[email protected]

Corrected version of " arrogance, logic, theories," with the quote restored
and the section on political correctness completed.



<< Peggy, thanks very much for your clear and soothing words on my arrogance
question.

In a message dated 11/10/02 11:23:53 AM, peggy@... writes:

<< Since it isn't provable at this point beyond personal experience, why
should
the teaching theory that advocates using the carrot and a stick method hold
more weight than the personal experience of individual families who have found
that the carrot and the stick approach distorts and limits the potential of
the human mind to learn? >>

I nearly cried, and this isn't even about "true love" or particular pain.

Perhaps I am influenced by political correctness. Perhaps I am arrogant to
choose a politically correct stance and cling to it with feeling.

Here's my thinking:

I HAVE seen families with shit for brains, and while I feel sorry for my
kids, I wouldn't want my kids to hang around with them, nor to marry them,
nor to work with or for them, nor to live in their neighborhoods. [Some of
those families are my blood relatives, which might be about to cause my
current theory (not belief, not conviction) to bite its own tail.]

Either my kids are genetically superior, and my parenting/homeschooling
beliefs seem right because they're "just that way," or they are not superior
to other children.

If we go with the greatest mythos of the U.S., that all men are created
equal, which is just about the only politically correct thing we can do in
2002 in the U.S. (NZ, Australia, Canada and U.K. can pass or play on this
position as feels right), then...

The only logical or defensible position for me is that my children's behavior
and their abilities (at least in such areas as are considered "scholastic,")
must be directly attributable to the way they were raised.

How unstable or volatile does my position become if I don't fully believe
that?


-=-I believe not taking a stand when one
believes that harm will come from keeping silent is evil.-=-

I do too and have been in trouble more than once in this lifetime, starting
at a young age, for saying "That's not right" to people who were my social
superiors.

-=-A stand that forces others to bend their individual will to
others point of view against their individual experience would have the
potential for great evil. -=-

The only times I've had that power were when I was teaching 12-15 year olds
in a public school, and when I became a parent. I think perhaps my many
years of being in the decision making seat with great evil on one side and
what I saw as my duty on the other have made me arrogant.

SO... mathematicians and programmers here, please: What are our number of
options here? Let me not suggest a model that's as pig-ignorant as "either
evolution or six day creation."

How many combinations of factors are we considering, just in a simple summary
of current options? I'm not a logician and I might have duplicates, and
they're not probably arranged perfectly.

born in sin / innocent

spanking / no spanking

inbred intelligence / empty vessel

attachment parenting / techno parenting by the clock

adversary / partner

breastfeeding or attempted / unconcerned with even trying

daycare / no daycare

preschool / no preschool

school / homeschool

curriculum / no curriculum

teaching / natural learning

rules / principles

more control / less control

I think it's a bad set of criteria because there are some (many?) which will
exclude or prevent others. Maybe that's just the way multiple sets of
criteria go.

===============


<<"I believe and so must you unthinkingly," is different from "I believe this
and I want you to think about it too.">>

I never even did that when I was teaching.
Maybe I haven't been so close to evil as my conscience sometimes thinks I
have.


Sandra

Peggy

Sandra wrote:

--- In AlwaysLearning@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> Corrected version of " arrogance, logic, theories," with the quote

restored
> and the section on political correctness completed.
>
>
>
> << Peggy, thanks very much for your clear and soothing words on my

arrogance
> question.
>
> In a message dated 11/10/02 11:23:53 AM, peggy@l... writes:
>
> << Since it isn't provable at this point beyond personal experience,

why
> should
> the teaching theory that advocates using the carrot and a stick

method hold
> more weight than the personal experience of individual families who

have found
> that the carrot and the stick approach distorts and limits the

potential of
> the human mind to learn? >>
>
> I nearly cried, and this isn't even about "true love" or particular

pain.
>
> Perhaps I am influenced by political correctness. Perhaps I am

arrogant to
> choose a politically correct stance and cling to it with feeling.
>
> Here's my thinking:
>
> I HAVE seen families with shit for brains, and while I feel sorry

for my
> kids, I wouldn't want my kids to hang around with them, nor to marry

them,
> nor to work with or for them, nor to live in their neighborhoods.

