Anarchy or Punishment
Bridget
I can honestly say that there have been days when I could of poked my
own eyes out in sheer frustration,days when I think I understood why
some animals ate their young:)and these were, and still are the times
where I tread lightly.Experience has taught me alot about myself and
my limitations,in moments when stuff gets tense.Punishment is a
big 'ol word,and is highly charged,at it's least full of shame,at it's
worst.....:-( Anarchy,my little anarchists,beautiful and strong,full
of themselves in away only children can be.I do step in when things
get hairy with the kids,because I am there mother and I feel that part
of my role is to give them tools to use in times of conflict show them
an alternative until they discover something that works better for
them.This said I am so far from where I am going as a parent that when
I have discovered one fine method to share with the world on child
rearing I will have forgotten long ago what it was we were talking
about.
own eyes out in sheer frustration,days when I think I understood why
some animals ate their young:)and these were, and still are the times
where I tread lightly.Experience has taught me alot about myself and
my limitations,in moments when stuff gets tense.Punishment is a
big 'ol word,and is highly charged,at it's least full of shame,at it's
worst.....:-( Anarchy,my little anarchists,beautiful and strong,full
of themselves in away only children can be.I do step in when things
get hairy with the kids,because I am there mother and I feel that part
of my role is to give them tools to use in times of conflict show them
an alternative until they discover something that works better for
them.This said I am so far from where I am going as a parent that when
I have discovered one fine method to share with the world on child
rearing I will have forgotten long ago what it was we were talking
about.
[email protected]
I think anarchy is very under-rated! <bwg>
I'm probably an anarchist once removed. FIRST, I'm a realist---and
realistic enough to know that anarchy works only if everyone's on board
with no other meddling agenda! <g>
If everyone is working towards the same gentle, peaceful, trusting,
respectful principles, then anarchy works great. But when someone comes
in with a rusty sword---the idea of taking over the world or having
everything *his* way...well, then we get a chink in our armor. Every
poke, every jab weakens the solidity our little anarchy requires.
So if you see your household as a place where every one can get what he
needs/wants, then it's working! Anarchy "rules" here because it
works---we're all in it for the long haul. We each want the best---for
each other and for ourselves. It works.
Punishment can only happen when *someone* is ruling---when someone has
the power and the need to control others.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
I'm probably an anarchist once removed. FIRST, I'm a realist---and
realistic enough to know that anarchy works only if everyone's on board
with no other meddling agenda! <g>
If everyone is working towards the same gentle, peaceful, trusting,
respectful principles, then anarchy works great. But when someone comes
in with a rusty sword---the idea of taking over the world or having
everything *his* way...well, then we get a chink in our armor. Every
poke, every jab weakens the solidity our little anarchy requires.
So if you see your household as a place where every one can get what he
needs/wants, then it's working! Anarchy "rules" here because it
works---we're all in it for the long haul. We each want the best---for
each other and for ourselves. It works.
Punishment can only happen when *someone* is ruling---when someone has
the power and the need to control others.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
Sandra Dodd
On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Bridget wrote:
about far away and long ago. <g>
It's about here and now.
> This said I am so far from where I am going as a parent that whenWhere are you going? You need to be a parent now, today! It's not
> I have discovered one fine method to share with the world on child
> rearing I will have forgotten long ago what it was we were talking
> about.
about far away and long ago. <g>
It's about here and now.
Sandra Dodd
On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:20 PM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
But with happy, controlled anarchy too, someone had the power to
decide that anarchy would be the environment to culture or to allow.
It's not REAL anarchy to live really loosely. You still don't let
passers-by into the fridge, and you trust that your bicycles and cars
will still be where you left them.
Sandra
> Punishment can only happen when *someone* is ruling---when someone hasPunishment isn't a happy thing.
> the power and the need to control others.
But with happy, controlled anarchy too, someone had the power to
decide that anarchy would be the environment to culture or to allow.
It's not REAL anarchy to live really loosely. You still don't let
passers-by into the fridge, and you trust that your bicycles and cars
will still be where you left them.
Sandra
Pamela Sorooshian
On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:20 AM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
When I say that unschooling isn't anarchy - it is more because of the
third part of the definition. The first two are really about
government, but I guess we could stretch it to mean lack of authority
of the adults over the kids. If we did that, I'd want to talk about
authentic authority as opposed to purely political authority and all
that, because I do think there is authority - we may choose, as
adults, not to use our (political) authority to oppress our kids, but
we have it, nonetheless. AND we have a lot of natural authority just
by virtue of living longer and having had the chance to learn a lot
about what makes life good and because our kids are dependent on us
in very real ways. What we do AS unschooling parents is to set things
up so that there isn't the disorder and confusion of anarchy - we are
the ones who have determined that there are important principles we
want to live by, those are the organizing principles in our family
lives, and we're modeling and supporting the appreciation of those
same principles in our children.
