Will you let your babies/children to play iPad?

[2010-NewDad]

We won't really know the effects until later, I think.

Computers have been around since the 80's, and TVs a lot longer. I think we can be fairly sure that moderate TV watching or computer usage hasn't been a big issue for children as they have grown up.

No one is saying that kids need to be plugged in all the time--this is correct. But, that's kind of what happens if the TV is on constantly in the background ...

Once again, nobody at all is advocating this. You are arguing against the extreme's that nobody believes in.

and kids know that the moment they get bored there is the iPhone or iPad to turn to.

Once again, nobody is saying the iPad is always available to children and it should always be used when they are bored.

nicolejoy mentioned something about not putting kids games on her iPhone for this reason because if her children know that that device has games they will insist on using it.

That is far enough, seems reasonable. But we all know children can get fixated on anything - sweets, TV, a favourite toy or book etc etc. An iPhone is no different in this respect.

I don't know much about the "too much TV scares"--I do know people my age who are very wrapped up in media and TV--a lot of them--it's kind of the whole package that comes with it.

Really? Fair enough - most people my age claim to hardly watch TV any more - I know we are going to cancel our Now TV subscription in a couple of months because neither of us watch it.

There is merit but for us, I don't want my child to be dependent on it for his entertainment, engagement and stimulation--and if it is a constant, every-day part of his life, I think it creates a type of pacifier for him that I'd rather have him not depend on.

Once again, you're arguing against an extreme point nobody is making? Nobody here thinks children should be "dependent on it for their entertainment, engagement and stimulation". I don't see it as any different to TV, chocolate or a favourite pacifier.. kids will generally want more of all of these than we as parents are willing to allow. At the end of the day it is the parents job to moderate and enforce the rules, not be pushed around by our children. Banning something like an iPad outright because of the fear of addiction seems over the top to me.

I'd rather him seek out creative ways to make things and explore and interact with people than turn to a device. That's simply us.

It's shouldn't be an either/or situation!

[carang]

i must admit that i am an absolute tv junkie. have been since i was a kid. i LOVE having the tv on. pretty much the first thing i do (after ****ing the kids) when i come home is turn it on. i don't always have it on loudly but it is on in the background.

there are some tv shows that i LOVE, LOVE, LOVE... but i spend most of my tv time watching documentaries....love history docs, dinosaurs, space, weather, sharks/whales/dolphins (oh, heck, anything under the sea!) ... you name it, i watch it!

[2010-NewDad]

Don't miss the new Attenborough - Frozen Planet. It is stunning in every respect!
Posted via Mobile Device

[carang]

will keep my eyes open for it! thanks! bought a fantastic attenborough series that i love to watch with my kids.... Earth? Planet Earth? something like that, can't remember the name exactly, but it is about 8-10 dvds with absolutely stunning footage!

my kids and i have cuddled down to watch it numerous evenings, when we have "movie night" (i make tickets for them and a "drink and popcorn voucher"... then i send them up the stairs and get them to come back down and pretend we are at the cinema... it is all great fun!)

[thanka2]

Moderation has it levels but banning things outright fall outside the limits of moderation. The 2 statements above are conflicting.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting a kid/toddler/baby watch a limited amount of screen per day. There is no harm in it and shame on anyone (eg American Academy of Pediatrics) for trying to make parents feel guilty about exposing their babies to harmless entertainment.

We didnt have IToys when my 3 were babies but we did have baby Einstein and we utilised those DVDs many many times for our own sanity and our babies amusement.

I, personally, consider the term "moderation" to be a concept that applies over a length of time--so while some things I feel are not appropriate for my children under the age of 2-years-old (or whatever age) they might enjoy later. For me it's about boundaries. I consider it over the longer span of time I will be raising them so the statements do not conflict. So for me some things are "in moderation" which means at this point it's not okay but later, maybe. It's not a complete "ban" forever and ever amen. This is how we define a "moderate" view in our family. It's more of a far-looking, long-term approach, I think.