[Some of
> those families are my blood relatives, which might be about to cause

my
> current theory (not belief, not conviction) to bite its own tail.]
>
> Either my kids are genetically superior, and my

parenting/homeschooling
> beliefs seem right because they're "just that way," or they are not

superior
> to other children.

Some of this is a bit unclear to me. Do you mean "those" kids, not "my" kids?

In general I don't spend a lot of time worrying if my perceptions of children
being happier or not due to how they are raised is "wrong" or not. Maybe it is
because I went through the foster care system as a child and got to see
"better" or "worse" close up without adult blinders on, so I trust my
perceptions. And yes, I do think "Pride can goeth before a fall" ;) but false
humility is vanity too. Choices always cost something. Could one be wrong?
Maybe all across the board some of one's own assumptions based on one's own
circumstances won't fit every family. Is one wrong to focus on the needs of
the children before the needs of the parents? Unequivocally not. The
overwhelming evidence of current and past research, that not hidden by the
bias to always protect the adult, is that children have needs that if not met
at the developmentally appropriate times will be harmed in some way. Is is
painful to admit that one's own parents probably caused a bit of that on one's
own head? Sure it is. Is it painful as a parent to know that mistakes of your
own could also cause permanent damage to one's children? Yes, it is. As
parents should our feelings be protected so we can hide our guilt or
complicity in helping to cause our children pain? I don't think so, but, the
majority of parents do just that for various reasons.


If children's very brains and emotions and sanity are threatened by early
obedience training that uses harsh methods of coercion and humiliation and
physical punishment then why wouldn't children who are NOT subjected to these
stresses NOT do better?

I spent a great deal of time when very young under the care of my 11 year
older sister. Seeing her this summer while she was babysitting two of my
nephews, ages 6 and 7, was very amazing for me. It is one thing to know in
your heart that your needs as a child for respect and kindness were not met,
and a whole other thing to see the same person who was the vehicle for that
behavior treat other children, thirty years later, much as she must have
treated me. To see that, and KNOW that her model for behavior was my mom and
my dad, and to know how little respect or kindness she herself must have
received in her turn. It is because I can see working models like this of poor
parenting go on and on through the generations that I have no doubt that
working to stop the cycles are so important. Is that arrogant? For me to think
I know better than the family of my birth? If it is, I am all for it because
SOMEONE HAS TO STOP THIS INSANITY and this terrible waste of human potential.

Sorry, this is a bit of a ramble and I didn't even get to your other points...

Peggy

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/10/02 9:53:26 PM, peggy@... writes:

<< Some of this is a bit unclear to me. Do you mean "those" kids, not "my"
kids? >>

No.

Wait.

My prime example (in my head) for this is Diet Coke commercials. If, in a
Diet Coke commercial, they have a model diving into a pool, she's 5'10" and
weighs 115 lbs, and then they show a can of Diet Coke, there is an
implication. The woman might be the sort of happy freak who can eat pizza
daily and never gain weight.

If I show my particular children, and say "I'm unschooling, and look at these
products," I might be as much as liar as Diet Coke's advertising team.

What is the possibility that my children are just smart because I'm smart?
That Holly likes words because *I* like words? That if I had died at her
birth and she had been adopted by hang-sailing gardeners who didn't own
dictionaries, that she would have still liked the histories and spellings and
sounds and subtleties of words?

-=-If children's very brains and emotions and sanity are threatened by early
obedience training that uses harsh methods of coercion and humiliation and
physical punishment then why wouldn't children who are NOT subjected to these
stresses NOT do better?
-=-

Perhaps that coke model was never humiliated or beaten, never bulemic, never
over-ate out of sorrow or fear. THEN is she an honest example of the
potential power of Diet Coke?

-=-It is because I can see working models like this of poor
parenting go on and on through the generations that I have no doubt that
working to stop the cycles are so important. Is that arrogant? For me to think
I know better than the family of my birth? If it is, I am all for it because
SOMEONE HAS TO STOP THIS INSANITY and this terrible waste of human
potential.-=-

When I was 19 and 20 I saw my mother spank my new brother in his crib, for
crying when he was wet or hungry. A couple of years ago I was talking with
my dad's second brother, Rex, in Minnesota. He and his first wife were
living with my dad and mom in a TINY tiny trailer when I was born. The men
were working on a power plant in South Carolina. I had always known that,
but Uncle Rex had never said a word to me about it that wasn't smiley and
cute and "I remember when you were This Little!"

