Sweden Warns Parents: Quit Plopping Your Baby In Front Of Brain-Rotting Screens

When screen time is eliminated or reduced, children have more time to be outside, interact in person, and, critically, sleep.

The paradox of screens: Parents and grandparents wrestle with how much screen time to give kids



Parents and screen time

Parenthood is brutal — it has always been brutal. But in an era of unstoppable tech growth, raising children becomes more difficult by the day.

If you have kids or grandkids under the age of 13, you know the paradox of screens. The chaos of parenthood is relentless, and there’s a special brand for those of us with little kids. Exhaustion of every sort.

Peace is hard to come by for parents and many grandparents, especially those of us with little ones.

I have toddlers. Screen time is one of the constant subjects of examination between my wife and me. We're always assessing our screen time, our personal relationships with our phones, and the behavior we model for our kids.

Handing your kid a phone or tablet is a quick way to buy a moment of silence. We are desperate for the chance to think, to breathe, and sit still.

But this is no ordinary quiet. Screen time offers immediate relief in exchange for destruction that comes later. Parents make this deal constantly regarding screen time. Handing your kid a phone or tablet is the quickest way to neutralize a chaotic environment.

But this pause is deceptive. It doesn’t seem to remedy the situation, and it may even worsen the chaos.

Then there’s the addict-like response kids exhibit immediately after being handed a phone, a slot-machine glaze. They grip it like a starving ape grips bananas, as a tool for survival.

The Mayo Clinic warns that excessive screen time has been noted to lead to all sorts of health issues, including obesity, violent behavior, attention deficit, sleep disruptions, and erratic behavior.

It can even lead to “sensory differences” in toddlers.

There are plenty of detractors who frame the rejection of screen time as part of a moral panic, contending that it’s harmless or even beneficial.

This is one of the bizarre confrontations that have arisen with any new technology over the course of human history: People feel that these recent advancements are causing an incredible amount of harm. The other group claims that “every generation panics about technology, but most of the time their anxiety is actually ignorance and fear."

Reality lies in between the two: The invention of the ship is also the invention of the shipwreck.

Big little feelings

damircudic/Getty Images

Fad parenting has always been a problem. And like fads in general, it risks being swept aside at a moment’s notice, leaving a generation of disenchanted parents in its wake.

Each generation winds up with its own parenting philosophy. It’s corrective, a way to address the failures of the previous system. It’s also expressive, allowing each parent to rule the kingdom creatively. It is full of predictions about what matters and what doesn’t, what should worry parents and what shouldn’t — with plenty of outrage and hysteria along the way.

This philosophy is also a response to the folkways, constraints, disasters, luxuries, and technologies of that exact moment in history.

The current era of parenting seems largely focused on gentleness. Gentle parenting is the coin of the realm. I’ll give you a rushed, cursory, and probably haphazard explanation.

Gentle parenting, known formally as “attachment parenting,” is guided by empathy, the willingness to sit with a kid who, by most accounts, is being a real piece of work. Gentle parenting is focused on language that often sounds politically correct, like how it emphasizes bad behavior is “action,” not identity. It’s wrong, for instance, to say that a kid is mean. Say instead that the kid is acting mean. Parents are advised to “comment on the action, not the person.”

Every new parent I know has taken a parenting course from “Big Little Feelings.” It may be the most obvious example of Millennial parenting philosophy available. I have to admit, the course has benefitted my parenting tremendously.

The course has an entry on handling outbursts related to screen time, and as a true Millennial philosophy, the solution to screen time tantrums involves an acronym, PREP:

  • P: Plan in advance.
  • R: Reveal the plan.
  • E: Explain the details.
  • P: Put your toddler in charge.

The method remains unproven, but my point here is that it serves as a perfect representation of the parental angst unique to this era of total networking, total communication, total information.

The New Yorker captured this weird disharmony, where, in all of its planning, “gentle parenting represents a turn away from a still dominant progressive approach known as ‘authoritative parenting.’” It feels inherently feminine, yet it’s not. Because we have also seen an unprecedented shift in the father’s role and presence in family life.

At its worst, gentle parenting resembles the performance of a cartoonish NPR host, whispering passive-aggressive slogans that don’t correspond to reality. At its best, it offers a key to peace in the household. It can be annoying and stilted. But it can also be calming.

Screen activism

If you have young daughters or granddaughters, you should read “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” by Abigail Shrier.

