Pam Hartley

> If we let our kids have unlimited access to "junk" tv, etc, don't your
> think they will take advantage of it in the same way they will take
> advantage of "junk" food, if we stocked our pantry full of an unlimited
> supply.

This is a great analogy, because my daughters do use their unlimited access
to tv the same way they use their unlimited access to chocolate, potato
chips, ice cream, etc.

We don't have limits on food and keep all sorts of "junk" normally on hand
right alongside "the good stuff", and my girls eat what they want --
sometimes this is what others would consider junk, sometimes it's not. My
youngest can be relied upon to ask for a bagel or toast for breakfast, every
morning, though she knows she could have ice cream if she wanted it. My
oldest is more likely to remind me that we're out of lettuce for her salads
than that we are out of chips.

This is not to say they don't eat "junk" food -- they do. So do I. But we
all also choose "good" foods right along with them.

> Isn't it our responsibility to offer a healthy assortment of food
> from which to choose, including some not-so-healthy treats, to enjoy on
> occasion, and in the same way, isn't it our responsibility to provide a
> healthy assortment of entertainment options.

Except for the "on occasion" part, I'm right with you. Do you imagine that
those of us who don't limit television have children with no other interests
BUT that television? Or that we don't see to it that they have a variety of
things that we believe might interest them, ready if they want them?

My daughters are outside right now pretending to be babies (a friend just
had one). They are in the fresh air, running around and making a good deal
of noise, playing happily. They have not been told to do so, and if they
were instead playing video games or watching tv, I wouldn't care a jot. Thus
lives freedom.

>I realize this is hard to do
> in the case of television, unless you plain just don't own one, but with
> games and cd-roms, we do have more ability to offer a nice array of
> options, in a limited supply, so that outdoor play and face-to-face social
> interaction (more organic human activities), are the more available option,
> and I would strongly argue, the healthier option. I do believe there is
> much value in the electronic world, and pleasure in the enjoyment of
> delicious treats, but is there a way to offer these, without the attractive
> packaging and addictive quality that they offer to both adults and
> children, the quality that marketers work hard to improve in order to
> persuade us to buy more!


Here's the problem, of course: video games are fun, and television is
entertaining. I know this is not universal to everyone here (or anywhere)
but it is a fact that a great many people, big and small, find this a
self-evident truth. If these things were not fun and entertaining, who would
bother to fool with them? Attractive packaging may get you to buy, but not
to play or watch if there are other better things on offer.

If you find outdoor play and face-to-face social interaction healthier
options, you should by all means choose them. When you start choosing them
FOR other people though, even when those other people are short and under
your jurisdiction, you rob them of their free choices, as well as the
opportunity to learn to make good ones.

Pam

Kelli Traaseth

Great post Pam, this is the kind-of thing I need to show my questioning friends and family.

Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Kelli


Pam Hartley <pamhartley@...> wrote:> If we let our kids have unlimited access to "junk" tv, etc, don't your
> think they will take advantage of it in the same way they will take
> advantage of "junk" food, if we stocked our pantry full of an unlimited
> supply.

This is a great analogy, because my daughters do use their unlimited access
to tv the same way they use their unlimited access to chocolate, potato
chips, ice cream, etc.

We don't have limits on food and keep all sorts of "junk" normally on hand
right alongside "the good stuff", and my girls eat what they want --
sometimes this is what others would consider junk, sometimes it's not. My
youngest can be relied upon to ask for a bagel or toast for breakfast, every
morning, though she knows she could have ice cream if she wanted it. My
oldest is more likely to remind me that we're out of lettuce for her salads
than that we are out of chips.

This is not to say they don't eat "junk" food -- they do. So do I. But we
all also choose "good" foods right along with them.

> Isn't it our responsibility to offer a healthy assortment of food
> from which to choose, including some not-so-healthy treats, to enjoy on
> occasion, and in the same way, isn't it our responsibility to provide a
> healthy assortment of entertainment options.

Except for the "on occasion" part, I'm right with you. Do you imagine that
those of us who don't limit television have children with no other interests
BUT that television? Or that we don't see to it that they have a variety of
things that we believe might interest them, ready if they want them?

My daughters are outside right now pretending to be babies (a friend just
had one). They are in the fresh air, running around and making a good deal
of noise, playing happily. They have not been told to do so, and if they
were instead playing video games or watching tv, I wouldn't care a jot. Thus
lives freedom.

>I realize this is hard to do
> in the case of television, unless you plain just don't own one, but with
> games and cd-roms, we do have more ability to offer a nice array of
> options, in a limited supply, so that outdoor play and face-to-face social
> interaction (more organic human activities), are the more available option,
> and I would strongly argue, the healthier option. I do believe there is
> much value in the electronic world, and pleasure in the enjoyment of
> delicious treats, but is there a way to offer these, without the attractive
> packaging and addictive quality that they offer to both adults and
> children, the quality that marketers work hard to improve in order to
> persuade us to buy more!


Here's the problem, of course: video games are fun, and television is
entertaining. I know this is not universal to everyone here (or anywhere)
but it is a fact that a great many people, big and small, find this a
self-evident truth. If these things were not fun and entertaining, who would
bother to fool with them? Attractive packaging may get you to buy, but not
to play or watch if there are other better things on offer.

If you find outdoor play and face-to-face social interaction healthier
options, you should by all means choose them. When you start choosing them
FOR other people though, even when those other people are short and under
your jurisdiction, you rob them of their free choices, as well as the
opportunity to learn to make good ones.

Pam

~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]