pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/08/85)
> My wife and I have been married for 12 years and the last 6 have > been without a TV. We now have a 1 year old daughter. Our minds > are firm that we will do without TV for as long as possible. I > only know of one other family with two very fine daughters that > lived without the Tube. I am courious if there are other families > without the one-eyed monster and how well is it going for them. > What activities were done in place of this national pasttime? > How do the kids survive amoung friends if they don't know what is > currently the big sho'? Is living without the box so rare? Even > now, I still get queer looks when people find we don't have a TV. > ( I used to have a couple of portables in the basement that didn't > work. My intentions were to make monitors out of them, but I decided > to get rid of them also at our garage sale.) I would like to hear > any comments about this subject of TVless kids. > > Robert Dexter First, let me express my heartfelt congratulations on your resolve and that of your wife. My wife and I definitely share it. We have no TV, and really think it's wonderful. When you've lived without a TV for several years you don't miss it. Also, when you do sit down in front of one at somebody else's home you really notice what shallow garbage most of the programming really is. I'm impatient in front of the TV (especially the dumb commercials you get bombarded with so frequently). You also begin to notice how central the TV is to many people's lives. It provides a constant "stimulant" to the senses and easily takes the place of more meaningful human interaction. Without TV we play more games, read more, and enjoy conversation more. Where kids are concerned, the strongest temptation is when you see what a good baby-sitter the TV seems to make. Kids will sit in front of it for hours. But I don't like the influence it has (violence in cartoons, sexual overtones in a lot of prime time TV, and the consumerism fostered by commercials, etc.) I think that most adults don't bother to overcome these subtile influences by thinking critically about what they are seeing. How much more will kids? I definitely think that the small percentage of good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) The best way to learn to live without a television is to resolve that you *will* live without it. This provides more incentive than anything for you to find more meaningful pastimes for both you and your kids. That discipline is a spur to creativity in this area. Interaction with other kids who watch a lot of TV might be more difficult, but I think kids can survive that pretty easily and still be the better for it. Encourge your kids to read more than watch TV and they'll have some things they're "up on" that the other kids aren't. I think reading generally provides more exercise for the imagination than TV, hence developing it more. Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. They can find common ground with those kids in other areas, hopefully. (Your kids will probably get some TV at a friend's house, anyway; hopefully much less than if you owned one yourself.) One snag is that teachers sometimes make a TV program part of an assignment for school. This doesn't seem to happen often enough to cause a big inconvenience (but I don't have school age kids yet either, this is just an observation of others, not my own experience). When it does happen make arragements to watch at a friend's house or borrow a portable. Watch the program with your kids and talk with them about it afterwords. We have considered buying a very small portable for times like this (one that can be shoved to the back of a closet when it's not being used) but we can put that off for a while. Finally, don't be bothered by the queer looks you get for not having a TV. What's so bad about being different from everyone else is some ways? I'm thankful for the advantages that I believe NOT having a TV is giving me. It can be a lot of fun sometimes ... like when the cable TV sales people come to your door. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
segs@mhuxn.UUCP (slusky) (08/09/85)
{}
I would guess that the first problem you would run into in raising kids
without a TV in the house is that you would have a great deal of trouble
hiring teenaged baby sitters for the occasional night out. Once they find
out you don't have a TV to help them pass the time, I doubt they'll be back.
