John Rizzo

I am just reading A.S. Neill's Summerhill for the first time and he
makes a big point on distinguishing in his mind Freedom vs. License.
He seems to label license as letting the kids do whatever they want
and freedom as letting them do what they want as long as it does not
infringe on the rights of others. He is big on property rights, and
some of the things he sees as license, I have no problem with. For
example,

1. Painting the door on the house. I let my kids paint whatever
they want with washable paints and am open to most suggestions for
changing the color of things/walls with regular paint. It is just a
door, I have no problem with this.

2. Walking on the table. I have no problem with this if it is not
dinnertime and the table loaded with food.

3. Jumping from a piano to a couch. Jumping around the house from
and onto various items of furniture is a common game at our house.
If something gets broken, it is just a piece of furniture and can be
replaced.

So I guess my question is this: Am I going to far and possibly
hurting my kids development by not enforcing (or even wanting to
enforce) more property rights? Or, possibly this is just another
example of Neill being ahead of his times on some thinking, but
behind on others (ie, the use of fines and punishments, sexism, etc.)?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

-John Rizzo

Robyn L. Coburn

<<<<> So I guess my question is this: Am I going to far and possibly
> hurting my kids development by not enforcing (or even wanting to
> enforce) more property rights? Or, possibly this is just another
> example of Neill being ahead of his times on some thinking, but
> behind on others (ie, the use of fines and punishments, sexism, etc.)?>>>

I don't know about being ahead of his time or what, but the only hurt would
be if you didn't clarify with your kids that what was acceptable at their
house, with their furniture etc, may not be acceptable at someone else's
place or a public/community property place. The property itself has no
intrinsic "rights".

There is a great scene in the recent "Yours, Mine and Ours" where one of the
teenage boys spray paints his side of the ceiling. His roommate (from the
other family) calls it "vandalism", he calls it "decorating".

More later maybe speaking as a renter, but now I'm being called.

Robyn L. Coburn

Sandra Dodd

-=-Am I going to far and possibly
> hurting my kids development by not enforcing (or even wanting to
> enforce) more property rights?-=-


-=-The property itself has no
intrinsic "rights".-=-

Whoa!

The property doesn't have rights, but the property OWNER has rights.


-=-Jumping from a piano to a couch. Jumping around the house from
and onto various items of furniture is a common game at our house.
If something gets broken, it is just a piece of furniture and can be
replaced.-=-

A piano isn't just a piece of furniture. It's a musical instrument.
I'm guessing you mean from the piano bench to the couch. There are
probably better things to jump from. Pianos aren't easily useable
without the bench or stool.

-=-1. Painting the door on the house. I let my kids paint whatever
they want with washable paints and am open to most suggestions for
changing the color of things/walls with regular paint. It is just a
door, I have no problem with this.-=-

If you own the door and you don't mind washing off what will come off
of tempera or whatever (some will stain) then I see no problem, but I
think the kids should know very, very clearly that it's you giving
them special permission to paint that one door, not that all doors
are for painting or that if anyone else says "no" about having a door
painted that they're unreasonable poots.

-=-2. Walking on the table. I have no problem with this if it is not
dinnertime and the table loaded with food.-=-

The tradition in Western culture, Europe and north America, is NO
FEET on dining tables. Seriously. Work benches, work tables, coffee
tables *maybe* (is it for food or just for looks?), but seriously, to
put shoes or feet on a dining table is kinda nasty, along the lines
of eating with your left hand in much of Africa and the Middle East.
Not good to encourage. Kids can (and should) understand what's what
and what's expected and what will gross other people out.

Sandra








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

John Rizzo

"but seriously, to put shoes or feet on a dining table is kinda nasty,
along the line of eating with your left hand in much of Africa and the
Middle East."

This is where personal taste comes in I think. We always wash the
table before eating, so there are no germs, etc. on it. So "nasty" is
really just a pre-conditioned notion set by society and/or personal
preference. It is not really a factual description of the consequences
of the actions. The table is not nasty when it comes time to eat just
because kids were standing on it two-hours before.

I do agree that it is important to stress that rules are different at
home vs. other peoples homes. This I think is the main argument for
not allowing the sort of leeway I described. It can be hard for a
young child to know the difference between home and visiting.

