a family WITH TV
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 9:30:36 AM, ari@... writes:
<< Does anyone else think that? Sandra recently said
something to the effect that she's allergic to bullshit. Well, I'm
allergic to ugliness, and I try not to keep ugly things around. >>
There are ugly books, and books with ugly things in them, and so you choose
the books you don't think are ugly.
Just because there's some ugly stuff on TV doesn't mean anyone has to or will
want to watch it. There's also some wonderful stuff there.
If your kids can tell the difference between what is ugly and beautiful, they
will chose beautiful.
If the parent can allow them to look at something the PARENT thinks is ugly
(GI Joe? skateboards with flaming demon heads? pierced-face rock'n'roll
bands with torn-up-looking hair?) then the parent doesn't have to look, and
can let the child make his own aesthetic judgments.
But if the parent defines ugly and stupid for the child, the child might well
develop a curiosity about and a fascination with WHY the parent would be so
adamant that a certain thing was wrong or bad. And upon discovering that not
all those things are going to grab you adn eat you in the dark, the child
loses some confidence in the parents' judgments.
I'm just describing what happened to hundreds of thousands of people my age
growing up, whose parents told them what to wear, how to have their hair, how
to sit, what to say in each social meeting, what to eat and when and how to
chew it, what music was "good" and what was "bad." The kids left home as
quickly as possible, became hippies or bikers or whatever, and let totally
loose with sex and drugs. That's not maybe, that happened.
I'm not wise in the terminology of physics, but I've been around real
catapults and trebuchets (and miniature ones too, designed for table-top use
in food fights, but those are really rude). If there's not a great force
pulling something back and holding it down, there can be no huge
high-velocity escape vector.
If kids have lax, sweet freedom, they can't go very far or very fast. If
they have limitations, the resistence builds up and builds up.
<<But if you talk about your tastes and values to
your children and around them, they are likely to accept them as their
own; at least, those of them that you're most passionate about.>>
It won't be the amount of talking, but the truth in it.
<<And it's harder to be passionate about not watching too much TV (what's
too much, anyway?) than not watching any at all, in my opinion.>>
Is Shakespeare on stage uglier and more sinful than Shakespeare in the book?
The same characters and situations and philosophical questions that kids can
get from novels are also found in movies and dramas and comedies. The same
happiness kids can get from an illustration in a book can be had from seeing
animated cartoons, but there's also soundtrack, and voice acting.
My kids know tons of useful and fun things from Animaniacs, Sesame Street,
Muppet Babies, which they watched as new and watch again on video tape.
Our TV is much more used as a tape player and Nintendo system component than
for broadcast TV, and we don't have cable, but my kids' happiness and
knowledge and joy and long stretches of quiet days without TV are evidence
that it can be a good part of a good life.
Without having a TV, how do the kids see musicals? Have they seen Fred
Astaire dance? Shirley Temple? Have they seen ice shows--Disney on Ice,
Nutcracker on Ice?
I'd as soon banish books and the computer as banish TV, and I would never
banish those.
Sandra
<< Does anyone else think that? Sandra recently said
something to the effect that she's allergic to bullshit. Well, I'm
allergic to ugliness, and I try not to keep ugly things around. >>
There are ugly books, and books with ugly things in them, and so you choose
the books you don't think are ugly.
Just because there's some ugly stuff on TV doesn't mean anyone has to or will
want to watch it. There's also some wonderful stuff there.
If your kids can tell the difference between what is ugly and beautiful, they
will chose beautiful.
If the parent can allow them to look at something the PARENT thinks is ugly
(GI Joe? skateboards with flaming demon heads? pierced-face rock'n'roll
bands with torn-up-looking hair?) then the parent doesn't have to look, and
can let the child make his own aesthetic judgments.
But if the parent defines ugly and stupid for the child, the child might well
develop a curiosity about and a fascination with WHY the parent would be so
adamant that a certain thing was wrong or bad. And upon discovering that not
all those things are going to grab you adn eat you in the dark, the child
loses some confidence in the parents' judgments.
I'm just describing what happened to hundreds of thousands of people my age
growing up, whose parents told them what to wear, how to have their hair, how
to sit, what to say in each social meeting, what to eat and when and how to
chew it, what music was "good" and what was "bad." The kids left home as
quickly as possible, became hippies or bikers or whatever, and let totally
loose with sex and drugs. That's not maybe, that happened.
