# Trying non-coercive parenting - not going so well



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Ok, I haven't read any of the recommended books on the subject, just going by what I've read in this forum and flying by the seat of my pants. There have been a lot of positives coming out of my attempts. But two main problems:

My 4 yr old dd now watches WAY too much TV and eats WAY too much junk food because that is what she wants and if I tell her no I feel like I am coercing her. She knows about foods that keep you healthy and those that don't and I've tried to offer alternatives and explain but to no avail, she is on a candy kick - big time (she found her long lost halloween bucket filled with candy). Same with tv, I try to get her to do other activities but she keeps going back to the TV. We are talking 5 hours per day.

Can't get outside much - cold here in good 'ol MN. Also I have a 6 week old to take care of.

Any suggestions? Pat?

~Tracy


----------



## PajamaMama (Dec 18, 2004)

You control what kind of food there is available in the house. If there is junk food available it is no surprise to me that is what the child wants. It happens here too. The only thing that works for me regarding the food, is to only make available as choices things that I want the kiddos to choose. Maybe if you can't bear to throw anything out, or really can't afford to, just tell your family that you're going to eat it all up and then it's gone. Just don't buy any more.

As for the tv, that's harder if you're not willing to remove it from your house. At 4 you can teach your child to use a timer. Perhaps you can give her some allotted amount of time (an hour a day?) to watch tv, and the timer has to be on if she's watching. When the time's up, that's it. Turn it off. My tv has a timer that can be set inside and it will turn itself off when the time is up.

Maybe you can throw a blanket over it when not in use so it's not as in-your-face. I know those cold midwestern winters are hard...with a new baby I'm not surprised you aren't getting out! I don't think that cutting off the tv time is being coercive though.

Good luck and







I am sure you will get some good advice here


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

UP and TCS are *not* the same thing. Kohns' kids are not being raised 'free'. I think you might really enjoy the book and get a lot of insight.

I think AK is right on, and I am not TCS. The book is not what you think, I don't think.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wugmama*
Ok, I haven't read any of the recommended books on the subject, just going by what I've read in this forum and flying by the seat of my pants. There have been a lot of positives coming out of my attempts. But two main problems:

My 4 yr old dd now watches WAY too much TV and eats WAY too much junk food because that is what she wants and if I tell her no I feel like I am coercing her. She knows about foods that keep you healthy and those that don't and I've tried to offer alternatives and explain but to no avail, she is on a candy kick - big time (she found her long lost halloween bucket filled with candy). Same with tv, I try to get her to do other activities but she keeps going back to the TV. We are talking 5 hours per day.

Well, I'm not non-coercive, but I'm wondering if you can say that it is unacceptable to you, and that you have to find another mutually agreeable solution? At least maybe about the TV, since you probably have to listen to it, too.

And the other thing is, it seems like those non-coercive mamas are willing to let that stuff go. There was a thread about TV, and I remember Pat saying that she felt her son was getting a lot out of it, and she didn't care if he watched it, and I personally felt like I wouldn't be comfortable with the amount he was watching. Too bad Pat's no longer with us, even though I often disagreed with her, I sure liked her perspective.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Oops

Why am I having so many errors tonight?! Arg.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Too bad Pat's no longer with us, even though I often disagreed with her, I sure liked her perspective.









Do you mean Pat, as in scubamama? Where'd she go?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I will try to offer some perspective although our daughter is only 8 months old.

Firstly, I have to say that non-coercive parenting does not mean that your child just gets to do whatever they want whenever they want at all times despite whether or not it is agreeable with you. You didn't say those words, but I get the feeling many people think that is what it is about -- but it isn't what it means to us.

To us consensual living means that we strive to find mutually agreeable solutions for all parties involved. I imagine it must be very difficult with a rough winter and a 6 week old, but I wouldn't recommend just limiting junk food and TV without any mutually agreeable solution to offer your daughter. That seems like it would end in disaster and is certainly coercive.

Perhaps you could talk to your daughter about the junk food and explain about how you don't feel it fuels her body in a positive way etc ... but then perhaps offer an alternative and see if she is agreeable with it. Perhaps suggest that you both bake together, some sweets that are more healthy but still taste good --- I realize your newborn probably keeps you very busy but things like muffins, granola, etc are pretty easy to make. Or, you could get some organic yogurt if she likes that, then see if she would be agreeable with eating that, but topping it herself with things she likes. It would only take a few minutes to set up a little "yogurt bar" with little cups of say raisins, chocolate chips, nuts (provided she isn't allergic), sprinkles, crumbled up cookie etc... sure, the toppings aren't that healthy but if they are just toppings for yogurt and you put them in little cups she will not be getting so much and that may satisfy her need for sweets. You can make it fun by letting her top it herself and even by involving her in choosing the toppings you put in the cups. Similarly, you can involve her in making smoothies too, which are sweet and also fun to make if she likes those. Like the yogurt, perhaps you could allow her to indulge in her little *junk habit* if there are other healthy ingredients... like fruit, yogurt, etc in the smoothie, then just kind of let it go if she wants chocolate syrup in it
















I think most of us would agree that while what you eat is important, what is probably more important is controlling portions and learning moderation as it relates to staying healthy and avoiding obesity etc... so if you could find a mutually agreeable solution that met her want (she feels it's a need at this age) for *junk* and your desire to help her choose healthy food and learn that moderation, I think it may work.

As for the television, it is hard to recommend other mutually agreeable solutions because of your prediciment of having to be inside a lot with your new babe and with the harsh winter. For now I would probably just let it go and allow her to self regulate until you can offer alternatives that are fun for her. Perhaps you could make it a more fufilling experience by talking about what she is watching, engaging her in storytelling, or asking her about the characters and what they are doing, what lessons they learned, why she thinks they did xyz in that show, what she may have done differently if she were in their situation, etc...

Also perhaps you can introduce more activities that draw her away from the television herself without you having to limit it. Also, phrasing things differently can help a lot. For instance instead of saying something like "Okay, after this show the TV is going off" you could say something like "I would love to play dress up when this is over....do you want to play with me?" ... and engage her in that (or whatever).

I think that it is very difficult to regulate something when there isn't much to replace it with at this point, so it sets up a power struggle where the mutually agreeable solution tends to get lost because your daughter is too busy thinking about what she is "missing out on" instead of what she may be gaining.

Good luck and I hope you find solutions that meet everyone's needs and wants...it is trial and error too so be gentle with yourself.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wugmama*
My 4 yr old dd now watches WAY too much TV and eats WAY too much junk food because that is what she wants and if I tell her no I feel like I am coercing her. She knows about foods that keep you healthy and those that don't and I've tried to offer alternatives and explain but to no avail, she is on a candy kick - big time (she found her long lost halloween bucket filled with candy). Same with tv, I try to get her to do other activities but she keeps going back to the TV. We are talking 5 hours per day.

She's eating a lot of junk food because it has been controlled for her in the past, so she doesn't know how to moderate on her own and it also has taken on a mysterious and forbidden quality that desserts in our culture have.

If you make sure and keep everything she likes to eat (health or unhealthy) inthe house, and make sure to offer her some healthy options at mealtime, I think you'll find that after the newness and taboo qualities wear off, she will regulate herself.

That's not to say that you will always like the food choices she makes. But that's how it is with kids, they don't always do exactly what you think they should.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

How long has this been going on? If this is fairly new, it's normal for her to indulge heavily in things that were once restricted. Kind of a rebound effect... and really, often you just need to wait it out. It also helps if you can stop thinking of certain foods and activities as "bad" or "junk". Plenty of people eat lots of candy and they're fine. We tend to ebb and flow - some weeks we eat a lot of sweets and others we don't. TV is the same way, now - when we're into other stuff, we don't watch much, but especially when it's cold and we're feeling like cocooning, we watch more.

If she's watching TV , what are you doing? You might try watching with her, and talking about the shows. You might also offer art materials that she could use while she watched. With foods, I would make sure you keep lots of things she likes on hand, not just candy. Candy is quick and easy, so sometimes people grab it quickly when they'd really prefer something else, if it was already prepared.

Really, though, if you want to be TCS, you need to work on your attitudes towards these things, and try to stop dividing the world into "good" and "bad". It sounds like you're doing more than just sharing your theories about these things; it sounds like you're attempting to coerce her. Saying no is one way of coercing, but there are more subtle ways, like nagging and not respecting the choice she has made.

dar


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I will try to offer some perspective although our daughter is only 8 months old.


I had no idea that you had only one child, and that said child was only an infant

I learn something new every single day.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Great post, Dar, I wish I had written that... LOL.


----------



## Slabobbin (Jan 29, 2004)

I would not have junk food in my house so it wouldn't be an option for her anyway. I would also turn the television off. Children are children, they DO need boundaries. They were given to us for a reason, to TEACH them these boundaries.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I find it interesting, that of ALL the things available, these were the only two things that for us (and it seems for others) wind up being done in excess, long after the newness wears off, long after any backlash can explain the continuing problem. For us no kind of balance emerged when lots of sugar and tv were sitting right there in the midst of our living space.

I think the answer is that some (maybe not all) people are very physically affected by sugar. I do think an addiction forms, that is very real. I think the same about television. I think some people are very affected by the physical stimulation of tv, the way it affects brain function, sensory input, etc.

Whether or not that provides an answer for you I don't know. But it did for us. We got rid of the tv and rarely keep sugary snacks in the house. We have no problems with any other food or activity.


----------



## kbridi (Mar 16, 2005)

So, does non-coersive parenting mean you can't set limits? My initial reaction is no. I think kids need limits and boundaries -- I'm not talking superficial ones or limits for the sake of limits. Let's face it, our society is made up of rules, boundaries, laws, and if we don't follow them (even though some are so stupid) we'll pay a penalty.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but as I said, I don't think it's coersive to have limits, espeically if the children help set them.

Could you discuss how you feel about TV and problem-solve with your child? Maybe make a list of all of the possible solutions and together, select a solution that allows you both to be happy with the amount of TV.

Just a thought..Good luck.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Do you mean Pat, as in scubamama? Where'd she go?

Well, I'm not sure, but that's what I got from the "What All is Non-Negotiable" thread, and she hasn't been around since. Hopefully I've just been missing her posts.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I just read that. What a shock - I had no idea. I hope she's doing okay.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Not much insight here, but...

My kids don't eat much junk food because there is no junk food in the house.

My kids don't watch too much TV because athough the set is in the house, there is no service, so there is no concept of "just watching TV" for the sake of watching TV. We watch DVD's together now and then, but that's all...

What I am trying to say is they are not faced with having to "limit" themselves because there is nothing to limit (it's just not there)


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slabobbin*
They were given to us for a reason, to TEACH them these boundaries.

Wow. And here I thought my daughter was conceived because my partner and I



































!


----------



## simple living mama (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
Wow. And here I thought my daughter was conceived because my partner and I



































!


(



































!)

That's funny!


----------



## NocturnalDaze (Jul 3, 2002)

If your dd wants junk food I think that it would be coercive of you not to keep any in the house. My 4 yo dd and I go shopping together and she is able to choose some things that she wants. What I do with the stuff I consider less healthy is to put it on a higher shelf so that it is not the first thing she grabs when she is hungry. If she wants it she can absolutely have it. If she's had a lot of sugar and not much else that day I may offer her other alternatives but if she still wants the "junk" she can have it without an arguement.

A lot of times it will seem like she's asking for nothing but candy I realize she's really not eating much more that a bite or two of whatever she asks for.

If she's had limits all along she will most likely gorge for a while...probably much longer than you'll be comfortable with. Stick with it she will be fine.

When letting up on the "rules" isn't so new to her try keeping a food journal of what she eats everyday for a month. I think you'll see that over the course of a week she will eat a pretty balanced diet...


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I had no idea that you had only one child, and that said child was only an infant

I learn something new every single day.
Hmmm...interesting comment.


----------



## cinnamonamon (May 2, 2003)

jmho -- i think that was a compliment -- already so wise, etc.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh, okay I thought it was an insult... ha...I get a lot of *you just wait* comments so I get on the defensive sometimes...

I think to myself... I didn't have to have a horrible hospital experience to have chosen homebirth for my first child...

I didn't have to take a tour of a slaughterhouse to choose vegetarianism...

I didn't have to be a teenager in the 60's to really enjoy Bob Dylan's music...

I don't have to be a circumcised male to decide I would never circumcise any future sons...

...so I don't understand why some people think I have to have more than one child or older children in order to be able to comment on consensual living or my vision for how I want my family dynamic to be...

Sorry to hijack -- The OP has gotten some good advice, I hope things are going better!


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Haven't read all the posts - thanks for them gals! - but started panicking at the "Pat is no longer with us post". She last posted at 9:30 pm yesterday









Will read other posts later - off to my 6 week old. Can't get the hang of nak with him yet, he still needs too much help with it.

~Tracy


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Captain Crunchy I thought it was a compliment too.