-John Rizzo

Sandra Dodd

-=-This is where personal taste comes in I think. We always wash the
table before eating, so there are no germs, etc. on it. So "nasty" is
really just a pre-conditioned notion set by society and/or personal
preference. It is not really a factual description of the consequences
of the actions. The table is not nasty when it comes time to eat just
because kids were standing on it two-hours before.-=-

It's not about germs. Those traditions are older than microscopes.

In Africa, you could totally sanitize your hands, but that wouldn't
change the fact that someone had just used an ass-wipe hand to touch
communal food.

Modern people are much less likely to have walked in horse plop and
pig poo these days than they used to, but the idea of the dirtiness
of shoes (and the reality, usually) is still the same.

I don't think it's just "peronal taste."

I think we limit our children when we don't let them know what most
people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy.

Sandra

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

John Rizzo

"I think we limit our children when we don't let them know what most
people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy."

But where do you draw the line between letting them know what most
people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy and forcing them
into conforming to etiquette and courtesy that you do not believe in
just so they can fit in at some point in the future? Do they have to
say "sorry" or "thank you" when they don't mean it just to conform to
common courtesy? Or is the line somehow drawn at courtesy and
etiquette in relation to property? If so, isn't that valuing property
over the feelings and experience craving of a child?

And related to that question, won't they just figure out what most
people consider etiquette and courtesy based on their own experiences
and make their own choice on whether or not to conform? Isn't this
very similar to a child choosing what interests her or not?

My children are little, so I am still working through all this in
practice and in my head. The discussion is helpful.

-John Rizzo

Pamela Sorooshian

On Aug 27, 2007, at 1:33 PM, John Rizzo wrote:

>
> This is where personal taste comes in I think. We always wash the
> table before eating, so there are no germs, etc. on it.

When you sit down to eat a meal, the food is on plates, so by your
logic, why clean the table at all? Probably just because it is to
your personal taste. <G>

Saying it is "just" a notion set by society and personal preference
makes it sound like those notions should always be disregarded. But,
I do want my kids to be socialized to the extent that they can go
places, stay with other people, and be welcome guests.

In case this seems unlikely as a problem - I had a someone here once
who did lean back in his chair and put his feet, wearing shoes, up on
the dining room table. Seemed rude to me and made me think he didn't
know how to behave courteously. I don't like people to put their feet
up on the couch, either, or other furniture we have in our living
room, if their feet are dirty or if they are wearing shoes that
they've worn outdoors. Our kids are older (my baby is 16) and we have
decent furniture, these days. I'm not saying keep kids from playing
on the furniture at all, but it is important for them to know when
and where it is okay and when and where it is rude.

> So "nasty" is
> really just a pre-conditioned notion set by society and/or personal
> preference. It is not really a factual description of the consequences
> of the actions. The table is not nasty when it comes time to eat just
> because kids were standing on it two-hours before.

It probably isn't particularly nasty even if you hadn't washed it,
unless the kids were wearing shoes in which they'd been running
around out in the back yard where the dog poop has not been cleaned
up <BEG>. But the fact is that people are going to feel squeamish
about it, and it would be a disservice to let kids think that nobody
minds about feet or shoes on the dining table.

-pam

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

harmony

>
> The property doesn't have rights, but the property OWNER has rights.


I agree with that. If you want your kids to treat your property like that, that is your choice. But they need to know not to treat other peoples property that way. When my kids were little they loved jumping on the couch. We had a really old couch and we let them. When we got a new couch we didn't let them jump on it. We told them that they need to be nice to things so they will last and stay nice. The old couch had tears in it from jumping. They were not happy that they couldn't jump on it, so they earned some money and bought an old couch from the thrift store to put in their play room. So while I expected them to respect my property, I didn't just tell them NO, they had other options.
Harmony

Sandra Dodd

-=-The table is not nasty when it comes time to eat just
> because kids were standing on it two-hours before.-=-

There's also a difference between a two year old girl in cute soft
little shoes and a twelve year old boy standing on a table.

"It depends."

Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-But where do you draw the line between letting them know what most
people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy and forcing them
into conforming to etiquette and courtesy that you do not believe in
just so they can fit in at some point in the future? -=-

Letting them know cultural expectations is nothing at all like
"forcing them into conforming to etiquette and courtesy that you do
not believe in." Discussing and explaining isn't "forcing."

To divide the world into black and white doesn't help a person think
clearly. It's good to help children see the whole range of factors
and possibilities.

