Owwwww... my head hurts!

[conuly]

are you contradicting yourself or have i miss something? you say OMG TV IS BAD, but that the concept of spending every waking hour playing with the baby is a modern conceit because until now, people had to get their work done. so in the past, how is it that kids entertained themselves? did tv not play a part? wacky things like sesame street, the electric company, etc.......

Aside from the fact that I did *not* say OMG TV IS BAD (I said that in very young children, television watching has been linked to AD(H)D), I'm curious how, exactly, this person thinks any child ever survived long enough to invent television.

(After being informed by somebody much nicer than I am that plenty of people have lived their entire lives without electricity, much less television...)

Plenty of cultures don't have tv or even electricity....

True, and plenty of cultures believe in genital mutilation of females. Other cultures are hardly the point here, since obviously we *do* have electricity since it's on the internetses.

And honestly, tv is not the end of the world. I'll never apologise for using it to entertain my kids when I need to get a few things done - nor do I think should anyone have to.

Because not letting Ana watch TV on my watch*, that's *so* horrible! Why, I ought to just go and cut off some parts of her body while I'm at it! Without the benefit of modern medical techniques or anesthesia!

Or maybe I should just start keeping the TV on all day, so that the kid is completely unable to function without having it on, as is the case with quite a few kids I knew growing up. That's a plan.

*I don't really care if Ana watches TV with her parents or grandparents. Or even with me, frankly. A limited amount of television, though, because she's only three (not under one, like the OP, who seems to live in this world, unlike the commenter above). It's just that we go places, and Jenn's DVD player sucks, so there's no real *point* to watching TV. Plus, I find her actions to be more interesting when she's making stuff up on her own rather than watching something. But catch me telling this person that now that she's had to go and be all... I don't know.

I should add that I'm not completely clear about Ana's parents' stance on TV, though I assume that it partially mimics my own. They do a lot of not-watching-tv stuff with her, anyway.

Comments

[leora.livejournal.com]

Uh yeah, overly defensive.

Personally, I don't like television for babies. They don't get it, and they thrive on human interaction. For toddlers and kids, it's fine in moderation. But what's more important than amount is really what they're watching. Sesame Street has been shown to be actively beneficial for young kids. I suspect most tv is not. I'd pay attention to what they watch, and make sure they're not being too sedentary (set up good habits when they're young, it makes it much easier), but beyond that, it really depends on the child. If the kid loves tv, enh sure, let them have some. If the kid is bored by it, it's nice to give them alternatives.

I watched massive amounts of television as a child, but I did it primarily out of boredom. I'd have liked to have had other activities available. But I don't think a no-tv rule would have helped or been necessary. Optins++

[conuly]

In fairness, the original quote (in reply to somebody who is worried she doesn't "do enough" for her half-year-old baby, who watches what sounds like a small amount of Baby Einsteins every day) was along the lines of "The only thing that I would not do EVAH!!! is the TV.

Where the use of the word EVAH!!! in an otherwise well-written comment seems, to me, to be pretty obviously semi-sarcastic - I'm telling the truth, but, while I think it's a bad idea, I doubt her kid is really going to be showing the obvious signs of this in adulthood.

[conuly]

But the commenter lost all credibility and sympathy with that crack about genital mutilation. Talk about hitting below the belt!

*coughs*

Really, though, that's like saying I'm a Nazi for my television stance. There should be some sort of Godwin's corrolary for things like this.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Yeah, not letting your kid watch television is a far cry from genital mutilation.

The baby Einstein stuff amuses me, because I don't think it actually has much use. And it doesn't seem to be based off of any actual good psychology, but I haven't investigated it that deeply. But I'm fairly sure it's harmless, unless you're taking it to such an extreme that the baby can't interact with the world and doesn't get much social interaction. Babies need to sort out how the world works, and they need both social interaction and physical touch. But they don't need any of that constantly.

It also somewhat depends on the age of the baby. I just don't think they can interpret the images on the television sufficiently for what they are to matter much, so long as they're not overly obnoxious (frequent loud, sudden sounds might be stressful, for example).

[mhari.livejournal.com]

so in the past, how is it that kids entertained themselves? did tv not play a part?

What part of "modern" does she not understand? Or are we to assume that those pesky Middle Ages parents left their kids to the mercy of the teevee?

[conuly]

No. Instead, they spent 5+ years having one adult do nothing but entertain the child(ren)! They used a perfectly good puller-of-her-own-weight for this task!

No, I'm sorry, my bad. I mean to say, they used their up-to-date daycare system for that purpose! Education was both free and compulsury for the first six years of a child's life!

[mhari.livejournal.com]

And THAT'S why they call them the Dark Ages!

[conuly]

*bashes a cymbal comically*

[leora.livejournal.com]

Uh yeah, overly defensive.

Personally, I don't like television for babies. They don't get it, and they thrive on human interaction. For toddlers and kids, it's fine in moderation. But what's more important than amount is really what they're watching. Sesame Street has been shown to be actively beneficial for young kids. I suspect most tv is not. I'd pay attention to what they watch, and make sure they're not being too sedentary (set up good habits when they're young, it makes it much easier), but beyond that, it really depends on the child. If the kid loves tv, enh sure, let them have some. If the kid is bored by it, it's nice to give them alternatives.

I watched massive amounts of television as a child, but I did it primarily out of boredom. I'd have liked to have had other activities available. But I don't think a no-tv rule would have helped or been necessary. Optins++

[conuly]

In fairness, the original quote (in reply to somebody who is worried she doesn't "do enough" for her half-year-old baby, who watches what sounds like a small amount of Baby Einsteins every day) was along the lines of "The only thing that I would not do EVAH!!! is the TV.

Where the use of the word EVAH!!! in an otherwise well-written comment seems, to me, to be pretty obviously semi-sarcastic - I'm telling the truth, but, while I think it's a bad idea, I doubt her kid is really going to be showing the obvious signs of this in adulthood.

[conuly]

But the commenter lost all credibility and sympathy with that crack about genital mutilation. Talk about hitting below the belt!

*coughs*

Really, though, that's like saying I'm a Nazi for my television stance. There should be some sort of Godwin's corrolary for things like this.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Yeah, not letting your kid watch television is a far cry from genital mutilation.

The baby Einstein stuff amuses me, because I don't think it actually has much use. And it doesn't seem to be based off of any actual good psychology, but I haven't investigated it that deeply. But I'm fairly sure it's harmless, unless you're taking it to such an extreme that the baby can't interact with the world and doesn't get much social interaction. Babies need to sort out how the world works, and they need both social interaction and physical touch. But they don't need any of that constantly.

It also somewhat depends on the age of the baby. I just don't think they can interpret the images on the television sufficiently for what they are to matter much, so long as they're not overly obnoxious (frequent loud, sudden sounds might be stressful, for example).

[mhari.livejournal.com]

so in the past, how is it that kids entertained themselves? did tv not play a part?

What part of "modern" does she not understand? Or are we to assume that those pesky Middle Ages parents left their kids to the mercy of the teevee?

[conuly]

No. Instead, they spent 5+ years having one adult do nothing but entertain the child(ren)! They used a perfectly good puller-of-her-own-weight for this task!

No, I'm sorry, my bad. I mean to say, they used their up-to-date daycare system for that purpose! Education was both free and compulsury for the first six years of a child's life!

[mhari.livejournal.com]

And THAT'S why they call them the Dark Ages!

[conuly]

*bashes a cymbal comically*