Anti-Video Game resources - Page 3

[Jimibell]

Originally Posted by NoHiddenFees

Wow... that's pretty demanding criteria for computer/Internet chess. We don't live in "the boonies," and, while DD1 is not a genius, (though she is very bright) she has been playing chess since she turned 4. She benefits from Internet chess because she can find live players of her own ability whenever she wants. It's her interest... one of her hobbies. [So I guess I was wrong above, she does get some benefit from computers/Internet.] DH plays, but they don't have time to fit in a game most weeknights and I have neither the time nor the desire to play chess with her. That doesn't make me a bad parent; we do plenty of other things together.

I'm curious what's special about 12?

I see this trotted out a lot. My 2.5 yo is quite certain there is no such things talking ducks or dogs, no matter how many books we've read featuring such animals. She also has yet to be fooled by a magic trick (she's got a knack of not falling for the distraction). I've read that children have trouble fully distinguishing the difference between commercials and programming through about age 7... and this I tend to believe... not that I'm about to let the girls start watching commercial TV. Would you please elaborate as to what you mean? Are you talking about watching something filmed (as opposed to animated) and not understanding that the characters are played by actors?

I don't think a 2 yr old can even get the concept of a magic trick, so it's natural that she wouldn't fall for it.....

as for not thinking that there are talking ducks, etc I don't see how you can tell she doesn't think they exist.
at the age of 2 a child is still learning about real ducks and other animals, they barely have a sense of their self being a separate entity from the ducks, they cannot grasp such an abstract concept that real ducks do not talk and make-belive ones do, etc.....

there was a study done where they showed a children's movie to a group of 5 and 6 year olds and then asked them to explain what they thought the movie was about. Not one of the children showed an understanding of the plot.

The neocortex of a 4 year old is still in the early stages of development and the reptilian part of the brain is much more dominant at this age. When they see a movie or show and something scary occurs the reptilian part of the brain kicks in (the flight or fight instinct) which is a stress state for the brain. When the brain is in stress-mode then it is not functioning at it's best. Growth and development cannot occur. Also, the child's neocortex is not developed enough to tell the child that what is occuring is not real.

These early years are a time for the imagination to develop. Not the intellect. This is why children at this age are so creative. And it is also why they cannot distinguish real from fantasy to the degree that adults can. Night terrors, fantasy play, believing in Santa Claus, pure joy at hearing fairy tales (all very common occurrences at this age) are all signs that the child is unable to fully grasp what is real and what is not.

A child may be precocious in his/her intellectual development. Of course it is possible for a small child to read, do math, recite the alphabet, recite facts that have been poured into her. Do they have a true understanding of it? I do not believe they do. Abstract thinking, such as reading and explaining the scientific reasons why there is a thunderstorm, is not truly possible for most young children and it is not healthy for their holistic growth.

For the first 5 or 6 years I feel it is necessary to lay a strong foundation for LATER intellectual development by introducing them to the real world by appealing to the 5 senses. It is important for them to have lots of unstructured play time, to be sung to and told stories, for them to be outside in nature, for them to have beautiful open-ended toys and tools, for them to see adults engaged in purposeful work and to help us out (like cooking, baking, gardening, raking leaves, etc), and for them to eat and sleep well.

TV, games, junk food, heavy intellectual activity, over-stimulation, are all things that can be saved for a later date IMO. None of those things are necessary or healthy and there are some many other wonderful things to engage them with.

As for the age 12, well at that point the child is embarking on the stage where her intellect will become the focal point of her development. The neocortex is more fully developed and is able to distinguish reality from non-reality. The dangers of over-stimulation are greatly diminished. She is more in touch with the outside world and most likely eager to explore that world. And, it she hasn't been overly exposed to media before that, she will have a strong foundation to resist the "evils" of the media, such as marketing, body-image issues, the lure of an unrealistic lifestyle that is portrayed on TV, etc.....

[NoHiddenFees]

Originally Posted by Jimibell

as for not thinking that there are talking ducks, etc I don't see how you can tell she doesn't think they exist.
at the age of 2 a child is still learning about real ducks and other animals, they barely have a sense of their self being a separate entity from the ducks, they cannot grasp such an abstract concept that real ducks do not talk and make-belive ones do, etc.....

I always love it when people try to enlighten me about MY children.

there was a study done where they showed a children's movie to a group of 5 and 6 year olds and then asked them to explain what they thought the movie was about. Not one of the children showed an understanding of the plot.

