[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/04 6:51:56 AM, tuckervill2@... writes:

<< The reason they won't use real-life examples is because they think it's
wrong to talk about their own children. It IS part of the philosophy to not
use
real-life examples. >>

True.


<<I don't think Sandra is going to want to talk about TCS here, though. >>


I don't mind talking about it, but I can't be as supportive as some people
might like me to be. It's not that it's a bad idea, it's that it's an idea
that doesn't allow examination in the form in which the main proponents present
it.

It would be like announcing the reason for an experiment, saying it's
successful, and then not showing any data.

I've heard bad reports from a couple of people who met families whose main
philosophy was TCS and who had bad visits and never wanted to visit again.
That can happen with families of ALL kinds, really. Kids don't hit it off, bad
day for those kids, whatever.

But one complaint I have with kids who are "out of hand" (to use a telling
common phrase, and I'll get back to that) is when the parents seem entirely
unaware that things aren't going smoothly. And my preference in cases where
things are going bad and my children or my possessions are suffering because of
the choices and actions of someone else's kids is that the parents would try to
persuade them, reason with them, remind them to share, to lighten up, to be
considerate.

In discussions in AOL's unschooling area years ago, which is where I and some
others here were first confronted with TCS's bold assurances that we weren't
doing it right with our kids, it was made clear that compromise is NOT the
goal, compromise is telling a child he can't have his way. It was made clear
that persuasion is coercion and manipulation.

So "manipulation" leads back to "out of hand." "Manipulation" literally
means to move something or someone around with your hands. And "out of hand"
means off the leash/lead/reins, or out of reach of one's hand (as with a horse,
dog, child). So "out of hand" might seem good and right to a TCS promoter. <g>
In its literal, philosophical, sense anyway. My kids might be "out of
hand" (I don't control their moves) but they are not out of conscience. They
feel responsibility for their own actions, and I feel secondary responsibility.
If my mothering (or my genetic input) resulted in difficult children, I
wouldn't just throw up my hands and say "Gosh, what can I do? There's nothing can
be done within my philosophy."

One mom in the big AOL-homeschooling days was writing lots and wouldn't even
tell us whether she had children, how many, how old. "Irrelevant," she said.
Just believe the philosophy for its own sake. Y'know, though, lots of
philosophies work VERY well in the theoretical stage. Communism is one. It's
just the addition of actual humans that makes it fall apart. Some monastic
systems work pretty well (Buddhist and Christian), but they work well by
elimination of disruptive elements.

So as a philosophy, it would need to start, I think, with "Given an ideal
parent and an ideal child..." And maybe those families in which it's working
well, that IS the situation.

Two families whose moms adopted TCS later on were families with LOTS of kids,
and both started off fundamentalist Christian, but moved away from that and
moved toward TCS.

I think in both situations because the moms were bright and loving and
involved, and because the children were already VERY "in hand" that letting them
make choices from that point was a luxurious bonus round to an
already-unschooling life. It probably did seem the other swing of the pendelum.

But for those who begin more in the middle, not at an extreme edge, the
arguments about coercion seem less crucial. One classic argument that comes up is
seatbelts. The TYC response seemed to be if the kid doesn't want to go in the
seatbelt, you just can't make the trip. I just reported truthfully that I'm
not above bribery, and was kinda blasted for being clearly coercive. But
"coercive" in their lingo is defined even to asking nicely, it seems.

Another conversation that just about did it permanently for me was whether a
kid could walk on a coffee table. A toddler, wanting to walk on a table. I
have two ratty coffee tables and I don't mind if kids dance on them. BUT...
in the discussion, I said it's up to the owner of the coffee table. That
seems clear to me. But what wasn't clear from the TCS end was that it has other
political overtones, and the conferences at which it's presented are
libertarian and related conferences.

I think another person's liberty ends where my coffeetable begins.

And since I'm more likely to let a kid walk on a coffeetable whose mother
would have totally forbidden it had she been there, I just cannot get worked up
to look more deeply into something it seems even the proponents haven't
examined.

And my conclusion after years of reading bits of it here and there, and lumps
of it (there are a couple of full workshop things online, and one I read
lately), is that it's a way that some people who are lacking in interpersonal
skills justify not even trying to communicate with or know their children. They
say "Well, it's a violation of their space and personhood and that's why I
don't." I think maybe some of them don't have the ability to communicate well
with others.

That Howard Gardner stuff shed light on a lot of memories in my life,
honestly. Looking back at the world through the lens of multiple intelligence
theory, I had a little festival of "OH! No WONDER!" about lots of unsolved
mysteries in my past, with friends and relatives and schoolmates and those who taught
with me and people's reactions to me.

It's EASY for someone to assume the rest of the world is like they are. It's
comforting. It's not true, though. Another unschooling mom was over here
not long ago, and she was vehemently against jocks/sports. Her derision was
thick. It was STUPID.

I used to be that way, because I didn't understand it, and because I wasn't
athletic, and because school had taught me that what's really important is
writing and reading, not glorified recess. Because we played kickball and
dodgeball at recess, and because school is as school is, I saw sports as
over-glorifed P.E. (a very UNDERglorified class).

That was my own prejudice and ignorance, and I'm glad I got over it. By my
mid-20's I was looking at people without knowing their school records, whether
they were "good students" or not, and I started seeing the beauty and skill
involved in soccer, skiing (I wasn't DOING those things, but watching
boyfriends, best friends and other buddies do them with extreme grace, speed, amazing
skill), and then I joined the SCA and saw that even make-believe sword fighting
was something with depth and beauty and I couldn't begin to do it, so I'd
better shut up about it.

Gardner says interpersonal intelligence is as real as verbal or mathematical
or kinestheti or spatial. I believe him.

Some people who don't have any can seem just as derisive of those who do as I
was about jocks, when I was a teenager. They were "stupid" because I didn't
understand what they were doing.

If I can persuade my children (and my friends, and other people) to think
about why they're doing what they're doing, and to consider doing what will make
them and others feel better, that is just friendship, just parenting, just
discussion, in my life. To others who can't do it, it's coercion and
manipulation.

I could be wrong, but that's my theory about it this year.
Sandra

Debra Kattler

I've interspersed my comments with Sandra's. But I've snipped some of
her post for the sake of brevity. Hopefully I haven't edited it in a
skewed fashion :-)

Debra

SandraDodd@... wrote:

>
> It would be like announcing the reason for an experiment, saying it's
> successful, and then not showing any data.

I don't think this is accurate because the theory doesn't claim to give
"success" The reason one follows the TCS theory is because one
believes it is the right and moral way to behave, not because it will
give you a "good" outcome. The only outcome, I suppose, it that your
children will have the life that they want. Not that they will turn out
a certain way.

>
> But one complaint I have with kids who are "out of hand" (to use a
> telling
> common phrase, and I'll get back to that) is when the parents seem
> entirely
> unaware that things aren't going smoothly. And my preference in
> cases where
> things are going bad and my children or my possessions are suffering
> because of
> the choices and actions of someone else's kids is that the parents
> would try to
> persuade them, reason with them, remind them to share, to lighten up,
> to be
> considerate.
>
> In discussions in AOL's unschooling area years ago, which is where I
> and some
> others here were first confronted with TCS's bold assurances that we
> weren't
> doing it right with our kids, it was made clear that compromise is NOT
> the
> goal, compromise is telling a child he can't have his way. It was
> made clear
> that persuasion is coercion and manipulation.
>
> So "manipulation" leads back to "out of hand." "Manipulation" literally
> means to move something or someone around with your hands. And "out
> of hand"
> means off the leash/lead/reins, or out of reach of one's hand (as with
> a horse,
> dog, child). So "out of hand" might seem good and right to a TCS
> promoter. <g>
> In its literal, philosophical, sense anyway. My kids might be "out of
> hand" (I don't control their moves) but they are not out of
> conscience. They
> feel responsibility for their own actions, and I feel secondary
> responsibility.
> If my mothering (or my genetic input) resulted in difficult children, I
> wouldn't just throw up my hands and say "Gosh, what can I do? There's
> nothing can
> be done within my philosophy."

