# Television, computer, and video games, oh my



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

I'm constantly at odds with my 5 yr old son daily about the t.v. and the computer and recently he's increasingly verbal about wanting a video gaming system for his birthday. I don't like any of these, especially for use on a daily basis. I know I'm being hypocritical about the computer as obviously I'm using it now but I do use it sparingly and I think make good use of the time I spend with it. I am really against video games of any kind, even non violent, educational types, for children. I don't want to get on my soap box about my opinions about these things but I would love ideas about how to handle this with my son. I admit I am so tempted to go dictator and ban him from it all. I'm afraid that will have the forbidden fruit effect. I want to give him some freedom to make the right choices with them because that seems more practical to me, I can't hide him away from a society that has to have internet connections on their cell phones and apps to get the weather or leave a tip.

The problem is, he is addicted, alraedy, it is sad and worrisome. The second he comes through the front door he turns on the tv or asks to use the computer.I will give him a time limit on the computer but he wont get off. It's all he wants to do, it IS all he talks about tv shows and computer games. It is what he acts out in his play. I don't know how to or if I should give some choices with him being so hooked. The other thing is he's an only child and I'm sure if he had siblings to play with he wouldn't be quite so quick to turn the to screen for entertainment but there isn't anything I can do about that. I'm not even sure how to talk to him about this. He asked me the other day why I hate television. Sigh. I told him I don't hate it, but they show a lot of things like fighting that are against my values and it's mainly used to sell people things that they don't need. I kind of lied to him, while I don't hate it, I did sugarcoat my feelings a bit.

Do I forbid it? Do I lighten up? Do I give him more choices? I just don't know. Any thoughts or advice?


----------



## JessicaJamesonJ (Jul 22, 2011)

I think your 5 year old is perfectly normal. He wants to play video games something he probably talks about at school with other kids etc. From what you have said, I think you are going slightly overboard with the No TV, video game rule. You need to give your child different options.

What I mean by this is balance things out. After school get him to join a sports club, an after school club, take him out to play etc. Give your child different things to do. All too often parents complain about video games, TV etc but then parents need to make the effort to engage with their child in different activities.

When your child is physically tired they won't be playing video games all the time. I sit down and build lego with my son's, challenge them to build things, get their minds to be creative etc.

Hope this helps.

Jessica


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

i always think the best thing to do is to have your kid work with you to develop a plan. it's MUCH easier to stick to and you typically don't have to try to enforce something if the kid helped write the "rules." can you explain your concerns and ask him to help you think of good limits? show him or read to him the screen times that are suggested for his age group:

Children over the age of 2 - including into the teen years - should spend no more than two hours a day in front of a screen. (American Academy of Pediatrics) that means total screen time.. video games plus tv plus computer...

see if you can make that work for you, and let him decide when the best times, or when he wants to watch will be.

also, offer options. go outside or to the park consistently every other day, or when you can do so. maybe have a schedule for weekends? establishing a rhythm might help, too.. such as on saturday, we go to the farmer's market, then the library together, then go home and eat lunch and read, etc.

do you already know there's a TV free forum here on mdc? you might get some ideas there, too.

<3


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

Thanks for the tip, I did not know there was a tv free forum here, I will definately be checking it out. I really like the idea of bringing him into the decision making and structuring our days more. I just have to work on that.







We do a lot of things together especially card games and board games and puzzles. Last summer I was trapped in CandyLand misery, honestly I never knew I could grow to dislike Candy Land so much. I do need to think of more things for us to do and it's hard with him having no one at home to play with and especially during the summer. Where we leave it is too hot and humid to play outside during the day, we have about one good hour in the evening before the mosquitos come out in full force.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

you must live where I live!


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

I would be the parent and place limitations on them. If he doesn't follow your rules then you limit him even more. Give him other activities to do. Take him to the park, outdoors for walks and doing other things, play board games or outdoor games, play in the dirt! My son was always outdoors at that age getting dirty. He still does at the age of 15, lol. I would definitely start placing strict limitations on technology while your child is still this young or it may get out of hand later.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

He doesn't need a sibling to have a play mate, YOU play with him. He will be so excited he'll forget all about TV. I highly recommend "Playful Parenting" by Lawrence Cohen.

Also, you said it in your post, but you are being hypocritical. Maybe just relax a little bit. If you have a healthy attitude toward technology your kids will pick up on it eventually.


----------



## loveangel (Jul 21, 2011)

i am agree with all


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mommy68*
> 
> I would be the parent and place limitations on them. If he doesn't follow your rules then you limit him even more. Give him other activities to do. Take him to the park, outdoors for walks and doing other things, play board games or outdoor games, play in the dirt! My son was always outdoors at that age getting dirty. He still does at the age of 15, lol. I would definitely start placing strict limitations on technology while your child is still this young or it may get out of hand later.


you know this is the Gentle Discipline forum, right? i'm not sure how "placing strict limitations" and "if he doesn't follow the rules then you limit even more" is gentle or helpful exactly. can you elaborate on how you "enforce" your "strict limitations?"


----------



## Susan Kunkel (Jul 13, 2005)

We limit screen time and have found they find things to do. they play outside.They build things. they create art projects. I do at times have to gear how unfair life is however it is worth it to see how creative the have become


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> you know this is the Gentle Discipline forum, right? i'm not sure how "placing strict limitations" and "if he doesn't follow the rules then you limit even more" is gentle or helpful exactly. can you elaborate on how you "enforce" your "strict limitations?"


I agree. The phrase "I would be the parent" also really rubs me the wrong way. What else would you be? The family dog?


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I suggest putting a time limit on how much he can play then getting him out to do other things. My dd and I love to read together, sit and talk, walk to coffee shops, go to the library, run in the sprinklers at the park, attend the various activities going on around town, etc... If you don't enjoy playing kid games there are still many other things you can do with your child to make limiting tv possible. If you have a YMCA in your area then I also suggest looking into getting a membership, at least for the summer. They offer scholarships if you can't afford their full price. Our city pools offer summer passes at half price this time of year so you may want to see if yours do the same.

If you find that limiting the game does nothing for your son's attitude and behavior then I would ban it all together. My dd was very very very negative after watching the Wizards of Waverly show and I did eventually ban it outright. We had many discussions about her attitude after watching it, my feelings on the show, and my increasing desire to ban it so it really didn't come as a surprise when I did. I still allow other shows because most don't affect her like that, but the few that do I am willing to ban for a few years so she has time to mature a bit before she watches them again. Gentle Discipline doesn't mean that you don't have absolute limits on some things, it means that the limits are thoughtful and take the child's feelings and well being into account.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> you know this is the Gentle Discipline forum, right? i'm not sure how "placing strict limitations" and "if he doesn't follow the rules then you limit even more" is gentle or helpful exactly. can you elaborate on how you "enforce" your "strict limitations?"


what is wrong with strict limits on screen time? How is that NOT gentle? It's more gentle to let a child get addicted to that kind of thing?

We absolutely cut back on screen time here if I feel like my DS is getting too 'into' it. And yes if there is whining/obsessive talk I limit it even more. It's simply not healthy for a child to become obsessed with gaming/TV at the age of FIVE. My God how is this being debated?


----------



## hakeber (Aug 3, 2005)

We moved house when my son was 4.5, a serious Discovery Kids addict. The TV we had was the landlord's and a loaner. When we got to the new house we had no TV. Strangely he did not really miss it and spent much more time outside.

Maybe you could just go on vacation and pretend you got broken into and someone stole it and hide it away upstairs.

We don't discuss video gaming systems in our house. I do not like them. I find them a total time suck and unimaginative. I made it clear that he may play them when at his friends' houses if they have them but over my dead body will one ever enter my house. He has a better chance of getting a cat than a Wii, and we are devoted dog-people.

For the computer, we just have one, so we have to share and since I do a large part of my marking via e-mail this significantly limits his use. Mostly we use it to watch movies together.

