To think that toddlers don’t need screens when they’re out and about?

[anotherscroller]

From the other “things you find rude and others don’t” thread, but it’s quite a big one so I thought it could have its own thread.

Here goes:
People who give their toddlers (let’s say 18 months to age 4) tablets/phones to watch tv on in public during incredibly short interludes of time.
e.g. A train journey of less than an hour, a bus ride, while they’re ordering coffee at a café, at the bus stop. While they’re in their buggy being driven back from nursery! That one blows my mind.
If it’s a long haul flight I do it myself, but I think such young children don’t need a screen entertaining them the whole time. AIBU? They are interested in trees, ants, the contents of your bag, playing beekaboo with your sun hat, everything. Watching the world go by.
EXCEPTION: Unless they have, or their caregivers has, a health condition that requires it, makes life easier, make life worth living..

Why do I find it rude?
In the same why I find anything where people are shutting themselves off from other people in public and not being aware of others. Even with headphones on. With toddlers, as an adult with my own toddler, I feel like they and people around them are being deprived of the opportunity to “be present” together. My toddler always wants to be curious about a child on the next table, show them her teddy, or something, and nine times out of ten they can’t because said child is completely lobotomised in front of an iPad.
i think part of being a parent is creatively keeping small children occupied during a waiting time.
i think part of being a child is learning how to be ok with boredom or waiting time, and not constantly having flashy tv to watch.
AIBU?

But equally we are talking about toddlers here. So yes, it's part of parenting, but we can't really expect a 2 year old to get that at the park it's ok, in another setting it's not. So people will be inconeviencd.

Part of helping them learn is surely just keeping them at the table with you in a restaurant?

Hmm, there was some of this sure, but I think there are also some rose tinted glasses being worn when looking at how DC were interacted with in the past....

YANBU. We checked in for our holiday flight at 5.30am one saturday morning, it was about a 20 minute queue. Family behind us had a 2 year old in a buggy, barely awake, watching Peppa Pig on a phone. Nobody wants to hear Peppa Pig, especially at 5.30am. Child wasn't even watching it.

Lazy and sefish.

I agree with you op. I visited the zoo with adult dd and a toddler was being pushed in a buggy trying to see the animals and the adult with her gave her his phone and said "here look at the pictures" just why? What was the point in taking her out if you're not going to put the effort in to show her things?
There is so much bollocks about "you don"t know what's gone in their life" well Christ time people learnt to cope and not take the easiest option.

They are not talking to their own children they are playing to the room and you know that full well.

This is appalling. By this definition I am definitely (and proudly) one of those dreadful ‘performance parents’ because rather than defaulting to screens I talk to my own child (yes, including on train journeys), answer her questions and encourage her to be curious about the things she sees. I have zero desire to impress anyone who might happen to overhear us, but every desire to help DD become an inquisitive, engaged and well adjusted citizen who engages with the world around her while respecting others.

And I’ll happily engage with any random 3 year olds who want to chat with me, because I genuinely like children - even other people’s.

My youngest is 20 now, so we didn't have phones and tablets when my kids were toddlers. I do agree with the OP, and it makes me sad to see just how many young kids are on screens when with their parents in restaurants, cafes, shops, etc. I'm fully aware that for some kids with special needs, this is the only way such an outing would be possible, so I don't have an issue with that, and I don't judge any particular family that I see because I don't know their circumstances. But in general, there are so may young kids (and older kids as well, to be honest) using screens in public - many of these kids won't have any kind of special need and there is no reason why they can't be interacting with the other people they are with.

"Is it really so hard to just smile and wave at a young child? Do you not do small talk with adults or are you just sour-faced to everyone?"

It would be for ds ( even if he could talk) because they scare him. They move unpredictably, they make unpredictable often high pitched noises and they invade other people's space. Anyone or anything that does this causes him great anxiety but he has seen that very small people do it a lot.

Applesandbunions, i disagree that parents of young children can't win, there is a middle ground between screens and noisy kids

What do you reckon it is? Because we've had a pretty comprehensive list of criticism on this thread so far.

I agree with this. If your child needs interaction with other children, then take them to soft play, the park, and toddler groups. And send them to nursery. Or any of the other countless opportunities that are available for children to socialise.

Restaurants aren’t the place for that. But it is a useful place to teach your child about something else - that a) interrupting groups of strangers while they’re eating and b) interrupting people who are engrossed in something else to show them your teddy are both incredibly rude.

Also, referencing screen is a snobbish little dog whistle. My son doesn’t watch screens in restaurants but he does colour, play with sticker books and ‘read’ (he can’t read, he’s only just three, but he looks at the pictures). He gets very engrossed in those activities and he probably wouldn’t interact with a random child who came up to show him their teddy. No different to screens though, really. It’s just being engrossed in an activity.