Again, this is not an accurate description of the theory. According to
TCS, one should share their theories and morality with their children.
Not impose it, but certainly share it. There is no such thing as
throwing up your hands and saying" nothing can be done within my
philosophy." That would be the antithesis of TCS which says that a
solution can always be found (or certainly that one should always be
sought).

If children are "out of hand" as you say, and their parents are
completely unaware, then this is not really TCS as it is proposed
either. This is more laissez faire. TCS parents try to be very hands
on and help their children with conflicts and difficult situations. Of
course, as you say elsewhere, theory is fine until you involve people
:-) TCS parents do not necessarily implement TCS theory flawlessly
;-). So sometimes laissez faire will slip in instead of coercion, when
being hands on would have been better.

>
>
> One mom in the big AOL-homeschooling days was writing lots and
> wouldn't even
> tell us whether she had children, how many, how old. "Irrelevant,"
> she said.
> Just believe the philosophy for its own sake. Y'know, though, lots of
> philosophies work VERY well in the theoretical stage. Communism is
> one. It's
> just the addition of actual humans that makes it fall apart.

OK, here's where you say the part about adding people to the
implementation of the theory. But saying it is irrelevant whether one
is a parent or not really speaks to the issue of relying on "experts."
Are you saying that only parents can have an opinion about parenting?
If one can only comment on something because they have experience or are
expert in that area, then we could say that you can only comment on the
problems of teens if you have one, or on Communism if you've lived in a
communist country. TCS proponents argue that one can have an opinion
based on a philosophy without having experienced every situation.

> Some monastic
> systems work pretty well (Buddhist and Christian), but they work well by
> elimination of disruptive elements.

How do you know? Do you practice one of these systems ;-)

>
>
> So as a philosophy, it would need to start, I think, with "Given an ideal
> parent and an ideal child..." And maybe those families in which it's
> working
> well, that IS the situation.

Backwards. If we were all ideal, then maybe we wouldn't even need
philosophy or theories. Everything would already be ideal! TCS at its
core is about finding solutions to problems and about acknowledging our
fallibility. It has nothing to do with being perfect.

> One classic argument that comes up is
> seatbelts. The TYC response seemed to be if the kid doesn't want to
> go in the
> seatbelt, you just can't make the trip.

There is no TCS response. There are ideas to try but the only correct
TCS response is the common preference that you work out with your child.

> I just reported truthfully that I'm
> not above bribery, and was kinda blasted for being clearly coercive. But
> "coercive" in their lingo is defined even to asking nicely, it seems.

I think TCS people are all about being nice to your children. So I'm
not sure where asking nicely is not ok. Parents also have needs that
need to be taken into account. So a parent might say that they want to
get something done so they want to find a way to make it pleasant for
everyone. Maybe that means stopping at a fun place on the way home, or
having certain games in the car or whatever. I think where TCS and what
you are saying part ways is in the idea that one would use bribery in
the sense that the child could only get the pleasant thing if they do
something a certain way. Realistically of course, if one is going to
stop for ice cream on the way home and there is no ice cream in the
house, then one would most likely need to get in the car to get the ice
cream. So one could view it as bribery but if the child could have some
other goodie that you do have in the house without leaving, then it
wouldn't be bribery, just an idea to try. In other words, it would be
bribery to say you can only have a sweet if you come with me. But to
say, come on let's go get this thing done and then we'll go have some
fun. That has a different feel to it in my opinion. So again, I have
to take issue with your characterization.

> And my conclusion after years of reading bits of it here and there,
> and lumps
> of it (there are a couple of full workshop things online, and one I read
> lately), is that it's a way that some people who are lacking in
> interpersonal
> skills justify not even trying to communicate with or know their
> children. They
> say "Well, it's a violation of their space and personhood and that's
> why I
> don't." I think maybe some of them don't have the ability to
> communicate well
> with others.

Again, not TCS. If people use TCS as an excuse to not communicate with
or know their children, then I'd say they don't understand it yet.

Debra



________________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

heather mclean

<< Y'know, though, lots of philosophies work VERY well
in the theoretical stage. Communism is one. It's
just the addition of actual humans that makes it fall
apart. >>

There was a minister at my church who used to share
his philosophies/theories on marriage and parenting.
He was single and childless. He'd then joke that his
theories were great because they weren't messed up by
actual experience LOL.

heather m
tucson

Nancy Wooton

on 7/23/04 8:36 AM, Debra Kattler at debra@... wrote:

> The reason one follows the TCS theory

PLEASE change the subject header -- how about "the most boring topic ever
rehashed on every damned email list I've been on" -- so I can be forewarned
and delete it.

Nancy, going to work now.

Tia Leschke

>
>
>There was a minister at my church who used to share
>his philosophies/theories on marriage and parenting.
>He was single and childless. He'd then joke that his
>theories were great because they weren't messed up by
>actual experience LOL.

LOL
My former brother in law and his wife were "experts" on children and
childrearing until they had their own. Then some humility crept in.
Tia

Debra Kattler

Nancy,

Perhaps that should have been your subject heading rather than using the
previous one. LOL.

Debra

Nancy Wooton wrote:

> on 7/23/04 8:36 AM, Debra Kattler at debra@... wrote:
>
> > The reason one follows the TCS theory
>
> PLEASE change the subject header -- how about "the most boring topic ever
> rehashed on every damned email list I've been on" -- so I can be
> forewarned
> and delete it.
>
> Nancy, going to work now.
>




________________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/04 10:04:35 AM, debra@... writes:

<< Are you saying that only parents can have an opinion about parenting? >>

No, but the opinions of non-parents are less valuable to me as a parent than
those of parents.


The opinions of people who had had babies were valuable to me when I was
pregnant.
The opinions of mothers who had nursed babies successfully were priceless to
me when I was nursing babies.

And it DID matter to me whether their children seemed happy, and whether the
families seemed content.

Before I had any school-age children, I knew four homeschooling families
closely (same playgroup, same babysitting co-op. all through La Leche League).
Two used structure and school at home. Two were unschoolers.

I wish everyone who considered homeschooling knew four families, two of each.
<g> What a good deal for me.

It mattered to me that the unschooling families were close and happy and
their homes felt safe and calm. It mattered to me also that the other two fam
ilies had punishments and kids who were sneaky and afraid.

Theory wouldn't have taught me what observation and experience did. I had
had all those kids at my house without their parents, and their behavior away
from their parents was revealing as well.

People who know my kids, whether they know me too or not, know something
about unschooling that no theory will tell them.

-=-If one can only comment on something because they have experience or are

expert in that area, then we could say that you can only comment on the

problems of teens if you have one, or on Communism if you've lived in a

communist country. -=-

Nobody grows up without having been a teen.
Communism is documented, socially, economically, politically, financially.
It's a part of history and current events, available for anyone to study.

-=-TCS proponents argue that one can have an opinion

based on a philosophy without having experienced every situation. -=-

Some opinions are more valuable than others.
Not all opinions are equal.

I can have an opinion on the military supply and command in Sarajevo, but it
won't be worth a shit, because I know nothing about that. Were I in a
position to know, my opinion would be much more than opinion. It would be experience.

-=-> Some monastic

> systems work pretty well (Buddhist and Christian), but they work well by

> elimination of disruptive elements.