I DO believe in courtesy and etiquette.

Do you have an example of courtesy you don't believe in?


I have a young friend who asked for social assistance from me a few
weeks ago. Since then he has botched two introductions. I spoke
with him about it just yesterday. One introduction was made
awkwardly, so I had no idea what his mother's name was. "My mom" was
nothing I should be calling her. Then in another case Holly and I
stood by while he talked at length with another mom and daughter at a
store. After they left I asked if he had forgotten the mom's name.
He said no, not at all, and named her. So I asked why he hadn't
introduced us.

No one has ever explained the purpose or etiquette of introductions
to this young man. He's 22 years old, and went to school, and has
rented an apartment and had several jobs. He's handicapped, socially.

So I tried to explain the theory, but he was offended by the idea
that first he had to decide which person "ranks." He likes to think
all people are equal, and refuses any suggestion that he should ever
defer to anyone (he didn't have any idea what the term "deference"
even meant, so I said it was like the social right-of-way). He wants
to learn the niceties of social interactions, but after years of
saying it was stupid and of feeling himself opposed to authority
figures, he has made so much posing noise that he can't comfortably
learn those things.

Kirby, a friend of his (my oldest) has been good at introductions
since he was eight or nine. One day Holly said "I wish I was as good
at introducing people as Kirby is," so I coached her a bit. Marty's
nervous, but I think he's picked some technique up from seeing Keith
and Kirby and some other adult friends of ours make smooth
introductions.

Sandra

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

wisdomalways5

>
> I think we limit our children when we don't let them know what most
> people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy.
>
> Sandra
>


I agree- there is some expectations that children need to know about.
My kids know that there are things we talk about at home with our
family (bodily functions) but we do not diccuss them with other people-
not even grandma.

JulieH

Robyn L. Coburn

<<<< My children are little, so I am still working through all this in
> practice and in my head. The discussion is helpful. >>>>

When Jayn was little it was a case of telling her just as we were arriving
that she couldn't run, or whatever, here, but not expecting that the words
alone were sufficient. She needed me to stay with her and head off any
inappropriate behavior. I also modelled asking the host's permission if Jayn
indicated that she wanted to climb or touch.

It was really rare that I took her to places where her usual inclinations
had to be suppressed much. The most nerve racking place we visited was her
101 year old aunt's house who had precious china knick knacks about on low
surfaces. Instead of twirling and dancing inside, we ended up going outside
to pick lemons and oranges off the trees instead, and dancing in the
driveway, which the old lady loved.

Now older, Jayn has become able to take her cue from the host children if
visiting kids, and also remembering the verbal coaching most of the time.
However I don't usually feel the need to destroy her present happiness in
(for example) walking across the back of the sofa by choosing that moment to
say, "Most people don't want you to do this". It is better to mention
different behavior expectations on our way to the outing, and also for me
not to make assumptions about what other people expect. Most of our friends
are almost as relaxed as we are, some even more so.

I wish I could remember any particular moment or age that it became clear
that Jayn understood that home is one place, and other places are different,
but I can't. It seems like she always did, but that may just be one of her
intelligences. She is really good at asking, either me or someone else (or
asking me to ask on her behalf).

Maybe that is the most useful thing to tell them - just to ask first or at
least check in with you or the host *before* climbing on to the top of
someone else's piano.

Robyn L. Coburn

wisdomalways5

--- In [email protected], "John Rizzo" <jmcrizzo@...>
wrote:
>
> "I think we limit our children when we don't let them know what
most
> people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy."
>
> But where do you draw the line between letting them know what most
> people expect of them as to etiquette and courtesy and forcing
them
> into conforming to etiquette and courtesy that you do not believe
in
> just so they can fit in at some point in the future?


You could say- we do this at home but not at anyone eles house
unless their kids are doing it first or you ask their parents.

some things people do not want to see- like your kid picking their
nose- it is something they may do in front of you but not in front
of other people.

Different things are expected in different areas. Kids will pick up
on this as they go places and see others- parents who allow their
kids to act like banshees everywhere are lacking in helping children
see what is appropriate and what is not.

There are times when you can "bend" rules to fit unschooling- or non-
conformity. you have to take it case by case

John Rizzo

> Letting them know cultural expectations is nothing at all like
> "forcing them into conforming to etiquette and courtesy that you do
> not believe in." Discussing and explaining isn't "forcing."

