[email protected]

In a message dated 4/27/2005 11:38:53 PM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
have been a part of discussions and debate on TCS for years, and I
sympathize with the difficulty in understanding it and putting it into play
- it certainly is a radical alternative from the traditional parenting model
of "do what I say because I said so". As far as I'm concerned, TCS is a
revolutionary approach with great promise.
I'm so glad this was posted....it's exactly what I felt when I read the
dissenting voices about TCS in this thread. It was like hearing some of the same
reactions I get when I try to explain RU to other people who don't/can't really
understand it and so can NOT see how it would work. It takes a lot of
reading and a shift in conventional thought. So, thanks Barb for trying to bring
some understanding here. I do think TCS & RU are such a very good & natural fit
for a lot of folks...and others might too if they chose to study it
closer....but only if they give it a chance.

xoxo,
Denise


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2005 12:55:10 AM Central Standard Time,
we3deeves@... writes:

It was like hearing some of the same
reactions I get when I try to explain RU to other people who don't/can't
really
understand it and so can NOT see how it would work. It takes a lot of
reading and a shift in conventional thought.


~~~

You assume that the dissenting voices (me) haven't done the reading and made
a shift in conventional thought, or don't really understand it. I have,
had, and do, and I reject it as the whole philosophy for my parenting, but put
some of the principles in practice on a daily basis. Unlike people who say
they "unschool except for math", I don't go around saying I'm a TCS/NCParent.
That doesn't mean I don't understand the concept.

Karen



www.badchair.net


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

[email protected]

One wrote:

<< - it certainly is a radical alternative from the traditional parenting
model
of "do what I say because I said so". >>

Another responded:

-=-It was like hearing some of the same
reactions I get when I try to explain RU to other people who don't/can't
really
understand it and so can NOT see how it would work. It takes a lot of
reading and a shift in conventional thought. So, thanks Barb for trying to
bring
some understanding here. I do think TCS & RU are such a very good & natural
fit
for a lot of folks...and others might too if they chose to study it
closer....but only if they give it a chance.-=-

As there's nothing in the radical unschooling-extended-to-parenting that's
anything LIKE "do what I say," then what do you see would be a benefit of
radical unschoolers studying TCS closer? If we're already living it, why read
rhetoric and theory?

Sandra

cordjax

> If we're already living it, why read
> rhetoric and theory?
>
> Sandra

But, at the same time, if you're already living it, why reject it? I
can understand choosing to spend time and energy on unschooling
forums over TCS forums....because you prefer the posting style and
personal anecdotes there...me too! The part I don't get is how the
term non-coercive parenting could have negative connotations to
someone who is wholly unschooling (batman!). To me when you take it
beyond your approach to your children's education...it becomes a
parenting thing not a schooling thing. And to say something like
radical unschooling extended to parenting to me is to go out of your
way not to use the term non-coercive parenting.

I think the reason it was being suggested that some of the people
expressing opinions on the subject didn't fully understand TCS, was
because of the things being said like (not quoting here...going from
memory)....tcs parents have to let kids do whatever they want without
regard to their own or others feelings....trying to persuade a friend
to stop drinking the day before a big interview would be a tcs no-
no....etc. are just flat-out wrong based on everything I have read
and absorbed over the last 2 years (though I realize 2 yrs makes me a
novice in the company of many of you!).

Just for the record, I'm not lobbying for the people here to call
this kind of unschooling NCP. I don't care what you call it, I'm
just glad you're all here for me to learn from!!! The only reason I
brought this up was that it felt to me like everyone in the room was
looking at an elephant and saying...what should we call it??....let's
call it an un-hippo! or radically un-hippo? or wholly un-hippo?
And, I am sitting here thinking....ummm..hasn't anyone every heard
of...elephant?

