Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think it's ok to let 3 month old 'watch' tv?

140 replies

McSnail · 17/11/2009 13:30

My three month old child is mesmerised by the images on tv - it can keep her occupied for half hour slots, which is an absolute godsend. It means that I can do things like go for a wee, make a cup of tea, get dressed and clean the top layer of filth from the tip that my flat has become since having a baby (you know how it is)

Anyway - bloke got all pissed off today about this (he generally thinks tv is the devil, but it doesn't stop him watching it when there's something on that HE likes)

Muttered something about how he doesn't want to poison her with 'that shite' - yes, it was 'Loose Women' so he does have a point - but he's not the one who spends hours entertaining and breastfeeding her..

OP posts:
BonjourIvresse · 17/11/2009 16:12

rubbish. This isn't going to to a permanent thing. The OP has a very young baby and has found something that will help her get through those difficult first few months without proven ill effect. Its not like she's putting brandy in her bottle. Being able to have shower or get dressed or make a sandwich is pretty important for the mothers self esteem and wellbeing and thus for the baby.

At our local cinema we have a parent and baby session where they show up to 18 cert films. They are allowed to do this surely only becuase babies under 1 won't take it in. I've not got round to gonig yet but i hope to. I probbly won't go to an 18 film becuase i'm not in to violence and gore

tiktok · 17/11/2009 16:21

Bonjour - how lovely to be so confident in your opinion that you can say 'rubbish' to other views

The cinema is 'allowed' to do it, because it would be unbelievably 'nanny state' to forbid it by law.

In any case, the parent is there with the baby in the cinema - the parent can pay the baby attention, respond to distress before it shows itself in crying, and hold the baby if needed etc etc.

Placing a baby in front of a TV where the baby is 'mesmerised' at the age of three months is not a good idea. It is nothing to do with putting brandy in the bottle - that would indeed be another bad idea.

It depends on what you call 'proven' harm, but the links I posted show there is enough concern about the possible ill effects among people who have studied these experiences to make the call of 'rubbish' a very doubtful one.

Yes - all mothers looking after babies need time to make a sandwich, have a shower and to pay some attention to themselves. Using the TV in regular, 30 minute slots to enable this is not a good thing for the baby in any possible way - for sound developmental, communication, neurological and emotional reasons. There has to be another way, for the baby's sake.

Morloth · 17/11/2009 16:24

I thought telly was invented for mother's to have a shower/do a poo (not at the same time clearly) in piece.

Would quite happily pop DS in his bouncer thingy and pop Playschool on.

Morloth · 17/11/2009 16:26

*peace even.

Kaloki · 17/11/2009 16:29

I know I watched loads of TV when I was very young, no ill effects now, but I don't like watching TV anymore (unless it's repeats of 1980's kids TV)

Francasaysrelax · 17/11/2009 16:34

I don't know, my children have limited video time. But, I remember well how relentless it was to look after a very demanding baby (my first was a very demanding baby) with no help around.
I didn't put him in front of the telly (it didn't occurred to me and yes, it really didn't sound like a great idea and I think my baby wouldn't have appreciated either), but I really feel for the OP.

Original poster
McSnail · 17/11/2009 17:22

Thanks for all your replies - been out at baby yoga.

Well, I had no idea that tv was so harmful for babies and I feel a bit bad now. My child is stimulated in many other ways - I sing to her, talk to her all the time, tell her stories and she has activity mats, 'baby gymn' and a cool bouncy chair with musical dangly doo-das on it.

Just to reassure those who think that I plonk her down and leave her there without trying anything else... which my OP probably implied, so fair enough.

OP posts:
Naetha · 17/11/2009 17:32

I think you can over-think these things, and that a few minutes TV a couple of times a week is going to do virtually negligible harm.

I did the same with DS (not to mention watching TV myself while BFing etc) and he was fascinated with nature programmes. It may just be David Attenborough's voice though!

I think you can get a bit precious about TV, and as long as it's not for extended periods of time, I really don't think it's an issue.

Horton · 17/11/2009 17:53

I always took my daughter with me to the loo. I still do as, although she is three and perfectly capable of being left alone for a few minutes, she likes to follow me. I haven't had a wee alone for three years, two months and seven days.

TV was a bloody godsend for cooking meals and sorting washing, though, especially when DD was too young to follow me or help/join in. YANBU.

Francasaysrelax · 17/11/2009 17:56

I haven't had a wee alone for 7 yrs !

Horton · 17/11/2009 17:58

Hehe, Franca. I am expecting number two, due when DD is nearly 4, so I may yet match that.

colditz · 17/11/2009 18:03

I'd like to see some properly accredited research, please.

