My InBox lit up with this eye-catching headline from Medium yesterday::
Jennifer Garner Can Fuck Right Off
Normalize Calling Out Child Abuse Even When Hot People Do It
The piece goes on to attack Jennifer Garner for the recent revelation that she does not allow any of her three children to be on social media. The author labels Garner's embargo as "child abuse" which I think is a bit over-the-top. I mean, even if you disagree with the parenting choice, it feels like calling it "child abuse" is a stretch.
By this logic, would we then call Mormon parents who forbid their children from drinking alcohol and caffeine child abusers by virtue of the fact that they've cut their kids out of a life experience commonly shared by everyone else they'll meet when they go to college? Is the parent who decides that their kid will not be joining all the other kids on a Spring Break trip to Florida because she doesn't want her children to set foot in that state also a child abuser?
Look, parents have the right to limit the experiences of their children. I don't think what's going on in Florida—taking one family's limits and extending them to the whole school community—is fair or justified. But at home, they have the right (and the obligation) to make the rules and enforce them. Usually such choices are made because the parent believes they are protecting their child from a malignant influence. Some parents try to prevent their kids from reading Judy Blume or Mark Twain or Penthouse Magazine. These wouldn't be my choices. But abuse?
When Jennifer Garner Asks Her Children to Present Her With Evidence of Social Media's Benefits to Adolescents She's Effectively Winning the Argument.
Because of course there is no evidence that it's beneficial.
Recent Comments