Carolyn


for anyone with an interest there is a good TCS/NCP forum at Sage
Parenting...much more practical parenting stuff than you find on "the
TCS list"

Pam Sorooshian

On Apr 28, 2005, at 11:38 AM, cordjax wrote:

> But, at the same time, if you're already living it, why reject it? I
> can understand choosing to spend time and energy on unschooling
> forums over TCS forums....because you prefer the posting style and
> personal anecdotes there...me too!

Because when my 2 year old climbed up onto a nice coffee table and
began to dance on it, at somebody's very lovely decorated house, I
gently removed her and found her something else to do that was fun for
her and didn't involve destruction of other people's property.

And when Sandra and I and Holly (who was about 6 years old or so) were
running late for catching our airplane after the Mindful (Rethinking
Education) Conference some years ago, Holly didn't want to leave but we
insisted. We did it nicely, we explained the situation, we sympathized
with her not wanting to go and leave her new friends, but we didn't let
her reticence be the deciding factor that made us miss our plane. We
did NOT open up the decision to all possibilities and we didn't offer
our theories and work on creative problem solving until we could come
to a mutually agreeable solution. We, the two adults in the situation,
who knew and understood what the repercussions would be of any or all
of us missing that plane, put our greater understanding and information
above her immediate desire to stay with her two new friends (who were
hysterically crying and hanging on to her and making it nearly
impossible for Holly to think clearly enough to make a reasonable
decision even within her limited understand and information).

These would be unacceptable behaviors to NCPers. I'm just not willing
to go as far as they do - so I'm NOT saying that NCP is the same as the
kind of trusting unschooling that we talk about here.

NCP says that when a mutually-acceptable solution can't be found, the
priority becomes "not coercing the child." I understand the reasoning.
I think it sounds great in theory and that its one huge big
(theoretical) error is not accounting for the unfortunate reality of
time constraints and that its secondary error is not accounting
adequately for differences in parents and children in ability to
understand consequences and to comprehend information.

Not coercing is "a" priority for me, but not the ultimate priority.

I also thought there was a small amount of hypocrisy evident - or maybe
double-talk. For example, if a young child runs into the street and is
about to be hit by a car, TCS/NCP people didn't have a problem with
somebody else swooping them up and out of harm's way. Their reasoning
was that the child didn't want to be hit by a car so this doesn't count
as coercion.

So - the argument is that if the child really understood he/she was
about to be hit by a car, he/she would want to be moved.

This argument could be used for anything - I could say that if Holly
really understood the repercussions of us missing our plane, she would
have wanted us to make it. I could say that if my 2 year old really
understood the repercussions of her dancing on the neighbor's coffee
table, she'd want to be stopped. A damaged table or missed airplane
connections aren't life-threatening - but the logic is the same.

-pam

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2005 4:11:09 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:

-=-So - the argument is that if the child really understood he/she was
about to be hit by a car, he/she would want to be moved.

-=-This argument could be used for anything - I could say that if Holly
really understood the repercussions of us missing our plane, she would
have wanted us to make it. -=-

-------

Right. And millions of parents think that their children don't understand
the repurcussions of not making good grades in school and practicing the piano
so they force them to go and all that. It's a continuum.

My entry to the parenting continuum/cycle is from loving, mindful
consideration of their feelings and comfort, and the knowledge that they can learn from
playing. That's my starting point and my fallback point.

If someone else's basepoint is non-coercion, that's fine for them.

Some other people's basepoints are "God's will" or "academic excellence" or
"don't lose grandpa's approval because he has six million dollars we could
inherit."

Some people's basepoints are "I don't want to think about it."

I don't think I'm coercive, but I have been assured in public by someone who
was a prominent representative of NCP that I was absolutely coercive. It
doesn't change how my children have learned, and her opinion didn't harm my
relationship with them. They never even heard of the discussion.

Today I was telling Kirby about a letter I got (on paper, not e-mail, so I
couldn't just forward it to him) thanking our whole family for helping the
author's family live more peacefully. It was a thanks for our sharing our lives
in public for others' benefit. Kirby just shrugged and smiled. He doesn't
mind that lots of people know the details of his life. He knows our life is
better in many ways than the homelives of other friends of his. If anyone
else's life can be better because of things I've written, he's all for that.

