Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

How to explain 9/11 to a 3.5 yo?

58 replies

93pjb · 07/09/2011 13:23

My dd likes to look through the paper at breakfast and talk about the pictures usually she prefers animal stories but there is so much about 9/11 currently that she wants to know what is happening in the pictures. I am struggling to find a way of giving her some idea of what happened that doesn't frighten her. Any suggestions?

OP posts:
Rindercella · 12/09/2011 13:43

Cogito, my DD1 was 3.5 when DH died and I had to tell her Daddy had died. In fact she was in the room when he did pass away. That does not mean that I think she should be told any detail about 9/11 - why? For what purpose? Does an innocent child really need to know that people deliberately flew airplanes into tall buildings to kill thousands of people? There are certain things you cannot protect your children from - Granny, or in our case, Daddy (and Grandpa within a very short time frame) dying is one of those things - it's not exactly something I could have avoided with distraction. Describing the horrors of 9/11 or any other terrorist attack is most definitely one of those things children can be protected from, at least for now.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 12/09/2011 13:56

"Does an innocent child really need to know that people deliberately flew airplanes into tall buildings to kill thousands of people?".... If they ask, yes. If they don't ask, no. There is a fine line between protecting innocence and perpetuating ignorance.

ExpensivePants · 12/09/2011 14:10

I don't tell my DD about stranger danger either. I tell her not to wander off from me because she'll get lost and won't know where we are. I also wouldn't let her look at newspapers or watch the news. She's 3.8, why on earth would I need to fill her head with something that she'd lie awake worrying about? If she asks a question I'll answer it, of course. But while she's so young I'll take care that she's not in a position to think of the questions. Plenty of time to tackle these issues as she gets older.

Rindercella · 12/09/2011 14:22

I think we will continue to disagree on this one Cogito.

I cannot even begin to imagine the number of 'whys' which would follow me saying the above to DD1...it's bad enough when she asks where she came from (which I am honest about, but in an age-appropriate way).

Best tactic, imo, is avoid and if you cannot avoid (eg came downstairs when TV was on). Then distract. If pushed, say a very tall building caught fire. God, DD1 loves flying. Why the heck would I want to say anything to put her off it?!

GrimmaTheNome · 12/09/2011 14:37

Grannies and pets dying is normal.

Much of what is in newspapers is not normal - otherwise it wouldn't be newsworthy. Some is unusual but good; some is unusually funny; but some is unusual bad stuff. I don't think small kids really need exposing to situations well outside normal parameters.

I'm curious if anyone knows what angle - if any - media designed for kids such as Newsround or First News took on 9/11 either at the time or now.

WidowWadman · 12/09/2011 16:56

I don't think lying about what happened is a good idea. It wasn't an accident. And if it was it wouldn't be any less frightening to the child surely?

I think a 3 year old is capable to deal with the concept of bad people doing bad things in the same way as they can deal with the concept that sometimes bad things happen for no reason (which is what an accident would be).

I wouldn't go out of my way to confront my very young children with footage or pictures of distressing news events, but if they see them I'd try to explain what happened in simple words they can understand - i.e. bad men did something bad and only go as far with an explanation as they ask.

WidowWadman · 12/09/2011 17:02

First News Coverage

TheFantasticFixit · 12/09/2011 17:02

My PFB alarm is going ten to the dozen at this..

Why, WHY would you want to explain the horror of 9/11 to a 3.5 year old? She's THREE and A HALF! Good grief.

GrimmaTheNome · 12/09/2011 18:24

Thanks Widow. That seems like a fairly age-appropriate description (for kids old enough to read this themselves, not preschoolers)

HummusNKetchup · 12/09/2011 18:34

I agree with those who say that adult newspapers and news programmes are not suitable for young children.

As I child, I used to watch the 6 o clock news with my parents. I remember being terrified by reports on the Falklands war, on people being shot in South Africa and IRA bombs.

My second DC is just 4. We get the Times. He asked me "Mummy, what is a sex toy" after seeing those words in the newspaper. My eldest takes a real interest in the news - I let him see the newsround web pages but have learned from experience not to let him read the newspaper or see the graphic images in it.

I wouldn't lie to the kids, but for extreme and horrible acts of violence - I'd say "there was a bad accident" and offer cbeebies or a biscuit to change the subject.

fuckityfuckfuckfuck · 12/09/2011 18:37

I have a 3.5 year old. Utter madness to think they have the capability to comprehend anything in the news.

WidowWadman · 12/09/2011 18:43

fuckityfuck so what do you say to a 3.5 year old who without your intention is exposed to some news? It's pretty impossible to shield them completely.

pinkytheshrinky · 12/09/2011 18:50

My PFB alarm is going ten to the dozen at this..

Why, WHY would you want to explain the horror of 9/11 to a 3.5 year old? She's THREE and A HALF! Good grief.

