[AlwaysLearning] Television
Nanci Kuykendall
This issues is a bit different if your child has
special needs. My older son, Thomas, is extremely
sensative and lacks a lot of filtering ability that
most people have. He is definately what would be
described as a "special needs" kid and takes special
consideration. More and more kids now are being born
with "special needs" similar to our son. Why is that?
Chemicals in our food and environment? Other
environmental changes? Some sort of evolutionary
spin? All of those? Who knows..the point is that
when some families say that they "HAD" to cut out tv
or certain programming, you can't judge them all by
the same standard. Not all kids are the same. This
is what happened with Thomas.
When he was younger (3-4-5) we had to "ban" certain
movies/shows at home, not by choice, but out of
necessity. It was a mutual ban, where we talked with
him about how his behavior was being affected and how
maybe he should wait a while before trying those
programs again and he agreed. We could afford cable
at that time and tv watching was really profoundly
affecting all our lives in a negative way. We didn't
limit their choices at all, and the results for us
were scary. Our younger child has always been of a
patient and gentle disposition and doesn't have the
special needs of his brother, so filtering and
behaviors never became an issue for him personally.
His brother's behavior affected all of us, however,
him most of all.
What shows? Well Disney's 101 Dalmations was one of
them. The most colorful and impressive character on
that show is of course Cruella. Our son was emulating
her behavior, slapping his little brother full across
the face, calling him or us "You Idiot!" and
"Imbiciles!" and emulating other of her behaviors.
There were also shows which gave him horrible
nightmares, which he is prone to, and were causing
sleepless nights and a lot of stress for all of us.
There were other shows in which the main problems were
violent or uncontrolled behaviors emulated. These
were not one time "experimentation" things. We tried
talking with him about the behaviors. Without fail,
each time he viewed the shows, there would come the
behaviors afterwards.
He still does this today, emulating what he sees in
games, in videos, or hears in stories, running to
invent a game based on things he's just been exposed
to. I know that's normal for kids, and now he does it
in a more normally selective way and is better able to
understand what is socially acceptable behavior and
what is "bad guy" stuff, although we still sometimes
have to talk to him about that.
Current examples of ongoing problems from tv: It's
NOT ok to spit on people when you are really angry
with them, even if the hero does it to the bad guy in
a movie (particularly when you are talking about
someone with an explosive temperment who is mad a
lot)... It's NOT ok to punch/kick/bite/head butt/etc.
others because they are saying something you don't
like, which is not just about teasing but also when he
doesn't get his way or we're not doing what he
wants....Dropping your pants in public, or in other
ways exposing yourself at home, is not funny, even if
it seems really funny in a movie (this is from a
somewhat nudist family where we believe skin is
healthy, and the boys still bathe together, and we
don't hide in shame when we're dressing and we let
them run around naked in our private forested home in
the summertime or swim in their little pool naked -
but I'm talking about imappropriately being nasty - so
much so that he is currently not allowed to go without
pants at home because when the pants go, his humanity
seems to go also....Cussing people out and calling
names (he's picked up some doozies from tv) is not
cool, funny, or acceptable at home or elsewhere - this
from a family that doesn't believe in "bad words" and
has no problem with the kids cussing at home and
playing with words, but I am talking about being
hateful and hurtful to people, like when you tell your
kid there is no more ice cream and he screams that you
are a stupid fucking pig bitch, well, that's a
problem....
These days he will ask us for help in making decisions
about movies to watch. He will ask us "Is this too
scary for me?" or "IS this ok for kids?" Which is
his way of asking if it's ok for HIM in particular.
Lot's of gore (ie: Gladiator, Braveheart, etc) or lots
of terror/tragedy he cannot handle. The oddest things
give him horrible nightmares (like the Wizard of Oz,
or Sleeping Beauty, which he still will not watch) and
then incongruous things never seem to bother him at
all or cause any behavior problems (like Conan, The
Mummy, Air Force One.) He will stop us partway into a
movie he has not seen before and say "I don't like
this" or "It's scaring me" and turn it off. He will
sometimes stop us partway through movies he HAS seen
before and say the same things, as though he is at a
developmental stage where it bothers him now, where
before it didn't. He may watch a movie all the way
through and then not ask for it again for years, which
is another indication that he was not ready for it.
Anyway my point is that not all kids are exactly
alike. Some are more impressionable, or less able to
decipher the complex social clues in movies to
understand what is satire or what is not ok in real
life. Some adults are like that too, for that matter.
It's not a matter of intelligence levels, but of
intelligence types and different ways of absorbing
information. It's especially important for people
like that to have early practice deciphering those
clues and understanding socially acceptable behaviors
because it's not as natural for them to understand and
they NEED more practice. But it's also important not
to drown them with stimuli (which is not hard to do
when they lack filtering tools and self control) while
they are trying to learn these things.
Nanci K.
special needs. My older son, Thomas, is extremely
sensative and lacks a lot of filtering ability that
most people have. He is definately what would be
described as a "special needs" kid and takes special
consideration. More and more kids now are being born
with "special needs" similar to our son. Why is that?
Chemicals in our food and environment? Other
environmental changes? Some sort of evolutionary
spin? All of those? Who knows..the point is that
when some families say that they "HAD" to cut out tv
or certain programming, you can't judge them all by
the same standard. Not all kids are the same. This
is what happened with Thomas.
When he was younger (3-4-5) we had to "ban" certain
movies/shows at home, not by choice, but out of
necessity. It was a mutual ban, where we talked with
him about how his behavior was being affected and how
maybe he should wait a while before trying those
programs again and he agreed. We could afford cable
at that time and tv watching was really profoundly
affecting all our lives in a negative way. We didn't
limit their choices at all, and the results for us
were scary. Our younger child has always been of a
patient and gentle disposition and doesn't have the
special needs of his brother, so filtering and
behaviors never became an issue for him personally.
His brother's behavior affected all of us, however,
him most of all.
What shows? Well Disney's 101 Dalmations was one of
them. The most colorful and impressive character on
that show is of course Cruella. Our son was emulating
her behavior, slapping his little brother full across
the face, calling him or us "You Idiot!" and
"Imbiciles!" and emulating other of her behaviors.
There were also shows which gave him horrible
nightmares, which he is prone to, and were causing
sleepless nights and a lot of stress for all of us.
There were other shows in which the main problems were
violent or uncontrolled behaviors emulated. These
were not one time "experimentation" things. We tried
talking with him about the behaviors. Without fail,
each time he viewed the shows, there would come the
behaviors afterwards.
He still does this today, emulating what he sees in
games, in videos, or hears in stories, running to
invent a game based on things he's just been exposed
to. I know that's normal for kids, and now he does it
in a more normally selective way and is better able to
understand what is socially acceptable behavior and
what is "bad guy" stuff, although we still sometimes
have to talk to him about that.
