bigmamma.bigmamma

Hi,

What do you guys do when you meet unschoolers who don't let their kids
watch TV? It's hard for me to be around people like this. People being
driven into controlling things out of fear, but I am around these types
of people alot. I'm wondering how you guys handle this? thanks,
Lyn

Sandra Dodd

-=-What do you guys do when you meet unschoolers who don't let their
kids
watch TV? It's hard for me to be around people like this. People being
driven into controlling things out of fear, but I am around these types
of people alot. I'm wondering how you guys handle this?-=-

We planned non-TV things when their kids were over, or went to the park.
Overall, though, if they'll prohibit TV, they're prohibiting other
things, and the parents' fears kept them from trusting a family like
ours, so it was never a problem for very long. :-/

Sandra

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

Nicole Willoughby

It's hard for me to be around people like this. People being
driven into controlling things out of fear, but I am around these types
of people alot. I'm wondering how you guys handle this?>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It isnt really an answer on how to handle it but I was just having breakfast and reading this before I came to check my e-mail ......


>>>>By ren on Monday, August 6, 2001 - 03:15 am:
I'm probably one of the only other people here that do believe it's ok to limit TV when necessary. I find my one son getting very lazy and not interested in other activities for DAYS on end if I don't say anything. If I say "ok, enough TV for today" and suggest that we do something, he is usually glad for it. If he's in the middle of something he really wants to watch I just say "ok, when that's over do you think we could go do something?" and he always is fine with that. I have relaxed a lot over the whole issue but I think there are some kids that are more addictive and affected by it than others. I just disagree with total self regulation on that topic....sorry. I do believe it is best to be relaxed over it and I'm glad that self-regulation works for all of you. Ren changed her mind about this later.read about her change of heart >>>>>


and then this ...

http://sandradodd.com/t/sharing


---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

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

Sandra Dodd

-=->>>>By ren on Monday, August 6, 2001 - 03:15 am:
I'm probably one of the only other people here that do believe it's
ok to limit TV when necessary.-=-

It's very generous of Ren to leave her former beliefs out there as a
warning for people, and so they can see how and why she changed, and
what the results were. Ren's great.

http://sandradodd.com/renallen

Sandra

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

donannedean

What about unschooling without a tv?. I have 2 daughters ages 4 and
1.TV is very boring to me and I know I prefer to provide my young
children with a naturel environment. We just don't have tv. We play
instead and sometimes we watch it if we are at someone elses house. I
do choose to limit the stay at grandpas house because he has the tv on
24/7 and will not budge from it and watches violent shows.He had a
stroke and is very brain damaged and is afraid to turn off the tv. Also
he smokes alot and the house is full of smoke and the kids don't mind
leaving at all. I play with them when we are there(which they prefer
anyway) so they are not watching about the brutal murder of some child.
I don't consider it prohibiting them from watching tv because they are
not asking to watch it. Sometimes Avalon wants to watch a movie on the
computer. I have bought her some movies but we just don't have very
many.
I believe in moving in a direction of a more naturel lifestyle. It
feels good to me and to Mother Earth. I feel like we do not watch tv
not out of fear but out of love. I do see how it would be different if
my daughters were asking.
We also have organic healthy food to choose from at our house. It has
always been that way so they love the food we eat and have never asked
for or even know what candy is. Soon enough they will be exposed and
see other kids eating it. I have had a lot of my own issues to deal
with around food. I had terrible dairy allergies as a child. I have
avoided some gatherings because of the massive junk food, but never
gatherings my daughter was asking to go to.

Do you disagree with unschoolers providing a healthy environment for
there kids ( always researching if you are doing it out of fear or if
it is really a healthy environment) and then allowing them free rein
with in that? I am talking about younger children who are just learning
about the world.
I learned about unschooling from Naomi Aldort. I am so greatfull. And I
am always working on being less controlling. I am a very lenient mom
and I find myself really having to get creative to allow my kids
outlets for whatever it is I won't allow them to do because of safety
or major property damage.
I guess I do have fear around my children watching violent tv at a
young age. And my question is: Is there not a ballance where you could
listen to your inner vision about whether an environment is safe for
your children or not? You can always ask them ,which I do quite often,
but there are some environments I cannot explain to them. Is it all my
stuff? What about mothering instincts. Wouldn't you want to protect
your young child from say an environment such as Gandpa's house?

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-What do you guys do when you meet unschoolers who don't let their
> kids
> watch TV? It's hard for me to be around people like this. People being
> driven into controlling things out of fear, but I am around these
types
> of people alot. I'm wondering how you guys handle this?-=-
>
> We planned non-TV things when their kids were over, or went to the
park.
> Overall, though, if they'll prohibit TV, they're prohibiting other
> things, and the parents' fears kept them from trusting a family like
> ours, so it was never a problem for very long. :-/
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sandra Dodd

These questions aren't asked to be critical, but to dissect
statements and arguments, and to respond to questions asked.

-=-What about unschooling without a tv?-=-

What about unschooling without books or without puzzles?

-=- I have 2 daughters ages 4 and 1.
TV is very boring to me...-=-

Are those statements related? Part of what created a good
relationship between me and my kids was finding things we both liked
to do together, not my keeping them away from things I found boring.
Two things I never managed to appreciate: playing Barbies and
watching Pokemon. Other than that, I did pretty well at being with
my kids, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally, exploring
with them what caught their interest, and learning about why they
liked it.

-=-...and I know I prefer to provide my young children with a
naturel environment-=-

Your children aren't school-age yet, so in one way they're not
unschooling kids. You could still opt for school.
The only reason I say that is that there are lots of things they'll
want to know or need to know that they can't learn in a "natural
environment." You have a computer. How natural is that?

-=-I believe in moving in a direction of a more naturel lifestyle. It
feels good to me and to Mother Earth.-=-

It's common here for people to be requested not to speak for all moms
or all unschoolers. Maybe you shouldn't speak for Mother Earth But
in any case, at some point your daughters will be 14 and 11 and
sometime before then it might be good to transition to what they want
to do and what isn't boring to them instead of ganging up on them
with Mother Earth.

-=-I have had a lot of my own issues to deal with around food.-=-

Issues seem more often to come from limitations and rules and lack of
choices than from open communication and options.
http://sandradodd.com/food

-=-
Do you disagree with unschoolers providing a healthy environment for
there kids ( always researching if you are doing it out of fear or if
it is really a healthy environment)-=-

Not at all, but where will you research whether you're doing
something out of fear? Or personal preference? Or boredom? Or
superstition?

If you look at the principles behind unschooling and natural
learning, it might make less sense then to you to limit your
children's world. If you read about families whose unschooling has
really taken off and lasted, I don't think you'll find many who are
fearful.

-=-there are some environments I cannot explain to them. Is it all my
stuff? -=-

I've never taken my kids to the bowling alley when I hear shouting
that sounds like a fight in the parking lot, though it's just a
hundred yards from our back gate. We don't watch the news. Every
TV comes with a channel changing apparatus and an on-off switch (or
if not, can be unplugged when violent news stories come).

There are accounts of violence in books and magazines. Will you
prohibit all those? There are books at the library with photos of
mutilations and murders. Will you not go to the library?

-=-What about mothering instincts. Wouldn't you want to protect
your young child from say an environment such as Gandpa's house?-=--

My kids don't have the grandpa yours do. That's such a slanted
question it doesn't really belong with the rest of the post, I think.

At any point when you're making a decision to say yes or no to a
child, if you're considering what will help the child understand the
world better, or what will be more pleasant or intriguing or
peaceful, then that would be cool.

Maybe watching Teletubbies or BoohBah would be more peaceful for a
young child than hearing an adult complain about grandpa.

Sandra




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

Sandra Dodd

-=-You have a computer. How natural is that?-=-

I want to answer my own question. <g>

In the year 2007, in the modern English speaking world, having a
computer is as natural as having a horse was 150 years ago.
It's as natural as having a TV, in our culture, these days. It's as
natural as listening to recorded music.

Sandra

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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:49 AM, donannedean wrote:

> What about unschooling without a tv?.

Big loss of a LOT of wonderful stuff.

> I have 2 daughters ages 4 and
> 1.