I will add for myself, that while the spirit of my parenting is the same as it was ten years ago, the longer you parent the more humbling I've found the journey to be


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

For us no kind of balance emerged when lots of sugar and tv were sitting right there in the midst of our living space.
yes i feel / fear the same. I strive for non coercive parenting but I am not ready to let the corporate message dominate over mine. So I feel I have to limit access to commercials and commercial products, even if that means imposing my judgements. I wish I could find a better way of coming to terms with this but till then I am going to protect my daughter from the addictive effects.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Perhaps some experimentation is in order? I think it is possible to check out some more advanced books on both subjects and help break it down for dc. Perhaps "The Plug in Drug" and a nutrition book. While dc might be too young to understand the full language, perhaps dc would be happy to do a little quiet summary of one chapter a night. Perhaps allow dc to watch as much TV during a day/weekend/week as dc wants then review afterwards the things that could have been done instead. Explain that playdough and bike riding did not happen as much because all of the time was taken for TV. Maybe dc is old enough to understand that advertisements and TV programs are designed to "hook" people and how to look for the clues that they are being reeled in. And lastly, while I really have a hard time thinking about little kids watching huge amounts of TV, I did and eventually did learn to self-regulate. It took a LONG time, but I now have zero interest in "TV" and watch comparitvely little DVDs to the general population.


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
For us no kind of balance emerged when lots of sugar and tv were sitting right there in the midst of our living space.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *rumi*
yes i feel / fear the same. I strive for non coercive parenting but I am not ready to let the corporate message dominate over mine. So I feel I have to limit access to commercials and commercial products, even if that means imposing my judgements. I wish I could find a better way of coming to terms with this but till then I am going to protect my daughter from the addictive effects.









:

i had pretty much unlimited access to tv and candy as a kid and have the rotten teeth to prove it. my weight is fine, but i had some pretty screwed up ideas about love and men (too much love boat and fantasy island i think :LOL). i'm not going to be getting rid of our tv, but it took me 35 years to learn to be able to limit it. it wasn't until dd1 was born that it wasn't on all the time. i remember working at home pre-kids and watching revolving headline news over and over and over again. at some point after dd1's birth i had a realization that even if dd1 was sleeping in my arms while i was watching she was still hearing all the [email protected] that's on teevee and those weren't the voices i wanted her to hear. i wanted her to hear her mama and daddy's voices so we went to closed captioning. later we got a tivo and both dds do like to watch some shows (like dora), but we're able to skip the commercials and we never flip around the channels with the girls. we only watch to watch a specific program. i do impose limits on the amount they can watch so maybe i shouldn't even be posting on this thread, but the comments from rumi and heartmama (congrats btw) just struck a chord. i know dd1 is like me and would get sucked in and watch all day long if she could and i wish i hadn't. i make them brush their teeth, too







: .


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:

...so I don't understand why some people think I have to have more than one child or older children in order to be able to comment on consensual living or my vision for how I want my family dynamic to be...
Your comments and ideas are certainly very valuable and welcome. I love to read all kinds of people's ideas and visions. I really like the idea of the yogurt bar, and making sweets together..that is really good advice and something that we do (sort of...my daughter can't eat dairy..so no yogurt)..but we do things like that. I think it is great you are looking ahead and having your value system and ideas in place for when those situations do arise for you.

However, I also generally think people just "resent" getting parenting advice from people who haven't been in their situation. People are going to take your advice differently if they know that you have never had a child old enough to ask for candy or TV all the time. Things are just "different' when you only have one chlid and they are a baby. I look back on those days so fondly sometimes...things were so easy back then. I had lots of ideas and visions back then, and most of which we have kept..but also things got harder and stickier as my dd got older and we added a second child. Situations and feelings and problems and changing family dynamics arose which I had never anticipated or thought of before. I might read the preteen and teen forums, and if I had something to offer, I probably would..but I also realize my advice or ideas will be taken differently because I have never parented a preteen or a teen.


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:

I think the answer is that some (maybe not all) people are very physically affected by sugar. I do think an addiction forms, that is very real. I think the same about television. I think some people are very affected by the physical stimulation of tv, the way it affects brain function, sensory input, etc.
I think this is very true. It is a bit overly simplistic to say that if you don't limit anything..kids will learn to self-regulate on their own and eat healthy foods. I really just don't think that is true. For some kids it is...but for others, it isn't. My brothers and sisters and I were all raised the same way with food, but I am the only one who has ever really struggled with food and worried about weight and that type of thing. I think my body chemistry is different. For some reason, I just like eating more than they do/did and food affects me differently. It is the same way with dd1. I am pretty sure she "likes eating" more than other kids do and food affects her differently than other children..which makes it harder for her self-regulate things like candy or sweets or chips or whatever.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I think it is very limiting to suggest that people with only X amount of experience should/could have valuable ideas/ideals to share. It comes up on about page 3 of every controversial topic when someone decides that some unconventional idea simply can't work and the person discussing it doesn't know becuase thier kid is not old enough, doesn't have enough siblings, doesn't live in Maine, whatever...... I also do not like the "your attitude will change once your kid is a teen, two year old, middle schooler, has a sibling, moves to Montana....." argument. Where does it stop? A 90 year old woman could come on here and say we are all full of it because we have not yet had a 70 year old child and all the problems that did not show up until 65 years of age







Totally OT, just sympathizing with CC's annoyance at that argument as I have gotten it too. And while my dd is older than CC's, I value her posts/ideas as much as anyones. Heck, some of the best parenting ideas I have come from people that have no children at all. We are all *people* and there fore have some experience with children....since we all were children at one point. Besides, children are humans just like us and really humans all want the same things and "act up" when they do not get what they need.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I love all the posts here. I have to say that for me, letting them have free access doesn't jive. I would simply rid the house of "junk" (we call it "sometimes foods") and we don't have cable so there is barely anything to watch with our rabbit ears, lol.

About the junk: humans are naturally attracted to sugar. When foods were not so easily had, it was a true treat and probably a useful source of energy. But we aren't hunter-gatherers anymore. The cravings for sugar and fats are still there, the environment has changed dramatically.

I myself am addicted to sugar. But I can regulate myself because I know I shouldn't eat too much, have been through weight gains and eventually got back to healthy weights, etc. But it's often a hard road. I don't bake because I will literally eat a dozen cookies easily in a day. Or a whole cake. I don't bring any chocolate etc into the house. If I as an adult must take these steps, I'm sure a 4 year old doesn't stand a chance.

Ditto for TV - it can be addictive.

To me, it's my responsibility to make the environment setup for her to make good choices. But I have to say, I also respect what the non-coercive mamas are saying. It's obviously worked for many of them. But to me the answer to the OP is easy: get rid of the "sometimes" foods, save them for outings (we often get a treat when out on a walk, but we'll have exercised for it, lol). And limit TV - the least coercive way is getting rid of your TV, or just your cable. But I realize that's not always easy.


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:

I think it is very limiting to suggest that people with only X amount of experience should/could have valuable ideas/ideals to share.
I don't think anyone is saying that anyone's ideas aren't valuable. In fact, I think I said several times that I value the poster's ideas. No one said that anyone should not post or make a comment (or at least I hope not). I firmly believe that everyone should share their ideas and values.

I was merely pointing out that how one views other's ideas is influenced at where the other person is in their parenting journey. I am willing to listen to anyone's ideas and value them, however I am likely to view those ideas differently if they came from a mom who raised 4 children to responsible adulthood than from my sister who never has and never will have children, kwim?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ameliabedelia*
I was merely pointing out that how one views other's ideas is influenced at where the other person is in their parenting journey. I am willing to listen to anyone's ideas and value them, however I am likely to view those ideas differently if they came from a mom who raised 4 children to responsible adulthood than from my sister who never has and never will have children, kwim?

I have to agree with you here, ameliabedelia. I frequently post, and only have two children under the age of three, and I still read all posts and consider all points of views. BUT, I also have found myself rethinking some things because of posts written by more experienced moms. Not necessarily changing my mind, but just kind of filing it away for future reference, or looking harder at a certain belief I held.

'Cause there's really got to be something said for experience, right? I know I value it.


----------



## RenAllen (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't usually post here, but had to comment.
I believe gentle/respectful parenting means trusting our children more than the "influence" of television, sweets or any number of things. Yes, our children depend on us to keep them safe, help them navigate difficult areas etc....but by limiting them, I'm saying "I don't trust you".
That's not the message I want to send to my child.

I wish I could say I've trusted every one of my children from birth, but only my last two got that benefit as I learned to let go and not heap my personal judgements on their choices.

Are books "addictive"? Is anything "addictive" if we love it and use it a lot? Why does that connotation only seem to get used with television and sugar? It's not really accurate. If your child wanted to read books for hours on end, would you put a stop to it? Would you try to regulate your partners activities? If you did, would it help the relationship?

There are many, many families I'm in touch with each day, many, many families I've helped to let go of coercion and heard feedback about how balanced their children are. I see children that are happy, healthy and completely free to choose their lives without judgements from parents that don't care for television. They are amazing human beings. I've hung out with literally hundreds of these families at conferences, been with the teens raised this way and they are creative, mindful people.

The question then is HOW? How are families raising children with unlimited television, food choices etc... and ending up with such healthy, balanced, incredible individuals? Those are the questions worth asking in my mind. Those are the questions I needed to ask when I felt just as many of you do about tv and sugar. All the myths I had in my mind simply fell apart when I learned to really trust my children over any preconceived judgements that existed in my own mind.

My children are amazingly inquisitive (yes, even at 16y.o.), very knowledgeable, fun and interesting people. Strangers are often amazed at their wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics, and how much they all like being with their family. They all have unlimited access to everything in our home, including (but never limited to) tv and video games.
They can eat what they choose, but they choose brocolli as often as brownies. We don't make an issue over what they choose when they want a lot of sweets though and we don't do "dessert"....if there is a sweet dish, we serve it right along with the rest of the meal.
Sweets aren't more desireable to them because of that. When you limit something, you give it MORE power, not less.

There are so many wonderful books that disprove the myths surrounding television "addiction". There are also some wonderful books that beautifully illustrate gentle/respectful/AP parenting styles at work throughout a childs life (yes, even into the teen years). My good friend Rue wrote "Parenting a Free Child" (Rue Kream) which is a question/answer style book. I wish I'd had it when my oldest was a wee babe...we would have avoided a lot of pitfalls.

Ren, unschooling Mum to four free children, ages 16,12,8 and 5 years of age
learninginfreedom.com


----------



## amma! (Apr 30, 2005)

Quote:

(yes, even at 16y.o.),
i don't think any of us plan to coerce our 16 yr olds, nor could we even if we wanted to! but i think those of us with younger kids do feel a responsibility to limit / deny access to harmful things, just as we restricted solids for infants, etc. (i dont know if there is a school of parenting that advocates unlimited access to solids from birth)

i think there is a minimum age for tv and junk food and that while there are some "good" tv / video programs there are no good junk foods - so junk food simply cannot be compared to books. it is something that I dont want to get out of hand even temporarily.

Ren, I am glad you posted and I hope you keep posting because I come here preceisely to hear from people doing things differently from myself and from whom I can get some points to ponder. It is very helpful to learn about families like yours who have perhaps travelled farther along the journey of noncoerceive parenting. I will try to get a copy of your friend's book.


----------



## plantmama (Jun 24, 2005)

I guess you could say that I'm addicted to books







and no I don't see a problem with that, except that with a 2 y/o it's been hard to get my fixes.
But tv and young children, man, it's hard. There is something about the glazed over stare that is just scary. I'm not totally into non-coercive parenting, but try to have respectful talks with ds about things instead of just bossing him.
We limit tv and sugar and it's not too hard, ds is only 2. He can watch 1 video per day and if he suggests another one I usually say "no, let's read together or play with your toys..." I also say, "we already watched one and that's enough for today". I have no qualms with telling him no, and he certainly has none with telling me no either








We work things out when it comes to suger. The only thing he ever asks for is cookies when we're going past them in the bakery section and I get him one (though I probably shouldn't admit it here, I also use cookies as bribes to get him into the grocery store







)
We do have some issues with sugar since dh is VERY opposed to ds eating any as well as him watching a video every day. Hey, it's all about compromise.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amma!*
i think there is a minimum age for tv and junk food and that while there are some "good" tv / video programs there are no good junk foods - so junk food simply cannot be compared to books. it is something that I dont want to get out of hand even temporarily.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I don't agree at all. Food runs on a spectrum, and there are relatively few foods that are completely lacking in nutritional value or value of some kind.

So, can you clarify what you mean by junk food? Because the majority of parents would classify chocolate cake, cookies, and snack crackers as junk food, I think. You must be using a much more narrow definition of the phrase. Because I cannot think of many foods that are completely devoid of some nutritional value, or cannot at least be modified rather simply to include some.


----------



## RenAllen (Feb 13, 2006)

I understand about wanting to limit certain things when a child is younger, but what I found is that the limiting causes it's own set of problems. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When I limited my child, he became fascinated with (ie; "addicted") the things I was limiting. Then, because he was showing this obsession, it "proved" to me that I needed to continue limiting these things!!
When I let go and trusted my child, got into his world, tried to see the fascination and why he felt that way, it deepened our relationship. There is a level of trust and bondedness you can not, will not get if there are control issues at play.
I can speak from both sides of this issue, having been both the limiting parent and the non-limiting parent.









