Should you feel guilty if your children watch TV all the time? Probably.

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Dec 18, 10:31 am, Banty wrote:

Gee - I was going to suggest the father stay home. Why on earth should a loving
father want to work all those hours and be away from his children??

So that he can gain money and power and pass on his status and perhaps
his ideals to his children. There are many examples of this, for
example Mitt Romney (my favored candidate for President) and his
father George Romney,

But the mother is too busy gaining money and power and passing on her status and
her ideals to her children. She needs her husband's support in this.

Banty

In article
,
Beliavsky wrote:

On Dec 18, 7:11 am, Thanatos wrote:

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Then they probably shouldn't have had kids.

It's likely that my kids (ages 1, 2, and 4) would be happier if their
mother stayed home instead of working. They are, however, fond of
their live-in babysitter, and they are generally happy little kids. I
think life in the West is better than it has ever been, and I don't
regret bringing them into this world.

I never said you should regret it. But if your only option is to use TV
as a babysitter, and then complain when the government won't force
everything on TV to be kid-friendly so that you can feel better about
yourself, then the rest of will certainly regret you bringing those kids
into the world.

In article ,
"Victor Velazquez" wrote:

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that
requires lots of TV time, that's fine. Just don't expect society to
conform to your parenting choice and dumb-down all of the programming so
that it's kid-friendly and you can feel better about your choices as a
parent.

In article , k-
says...
"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

The way nature intended

Speaking of which, maybe I should get my kids jobs in a coal
mine instead of sending them to school.

Get them to grind gold i world of warcraft, its cleaner and may earn
more!

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Victor Velazquez" wrote:

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that
requires lots of TV time, that's fine.

Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural
cognitive development of the children.

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Victor Velazquez" wrote:

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,

says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more
recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame
Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite
and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero
shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons
with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and
engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that
requires lots of TV time, that's fine.

Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural
cognitive development of the children.

There will always be studies to suggest that something everyone suspects is
true is, in fact, true. But that doesn't make it true!

I'm all in favor of exposing kids to nature, art, etc. but I'm also
suspicious of claims that the inherent cognitive development potential of,
say, a tree is in some way superior to that provided by, say, SpongeBob.
And if people think kids under 10 zone out in front of the TV (as opposed to
interacting with it, each other, their toys, etc.), then they either don't
have kids or they feed the ones they have too many sugary snacks.

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article , k-
says...
"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more
recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame
Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite
and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons
with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

The way nature intended

Oh, like smallpox? ;-)

Speaking of which, maybe I should get my kids jobs in a coal
mine instead of sending them to school.

Get them to grind gold i world of warcraft, its cleaner and may earn
more!

Our standard of living is a bit higher than a Chinese teenager's. :-(

In article ,
Pete B wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Victor Velazquez" wrote:

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more
recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame
Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite
and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons
with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that
requires lots of TV time, that's fine.

Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural
cognitive development of the children.

Yes, but if you choose to do that to your kids, that's on you.

In article , k-
says...
"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
says...
In article ,
"Victor Velazquez" wrote:

"Pete B" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,

says...
Ubiquitous wrote:

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more
recognition
of
numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame
Street."
And
young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite
and
socially
cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero
shows.
That's
lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons
with
children raised in TV-free households.

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the
beneficence of
the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and
engaged
contact
between parents and children--and between children and their own
imaginations.

What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and
simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids
between 8 AM and 6 PM?

Shouldn't have them then.

Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to
raise kids?

It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that
requires lots of TV time, that's fine.

Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural
cognitive development of the children.

There will always be studies to suggest that something everyone suspects is
true is, in fact, true. But that doesn't make it true!

It doesn't make it untrue just because you don't want to believe.


I'm all in favor of exposing kids to nature, art, etc. but I'm also
suspicious of claims that the inherent cognitive development potential of,
say, a tree is in some way superior to that provided by, say, SpongeBob.
And if people think kids under 10 zone out in front of the TV (as opposed to
interacting with it, each other, their toys, etc.), then they either don't
have kids or they feed the ones they have too many sugary snacks.

I don't doubt it the problems of tv for a moment, while Bhutan may have
shown the general problem with tv, i think its the bane of the last
century, i welcome its demise.

In article ,
says...
requires lots of TV time, that's fine.

Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural
cognitive development of the children.

Yes, but if you choose to do that to your kids, that's on you.

Or society who doesn't care who has children - competent or not.