Development and patterns
Sandra Dodd
Development and patterns of children and discussion lists
<<<<<WHO among those who have told their children "no" ten thousand
times
would believe me saying that a girl has said "no thanks" to all
manner of pressure for her to let me set her up with a TV in her
room, from the age of 12 to 14 (so far)? They wouldn't believe it
possible. >>>>>>>
-=-But not all kids are like Holly.-=-
That was my point.
Kirby and Marty aren't even like Holly.
But someone in the family whose mom was able to post on this list
that she wasn't sure if all the kids' rooms had TVs or not must be
like Holly. Their kids aren't shoving up front to make sure they
have a TV, or that if their sibling has one they have one too (TV or
five dollars or a donut or whatever the thing is).
But it doesn't matter if Holly is the only one in a world of six
billion people who prefers not to have a TV.
The point is that in a home in which the parents are willing and
eager to provide their children with an in-bedroom TV, it has come to
pass in that real-world longterm situation, that a young teen put the
TV out of her room one day and hasn't wanted it back, nor a more
convenient replacement.
That fact disproves any and all claims of desperation, grabbiness,
the commonly-stated "evils" of parents letting kids have a TV, the
slippery-slope threats of what will happen if children are allowed to
have TV in their rooms and never come out, and ALL of that. It
dissolves into a mist because Holly Dodd COULD have that and doesn't
want it. It is NOT a natural inevitable "fact" that if children
aren't limited and controlled they WILL do nothing but watch TV, eat
sugar, etc. One of the entries in that current unschooling blog
carnival has a GREAT list of such things that the mom came up with,
but here are lots
that real parents have stated in public about their own children.
http://sandradodd.com/ifilet
Holly alone would disprove them.
But it's NOT Holly alone. There are scores of children, in families
on this list and related others, who DO have a HUGE range of choices,
and they choose to be with their families, to hang out with their
siblings, to do things with their parents, to be helpful to
strangers. BY CHOICE. In the case of my own kids (and scores of
others) it's not even out of religious obligation or to get a scout
badge. It is simply because it seems like the right thing to do at
the moment, to help someone or to do little things that no one else
will ever even know they did.
I DO have really good kids, and yes, sometimes we get grouchy, but we
don't rejoice in it or maintain and defend our arguments. We see
them, pull back out, make things better, and go again. Because the
principles on which all this nest of unschooling is based are part of
the decision making of everyone involved, things work out better in
2006 than they would have if we hadn't made conscious decisions to do
the best we could based on our beliefs and intentions, in each of the
past twenty years.
ANYONE can move toward this. Anyone could resist it and declare it
not real.
If anyone makes a conscious decision to move away from it, or to
decide not to move toward it, it is certainly not that unschoolers
haven't shared enough of their lives.
Here are some archives to read if anyone doubts my statement above:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/messages
26,500 messages, but others will be posted today. Nearly five years'
worth.
http://groups.google.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion
newer location for that list, open archive, 336 topics some with
dozens of posts, some shorter
Older location, you'd have to join the list to read the archives but
that's doable:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion
113,154 posts over seven years.
That's a lot of people sharing the details of their very real
unschooling lives.
I don't think we should have to repeat it all from scratch to prove
we're "real." Good parts are collected here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~fetteroll/rejoycing/
and
http://sandradodd.com/unschooling
and both of those have MANY links to other people's sites.
Am I repeating myself? I did change the name of the topic. But of
course we repeat ourselves on these lists. And often we provide
links to something that we *could* tell again but it's easier to
share a piece of writing that was particularly good.
I don't mind repeating myself. Nobody makes me keep this list. I
could close it today, delete my site, stop sharing. I choose not
to. It's fine for people to partake of those resources or not.
It's fine for people to say "Throw me a bone...are you for real?"
People make choices.
It's fine for me to see it as tacky.
The purpose of this list was clearly stated five years ago and is
still here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<<<<WHO among those who have told their children "no" ten thousand
times
would believe me saying that a girl has said "no thanks" to all
manner of pressure for her to let me set her up with a TV in her
room, from the age of 12 to 14 (so far)? They wouldn't believe it
possible. >>>>>>>
-=-But not all kids are like Holly.-=-
That was my point.
Kirby and Marty aren't even like Holly.
But someone in the family whose mom was able to post on this list
that she wasn't sure if all the kids' rooms had TVs or not must be
like Holly. Their kids aren't shoving up front to make sure they
have a TV, or that if their sibling has one they have one too (TV or
five dollars or a donut or whatever the thing is).
But it doesn't matter if Holly is the only one in a world of six
billion people who prefers not to have a TV.
The point is that in a home in which the parents are willing and
eager to provide their children with an in-bedroom TV, it has come to
pass in that real-world longterm situation, that a young teen put the
TV out of her room one day and hasn't wanted it back, nor a more
convenient replacement.
