[email protected]

=====================================================
I just cant seem to let go. So much that I read says just don't censor
but some of the stuff is just so bad now. And he is 8, we have NOT had
the sex talk, so that would have to happen first. But then he sees
these commercials, and these shows ARE soo funny and interesting.

What do you do ?

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

Sorry, I deleted a post that was in the to-be-approved queue, thinking it was
on the Unschooling Discussion list, so I've brought the text of it back.

This has been discussed fairly recently I think, and though we can go through
again, does anyone remember when or where the last pass was? I remember
someone (Joyce?) making the point that they tend not to watch what's above their
heads, or not to notice it.

Generally, my thought is that no one should do what she doesn't understand,
so any mom who doesn't get why loosening controls would be helpful is probably
not ready to loosen anything. We can get ourselves in a
carts-before-situation if action precedes understanding. Then again, much of the
understanding of unschooling comes from experience itself.

Is this another ease-into-it situation?

Sandra


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

Joyce Fetteroll

> I just cant seem to let go. So much that I read says just don't censor
> but some of the stuff is just so bad now. And he is 8, we have NOT had
> the sex talk, so that would have to happen first. But then he sees
> these commercials, and these shows ARE soo funny and interesting.
>
> What do you do ?

Like what?

He isn't going to see the same things in the shows that you are. The
sex stuff is going to pass him right by.

There are books I read as a child and enjoyed but have since heard
had some rather unpleasant images of black people. (Bobsey Twins,
early Nancy Drew, The Egg and I, and there was one about a cat that
owned a baseball team.) It totally flew by me because it didn't fit
in with my world view. I was just reading for the story I wanted and
tuned out the parts that were annoying sidetracks.

That's a simplistic answer because it's often taken by people to mean
let them watch whatever without helping them at all. But it really
means help them find what they want and avoid what they don't want.

If he's saying "Yuck" to the relationship part, tape them and let him
fast forward. If he doesn't care I suspect he's just tuning it out as
he waits for the next good part or paying attention to just the funny
part.

Joyce

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

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/21/2005 1:37:25 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