The third meaning of anarchy - absence of any cohesive principles,
such as a common standard or purpose -- THAT is truly the opposite of
what I think of as life in an unschooling family. I think that is
what people sometimes miss - they get the idea of not being the
equivalent of an oppressive government, but they don't get that there
IS something else, guiding principles that bring order and purpose to
life, and that they, the parents, need to find ways for the whole
family to live together according to those principles.
Sandra repeatedly points out that the best way to do this is to live
it yourself - treat the kids kindly and they learn to be kind, etc. I
think some people brush this aside as too pat an answer or something.
It really IS the most significant thing parents can do. Or they think
they are facing more difficult challenges - their kids hit each
other, for example, even though the parents don't hit them - so they
think modeling isn't enough. Right. I agree. You also have to be
clear about another principle - something like, "Everybody should be
safe from harm." Again, that's why this isn't anarchy - parents
should step in (and use their authority) to make sure everybody is
safe. The parent doesn't have to shame the kid who hit - the parent
doesn't have to yell - the parent doesn't have to say, "You're so
mean," or "I've told you a million times, when are you going to
learn," or any other derogatory statement - but the parent has to
give clear, honest information: "I'm not going to let anybody hurt
anybody else. Everybody should feel safe in their own home. If you
were a grown-up hitting another grown up with a stick, you could go
to jail for it." (Depending on age - I'm not saying threaten or scare
a little kid.)
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I think anarchy is very under-rated! <bwg>an·ar·chy
>
> I'm probably an anarchist once removed. FIRST, I'm a realist---and
> realistic enough to know that anarchy works only if everyone's on
> board
> with no other meddling agenda! <g>
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
When I say that unschooling isn't anarchy - it is more because of the
third part of the definition. The first two are really about
government, but I guess we could stretch it to mean lack of authority
of the adults over the kids. If we did that, I'd want to talk about
authentic authority as opposed to purely political authority and all
that, because I do think there is authority - we may choose, as
adults, not to use our (political) authority to oppress our kids, but
we have it, nonetheless. AND we have a lot of natural authority just
by virtue of living longer and having had the chance to learn a lot
about what makes life good and because our kids are dependent on us
in very real ways. What we do AS unschooling parents is to set things
up so that there isn't the disorder and confusion of anarchy - we are
the ones who have determined that there are important principles we
want to live by, those are the organizing principles in our family
lives, and we're modeling and supporting the appreciation of those
same principles in our children.
The third meaning of anarchy - absence of any cohesive principles,
such as a common standard or purpose -- THAT is truly the opposite of
what I think of as life in an unschooling family. I think that is
what people sometimes miss - they get the idea of not being the
equivalent of an oppressive government, but they don't get that there
IS something else, guiding principles that bring order and purpose to
life, and that they, the parents, need to find ways for the whole
family to live together according to those principles.
Sandra repeatedly points out that the best way to do this is to live
it yourself - treat the kids kindly and they learn to be kind, etc. I
think some people brush this aside as too pat an answer or something.
It really IS the most significant thing parents can do. Or they think
they are facing more difficult challenges - their kids hit each
other, for example, even though the parents don't hit them - so they
think modeling isn't enough. Right. I agree. You also have to be
clear about another principle - something like, "Everybody should be
safe from harm." Again, that's why this isn't anarchy - parents
should step in (and use their authority) to make sure everybody is
safe. The parent doesn't have to shame the kid who hit - the parent
doesn't have to yell - the parent doesn't have to say, "You're so
mean," or "I've told you a million times, when are you going to
learn," or any other derogatory statement - but the parent has to
give clear, honest information: "I'm not going to let anybody hurt
anybody else. Everybody should feel safe in their own home. If you
were a grown-up hitting another grown up with a stick, you could go
to jail for it." (Depending on age - I'm not saying threaten or scare
a little kid.)