OK... what was the movie? What age was it geared to? How simple was the plot? Did the children think it was real? Was it a Hollywood kids' film with lots of bells and whistles and other distractions? Was a parent there discussing the movie with the child? Was it a long movie or a short one? I'm not expecting you to answer, but these are things that should be taken into consideration. Such studies rarely replicate real life.

When the brain is in stress-mode then it is not functioning at it's best. Growth and development cannot occur. Also, the child's neocortex is not developed enough to tell the child that what is occuring is not real.

The question of exposing to scary material aside (we don't show scary videos); you're making assumptions about ALL kids again... and exaggerating. Growth and development cannot occur?

Night terrors, fantasy play, believing in Santa Claus, pure joy at hearing fairy tales (all very common occurrences at this age) are all signs that the child is unable to fully grasp what is real and what is not.

My (then) newly turned 4yo was listening to a story in which a bull of the gods came to earth and started stomping and snorting. The earth shook, buildings fell down, and havoc ensued. DD1 calmly looked at me and said, "Oh mom, that's just a story. It sounds to me like there was an earthquake." Let me be clear that this was uncoached.

A child may be precocious in his/her intellectual development. Of course it is possible for a small child to read, do math, recite the alphabet, recite facts that have been poured into her. Do they have a true understanding of it? I do not believe they do. Abstract thinking, such as reading and explaining the scientific reasons why there is a thunderstorm, is not truly possible for most young children and it is not healthy for their holistic growth.

You're opening up a whole other can of worms here... but at least you qualified with "most young children." I don't want to debate this here, but I will say that DD1 is a voracious reader; reading is part of her nature. She not only understands what she reads, but she engages in synthesis as well (i.e. she can connect facts and ideas from disparate sources). Whatever happened to child-led?

For the first 5 or 6 years I feel it is necessary to lay a strong foundation for LATER intellectual development by introducing them to the real world by appealing to the 5 senses.

Such blanket proclamations may be fine for most children... but after DD1 I realized how much they tend towards dogma.

It is important for them to have lots of unstructured play time, to be sung to and told stories, for them to be outside in nature, for them to have beautiful open-ended toys and tools, for them to see adults engaged in purposeful work and to help us out (like cooking, baking, gardening, raking leaves, etc), and for them to eat and sleep well.

Uh, yeah. Is it also important for them never to do anything else?

TV, games, junk food, heavy intellectual activity, over-stimulation, are all things that can be saved for a later date IMO. None of those things are necessary or healthy and there are some many other wonderful things to engage them with.

Interesting that you've grouped intellectual activity with junk food and TV. If someone says their child craves "heavy" intellectual stimulation you can say, "well, what if they want junk food?" But these are very different things because the drive for intellectual stimulation is an internal one. Some kids need it, and I think that to deny them is wrong.

As for the age 12, well at that point the child is embarking on the stage where her intellect will become the focal point of her development. The neocortex is more fully developed and is able to distinguish reality from non-reality. The dangers of over-stimulation are greatly diminished. She is more in touch with the outside world and most likely eager to explore that world. And, it she hasn't been overly exposed to media before that, she will have a strong foundation to resist the "evils" of the media, such as marketing, body-image issues, the lure of an unrealistic lifestyle that is portrayed on TV, etc.....

Sheesh. As a parent, you can control your child's media exposure just as you control the food brought into your house and the books you own. If you choose not to have TV or video games, or chocolate, or whatever... fine. But you're making an awful lot of assumptions about families who do allow even limited video/computer time. They're not all at the far end of the spectrum.

[Houdini]

Originally Posted by ashtree

I think it's really too bad that people actually believe TV and video games can be educational and/or good for a child. I wholeheartedly disagree.

I find it interesting that someone can think there is no educational value whatsoever in television/video games when they are used in moderation. My daughter has learned more about animals watching Animal Planet than I would have ever thought to teach her.

Your opinion that tv/video games are not educational and/or good for a child is just that....your opinion. That doesn't make anyone who disagrees wrong....it just makes our opinions different. I say what works for each family is up to that family.

[Cinder]

Originally Posted by 4evermom

I had to laugh at this because it is the exact age that ds started asking to play chess.

Yep, my dd was 4years2months when she started begging to play chess...she's better at it now than I am(she's now 4years7months), which isn't saying much at all.