By the stated principles of the other philosophies being promoted here, I
would have violated his privacy and been disrespectful of him, as he was too
young to agree to have his life made an example.

But he's known since he knew anything that other moms were nursing because
we had helped. He knew since he was "school age" that the details of his not
going to school were public record. He hasn't objected.

Sandra








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

Elizabeth Hill

**But, at the same time, if you're already living it, why reject it? I
can understand choosing to spend time and energy on unschooling forums
over TCS forums....because you prefer the posting style and personal
anecdotes there...me too! The part I don't get is how the term
non-coercive parenting could have negative connotations to someone who
is wholly unschooling (batman!). **

(OK, Pam said it better, but I'll toss in my agreement to her points.)

I consider myself to be "minimally coercive". I really want to help
James get what he wants.

I do not, however, accept as *my* goal the goal of being 100%
non-coercive. And when difficult situations arise I will sometimes use
my parent power and finish a planning discussion with "I need you to get
in the car." (If this weren't so hypothetical or homogenized, I'd be
able to type in the explanation that I had given, which I would probably
state again, after the "... get in the car" part.) When something is
really important to me for whatever reason, and James is vaguely against
whatever participation I would need from him, I don't automatically go
along with *his* choice. (I don't automatically go along with *my*
first choice, either.) I don't think it's helpful to think of this
outcome as a "failure".

Also, I subscribed to the TCS list for two weeks (about 5 years ago) and
only a small percentage of the people on that list behaved in owards
other adults in a manner that I would ever wish to emulate.

Betsy

mother_bhaer

Thank you, Pam for writing this lengthy explanation. My dh and I
were discussing this list and the things I have read here. He and I
both are coming around; or at least re-thinking some things. I
could only speculate about answers for some of his questions, but I
think this will help him as it has helped me greatly.

My dh and I have been discussing lately the idea of respecting a
child because they are as much human as you and I are. They have
all the elements they will ever need to become an adult (they will
never aquire more intellect, emotions, etc.) and therefore should be
respected as one. However, as you pointed out, children don't have
the maturity to understand the consequences to some of their actions
and, at times, we have to step in and gently require them to do what
needs to be done.

My dh and I were speculating that when you only tell your child "no"
when it is absolutely necessary they are more likely to know that
there is a good reason for it. Are we on the right track?

Terri







>
> Because when my 2 year old climbed up onto a nice coffee table and
> began to dance on it, at somebody's very lovely decorated house, I
> gently removed her and found her something else to do that was fun
for
> her and didn't involve destruction of other people's property.
>
> And when Sandra and I and Holly (who was about 6 years old or so)
were
> running late for catching our airplane after the Mindful
(Rethinking
> Education) Conference some years ago, Holly didn't want to leave
but we
> insisted. We did it nicely, we explained the situation, we
sympathized
> with her not wanting to go and leave her new friends, but we
didn't let
> her reticence be the deciding factor that made us miss our plane.
We
> did NOT open up the decision to all possibilities and we didn't
offer
> our theories and work on creative problem solving until we could
come
> to a mutually agreeable solution. We, the two adults in the
situation,
> who knew and understood what the repercussions would be of any or
all
> of us missing that plane, put our greater understanding and
information
> above her immediate desire to stay with her two new friends (who
were
> hysterically crying and hanging on to her and making it nearly
> impossible for Holly to think clearly enough to make a reasonable
> decision even within her limited understand and information).
>
> These would be unacceptable behaviors to NCPers. I'm just not
willing
> to go as far as they do - so I'm NOT saying that NCP is the same
as the
> kind of trusting unschooling that we talk about here.
>
> NCP says that when a mutually-acceptable solution can't be found,
the
> priority becomes "not coercing the child." I understand the
reasoning.
