A Q for strict parents who only allow their kids a tiny amount of time to watch TV

[Ross MwcFan]

Dude you don't get it, and I'm not going to explain it to you.

 

I do get it, it's you who doesn't get it.

[Ross MwcFan]

Your comparison doesn't work because neither bodybuilding or running on a treadmill is bad for fucpcg's development. However, if he were a smoker and had his smoking taken away from him, then yes, he might be depressed, but he would be better off in the long run. So if you replace "bodybuilding" with "smoking" or "overeating" or "driving recklessly," and "running on a treadmill" with "not doing those harmful things", then the comparison is spot on. Not to mention that FucPcg is an adult, I assume. We're talking about children here, who are still developing and learning. Their health, happiness, and productivity as adults will depend on what they spend most of their time doing in childhood.

 

Screen time is passive, at a time of development when child's mind needs to be ACTIVE. I'm an adult, and when I watch too much television I gain weight and lose motivation to do other more productive things. When a child watches too much television, he/she fails to develop brain cells--that's a HUGE negative, and one that any parent would do well to avoid. The child will have a lifetime to watch television--but hopefully, if the parent does the job right, he or she will much prefer to read, dance, create, learn, travel, or volunteer to sitting and staring at a screen for hours on end.

 

And as for what a child finds "boring".....If a child doesn't like to play the piano--if she finds it boring--then, after a trial period to make sure the child doesn't like it, then yes, making that child play the piano for years on end would be bad. That's not what anyone is saying. But television IS bad for children--sure, a little isn't going to do much harm. But it's also not going to do them much good.

 

So there's no harm in limiting or not allowing television in the home. There are many, many other things they can do for entertainment that they won't find "boring" and many more active ways to learn about the world that doesn't involve staring into a screen. It's up to the parent to decide.

 

And spending a reasonable amount of time on your interests which you find fun and which aren't productive isn't bad for your development.

 

I was talking about not having any time at all, or hardly any time to do the things you enjoy, and having to spend nearly all of your time doing things you find boring. That is no good for anyone's health or well being. It's understandable someone wouldn't have any joy in life anymore and would feel depressed. For fucpcg to compare that to a drug user who has had is drugs taken away is just stupid.

 

Also fucpcg would feel depressed if bodybuilding was taken away from him and was replaced with some other safer alternative, like doing star jumps or using a hula hoop, not because he's not able to do something that is good for his health/development anymore (since he can do the safer alternatives instead), he would feel depressed because his interest/hobby/what he finds fun/how he enjoys spending his time has been taken away from him. So according to his logic, since bodybuilding is dangerous, and is more dangerous from using a hula hoop or doing star jumps, if bodybuilding is taken away from him and it makes him feel depressed then that's no different from a drug user whining because he's had his drugs taken away. Saying 'but it's good for my health/development' is just an excuse.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[denise_xo]

And spending a reasonable amount of time on your interests which you find fun and which aren't productive isn't bad for your development.

 

I was talking about not having any time at all, or hardly any time to do the things you enjoy, and having to spend nearly all of your time doing things you find boring. That is no good for anyone's health or well being. It's understandable someone wouldn't have any joy in life anymore and would feel depressed. For fucpcg to compare that to a drug user who has had is drugs taken away is just stupid.

 

Also fucpcg would feel depressed if bodybuilding was taken away from him and was replaced with some other safer alternative, like doing star jumps or using a hula hoop, not because he's not able to do something that is good for his health/development anymore (since he can do the safer alternatives instead), he would feel depressed because his interest/hobby/what he finds fun/how he enjoys spending his time has been taken away from him. So according to his logic, since bodybuilding is dangerous, and is more dangerous from using a hula hoop or doing star jumps, if bodybuilding is taken away from him and it makes him feel depressed then that's no different from a drug user whining because he's had his drugs taken away. Saying 'but it's good for my health/development' is just an excuse.

 

No, it's not, Ross. Doing what's healthy and good for your children is a responsibility that all parents have. And part of that responsibility can include taking note of what research has shown can be damaging for a child (e.g. too much screen time) and encouraging what is healthy for the child (e.g. physical activity). As I said upthread, even if my child would be angry at me for depriving him of too much chocolate, then, well, tough. He would probably thank me when he grows up and understands that healthy food during upbringing is in children's favour.

 

No one has argued that a child shouldn't be allowed to do body building, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that example. In fact, people have said that there is nothing wrong with body building, and that if a child doesn't enjoy a particular sport, they can try other sports or activities. I also can't see anyone here arguing that kids should not have any time at all to do things that they enjoy. We have just argued that children shouldn't spend much time doing things that aren't good for a child, such as watching hours of TV every day.