<<How do you know? Do you practice one of these systems ;-)-=-

I know because people who have lived in them have written honestly and
openly about their experiences, without saying "I can't tell you what order I was
in," or "I operated a monastery, but I'm not telling you whether there were any
monks, or how it went."

I know because the information is available, and the concept and practice
have been around for thousands of years.

I wrote "The TCS response seemed to be..." (only I typoed it, sorry)
and got "There is no TCS response. "

If I say what seemed to be, that is more true than "there is no response."

In previous conversations there have been responses. Unless there's a
central TCS steeering committe deciding what "the TCS response is or isn't, what I
learned from experience is valid when stated clearly as "it seemed [to me]."

-=-Maybe that means stopping at a fun place on the way home, or

having certain games in the car or whatever. I think where TCS and what

you are saying part ways is in the idea that one would use bribery in

the sense that the child could only get the pleasant thing if they do

something a certain way. -=-

Well yeah, they can't go for ice cream if they don't want to go at all. So
if "I'll get you ice cream" gets a kid to agree to an outing with several
stops, that was called (clearly, overtly, accusingly) coercion.

-=- That has a different feel to it in my opinion. So again, I have

to take issue with your characterization.-=-

I wasn't characterizing your opinion. I was reporting the very bad outcome
of what could have been a friendlier exchange on AOL when that was the
homeschooling place to be on the internet, and a TCS proponent came on and told us all
how badly we were treating our children.

-=-

Again, not TCS. If people use TCS as an excuse to not communicate with

or know their children, then I'd say they don't understand it yet. -=-

Maybe so.
But unless TCS eliminates those without social skills (as I suggested helps
keep the quality of monasteries high, and keep the peace there), they will have
to accept that their theory (understood or not) can be used as a
justification and a shield by those who weren't going to communicate well with children
anyway, so they are happy to find a group saying "let them do what they want to
do; anything less is a violation of their rights."

Debra, where would you recommend people go for more information if they do
want to discuss TCS at length with people who are not as rigid as those couple
who came to make TCS look unattractive those years ago? Is there a good
discussion group or website?

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/04 11:51:20 AM, debra@... writes:

<< Perhaps that should have been your subject heading rather than using the

previous one. LOL. >>

She didn't want to delete her own post, though.

Sandra

Debra Kattler

SandraDodd@... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 7/23/04 10:04:35 AM, debra@... writes:
>
> << Are you saying that only parents can have an opinion about
> parenting? >>
>
> No, but the opinions of non-parents are less valuable to me as a
> parent than
> those of parents.

I don't know if I said what I wanted to say as well as I might have.
Thinking about it more, I want to say that if a person says something
that resonates for you, then it shouldn't matter whether or not they are
parents. I certainly know the feeling of having non-parents say things
that don't ring true and you think, "Well they have no idea." But I
think that you can still learn from people who don't have children. You
say later that we all have been teens. We have all also been children,
and most of us have experience with being parented.

>
>
> The opinions of people who had had babies were valuable to me when I was
> pregnant.
> The opinions of mothers who had nursed babies successfully were
> priceless to
> me when I was nursing babies.

Of course they are valuable. I'm just saying that others may have
something to offer as well. I wouldn't discount someones information or
opinion just because they hadn't experienced it. Especially if it
supports my own ;-)

>
>
> And it DID matter to me whether their children seemed happy, and
> whether the
> families seemed content.
>
> Before I had any school-age children, I knew four homeschooling families
> closely (same playgroup, same babysitting co-op. all through La Leche
> League).
> Two used structure and school at home. Two were unschoolers.
>
> I wish everyone who considered homeschooling knew four families, two
> of each.
> <g> What a good deal for me.
>
> It mattered to me that the unschooling families were close and happy and
> their homes felt safe and calm. It mattered to me also that the
> other two fam
> ilies had punishments and kids who were sneaky and afraid.
>
> Theory wouldn't have taught me what observation and experience did. I
> had
> had all those kids at my house without their parents, and their
> behavior away
> from their parents was revealing as well.
>
> People who know my kids, whether they know me too or not, know something
> about unschooling that no theory will tell them.
>
> -=-If one can only comment on something because they have experience
> or are
>
> expert in that area, then we could say that you can only comment on the
>
> problems of teens if you have one, or on Communism if you've lived in a
>
> communist country. -=-
>
> Nobody grows up without having been a teen.
> Communism is documented, socially, economically, politically,
> financially.
> It's a part of history and current events, available for anyone to study.
>
> -=-TCS proponents argue that one can have an opinion
>
> based on a philosophy without having experienced every situation. -=-
>
> Some opinions are more valuable than others.
> Not all opinions are equal.

I totally agree. I just don't agree on the criterion used to decide
who's opinion is most valuable.

>
>
> <<How do you know? Do you practice one of these systems ;-)-=-
>
> I know because people who have lived in them have written honestly and
> openly about their experiences, without saying "I can't tell you what
> order I was
> in," or "I operated a monastery, but I'm not telling you whether there
> were any
> monks, or how it went."

This is one of the most difficult parts of TCS theory for me. And I'm
not sure what the answer is. I know there are people on the TCS list
that could argue forcefully about why but I've never been completely
clear. I do believe in protecting other people's privacy. So I try
not to talk about people that I know on email lists. I do it in person
but I wish I did it less. I'm specifically talking about things that
the person you are talking about would be embarrassed or upset to know
that you were discussing them. It's hard when you are needing support
from your friends. But on an email list, I think we can discuss it more
objectively and less personally.

But the other part about giving details has to do with the idea of not
needing to prove anything. Do we not spank our kids because it would be
wrong to spank, or because we think spanking will make them turn out the
wrong way (angry, abusers, timid, whatever)? We may have an opinion
about the second, but I think the reason we don't is because it's
wrong. So I think that TCS argues that there is an objective search for
truth (not that we know what it is, but that we're always seeking) and
that it has nothing to do with what "works" the best. I hope that makes
sense.

>
>
> I wrote "The TCS response seemed to be..." (only I typoed it, sorry)
> and got "There is no TCS response. "
>
> If I say what seemed to be, that is more true than "there is no response."
>
> In previous conversations there have been responses. Unless there's a
> central TCS steeering committe deciding what "the TCS response is or
> isn't, what I
> learned from experience is valid when stated clearly as "it seemed [to
> me]."

What I meant is that since there is no central committee, then there is
no one TCS response. Sure, TCS proponents have ideas about how to
handle situations, but my point is that the only one that matters is the
common preference you find between the parties involved in the
situation. The people on the outside (TCS or otherwise) could be
wrong. But you knew that :-) I did not mean to say that what people
said to you on lists were not responses.

>
> -=-Maybe that means stopping at a fun place on the way home, or
>
> having certain games in the car or whatever. I think where TCS and what
>
> you are saying part ways is in the idea that one would use bribery in
>
> the sense that the child could only get the pleasant thing if they do
>
> something a certain way. -=-
>
> Well yeah, they can't go for ice cream if they don't want to go at
> all. So
> if "I'll get you ice cream" gets a kid to agree to an outing with several
> stops, that was called (clearly, overtly, accusingly) coercion.

And I've been in discussions where some considered it a good idea. Most
TCS discussions (on the TCS list) I've paid attention to (and I ignore
a lot of them) have people arguing different points of view. Of course
there are those on the list expressly to criticize the whole theory.
But I mean even among those who consider themselves TCS. So I guess
some "TCS" folks would consider that coercion but many would not. Many
would view it as a creative way to solve a problem.