When we got a TV again, we decided to use the set timer for programs, he can choose two 30 minute shows a day, he has to program them, and when they are finished he must agree to share the Tv with everyone else or he is taken off TV privileges until he can learn to share with a happier attitude. (ETA: that goes for everyone in the house btw, except for the baby who doesn't give a rat's patootey about TV, even when I wish she would so I could just do one more exam script, or if there is a special sports event or movie on.)

That's what works for us.


----------



## hakeber (Aug 3, 2005)

Hildare...here is how I enforce TV limitations: I unplug the TV and put it under my bed, or lock it in my room. I bought it. I pay the cable bills. I control the use of it. I am fair and I expect him to be and if he can't...bang goes his right to share it.


----------



## Thandiwe (May 14, 2007)

I agree with this assessment. According to dictionary.com, to discipline means "to train by instruction" or "to bring to a state of order and obedience by training and control."

I'm going to stop here and preface that this is my own personal opinion, and mine alone, so I do realize and respect that other people feel differently. But here goes...

In my observations, far too many people take "gentle discipline" to mean letting their kids have free-reign and full control over everything. While that may work in many households, I disagree. Gentle refers to the manner you approach your kids, without violence, harshness, aggression, harming them. But discipline is different from punishment. Punishing a child is a negative act. But discipline is about training a child up by instruction. Discipline, from gentle discipline, involves guiding, directing, and shaping a child. There have to be limits for healthy growth. We all have a glutinous side, we all have things we adore. But we know that we can't gorge on chocolate cake or we'll get fat, get heart disease, and not be healthy. So we enjoy it in moderation. But we weren't born knowing that; we had to learn. We also know that we can't walk in the middle of traffic; we had to learn. To discipline - in my opinion - is to guide and direct your child. I can't imagine people actually debating allowing a child unlimited access to screens; we know that they are unhealthy for us outside of moderate amounts, and most especially on a young developing brain. I can't fathom allowing my kids to have unlimited time at the screen. And I am personally bothered by someone insinuating that I am less of a "gentle" parent for guiding and directing - or disciplining - my children through limits to something harmful to themselves. Setting limits is not punishing a child; it is directing them. And I agree with Mommy68 that setting limits is very healthy and very necessary to help train up a child.

Like I said, these are my opinions and are mine alone, so I can respect that someone else feels differently.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mommy68*
> 
> I would be the parent and place limitations on them. If he doesn't follow your rules then you limit him even more. Give him other activities to do. Take him to the park, outdoors for walks and doing other things, play board games or outdoor games, play in the dirt! My son was always outdoors at that age getting dirty. He still does at the age of 15, lol. I would definitely start placing strict limitations on technology while your child is still this young or it may get out of hand later.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

Did a moderator really just use the phrase "train up a child?" Am I the only one who just had a heart attack over that? Yikes!

Hakeber, If YOU bought a television and YOU are paying cable bills then maybe you should re-evaluate how much you dislike television.

Also, go on vacation and tell them someone stole your TV? So, I guess the message we want to send is that it's alright to lie to get your way? If you think kids don't pick up on that, you're wrong.

A thought on learning to enjoy things in moderation... I used to eat a piece of chocolate every day. DD discovered that she liked chocolate and wanted to have it all the time. I was obviously not OK with that, I told her that she can have one bite a day just like me. That was not enough for her, she asked for it about 10 times a day. So I said, since you can't do it in moderation maybe we better not have chocolate. But I didn't hide it in the cupboard and tell her we didn't have any, I stopped eating chocolate. If you are going to ban your kids from watching TV, playing video games and being on the computer then you better be prepared to give it up yourself otherwise you are just a big fat hypocrite.

If they can't handle having limits on something, and you feel that they are truly addicted and it is having a negative affect on their well-being, then by all means get rid of the offending activity but don't puss out and lie about it. Also be prepared to put in the extra time entertaining your kids were they were previously entertained by other things. If you want the results, you've got to do the work.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> Did a moderator really just use the phrase "train up a child?" Am I the only one who just had a heart attack over that? Yikes!
> 
> ...


So everyone in the house should stop watching TV b/c one person is having problems with it? That's fine I guess if you want it that way but totally unnecessary, IMO.

DH and I are the bosses here. We do our best to make the best ADULT decisions to keep everyone healthy. that involves limits for the kids on TV. DH and I don't have problems limiting our TV. So we still have access to it.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

look, you guys are talking about limiting TV and video games like this kid is a teenager and everybody is talking about "being the parent" and "making the adult decisions." This kid is FIVE, he is only watching TV/being at the computer/ playing video games because the ADULTS around him are. If you want your FIVE year old to stop watching TV, then stop watching TV yourself, get off your bum and play with your kid.


----------



## Thandiwe (May 14, 2007)

http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/gentle-discipline-forum-guidelines

Just wanted to be sure everyone has read the community guidelines for the forum "gentle discipline." Thanks!


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

I do not think TV, computers, games, candy, etc. are inherently "bad." BUT, I absolutely know they are addictive. Maybe not to everyone, but for many of us, yes.

This is what we do-- for TV, we have a DVR. We only record certain shows, and they have to skip past commercials. My guideline for TV is that they should not watch it only because they are bored. Want to relax? Sure. Want to learn something? Yup. But doing it just because they have nothing else to do-- no. This is where you step in with ideas. This DOES NOT mean that you have to be your son's playmate. I think many adults are uncomfortable with this because it is not what we are meant to do. We can be playful with children and play with them, but I do not think we should be their playmates. Plus, sometimes, children should be bored. Why is bored a bad thing? We can't see it this way. Even though I was not an only child, I learned to play a lot on my own. It is a good skill, to be able to hang out with yourself. You can learn this by being bored. By accepting boredom, we also come to peace-- to see that we do not need to be entertained every second. Isn't that a nice freedom?

For the computer, we have a timer. They can play games for 30 minutes (we give them choices) but they can use the computer other times for writing and drawing. That does not count for the 30 minutes. One thing they LOVED was when I gave them tickets. You could do this for your son. You could give him screen time tickets-- whatever limit you set, and then in 30 min. increments or whatever. He could apply them to TV or computer. They love to cash in those tickets!

So, they do have access, but there are limits in terms of content as well as time. Like you said you don't like the fighting on TV-- neither do I, which is why I would never let my children watch shows in which there is violence. (Well, not the young ones-- older DD has read and seen HP movies.)

Oh, and something else they like-- they like when I watch TV with them. We talk about the shows. I actually like some of them! Not only do I like some of the kid ones, but they watch some meant for "everyone" like Nature (they love this show). ..and they will watch Globe Trekkers with me, too.

Really, I wish someone would set limits for ME. I always did my homework and was "responsible" but I watched waaaaaay too much TV. No real limits. Now I have the task of trying to do it as an adult (set limits) and I think it is hard. I love when we are on vacation-- even though DH always brings a laptop, I steer clear and enjoy my time away from it-- I do not use it at all!


----------



## bea694 (May 20, 2006)

Great post, Mizelenius, especially the quoted part below. I am a (mostly) good, loving mother, but I really do not enjoy playing. It's been a huge source of parenting guilt for me, and I'm only starting to be able to let it go. Thanks also for sharing how you limit screen time in your family.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mizelenius*
> 
> This DOES NOT mean that you have to be your son's playmate. I think many adults are uncomfortable with this because it is not what we are meant to do. We can be playful with children and play with them, but I do not think we should be their playmates.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D_McG*
> 
> what is wrong with strict limits on screen time? How is that NOT gentle? It's more gentle to let a child get addicted to that kind of thing?
> 
> We absolutely cut back on screen time here if I feel like my DS is getting too 'into' it. And yes if there is whining/obsessive talk I limit it even more. It's simply not healthy for a child to become obsessed with gaming/TV at the age of FIVE. My God how is this being debated?


um... did you even read my posts? i am wondering how suggesting simply making rules and "enforcing them" is gentle. i agree that screen time should be limited. and i said so in my original post, along with offering gentle discipline suggestions about how to include the child in coming up with solutions. which IS what most folks would consider "gentle discipline," rather than ominous and vague mentions of rules and enforcement.