I'm not wise in the terminology of physics, but I've been around real
catapults and trebuchets (and miniature ones too, designed for table-top use
in food fights, but those are really rude). If there's not a great force
pulling something back and holding it down, there can be no huge
high-velocity escape vector.
If kids have lax, sweet freedom, they can't go very far or very fast. If
they have limitations, the resistence builds up and builds up.
<<But if you talk about your tastes and values to
your children and around them, they are likely to accept them as their
own; at least, those of them that you're most passionate about.>>
It won't be the amount of talking, but the truth in it.
<<And it's harder to be passionate about not watching too much TV (what's
too much, anyway?) than not watching any at all, in my opinion.>>
Is Shakespeare on stage uglier and more sinful than Shakespeare in the book?
The same characters and situations and philosophical questions that kids can
get from novels are also found in movies and dramas and comedies. The same
happiness kids can get from an illustration in a book can be had from seeing
animated cartoons, but there's also soundtrack, and voice acting.
My kids know tons of useful and fun things from Animaniacs, Sesame Street,
Muppet Babies, which they watched as new and watch again on video tape.
Our TV is much more used as a tape player and Nintendo system component than
for broadcast TV, and we don't have cable, but my kids' happiness and
knowledge and joy and long stretches of quiet days without TV are evidence
that it can be a good part of a good life.
Without having a TV, how do the kids see musicals? Have they seen Fred
Astaire dance? Shirley Temple? Have they seen ice shows--Disney on Ice,
Nutcracker on Ice?
I'd as soon banish books and the computer as banish TV, and I would never
banish those.
Sandra
Jessica Kelly
I don't think that passing on one's beliefs needs to be judgemental. Personally,
I wouldn't use the words "ugly" or "stupid" to describe tv or anything else, even
if i felt that way in my own mind, because "ugly" is a judgement. I do think,
however, that you can pass on your beliefs by stating what you feel ("I don't
like TV because it's a passive activity..." or whatever) in a nonjudgemental way,
and a way that will not make your kids feel like something is taboo and therefore
somehow desirable.
SandraDodd@... wrote:
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I wouldn't use the words "ugly" or "stupid" to describe tv or anything else, even
if i felt that way in my own mind, because "ugly" is a judgement. I do think,
however, that you can pass on your beliefs by stating what you feel ("I don't
like TV because it's a passive activity..." or whatever) in a nonjudgemental way,
and a way that will not make your kids feel like something is taboo and therefore
somehow desirable.
SandraDodd@... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/28/02 9:30:36 AM, ari@... writes:--
>
> But if the parent defines ugly and stupid for the child, the child might well
> develop a curiosity about and a fascination with WHY the parent would be so
> adamant that a certain thing was wrong or bad. And upon discovering that not
> all those things are going to grab you adn eat you in the dark, the child
> loses some confidence in the parents' judgments.
Jessica Kelly
W o r d U p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
oil and gas industry."
- Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
[it's all about oil...]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 12:48:12 PM, wordup@... writes:
<< I do think,
however, that you can pass on your beliefs by stating what you feel ("I don't
like TV because it's a passive activity..." or whatever) >>
But if your children discover TV watching NOT to be a passive activity, they
might think less of your beliefs.
One of the first online TV discussions I was ever in had a woman who argued
"it's passive."
Our family had just watched The Sound of Music (a really long movie) all
together, all kids, mom and dad. We had had A BLAST. We had been eating and
discussing, rewinding, singing... I said so.
Icily, she said that HER children were never allowed to talk or sing while a
video was on because it was RUDE.
WOOHOO!!!!!
She didn't allow 'active viewing'--they had to sit still or get out.
Many lights went on in me when I read that.
Sandra
<< I do think,
however, that you can pass on your beliefs by stating what you feel ("I don't
like TV because it's a passive activity..." or whatever) >>
But if your children discover TV watching NOT to be a passive activity, they
might think less of your beliefs.
One of the first online TV discussions I was ever in had a woman who argued
"it's passive."
Our family had just watched The Sound of Music (a really long movie) all
together, all kids, mom and dad. We had had A BLAST. We had been eating and
discussing, rewinding, singing... I said so.
Icily, she said that HER children were never allowed to talk or sing while a
video was on because it was RUDE.
WOOHOO!!!!!
She didn't allow 'active viewing'--they had to sit still or get out.