What I do now, is fulfill my children's desires. I trust that there is a good reason they want a certain food, or love a certain show. I get into their world, I see it through their eyes, I SHARE their joy.
This style of parenting reduces friction (boy it's EXHAUSTING to control another human!), causes more joy in our home and builds better relationships. It reduces that "obsessive" behavior (though I don't see obsessions as a negative thing any longer....my oldest child's "obsession" with computers/technology/video gaming is a very important part of his life and will most likely make him a decent living one day!).

Children are really smart. They learn to get sneaky if they know you will limit the things they LOVE. Why wouldn't we want to share their love? Why would we want to limit things that bring them joy? I would really resent my dh if he decided how much of the things I love were necessary for MY life. He doesn't see why a person needs to be up until 3am writing or painting, but it's essential for my life.
I trust my children will find a balance that works for THEIR unique journey.

Yes, I offer up platters with a variety of food including protein, to help them balance themselves...but there's no coercion involved in offering.








If you leave platters of food out, young children (heck, everyone really!) will naturally balance themselves. I also make sure our home is a place where they can get to materials and interesting things. If tv is the most interesting thing available, then they SHOULD watch it. I don't offer these other things to lure them away from television....just as I wouldn't lure them away from a book or game or art project. But making sure we have a home full of the things we love IS my job.

There was a study done not too long ago, where the researchers had loads of children participate. The kids didn't know why, they were only told to stay in the playroom for a little while and the researcher would be right back.
In the few minutes these youngsters were left alone with toys and a big 'ol table of sweets, only the children with limits on food did nothing but sit and eat as much as they could of the sweets.
Kids with no limits either ignored it and played, or only ate a couple of things.

That really opened my eyes to the damage I was causing with my limitations! My children were hearing judgement and shame in my reactions to their choices. How horrible! I realized that whatever my child loved, I needed to learn how to accept that. I didn't want to diminish them by the reflection I gave them of who-they-are.

I'm careful now to be open about many of their questions and choices. I'm vegetarian, my children are not at this point. They don't need guilt and shame heaped upon their choices. If we do that, then what we're really saying is OUR choices, OUR lifestyle is the one and only best way to live.
No, it's the best way for ME.
My child is an individual that needs to choose their own life and trust me to be there for them. Trust is the key.

I think starting at birth is the best way to allow them to develop their strongest sense of self and security. I did give them unlimited access to food (ie; breast) from birth. As soon as they showed an interest in solid food, I let them experiment with that. Unlimited access does not mean pushing things on them they aren't ready for, it means trusting the cues your child gives you.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Ren,

We have not gotten there yet, but our family is anxiously awaiting the day that dd asks for animal products. We are vegan. Dh and I are vegan primarily for ethical reasons. Dd thus far is vegan by default but I am sure she has had a taste of things here and there without my knowing. I know that I cannot impose my morals on dd. Nor do I want to. Yet having meat stored and cooked in my living space or going to the store to purchase it makes me literally want to throw up....not really consensual to me. I noticed that you are vegetarian so maybe you have been through this? I really do not want to introduce guilt in food choices however, I feel it necessary to explain my choices and be honest about where that food comes from. I am really in a quandry about this. I am actually resentful about being allowed to eat animals growing up without being told of where they come from and how the animals are treated. So, I am for certain committed to being honest in an gentle of a way I can be. But after that, I am really confused. I can "let go" of so many things I used to think were absolute, but this one is not so easy to figure out. I am wondering if you know of anyone who has sucessfully worked through this?


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

I also don't think books and TV are the same. There is a commercial aspect to television and advertising that I find objectionable, especially with small children. While some kids may be able to self regulate with television, others can't. I have one that would do absolutely nothing else if TV was available all day, every day. The other two don't need it regulated and usually choose other activities. As they get older, they will make more choices about television. But, while they are young, I feel I need to regulate how much and what they watch. Before starting school, they basically watched only PBS or videos, so I could keep them away from commercials. Once they went to school and learned about Disney and SpongeBob, they wanted to watch. So commercials and advertising became more of an issue.

I have had to regulate my husband's viewing as well. He loves to watch action movies and scary movies. These are inappropriate and scary to our children. In the past, I would find him watching a movie with the girls in the room. He really didn't see this as an issue, either thought they were too young to understand or weren't really paying attention to the television, so it wasn't a big deal. When I showed him the statistic that by the age of 13, most children in America have witnessed 16,000 murders on television/movies, he started to get it. He needs to watch these movies after they have gone to bed. So, I guess I don't have a problem regulating him too.







If I were doing something that he felt could be harmful to the girls, he would be welcome to bring it up to me. We often discuss a variety of issues and respect each other's opinions.

We try to come up with a TV schedule that is agreeable to me and to them. This way, they get to see their favorite shows without being glued to the screen for hours on end. The older two, watch a little after school, then do homework, play and then watch a little more. This generally works very well for all of us. My middle dd would rather watch all the time and I have no problem with telling her TV time is over and suggesting other fun things to do.

I guess this is more of an issue for me because I've watched a few kids in my dhs family literally spend several YEARS of their lives doing very little other than watch TV, eat junk foods and get increasingly obese. They really did nothing else if they weren't in school. TV and junk were allowed all the time and that's all they chose. I NEVER saw either of them eat a fruit or vegetable in the 17 years I've been with my dh. This was very unhealthy and I could definitely see my middle dd doing the same thing, if I allowed it.

As far as junk, we have some in the house balanced with many more healthy choices. They can usually choose either, with a few exceptions. If they are hungry as I am cooking dinner, they need to choose a healthy snack from the refrigerator. If they snack on fresh fruits, vegetables or yogurt before dinner and then don't eat much for the meal, I still feel they are getting healthy foods and don't stress. If they were eating cookies before dinner and then didn't eat dinner, this wouldn't work for me and would not be healthy for them. Also, before bed, they eat healthy snacks rather than a load of sugar. They have pretty much free access to healthy snacks all day. I pack one "junky" thing in lunch and they can have something after school if they want. Overall, they eat a diet that is much better than most of the other kids we know. By allowing them some junk, I think it loses it's power. If I denied them all snack food that is considered junk, I think they'd just want it more. Or get it from friends at school.


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Ren,

We have not gotten there yet, but our family is anxiously awaiting the day that dd asks for animal products. We are vegan. Dh and I are vegan primarily for ethical reasons. Dd thus far is vegan by default but I am sure she has had a taste of things here and there without my knowing. I know that I cannot impose my morals on dd. Nor do I want to. Yet having meat stored and cooked in my living space or going to the store to purchase it makes me literally want to throw up....not really consensual to me. I noticed that you are vegetarian so maybe you have been through this? I really do not want to introduce guilt in food choices however, I feel it necessary to explain my choices and be honest about where that food comes from. I am really in a quandry about this. I am actually resentful about being allowed to eat animals growing up without being told of where they come from and how the animals are treated. So, I am for certain committed to being honest in an gentle of a way I can be. But after that, I am really confused. I can "let go" of so many things I used to think were absolute, but this one is not so easy to figure out. I am wondering if you know of anyone who has sucessfully worked through this?


I had to comment on this, yooper. We actually went through just the opposite last year. My dd, then in first grade, announced that she was now a vegetarian. She learned where meat comes from and found it objectionable. She told us she didn't want to eat meat anymore. I told her that was fine, she didn't need to eat meat. I called my SIL because she is vegetarian and I needed advice on how to be sure dd was getting protein, iron, etc in her diet. My SIL thought it was great that we respect our dds choices in food. She wanted to be a vegetarian as a child and her parents told her she had to eat meat.







I respect my dds choice and would never force her to eat meat. It's been a year and she still eats a vegetarian diet.

We eat very little meat anyway. Only free range chicken and no beef at all. Mad cow disease grossed me out and I just couldn't even look at beef after that. So far, dds haven't wanted it. I'm glad. If they do want a burger one day (the 2 that aren't vegetarian) I will probably let them have it. My SIL has said she will let her dd eat meat, if she chooses to have some. She won't cook it, but let her have it in a restaurant, at Grandma's house, etc. I think she wants to respect her dds choices because her's weren't respected as a child.


----------



## RenAllen (Feb 13, 2006)

ME!









I guess the defining choice for me, was whether my ethics and beliefs were more important, or my children's wholeness and peace.
My children come ahead of any ethics I have on any priority scale!! But let me clarify. The principle of "do no harm" is one that permeates our life. We recycle, my oldest child has been a peace activist, we try to live with less impact on the earth, BUT if my child wants to try McDonalds (yeah, puke gag) I am NOT going to heap my judegement and shame upon them (I'll just share it here with you all! HA).
Their need to explore and learn about this world, comes before my purist ethics. yk? They do ask questions as they get older, they come to their own conclusions, sometimes similar to mine, sometimes different.

Interestingly enough, my babsy boy (now 5) asked if we could go to McDonalds today and my 16 y.o. pipes up with "NO, not McDonalds. I don't want to support them!" Too funny. This was the kid that would order "dead cow" at a restaurant when he wanted a hamburger! I got some weird looks over that one.

My children are the ones that taught me the valuable lesson that violent video games do NOT cause violence. This kind of stuff really bothered me at one point, until I realized that violence stems from real-life violence (abuse, neglect etc..) NOT from pretend violence. Read Alice ******'s work on this topic, she's amazing!

As much as my delicate sensitivies wanted to JUDGE that as "less than", I could see the fascination in my boys. I could tell it was something they really enjoyed.
After years of watching and playing with violent PRETEND stuff, they are not desensitized to real life violence. They are some of the most peaceful, gentle people I know. The actual tone and environment of their family and home plays the role of deciding whether kids get desensitized to real violence or not. Pretend is pretend. My kids get upset at parents talking mean to their kids!! If they even think about spankings or any kind of physical meanness, they get VERY upset. My daughter has cried for her friends that get punished.

So back to vegetarianism. As much as I loathe current farming practices, as much as I feel better when I don't eat meat, I believe strongly that different diets are better for different people. My grandparents ate meat extensively their entire lives and both are in their 90's now and doing well. They were farmers way back in the 40's and only gave up farming cattle about 15 years ago!

So if I trust my child, if I truly want to respect their choices, I need to help them find solutions to our challenges. If they know I detest cooking meat (which I don't mind doing for them) we could find another alternative to meet their need. We could buy pre-cooked, we could order out etc... there are ways to meet each family members needs, while staying true to our own way of following our heart. Shame and guilt don't help them find their true path.

Danielle Conger has been writing some REALLY great posts about this very topic over at "Always Unschooled", a yahoogroups email list for parents with very young children (pre-birth - 8years...roughly). She really phrases it so well, about how we can avoid judging our children's choices but still honor our own path. It's a shift in thinking...that's for sure! But I'm so grateful to my children for helping me learn this and I'm SO grateful for all the fabulous learning we've done together, with issues that would have put up walls between us in the past.









Ren
learninginfreedom.com


----------



## RenAllen (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't think there's a commercial out there that we can't learn something valuable from. My children are quite aware of advertising issues (with the exception of the 5y.o., who will learn this at his own pace) and are very careful consumers. Advertising isn't automatically evil. Being a critical thinker, analyzing data from many sources...these are valuable tools in our society.

Here's some great research about video gaming: http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerev...act/myths.html

I have some good stuff on the myths surrounding television viewing also. Need to find it.....Most of the negative associations, are because of the newness of all this technology. People were really negative about novels when they first came out too...it takes a few generations for newer technologies and modes of communication to be accepted. In future years, I think there will be a huge shift in how people think about television, because there is finally some solid research coming out that shows how faulty a lot of the old research is.

Also, I think school is FAR more damaging to a child's individuality and has a lot more power to influence than television! It's funny to me, that a person would limit television, which is right in the home where you can discuss and analyze the input together, but trust a child alone in an environment that judges and grades everything they do.??? I understand that some children choose it, and that is a very different experience. But there are all sorts of "influences" that are around us, helping our children analyze data is a fabulous tool...no matter the form of communication or influence.

What better way to really SEE Africa or Brazil or Peru than television? TV gives us insight and views into life and culture and history and food and fun and relationships and MORE! It's a wonderful learning tool if you don't let fear rule you. And aside from learning, it's a time for families to CONNECT (unlike the myth that says it disconnects families), new information to chat about, funny things to laugh about and so on....
It's just one way we get information. No better, no worse than any other form we choose.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

RenAllen I also unschool, with an older child (almost ten).

I think it is important for people to look at all the aspect of the tv debate, the science and studies both for and against, and look honestly at their own family.

If you do that, it is impossible to say that one conclusion can be drawn for everyone. I think it is necessary and important to say what is true in our own lives. I disagree with unschoolers who claim that freedom provides immunity to addiction. That is a very subjective statement, and a presumptuous one.

My truth is the child in front of me, not the child in front of you (general you).