Francasaysrelax · 17/11/2009 18:13

Congratulations Horton! (It's my 7 yr old who tends to follow me in the toilet )

FrameyMcFrame · 17/11/2009 18:23

TikTock, yes babies need interaction, they need to be talked to, played with, read to, etc. But NO mother can do this 24 hours a day can they????
If Mum is in the shower she can't be directly interacting with baby anyway.
It's not like the OP is sitting her DC in front of hours and hours of tv a week is it really?

Chill out.

So much pressure on new Mums these days, seems they can't get anything right.

Booyhoo · 17/11/2009 18:28

whats wrong with taking the baby to the loo and putting in it the bouny chair? and the same when ,making a sandwich and going to the shower?

tv wouldnt even enter my head as a method of amusing my baby.

half an hour seems a very long time for a baby to go without interaction from someone else.

Original poster
McSnail · 17/11/2009 18:32

"half an hour seems a very long time for a baby to go without interaction from someone else."

As I said in my other post, she does get lots of interaction - I don't ignore her for half an hour.

OP posts:
Original poster
McSnail · 17/11/2009 18:33

"tv wouldnt even enter my head as a method of amusing my baby."

Well, quite clearly you're a much better mother than me.

OP posts:
Booyhoo · 17/11/2009 18:36

mcsnail, please dont be so defensive. i wasnt saying i was a much better mother than you. i was stating that its not something i would think of as a means of entertaining my baby.

i notice you didnt answer my question though.

tiktok · 17/11/2009 18:38

I wasn't talking about a 'few minutes a couple of times a week' - of course that's neither here nor there.

I was responding to the OP's post which described regular slots of up to 30 mins in which her dd was 'mesmerised'. This is not good, either occasionally or several times a week.

I totally sympathise with the relentless pressure of looking after a baby alone all day, every day. I said more than once that mothers need a break.

colditz - a good start for the research would be the link I posted to, which has a collection of news, reports, discussions and research to read through.

It is not controversial to say that small babies do not benefit in any way from watching TV for this amount of time and in fact there is evidence that it interferes with normal development. Clearly, doing it once or twice in an emergency, with normal, responsive care at other times, is not going to do lasting harm - but we are talking what sounded like a regular occurence.

Is it not better to be honest about these things, to indicate where the evidence can be found, and to use common sense as well? Common sense tells you a 3 mth old being in front of the TV for half hour slots is not doing any good. It may help her mum to have a break - but that's not the only thing to consider.

Horton · 17/11/2009 18:38

half an hour seems a very long time for a baby to go without interaction from someone else

I agree! But when I used to put DD in front of the television, I'd be in and out of the room, or sometimes in the same room (eg while sorting washing) checking that she was fine and happy and talking to her etc. The TV just meant she was less likely to notice I kept leaving her intermittently - and yes, she did complain about that even at three or four months old. Like Franca, I expect to be still taking her to the loo with me in four years time!!

I don't think half an hour of TV necessarily means you're leaving your baby to stare at the screen entirely alone for that time.

Thanks for congrats, Franca.

Original poster
McSnail · 17/11/2009 18:46

Booyhoo, who says I'm being defensive?

As for taking her through in her bouncy chair, I simply hadn't thought of that. I will try it.
BTW, I never said anything about leaving her in front of the tv while I have a shower.I wouldn't do that.

To give some more background, baby is a cluster feeder. When she isn't on the boob, she cries. A lot. I try lots of different things to keep her entertained and engaged, which i mentioned in my other post - I'm not some mouth-breather with a Jeremy Kyle habit. The fact that tv seems to calm her was something of a boon, and now I feel extremely guilty because apparently it's bad for under twos.

OP posts:
halfcut · 17/11/2009 18:50

Don't feel guilty...We all as mums do our best for our babies and our sanity ....

tiktok · 17/11/2009 18:52

McSnail - feeling guilty should be reserved for when you have deliberately done something deliberately bad and you haven't!

The fact you play with her and respond at other times means the effect of TV will be lessened.

And if you decide to change things, then the effect will disappear.

zazizoma · 17/11/2009 19:03

Why post if you don't want to hear that it's not a good idea?Are you simply wanting to know if other mothers do this as well?

I'm with tiktok. It's not a good idea, and I'm sure we all do things that are not ideal in our coping with motherhood, but it's still not a good idea.

How about "I know it's not a ideal but I need it to get through the day, so be it" rather than attempting to convince yourself that it is just fine because baby is "mesmerised."

Original poster
McSnail · 17/11/2009 19:07

"Why post if you don't want to hear that it's not a good idea?Are you simply wanting to know if other mothers do this as well?"

Err, where precisely was that expressed? Nowhere by me. By the tone of your post, I suspect you're looking for a fight

It was originally a slightly jokey post. Subsequently I've posted again saying I feel guilty about it as I didn't know it was a seriously 'bad thing' to do.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread