AIBU that reducing under 5s screen time is way more complicated than just issuing guidelines?

[Lovelygreenpen]

This guidance is welcome. We need to know facts and risks to make informed choices. But choices often aren’t made entirely freely. Think about healthy eating and exercise guidance and how complicated these can be to follow due to costs and time.

How would following this under 1 hour rule change your daily routine?
Most parents need to work all the hours with COLC and decades of rising housing costs. working life also often expands to expect parents to be in contact from home outside of paid work hours.
How are busy parents supposed to manage? How are solo working parents specifically supposed to manage? Any family with more than one child?
And what about the screens used in childcare settings?
What are the responsibilities of the makers of the crazy overstimulating content for babies and kids?

We know women often have to do more domestic labour than men, even where they live with a male partner. Also, that the makers of the content aimed at kids specifically employ addictive techniques.

So how is this pressured wider environment going to change to make this recommendation more realistic?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d936n7445o

Sounds like you had poor parenting.

Not all of us Gen X were neglected.
I helped my Mum bake and garden, Dad fix things
We just hung out with them, dressed our poor dog and cat up , visited friends and family, lots of tea and chatting, reading,spyrograph, board games etc
Later on I had a loan of a pony ( we were not rich) and did pony club etc
They never ever hit us

We learned to be patient, tolerant and have social skills.
Personally I think all the behavioural and sleep issues are because children dont learn these things and dont burn off their energy.
A huge rise in anxiety when faced with the real world.
Its affluent neglect

Just to add, when mine were little we ate out all the time with various friends and family, but sometimes just us four. We never even thought about taking puzzles, colouring in books etc.

We just chatted over dinner the way you do at home!

I always thought the issue was what children are missing out on? If you're glued to a screen then your not reading, playing outdoors, socialising, using your imagination etc. Not that using the screen was damaging your brain.

Do none of you take your children to the pictures? That’s a screen!

The OPs questions in her initial post are not in any way considerate of the needs of the actual child. Your children should be your priority!

I grew up in the 90s / 00s, it was wayyyy different to how it is today. Today makes me sad, parents do what they can to survive, if this means a little bit of screen time I don’t see the harm in it.

Most people I know who had children in the 90s and 00s:

• bought houses that cost around £15,000 (90s) - £70,000 (00s) on 100% mortgages that were a far lower percentage of their income than they are today.
• mums either didn’t work or worked part time / ran businesses like child minders from their homes. They had the CHOICE, which many of us do not have.
• their mothers retired at 60, and helped where ever they could. These days grandparents are either still working, caring for their elderly parents, are ill themselves or living their best life.
• Didn’t really send their kids to nursery until they were around 2 or pre school age. And if they did it was part time.

Im not saying this was the same for everyone, but for many people I know. Even those on lower incomes bought their own houses and managed to live on one and a half incomes. It meant that one parent had that extra time to do the things that two parents working full-time struggle to do. Instead, they have to try and do those things in the mornings, evenings and weekends, so may get out the screen for a bit so they can just do it.

Life is way more complicated, expensive, busy and just louder than it has ever been. I mean I’m wasting my time talking on mumsnet to people who are arguing about how other parents decide to raise their children. 🫠 like what sort of world are we living in, seriously?!

Ok, you didn’t have children in the 00s but you’re trying to tell me - someone who did have children in the 00s - what it was like being a parent in the 00s, based on a few people you know. How very audacious.

PS my first house (tiny 2 bed) cost £170k in 2002 - your 15-70k is just a little bit wrong.

I think the guidance is a great idea. We used to freely allow tablet/TV and noticed it was impacting my DS5 behaviour.

We now allow from tablet/TV between 07:00 until 08:20 and 17:00 and 18:30 week days. The tablet automatically switches off. I still give a 5/10 minute warning and straight away there's no issues once it stops. We have a little play in the evenings then books and bed.

Perhaps unpopular but it's lazy parenting having tablet/TV. I admit that's exactly what I was doing before.

@CleverCyanSnake house prices might have been lower in 90s but interest rates were scary. Not sure houses were £15,000 though.Many women worked

There’s no telling her. Despite being a child in the 90s/00s she knows better than those of us who were adults and indeed parents at that time.

And mums all retired at 60 and were on tap to help with grandchildren 🙄

This is true, there are some truly lazy parents out there that don't seem to engage with their kids. My eldest gives her phone to her 15 month old and props it up on the bloody pushchair. She loves being pregnant and all the attention that brings but can't be arsed with the result. "Don't know what to do with them, anyway they prefer xbox."
They have some toys at my place but they prefer her phone to watch Youtube shite. The 6 year old will tantrum if his older b gets the phone first, so she's buying him (9) a smart phone for his 10th.
I mean wtaf ? H and I hardly ever use our phones, just not interested, don't always take them out with us either so she's not learnt phone addition from me or her dad.

Not much when they were under 5.

Where were there properties in the 90's for £15k unless they were in a really shit area or going to be demolished within a few years? 🤔I along with a few others on here would love to know.

🙄 cinema screen is a hell of a lot different as you well know.

I took my son to see “Bambi” at the pictures when he was 18 months old. When it finished he said “again bambi”. Took both of them to toy story when one was 5 and the other 18 months.

There's always a handful who are deliberately obtuse

As is TV, unless you sit your child in front of it on their own. No need for the roll eyes.

What’s obtuse? That families used to watch film and tv together but toddlers are watching an I pad on their own?

You're making out anyone who takes their child to the pictures is contravening this guidelines. Long-form films and TV shows with proper narratives are completely different to watching YouTube/TikTok

The parents who need to follow this advice are the ones who won't. Unfortunately for their kids.

I think the point of this is basically we need to stop screens from being the default. Many adults (myself included!) know they spend too long on screens so we should be taking efforts to ensure that our children don’t end up the same.

I‘m not. I am trying to say the same as you. This thread seems to be including things like the tv and the pictures. They are screens, yes. But communal ones. Sitting a toddler in a buggy with a small screen attached to it and ignoring the child isn’t the same as you and your toddler watching the telly together.

That's not how you expressed it but fair enough

I'm rolling eyes because some people talk such shit on here t v screens and cinema screens aren't portable unlike phones and tablets or as addictive.