That fact disproves any and all claims of desperation, grabbiness,
the commonly-stated "evils" of parents letting kids have a TV, the
slippery-slope threats of what will happen if children are allowed to
have TV in their rooms and never come out, and ALL of that. It
dissolves into a mist because Holly Dodd COULD have that and doesn't
want it. It is NOT a natural inevitable "fact" that if children
aren't limited and controlled they WILL do nothing but watch TV, eat
sugar, etc. One of the entries in that current unschooling blog
carnival has a GREAT list of such things that the mom came up with,
but here are lots
that real parents have stated in public about their own children.
http://sandradodd.com/ifilet
Holly alone would disprove them.
But it's NOT Holly alone. There are scores of children, in families
on this list and related others, who DO have a HUGE range of choices,
and they choose to be with their families, to hang out with their
siblings, to do things with their parents, to be helpful to
strangers. BY CHOICE. In the case of my own kids (and scores of
others) it's not even out of religious obligation or to get a scout
badge. It is simply because it seems like the right thing to do at
the moment, to help someone or to do little things that no one else
will ever even know they did.
I DO have really good kids, and yes, sometimes we get grouchy, but we
don't rejoice in it or maintain and defend our arguments. We see
them, pull back out, make things better, and go again. Because the
principles on which all this nest of unschooling is based are part of
the decision making of everyone involved, things work out better in
2006 than they would have if we hadn't made conscious decisions to do
the best we could based on our beliefs and intentions, in each of the
past twenty years.
ANYONE can move toward this. Anyone could resist it and declare it
not real.
If anyone makes a conscious decision to move away from it, or to
decide not to move toward it, it is certainly not that unschoolers
haven't shared enough of their lives.
Here are some archives to read if anyone doubts my statement above:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/messages
26,500 messages, but others will be posted today. Nearly five years'
worth.
http://groups.google.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion
newer location for that list, open archive, 336 topics some with
dozens of posts, some shorter
Older location, you'd have to join the list to read the archives but
that's doable:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion
113,154 posts over seven years.
That's a lot of people sharing the details of their very real
unschooling lives.
I don't think we should have to repeat it all from scratch to prove
we're "real." Good parts are collected here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~fetteroll/rejoycing/
and
http://sandradodd.com/unschooling
and both of those have MANY links to other people's sites.
Am I repeating myself? I did change the name of the topic. But of
course we repeat ourselves on these lists. And often we provide
links to something that we *could* tell again but it's easier to
share a piece of writing that was particularly good.
I don't mind repeating myself. Nobody makes me keep this list. I
could close it today, delete my site, stop sharing. I choose not
to. It's fine for people to partake of those resources or not.
It's fine for people to say "Throw me a bone...are you for real?"
People make choices.
It's fine for me to see it as tacky.
The purpose of this list was clearly stated five years ago and is
still here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rod Thomas
You're missing my intent and my question, and my humor. As I said it
was a genuine question, not a dig. But I'm snarky (love that new word)
by nature, in a comical way.
<<<It is NOT a natural inevitable "fact" that if children
aren't limited and controlled they WILL do nothing but watch TV, eat
sugar, etc.>>>
But its certainly possible.
<<<ANYONE can move toward this. Anyone could resist it and declare it
not real.>>>
"I wasn't saying it wasn't real. I was saying I needed to hear
something besides the fluffy stuff. I am not as crafty with words and
expressing myself as you are.
<<<I don't think we should have to repeat it all...
Am I repeating myself?
But of course we repeat ourselves on these lists.
I don't mind repeating myself. >>>
Huh?
<<<It's fine for people to say "Throw me a bone...are you for real?">>>
I said "I just want to KNOW you are real".
Excuse the "throw me a bone", but I just love that expression.
Flyerkat
I think I should post my own good unschooling day and bad unschooling
day, for the archives.
was a genuine question, not a dig. But I'm snarky (love that new word)
by nature, in a comical way.
<<<It is NOT a natural inevitable "fact" that if children
aren't limited and controlled they WILL do nothing but watch TV, eat
sugar, etc.>>>
But its certainly possible.
<<<ANYONE can move toward this. Anyone could resist it and declare it
not real.>>>
"I wasn't saying it wasn't real. I was saying I needed to hear
something besides the fluffy stuff. I am not as crafty with words and
expressing myself as you are.
<<<I don't think we should have to repeat it all...
Am I repeating myself?
But of course we repeat ourselves on these lists.
I don't mind repeating myself. >>>
Huh?
<<<It's fine for people to say "Throw me a bone...are you for real?">>>
I said "I just want to KNOW you are real".
Excuse the "throw me a bone", but I just love that expression.
Flyerkat
I think I should post my own good unschooling day and bad unschooling
day, for the archives.
Sandra Dodd
-=-<<<It is NOT a natural inevitable "fact" that if children
aren't limited and controlled they WILL do nothing but watch TV, eat
sugar, etc.>>>
-=-But its certainly possible.-=-
We've shown examples of people who do not.