I've read a ton about gentle discipline, and it's what we practice. i honestly and truly am not trying to be confrontational, but do think it's helpful to point out that gentle discipline is not about the parent creating arbitrary rules then taking things away from a child (which in the kid's eyes, if you have been allowing excessive screentime, pretty much feels like) isn't really anything more than, as some people said, "training up a child," or "being the boss."

the inital suggestion i had for the OP was to include the child in the decision making process after sharing information about the recommended amount of screen time. that is a gd approach, and i'll be glad to point out resources that support that rather than some of the other suggestions, which actually surprise me.

and, honestly, in my opinion, which is neither gd nor non-gd, the best way to prevent this situation is to not ever allow it in the first place or find some mutually agreed upon rules before having kids engage in screen time or video games. and, yes, i agree with the poster who said it was difficult to try to force your kid to do something you are not willing to do yourself. a 5 year old is not going to really understand that.

and, again, nothing really to do with gd, but i don't necessarily agree that a parent is responsible for entertaining a child in the way a video game could, nor should a parent "have" to be a playmate. i think it's ideally much better for a kid to learn to be resourceful on her/his own. not to say parent involvement isn't really important, but i just think it's better for a kid to come up with activities and ideas (at OP's kid's age) rather than being dependent on ANY outside entity -- parent, tv, whatever-- to provide complete entertainment. (of course, books are the exception...)

maybe mdc needs a separate forum for folks who want to talk about discipline that is not typically gentle discipline?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

notnice comment removed.


----------



## applecider (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> um... did you even read my posts? i am wondering how suggesting simply making rules and "enforcing them" is gentle. i agree that screen time should be limited. and i said so in my original post, along with offering gentle discipline suggestions about how to include the child in coming up with solutions. which IS what most folks would consider "gentle discipline," rather than ominous and vague mentions of rules and enforcement.
> 
> ...


Isn't what you're referring to called "consensual living"? I don't think that's the same thing as gentle discipline, IMO anyway. For me, gentle discipline includes rules and limitations. It's gentle and guiding. I'm not shaming or threatening or yelling. There are plenty of rules and limitations in the world, I don't think there is anything not gentle about having some household rules.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *applecider*
> 
> Isn't what you're referring to called "consensual living"? I don't think that's the same thing as gentle discipline, IMO anyway. For me, gentle discipline includes rules and limitations. It's gentle and guiding. I'm not shaming or threatening or yelling. There are plenty of rules and limitations in the world, I don't think there is anything not gentle about having some household rules.


exactly.

and I AM the boss. My kids are 5, 2 and 2 mos. They need a boss. You've never had a kind, gentle boss?

Not everything is a negotiation here. Sometimes rules are just what they are. I am 35, not 2 (or 5). Some of the rules I make are not up for debate. I can't think of anything more exhausting than having a situation where every single rule was negotiable.

I think CL is a terrible idea.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

Being alive for 35 years does not make you better than someone who's been alive for 2 or 5. More knowledgeable, sure, but it does not give you a right to boss anyone around whatever "gentle" way you'd find to do it. People often mistake coercion and manipulation (e.g. going away on vacation and hiding the television) for gentle discipline, but kids can tell the difference. It reminds me of a phrase that was thrown around on this board a while back, "benevolent dictatorship" as if there ever was such a thing.

I also agree that CL is a bad idea, mostly because children are not capable of deciding what is best for their future and for the people around them. But can they decide what is best for them, personally in the present? Sure, and they deserve to be included in decisions that involve them, because they have a right to autonomy. That being said it is important to respect their limits and it is our job to know what they are and are not capable of at varying stages in their development.

Is there anything wrong with having rules and limits? No, of course not, they are an inevitable part of life. But arbitrary rules based on the parent's needs and not the child's are absolutely NOT a part of gentle discipline.

And a 5 year old DOES have a need for their parent to at least occasionally enter their world so they feel like they are understood. Everyone at every age has that need. At 5, this does mean playing with them. Just because the idea of it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it any less of a legitimate need for them. If you spend no time playing with your child they are going to feel isolated and alone at home. Play is their way of interacting with the world and if they have to go at it alone all of the time it's no wonder they'd want to watch TV and play video games...


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

who is talking about arbitrary rules? The thread is about screen time.

And I think I have used the term 'benevolent dictator' about my own parenting style (tongue in cheek, but more than a hint of truth)

we can agree to disagree


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D_McG*
> 
> who is talking about arbitrary rules? The thread is about screen time.


If you decide to take all screen time away from a child because enforcing a limit of 2 hours is too difficult (which was discussed on this thread, I don't know by whom), you are absolutely setting an arbitrary rule that is more for your benefit (less nagging by the child) than for the child's who is used to having screen time to fill whatever time they don't spend playing with their parents because they can't get over whatever uncomfortable feelings they have about playing.

You know what boggles me? Mothers overcome incredible discomfort to breast feed their babies, but then when they start to be more independent and need to play mothers will not get over any small discomfort to play with them.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *applecider*
> 
> Isn't what you're referring to called "consensual living"? I don't think that's the same thing as gentle discipline, IMO anyway. For me, gentle discipline includes rules and limitations. It's gentle and guiding. I'm not shaming or threatening or yelling. There are plenty of rules and limitations in the world, I don't think there is anything not gentle about having some household rules.


nope. i am talking about gentle discipline, unconditional parenting in particular. in our family we have rules and limits. the difference is that children based upon their age and ability are allowed to help us as we create these rules that affect us all.

philosophically, i think the theme that kind of runs throughout GD is that we should, as much as possible, encourage autonomy and independence. In any group of humans living together, there can be mutually decided upon rules. There's no reason whatsoever a parent would not encourage participation in this structural design of their environment, except to prepare a child to be a non-questioning, rule-following, obedient-to-authority child.

in my opinion, some of the posts kind of hint at this. "because i am the parent and i say so" isn't teaching anything. teaching is discipline. encouraging participation in family life is gentle discipline. manipulating a child or demanding that a child follow a particular rule that isn't explained, not so much.

i have no idea what consentual living is, but i do know what GD is. and isn't.


----------



## Thandiwe (May 14, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> But arbitrary rules based on the parent's needs and not the child's are absolutely NOT a part of gentle discipline.


I guess perhaps we differ here: my children do not *need* a tv. Nothing arbitrary about that.


----------



## Thandiwe (May 14, 2007)

I suppose we all have different interpretations, eh? I shudder to see the judgment going on here. I wouldn't subscribe to your brand of GD, just as you would never to mine. But perhaps I also would never make it a personal attack, but alas.... Suffice it to say, I'm satisfied with my personal interpretation of GD and certainly do not need your judgment of what is/isn't.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> i have no idea what consentual living is, but i do know what GD is. and isn't.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> nope. i am talking about gentle discipline, unconditional parenting in particular. in our family we have rules and limits. the difference is that children based upon their age and ability are allowed to help us as we create these rules that affect us all.
> 
> ...


Alfie Kohn doesn't rule out rules that are put in place by parents even if the kids don't agree with the rule, he gives a framework for talking yourself through reflecting on the rules you have in place and guides you towards thinking about the way you parent in the book Unconditional Parenting. He actually seems to have some rules that are typically absolute and talks about the importance of letting kids know when you are letting kids know when something is an exception. Unconditional Parenting is very close to consensual living but a little less child involved. It is in the realm of Gentle Discipline but on the very extreme side of it. It occasionally pops up on the GD board, less now than it did in the future, but there has never been a consensus on it being the standard for GD. GD is a lot more lax and accepting about standards and can include anything from Dr. Sear's to Alfie Kohn. It seems like this board has gone a lot more towards the Dr. Sear's side of things in the last year or so and that is really sad because it is the people who advocate Alfie Kohn type of thinking that really stimulate good thinking, reflecting, and discussion.


----------



## applecider (Jul 16, 2005)

I guess for me, sometimes there is no mutually agreed upon "rule". Sometimes, for my own sanity's sake, I make the rule and that's that. Again, I"m not shaming, hitting, yelling and what not so it is still "gentle". I think GD is a spectrum so there is no need to tell someone who is a little more on the rule side that they are not GD.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thandiwe*
> 
> I suppose we all have different interpretations, eh? I shudder to see the judgment going on here.