> I think it sounds great in theory and that its one huge big
> (theoretical) error is not accounting for the unfortunate reality
of
> time constraints and that its secondary error is not accounting
> adequately for differences in parents and children in ability to
> understand consequences and to comprehend information.
>
> Not coercing is "a" priority for me, but not the ultimate priority.
>
> I also thought there was a small amount of hypocrisy evident - or
maybe
> double-talk. For example, if a young child runs into the street
and is
> about to be hit by a car, TCS/NCP people didn't have a problem
with
> somebody else swooping them up and out of harm's way. Their
reasoning
> was that the child didn't want to be hit by a car so this doesn't
count
> as coercion.
>
> So - the argument is that if the child really understood he/she
was
> about to be hit by a car, he/she would want to be moved.
>
> This argument could be used for anything - I could say that if
Holly
> really understood the repercussions of us missing our plane, she
would
> have wanted us to make it. I could say that if my 2 year old
really
> understood the repercussions of her dancing on the neighbor's
coffee
> table, she'd want to be stopped. A damaged table or missed
airplane
> connections aren't life-threatening - but the logic is the same.
>
> -pam

Pam Sorooshian

On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:13 AM, mother_bhaer wrote:

> My dh and I were speculating that when you only tell your child "no"
> when it is absolutely necessary they are more likely to know that
> there is a good reason for it. Are we on the right track?

I think so.

There are parenting books that more or less say that kids need and want
to be controlled because it makes them feel loved.

Think about that - do we want our kids to grow up equating control and
power with being loved?

NO child starts out life wanting to be controlled and overpowered -
which is what coercion feels like.

But - we all want some protection and care taken with us EVEN when
we're grown up. Children DO want to feel cared for and safe, along with
other things like trusted, and listened to, and supported, encouraged,
and so on.

Parents have to use judgment. Parenting isn't a science, it is a human
endeavor. We use successive approximations to learn how to parent our
particular kids - we won't "get it right"- not perfectly right very
much of the time, but we can get better and better by simply making a
"better" choice as often as we can.

And, in my opinion, occasionally the best choice we will be able to
come up with will be something like, "We need to go now."

As an adult with access to far more information and far more
experience and far more ability to anticipate consequences, there will
be times when I make decisions and my kids will be asked to simply go
along with those decisions without full understanding and agreement on
their part. Sometimes, as the parent, I'm a little like a tour guide.
I'm not their "boss" - but they all realize that me making some of the
logistical decisions and expecting the rest of the family to go along
with them without argument will make everybody's life smoother and
happier. So they do. If they feel strongly about something, they know
that they'll be listened to and respected.

-pam

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2005 9:37:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:

-=-Sometimes, as the parent, I'm a little like a tour guide.
I'm not their "boss" - but they all realize that me making some of the
logistical decisions and expecting the rest of the family to go along
with them without argument will make everybody's life smoother and
happier. So they do. If they feel strongly about something, they know
that they'll be listened to and respected.-=-




===========

Now that my kids are all old enough to opt out of activities, I've noticed
that usually an activity centers on one person. We went with Kirby to school
when he was getting an award for something and didn't know what it was.
(Turned out to be a certificate for Exceptional Performance, and because it was
his first ever academic recognition in his whole life, it was cool that we
went.) That day, it was Kirby's deal. Whoever hurried up to be on time did it
for Kirby. They dressed up and went because they had agreed to.

Tuesday I was doing a presentation for 7th grade history students on the
history of English, in a friend's classroom. Holly went last year and wanted to
go again. Our friend Vincent King has applied to attend that school next
year (Sandia Academy) so we invited Vincent. Holly got up and got ready
because she had agreed to do something I needed to do.

When kids have a choice to go or not, their willingness to cooperate when
they DO want to go is a whole different thing than when they're being *once
again* dragged somewhere against their will. But when the kids were little, I
would persuade them to help me out in exchange for doing something of their
choice and design later that day or another day. I never said "Do it because
I'm the mom and I said so."