>
>
> -=- That has a different feel to it in my opinion. So again, I have
>
> to take issue with your characterization.-=-
>
> I wasn't characterizing your opinion. I was reporting the very bad
> outcome
> of what could have been a friendlier exchange on AOL when that was the
> homeschooling place to be on the internet, and a TCS proponent came on
> and told us all
> how badly we were treating our children.

I didn't mean my opinion. I meant the characterization of TCS. I was
trying to convey my different understanding of the theories than how you
were describing them. I did not mean to suggest that you weren't
accurately describing what others have said.

>
> -=-
>
> Again, not TCS. If people use TCS as an excuse to not communicate with
>
> or know their children, then I'd say they don't understand it yet. -=-
>
> Maybe so.
> But unless TCS eliminates those without social skills (as I suggested
> helps
> keep the quality of monasteries high, and keep the peace there), they
> will have
> to accept that their theory (understood or not) can be used as a
> justification and a shield by those who weren't going to communicate
> well with children
> anyway, so they are happy to find a group saying "let them do what
> they want to
> do; anything less is a violation of their rights."

That may be true but since TCS is not a religion and doesn't ask for a
statement of faith it would be hard to keep anyone from calling
themselves TCS. Sounds kind of like unschooling :-) Anyway, I was
trying to explain my understanding of the philosophy. Someone else
could come here and say I've completely misunderstood it. I guess
that's the problem with no central committee. LOL.

>
> Debra, where would you recommend people go for more information if
> they do
> want to discuss TCS at length with people who are not as rigid as
> those couple
> who came to make TCS look unattractive those years ago? Is there a good
> discussion group or website?
>
> Sandra

That's a good question. There are other lists that have attempted to be
the "kinder, gentler TCS." There is one called Common Preference
Parenting. I think the person who started this list chose the name in
an attempt to deal with the problem you mentioned about Taking Children
Seriously implying that everyone else is not. Unfortunately it is not
that active at the moment. The address is
[email protected] if anyone wants to join and
ask questions. Maybe we can get a conversation going. There are many
TCS sublists (with TCS in the title) but all seem to be very quiet right
now. In any case, I know that there are a few people on the TCS list
who have a non-confrontational, helpful style (in my opinion anyway).
But I've also learned to listen to the argument without taking it
personally. It wasn't easy at first. The first TCS discussion I was on
scared me to death. It was mostly the non-TCS folks that got
particularly nasty but still the confrontation was very scary for me.
In any case, these people who I think are very helpful also are on the
CPP list so perhaps that's a place to start.

Debra




________________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/04 1:05:17 PM, debra@... writes:

<< I certainly know the feeling of having non-parents say things

that don't ring true and you think, "Well they have no idea." But I

think that you can still learn from people who don't have children. >>

Here. Scan down to the end of this, if you want, where I said non-parents
sometimes have more ideas.

SandraDodd.com/duckford/children

-=-You

say later that we all have been teens. We have all also been children,

and most of us have experience with being parented. -=-

The latter two were not on your list of examples.
Having experience with being parented is the catalyst for many people to do
things more gently and compassionately than their parents did. But when
someone intends to do just what their parents did because that's easier than really
considering what and why and how, then I don't have much respect for their
advice. "I was a slave for my parents, and my kid is going to be the same way."
Those words were spoken by Bob Cooke, someone I've know personally for a long
time who's about to have his first child, from not being careful with birth
control. He won't be one of my sought-out sources of advice. He has always
been clueless about children, but never had any so it didn't matter before.

-=-This is one of the most difficult parts of TCS theory for me. And I'm

not sure what the answer is. I know there are people on the TCS list

that could argue forcefully about why but I've never been completely

clear. -=-

That's not part of the theory, though. That's part of the package.
The mystique. The delivery. The "ooh, we're cool" part.

Unschoolers are rarely mysterious. They're out there helping people all
kinds of ways, and telling stories and inviting people over and going to
conferences and mixing it up.

-=-

But the other part about giving details has to do with the idea of not

needing to prove anything. Do we not spank our kids because it would be

wrong to spank, or because we think spanking will make them turn out the

wrong way (angry, abusers, timid, whatever)? -=-

If it turned out not spanking kids DID create axe murders (or whatever) then
spanking would be good. But it turns out it's quite the other way around.
People in prison report some horrendous abuses. So if it is proven to turn out
better not to spank AND it's a more respectful, humane, loving thing, you have
the theory and the results both together.

-=-So I think that TCS argues that there is an objective search for

truth (not that we know what it is, but that we're always seeking) and

that it has nothing to do with what "works" the best. -=-

Maybe so. But if so, it needs to stay where it is and not mix with
unschooling, because unschooling help can't help but involve itself with reality and
what works well for children and for families. It's not a political statement.
It's a way of helping children learn and grow without school.

-=- I did not mean to say that what people

said to you on lists were not responses. -=-

You are sayig they're not TCS responses, but they were clearly indicated as
such.

-=- In any case, I know that there are a few people on the TCS list

who have a non-confrontational, helpful style (in my opinion anyway). -=-

For my tastes, confrontation is better than evasion.
Anecdote is better than theory.

I guess interested people could just go to google and put in
TCS Taking Children Seriously
and read what they find, though.

Sandra

eriksmama2001

I want to chime in and support Debra's interpretation of TCS. It is
touted as an educational philosophy. It does not assume that it is a
parenting method. It attempts to indicate the obsticles to effective
learning. It does not object to coercion in the face of danger, but
it does indicate how coercive actions can interfere with learning.

Many responders on the site are not as creative as others at problem
solving. Neither am I, or other individuals in my family, ALL THE
TIME. But that doesn't mean that we are not learning to find common
solutions through trial and error. However, on the rare occasions
that we don't find a common preference it does not mean that there
wasn't one available. We just did not find it. Not finding a common
preference indicates that we resigned ourselves to coercion. Someone
having to do something that they did not want to do IS damaging to
the process of learning that consensual living can be done.

While learning other information (such as math or drawing or
cooking,etc), the learning can similarly be damaged by having to do
something that one does not want to do. Learning is an active
process. If one has no choice but to do something they are learning
that sometimes force can be used. We learn by participation. There is
an old German saying: one convinced against his will, is of the same
opinion still.

TCS is a philosophy of learning. The process of learning can
perpetuate the idea that force can be used or not. TCS is a process
of interacting with children so that they can learn that consensual
living does exist. The use of coercion damages this life lesson.
Living without the alternative of force enhances problem solving.
Every problem is new. Every solution is unique. These problem-solving
lessons are damaged by coercion. Coercion eliminates possible
solutions. So no one solution is THE solution for car seats or
bedtimes or whatever. There are an infinite number of creative
possibilities.

All of this is actually just a rudimentary aspect of consensual
living.

Unschooling is another facet of learning about life. Consensual
living is a philosophy of living life.

I would like a group of people who are more globally interested in
discussing the philosophy of consensual living. The arenas of
consensual living include politics, economics, family, relationships,
and education, etc. As we embrace consensual living as a philosophy,
it makes life learning so much easier to conceptualize and experience.

P.S. Several of my friends strongly dislike the format of TCS's
preaching due to the harshness and negativity associated with failing
to be creative. Ironically, this "failure" attitude of TCS's site
obstructs learning about consensual living itself. But the TCS site
does state that the site responders are fallable. Don't shoot the
messenger, the message is relevant.