I know. Really. I went to respond but I don't know where to start. This thread has jumped the shark. I'm out.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

Well, the term gentle is really subjective. A lot of people would call time-outs gentle discipline. In fact, I think most people think that gentle just means no hitting. I don't, and I do think that manipulation and coercion are abusive so, no, I am not apt to take an "agree to disagree" stance when I think that another person is advocating what I would view to be abuse. So sorry if sharks have been jumped but I think you'll find it most understandable if you viewed it from my side of the screen.


----------



## Disco Infiltrator (Jul 28, 2008)

I think you already have the forbidden fruit effect going since you limit TV and your son spends his time and energy trying to get in as much of it as he can because he's not being allowed to make the decision when to stop watching. And I would also offer that you state that you feel your screen time is justified because you feel you make good use of your time. Certainly your son does as well - he's five, his definition of good use isn't the same as the definition of good use for an adult. Good use for him might be television giving him some downtime, or a way to zone out when he's tired. These are things that my son uses television for, and that's totally okay with me. I don't hold the expectation that every single day is going to be filled with uber creative play, just like I know that some days I'll be more engaged in my own world and other days I just want to check out. I don't think it's any different for my kid. We don't limit screen time and I would say my son has very balanced habits and is very creative.

I would recommend a DVR if you can afford one. That is a life-saver for us because I don't like the commercialism that comes with television. That way I can skip the commercials that even populate PBS. You can control what is watched and it's easier to encourage stopping because you're not watching a series of kids programming that goes on and one - it's just one show at a time.

Lastly, it's his birthday. Spoil the kid rotten, get him the video game, let him play it until he's going cross-eyed, then stand back and absorb his joy. Even if you decide to place limits later, even if you don't buy him another video game until his next birthday, I am a firm believer that birthdays are about making dreams come true to the best of your ability, and that is so easy when they're five.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> Well, the term gentle is really subjective. A lot of people would call time-outs gentle discipline. In fact, I think most people think that gentle just means no hitting. I don't, and I do think that manipulation and coercion are abusive so, no, I am not apt to take an "agree to disagree" stance when I think that another person is advocating what I would view to be abuse. So sorry if sharks have been jumped but I think you'll find it most understandable if you viewed it from my side of the screen.


Hiding a television is abuse?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

... hiding a television is not necessarily abusive. however, if on a regular basis, lies and manipulation are employed to bring about certain behaviors, or as i see it, compliance, then that's really not such a good thing. in my opinion (and everything i say is merely an educated opinion, so if you do disagree, then that is absolutely fine. we're here to bring our perspectives and takes on situations, and i think there is room to call people out gently or to express differing opinions) the reason we use GD is to build relationships. relationships built upon lies and manipulation, even lies that are time-saving or "white" lies, those still don't add trust to a relationship. eventually, your kid will figure out that there's not truth behind what you say.. and that could lead to your kid deciding that it's not necessary to be truthful on his/her part either.

and i'm not trying to criticize anybody personally, but is there not a potential for some kids to freak out a little bit if they thought a tv was stolen? i think some children might have a tendancy to really worry about safety of the family and possessions. that could be a MAJOR thing for some kids.

plus, if you are going to hide the tv, why not just own that? i don't necessarily agree with doing that, but if you feel like it's necessary, then i don't see why you wouldn't just say so.

i think sure.. there are firm rules.. like we don't open the door for people we don't know. but the reasons can ALWAYS be explained, and in the case of the screen time, i just don't see why most folks would want to exclude their kids from that decision making process. giving your kids control (or, ok, in some cases just the illusion of control) is never a bad thing. one of the premises of UP is that kids learn to make decisions by making decisions, right?

just from the way i see it, this is an EASY call. the recommended guidelines for the kid is 2 hours or less a day. a 5 year old can easily understand that and pick how to use those 2 hours. even come up with a way to regulate it or control for special occasions (friends over for a movie and popcorn session on the weekend, etc). nothing about that seems hard. i am just curious about folks who would resist letting kids make such a small move toward self regulation and just a little taken aback by the folks who expect their kids to follow rules without giving them a chance to have any input.

i think too, at least from what i've read, that gentle discipline isn't really about not hitting or yelling. it's more about giving kids the opportunity to make decisions and grow, to experience the decision making process as well as autonomy. and.. if this were about more than screen time, and were a more complicated issue i could understand the "I make the rules" posturing a bit more.. but this seems like a perfect opportunity to let a kid have information and puzzle out how to structure time for him/herself.

if i came across as sharky then i apologize, i feel like i was reacting to other posts which weren't altogether kind as well.


----------



## Eligracey (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> A thought on learning to enjoy things in moderation... I used to eat a piece of chocolate every day. DD discovered that she liked chocolate and wanted to have it all the time. I was obviously not OK with that, I told her that she can have one bite a day just like me. That was not enough for her, she asked for it about 10 times a day. So I said, since you can't do it in moderation maybe we better not have chocolate. But I didn't hide it in the cupboard and tell her we didn't have any, I stopped eating chocolate. *If you are going to ban your kids from watching TV, playing video games and being on the computer then you better be prepared to give it up yourself otherwise you are just a big fat hypocrite. *
> 
> If they can't handle having limits on something, and you feel that they are truly addicted and it is having a negative affect on their well-being, then by all means get rid of the offending activity but don't puss out and lie about it. Also be prepared to put in the extra time entertaining your kids were they were previously entertained by other things. If you want the results, you've got to do the work.


So you are arguing against age-based rules for behavior? In order not to be a hypocrite I have to let my kids do everything I do? How does that work, holothuoridea? So right now I put my son to bed at 8 and usually go to bed by 9:30 or 10 myself. So you're saying that if I want to be able to stay up until 10 I need to let me 2 year old stay up that late, too? He has to be up at 6AM to go to school and he's really, really cranky if he only gets 8 hours of sleep. He would just be miserable. I'm confused, doesn't that seem really mean to my poor son? Also, that would mean that if I want to have a glass of wine with dinner I need to be prepared to give one to my 2 year old son? And if I want to have sex, I need to be allowed to let my 10 year old have sex, too? If I want to smoke cigarettes, then I need to let my kids have them, too? I'm really concerned that that might be abusive. How does that work for your kids? Do they get really cranky or hyper after they've been smoking or drinking? Let me know. I want to be a good parent, but I'm just so confused by this advice.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> i have no idea what consentual living is, but i do know what GD is. and isn't.


No. You have decided what GD means for you-that is not a universal truth for anyone else. There is no one true faith when it comes to GD. It is a range and that is how it should be. No one strict method works for all. Some kids can thrive in an environment with less rules and some kids need an environment with a lot of rules.

And that can even change from day to day and from kid to kid.

But to suggest there is ONE TRUE WAY is to miss the point about GD completely.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

I'm scratching my head over what is so utterly offensive about "train a child." The wording sounded a little awkward, but our kids look to us to teach them, guide them, and yes, train them.

How is that so horrible?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

oh, oaktree.. usually you read all the stuff first. i don't know what i said that was so offputting to everybody.

which part of the posts i wrote was about something that isn't what most folks consider to be GD?

letting children participate in decision making?

having kids actively come up with ways to self-regulate?

please tell me which part of what i said you think i shows am trying to have one GD to rule them all?


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

This thread has completely lost its way.

To reply to comments directed to me, yes, I think hiding a television and lying about it in order to stop your child from asking for it is abusive. That is a complete misuse of your power and authority as a parent.

Bedtime is completely different from TV. Children need more sleep than adults do, to have them go to bed earlier than you is to meet their biological needs. TV is not a necessity and if you are unwilling to give up your TV habit it is unfair to expect a child to do it. It's like being forced onto a diet when everyone else in your house is still eating doughnuts, even if they don't do it in front of you it still isn't fair. Just put yourself in their shoes, how would you feel?

And finally, you are obviously free to make whatever parenting choices you like and I am powerless to stop you, and you can call it whatever you want. But don't think for a second I'm going to pretend like it's gentle just so you wont feel guilty about it. (I am talking specifically about imposing your will and expecting obedience, and "training" your children).

hildare, I don't know who that "shark" comment was really directed to, maybe the both of us. For what it's worth, I completely agree with you. We are obviously getting nowhere, though, so maybe it is time to let this thread sink.