[xxoo]

Ross, it is MUCH easier to allow a child to veg in front of the tv for hours than to set limits and enforce them. Why would a parent even put in the effort to limit screen time if is not out of concern for the child's health and development?

[Els]

I think you're probably right where balance is concerned. I personally never understood the 'TV is the root of all evil' mindset - I honestly think it comes from being from a generation where the parent him/herself didn't get TV as a child (because there wasn't any or there weren't many channels). So they think, 'I didn't get TV as a child and I turned out great, that means that TV must be bad'. Unfortunately, times change.

 

As to how it affects the child, I think it depends on the natural personality of the child, other aspects of upbringing, and how extreme the limits were. A parent who limits a 5-y-o to one show a day but spends ample time playing with the child in other ways is not likely to have any adverse outcomes from it. A parent who limits a 12-y-o to 20 minutes of TV a day and insists that the child spends ALL the rest of his/her time studying or doing housework is likely to cause problematic development.

 

Personally, I know many other successful young adults, in grad school, medicine, and other fields, and they had a wide variety of upbringings. I was mostly allowed to do whatever I wanted within the confines of my home, for as long as I wanted, as long as I was producing good grades. My bf was forbidden from TV and video games, so he skipped school to get to cybercafes to play them, and he's a doctor now, and his superiors love his work. There are really too many external factors to say that one approach is definitely better than the other, IMO. The best odds are probably achieved via moderation and tailoring the approach to the child.

[Ross MwcFan]

I totally agree Elswyth, it's what I've basically been saying myself, but no one really got it. I guess maybe I didn't explain myself in the best way.

[sb129]

I am the one limiting tv, but you didn't realise she isn't even three yet. What's not to get?

[denise_xo]

I think you're probably right where balance is concerned. I personally never understood the 'TV is the root of all evil' mindset - I honestly think it comes from being from a generation where the parent him/herself didn't get TV as a child (because there wasn't any or there weren't many channels). So they think, 'I didn't get TV as a child and I turned out great, that means that TV must be bad'. Unfortunately, times change.

 

I generally agree that a balanced approach is good. However, I think TV when we grew up and TV now are kind of different. When I was a kid, there were just a few channels, they were very 'educational' in nature, and had no commercials. There were also no computers, so I didn't spend lots of other screen time at school or at home in addition to TV. Today, there are surveys showing that a lot of kids spend two-three hours on video games a day (and that is, I would assume, in addition to TV viewing as well). Most TV channels are packed with commercials (like someone else said, about ten minutes out of every half hour in a lot of cases), and there are A LOT of programmes who, IMO, send out a lot of signals that I wouldn't want my (hypothetical) son or daughter to internalise about what is 'important' in life and what people should strive for. I can not believe the amount of pure crap and the kind of gender stereotypes that are being communicated in the shows aimed at pre/early teens on Disney channel, for example. So, in my case, it definitely wouldn't be a case of 'compensating' because I didn't spend hours watching TV every day when I grew up (and I watched 'enough', my mother wasn't particularly restrictive on time, but was careful about the kinds of programs she let me watch in terms of levels of violence and so on), but I simply think that TV is a very mixed bag in terms of what it communicate to viewers, and a lot of children don't have the skills to filter all of that in the way that we do as adults.

Edited June 26, 2012 by denise_xo
typo

[Ross MwcFan]

I am the one limiting tv, but you didn't realise she isn't even three yet. What's not to get?

 

*Sigh* It doesn't matter, just forget it.

[sb129]

*Sigh* It doesn't matter, just forget it.

 

No seriously. It was me that prompted this.

Do you have a small child?

Someone said parking them in front of tv for long times is the easy way out, and it is.

I think a small amount of tv is more than enough for a three year old. She needs to learn social skills, life skills and whole lot of other stuff before she even has an inkling of what's good for her.

As she gets older we'll review it as we go along. I'm not going to deprive her of things she likes but I am going to make sure she gets a balanced experience of a wide range of activities to do my best that she grows up to be a healthy well adjusted balanced adult.

[sb129]

You asked me a question, I answered it.

I don't have to justify my parenting choices to you but I thought I did a good job of doing so since you asked.

[Ross MwcFan]

You asked me a question, I answered it.

I don't have to justify my parenting choices to you but I thought I did a good job of doing so since you asked.

 

You're right, you don't have to justify anything to me. Sorry if I made you feel that way, I didn't mean to.

[Ross MwcFan]

No seriously. It was me that prompted this.

Do you have a small child?

Someone said parking them in front of tv for long times is the easy way out, and it is.

I think a small amount of tv is more than enough for a three year old. She needs to learn social skills, life skills and whole lot of other stuff before she even has an inkling of what's good for her.

