BlogHer - babies - Comments

Definitely need help

norarachel — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:14:42 -0500

In my case you are certainly right that the old expression "it takes a village..." is true. We have been so lucky to have help from friends and family these first months. Maybe it is just that I got a lot better at asking for help than I was with my first child!

http://www.nonlineargirl.com

I don't think it hurts that

InkAndPixelClub — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:55:14 -0500

I don't think it hurts that "Avatar" is also an exceptionally good show that I enjoyed watching myself, so it certainly doesn't talk down to the 6-year-olds in the audience. I would guess that nowadays, kids are learning about all sorts of things much sooner than they used to, so it's probably better that they get exposed to this stuff watching a TV show with their parents who can then ask and answer questions afterwards.

I doubt your son's misconception about the birthing process is even among the top ten strangest ones a kid has ever had. :)

Sara

www.inkandpixelclub.com

I've had my suspicions

Lisse — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:28:47 -0500

Long before the AAP came out with their recommendations about TV and young children, I had suspicions that so much TV was contributing to the high incidence of ADD/ADHD diagnoses. It made sense that having thousands of images per minute flashed at a developing brain would encourage the brain to seek that kind of rapid fire stimulation and impair its ability to handle tasks requiring focus and concentration.

The very existence of Baby Einstein has always annoyed me, and I was infuriated that its creator was honored by George Bush some years ago at a State of the Union. OTOH, the lauding of something sold as intelligence enhancement that was actually quite the opposite struck me as utterly fitting, given the circumstances.

I'm dismayed by how popular this product continues to be and I thank you for helping to spread the word about its problems.

- Lisse

@ Home in the World: International Adoption and Other Travels

Not all kids are mindless in front of the TV

mstaz1112 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:41:41 -0500

When my kids were little and they would want to watch TV, I'd watch with them. I'd ask them questions what was going on. Even if I was sick and needed some peace, I'd still ask them questions what was going on and was in the room with them. A lot of times, they wanted me to read them a book or play with them instead. We also did not introduce TV to them until they were over 1. Now my kids are 7 and 4 and they like to watch TV, but usually are doing other things while watching or still telling me what is going on (or going to happen).

I only have two Baby Einstein videos, the sign language ones due to my brother in law is deaf and I was trying to find something on the market to help teach them ASL. Was dissapointed that its is a combo of ASL and Signed English, which my brother in law doesn't use. Now we have Signing Times, which is WAY better.

Toast on the Ceiling http://toastontheceiling.blogspot.com

You raise an excellent point, Sara

9to5to9 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:27:30 -0500

The value of discussing what kids watch is tremendous. My 6-year-old loves "Avatar: The Last Airbender." Parts of it have content that's a bit more mature than what I usually let him watch, but we've had some great conversations as a result. He does, however, think that women sneeze babies out because of the one birth scene that shows the mom's head only and the heavy breathing. :) I'll wait a few years to correct that, um, misconception.

Debra Legg
9to5to9

I actually am a little

InkAndPixelClub — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:10:22 -0500

I actually am a little surprised that Disney admitted that the Baby Einstien videos have no educational value; not because I actually thought they were turning babies into geniuses, but because it surprises me that it could be proved that these videos have zero educational benefit.

I'm not sure that this is the huge victory that the CCFC is claiming that it is. To me, it feels more like a victory for parents who are more willing to believe advertising claims than what pediatricians have been saying at least since "Teletubbies" debuted: that TV is not good for very young children. I imagine that many of these refunds will be going to parents whose kids have simply outgrown Baby Einstien. Whether this story will teach the general lesson that TV isn't good for very young children or simply the specific lesson that Baby Einstien will not make kids into to geniuses remains to be seen. As you point out, the temptation to get a few minutes peace by plunking the kid down in front of the TV is still going to be there.

Though not a parent, I tend to believe in everything in moderation. Though technology has its perils, I do think in some ways it has made it easier to control kids' media consumption. You mention the DVR, which can help you to set the schedule for when your child watches TV and minimize the effect of any commercials by fast forwarding through them. I think letting kids watch age-appropriate TV when they are old enough and discussing it with them can help them to grow up to be more media savvy rather than growing up to be the kids who just watches whatever is on. All the same, I can see both the temptation to let the little ones watch TV, play video games, and do other passive stuff that keeps them occupied and the concern about what damage it may do.

Sara

www.inkandpixelclub.com

AMEN!

9to5to9 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:04:16 -0500

We're pretty much on the same page, Leslie. Yes, my kids watch more TV than I like on weekends because I've yet to convince the laundry to fold itself - they're 4 and 6 now - but they watched none until they were 2 except when one was in the care of a TV-worshipping care-giver who liked to sit babies in front of TV because they "like it so much, and they're learning, too." Funny thing was, once he got mobile he had no interest in TV - too much world to explore. I was told he just needed to "learn how to watch TV." I soon changed care-givers.

Interestingly, I watched another child at age 4 who was in near-constant company of this care-giver, and the child simply did not know how to function socially. We were at a party once, and she sat watching the other children run and play - as if life were a television.

I'm not anti-TV. I'm just anti-TV as a panacea. Once kids reach a certain age - and my 6-year-old is there - TV simply for entertainment gives them a certain cultural currency among their peers. But, during the week in particular, TV is only a small part of our lives. We have too many other things to do.