----------



## oaktreemama (Oct 12, 2010)

Quote:


> please tell me which part of what i said you think i shows am trying to have one GD to rule them all?


It was what I quoted-it came across as a way of insinuating those of us disagreeing are just disagreeing because we don't know what GD is. That is rather off putting.

Rules and limits and routines are a large part of how we practice GD. I do agree with you about children being able to have input into decisions and rules that affect them. They have valuable insights and look at situations differently than we do.


----------



## Eligracey (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> This thread has completely lost its way.
> 
> ...


I was talking to you, holothuroidea. You didn't respond to the rest of my post. I still don't understand why you think it's OK to be a hypocrite about some things but not others. You explained that sleep is different because it's a biological necessity, what about smoking and drinking, like I said before? Those definitely aren't biological necessities, they're just for fun like TV. Maybe you can explain it better, because I'm still confused.

Maybe I can't understand you because my PhD is acting up. Did you know that people with PhDs don't have any common sense? There's a thread in the vaccination forum explaining it all; it was super helpful to me in understanding my disability in common sense.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

eligracey, that is what is known as a "straw man argument."

and i am not sure what you mean about phd folks. i work with them. every day. they are like everyone else. some people you wonder how they even made it through grade school and others astonish you with their brains. i really don't think education differentiates people as much as the people with degrees like to think. (myself included)


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> This thread has completely lost its way.
> 
> ...


I don't feel guilty about setting 'non negotiable' rules here. Your opinion isn't really going to affect that either way. So no need to pretend  FTR I don't lie about or hide the TV. I just have no problem saying "I know better than you and what I say goes" (wrt to TV and some other things).

The idea that we should all give up TV here if my 5 year old had trouble with it is bizarre to me. For one, he goes to bed at 7pm. Do DH and I then sit around all evening without TV? So basically my 5 year old is calling the shots? That's like a GD parody.

I think calling hiding a TV abusive is kind of insulting to people who are abuse survivors.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

I ignored the BS about drugs/alcohol and sex because I honestly thought you were just being absolutely ridiculous. I chose not to justify it with a response, it was clearly an attack on my character and completely unnecessary. If you want a response here it is, don't drink if you don't want your kids to drink. Don't smoke if you don't want your kids to smoke. As far as sex goes, that's a normal biological function and it would be a form of abuse not to let a child express their age-appropriate sexuality (which is much different for toddlers and children than adults, obviously).

Why throw your PhD around? Think it's going to give you some power? Go back under your bridge.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> don't drink if you don't want your kids to drink. Don't smoke if you don't want your kids to smoke.


But that really doesn't make sense to me. Some things are appropriate for adults and not for children. I don't want my kids to drink NOW. I don't care if they drink when they are older. what am I supposed to do.. not drink until they are adults? (I actually don't drink at all anymore but that's not the point here).


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D_McG*
> 
> I don't feel guilty about setting 'non negotiable' rules here. Your opinion isn't really going to affect that either way. So no need to pretend  FTR I don't lie about or hide the TV. I just have no problem saying "I know better than you and what I say goes" (wrt to TV and some other things).
> 
> ...


I'm an abuse survivor and I don't feel like I've insulted myself.

By all means, take the TV away if your kid has a problem with it. I said that about 10 times. But people were talking about ways to get the TV away from the kid without making any sacrifices themselves (not wanting to play with them, for one) and that's not fair.


----------



## holothuroidea (Mar 30, 2008)

You are ridiculous. I am done. This is not a reasonable argument any more.

I'm sorry you feel so defensive. Like I said, you can parent however you want, but I'm not going to pretend like I think it's OK just to keep peace.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D_McG*
> 
> I don't feel guilty about setting 'non negotiable' rules here. Your opinion isn't really going to affect that either way. So no need to pretend  FTR I don't lie about or hide the TV. I just have no problem saying "I know better than you and what I say goes" (wrt to TV and some other things).
> 
> ...


i am going to go away fron this thread, as it is obviously bringing out some inner evil debate fairy in me.

i am an abuse survivor. i am not offended by calling hiding the tv abuse. part of the abuse i suffered as a child was physical. some of it was emotional, and involved being made powerless, through manipulation and through random removal of anything that made me moderately happy. i liked television, so that was something that was easy to take away from me.

*now, i am NOT saying that people who take TV away from their kids are abusing their kids. * but, i do know that in my childhood, some of the abuse i went through manifested itself by authoritarian dictatorship of my life in every minuscule detail. all of which really impacted the way i see people in positions of authority and power, and how very important it is to me to raise my child to be a fully autonomous human being with the ability to verbalize resistance and to participate in whatever environment he/she chooses to associate.

i guess, in short, it can be abuse to wield unrelenting authority in a fascist way, and in fact that was one way in which i experienced abuse. in my mind, therefore, logically: what is the opposite of unrelenting authority? democracy, participation in rule-making, freedom to associate and the ability to be autonomous. so one thing is not the other but by golly, i am very much interested in doing the opposite of what was for me oppression.

i know that's not the goal for everybody, and in most cases, i do imagine not letting a kid watch tv is not harmful. we don't even have a tv, fwiw.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

We watched a show (Nature, in fact-- the one I discussed in my pp) about cheetah orphans. Humans were faced with the task of trying to raise orphaned cheetahs. They had to convey how to survive to cheetahs as their mother would. They did this so that the cheetahs would learn how to get their needs taken care of, including staying safe. There is only one reason to do this: they wanted the cheetahs to survive and thrive.

There is NO WAY a mother cheetah would second guess herself about not wanting to boss her cubs around. She has every right and responsibility to-- in fact, if she does not, they will die. This is the way it generally is with mammals. This is why we are with our children for so many years. It is our responsibility to set limits and give guidelines. Obviously, for humans, it becomes much more complex-- what exactly is survival? What do we need to monitor? My rules are in place to protect my children. Part of my rules are to protect them from falling into the world of addictions. My children appreciate it. We were out all day yesterday and two of my daughters commented, on their own, that they had not used the computer/iPod all day . . .and were happy about that.

Ultimately, my guide in creating rules is that every rule must have a good reason behind it. While a mother cheetah does not have to go through this process-- her instincts guide her, we do. However, once we determine that a rule is in place to keep our children safe on ALL levels while also fostering independence, it is our duty to carry out this rule. Being that we are not in the wild, we do have the luxury of doing this gently-- but we need to do it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> Being alive for 35 years does not make you better than someone who's been alive for 2 or 5. More knowledgeable, sure, but it does not give you a right to boss anyone around whatever "gentle" way you'd find to do it.


----------



## Eligracey (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> You are ridiculous. I am done. This is not a reasonable argument any more.
> 
> I'm sorry you feel so defensive. Like I said, you can parent however you want, but I'm not going to pretend like I think it's OK just to keep peace.


I'm not sure what you're so upset about. I'm just trying to understand what you were saying. I brought up the PhD thing and my lack of common sense to explain why I was having such a hard time understanding you. I have to say, I think it's pretty mean to call me "ridiculous" especially since I explained about my disability. I thought people on MDC were more sensitive to disabilities.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

eligracey, am i correct in my interpretation that you are saying you have a disability that is having a higher education?

if so, do you not realize how incredibly offensive that is?


----------



## Eligracey (Apr 28, 2009)

Well, if you'll just go read the thread in the vaccination forum you'll understand more. It was incredibly eye-opening for me to find out that all people with PhDs are completely lacking in ANY common sense. Which makes a lot of sense, now that MDC has opened my eyes to it. I think we need some more aware-ness raising campaigns about it. I mean, if I had known this was going to happen, I'm not sure I would have gone to graduate school. I only tripled my earning capacity, but instead if I had just concentrated harder on manifesting a breadwinner husband I could be a SAHM right now instead of a divorced single mom supporting herself. And my son wouldn't have to be in daycare, and we all know how horrible it is for a child to be cared for by anyone who did not produce the child directly from their vagina. OR, maybe if I had used common sense I could have used homeopathic water to cure my husband of alcoholism and then I wouldn't be raising my son in a broken home. So, yeah, given all the bad things that have happened to my family because of my PhD I really do think this is an incredibly serious problem. You're being really invalidating of my suffering.