Current examples of ongoing problems from tv: It's
NOT ok to spit on people when you are really angry
with them, even if the hero does it to the bad guy in
a movie (particularly when you are talking about
someone with an explosive temperment who is mad a
lot)... It's NOT ok to punch/kick/bite/head butt/etc.
others because they are saying something you don't
like, which is not just about teasing but also when he
doesn't get his way or we're not doing what he
wants....Dropping your pants in public, or in other
ways exposing yourself at home, is not funny, even if
it seems really funny in a movie (this is from a
somewhat nudist family where we believe skin is
healthy, and the boys still bathe together, and we
don't hide in shame when we're dressing and we let
them run around naked in our private forested home in
the summertime or swim in their little pool naked -
but I'm talking about imappropriately being nasty - so
much so that he is currently not allowed to go without
pants at home because when the pants go, his humanity
seems to go also....Cussing people out and calling
names (he's picked up some doozies from tv) is not
cool, funny, or acceptable at home or elsewhere - this
from a family that doesn't believe in "bad words" and
has no problem with the kids cussing at home and
playing with words, but I am talking about being
hateful and hurtful to people, like when you tell your
kid there is no more ice cream and he screams that you
are a stupid fucking pig bitch, well, that's a
problem....
These days he will ask us for help in making decisions
about movies to watch. He will ask us "Is this too
scary for me?" or "IS this ok for kids?" Which is
his way of asking if it's ok for HIM in particular.
Lot's of gore (ie: Gladiator, Braveheart, etc) or lots
of terror/tragedy he cannot handle. The oddest things
give him horrible nightmares (like the Wizard of Oz,
or Sleeping Beauty, which he still will not watch) and
then incongruous things never seem to bother him at
all or cause any behavior problems (like Conan, The
Mummy, Air Force One.) He will stop us partway into a
movie he has not seen before and say "I don't like
this" or "It's scaring me" and turn it off. He will
sometimes stop us partway through movies he HAS seen
before and say the same things, as though he is at a
developmental stage where it bothers him now, where
before it didn't. He may watch a movie all the way
through and then not ask for it again for years, which
is another indication that he was not ready for it.
Anyway my point is that not all kids are exactly
alike. Some are more impressionable, or less able to
decipher the complex social clues in movies to
understand what is satire or what is not ok in real
life. Some adults are like that too, for that matter.
It's not a matter of intelligence levels, but of
intelligence types and different ways of absorbing
information. It's especially important for people
like that to have early practice deciphering those
clues and understanding socially acceptable behaviors
because it's not as natural for them to understand and
they NEED more practice. But it's also important not
to drown them with stimuli (which is not hard to do
when they lack filtering tools and self control) while
they are trying to learn these things.
Nanci K.
Fetteroll
on 10/18/03 2:05 PM, Nanci Kuykendall at aisliin@... wrote:
It's a *good* thing to help kids recognize what effect the world has on them
and gain power over something that's affecting them.
Banning something, eg, taking control away from the child for the child's
own good, does the opposite. It tells the child he isn't as powerful as the
thing so someone must keep it away from him to protect him.
Joyce
> It was a mutual ban, where we talked withIt's not a ban if a child decides not to watch something.
> him about how his behavior was being affected and how
> maybe he should wait a while before trying those
> programs again and he agreed.
It's a *good* thing to help kids recognize what effect the world has on them
and gain power over something that's affecting them.
Banning something, eg, taking control away from the child for the child's
own good, does the opposite. It tells the child he isn't as powerful as the
thing so someone must keep it away from him to protect him.
Joyce
Nanci K.
> It's not a ban if a child decides not to watch something.I can see your point about the specific definition of the word ban,
> Joyce
and perhaps in our case boycott or abstaining would be a better
choice. However I think the original question was about unschoolers
living without tv, not about parents choosing to ban their children
from tv specifically. So we are unschoolers living without
broadcast tv, just our movie collection, and I was more speaking in
terms of how and why that decision was made and how it affects our
lives and all that.
Nanci K.
Fetteroll
on 10/18/03 3:42 PM, Nanci K. at aisliin@... wrote:
something. It gives power to the person rather than the thing.
Yes, you're right about the original question being whether any unschoolers
live without TV.
I'm going to ramble on not to reprimand you but because I'm fascinated by
communication: the idea of transfering ideas from one person's head to
another person's head.
Word choice is important when we're trying to get ideas across to each
other. If one person is using ban to mean an authority figure is preventing
someone from seeing something and another person is using ban to mean
someone choosing not to watch something, it's very difficult to discuss
whether banning is good or not when neither realizes they aren't meaning the
same thing when they say "ban".
There was an infamous heated discussion on the Unschooling.com message
baords that went on for a couple of days where one word was unknowingly
being used with 3 different meanings. Person A would read the arguments
assuming the word was being used as person A meant it and be flabbergasted
that others could believe such things and then Person A would counter argue.
Person B wouldn't realize Person A was using a different meaning to the word
and be flabbergasted that someone was flabbergasted. It wasn't that the
arguments weren't making sense, but they weren't making sense that
unschooling/good parents were advocating the ideas.
For parents stuck with oodles of authoritarian examples, the concept of
helping children get what they want is difficult to understand how to put
into practice with real live children with real live life all around them.
It makes sense to "ban" something that bothers a child. That's what a good
parent would do. If you're using authoritarian images -- ban -- to describe
helping a child gain power over something that bothers him, then you're
reinforcing (in an unschooling context) people's idea that they do need to
take over and be the barrier between their children and the big mean world.
But that doesn't help them help their children. It helps them be barriers.
It's more useful for getting to unschooling goals for parents to become
their children's partner. We can help our kids become aware of what they're
feelings are. We can help them find what's causing the feelings. We can help
them gain control over the causes. None of that has anything to do with us
controling them or the world for them. It's all about helping *them* control
their world.
Joyce
>> It's not a ban if a child decides not to watch something.Probably the most empowering way of phrasing it is "choosing not to watch"
>> Joyce
>
> I can see your point about the specific definition of the word ban,
> and perhaps in our case boycott or abstaining would be a better
> choice.
something. It gives power to the person rather than the thing.
Yes, you're right about the original question being whether any unschoolers
live without TV.
I'm going to ramble on not to reprimand you but because I'm fascinated by
communication: the idea of transfering ideas from one person's head to
another person's head.
Word choice is important when we're trying to get ideas across to each
other. If one person is using ban to mean an authority figure is preventing
someone from seeing something and another person is using ban to mean
someone choosing not to watch something, it's very difficult to discuss
whether banning is good or not when neither realizes they aren't meaning the
same thing when they say "ban".
There was an infamous heated discussion on the Unschooling.com message
baords that went on for a couple of days where one word was unknowingly
being used with 3 different meanings. Person A would read the arguments
assuming the word was being used as person A meant it and be flabbergasted
that others could believe such things and then Person A would counter argue.
Person B wouldn't realize Person A was using a different meaning to the word
and be flabbergasted that someone was flabbergasted. It wasn't that the
arguments weren't making sense, but they weren't making sense that
unschooling/good parents were advocating the ideas.
For parents stuck with oodles of authoritarian examples, the concept of
helping children get what they want is difficult to understand how to put
into practice with real live children with real live life all around them.
It makes sense to "ban" something that bothers a child. That's what a good
parent would do. If you're using authoritarian images -- ban -- to describe
helping a child gain power over something that bothers him, then you're
reinforcing (in an unschooling context) people's idea that they do need to
take over and be the barrier between their children and the big mean world.