We can get ourselves in a
carts-before-situation if action precedes understanding. Then again,
much of the
understanding of unschooling comes from experience itself.


~~~

Yeah, you can always "fake it til you make it".

Karen


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

Barbara Mullins

One of my biggest frustrations when talking with other homeschooled
parents is their belief that if they didn't control things their
children would do "too much" or "too little" of something. When I
state that I don't believe that to be true, that children take what
they need at that time, that my child (a 7yo)can have unlimited access
to TV, PS2, computer w/ internet, books, radio etc.... and has a large
variety of interests and is able to use them according to his needs.
e.g. That his hands are not always glued to the TV remote or PS2
controller. Then I usually consistently get the same reply from the
other parents that is "that's your child, not mine, mine doesn't have
any self control, etc." which I usually reply that they won't know
that until they give the control completely over to them and NOT just
for an experimentary day or week. Unfortunately very few of them are
willing to try giving control over for very long, if at all. So I move
on for other parents to talk with, hopefully there will be likeminded
people at the Live & Learn conference, becuase nobody I know IRL is
going. <g>
From my experience with my son I find that he watches what shows
interest him. It is RARE that he watches a show that has really adult
aimed content, but if he does then he asks me or dad if he needs an
explanation of a subjet or joke. Actually I have seen him start watch
a scary cartoon show in one room by himself and then when he gets
scared he will come into the room I'm in and turn on the TV in here or
ask me to go into the previous room with him. So I feel that he trusts
us to help him deal with things that he's not ready to deal with
alone. I'm hoping that it will be the same way with sexual content,
that he will ask questions as needed or come to us if he's scared or
confused about something.
We watched Jerry (the mouse from Tom & Jerry) spank his younger
cousin at the end of a cartoon yesterday because he had accientally
poked Jerry with his sword, we talked about it. When he sees someone
kissing or touching on a TV show that he's interested in then we'll
talk about that also. HTH - Barbara

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/21/05 11:50:24 AM, mozafamily@... writes:


> -=-Actually I have seen him start watch
> a scary cartoon show in one room by himself and then when he gets
> scared he will come into the room I'm in and turn on the TV in here or
> ask me to go into the previous room with him. So I feel that he trusts
> us to help him deal with things that he's not ready to deal with
> alone.-=-
>

My kids too.

It seems what will cause a kid to watch a show he doesn't want to watch is
parental disapproval. If he's been told it's too scary, too adult, or
forbidden, his natural curiosity might cause him to want to learn WHY. My kids, with
the freedom to turn things on or off, turned LOTS of things off, or colored
or did Lego or played with dolls or action figures during "the boring parts"
(often happening to be the adult parts--what did they care?) and only looked
back up with happy music or light or dogs or kids got their attention again.

When the parents make lots of things available they know their kids WILL
like--DVDs, videos, music, games---those kids are unlikely to be listlessly
flipping through channels looking for something "bad."

Kids who are forced to be sneaky, though, WILL look for the forbidden things,
and if they get scared their parents will be the last ones they'll go to.

Sandra


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

momtotyandlog1

Thanks alot. That makes alot of sense !

Candy
--- In [email protected], "Barbara Mullins"
<mozafamily@y...> wrote:
> One of my biggest frustrations when talking with other
homeschooled
> parents is their belief that if they didn't control things their
> children would do "too much" or "too little" of something. When I
> state that I don't believe that to be true, that children take what
> they need at that time, that my child (a 7yo)can have unlimited
access
> to TV, PS2, computer w/ internet, books, radio etc.... and has a
large
> variety of interests and is able to use them according to his
needs.
> e.g. That his hands are not always glued to the TV remote or PS2
> controller. Then I usually consistently get the same reply from the
> other parents that is "that's your child, not mine, mine doesn't
have
> any self control, etc." which I usually reply that they won't know
> that until they give the control completely over to them and NOT
just
> for an experimentary day or week. Unfortunately very few of them
are
> willing to try giving control over for very long, if at all. So I
move
> on for other parents to talk with, hopefully there will be
likeminded
> people at the Live & Learn conference, becuase nobody I know IRL is
> going. <g>
> From my experience with my son I find that he watches what
shows
> interest him. It is RARE that he watches a show that has really
adult
> aimed content, but if he does then he asks me or dad if he needs an
> explanation of a subjet or joke. Actually I have seen him start
watch
> a scary cartoon show in one room by himself and then when he gets
> scared he will come into the room I'm in and turn on the TV in here
or
> ask me to go into the previous room with him. So I feel that he
trusts
> us to help him deal with things that he's not ready to deal with
> alone. I'm hoping that it will be the same way with sexual content,
> that he will ask questions as needed or come to us if he's scared
or
> confused about something.
> We watched Jerry (the mouse from Tom & Jerry) spank his
younger
> cousin at the end of a cartoon yesterday because he had accientally
> poked Jerry with his sword, we talked about it. When he sees
someone
> kissing or touching on a TV show that he's interested in then we'll
> talk about that also. HTH - Barbara

Robyn Coburn

<<<<It seems what will cause a kid to watch a show he doesn't want to watch
is parental disapproval. If he's been told it's too scary, too adult, or
forbidden, his natural curiosity might cause him to want to learn WHY. My
kids, with the freedom to turn things on or off, turned LOTS of things off,
or colored or did Lego or played with dolls or action figures during "the
boring parts" (often happening to be the adult parts--what did they care?)
and only looked back up with happy music or light or dogs or kids got their
attention again. >>>>>>

I guess this post went everywhere but here - it may be what you were
thinking of just before, Sandra.

*Was synchronicity on three lists - now four!*

Quote begins:

It has been the most pronounced incidence of synchronicity that I have yet
noticed on the lists where there have been three mothers posting almost the
exact same sentiments on three Unschooling lists, specifically expressing
the same concerns about "limiting to appropriate content" with children of
varying ages, from 2 yo to 6 year olds, to a 10 yo, and a 14 yo.

This is not really the forum for a lengthy dissertation into the discourses
of television comedy, or a dissection of the semiotics of the sitcom as a
depiction of the American family - as entertaining as I would personally
find writing such an essay.

Nor is it necessarily as helpful to get into a lengthy "I don't like show
X"..."Oh I like show X a lot" debate - because tastes differ, definitions of
"vulgar" or funny differ, and it doesn't really get any further into the
principles behind the ideas of choice and learning.

There seem to be two issues in reference to the content of tv programs or
movies. The first is the idea that the content, while not necessarily
objectionable in itself, is too "mature" for the children - either too scary
or too sexually explicit seem to the main concerns.

In the first situation I have found, similarly to what others have reported,
that Jayn is very good at self-care if she starts to become scared of
images, sounds or characters' behavior. She also seems to have developed her
own specific coping mechanisms for exploring the scary stuff including fast
forwarding, going away for a minute, desensitizing herself with repeated
gradual exposures, and role-playing games. I too have learnt the kind of
music or images that disturb her, and will warn her if a program seems
likely to be scary.

In the case of sexually explicit - and people have different places where
they will become concerned - I have found, again similarly to what others
have reported, that Jayn has zero interest in the sexual or even mere
romantic antics of people on tv. She certainly is not seeking it out. If
something comes on in the course of changing channels or she walks into the
other room and something is on, she gets a kind of "that looks stupid"
expression and usually totally ignores it. At around 3, she used to enjoy
"Sex and the City" because she liked the pretty dresses and sparkles, and
would just go play with her dolls during any of the incomprehensible to her
sexual scenes. Now she just lumps adult themed shows of any kind (eg police
drama) together as "boring" or "stupid garbage" and asks for Disney channel.
It is only a matter of time before she starts expressing ideas and seeking
clarification (her version of asking questions) on the odd sexual scenes she
bumps into at times on tv.

*** I will add that I believe that she will start seeking out or being
attracted to programs with sexual content (of any kind) at the appropriate
developmental time when her inner questioning arrives at that place - or to
put it conversely, she won't be interested until and unless she is "ready"
to receive that kind of information, coupled with the additional guidance
that I will be able to give her about the level of reality that she is
seeing. I try to see every new program as an opportunity for more
communication between us.

The second issue of concern has to do with the "family values" and behavior
and relationships of characters in the shows. I have to agree that both the
