to think friend is making life unnecessarily hard on herself by never letting her dd, 2.5, watch TV, when she has a newborn as well?

[emkana]

Friend rang today, stressed, trying to get her 2.5 year old to have a midday rest looking at books by herself. I gently suggested TV but she didn't see that as an option, which made me feel a bit silly. I'm all for limiting TV but when I was in her situation the TV was a lifesaver! And it hasn't made my children into couch potatoes at all, now they are 7 and 5 (the older ones) they hardly watch TV at all, because they are able to do all sorts of other stuff.

I don't buy the idea that you have to let kids watch tv or else you are some kind of martyr, I had the feeling that the OP meant this, that you make it hard on yourself by not letting them watch. also whingeing a bit about how hard it is with 2 kids should be allowed without someone telling you it would all be easy if only you'd put them in front of the tv!

yanbu...
A little bit of everything in moderation never hurt them.

"I don't buy the idea that you have to let kids watch tv or else you are some kind of martyr, I had the feeling that the OP meant this, that you make it hard on yourself by not letting them watch."

I do, a bit. The fact is that is you're having a hard time coping with something, and you haven't even tried all the avenues you can for helping overcome this difficulty, what else do you call it? Some call it principled, I call it obstinate. Life is hard enough without creating more problems for yourself.

"also whingeing a bit about how hard it is with 2 kids should be allowed without someone telling you it would all be easy if only you'd put them in front of the tv!"

You can whinge, it's totally OK to whinge. But don't expect well meaning friends not to suggest ways you can improve your lot. They're just suggestions. You can firmly and politely decline, and your friend can quite reasonably think you're making life harder for yourself than you need to. Agreeing to disagree, I believe it's called.

This woman works in television, I hardly think she needs to be "educated" on the cultural value of tv.

There are very good reasons not to introduce very young children to spending time watching videos on screens.

Trying to do what you think is best for your child and not just doing what other people tell you is easiest is not obstinate, it's good parenting.

Suggesting something to someone when you know it's something they don't want to do is not neutral - see all the threads of people trying to breastfeed with "well meaning" friends who keep telling them how much easier their life would be if they used formula and how it never did their kid any harm.

It was just a suggestion. Not particularly judgy - just what you would do, and what you found helpful. I don't see the problem. Only has to say "no" doesn't she? And I doubt you're nagging her every day about it.

YANBU. Forget about it. You could send her a lovely book for her toddler, one with a story CD in maybe, to show you're respecting her ideas - and then move on.

"This woman works in television, I hardly think she needs to be "educated" on the cultural value of tv."

Not necessarily true. Depends what part of TV she works in (reality TV, for example, is unlikely to give one a good impression of the medium), and whether or not she's made a study of the effects of TV on children.

"There are very good reasons not to introduce very young children to spending time watching videos on screens."

There are very good reasons not to do lots of things with your kids; cycling, crossing the road, horseriding, eating a peanut etc. You weigh the benefits and risks, and then make an informed decision about how best to proceed.

I think a lot of people who ban TV for their kids are doing it for the wrong reasons, they haven't looked into the benefits of TV. Or even weighed up the personal benefits of 10 minutes peace from a demanding toddler when feeding a newborn. The current fundamentalist anti-TV opinion is that banning kids from TV'll stop them being fat, make them more active, less violent and so on. None of these assertions are actually true, and a lot of them spring from snobbery.

"Trying to do what you think is best for your child and not just doing what other people tell you is easiest is not obstinate, it's good parenting."

I don't think "doing what's best for your child and not what other people tell you" is the issue. I think the problem is not being flexible, not being moderate. IMO OP's pal needs to weigh whether being an exhausted and harrassed mummy is better for her toddler than getting break and letting toddler watch some TV for a bit. Toddlers are a bugger to cope with in the best of moods, in those circumstances, you need to care for yourself or you will not be able to care for your kids.

"Suggesting something to someone when you know it's something they don't want to do is not neutral"

I see your point, it can be trying to have to fend off "helpful" suggestions. But I still think OP is perfectly reasonable.

YANBU to the OP. But I dont think your friend is BU either.

Every parent makes their decisions based on their views.

DS is 20 months, I still wont feed him chocolate and sweets (plenty of people think I mad not too I am sure) - but he loves Peppa Pig in the morning and In the night garden in the evenings. I can justify tv but not fruit pastilles.

Each to their own.
I do give her a week tho

Thanks for correcting my typo Mr Obama. It was so obvious I didn't bother correcting it.

Sorry, I see the was from Phoenix this time. I have experienced DSD talking in an American accent which I know was from watching hours and hours of crap TV, so yes I'm a little prejudiced about this one I'm afraid.

