On the other hand, my husband Jim enjoys frightening films so he occasionally goes with a buddy. One such night found Jim and his friend sitting in the theatre watching trailers for upcoming releases while waiting for the evening’s feature presentation to begin. Into the theatre walks the mother of one of our daughter’s classmates. Behind her is a group of 12-year-olds from Betsy’s seventh grade class, giggling excitedly and taking their seats as the theatre dims.

Just what film did my 40-something husband and a row of pre-pubescent middle schoolers enjoy together? Matrix Reloaded, starring Keanu Reeves – rated R. An online review service, www.screenit.com, says the movie is “heavy” in blood, gore, frightening and tense scenes, profanity, sex and nudity; and “extreme” in guns and weapons, violence, disrespectful or bad attitudes and scary or tense music.

My husband’s review: Uncomfortable. “I’m watching these graphic scenes, but the whole time it’s really awkward knowing Betsy’s friends are a few rows ahead of me. I felt like the girls should have covered their eyes,” he said. “Since they didn’t, I covered mine instead.”

What possible benefit could there have been in taking those girls to see a movie starring sex, violence, profanity, terror and gore?

Here’s a radical thought: Parents have the power to decide the content to which their children may be exposed through TV shows, movies, music and Internet sites, and these decisions help to either preserve or destroy childhood innocence.

A tough task? 
Admittedly, the mom who led the “Matrix” outing is an extreme example of a parent who seems to have had little compunction about compromising childhood innocence. Most of us do struggle to provide our children with a healthy atmosphere in which to grow, feeling that our culture is working against us in a battle that is unfocused, uncontained and perhaps even unwinnable.

In fact, the advocacy group Common Sense Media found 9 out of 10 American parents believe today’s media contribute to children becoming too materialistic, using more coarse and vulgar language, engaging in sexual activity at younger ages, experiencing a loss of innocence too early, and behaving in violent or anti-social ways. What’s disconcerting to me is something else their survey found: “despite concerns about media’s influence, most parents provide a media-rich environment for their children, often with little supervision...the majority of parents say they could do a better job supervising their children’s media use.”

Why do we say one thing – that the media probably exploits our children’s innocence – yet do another, that is, tolerate and even provide access to unsupervised hours of media exposure?

There may be as many answers as there are baffled parents scratching their heads, wondering how to extract the speaker “buds” from the ears of their teenagers, but I suggest many well-intentioned parents don’t shelter their kids because it seems virtually impossible to find the time, the optimism, the stamina -- and the clear motivation.

Who among us has as much as six hours a week to research potential media choices for our children? Yet statistics tell us that our children spend almost that much time every day absorbing messages through various media. Equally daunting is the fact that gadgets and gizmos – and the content they carry – operate in a state of constant change.

Since we believe we can’t possibly control or assess all the content and technology our kids might encounter, we take a logical shortcut to decide what’s best for them: relying on the opinions of others. Guided by the parents in our children’s social spheres – especially the parents we admire and respect – we conclude if “all the kids from school” spend the afternoon online using instant messenger or downloading hip-hop tracks onto personal music players, these activities are most likely safe and acceptable for our kids, too.

Time constraints aside, some pessimistic parents figure there’s no way effectively to prevent exposure so there’s no point in trying. These folks even argue it’s good for kids to be exposed to “real life” themes for the supposed benefits of worldliness. Others believe since media is a fact of life in our culture, it should be permitted as long as they, the parents, are there to manage its use and put its content into a proper context.

Even when we want to say “no,” limiting media is a tough sell to kids who expect it to be part of their daily routine. How often do we hear that peer acceptance in childhood determines emotional health and confidence in adulthood? Many of us are uncertain about where to draw the lines that impact our children’s social opportunities. We’re afraid we’ll make our children unhappy and risk their chances for friends and an active social life. Eager to see our kids accepted by their peers, we compromise, for example, when they insist it’s more important to go along with a group of friends to a movie than to stay home because the movie doesn’t meet our standards.

There’s no question these are real obstacles, but I believe we lose sight of our children’s most basic needs when we focus on time limitations, the changing and pervasive nature of media technology or the reactions from our children and their friends. Yes, those issues make 21^st century parenting a unique challenge, but such is our dilemma. The culture of cool has changed the way we have to approach our job as parents, demanding that we take the time, know the media landscape and determine what’s really best for our kids.

And just what is best for kids when it comes to the media? We have to step back to see the big picture, then follow our instincts and do a better job of supervising and limiting their media consumption. Later in the chapter, I’ll discuss ways to do this – and help you find the time, the optimism and the methods to say “no” in a voice your kids will hear and understand – but first I hope to motivate you by convincing you why.

Buy Bringing up Geeks today!