Pat







--- In [email protected], Debra Kattler <debra@k...>
wrote:
> I've interspersed my comments with Sandra's. But I've snipped some
of
> her post for the sake of brevity. Hopefully I haven't edited it in
a
> skewed fashion :-)
>
> Debra
>
> SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> >
> > It would be like announcing the reason for an experiment, saying
it's
> > successful, and then not showing any data.
>
> I don't think this is accurate because the theory doesn't claim to
give
> "success" The reason one follows the TCS theory is because one
> believes it is the right and moral way to behave, not because it
will
> give you a "good" outcome. The only outcome, I suppose, it that
your
> children will have the life that they want. Not that they will
turn out
> a certain way.
>
> >
> > But one complaint I have with kids who are "out of hand" (to use
a
> > telling
> > common phrase, and I'll get back to that) is when the parents
seem
> > entirely
> > unaware that things aren't going smoothly. And my preference in
> > cases where
> > things are going bad and my children or my possessions are
suffering
> > because of
> > the choices and actions of someone else's kids is that the
parents
> > would try to
> > persuade them, reason with them, remind them to share, to lighten
up,
> > to be
> > considerate.
> >
> > In discussions in AOL's unschooling area years ago, which is
where I
> > and some
> > others here were first confronted with TCS's bold assurances that
we
> > weren't
> > doing it right with our kids, it was made clear that compromise
is NOT
> > the
> > goal, compromise is telling a child he can't have his way. It
was
> > made clear
> > that persuasion is coercion and manipulation.
> >
> > So "manipulation" leads back to "out of hand." "Manipulation"
literally
> > means to move something or someone around with your hands.
And "out
> > of hand"
> > means off the leash/lead/reins, or out of reach of one's hand (as
with
> > a horse,
> > dog, child). So "out of hand" might seem good and right to a TCS
> > promoter. <g>
> > In its literal, philosophical, sense anyway. My kids might
be "out of
> > hand" (I don't control their moves) but they are not out of
> > conscience. They
> > feel responsibility for their own actions, and I feel secondary
> > responsibility.
> > If my mothering (or my genetic input) resulted in difficult
children, I
> > wouldn't just throw up my hands and say "Gosh, what can I do?
There's
> > nothing can
> > be done within my philosophy."
>
> Again, this is not an accurate description of the theory.
According to
> TCS, one should share their theories and morality with their
children.
> Not impose it, but certainly share it. There is no such thing as
> throwing up your hands and saying" nothing can be done within my
> philosophy." That would be the antithesis of TCS which says that a
> solution can always be found (or certainly that one should always
be
> sought).
>
> If children are "out of hand" as you say, and their parents are
> completely unaware, then this is not really TCS as it is proposed
> either. This is more laissez faire. TCS parents try to be very
hands
> on and help their children with conflicts and difficult
situations. Of
> course, as you say elsewhere, theory is fine until you involve
people
> :-) TCS parents do not necessarily implement TCS theory flawlessly
> ;-). So sometimes laissez faire will slip in instead of coercion,
when
> being hands on would have been better.
>
> >
> >
> > One mom in the big AOL-homeschooling days was writing lots and
> > wouldn't even
> > tell us whether she had children, how many, how
old. "Irrelevant,"
> > she said.
> > Just believe the philosophy for its own sake. Y'know, though,
lots of
> > philosophies work VERY well in the theoretical stage. Communism
is
> > one. It's
> > just the addition of actual humans that makes it fall apart.
>
> OK, here's where you say the part about adding people to the
> implementation of the theory. But saying it is irrelevant whether
one
> is a parent or not really speaks to the issue of relying
on "experts."
> Are you saying that only parents can have an opinion about
parenting?
> If one can only comment on something because they have experience
or are
> expert in that area, then we could say that you can only comment on
the
> problems of teens if you have one, or on Communism if you've lived
in a
> communist country. TCS proponents argue that one can have an
opinion
> based on a philosophy without having experienced every situation.
>
> > Some monastic
> > systems work pretty well (Buddhist and Christian), but they work
well by
> > elimination of disruptive elements.
>
> How do you know? Do you practice one of these systems ;-)
>
> >
> >
> > So as a philosophy, it would need to start, I think, with "Given
an ideal
> > parent and an ideal child..." And maybe those families in which
it's
> > working
> > well, that IS the situation.
>
> Backwards. If we were all ideal, then maybe we wouldn't even need
> philosophy or theories. Everything would already be ideal! TCS
at its
> core is about finding solutions to problems and about acknowledging
our
> fallibility. It has nothing to do with being perfect.
>
> > One classic argument that comes up is
> > seatbelts. The TYC response seemed to be if the kid doesn't want
to
> > go in the
> > seatbelt, you just can't make the trip.
>
> There is no TCS response. There are ideas to try but the only
correct
> TCS response is the common preference that you work out with your
child.
>
> > I just reported truthfully that I'm
> > not above bribery, and was kinda blasted for being clearly
coercive. But
> > "coercive" in their lingo is defined even to asking nicely, it
seems.
>
> I think TCS people are all about being nice to your children. So
I'm
> not sure where asking nicely is not ok. Parents also have needs
that
> need to be taken into account. So a parent might say that they
want to
> get something done so they want to find a way to make it pleasant
for
> everyone. Maybe that means stopping at a fun place on the way
home, or
> having certain games in the car or whatever. I think where TCS and
what
> you are saying part ways is in the idea that one would use bribery
in
> the sense that the child could only get the pleasant thing if they
do
> something a certain way. Realistically of course, if one is going
to
> stop for ice cream on the way home and there is no ice cream in the
> house, then one would most likely need to get in the car to get the
ice
> cream. So one could view it as bribery but if the child could have
some
> other goodie that you do have in the house without leaving, then it
> wouldn't be bribery, just an idea to try. In other words, it would
be
> bribery to say you can only have a sweet if you come with me. But
to
> say, come on let's go get this thing done and then we'll go have
some
> fun. That has a different feel to it in my opinion. So again, I
have
> to take issue with your characterization.
>
> > And my conclusion after years of reading bits of it here and
there,
> > and lumps
> > of it (there are a couple of full workshop things online, and one
I read
> > lately), is that it's a way that some people who are lacking in
> > interpersonal
> > skills justify not even trying to communicate with or know their
> > children. They
> > say "Well, it's a violation of their space and personhood and
that's
> > why I
> > don't." I think maybe some of them don't have the ability to
> > communicate well
> > with others.
>
> Again, not TCS. If people use TCS as an excuse to not communicate
with
> or know their children, then I'd say they don't understand it yet.
>
> Debra
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> $0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
> 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
> Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

Debra Kattler

Then what is there to discuss?
Debra (please not Debbie)

Sylvia Toyama wrote:

> So, Debbie, what are the ideas to try about a safety issue like
> seatbelt use? This is one issue where it's impossible for me to
> respect the wishes of a person (adult or child) who refuses to wear a
> seat belt in my car. And if that person's refusal to buckle in holds
> others hostage (for example, if child A won't buckle, then no one goes
> to child B's activity) then it is simply non-negotiable for me.
>
> Syl
>
>
> *******
>
>
> One classic argument that comes up is seatbelts. The TYC response
> seemed to be if the kid doesn't want to go in the
> > seatbelt, you just can't make the trip.
>
> There is no TCS response. There are ideas to try but the only correct
> TCS response is the common preference that you work out with your child.
>
>
>
>





________________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

Sylvia Toyama

So, Debbie, what are the ideas to try about a safety issue like seatbelt use? This is one issue where it's impossible for me to respect the wishes of a person (adult or child) who refuses to wear a seat belt in my car. And if that person's refusal to buckle in holds others hostage (for example, if child A won't buckle, then no one goes to child B's activity) then it is simply non-negotiable for me.

Syl


*******


One classic argument that comes up is seatbelts. The TYC response seemed to be if the kid doesn't want to go in the
> seatbelt, you just can't make the trip.