characters and the situations in teen sitcoms and movies often depict values
that are in conflict with the ideas of Unschooling, including lousy
parenting, adults as adversarial and dumb simultaneously, and sibling
conflict portrayed as normal and acceptable.

However whether these values are going to be genuinely internalized and
adopted by our children is another question. I personally doubt it, despite
the experimental forays into these less than charming behaviors our kids
sometimes engage in. I am seeing it for the first time - Jayn has started
calling me "stupid head" at odd times - from "Lilo and Stitch" (movie). I
have Trust that it will get old soon. I also endorse the idea of talking
over in a genuine way specific behaviors or ideas, rather than making a
negative assessment of the show your kid loves. (I come and blurt the latter
onto the lists instead of onto Jayn). ;)

Aside from the fact that I doubt that any of us are remotely like any of
these detached, authoritarian or befuddled parents, the biggest, hugest,
most significant difference between our children and 100percent of the kids
portrayed on any of these shows is: they are all in mandatory school.

These TV children's primary bonding relationships are shown as being with
their friends and age peers, and with few exceptions, the majority of their
time is spent in the school hallways, on school related projects, including
some really contrived nonsense, and conversing with each other about school
stuff or school people. Additionally, with the one exception of Ren Stevens
who likes it and is a butt of humor for that reason, they seem consider
school a necessary evil.

I believe that these shows portray a heightened and exaggerated depiction of
what we Unschoolers would consider some of the very real negatives of school
as they apply to family life - the appropriation of almost all time with the
concomitant disintegration of close family relationships, the culture of
peer approval and cliques and personality labeling ("jocks", "geeks",
"popular girls", etc), the separation and fostering of distrust and
disconnection between parents and children, the adult (parent or teacher) as
both incomprehensible and a killjoy even while they are "humorously"
infantile (esp. males), children as directly powerless in the face of school
or parental rules so resorting to underhand strategies (hi jinks ensue!
:P~~).

The entertainment value of these shows to schooled children, who undoubtedly
recognize themselves to a much greater degree, is likely partly in that very
separation from the parents. The tv kids usually spend almost no time in
class of any kind - more wishful thinking for the schooled kids. It is
possible that these tv kids have more personal power and autonomy than the
real children - they certainly will do more outlandish stuff. The didactic
"mother knows best in the end" message of most of these shows, is a small
price to pay (I mean for the schooled child viewers) for getting to watch
people make really dumb choices (dumber than they might make irl) and follow
through the absurd results. I notice that "grounding" is the universal
punishment, applied even after the "lesson" has been learned.

I suspect that most of our children have much less identification with the
characters. Maybe they watch this stuff with the same sense of disbelieving
astonishment that some of us apply to Jerry Springer, or with the same
curiosity as pausing to view a car wreck or collapsed building. It is the
very "otherness" of these families that makes them interesting.

I asked Jayn what she likes about "That's So Raven", her current favorite. I
discovered that her attraction to the show comes from her enjoyment of
Raven's dress up as odd characters antics, and also she likes Raven's
regular clothing which is heavy on the sparkle, feathers and embroidery. We
record the programs, and sometimes if one of the other characters is the
featured story that day, she will ask me to skip over those scenes that do
not include Raven herself. In other words the actual narrative or internal
"logic" is irrelevant to Jayn's enjoyment.

In the past Jayn has included shows that I don't like (for values) in her
viewing schedule. Her interest has waned, not because I made any attempt to
limit, but because she received all she needed and her interests matured. We
had lots of conversations about specific moments that I disapproved of,
along the lines of other choices the characters could have made in those
moments.

Unlike schooled kids, our children have the opportunity to continue to have
authentic relationships with us. We can continue to be the first and primary
values influence in their lives, as well as their strongest safety net,
regardless of what tv shows they like. I hope that it is our huge presence
in their lives, and willingness to really listen without a hidden agenda,
that will ultimately mitigate any of the experimental "bad" behavior that
they may try on.

Robyn L. Coburn


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.4/109 - Release Date: 9/21/2005

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/21/05 3:08:01 PM, dezigna@... writes:


>
> I guess this post went everywhere but here - it may be what you were
> thinking of just before, Sandra.
>

THANK YOU!

-=-In the case of sexually explicit - and people have different places where
they will become concerned - I have found, again similarly to what others
have reported, that Jayn has zero interest in the sexual or even mere
romantic antics of people on tv. She certainly is not seeking it out.-=-

All three of mine were that way. I tried to interest Holly in a peek at a
young Russell Crowe's nekkid BEhind the other day when I was watching Proof,
but she has no interest. She's seen enough of nekkid behinds (and fronts), in
part as she's a Sam Rockwell fan and we have a mental chart of whether in each
movie he's all or just some of naked, wet and shot.

If it's treated as not any high-charged, dangerous big deal, then there's no
prurient interest, no giggly shock, no allure.

Sandra


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

Gold Standard

>>She's seen enough of nekkid behinds (and fronts), in
>>part as she's a Sam Rockwell fan and we have a mental chart of whether in
each
>>movie he's all or just some of naked, wet and shot.<<

Jeez, and I thought you were going to say she's seen enough nekkid behinds
and fronts in your HOME. That's where my kids lost interest :o)

Jacki

Sara McGrath

> I just cant seem to let go. So much that I read says just don't censor
> but some of the stuff is just so bad now. And he is 8, we have NOT had
> the sex talk, so that would have to happen first. But then he sees
> these commercials, and these shows ARE soo funny and interesting.
>
> What do you do ?

I have two daughters three years and under. Here's what we do
concerning tv and other things (like sugar) that I'm concerned about
exposing my daughters to. Since there are things on tv that I don't
want my daughters to be influenced by (hatred and violence), I don't
have a television. (We do watch DVDs on the computer.) And if there's
a tv on at someone else's house, I don't worry as much about it. I
don't fill the house with sugary snacks, but if there are snacks in
the house, they can have some. I remember how appalled I felt as a
child when I learned that both my aunt and my mom's cousin kept sweets
on the top shelf of their cupboards that were off-limits to the kids.

Sara
--
Sprouts http://clanmcgrath.blogspot.com
Unschooling Resources http://unschoolingresources.blogspot.com
My baby is diaper-free! http://diaperfreebaby.org

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/28/05 3:27:21 AM, msaraann@... writes:


> I have two daughters three years and under. Here's what we do
> concerning tv and other things (like sugar) that I'm concerned about
> exposing my daughters to. Since there are things on tv that I don't
> want my daughters to be influenced by (hatred and violence), I don't
> have a television.
>

There are books with hatred and violence too, with porn and stupidity and
errors. Will you ban books?

I've had three children under three. They just weren't into watching
anything involving hatred or violence or kissing or even adults talking. They
liked singing frogs and giraffe operas and short parts of shows IF they involved
babies, young children or dogs.

Sandra



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

April

I have to chime in on this. We haven't always unschooled, but my youngest is
an always unschooled child. At 10, with three teen siblings, he has been
exposed to more than my other kids at his age, he has unlimited access to
the tv and computer and he has no desire to watch things that are
inappropriate or uncomfortable for him. In fact, he rarely watches tv unless
we are all watching together. The older kids are pretty good about not
watching things not appropriate for him. Of course, our family favorite
shows are CIS and NCIS and we all watch them including my 10 year old..and
some would say those shows are not appropriate for his age...but that's a
whole other discussion!



~April
Mom to Kate-19, Lisa-16, Karl-14, & Ben-10.
*REACH Homeschool Grp, an inclusive group in Oakland County
<http://www.reachhomeschool.com> www.reachhomeschool.com

* Michigan Unschoolers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michigan_unschoolers/>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michigan_unschoolers/
*Check out Chuck's art! <http://www.artkunst23.com/>
http://www.artkunst23.com
*Michigan Youth Theater...Acting On Our Dreams...
<http://www.michiganyouththeater.com/> http://www.michiganyouththeater.com
"Know where to find the information and how to use it - That's the secret of
success."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

_____

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of SandraDodd@...
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] question about TV and limits




In a message dated 9/28/05 3:27:21 AM, msaraann@... writes:


> I have two daughters three years and under. Here's what we do
> concerning tv and other things (like sugar) that I'm concerned about
> exposing my daughters to. Since there are things on tv that I don't