She charts the spread of radical gender ideology as the cause of “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” in which prepubescent girls who have never expressed any sort of gender confusion suddenly develop an identity centered on gender and body dysphoria.

Transgender activists hate Shrier largely because she exposes the dark side of screen time, which political radicals use for recruitment.

She argues that this fad is unnatural — it has never occurred at any other moment in recorded medical history. She makes a compelling case, and one of the phenomena she cites as proof is the influence that social media has on these girls.

She refers to Jonathan Haidt’s observation that we’re living through a “mental health crisis,” the worst in decades, specifically affecting adolescent girls. Depression and anxiety rates are spiking, along with self-harm.

And Shrier correlates it to the rise of the iPhone and social media. This has left kids today not just depressed and anxious but also socially underdeveloped. She argues that kids today feel like they should be able to live the carefree lives of their parents, but they don’t know how. So they seek the guidance of online personas who appear to have things figured out.

This leads to peer contagion, the cultural spread of a mental pathology. Increasingly, we have seen how this process occurs throughout the education system.

The “trans influencers” behind this fad are devoted to evangelization. Their biggest argument is that early intervention is necessary, the earlier the better. As Shrier puts it, “Trans influencers typically take a by-any-means necessary approach to procuring cross-sex hormones. Whatever you have to do, whatever you have to say — do it. Your life is on the line.”

Shrier’s response to this tactic is one of her most compelling points: Intervention is not a pause button. No studies show that puberty blockers are safe or reversible. They stop sexual maturation and development of bone density from occurring.

Studies have shown that from there, nearly 100% of kids put on puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This guarantees that the child will be infertile and have permanent sex dysfunction. In other words, early intervention almost guarantees infertility. We should hammer this in. It’s maybe the most shocking and unacknowledged part of the transgender craze.

In other words, screen time has led to an unprecedented crisis of psychosis-driven mutilation.

Shipwrecked

Tassii/Getty Images

Jonathan Haidt is quite possibly the most reasonable man in America. He is somehow unaffected by the political vertigo of our time, able to connect with every sort of person. He has approached the dangers of social media from many angles: as a tool for activism, as a corruptor of colleges, as a harm to teenage girls, even as a modern version of the story of the Tower of Babel.

In an article for the Atlantic titled “After Babel: Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Haidt uses the Tower of Babel as a metaphor “for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit.”

The story of Babel comprises one short chapter of the Bible, Genesis 11. Yet it’s a story everyone knows. He describes “people wandering amid the ruins, unable to communicate, condemned to mutual incomprehension.”

Like the people in the story of Babel, America is in trouble: “Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.”

Social media platforms have damaged our trust, degraded our belief in institutions, and eradicated our shared stories. Haidt has been sounding the alarm about social media for years now, including in his most recent book, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness."

Children born after 1995 are disproportionately anxious. This is largely the result of screen time. Screen time is alienating. It leads to isolation. Hence the alarming rates of depression and anxiety, both rooted in aloneness.

Haidt argues that over the past 30 years, it has led to a rapid decline in “play-based childhood,” which has been replaced in the past decade by “phone-based childhood.”

The Mayo Clinic confirms his assertions.

He notes that the smartphone-driven "great rewiring of childhood" is causing an “epidemic of mental illness.” He suggests four ways to combat this: no smartphones before high school, no social media before age 16, no phones in schools, and prioritizing real-world play and independence.

He describes “smartphones as ‘experience blockers' because once you give the phone to a child, it’s going to take up every moment that is not nailed down to something else,” adding that “it’s basically the loss of childhood in the real world.”

He concludes with a similar refrain: “The most important change we can make to reduce the damaging effects of social media on children is to delay entry until they have passed through puberty.”

Like so much else as a parent, this process winds up being tough but redemptive.

Kids' shows your children can actually watch



I don’t believe that exposure to technology is tantamount to child abuse as some uber-crunchy trads might insist. That said, they're reacting to a culture that pushes tablets and phones on the very young, despite fairly convincing evidence suggesting that too much screen time may harm kids’ cognitive, linguistic, and social-emotional growth.

'Prolonged exposure to high-stimulation shows, even those with virtuously 'educational' packaging such as 'Baby Einstein,' primes children for inattention.'

Is it possible to stake out a reasonable middle ground? In my view, yes — provided you have a clear-eyed understanding of just what pitfalls to avoid.