They're young. But there are some pretty wonderful things that a 4
year old would be likely to get a lot out of.

> TV is very boring to me

Too broad a generalization (even applied only to oneself). Making
such absolute statements is a sign of a lack of conscious decision
making. It ignores all the complexities of what constitutes "tv" and
lumps together all of what is shown on tv as if it is all the same -
all boring. If you were at a zoo and happened to be there when lion
cubs were playing? Why would it become boring if it is shown on tv?

> and I know I prefer to provide my young
> children with a naturel environment.

They can be provided with a vastly expanded environment through the
magic of tv. You're limiting their exposure to only what they can
experience first-hand in your own area or where you can manage to
travel.

> We just don't have tv.

Again, there is that flat absolute quality to what you've said - as
if "just" happens that you don't have tv.

> We play
> instead

We play, too, and often our play has been enhanced by things learned
watching tv.

> and sometimes we watch it if we are at someone elses house.

It has always been annoying to my kids that other children would come
to play, here, and want to watch tv all the time. It is VERY apparent
that kids who live in tv-restricted homes are much more attracted to
watching "just anything that is on." My kids, with unlimited access
to tv, were far more selective and thoughtful about their choices.

> I
> do choose to limit the stay at grandpas house because he has the tv on
> 24/7 and will not budge from it and watches violent shows.

Do the girls want to watch what he is watching? My kids would not
have wanted to watch it - but, then, they had tv at home to whatever
extent they wanted, so there was no reason for them to watch stuff
they didn't much enjoy, just because it was on at the grandparents.

> He had a
> stroke and is very brain damaged and is afraid to turn off the tv.

You could get him a pair of wireless headphones - then only he would
hear the sound and it wouldn't be so pervasive. Or meet them
somewhere else, if he goes out.

> Also
> he smokes alot and the house is full of smoke and the kids don't mind
> leaving at all.

I would not let my kids be in a house where a brain-damaged person
was smoking. We had a fire in our house a year and a half ago
(started in the clothes dryer) and I wouldn't risk my kids being in a
place where there is fire danger. Also, one of mine has asthma - so
we tried to stay out of smoke-filled spaces, for her sake, as well.
But, what does that have to do with tv? Mushing these together in
your head isn't useful for making conscious decisions.


> I play with them when we are there(which they prefer
> anyway) so they are not watching about the brutal murder of some
> child.
> I don't consider it prohibiting them from watching tv because they are
> not asking to watch it.

So - why bring it up? Do you think that the long-time unschooling
families on this list who are recommending not restricting tv are, in
fact, recommending that 1 and 4 year old children should be made to
watch news of brutal child murders? This isn't clear thinking.

> Sometimes Avalon wants to watch a movie on the
> computer. I have bought her some movies but we just don't have very
> many.

"Just don't?" (You choose not to - using the word "just" over and
over makes it sound inevitable or like it "just" happens.)

> I believe in moving in a direction of a more naturel lifestyle.

If you want your kids to really appreciate "Mother Earth," then watch
National Geographic specials and PBS "Nature" and Nova and
Scientific American Frontiers. You're missing out on exposure of the
grandeur and diversity of Mother Earth, otherwise.

> It
> feels good to me and to Mother Earth.

Huh?

> I feel like we do not watch tv
> not out of fear but out of love.

Sounds like it is out of limited thinking, to me. It is looking at
the worst stuff on tv and thinking that is all there is to it.

> I do see how it would be different if
> my daughters were asking.

They
> We also have organic healthy food to choose from at our house.

So do we.

> It has
> always been that way so they love the food we eat and have never asked
> for or even know what candy is.

Not saying kids need candy, I'm pretty sure mine had never had soda,
for example, when they were your kids' ages, but it seems the
environment would have to be pretty darn restricted to prevent a 4 yo
from even knowing what candy is. No playing at other people's houses?
No homeschool park days? No pinatas? No reading books in which kids
have candy?

> Soon enough they will be exposed and
> see other kids eating it.

And adults.

> I have had a lot of my own issues to deal
> with around food. I had terrible dairy allergies as a child. I have
> avoided some gatherings because of the massive junk food, but never
> gatherings my daughter was asking to go to.

Waiting for kids to ask for things is not a useful unschooling
policy, in general. It is an unschooling parent's role to offer and
extend and expand a child's experience, not to restrict it and hope
the child won't ask for as long as possible. Again, I'm not saying
you have to give your kids candy, just saying that there is an
attitude of restriction that comes across clearly in your post as
being out of fear, in spite of your disclaimer.
>
> Do you disagree with unschoolers providing a healthy environment for
> there kids ( always researching if you are doing it out of fear or if
> it is really a healthy environment) and then allowing them free rein
> with in that?

I think I provided an extraordinary environment for my kids (now 16,
19, and 22). Mine had no tv restrictions and no specific food
restrictions. We "protected" them in a different way than you are
talking about, though. We didn't watch violent gruesome tv or movies
when they were around. We watched stuff we thought they'd enjoy, too.
We watched a LOT of nature shows, because they liked them and so did
we. We watched Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and I cannot for the life
of me imagine preventing children from watching Reading Rainbow - my
kids absolutely loved it. They made their own versions - used our
video recorder and did book reviews like Reading Rainbow has.

These days - my oldest daughter just called - she's in Alaska and
will be working as a back-country ranger in the wilds of the Alaskan
wilderness. Nobody could "love Mother Earth" more. I don't see that
tv-watching did anything but enhance that love.

> I am talking about younger children who are just learning
> about the world.

Not learning as much about the world as they could if they were
seeing more of it.

> I learned about unschooling from Naomi Aldort. I am so greatfull.
> And I
> am always working on being less controlling. I am a very lenient mom
> and I find myself really having to get creative to allow my kids
> outlets for whatever it is I won't allow them to do because of safety
> or major property damage.

> I guess I do have fear around my children watching violent tv at a
> young age.

So - can you not envision that they might not want to watch violent
tv? Why would they want to watch it?

> And my question is: Is there not a ballance where you could
> listen to your inner vision about whether an environment is safe for
> your children or not?

Too much black or white thinking. It isn't a choice of "gruesome/
violent tv" versus "no tv."

> You can always ask them ,which I do quite often,
> but there are some environments I cannot explain to them. Is it all my
> stuff? What about mothering instincts. Wouldn't you want to protect
> your young child from say an environment such as Gandpa's house?

Your thinking will be more clear if you don't mentally mix up tv-
watching at home with what goes on at grandpa's house and with eating
candy and so on. Too many different situations all being considered
as one and the same - think realistically about your own house. Would
"you" be watching violent shows when your kids were around? You'd be
cuddled up together watching something sweet and wonderful, I'm sure!

Are you also saying, "We just have no music at our house," because
somebody else listens to music with violent lyrics?

"We just have no magazines here," because there are porn magazines?

"We just have no books," because there are graphically violent books
in the world?"

-pam

>
> --- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>>
>> -=-What do you guys do when you meet unschoolers who don't let their
>> kids
>> watch TV? It's hard for me to be around people like this. People
>> being
>> driven into controlling things out of fear, but I am around these
> types
>> of people alot. I'm wondering how you guys handle this?-=-
>>
>> We planned non-TV things when their kids were over, or went to the
> park.
>> Overall, though, if they'll prohibit TV, they're prohibiting other
>> things, and the parents' fears kept them from trusting a family like
>> ours, so it was never a problem for very long. :-/
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

bigmamma.bigmamma

Really interesting conversation. Yeah, I am glad that Rens old (2001)
post was brought up. Many parents change along the way, especially
AWARE parents who are willing to look at their own stuff (conditioning)
and make informed decisions for the future. Thats kind of my delima, do
I want to "inform" these anti TV people that they might want to look at
their reasoning behind no TV or do I just let it go, When I was worried
about TV/video games (years ago) I would have been happy to meet
someone like me who had a different opinion than what the mainstream
public was thinking. Got to run, my kids who choose not to watch to
much TV want to go to the pool. Bye, Lyn






--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=->>>>By ren on Monday, August 6, 2001 - 03:15 am:
> I'm probably one of the only other people here that do believe it's
> ok to limit TV when necessary.-=-
>
> It's very generous of Ren to leave her former beliefs out there as a
> warning for people, and so they can see how and why she changed, and
> what the results were. Ren's great.
>
> http://sandradodd.com/renallen
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Nicole Willoughby

It's very generous of Ren to leave her former beliefs out there as a
warning for people, and so they can see how and why she changed, and
what the results were. Ren's great.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Its fantastic to have things like this to show to my dh .......who still thinks that unschooling is fine for the last few months when we pulled them out and over the summer but we need a curriculum starting fall. He still thinks a curriculum will be useful.