> want my daughters to be influenced by (hatred and violence), I don't
> have a television.
>

There are books with hatred and violence too, with porn and stupidity and
errors. Will you ban books?

I've had three children under three. They just weren't into watching
anything involving hatred or violence or kissing or even adults talking.
They
liked singing frogs and giraffe operas and short parts of shows IF they
involved
babies, young children or dogs.

Sandra



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




_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "AlwaysLearning
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning> " on the web.

* 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!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



_____



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

k

I was at first concerned but watched my 2 year old while [swim] (or is
that [swing]?) was on tv at a house we were staying at. Ds was
watching
their facial expressions and imitating them. He also loves sound and
was enthralled with the background music. Of course he "got" the
emotional flavor of what was going on and found some of it stressful.
He was curious and watched it for a time. Then, he went off and played

with toys or turned on music to listen/dance to.

Kathe



SandraDodd@... wrote:

>
>In a message dated 9/28/05 3:27:21 AM, msaraann@...
</ym/Compose?To=msaraann@...&YY=44006&order=down&sort=date&pos=0>
writes:
>
>
>> I have two daughters three years and under. Here's what we do
>> concerning tv and other things (like sugar) that I'm concerned about
>> exposing my daughters to. Since there are things on tv that I don't
>> want my daughters to be influenced by (hatred and violence), I don't
>> have a television.
>>
>
>There are books with hatred and violence too, with porn and stupidity
>and
>errors. Will you ban books?
>
>I've had three children under three. They just weren't into watching

>anything involving hatred or violence or kissing or even adults
>talking. They
>liked singing frogs and giraffe operas and short parts of shows IF
they
>involved
>babies, young children or dogs.
>
>Sandra
>






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Sara McGrath

> > I have two daughters three years and under. Here's what we do
> > concerning tv and other things (like sugar) that I'm concerned about
> > exposing my daughters to. Since there are things on tv that I don't
> > want my daughters to be influenced by (hatred and violence), I don't
> > have a television.
> >
>
> There are books with hatred and violence too, with porn and stupidity and
> errors. Will you ban books?

I haven't banned television, but yes I will not offer porn to my
children, if you consider that a ban. I choose not to offer television
by not having one, but I don't stop my children from watching tv at
other places. If I had a tv, I wouldn't feel right about setting
limits. Likewise, if there's sugar in the house, the kids get to eat
it.

>
> I've had three children under three. They just weren't into watching
> anything involving hatred or violence or kissing or even adults talking.
> They
> liked singing frogs and giraffe operas and short parts of shows IF they
> involved
> babies, young children or dogs.
>
> Sandra

I watched television that disturbed me, frightened me, left me feeling
yucky, etc, from as young as I can remember. Some of that imagery
remains vivid in my memory.

Sara
--
Sprouts http://clanmcgrath.blogspot.com
Unschooling Resources http://unschoolingresources.blogspot.com
Mother Anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com
My baby is diaper-free! http://diaperfreebaby.org

S.Waynforth

--- In [email protected], Sara McGrath <msaraann@g...> wrote:
> > > I have two daughters three years and under. Here's what we do
> > > concerning tv and other things (like sugar) that I'm concerned
about
> > > exposing my daughters to. Since there are things on tv that I don't
> > > want my daughters to be influenced by (hatred and violence), I
don't
> > > have a television.
> > >
> >
> > There are books with hatred and violence too, with porn and
stupidity and
> > errors. Will you ban books?
>
> I haven't banned television, but yes I will not offer porn to my
> children, if you consider that a ban.

The question wasn't would you offer your children porn but would you
limit your children's environment based on part of what it has to
offer. So, would you keep your children from talking to strangers
because once someone said something inappropriate to them? Or would
you not let them eat cookie dough because there is some small risk
that they could get e-coli from the raw eggs?

The book comparison gets used because so many people see a
television/book dichotomy with television being the bad and books
being the good approach to story telling. But of course before
television there would have been many other story telling venues:
theatre, public lectures, Punch and Judy shows at the local fete to
name a few. Television has subsumed much of these visual mediums with
documentaries that are so much more informative than a slide show
presentation of My Trip to the Himalayas given at the local Women's
Institute or with a full out modernized production of Romeo and Juliet
with guns and fast cars and helicopter chase scenes to underscore the
tensions of the Capulet and Montague family squabble. Not to say that
you shouldn't go to the local lectures or the amazing stage
productions on offer. But my two, Simon (8) and Linnaea (5), didn't do
well sitting for an hour long talk by Adam Hart Davis (a UK
semi-celebrity who presents Open University science programs for BBC
or Channel 4 or some such) on science but they (Simon particularly)
love watching his programs on What the Romans Did for Us, and What the
Victorians Did for Us, and all the iterations in between even though
he can't ask questions, even though it isn't personal, because on
television he can use a range of tools to demonstrate what he is
talking about, but in the lecture hall at the Life Science Centre in
Newcastle he had his power point slide presentation and his personal
charisma and that was it. And without peanut gallery prices, we can't
afford to see that much theatre. I love stage productions, but it
costs about 40 quid for a family of 4 to go to see the low end version
of Oliver, which I just can't justify that often.

So, to reiterate, the statement wasn't you should let your children
have porn because you let them read books; it was will you deny them
access to books because they might read pornographic material.

> I choose not to offer television by not having one, but I don't stop
my children from > watching tv at other places.

Do you often go to other places to give them the opportunity of
watching television? Is it something that you help them to get access
to when they want it? Do you recognize that it is your choice that is
being honored and not necessarily theirs?

David (dh) and I chose not to have cable or satellite television. It
was based on economics. We got the UK equivalent of Netflix for a
while but decided that both Simon and Linnaea enjoyed owning the DVDs
as much as watching them and that there was a certain desire to get
the most for our money by getting, watching, returning as quickly as
possible by David and myself that wasn't matched by Linnaea and Simon.
So, when we left for the U.S. this summer we cancelled our
subscription. While in the U.S. we stayed at many homes that had
cable. Simon was held rapt by Toonami, by Nickelodeon, by Jetflix, by
Boomerang, by Cartoon Network. He lounged in front of the television
for hours at my mom's house. At my dad's vacation condo on the North
Shore, in between swimming at the falls, and skipping rocks on Lake
Superior, he would watch Teen Titans and Kim Possible and That's So
Raven and all the rest on their satellite television in the bedroom.
It made me realize that David and my economic choice was unfair to
Simon and to Linnaea. So, when we got back we ordered Sky satellite,
only to discover that the way our house is we can only have the dish
on our chimney which is dodgy at best and with worries of the chimney
falling on the neighbors house it wasn't a route we took. There isn't
cable in our deprived area, so not an option. In the end, after much
adjustment of the antennae, we've now got a television set box for
something called Freeview with what is called a Top Up TV card that
gives us Boomerang from 5am until noon and Cartoon Network from 6am
until 6am. It isn't quite satisfactory, but it is the best we can do
in this house at this time. And while Animaniacs can make everything
stop, particularly for me, the presence of some of the channels Simon
wanted have allowed him to satisfy his desire and given him the
ability to choose to watch or not watch with less desperation.

> If I had a tv, I wouldn't feel right about setting limits. Likewise,
if there's sugar in >the house, the kids get to eat it.

Why would you need to set limits? Why is the presence of a television
something that would cause you to set limits? And what is it about
sugar that produces the same response in you?

> I watched television that disturbed me, frightened me, left me feeling
> yucky, etc, from as young as I can remember. Some of that imagery
> remains vivid in my memory.

Why did you watch that television? Why didn't you walk away? I just
got Monty Python's The Meaning of Life last week. There is a scene
with John Cleese playing a school teacher demonstrating sex with his
good lady wife in the classroom. It was a scene that made Simon very
uncomfortable (and one that I warned him about moments before it came
up), so we skipped past it. There is a scene where Terry Gilliam is
playing a man who filled in an organ donors card and has a couple of
donor harvesters come to his door to collect his liver. It made
Linnaea uncomfortable so we skipped past it. They didn't need to
watch it. They were very capable of knowing what their limits were in
that moment. And what they took away from the movie was the guy
blowing up from his wafer thin mint and the Every Sperm is Sacred
song. Not the scenes they had me skip past. And when David came home