Sheer quantity is obvious enough. Consuming six hours straight of uninterrupted screen time is the dopamine-overdose equivalent of binging a family-sized bag of Reese’s cups: pretty clearly a bad habit to indulge. Of course, most "content" today is designed for passive binging, putting the onus on the parent to keep time. You don't want to forget your child in front of "Bluey" any more than you'd want to forget your roast in the oven.

Then, you have to consider the ideology (trans, critical race theory, etc.) smuggled into the average children’s television programming these days. What makes it particularly insidious is the difficulty of knowing where exactly it comes from.

Vaclav Havel foretold this in his essay “The Power of the Powerless,” in which he describes life under communism through the story of a greengrocer. The greengrocer put a communist slogan in his shop window, not because he particularly liked its content, not because the content was true, not in the hope that someone might be persuaded by it,

but to contribute, along with thousands of other slogans, to the panorama that everyone is very much aware of. This panorama, of course, has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them. It tells them what everyone else is doing, and indicates to them what they must do as well, if they don't want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselves from society, break the rules of the game, and risk the loss of their peace and tranquility and security.

That is to say, it is an utterly gratuitous form of psychological torture. What a good reason to cancel the show, and the network, for good measure.

But quality doesn’t begin and end with the message itself. Canadian philosopher and father of media theory Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message,” the idea that the manner of communication can often say more about the culture, and the messages that culture communicates, than the explicit messages themselves.

Illustrating his point, wokeness as a form of political manipulation and psychological terrorism entered its heyday in tandem with high-stimulation special-effect media. Dr. Dimitri Christakis says that the pace of the media has a significant impact on its quality, at least in terms of a child’s neural development. His research indicates that prolonged exposure to high-stimulation shows, even those with virtuously "educational" packaging such as “Baby Einstein,” primes children for inattention. The type of input that the mind learns to crave is not available in the real world, so the child becomes addicted to the constant, unchallenged emotional gratification of the screen.

Suppose, however, that parents enforce strict time limits and vet all shows for messaging. Is the occasional hour or two of curated screen time fine?

The study I linked to at the beginning suggests that it is, especially if we balance it our with “green time."

Here, I’ve curated some of my favorite high-quality, low-stimulation, and actually child-appropriate shows that my kids watch when they’re sick or I need to get something done. This list is not exhaustive, so please share in the comments: What morally and aesthetically wholesome shows have you found that get the sort of crunchy, Christian mom stamp of approval?

Doctor explains why he shows his young kids 'South Park'



Addiction medicine specialist and media personality Dr. Drew Pinsky, better known as “Dr. Drew,” is well aware of the impact of screens on children.

“Screens are a problem,” he tells Dave Rubin. “No doubt that screens are part of the distress that’s going on right now, particularly for young people.”

According to Drew, the solution is society coming to a general consensus that screen time is not good for children.

“The only way it’ll happen is if all parents in every given community do it together, otherwise it’ll be just sharing screens during the day and stuff,” he says.

Rubin notes that no matter how many parents say they refuse to allow their kids to have screen time, a lot of parents end up giving in.

“You might want a quiet dinner at a restaurant one night and you hand them the iPad and then it’s five years later and then they’re just whatever they do, they’re making cookies,” he tells Drew.

Dr. Drew isn’t perfect either.

“One of the things we did that maybe was inadvisable, I watched 'South Park' with my sons,” he tells Rubin. “I always felt okay about it even though there was some inappropriate stuff in there because we discuss it all, and we talk about it.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sen. Hawley Humiliates Mark Zuckerberg For Lying About How Big Tech Hurts Kids

Hawley demanded Zuckerberg apologize to the families of children whom Big Tech has helped exploit and harm.

On Weekends, Americans Spend More Time With Screens Than People

An 'introvert economy' has come to define America's post-lockdown culture, according to the Manhattan Institute's Allison Schrager.

Bentkey Is A Weird Name For Kids’ Streaming, But Its Shows Are Adorable

People on the right are terrible at reliably passing down their values to their own children, and education and entertainment are a big part of that problem.

Study: Outside Of School, America’s Teens Average 70 Hours Per Week Glued To Screens

America’s young people are wasting almost all of their waking free time on entertainment instead of personal development or service to others.

Watching Phones Instead Of Reading Good Books Is Starving Kids’ Souls

So many of these students grew up reading, hearing, watching, and absorbing stories that assert they are omniscient, that no outside source is as trustworthy as their own feelings.