[Houdini]

Originally Posted by Jimibell

I did not mean to be condescending. What I meant was, since you are obviously not just plopping them down in front of the TV to play games so you can get other stuff done, but rather playing the games with them, then why are they playing games at all? Wouldn't it be better to play real life?
That is what I meant to ask and I meant it as a genuine question.

The question wasn't directed to me, but I would like to answer. For our house, it is a way to wind down and also as a distraction. They are limited in what they can watch and how long. We have zero issues with imagination and they are not just plopped down in front of the tv.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

I have never shown TV or games to my dc and I really don't see why people do. In most cases, there is no benefit that you can't get elsewhere in much more dynamic environments.

I agree there are many different environments in which kids can learn. In our house, that includes television/video games. I have four children and my husband works full-time. I am in school full-time and so are three of our four children. We also have soccer for the boys and basketball for our daughter. We don't have enough hours in the day to devote to letting them lead us everywhere they want to go in real-life. My daughter loves Animal Planet, she watches it on the weekends. She has learned so much from watching the programs that I wouldn't have the time to teach her. My boys love knights/dragons type stuff. They also love fantasy type things. Again, I don't have the resources to provide them real-life experience with those things.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

The game or TV is pre-programmed, not like real life where all is unpredictable. Whatever it is that you want your child to learn, it can be done better in real life at the ages of 3, 4, 5, etc.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

I do think that after 12 or so that it is OK to introduce some types of media (and maybe earlier in some cases, like someone mentioned chess, if you lived out in the middle of nowhere and your 8 yr old wanted to learn chess and NO ONE nearby knew how, well then I could see doing games online.)

I am not sure why you think benefits appear after a set age such as 12. If they aren't there earlier, then they won't appear later.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

But at 4?! Unless you have a child genius, why would they be playing chess?

I assure you there are children who learn chess/checkers at 4 and they aren't child geniuses. My oldest son has played checkers since age 3 and chess since around 5. My daughter showed no interest until she was closer to six and then it was a passing interest in checkers. My middle son has played checkers since about age 3 and started chess at about 4. He also learned backgammon around six. He loves games like these and plays them against dad quite often. My youngest is now five and has played checkers since he was four. He tried chess a couple of times, but isn't so interested.

I am not sure why a child has to be a genius to play chess from an early age. My boys both qualified for the finals in the local chess tournament last summer (they were 11 and 8).

Originally Posted by Jimibell

I have to say that I am continually shocked by people's nonchalance toward TV and games for young children on MDC. I've been a reader of Mothering for about 6 years but new to MDC and I thought that there would be much more awareness about this issue.

Lack of awareness has nothing to do with the issue for my house. I am well aware of the research. I choose to let my children watch tv/play games in moderation.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

Why introduce something that is questionable and will probably only be demanded more as they get older? How many minutes a day will they watch when they ARE 8 and 9?

My crew have had pretty much the same restrictions since they were preschoolers. They don't demand more or watch more or play more b/c they know it isn't allowed. It's a non-issue in our house. They have a set amount of time, they use it and then move onto another activity. It really isn't difficult at all.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

And I always find it odd when people brag about how "imaginative" their 4 yr old is. How do you measure these things at this age? All 4 yr olds are creative and imaginative. And how much TV do your dd's competitors watch?

I find it odd that people who don't let their child watch tv claim doing so would stunt their imagination. How do you measure how imaginative your child is compared to someone else's? Do you think that you would be able to point out the kids who watch moderated tv just by their imagination skills? I am a bit confused by that.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

And you should know that the affects of media are not so apparent at this age, it is when they get older that you see more and more the affects. At 3 and 4 their minds are like sponges, everything they see and experience comes in unfiltered. They do not have the intellect to differentiate between what is real and what is not.

My crew have not suffered any ill effects that are noticable at this point. Doesn't mean it can't happen or won't happen. My crew are very aware of what they like to watch and not watch. They stay clear of things that bothers them.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

If you think video games are fun and want to allow your children to use them that's fine but don't fool yourself into thinking that no harm will come from it.

I find it interesting that you think that video games will eventually cause harm to a child. It is possible if they are not parented at the same time and don't have someone to explain things to them.

I can assure you I haven't fooled myself into thinking no harm may come from video games, which is why I am diligent in parenting my children by limiting their game time/choices.