I agree it will be useful. There might be interesting stories to read. Sometimes dd7 likes to do math worksheets so having them available for her to choose will be handy. We definetly need more books for all the paths, towers etc dd4 likes to build. We always need paper for oragami and just think of all the kewl cut and paste colages we could make from neat pictures we might find.
Really though it has gotten him to "well see how things go" from " what do you think of getting switched on schoolhouse?".






---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.

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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Jun 6, 2007, at 10:38 AM, bigmamma.bigmamma wrote:

> Really interesting conversation. Yeah, I am glad that Rens old (2001)
> post was brought up. Many parents change along the way, especially
> AWARE parents who are willing to look at their own stuff
> (conditioning)
> and make informed decisions for the future. Thats kind of my
> delima, do
> I want to "inform" these anti TV people that they might want to
> look at
> their reasoning behind no TV or do I just let it go,

Depends of whether or not you think they might want to hear an
alternative point of view.

I usually let it go.

When I'm present and hear other people giving advice, "Just get rid
of the tv," etc., I will speak up.

-pam

> When I was worried
> about TV/video games (years ago) I would have been happy to meet
> someone like me who had a different opinion than what the mainstream
> public was thinking. Got to run, my kids who choose not to watch to
> much TV want to go to the pool. Bye, Lyn



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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I agree it will be useful. There might be interesting stories to
read. Sometimes dd7 likes to do math worksheets so having them
available for her to choose will be handy.-=-

I disagree.

There aren't going to be $500 worth of interesting stories or math
worksheets.

You can get math workbooks at the grocery store or toy store. You
can get storybooks at any thrift shop. With $500 you could take your
family to do something VERY COOL and memorable.

Sandra

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

bigmamma.bigmamma

When we were at that phase, I reassured my husband by taking the kids
to one of those teacher stores and letting them pick out what they
wanted. It saved $ and he thought it was good cause it was the same
stuff the teachers buy. It ended up to work out ok, I'm not saying
thats true unschooling, I'm saying it was a bridge to unschooling.
Lyn





--- In [email protected], Nicole Willoughby
<cncnawilloughby@...> wrote:
>
> It's very generous of Ren to leave her former beliefs out there as
a
> warning for people, and so they can see how and why she changed,
and
> what the results were. Ren's great.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Its fantastic to have things like this to show to my
dh .......who still thinks that unschooling is fine for the last few
months when we pulled them out and over the summer but we need a
curriculum starting fall. He still thinks a curriculum will be useful.
>
> I agree it will be useful. There might be interesting stories to
read. Sometimes dd7 likes to do math worksheets so having them
available for her to choose will be handy. We definetly need more
books for all the paths, towers etc dd4 likes to build. We always
need paper for oragami and just think of all the kewl cut and paste
colages we could make from neat pictures we might find.
> Really though it has gotten him to "well see how things go"
from " what do you think of getting switched on schoolhouse?".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added
security of spyware protection.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

bigmamma.bigmamma

Oh, the best place to find good stories is the Library, got to get
our tax $$ working for us. Free is always good! Lyn





--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-I agree it will be useful. There might be interesting stories
to
> read. Sometimes dd7 likes to do math worksheets so having them
> available for her to choose will be handy.-=-
>
> I disagree.
>
> There aren't going to be $500 worth of interesting stories or math
> worksheets.
>
> You can get math workbooks at the grocery store or toy store. You
> can get storybooks at any thrift shop. With $500 you could take
your
> family to do something VERY COOL and memorable.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Meredith

--- In [email protected], "donannedean" <ibex@...>
wrote:
>
> What about unschooling without a tv?.

Keep in mind that your options are more varied than no-tv-at-all and
900 channels of everything all the time. Your 4yo is already
watching some movies on the computer. At some point you might
consider getting a separate tv with a dvd player, or maybe just a
portable dvd player, to expand the options a little. That way one
kid could play a computer game while the other watches a movie, or
they could watch separate movies, or they could watch a kid-movie
while mom and dad snuggle up with something they would find dull.
You could subscribe to a dvd service so your kids could watch some
kids shows that way. Its about options.

> sometimes we watch it if we are at someone elses house.

Its a good idea to see how they are relating to tv at others' homes
to get an idea if broadcast or cable tv is something you should be
offerring. Kids don't always come right out and ask - especially if
its something they know mom is uncomfortable about. I could see my
dd was easily frustrated by broadcast tv at others' homes, so I
didn't offer. We live on a pretty tight budget, and there's no free
tv where I live. I suspected at some point her interest level would
exceed her frustration level, though.

My stepson moving in changed the issues somewhat - he *wanted*
satellite, so we got it. He had only had basic broadcast at his
mom's house, and "knew" not to ask for more than that, so I
suggested the satellite option to him - he jumped up and down and
hooted with joy.

> I believe in moving in a direction of a more naturel lifestyle. It
> feels good to me and to Mother Earth.

Well, I live in the woods, in a cabin I built myself, with spring
water, a wood-stove and a composting toilet. In the past I've lived
with no electricity or running water, and if you take a walk with me
in the woods, get ready to hear "hey, you can eat that!" a gazillion
times. So I do understand about wanting to live close to nature.
Having a tv - even having a satellite dish - doesn't necessarily
hamper that.

This morning, for example, my 5yo got up, watched one tv program and
then went outside to climb trees. Right now, she and her dad are out
working on a simple treehouse that she designed. Pretty picturesque.
She *could* be inside watching tv but is choosing not to.

> I guess I do have fear around my children watching violent tv at a
> young age. And my question is: Is there not a ballance where you
could
> listen to your inner vision about whether an environment is safe
for
> your children or not?

Rather than listening to your "inner vision" listen to and watch
your kids. Its possible to empower kids to make their own decisions
about what's "too much" for them, personally. My 5yo doesn't like
dramatic tension in live-action shows and movies *at all*. I know
this from watching with her and being really responsive to her
statements, sounds and body language. I don't expect her to watch
something that makes her uncomfortable. I've helped her find ways to
turn things off either on her own or asking someone else, or look
for other solutions.

Last summer she decided she Really wanted to watch one of the Harry
Potter movies - she fell in love with a magical creature she saw on
the cover of the movie case. We borrowed a friend's copy but she
couldn't stand to watch more than a few minutes of it. She didn't
want to give it up, though. She devised a plan for watching it - she
watched the extras, then watched it scene by scene in different
languages. Finally she was able to watch the whole thing, beginning
to end, in English. It was a pretty amazing process, and one that
wouldn't have happened if her dad or I had made the decision "too
scary" for her.

> Wouldn't you want to protect
> your young child from say an environment such as Gandpa's house?

This goes right along with empowering them to make decisions about
what to watch. Do your kids *want* to visit their grandpa? How long
do they want to stay? Do you tell them "we're going" or ask? If they
aren't interested in being there, don't take them. If they want to
see him, but not in his home, make arrangements to meet him
elsewhere. Chuck E Cheese is a nice, busy environment that he might
find very stimulating.