Susan Slusky
mhuxn!segs
-- ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) (08/13/85)
> > I am courious if there are other families > > without the one-eyed monster and how well is it going for them. > > What activities were done in place of this national pasttime? > > How do the kids survive amoung friends if they don't know what is > > currently the big sho'? > > > > Robert Dexter When I was very young (8 or 9 years old) I had a friend down the street whose father would not allow a TV in the house. My friend spent most of his time watching TV at our house and another friend's house. I remember he would come over to play and all he wanted to do was watch TV. It was a drag because we (friends with TVs) usually wanted to go outside. > I'm impatient in front of the TV > (especially the dumb commercials you get bombarded with so frequently). > > I definitely think that the small percentage of > good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its > harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) > There's more than a small percentage. Rent a TV and get cable for a while. SKIP THE COMMERCIAL NETWORK CHANNELS and go directly to PBS, CNN, C-SPAN, Arts and Entertainment (A&E), National Geographic Explorer on Nickelodeon (this program is GREAT!), the Health and Medicine channel, sports (ESPN and USA, etc.). Cable TV provides a variety of very educational, entertaining, and generally worthwhile programming -- just give it a chance. PBS alone is worth the investment. > I definitely think that the small percentage of > good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its > harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) > The aforementioned programming IS worth it. As for limiting one's watching to good stuff... well, if you don't like what you or your kids are watching, change channels or turn the TV off. Also, most cable companies offer channel controls that allow you to lock-out channels that you don't want to receive. > Encourage > your kids to read more than watch TV and they'll have some things they're > "up on" that the other kids aren't. I think reading generally provides > more exercise for the imagination than TV, hence developing it more. I agree, but no TV at all?? > Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest > thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. It can be a big deal if most of your friends are always talking about something you know nothing about. > will probably get some TV at a friend's house, anyway; hopefully much > less than if you owned one yourself.) > > When it does happen > make arragements to watch at a friend's house or borrow a portable. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Do you think your neighbors appreciate this? I wouldn't, knowing you don't have a TV. Like it or not, TV is a very important and pervasive communications medium. It's important that children are exposed to it, understand it, and learn how to use it responsibly and constructively. I feel that just removing it from the house is a mistake. -- Ned Robie
suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) (08/15/85)
> I would guess that the first problem you would run into in raising kids > without a TV in the house is that you would have a great deal of trouble > hiring teenaged baby sitters for the occasional night out. Once they find > out you don't have a TV to help them pass the time, I doubt they'll be back. > > Susan Slusky > mhuxn!segs > -- Hear, Hear!! We don't have a TV. When my stepkids visit for the summer, they have to adjust to this. We don't forbid them to watch when they have the opportunity, but we do discourage it. Two years ago I was available to watch them. We had them enrolled for swimming lessons and several community center classes. We frequently went to the library. There was little indication that they missed TV. We played a lot of games and read. The last two weeks they were with us we borrowed their grandparents' TV and atari. It is interesting to note that they played Pac-Man a LOT, but seldom watched TV shows. Last summer (1984) just the older kids (9 and 13) were with us. We had them in an all day program at the Boys' and Girls' Club. They rarely mentioned missing TV, though all their friends thought it odd that we didn't have one. Once when they wanted to watch a particular show we borrowed a portable from their grandparents so they could. (We kept it a week, but felt they were watching too much and returned it.) This summer all four (5, 6, 10 and 14) were with us. The 10 year old brought her TV with her. Once again, we didn't forbid, but rather discouraged their watching it. In the evenings we were usually too busy for them to watch. However, during the day they watched lots of game shows and a couple of soap operas. Fortunately, we had them signed up for a lot of classes at the community center, so a lot of their time was spent in more useful activities. We feel they would have watched a lot less if their nanny hadn't been a soap opera addict. The first week only two of the kids (and not the TV) were with us. It seemed like every day they went to the nanny's house to watch the soap operas! We were not pleased. While she never said anything to us, she did complain about our lack of a TV to the kids. To say the least, we won't hire her again. And our interview will include questions on whether or not a prospective babysitter/nanny can live without a TV. We won't forbid Robyn to bring her TV, but won't suggest and, if asked, will discourage it. We also found that a 20 year old is too young to supervise a 14 year old, the ages are too close; they were too much "friends" and the youngest two didn't get the extra attention we felt they should have. -- Suzanne Barnett uucp: ...{decvax,hao,ihnp4,seismo}!noao!terak!suze phone: 602 998 4800 us mail: Terak Corporation, 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
stern@steinmetz.UUCP (Harold A. Stern) (08/19/85)
Article 179 of net.kids:
> [INSERT 300 LINES ABOUT THE HORRORS OF TELEVISION]
As one of the youngest readers of this group, I feel qualified
to comment on the effects of television on kids, since I was one more
recently than most of you. I grew up in a house with two television
sets, and, believe it or not, I AM NOT A VEGETABLE! nor are my brothers
and sisters, nor are the vast majority of my friends (although I cannot vouch
for the sanity of ALL of them, I attribute this more to the horrors
of Long Island suburbia than anything else). So most of the stuff on the
box is trash. So what? How many of you mothers out there read Harlequin
Romances? Or the New York Post? the National Enquirer? People Magazine?