[Jimibell]

Originally Posted by Cinder

I think this is where we disagree, I do see video games as having benefits, as I said before way back in the 80's video games were part of my occupational therapy to help with hand eye co-ordination. I'm not sure why we would suddenly start allowing them to play more video games or watch more tv when they get older...that seems weird. Of course, our house is probably more technology centered than most...my dh is a network and system adminstrator for his normal 40 hour a week job, he is a web programmer as a consultant on the side and makes, programs, and tests websites for all sorts of people, and he also builds computers as a fun hobby.

it may seem weird that they'll be doing more as they get older but this is what happens in most cases. Read Marie Winn's book, The Plug-in Drug, she talks about how this is the biggest problem parents have, they allow a little in the beginning and as the children get older they somehow tend to watch more and then more.......

Do your children have problems with hand to eye coordination?

Your child has sensory issues. TV and games are a brutal onslaught on to a child's visual and auditory senses, leaving the other senses shut out.

[Yoshua]

Originally Posted by Jimibell

it may seem weird that they'll be doing more as they get older but this is what happens in most cases. Read Marie Winn's book, The Plug-in Drug, she talks about how this is the biggest problem parents have, they allow a little in the beginning and as the children get older they somehow tend to watch more and then more.......

Do your children have problems with hand to eye coordination?

Your child has sensory issues. TV and games are a brutal onslaught on to a child's visual and auditory senses, leaving the other senses shut out.

It seems to me, and I am not going to get into a big debate on it, that your assumptions seem to be that all these children do are play video games.

We go to the park, we go canoeing we goto playgrounds we goto play groups we take him to pre school, he has done ballet....

It sounds to me that the problem you describe is not with the video game itself, but with parents who use video games and media as replacements for all other activities including and not limited to parenting.





The video game itself is not bad, but maybe some peoples parenting styles are lacking and that is the real problem here. If no video games and no television works for you? great, But in a household where the parents are divided there can, and should be middle ground. There should ALWAYS be middle ground when 2 parents feel strongly about a subject and no one parent should veto the other unless it is for the health and welfare of the child.

Which video games and television do not. If you as a parent know how to moderate your child, and their activities, then screen time should not be an issue. if you however do not know how to moderate your child's activities (and this is a general you, not you specifically) then you have larger issues and should take parenting classes or read parenting books, because ANYTHING left unmoderated can become unhealthy.

[Houdini]

Originally Posted by Jimibell

I don't think a 2 yr old can even get the concept of a magic trick, so it's natural that she wouldn't fall for it.....

as for not thinking that there are talking ducks, etc I don't see how you can tell she doesn't think they exist.
at the age of 2 a child is still learning about real ducks and other animals, they barely have a sense of their self being a separate entity from the ducks, they cannot grasp such an abstract concept that real ducks do not talk and make-belive ones do, etc.....

I don't think you are giving kids enough credit. My children had no problem realizing ducks at the zoo say quack and ducks on tv talk (Daffy) from the age of about three (my husband loves looney tunes).

My youngest son has used/understood sarcasm since about three b/c we tend to be a sarcastic household. My middle son didn't get sarcasm/idioms until he was closer to seven. Just a difference in how they process stuff.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

there was a study done where they showed a children's movie to a group of 5 and 6 year olds and then asked them to explain what they thought the movie was about. Not one of the children showed an understanding of the plot.

I would love to see this study.....link please. I would like to see what movie was used and how age appropriate it was. My kids can tell you the plots to movies they watch if they are age appropriate. My youngest doesn't necessarily understand a movie that my oldest would understand, but that is b/c of the six year age gap.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

These early years are a time for the imagination to develop. Not the intellect.

I don't see why they can't develop their imagination just b/c they play a limited amount of time on video games or watch a limited amount of television. There are plenty of hours left in the day for my youngest to engage in imaginative activities.

I really don't see the intellect thing. Are you saying that a child who shows signs of readyness for an academic area should be discouraged b/c they aren't the 'right age' to learn it??

Originally Posted by Jimibell

A child may be precocious in his/her intellectual development. Of course it is possible for a small child to read, do math, recite the alphabet, recite facts that have been poured into her. Do they have a true understanding of it? I do not believe they do. Abstract thinking, such as reading and explaining the scientific reasons why there is a thunderstorm, is not truly possible for most young children and it is not healthy for their holistic growth.

