Talk:Family-friendly

Formerly untitled posts

_ _ There are about 165 articles on WP using "family-friendly", and all of the 1st five do so as if the term were NPoV: no quotes, no lk. In fact, only two articles lk to any form of it, one of them only for the last few hours. It is in fact fundamentally PoV, and it's hard to imagine a use where NPoV doesn't require at least

"family-friendly"

via the markup

"[[Family-friendliness|family-friendly]]"

_ _ My treatment of it is bound to be terrible, but hopefully i have raised some important aspects that others will handle better. I wrote w/o researching, and while i assume my assertions are verifiable, there should IMO be much research needed for aspects i've neglected, e.g. specific uses on right and left, probably direct quotes, and contradictory positions among the concept's whole-hearted advocates.
--Jerzy•t 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this page reads more like an article about the issues and controversies surrounding the more politically charged term "family values" in the United States. I don't have the time to rewrite and source the claims made throughout the entire article right now, but I believe the most common usage of the term "family friendly" in popular media is more innocuous, as in: Disney is a "family friendly" movie studio; Chuck E. Cheese's is a "family friendly" restaurant; Circus Circus was one of the first "family friendly" hotel-casinos in Las Vegas, etc, etc.. To most people it just implies something or somewhere that is created for, or welcoming of, people of all ages. We get it - "family-friendly" can mean different things to different people; The Harry Potter film franchise might be considered "family friendly" by some parents, but may be considered by other parents to be too scary for younger children. And yes, a rather small portion of the population may use it as a sort of "code phrase" to exclude innocent depictions of, or exposure to, diversity of sexuality, or diversity of religions, etc, but I think most people would agree the Toy Story film franchise is "family friendly" and the Saw film franchise is not. I honestly don't see the need for a big, long political thesis about the use of the term on this page. A couple of sentences about the incongruities of the usage of the term would be plenty.

Clarity

This section should be reworded for clarity. All necessary information is present, it is just rather hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.221.179 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to misbehaving children

I was wondering, when a restaurant or business considers itself family friendly, does that allow for more misbehavior for children? See, I've run into parents who feel if a restaurant or business is family friendly, anyone suggesting they should control their child or see that their child doesn't misbehave shouldn't be there. Maybe there should be a section clarifying this issue, as I'm rather tired of parents throwing out that a place is family friendly, so it means their kids can run around like it's a Chuck E Cheese arcade. Violet yoshi (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German

The construction seems to be influenced by German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.127.218 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Family friendly" is a somewhat subjective label.

I think the subjectiveness of this label needs to be more clearly spelled out in the article, at least with regard to fictional entertainment (Movies, TV, Books, etc.). A movie, TV show, or book, with gay characters or dealing with the occult is automatically not going to be viewed as family-friendly by Christian conservative members of society. In the U.S., we have seen protest of gay characters in "family-friendly" programs and book/movies series like Harry Potter due to it's occult nature by Christian conservative media watchdog groups such as "Focus on the Family". Over time, the definition of "family friendly" has also changed over times as views by the majority in American society have change on certain issue such as race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just about censorship

I personally revile the FCC nanny state of the 1970s which framed my own childhood (see Family Viewing Hour) and it's later outgrowth as the smug Moral Majority.

Often, depiction of nudity, sex, horror, profanity, racial slurs, innuendo, drug use, blasphemy, and racism are declared to be worthy of censorship.

But this isn't entirely about censorship for many parents. It's about lack of balance. It's about presenting one side of something, without providing enough context about the other side of things.

For myself, the context of human sexuality is life, so my feeling is basically: get on with it. Often the sheltered child turns into a foolish adolescent—and from there it's not a big leap to a buffoonish young adult. But then again, there's no Latin word at all that makes me blush in any company, so I admit that maybe I'm also wired differently.

I occupy the other extreme concerning racism and drug use: these are social constructions that are highly contextual, which young children are woefully unprepared to consume as half a story.

This was an even bigger problem before television had time shifting, for a variety of reasons (one of these being that you couldn't interrupt the show to discuss what was happening without missing what came next).

Let's suppose in my household I oppose drinking alone (and there are consequences to support this), but I serve wine with every evening meal. Would that make me a prohibitionist? To go by the way that many people mindlessly bandy the word "censorship" around, it would indeed. — MaxEnt 20:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

child friendly school

child friendly school Itz Barney (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]