from work they rushed the door to tell him about how the third world
is North Yorkshire (just a smidge south of us and an incredibly apt
take on the world of County Durham) and about how Brave Sir Robin from
The Holy Grail is in The Meaning of Life and nothing about how almost
seeing a scene that made them uncomfortable scarred them for life.

Right now they are talking about sperm whales and how when two males
are attempting to have sex with a ready female they will bash each
other about with their penises. It was something we saw on a David
Attenborough program that stuck with them. I didn't know that and I
don't think it was known before there were television cameras to know
it with. Without the market of selling images to television there
wasn't enough money to support enough people in attempting to find out
more about sperm whales. The conversation got to sperm whales because
while they've been watching HiHi Puffy Ami Yumi Show they've been
making whales with Hama beads that you put on plastic trays and then
iron together.

Anyhow, are you limiting your children's exposure to new things based
on your negative experiences with them? Was every moment of
television watching a miserable one for you? Did you never walk away
from some show feeling better or having a greater grasp on something
in your own life than you had before you came to sit down and watch?

Schuyler

Sara McGrath

> So, to reiterate, the statement wasn't you should let your children
> have porn because you let them read books; it was will you deny them
> access to books because they might read pornographic material.
>
> > I choose not to offer television by not having one, but I don't stop
> my children from > watching tv at other places.
>
> Do you often go to other places to give them the opportunity of
> watching television? Is it something that you help them to get access
> to when they want it? Do you recognize that it is your choice that is
> being honored and not necessarily theirs?

My daughter checks out videos (whatever she wants) at the library and
rents them at movie store. TVs are everywhere: malls, restaurants,
waiting rooms, etc. We own many, many videos including tv serieses
that we watch on our computer. The computer and Internet have proven
to be a valuable resource for information and entertainment. It's true
that I and my husband don't desire, and so choose not to own a tv, but
if the kids purchase one or ask for one of their own someday, I
wouldn't necessarily be opposed. I feel strongly about protecting
their freedom to make their own decisions.

They're 3 years and 7 mos old at this time. One could argue that the
Internet is no different for the variety of content, but at the girls'
young ages, the tv poses more of a threat of disturbing content since
they don't necessarily interact with it to view that content. I don't
feel that I'm doing them any disservice by not providing a tv, when
there's a whole world available for learning and enjoying. We have
what we have. My family didn't have computers or game machines when I
was a child.

> > If I had a tv, I wouldn't feel right about setting limits. Likewise,
> if there's sugar in >the house, the kids get to eat it.
>
> Why would you need to set limits? Why is the presence of a television
> something that would cause you to set limits? And what is it about
> sugar that produces the same response in you?

I wouldn't feel that I was meeting my responsibility to protect my
children (at their current ages of 3 and 7 mos) if I provided them
with porn including the softcore content on tv or the gruesome
violence.

Sugar is a drug. It is an unnatural non-food. I don't expect this to
be a popular standpoint, but it's what I think. Food is a whole
'nother issue that I have strong feelings about. Yes, my children eat
sugar (although I feel guilty about providing it.) But, I don't fill
the house with it, and I hope that by providing healthy foods and the
knowledge of healthy eating and the way our bodies feel will help my
girls to respect their bodies and recognize the drug affect of simple
sugars and grain carbohydrates. They're both gluten-intolerant with
dairy, corn, and nut allergies, by the way, so food is something I
help them make choices about. Since about two-yrs-old my first
daughter has not resisted when I tell her that something is
"tummy-sick."

I grew up eating whatever, whenever (no restrictions) not recognizing
that some foods made me sick, comfort eating, becoming overweight, and
nearly dying from anaphylactic reactions several times. There is a
spectrum between arbitrary control and protecting/helping when it
comes to being responsible in meeting our children's needs. I don't
want to restrict my children's food choices, but I want them to know
and recognize the difference between real, healthful food and "things
we can eat."

> > I watched television that disturbed me, frightened me, left me feeling
> > yucky, etc, from as young as I can remember. Some of that imagery
> > remains vivid in my memory.
>
> Why did you watch that television? Why didn't you walk away?

I don't know, but I didn't.

> I just
> got Monty Python's The Meaning of Life last week. There is a scene
> with John Cleese playing a school teacher demonstrating sex with his
> good lady wife in the classroom. It was a scene that made Simon very
> uncomfortable (and one that I warned him about moments before it came
> up), so we skipped past it.

Interesting that you should mention that one. I remember it vividly.
My younger sister and I saw it on cable at our grandma's house when I
was about six. I didn't like it, but for reasons I don't now
understand, I was afraid to approach the tv screen. Grandma would not
have allowed us to watch it, but it came on while she was busy
preparing dinner. It was, however, less disturbing to me than the 80s
horror movies I remember.

There is a scene where Terry Gilliam is
> playing a man who filled in an organ donors card and has a couple of
> donor harvesters come to his door to collect his liver. It made
> Linnaea uncomfortable so we skipped past it. They didn't need to
> watch it. They were very capable of knowing what their limits were in
> that moment. And what they took away from the movie was the guy
> blowing up from his wafer thin mint and the Every Sperm is Sacred
> song. Not the scenes they had me skip past. And when David came home
> from work they rushed the door to tell him about how the third world
> is North Yorkshire (just a smidge south of us and an incredibly apt
> take on the world of County Durham) and about how Brave Sir Robin from
> The Holy Grail is in The Meaning of Life and nothing about how almost
> seeing a scene that made them uncomfortable scarred them for life.

While our family watched these horror movies, my little brothers held
pillows on their laps to cover their faces with as needed. I never
chose to do that though. I toughed it out. To this day, one of my
brothers gets visibly sick when he tries to watch a horror movie. I
choose not to watch them, but I have a visceral reaction to fear and
adrenaline without concrete basis. Somehow, though, I don't feel that
way when I read a horror story.

> Anyhow, are you limiting your children's exposure to new things based
> on your negative experiences with them? Was every moment of
> television watching a miserable one for you? Did you never walk away
> from some show feeling better or having a greater grasp on something
> in your own life than you had before you came to sit down and watch?

I don't think not having a tv is a limiting action any more than not
having a computer when I was a child was a limiting action by my
mother. We simply didn't have one. I enjoy many movies and television
shows, but I watch them when I want to on the computer. I don't
remember any television that was particularly meaningful to me as a
child, but there were a few movies like The Last Unicorn and Harold
and Maude that stuck with me.

I know that the tv debate is not one that will be won on either side,
and I have no intention of trying. Frankly, I don't stand firmly on
either side. It's a complicated issue, and one that should be
discussed.

Sara
--
Sprouts http://clanmcgrath.blogspot.com
Unschooling Resources http://unschoolingresources.blogspot.com
Mother Anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com
My baby is diaper-free! http://diaperfreebaby.org

Nancy Wooton

On Oct 6, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Sara McGrath wrote:

>
>> I just
>> got Monty Python's The Meaning of Life last week. There is a scene
>> with John Cleese playing a school teacher demonstrating sex with his
>> good lady wife in the classroom. It was a scene that made Simon very
>> uncomfortable (and one that I warned him about moments before it came
>> up), so we skipped past it.
>
> Interesting that you should mention that one. I remember it vividly.
> My younger sister and I saw it on cable at our grandma's house when I
> was about six. I didn't like it, but for reasons I don't now
> understand, I was afraid to approach the tv screen. Grandma would not
> have allowed us to watch it, but it came on while she was busy
> preparing dinner. It was, however, less disturbing to me than the 80s
> horror movies I remember.
>

You know, there may be an angle to the TV debate we're not addressing:
our own ages and experiences with media, and its evolving content and
standards. I saw "Meaning of Life" in the theater, as a grown-up
married adult. I my kids didn't see it until they were teens; in fact,
they watched it last weekend with a 19 y.o. male friend who'd never
seen it, and I was kind of embarrassed <g> I don't care much for
horror movies, and in fact did not see "Alien" when it came out and was
shocked my young niece had seen it. The TV I grew up with was
Gilligan's Island and Star Trek (original) and MASH and The Ed Sullivan
Show (yes, I saw the Beatles). Pretty tame stuff, compared to CSI and
Rescue Me and Desperate Housewives ;-)

Maybe it gets back to the "unschooling isn't unparenting" idea: we have
to make some choices for our kids, especially ones as young as 3 years
and 7 mos. I wasn't an unschooler when my kids were really young, and
I didn't strictly limit TV but we didn't have cable, either. TV was