I agree that discussing and explaining is appropriate.

> To divide the world into black and white doesn't help a person think
> clearly. It's good to help children see the whole range of factors
> and possibilities.

I also agree with this strongly. The freedom we have at our house
leads to discussions of how other people live when I have to explain
different preferences and restrictions at various homes. I think it
helps expand the children's knowledge of social situations and how
they are usually different than being at home.

> I DO believe in courtesy and etiquette.
>
> Do you have an example of courtesy you don't believe in?

Well you implied that not walking on tables is common courtesy for
kids. I don't believe it is an issue at all, but would of course
respect someone else's contrary view in their home.

I also hate giving thank you notes for gifts, does that count? Seems
like the gratitude should be implied and the note is a waste of time
and paper. Plus just one more obligation to get done and feel guilty
if you don't do it. I have always thought that it was a silly tradition.

It just seems like kids will pick-up what they need about social
customs just by interacting in society and some simple discussion by
us as parents. I don't think I need to place any sort of priority on
social nicities, I have confidence if the kids can learn to read and
speak, they can learn that people think it is appropriate to make
introductions and decide what to do with that knowledge on their own.

-John

Sandra Dodd

-=-Well you implied that not walking on tables is common courtesy for
kids. I don't believe it is an issue at all, but would of course
respect someone else's contrary view in their home.-=-

It doesn't seem quite right and honest to refer to a hundreds-of-
years-old tradition, which is the majority tradition, as "some else's
contrary view."

And there are dining tables in MANY places besides homes.

-=-Well you implied that not walking on tables is common courtesy for
kids.-=-

It is common, and it is courtesy. I hope you're not suggesting
otherwise to your children.

-=-I also hate giving thank you notes for gifts, does that count? Seems
like the gratitude should be implied and the note is a waste of time
and paper. Plus just one more obligation to get done and feel guilty
if you don't do it. I have always thought that it was a silly
tradition.-=-

Times are changing. That tradition came along when gifts were rarely
given in person and there were no phones or e-mail. Tables, and
food, though... that's the same.

-=-I don't think I need to place any sort of priority on
social nicities, I have confidence if the kids can learn to read and
speak, they can learn that people think it is appropriate to make
introductions and decide what to do with that knowledge on their own.
-=-

You don't *need* to, if you don't care about it.

I know someone who's in her 40's now. Her parents never showed her
so much as how to hold a fork and spoon right. She was ashamed as a
teen and young adult, and became a traditional etiquette freak. Some
balance would've been nice.

-=I have confidence if the kids can learn to read and
speak, they can learn that people think it is appropriate to make
introductions and decide what to do with that knowledge on their own.
-=-

They don't learn to read without being surrounded by language, and
people reading to them.
They don't learn to speak without being spoken to and without getting
feedback on their own speech.

Sandra



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

Meghan Anderson-Coates

*******************
3. Jumping from a piano to a couch. Jumping around the house from
and onto various items of furniture is a common game at our house.
If something gets broken, it is just a piece of furniture and can be
replaced.

*******************

Okay, maybe this is just the eco-weeko in me, but wouldn't you want to encourage your kids to care for the things in your home, rather than encouraging destruction? To me it would be a sad waste of resources (time, energy, wood, craftmanship, etc.) to okay the destruction of a piano because it's a piece of furniture (I personally consider it a musical instrument) and can be replaced.
When my kids were smaller, jumping on the bed and couch were commonplace, but there was also more delicate furniture that was off limits for jumping on. Even if we could've afforded to replace the broken furniture, I wouldn't want my broken furniture to end up in the already overcrowded landfills.
Okay, getting off my eco soapbox now <g>.



Meghan

"Everything Is Possible"
~ Deepak Chopra


---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

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

Fetteroll

On Aug 27, 2007, at 5:03 PM, John Rizzo wrote:

> And related to that question, won't they just figure out what most
> people consider etiquette and courtesy based on their own experiences
> and make their own choice on whether or not to conform?

Depends on their interpersonal intelligence that Howard Gardner talks
about

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

Fetteroll

Sorry about that.

On Aug 27, 2007, at 5:03 PM, John Rizzo wrote:

> And related to that question, won't they just figure out what most
> people consider etiquette and courtesy based on their own experiences
> and make their own choice on whether or not to conform?
>

Depends on their interpersonal intelligence that Howard Gardner talks
about in his Multiple Intelliegences theory.