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

OP: set limits, preferably with the help of your son, nip the problem in the bud, if all else fails take away tv entirely for him and explain why (we ended up doing this once and it worked great, DD didn't even miss it).

to the off topic posters: please move your bickering and arguing to pm so we can get back to helping the op and stop having to wade through your squabbles (except for you eligracey b/c your replies are awesome)..


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> I'm constantly at odds with my 5 yr old son daily about the t.v. and the computer and recently he's increasingly verbal about wanting a video gaming system for his birthday. I don't like any of these, especially for use on a daily basis. I know I'm being hypocritical about the computer as obviously I'm using it now but I do use it sparingly and I think make good use of the time I spend with it. I am really against video games of any kind, even non violent, educational types, for children. I don't want to get on my soap box about my opinions about these things but I would love ideas about how to handle this with my son. I admit I am so tempted to go dictator and ban him from it all. I'm afraid that will have the forbidden fruit effect. I want to give him some freedom to make the right choices with them because that seems more practical to me, I can't hide him away from a society that has to have internet connections on their cell phones and apps to get the weather or leave a tip.
> 
> ...


I see this thread has reached 3 pages so I'm sure there's been a lot of advice already. Without reading the other replies first, I'll give you my advice. First, I totally hear that you feel caught between a rock and a hard place with this. On one hand you have an instinct to ban the screen time altogether, but you don't want to create resentment or a "forbidden fruit syndrome"-type situation...(which can be a very real concern, I've seen it happen in my family more than once.)

Sounds like to me the most reasonable thing to do, since he DOES really enjoy the games/computer/TV time but is getting addicted in your opinion, (which is the only opinion that matters...you're his mother and YOU are charged by God or the universe or by nature or whatever to protect him, and in your heart you know this), is to set some limits and stick with them. I know you've tried this and I'll address that in a sec. I just want to say now that I wouldn't listen to any voices of any parenting "philosophies" that tell you to ignore your instincts. There's a reason children have parents and your son has you.

So you say you put limits on his screen time but he ignores you and keeps going? If you want, get some parental software that is password-activated. I've heard of these things that even have timers built into them (might even be able to get one for free, but not sure on that). If you want some help finding a program of software like that, shoot me a PM and I can dig around for you. My husband has a ton of resources for that kinda thing.

Or, you can go the more straight-forward route and set a time....say, an hour a day each on both the computer and the TV (just an example). Give him a 5-10 minute warning when it's about to be time's up....and if he refuses to stop when the hour or whatever is up, switch off the computer. Set a simple password on the PC (this won't require software, usually) so he can only get on when you let him. Same with the TV....when the time is up or his program is over, if he refuses to stop then switch off the TV yourself or unplug it, and tell him that this is non-negotiable. (And to the best of your ability, makes sure he has other options for entertainment that don't require screen time. Does he enjoy reading, or artwork, or riding his bike, or playing basketball outside, or....etc., etc.?) That isn't being manipulative, btw-- it's called parenting. Don't surrender your power; it was given to you for a reason, and that is to provide for and protect your little ones. You DO know what's best in this situation and you know it...and YOU have the power, the authority and the means to monitor and oversee his screen time. I hope that helps, mama. And I know it's MUCH easier said than done.

Like I said before, PM me if you want....


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> you know this is the Gentle Discipline forum, right? i'm not sure how "placing strict limitations" and "if he doesn't follow the rules then you limit even more" is gentle or helpful exactly. can you elaborate on how you "enforce" your "strict limitations?"


Hm. To me, it just sounds like the pp was suggesting a strict and consistent imposition of limits on something that the OP considers *harmful* to her child So, how are her suggestions not "gentle"? What is your definition of Gentle Discipline? I'm genuinely interested in your response, not being snarky.

(And-- a separate point-- if anyone (a mod?) knows what MDC's official definition of GD is, that would be helpful to know, too. I've noticed that there's been a whole lot of speculation and disagreement about this lately. Perhaps some official clarification would help...?)

ETA: Still catching up on this thread....Thandiwe, I think your link in post #20 is about the closest thing to what I was asking for above that we have here. Thanks for posting that. Thanks also for your post #16. I agree 100%.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> look, you guys are talking about limiting TV and video games like this kid is a teenager and everybody is talking about "being the parent" and "making the adult decisions." This kid is FIVE, he is only watching TV/being at the computer/ playing video games because the ADULTS around him are. If you want your FIVE year old to stop watching TV, then stop watching TV yourself, get off your bum and play with your kid.


No...the child's mother (who knows her son and their family situation perhaps a teensy bit more than you do) says that he watches tv and plays video games to excess because he LIKES it. Why are you assuming he's modeling her behavior? Why are you assuming that she doesn't spend enough time with him? It's possible for parents to use the TV and computer in moderation and for their kids to NOT. (Or, sometimes, vice-versa.)

Five year olds in particular are not the best judges of what an appropriate amount of screen time is, and they certainly aren't masters of self control at that age. Your comments that the OP is a hypocrite and your crude implication that she doesn't spend enough time playing with him is insulting and ignorant. And your further implication that it's ALL HER FAULT because sometimes she uses the computer or watches TV herself makes no logical sense.

Also....why are you so dramatically over-the-top shocked that Thandiewe used the phrase "train up a child"? Because it's also phrased the same way in the Bible? Is it a terminology issue? Would "to teach" or "to raise" be better for you...? I'm seriously scratching my head over that one.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*:


> You are ridiculous.


Quote Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*:


> If you are going to ban your kids from watching TV, playing video games and being on the computer then you better be prepared to give it up yourself otherwise you are just a big fat hypocrite.


So what you're saying is, parents should behave how they want their children to behave. If they want their children to refrain from watching tv, they should refrain from it themselves.

Does that also apply to name calling?


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> um... did you even read my posts? i am wondering how suggesting simply making rules and "enforcing them" is gentle. i agree that screen time should be limited. and i said so in my original post, along with offering gentle discipline suggestions about how to include the child in coming up with solutions. which IS what most folks would consider "gentle discipline," rather than ominous and vague mentions of rules and enforcement.
> 
> ...


I agree with what the other poster said....what you're talking abou sounds more like UP or CL. This is the GD forum, as you point out. I agree with D_McG. And your definition of GD doesn't seem to be what MDC's definition is. How is limiting screen time for a 5 year old, screen time which the mother believes to be *harmful* and *addictive*, an "arbitrary" rule or limit? Seriously? An arbitrary rule is something like, "my kids are not allowed to eat sugar cookies because I don't like sugar cookies". Or, "my kids can wear shorts but not cut-offs". You know, the kind of rule that makes you ask, "why?!??" You can throw out things like "being the boss" and provocative implications that it's all about power tripping, but, again....this is more like Unconditional Parenting or Radical Unschooling or CL.

Here's the board's definition of gentle discipline: (emphasis/bolding is mine)

Quote:


> Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that *our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries*, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.
> 
> Hitting is never the best way to teach a child. Even in the case of real danger - as when a child runs out into the road - you can grab him, sit him down, look him in the eyes, and tell him why he must never do that again. The panic in your voice will communicate your message much more effectively than any spanking. You can be dramatic without being abusive.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> Well, the term gentle is really subjective. A lot of people would call time-outs gentle discipline. In fact, I think most people think that gentle just means no hitting. I don't, and I do think that manipulation and coercion are abusive so, no, I am not apt to take an "agree to disagree" stance when I think that another person is advocating what I would view to be abuse. So sorry if sharks have been jumped but I think you'll find it most understandable if you viewed it from my side of the screen.


Well here's a thought for you and for the mama who equates Gentle Discipline with UP: maybe y'all shouldn't come on to the GD forum and lecture people about what is and isn't GD if your beliefs are admittedly not in line with what most people, including MDC, consider GD?

