Critical response Gerard Jones

Gerard Jones wrote, "Violent Media Is Good For Kids." He argues that violence are good for children and the reason why. He claims that it has helped him and others. As young boy he was unable to view violent media. His parents were English teachers that were against violence. He was taught that conflict was not the key and rage can be controlled. In paragraph one he claims "I suffocated my deepest fears and desire under a nice boy persona". Which had him pretend he was somebody he was not, causing him to struggle with fitting in.

Although Jones acknowledges in paragraph 3 that comics contains "lofty messages of pacifism and tolerance," he admits that it was the violence that attracted him to read them. The characters in these comics were strong and in control with superpowers. For example, the incredible hulk had qualities that allowed him to overcome his fears.
Gerard explains about a psychologist with a P.H.D named Melanie Moore in paragraph nine through ten. She studied teenagers for three years based off how they react with violent media. She makes a statement "Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they've been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood." Jones and Moore both developed a program to help children use violent media to conquer their feeling towards mixed emotions. This is a good reference for his article by using a psychologist and her findings to help persuade his side of the argument. Also since he claimed that she was a psychologist I took the time to do some research and she graduated from Stanford with her P.H.D, therefore this information is credible.

However, Gerard presented references that are questionable. He claimed he knew two girls who used drawings and music for interpreting violence to help with reality. One of the girls had parents who were separating and she drew comics to control her world. He declared "She came out of it just as fiery and strong, but more self-controlled and socially competent".  He discusses how they used her comics to tell her stories in ways she cannot explain. Jones continues on into paragraph 15 and mentions a girl he worked with who made rap music that was violent. He takes in how she uses this to help with family issues she was facing. "she found a theater of the mind in which she could be powerful, ruthless, invulnerable," quoted by Gerard Jones. The stories of the two girls are similar, however, it is not a reliable source. The reasons are no hard evidence, you cannot prove that these stories of the young ladies are based off true events. It is his word against ours, although he makes good points about them just not enough verification. He needed more explanation, For example, if he found an article about a study of these instances online it would be more persuading to the opposing side.

It is plausible that Gerard Jones observations and personal experiences are true, That violent media is good for children. Violent media can help children cope with feelings as well as teaching them right from wrong. Jones fails to provide enough evidence to persuade the opposing side. He needs to look up studies and articles to refer to them as a source. It will give the audience more justification that violent media is good. Part of his concluding statement "In the process, we risk confusing them about their natural aggression in the same way the Victorians confused their children about their sexuality." The whole point is not to shelter your children. Kids are going to be exposed to anything and everything when they step out into the real world. The Victorians just could not speak of the problems that were occurring, they also did not have as much access to the world like we do now.  I understand the point that he is trying to make. The Victorians were unable to discuss body parts, sexuality, and had laws like not having sex till marriage. I can see where he tries to resemble the two, however, children are going to be exposed to it whether we like it or not it is 2018. Gerard Jones did not have a well-developed argument because he lacked his evidence in violent media by not having a positive outcome.

Gerard Jones needs more evidence on violent media having a positive outcome on children. He makes good points but only has one strong piece of evidence that is convincing, and that was Melanie Moore. Jones gives the audience a different perspective on viewing violent media, he talks about Moore findings and the two girls he knew, trying to persuade that violent media can be good for children. Although there is no known proof, he still makes a good statement. All of his evidence is based on personal experiences which are decent yet not convincing enough. They are conceivable points, yet not a hundred percent accurate.

Work Cited:
Jones, Gerard. "Violent Media Is Good For Kids." Practical Argument, 3rd ed., edited by Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2017, pp. 64-67