Would you say that your brains are slowly turning into fried zucchini?
I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, and I LIKE TO WATCH
TV! I find it very relaxing after a day at the office, or in class, to
watch for an hour or so. Even MTV, that corrupter of American civilization.
Kids CAN learn how to read, even if the do grow up in a house infested
with television sets. Try keeping a newspaper or two on the kitchen table.
It doesn't even have to be the New York Times. Or try to associate reading
with a reward instead of punishment. Rather than forcing the kid to read,
how 'bout: "ok, I'll let you stay up late, if you're reading?" My parents
were 3-for-3 with this one - a nite-lite over the bed helps, too - that
way, he can "sneak" a book or two.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
harold a. stern 410 memorial drive
stern%teela@mit-athena cambridge, ma 02139
decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!stern (617) 225-8304, 253-1541
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Have you ever heard of CNN? jrb@wdl1.UUCP (08/23/85)
I notice that there have been no articles from people like myself who grew up with no TV. We got our first TV when I was 14 years old (1972). I don't think I really missed it. I developed an addiction to books rather than to the tube. My mother read to us every night until all of us were able to read on our own (there are six of us). Is there anyone else out there who grew up without the box? John R Blaker UUCP: ...!fortune!wdl1!jrb ARPA: jrb@FORD-WDL1 and blaker@FORD-WDL2
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (08/25/85)
In article <645@wdl1.UUCP> jrb@wdl1.UUCP writes: > >Is there anyone else out there who grew up without the box? > Sure, we got our first TV when I was 28 (?). But then, where I grew up (up to age 14) they still don't have TV, and after that I moved to a country where TV was only introduced in the mid-70's. That first TV sure as hell changed our living pattern - which is only now (5 years later) starting to go back to something resembling life before TV.
olson@lasspvax.UUCP (Todd Olson) (09/01/85)
In article <645@wdl1.UUCP> jrb@wdl1.UUCP writes: >Is there anyone else out there who grew up without the box? > > John R Blaker Yes! I grew up without TV. There is still no TV in my parents house. I do not own a TV. (15min of writting and erasing) I was going to write a coherent explanation of why I find life without TV much nicer than with, but it is more effort than it is worth. Suffice it to say that except for an occasional offering, I find life as portrayed on the tube at odds with the way want to live my life. Should I ever raise children I hope I will provide them with more interesting ways to grow up then just watching TV. -- Todd Olson ARPA: olson@lasspvax -- or -- olson%lasspvax@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!olson US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (09/04/85)
In article <645@wdl1.UUCP> jrb@wdl1.UUCP writes: >I notice that there have been no articles from people like myself who >grew up with no TV. We got our first TV when I was 14 years old (1972). >Is there anyone else out there who grew up without the box? I did-- no TV until I was 15 (ex cept at grandparents when I got thechance!) In a totally unscientific study, consisting of me (aphysicist) and my wife (a pediatrician),I abserve that I like to watch some news, some sports, and good old movies on tv, while my wife, who grew up with tv and found herself perhaps encouraged to watch rather than intrude on parental strife, watches untold gobs of garbage (assuming anything other than NOVA isn't garbage :=> ). Quick branch into desire to limit kids' use of all passive toys, i.e. tv, mopeds, etc... Darwin's Dad (Carl Witthoft) ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!carl @ Adaptive Optics Assoc., 54 Cambridgepark Dr. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-864-0201 " Buffet-Crampon R-13 , VanDoren B-45, and VanDoren Fortes ."
