In this Huffington Post article which is getting a LOT of play on the internet and other technology that children shouldn’t be reading, pediatric therapist Chris Rowan makes a case for severely curtailing technology in the hands of children. But it’s not just a suggestion:

As a pediatric occupational therapist, I’m calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years.

The reasons Rowan quotes for a ban are all pretty obvious, and some are reasonable: Technology for kids under two have been shown to result in ADD, impaired learning, and other maladies; technology restricts movement, and kids learn better when they’re physically active; obesity; sleep deprivation; mental illness (a bit of a stretch, but don’t stop her, she’s on a roll); aggression (probably true, but Rowan backs up her hypothesis in the laziest of ways by pointing her finger at Grand Theft Auto—which isn’t exactly on heavy rotation in most pre-teen’s gaming systems); digital dementia (cool name!); technology addiction; radiation emission (as in cell phones, and she’s really starting to lose me here); and a lack of parental influence (or quality mommy/daddy time).

Here’s a chart that depicts how much time children under 12 should be exposed to technology on a daily basis—for those who don’t have time to look, the answer is pretty much “never.”

2014-03-06-Screenshot20140306at3.29.09PM.png

Seriously, why did they go to the trouble of making a graph? Anyway, while I truly believe that kids under 12 should have strict limitations on screen time—there’s different types of screen time. There’s the passive kind where one watches television, and the active kind where one plays age-appropriate video games that challenge the player to think.

But whatever! Here’s my primary beef: Doctors and child professionals suggesting that we should ban things—instead of, you know, just doing their jobs and suggesting it. This article in particular makes some fine points—and some really overreaching arguments, as well—but kicking off a treatise with the ultra-conservative tact of banning technology all together for children under 12 makes me think the author is insecure in her argument—and has maybe played a bit too much Grand Theft Auto.

Anyway, read the entire article here. And don’t forget: My day won’t be complete without hearing the opinions of you Blogtowners on this subject. Should technology be banned for kids under 12? Should it be severely limited? If so, how much so? Or are the best parents the ones who turn on Grand Theft Auto, place a bag of Cheetos and a handgun on the coffee table, and leave the room? YOUR OPINION PLEASE.

Bang bang, choo-choo train, let me see you shake that thang. Wm. Steven Humphrey is the editor-in-chief of the Portland Mercury and has held the job since 2000. (So don’t get any funny ideas.)

9 replies on “Therapist Suggests Banning Technology for Children Under 12—Instead of, You Know, Suggesting It”

  1. Screen time is screwing with all of our brains. Internet site-jumping in particular. I know my thinking/attention span has been fucked over the last few years.

    I would say that our whole society needs to discuss the info-crack we carry around in our pockets. I’m as guilty as anyone (or more guilty).

  2. i think limiting children’s screen time is wise. i don’t know how realistic a total ban is but regardless of age, i think most of us could use more time outdoors and/or being active.

    it also boggles my mind that some kids have their own cell phones as young as five or six. people like to argue with me that someday if i have children, i’ll get them a phone too for “safety issues”. uhm, no. people raised children just fine without cell phones for most of history. it probably doesn’t help that to this day, i’ve never owned a cell phone myself.

  3. As to what age kids get cell phones, I think it depends on the situation: If you’re a working single mom, and your 7-year-old has to jump around from after-school care to a pal’s house… then yeah, a cell phone for the kid is necessary. If the kid only wants it to text their pals regarding the newest available Minecraft skin… OH HELL NO.

  4. Someone much smarter than me is probably able to articulate this better than I can, but changes in media and shared culture production and accessibility have happened in such a short span of time that we don’t really know definitively what, if any, effects they have on brains.

    Maybe millennials (ugh) are the experimental group in our new digital society. But most of the arguments against media consumption have proven baseless. Violent video games don’t cause school shootings, cel phones don’t cause brain cancer, porn won’t make you go crazy, etc. I’m sure similar outcries happened when the telegraph, radio, and television rolled out.

    Decent parenting and a civil society that looks out for the safety of their youth is what turns kids into responsible, rational adults and not adult-adolescents. This is common fucking sense to anyone with half a brain. Everyone caring for a kid needs to monitor what they’re doing and have a dialogue about it, not just censor it or limit it. Respect young people’s curiosity and intelligence instead of diverting it.

  5. This argument loses all grip with reality when it insists on keeping 13-18-year-old kids away from porn. Good luck with your heads in the sand, parents.

  6. I remember when I saw Elian Gonzales on the news, chatting to god knows who on a flip phone. He was six, and it was the year 2000. Now all the kids have them

  7. my husband was raised by a working single mother in the 80’s and they got by fine without cell phones. though i will concede that giving a younger child a phone under those circumstances is a major convenience for all, it is by no means necessary.

  8. They didn’t give kids cell phones in the ’80s because they were a foot and a half long and weighed 15 pounds.

Comments are closed.