Some people are quick to pick up what others are doing and figure out
appropriate behavior. Some people aren't. Some people are pretty much
oblivious.

Just from a quick read through I'm seeing the words in the question
aren't quite matching the question you want to ask so the answer
isn't making sense.

You're using examples of how your children behave at home as examples
of "appropriate behavior" (because it's okay in your home) and you're
getting answers that say no, that's not appropriate and kids need to
know it isn't.

Kat used to lie sprawled out on the table the way she would on the
floor to eat. I didn't need to tell her not to do it at other
people's homes or at restaurants because she naturally picked up that
it was okay at home and not elsewhere.

Can a parent depend on a child to naturally pick up the difference
between what they can do at home and what they can do elsewhere?

No.

Does that mean parents need to tell their kids what they need to do?

No.

It means you observe your kids and get to know them and respond to
your kids in ways they need. If you pick up that they need some
coaching on the differences in rules from one place to the next, or
on how to behave in special situations then you coach them. If they
seem to get it, then you don't.

It's just sensitivity to other people's (including your children's)
needs to help figure out how to be social beings.

I think what confuses people on the issue of letting kids do what
they want is that while kids may want to jump on Aunt Sorcha's couch,
kids also want people to like them. They sometimes need help in
meeting both those goals.

Joyce

[email protected]

My parents didn't entertain much and those that did come over were family or friends. The rule was pretty much help yourself (to drinks, snacks) and clean up after yourself (dishes in sink or dishwasher). Fairly casual.

But I never really learned the social graces of offering drinks or food when guests (usually still only close family or friends), and since I don't drink coffee personally and don't own a coffee maker, even that (offering a cup of coffee, which is the polite thing to do) isn't something I have.

And I stink at introductions for the same reason. Even though I'm now an adult and try to do better in these areas, I still feel very socially awkward.

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

John Rizzo

> Just from a quick read through I'm seeing the words in the question
aren't quite matching the question you want to ask so the answer isn't
making sense.

Actually, I think the discussion helped me clarify my position.

I took away from the discussion that everyone has their specific
sensitivities and the way that children are restricted in any specific
household will reflect those sensitivities.

Property rights and social conventions seemed to be two big
sensitivities. Neither one matters much to me, so my children will not
be restricted in the home on most issues that encompass these headings,
but they are taught that other people have different sensitivities.

I do feel the need to point out when people are not being rational in
their sensitivities. I think this is vital for raising thinking
children.

-John

diana jenner

On 8/28/07, John Rizzo <jmcrizzo@...> wrote:
>
> Property rights and social conventions seemed to be two big
> sensitivities. Neither one matters much to me, so my children will not
> be restricted in the home on most issues that encompass these headings,
> but they are taught that other people have different sensitivities.
>
> I do feel the need to point out when people are not being rational in
> their sensitivities. I think this is vital for raising thinking
> children.
>
>
>


That sounds judgmental, to *tell* your kids that sensitivities (as in don't
walk on my dining room table) are irrational. Different, yes. Valid,
possibly. Irrational, I don't know, certainly not for me to judge. I see the
end of this thinking path to be: those who's sensitivities I see as
irrational don't have anything to offer me. When, in fact, I've learned the
most from those who think differently than I. Your children may be set up to
only enjoy the company of those who think the same way they do, if those who
think differently are said to be irrational. They're gonna miss out on a
whole 'nother spectrum of folks with whom they could have great
relationships.

Thinking comes from discussions of differences, not of judging them.
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


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

John Rizzo

"Thinking comes from discussions of differences, not of judging them."

I do think it is important to have tolerance of differences, but that
does not mean you have to eliminate the discussion on whether or not
they make any sense. If a factual discussion leads to the conclusion
that something is irrational, so be it. I do try to be aware of my
irrational prejudices, to reduce my kids exposure to them and to keep
them out of our discussions.

For example, if someone grabs something from my daughter because they
don't think she should have it (say lotion for example), I do not teach
her that it is rational action and that it is a perfectly fine way to
act. I discuss that it was a disrespectful and violent action that was
irrational. I also discuss that some people live there lives that way
and that we have to try to be tolerant of their choices.

When my daughter sees my sister spank my nephews, I explain that it is
irrational, violent and disrespectful, but that is how they live. We
don't criticize the action to them, we just tolerate the behavior and
use it as an opportunity to teach. The teaching is a judgment.