There is no TCS response. There are ideas to try but the only correct TCS response is the common preference that you work out with your child.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

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

Sylvia Toyama

Then what is there to discuss?
Debra (please not Debbie)


****

Sorry, I snipped the text and mis-remembered your name -- I thought I had it right.

I guess what there is to discuss is that I'd like to find some way to resolve safety issues without feeling heavy-handed, but with two kids (and two adults) it often seems impossible to honor everyone's position and get anything done without coercing someone. I sometimes wonder if there's a better answer that gives results without insisting someone bend, because I'm often able to resolve less 'important' situations without any concession.

Syl


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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

Debra Kattler

I just don't find TCS all that mysterious. I think it's pretty
straightforward. For me, the day to day examples of unschoolers lives
(for example) are not that useful. I'd much rather learn from talking
about the ideas. You can call not sharing the details of one's life
and of one's children's lives evasive but it doesn't feel that way to
me. To me it's a matter of respect, not evasion.

Frankly, I find the day to day examples to often be tedious,
self-congratulatory, and sometimes embarrassing, even painful to read.
So are those who want to give all of these examples/details right and
those who don't wrong? Does it mean that a discussion can't take
place? And why would you assume that those who don't share all of these
details in public forums mean that they don't invite people over, go to
conferences, and mix it up?

You also say about my spanking example:
So if it is proven to turn out better not to spank AND it's a more
respectful, humane, loving thing, you have
the theory and the results both together.

And I'm saying that the theory is enough for me. We know that there are
people out there that would offer "proofs" that spanking IS good. I
don't need proof (or anecdotes from parents that say something "works"
for their family) to do the what I believe to be the respectful, humane,
loving thing.

You also say TCS needs to stay where it is and not mix with
unschooling? Gee, tell us what you really think! Are you talking
about the theory or the people? Because in the end, it's just people
sharing ideas. People like me who unschool and do my best (very
imperfectly) to parent consentually. And you may just run into me,
"mixing it up" at an unschooling conference :-)

Debra


> That's not part of the theory, though. That's part of the package.
> The mystique. The delivery. The "ooh, we're cool" part.
>
> Unschoolers are rarely mysterious. They're out there helping people all
> kinds of ways, and telling stories and inviting people over and going to
> conferences and mixing it up.
>
> -=-
>
> But the other part about giving details has to do with the idea of not
>
> needing to prove anything. Do we not spank our kids because it would be
>
> wrong to spank, or because we think spanking will make them turn out the
>
> wrong way (angry, abusers, timid, whatever)? -=-
>
> If it turned out not spanking kids DID create axe murders (or
> whatever) then
> spanking would be good. But it turns out it's quite the other way
> around.
> People in prison report some horrendous abuses. So if it is proven to
> turn out
> better not to spank AND it's a more respectful, humane, loving thing,
> you have
> the theory and the results both together.
>
> -=-So I think that TCS argues that there is an objective search for
>
> truth (not that we know what it is, but that we're always seeking) and
>
> that it has nothing to do with what "works" the best. -=-
>
> Maybe so. But if so, it needs to stay where it is and not mix with
> unschooling, because unschooling help can't help but involve itself
> with reality and
> what works well for children and for families. It's not a political
> statement.
> It's a way of helping children learn and grow without school.
>
> -=- I did not mean to say that what people
>
> said to you on lists were not responses. -=-
>
> You are sayig they're not TCS responses, but they were clearly
> indicated as
> such.
>
> -=- In any case, I know that there are a few people on the TCS list
>
> who have a non-confrontational, helpful style (in my opinion anyway). -=-
>
> For my tastes, confrontation is better than evasion.
> Anecdote is better than theory.
>
> I guess interested people could just go to google and put in
> TCS Taking Children Seriously
> and read what they find, though.
>
> Sandra





________________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

Debra Kattler

Syl,

Some ideas to consider. I'm sure you've tried some but don't know which
ones so I'll just throw them out there. Explain the safety issues.
Children can be very rational. Demonstrate the dangers in less
dangerous ways. Move very slowly in the driveway then gently but a
little quickly apply pressure to the brake. Let the child feel the
force of the car without a seatbelt (in this controlled way that is).
Then they can feel that they won't be able to hold themselves down when
you are moving fast. Scary but might be worth a try if wearing
seatbelts is the issue. Maybe there are other ways to demonstrate this
that are safer or maybe I should say less scary??? Maybe just having
them run fast into your arm. Then explain how they doubled over your
arm and couldn't stop their upper body from going forward. I'm assuming
a child small enough that wouldn't break your arm ;-)

See if it's an issue of comfort with a particular car or booster seat.
Maybe it can be made more comfortable. There's that theory that kids
need to learn that sometimes they just have to do something. Rather
than go there, maybe find out what the specific problem or problems are
and try to address those.

Brainstorm with the kids when you aren't on your way out the door. A
tough one, I know! But it's something that comes up over and over again
so maybe have some ideas ready. I sometimes find it hard to remember
that it just isn't that exciting for one kid to shlep for another's
activity. What if that activity signalled something special for the
child not doing the activity? Special mom and kid time to read a book
or do a craft. Maybe something that you just never get around to at home.

A few ideas. Hope something strikes a chord.
Debra

Sylvia Toyama wrote:

> Then what is there to discuss?
> Debra (please not Debbie)
>
>
> ****
>
> Sorry, I snipped the text and mis-remembered your name -- I thought I
> had it right.
>
> I guess what there is to discuss is that I'd like to find some way to
> resolve safety issues without feeling heavy-handed, but with two kids
> (and two adults) it often seems impossible to honor everyone's
> position and get anything done without coercing someone. I sometimes
> wonder if there's a better answer that gives results without insisting
> someone bend, because I'm often able to resolve less 'important'
> situations without any concession.
>
> Syl





________________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Data Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/2004 10:00:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
debra@... writes:
Frankly, I find the day to day examples to often be tedious,
self-congratulatory, and sometimes embarrassing, even painful to read.
So are those who want to give all of these examples/details right and
those who don't wrong?
-------------------

They're doing it, and trying to show what "it" looks like in practice.

-=-And I'm saying that the theory is enough for me.-=-

Okay. Then why are you on this list?

-=-You also say TCS needs to stay where it is and not mix with
unschooling? Gee, tell us what you really think! -=-

I usually do say what I really think. And when it's my own lit, I don't even
hesitate.

If you want to start a list and slant it your own way, yahoo makes it easy,
and I'd be fine with you advertising it here.

-=- Because in the end, it's just people sharing ideas. -=-

That's the beginning.
In the end, it's children living the best lives their parents can or will
provide them.

The theory isn't enough for me. My children can't eat, read or play with
theory.


-=-So are those who want to give all of these examples/details right and
those who don't wrong? -=-

I went to La Leche League. People talked about nursing babies. They nursed
babies right in front of me. They saw me nurse, and gave me advice. Those
who weren't giving examples and details weren't doing me any good. The theory
isn't always enough.

-=-So are those who want to give all of these examples/details right and
those who don't wrong? Does it mean that a discussion can't take
place?-=-

I have no interest in "discussion" when examples aren't given, personally.
I'm sure the world is big enough for you to find some theory-only people to
discuss unschooling with you.

Sandra


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/04 9:52:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sylgt04@... writes:

> I guess what there is to discuss is that I'd like to find some way to
> resolve safety issues without feeling heavy-handed, but with two kids (and two
> adults) it often seems impossible to honor everyone's position and get anything
> done without coercing someone.

My boys have never had a problem with seatbelts. Not sure why. I probably
at some point when they were moving from a safety seat into a seat belt had a
talk with them about why I feel it is important to wear seatbelts and that the
driver "mom" can be fined if everyone is not wearing a seatbelt. etc. Now
when I have company and I am driving. I just usually ask "is everyone buckled
up" before we leave the driveway and those that aren't go ahead and buckle up.