As she gets older we'll review it as we go along. I'm not going to deprive her of things she likes but I am going to make sure she gets a balanced experience of a wide range of activities to do my best that she grows up to be a healthy well adjusted balanced adult.

 

I know, I mean, 20 mins doesn't sound as extreme for a 3 year old, I just assumed your kid was around 10 years old or over.

 

I don't have a small child.

[Els]

Hey denise,

 

I agree with you, and I don't think limiting is bad either. The posts that led to me inferring the 'TV is the root of all evil' quote from were these:

 

Your question is about as reasonable as saying "what if your child gets depressed and bored because you took away his marijuana". TV is full of junk which leads to brainwashed adults who sit and watch all day, and kids who will turn out the same. Why do you think attorneys bombard the crap a$$ daytime talk shows with ads saying "we get money for you!" to all the future frivolous lawsuit filers? I could go on for pages, but... I've said enough.

 

Any 30 minute television show includes about 10 minutes of commercials.

 

So, not only do you have 20 minutes of an electronic device telling a child how to feel, as well as developing their moral compass, you have 10 more minutes of that same electronic device telling them how mom and/or dad should spend money as well as entice them into watching even more television by way of promoting other, future, programming, and that, sir, is a 30 minute television "episode."

 

I fail to see how children have a right to that, or how parents have a duty to provide it.

 

These people aren't saying that TV can potentially affect a child's development and parents should limit its usage especially in a very young child, as you, sb, and xxoo are saying. They are saying that TV is bad, period. The first is equating TV to marijuana, and the second is saying that even an episode of TV is bad. Those viewpoints, I find, are not terribly balanced. FTR, I think xxoo has a great way of dealing with it, ie encouraging the child to play cards with her when she thinks TV time has gone on for too long.

[ThaWholigan]

As a child, I watched a lot of TV. My mother often regulated what I watched, and I also didn't watch every program, there were times where I would go off and play my keyboard or draw, or write, or go outside and play cricket and football with the adults occasionally. As a young child, I often went outside to the park and played, and I often read. As I may have said, I actually taught myself to read and write at 3, and at that age, I don't ever remember watching too much TV. Although at that time, TV was probably better and less provocative.

 

I think balance is key, as well as regulation of what the child is watching. For the record, I have watched some of the cartoons nowadays, and not to be too conservative because I'm not, but they are very risque. And they were heading that way for a while - I remember cartoons like Johnny Bravo and others of that nature being quite adult for what it was! .

 

I think that children should spend less time in front of the TV personally, and this is coming from someone who used to LOVE TV. I still do, although I don't care for a lot of shows on TV nowadays. I miss the older shows I watched. At a young age, I think children should be encouraged towards more productive and developmental pursuits at 2-7. Gradually increasing a little more TV time, but with regulations. I was always regulated in front of the TV because being the little rascal I was, I would try and get away with watching violent movies and shows like Eurotrash, and my mother was quite strict about me watching stuff like that. So I never grew up being completely exposed to certain things until I was gradually made aware by my mother herself.

 

So basically, TV time should be limited up to a certain age, and with enough influence on your children that TV shouldn't sway them to sit in front of them too much. I went through periods of too much TV in my teen life, and it greatly hampered me. I wish I was way more active physically than I was when I spent days and nights watching TV and playing video games. I laugh with shame about the marathon that saw me clock Final Fantasy 7 in 10 days without stopping.....

[Crusoe]

I personally never understood the 'TV is the root of all evil' mindset - I honestly think it comes from being from a generation where the parent him/herself didn't get TV as a child (because there wasn't any or there weren't many channels). So they think, 'I didn't get TV as a child and I turned out great, that means that TV must be bad'.

 

 

Or maybe those raised without TV can see the influence it has had on the younger generations. Maybe those raised on TV cannot see the harm because they have never known different.

 

Take a parrot from the wild, put him in a cage and he will forever remember and fight for his freedom. Breed from him and his young will accept their cage. Placid, docile, domesticated, dumbed down. Hell, they'll eventually mimic what you want them to say if you bombard them enough.

[Els]

Or maybe those raised without TV can see the influence it has had on the younger generations. Maybe those raised on TV cannot see the harm because they have never known different.

 

People have always fought change. That is the way it will and has always been. Just a scant few generations ago, many parents restricted their daughters from obtaining an equal education with men because they believed it would make them unladylike, undesirable, and manly. 'Back in their day', women received a proper lady's instruction on how to dress, act, and speak, and there was no nonsense of a woman learning about body parts, or tinkering with equipment.