I would say that spanking children and grabbing from children are
commonly accepted in society, but I will not teach my children to
respect these actions. Judging in both situations is appropriate in my
opinion.

Society is too afraid to judge.

-John

m.a. kactus

Think of it as an exercise in cultural sensitivity. You don't have to send them to finishing school or turn into Miss Manners--just teach them that there are common, simple rules of etiquette, and following them when they are in other people's homes is simple courtesy and respect. It's not very complicated, and even small children are taught to say "please" and "thank you."

Mary

Fetteroll <fetteroll@...> wrote:
Sorry about that.

On Aug 27, 2007, at 5:03 PM, John Rizzo wrote:

> And related to that question, won't they just figure out what most
> people consider etiquette and courtesy based on their own experiences
> and make their own choice on whether or not to conform?
>

Depends on their interpersonal intelligence that Howard Gardner talks
about in his Multiple Intelliegences theory.

Some people are quick to pick up what others are doing and figure out
appropriate behavior. Some people aren't. Some people are pretty much
oblivious.

Just from a quick read through I'm seeing the words in the question
aren't quite matching the question you want to ask so the answer
isn't making sense.

You're using examples of how your children behave at home as examples
of "appropriate behavior" (because it's okay in your home) and you're
getting answers that say no, that's not appropriate and kids need to
know it isn't.

Kat used to lie sprawled out on the table the way she would on the
floor to eat. I didn't need to tell her not to do it at other
people's homes or at restaurants because she naturally picked up that
it was okay at home and not elsewhere.

Can a parent depend on a child to naturally pick up the difference
between what they can do at home and what they can do elsewhere?

No.

Does that mean parents need to tell their kids what they need to do?

No.

It means you observe your kids and get to know them and respond to
your kids in ways they need. If you pick up that they need some
coaching on the differences in rules from one place to the next, or
on how to behave in special situations then you coach them. If they
seem to get it, then you don't.

It's just sensitivity to other people's (including your children's)
needs to help figure out how to be social beings.

I think what confuses people on the issue of letting kids do what
they want is that while kids may want to jump on Aunt Sorcha's couch,
kids also want people to like them. They sometimes need help in
meeting both those goals.

Joyce





We are all redeemable, even if it's only for 5 minutes at a time.

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

halfshadow1

I am surprised at some comments restricting kids from jumping on their
own sofa or piano. I thought that was a thing with
unschoolers.....that's it's just a piece of furniture. I thought
someone*big* said that a piece of furniture can be replaced and a
happy childhood comes first.or they said a child's happiness is more
important then a piece of furniture. I forgot who has it written down
on their site and which way they wrote/said it but it made an
impression on me because traditionally parents act like the sofa is
more valuable.--- In [email protected], Meghan
Anderson-Coates <meghanandco@...> wrote:
>
> *******************
> 3. Jumping from a piano to a couch. Jumping around the house from
> and onto various items of furniture is a common game at our house.
> If something gets broken, it is just a piece of furniture and can be
> replaced.
>
> *******************
>
> Okay, maybe this is just the eco-weeko in me, but wouldn't you
want to encourage your kids to care for the things in your home,
rather than encouraging destruction? To me it would be a sad waste of
resources (time, energy, wood, craftmanship, etc.) to okay the
destruction of a piano because it's a piece of furniture (I personally
consider it a musical instrument) and can be replaced.
> When my kids were smaller, jumping on the bed and couch were
commonplace, but there was also more delicate furniture that was off
limits for jumping on. Even if we could've afforded to replace the
broken furniture, I wouldn't want my broken furniture to end up in the
already overcrowded landfills.
> Okay, getting off my eco soapbox now <g>.
>
>
>
> Meghan
>
> "Everything Is Possible"
> ~ Deepak Chopra
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
> Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Pamela Sorooshian

On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:12 AM, janeteford@... wrote:

> And I stink at introductions for the same reason. Even though I'm
> now an adult and try to do better in these areas, I still feel very
> socially awkward.