I have looked at it with open eyes, gone back and forth, and arrived at a point of certainty that there are two separate issues at play. One is the t.v. as an image projection box, and the other is t.v. programming (what you find on the schedule of a TV Guide).

I see programming as deliberately hypnotic and addictive. My own life experiences show this to be true for my family. TV is designed to be and intended to be and for some people it is addictive. I believe that how a child is raised has little impact in determining how they respond to deliberately addictive stimuli. A much better indicator is how a specific child responds to the environment in general.

Little that goes into the airtime of a successful station is haphazard. Deconstructing commercial programming will reveal sophisticated methods of playing on known human brain responses. Everything from the colors, to the volume, to the speed of an announcers voice, and above all, timing and delayed gratification delivery, are designed to make turning off the tv a conflict of interests for the individual.

My reality confirms that tv programming can be a powerful, real addiction, and children, *no matter how they are raised* are no exception.

The other issue is whether tv, alone, without any programming, has the same effect. Certainly, when *you* become the "programmer" several important dynamics change. For example if a child makes a home movie and plays it on the tv, is that addictive? What about commercial free DVD's? Documentaries made without endorsed sponsors? If you only use tv as a medium of communication, which you choose, and decide how to use, is the effect different?

What about DVD's that ARE commercial endorsements? I have heard that Disney is now "looping" some dvd's. As the movie ends, it starts again at the beginning without a pause.

It's such a fascinating issue! There are so many dynamics to consider. The ways we use tv are varied and complex. It is important to listen to each other, without denying the way this issue has affected another's life.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

On the topic of trust, which has been brought up in several posts:

I think it IS important to talk about trust, anxiety, and misplaced fears, since we as individuals can and do unfairly burden our children with those emotions.

Parents also possess amazing intuition and instincts that emerge in caring for their child. This looks and feels completely different than misplaced fears and anxiety. It is a knowing, in the gut, which you feel much better when you honor, and much worse when you ignore.

It's so important to validate the difference between parenting intuition and misplaced distrust in a thread like this.


----------



## amma! (Apr 30, 2005)

Quote:

What better way to really SEE Africa or Brazil or Peru than television?
oh dear ....
Considering all the ways India has been represented on TV, I can't say I have much hope that our commericial sponsors would have any greater regard for the people of other 'third world' and fourth world societies.

I think the very idea that you can 'see' africa by seeing a TV program is THE message that the TV medium wants to sell.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
RenAllen I also unschool, with an older child (almost ten).

I think it is important for people to look at all the aspect of the tv debate, the science and studies both for and against, and look honestly at their own family.

If you do that, it is impossible to say that one conclusion can be drawn for everyone. I think it is necessary and important to say what is true in our own lives. I disagree with unschoolers who claim that freedom provides immunity to addiction. That is a very subjective statement, and a presumptuous one.

My truth is the child in front of me, not the child in front of you (general you).

I have looked at it with open eyes, gone back and forth, and arrived at a point of certainty that there are two separate issues at play. One is the t.v. as an image projection box, and the other is t.v. programming (what you find on the schedule of a TV Guide).

I see programming as deliberately hypnotic and addictive. My own life experiences show this to be true for my family. TV is designed to be and intended to be and for some people it is addictive. I believe that how a child is raised has little impact in determining how they respond to deliberately addictive stimuli. A much better indicator is how a specific child responds to the environment in general.

Little that goes into the airtime of a successful station is haphazard. Deconstructing commercial programming will reveal sophisticated methods of playing on known human brain responses. Everything from the colors, to the volume, to the speed of an announcers voice, and above all, timing and delayed gratification delivery, are designed to make turning off the tv a conflict of interests for the individual.

My reality confirms that tv programming can be a powerful, real addiction, and children, *no matter how they are raised* are no exception.

The other issue is whether tv, alone, without any programming, has the same effect. Certainly, when *you* become the "programmer" several important dynamics change. For example if a child makes a home movie and plays it on the tv, is that addictive? What about commercial free DVD's? Documentaries made without endorsed sponsors? If you only use tv as a medium of communication, which you choose, and decide how to use, is the effect different?

What about DVD's that ARE commercial endorsements? I have heard that Disney is now "looping" some dvd's. As the movie ends, it starts again at the beginning without a pause.

It's such a fascinating issue! There are so many dynamics to consider. The ways we use tv are varied and complex. It is important to listen to each other, without denying the way this issue has affected another's life.

Well said, heartmama!


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

re TV, i have to say i still see a big question mark on this issue for me .... i mean, just because i want to withdraw from being an authority, i don't want to leave a vacuum where others with no such qualms rush in. yes, kids have the resilience, they can filter out, critique, evaluate, manipulate ... but it goes both ways.

It is very interesting to hear of experiences of those with older /several kids ... still, given the serious concerns some of us have with TV, based on our experiences as well as our readings, we can't just go by someone else's experience or just hope/expect that 50 years from now the current thinking will be proved wrong. We can only go with what we know and experience now.

Restricing = making something more tempting? I am not really into reverse psychology, I think that if I restrict a given X and explain why, and at the same time promote various Y and Z things that leave less time/space for X then I am actually communicating certain beliefs about X, Y & Z. Of course my child is free to critique, etc and at a reasonable age for each particular thing I should let go, and knowing that I would prefer let go sooner rather than later will govern how I prepare for doing so.

Harming others, including animals, falls in the category of things we do not permit. It is relative, I know, I am not claiming that only vegans avoid harming animals, or that vegans succeed 100% in avoiding harm to animals or other people for that matter. But we draw the line where we draw the line. I am not sure there would be a way to let each child draw his or her own line through trial and error - if my dd were in a situation where she was harming another, I would remove her. I would not simply leave her to figure out that she should not be doing that. Am I missing something here ... surely if it was this obvious it would not be confusing? Is there some non-coercive approach that I have failed to figure out?


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RenAllen*
My child is an individual that needs to choose their own life and trust me to be there for them. Trust is the key.

I think starting at birth is the best way to allow them to develop their strongest sense of self and security. I did give them unlimited access to food (ie; breast) from birth. As soon as they showed an interest in solid food, I let them experiment with that. Unlimited access does not mean pushing things on them they aren't ready for, it means trusting the cues your child gives you.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com


Ren, I think what you have said is really beautiful - but I want to get more specific on the issue of foods. Sure, we are all in favor of babywearing and if I could go topless like the tribal women I once lived with, maybe I would!

Seriosuly though, I wonder if this means that you would have let your child taste solids even before 6 months, and would have let them taste anything they wanted that was on your plate, even if the 'experts' deemed it not appropriate till a later age? I remember denying any solids till 6 months, wheat till 12 months, certain fruits & veggies (e.g. cauliflower, strewberries) till 18 months, peanut till 2.5 ... if i had just let my child choose, as my SIL did, she may have developed allergies, as my SIL's son has. In all above examples, my dd had shown interest in solids prior to 6 months, and eager interest in ALL solids, meaning I had to make a conscious effort to see that she did not eat something until I was confident she could handle it.

I feel almost silly to ask about something that seems "obvious" but since you did specify "from birth" I was curious as to your take on this?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Am I missing something here ... surely if it was this obvious it would not be confusing? Is there some non-coercive approach that I have failed to figure out?
No, you aren't missing something.

I think parents of older children do tend to forget what it was like when we just had one, and that one was only two or three years old.

I really doubted myself at times when ds was that age. I wanted to reason with him, but he could be unreasonable. I wanted to be gentle, but he was an enthusiastic hitter and fit thrower. I wondered at times how he could even be my child!

Now he is SO reasonable, articulate, insightful, concerned, thoughtful, verbal, etc. that I forget it wasn't always like this! It wasn't always this easy! He will be ten in two months and he is just so grown up and independent and considerate. I can talk to him about anything! I would never have to "make" him do anything, ever! Whatever the problem, we can talk it out.

But he grew to that point, it wasn't always like that, and until we got there, I wondered if we would, if it was my fault, if I could "do" something to hurry him to a point of being more reasonable and mature.

In hindsight, no, it wasn't about me or what I was doing. But it was hard to know it then.


----------



## KateSt. (Nov 25, 2003)

Frequent GD reader delurking here... I absolutely







hearing from mamas with older children. There is nothing more encouraging or inspiring than hearing the "payoffs" (for lack of a better term) of gentle and respectful parenting. Ren and Heartmama, thank you for your posts!

The tv thing is something I've taken issue with since ds was born. I can take or leave tv, and when it's on I can easily pull myself away (and many times I'm not even paying attention). But my dh IS addicted to tv and it can drive me







. It's not the frequency that he watches that's upsetting (though he will watch more than me), it's how hypnotized he is by it that really gets to me. I will literally be talking to him, repeating myself, and he will not hear me even though I'm right next to him. So, I'll wait until a commercial--thinking it's the program that's so captivating--and he STILL won't hear me. He really is mesmerized, and I feel like I've "lost" him once the tv is on. He grew up with a lot of tv, so I can't help but think this has something to do with it.
I've read extensively both arguments of the tv issue, and while I really would like to believe that tv is not as harmful as some say it is, I can't say that's true based on the evidence in my own home.

Dh and I negotiated tv viewing last month so we watched only a couple of hours a week, and it felt so much better! We did new things, had longer dinners, played with ds more, listened to new music, and I remember thinking "this way of life feels more authentic!" Then we all got sick and the tv came back on.







: Now we're all better, we're back in negotiations...

I do think the tv thing is different for all families and each family has to figure out what works best for them based on their personal dynamics. Just my input...

I really delurked to thank the mamas with older children for their posts, and to tell Ren that I sincerely hope she keeps posting! (Ren, I've also lurked on the alwaysunschooled board, per Pat's suggestion, and what an wonderful board that is!! Very inspiring!







)


----------



## writermommy (Jan 29, 2005)

Wow Kate, it sounds like your dh is my dh's long lost twin.







The spacing out on the tv thing makes me nuts too. Not just when I want to talk to him, but when he doesn't hear one of my dds. I get







when this happens! My middle dd is addicted, just like her Daddy. I remember when she was just a few months old. I walked into the living room and she was on dh's lap. They were both staring at the TV with the EXACT SAME BLANK EXPRESSION on their faces. I grabbed her and said, "Give me that baby!!!" Turns out, it was a sign of things to come.









We also negotiate the TV thing. I do limit their viewing, but not arbitrarily. We sat down and talked about TV and all the fun things she misses by watching too much of it. Together we came up with a schedule that we agreed upon. She comes home from school and watches a little TV then she stops and does her homework. SInce she's in Kindergarten it isn't too much. THen she plays, does crafts, roller skates or rides her bike in the basement (it's winter and too cold for outside most days here. Then we eat dinner and she watches some more television before getting ready for bed.

I understand that SOME children can self regulate without any help or negotiation. MY dd is ADDICTED like her Daddy and is not able to do this. She would watch and watch. So we had to come up with a solution or Mommy was going to smash the stupid thing to bits.







This way we are all happy and she has other interests and gets exercies. I mentioned in a previous post that a few kids in dhs family did nothing but watch tv for several years, while becoming more and more obese. They need exercise and other activities, which she wouldn't get if we didn't put some limits on TV. She would just zone out on it from the time she got off the bus, until bedtime.

I am not non coercive, but I don't just shut it off in the middle of a show either. We worked the schedule out together and she agreed to it. I never had to do this with the other 2 dds because they get up and leave the tv on their own. Even if its on and in the middle of a show, they find other things to do on their own. Unfortunately, this isn't true for my middle dd. I think like every thing else with parenting, we need to base our decisions on our individual kids and what they need. I know even with 3 in the same family, those needs are often completely different for each child.


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

Hmm, TV. I have several anti-TV posts on this board. I guess I am not at all interested in having my son learn what TV teaches right now. I know several sweet kids who--already, at age 4 or 5--have conversation that consists largely of TV-show/Disney related topics. And everything on TV is designed to sell you something, pretty much (even on PBS sometimes)--and do not underestimate the sophistication of TV marketers. They hire PhDs in child psychology to make ads that fit particular ages. Almost every part of children's programming is deliberately designed to both enitice the kid to keep watching and to sell products. Marketers do things like: hire teenagers and children to tell them what their friends are interested in (so it can be sold to them), hire kids to market to their peers. They post on web sites posing as members of the community (this happens with pharmaceutical companies too--they hire people to post on 'community' sites about depression, etc.). I don't mean to sound paranoid (and I am not implying that anyone here is a spy!!







) but I have interviewed these people, studied their textbooks, etc. It happens all the time. (A dumb version I just heard about that probably won't work--McDonald's is currently trying to pay rap singers to talk about Big Macs in their songs.) I am sure demographic analyists look at MDC to get the right vocabulary for their organic/'natural' campaigns.

Marketing is very subtle now, and very sophisticated--you don't always know you're being manipulated,and it's not always for a specific product; ideas are marketed too so they can be used to sell things later. I fully agree that it is necessary to teach your kids how to recognize when an advertisement is being aimed at them--this is an essential skill in our society. But I think it's also important to just experience a world where that's not even an issue. Unless you move to the North Pole, the only time they're gonna get a mostly ad-free life is when they're very small, when you can have a say in what they see and do. I will probably watch some stuff with my kid when he's bigger, but for now I just don't see it.