---Meredith (Mo 5.5, Ray 13)

Tina

I used to have my fears about the tv. There were so may "experts"
that said tv does more harm that good. And I used to be very
limiting on how much tv I let the kids watch.
But my son loves to watch tv and I let go of all the limits. He
really enjoys it and I enjoy watching it with him. I wished there
were shows on like that on when I was a kid. Jimmy Nuetron, Avatar,
Sponge Bob, and my all time fav-Pucca. They all rock and we have so
much fun watching them together.
I can understand where the other family is coming from with their
fears b/c I was there once. Even though I dont know them I assume
they are trying to do whats best for their children. Sometimes
people make these kind of decisions not b/c they are mean control
freak parents but out of fear and ignorance on the subject.
Do you think your freedom with tv and the good experiences you have
can show them that it is a good?
Being exosed to other peoples experiences and remembering my own
childhood really helped me let go of that issue.
Usually when my kids are visiting over someone else house they are
too busy exploring all the new toys and surroundings and dont really
care if the tv is on or not. But mine are all younger. I dont know
if it is different with older children. And when we have people over
and they dont want thier children watching a certain show or tv in
general and my children are watching something I will put it on our
room and let them watch it in there-which they dont mind. I have
never had anyone comment on our freedom with the tv yet so I dont
really know how I would handle that. Probably with an answer
like "they learn alot from the tv" and "We love to watch it together
and talk about the things we seen".
But when I was a child-I was left alone at home with my siblings all
the time after school and in the summer. No one was there to control
us while our parents were at work and we watched whatever we wanted.
And I can say that it didnt affect me in a negetive way at all. In
fact it revealed to me many opportunities and ideas and exposed
differences in people and situations. I loved MTV and watched it as
much as I could. Do any of you remember Liquid Television? That
played a huge roll in shaping my artistic abilities.
And we never watched any thing like taxas chainsaw massacre. I think
the most violent show we watched was Power Rangers ^-^.Well. Im not
trying to drag this out. We havent been doing this very long but
this has been our experience so far and all the changes we have made
have had positive effects.I hope it was helpful.


--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:49 AM, donannedean wrote:
>
> > What about unschooling without a tv?.
>
> Big loss of a LOT of wonderful stuff.
>
> > I have 2 daughters ages 4 and
> > 1.
>
> They're young. But there are some pretty wonderful things that a
4
> year old would be likely to get a lot out of.
>
> > TV is very boring to me
>
> Too broad a generalization (even applied only to oneself). Making
> such absolute statements is a sign of a lack of conscious
decision
> making. It ignores all the complexities of what constitutes "tv"
and
> lumps together all of what is shown on tv as if it is all the
same -
> all boring. If you were at a zoo and happened to be there when
lion
> cubs were playing? Why would it become boring if it is shown on tv?
>
> > and I know I prefer to provide my young
> > children with a naturel environment.
>
> They can be provided with a vastly expanded environment through
the
> magic of tv. You're limiting their exposure to only what they can
> experience first-hand in your own area or where you can manage to
> travel.
>
> > We just don't have tv.
>
> Again, there is that flat absolute quality to what you've said -
as
> if "just" happens that you don't have tv.
>
> > We play
> > instead
>
> We play, too, and often our play has been enhanced by things
learned
> watching tv.
>
> > and sometimes we watch it if we are at someone elses house.
>
> It has always been annoying to my kids that other children would
come
> to play, here, and want to watch tv all the time. It is VERY
apparent
> that kids who live in tv-restricted homes are much more attracted
to
> watching "just anything that is on." My kids, with unlimited
access
> to tv, were far more selective and thoughtful about their choices.
>
> > I
> > do choose to limit the stay at grandpas house because he has the
tv on
> > 24/7 and will not budge from it and watches violent shows.
>
> Do the girls want to watch what he is watching? My kids would not
> have wanted to watch it - but, then, they had tv at home to
whatever
> extent they wanted, so there was no reason for them to watch
stuff
> they didn't much enjoy, just because it was on at the grandparents.
>
> > He had a
> > stroke and is very brain damaged and is afraid to turn off the
tv.
>
> You could get him a pair of wireless headphones - then only he
would
> hear the sound and it wouldn't be so pervasive. Or meet them
> somewhere else, if he goes out.
>
> > Also
> > he smokes alot and the house is full of smoke and the kids don't
mind
> > leaving at all.
>
> I would not let my kids be in a house where a brain-damaged
person
> was smoking. We had a fire in our house a year and a half ago
> (started in the clothes dryer) and I wouldn't risk my kids being
in a
> place where there is fire danger. Also, one of mine has asthma -
so
> we tried to stay out of smoke-filled spaces, for her sake, as
well.
> But, what does that have to do with tv? Mushing these together in
> your head isn't useful for making conscious decisions.
>
>
> > I play with them when we are there(which they prefer
> > anyway) so they are not watching about the brutal murder of
some
> > child.
> > I don't consider it prohibiting them from watching tv because
they are
> > not asking to watch it.
>
> So - why bring it up? Do you think that the long-time unschooling
> families on this list who are recommending not restricting tv are,
in
> fact, recommending that 1 and 4 year old children should be made
to
> watch news of brutal child murders? This isn't clear thinking.
>
> > Sometimes Avalon wants to watch a movie on the
> > computer. I have bought her some movies but we just don't have
very
> > many.
>
> "Just don't?" (You choose not to - using the word "just" over and
> over makes it sound inevitable or like it "just" happens.)
>
> > I believe in moving in a direction of a more naturel lifestyle.
>
> If you want your kids to really appreciate "Mother Earth," then
watch
> National Geographic specials and PBS "Nature" and Nova and
> Scientific American Frontiers. You're missing out on exposure of
the
> grandeur and diversity of Mother Earth, otherwise.
>
> > It
> > feels good to me and to Mother Earth.
>
> Huh?
>
> > I feel like we do not watch tv
> > not out of fear but out of love.
>
> Sounds like it is out of limited thinking, to me. It is looking
at
> the worst stuff on tv and thinking that is all there is to it.
>
> > I do see how it would be different if
> > my daughters were asking.
>
> They
> > We also have organic healthy food to choose from at our house.
>
> So do we.
>
> > It has
> > always been that way so they love the food we eat and have never
asked
> > for or even know what candy is.
>
> Not saying kids need candy, I'm pretty sure mine had never had
soda,
> for example, when they were your kids' ages, but it seems the
> environment would have to be pretty darn restricted to prevent a 4
yo
> from even knowing what candy is. No playing at other people's
houses?
> No homeschool park days? No pinatas? No reading books in which
kids
> have candy?
>
> > Soon enough they will be exposed and
> > see other kids eating it.
>
> And adults.
>
> > I have had a lot of my own issues to deal
> > with around food. I had terrible dairy allergies as a child. I
have
> > avoided some gatherings because of the massive junk food, but
never
> > gatherings my daughter was asking to go to.
>
> Waiting for kids to ask for things is not a useful unschooling
> policy, in general. It is an unschooling parent's role to offer
and
> extend and expand a child's experience, not to restrict it and
hope
> the child won't ask for as long as possible. Again, I'm not
saying
> you have to give your kids candy, just saying that there is an
> attitude of restriction that comes across clearly in your post as
> being out of fear, in spite of your disclaimer.
> >
> > Do you disagree with unschoolers providing a healthy environment
for
> > there kids ( always researching if you are doing it out of fear
or if
> > it is really a healthy environment) and then allowing them free
rein
> > with in that?
>
> I think I provided an extraordinary environment for my kids (now
16,
> 19, and 22). Mine had no tv restrictions and no specific food
> restrictions. We "protected" them in a different way than you are
> talking about, though. We didn't watch violent gruesome tv or
movies
> when they were around. We watched stuff we thought they'd enjoy,
too.
> We watched a LOT of nature shows, because they liked them and so
did
> we. We watched Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and I cannot for the
life
> of me imagine preventing children from watching Reading Rainbow -
my
> kids absolutely loved it. They made their own versions - used our
> video recorder and did book reviews like Reading Rainbow has.
>
> These days - my oldest daughter just called - she's in Alaska and
> will be working as a back-country ranger in the wilds of the
Alaskan
> wilderness. Nobody could "love Mother Earth" more. I don't see
that
> tv-watching did anything but enhance that love.
>
> > I am talking about younger children who are just learning
> > about the world.
>
> Not learning as much about the world as they could if they were
> seeing more of it.
>
> > I learned about unschooling from Naomi Aldort. I am so
greatfull.
> > And I
> > am always working on being less controlling. I am a very lenient
mom
> > and I find myself really having to get creative to allow my kids
> > outlets for whatever it is I won't allow them to do because of
safety
> > or major property damage.
>
> > I guess I do have fear around my children watching violent tv at
a
> > young age.
>
> So - can you not envision that they might not want to watch
violent
> tv? Why would they want to watch it?
>
> > And my question is: Is there not a ballance where you could
> > listen to your inner vision about whether an environment is safe
for
> > your children or not?
>
> Too much black or white thinking. It isn't a choice of "gruesome/
> violent tv" versus "no tv."
>
> > You can always ask them ,which I do quite often,
> > but there are some environments I cannot explain to them. Is it
all my
> > stuff? What about mothering instincts. Wouldn't you want to
protect
> > your young child from say an environment such as Gandpa's house?
>
> Your thinking will be more clear if you don't mentally mix up tv-
> watching at home with what goes on at grandpa's house and with
eating
> candy and so on. Too many different situations all being
considered
> as one and the same - think realistically about your own house.
Would
> "you" be watching violent shows when your kids were around? You'd
be
> cuddled up together watching something sweet and wonderful, I'm
sure!
>
> Are you also saying, "We just have no music at our house,"
because
> somebody else listens to music with violent lyrics?
>
> "We just have no magazines here," because there are porn magazines?
>
> "We just have no books," because there are graphically violent
books
> in the world?"
>
> -pam
>
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@>
wrote:
> >>
> >> -=-What do you guys do when you meet unschoolers who don't let
their
> >> kids
> >> watch TV? It's hard for me to be around people like this.
People
> >> being
> >> driven into controlling things out of fear, but I am around
these
> > types
> >> of people alot. I'm wondering how you guys handle this?-=-
> >>
> >> We planned non-TV things when their kids were over, or went to
the
> > park.
> >> Overall, though, if they'll prohibit TV, they're prohibiting
other
> >> things, and the parents' fears kept them from trusting a family
like
> >> ours, so it was never a problem for very long. :-/
> >>
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