I work in television, I don't let my DD watch tv. There's no contradiction at all.

In fact it's because of 10+ years researching things, that I tried to find out about it, rather than just doing what most people do. The evidence is pretty clear - it's even the govt's recommendation; tv for under 2s is not good at all, and it's undesirable for under 3s. There are no benefits at that age at all, unless no one else is talking to them at all.

I've read the rest of the recent comments now. FWIW I think that carefully chosen TV is OK, but DVDs are better because it provides that repetition and familiarity that small children crave. Plus it develops memory and observation skills, musical appreciation if there are songs to join in with, and imagination (yes really).

My DS is hooked on the bagpipes because he's seen (and heard!) Cairngorm MacWomble playing them. The result? He'll stand for ages and ages listening to bagpipe music at Culloden Visitor Centre and admiring the historic set of bagpipes on display there. He'll make up his own Thomas stories using characters from the series and his own train set. I could go on.

I've come to realise that this is merely an up to date development of books. We read loads and loads of books too.

Vonsudenfed - there may be no benefits for the child from watching the TV - but there may be benefits for the parent - getting 10 mins peace and quiet so we don't lose the plot - which will in turn benefit the child. So there may be indirect benefits!

Other fact is there are no benefits from watching TV at any age, surely?

If TV and video is so bad, I wonder what people's take is on computers for the under 5s (or under 3s). I was pretty surprised, even shocked by this at DS's nursery, but it's being actively pushed by the Government. Contradiction? Yes or no?

Definite contradiction IMO twinkle.

I also think that there is a snobbish element in the non TV camp (posters on here excluded, obviously!).

It's a bit showy offy - I can cope without it - we're always doing wholesome things like baking and arts and we're so tremendously happy and fulfilled that we don't need to put the goggle box on.

Thing is that for a lot of parents I reckon the odd bit of TV at critical moments is a lifesaver. As I have found out in the last couple of weeks, moving as I have from the smug camp to the TV camp

Course in the olden days there would have been other people around to distact the children, extended family and so on. Now it is just one parent trapped in with the sprog it's not surprising that an occasional break of any sort is desirable.

I was brought up without a TV, and felt quite socially ostracized because of it (there were other factors too, but not knowing anything about things your peers are really into doesn't help). I still feel that I have missed a whole bunch of cultural references, although that will probably be less of an issue for this generation because of the diversification of channels means less of a common experience.

Regarding the research, my understanding is that it is quite equivocal. I've not seen any recommendations from the government (my children are 10 and 8 so things may have changed there). In any case there are a whole range of different ways that TVs are used in households, from those that have them on all the time as background, to those that use them sparingly for specific purposes with selected content. As far as I am aware the issues are more around substitution and appropriateness. So having the TV on all the time is not helpful for concentration, speech or homework (too distracting), and if your child always sits in front of the box in preference to reading, conversation, exercise etc that's not good either. There has been some research linking TV to ADHD, but as one study suggests a link and another does not I see no reason to panic (especially as the second study posited the quite likely theory that it might well be the ADHD that led to the more TV rather than necessarily the other way around). That achievements/ behaviour of children did not appear to change on the introduction of TV (and children watched a surprisingly high number of hours then too) so I doubt that any link is that definitive.

Not that that means everyone should watch TV at avery age, but sitting down when you are all exhausted and catching your breath with something relaxing and familiar is not IMO a big deal. Especially if the alternative is some nice winging and shouting time (great interaction!).

A few people have wondered about why others would have a 'no tv' rule, and why DVDs are seen as preferable.

From my POV, we have not TV, but do have DVDs which we play on the laptop.

Reasons - HATE that so much children's TV is really just advertising - even programs which I don't mind in and of themselves are actually long ads to promote al the merchandise that goes with them...not to mention actual ads for crappy food etc etc. Would love to see a ban on advertising to children as in some other countries.

DVDs have an end point, and depending on the length of the episodes they are easier for us to limit.

We get to choose what they watch - we only buy DVDs we are happy for them to have.

We also use this approach for our own discipline - stops DH and I watching too much tv, and also means we are less likely to be tempted to let DC watch too much.

As others have said, we fidn it easier to have a blanket ban on daytime TV, so that the DC pester less. Ours (3 and 5) are allowed to watch from 5-6pm (while I get dinner), and they alternate days as to who chooses dvd.

Having said that, DD did watch more when DS was smaller and more demanding, and when we have a newborn in a few months, we might allow more again, although TBH now that they are used to playing and do n ot expect TV/DVDs suring the days, we hope it wil n ot be a problem.