They don't make children's TV shows to entertain your kids, you know? No one makes commercial television because of their artistic vision or humanitarian feelings. They do it to make money.

I spent the summer in the small Wisconsin town where I grew up a couple of years ago, and would walk around on these beautiful days. There were almost no kids outside. Everyone inside with their unlimited TV and video-game access. My mom was the grade school guidance counselor, and she told me about 9-year-olds with their own TV and internet and games, in their rooms. For those of you who don't limit TV, would you put a TV in your kid's room? If you would, why?

A relative of mine doesn't limit her 4-year-old's TV watching (in fact, she encourages it,to get him out of her hair), and the kid sits like a zombie in front of the tube most of the day. (When they visited my mom, they turned on the TV as soon as they walked in the door and put their kid in front of it.) The parents sit at the dinner table and eat a beautiful home-cooked meal, and the kid sits in front of the TV eating a microwave cheeseburger. I guess when I think of 'free choice' this is what I see. Maybe it doesn't have to be this way, but. It's hard for me to imagine that this kid would be in the habit of either the TV or the cheeseburger if his parents hadn't originally given them to him and set no limits.

BTW, I fully agree that school can be a very destructive place too. But that's for another day.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

A relative of mine doesn't limit her 4-year-old's TV watching (in fact, she encourages it,to get him out of her hair), and the kid sits like a zombie in front of the tube most of the day. (When they visited my mom, they turned on the TV as soon as they walked in the door and put their kid in front of it.) The parents sit at the dinner table and eat a beautiful home-cooked meal, and the kid sits in front of the TV eating a microwave cheeseburger. I guess when I think of 'free choice' this is what I see. Maybe it doesn't have to be this way, but. It's hard for me to imagine that this kid would be in the habit of either the TV or the cheeseburger if his parents hadn't originally given them to him and set no limits.
I think some people who don't limit tv have experiences that make them sure this only happens because the attitude behind the 'unlimited tv' is coercive, and the other coercive aspects of home or school make tv an "escape" the child needs. And a child who is not coerced or limited will find a natural balance that is not captured in examples like this.

It's a compelling line of thinking and I fully support that it's the truth of some people's lives~I am sure there are people who, when tv is unlimited, are amazed to see a once addicted child get up and walk away. And I think that's great and they have a right to point this out when others give negative examples of children going to extremes with unlimited tv.

But, that is just not the whole picture. There are children like mine who have never been in school, always had tremendous amounts of freedom and respect, and with unlimited tv they never, ever, ever self regulated. Ds would watch until he was half starved, in tears, upset at having to stop to use the bathroom. Ds would watch until his eyes glazed over and he jumped at the sound of someone's voice.

How it seemed to me was this: Ds was exceptionally capable of "immersing" himself in his interests. If we think of a static interest that he had to animate, like a truck or book or board game, his strong immersion abilities were kept in check. He could still "hear" his own voice, because in a way, he was the real creator of the 'voice' given to the truck or toy, even to books (since these were picture books, he didn't read until 7 or 8 years old).

Dynamic forces,like people or social games, naturally kept him balanced too. It would be natural that he see me reach for food and think to feed himself too, or that I see him dancing about and I suggest a trip to the bathroom. With other kids, the same cues came into play that helped him regulate himself.

I once met a eurythmist (waldorf physical therapist) who worked with ds, and one of the things this woman (one of the most balanced people I have ever met) said to me about ds was this "He seems to seek his boundaries outside of himself and takes them inward, rather than finding inner boundaries and working outward". This was EXACTLY right, and she saw this about him too when he was just 4.

TV seemed to suppress both the environmental cues ds needed to self regulate, and the ability to hear his own inner cues.

This tendency was VERY strong when he was small, under 7 years old. Ds could just LOSE himself, and it was something we really admired and loved about him. But it was also something we had to be mindful about in caring for him. It was just not wise to put him on a bike near a ditch or steep fall. He wouldn't see it, even if warned, until he fell into it. He was just like this and it was exasperating but it was how he was at that point. I sensed this would fade over time and it has. In a way that is part of growing up~being able to expand our awareness with only abstract thought.

TV programming was far more sophisticated than he could regulate. Ds never once sat during hours of watching. He would practically be climbing into the screen, always standing, even pressing his hands against the tv. We had to velcro it to the stand to keep him from pulling it down on himself. And he wasn't a baby, he was 5! It was a real addictive reaction, something that if you know and loved and lived with him, you could see was a struggle and problem. It wasn't some great wonderful kind of intensity, but an overwhelming tiring kind of intensity, like someone who went around the merry go round one too many times. Except it was parked in the living room and telling him each time he engaged in it not to walk away, not to turn it off, and to hurry back as soon as he possible could.

If this were a person who made him feel so exhausted and conflicted and strangely glazed over and freaked out, well, maybe it's not a good comparison but it's something to think about too. I wouldn't want someone in my living room all day who constantly called my child over and then encouraged him to down 5 espressos and buy list of products and then feel bad for walking away. Maybe it's a good comparison, and one I should have thought about long ago. Because I certainly would be alarmed at an adult acting like that towards my child, and that is exactly the message an adult somewhere was sending him through the tv....


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

Really, though, if you want to be TCS, you need to work on your attitudes towards these things, and try to stop dividing the world into "good" and "bad".
I think the last thing I want to be is 'wannabe' TCS. I have not studied TCS but rather than measure up to an idea of what TCS is supposed to be, I am working on taking my own child seriously and for that me that does not mean withdrawing / setting aside all my knowledge and judgements and perspectives on what is right/wrong, good/bad, etc. It is one thing to give some space for my child to form judgements on her own, and let my judgement be one of many inputs that she uses in this process, and quite another to say that we need not / should not even make such judgements. Does TCS in fact imply the latter? I think after a month on this board I have gotten more confused than ever but it is a productive confusion, and I think clarity is starting to emerge.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

OK, this is what I don't understand about allowing kids the freedom to choose how much TV, etc., to watch. Do the parents not at least try to steer the kids towards another activity?

My TV time was not limited at all when I was a kid. As a consequence, I watched FAR too much TV, and I think it was a negative part of my childhood; I often watched inappropriate content which upset me a lot, and I missed out on outdoor play and other things I could have been doing. I can't imagine giving my kids this same kind of "freedom". At the very least, in my mind (as my child is only 9 months old, this is all theoretical) I would try to always be watching with them so we could discuss the content, and I would definitely try to steer them towards content that was age-appropriate. I'd also try to interest them in other activities as much as possible, and model a no-TV-watching (or barely-any-TV-watching) home.

Even with my "steering", TV is so addictive that I can imagine DD could end up watching far more TV than I think is healthy...actually, I don't think most TV is healthy, for the reasons PP have mentioned (very eloquently, I might add).

I just cannot fathom letting kids self-regulate TV or junk food; these are highly addictive products (and designed to be so), and children are physically and psychologically unprepared to resist them. I soooo wish my parents had regulated my TV time. (And my junk food intake, come to think of it.)

And was it on this thread that someone said they feel that *not* keeping junk food in the house is somehow coercive, since they know their kids like junk food? So if one's DH liked porn, would it be proper to stock the computer with it, because not to do so would be coercive? If one's dog liked chocolate, which is toxic to dogs, would one be 'coercive' in keeping chocolate out of the dog's reach? This logic truly escapes me.

I'm struggling with understanding the extremes of non-coercive parenting, as you can tell. Some of the examples I have seen of this parenting philosophy just seem like Coloroso's "jellyfish" parenting to me, i.e. an abdication of parental responsibility and a lack of respect for the child's developmental need for guidance (again, at the extremes...I have also seen many situations described where non-coercive parenting is used thoughtfully and appropriately IMO).

Personally I hope to keep my home a largely TV- and junk-food-free zone for as long as possible, and then we'll discuss whatever TV or junk food options we choose as a family, as DD gets older. I just don't think it's fair to her to allow her to self-regulate her intake of addictive media and food options before she has the capacity to do so.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I am working on taking my own child seriously and for that me that does not mean withdrawing / setting aside all my knowledge and judgements and perspectives on what is right/wrong, good/bad, etc. It is one thing to give some space for my child to form judgements on her own, and let my judgement be one of many inputs that she uses in this process, and quite another to say that we need not / should not even make such judgements. Does TCS in fact imply the latter?
Maybe not as part of the basic theory, but in practice I rarely see a TCS discussion board accept a right/wrong judgement as legitimate.

I see truth in the words of democratic freedom authors like Holt and Neill who clearly, explicitly warned parents to never embrace any doctrine to the exclusion of their own parental insights and instincts. They are not TCS, but it is important to realize that the topic of democracy and freedom as it applies to parenting and education is almost a century old, and TCS is not, by any stretch, the most radical and/or 'original' form of this idea. It might be good to read other authors on this topic to get the full picture of freedom in parenting, because it is really a varied and diverse field of voices.

For myself I know that mothering is the most intuitive experience I have ever had. I think part of what nature gives to a baby is this gift of instinct and intuition to parents, that keeps them safe in so many ways. I was the only person who thought there was anything wrong with ds when he was a newborn. Nobody saw it. Not even the pediatrician. I had never felt such a strange sense of certainty towards anyone else in my life. But I knew something was wrong with ds. His heart was failing and he had about two hours to live when a cardiac specialist saw him and rushed him into surgery. Seriously, I just cannot believe any doctrine more than my own sense of knowing. After something like that, who could?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Heartmama, could you suggest some books to read? I find what you have to say to be really interesting.

I agree that 'doctrine' (of any sort) should never trump instinct, but I always like to balance instinct with research, especially since my instinct stems in part from how I was parented, and I do not consider that a healthy model to draw from.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

We own a used bookstore so I come across fairly obscure authors. Still, ebay is the book lover's friend.

I would try to start as near to the beginning as you easily could (historically) and work forward. Neill and Holt both reference their mentors, who in turn reference their own. If you don't mind waiting I will try to put together a list from oldest to more contemporary authors.

If you haven't read things like Summerhill by A.S. Neill or Beyond Freedom by John Holt then I would start there. They are easy to find.

Easily one of the most radical books I came across was titled The Children On the Hill. It was an anonymous account of a Welsh family in the 1950's who moved to a remote home on a country hill and began an experimental lifestyle of child rearing. I can't even begin to describe it fully. Beginning at birth the mother and father assumed distinct roles. The father would provide all necessary physical needs by working outside the home, and when he was home in the evenings, was an assistant to the mother, and after the children went to sleep, served as a daily review and feedback source for the mom. The mom...well...this was something. Starting at birth (they had four children about 2 years apart) she neither slept nor ate until each child felt completely and totally fulfilled in their interests in the environment. I mean, ANYTHING, a child wanted to do, was done to the fullest extent possible and for as long as the child wanted, and it was never ever acceptable for the mother to do or say anything that in any way or in any form discouraged the child. If the baby discovered gravity one day by dropping a spoon, mother was to hand it back and do *nothing else* for hours or days if necessary, until the baby tired of it. More than that she was not to try and discourage or distract the child from it either (I never understood fully how she did this at once with 4 children...)More than that, her role was to identify (this is hard to describe) windows of learning, in which a child, maybe still pre verbal, was experimenting with an abstract idea, and then when they slept, to handcraft tangible models of these idea's in such a way that it might please or interest the child in what they were showing an interest. Essentially she was to be a living resource for the children as they interacted with the world, to be an ever present aide, without judgement, motive, agenda, or opinion, and since friends or outside interests would prevent her work with this, she essentially never left the home and spoke only at night to her husband. (the author of the book, who was truly very objective in describing the family, at one point did suggest it was also a subtle role of the father to make sure the mother didn't, say, kill herself from hunger or sleep deprivation...she reported getting about 5 hours of rest a night at most....).

This plan was worked out between the two parents before they ever had children, and was a very intentional project, not the by product of experiences after they had children. The book gives detailed biographies of both parents, who were each really very amazing and interesting people (I think you would have to be!).

Anway, the family lived in anonymity after a documentary, and then book, was done about them. The oldest child was a scientific prodigy at 11, the second child was a national piano prodigy at 8 (interestingly, reading the book this child seemed very autistic, never spoke, and communicated primarily through his piano) , the third child was an accomplished artist at 6, and the 4 year old (at the time of the book) liked nothing more than sitting up into the wee hours of dawn peppering his father and oldest brother with questions about euclydian geometry (I can't even spell it). Obviously the kids did more than this, and the author noted the children were at all times free to do or say anything and everything they wished. Their accomplishments in Wales were so exceptional, interest in the family began to grow, and they didn't want to be well known, and I think they basically went into hiding and were never heard from again it seems....


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Enjoying your posts, Heartmama.

I really liked what you said about your child seeking external boundaries. This seems to be the situation for my DC as well.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Thanks! I was really struggling at the point that I met the eurythmist, and I think her spontaneous description of him was one of those intuitive 'ah-ha' moments we never forget!