We were talking about parenting, and he was seeing my children all around him
(they were 8, 11 and 13, more or less). He looked at me in a direct and
adult way and said with some import (not his normal chit chatty voice or
face) that when I was born, my mom seemed to have no idea how to take care of
me. She seemed totally helpless and overwhelmed. And he looked at me some
more. I didn't ask questions.

He's still alive, but not in great health. I wonder if I should call and ask
more.


-=-Sorry, this is a bit of a ramble and I didn't even get to your other
points...-=-

Some good stuff comes out of rambling. First-hand knowledge of foster care
is valuable.

Sandra

Betsy

**Some good stuff comes out of rambling. **


Yeah! I want to jump on the "rambling is good" bandwagon.

Sometimes when we edit our thoughts as we revise our writing we run the
words through the filters of acceptability and normalcy. And that ain't
no way to rock the foundations of the world. We have to be able to say
the unconventional and to do the wacky to have freedom and power in this
world. Especially to have the power to change things.

Betsy, known for thinking w. the wacky side of her brain

Peggy

From: SandraDodd@...

> In a message dated 11/10/02 9:53:26 PM, peggy@... writes:
>
> << Some of this is a bit unclear to me. Do you mean "those" kids, not "my"
> kids? >>
>
> No.
>
> Wait.
>
> My prime example (in my head) for this is Diet Coke commercials. If, in a
> Diet Coke commercial, they have a model diving into a pool, she's 5'10" and
> weighs 115 lbs, and then they show a can of Diet Coke, there is an
> implication. The woman might be the sort of happy freak who can eat pizza
> daily and never gain weight.
>
> If I show my particular children, and say "I'm unschooling, and look at these
> products," I might be as much as liar as Diet Coke's advertising team.
>
> What is the possibility that my children are just smart because I'm smart?
> That Holly likes words because *I* like words? That if I had died at her
> birth and she had been adopted by hang-sailing gardeners who didn't own
> dictionaries, that she would have still liked the histories and spellings and
> sounds and subtleties of words?

From all the research available, probably chances are pretty good Holly would
like some of those things, all on her own.

>
> -=-If children's very brains and emotions and sanity are threatened by early
> obedience training that uses harsh methods of coercion and humiliation and
> physical punishment then why wouldn't children who are NOT subjected to these
> stresses NOT do better?
> -=-
>
> Perhaps that coke model was never humiliated or beaten, never bulemic, never
> over-ate out of sorrow or fear. THEN is she an honest example of the
> potential power of Diet Coke?

No, genetics. ;)

And really, the model I was thinking of was the breastfed/not breastfed as
breastfed being normal, not better, and those who do not get human milk having
some nutritional deficiencies.

So, why wouldn't babies who get the closeness, food, emotional comfort and
lack of stress (beatings, harshness, alienation from harsh or detached methods
of early baby care) that are best for human babies, develop to their optimal
potential? Why would babies who didn't get this, if this is what it takes and
increasing scientific research is supporting this, be optimal?

Part of me, a premature baby who spent the first two months of her life in the
hospital allergic to every food they gave, wants to scream NOOOOOOOO I am OK,
I am the BEST I can be, I did get what I needed to develop optimally. But
chances are I probably didn't.


> When I was 19 and 20 I saw my mother spank my new brother in his crib, for
> crying when he was wet or hungry. A couple of years ago I was talking with
> my dad's second brother, Rex, in Minnesota. He and his first wife were
> living with my dad and mom in a TINY tiny trailer when I was born. The men
> were working on a power plant in South Carolina. I had always known that,
> but Uncle Rex had never said a word to me about it that wasn't smiley and
> cute and "I remember when you were This Little!"
>
> We were talking about parenting, and he was seeing my children all around him
> (they were 8, 11 and 13, more or less). He looked at me in a direct and
> adult way and said with some import (not his normal chit chatty voice or
> face) that when I was born, my mom seemed to have no idea how to take care of
> me. She seemed totally helpless and overwhelmed. And he looked at me some
> more. I didn't ask questions.