But that doesn't help them help their children. It helps them be barriers.
It's more useful for getting to unschooling goals for parents to become
their children's partner. We can help our kids become aware of what they're
feelings are. We can help them find what's causing the feelings. We can help
them gain control over the causes. None of that has anything to do with us
controling them or the world for them. It's all about helping *them* control
their world.
Joyce
Nanci K.
> Word choice is important when we're trying to get ideas across toThe same word can have different meanings in different geographical
>each other.
regions too, regardless of dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
change all the time because language is a living and changing
thing. It's interesting to me when I run across people who
literally NEVER have known the "proper" definition of a word, but
always known it as it was used in their region, or family, or social
group.
> If you're using authoritarian images -- ban -- to describeI was using it more in the context of a "personal ban." We're
> helping a child gain power over something that bothers him, then
>you're reinforcing (in an unschooling context) people's idea that
>they do need to take over and be the barrier between their children
>and the big mean world.
>Joyce
talking shades of nuance here. It would be more appropriate to say,
rather than that I am reinforcing authoritairian ideals, that others
could easily misconstrue my meaning with such a word. We don't
actually use that word at home, or any other word really except
choice. We choose not to watch tv. That's all we ever say, or more
simply, we don't watch tv.
Nanci K.
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/19/2003 1:23:35 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
aisliin@... writes:
-=-The same word can have different meanings in different geographical
regions too, regardless of dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
change all the time because language is a living and changing
thing.-=-
It's living, but it's not nebulous.
"Ban" has a meaning which can't be stretched so far as to include everything
a person doesn't do. A ban is imposed from outside SOMEhow.
Banishment has to do with totally cutting something off or out from a place
or a life.
I've never heard of any regional differences for "ban."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
aisliin@... writes:
-=-The same word can have different meanings in different geographical
regions too, regardless of dictionary definitions. Dictionaries
change all the time because language is a living and changing
thing.-=-
It's living, but it's not nebulous.
"Ban" has a meaning which can't be stretched so far as to include everything
a person doesn't do. A ban is imposed from outside SOMEhow.
Banishment has to do with totally cutting something off or out from a place
or a life.
I've never heard of any regional differences for "ban."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
averyschmidt
> I was using it more in the context of a "personal ban." We'resay,
> talking shades of nuance here. It would be more appropriate to
> rather than that I am reinforcing authoritairian ideals, thatothers
> could easily misconstrue my meaning with such a word. We don'tmore
> actually use that word at home, or any other word really except
> choice. We choose not to watch tv. That's all we ever say, or
> simply, we don't watch tv.Does everyone in your family make their own choice?
Does everyone who chooses not to watch tv, or simply doesn't watch
it, actually have access to one?
To me that would determine whether an authoritarian "ban" was in
place or not.
Patti
Nanci Kuykendall
-=-The same word can have different meanings in
different geographical
regions too, regardless of dictionary definitions.
Dictionaries
change all the time because language is a living and
changing
thing.-=-
it's always interesting to me how difficult it can be
for two people to communicate even in the same
language, and I was commenting on how some words can
have different meanings regionally. I have also
agreed originally, more than once already, that ban
was not really the best word to describe our
situation, and I was not arguing at all with the usage
or definition of it in this conversation. Is it
possible to concede also that just because a person
has not heard of something, doesn't mean that it does
not exist?
Nanci K.
different geographical
regions too, regardless of dictionary definitions.
Dictionaries
change all the time because language is a living and
changing
thing.-=-
>It's living, but it's not nebulous."ban."
>I've never heard of any regional differences >for
>SandraThat isn't what I meant. I was just commenting on how
it's always interesting to me how difficult it can be
for two people to communicate even in the same
language, and I was commenting on how some words can
have different meanings regionally. I have also
agreed originally, more than once already, that ban
was not really the best word to describe our
situation, and I was not arguing at all with the usage
or definition of it in this conversation. Is it
possible to concede also that just because a person
has not heard of something, doesn't mean that it does
not exist?
Nanci K.
Nanci Kuykendall
>Does everyone in your family make their own choice?"ban" was in place or not.
>Does everyone who chooses not to watch tv, or simply
>doesn't watch it, actually have access to one?
>To me that would determine whether an >authoritarian
>PattiWe have a tv, but we do not have broadcast television,
so the choice not to watch broadcast tv was a long
term one not a daily one. On a daily basis, I usually
do not choose to watch any tv, nor my husband, unless
the kids really want us to watch something with them.
They watch or not as they choose. Hubby and I
sometimes watch a tape or DVD, but not often. Usually
it's the kids who are masters of the tv.
Nanci K.
aicitticia
I often have this problem (maybe it is self-perceived) I doubt it. I
am by nature more of an artist by medium other then the written
word. I feel that I cannot EVER articulate my thoughts or meaning
with these damned words! I am frustrated by writing. I kept a
journal as a child then began to draw as an early teen as I could
never use words as I could use clay, paint, etc. So as a parent I
tend to throw paper and pencil so readily to my children to express
themselves. Let us see what the future brings....
Anyhow...just tonight we had a conversation on hair. I have always
thought kinky hair was hair without reason or organization to the
curl. He thought kinky was VERY concentrical curls???? We haven't
looked it up yet, but...okay I just looked it up and here it is:
Tightly twisted or curled: kinky hair.
Slang. Showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant tastes, especially
of a sexual or erotic nature: "his appetite for kinky filmmaking,
unmitigated by any artistry" (John Simon).
So who is right? LOL.
Ticia
(whose dh--"computer man"-- is from Liberia and we constantly argue
the *meaning* of words)
--- In [email protected], Nanci Kuykendall
<aisliin@y...> wrote:
am by nature more of an artist by medium other then the written
word. I feel that I cannot EVER articulate my thoughts or meaning
with these damned words! I am frustrated by writing. I kept a
journal as a child then began to draw as an early teen as I could
never use words as I could use clay, paint, etc. So as a parent I
tend to throw paper and pencil so readily to my children to express
themselves. Let us see what the future brings....
Anyhow...just tonight we had a conversation on hair. I have always
thought kinky hair was hair without reason or organization to the
curl. He thought kinky was VERY concentrical curls???? We haven't
looked it up yet, but...okay I just looked it up and here it is:
Tightly twisted or curled: kinky hair.
Slang. Showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant tastes, especially
of a sexual or erotic nature: "his appetite for kinky filmmaking,
unmitigated by any artistry" (John Simon).
So who is right? LOL.
Ticia
(whose dh--"computer man"-- is from Liberia and we constantly argue
the *meaning* of words)
--- In [email protected], Nanci Kuykendall
<aisliin@y...> wrote:
> -=-The same word can have different meanings in
> different geographical
> regions too, regardless of dictionary definitions.
