Would really appreciate a neutral point of view on this because ex and I clash over this regularly and its hard for me to separate my objections to him and his behaviour from any rational or sensible points and look at this objectively.
I was basically brought up to believe and continue to believe, generally that the more time children spend outdoors running around and exercising the better and that time spent in the park/playground is worth more than time watching TV or at home. Its possible I overdo this sometimes, but I stand by this.
Ex comes from a country where the culture is that a lot of emphasis is put on kids needing to spend time in the home and his relatives question why I need to take my DD out as much as I do. I'm suspicious of this because I think a lot of it is actually subconsciously about women needing to be in the home. One of the many reasons I separated from him is because he seemed to feel that the bulk of mine and DD's time should be spent in the house most of it her watching shite kids tv while I did housework. And because he spent a vast amount of his time lolling around at home watching rubbish television and I don't think he's a particularly great arbiter of how she should be relaxing. Not only did this drive me absolutely stir crazy when we were married, I thought it was not in her best interests to spend hours in front of cartoons.
We've just had a minor ding-dong about her having gone to the park for a couple of hours affter school more or less every day in her first week of school. He thinks I take her out too much and she needs to spend time "relaxing". I question the idea that being in the park isn't relaxing and my DD loves it.
But at the same time I don't want to dismiss this completely out of hand if there's a genuine case that being in the park after school is tiring. She has been very tired this week and if she would have benefited from being at home as opposed to out, I'm willing to hear this. Just not from him