cyrusnmayasmama

I have been thinking about this a lot lately because we have recently
moved into a house that has cable TV and came partially furnished with
2 TV sets. At the same time that we moved we were given another TV set
and in the past 6 months we bought a gaming system that required
buying a TV to play on. Suddenly we have 4 TVs and lots of channels.
Before all of this we had only computers and a portable DVD player to
watch movies on (unrestricted). My kids (ages 4,7,&10) had not asked
for TV but I was in no hurry to get one either because where we live
you must pay for a service to get any reception. I knew we would have
TV eventually so I had really been trying to work through all of my
issues. I grew up with severe TV restrictions and very blatant
negative judgements regarding programming so that even when I was
allowed to watch I felt guilty for enjoying things like "Love Boat"
and "Three's Company" and "General Hospital" because I knew they were
"crap".

When the kids were younger I really liked that we had no TV, but it
was very true that every time the grandparents visited and stayed at
the resorts it was difficult to get them away from the TV to do other
things. Same when we would visit my parents on the mainland or friends
where they would watch. There was a part of me that feared that they
would be the same way at home. Well, guess what? I was right!!;) We
have had the TVs and cable for (only)1 month and they watch A LOT of
TV. Unless they have friends over (none of their friends are limited
in their watching so they don't want to watch when they are here:)
they are most likely to be watching TV. And the shows they want to
watch the most? GAME SHOWS!! Did you know that there is a game show
network (GSN) that plays gameshows 24/7?!

My oldest 2 spend quite a bit of time with their friends and our house
has always been the "fun" house where they can try crazy experiments
and create giant messes and jump on the trampoline and go prawning in
the ditch and help themselves to whatever they are hungry for. We got
the gaming system because we knew it would be great fun and our son
was wanting to spend time at other kid's houses because they had video
games. I want our house to be an equally attractive option. This
summer we are setting up an above the ground pool and a batting cage
partially with that in mind.

I don't think that they will always want to watch game shows for most
of the day and I am grateful to lists like this one that have helped
me examine my fears and controls of TV and food (and to see them for
what they really were - fears) because to be honest, I am having a
blast watching game shows too- something I would not have allowed
myself a couple of years ago! The 70's and 80's hairdos and clothes
crack us up - my kids can't believe that I used to dress like that!
And the connections that happen every day because of this new exposure
is so fun!

My 10 yr old DS has just blossomed with self confidence and exudes
this calm inner sense of himself lately that completely coincides with
his acceptance of the trust that I have shown in him as a result of my
own unschooling wrt TV.

One last note on this. My DH just finished reading a novel where one
of the characters comes to the US from the Marshall Islands (very 3rd
world) and is obsessed with watching "The Price is Right". It is how
she learns to speak English. We had a good laugh about the
similarities between this character and our own children. It is as if
they are learning a new language having been cut off from a huge part
of our culture for a long time. The result is that they are even more
interesting people now and they get even more jokes and they can
participate more fully in conversations with this new cultural
knowledge. I am now having a difficult time remembering what it was
that I feared - except maybe that they would watch game shows all day
long ;) - Alyse

Cathy

Hiya

I'm puzzled. Why does this TV issue keep coming up? Am I just not getting
something here?

By choice, we (hubby, me and all 5 kids ages 5,10,12,15 and 17 - although to
be absolutely honest I guess the 5 year old has not had too much say about
it) don't have a TV and it has not been an issue for any of us, although we
do discuss the option of getting one from time to time. We don't miss having
one and we honestly don't feel we have the time for one; our lives are so
busy. We do have a digital projector, and we enjoy watching DVD's,
especially on those early winter nights.

From the recent posts on the matter, it seems that unschoolers feel that a
TV is an essential item for successful unschooling.

We have horses, and we would argue that unschoolers (actually all people)
need horses. But most people don't have horses and don't particularly care
that they don't either. And I don't read mails on the list about how kids
are missing out because they don't have horses, but when someone doesn't
have a TV, it seems that they are missing out - and people are quite quick
to say so.

Please explain.

Regards

Cathy





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

Sandra Dodd

-=-When we were at that phase, I reassured my husband by taking the kids
to one of those teacher stores and letting them pick out what they
wanted. It saved $ and he thought it was good cause it was the same
stuff the teachers buy. It ended up to work out ok, I'm not saying
thats true unschooling, I'm saying it was a bridge to unschooling. -=-

There was a teachers' supply store in Albuquerque that we LOVED
called Colburn's, and we'd get games and counters and fancy pencils
posters and paints and individual crayons and Dover books and other
coloring books. But it closed. When it was open we used to go in
just to look at things, like the globes of the moon, and the charts
teachers used to track kids and "reward" them with stars and stuff.

Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Rather than listening to your "inner vision" listen to and watch
your kids.-=-

Great advice.

Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Why does this TV issue keep coming up? Am I just not getting
something here? -=-

Are you not getting that the same topics will come up, always,
because there are always new unschoolers? We've had 20 people join
the list since the beginning of June.

The first time someone's in a discussion she might just ignore it
because she believes what she believes.
As she gets more experience with unschooling and some things aren't
working, she'll be looking to discard and rearrange some beliefs.

Once things start to work well and the changes come, some people
stick around to help others.

That's the pattern.

-=-From the recent posts on the matter, it seems that unschoolers
feel that a
TV is an essential item for successful unschooling.

-=-We have horses, and we would argue that unschoolers (actually all
people)
need horses.-=-

Someone made a similar argument a while back (maybe on
UnschoolingDiscussion, maybe here) about a backhoe.
I have three guitars, a piano, three electric keyboards, a reed organ
and a dozen recorders in five different voices, but I don't expect
others to have all those instruments. I wouldn't do well without at
least one recorder and a guitar, but others do fine.

-=-but when someone doesn't
have a TV, it seems that they are missing out - and people are quite
quick
to say so.

-=-Please explain.-=-

The explanation is in Pam's post earlier today, and more is here:
http://sandradodd.com/tv

Sandra





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

huntmom1996

***There was a teachers' supply store in Albuquerque that we LOVED
> called Colburn's, and we'd get games and counters and fancy pencils
> posters and paints and individual crayons and Dover books and other
> coloring books. But it closed.***

I think it says something pretty sad and significant that these stores
seem to be closing everywhere. We've only been unschooling for three
years, and used to go to these kind of places, but now have to drive
pretty far to find a "good" teacher supply place.