> Dictionaries
> change all the time because language is a living and
> changing
> thing.-=-
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/16/2005 12:13:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
I'm writing this so that people (maybe lurkers, like me) who may be
undecided about how much TV is good for their children can read another
point of view on the subject than the one most often presented on this
list.<<<<
And I'm just going to sit back and enjoy these fireworks! <G>
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
I'm writing this so that people (maybe lurkers, like me) who may be
undecided about how much TV is good for their children can read another
point of view on the subject than the one most often presented on this
list.<<<<
And I'm just going to sit back and enjoy these fireworks! <G>
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
> I'm writing this so that people (maybe lurkers, like me) who may beI'm chuckling at the idea that anybody who is reading THIS list would
> undecided about how much TV is good for their children can read
> another
> point of view on the subject than the one most often presented on this
> list.<<<<
not already have been able to have made those two lists all by
ourselves. Haven't we all HEARD all those things said - in almost every
conventional parenting book or article we've ever read?
We had Jane Healey at the Homeschool Association of California
Conference a few years ago. She writes a lot of negative stuff about tv
and children. But she freely admitted that she'd never even MET an
unschooled kid before being at our conference and she was blown away by
the ones she met at the there. NONE of the studies she cited or the
examples she gave seemed pertinent to unschoolers.
There is a HUGE difference between tv-watching in households where the
children go to school, stay for day care after school, and then get
home and have homework to do versus the tv-watching of unschooled kids
whose parents are involved and attentive and interacting with them for
many hours throughout the day. There is an even bigger difference
between unschooled kids and those whose families do not highly value
learning and don't have homes that are rich with opportunities for all
kinds of experiences and exposure, including a wide variety of
interesting and lovely and enticing print materials.
Jane Healey didn't know or understand how unschooling families live. A
lot of what she was there promoting was like the very beginning inkling
of what unschooling families do in a full-time in-depth way. She was
trying to convince us that our kids could learn from play and that
sometimes allowing them or helping them to follow up on one of their
little interests would lead to some good development of skills or
knowledge -- she just hadn't take her OWN ideas far enough along to
realize that our entire LIVES could be based on the same premise. And
so her anti-tv stance was completely unconvincing - scientific studies
notwithstanding - they really were not relevant and implied nothing
useful to unschooling families.
My kids and I all carry books along with us to Disneyland, to read
during waits in line or if we get tired and want a break. I was reading
the 5th Harry Potter book the other day, while the kids were in a show,
and Cruella DeVille (the character) came over and made fun of me,
reading.
We were on the Alice in Wonderland ride and it broke down and we were
stuck there for a long time. I'd not brought a book, but my kids had
theirs. Lucky kids.
My tv-loving (Nick-at-Night watching) 13 year old was at a soccer event
yesterday. During a dull moment, she pulled out her book and was
reading (Lord of the Rings). One of the other soccer players said
(exact quote): "I suppose you LIKE reading. That is so lame. You
probably don't even watch tv, either."
-pam
MomtoLJ
I can so see your children in these situations.
What's further, I was just remembering your other tv post...
Joylyn
pam sorooshian wrote:
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What's further, I was just remembering your other tv post...
Joylyn
pam sorooshian wrote:
>----------
> > I'm writing this so that people (maybe lurkers, like me) who may be
> > undecided about how much TV is good for their children can read
> > another
> > point of view on the subject than the one most often presented on this
> > list.<<<<
>
> I'm chuckling at the idea that anybody who is reading THIS list would
> not already have been able to have made those two lists all by
> ourselves. Haven't we all HEARD all those things said - in almost every
> conventional parenting book or article we've ever read?
>
> We had Jane Healey at the Homeschool Association of California
> Conference a few years ago. She writes a lot of negative stuff about tv
> and children. But she freely admitted that she'd never even MET an
> unschooled kid before being at our conference and she was blown away by
> the ones she met at the there. NONE of the studies she cited or the
> examples she gave seemed pertinent to unschoolers.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between tv-watching in households where the
> children go to school, stay for day care after school, and then get
> home and have homework to do versus the tv-watching of unschooled kids
> whose parents are involved and attentive and interacting with them for
> many hours throughout the day. There is an even bigger difference
> between unschooled kids and those whose families do not highly value
> learning and don't have homes that are rich with opportunities for all
> kinds of experiences and exposure, including a wide variety of
> interesting and lovely and enticing print materials.
>
> Jane Healey didn't know or understand how unschooling families live. A
> lot of what she was there promoting was like the very beginning inkling
> of what unschooling families do in a full-time in-depth way. She was
> trying to convince us that our kids could learn from play and that
> sometimes allowing them or helping them to follow up on one of their
> little interests would lead to some good development of skills or
> knowledge -- she just hadn't take her OWN ideas far enough along to
> realize that our entire LIVES could be based on the same premise. And
> so her anti-tv stance was completely unconvincing - scientific studies
> notwithstanding - they really were not relevant and implied nothing
> useful to unschooling families.
>
> My kids and I all carry books along with us to Disneyland, to read
> during waits in line or if we get tired and want a break. I was reading
> the 5th Harry Potter book the other day, while the kids were in a show,
> and Cruella DeVille (the character) came over and made fun of me,
> reading.
>
> We were on the Alice in Wonderland ride and it broke down and we were
> stuck there for a long time. I'd not brought a book, but my kids had
> theirs. Lucky kids.
>
> My tv-loving (Nick-at-Night watching) 13 year old was at a soccer event
> yesterday. During a dull moment, she pulled out her book and was
> reading (Lord of the Rings). One of the other soccer players said
> (exact quote): "I suppose you LIKE reading. That is so lame. You
> probably don't even watch tv, either."
>
> -pam
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
>
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:40:44 PM Central Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
My kids and I all carry books along with us to Disneyland, to read
during waits in line or if we get tired and want a break. I was reading
the 5th Harry Potter book the other day, while the kids were in a show,
and Cruella DeVille (the character) came over and made fun of me,
reading.
We were on the Alice in Wonderland ride and it broke down and we were
stuck there for a long time. I'd not brought a book, but my kids had
theirs. Lucky kids.
My tv-loving (Nick-at-Night watching) 13 year old was at a soccer event
yesterday. During a dull moment, she pulled out her book and was
reading (Lord of the Rings). One of the other soccer players said
(exact quote): "I suppose you LIKE reading. That is so lame. You
probably don't even watch tv, either."
~~~
These just made me laugh and laugh and laugh!
I just can't imagine bringing a book to Disneyland! But then, I don't live
an hour away from it.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
My kids and I all carry books along with us to Disneyland, to read
during waits in line or if we get tired and want a break. I was reading
the 5th Harry Potter book the other day, while the kids were in a show,
and Cruella DeVille (the character) came over and made fun of me,
reading.
We were on the Alice in Wonderland ride and it broke down and we were
stuck there for a long time. I'd not brought a book, but my kids had
theirs. Lucky kids.
My tv-loving (Nick-at-Night watching) 13 year old was at a soccer event
yesterday. During a dull moment, she pulled out her book and was
reading (Lord of the Rings). One of the other soccer players said
(exact quote): "I suppose you LIKE reading. That is so lame. You
probably don't even watch tv, either."
~~~
These just made me laugh and laugh and laugh!
I just can't imagine bringing a book to Disneyland! But then, I don't live
an hour away from it.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elizabeth Hill
**
During a dull moment, she pulled out her book and was
reading (Lord of the Rings). One of the other soccer players said
(exact quote): "I suppose you LIKE reading. That is so lame. You
probably don't even watch tv, either." **
That fits with what I've been thinking that it is badly-timed reading instructions in schools that makes reading repellant to many kids, and has the side effect of making TV look more appealing than reading to them. In the absence of unpleasant "reading education" the whole picture is different.