I have never had anyone say I don't want to buckle up or just "no". So not
sure what to do with that. I guess I would talk with them about why I think it
is important, what the law is. Find out what their reason is for not wanting
to buckle up etc. Sometimes the reason can be for comfort issues that can
easily be resolved.

I don't use a certain "philosophy" in the way I communicate. It does
incorporate techniques from NVC, and the principles that Jan Fortune-Wood talks about
ring true with our family and work very well. Finding agreed upon solutions
or common preferences. Without coercion. I feel that my boys truly feel
heard. They know that we are all on the same side. They know that we will talk
and work until we do find that common preference, and that the common preference
is in there somewhere. With that knowledge they are willing to work for it
too.

Just my thoughts,
Pam G


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/24/2004 8:38:18 AM Central Standard Time,
Genant2@... writes:

My boys have never had a problem with seatbelts. Not sure why. I probably
at some point when they were moving from a safety seat into a seat belt had
a
talk with them about why I feel it is important to wear seatbelts and that
the
driver "mom" can be fined if everyone is not wearing a seatbelt. etc. Now
when I have company and I am driving. I just usually ask "is everyone
buckled
up" before we leave the driveway and those that aren't go ahead and buckle
up.




~~

Us, too, or neither. :) Modelling is a big part of it. Having always
buckled up is another. Having car seats that the annoyed toddler could not undo
by himself helped, too. Still, my youngest always hated the car seat, but he
could be persuaded. I don't remember ever buckling him in when he was
throwing himself backwards to prevent it. He just always consented. We tried to
make going places as fun as possible, tbough.

Karen


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

Sylvia Toyama

We've not had a problem with seatbelts and our own children since toddlerhood, but sometimes with visiting children it's been an issue. My own kids are more likely to freak out if I even start the car before they're buckled in, but they've all resisted the carseat after age 3 or so. The most recent version of this is that Dan wants his carseat moved to the middle of the backseat (right now they each sit at a window). Sure, I could buckle his seat in there, but it would really crowd his brother. What do you say when the only reason you can't comply is fairness to others? He's never acknowledged it would be unfair to his brother -- I've just told him I won't do it.

I find my biggest challenge with consensual living is reaching a compromise when one of us wants/needs to go somewhere and others resist going along. My kids are too young to stay home alone, and we simply don't have the income to pay a sitter (besides where would I find someone mid-day on a weekday during the schoolyear?). It seems the more I try to convince for the activity or commitment, the more resistance I get. Fortunately, it's not terribly often, but invariably it's when I simply don't have the time to negotiate.

A recent example is that Andy has decided we doesn't want to go along to LaLeche meetings. I'm one of two leaders in our group, so skipping the meeting really isn't an option. I'm on call for the phones one day a week, and also listed online, so I sometimes get calls when it's not my day. When I interrupt or have to put off something he wants to take a call, he's very upset. This week, he's said several times that he'd like me to quit LaLeche League. That's not an option -- I really enjoy this and it's important to me.

And what do you do/say within TCS for those instances where two children are at complete odds over something and there's just no physical way to accommodate both?

Syl


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/24/04 9:33:41 AM, sylgt04@... writes:

<< My kids are too young to stay home alone, and we simply don't have the
income to pay a sitter (besides where would I find someone mid-day on a weekday
during the schoolyear?). >>

Homeschooling families or homeschooled teens.
(Not volunteering, just reminding you that there ARE families home mid-day on
weekdays during schoolyears. <g>)


Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/24/04 11:33:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sylgt04@... writes:

> A recent example is that Andy has decided we doesn't want to go along to
> LaLeche meetings. I'm one of two leaders in our group, so skipping the meeting
> really isn't an option. I'm on call for the phones one day a week, and also
> listed online, so I sometimes get calls when it's not my day. When I
> interrupt or have to put off something he wants to take a call, he's very upset.
> This week, he's said several times that he'd like me to quit LaLeche League.
> That's not an option -- I really enjoy this and it's important to me.
>
>

I know lots of LaLeche League Leaders and they have created a network of
sorts for this area. I know they communicate with each other and are all good
friends etc. They work together to actively seek out new people interested in
becoming leaders to take all the work off of one or two individuals. They keep
in touch so that if one has another engagement someone else will help out with
her meetings etc.

I have also heard many of them talking about their children not especially
liking the meetings to they make it fun for them as well. For one family there
is a ritual of going out to eat before hand. Each child getting to pick the
restaurant on a rotating basis. For one family she bring toys and games etc.
And a few families have gotten together to switch off child care.

I have always believed that there is a solution in there somewhere we just
need to put in the time and effort to find it. It really helps to accurately
label our feelings and define our needs first and to really feel heard.

I do know how he feels with the phone calls. I get upset when Jackson and I
are talking or doing something and he stops everything to take a phone call
from the hospital. I feel unimportant to him. Like a stranger is more
important than I am. But we have talked about it and worked out a solution so that
everyone is happy. He answers the page or phone call but if it is not important
he will call them back when we are finished talking. So I know that if he
continues to talk on the phone it is important. I feel heard. I feel
important. I feel that he is considering my feelings and needs.

Just my thoughts,
Pam


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/23/04 10:52:01 PM, scubamama@... writes:

<< Not finding a common

preference indicates that we resigned ourselves to coercion.>>

We planted bamboo this morning. A friend gave us root cuttings.

My husband and I had different ideas about where they should best go. Nobody
coerced anyone, but neither totally "won" either. We agreed on different
plans. We compromised. We didn't have unlimited bamboo.

We're not young enough to believe it's now or never, though. We both know
that that bamboo can be moved next year if we get a better idea.

But we didn't resign ourselves to coercion.

<<Someone having to do something that they did not want to do IS damaging to

the process of learning that consensual living can be done.>>

People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots of times. When
Kirby was little he never, ever wanted to take a crap. But he had to.

I think having to do things you don't want to do is evidence against the
theory that consensual living is always possible. Even if you live all by
yourself, you'll end up doing some things you'd rather not have done. A philosophy
that allows for that seems healthier to me than one that says "If you felt you
had no choice, someone wasn't working hard enough to provide you with a
choice."

I think it promises something that can't really be delivered.

As with most things, I wonder if the best people can do is approach
consensual living, not accomplish it. Making the more-consensual choice will gradually
edge nearer to it.

It does bother me to get yet another condescending lesson on how coercive
outsiders to that theory are, though, when my own real life is the least coercive
of any real-life family I personally know. And it wouldn't bother me or feel
so condescending if those who assure me/us that we just don't get it would
tell some personal stories to show that they really DO get it, and that it's
really workable.

It's way easier to critique another's stories if it's all theoretical than to
compare your own life to theirs and then pick apart threads and ideas and
practices and trade successes. In a one-sided exchange, where one person won't
"show theirs," it's just a lecture or a benign/veiled/oozing attack, and not a
sharing at all.

This isn't a theoretical list, it's a real discussion of and about real
families.

Sandra

Sandra

AM Brown

>
> People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots of times.
>

Ok, have to step in here :) You and I JUST had the conversation last
month. I mentioned it was a hot button issue for me. We ALWAYS have a
choice - especially the choice of attitude but even the choice of action.
You said you believed that yourself (remember DMV conversation). I don't
like TCS either (their delivery and condescension) but we can't let that
cloud the issue that we do have choices and that there doesn't have to be
coercion. Let's just take TCS out of it and get back to the real examples,
there are plenty out there.