By the way I just went to ebay and found and bought a 5$ copy of The Children On the Hill. I had read it at a college library and describing it here made me want to read it again! I'm glad to see there are copies of it floating around. It really is worth reading if you are looking for myriad views on autonomous living and learning...


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2*
Hmm, TV. I have several anti-TV posts on this board. I guess I am not at all interested in having my son learn what TV teaches right now. I know several sweet kids who--already, at age 4 or 5--have conversation that consists largely of TV-show/Disney related topics. And everything on TV is designed to sell you something, pretty much (even on PBS sometimes)--and do not underestimate the sophistication of TV marketers. They hire PhDs in child psychology to make ads that fit particular ages. Almost every part of children's programming is deliberately designed to both enitice the kid to keep watching and to sell products. Marketers do things like: hire teenagers and children to tell them what their friends are interested in (so it can be sold to them), hire kids to market to their peers. They post on web sites posing as members of the community (this happens with pharmaceutical companies too--they hire people to post on 'community' sites about depression, etc.). I don't mean to sound paranoid (and I am not implying that anyone here is a spy!!







) but I have interviewed these people, studied their textbooks, etc. It happens all the time. (A dumb version I just heard about that probably won't work--McDonald's is currently trying to pay rap singers to talk about Big Macs in their songs.) I am sure demographic analyists look at MDC to get the right vocabulary for their organic/'natural' campaigns.

Marketing is very subtle now, and very sophisticated--you don't always know you're being manipulated,and it's not always for a specific product; ideas are marketed too so they can be used to sell things later. I fully agree that it is necessary to teach your kids how to recognize when an advertisement is being aimed at them--this is an essential skill in our society. But I think it's also important to just experience a world where that's not even an issue. Unless you move to the North Pole, the only time they're gonna get a mostly ad-free life is when they're very small, when you can have a say in what they see and do. I will probably watch some stuff with my kid when he's bigger, but for now I just don't see it.

They don't make children's TV shows to entertain your kids, you know? No one makes commercial television because of their artistic vision or humanitarian feelings. They do it to make money.

I spent the summer in the small Wisconsin town where I grew up a couple of years ago, and would walk around on these beautiful days. There were almost no kids outside. Everyone inside with their unlimited TV and video-game access. My mom was the grade school guidance counselor, and she told me about 9-year-olds with their own TV and internet and games, in their rooms. For those of you who don't limit TV, would you put a TV in your kid's room? If you would, why?

A relative of mine doesn't limit her 4-year-old's TV watching (in fact, she encourages it,to get him out of her hair), and the kid sits like a zombie in front of the tube most of the day. (When they visited my mom, they turned on the TV as soon as they walked in the door and put their kid in front of it.) The parents sit at the dinner table and eat a beautiful home-cooked meal, and the kid sits in front of the TV eating a microwave cheeseburger. I guess when I think of 'free choice' this is what I see. Maybe it doesn't have to be this way, but. It's hard for me to imagine that this kid would be in the habit of either the TV or the cheeseburger if his parents hadn't originally given them to him and set no limits.

BTW, I fully agree that school can be a very destructive place too. But that's for another day.









My feeling is that TV is "bad" too. I do not like it. I do not like watching kids watching it. BUT, I think setting arbitrary limits on TV viewing will do little to help a child understand the issues surrounding TV and serves to make it "forbidden fruit". That child will grow to be an adult that can buy a TV and do whatever they want with it. I think I understand the idea that the child is your responsibility until age X then after that it is up to them, which is maybe the idea here? We choose to allow dd to watch TV whenever she wants to. We do not have cable here and do not get any channels without it so I suppose we are "cheating" since all she can watch are DVDs that have no commercials. She has very little interest at this point but I am pretty sure she will develop an interest and I might become uncomfortable with the amount of TV she watches. When that day comes, I feel my job is to help her understand TV. I will be happy to explain or read to her the known negative effects. We will discuss ads and manipulation. Maybe we will discuss them a great deal. AND, I will make sure there are plenty of other intersting and fun things to do at any given time so that I know she is not choosing TV because of a lack of other ideas. My very limited experience thus far with the child I have and the other kids I am close to is that they are very receptive to information like this. And if I feel I have shared my best information with dd and she still chooses to watch more than I would like her to, I am just going to have to step back and bite my tongue. I do not want to isolate dd from things like this because she will be an adult some day and it is important for her to be able to think critically and make good decisions. I think one should practice this from the beginning or thier decisions are (sometimes irrationally) tainted by the adult influences in their lives.


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

Quote: "More than that, her role was to identify (this is hard to describe) windows of learning, in which a child, maybe still pre verbal, was experimenting with an abstract idea, and then when they slept, to handcraft tangible models of these idea's in such a way that it might please or interest the child in what they were showing an interest. Essentially she was to be a living resource for the children as they interacted with the world, to be an ever present aide, without judgement, motive, agenda, or opinion, and since friends or outside interests would prevent her work with this, she essentially never left the home and spoke only at night to her husband. (the author of the book, who was truly very objective in describing the family, at one point did suggest it was also a subtle role of the father to make sure the mother didn't, say, kill herself from hunger or sleep deprivation...she reported getting about 5 hours of rest a night at most....)."

So the other thing these kids learned was that their mother (and women) were there to exist only for them, to have no other life or interests outside them, and that it is right an appropriate for there to be someone working at complete personal sacrifice--to the point of not eating or sleeping!--so that they can have freedom. The idea that "freedom" requires the servitude (even slavery) of someone else is also a very old idea, and very much a part of our culture. (See Eric Foner's book, The History of American Freedom.) The father must have been rather charismatic to convince his wife that she was supposed to be the one who gave up everything, even basic bodily needs, for his experiment. It's great that they turned out to be prodigies, but I think I may look into the history of this book a bit--seems fishy that they all 'disappeared.' Just because it's been published doesn't mean it's accurate, and in the 1950s there was plenty of cultural pressure for women to sacrifice everything for their families and children and be happy about it.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
The mom...well...this was something. Starting at birth (they had four children about 2 years apart) she neither slept nor ate until each child felt completely and totally fulfilled in their interests in the environment. I mean, ANYTHING, a child wanted to do, was done to the fullest extent possible and for as long as the child wanted, and it was never ever acceptable for the mother to do or say anything that in any way or in any form discouraged the child. If the baby discovered gravity one day by dropping a spoon, mother was to hand it back and do *nothing else* for hours or days if necessary, until the baby tired of it. More than that she was not to try and discourage or distract the child from it either (I never understood fully how she did this at once with 4 children...)More than that, her role was to identify (this is hard to describe) windows of learning, in which a child, maybe still pre verbal, was experimenting with an abstract idea, and then when they slept, to handcraft tangible models of these idea's in such a way that it might please or interest the child in what they were showing an interest. Essentially she was to be a living resource for the children as they interacted with the world, to be an ever present aide, without judgement, motive, agenda, or opinion, and since friends or outside interests would prevent her work with this, she essentially never left the home and spoke only at night to her husband.

Wow. That's... appalling.

I don't care if it would make my daughter the greatest intellectual prodigy the world has ever seen - I would never raise her to believe that she had the right to own a slave.


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

Starting at birth (they had four children about 2 years apart) she neither slept nor ate until each child felt completely and totally fulfilled in their interests in the environment. I mean, ANYTHING, a child wanted to do, was done to the fullest extent possible and for as long as the child wanted, and it was never ever acceptable for the mother to do or say anything that in any way or in any form discouraged the child.
They must have been pretty austere to be able to approach their children this scientifically. But then alot of contemporary parenting advice requires an equally cold, calculating approach. What I dont get is why this would have interfered with the mother's eating and sleeping - why could she not do this simultaneously. Though I dont think of it as a compulsion per se, I too try to encourage my dd to fulfill her interests as much as possible, but this has never once delayed my eating (sleeping has been interrupted / delayed but not really due to dd's 'interests' so much as her feeding/teething/pottying...). I really dislike the idea that giving time and space for a child's interests requires a kind of martyrdom of the mama.

Still, I would be interested in reading the book, and look forward to reading your list once you make it, heartmama.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Like I said, it was easily one of the most extreme contemporary books I have read, not a personal"ideal". I would definitely have it on a reading list though because there aren't many published accounts (that I have found) of a single family applying a theory of complete freedom in learning for so many years, with so many children, to such an extreme.

(Oh, and yes, the message that mother/women are secondary was VERY clear in reading it from our cultural perspective. The family did not seem consciously aware of it at all though, but it was there. Particularly in the different view they had of their (only) daughter. They were clearly delighted that she showed selflessness towards supporting her brothers activities because it might mean she would emulate this process in raising her own children







)


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
BUT, I think setting arbitrary limits on TV viewing will do little to help a child understand the issues surrounding TV and serves to make it "forbidden fruit".

But if it's based on scientific research, research that has found TV to be negatively associated with a child's development, is it really arbitrary?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
That child will grow to be an adult that can buy a TV and do whatever they want with it.

Of course they will. And at that time, they will have had 18 more years of experience, and the self-control of an adult. So they will be much better equipped to watch TV skeptically, to balance it with other activities, and to understand when someone's trying to manipulate them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
When that day comes, I feel my job is to help her understand TV. I will be happy to explain or read to her the known negative effects. We will discuss ads and manipulation. Maybe we will discuss them a great deal. AND, I will make sure there are plenty of other intersting and fun things to do at any given time so that I know she is not choosing TV because of a lack of other ideas. My very limited experience thus far with the child I have and the other kids I am close to is that they are very receptive to information like this. And if I feel I have shared my best information with dd and she still chooses to watch more than I would like her to, I am just going to have to step back and bite my tongue. I do not want to isolate dd from things like this because she will be an adult some day and it is important for her to be able to think critically and make good decisions. I think one should practice this from the beginning or thier decisions are (sometimes irrationally) tainted by the adult influences in their lives.

Well, I don't agree that children can't learn to make good decisions even if their parents make some for them, based on my own experience. But we've had that argument, haven't we?


----------



## plantmama (Jun 24, 2005)

My mom read that Children on the Hill book when I was young! I remember her talking about it. She also read John Holt and Growing w/o schooling newsletter. Our brand of unschooling was more like let us (the kids) do what we want, but also let the parents do what they want, my mom even worked when we got a little older. So that's why I didn't turn out to be a prodigy









As far as tv goes, I think it is replacing real living with fake living. I turn the tv on at the end of the day to basically stop thinking and enter the made up lives of other people or the products of other's imaginations. My niece and nephew who have no tv are such peaceful great kids with truly sensitive natures that I think tv would be really scary for them. My ds who is younger I think is less sensitive like that. He needs to be steered away from watching videos. I allow 1 a day. At age two he really doesn't need to be watching more than that and if he's anything like me he would not self regulate. I think it's great to stand back and let your kids discover their own limits. But, with a two year old my judgements on what is a good thing to do are what keeps us from disorder and chaos, which would make him unhappy I believe. Again my judgement, but hey, I'm no Socrates, let's stop there. Dh and I strive for "good" judgement with our ds. We don't do just what's easy, but try to be flexible to ds. It's more of a give and take then I have had with any other relationship.


----------



## RenAllen (Feb 13, 2006)

"My mom was the grade school guidance counselor, and she told me about 9-year-olds with their own TV and internet and games, in their rooms. For those of you who don't limit TV, would you put a TV in your kid's room? If you would, why?"

Yes! There is a tv in both rooms and I have two children per room because we're in the process of building in the basement. They will all have a tv in their room. And none of them watch it excessively. Why?
There rooms are filled with books, I'm not fearful of causing a book addiction, though the authors and publishers are making money everytime I buy. We also end up spending money due to interests developed by reading books, just like tv, is that inherently evil.

I love the comment about nobody making shows for anything but money. PLEASE!!!! That just shows a huge ignorance and bias. I guess knowing people in the industry helps me appreciate all the artistry and true creativity at work. It's not evil to try and tell people about your product, nor is it evil to make money by creating stuff aimed at kids.

I have four very different children. All of them have unlimited access to tv, books, games, art supplies and more. None of them act like "zombies" or "addicted" (with the exception of my 16 y.o. which some of you would call "addicted" but I choose to see PASSION for technology. Right now he's gaming with a good friend in Oregon while sitting in Tennessee, how cool is that?) and they all choose quite a variety of activity in their lives.

Tv isn't any more or less fascinating than anything else they do. They choose the activity that is most interesting at the moment, pretty smart.
If a parent is not providing anything more interesting than the television, the kid SHOULD choose tv.
In a home filled with lots of options and no arbitrary limits, a child will naturally choose a variety, just like they do with food.

It's easy to jump on the "tv/video games are evil" bandwagon. There's plenty of support for it in mainstream society. How many are willing to dig a little deeper and maybe challenge that view? It's mind expanding...truly:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157...15353?n=283155

If you knew someone that was a meat eater and they told you all about how awful it was to be a vegetarian and how you shouldn't do it, would you trust their info? If someone had been both a meat eater AND a vegetarian, would you then trust their information more, since they'd been on both sides of the issue and could give you both pov's?