whatever the rabbit ears could pick up. When I started watching E.R.,
my kids were already in bed (yes, we had bedtimes then!); eventually,
my dd wanted to watch, too, so she'd do that while ds played card games
with dad in another room. E.R. was a little adult for dd, but it
brought up some social issues she might not have encountered since she
didn't go to school, and gave me an opportunity to talk about them.

Nancy, 46 (with 15 y.o. ds blasting stuff on the X-box...)

nellebelle

>>>>>>>>>Sugar is a drug. It is an unnatural non-food.>>>>>>>>>>>>

"food n. Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains or consists of essential body nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life. http://dictionary.reference.com/"


Sugar is of plant origin, it does contain one essential nutrient (carbohydrate) and it is assimilated by the human body. Therefore, sugar is a food.

To tell your children otherwise is to give them false information. When they find out that you misled them about sugar, they will wonder what else you've said that isn't true.

Mary Ellen

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

Angela

<<<I wouldn't feel that I was meeting my responsibility to protect my
children (at their current ages of 3 and 7 mos) if I provided them
with porn including the softcore content on tv or the gruesome
violence.>>>

I don't know any unschoolers who have provided their young children with
porn. When my kids were 3 years old they liked Barney and Jay Jay the Jet
Plane. They didn't like any shows that were geared toward adults and now at
ages 9 and 10 they only occasionally like shows geared toward adults. The
shows that they like are horse training shows and things on the science
channel or history channel. Just because other shows are available on TV
doesn't mean that young children will choose them. But children who have
been limited in their choices often choose to watch things that they know
were limited *just because they can* at some point.


<<<Since about two-yrs-old my first
daughter has not resisted when I tell her that something is
"tummy-sick.">>>

If you are just providing her with information that is honest and she has
tried something and knows it makes her feel yucky, then she will not have
any reason to disbelieve you and she will feel like you are on her side. (if
given the information and the choice to do as she wants without guilt) But
sugar doesn't make me sick and it doesn't seem to affect me like any drugs I
ever taken and if someone had told me that sugar was a drug then I would
certainly question what ever else they told me because that is not true for
me. It's not a true fact and it certainly doesn't affect me like a drug.

<<I grew up eating whatever, whenever (no restrictions) not recognizing
that some foods made me sick, comfort eating, becoming overweight, and
nearly dying from anaphylactic reactions several times.>>

I don't understand how you could not recognize that something made you sick.
Did you just not make the connection? If my child ate a lot of something
and then felt sick, I might mention that it might be from eating too much.
I'd give them information but in the end, I'd let them make their own
decision. That is how they will learn self control. My kids have no need
for comfort eating because they are truly joyful and they aren't escaping
anything. Were you?

<< There is a
spectrum between arbitrary control and protecting/helping when it
comes to being responsible in meeting our children's needs. I don't
want to restrict my children's food choices, but I want them to know
and recognize the difference between real, healthful food and "things
we can eat.">>

I really like one of the things that Sandra says often. (paraphrasing)
Sweets eaten in joy are much better for the body and soul then fruits and
veggies eaten under duress or with guilt. I'd take the cotton candy in
peace and without judgment any day over something healthy eaten with someone
watching me to see if I was eating healthy.

> <<Why did you watch that television? Why didn't you walk away?

I don't know, but I didn't.>>


But you might have if someone who had your best interests at heart was
sitting with you and saw your reaction and suggested to you that maybe it
was too much. I wouldn't want my children to watch things that I felt might
be upsetting to them without my being there to help them through it. It's
not about leaving them to their own devices.

Anyway, off to watch another episode of Little House on the Prairie with my
girls.

Angela



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005

Gold Standard

<<<I wouldn't feel that I was meeting my responsibility to protect my
children (at their current ages of 3 and 7 mos) if I provided them
with porn including the softcore content on tv or the gruesome
violence.>>>

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that your children are
only 3 and 7 months. Many people speaking here have much older children,
have been well through the ages your children are, and are giving you
fabulous information...information I wish I had when my kids were yours'
ages.

I suggest you sit with the possibility that these posters have good points,
and they may actually HELP you in deepening your trust and relationships
with your children. They are truly unschooling, and sharing with you what
unschooling looks like.

I don't know all the children on this list, but I do know that at least most
of them are delightfully respectful, happy, and nonviolent. I know mine are.
I get comments SO often about how awesome, creative and thoughtful my kids
are. That happened with unlimited TV, movies, books, crafts, animals and
food. They are all healthy, make healthy choices for themselves, and treat
each other well. I'm not saying we did things perfectly here, but I do know
the connection between being there with my kids and allowing them the
freedom to choose everything in their lives and how incredible they are
right now.

So if you do trust your children, notice what they like and what they don't,
be with them with what they choose, you are going to have a tremendous life
together. If you decide right now you are calling the shots, even if they
seem like really healthy shots, you will compromise the possibilities, imho.

Jacki
Andrew 16
Max 15
Hannah 13
Cameron 11

Angela

<<I don't think not having a tv is a limiting action any more than not
having a computer when I was a child was a limiting action by my
mother. We simply didn't have one. I enjoy many movies and television
shows, but I watch them when I want to on the computer. I don't
remember any television that was particularly meaningful to me as a
child, but there were a few movies like The Last Unicorn and Harold
and Maude that stuck with me.>>

I hurried off last night and didn't reply to your whole post. I wasnted to
address this comment too.

For a 7 month old and a 3 yo, I think you are right. They are very young
and not only do they not realize what kind of a resource and source of
entertainmetn TV could be for them one day, they also do not know what they
are missing. But one day, quicker than you think, that will change. When
it does, will you consider changing your mind or will you hold fast to your
rule. When my kids were that small, we had a Tv, but I didn't get up and
turn it on for them without them asking for it and we watched very little.

When I was a kid, TV didn't have the range of channels and shows that are
available now. I remember waiting until Sunday night to watch Mutual of
Omaha's Wild Kingdom. Where else could you see all those wild animals up
close? Certainly not near my house. Now kids have Animal Planet and
National Geographic channel and don't have to wait all week to see wild
animals in their natural habitat. (Among other things) You can watch
people and animals give birth. You can watch this new show we discovered on
The Science Channel on how things are made, where they tour different
factories, you can bond over old re-runs of your favorite shows when you
were a kid. (Little house on the prairie) The choice are wide and varied.


Angela
game-enthusiast@...

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 10/6/2005

Sara McGrath

> Sugar is of plant origin, it does contain one essential nutrient (carbohydrate) and it is assimilated by the human body. Therefore, sugar is a food.

Sugar is the end result of a process that began with a plant. Cocaine
is plant-based. So's glue. So's aspirin. . . McDonald's chicken
nuggets . . . .

Sara
--
Sprouts http://clanmcgrath.blogspot.com
Unschooling Resources http://unschoolingresources.blogspot.com
Mother Anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com
My baby is diaper-free! http://diaperfreebaby.org

Sara McGrath

> I think part of the problem in this discussion is that your children are
> only 3 and 7 months. Many people speaking here have much older children,
> have been well through the ages your children are, and are giving you
> fabulous information...information I wish I had when my kids were yours'
> ages.
>
> I suggest you sit with the possibility that these posters have good points,
> and they may actually HELP you in deepening your trust and relationships
> with your children. They are truly unschooling, and sharing with you what
> unschooling looks like.

We're not doing any limiting at our house. We simply don't have a tv.
It's not a rule. There's nothing to limit. If the kids want a tv
someday, sure, if the money's available, we'll make that decision as a
family. . . . I think what's happening here is that I say some things
about tv that I don't like, and some people interpret it to the
extreme. I'm not anti-tv.

Also, I don't mind at all hearing others' takes on the tv issue.
That's why I wrote about it in the first place.

I do trust my children to do the best with what they know. As I
experienced as a little girl, we don't always know when to walk away.
We all learn through experience and come to these things. Yes! I trust
that my children will do this.

Thank you to all who have responded and shared on this subject.

Sara

Nanci Kuykendall

I did send a long post on this topic some time ago. I
thought it was worth spending the time to write it and