 

It is really the same thing. TV is but a tool, a medium of entertainment. With appropriate boundaries and guidance, it can be a good thing. With inappropriate freedom and lack of guidance, it can be a bad thing. There is nothing a child won't see on parent-guided TV that they won't see or encounter IRL, a hundred times worse. If a child is old enough to go off to school by themselves, it is fairly unlikely that the worst influences they will encounter will be TV. By removing all possible outside influences, the child will only be woefully unprepared to face them when they inevitably come.

 

Balance, in all things.

 

Take a parrot from the wild, put him in a cage and he will forever remember and fight for his freedom. Breed from him and his young will accept their cage. Placid, docile, domesticated, dumbed down. Hell, they'll eventually mimic what you want them to say if you bombard them enough.

 

This is actually a perfect analogy for people who have been raised in olden generations and believe that the way their parents taught them must be the only and best way.

[Crusoe]

This is actually a perfect analogy for people who have been raised in olden generations and believe that the way their parents taught them must be the only and best way.

 

The older generations belong to all the generations they have lived through. They do not stop learning once a new generation has arrived. They have seen and experienced far more than the younger generations and use all that experience and knowledge to form their opinions. Very few have never changed thier mind or beliefs as they age.

 

Do you really think older folks know less then younger? Should their opinions be disregarded by the arrogance and ignorance of youth. Do you believe that in 20 years time you will still agree with what you say now? Are you convinced your twist is true? Or would you rather wait another 20 years and see the outcome of your beliefs? Like the older folks have.

[Els]

The older generations belong to all the generations they have lived through. They do not stop learning once a new generation has arrived. They have seen and experienced far more than the younger generations and use all that experience and knowledge to form their opinions. Very few have never changed thier mind or beliefs as they age.

 

Do you really think older folks know less then younger? Should their opinions be disregarded by the arrogance and ignorance of youth. Do you believe that in 20 years time you will still agree with what you say now? Are you convinced your twist is true? Or would you rather wait another 20 years and see the outcome of your beliefs? Like the older folks have.

 

If all you can respond to is my last single sentence and you feel like conveniently disregarding the rest of the paragraphs in which I have explained my viewpoint to much greater detail, I feel like conveniently not responding to you.

[Crusoe]

If all you can respond to is my last single sentence and you feel like conveniently disregarding the rest of the paragraphs in which I have explained my viewpoint to much greater detail, I feel like conveniently not responding to you.

 

 

All I particularly disagree with is your reasoning behind the opinions of older generations. The rest, I saw no need to parrot.

[Els]

All I particularly disagree with is your reasoning behind the opinions of older generations. The rest, I saw no need to parrot.

 

All I will say to this, is that age does not always beget maturity. The older generations have much to learn from the young, and the younger generations have much to learn from the old. Dismissing newer inventions as completely 'bad' without attempting to bring balance and understanding of difference of the times into the equation, is a sign of not being willing to learn. Not all older people are that way - in fact, many are not - but the few who do, are.

[Crusoe]

Dismissing newer inventions as completely 'bad' without attempting to bring balance and understanding of difference of the times into the equation, is a sign of not being willing to learn.

 

As is dismissing and not attempting to understand the opinions of those that know of a time before newer inventions. Which brings us full circle.

 

Maybe, just maybe, instead of thinking "I never had TV, I'm great, therefore TV is bad"; those that disagree can see the influence TV has had because they also know of life without TV, whereas some do not.

 

Maybe, just maybe, those that have lived both ways should be heard, not shouted down.

[turnera]

Are your kids also only allowed a really small amount of time to play with toys?

 

What if they found being outdoors, cooking, cleaning, reading, whatever to be really boring, and living like this was making them depressed, but they really enjoyed watching TV, and playing video games.

 

Would you allow them to watch a lot more time to watch TV and play video games?

Hell no!

 

Here's how to raise a kid who learns to find joy and fun and love of learning: allow him 30 minutes of tv a day and 30 minutes of computer/games a day and tell him to figure out how to keep busy the rest of the day.

 

Trust me, he'll figure it out.

 

Just saying that 'only tv/games' are what will make him happy is a HUGE copout and a HUGE disservice to the adult that your child will become.

 

And why is the parent not getting off of THEIR butt and going out WITH their kids to play ball or go hiking or look for bugs or on and on and on? Any kid who says that likely never had any guidance from their parents.

[turnera]

So if I was your parent and stopped you from playing sports, going out much, and made you spend most of your time watching TV, if that made you depressed that would be okay?

Show me the benefits of spending 15 hours in front of a screen.

[turnera]

btw, when I said 30 minutes, I was speaking of the school year. On weekends, I allowed her an hour on each each day. During the summer, I gave DD21 2 hours a day of each. The rest was up to her.