I think it's important for me to identify when I think things are appropriate and when they're not. Just as I think it's not appropriate for my children to be drinking any soda at this age or watching violent cartoons I don't think it's appropriate for my children to be having screen time before they're 2-years-old and then after that it is extremely limited. I'm trying to establish certain habits in my children's lives at a very young age (before they're 5-years-old especially). So, while there may not be actual "harm" to my children by having frequent "screen time" at these ages, it goes against what I'm trying to accomplish--the principles and habits I'm trying to establish in them. Using drinking soda as an example, I don't allow my son to drink it at all and for this reason he has no real craving for it. He also doesn't prefer juice because we rarely drink this at home. So, if he's at a party and offered soda or juice he will often ask for water instead out of his own preference. He can't really "desire" what he isn't accustomed to having. I think this habit is a great start for him. Does that mean he won't have more freedom to choose these drinks later on? No. Does it mean that a sip of soda here and there is going to cause him to immediately have bad health? No. But, at the point when he starts to make those decisions for himself, my hope is that he'll already have a healthy habit established that will serve him well. Same thing with screen time. Just as I pointed out above--I prefer my children to see TV and computer time as a "treat" and something we do once-in-awhile--not the dependable go-to or mainstay of what we turn to when we're bored. I know this is pretty "counter-culture"--even for me and the home I was raised in. My approach does however go beyond just "Some government agency said so so that's what I do"--to me that seems like it doesn't involve any real thoughtfulness and I reserve the right to think for myself and make decisions I think are appropriate for my children no matter who does or does not put their "stamp of approval" on it. Having said that, there do happen to be government agencies and researchers who would agree with my stance...but anyone probably could do some searching and find someone or research to agree with whatever stance they take.

Everyone's "right" and "wrong" on this issue will be different. I also don't see any "shame" or "harm" in letting my infant do a lot of things but I still don't see any benefit in it personally for my children or myself. To each, their own.

[thanka2]

[QUOTE]

Computers have been around since the 80's, and TVs a lot longer. I think we can be fairly sure that moderate TV watching or computer usage hasn't been a big issue for children as they have grown up.

Depends on how you view a "big issue." It's all subjective. Also, I want to make clear that I don't think that TV has had some catastrophic effect on people my age. I do however, think that many people I know have a very poor concept of themselves and as a media student I really do question mass media's role in that. See my posts on eating disorders and my experience for more information.

Once again, nobody at all is advocating this. You are arguing against the extreme's that nobody believes in.

No, actually, I'm talking about a phenomenon that is happening. While no one will stand up and say, "Yes, I BELIEVE that my child should often be pacified with my iPad or iPhone." Those aren't the words. But, what is happening if in reality, the moment your child gets fidgety on the bus/train or you need a break from them the first thing that comes out is the iPad/iPhone. At least that's my observation--people are quite dependent on these bits of technology and I think children are increasingly dependent as well. But, other people might be totally fine with that--they do see the many technological gadgets we have at our disposal as a great way to keep their kids entertained. Personally, I don't see a lot of the value in it for my own children but that's my right to choose just as they have their right to choose.

Once again, nobody is saying the iPad is always available to children and it should always be used when they are bored.

Nobody in this discussion has said that. Does that mean that that doesn't happen? The word "always" is quite absolute, isn't it? I don't think the word "always" was mentioned in my posts. I think you're painting my view to be more extreme than it actually is for sake of argument.

That is far enough, seems reasonable. But we all know children can get fixated on anything - sweets, TV, a favourite toy or book etc etc. An iPhone is no different in this respect.

That's why children have parents to establish boundaries. My son may be "fixated" on sweets but does that mean that when he reaches for some or requests them that he is usually getting them. My son is not fixated on TV because it's not a regular part of his daily routine--neither is it a regular part of ours. It's hard to fixate on things you don't have a habit of being exposed to. Toys (traditional ones) and books are in a totally different category, I think.

Really? Fair enough - most people my age claim to hardly watch TV any more - I know we are going to cancel our Now TV subscription in a couple of months because neither of us watch it.

Do you ever watch any entertainment? On your computer? Movies? The mode of delivery is different now but the concept is the same. While you personally may not be that interested in this type of entertainment I don't really think that holds true for a lot of people.

Once again, you're arguing against an extreme point nobody is making? Nobody here thinks children should be "dependent on it for their entertainment, engagement and stimulation". I don't see it as any different to TV, chocolate or a favourite pacifier.. kids will generally want more of all of these than we as parents are willing to allow. At the end of the day it is the parents job to moderate and enforce the rules, not be pushed around by our children. Banning something like an iPad outright because of the fear of addiction seems over the top to me.

