Laura -- I'm older that dirt -- graduated high school in 1974, if that's any clue. And I spent the years between 1971 and 1974 in Japan, where I watched lots of Speed Racer cartoons, but no Schoolhouse Rock....and oh yeah, we didn't have a TV from 1966-71. But I do remember Captain Kangaroo and Romper Room with Miss Connie and Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear.
Oh no, I've known dirt older than that :-). Actually, I think that only makes you about 10 years older than me, but that probably put you just out of the range of school house rock viewers (I'm pretty sure it started in the early 70s). I also have fond memories of speed racer, we caught that very occasionally when we lived in Mexico. We didn't have a television during those years (1970 to 1974) but we could occasionally watch at the neighbor's house (they charged for the priviledge....).
"But for the sake of argument....can a baby or toddler really actually watch tv? "
Exactly.
I leave the 'Bear in the big blue house' On for her. She seems to enjoy the sing a longs, but she doesn't actually sit still for 30 mins straight and watch it. She loves music which is why she 'seems' to watch the show. If I'm doing housework I leave it on again, but she never pays attention to it if I'm in the room, and only sometimes pays attention to it when I'm not (i peak in to see what she's doing if I have to do something in the kitchen or on the computer)
I may have lept a little before, but all the people who have been against TV for babies have basically said that any TV at all is bad for babies. It's not a black and white area. It sounds to me like people figure that 5 mins and 5 hours is the same , and does the same damage to a baby/toddler. Our world is not black and while, and while those studies most likely have a lot of merit, there is no set amount of time that suddenly becomes harmful. I was trying to make a point by asking that if my DD watches 5 mins or 1 min a day, is it still as bad as a child watching 5 hours.
These studies, while probably a good guideline, do not determine with any certainity the outcome of a child. 2 families could raise their children the exactly the same way and end up with 2 sets of radically different children.
I dont want to ban something from my child, because that is usually the best way to force them towards it. I would rather introduce things like this slowly and talk to them about it, and then get them interested in something else, like sports or other activities, so that TV just becomes something they do now and then.
There was talk about brain cells being used to watch TV and read. More brain cells might be used to read crap than watch good shows, but what kind of lessons are we teaching there. I remember those sweet valley high books. Allll my friends read them, so I borrowed one. I got so bored after 3 chapters. It was all stupid fluff. I would rather my child learn something educational from TV than read that. I hope she will be interested in reading as well, and I want to read to her, she just keeps trying to eat the book.
I was hoping to have a debate, or discussion on this, but a few posters got so outraged that I let my DD watch any TV at all, the discussion deteriorated, probably mostly my fault. I hope to teach my daughter acceptance to other peoples choices and that she is not better than someone else because she thinks differently.
If you are going to post controversial opinions on a debate board, you are going to be required to *justify* those opinions/choices. Its called debating.
There were over-indulged kids in the 80's also. I knew girls who wore 1K Ralph Lauren outfits to school (yes, that is 1K in 80's dollars).
I knew a boy whose Dad was a doctor, and refused to let him or his brother get part time jobs when they were teenagers. He said it would embarass him, people might think he couldn't support his family. This boy grew up to be a kind of a loser, not working, getting into drugs, at one point in his 30's he was homeless. I think if his father had praised him for wanting to work, instead of discouraging it, the boy might have turned out different.
TV actually HAS changed a lot. Now there are entire stations that run 24/7 material suitable for a young school aged child. There's Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, National Geographic Channel, Animal Planet and probably more that I don't know about. Since there is literally an unlimited amount of suitable programming, qunatity needs to be a consideration as much as quality.
These TV stations don't serve junk food, they serve fresh, wholesome bread- which is absolutely fabulous in moderation but harmful in excess. Back in the day (before all these stations existed) it was easy enough to argue that TV programming was crapola with limited exceptions. Now that there is such a deluge of good stuff, the danger is in thinking that there is no such thing as too much good stuff. But just as too much educational TV is still too much TV, too much wholesome bread is still too much food period.