Betsy
During a dull moment, she pulled out her book and was
reading (Lord of the Rings). One of the other soccer players said
(exact quote): "I suppose you LIKE reading. That is so lame. You
probably don't even watch tv, either." **
That fits with what I've been thinking that it is badly-timed reading instructions in schools that makes reading repellant to many kids, and has the side effect of making TV look more appealing than reading to them. In the absence of unpleasant "reading education" the whole picture is different.
Betsy
Amanda Horein
My BIL is here today and asked me if I happened to know what the first
television show broadcast was. So, I started looking and found some cool
links that I thought I would share.
This is the Museum of Broadcast Television and there is a link on the
homepage to a VERY extensive encyclopedia of televison.
http://www.museum.tv/
And the wikipedia article on the history of television is quite informative
as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
From what I can tell from the short time I spent reading (about 1/2 hour)
the first broadcast was made in 1936 from New York to London and was just
stationary images. Then, "Television broadcasting, tentatively begun prior
to the American entry to World War II in 1941, was suspended for the
duration of the war, and did not resume until the first wave of station
activations in 1946 through 1948. " From what I can tell "Howdy Doody" was
the first broadcast televison show (aside from things like political
figures, the opening to the 1939 New York State Fair and sports programs) in
1947. "The Ed Sullivan Show" was not far behind in 1948.
Here is a timeline too.
http://www.high-techproductions.com/historyoftelevision.htm
--
Amanda
Wife to Roger (together 10 years)
Mum to Marti (7.5) and Lilly (4)
Babysitter to Stella (3.5)
http://whatmykidstaughtme.blogspot.com/
"What you give to your children enriches them. What you withhold from them
impoverishes them."
My love to Uncle Jesse's family. Know that I love and miss him.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
television show broadcast was. So, I started looking and found some cool
links that I thought I would share.
This is the Museum of Broadcast Television and there is a link on the
homepage to a VERY extensive encyclopedia of televison.
http://www.museum.tv/
And the wikipedia article on the history of television is quite informative
as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television
From what I can tell from the short time I spent reading (about 1/2 hour)
the first broadcast was made in 1936 from New York to London and was just
stationary images. Then, "Television broadcasting, tentatively begun prior
to the American entry to World War II in 1941, was suspended for the
duration of the war, and did not resume until the first wave of station
activations in 1946 through 1948. " From what I can tell "Howdy Doody" was
the first broadcast televison show (aside from things like political
figures, the opening to the 1939 New York State Fair and sports programs) in
1947. "The Ed Sullivan Show" was not far behind in 1948.
Here is a timeline too.
http://www.high-techproductions.com/historyoftelevision.htm
--
Amanda
Wife to Roger (together 10 years)
Mum to Marti (7.5) and Lilly (4)
Babysitter to Stella (3.5)
http://whatmykidstaughtme.blogspot.com/
"What you give to your children enriches them. What you withhold from them
impoverishes them."
My love to Uncle Jesse's family. Know that I love and miss him.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Amanda, thanks for the TV history links! I've added them here:
http://sandradodd.com/t/history
It's good to remind our kids that things they use and know about are
part of history as sure as anything. If you have a kid with a new
laptop, they probably know how much smaller and lighter and more
powerful that computer is than a laptop of five or ten years ago.
Polaroid pictures are no more. They're not making the film anymore
for Polaroid cameras. So if you have Polaroid pictures at your house
for any reason, even one of them, note that it's now obsolete
technology.
TV technology is changing bigtime this season. Already there are
TVs in some of our homes that can't have computer games hooked up to
them, and VCR players are hard to find.
My husband tried to buy a simple CD-playing boombox. We finally
found some at Sears, but mostly he was finding iPod ports, not CD
players.
Your kids probably already know all this. I'm reminding the parents.
When I was a little kid in the '50's, I was unaware of how very new
TV was. I can sing the Howdy Doody themesong, though, and I remember
well seeing that show and Romper Room on a black and white TV with a
rounded screen, and doors closed over the screen, and it took a while
for the TV to warm up. You couldn't turn it on and see the picture
in one second. Tubes had to warm up.
Sandra
http://sandradodd.com/t/history
It's good to remind our kids that things they use and know about are
part of history as sure as anything. If you have a kid with a new
laptop, they probably know how much smaller and lighter and more
powerful that computer is than a laptop of five or ten years ago.
Polaroid pictures are no more. They're not making the film anymore
for Polaroid cameras. So if you have Polaroid pictures at your house
for any reason, even one of them, note that it's now obsolete
technology.
TV technology is changing bigtime this season. Already there are
TVs in some of our homes that can't have computer games hooked up to
them, and VCR players are hard to find.
My husband tried to buy a simple CD-playing boombox. We finally
found some at Sears, but mostly he was finding iPod ports, not CD
players.
Your kids probably already know all this. I'm reminding the parents.
When I was a little kid in the '50's, I was unaware of how very new
TV was. I can sing the Howdy Doody themesong, though, and I remember
well seeing that show and Romper Room on a black and white TV with a
rounded screen, and doors closed over the screen, and it took a while
for the TV to warm up. You couldn't turn it on and see the picture
in one second. Tubes had to warm up.
Sandra
michmdmama
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
become a better unschooler!" LOL!
Amanda
>Cool! I got on your website for something other than asking "How can I
> Amanda, thanks for the TV history links! I've added them here:
> http://sandradodd.com/t/history
become a better unschooler!" LOL!
Amanda
Sandra Dodd
-=-> Amanda, thanks for the TV history links! I've added them here:
become a better unschooler!" LOL!-=-
Not at that TV page you didn't!
(Maybe you mean that you first ever found my site for some topic
other than unschooling, but reading about the history of TV can't
help but make you a better unschooler. <bwg>)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> http://sandradodd.com/t/historyCool! I got on your website for something other than asking "How can I
become a better unschooler!" LOL!-=-
Not at that TV page you didn't!
(Maybe you mean that you first ever found my site for some topic
other than unschooling, but reading about the history of TV can't
help but make you a better unschooler. <bwg>)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Feb 17, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
clown - had some nightmares about them both, even years later. But,
still watched them almost every Saturday morning until it went of the
air when I was 8 years old.
I just got a $1 DVD with four episodes of Howdy Doody on it - we
haven't watched it yet, but the kids have heard lots of references to
it and I knew they'd be interested. One reference my musical theater
kids are very familiar with is in Little Shop of Horrors song,
Somewhere that's Green, when they sing, "The kids watch Howdy Doody
while the sun sets in the west" and I told them that seemed a funny
thing to say since Howdy Doody was a Saturday MORNING show. But they
said the song says "The kids PLAY Howdy Doody." The kids thought it
was a game or something, I suppose. So - okay, I guess it can just
mean the kids played a pretend game based on the show.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When I was a little kid in the '50's, I was unaware of how very newI was a little afraid of Howdy Doody and of Clarabelle (sp?), the
> TV was. I can sing the Howdy Doody themesong, though, and I remember
> well seeing that show and Romper Room on a black and white TV with a
> rounded screen, and doors closed over the screen, and it took a while
> for the TV to warm up. You couldn't turn it on and see the picture
> in one second. Tubes had to warm up.
clown - had some nightmares about them both, even years later. But,
still watched them almost every Saturday morning until it went of the
air when I was 8 years old.