You will not find an example of anyone who did.
http://sandradodd.com/ifilet
It is not possible.
To claim it's possible is entirely disrespectful of children and
shows a lack of awareness of human nature.
It is not a fact that all dogs have four legs.
You could respond with "But it's certainly possible."
That isn't logical.
One three-legged dog disproves it.
-=-You're missing my intent and my question, and my humor.-=-
Your intent and your question seem clear.
The humor wasn't apparent at all.
In April you criticized this list, and me. If it hasn't improved for
you since April, it probably won't. There are other lists here:
http://sandradodd.com/lists/other
You're welcome to stay here, but reading the links people provide and
actually thinking about it will do you and your children better than
insulting those who are voluntarily helping you, even if you thought
you were being funny.
-=-I wasn't saying it wasn't real. I was saying I needed to hear
something besides the fluffy stuff. I am not as crafty with words and
expressing myself as you are.-=-
Those who can't drive safely shouldn't drive. It's not good for them
or others.
If you can't write without a knowledge of when you're being rude, be
more careful where you write.
To try to defend this morning's rudeness by now describing the
sharings of so many who ARE good with words, and who volunteer quite
a bit of time and energy to helping others as "FLUFFY STUFF" makes
you look not only crafty, but insincere.
-=-I was saying I needed to hear something besides the fluffy stuff.-=-
-=-Excuse the "throw me a bone", but I just love that expression.-=-
Words should be used thoughtfully and deliberately. There are times
and places for different phrases. As list owner, I will let you know
that this list isn't the place to insult those who are voluntarily
offering advice you're unlikely to find many other places.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
aren't limited and controlled they WILL do nothing but watch TV, eat
sugar, etc.>>>
-=-But its certainly possible.-=-
We've shown examples of people who do not.
You will not find an example of anyone who did.
http://sandradodd.com/ifilet
It is not possible.
To claim it's possible is entirely disrespectful of children and
shows a lack of awareness of human nature.
It is not a fact that all dogs have four legs.
You could respond with "But it's certainly possible."
That isn't logical.
One three-legged dog disproves it.
-=-You're missing my intent and my question, and my humor.-=-
Your intent and your question seem clear.
The humor wasn't apparent at all.
In April you criticized this list, and me. If it hasn't improved for
you since April, it probably won't. There are other lists here:
http://sandradodd.com/lists/other
You're welcome to stay here, but reading the links people provide and
actually thinking about it will do you and your children better than
insulting those who are voluntarily helping you, even if you thought
you were being funny.
-=-I wasn't saying it wasn't real. I was saying I needed to hear
something besides the fluffy stuff. I am not as crafty with words and
expressing myself as you are.-=-
Those who can't drive safely shouldn't drive. It's not good for them
or others.
If you can't write without a knowledge of when you're being rude, be
more careful where you write.
To try to defend this morning's rudeness by now describing the
sharings of so many who ARE good with words, and who volunteer quite
a bit of time and energy to helping others as "FLUFFY STUFF" makes
you look not only crafty, but insincere.
-=-I was saying I needed to hear something besides the fluffy stuff.-=-
-=-Excuse the "throw me a bone", but I just love that expression.-=-
Words should be used thoughtfully and deliberately. There are times
and places for different phrases. As list owner, I will let you know
that this list isn't the place to insult those who are voluntarily
offering advice you're unlikely to find many other places.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rod Thomas
IMO, I never insulted anyone. Your reply did.
I just cant seem to get my point thru, so I guess I will stop driving.
Flyerkat, back to lurking.
I just cant seem to get my point thru, so I guess I will stop driving.
Flyerkat, back to lurking.
Sandra Dodd
-=-IMO, I never insulted anyone. Your reply did.-=
If you're unable to separate discussion of ideas from discussion of
individuals, it might be best to lurk.
Joyce has written quite a bit, and clearly, about the discussion of
principles.
Some is here:
http://sandradodd.com/lists/faq
There's more at that link, but here's something good, written on and
about this particular list:
The list is about ideas, not about people.
Think of ideas like balls and the list like a ball court. If someone
tosses an idea worth discussing into the court it's going to get
batted about. At that point what's going on is no longer about the
person who tossed the idea in. It's about the idea and how well and
cleanly it's being tossed about. (Unless the tosser keeps jumping in
and grabbing the idea ball saying "Mine!")
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you're unable to separate discussion of ideas from discussion of
individuals, it might be best to lurk.
Joyce has written quite a bit, and clearly, about the discussion of
principles.
Some is here:
http://sandradodd.com/lists/faq
There's more at that link, but here's something good, written on and
about this particular list:
The list is about ideas, not about people.
Think of ideas like balls and the list like a ball court. If someone
tosses an idea worth discussing into the court it's going to get
batted about. At that point what's going on is no longer about the
person who tossed the idea in. It's about the idea and how well and
cleanly it's being tossed about. (Unless the tosser keeps jumping in
and grabbing the idea ball saying "Mine!")
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]