I really think you don't give kids enough credit. My middle and youngest son love numbers. They always have. I see no point in discouraging them and I certainly don't see where they lack understanding. My oldest two read at age four, my middle son read at age six, my youngest is reading now at age five. I follow the cues of my children. If they want to learn, I teach. I see no point in holding them back intellectually b/c I don't feel they are ready for a task when they show all signs indicating they are.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

For the first 5 or 6 years I feel it is necessary to lay a strong foundation for LATER intellectual development by introducing them to the real world by appealing to the 5 senses. It is important for them to have lots of unstructured play time, to be sung to and told stories, for them to be outside in nature, for them to have beautiful open-ended toys and tools, for them to see adults engaged in purposeful work and to help us out (like cooking, baking, gardening, raking leaves, etc), and for them to eat and sleep well.

My children did all these things and they watched tv/played video games. I was a lot less pressed for time when they were younger and could devote time to all these activities.

Originally Posted by Jimibell

TV, games, junk food, heavy intellectual activity, over-stimulation, are all things that can be saved for a later date IMO. None of those things are necessary or healthy and there are some many other wonderful things to engage them with.

I agree they aren't necessary, but I completely disagree that they do harm when they are done in moderation and by the cues of the child.

As for the age 12, well at that point the child is embarking on the stage where her intellect will become the focal point of her development. The neocortex is more fully developed and is able to distinguish reality from non-reality. The dangers of over-stimulation are greatly diminished. She is more in touch with the outside world and most likely eager to explore that world. And, it she hasn't been overly exposed to media before that, she will have a strong foundation to resist the "evils" of the media, such as marketing, body-image issues, the lure of an unrealistic lifestyle that is portrayed on TV, etc.....

Sorry, I disagree. My crew and I talk about what is seen on tv and the reason behind commericals. The fact that they watch tv doesn't mean they are unaware of the reason behind the marketing. I assure my daughter has learned more in elementary school about body-image issues than she ever has while watching tv.

It is entirely possible to talk about all the issues seen on tv with a three year just as much as a twelve year old. My youngest knows commericals are meant to sell you something and has for many years.

[Cinder]

Originally Posted by Jimibell

Your child has sensory issues. TV and games are a brutal onslaught on to a child's visual and auditory senses, leaving the other senses shut out.

My son also has cognitive delays and has no clue what a video game even is...he doesn't get it, and I don't know when he will...it's a pretty advanced concept (for him, not for an average kid) to get the idea if you press xyz someone on the tv will do zyx.

His favorite thing to do is roll balls down a slide for hours at a time...so we bought him a slide for our living room so that he has one when he can't go outside...

And yes, the same ds has hand eye co-ordination issues, and speech delays, and gross motor delays, and, and, and... but video games won't be part of his therapy for a long time...cause like I mentioned before, he doesn't get it. I only used that to show that video games are beneficial to at least some people.

[ashtree]

I don't really have time to post, but I'm wondering why all the TV watchers are so defensive about their activities? And I don't know why you are all ganging up on one mother. You views are the norm, almost everyone agrees with you, which only makes you feel more confident, but I'll be damned if I'm falling for any of it. None of you seem willing to broaden your horizon. I grew up with TV and made a choice to remove it from my life. I've seen both sides.

If your child recieves education from TV that is a problem. I don't care if its Animal Planet, or Nickelodeon, and I don't care how often they watch TV, or how long for that matter. The TV should never be a sustitute or addition to parenting and educating.

And as far as body image issues in the school system, take your children out of it. I will NOT send my children to school. As a parent I feel it is my job to protect my children from the public (or private for that matter) school system.

I think that TV and video games do affect the health and welfare of a child-and adults as well. I will veto my husbands beliefs if I feel it is in the best interest of our children. ALWAYS. Luckily, we are in agreement on most things.

[ashtree]

Originally Posted by hellyaellen

i second the recomendation for The Plug-In Drug

and add The Unreality Industry to the list

both of these focus more on tv than video games but i'm sure parallels can be drawn

you might try Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television too

hth

Thanks for the suggestions! I've already reserved 2 of them at the library.

[Thalia the Muse]

Look, you were looking for research proving that video games is harmful, right? But alas, there isn't any. Your objections aren't evidence-based -- there's something about the games that offends you on a values basis. So if you're going to present your case to your husband, it needs to be on that basis. "This is what bothers me about the games, and why." If you want to prove your case that they're harmful to children's health and well-being, though, you're going to have a hard time doing that.