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/05/85)
> I notice that there have been no articles from people like myself who > grew up with no TV. We got our first TV when I was 14 years old (1972). > I don't think I really missed it. I developed an addiction to books rather > than to the tube. My mother read to us every night until all of us were > able to read on our own (there are six of us). > > Is there anyone else out there who grew up without the box? > > John R Blaker Well, I grew up *with* TV and guess what -- I also developed an addiction to books. I still read avidly -- but I also appreciate what TV provides today, and what it didn't when I was growing up. I would have practically no reason to own a television except for one thing -- and that is PBS. I suppose some of the other services currently developing on cable are also useful (I don't get cable where I live so I can't judge). I do, however, pick up PBS -- and PBS is worth everything else on TV put together. I can't begin to list the vast amount of educational programming (science, nature, and public affairs), drama (Shakespeare, opera), and other culture which I have thrilled to on PBS over the past few years. I agree completely with a statement made recently on the occasion of PBS's fifteenth anniversary that ``PBS is a national treasure.'' It saddens me that many children are now growing up without exposure to this beauty, available to all. ---------------- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (09/11/85)
In article <303@SCIRTP.UUCP> ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: >> I am courious if there are other families >> without the one-eyed monster and how well is it going for them. >> What activities were done in place of this national pasttime? >> How do the kids survive amoung friends if they don't know what is >> currently the big sho'? >> >> Robert Dexter > > >> I'm impatient in front of the TV >> (especially the dumb commercials you get bombarded with so frequently). >> > >> I definitely think that the small percentage of >> good programming on TV does not justify owning one. (When you do, its >> harder to limit your watching to the good stuff.) >> > >There's more than a small percentage. Rent a TV and get cable for a while. >SKIP THE COMMERCIAL NETWORK CHANNELS and go directly to PBS, CNN, C-SPAN, >Arts and Entertainment (A&E), National Geographic Explorer on Nickelodeon >(this program is GREAT!), the Health and Medicine channel, sports (ESPN >and USA, etc.). Cable TV provides a variety of very educational, entertaining, >and generally worthwhile programming -- just give it a chance. PBS alone >is worth the investment. > I don't own a tv, but I don't have children either. I have had a tv in the past, and I have had cable. And I would have to say that I really didn't find it worth it. There were some things about cable that I liked, mostly the fact that some networks carried old sitcoms. (Burns and Allen, etc.) There are some PBS shows that I enjoy, but where you live will determine just how good your PBS station is. For instance, I used to get the one from Chicago (I lived in Gary) and that was great. The one out here I find not nearly so good - at least not good enough to justify getting a tv. What you learn from educational channels I've found you can learn just as well from other resources, for the most part. There are some good things on tv (I even like some of the commercial network programs - I've really seen nothing on cable or PBS that I found any more entertaining and worthwhile as the Cosby show or Hill Street Blues), but I don't think that it's worth getting a tv - at least for me. >> Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest >> thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. > >It can be a big deal if most of your friends are always talking about something >you know nothing about. But, if you are only letting your kids watch what's "worthwhile", PBS, the arts channel, etc. then they still aren't going to be able to relate to what their friends are talking about, which will most likely be The "A" Team. Like I said though, I don't have any children. If I did, I might get a tv, but not so that my kids could keep up with their friends. There would probably be three types of programs as far as my children were concerned. One would be shows that I would actually try to get them to watch. This would probably only include old situation comedies (because that was a big and very enjoyable part of my youth) and Sesame Street - which is by far and away the best children's television program ever made, in my opinion. The second group would be things that I would let them watch occasionally, when it was convenient. This would include most anything else on PBS, and the two commercial channel programs that I mentioned above. Everything else would fall under the category of never being watched, by either my children or by myself. >Like it or not, TV is a very important and pervasive communications medium. >It's important that children are exposed to it, understand it, and learn how to >use it responsibly and constructively. I feel that just removing it from the >house is a mistake. I don't agree. I would probably get one, but I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone who chose not to have one. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (09/11/85)
I, too, grew up without TV (well, until I was 13), because I was living
overseas. I was able to spend my time reading all kinds of neat, instructive,
interesting books - largely history and biographies - and run around with my
Dad meeting and talking with all kinds of interesting people (the Maharaja of
Mysore, for instance). I warrant I did not suffer one bit from no TV.
