But I do have reservations: This book would be much more effective if it were more subtle. It is not necessary to throw in anecdotes about how their daughter was frightened to the point of hysterics by a news report of the Lorena Bobbitt case; or, at the other extreme, how their other daughter reported that a certain book was not appropriate for her to read. Showing that their own children are not isolated from the invasive childhood-destructive agenda of popular culture is important; it is admirable that their daughter is obedient, knows right from wrong, and feels secure enough to let them know when something she reads is upsetting. But, the dramatics with which the stories were told was unnecessary and could have been related through more discreet means. I also took exception to the Medveds' presumption to offer suggestions on how Christians should celebrate two of the most important and holy feasts of the Christian liturgical year. Their point about preserving the wonder of childhood fantasy is well-taken, but to suggest that Christians should preserve belief in Santa and the Easter Bunny (especially when the Medveds themselves are not likely to do so with their own children) and incorporate fantasy into two solemn (albeit also joyous) religious feasts borders on arrogance. Would not the Medveds bristle at Christian suggestions as to how they ought to observe Jewish holy days? All in all, SAVING CHILDHOOD is important and timely, but could have been improved with discretion and subtlety.
Rating:
Summary: Thank goodness these people aren't my parents
Review: This is the most frightening book I have read in a long time. The Medveds are raising their children in a completely unrealistic way. For example, they are upset when their seven-year-old daughter asks about menstruation, saying this is a 'bad' thing. They don't allow this same daughter to read anything published after 1960. In another anecdote, they recount how another daughter repeatedly asked a babysitter intrusive and inappropriate questions about her pierced nose - and then blame the babysitter rather than the rude child! Still another problem - they complain about businesses that are open on Sunday, but what other day would a Jewish family have to do the weekly shopping? These parents should be arrested for child abuse. I am by no means a religious person, but tonight I am going to thank God that these people aren't my parents.
|