Sometimes I persuade them to go, sometimes they persuade me not to go. I go
to movies with Marty and Kirby sometimes that I didn't really think I wanted
to go to, and they do the same for me. Usually we end up liking the outing
and the movie both.

Sandra


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

mamaaj2000

--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@e...> wrote:
> And when Sandra and I and Holly (who was about 6 years old or so)
were
> running late for catching our airplane after the Mindful
(Rethinking
> Education) Conference some years ago, Holly didn't want to leave
but we
> insisted. We did it nicely, we explained the situation, we
sympathized
> with her not wanting to go and leave her new friends, but we didn't
let
> her reticence be the deciding factor that made us miss our plane.

I like this story paired up with the one about going to several
stores looking for plums that Holly wanted.

As much as possible, I want to make time to search for plums (and
sniff at any roses along the way, lol) and not feel like there's an
airplane to catch when there really isn't.


--aj, who's going to mess with dh's head tonight by wondering
outloud "is this a plum moment or an airplane moment?"

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/29/2005 1:29:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
mamaaj2000@... writes:

--aj, who's going to mess with dh's head tonight by wondering
outloud "is this a plum moment or an airplane moment?"



------------------

Kirby took a lower score in his college skills class than he could've
because he consciously decided not to do an assignment that required writing one
full-sentence summary of each chapter in the textbook. Kirby used one of the
principles the teacher had discussed early in the semester to justify this.
He told the teacher "I decided it wasn't a piano," meaning it wasn't the sort
of thing that needed the precision that tuning a piano needed.

The guy just laughed and said, "Okay."

It wasn't a matter of not getting credit for the class. It was between a
high B and a low A, and that didn't show on the CR/NC final mark anyway.

Sandra


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

Robyn Coburn

<<<< My dh and I were speculating that when you only tell your child "no"
when it is absolutely necessary they are more likely to know that
there is a good reason for it. Are we on the right track?>>>>>

I would add to this the idea, that the "good reasons" have to be
communicated to the kids also - especially while the trust is building. It
is all very well for the parent to believe the reason is good, but if the
kids don't agree or at least understand why the parents hold the belief,
then the end result is still *feeling* coerced and controlled.

Sometimes just articulating what we feel is a "good" reason, ends up
illuminating that the reason is actually arbitrary or just "ok" instead of
actually "good". The definition of "absolutely necessary" constantly slides
as our paradigm shifts.

Robyn L. Coburn

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005

Pam Sorooshian

On Apr 29, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Robyn Coburn wrote:

> Sometimes just articulating what we feel is a "good" reason, ends up
> illuminating that the reason is actually arbitrary or just "ok"
> instead of
> actually "good".

Oh yes. VERY important point. REALLY really! I assumed that was
understood - but it bears repeating over and over.

So - the problem that remains is that the reasons are often so
complicated and we adults just have the whole thing, like a big gestalt
thought, in our heads - getting it out articulately enough for the kids
is hard - some aspects of the reason may not even be intelligible to a
child. "You know - I really feel like we need to leave right now for
the airport - I really don't want to miss this plane, it'll be a lot of
trouble - like paying for another flight, trying to get a refund
(they'll charge us something to change tickets - not sure how much),
people are already planning to pick us up and it'll be rude to change
their plans and maybe they can't change their plans so we'll have to
find another way home and maybe pay for a shuttle which will be another
$100 or more. And, maybe we could wait 15 minutes more but it is
getting close to rush hour and if we don't leave now, it'll be rush
hour and there is a chance that the traffic will hold us up and we'll
miss the plane, plus I have to return the rental car and if I don't get
it back on time it'll cost us for another whole day - but I can't quite
remember what time it was supposed to be back and I'd really rather
just go now and not have to figure that out and ....."

How do you explain all this to a young child who just wants to keep
playing with her friends?

It is almost always under time constraints that joint creative problem
solving breaks down - parents can't think clearly EITHER under a time
crunch - so the first thing is to try to avoid having these discussions
under such pressure. But, it happens.