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
> Sandra repeatedly points out that the best way to do this is to liveI think some people are ashamed or embarrassed by kindness, or don't
> it yourself - treat the kids kindly and they learn to be kind, etc. I
> think some people brush this aside as too pat an answer or something.
have much experience with really relaxing into generosity. Maybe
their love relationship has a hostile tension and they're afraid of
being nicer to a child than to the spouse/partner. Sometimes that
sets a mark that other things are compared to, and acts as a block.
So relationships in which the parents are honest and open and kind
with each other make the other things easier (or possible).
Some people seem to think the "being kind" can be done by rote, with
words, as though it's some kind of etiquette-book formula, and they
will "try it" but already are pretty sure it's not going to work.
They're right. It's not going to work if they're not BEING kind, in
their being.
Faking is better than nothing, and "fake it till you make it" is a
valid stopgap or stepping stone. But "don't dream it; be it" might
be a better slogan (especially for the musical-theatre-ly inclined,
or the musically/theatrically inclined).
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
On Apr 24, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:
If a grown up is hitting another grownup with a stick, he WILL go to
jail for it.
In Albuquerque, at least (and maybe the whole state; not sure),
domestic violence calls have a mandatory lockup for at least one of
the people involved, stick or no stick.
Threatening or scaring isn't necessary, but as kids are getting
older, I think it would be a disservice NOT to talk to them casually
about criminal acts, and such things not being okay.
For a few years Holly used to say "Can I hit Marty?" when she'd get
mad at him, knowing full well I would say "Yes, when you're
eighteen." Or I'd say "Yes, when you're eighteen, if you have your
own place. Invite him over, and then hit him." And Marty would say,
"Yeah? I'm not going to your eighteenth birthday party, Holly." She
was seven, nine, eleven years old in those days. Then they stopped
discussing it. <g> It was good to diffuse many situations, even when
they were honestly angry. One time Holly clenched her fists and
yelled "I can't wait 'til I'm 18!!" We all got it. <g>
After that time she became seriously fond of Marty. She totally
admires him and is proud to be his sister. And in the past year or
so she took an interest in Kirby and started seeing good things about
him, whereas before he had irritated her, and sometimes not been as
nice to her as Marty was. She even said "Kirby's my favorite
brother" once last summer, which surprised us both.
I don't think that would be as likely to have happened if I had spent
a lot of energy trying to make them be friends. I didn't. I helped
them find separate things to do, and helped them not feel trapped
with the siblings. Hundreds of times, Keith or I took the least
satisfied of the three out away from the house for one reason or
another, real or trumped up, so the other two could relax and the
angry or frustrated one could express herself or himself at length
(or not, as she chose).
When one of the younger ones would say "Kirby's stupid" or "I hate
Kirby," I would express sympathy and maybe slight agreement or
acknowledgement that he could be irritating, and it must be hard
having a brother so "out there" and sociable and sometimes
insensitive, and I was sorry, and what could I do to make the moment
better, but I would always point out some of this: while I
understood their frustration, I really loved Kirby, and that Kirby
would have been an only child if not for them, and for me having more
children, and so they might want to cut him some slack because his
ideal life was interrupted by their presence. I did the "on the
other hand" commentary, at least a little.
Or I'd handle it with humor. The Marty-to-Kirby humor, starting when
they were very young, involved my offer to smite Kirby. "Kirby's not
sharing." "Shall I smite him?" "Yes!"
And I would go to Kirby and say "Marty wishes me to smite you,
Kirby. Is it possible you could share?"
No smiting actually went on in those cases, but the idea of it seemed
to satisfy.
My tale of actual spanking is here:
http://sandradodd.com/zeneverything
I could hide it, but it's more useful shared.
Sandra
> Everybody should feel safe in their own home. If youWhile I'm thinking about state law and all...
> were a grown-up hitting another grown up with a stick, you could go
> to jail for it." (Depending on age - I'm not saying threaten or scare
> a little kid.)
If a grown up is hitting another grownup with a stick, he WILL go to
jail for it.
In Albuquerque, at least (and maybe the whole state; not sure),
domestic violence calls have a mandatory lockup for at least one of
the people involved, stick or no stick.
Threatening or scaring isn't necessary, but as kids are getting
older, I think it would be a disservice NOT to talk to them casually
about criminal acts, and such things not being okay.