I have to echo TheFantasticFixit on this - this is complete bloody madness

fuckityfuckfuckfuck · 12/09/2011 18:53

I very much doubt my ds would notice actually. At 3.5 he would most likely say 'oh dear, big fire' and carry on playing. If he did ask what happened I'd jyst say a big accident. And I have a TV remote so can very quickly switch off or pause whatever it is I'm watching if it's not suitable. Maybe your 3.5 year old is a genius who needs everything explained in detail. Mine isn't.

Pagwatch · 12/09/2011 19:02

There is a fine line between protecting innocence and perpetuating ignorance.
Which is why I say you tell the minimum. I wouldn't lie. Just tell the minimum.

But I do have to say there is also a fine line with coping with the snippets of the news that our children reasonably become exposed to and encouraging the frisson of intellectual snobbery that comes from "oh dear Harriet is just so smart, she notices everything and I had to talk her through the whole history of the Irish conflict last week, just before cbeebies. She is just such a clever foetus.
It is like the people who let their children read adult themed fiction at age 6 just so they can stealth boast at the school gate

WidowWadman · 12/09/2011 19:16

I agree about keeping with the minimum - there's no point trying to explain the whole politics around it. Certainly I wouldn't get into too much detail about many many people dying.

I guess "bad men doing bad things" is usually sufficient at that age.
Mind, my daughter is only 2.9 so it might be that she'd ask more questions at 3.6. However, I'd expect more questions if I said it was an accident, as well. I don't think it's a kinder or less scary explanation.

LoveAndSqualor · 12/09/2011 19:25

Interesting - this came up when we were in the car yesterday. DS (3.6) asked about it because it came up on the radio news (and he's interested in anything to do with aeroplanes). I told him that, 10 years ago, two aeroplanes had crashed into two tall towers, lots of people had died and it was very sad. Didn't mention the perpetrators; left it at that. Agree with whoever said "honest in simple terms" - he was interested enough to ask the question, and therefore receive a general answer, but I didn't particularly want to terrorise him with tales of "bad men" (and he'd've glazed right over if I'd gone into anything lengthier). He's familiar with the idea of death, though, (uncle and pets have died recently), so I didn't feel too conflicted about mentioning that.

TheFantasticFixit · 12/09/2011 21:01

Pag you've hit the nail on the head..

bobthebuddha · 12/09/2011 22:14

'There is a fine line between protecting innocence and perpetuating ignorance.'

I could not disagree with you more Cogito. Preserving ignorance it is not, preserving innocence, yes. We're talking about a 3.5 year old, not a 35 year old. My 7.5 year old gets himself worked up into a state about some of the WW1 stuff he's read about & seen images of & scares himself silly thinking about it. Fiction he does not. But then, there's a big difference between real people doing things ton other real people & fiction. My DS (5.5) saw the WTC pictures today & asked what had happened. I simply told her there'd been a fire & left it at that. If anyone told me I was deliberately keeping her 'ignorant' they'd get short shrift...

meditrina · 12/09/2011 22:27

"what child watches Newsround at age 3 and a half?"

Your youngest one, of course!

Children are pretty resilient, and do not have the same knowledge and world view as adults. If you remain calm and matter of fact, I think the chances of causing alarm are pretty low. I'd say something along the lines of:

"A plane crashed into that tower, and they're talking about the people who were hurt. It's a very sad thing to happen, but it's really really rare that something like that happens - and it's because it's rare, that's why it made the news. Everyday things don't make the news. What would you like to do today?"

cupofteainpeace · 12/09/2011 22:38

Anyway, at what age HAVE people explained what really happened on 9/11.
My eldest is 9 and I'm wondering if he could comprehend it and deal with the reality of it all. Or is it too heavy?

cupofteainpeace · 12/09/2011 22:41

Actually, what I'm trying to ask is at what age would you let your child watch footage of the disaster.

hmc · 12/09/2011 22:46

It's on a need to know basis, and a 3.5 year old frankly doesn't need to know

GrimmaTheNome · 12/09/2011 22:57

cuppa - that's going to depend on each child's maturity/sensitivity, and exactly what sort of 'footage'. I'd say very roughly - that 'first news' report somewhere in KS2; more detail maybe yr6 through KS3.

WidowWadman · 12/09/2011 23:05

cupofteainpiece

At 9 I've been reading my parents newspaper every morning.

My niece was 9 when 9/11 happened and I doubt that she did not see the coverage. Pretty sure it was talked about at school too as it happened.

At that age I'd say it's very normal to be exposed to news, at least in households which read newspapers/listen to radio/watch news on TV.

My 2.9 year old obviously can't read the paper, but we're usually listening to Today in the mornings - it's certainly going over her head now, but sooner or later she'll ask questions about it.

-----

Also, just thinking about it - it's probably easier to shield a young child from footage about an event that has occurred in the past - but would you really keep the TV switched off as events are unfolding during an attack? I have thankfully not been in the situation yet that I would have to decide between protecting my child from seeing something which would scare her and following footage ,a major newsworthy event as it unfolds