I think that as people get older these sorts of things weigh on their minds
and they feel a need to share things that have bothered them for years. The
blinders come off and they don't have the energy to keep putting them up
again.

It's hard to fathom isn't it? I have a sister. I never stop searching for what
happened to her. I know it did; she is the smoking gun. I know my parents were
responsible for it. She's done terrible, awful things to the rest of us. But,
I know that somehow she was born innocent and became a poison container for
someone else's pain so young that she was maimed for life. Maybe I feel
survivor's guilt? Why did it happen to her? It is still, even with all that I
know now, easier to blame her than it is to blame my dead parents. That's how
deeply we idealize those who hold our very lives in their hands.

>
> He's still alive, but not in great health. I wonder if I should call and ask
> more.

I would, but I just like knowing as much as I can.

> Some good stuff comes out of rambling. First-hand knowledge of foster care
> is valuable.
>
> Sandra

Thanks,

Peggy

Julie W

Sandra said:
> What is the possibility that my children are just smart because I'm smart?
> That Holly likes words because *I* like words? That if I had died at her
> birth and she had been adopted by hang-sailing gardeners who didn't own
> dictionaries, that she would have still liked the histories and spellings
and
> sounds and subtleties of words?

I don't think there is a definitive answer to this because it is always
unethical to experiment. But I think environment plays a part. My
reasoning:

I discovered the home education alternative after I had dutifully sent two
of my children off to school. I suspect if I had left Emma there any love
of words she had trained or inherited) would have been killed. Every child
is born as a different person but I have come to believe letting them become
that person requires the a particular environment and for most school is not
it.

Julie W
Wellington
New Zealand

Betsy

> What is the possibility that my children are just smart because I'm smart?
> That Holly likes words because *I* like words? That if I had died at her
> birth and she had been adopted by hang-sailing gardeners who didn't own
> dictionaries, that she would have still liked the histories and spellings and
> sounds and subtleties of words?


As a generalization, I believe heredity is pretty important. I don't
believe that every parent who applied your methods to their kids would
necessarily get the same outcome. While I think that your mothering has
helped your children be wonderful, I also suspect that they have some
inherent wonderfulness in them. I'm theorizing that you might have had
better raw material, through luck of the draw plus parental genetic
contribution than some other mom who's kid is bull-headed or rockets
around the house like a squirrel.

But I truly am *guessing* with little real data. As the mom who's lived
every minute with your kids, *you're the one* that has the insight. I
don't know your kids, except for meeting Holly briefly at the
conference. So, just from interactions in this forum, I can't really
know if as toddlers they were bouncing off the walls and swinging from
the chandeliers <g> but have since been grown wise and been tamed
through lovingkindness.

In real life I've met some very thoughtful attachment parenting moms
through LLL whose kids were a lot more challenging than mine, and I
don't attribute it to the mom's parenting style. But I've been keeping
a narrow social circle of mostly this type of mom. I keep my distance
from extremely conventional moms and choose not to know any drunken
moms. (OK, I do stay home a *lot*.) So this helps me give the moms
credit and believe that most of the moms that I know are doing a fine
job with their kids.

Bottom line from my life is -- yes my son is sweet and agreeable because
he lives a life full of sweetness and knows that I am on his side. But
my husband is sweet and agreeable and accomodating and was raised in a
strict, conventional 1950s family with a perfectionist mother. So I've
gotta figure that there's a personality trait that my husband had, that
his father reportedly had that my son is blessed with. I don't believe
I can take all the credit for the fact that my son is outstandingly
reasonable at the age of 8. For goodness sake, he's far more reasonable
than I am. How could it be my doing?

Betsy

Betsy

<< I don't believe
I can take all the credit for the fact that my son is outstandingly
reasonable at the age of 8. For goodness sake, he's far more reasonable
than I am. How could it be my doing? >>

>>At least school isn't frustrating his reason.<<

Oh, yeah. School's got to be a big producer of unreasonable people.

Betsy