I've been on the "tv will rot their brains" side, even lived without one for long periods of time. I've also been on the side of trusting my children and I can say that the myths were just that...MYTHS.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

But Ren, I would stock my DD's room with books that I believe to be appropriate...I wouldn't stock her room with books with pornographic pictures, or horribly violent novels, or racist tracts...but when I put a TV in her room, I'm giving her access to all kinds of stuff that may or may not be good, neutral or very bad for her to see. Plus, books (generally) are not designed by marketers to influence children's behavior, the way TV commercials are.

So I don't think it's a good comparison.

My parents offered me "anything I wanted" if I would stop sucking my thumb before kindergarten. I picked a TV, so from the age of 5, I had one in my room. I think my parents did me a disservice by putting a TV in my room. Whereas I am very pleased that they bought lots of nice books for my bookshelf.

Another difference between books and TV: your brain actually switches to a flat, passive mode while watching TV (no matter the content). Books, OTOH, fire up the neurons as your brain works to "picture" the text. Radio works similarly. I am not saying that TV is evil and that there's no place for it, but I strongly believe that the place for it is NOT a child's bedroom.

And...I really don't think addiction to online gaming is a healthy thing, sorry. Even if it's terribly common. But that's another argument.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

In a home filled with lots of options and no arbitrary limits, a child will naturally choose a variety, just like they do with food.
True for your experience, False for mine.

I have been on both sides of the tv issue too, so I guess you can "Trust Me" as you put it


----------



## RenAllen (Feb 13, 2006)

"There are children like mine who have never been in school, always had tremendous amounts of freedom and respect, and with unlimited tv they never, ever, ever self regulated. Ds would watch until he was half starved, in tears, upset at having to stop to use the bathroom. Ds would watch until his eyes glazed over and he jumped at the sound of someone's voice."

Why wouldn't you be bringing him food if you knew he hadn't eaten for a while? Or ask him if he needed to use the restroom when a commercial was on?

The things I've seen described, show a lack of parental involvement. That's not what I'm advocating. Some children need help with transitions, that's different than limiting their television.
I bring my children food if they haven't eaten in a while. We often keep platters of food available to snack on through the day. A child that is seen as "blank stares" has a parent with a huge bias. I'm sorry, but that's NOT a blank stare, that's a gaze of INTEREST.
Believe me, the wheels are turning in there.

We are our children's partners. Not their adversaries. Helping them enjoy the activities they love is part of that. BEING with them, making sure they get food/drink etc.. not just sitting them down and leaving them in front of a television.

It's a whole different thing than what I've seen described. Being your child's partner takes a big shift of trust, even over television. That doesn't mean leaving them on their own to navigate without help.
A child that is seeing stuff too scary to handle, does NOT have a parental partner available. BE with them. Try to see why they love it. Be available to talk and share and understand their passions.

Pretty soon you won't see them staring at the tv (as mine did when I controlled it) because they trust it's available when they want it. They'll be doing three things at once....I often see Jalen watching tv while building legos and singing. I have a hard time believing the children that are acting like "zombies' or having "blank stares" have had truly free access. There's so much harsh judgement towards tv by some of the parents here.....I don't think the child has a chance to be trusted about tv in that case.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

I think it is very unrealistic and simplistic to say that if we just trust our children and let them choose what and how much they will eat and how much TV, etc., etc. that they will make healthy choices, not over-indulge, not become addicted and develop healthy attitudes towards TV and everything else. Yes, for some children that works, but for others, I don't think so.

Everyone is wired differently. Some people have more addictive personalities than others. Different people are affected by food and TV differently. DD1 is very sensitive to gluten and caesin. We took her off those foods at age 3 1/2 and it has made such a huge difference in her behavior. And, the behavior changes and effects these foods have on her are so obvious when she accidently eats something containing gluten/caesin that there is no mistaking the effect they have on her behavior, ability to cope, potty-learning ability, speech, etc., etc. However, prior to taking her off these foods she CRAVED wheat and dairy products. She basically self-limited herself to eating only those foods (and very large quanities of them). This is a very common phenomon amongst children with allergies/food sensitives. They often crave, and self-limit themselves to the food which is hurting them. I think this in itself proves that we can't always trust our children to make good healthy choices. Prior to taking dd1 off these foods, we never limited her food or made any foods forbidden, especially wheat and dairy products. She was basically allowed to eat as much cereal, bread, cheese, milk,.etc. as she wanted and she chose to eat mostly those foods, even though we later learned that they were having huge negative effect on her behavior, coping skills, speech and potty-learning skills.

The same thing holds for TV and video's. I notice a negative change in dd1's behavior if she watches certain types of TV or videos. Generally she is unaffected by more "boring" TV or video's (I love old DVD's of The Dick Van **** Show or I Love Lucy) and we can have these on all day (although we don't) without her being addicted to them or having them affect her, however if she watches modern children's programming like Sesame Street, or Cailou or Dora, etc., things are very different. She does act addicted to these shows, gets the "zombie" stare, can't self-regulate watching them and will watch all day and they have a negative impact on her behavior. She has more temper tantrums after watching them, her ability to cope with minor problems drops dramatically, she starts falling apart over things which normally wouldn't phase her, she becomes more whiny, unhappy, and "bored" (her ability to entertain herself creatively and play by herself or with her sister decreases).


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Why wouldn't you be bringing him food if you knew he hadn't eaten for a while? Or ask him if he needed to use the restroom when a commercial was on?

The things I've seen described, show a lack of parental involvement.
Ren I'm sorry if this issue is difficult for you.

In 4 pages of text, everyone else seems to have an open and supportive spirit about this issue. It seems like you need to be seen as absolutely right about tv, and would rather parents set aside their own truth/awareness and accept your truth instead, or else be cast in a negative view. Now, to me, when someone is saying "I know you and your child better than you know your family" it is time to step back and point out that this kind of implication is toxic and coercive, and will probably lead to a break-down of any productive thinking in the discussion.


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

I did a little browsing about the effects of mass media & video games via my university's online access to academic psychology journals (and found WAY too much stuff to post here) but will include this excerpt from an article on media violence. Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, "Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation." American Psychologist© 2001 by the American Psychological AssociationJune/July 2001 Vol. 56, No. 6-7, 477-489

" Psychologists have studied the effect of violent media on aggression for several decades. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on this topic. Scientific evidence from a collection of studies, such as those on media-related aggression, can be integrated and summarized in a narrative (qualitative) review or in a meta-analytic (quantitative) review. Both types of reviews have been conducted on the research literature about media violence and aggression, and all have come to the same conclusion-that viewing violence increases aggression (e.g., Hearold, 1986; Hogben, 1998; Huston et al., 1992; National Institute of Mental Health, 1982; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972; Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). On the basis of such findings, in July 2000, six major professional societies-the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association-signed a joint statement on the hazards of exposing children to media violence, noting that "at this time, well over 1,000 studies &#8230; point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children" (Joint Statement, 2000, p. 1)...

...Why, then, do some individuals question the assertion that viewing violence increases aggression? One possible reason is that people do not understand psychological processes as well as they understand physiological processes. Another possibility is that people might (mistakenly) believe that the media violence data are merely correlational. A third possibility that we examine in more detail later in this article is that news media reports of media violence research might not be accurately presenting the state of scientific knowledge, much like news media reports on the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s seemed to inaccurately portray that research as weaker than medical scientists knew it to be....
...Obviously, exposure to media violence doesn't produce violent criminals out of all viewers, just as cigarette smoking doesn't produce lung cancer victims out of all smokers. This lack of perfect correspondence between heavy media violence exposure and violent behavior simply means that media violence exposure is not a necessary and sufficient cause of violence. When an ad is shown on TV, no one expects that it will sell the product to everybody. If the ad influences only 1% of viewers, it is considered to be a great success (Medved, 1995). Suppose violent media make only 1% of the population more aggressive. Should society be concerned about a percentage so small? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" Suppose 10 million people watch a violent TV program. If only 1% of the viewers will become more aggressive afterward, then the violent TV program will make 100,000 people more aggressive! Because so many people are exposed to violent media, the effect on society can be immense even if only a small percentage of viewers are affected by it."

(that is all a quote from the article--I didn't write any of it)


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rumi*
I think the last thing I want to be is 'wannabe' TCS.

The OP does, though. Or did.

Quote:

I have not studied TCS but rather than measure up to an idea of what TCS is supposed to be, I am working on taking my own child seriously and for that me that does not mean withdrawing / setting aside all my knowledge and judgements and perspectives on what is right/wrong, good/bad, etc. It is one thing to give some space for my child to form judgements on her own, and let my judgement be one of many inputs that she uses in this process, and quite another to say that we need not / should not even make such judgements. Does TCS in fact imply the latter?
No, not at all. Again, sharing your ideas about something - your impressions, knowledge, experience, and everything else - is an integral part of TCS. One should never withhold information that might help a child make the decision that he truly prefers.

TCS does mean that the decision rests with the child, not with the parent. My experience has been that often Rain made better decisions than I did, simply because she had less cultural baggage around a lot of issues. Often, I found myself reconsidering what I thought I knew about a topic because of her responses. TCS calls these entrenched theories, and being willing to examine them is important if you want to be a TCS parent.

dar


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

The OP does, though. Or did.
Oh I did not see any mention of TCS in the OP?

Since you are here, can I ask you, do you know whether TCS parents restrict solids for infants?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Every adult I know that is "addicted" to TV and unhealthy food were either completely ignored by thier parents (which we all agree is not good) or "regulated" by thier parents in order to learn "good habits". I really do not think you can make someone have good habits.

Also, Nateandsarah, I did not mean "abitrary" by our own standards.....I meant how the child perceives it.

And Rumi, I am not "TCS" so I cannot speak for all, but I had no problem introducing solids when dd showed the signs of wanting them. I did feed her many many things out of "sequence" according to the "experts". At 4 or 5 months when dd appeared to be "lunging" at my food it was not because she wanted to eat it. She wanted to play with it (well mostly the forks and spoons), which I allowed. Had she been super adament, I hope I would have had the courage to help her get what she wanted/needed. While I believe 6+months is appropriate for most babies, I am sure there are some that can handle it earlier. I am guessing those are the ones that are insisting on it. BTW, my own dd turned up her nose at solids at 6 months when we tried them out but was eating pretty spicy Indian food by 9 months so I guess I really do not know anything.

RenAllen - I like reading your perspective. To be honest, while we are striving to live consensually, I know for myself that TV and non-vegan food are BIG hang-ups for me. I am trying to work through that as I am aware that this is MY problem, not dd's. I am hoping I can be at a spot to relax when the time is right.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rumi*
Oh I did not see any mention of TCS in the OP?

Since you are here, can I ask you, do you know whether TCS parents restrict solids for infants?

You're right - she actually said non-coercive. I checked. Being non-coercive is a part of TCS, but only a part. Simply being non-coercive is not necessarily good - one could be totally neglectful but still non-coercive.

My daughter's first non-breastmilk food was actually a small bit of blue slurpee, when she was about 6 weeks old. Yes, you can all gasp now. She did nurse for almost 4 more years, FWIW... and it was a good few months before she had more non-breastmilk.

Anyway... no, not really. But then, they wouldn't be rushing to offer them, either. Infants don't have a real desire for solids, generally. They may want to see-touch-taste-feel some interesting stuff, but generally they're just as happy with a dog toy or washcloth as with a teething biscuit. If baby is equally or more happy with something else, then it's not coercing him to not give him solids.

OTOH, if a baby sees people eating and reaches for the food, and isn't equally or more satisfied with any of the alternatives offered, then yes, a TCS parent would give the kid some solid food. The baby may eat it, or explore it, or play with it... and this is how babies started solids for thousands of years, so I think it works pretty well. The food kiss is a nice way to ensure that the food is soft enough, too...

Being non-coercive or TCS requires that people make their own decisions rather than blindly following the "experts". I am convinced that the blue slurpee had absolutely no negative effects on Rain. Likewise, the bits of dogfood and cracker corners and carrot and everything else she ingested by the time she was 6 months old (most of which she found for herself, being a crawler and furniture cruiser by then) didn't hurt her a bit. I am digressing, though... but I didn't follow parenting experts when she was little, and I don't follow them now. We made our own decisions.

dar


----------



## rumi (Mar 29, 2004)

Quote:

The baby may eat it, or explore it, or play with it... and this is how babies started solids for thousands of years, so I think it works pretty well.
In general I reassure myself with this line of thinking, but wrt to solids, and holding off on potential allergens even after solids are introduced, I keep up with the latest research, simply because a lot more foods have become allergenic in the past few generations and even in the past few years, with all the genetic modifications, diminishing biodiversity, and also we are exposed to foods that are non local and non seasonal, which our ancestors would not have had to deal with.

I have lived with tribal societies and their food itself is such that a baby could have free access and never harm him or her self. Maybe we shoudl all eat that way but we (in my family) don't...