Anna

badolbilz

I've been following along...interesting since I've never heard of TCS.
I just wanted to note that Sandra did not say that there are times that
people have no choice. She said there are times people have to things
they don't want to. It's important to note, as I do to my girls and
myself every day when I clean, cook, do laundry, etc, that I have to do
it because "I" have chosen to get it done. I chose to have a husband,
four kids, a dog, two cats, and the big house to contain us all. And I
do have to maintain it in some manner.

Words can be twisted about in all sorts of ways to say all sorts of
different things.
Heidi

AM Brown wrote:

>>People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots of times.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Ok, have to step in here :) You and I JUST had the conversation last
>month. I mentioned it was a hot button issue for me. We ALWAYS have a
>choice - especially the choice of attitude but even the choice of action.
>You said you believed that yourself (remember DMV conversation). I don't
>like TCS either (their delivery and condescension) but we can't let that
>cloud the issue that we do have choices and that there doesn't have to be
>coercion. Let's just take TCS out of it and get back to the real examples,
>there are plenty out there.
>
>Anna
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

AM Brown

>She said there are times people have to things
> they don't want to.

I don't see the difference. I really don't do things I don't want to. If
I clean the house, it is because I want to, if I don't want to, it stay
dirty. I don't believe you have to do things you don't want to do. I know
this isn't the way many people feel, I just find in interesting that we
just had the conversation a month ago and now it's changing. Not pointing
fingers, just trying to understand the differences.

Anna

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/24/04 11:38:01 AM, ynxn96@... writes:

<< >Ok, have to step in here :) You and I JUST had the conversation last
>month. I mentioned it was a hot button issue for me. We ALWAYS have a
>choice - especially the choice of attitude but even the choice of action. >>

Yes. We can't always get our way. If a choice I insist on is going to land
me in prison, I didn't get my way. I'll need to look at all aspects of the
results of my choices and follow-ups. If I REALLY really don't want to pay
taxes I don't really, really have to. But I can't withhold taxes, not report,
stay home and spend all the tax-free money.

I don't have to feed my children.
I don't have to stay here another night. I can leave today, run and hide,
"start a new life."

I'm choosing not to leave. I like it here.

I knew when I wrote that that I'd be called on it, so that's fine.
-=->>People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots of times.
-=-

People choose to do things they didn't really want to do lots of times.
That's closer to what I meant.

My first choice is not to cook today at all, and I kinda wish someone would
come and cook for me. But my wishing isn't going to make it happen. And I'll
probably cook something later on. <g> Not my first choice. But I will choose
to do it. Not REALLY what I want, but what I will settle for.


(If someone can think of a swift, tight phrase to say what I'm saying
awkwardly, jump in and save me!)

Sandra

AM Brown

> People choose to do things they didn't really want to do lots of times.
> That's closer to what I meant.
>

I think that makes more sense. I still think it's a lot about attitude but
I see where you are coming from. I think when you see it's always a
choice it is powerful and not self defeating like 'I *have* to cook again'.
I've just found changing my feelings about those types of tasks makes all
the difference in my feelings of happiness and my ability to do all the
things to help my family run smoothly.

Anna - really not trying to be antagonistic!

eriksmama2001

I think only in Utopia do we think we will get everything we want
immediately. Or heaven.

There is a difference between "having" to do something you don't want
to do (it requires force by another) and always doing what you want
to do (no one is forced to provide what you want).

I do believe that what one really wants is what one chooses if no
fear or threat of force exists. Why wouldn't one choose what they
really want?

I really want my family to have a clean house (actually I need to be
cleaning right now! lol.) and a cooked meal and save for other things
than catering or a live-in cook. So I really do want to cook tonight.
I just didn't consider my real priorities throughly. In essense, I
changed my mind: I do want to cook. We all can change our minds when
we understand our priorities and choices.

We can choose to be happy with the choice or choose to believe we had
no choice. But we always have a choice. Only force or coercion
between people eliminates choice. Even life is a choice. I choose to
be happy with life because experiencing life is my main priority,
sometimes even over doing things that I don't like to do.

Pat



--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/24/04 11:38:01 AM, ynxn96@f... writes:
>
> << >Ok, have to step in here :) You and I JUST had the
conversation last
> >month. I mentioned it was a hot button issue for me. We ALWAYS
have a
> >choice - especially the choice of attitude but even the choice of
action. >>
>
> Yes. We can't always get our way. If a choice I insist on is
going to land
> me in prison, I didn't get my way. I'll need to look at all
aspects of the
> results of my choices and follow-ups. If I REALLY really don't
want to pay
> taxes I don't really, really have to. But I can't withhold taxes,
not report,
> stay home and spend all the tax-free money.
>
> I don't have to feed my children.
> I don't have to stay here another night. I can leave today, run
and hide,
> "start a new life."
>
> I'm choosing not to leave. I like it here.
>
> I knew when I wrote that that I'd be called on it, so that's fine.
> -=->>People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots
of times.
> -=-
>
> People choose to do things they didn't really want to do lots of
times.
> That's closer to what I meant.
>
> My first choice is not to cook today at all, and I kinda wish
someone would
> come and cook for me. But my wishing isn't going to make it
happen. And I'll
> probably cook something later on. <g> Not my first choice. But I
will choose
> to do it. Not REALLY what I want, but what I will settle for.
>
>
> (If someone can think of a swift, tight phrase to say what I'm
saying
> awkwardly, jump in and save me!)
>
> Sandra

J. Stauffer

<<<< People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots of times.
>>>>

Now Sandra....you know I have now saved this email for ammunition in our
annual disagreements about "Having" to do anything.

Julie S.----the well-defended <grin>

----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] consensual living-long


>
> In a message dated 7/23/04 10:52:01 PM, scubamama@... writes:
>
> << Not finding a common
>
> preference indicates that we resigned ourselves to coercion.>>
>
> We planted bamboo this morning. A friend gave us root cuttings.
>
> My husband and I had different ideas about where they should best go.
Nobody
> coerced anyone, but neither totally "won" either. We agreed on different
> plans. We compromised. We didn't have unlimited bamboo.
>
> We're not young enough to believe it's now or never, though. We both know
> that that bamboo can be moved next year if we get a better idea.
>
> But we didn't resign ourselves to coercion.
>
> <<Someone having to do something that they did not want to do IS damaging
to
>
> the process of learning that consensual living can be done.>>
>
> People have to do things they don't want to do LOTS and lots of times.
When
> Kirby was little he never, ever wanted to take a crap. But he had to.
>
> I think having to do things you don't want to do is evidence against the
> theory that consensual living is always possible. Even if you live all by
> yourself, you'll end up doing some things you'd rather not have done. A
philosophy
> that allows for that seems healthier to me than one that says "If you felt
you
> had no choice, someone wasn't working hard enough to provide you with a
> choice."
>
> I think it promises something that can't really be delivered.
>
> As with most things, I wonder if the best people can do is approach
> consensual living, not accomplish it. Making the more-consensual choice
will gradually
> edge nearer to it.
>
> It does bother me to get yet another condescending lesson on how coercive
> outsiders to that theory are, though, when my own real life is the least
coercive
> of any real-life family I personally know. And it wouldn't bother me or
feel
> so condescending if those who assure me/us that we just don't get it would
> tell some personal stories to show that they really DO get it, and that
it's
> really workable.
>
> It's way easier to critique another's stories if it's all theoretical than
to
> compare your own life to theirs and then pick apart threads and ideas and
> practices and trade successes. In a one-sided exchange, where one person
won't
> "show theirs," it's just a lecture or a benign/veiled/oozing attack, and
not a
> sharing at all.
>
> This isn't a theoretical list, it's a real discussion of and about real
> families.
>
> Sandra
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>