Upon returning to US/Canada, I took to being fascinated by TV
and watched at almost every opportunity. Because there's only so much
time in a day and you can't be two places at once, watching TV meant I
was *NOT* doing something else. (At this point, someone is bound to suggest
that TV addiction is a personal flaw (probably true) .. but may I suggest
the problem is ubiquitous?) Since what I was not doing could have been
something more useful/beneficial/etc (by my value system, and here each
person has their own values), clearly something was (and still does)
suffering from my *watching* TV.
Now that I have my own family, we only use the TV to watch carefully
selected (I hope) videos.
Are there useful/beneficial (by my value system, again) things on
TV? Certainly. But my goal is to spend time on the *best* things ..
which means that even good things can get in the way of the best things.
In our household (and many others, I suspect, if folk are genuinely honest
with themselves) TV (network or cable) is difficult enough to control that it
becomes a detractor from the *best* things.
--
<< Generic disclaimer >>
Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ
UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4!btlunix}!mot!fred
ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA AT&T: 602-438-3472mark@tove.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (09/16/85)
My oldest daughter, now 8, watched lots of TV when she was younger.
The reason is not something I'm proud of, but it is the truth: I was
often too tired to think of anything better to do with her. I had a
rule for myself: I had to watch it with her. I can't tell you for sure
if this rule was really so I could judge her watching habits or just to
punish myself for being such a bad parent (as I felt I was).
(Hold the sympathetic or bucking-up remarks: this was 6 years ago with my first child: I now
have another and lots more confidence).
She (and I) saw lots of sesame
street and electric company, but no he-man or smurfs because I didn't
like them. The good news is that since she turned 6 and started reading
she has prefered reading to TV (and she prefers her friends to reading)
even though she was certainly a TV baby. The bad news is that we cannot
seem to find enough books for her to read even with extremely frequent
trips to the library, and she has re-read her favorites ten or more times.
-mark
--
Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) (09/17/85)
Our 5-year-old has rarely watched "live" TV since we got a VCR three years ago. We tape shows we approve (many from cable), and he selects from the tapes. Small children like to see the same show over and over. Some material, in fact, is beyond them if it must be taken in one gulp; a little at a time is the way to go with long, dramatic, or difficult material. Also, Samuel has always felt free to turn off a show in the middle, or to skip over a scary part. He is much more in control because of the VCR, and much less in thrall to the TV.
ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) (09/18/85)
> What you learn from educational channels I've > found you can learn just as well from other resources, for the most > part. Really? What other sources?? Assuming that any channel is potentially "educational" (except maybe the Playboy channel :-), TV allows me to SEE the bottoms of seas, the tops of mountains, the people and geography of this country and other countries, the racial strife in South Africa, the industrial empire of Japan, the Olympics, ballets, symphonies, jazz, ....... I could go on and on. What other source offers this wealth of information as graphically, conveniently, and cheaply as TV? > There are some good things on tv (I even like some of the > commercial network programs - I've really seen nothing on cable or PBS > that I found any more entertaining and worthwhile as the Cosby show or > Hill Street Blues), but I don't think that it's worth getting a tv - at > least for me. The intent of my posting was to encourage people that were turned off by commercial network TV to try the alternative programming available on cable. Since commercial network TV has only gotten worse, I doubt that it has any more to offer these people than it did before (except for the rare exceptions of Emmy award winning shows, two of which you mentioned above). > >> Kids can learn early on that what the crowd does isn't always the greatest > >> thing and being up on the latest show is no big deal. > > > >It can be a big deal if most of your friends are always talking about something > >you know nothing about. > > But, if you are only letting your kids watch what's "worthwhile", > PBS, the arts channel, etc. then they still aren't going to be able to > relate to what their friends are talking about, which will most likely > be The "A" Team. I never endorsed the idea of only letting one's kids watch PBS, the arts channels, etc. My kids are allowed to watch non-violent shows on commercial network TV. Suits me fine if my kids can't participate in discussions about violent shows (or movies) with friends. -- Ned Robie > elizabeth g. purtell