I just got a $1 DVD with four episodes of Howdy Doody on it - we
haven't watched it yet, but the kids have heard lots of references to
it and I knew they'd be interested. One reference my musical theater
kids are very familiar with is in Little Shop of Horrors song,
Somewhere that's Green, when they sing, "The kids watch Howdy Doody
while the sun sets in the west" and I told them that seemed a funny
thing to say since Howdy Doody was a Saturday MORNING show. But they
said the song says "The kids PLAY Howdy Doody." The kids thought it
was a game or something, I suppose. So - okay, I guess it can just
mean the kids played a pretend game based on the show.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:
version says, "The kids PLAY Howdy Doody while the sun sets in the
west," (and you see the kids playing, not watching), but the original
version said, "The kids WATCH Howdy Doody while the sun sets in the
west." So some other Saturday morning tv-watcher - someone else as old
as I am - must have thought that seemed wrong, too.
-Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> One reference my musical theaterAh - I just checked with Rosie about this and she says that the movie
> kids are very familiar with is in Little Shop of Horrors song,
> Somewhere that's Green, when they sing, "The kids watch Howdy Doody
> while the sun sets in the west" and I told them that seemed a funny
> thing to say since Howdy Doody was a Saturday MORNING show. But they
> said the song says "The kids PLAY Howdy Doody." The kids thought it
> was a game or something, I suppose. So - okay, I guess it can just
> mean the kids played a pretend game based on the show.
version says, "The kids PLAY Howdy Doody while the sun sets in the
west," (and you see the kids playing, not watching), but the original
version said, "The kids WATCH Howdy Doody while the sun sets in the
west." So some other Saturday morning tv-watcher - someone else as old
as I am - must have thought that seemed wrong, too.
-Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
**When I was a little kid in the '50's, I was unaware of how very new
TV was. I can sing the Howdy Doody themesong, though, and I remember
well seeing that show and Romper Room on a black and white TV with a
rounded screen, and doors closed over the screen, and it took a while
for the TV to warm up. You couldn't turn it on and see the picture
in one second. Tubes had to warm up.**
Patrick (15) recently bought a new amplifier for his guitar. He researched
and bought a tube amplifier because the sound he's after is best shaped that
way. So we ended up talking about tube versus solid state technologies, and how
when his dad and I were kids tubes were in ALL our home electronic equipment
and tube testers were everywhere - if your tv or radio was having a problem
you'd pull the tubes out and go plug them one by one into a tester, set the dials,
and figure out which one was bad. He's had it about a month now, he isn't
quite used to waiting for the tubes to warm up before he starts playing, he'd
been in the habit of turning his amp on and letting rip.
Deborah in IL
**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL
Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
TV was. I can sing the Howdy Doody themesong, though, and I remember
well seeing that show and Romper Room on a black and white TV with a
rounded screen, and doors closed over the screen, and it took a while
for the TV to warm up. You couldn't turn it on and see the picture
in one second. Tubes had to warm up.**
Patrick (15) recently bought a new amplifier for his guitar. He researched
and bought a tube amplifier because the sound he's after is best shaped that
way. So we ended up talking about tube versus solid state technologies, and how
when his dad and I were kids tubes were in ALL our home electronic equipment
and tube testers were everywhere - if your tv or radio was having a problem
you'd pull the tubes out and go plug them one by one into a tester, set the dials,
and figure out which one was bad. He's had it about a month now, he isn't
quite used to waiting for the tubes to warm up before he starts playing, he'd
been in the habit of turning his amp on and letting rip.
Deborah in IL
**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL
Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
katelovessunshine
A friend & homeschool mom sent me this link...just after I had a discussion with another friend about a class he's taking called The History of Propaganda. (The two don't know each other, so I give credit to Serendipity.)
Ronald Dahl is one of my favorite authors & is on my kids' list too.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/television/
I know people feel strongly about the issue. This seemed like a pleasant way to think about it.
Regards,
Kate
Ronald Dahl is one of my favorite authors & is on my kids' list too.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/television/
I know people feel strongly about the issue. This seemed like a pleasant way to think about it.
Regards,
Kate
Joyce Fetteroll
On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:48 PM, katelovessunshine wrote:
If the kids were enthralled by books or a play, would it seem great
advice to take it away and give them what the parents deemed more
acceptable?
If a parent hates something her child loves, if she nurtures that
dislike instead of stepping with open heart into her child's world,
she misses a great opportunity to connect.
If a parent sends a child off to entertain himself instead of
connecting -- through books, cooking, walks, television, music, eating
or whatever they child enjoys -- she's not going to be able to unschool.
But where's the evidence?
Show me an *unschooling* child whose parents are attentive to his
needs, who create a rich and varied life that includes the choice of
television in whatever quantity the child wants, that shows any of
those effects?
I don't even know any schooled children like that. I do know some,
including myself, that used TV to decompress after school. Being an
introvert I watched *a lot* of TV but I got good grades, lived in the
real world (that insisted I needed to be an extrovert and enjoy being
around people all day), remained creative, went onto college.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I know people feel strongly about the issue. This seemed like aPleasant? From whose point of view?
> pleasant way to think about it.
If the kids were enthralled by books or a play, would it seem great
advice to take it away and give them what the parents deemed more
acceptable?
If a parent hates something her child loves, if she nurtures that
dislike instead of stepping with open heart into her child's world,
she misses a great opportunity to connect.
If a parent sends a child off to entertain himself instead of
connecting -- through books, cooking, walks, television, music, eating
or whatever they child enjoys -- she's not going to be able to unschool.
> IT ROTS THE SENSE IN THE HEAD!So many say such things as though they were true.
> IT KILLS IMAGINATION DEAD!
> IT CLOGS AND CLUTTERS UP THE MIND!
> IT MAKES A CHILD SO DULL AND BLIND
> HE CAN NO LONGER UNDERSTAND
> A FANTASY, A FAIRYLAND!
> HIS BRAIN BECOMES AS SOFT AS CHEESE!
> HIS POWERS OF THINKING RUST AND FREEZE!
> HE CANNOT THINK -- HE ONLY SEES!
But where's the evidence?
Show me an *unschooling* child whose parents are attentive to his
needs, who create a rich and varied life that includes the choice of
television in whatever quantity the child wants, that shows any of
those effects?
I don't even know any schooled children like that. I do know some,
including myself, that used TV to decompress after school. Being an
introvert I watched *a lot* of TV but I got good grades, lived in the
real world (that insisted I needed to be an extrovert and enjoy being
around people all day), remained creative, went onto college.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I know people feel strongly about the issue. This seemed like a
pleasant way to think about it. -=-
from the poem:
-=-They'll wonder what they'd ever seen
In that ridiculous machine,
That nauseating, foul, unclean,
Repulsive television screen!
And later, each and every kid
Will love you more for what you did. -=-
What's pleasant about that? Really... Roald Dahl was born in 1916.