that it presented an alternate view on the tv "issue."
I was wondering if it didn't go through or what,
because I didn't get a single comment on it. I don't
expect everyone to gather round and make me the center
of attention or anything, but it feels kind of like
being at a party and offering your thoughts or
feelings in a conversation and having no one look at
you or listen to you and act like you are not there
and they don't hear you. I really was interested in
hearing what others had to say about what I offered on
the topic. Normally I don't say anything about this
"posting into the ether" pehonmenon, but this has
happened to me a lot over the years and I just thought
I would mention it just this once and see if anyone
did see my message.

ok, so anyway, I did have an additional comment to add
on this discussion.

We don't have broadcast tv, no cable, no rabbit ears.
We have dvds and tapes galore and all enjoy watching
movies and shows that way, usually together, on our
one tv. Partly we don't have it because we don't want
it. We decided not to have it years ago when we still
lived in town and had digital cable at that time
before we stopped. However for the last 4 years
we've lived in a place where we can't get tv, there's
no regular reception and no possibility of cable.
Well ok, we could if we paid for a sattelite dish and
the large monthly service fee for that, but we cannot
afford that and even if we could squeeze it into the
budget at some point in the future, we've all
discussed it and choose to do other things with our
money. Maybe that will change at some time, who
knows.

Our kids are 7, almost 9 and 19. They don't complain
about not having tv, wish for it, or feel like they
are missing anything. They don't feel lost in
conversation with their friends due to lack of
braodcast tv, and neither do we. We don't have a
whole lot of opportunities to see it other places, but
we do on occassion and we often don't like it.
Commercials in particular usually all of us can't
stand, although a few are clever and less annoying.
Our teen lived with a boyfriend and his daughter for a
while and hated how the tv affected their lifestyle
and the tv programming in general that she saw there.


I'm not condemming tv. We have one, we think there
are lots of great shows and information available on
it. It's a tool, like any other, no more evil or
harmful than how it's used. I'm just presenting the
view of an unschooling household with unschooled kids
who don't live with broadcast tv.

Nanci K.

S.Waynforth

--- In [email protected], Sara McGrath <msaraann@g...> wrote:
>
> They're 3 years and 7 mos old at this time.

Which makes limiting access to televised programs less an issue. But,
they will only be this little for a very little period of time. I
think it is good that you say you will not discount their desires for
a television out of hand. But maybe, just maybe, you should consider
bringing one into your household at some point.

> One could argue that the
> Internet is no different for the variety of content, but at the girls'
> young ages, the tv poses more of a threat of disturbing content since
> they don't necessarily interact with it to view that content.

When Simon was 3 and Linnaea was 7 months we lived in Japan. We had
Japanese television mostly in Japanese, but with the occasional
program in de Englishu. The fact that he didn't understand what was
being said didn't keep Simon from enjoying television. He loved Am
Pan Man a cartoon show with a hero who had a cookie for a head. In
every episode the bad guy would somehow destroy his head and Am Pan
Man's baker father would have to bake him a replacement head. There
were really interesting other characters like the toothpaste man and
the guy with a rice bowl for a head, the bad guys ate all the rice and
left him sitting with stars rolling around his head in the classic
dazed look. Late at night they ran Mr. Bean which I would tape so that
Simon could watch them the next day. And they had Pokemon. Pokemon
has been one of Simon's favorite shows ever since. They would run the
new episodes at like 7 in the evening in English with Misty giving an
English phrase lesson at the end of the show, playing the dialogue in
Japanese and then again in English. He never chose at 3 to watch
anything disturbing when he was 3. And he still never chooses to
watch anything that disturbs him. We saw Harry Potter and the
Prisoner of Azkaban at the cinema and the scene where Lupin becomes a
werewolf haunted him for a time. When we were at a friend's house
this summer and they all wanted to watch the movie Simon walked out of
the room when the werewolf scene came up again. I called him back when
it was over. Last night David (dh) and Simon wanted to watch The
Meaning of Life before bed, but Linnaea hadn't liked it all that much,
instead she chose to go upstairs and cuddle with me while watching Tom
and Jerry in the Magic Ring. There isn't passivity in how they watch.
If something disturbs me I walk out of the room, if something
disturbs them they walk out of the room or speak up or turn off the
television.

> I don't
> feel that I'm doing them any disservice by not providing a tv, when
> there's a whole world available for learning and enjoying.

I can't access the whole world. I can't offer my children insights
into rural China. I wouldn't have thought of The Grim World of Billy
and Mandy, nor would I have thought to offer it to them without
Cartoon Network.

> We have
> what we have. My family didn't have computers or game machines when I
> was a child.
This sounds too much like "what was good enough for me is good enough
for my children," which so often, in my experience, prefaces some sort
of unpleasant life experience like boarding school or living in a
council estate in the UK.

> > > If I had a tv, I wouldn't feel right about setting limits.
Likewise,
> > if there's sugar in >the house, the kids get to eat it.
> >
> > Why would you need to set limits? Why is the presence of a
television
> > something that would cause you to set limits? And what is it about
> > sugar that produces the same response in you?
>
> I wouldn't feel that I was meeting my responsibility to protect my
> children (at their current ages of 3 and 7 mos) if I provided them
> with porn including the softcore content on tv or the gruesome
> violence.

What is the pornography that you believe your children will seek out
if you get a television? In the UK, late at night, on Channel 4 in
particular, there is soft-core porn. Real Life in a Brothel or some
such, but neither Simon nor Linnaea have ever wanted to watch such a
thing. I am sure the day will come when they will both be fascinated
with such programs but at 5 and 8 they just aren't curious about those
kinds of things.

> I don't think not having a tv is a limiting action any more than not
> having a computer when I was a child was a limiting action by my
> mother. We simply didn't have one.

It is a limitation. By not having a television you are choosing to
limit your children's access to certain media. I don't know when you
were a child; I don't know what the economics of your childhood were,
but, your mother's choice not to have a computer was a limitation as
well. David and my choice not to have a satellite dish put on our
chimney likewise is a limitation. We are limiting the options of our
children's lives by deciding that the structural damage that might
ensue is something we don't want to risk. Knowing that it is a
choice, and knowing why we've chosen to limit the number of channels
we receive makes it an informed limitation.

> Sugar is a drug. It is an unnatural non-food.

Sugar is in bread, in fruit, in sugar cane, in vegetables. It is
natural. But being natural doesn't make something good. Smallpox is
natural. E-coli is natural. Heck, drugs are natural: beer,
marijuana, Psilocybe mushrooms, yakowana tree bark (which the Yanamamo
Indians use), to name a few. I wouldn't base your avoidance on natural
vs. unnatural things.

>Yes, my children eat
> sugar (although I feel guilty about providing it.)

Guilt is an awful thing to offer with food.

> Since about two-yrs-old my first
> daughter has not resisted when I tell her that something is
"tummy-sick."

What does that mean?

Sometimes in the evening Linnaea will ask to have a glass of
caffeinated soda. I will mention to her that sometimes caffeine makes
it hard for her to get to sleep which she has found frustrating in the
past. If she still chooses to have the soda I won't stop her. Is
that what you mean by telling her that something is "tummy-sick"? Are
you giving her information so that she can make an informed choice?
The words "not resisted" makes it sound like if you say something is
"tummy-sick" and she says she still wants it you won't let her choose
to have it.

Sandra has a page on food limits: http://sandradodd.com/food and on
television http://sandradodd.com/tv that you might get more from.
Joyce has a page as well:
http://home.earthlink.net/~fetteroll/rejoycing/influencing%20kid%20behavior/food/food.html


Joyce also has a few pages on television, one of which seemed to
address at least some of what you've said:
http://home.earthlink.net/~fetteroll/rejoycing/influencing%20kid%20behavior/tv%20and%20video%20games/myvalues.html

Schuyler

Gold Standard

>>I did send a long post on this topic some time ago <snip>
>>I didn't get a single comment on it.<<

This has happened to me many times too Nanci! I know what you mean that it
feels like you're being ignored. Rest assured from this end of the
connection that I either didn't see your post (I was offline for two months
with my ailing dad who has since passed away) or didn't have time to
respond, or didn't have anything to say. I'm assuming that is the case with
most people in one way or another. If you look at it, there really are only
a handful or two of people who write regularly on this list, so that is
certainly a possibility.

It also could just a matter of timing. For whatever reason, maybe the stars
have aligned in a way that people are contributing to this discussion now.
Just know that you are not being shunned!

>>Partly we don't have it because we don't want
>>it.<<

It seems to me that if each member of your family does not want TV, then you