We all knew that annoying kid at school who could never work out when another child didn’t want to play with them, when another child wanted to be alone and when their company wasn’t wanted. I think it’s clear how those kinds of children come to exist.

Applesandbunions, colouring in type activities? Keeps kids quiet and no screens

Ah op, if you had seen me out with my firstborn you would have nodded your head in approval. No screens, colouring, talking, chatting, tickling and playing 'i spy'.

Then I had my second. And I was that parent because nothing else worked. Turned out he is autistic, has limited communication skills and social skills. Constant repetitive noise and videos are soothing and educational for him.

Do not assume. You see five, ten, fifteen minutes of that child's life, you have no idea.

That only works if you happen to have a child who's willing at that time to be kept quiet by a colouring book. Wouldn't have worked for either of mine on the train as OP describes, especially not without the significant parental involvement some posters have said they find annoying, or a restaurant. Not at all realistic. Granted one is ND but the other isn't. We dealt with this by not really doing that stuff, although I know because it's been said before that opting out isn't criticism free either. Some people think they need to learn that sort of thing through experience.

Ultimately, some people who don't like screens, some don't like involved parenting, some don't like noisy kids.. it's impossible!

What on earth did everyone do before tablets and phones were invented 🤣

'We all knew that annoying kid at school who could never work out when another child didn’t want to play with them, when another child wanted to be alone and when their company wasn’t wanted. I think it’s clear how those kinds of children come to exist.'

Those were the autistic children.

Applesandbunions, fair enough but I'm only going from my own experience and what worked for all mine, it does work for some

Quite a variety of things, not all of which involved positive interaction!

And I know that works for some DC harridance, would be fine for mine now as they are beyond the toddler years. If a particular child is willing to sit and colour quietly by themselves, obviously there's no issue. The problem for parents comes when that isn't the case.

Restaurants aren’t the place for that. But it is a useful place to teach your child about something else - that a) interrupting groups of strangers while they’re eating and b) interrupting people who are engrossed in something else to show them your teddy are both incredibly rude.

I'm chalking this up to British culture, I could not imagine being annoyed at a small child nor expecting them to be able to recognise that as an inappropriate place to meet. Yes, the parent should definitely still come over and move them away. But incredibly rude? That's a bit much for a LO.

On screens...
I also don't think there's anything wrong with admitting there are things we do as parents that aren't great. My kids watch TV at home, they don't eat perfectly healthy food every day. Don't sing nursery rhymes enough etc. These things aren't ideal, what's the big deal in acknowledging that?

I'd try not to judge, but I definitely know a few parents who just use screens with no interest in talking to their child (without telling them off about something).

Taking part in a variety of activities is different to repetitively looking at screens though. You're manipulating materials in different ways, firing up different parts of the brain. A lot of media is designed to be engrossing and addictive with little mental effort. Sometimes that's useful in detaching yourself from your surroundings/ situation, but on very young brains with a lot of developing to do, an excess can be detrimental. Quality and quantity matters, as does what the children are not doing while on screens.
Concentrating on a screen is not the same mental/ physical process as looking at a book/ colouring/ playing with a toy.

the dopamine argument isn't a part of the OP's argument though....her argument seems to be that a strange child doesn't want to be interrupted by her child to talk about a teddy bear! Also I was a bookworm child and can remember my Mum being criticised because "she's always got her head in a book....she should be playing with other kids" Which luckily my parents ignored. Nowadays parents seem to want to know how to get children to read more not less. I grew up normal (ish) with normal (ish) social skills when I care to employ them. I do wonder if prehistoric people moaned that some children were too interested in cave painting and should be out with the others hunting and gathering!

We would have changed carriage.

😂. Most toddlers I know are not kept busy for more than 5 minutes by colouring in! That's if they actually do it, as opposed to chucking or eating the crayons.

If you had posted on a parenting forum 40 or 50 years ago (if it had been possible) about not liking parents smacking their children, you would have had similar replies. Some people agreeing it is wrong and causes issues. Others defending it on the basis that it is difficult to discipline children in various public situations, or that simply the threat is enough to stop kids misbehaving.

It has always been difficult to parent in public. No one gets it right all the time. So it is not about individual instances, but the general trend towards increased use of screens to placate children in public. And the impact it has.

Differing attitudes to smacking is something I was thinking of before. When I had my own kids, that prompted me to think back to some of the parenting I'd seen in my childhood. It was quite common to see an overtired or hyper small child acting up, getting a slap, crying, falling asleep and then waking up fine. Most likely if you'd asked the parents they'd have said it was the smack that improved the behaviour, that the discipline had worked. Actually it was probably that the DC in question was no longer overtired.

This^