When was that poem written? That would make a difference.
Something written about air travel forty years ago would hardly apply
to air travel ago. Or automechanics. Or the use of a computer! I
found an article still current online about how unschoolers should
really consider starting to use computers. Everyone here uses one,
but look at this article:
http://www.home-school.com/Articles/LetsGetWired.html
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pleasant way to think about it. -=-
from the poem:
-=-They'll wonder what they'd ever seen
In that ridiculous machine,
That nauseating, foul, unclean,
Repulsive television screen!
And later, each and every kid
Will love you more for what you did. -=-
What's pleasant about that? Really... Roald Dahl was born in 1916.
When was that poem written? That would make a difference.
Something written about air travel forty years ago would hardly apply
to air travel ago. Or automechanics. Or the use of a computer! I
found an article still current online about how unschoolers should
really consider starting to use computers. Everyone here uses one,
but look at this article:
http://www.home-school.com/Articles/LetsGetWired.html
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
1960 I believe. TV was a kid wasteland then. If you were a kid you
*couldn't* watch that much unless the most exciting thing in the house
was dust motes floating. There were cartoons on Saturday morning.
There were cartoons before school time I believe. Romper Room. Later
there were cartoons and a couple of kid shows after school. (Not sure
when Captain Kangaroo was on.)
The poem couldn't have come very early. It just wouldn't have been
possible for kids to even give a hint of such behavior with what was
on TV then.
Roald Dahl wrote for TV between 1958-1961 for Alfred Hitchcock
presents and then his own show of horror stories, Way Out in 1961.
Then he disappeared from TV.
Then from 1979-1988 he wrote and introduced shows in Tales of the
Unexpected.
Actually what probably made a difference was his life. During the
period he disappeared from TV, in 1960 his 4 mo son was struck by a
cab and developed hydrocephalus (and Roald developed a valve to help
relieve the condition). In 1962 his 7 yo daughter died from measles.
In 1965 his wife, Patricia Neal, suffered 3 aneurysms and he devoted
his time to her rehabilitation. I read in an article about her that he
was absolutely driven to get her back to her full mobility which he
was successful at but they did divorce in 1983.
I suspect he was a very stress camper for quite a few years. I know
there was a very downer view of television in Matlida. Was there one
in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
People who are angry generally aren't very objective!
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When was that poem written? That would make a difference.We had a TV -- my father was an engineer and loved new gadgets -- in
1960 I believe. TV was a kid wasteland then. If you were a kid you
*couldn't* watch that much unless the most exciting thing in the house
was dust motes floating. There were cartoons on Saturday morning.
There were cartoons before school time I believe. Romper Room. Later
there were cartoons and a couple of kid shows after school. (Not sure
when Captain Kangaroo was on.)
The poem couldn't have come very early. It just wouldn't have been
possible for kids to even give a hint of such behavior with what was
on TV then.
Roald Dahl wrote for TV between 1958-1961 for Alfred Hitchcock
presents and then his own show of horror stories, Way Out in 1961.
Then he disappeared from TV.
Then from 1979-1988 he wrote and introduced shows in Tales of the
Unexpected.
Actually what probably made a difference was his life. During the
period he disappeared from TV, in 1960 his 4 mo son was struck by a
cab and developed hydrocephalus (and Roald developed a valve to help
relieve the condition). In 1962 his 7 yo daughter died from measles.
In 1965 his wife, Patricia Neal, suffered 3 aneurysms and he devoted
his time to her rehabilitation. I read in an article about her that he
was absolutely driven to get her back to her full mobility which he
was successful at but they did divorce in 1983.
I suspect he was a very stress camper for quite a few years. I know
there was a very downer view of television in Matlida. Was there one
in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
People who are angry generally aren't very objective!
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
Yes, there is a boy in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who gets sucked into
the television and is shrunk. Mike Teevee I think.
I gave a talk on television which includes a view on that poem. Sandra has
graciously housed the talk at http://sandradodd.com/schuyler/tv. Some of the
Roald Dahl discussion is
"But the thing he most gets wrong, the thing that is most damning about his
conclusion. He writes:
So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,
joy and take away their happiness, for Roald Dahl to promise that a happier 2
weeks from now is worth more than a happy now makes him both a liar and a thief.
I got this bumper sticker from the Life is Good conference this year. It isn’t
on the bumper of my car yet, but it says “Unschooling for a Better Today”.
That’s the point that Dahl missed. That I missed, that the women on the list
missed. All you have is right now. 2 weeks of misery for children who may thank
you for that suffering later isn’t anywhere near as good as sitting down with
your child and watching Sponge Bob work a 24 hour shift at the Crusty Crab and
feel your love and your relationship grow NOW! And by sitting with them and
watching and by cuddling up and laughing together and singing along with
Plankton as he sings U is for Uranium Bomb! You are showing your child more
about how valuable they are and their opinion is than you could ever do by
pushing your agenda and your visions and your desires for them to be grown with
some particular pieces of knowledge that you may presume may not be available
with a television in the house."
I don't think the Roald Dahl poem is any pleasure. I think it is a grouchy rant.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the television and is shrunk. Mike Teevee I think.
I gave a talk on television which includes a view on that poem. Sandra has
graciously housed the talk at http://sandradodd.com/schuyler/tv. Some of the
Roald Dahl discussion is
"But the thing he most gets wrong, the thing that is most damning about his
conclusion. He writes:
So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,
>Go throw your TV set away,For Roald Dahl to promise the greater love from a child when you squash their
>And in its place you can install
>A lovely bookshelf on the wall.
>Then fill the shelves with lots of books,
>Ignoring all the dirty looks,
>The screams and yells, the bites the kicks,
>And children hitting you with sticks-
>Fear not, because we promise you
>That in about a week or two
>Of having nothing else to do,
>They’ll now begin to feel the need
>Of having something to read.
>And once they start—oh boy, oh boy!
>You watch the slowly growing joy
>That fills their hearts. They’ll grow so keen
>They’ll wonder what they’d ever seen
>In that ridiculous machine,
>That nauseating, foul, unclean,
>Repulsive television screen!
>And later, each and every kid
>Will love you more for what you did.
joy and take away their happiness, for Roald Dahl to promise that a happier 2
weeks from now is worth more than a happy now makes him both a liar and a thief.
I got this bumper sticker from the Life is Good conference this year. It isn’t
on the bumper of my car yet, but it says “Unschooling for a Better Today”.
That’s the point that Dahl missed. That I missed, that the women on the list
missed. All you have is right now. 2 weeks of misery for children who may thank
you for that suffering later isn’t anywhere near as good as sitting down with
your child and watching Sponge Bob work a 24 hour shift at the Crusty Crab and
feel your love and your relationship grow NOW! And by sitting with them and
watching and by cuddling up and laughing together and singing along with
Plankton as he sings U is for Uranium Bomb! You are showing your child more
about how valuable they are and their opinion is than you could ever do by
pushing your agenda and your visions and your desires for them to be grown with
some particular pieces of knowledge that you may presume may not be available
with a television in the house."
I don't think the Roald Dahl poem is any pleasure. I think it is a grouchy rant.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
Go throw your TV set away,
I have heard that before. That kids will read if they don't have TV.
