Anonymous wrote:...would you be ok if your kids were alway living the way you parent them (eating that way every day, getting that much screen time every day) or do you more want them raised differently and just leave that to your spouse?

I'm genuinely curious. There's the trope that the dad just gives them junk and parks them in front of the tv (though i do know a couple families where the mom has a lower bar)...and maybe they do strongly feel that the kids would be just fine or even better off if things were a lot more relaxed that way.

As I'm typing this i'm realizing its very unlikely this type of parent is on a parenting messaging board

yes, i would be ok with my kids always living this way. because life is not only about food and screens. i want my children to use their potential and excel (in their case, academically, because that's where their potential is), and also, to have their own families and children. those are most important things to me in terms of results. i don't care how much TV they watch as adults. there is a lot of good stuff on TV I wish I had time to watch.

Anonymous wrote:There is such a thing as thinking for yourself. Kids/Teens/Adults do that. Eventually all do that.

Life choices are not about "being taught" or what's permitted.

What’s your point? Parents still provide access to the things a kid needs. so by simply doing the grocery shopping they are taking an active stance in what the kid “decides” to eat.

Anonymous wrote:We've lowered the bar b/c our kid is ASD/ADHD and the battles were destroying our family's peace and mental health.

Spouse and I are on the same page.

+1 one kid with ASD/ADHD and screens are her lifeline and she barely eats, so I let her have whatever calories she’ll consume. As she matures, she’s getting better, but she still has a long way to go. Her neurotypical sibling eats much, much healthier and isn’t constantly on a screen. I do the best I can.

Anonymous wrote:Well, my bar is lower than DH's but not super low. I think I'm middle of the road and he's high. So yes I would be fine if it were my level every day. But I would not be fine with lower than that.

I think we’re the reverse, with DH a little more relaxed but we’re mostly on the same page. We don’t argue about it. DC definitely gets a little more screen time with DH but the differences are minor.

I actually think it’s good to have one parent who is more relaxed because it’s a reminder this stuff isn’t life or death. But I know DH appreciates that I’ve prioritized it because while it’s not a huge deal in isolated incidents, we know kids who had unlimited screen time and who are now screen addicted zombies and their parents complain a lot.

Anonymous wrote:We've lowered the bar b/c our kid is ASD/ADHD and the battles were destroying our family's peace and mental health.

Spouse and I are on the same page.

Right with you!

There is such a thing as thinking for yourself. Kids/Teens/Adults do that. Eventually all do that.

Life choices are not about "being taught" or what's permitted.

DH is stricter about screentime and junk food than I am. Not by much, but I'm definitely the more permissive parent. Our kids are 3 and 5.

I wouldn't want them to be in front of the TV eating popcorn all the time, so I appreciate DH laying down the law from time to time. Mostly, I think I'm more permissive, because I'm more active with them and they want more from me. They are fully capable of playing independently and will do it happily, but when they want an adult to play with, they know I'm the one (not DH) who will run around the house playing cops and robbers, or read them 10 books in a row, or go outside to practice bike riding, or help them with their bubble wands, or set up their painting sets, or whatever the case may be. So when they're in that mood and I can't/don't want to play, I am more likely to turn on Bluey and give them a bag of veggie straws.

Anonymous wrote:Well, my bar is lower than DH's but not super low. I think I'm middle of the road and he's high. So yes I would be fine if it were my level every day. But I would not be fine with lower than that.

+1. I’m also fine, in theory, with DH’s higher bar. The problem is me having to enforce DH’s higher bar when he’s not around. This way I prefer my lower bar. We have good kids. Let them have their screens and candy. I did as a kid and turned out just fine.

I have this issue (and solved it) with grandparents who see my kids like 5-6 days a week. They think they can spoil my kids rotten, only feed them candy/junk/chips/juice and that all healthy foods should be on parents.

It's an absolute battle. It was making our kids hate us for always having to be the "mean" ones who make them eat vegetables and drink water and milk. We also felt like we couldn't ever treat the kids because they got nonstop candy from grandparents. I'm sure we would have felt differently if these were grandparents who only saw them on holidays or special occasions.

DH and I took a step back and saw that this was a losing battle. Grandparents had to cut it out or there would be no time with grandkids to play and we would stop visiting (we had full time care for the kids, this was grandparents choice to have kids over. They'd pick them up early from daycare).

Per our example, it won't work if one parent is good cop and the other is bad cop. Both parents should be on the same page and need to agree.

Also my DH pushes sports, more than the kids actually want, and they have no talent. I would be happier with rec sports for fun and exercise and to focus our time and energy on things they actually like. And I'm not a fan of the specific sport due to the likelihood of concussions (it isn't football). So yeah, I do think the kids would be better off with my "lower" (aka more sensible) bar for sports.

I see it as ignorance/blind spot and having a lack of point of view. Ie, there is no big picture for these parents and that’s why they will just let the kids veg out.

Typically the parent with the higher bar has some framework - right or wrong - that there should be X hours of screen time and certain rules on meal times and contents.

Both can be wrong. I think it would be better if the lower bar parent did research and determined what their values are. They might say - “I think the kids will be healthier if we allow them to eat junk food sometimes because then it’s not super restricted” or “I think it’s unrealistic to do zero screen time” and the two parents can then discuss and compromise in a values conversation. Really each parent should be checking and balancing the other.

Not sure if that made sense but I think both parents need to have informed viewpoints on food, screen time, what amount of activities is good, etc.

Well, my bar is lower than DH's but not super low. I think I'm middle of the road and he's high. So yes I would be fine if it were my level every day. But I would not be fine with lower than that.

We've lowered the bar b/c our kid is ASD/ADHD and the battles were destroying our family's peace and mental health.

Spouse and I are on the same page.

Being either extreme is damaging.

...would you be ok if your kids were alway living the way you parent them (eating that way every day, getting that much screen time every day) or do you more want them raised differently and just leave that to your spouse?

I'm genuinely curious. There's the trope that the dad just gives them junk and parks them in front of the tv (though i do know a couple families where the mom has a lower bar)...and maybe they do strongly feel that the kids would be just fine or even better off if things were a lot more relaxed that way.

As I'm typing this i'm realizing its very unlikely this type of parent is on a parenting messaging board