Sorry, I know that's a bit off topic :)

Peace~Jessica

Sandra Dodd

-=-I think it says something pretty sad and significant that these
stores
seem to be closing everywhere. We've only been unschooling for three
years, and used to go to these kind of places, but now have to drive
pretty far to find a "good" teacher supply place.
-=-

Teachers used to drive from all over New Mexico to Albuquerque to get
supplies, and now anyone anywhere can get more, better and less
expensive stuff off the internet. It's sad for me because that was
something familiar to me and change can be sad and nostalgia can be
sweet.

Those places aren't needed the same way they once were.

Sandra

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

Pamela Sorooshian

I'd love to have a couple of horses, but they cost too much and take
up a whole lot of obligatory time, every day. M;y daughter rode
horses through her 4H club, which had 26 horses, for four years and I
know, first-hand, how much work it is and how much it costs.

So we, rather reluctantly, have decided we can't afford horses these
days.

A tv does NOT require stabling and doesn't require twice a day
feeding and doesn't get lonely and weird when it isn't watched
regularly and it doesn't need to be washed and cleaned and, oh yeah,
no mucking out its stall <G>.

A tv sits in the corner minding its own business, coming to life only
when we choose to click the remote!

As wonderful as a horse is, and I love them, it doesn't open up the
kinds of worlds that a tv does.

Can a family happily unschool without a tv? Of course. It isn't some
kind of essential tool.

But if a family is restricting tv because they are fearful of what
the kids will learn by watching it - that attitude is
counterproductive to unschooling. It is the fear and lack of trust in
the children and that parents are making an arbitrary choice to
restrict something that could be wonderful, could open all kinds of
learning opportunities to the kids, that is the problem, not the lack
of tv.

-pam


On Jun 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Cathy wrote:

> From the recent posts on the matter, it seems that unschoolers feel
> that a
> TV is an essential item for successful unschooling.



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

donannedean

Thank you for your response. It was gentle and kind and easier for me
to hear.
The girls do not ask to go to see Grandpa anymore. He was mean to
Avalon last time we went. We used to try to meet him at a restaruant.
He does get very angry and hard to deal with. It makes him very angry
when I go to hold Avalon when she is crying and asking to be held. I
have given up on having a relationship with him. He cannot speak and
cannot understand very much. He has less and less time of clearity.
It is sad because he used to be a really fun person. He would have
loved to play with the girls before the stroke. When I saked Avalon
if she wanted to see him she used to say yes but now she doesn't. She
would sit in front of the tv some at his house and I have seen her
begging her father to come play. I ask her if she wants to play and
she says yes and I am trying to distract her away from the tv news. I
thought that was a good thing.

I grew up going to a Free school and with out electricity in the deep
woods with a composting toilet. I don't feel like I was deprived
without a tv. As I got older I sure wanted a telephone.

My passsion in life is to expand my awareness. That is why I am open
enough to hear about the radical unschooling ideas around tv. I am
not ready to go out and buy tv yet.

I have more questions:
What about the warning by even mainstreem pediatrics that there
should be no tv for children under the age of two because it will
inhibit their developement? Why wouldn't you be concerned about that?

If you have ever read Naomi Aldort or listened to her CD's you know
that she highly recommends unschooling and yet she says no tv until
age 9.
I have taken many classes from Tom Brown at his willderness Awareness
school. A man named John Young who was his student for 10years taught
a class on Cayote teaching(basically unschooling by answering a
childs questions with another question) He showed us that tv and more
so video games limit the mind to the point where they did studies on
kids that played alot of video games and were only using 5% of there
brains. How exactly they test that I am not sure except that I know
that some kids lost the ability to see in three D and an Art teacher
had to take them out side and show them that this tree was actually
farther away then that tree.
For me watching tv puts me in tunnel vision and takes me away from
hearing my inner voices (messages from my spirit guides)Not that I
can always hear them and I will agree that there are some very good
shows on tv.
What about the power of subliminal over the tv. Is it really allowing
for a young child to choose for themself when they are bombarded with
commertials that push hard for kids to get addicted to say soda etc?
Is that really freedom of choice for them?. Those advertising
companies study extensively how to brainwash kids into wanting there
stuff and the government does not protect the people from very toxic
ingredients in some so called food that is directly targeted towards
children.(Aspertame, propalene glysol etc.)
What about these issues? Do you think that if you are able to
completely let go of these fears even subconsiously that none of
these will effect you or your children? I believe that could be true
but I am not sure how to do that?
These are all the deepest darkest fears I have about tv. I have never
heard anything that challenged thier validity until now.

Now I am all about letting go of fear and expanding my awareness..
First you have to be aware of the fear. I did not see myself as
fearing tv for my children before, but now I see where the fear has
been instilled in me. I did not miss tv as a child tho. My dad would
read us esp stories around the table after dinner.

Thank you all for your honest input
Donanne



--- In [email protected], "Meredith" <meredith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "donannedean" <ibex@>
> wrote:
> >
> > What about unschooling without a tv?.
>
> Keep in mind that your options are more varied than no-tv-at-all
and
> 900 channels of everything all the time. Your 4yo is already
> watching some movies on the computer. At some point you might
> consider getting a separate tv with a dvd player, or maybe just a
> portable dvd player, to expand the options a little. That way one
> kid could play a computer game while the other watches a movie, or
> they could watch separate movies, or they could watch a kid-movie
> while mom and dad snuggle up with something they would find dull.
> You could subscribe to a dvd service so your kids could watch some
> kids shows that way. Its about options.
>
> > sometimes we watch it if we are at someone elses house.
>
> Its a good idea to see how they are relating to tv at others' homes
> to get an idea if broadcast or cable tv is something you should be
> offerring. Kids don't always come right out and ask - especially if
> its something they know mom is uncomfortable about. I could see my
> dd was easily frustrated by broadcast tv at others' homes, so I
> didn't offer. We live on a pretty tight budget, and there's no free
> tv where I live. I suspected at some point her interest level would
> exceed her frustration level, though.
>
> My stepson moving in changed the issues somewhat - he *wanted*
> satellite, so we got it. He had only had basic broadcast at his
> mom's house, and "knew" not to ask for more than that, so I
> suggested the satellite option to him - he jumped up and down and
> hooted with joy.
>
> > I believe in moving in a direction of a more naturel lifestyle.
It
> > feels good to me and to Mother Earth.
>
> Well, I live in the woods, in a cabin I built myself, with spring
> water, a wood-stove and a composting toilet. In the past I've lived
> with no electricity or running water, and if you take a walk with
me
> in the woods, get ready to hear "hey, you can eat that!" a
gazillion
> times. So I do understand about wanting to live close to nature.
> Having a tv - even having a satellite dish - doesn't necessarily
> hamper that.
>
> This morning, for example, my 5yo got up, watched one tv program
and
> then went outside to climb trees. Right now, she and her dad are
out
> working on a simple treehouse that she designed. Pretty
picturesque.
> She *could* be inside watching tv but is choosing not to.
>
> > I guess I do have fear around my children watching violent tv at
a
> > young age. And my question is: Is there not a ballance where you
> could
> > listen to your inner vision about whether an environment is safe
> for
> > your children or not?
>
> Rather than listening to your "inner vision" listen to and watch
> your kids. Its possible to empower kids to make their own decisions
> about what's "too much" for them, personally. My 5yo doesn't like
> dramatic tension in live-action shows and movies *at all*. I know
> this from watching with her and being really responsive to her
> statements, sounds and body language. I don't expect her to watch
> something that makes her uncomfortable. I've helped her find ways
to
> turn things off either on her own or asking someone else, or look
> for other solutions.
>
> Last summer she decided she Really wanted to watch one of the Harry
> Potter movies - she fell in love with a magical creature she saw on
> the cover of the movie case. We borrowed a friend's copy but she
> couldn't stand to watch more than a few minutes of it. She didn't
> want to give it up, though. She devised a plan for watching it -
she
> watched the extras, then watched it scene by scene in different
> languages. Finally she was able to watch the whole thing, beginning
> to end, in English. It was a pretty amazing process, and one that
> wouldn't have happened if her dad or I had made the decision "too
> scary" for her.
>
> > Wouldn't you want to protect
> > your young child from say an environment such as Gandpa's house?
>
> This goes right along with empowering them to make decisions about
> what to watch. Do your kids *want* to visit their grandpa? How long
> do they want to stay? Do you tell them "we're going" or ask? If
they
> aren't interested in being there, don't take them. If they want to
> see him, but not in his home, make arrangements to meet him
> elsewhere. Chuck E Cheese is a nice, busy environment that he might
> find very stimulating.
>
> ---Meredith (Mo 5.5, Ray 13)
>

Cathy

Hi



"Are you not getting that the same topics will come up, always, because
there are always new unschoolers?"