Debra Legg
9to5to9

Oh, that's awful. When I

Leslie Madsen Brooks — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:24:11 -0500

Oh, that's awful. When I was a child, I had a few friends on whom TV had this effect. It was frightening to me even then. Kudos to you for keeping your kids free of TV. Leslie

BlogHer Contributing Editor, Research and Academia
My blogs: The Clutter Museum, Museum Blogging, and The Multicultural Toybox

We were at a playspace yesterday and having a ball... then left

micrimas — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:58:09 -0500

Our kids are 19 mos and don't watch TV or videos, at any where or any time. They simply are not given access nor are they interested.

We went to a popular playspace yesterday where they had a "theatre" space. I thought it would be puppets or something. Instead, it was a TV. After the kids had played about 2 hours, all of a sudden a cartoon called "something and Ferb" came on. Every kid in the place that had been playing and jumping around, sat down in front of the tv, like little automatons (I kid you not) glued.

Our kids kept playing. Oblivious. We were blown away and I am definitely going to write a blog topic about this one... we ended up leaving. What a waste. The kids were having fun then BAM. TV on== every kid stopped dead.

There's your sign as to why childhood obesity runs rampant.

Half of a Duo, Raising a Duo

http://micrimas.blogspot.com

Violence is

Damn Skippy — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:06:24 -0500

Violence is the last refuge of a person who has no rational behaviour left. Hitting a small child is brutish, stupid, and often doesn't work. That said, however: The most ill-behaved and destructive child I've known was never disciplined physically in any way. People are very different, and that includes children. This study sounds like the data was cherry-picked by pacifists who had a point to prove.

I really dislike the term "spanking"

Vered — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:15:09 -0500

I think it almost gives hitting your child legitimacy, as if it were somehow different than any other type of physical violence.

I think it should be called "hitting."

----

Mom

Blogger for hire

Social media marketing consultant

I'm not convinced

phdinparenting — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:40:33 -0500

In retrospect, I'm glad this vaccine wasn't on "the schedule" for my kids and that they didn't get it. Neither of them (aged 2 and 4 like the example you cited) has ever had an ear infection. Neither of them has ever had antibiotics for any reason either.

I'm sure there are lots of factors that contributed to their good health, but I think breastfeeding is one of them. One of the scientific benefits of breastfeeding is that it reduces the incidence of middle ear infections by 23%.

Maybe if I had kids that got sick all the time I would feel differently. But having generally healthy kids, I would like to avoid stuffing more stuff into their bodies, especially when we don't know much about potential side effects.

Annie

PhD in Parenting - http://phdinparenting.com

Selective/delayed vaccinating is an option

Amy Gates — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:04:47 -0500

I agree. I believe there are too many vaccines and they start at too young an age. I understand fully vaccinating *some* children in *some* cases, but I do think it should be a case by case thing and not one-size-fits-all as it currently is. Don't quote me on this, but I beileve that children's immune systems are not developed until age 2 (it might be later than that), so why bombard them with combination vaccines and so many on such a tight schedule when they are so little? My doctor once told me they use that schedule because parents are most likely to bring their kids in for their well-child check-ups during this time so they can conveniently vaccinate them during that time as well. If they asked parents to bring their older children in every month to spread out the shots, they would probably not.

I chose to delay and selectively vaccinate my daughter (she's 5 now) starting at age one and my son (currently age 2 1/2) is still entirely unvaccinated for now.

For the record, neither of my children ever had an ear infection that required antibiotics. My son did have one or two infections, but the doctor said we could wait and see before treating it that way and we waited and they healed on their own. I know that it doesn't always work that way, but if the child is not in agony (mine wasn't), then it seems like the best approach.

A good book about selective/delayed vaccinations is Dr. Sears The Vaccine Book. It's the most balanced book I've found on the subject of vaccinations.

Amy
Crunchy Domestic Goddess
BlogHers Act contributing editor

Educated decision

Amy Gates — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:54:06 -0500

Yes, I do think it is way too early to get into specifics, but I was not aware of that when I was told about the vaccine, which leads to my frustration. I thought it would be coming available in the semi-near future so I figured they would have the answers to many of those things. C'est la vie.

Oh, and I'm a big believer in making in learning all you can and then making an educated decision, so I think that's a wise choice. Just like every vaccine, we as parents have to weigh the pros and cons and do what we feel is best for our children.

Amy
Crunchy Domestic Goddess
BlogHers Act contributing editor

I firmly believe that our

momsquadblog — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:32:42 -0500

I firmly believe that our children DO have too many vaccines. The number of required vaccinations has jumped exponentially even since I was a child. The sad fact is that pharmaceutical companies make more money when we're sick than they ever would if they only made medicines that cured our every ailment. If they make us all better, they'd have no money to make.

Vaccines create a false sense of security among parents because many are not realizing that they are not 100% effective in preventing the illness. There's also the problem of pharmaceutical companies doing their own testing & trials where they can leave off side effects from reporting at their own will, and how could we ever prove it?

It is now coming to light that we may be making ourselves more sick with all of these preventative measures we're taking--the innoculation against the chicken pox is making us more susceptible to shingles, which is far worse than your average, run-of-the-mill case of the chicken pox. (Read "Trading Chicken Pox for Shingles": http://www.drgoldmanonline.com/R0002.pdf)

I believe some vaccines are absolutely needed, but a vaccine to prevent ear infections? No way, not for my kids.

Great article!