Once again, this is not an "extreme"--it's clear to see that people do pacify their children with their iPads and smart phones--clear examples all around in HK. No one will say that that's the method they prefer but actions to me speak louder than words. I have friends who will tell you "Watching TV all the time isn't that good for children" but the TV is on all the time in their home and their children are constantly in front of it. They won't "argue" that "watching TV all the time is okay for kids" but their actions speak that they think it is.

I didn't ever say that I would be "banning an iPad outright because of the fear of addiction." That is really far from the way I think. Some people may think like that. I don't. If you read my other posts you'll see that I'm saying that FOR US (as in, my family) there is a time and place for everything and I don't think that the touted "benefits" of allowing my infant to have access to an iPad or smartphone outweigh the possible negatives. I think the iPad is very different than chocolate. First of all, I don't carry a bar of chocolate in my pocket all day long and think of it as a possible "pacifying device" in case my child is acting up. A pacifier is just that--an instrument intended for pacifying--that's it's design--and it is used with small children who find comfort from sucking--a natural reflex. Again, for us, there is a time and place for everything--so we also cut my son off the pacifier when he was about 2.5-years-old.

It's shouldn't be an either/or situation!

It often turns into one because iPads, are much more alluring than traditional play--or can be--traditional play requires children to invent their own games and build their own toys or organize their toys for play--iPad, for young children is a bit too ready-made for us. For example, if you set out a battery-operated toy that vibrates, whistles, spins etc. and then a pile of blocks, which one will really small children choose to play with--of course the one that stimulates them more. Is this a good thing? Hard to say. For us, we would like our son to have a concrete foundation in traditional play before he gets all this ultra-stimulation from gadgets.

This is the same reason why I chose to introduce non-sweet vegetables to my daughter first. Why? Because I want her to develop a taste for vegetables that aren't sweet. Will she like sweet vegetables and fruit? Of course she will! We won't have to work hard to make her love apples but spinach, broccoli and bok choi might be more difficult. Then we introduced sour fruits--again because we want her to develop a taste for them. Now we are just finally starting on sweeter fruits and vegetables. Does she like them? Yes, of course. But, the real key is that she also likes the other vegetables because that was all she knew for awhile.

I hope this explains my views better. If not, again, I just want to state that this is the way we do it. Whether you agree with it or see any value in it or not, is up to you. It's just another way to parent--which is no less or more valuable than any other way to parent--including the way you choose to.

[howardcoombs]

I, personally, consider the term "moderation" to be a concept that applies over a length of time--so while some things I feel are not appropriate for my children under the age of 2-years-old (or whatever age) they might enjoy later. For me it's about boundaries. I consider it over the longer span of time I will be raising them so the statements do not conflict. So for me some things are "in moderation" which means at this point it's not okay but later, maybe. It's not a complete "ban" forever and ever amen. This is how we define a "moderate" view in our family. It's more of a far-looking, long-term approach, I think.

Your definition of moderation does not match the accepted definitions.
You are certainly not alone in your views but to call it moderation is a fallacy. You've chosen to ban something for a period of time and once that time has passed you will relax your rules.

You are the type of parent that bans things whether it be screen time, certain foods, certain shows(by your own admission).
I'm suspecting that your parenting style will continue into the later years with dating, sex, drugs, music, alcohol and other such challenges and you will be banning them until some arbitrary age.

I think it's important for me to identify when I think things are appropriate and when they're not. Just as I think it's not appropriate for my children to be drinking any soda at this age or watching violent cartoons I don't think it's appropriate for my children to be having screen time before they're 2-years-old and then after that it is extremely limited.

We are in agreement on the first part, however as soon as you put that "2 years old" in there which is an arbitrary and baseless number we diverge.

I'm trying to establish certain habits in my children's lives at a very young age (before they're 5-years-old especially). So, while there may not be actual "harm" to my children by having frequent "screen time" at these ages, it goes against what I'm trying to accomplish--the principles and habits I'm trying to establish in them.

I think decent parents everywhere try to instill good habits in their children's lives. You have chosen a time based strict approach.

Using drinking soda as an example, I don't allow my son to drink it at all and for this reason he has no real craving for it. He also doesn't prefer juice because we rarely drink this at home. So, if he's at a party and offered soda or juice he will often ask for water instead out of his own preference. He can't really "desire" what he isn't accustomed to having.