Yes, I do understand that. It is the strong and united sense that comes
through from veteran unschoolers that TV is indispensable that I am puzzling
over. I 'think' that we are unschooling successfully without it. And I am
questioning the idea that any one thing is indispensable to unschool - I
feel that it is what I understand, not what I have that makes the
difference.



I agree that if I don't have a TV and deny my children access to one because
of fear, this is a problem. I think the same could be said of my earlier
example of horses. I come across a lot of people who are scared of horses
and of what could happen around them and who therefore don't let their
children have access to them. The more I look at it, I realize that fear is
the opposite of freedom, and thus we are forced to confront those fears if
we want to unschool - which is an incredible expression of freedom.



I believe (I'm hopelessly biased) that horses are wonderful for people in
general, and especially for children, and most especially for teenage girls,
and I could write pages about the benefits and advantages and about what
horses have done for me etc etc, but it doesn't change it from being a
benefit that not all will enjoy.

"I have three guitars, a piano, three electric keyboards, a reed organ and a
dozen recorders in five different voices, but I don't expect others to have
all those instruments. I wouldn't do well without at least one recorder and
a guitar, but others do fine."

I agree. I still don't see why TV should be in a special category. To me it
is in the same category as the things you mention, or horses, or whatever
interests anyone.

If it is important to have a TV in the house, available for people to use if
they choose, then why is it not equally important to have a reed organ (or a
horse) available for the same reason?

Regards

Cathy



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

Robyn L. Coburn

<<<< Wouldn't you want to protect your young child from say an environment
such as Gandpa's house? >>>>

From the house full of smoke, yes, especially since you imply that Grandpa
is not willing or able to take his cigarette outside while you visit. This
is not something that Jayn could choose to ignore or ask for a different
channel over. That is enough of a deal breaker.

From the tv, no, since Jayn is perfectly able to protect herself from any
images/sounds she finds scary - and has done so since being able to cry or
crawl or move or turn her head away or go to sleep. All of these were cues
that I noticed and acted on.

However Jayn would probably ask for her own channels, and if Grandpa were
unable to change the channel - well it just doesn't sound like much of a
visit somehow. It also sounds like Grandpa may not be emotionally up to
visits with his grandkids after his stroke if he needs to focus on the tv
during his waking hours.

I can certainly say that at 1 or 4 Jayn had zero interest in violent or
adult themed television or movies - her favorites were Max and Ruby and Bob
the Builder, later the Disney channel. At the moment at 7.5 she has become
very interested in the Discovery Kids programming, craft shows and the Food
Network cooking shows.

I have responded to what might be called "content concerns" in the past and
Sandra kindly kept it here:

http://sandradodd.com/t/whatif#robyn

along with some other people's experiences with tv and their kids.

I guess this is partly one of those situations where there isn't any need to
fix what isn't broken. You don't have a tv, but you do have the capacity to
provide dvd's on the computer. Jayn preferred to watch a narrow range of
programming including movies over and over again, so dvd's were a perfect
solution for us then.

My only concern is that the kids sensing a generalized disapproval about the
tv as being not "natural" or against their parent's philosophies in
principle, in the fullness of time may not feel free to ask for their own
tv. The problem occurs if they then feel the need to sneak it as a forbidden
fruit, or seek it outside of the home. It could become a big barrier between
parent and child because of the disapproval.

Our kids need to be able to come to us with the really hard questions, and
process the hard emotions in our supportive presence. Our tv watching has
repeatedly been the catalyst for many wonderful discussions, and it is the
content that might be seen as objectionable that has been the most useful.

TV provides me a wonderful conucopia, especially with all the specialist
cable channels. Jayn and I are currently developing a series proposal about
doll crafting.

Robyn L. Coburn

Fetteroll

On Jun 7, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Cathy wrote:

> It is the strong and united sense that comes
> through from veteran unschoolers that TV is indispensable that I am
> puzzling
> over.

No.

What's essential for unschooling is helping children explore what
interests them, free from parents' personal opinions on its worth.

Some people love ice cream. Some can take it or leave it.

The issue isn't whether or not a home has ice cream. The issue is how
free the children feel to have ice cream if they like it. Children
whose parents think ice cream is the path to obesity can't choose as
freely as children whose parents can take ice cream or leave it.

Whether or not a family has TV, isn't the point. The point is *why* a
family doesn't have a TV.

And why a particular family is making a choice is difficult to
discuss on a board. (And totally irrelevant on a board oriented
towards discussing philosophy. The focus is on idea not on the
practices of individual families.) Parents can easily say the family
can get a TV anytime they want, setting that up as a general idea for
other families. But parents can also be self delusional. If they
personally don't care for TV, they can be willfully blind to the
influence they're having on the kids. Kids can say they don't want
it, but they may not feel as free to say they do want it as parents
think.

I'm not saying that's happening in your family. I'm saying that's the
situation that can be behind anyone who wants to present the idea of
a family choosing not to have a TV. We can't know if the parents are
truly thoughtful and aware and sensitive to their kids. We can't know
if that idea is going out to parents who think they're thoughtful but
are really relieved they're able to get the family to agree to what
the parents want.

It's much more helpful to discuss the philosophy of helping children
find ways to explore their interests. What that looks like in a
particular family -- and it might be the children are completely
disinterested in TV so it's never on -- will be different from family
to family.

> If it is important to have a TV in the house, available for people
> to use if
> they choose, then why is it not equally important to have a reed
> organ (or a
> horse) available for the same reason?

What children have access to through TV is a lot broader than a reed
organ. A TV is more akin to a library than a horse. There are stories
ranging from Akira to CSI to Hamlet. There are instructional shows
like cooking and yoga. There are informational shows on volcanos and
cheetas and The Battle of Thermopylae. There's as much to watch on TV
as there is to explore in a library.

Saying "We don't have a reed organ" is worlds away from saying "We
don't have access to books."

I think it's more helpful in terms of unschooling to have a TV that
no one chooses to watch than to not have a TV at all.

Even that's a bit iffy in terms of freedom. Having books in the house
and never reading them to kids doesn't give them the same freedom as
parents who occasionally attempt to read to their kids who've shown
they're not (yet) interested. There's a huge barrier for kids who are
curious about TV in a home that doesn't have one. It's like saying
we'll build doors to the outside world if kids ever ask for them.

It isn't a requirement that a home have TV. It's helpful if parents
are fully aware of the barriers they may be putting between their
children and their interests. *Any* interests, whether it be horses
or reed organs. And though I almost included TV in that list, TV
isn't really an interest. It's a portal to things children might be
interested in. People aren't interested in TV so much as they're
interested in programs they can access through TV.

Joyce

Sandra Dodd

-=-I don't feel like I was deprived
without a tv. As I got older I sure wanted a telephone.

-=-My passsion in life is to expand my awareness. -=-

Had you had TV and phone as a 20th century child, your awareness
would be expanded quite a bit already.

-=-I ask her if she wants to play and
she says yes and I am trying to distract her away from the tv news. I
thought that was a good thing.-=-

That was probably a good thing, to give her a better option than
watching the news.
If she had free access to TV at home, she probably would NOT have
been watching news (one of the least interesting things to kids) at
all, anywhere, but would've been choosing (being used to choice) to
do a better thing.

When children can choose to do a better thing, they do, but children
WANT to learn (unless and until that spark of curiosity is snuffed
out with pressure or shame or ragging about them not learning well
and right, as school so often does, as parents can replicate at home
if they're not careful). When a child wants to learn, and TV is new
and unfamiliar, she WILL watch whatever's on, to find out what's so
dangerous and bad about the thing that's been forbidden in her life.
What is so powerful that her mother's afraid of it or scorns it?