Many lights went on in me when I read that.
Sandra
Ariadna Solovyova
I agree actually :-) . It's best to express strong opinions in a mild way,
especially when talking to one's kids. It's just easier to use short and
simple words when you debate something online. Those long stuffy
euphemisms often fill my head with vapor.
Ari
especially when talking to one's kids. It's just easier to use short and
simple words when you debate something online. Those long stuffy
euphemisms often fill my head with vapor.
Ari
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Jessica Kelly wrote:
> I don't think that passing on one's beliefs needs to be judgemental. Personally,
> I wouldn't use the words "ugly" or "stupid" to describe tv or anything else, even
> if i felt that way in my own mind, because "ugly" is a judgement. I do think,
> however, that you can pass on your beliefs by stating what you feel ("I don't
> like TV because it's a passive activity..." or whatever) in a nonjudgemental way,
> and a way that will not make your kids feel like something is taboo and therefore
> somehow desirable.
>
> SandraDodd@... wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 1/28/02 9:30:36 AM, ari@... writes:
> >
> > But if the parent defines ugly and stupid for the child, the child might well
> > develop a curiosity about and a fascination with WHY the parent would be so
> > adamant that a certain thing was wrong or bad. And upon discovering that not
> > all those things are going to grab you adn eat you in the dark, the child
> > loses some confidence in the parents' judgments.
>
> --
> Jessica Kelly
> W o r d U p
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> "There would be no greater joy than to see a beautiful park
> that our children and adults can go to and learn about the
> oil and gas industry."
> - Tony Sanchez, former Texas Parks & Wildlife Commissioner
> [it's all about oil...]
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:33:06 EST SandraDodd@... writes:
of those Jackie Chan kicks? How can you not try Irish dancing when you
see it? How can you stay in your seat during Crocodile Hunter? I dare
you to NOT sing the "Friends" theme song.
Deb L, heading out to Tae kwon do class with the spinning, kicking,
singing, dancing TV watcher.
>Oh, man! Nothing passive about it around here! How can you not try some
> But if your children discover TV watching NOT to be a passive
> activity, they
> might think less of your beliefs.
of those Jackie Chan kicks? How can you not try Irish dancing when you
see it? How can you stay in your seat during Crocodile Hunter? I dare
you to NOT sing the "Friends" theme song.
Deb L, heading out to Tae kwon do class with the spinning, kicking,
singing, dancing TV watcher.
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 2:15:22 PM, ari@... writes:
<< It's just easier to use short and
simple words when you debate something online. Those long stuffy
euphemisms often fill my head with vapor. >>
Some words I never use.
I'd rather have a head filled with vapor than one filled with short, mean
words and the emotion behind them.
<< It's just easier to use short and
simple words when you debate something online. Those long stuffy
euphemisms often fill my head with vapor. >>
Some words I never use.
I'd rather have a head filled with vapor than one filled with short, mean
words and the emotion behind them.
Joylyn
SandraDodd@... wrote:
tv watchers. The dance and sing, their new
favorite is Joseph and the multicolored
Rainbow pants (technicolor dreamcoat), and
Janene has to get her "Joseph coat" and they
sing allthe songs, and we have to dance to
the Pharo is in the building song, it is so
much fun!
Joylyn
--
Joylyn
Mom to Lexie (6) and Janene (3)
For great nursing clothes and slings, go to
www.4mommyandme.com
"Wasn't it Mark Twain who said it takes a
very dull person to spell a word only one
way?"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Oh I agree! My kids are very seldom passive
> In a message dated 1/28/02 12:48:12 PM,
> wordup@... writes:
>
> << I do think,
> however, that you can pass on your beliefs
> by stating what you feel ("I don't
> like TV because it's a passive activity..."
> or whatever) >>
>
> But if your children discover TV watching
> NOT to be a passive activity, they
> might think less of your beliefs.
tv watchers. The dance and sing, their new
favorite is Joseph and the multicolored
Rainbow pants (technicolor dreamcoat), and
Janene has to get her "Joseph coat" and they
sing allthe songs, and we have to dance to
the Pharo is in the building song, it is so
much fun!
Joylyn
--
Joylyn
Mom to Lexie (6) and Janene (3)
For great nursing clothes and slings, go to
www.4mommyandme.com
"Wasn't it Mark Twain who said it takes a
very dull person to spell a word only one
way?"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]