Without time constraints, we could do everything everybody wants - no
choices would really have to be made other than in what order to do
things. Not real life, though.

-pam

cordjax

I just wanted to give a picture of my experiences with the tcs/ncp
community, since Sandra and Pam have posted their experiences and
mine (I think) differ considerably. If you are tired of this
subject, and just want me to shut up...please just skip this post!

This (below) is from a post to the TCS list...could have been
another tcs group or board, but I'm pretty sure it was on "the"
list....and I don't know who the poster was, I just saved it because
I thought it was nice and succinct (hope its not a no-no to post
this without author's name attached and/or without author's
permission)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, you have a conflict with a loved one. You can:

1. Get your way. There are numerous methods of manipulation or
force.

2. Give in. This is a good road to resentment.

3. Find a solution you both like. This may mean you see a solution
that is
DIFFERENT than what you wanted originally, but is better.

Rethink the whole issue. Rethink everything. Go with number 3.

You will fail. Often. Every time you give in, you will chip away at
your
relationship and model doormat behavior. Every time you manipulate
or
force, you will chip away at your relationship and model bullying.
Every
time you find a solution you both like, you will strengthen your
relationship and model conflict resolution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
(back to me)
In the tcs/ncp discussions that I have read and/or been a part of
the ideal of a completely non-coercive relationship is held out as
just that...an ideal...something that they believe is possible and
strive for. When they fail, they don't beat each other up about it,
they may come to the forum and say...hey here's an area where I
often get stuck (meaning...find myself resorting to coercion)...help
me out...what am I not seeing (something in my past that is getting
in my way, a fresh set of options/alternatives/ideas, something that
could have been done earlier to avoid the situation all together).

While they would disagree with someone using scenarios like the 2
Pam posted (great examples!) to assert that....see coercion in some
cases is both necessary and good/right. I have often seen people
post similar scenarios saying....whew...here's what I
did....couldn't see another way...it was the least bad alternative
in the moment....help me out, what would you have done?? So, while
they do view resorting to coercion as a failure, what that means to
me is that each time you find yourself resorting to coercion, you
are aware of it, and process it...as in, what can I learn from that
and what might I be able to do to avoid it next time. Just because
it is the least bad thing you can come up with to do, doesn't make
it good/optimum. But, just because it is less than optimum, doesn't
make it evil either! Often the suggestions I read are things that
could have been done before the conflict arose...very often in
fact....so I take those kinds of suggestions as admission that the
poster may very well have done the same if things got to the point
where you were....but that the goal (ideal) is not to get there.
Hind sight being 20/20 and all.

I am not posting this to sell anyone on anything. I just felt self
conscious thinking that people on this list might assume that I am
advocating or condoning the kind of thinking and behaving that Pam,
Sandra and others have experienced in the past from tcs-ers. I'm
not. I think that sucked. And, while I have read some posts to the
tcs list that were in a similar vein, during my time reading in tcs
circles those have been few and far between. I just pay attention
to the voices that I find valuable, helpful or thought provoking and
ignore the rest.

Carolyn

[email protected]

-=-Rethink the whole issue. Rethink everything. Go with number 3. -=-



It's impossible for people to read the writings of the radical unschoolers
who are active on this list (and wherever they might've written in the past)
without being steeped in the idea of thinking out of the box, or being mindful
and aware of new solutions and to avoid kneejerk bad mainstream responses.

-=-You will fail. Often. -=-

This is a big difference.

If someone is being advised to make the best choice available to her within
what she knows and can do, then she will succeed. Often. Every time she
makes a better choice, she succeeds.

It's not just kids who do better feeling successful. Success breeds
success, because feeling capable becomes BEING capable. Confidence and experience
build on one another, and when the goal is to become the best one can be
gradually (maybe quickly, but still in graduated steps), I think probably THAT
method creates more success and more happiness than any absolute goal people are
told in advance that they will fail to meet.