Parents who prevent TV send the message that the TV is stronger than
the child. Someone else made that point here a while back, and I
thought it very, very true.

-=-What about the warning by even mainstreem pediatrics that there
should be no tv for children under the age of two because it will
inhibit their developement? Why wouldn't you be concerned about that?-=-

On this page
http://sandradodd.com/tv/anti
I have a link to that recommendation, and some commentary.

I'm thinking you haven't gone and looked at the TV links, but are
just responding to e-mails.
One way to expand awareness and to understand where longtime
unschoolers are coming from is to read those collections of the good
parts of prior discussions.

-=-For me watching tv puts me in tunnel vision and takes me away from
hearing my inner voices (messages from my spirit guides)Not that I
can always hear them and I will agree that there are some very good
shows on tv.-=-

There are some good shows and some bad shows.
There are some good voices in people's heads and some bad voices.

You're quoting and citing people and their studies and their fears
(Naomi Aldort, Tom Brown, John Young, "mainstream pediatrics") but it
seems you're listening to them without wondering why they're saying
what they're saying, but just accepting it.

Critical thinking, analytical thinking, mindful thinking is all very
important for learning to make your own choices. If you choose to
follow someone else's advice, it should be because you really looked
at it from many angles, compared it to all the advice you had already
heard, formed an internal grid of comparisons and relative merit and
value and then turned the decision into your own decision.

A man in an online unschooling chat once challenged me with "Are you
willing to risk your child's future on your 'theories'?" and I shot
back immediately, "Yes, aren't you?"

If my "theory" (my beliefs and convictions, really, as I had been
unschooling for some years then and didn't consider it a flimsy
"theory") was that choice helps kids learn to think well and to live
responsibly, I was absolutely willing to live my life that way. And
if his theory was that going along with the vague mainstream
recommendations perceived out of the corner of his eye or read in
Newsweek or heard on the news was the way to avoid "risking his
child's future," then he was willing to risk his child's future on that.

-=-A man named John Young who was his student for 10years taught
a class on Cayote teaching(basically unschooling by answering a
childs questions with another question) -=-

Answering questions with questions is called "Socratic method,"
usually. It's been a mainstay of the way Jewish children are dealt
with for ----started to say "a long time," but I figure the answer is
"thousands of years." It's not "coyote teaching." It's drawing out
thought and conversation.

It's what happens on this list.

It's not "unschooling," though, it's helping someone discover
answers, or bringing their questions into clearer forms.

-=-He showed us that tv and more
so video games limit the mind to the point where they did studies on
kids that played alot of video games and were only using 5% of there
brains.-=--=-

He didn't "show you."
He made an unfounded statement and you believed it.

-=-How exactly they test that I am not sure...-=-

Did you stop to consider that maybe they could NOT test it?
What would "only using 5% of their brains" look like? How might it
be proven, even with an autopsy?
If you'd been watching Nova on PBS as you grew up, you'd've watched
shows about brain research, I bet, and would have been more skeptical
of a claim like that and not summarized someone's wild claim as "he
showed us."


"... except that I know
that some kids lost the ability to see in three D and an Art teacher
had to take them out side and show them that this tree was actually
farther away then that tree. -=-

Whoa!!!! Wait.
How do you "know" that?

-=-How exactly they test that I am not sure except that I know -=-

You admit you don't understand, but then you say you know.

-=-How exactly they test that I am not sure except that I know
that some kids lost the ability to see in three D and an Art teacher
had to take them out side and show them that this tree was actually
farther away then that tree. -=-

So you're unfamiliar with kids who have played a lot of video games,
yet you use the words "showed" and "know."

I am familiar with kids who have played a lot of video games, and
with adults who play video games, and they are artists themselves,
and engineers, and construction workers and professional drivers and
phone techs and one's a med student, and if they've lost their
ability to see in 3D, we're all in trouble (and they'll be hammering
and incising their own thumbs).

-=-For me watching tv puts me in tunnel vision and takes me away from
hearing my inner voices -=-

If you grew up without TV, and you don't have TV, then when you see
TV you're probably hearing LOTS of voices in your head, saying things
like "I shouldn't be doing this" or "What if I had watched this my
whole life?" or "Where if the subliminal boogey man?" and it would be
hard to relax and see the show receptively with all that brainwave
noise.

-=-Is it really allowing
for a young child to choose for themself when they are bombarded with
commertials that push hard for kids to get addicted to say soda etc?
Is that really freedom of choice for them?. Those advertising
companies study extensively how to brainwash kids into wanting there
stuff and the government does not protect the people from very toxic
ingredients in some so called food that is directly targeted towards
children.(Aspertame, propalene glysol etc.)-=-

Your thinking is very, very muddled. You can't tell the broadcast of
a Shakespeare play from aspertane. You can't spell "aspartane," but
you're basing your life on fear of it.

aspartame |ˈaspärˌtām| |ˌøspɑrˈteɪm| |əˌspɑːteɪm|
noun
a very sweet substance used as an artificial sweetener, chiefly in
low-calorie products. It is a derivative of aspartic acid and
phenylalanine.
------------------------------------------------------------------

My kids watch TV, but they don't use aspartame or any artificial
sweeteners.

-=-Now I am all about letting go of fear and expanding my awareness..
First you have to be aware of the fear. I did not see myself as
fearing tv for my children before, but now I see where the fear has
been instilled in me.-=-

We're going to make counter arguments not just for your own sake, but
for the other hundreds who read here, so we don't "have to be aware"
of your fear, we just need to be honest with our responses.
Remember that this is not just about you. The questions are asked so
that you will think about your own arguments more clearly (and others
who are reading the exchange will think about their own beliefs more
clearly).

-=-I have never heard anything that challenged thier validity until
now.-=-

Without knowing both sides of an argument, how could you have fairly
judged the one side you did hear?

Sandra




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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I think the same could be said of my earlier
example of horses. I come across a lot of people who are scared of
horses
and of what could happen around them and who therefore don't let their
children have access to them. -=-

If there were horses in most buildings and homes, if people couldn't
get around without horses, if horses were a vital part of everyday
culture, then fear of horses would be a bigger problem. In 1850,
fear of horses would be a serious disadvantage. In 2007, fear of TV
is a serious disadvantage.

-=-I still don't see why TV should be in a special category. To me it
is in the same category as the things you mention, or horses, or
whatever
interests anyone.
-=-

Because TV isn't just one thing. It's access to a world of different
kinds of information, music, stories, geography, history, humor,
shows about horses!

To say "no TV' is parallel to saying "no books" or "no magazines" or
"no toys." To prohibit a class of things without regard to the
benefit and value of parts of them is prejudice and ignorance and
limitation.

A better analogy with horses would be for someone to say "NO ANIMALS"
because they were afraid of horses, and keep their kids away from
cats, from watching birds in the yard, from going to the zoo, from
having stuffed animals, from drawing pictures of elephants...

-=-If it is important to have a TV in the house, available for people
to use if
they choose, then why is it not equally important to have a reed
organ (or a
horse) available for the same reason? -=-

It takes way more than musical intelligence to use or need (or want)
an organ or a guitar. It takes desire and ability and time and
practice to be able to play the instrument, and keep it in repair (or
willingness to pay someone else for repairs when needed). It's a big
investment of space and time.

It takes more than a vague interest in horses to own one. You need
space, physical ability, zoning, HOURS of attention, willingess to
spend money on tack and vets and that's all even before desire,
ability and time to train the horse and give it all the attention it
needs.

A TV can be bought for $80 and just sit there. Anyone can press "on"
and maybe watch Hamlet or Sesame Street or Boston Legal or Eddie
Izzard, and any one of those things will lead them to music, costume,
culture, geography, history, clever turns of phrases, politics...

like this:
http://sandradodd.com/connections

If the person who pressed "on" doesn't like what's there, she can
press "off."
Not so with a horse.
Not so with musical instruments. (They can be set down to gather
dust, though, while a horse can't ethically be.)

Sandra



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