I came on here a few months ago and said that I wasn't for or against spanking, and was even considering it for my child. I got told QUICKLY that that is not a "GD" position. I'm free to still hold those opinions (although I don't-- we've since decided not to spank our kids...in part b/c of MDC), but I'm not free to come on to a Gentle Discipline forum with that attitude and "teach the class" about what is and isn't GD.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> oh, oaktree.. usually you read all the stuff first. i don't know what i said that was so offputting to everybody.
> 
> ...


You weren't asking me, but I'll take a stab at this one, too. The part where you said you were coming from an Unconditional Parenting perspective, and the part where you said or, at best, implied, that the OP's proposed limits on screen time were "arbitrary".


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

I'm going to ignore the snarky stuff and give a genuine suggestion:

One thing that has worked for us is to have certain times when TV watching and/or screen time is OK. So, if you want to limit it to 2 hours, you can give your child 2 hours between say 9-10 am and then 3-4 pm (or whatever works for your schedule). That's the defacto system we have during the school year. No TV before school. 1 show after school & before homework (dd needs time to unwind). Homework+piano. 1 show some other time during the evening, but stopping at 7:30 pm because I don't them watching an hour before bedtime.

I'll confess that our TV regulations have gone completely off the rails this summer. Our kids are watching waaay too much TV. But I've been teaching, dh's been home with the kids and not enforcing screen time. They do get outside time of several hours a day, and I do spend time with them when I'm home. But now that I'm done teaching, I'm going to start enforcing a few rules and making the kids more unhappy for a bit.

FWIW, we tried the coupon system and it didn't work for us. Time of day works much better for me.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Aww I replied too late, after the two people I was addressing had already decided to "exit the thread".







I HATE when that happens.


----------



## hakeber (Aug 3, 2005)

Wow, okay, so hiding the TV and lying about a theft was clearly a BAD idea for some of you. FTR, I have not ever done that, I was just brainstorming iodeas for the OP...yeesh! Talk about an over reaction...Like none of us have ever told a white lie to calm an overly emotional child. None of you have ever snuck veggies into a pizza sauce or told your kid they cancelled a particularly annoying program or that an especially obnoxios video broke? So I'm the only non-perfect parent around here?

I disagree that I have to give up chocolate altogether because my son likes it too much. I disagree that I should never have ice cream because my child would like to eat it all day and night and not being allowed to results in a temper tantrum.

I have no qualms with that. If that makes me a "big fat hypocrite" so be it. I'm comfortable with that level of "abuse" of my power.

I do play with my kids. Generally when the TV is an issue it is because I have to WORK. I like my work a lot, but sometimes I have to do it when it has to be done. I don't want my DS zoning out on TV that whole time when I know he is capable of playing with friends in the park outside, or building a train city, or reading a book or coloring. He doesn't need my undivided attention or a screen. Those are not the only options out there. If I have to put the TV in an adult only zone in order for him to SEE the other options, I think it makes sense to do that.

But the absolute truth is I do not HAVE to do any of that (which I think I said in my first post...) because we have agreed that 2 x 30 minute shows a day (during summer vacation) preprogrammed by the family member is what we as a family agreed upon in a calm moment of a family meeting. However, he does not always remember that he agreed to that so if I have to remind him and if he goes into melt down mode so that no one else can enjoy their turn, he loses his next turn. We're big into natural consequences in our family and restorative justice. That's out deal. It works for us. If things got really out of control, I would put the TV away. So far it hasn't, but that is what I am prepared to do. There are lots of suitable alternatives available to him. He is not deprived of attention, entertainment or imagination.


----------



## mschrein22 (Feb 19, 2011)

I don't know if it's been suggested or not, but I've had a lot of success with online radio, or even just a regular radio. TV/Computer screens are off, but there's background music that keeps the kid feeling "connected".


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

This is a Summer fight at our house due to the heat. Since I refuse to take them to the pool til after 6 pm they're stuck trying to find indoor things to do. They have drums, guitars and books but sometimes they just want that computer. I give them 30 minute increments. While one plays on the computer I play with the other one to keep them occupied. I then turns into everyone wanting to play with mommy. Or we watching cooking shows. We love food and cooking shows rock! But we do it together so they get fixated on just that. Don't worry took me a long time to get here. Before that I was pulling out my hair.


----------



## parsley (May 7, 2011)

OP: One thing I find useful is to set a total number of weekly hours rather than daily hours. That way, watching tv, using the computer, etc... doesn't have to be a daily activity and may lose some centrality to daily life. At the same time, that might help your son feel like he has some control over his media consumption. Maybe setting up a visible chart and he can move 1/2 hour or 15 minute chips into a used up box and can visually see how much he has left for the week?

I have arbitrarily decided that my kid can have as many hours a week as her age. My DD is 3 1/2. I have a 3 1/2 hour a week rule. (Though I'm certain there will be an upper limit eventually). Maybe some sort of structure like that would work for you?

Also, we always watch shows together (ie: The Backyardigans on Netflix) and talk about them for a while after, sometimes reenact the episode, sing the songs. In my opinion, these shows can actually be fun and imaginative that way. I know she's younger but maybe you can find a fun video game you can play with him?


----------



## hakeber (Aug 3, 2005)

I think that brings up a good point. It should be noted that a 5 year old is also a bigger kid than a 3 or 4 year old and they tend to crave activities they can do without mom and dad. If you haven't yet been through this phase of early adolescence where the child establishes his or her independence it can be hard to imagine your cuddle bug toddler will ever transform into such a person who sighs heavily at your not understanding anything about the real world looking at you as if you knew nothing rather than the know it all goddess you were a year or so before. At first I thought it was just my kid, but in talking to other moms in his class I found that indeed it is pretty typical for kids to withdraw significantly at this age and seek ways to be their own people outside of the mother-child unit.

TV and computer games is the easiest way for them to meet the need of distance and connection simultaneously, AND if they are attending school they probably have a fair amount of watercooler chat to keep up with in order to maintain a social life, therein lies the struggle.

Benjamin at 3 or 4 could have cared less about TV and would watch or do anything to be with me. At 5 he wanted to watch the "cool shows" and it was no longer about what he liked, but about what his friends thought was cool. The trick for us has been to make sure he has lots of interactive stuff to do. He is dead into science and art so we have a corner for him that is all about science and art and when his screen time is up he goes there to explore. Of course we are happy to play with him, but most of the time he'd rather discover it on his own. (This may be because we are both teachers and therefore slightly obnoxious as parents)

I like the idea of weekly screen time. I think that would work well for us.


----------



## 1love4ever (Jan 5, 2011)

OP, your situation is a common one I think in todays society and it is sad. In hindsight my advice would have been not to let him watch TV and all that this early but that does not help.

When I was growing up my parents would shut off our TV's satellite subscription every summer(they told us that they just couldnt afford it and I believed it til I was about 13! What could I do if my family could not afford it? Tell my dad to get another job? It was a pretty good lie lol). The first few weeks we hated it, but then we got used to it and would play outside, help out around the house and with outside work, spend time together as a family, and sometimes my parents would get a movie for us all to watch before bed and then TV was like a treat.

I think if you could spend more time with your son doing activities, going places, teaching him things, keeping him busy, then it would be fine. I would never get a child of that age, or any age really, a video game system. It does not promote learning(about the real world), it does not promote physical activity or time spend outdoors, it does not give them social skills, it does not give them a work ethic, it does not promote good eating habits. It promotes laziness, they are more likely to sit there in front of the TV all day and not get any exercise or sunshine, likely to eat garbage non-stop, and it really can become an addiction. Seriously. I say just eliminating the TV programming and saying no to the TV and computer all together would be best for him, not trying to sound harsh but I remember being there as a kid, and I have seen friends of mine get fat and amount to nothing because they are so lazy and still just want to play computer or video games ALL DAY and are in their 20's, because thats what they grew up doing. Making TV into a treat is a good thing too I think, by watching one movie every once in awhile.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> Also....why are you so dramatically over-the-top shocked that Thandiewe used the phrase "train up a child"? Because it's also phrased the same way in the Bible? Is it a terminology issue? Would "to teach" or "to raise" be better for you...? I'm seriously scratching my head over that one.


