TV: The great guilt source of modern parenthood

Today's feature by Susan Pigg about television's affect on baby brains has inspired a rigorous debate among commenters.

It cites long-term research that correlates an increase in television watching with the prevalence of attention disorders, such as ADHD.

What do you think?

Here's my take. Yes, there is an abundance of television programming geared at getting those who are still on the boob into the tube. But at the same time, this is the age of hyper-parenting, at least among relatively affluent social stratas, where you'd be hard-pressed to make the point that kids are babysat by television. On the contrary, they're likely carted around to Gymboree and parent-and-tot music and introduction to origami.

If anything, companies like Baby Einstein have capitalized on the whole "Years before five..."/"Mozart effect" phenomenon by convincing consumers that they're actually giving their children a leg up in life by exposing them to colours, numbers, the alphabet, in DVD form, all while they're still in nappies. They're tapping into a marketplace that would rather know what they're putting into the DVD player than pop their kids in front of whatever is on Treehouse.

I guess what would be dangerous is lulling ourselves into a false sense of the enrichment that so-called "educational" programs provide. A baby's best entertainment is the face of a parent or other loving caregiver, so substituting hours and hours of tri-lingual puppets for old-fashioned interaction would be a shame. It's likely the most isolated parents — with fewer resources for classes — that are most likely to lean heavily on these products.

But every so often, we all need a little help from Treehouse or TVOkids or Baby Einstein. I wish I could say that I never get to a point on a long, cold January Sunday afternoon when we've all been cooped up inside and say, both boys have suddenly gotten bloody noses at the exact same time (separate incidents - true story), and I'm tired of plucking my toddler off the dining room table. Those are moments when I'm going to say yes to TV or a short DVD. Because they seem to need some "down time," as my five-year-old has taken to spinning it, and we need them to leave us alone for five minutes so we can do the dishes or shower and stuff. (And if I can get through a cup of tea without having to warm it up twice in the microwave, that is a complete luxury for me.)

My takeaway from this is pretty commonsense: don't think of educational programs like a visit from the Mensa fairy, use them — and all kids' TV — in moderation, and make sure your kids get exercise. Then, when you do plunk in the Backyardigans as an alternative to losing your temper or crying more piteously than the baby, do it without guilt.

Comments

[Justin]

"But every so often, we all need a little help from Treehouse or TVOkids or Baby Einstein."

No, we all don't. We have 20 month old twin girls who have never watched TV (at least, purposefully). My wife is a stay-at-home mom with no family help who has never relied on it as a babysitting tool.

The more people use it, the more they come to think that they need it. It's absurd to think that television has to be used as a parenting tool, especially given that it's a relatively new thing in the course of humankind.

[Chantelle]

Like the above (below?) poster, I too have twins. We started showing the kids programming on the TV at about 7 months. We feel no guilt. Justin sounds justafiably proud of his wife's ability to stick to their self-imposed rule. I've been there - it's huge. My guys are only 2.5 still. But I bet that on her road to a tv free existance, they compromised some rules that my husband and I hold sacred. No locks on drawers or cupboards other than the most dangerous - teach boundaries, they won't always be in a childproof home. No gates to keep them from leaving the room - they have to learn to come when called, and the consequences if they run. (Gates on stairs though. We aren't insane.) Yes, once a day, we have a break in front of the tv for a twenty minutes or so. All 4 of us. We sit, relax, remember to enjoy each other, and all wind down before the bedtime routine starts. If it's a particulary hectic day, we do the same thing mid-afternoon. It's a technique. Nothing more, nothing less. It's definitely going to cause them less damage than a parent who loses their cool, or ability to see them as a joy rather than a job. We have other techniques as well. TV happens to be one that works for all 4 of us at once, and so gets used regularly.

[Jajon]

My girls, now 9 and 6, did not watch TV at all before the age of 2.5. Yes, it was hard. I think it is unnatural for a baby to be hypnotized by a electronic device. But I don't see anything wrong with children, 3 and over, watching a small amount of TV (less than 1hr a day). It is a break (for all of us) but the programs are free of advertisements.

[Justin]

Hi Chantelle.

You should come over and see just how non-babyproof our apartment is. No locks on drawers or cupboards (except the chemically-laden one)? Check. No gates? Check. Kids are a joy and not a job? Check.

The girls always ask to hold our hands when we go out, they do not (normally) get into things they should not, they ask us to do things. Their favourite activities are drawing, painting and sitting on the couch "reading."

You're more than welcome to try again, though I would appreciate not making certain completely unfounded insinuations next time.

[Saeed Ahmed]

I would like to know what amount of time kids should normally be watching TV, say for age 7 to 10. After all, in this electronic age, its just not possible to keep kids away from the TV and internet, but sure there should be limit. As a parent, our responsibility is to direct and monitor the time spent on TV/internet and physical and social activities. I need help of specialists to complete what I want to say i.e. how to keep a balance of time kids spent on TV/internet, physical and social activities.

[Spencer]

Justin,
It's nice that you are married to super woman. I hope you appreciate and pamper her. Many of us are not able to provide, even poorly, for our families on one income. I think what the editor intended you to understand was an "everything in moderation" approach to TV in particular, parenting in general. I am at home with my children full time, and work part-time from home during the day. I do not have help from family. Evenings are strictly family time when my husband is home. There is no way I could make it without the occasional distraction that TV provides. Your arguement that previous generations did not have TV doesn't hold water because they used nannies and live-in servants like we use TV. Society and culture shifts. Get used to it. The stay-at-home mom is a relatively new concept too. Consider how the terminology has shifted over two generations. In 1955, women were Homemakers and Housewives. Pro-active parenting was one check-mark in her job description. Now our job title is Stay-at-Home Mom, but I have much more to do in my day than mothering and smothering. My boys (3 & 2) are both well-behaved, socialized, intelligent, mischievous, active (very active), typical toddlers, thank you very much. I spend quality fun and educational time with each of them and take joy in it all. People like me do well without your arrogant monster-sized insinuations that our parenting doesn't measure up to yours. I pop in a DVD once a day without an ounce of guilt. Now, there is nothing wrong with your decision to abstain your children from TV, but please open your mind to let others make a different choice.

[Tammy MacKenzie]

It's sad that people have to judge and condemn for ridiculous issues. I too vowed I would keep TV/movies off with my kids, never use it as a babysitter... but then I never thought I would be a single-mom, 24/7, no help, support or relief. Babies don't need TV, period, I agree.

[Bobbett]

Hi Everyone,

I'm have a full-time job and am working on my Masters and I COMPLETELY agree with the editor. Not all of us are superwoman. I allow my now 17 month old to watch Noggin (in America) which is a television station geared toward pre-school children. I'm sorry but I just get tired at times and need a little time to myself, need to finish cooking, to clean the bathroom, or study without him running in and out of the room. I do not feel as if anything is wrong, especially if he is learning about music, colors, numbers and such. I do read to him daily as well as teach him to find his nose, or his mouth and other body parts. Therefore, I agree that parents should reinforce teaching and not leave it only to the television. But what about us (mother and fathers)? Because we have children does it mean that we are no longer allowed a break?