-=-Every time you manipulate
or force, you will chip away at your relationship and model bullying. -=-

Radical unschoolers don't advocate or condone manipulation or forcing.
Joyful living and communication are not manipulation. If I'm ecstatically
happy with my husband and will do lots of things just to make him happy, I
think some cynical and negative people might say he had manipulated me by making
me love him. <g> I don't much like cynicism and negativity. When people
have a choice between something negative and something positive, they succeed
when they choose the positive. And the next time they make a choice they can
make an even BETTER choice.

-=-Every time you find a solution you both like, you will strengthen your
relationship and model conflict resolution. -=-

I have never in my life ever seen better advice about relationship building
than the respectful parenting advice given by the radical unschoolers here.
Never in a religious context, never in a family counseling context, never
anywhere.

To me it seems that NCP requires looking at the child through rules-colored
glasses, and by what you've brought as a good example, looking at the child
through "I will fail" colored glasses. I don't see any advantage to that.

-=-When they fail, they don't beat each other up about it,
they may come to the forum and say...hey here's an area where I
often get stuck (meaning...find myself resorting to coercion)...help
me out...what am I not seeing (something in my past that is getting
in my way, a fresh set of options/alternatives/ideas, something that
could have been done earlier to avoid the situation all together).
-=-

If they could state the whole thing in terms or principles rather than one
overriding unreachable RULE, they wouldn't be stuck, and they would be seeing
much more.

-=While they would disagree with someone using scenarios like the 2
Pam posted (great examples!) to assert that....see coercion in some
cases is both necessary and good/right. -=-

I didn't see coercion in either case. Humans are humans many real,
immediate human needs don't fit anyone's template of ideal interactions. Coercion is
a real word and a real concept bigger, older and more real than any
contrived interpretation of it. There's more coercion in trying to get strangers to
agree to a made-up definition of coercion than there was in our getting Holly
into the shuttle bus that day to come home from Dallas. Holly didn't fail.
Pam and and I didn't fail. We did the best thing we could have done under
the circumstances, and Holly was happier sleeping next to us than she was
participating in a crying fit in the lobby of a hotel with people she hasn't seen
since. We didn't model bullying or coercion. We modelled responsibility
and compassion.

-=- I have often seen people
post similar scenarios saying....whew...here's what I
did....couldn't see another way...it was the least bad alternative
in the moment....help me out, what would you have done??-=-

Seeing things in terms of what is the most good alternative is profoundly
better than defining one's life in terms of the least bad. Here's how
different it is: One can be standing out in the middle of a field with the sun
shining. One can turn toward the sun or away from the sun without leaving that
physical spot on the earth. Turning toward good and away from bad is not a
failure. Choosing among bad choices is failure every time, you say?

Turn away from that.

-=Just because
it is the least bad thing you can come up with to do, doesn't make
it good/optimum. But, just because it is less than optimum, doesn't
make it evil either! -=-

It makes it bad.
If less than optimum is always failure, those people are wallowing in
failure.
That can come to no good.

-=Often the suggestions I read are things that
could have been done before the conflict arose...very often in
fact....so I take those kinds of suggestions as admission that the
poster may very well have done the same if things got to the point
where you were....but that the goal (ideal) is not to get there.
=-

Nothing you wrote made me cranky except that last paragraph.
Now I think you should drop the topic and spend many hours reading what
people HAVE advised about how people should live with their children, and how to
handle conflicts, and how to have peaceful homes and safe learning nests.

-=-I am not posting this to sell anyone on anything. I just felt self
conscious thinking that people on this list might assume that ...-==-

So you ARE trying to sell it as a reasonable thing to have advocated or to
have suggested that we study further. You're trying to convince us that it
was reasonable to have suggested that we just didn't understand it very well.

I believe that there are those here who understand it better than you do.