I think it's probably because To Train Up A Child is the title of a book written by Michael and Debi Pearl. If you're not familiar with it, google the title + criticisms. It is pretty much the antithesis of GD and the strict adherence to their methods has been implicated in the death of some children.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Wow. I've read through the whole thing.

OK I want to preface this by saying I'm a big fan of UP. However, I'm also a big fan of how wide a GD perspective we have here, because a greater perspective gives people looking for help more options and a greater perspective to consider. My understanding of GD is only that parents not use techniques that are physically or emotionally non-gentle, like any kind of spanking or physical discipline, humiliation, shaming, name-calling, etc. I personally also avoid punishment, but I've seen punishments be given gently and I'm not of the belief that punishing is outside of GD, so long as it be gentle in nature. I think lying about where the TV is is questionable, not because it isn't gentle but because it teaches a bad message re lying. Otherwise, I see nothing anti-GD here. Also, I am not someone who thinks parents need to be playmates of their children, and I agree that boredom can help children become more creative at finding ways to entertain themselves, and the ability to entertain ones self is a great gift that is worth learning.

My kids don't have any problems with self regulation on screen time, so I am not sure how helpful my input will be. What I've done is to try to create an environment were there is stuff more fun than screens available rather than limiting screen time, but my older one (9) is so social that I doubt screens would be a big issue for her regardless, and the little one is so little (2.5) it just isn't something that's come up really for her. She watches maybe a few minutes here and there to keep her away while I'm working with something really hot like the broiler in the kitchen.

But I think things that might help include:

Letting kids be outside as much as they want to, and not limiting that time to only when a parent can be with them. I understand this isn't an option for every home environment, but I mention it because the kids I've seen where I live who have problems with screen time are kids who aren't allowed to be outside very much.

Allow kids to do stuff that gets messy. The kids I know would rather use glue for about anything than watch TV. Glue pom-poms together and make animals, cut out little pieces of paper and glue them together, etc. But this gets messy.

The reasons IRL I've seen families get overly dependent on screen time is because parents want their kids within their view all the time (so not outside unsupervised) and to not do anything messy. That doesn't leave a ton of options, and it eliminates what kids often find to be the best options. These families I've seen have trouble IRL are not likely to be MDC families because their values are generally not the same as the values here, and it might not be at all relevant, I don't know.

Anyway, this all might not be relevant to the OP, and my dd might not have needed screen regulation regardless of whether I let her outside as much as she wanted, and whether she was allowed to do messy craft projects whenever she wanted, or not. But those are the things she'd rather do than watch TV or play on the computer. And she also has a wii and a DS that are only very seldom used. I just wanted to add that perspective to the many.


----------



## PeaceMongerMama (Aug 3, 2011)

I have not caught up with all the posts yet but wanted to address this.

I am not sure where all of these comments about getting up off your butt and playing with your kids are coming from. I don't know why they are necessary or what purpose they serve here. In my original post I mentioned how often I play with my son but that it's not enough. Playing with your children is important however I can not play with my son for all of his waking hours. THAT is where my problems come in. There are times he will be bored and I will be busy. That's it. That's not bad. This negativity and judgement and jumping on a mom who bravely admitted she doesn't enjoy play ( not that she doesn't do it) is uncessary and it is NOT gentle. How can one discipline gently if one is not gentle?

I get very frustrated when I see a poster who just wants to harp on a hot button point even though that point had already been addressed.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holothuroidea*
> 
> If you decide to take all screen time away from a child because enforcing a limit of 2 hours is too difficult (which was discussed on this thread, I don't know by whom), you are absolutely setting an arbitrary rule that is more for your benefit (less nagging by the child) than for the child's who is used to having screen time to fill whatever time they don't spend playing with their parents because they can't get over whatever uncomfortable feelings they have about playing.
> 
> You know what boggles me? Mothers overcome incredible discomfort to breast feed their babies, but then when they start to be more independent and need to play mothers will not get over any small discomfort to play with them.


----------



## PeaceMongerMama (Aug 3, 2011)

Thank you for your post. I agree with you, in hindsight, I wouldn't have even had cable in the house. I have a few things working against me. My ex is the one who turned ds on to the video games. I would never have done that at this age, or at any age. If I lived alone I would cut the cable but I don't. The problems don't stop there, it's all around us. His friends ( yes also 5) talk about video games and tv shows endlessly, in fact, sadly, it's kind of all they do talk about. One of them came to pre school with a toy figurine from the video game Halo, for those that don't know, a very adult, violent, graphic game. They market " toys" from these characters for children! It's just a trap to suck them in younger and younger because manufacturers can't legally rate the games for children. I tried to explain this to my ex and he told me I've gone off the deep end with conspiracy theories.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1love4ever*
> 
> OP, your situation is a common one I think in todays society and it is sad. In hindsight my advice would have been not to let him watch TV and all that this early but that does not help.
> 
> ...


----------



## Czarena (Nov 15, 2010)

I don't limit, my kids don't use "the screen" excessively. Video games, movies, tv shows, you tube, etc all have educational value. eye hand coordination, strategic planning, architecture, critical thinking, cause and effect, math, science, physics, READING

my eldest taught himself to read with not computer games meant to teach a kid how to read, but with an MMOPRG. He also watches instructional videos on you tube, looks up information (he loves wiki), he also plays legos, with his brothers, goes outside, helps me cook, helps me clean up, empties the dishwasher without being asked, etc, etc,etc

If you make "the screen" something bad, it becomes taboo and wanted that much more. If YOU have a healthy outlook on it, it's pretty darn likely your kids will follow your example.


----------



## dovey (May 23, 2005)

Your son might like books on CD instead of TV. My kids like to listen to them when I'm busy and can't read or play with them. You can check them out at the library. My kids love the Roald Dahl books like Fantastic Mr. Fox.

I think that they're okay for mental development compared with TV, but I'm not really sure. After listening to a story, my daughter always draws pictures of the characters or acts it out with stuffed animals. So it seems like they're spurring her creativity. But, as I said, I'm not sure if they are entirely good for kids to be absorbed in.

Another thing that helps us with screen time is having the kids set a timer before they turn on the computer (we do computer time rather than TV.) Each child gets 20 minutes per day. They are usually pretty good about it, since they know that the timer is a prerequisite for using the screen. It seems to help to have them turn on the timer themselves.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Didn't read the whole thing but here's what we do.

We don't have cable or a digital antenna. We do have Netflix streaming, DVDs, Xbox, a computer, and an iPhone. IMO, most of these things are easier to limit than watching off cable or broadcast TV - you don't get the promos for the upcoming shows and in the case of Netflix when your episode ends, it's done and there's a clear break. We have one TV for the family. DH and I don't ever watch when the kids are awake, so TV is never on in the background and the kids don't have the idea that TV watching is a default activity. This includes using the computer as a TV or gaming system. We are a bit more lax about using email and such around the kids and we are pretty lax about DD using the computer to "type" or use the paint program, but it hasn't become a problem.

DD is limited to 30 mins of "electronics time" per day. We set the kitchen timer for her and it's her responsibility to turn the TV off. If necessary we will sit with her and offer to help turn it off if it looks like it will be a problem. We have explained to her that TV is for fun but it's a waste of time if you watch too much. Sometimes it's hard to turn off the TV, so that's why we have a timer.

I feel like the amount of TV watched in our house is under control and although there have been disagreements, there's no ongoing power struggle. I wish I could create a less electronic-heavy environment in my home but my husband loves TV and gaming so this is the compromise we've worked out.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dovey*
> Another thing that helps us with screen time is having the kids set a timer before they turn on the computer (we do computer time rather than TV.) Each child gets 20 minutes per day. They are usually pretty good about it, since they know that the timer is a prerequisite for using the screen. It seems to help to have them turn on the timer themselves.


A friend of mine was telling me that her DH set it up for the kids so they each have their own user name and password on the computer, and each of their users are limited to X amount of time, the computer just shuts off after that. I thought that was genius!


----------

