Pure Parents

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Two problems I see with moving the TV to a bedroom is that it becomes a >forbidden fruit (hence attractive), and a solo activity. There is one thing >worst than a family sitting together and watching the tube (instead of >talking or playing with eachother) : it is a family where each one is >sitting in his own room watching his own TV programme (or even the same!). >There is even less sharing, less discussing, etc. >I think it is better to make some TV as part of the activities and promote >the notions of CHOOSING to listen to TV (or not). Otherwise, the only >sensible alternative to me is to store it in the basement or sell it. That >way, it becomes the way of life for the family, rather than some forbidden >activity.

I have to agree with this. We have a TV in our house, our friends do not. Our three year old son can take it or leave it, if there’s something on he wants to see he’ll sit and watch, otherwise he ignores it (on or off). (BTW, we mostly watch noncommercial shows with him, PBS and videos). The two kids of our friends will come over to our house, and if the TV’s on they’re glued to the couch sitting like a couple of mesmerized little zombies. I think that in order to teach discrimination, taste, the concepts of "good" and "bad" shows you need to watch, talk and analyze what you’re watching. The concepts of "this is good" or "this is stupid" don’t come out of thin air. Peg Mom to Owen, 3 1/2 years

Response:

>I was just interested to know if anybody has raised children in a house >where there is no TV.

In our home there is very little T.V.  Note I say that there is *very little* not *no*.  We believe that appropriate T.V. viewing, like when to eat sweets, is something that must be learned.  To outlaw it altogether makes it a forbidden fruit and therefore far more enticing and important than it should be. My children are allowed the occasional PBS show or odd Disney tape.  My dh and I check the news (sometimes) and the Weather Channel (all the time) and that’s about it.  Other than the above, the T.V. is off.  The result is that our children spend a lot more time in active and imaginative play than they would otherwise.  They are also very good at amusing themselves and have fairly long attention spans.  They love to be read to and "read" themselves [they are 1.5 and 4 so their "reading" is more pretending ].   Perhaps the best benefit is that they do not have the "gimmes".  Since they see no commercial T.V., they are not targets for advertisers.   They want and ask for very little which actually becomes a challenge at gift giving occasions such as birthdays and holidays, but I would rather that than to have them caught up in the fad of the week (ala Tickle-Me-Elmo and Beanie Babies). Good luck! Mary

Response:

> Dupont) writes:

>I was just interested to know if anybody has raised children in a house >where there is no TV.  I’m planning on moving the TV and VCR to our bedroom >so in effect, the kids won’t have access to it.  My daughter is only >5 months old but if the TV is on, she looks at it and stops >playing. >I expect kids raised without TV to be more active kids with more interests >than other kids.  Has anybody reading this newsgroup done this? >Anne

Two problems I see with moving the TV to a bedroom is that it becomes a forbidden fruit (hence attractive), and a solo activity. There is one thing worst than a family sitting together and watching the tube (instead of talking or playing with eachother) : it is a family where each one is sitting in his own room watching his own TV programme (or even the same!). There is even less sharing, less discussing, etc. I think it is better to make some TV as part of the activities and promote the notions of CHOOSING to listen to TV (or not). Otherwise, the only sensible alternative to me is to store it in the basement or sell it. That way, it becomes the way of life for the family, rather than some forbidden activity. — Michel Gagnon Montr