*smile* Surely you've heard of the forbidden fruit.
We dont have any bans in our house. We discourage certain things (processed foods, juices, etc) and have alternatives around the house. In the same direction, my kids have all tasted alcohol form a very young age (they all hate it), they have their own knives, they have all touched and played with a gun and have a healthy respect and have been educated in things.

I think this habit is a great start for him. Does that mean he won't have more freedom to choose these drinks later on? No. Does it mean that a sip of soda here and there is going to cause him to immediately have bad health? No. But, at the point when he starts to make those decisions for himself, my hope is that he'll already have a healthy habit established that will serve him well. Same thing with screen time. Just as I pointed out above--I prefer my children to see TV and computer time as a "treat" and something we do once-in-awhile--not the dependable go-to or mainstay of what we turn to when we're bored.

You can achieve your goals without banning and without the arbitrary age restrictions that a lot of people (and governments) choose to employ.
You can choose what you like and you can decide when its age appropriate, but surely nothing magical happens on the 2nd birthday just as nothing magical happens to someone on 19th or 21st birthday to make them ready for alcohol.

[thanka2]

Your definition of moderation does not match the accepted definitions.
You are certainly not alone in your views but to call it moderation is a fallacy. You've chosen to ban something for a period of time and once that time has passed you will relax your rules.

So, who is writing these "accepted definitions." Your comment actually made me laugh a little because I imagined a computer with an error message when I read it.

You are the type of parent that bans things whether it be screen time, certain foods, certain shows(by your own admission).

You can choose to label me however you like but you know very little about my parenting except what I have shared here. Of course you can choose to extrapolate it however you wish--doesn't make it accurate or knowledge-based.

I'm suspecting that your parenting style will continue into the later years with dating, sex, drugs, music, alcohol and other such challenges and you will be banning them until some arbitrary age.

See above about extrapolation.

We are in agreement on the first part, however as soon as you put that "2 years old" in there which is an arbitrary and baseless number we diverge.

To you, it may be "arbitrary" but that's the label you put on it. You do not know my child and his development.

I think decent parents everywhere try to instill good habits in their children's lives. You have chosen a time based strict approach.

I agree with your first sentence. You have again labeled my approach as "strict" because it differs from your approach and is less "mainstream." That is your label. You really like to label and it seems like you pick me out to do so. It's easy to "label and dismiss" I think. Easy way to not have to really consider other people's views. Let's be fair...take a turn with another poster...they're probably feeling left out.

We dont have any bans in our house. We discourage certain things (processed foods, juices, etc) and have alternatives around the house. In the same direction, my kids have all tasted alcohol form a very young age (they all hate it), they have their own knives, they have all touched and played with a gun and have a healthy respect and have been educated in things.

Thanks for sharing about how you choose to raise your children. My children have both have sips of alcohol (yes, even the baby)--they will probably continue to enjoy alcohol as they get older as their father is an internationally certified mixologist (yes, you have to go to school to become one). My husband has a great knife and my 4-year-old will be getting a mini version for Christmas. It's probably not likely our children will play with guns as long as we live here but probably when they visit their grandparents they will learn to hunt and target practice when they're around 11-years-old. For us, there is a time and place for everything. That time and place will differ for everyone. It seems in your family that the time and place for most things is "now".

You can achieve your goals without banning and without the arbitrary age restrictions that a lot of people (and governments) choose to employ.
You can choose what you like and you can decide when its age appropriate, but surely nothing magical happens on the 2nd birthday just as nothing magical happens to someone on 19th or 21st birthday to make them ready for alcohol.

Again, you don't know my children or me (our personalities or how our family functions together)--you don't know why I chose 2-years-old or why I set any age limits for anything. I never said anything about "magical" numbers but we do know from studying child development that children do go through stages. They certainly don't start growing a beard when they're 5-years-old so I probably won't be giving my son a razor--that sort of thing.

And, the methods we use to raise our children are working really well for us. We are not at all harsh with our children and it's really a great system for us and for them. Our children are content, not over-stimulated, rested and our home is a tranquil place. This is the way we choose to do things. It is the way we prefer to do things and we don't find it to be a burden at all. If I do need input on the other way to do things, I will certainly remember to ask you.

Anyway, thanks for the chat. I think for me this conversation has run its course. There isn't anything more I can possibly say that will be of any more use here. Have a great weekend.