[Yoshua]

Originally Posted by ashtree

I don't really have time to post, but I'm wondering why all the TV watchers are so defensive about their activities? And I don't know why you are all ganging up on one mother. You views are the norm, almost everyone agrees with you, which only makes you feel more confident, but I'll be damned if I'm falling for any of it. None of you seem willing to broaden your horizon. I grew up with TV and made a choice to remove it from my life. I've seen both sides.

If your child recieves education from TV that is a problem. I don't care if its Animal Planet, or Nickelodeon, and I don't care how often they watch TV, or how long for that matter. The TV should never be a sustitute or addition to parenting and educating.

And as far as body image issues in the school system, take your children out of it. I will NOT send my children to school. As a parent I feel it is my job to protect my children from the public (or private for that matter) school system.

I think that TV and video games do affect the health and welfare of a child-and adults as well. I will veto my husbands beliefs if I feel it is in the best interest of our children. ALWAYS. Luckily, we are in agreement on most things.

My child learns from all of their experiances, and it isn't a problem. it is a benefit.

[ashtree]

Originally Posted by Thalia the Muse

Look, you were looking for research proving that video games is harmful, right? But alas, there isn't any. Your objections aren't evidence-based -- there's something about the games that offends you on a values basis. So if you're going to present your case to your husband, it needs to be on that basis. "This is what bothers me about the games, and why." If you want to prove your case that they're harmful to children's health and well-being, though, you're going to have a hard time doing that.

Video games are a multi million dollar industry and a staple in most homes. (appareantly even natural family living ones) I'm not suprised there is no research-they are also relatively new. There is information on television and I definitly see the two as being related. My DH will deal with the situation and be fine. He's already leaning more towards my view anyway.

[Yoshua]

Originally Posted by ashtree

Video games are a multi million dollar industry and a staple in most homes. (appareantly even natural family living ones) I'm not suprised there is no research-they are also relatively new. There is information on television and I definitly see the two as being related. My DH will deal with the situation and be fine. He's already leaning more towards my view anyway.

New?.... video games have been around over 30 years. We have studies on items from 2 years ago....


There are studies showing that video games and screen time are beneficial to children from non biased sources, some of which have been listed here.

There should be a few to prove your point of view..... right?

[Houdini]

Originally Posted by ashtree

I don't really have time to post, but I'm wondering why all the TV watchers are so defensive about their activities? And I don't know why you are all ganging up on one mother. You views are the norm, almost everyone agrees with you, which only makes you feel more confident, but I'll be damned if I'm falling for any of it. None of you seem willing to broaden your horizon. I grew up with TV and made a choice to remove it from my life. I've seen both sides.

I am posting in response to the things being written. It is a message board after all. I disagree, then I say why or I agree and say why.

It isn't a lack of wanting to broaden my horizon....we were tv free for a brief time. It didn't work for our family. The fact that I disagree doesn't make me wrong. It makes our opinions different.

Originally Posted by ashtree

If your child recieves education from TV that is a problem. I don't care if its Animal Planet, or Nickelodeon, and I don't care how often they watch TV, or how long for that matter. The TV should never be a sustitute or addition to parenting and educating.

I am glad to disagree with you on this one. I think the tv opens up a whole lot that I am unknowledgable on and is a fantastic tool to use in addition to parenting/education.

Originally Posted by ashtree

And as far as body image issues in the school system, take your children out of it. I will NOT send my children to school. As a parent I feel it is my job to protect my children from the public (or private for that matter) school system.

I find it very insulting to all those families out there that are unable to homeschool their children to just throw out a blanket pull them from school. I did homeschool. I am unable to homeschool now. Does that mean I am not doing my job as a parent in protecting my child?

What is your solution for those who have to use the public school system or private for that matter?

Originally Posted by ashtree

I think that TV and video games do affect the health and welfare of a child-and adults as well. I will veto my husbands beliefs if I feel it is in the best interest of our children. ALWAYS. Luckily, we are in agreement on most things.

Wow. I can't imagine completely ignoring my husband's beliefs just b/c they don't mesh with mine. That's insane.

I think tv/video games have the potential to affect health if they are overused, just like most things in the world have the potential.