For a few years Holly used to say "Can I hit Marty?" when she'd get
mad at him, knowing full well I would say "Yes, when you're
eighteen." Or I'd say "Yes, when you're eighteen, if you have your
own place. Invite him over, and then hit him." And Marty would say,
"Yeah? I'm not going to your eighteenth birthday party, Holly." She
was seven, nine, eleven years old in those days. Then they stopped
discussing it. <g> It was good to diffuse many situations, even when
they were honestly angry. One time Holly clenched her fists and
yelled "I can't wait 'til I'm 18!!" We all got it. <g>
After that time she became seriously fond of Marty. She totally
admires him and is proud to be his sister. And in the past year or
so she took an interest in Kirby and started seeing good things about
him, whereas before he had irritated her, and sometimes not been as
nice to her as Marty was. She even said "Kirby's my favorite
brother" once last summer, which surprised us both.
I don't think that would be as likely to have happened if I had spent
a lot of energy trying to make them be friends. I didn't. I helped
them find separate things to do, and helped them not feel trapped
with the siblings. Hundreds of times, Keith or I took the least
satisfied of the three out away from the house for one reason or
another, real or trumped up, so the other two could relax and the
angry or frustrated one could express herself or himself at length
(or not, as she chose).
When one of the younger ones would say "Kirby's stupid" or "I hate
Kirby," I would express sympathy and maybe slight agreement or
acknowledgement that he could be irritating, and it must be hard
having a brother so "out there" and sociable and sometimes
insensitive, and I was sorry, and what could I do to make the moment
better, but I would always point out some of this: while I
understood their frustration, I really loved Kirby, and that Kirby
would have been an only child if not for them, and for me having more
children, and so they might want to cut him some slack because his
ideal life was interrupted by their presence. I did the "on the
other hand" commentary, at least a little.
Or I'd handle it with humor. The Marty-to-Kirby humor, starting when
they were very young, involved my offer to smite Kirby. "Kirby's not
sharing." "Shall I smite him?" "Yes!"
And I would go to Kirby and say "Marty wishes me to smite you,
Kirby. Is it possible you could share?"
No smiting actually went on in those cases, but the idea of it seemed
to satisfy.
My tale of actual spanking is here:
http://sandradodd.com/zeneverything
I could hide it, but it's more useful shared.
Sandra
Ken Cooper
> Sandra repeatedly points out that the best way to do this is to liveThis is a well expressed summary. Thanks.
> it yourself - treat the kids kindly and they learn to be kind, etc. I
> think some people brush this aside as too pat an answer or something.
> It really IS the most significant thing parents can do. Or they think
> they are facing more difficult challenges - their kids hit each
> other, for example, even though the parents don't hit them - so they
> think modeling isn't enough. Right. I agree. You also have to be
> clear about another principle - something like, "Everybody should be
> safe from harm." Again, that's why this isn't anarchy - parents
> should step in (and use their authority) to make sure everybody is
> safe. The parent doesn't have to shame the kid who hit - the parent
> doesn't have to yell - the parent doesn't have to say, "You're so
> mean," or "I've told you a million times, when are you going to
> learn," or any other derogatory statement - but the parent has to
> give clear, honest information: "I'm not going to let anybody hurt
> anybody else. Everybody should feel safe in their own home. If you
> were a grown-up hitting another grown up with a stick, you could go
> to jail for it." (Depending on age - I'm not saying threaten or scare
> a little kid.)
Ken
katherand2003
Chenzo (ds' nickname among many) was so zen today it was scary. The
nature of being a child... the nature of the child being, of the human
being. He has been asking me "remember" things lately.. "remember
when I ouchied my arm on the stove?" For sure he has *been*
remembering but now he's talking about it too.
I got so irritated at him yesterday and swatted him. He didn't cry,
flinch or whimper but an eerie still look came over his face.
Watchfulness. And I realized the kid is recording this moment and
he's going to have it to remember. :((((((( And so I talked with him
about that and apologized and said I really need to internalize better
ways of doing things, and promised that I will.
Kathe
PS: Anarchy or Punishment ... give me anarchy this time please.
nature of being a child... the nature of the child being, of the human
being. He has been asking me "remember" things lately.. "remember
when I ouchied my arm on the stove?" For sure he has *been*
remembering but now he's talking about it too.
I got so irritated at him yesterday and swatted him. He didn't cry,
flinch or whimper but an eerie still look came over his face.
Watchfulness. And I realized the kid is recording this moment and
he's going to have it to remember. :((((((( And so I talked with him
about that and apologized and said I really need to internalize better
ways of doing things, and promised that I will.
Kathe
PS: Anarchy or Punishment ... give me anarchy this time please.
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
>
> My tale of actual spanking is here:
> http://sandradodd.com/zeneverything
> I could hide it, but it's more useful shared.