Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Oh please. It’s not like the kid has books on Kindle. It’s not even close to the same thing, and you should know what, as a reader.

*MIL

There’s also a difference between saying someone was “good at the sitter” and being proud/excited at “how good” a kid is being. So, more than neutral. OP’s mother sounded like more of the latter— like actually impressed at his behavior. I agree with OP that it might not be bad, but it’s not impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Yes reading is different than screen time. It has nothing to do with what is 'acceptable' and everything to do with screen time addictions.

I was also always reading as a kid, but I can't remember a single time I had a tantrum or whined if my parents told me it was time to put the book down. It wasn't addictive the same way screens are and doesn't result in the same bad behavior.

We're not talking about whether screen time is bad or not. The question is whether the child is being good or it doesn't count because they are being good * with a screen.

The question, again, is what is "good?" Are you trying to get pats on the back for good parenting? Are you talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble for adults? Are you asserting that the child is demonstrating some sort of useful skill? What?

To me, as a parent, my definition of "being good", is really just not being bad. It doesn't involve some superhuman feat, it just means you met my expectations for the situation and didn't bother, embarrass, annoy or terrify me. If, for example, I send you off with Grandma, and tell you to "be good for Grandma", and Grandma makes that being good super easy by taking you to the ice cream parlor where you can order what you like, then I feel like you met my expectations. If I took you to the store, and you stayed by the cart and didn't whine for things, I consider that 'being good" even if the store was someplace like the vitamin shoppe where there's nothing worth whining for.

It's not like I go around boasting about how my kid is "good", but if someone asked "was she good at the store?", I wouldn't say "Well, no, she was just so so because the task was so easy." I'd just say "yes".

I think that's telling in its own way. Not necessarily a bad thing, but telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Yes reading is different than screen time. It has nothing to do with what is 'acceptable' and everything to do with screen time addictions.

I was also always reading as a kid, but I can't remember a single time I had a tantrum or whined if my parents told me it was time to put the book down. It wasn't addictive the same way screens are and doesn't result in the same bad behavior.

We're not talking about whether screen time is bad or not. The question is whether the child is being good or it doesn't count because they are being good * with a screen.

The question, again, is what is "good?" Are you trying to get pats on the back for good parenting? Are you talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble for adults? Are you asserting that the child is demonstrating some sort of useful skill? What?

To me, as a parent, my definition of "being good", is really just not being bad. It doesn't involve some superhuman feat, it just means you met my expectations for the situation and didn't bother, embarrass, annoy or terrify me. If, for example, I send you off with Grandma, and tell you to "be good for Grandma", and Grandma makes that being good super easy by taking you to the ice cream parlor where you can order what you like, then I feel like you met my expectations. If I took you to the store, and you stayed by the cart and didn't whine for things, I consider that 'being good" even if the store was someplace like the vitamin shoppe where there's nothing worth whining for.

It's not like I go around boasting about how my kid is "good", but if someone asked "was she good at the store?", I wouldn't say "Well, no, she was just so so because the task was so easy." I'd just say "yes".

Why does it bother you? Why weren't you playing with him if it bothers you so much?

If good as defined as keeping quiet and occupied by the tools given to the child at the relative's house than yes they're being good.

Why on earth is such an in the weeds distinction so important to you OP?

You sound like a peach, OP. Bashing your MIL and nephew in one swoop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The question, again, is what is "good?" Are you trying to get pats on the back for good parenting? Are you talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble for adults? Are you asserting that the child is demonstrating some sort of useful skill? What?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I believe that OP's MIL is praising the child for exhibiting good behavior and OP is saying it doesn't count due to child using screen time. So I guess that we are talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble.

Right, but the question is, also: maybe it doesn't count as "good" behavior to ignore everyone else in the room, no matter how quiet you're being.

But there's another aspect addressed in the OP. The fact that her MIL was "marveling" at his behavior. So could also be talking about good as in impressive, not just good as in not misbehaving. I definitely don't think it "counts" as impressive or skilled.

My grandmother mentioned something about this issue when my daughter was about a year old. She (my daughter, but also my grandmother lol) has always been reasonably well-behaved at restaurants. Nothing remarkable-- when she was under 4, especially, we did have to walk her around a bit, here and there, engage with her, etc. Just an average kid IMO-- not one who literally can't sit still, and not one who is extremely docile either. My grandmother compared her to the great-granddaughter of a friend, whom the friend described as "well-behaved" at restaurants as well. But the kid (also 1 year old) was put in front of an iPad the whole time. My grandmother thought it was weird to describe that as well-behaved, because she wasn't even part of the event at all, really. She wasn't available to be engaged in any way-- even to the limited extent you can engage with a 1-year-old. Not that the kid was rude or anything, but well-behaved didn't capture the behavior in my grandmother's opinion.

Might as well give him a family size Nachos bag to make him even better.
None of this stuff is good for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The question, again, is what is "good?" Are you trying to get pats on the back for good parenting? Are you talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble for adults? Are you asserting that the child is demonstrating some sort of useful skill? What?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I believe that OP's MIL is praising the child for exhibiting good behavior and OP is saying it doesn't count due to child using screen time. So I guess that we are talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble.

She means he is good cmopared to OP who sat in front of a TV for more than 3 hours but was still annoying.

Anonymous wrote:

The question, again, is what is "good?" Are you trying to get pats on the back for good parenting? Are you talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble for adults? Are you asserting that the child is demonstrating some sort of useful skill? What?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I believe that OP's MIL is praising the child for exhibiting good behavior and OP is saying it doesn't count due to child using screen time. So I guess that we are talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble.

You were with your nephew for 3 hours and you didn't do anything with him? Go to a park or something, wtf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Yes reading is different than screen time. It has nothing to do with what is 'acceptable' and everything to do with screen time addictions.

I was also always reading as a kid, but I can't remember a single time I had a tantrum or whined if my parents told me it was time to put the book down. It wasn't addictive the same way screens are and doesn't result in the same bad behavior.

We're not talking about whether screen time is bad or not. The question is whether the child is being good or it doesn't count because they are being good * with a screen.

The question, again, is what is "good?" Are you trying to get pats on the back for good parenting? Are you talking about a kid who isn't causing trouble for adults? Are you asserting that the child is demonstrating some sort of useful skill? What?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Yes reading is different than screen time. It has nothing to do with what is 'acceptable' and everything to do with screen time addictions.

I was also always reading as a kid, but I can't remember a single time I had a tantrum or whined if my parents told me it was time to put the book down. It wasn't addictive the same way screens are and doesn't result in the same bad behavior.

We're not talking about whether screen time is bad or not. The question is whether the child is being good or it doesn't count because they are being good * with a screen.