[NoHiddenFees]

Originally Posted by ashtree

I don't really have time to post, but I'm wondering why all the TV watchers are so defensive about their activities? And I don't know why you are all ganging up on one mother. You views are the norm, almost everyone agrees with you, which only makes you feel more confident, but I'll be damned if I'm falling for any of it. None of you seem willing to broaden your horizon. I grew up with TV and made a choice to remove it from my life. I've seen both sides.

Not defensive... but when someone starts spouting blanket platitudes as if they apply to all children and all families, something in me needs to respond. I'm an INTP; I can't help it. I'm sorry, but as another poster said, the type of research you want simply doesn't exist. So when people start bandying about words like "harm," that's an opinion. Opinion is fine, but when couched as fact, it should be challenged.

If your child recieves education from TV that is a problem. I don't care if its Animal Planet, or Nickelodeon, and I don't care how often they watch TV, or how long for that matter. The TV should never be a sustitute or addition to parenting and educating.

There's a big difference between "not necessary" and "should never." Why should it "never" be an addition to education? Can it never be useful to see how animals move, or see animations showing how volcanoes erupt, or how the heart works?

I think that TV and video games do affect the health and welfare of a child-and adults as well. I will veto my husbands beliefs if I feel it is in the best interest of our children. ALWAYS. Luckily, we are in agreement on most things.

Does your husband have veto power as well?

Originally Posted by Thalia the Muse

Look, you were looking for research proving that video games is harmful, right? But alas, there isn't any. Your objections aren't evidence-based -- there's something about the games that offends you on a values basis. So if you're going to present your case to your husband, it needs to be on that basis. "This is what bothers me about the games, and why." If you want to prove your case that they're harmful to children's health and well-being, though, you're going to have a hard time doing that.

:

Originally Posted by ashtree

Video games are a multi million dollar industry and a staple in most homes. (appareantly even natural family living ones) I'm not suprised there is no research-they are also relatively new.

New? I think not.

[Cassiopeia]

Originally Posted by ashtree

Video games are a multi million dollar industry and a staple in most homes. (appareantly even natural family living ones) I'm not suprised there is no research-they are also relatively new. There is information on television and I definitly see the two as being related. My DH will deal with the situation and be fine. He's already leaning more towards my view anyway.

I think the Jane Healy books really do have some good research in them. Definitely worth at least getting from the library.

FWIW, if I could go back in time, I'd boot them both. It's really hard to get rid of once you let them in.

[Houdini]

Curious about something......for those who are tv/video game free.....how do you feel about computer time? Is it the same/different? How do you reconcile your computer time if you don't allow your child access to the same? If it is educational/beneficial to you in learning, why is it not for a child? There are resources out there geared toward teaching adults, teens, preteens, elementary, and even preschoolers. Are any of your children old enough to ask why you are allowed to use an electronic teacher, but they are not?

[ashtree]

I can't quote large posts, I still havent figured that out, so I'm going to reply to as much as I can before DS wakes up.

As far as not having the resources or ability to homeschool, I do not know your particular situation but I know that me and my dh make LOTS of sacrifices so that it can happen. It's a matter of priorities for us. I'm sorry that you are unable to homeschool, and I'm sorry for making it sound so simple. It was extremely arrogant of me, and written in the heat of the moment.

I have no solution for anyone entering their children in the public school system. I honestly wish there were one and that I could share it with you.


I honestly feel with all my heart that video games and TV (and the internet) are not good for a childs development. I have no research to back that up, but I've seen my ds watching TV (someone elses house) and it wasn't a positive experience. Just as I've seen kids playing video games get frustrated and angry, and play for hours. It sounds like no one here lets their kids play that long, (good for you!) but growing up I watched my brothers choose video games over almost anything, and they stayed grumpy and irritable all day. (there were no limitations in our home) I'm not saying I will allow video games in moderation. They are not for us. But, I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad for allowing them in their homes. I simply got defensive about the situation and was feeling cornered.

As the person doing most of the home/unschooling in the home, when it comes to our children and their education I do have veto power. besides my dh works a lot and i hate to think that he would want to spend his home ours playing video games, or watching our ds play games. He usually only plays his ds (hehe) after our ds goes to sleep-but sometimes plays on the weekends for 20 mintues or so.

as far as computer use in the home. i try to limit it to checking my email in the morning, and while ds naps, and then at night after he goes to sleep. I AM currently addicted to the computer. I recognize that, and am trying to take steps towards weening myself. THis thread isnt helping.