Sandra










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

Sears Family

----- Original Message -----
From: "cordjax" <cordjax@...>
wrote:
> You will fail. Often...... I have often seen people
> post similar scenarios saying....whew...here's what I
> did....couldn't see another way...it was the least bad alternative
> in the moment....help me out, what would you have done??"

I have to say that this approach to parenting is exactly what exhausted me
completely when I was in an NVC frame of mind - I felt like I was constantly
not getting it right, constantly not reaching my goals, with no hope in
sight because real life did not proceed so linearly as to achieve a solution
in real time that satisfied 4 very different opinions.

It was the constant "failing" attitude or beliefs that did not bring more
peace/harmony in my life.

Within minutes of really settling in to looking at my child through his/her
eyes, I can find compassion, empathy, understanding, and most of all, love
for their personhood that was never possible when my number one goal was to
not coerce.

From this list, (as well as from leaving NVC behind as my number one goal,
as well as striving to never operate from any "shoulds" )my number one goal
has become to really understand a child, to really embrace their desires as
pure and perfect and important, to get to know them better, but not to
obsess over whether coersion is involved at every moment in time.

Michele

cordjax

> Nothing you wrote made me cranky except that last paragraph.


okay, well I was really hoping not to make you cranky...but I knew it
was a risk ...glad at least I *almost* succeeded <g>


> Now I think you should drop the topic and spend many hours reading
what
> people HAVE advised about how people should live with their children,
and how to
> handle conflicts, and how to have peaceful homes and safe learning
nests.
>

That's my plan, thanks!

Carolyn

Pam Sorooshian

Way too harsh for my taste. Incredibly guilt-producing. Guaranteed to
be guilt-producing. Parenting is hard enough without thinking that
every single time we say, "You know what, sweetheart, I've explained
what will happen if we don't leave now, we haven't come up with an
alternative that will work, and if we take any more time, right now, to
talk about it, we'll miss the plane, so let's get going," that we're
being bullies.

A parent who has just done a GOOD job - someone who has spoken
respectfully to their children, who has listened to the child's point
of view, who has truly thought about whether or not there are possibly
workable alternatives, and who is making a decision knowing that the
child doesn't have the capacity to fully anticipate the consequences of
doing nothing, now gets told that they've manipulated or forced so
they're chipping away at their relationship and modeling bullying.

This is a FAR cry from bullying and to call it a failure and to equate
it with manipulation and bullying is EXACTLY what turns me off to
NCP/TCS.

That perfectly illustrates the assumption that if mutual agreement
isn't found then it is the adult who always must give in because to
expect the child to give in, EVER, is to "manipulate and bully." Oh -
but the adult never calls it "giving in" because that would make them a
doormat - so they call it deciding not to coerce and, presumably, since
it is the adult decision, it isn't really "giving in."

-pam

On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:23 AM, cordjax wrote:

> You will fail. Often. Every time you give in, you will chip away at
> your
> relationship and model doormat behavior. Every time you manipulate
> or
> force, you will chip away at your relationship and model bullying.
> Every
> time you find a solution you both like, you will strengthen your
> relationship and model conflict resolution.

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/30/2005 11:04:53 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:

-=-Parenting is hard enough without thinking that
every single time we say, "You know what, . . .," that we're
being bullies.-=-


You forgot failures.
Bullies and failures.


-=-That perfectly illustrates the assumption that if mutual agreement
isn't found then it is the adult who always must give in because to
expect the child to give in, EVER, is to "manipulate and bully." Oh -
but the adult never calls it "giving in" because that would make them a
doormat - so they call it deciding not to coerce and, presumably, since
it is the adult decision, it isn't really "giving in."
-=-
OH right!
This reminds me of another objection to their rhetoric.
It's illogical nonsense.

I can't respect people who can't just use English straight out to
communicate with other English speakers. Saying "When I say couch I mean anything
people sit on" is the end of the conversation for me. Let's use real words in
real ways. To do otherwise seems an flashing indicator of lack of
truth/honesty/sense.

Sandra

Sandra







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