Bottom line? Don't even bother trying to use the "no quality" argument. It's outdated and stuck in the 70's. And easy to shoot out of the water because it shows you are unaware that TV actually HAS changed radically over the last 25 years.
I agree that there is such a thing as too much TV. But I disagree that you can't find a 3 hour block of kid-suitable programming. You easily can. You just shouldn't. Or shouldn't every night. Just as you shouldn't eat an entire loaf of whole wheat, no-preservatives bread in one sitting.
Yep, I remember those types of kids when I was in high school. And they are certainly around today too-my dd got teased the other day in gym class by a girl who constantly talks about how *rich* she is, because dd had sketchers tennis shoes! I told dd that anyone who is THAT hung up on labels is obviously very insecure about themselves.....
Pages
How do you go from no limits on tv such as paigehannah has, which has been linked to all the conditions stated posted
PumpkinAngel
PumpkinAngel
Laura
Exactly.
I leave the 'Bear in the big blue house' On for her. She seems to enjoy the sing a longs, but she doesn't actually sit still for 30 mins straight and watch it. She loves music which is why she 'seems' to watch the show. If I'm doing housework I leave it on again, but she never pays attention to it if I'm in the room, and only sometimes pays attention to it when I'm not (i peak in to see what she's doing if I have to do something in the kitchen or on the computer)
I may have lept a little before, but all the people who have been against TV for babies have basically said that any TV at all is bad for babies. It's not a black and white area. It sounds to me like people figure that 5 mins and 5 hours is the same , and does the same damage to a baby/toddler. Our world is not black and while, and while those studies most likely have a lot of merit, there is no set amount of time that suddenly becomes harmful. I was trying to make a point by asking that if my DD watches 5 mins or 1 min a day, is it still as bad as a child watching 5 hours.
These studies, while probably a good guideline, do not determine with any certainity the outcome of a child. 2 families could raise their children the exactly the same way and end up with 2 sets of radically different children.
I dont want to ban something from my child, because that is usually the best way to force them towards it. I would rather introduce things like this slowly and talk to them about it, and then get them interested in something else, like sports or other activities, so that TV just becomes something they do now and then.
There was talk about brain cells being used to watch TV and read. More brain cells might be used to read crap than watch good shows, but what kind of lessons are we teaching there. I remember those sweet valley high books. Allll my friends read them, so I borrowed one. I got so bored after 3 chapters. It was all stupid fluff. I would rather my child learn something educational from TV than read that. I hope she will be interested in reading as well, and I want to read to her, she just keeps trying to eat the book.
I was hoping to have a debate, or discussion on this, but a few posters got so outraged that I let my DD watch any TV at all, the discussion deteriorated, probably mostly my fault. I hope to teach my daughter acceptance to other peoples choices and that she is not better than someone else because she thinks differently.
dj
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
Tracy
I knew a boy whose Dad was a doctor, and refused to let him or his brother get part time jobs when they were teenagers. He said it would embarass him, people might think he couldn't support his family. This boy grew up to be a kind of a loser, not working, getting into drugs, at one point in his 30's he was homeless. I think if his father had praised him for wanting to work, instead of discouraging it, the boy might have turned out different.
These TV stations don't serve junk food, they serve fresh, wholesome bread- which is absolutely fabulous in moderation but harmful in excess. Back in the day (before all these stations existed) it was easy enough to argue that TV programming was crapola with limited exceptions. Now that there is such a deluge of good stuff, the danger is in thinking that there is no such thing as too much good stuff. But just as too much educational TV is still too much TV, too much wholesome bread is still too much food period.
Bottom line? Don't even bother trying to use the "no quality" argument. It's outdated and stuck in the 70's. And easy to shoot out of the water because it shows you are unaware that TV actually HAS changed radically over the last 25 years.
I agree that there is such a thing as too much TV. But I disagree that you can't find a 3 hour block of kid-suitable programming. You easily can. You just shouldn't. Or shouldn't every night. Just as you shouldn't eat an entire loaf of whole wheat, no-preservatives bread in one sitting.
dj
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
Pages