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RenAllen*
There's plenty of support for it in mainstream society. How many are willing to dig a little deeper and maybe challenge that view? It's mind expanding...truly:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157...15353?n=283155

If you knew someone that was a meat eater and they told you all about how awful it was to be a vegetarian and how you shouldn't do it, would you trust their info? If someone had been both a meat eater AND a vegetarian, would you then trust their information more, since they'd been on both sides of the issue and could give you both pov's?

I've been waiting for someone to refer to this book. I haven't read this, but I've heard about it. I read a review that pointed out a flaw in his research, that his theory only works for SOME games and shows, those that are complex and really do make people think. Soooo, in light of ALL the other studies that have shown the opposite, I just don't think he'd convince me.

I don't think that being involved or not involved has anything to do with it. Watching TV is not really an "interactive" activity. Especially when a child does it in their bedroom alone. Personally, I think it's neglectful to bring your child food while they watch TV so that they don't have to stop. I just can't buy the argument that JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SET LIMITS ON THEM, your children are somehow immune to the addictive properties of TV. They're still human, aren't they?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Well discussions like this one has veered off into is why we practice consensual living. Mutually agreeable solutions. I am not a fan of television for all the reasons mentioned and we watch very little around here. Our daughter watches no TV yet at 8 months old because at this point I see no reason to introduce something that she seems perfectly happy without at this point.

I know that may change though, and that she will be able to express interest in it in a couple of years and I won't refuse it. However, when you live in a home where mutually agreeable solutions are always the goal, I doubt she will be watching it for hours and hours because that is not mutually agreeable to me. I can't stand the drone of the television and all the reasons mentioned, so it would not be a mutually agreeable situation for me to have to be subjected to it for hours on end. Similarly, it may not be a mutually agreeable solution for our daughter to never watch any TV at all, so we will discuss that and hopefully reach solutions that meet the wants and needs of everyone in our family.

I think having a wide array of other activities that are engaging, fun, interactive, and creative goes a long way in having a child actively choose NOT to watch TV. I hear of many parents who don't want their children watching TV (irl, messege boards etc) yet many times I don't see any alternatives presented. You (collective) can't expect your child to stare at a blank wall (metaphorically speaking) while you go about your business, then b!tch when they request to turn on the television. On the other hand, if your child is engaged many times of the day in other activities -- playing, drawing, dressing up, cooking, whatever...I don't think it will harm them for life to turn on the TV for a little while if they express interest in it.

It is a balance. Yes, TV can be very addictive and believe me, I am very anti-TV in many respects... but I think forbidding something or making something such a source of stress or power struggles or putting a huge emphasis on it either way doesn't do much to dissuede a child -- but rather, entices them more because if it is SO important, SO forbidden, such a power struggle... it seems to me that would make it more desired because it recieves such a strong reaction.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

It's easy to jump on the "tv/video games are evil" bandwagon. There's plenty of support for it in mainstream society. How many are willing to dig a little deeper and maybe challenge that view?It's mind expanding.
This is such a good example of different paradigms and perceptions.

I haven't lived anywhere that mainstream society was telling me tv was evil. The people I know who felt strongly about the harmful effects of TV and got rid of it, felt very unsupported by friends, family, and mainstream society in general. It seemed they had challenged a very deeply held view that tv was right and necessary for children. The message I received consistently from "mainstream" society was that ds was being deprived of something essential to normal social development (it was like the response we got for homeschooling).

Getting rid of the TV *was* the result of digging deeper and it did challenge mainstream attitudes. It felt mind expanding to us.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

...Why, then, do some individuals question the assertion that viewing violence increases aggression?
Oh me, me, me!!!!!! *Waving hand in air dramtically!*









Because it is BUT an assertion. Science offers theories, not truths. Scientists are but humans as fallible as the rest of us. Even scientists' most commonly accepted theories are still theories, though if uncontested long enough they become *laws* until proven otherwise. Some things are opaque, some easy to elucidate. There is a big difference between proving two plus two equals four and proving a link between violence and violent media. Who is to say that 1% wouldn't otherwise be violent even if not expossed to violent media? Who is to say they did not witness violence firsthand in their home or in close proximity? Who is to say etc, etc, etc? How could one honestly pinpoint any one reason an entire 100,000 people would have in common that was the ONLY reason they had in common that 'caused' them to become violent?
Question the research, question the theory. Does it hold up to scrutiny?

edited to add- I find research to be interesting and thought provoking at best.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I doubt she will be watching it for hours and hours because that is not mutually agreeable to me. I can't stand the drone of the television and all the reasons mentioned, so it would not be a mutually agreeable situation for me to have to be subjected to it for hours on end. Similarly, it may not be a mutually agreeable solution for our daughter to never watch any TV at all, so we will discuss that and hopefully reach solutions that meet the wants and needs of everyone in our family.
I completely agree! After trying various approaches what became agreeable to all of us was a laptop that could play rented DVD's. We can store it when not in use, and the $ for the rentals helps us think about what we watch. Plus it puts a natural limit on how much we watch. Possibly I would want less media and ds would want more, but this is something we both truly find agreeable, and feel happy about, and has helped everyone feel good about the situation in our home.

What I don't agree with is this: if I have a strong certainty that another situation is not working (cable stations and a large tv in our small home), then it is only because I failed to make it work. I think this is what Ren has implied several times. The reasoning seems to be that this was the case in her home, and she found studies to back it, thus, it must be the the case in every other home. I suppose I'm pointing this out because a sweeping negative assumpion is just hard to ignore if you know it is wrong.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

but I think forbidding something or making something such a source of stress or power struggles or putting a huge emphasis on it either way doesn't do much to dissuede a child -- but rather, entices them more because if it is SO important, SO forbidden, such a power struggle... it seems to me that would make it more desired because it recieves such a strong reaction.
I agree.

That is not what happened in our home at all though. I was surprised/amazed to see how cable tv affected ds. The problems that arose were definitely not because of a power struggle or restriction or lack of attention or willingness on my part to do other activities. I agree parents can be the problem, but it is wrong to assume that is the only explaination (not saying you assumed it, just pointing out what I hope is obvious).


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
Because it is BUT an assertion. Science offers theories, not truths. Scientists are but humans as fallible as the rest of us. Even scientists' most commonly accepted theories are still theories, though if uncontested long enough they become *laws* until proven otherwise. Some things are opaque, some easy to elucidate. There is a big difference between proving two plus two equals four and proving a link between violence and violent media. Who is to say that 1% wouldn't otherwise be violent even if not expossed to violent media? Who is to say they did not witness violence firsthand in their home or in close proximity? Who is to say etc, etc, etc? How could one honestly pinpoint any one reason an entire 100,000 people would have in common that was the ONLY reason they had in common that 'caused' them to become violent?
Question the research, question the theory. Does it hold up to scrutiny?

Of course you should question the research. And there are always exception and outliers. Not everyone who smokes a pack a day dies from lung cancer. Not every child who is spanked exhibits more aggressive behavior. There are always exceptions to the rule.

BUT, we can also use research to make our decisions, as I know many of us do. Research has shown that infants are less likely to die of SIDS when placed on their back. So many of us place them on their backs, in spite of the fact that they may sleep better on their stomachs. Research has shown that the safest place for a child is in a car seat in the back seat. So we make TONS of concessions to make this possible. So if research (a lot of very well done studies, too) has shown TV to have a detrimental effect on children, why would we immediately disregard it? Maybe because we don't like the results?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
edited to add- I find research to be interesting and thought provoking at best.

So you've never reconsidered any aspect of your life or behavior based on a scientific study?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Maybe it would help to clarify that a well-designed research study controls for other factors. For example, let's take the well-known "fact" that BF babies have higher IQs than FF babies. Does this mean that every BF baby has a higher IQ than every FF baby? No, of course not. What it does mean is that:

they did a study with preemies. Some received BM and some received FF. (That way they would know that the results were due to the substance itself and not the act of BF). Then they CONTROLLED for factors known to influence IQ, such as socioeconomic status, parents' educational level, etc. It's not perfect, but combined with both the known mechanisms of *how* BM works differently in the body than FF, AND many other similarly controlled studies showing corroborating results, one can pretty confidently say that in a large group of FF and BF children, WHEN OTHER FACTORS HAVE BEEN CONTROLLED FOR, the FF children will have slightly lower IQs.

Scientific studies are designed to test a hypothesis...prove it wrong. If repeated studies can't prove a theory wrong, that theory gets stronger. Nothing ever goes past the theory stage, which I think the PP misunderstands. Gravity is "just" a theory. It happens to be a theory that all available evidence supports, but there's always the remote possibility that future evidence will topple all of the evidence amassed so far in favor of gravity's existence. People who attack evolution as "just a theory" are often missing this key point...that in SCIENCE, EVERYTHING IS A THEORY. Some theories are supported by such copious evidence that it is reasonable to assume that they will never be overturned, but they are *still* theories.

I am not familiar with the actual studies on violence and TV, but if they found a correlation, you're right, it doesn't prove causation in and of itself...but I am willing to bet that the 1% you are mentioning who become violent after prolonged exposure to violent media means 1% OVER AND ABOVE the people in any given population who would be "expected" to become violent.

Does that make sense? I don't really understand how to some people, research studies have the same status as unfounded opinion. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, of course, no matter if it's based on sheer lunacy or anything else, but studies are designed to test a hypothesis, and they do not represent OPINIONS.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I'm a very intuition based person~it's unlikely I'd do something that felt wrong even if research suggested I should.

But I do like to know the science, definitely, and if there is strong compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion that I personally come to, I try to remember that when discussing the issue, and keep an open space in my mind (now if I'm sure all the science is on my side, I can be a real self righteous pita *LOL*).


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Here's an interesting write-up of a recent study on TV:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/?nav=ais

I wasn't convinced. In fact, I think that picture of the Wiggles just served as a reminder to me of why I don't like TV.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

So you've never reconsidered any aspect of your life or behavior based on a scientific study?
I didn't say that. I stated I found research interesting and AT ITS BEST thought provoking. Thought provoking enough at times to reconsider or consider something in my life. The faults I see with research are plenty. Yes they may be *controlled*, but research can also be conducted by people who already enter the research with a set idea of the outcome and can affect that outcome. Also research takes a miniscule slice of a whole and makes it seem the results from the miniscule should apply to the whole. Research can also be bought out. I would want to know the *entirety* of the details of a study if it were to be life altering for me. Some studies are more thorough and unhampered than others. I was only suggesting I like to weed them out.

Quote:

BUT, we can also use research to make our decisions, as I know many of us do. Research has shown that infants are less likely to die of SIDS when placed on their back. So many of us place them on their backs, in spite of the fact that they may sleep better on their stomachs. Research has shown that the safest place for a child is in a car seat in the back seat. So we make TONS of concessions to make this possible. So if research (a lot of very well done studies, too) has shown TV to have a detrimental effect on children, why would we immediately disregard it? Maybe because we don't like the results?
As for SIDS research they come up with something new on this front all the time. SIDS is a scary thing, so yes I would likely follow recommendations IF it were no big deal. I already don't smoke, I planned to breastfed, I loved co-sleeping and when my babies were newborns they loved to be swaddled and slept on their backs anyway. When they were a couple months old they slept in my arms and did so until they were well over a year. And as far as 'Maybe because we don't like the results?' I honestly don't care about the results. My children are four and six. I don't watch scary, violent movies and neither do they. We do watch cartoons and yes even the most benevolent seeming ones can have aggression in them. I'm not worried one iota for them.

Quote:

I don't really understand how to some people, research studies have the same status as unfounded opinion. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, of course, no matter if it's based on sheer lunacy or anything else, but studies are designed to test a hypothesis, and they do not represent OPINIONS.

Quote:

hypothesis- A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. Quoted from WordWeb
A hypothesis is an opinion. Maybe not unfounded to the person who observed the hypothesis but it is unfounded to some unless they witness the observation firsthand. And YES we are all welcome to our opinions, even if they are based on *sheer lunacy*!









Quote:

Scientific studies are designed to test a hypothesis...prove it wrong. If repeated studies can't prove a theory wrong, that theory gets stronger. Nothing ever goes past the theory stage, which I think the PP misunderstands. Gravity is "just" a theory. It happens to be a theory that all available evidence supports, but there's always the remote possibility that future evidence will topple all of the evidence amassed so far in favor of gravity's existence. People who attack evolution as "just a theory" are often missing this key point...that in SCIENCE, EVERYTHING IS A THEORY. Some theories are supported by such copious evidence that it is reasonable to assume that they will never be overturned, but they are *still* theories.
I just *researched*







this and you are correct high school science class steered me wrong here. I was remembering reading in the textbook that if a theory wasn't disproved after 100 years it became a *law*, until such a time it was disproved. Seems this was false information. I put the * in the first post because I did realize even as a *law* it could be disproven. Seems theory, law, and hypothesis all have their place in the grand scheme of science. By the way I love science, it is interesting, and was not in any way attacking it. Just stating that IMO scientists AND researchers are as fallible as anyone else and yes at times are even GREEDY or practicing self-preservation.


----------