That is not true for me or in my house.
My son has his own TV , a Nintendo Wii and an X-Box 360 plus his computer in
his room.
Last week he read 5 books in 2 days and I had to go get him another book so he
could finish the whole series.
I have always been an avid reader and I have always loved TV. I love to read and
watch TV.
RIght now I am reading ( well...writing) and I am watching the Twins play on TV.
THat is something I share with my husband, watching sports. He just left the
house
to do chores and I am supposed to call him about the game to keep him posted.
But anyways...I love to read and have the TV on something like that or the news.
The other night it was storming and the satellite was out and I was reading a
book that I have read a few times before
so I was complaining that I was only doing one thing and that I was used to
doing two at a time.
My 4 year old Gigi loves being read to and does not really care for TV that
much. She does watch some shows but
if they are no on she will simply turn it off. She does not like TV as a
background noise like me.
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>And in its place you can install-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>A lovely bookshelf on the wall.
>Then fill the shelves with lots of books,
>Ignoring all the dirty looks,
>The screams and yells, the bites the kicks,
>And children hitting you with sticks-
>Fear not, because we promise you
>That in about a week or two
>Of having nothing else to do,
>They’ll now begin to feel the need
>Of having something to read.
I have heard that before. That kids will read if they don't have TV.
That is not true for me or in my house.
My son has his own TV , a Nintendo Wii and an X-Box 360 plus his computer in
his room.
Last week he read 5 books in 2 days and I had to go get him another book so he
could finish the whole series.
I have always been an avid reader and I have always loved TV. I love to read and
watch TV.
RIght now I am reading ( well...writing) and I am watching the Twins play on TV.
THat is something I share with my husband, watching sports. He just left the
house
to do chores and I am supposed to call him about the game to keep him posted.
But anyways...I love to read and have the TV on something like that or the news.
The other night it was storming and the satellite was out and I was reading a
book that I have read a few times before
so I was complaining that I was only doing one thing and that I was used to
doing two at a time.
My 4 year old Gigi loves being read to and does not really care for TV that
much. She does watch some shows but
if they are no on she will simply turn it off. She does not like TV as a
background noise like me.
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I don't think the Roald Dahl poem is any pleasure. I think it is a grouchy
rant.***
You know, I've never been able to read the whole poem straight way through.
I've tried a few times over the years but I found it so mean and cruel that I
couldn't ever finish it. I remember reading one of his books allowed to my kids
once and ran into an anti-tv bit and I remember skipping over it. I don't
usually censor things I read to my kids, but they were enjoying the book so much
and I could sense their happiness and I didn't want to bring that happy crusher
bit into the story. It wasn't even very integral to the story to begin with.
Not even in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the movie, is it so much a part
of the story that it need be included.
Both of my kids liked both of those movies and both of them really disliked the
child shaming bits that are added in. They had the same issue with Nanny
McPhee. Both of my girls have watched the movie Matilda, literally hundreds of
times. All of us can recite many bits of the movie. We tried reading the book
and never finished it. Roald Dahl has beautiful stories, but he adds that bit
of negative child shaming stuff into it that we really can't read his books. I
love that the movie version of Matilda didn't have that. The child shamers were
the bad guys.
I like to read and watch happy empowering things! It's one reason that we LOVE
Hayao Miyazaki, excepting Grave of the Fireflies (it's very very sad)! That and
they have powerful girls as the central characters!
So I agree, it's a grouchy rant, one that gets my stomach in knots because it is
so very unhappy and cruel. Reading these posts left me having read more of that
poem than I have ever read of it thus far. There are just too many sad things
in the world and I try to live in a way that brings peace and happiness to the
forefront of my thoughts. I've seen way too many kids destroyed by the negative
cynicism of their parents and I do NOT want that for my kids. I'm their buffer
as much as possible, and my thoughts count because what I think, I act and
behave. If my thoughts are on evil TV, how in the world can they also be on how
beautiful and wonderful the world is and how my children fit into it?
And that's MY grouchy rant this afternoon!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
rant.***
You know, I've never been able to read the whole poem straight way through.
I've tried a few times over the years but I found it so mean and cruel that I
couldn't ever finish it. I remember reading one of his books allowed to my kids
once and ran into an anti-tv bit and I remember skipping over it. I don't
usually censor things I read to my kids, but they were enjoying the book so much
and I could sense their happiness and I didn't want to bring that happy crusher
bit into the story. It wasn't even very integral to the story to begin with.
Not even in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the movie, is it so much a part
of the story that it need be included.
Both of my kids liked both of those movies and both of them really disliked the
child shaming bits that are added in. They had the same issue with Nanny
McPhee. Both of my girls have watched the movie Matilda, literally hundreds of
times. All of us can recite many bits of the movie. We tried reading the book
and never finished it. Roald Dahl has beautiful stories, but he adds that bit
of negative child shaming stuff into it that we really can't read his books. I
love that the movie version of Matilda didn't have that. The child shamers were
the bad guys.
I like to read and watch happy empowering things! It's one reason that we LOVE
Hayao Miyazaki, excepting Grave of the Fireflies (it's very very sad)! That and
they have powerful girls as the central characters!
So I agree, it's a grouchy rant, one that gets my stomach in knots because it is
so very unhappy and cruel. Reading these posts left me having read more of that
poem than I have ever read of it thus far. There are just too many sad things
in the world and I try to live in a way that brings peace and happiness to the
forefront of my thoughts. I've seen way too many kids destroyed by the negative
cynicism of their parents and I do NOT want that for my kids. I'm their buffer
as much as possible, and my thoughts count because what I think, I act and
behave. If my thoughts are on evil TV, how in the world can they also be on how
beautiful and wonderful the world is and how my children fit into it?
And that's MY grouchy rant this afternoon!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Angela Shaw
I love Roald Dahl's sense of humor. I loved The Twit's, Charlie and the
Chocolate Factory, Matilda, etc. But his thinking in that TV poem doesn't
match my experience with unschooled children and free access to television.
My kids watch some TV but probably not more than I did as a kid but without
the attached guilt. It is just one more interest in their interesting
lives. It was a life saver for my youngest who was very ill this last
year. It was the ONLY thing she could do and it saved all of our sanity.
But as soon as she was well enough, she was out doing other fun things.
My teenage girls have one friend who is 27 and they get together once a week
for Survivor night and when Survivor isn't on, for a movie night. They all
ride horses and all love Survivor and movies. It's been a great bonding
experience and they are friends because they share interests.
Angela
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chocolate Factory, Matilda, etc. But his thinking in that TV poem doesn't
match my experience with unschooled children and free access to television.
My kids watch some TV but probably not more than I did as a kid but without
the attached guilt. It is just one more interest in their interesting
lives. It was a life saver for my youngest who was very ill this last
year. It was the ONLY thing she could do and it saved all of our sanity.
But as soon as she was well enough, she was out doing other fun things.
My teenage girls have one friend who is 27 and they get together once a week
for Survivor night and when Survivor isn't on, for a movie night. They all
ride horses and all love Survivor and movies. It's been a great bonding
experience and they are friends because they share interests.
Angela
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]