are making those decisions well together. I think TV is a loaded issue with
many people and this list will prod a person to REALLY evaluate their
decisions about it. For many adults, it is a control issue, and those need
to be looked at in unschooling I think.

We have four TVs and most of the time none of them are on. Sometimes all of
them are on, but that is extremely rare. At the moment, my 11 yo is watching
college football by himself (he just flipped on the TV and put it
on...clicked by a violent loud war movie, MTV, the news, various cartoons,
and settled on this). My husband is watching a History Channel special. My
15 and 16 yo sons are playing music together. My 13 you daughter is at the
movie theatre with friends watching "In Her Shoes" with money she earned.
The TVs were off for two days prior to this evening. That was lovely too.

I think my kids know what works for them media-wise based on having freedom
and open discussions together. We have processed many a situation seen on
the screen...argumentative behavior, violence, teasing, sex, etc. None of it
has been taboo. AND, we know the difference between the TV running our
lives, and us running our lives.

Jeez, I thought I was done writing about this...guess not!

Thanks,
Jacki

Sara McGrath

> Sometimes in the evening Linnaea will ask to have a glass of
> caffeinated soda. I will mention to her that sometimes caffeine makes
> it hard for her to get to sleep which she has found frustrating in the
> past. If she still chooses to have the soda I won't stop her. Is
> that what you mean by telling her that something is "tummy-sick"? Are
> you giving her information so that she can make an informed choice?
> The words "not resisted" makes it sound like if you say something is
> "tummy-sick" and she says she still wants it you won't let her choose
> to have it.

My daughter is gluten-intolerant. She knows from experience what
"tummy-sick" means and feels like. That's why she doesn't "resist"
when I tell her something is tummy-sick, meaning that it contains
gluten or one of her other allergens. Any amount of gluten damages her
intestines and inhibits her ability to absorb nutrients. If I left the
decision up to her, she could die before she had accumulated enough
experience and reasoning ability to decide to completely avoid gluten.
If my daughter enjoyed the tast of glue or the smell of harmful fumes,
I'd do more than simply inform her of the down side.

Sara
--
Sprouts http://clanmcgrath.blogspot.com
Unschooling Resources http://unschoolingresources.blogspot.com
Mother Anarchy http://motheranarchy.blogspot.com
My baby is diaper-free! http://diaperfreebaby.org

Sara McGrath

> Sugar is of plant origin, it does contain one essential nutrient (carbohydrate) and it is assimilated by the human body. Therefore, sugar is a food.
>
> To tell your children otherwise is to give them false information. When they find out that you misled them about sugar, they will wonder what else you've said that isn't true.

"Dr. Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been
depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left
consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this
refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins
and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant
in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that
particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates.
Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic
metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five
carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system
and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic
metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot
get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some
of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the
body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."
http://www.ghchealth.com/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all.html

Sara

Joyce Fetteroll

On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:15 AM, Sara McGrath wrote:

> The body cannot utilize this
> refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins
> and minerals are present.

*If* this is true, it's only a problem for people who eat sugar and
nothing else.

But this isn't the place to bring reports that fill people with fear.
It's a place to discuss how we can help our children explore the
world freely while living our own values. It's a place where we can
help parents help their kids explore cartoons when the parents don't
care for them, and help the parents help kids explore their curiosity
about guns and weapons when the parents are peaceful.

Honestly I could undoubtedly dig up dozens of reports full of
scientific words that have been touted throughout my nearly 50 years
that have not panned out. I'm not saying the report on sugar is wrong
or right. But it's not a Mack truck. It's not a bottle of insecticide.

> Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system
> and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic
> metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot
> get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some
> of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the
> body and is the beginning of degenerative disease.

This all sounds scary. But what effect do you feel? What effect do
you see in others? Will your children die before reaching adulthood
if they eat sugar?

Each of us has areas in our lives where we've read something that
sounds sufficiently worrisome that we alter what we choose for
ourselves. I read about an aluminum connection with Alzheimers.
There's no conclusive evidence -- and maybe it's all been refuted
since -- but why take the chance with aluminum cookware and
antiperspirants when 1) there are other choices and 2) my decision
isn't preventing others from making different decisions?

We will all through our lives weigh the pros and cons of various
things we hear and *choose* whether or not to make some sacrifice in
order to get something we think is better (sacrifice your own
consumption of sugar for your belief that it will prevent certain
degenerative diseases in your case). That's very different than
someone deciding for *you* that *you* will make a sacrifice in order
to get something that *they* think is better for you.

I can see why you would choose not to eat sugar. But even if your
children eat a lot of sugar for the next 18 years they will not die
before they're old enough to read the pros and cons for themselves
and make a decision about sugar for themselves.

See it from your children's point of view. Your children are seeing a
world of children and adults eating sugar freely. The children are
happy and look to all intents and purposes healthy. The children
aren't dying. And there you are standing between your children and
things that they want to try with a lot of scary reports that say
sugar is poison and that the world is too scary to play freely in.
Children need an adult who can understand science to tell them what
is safe and what is unsafe. Children can't do it on their own. They
can't trust what they see: Those children are sick. They're on their
way to degenerative diseases.

It's one thing for your husband to decide he's not going to watch his
favorite genre of movies because he's read something about brain
chemistry changes that occur and he thinks it's worth the sacrifice
to give up something he likes to get something he believes is
better. It's an entirely different thing for him to decide you can't
watch those movies either because he wants you to have what he thinks
is something better.

Joyce
Answers to common unschooling questions: http://home.earthlink.net/
~fetteroll/rejoycing/
Weekly writing prompts: [email protected]




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

Joyce Fetteroll

On Oct 7, 2005, at 9:28 PM, Nanci Kuykendall wrote:

> I'm just presenting the
> view of an unschooling household with unschooled kids
> who don't live with broadcast tv.

I think this is a nonissue. The discussions aren't about whether or
not to have a TV. The discussions are whether or not to allow
children access to TV.

There is a huge power difference between adults and children.
Children are well aware of it even if parents try their best not to
exploit it.

If a home doesn't have a TV because the parents don't want it -- and
especially if the parents don't like it -- that's a huge barrier
between children and TV. It may not feel like a barrier to the
parents. They can *say* "If the kids want it, we'll discuss it," or
even "If the kids want it, we'll get them one," but it isn't the same
situation as a family just not having broadcast TV because of
location or finances or truly mutual choice. They may outwardly look
the same, but inwardly the children don't have the same freedom of
choice.

Last month we were a non-car magazines owning family but when my
daughter saw an exotic car magazine at the grocery store we bought
it. Since then we've become a 2 car magazine owning family.

That's not the same situation as having a parent who is
philosophically against cars or against conspicuous consumption not
owning any car magazines. If I were such a parent I might project
openness by *saying* she could have any magazine she wants, but my
beliefs would be a barrier between her and things that went against
my beliefs. She would know wanting a magazine full of flashy cars
felt somehow wrong.

The TV discussions aren't about whether or not TV is necessary in
order to unschool. The discussions are about helping our children
explore the world freely. They're about being our children's partner
in their exploration rather than their director. They're about being
aware of how our own beliefs can be a barrier to our children's free
exploration. (We can give them that freedom but it takes a lot of
awareness to hold strong beliefs while having a stronger belief our
children have a right and need to explore and hold their own beliefs.)

Joyce
Answers to common unschooling questions: http://home.earthlink.net/
~fetteroll/rejoycing/
Weekly writing prompts: [email protected]




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