OP, I don't think its unreasonable to sugest TV to your fiends, but equally, she is not being unreasoanable to want to limit it - I think her hard work now will probably pay off long term, and if its an important principle for her, then she will feel worse if she voilates it (I was/am like this with BFing and cloth nappies - was hard, but good for me as it made me feel like I was suceeding as a parent IFSWIM)

I agree Apostrophe - that's what's nice about old DVDs - there is largely no merchandise available. Plus they are slower and gentler and bring back good childhood memories (well for dh but not for me that is, as I got to watch them new with the kids). My main rule when they were little is that they were not allowed to watch anything that I didn't enjoy (that came later though!).

Does it matter anyway - I have 3 kids, the eldest 2 at Grammar schools, they've all grown up on plenty of TV, it hasn't affected them in any negative way.

It's not that there are 'no benefits' to a child watching tv under 2 or 3, the suggestion is that it can damage the development of neural pathways.

The report which Tanya Byron prepared on viewing etc says quite clearly, it's recommended that children under 2 have very restricted screen time, and that govt advice is that this should extend until 3 years ol.

"So has anyone else stuck on a DVD and been horrified to find it's got to the end and started again?"

Oh yes, I've been there!

I don't know how anyone gets by without tv. Their children must be really independent and happy to amuse themselves. Putting the tv/dvd on is the only way to keep my DS sitting in one plae while I get on with housework, have shower or cook dinner.

You did say no benefits vonsudenfed!

Presumably they controlled for other things in the environment.

How long was too long then? I can't see that 10 mins a day is going to result in their brains developing differently TBH.

If they're stuck in front of it for hours every day to the exclusion of all else then that's different. But I imagine the majority of people on here can tell the difference.

i dont know if this has been mentioned but i think it has to do with money aswell - like everything else.

Easier to have 'no tv rule' if you live in a nice house with playrooms and big garden with swings and slide. And perhaps a nanny or au pair to 'do activities'. But if you live like my best friend in a tiny flat on the 5th floor?

As for the educational part in my -trilingual- family we use it to support language/culture/staying in touch with our countries...

Good point Laquitar.

I think the whole tv is bad thing is total cobblers to be honest.

Too much of crap tv is obviously bad but sensible viewing of quality shows has benefited my 3 big time.

Most importantly it's stopped me throttling them and cut stress levels down in the house many a time-so big benefit there.

It has really helped with general knowledge and imagination with my 3. They've learnt things I know wasn't picked up from the vast amounts of books they read. I've learnt masses from tv over the years so hardly surprising that they would too.

I have to stay I can't stand DVDS and computers I let mine have limited access. Computers and laptops are sooo anti social only one viewing at a time with their back to the rest of the room sitting way too close. There is vast amounts of crap on the web that is far more difficult to steer them from. I don't mean dangerous stuff(you can police that) but crap sites.

DVDS are on a continual loop and a complete waste of time just watching the same old stuff endlessly-what exactly are they learning? My lot get bored after seeing things a couple of times and I can't say I blame them.

Also endless episodes of Peppa Pig-why is that good and tv bad?Surely a bit of Ceebies that have a variety of quality shows is better. Ok you can switch a DVD after 1 episode but do people actually do that? I know I've been out of the room and before you know it they've watched 4 episodes of the same show,can't see why that's better than 4 different shows on TV myself.

Like the op mine watched a bit when they were little to save my sanity but now watch very little,they're just not bothered far too much other stuff to do.

I also think having that kids have that white screen on allllll day at school so really the 'experts' should start working towards getting rid of those before lecturing parents on watching a bit of quality tv now and again.

i have to admit i have the TV on for alot of the day.
i have no family near by, no friends either (all back home in norfolk), don't drive, so i spend most days at home or popping out to local shops or park. whole days go by without me speaking to a soul (apart from 15m old ds) from 8am when dh goes to work until 8pm when dh gets home.

if i didn't have tv or radio on i would go mad from the crushing silence.
ds doesn't seem too interested in it, he plays around and sometimes watches it for a few minutes before rushing off to do something else.

TV definitly saves my sanity and it doesn't seem so lonely when there is some background noise going on.

Mine watch the tv... i don't have time limits or concern myself over how much time they've spent watching it.

i think the problem comes when tv is watched instead of outside exercise and trips to the park and messy play etc. Mine watch it as well as all the other stuff.

people these days are so hung up on what's right, wrong etc, it's very sad.

Mine love snuggling on the couch and watching a good movie with a huge family bag of crisps and maltesers whilst i play happily on my laptop