All three of my kids are pretty high on the interpersonal "pick-it-up
naturally" scale. But, even so, I coached them a lot, over the years,
on things like how to make someone feel comfortable, how to treat
guests in our home, and, yes, how to make introductions. That seems a
source of anxiety to a lot of people - maybe they worry that they'll
forget names or insult one or the other by not introducing them
correctly. A kind of holdover from when introductions had to be just
right - my dad's parents, my grandparents, were international
diplomats, and very very knowledgeable and aware of etiquette rules.
My dad was raised with the idea of all that being very important and
I absorbed some of that, too. But, we aren't usually introducing
sensitive dignitaries or royalty or even people obsessed with their
status, right? So we can let go of all that concern about doing it
"right" and just do it nicely.

Sort of reminds me of the same kind of anxiety people have about
doing arithmetic in front of other people (like dividing up a
restaurant bill, for example). They feel under pressure, on the spot,
they think there is one right exact way, and they go blank and feel
awkward.

So, you're not alone, I don't think.

These days, there aren't a lot of formal niceties to worry about -
the POINT of manners is usually just to make people comfortable.
We're not usually having to worry about protocol and all that. So, to
introduce people, you can usually just be very very casual and say,
"Johnny, this is my friend, Jane." Then, to Jane, "Johnny's son and
mine are friends." Or whatever little thing seems appropriate. It is
nice to say something more than names, because it gives the two
people just being introduced something to say next - a little hook
for a couple of more pleasantries. In the above intro, for example,
Jane can now say, "Oh, how old is your son?" Or something else that
just gets a little conversation going.

-pam




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

Christy Mahoney

--- In [email protected], "halfshadow1"
<halfshadow1@...> wrote:
>
> I am surprised at some comments restricting kids from jumping on
their
> own sofa or piano. I thought that was a thing with
> unschoolers.....that's it's just a piece of furniture. I thought
> someone*big* said that a piece of furniture can be replaced and a
> happy childhood comes first.or they said a child's happiness is
more
> important then a piece of furniture.

Again - it depends. Most unschoolers probably won't have a blanket
rule like "no jumping on any furniture", but most of us have things
that we don't want our kids to jump on for various reasons. If
it's, say, a piano, is it something that just sits there without
getting used or is it the most important thing in big sister's life
right now? Is it something with a lot of sentimental value to me,
so that I might say, "Will you please jump on the couch or bed
instead? My grandpa gave me that chair specially and I really want
it to stay nice." IRL, I ask my dd not to jump on my bed because
there's a ceiling fan directly over it and it's dangerous to jump
there. We have a trampoline, and our couch is old and pretty torn
up, so it's fine with me if she jumps on that.

-Christy

diana jenner

On 8/28/07, John Rizzo <jmcrizzo@...> wrote:
>
> "Thinking comes from discussions of differences, not of judging them."
>
> I do think it is important to have tolerance of differences, but that
> does not mean you have to eliminate the discussion on whether or not
> they make any sense. If a factual discussion leads to the conclusion
> that something is irrational, so be it. I do try to be aware of my
> irrational prejudices, to reduce my kids exposure to them and to keep
> them out of our discussions.
>










The inability to make sense of an action in YOUR context doesn't mean the
action itself is irrational. Irrationality is personal, my own. Someone else
(heck, maybe everyone else) has their own version of rational, what makes
sense. Often, I think that *I* make more sense in context, out of my own
context, my own world where I make myself seem normal, I just don't make the
same sense.

For example, if someone grabs something from my daughter because they
> don't think she should have it (say lotion for example), I do not teach
> her that it is rational action and that it is a perfectly fine way to
> act. I discuss that it was a disrespectful and violent action that was
> irrational. I also discuss that some people live there lives that way
> and that we have to try to be tolerant of their choices.
>








Great example! If a 2.5 year old grabs a toy, it is absolutely
developmentally appropriate for them to be unable to understand the concept
of sharing. Doesn't mean the behavior itself is irrational or somehow
*wrong.* If it's a grownup taking something (the lotion they don't think
your dd should have), I'm sure in their own mind they have a perfectly
rational explanation for their actions. Kind? maybe not. Irrational? tough
call.

When my daughter sees my sister spank my nephews, I explain that it is
> irrational, violent and disrespectful, but that is how they live. We
> don't criticize the action to them, we just tolerate the behavior and
> use it as an opportunity to teach. The teaching is a judgment.
>






Which is probably why I avoid *teaching* of any kind.
http://sandradodd.com/wordswords

I would say that spanking children and grabbing from children are
> commonly accepted in society, but I will not teach my children to
> respect these actions. Judging in both situations is appropriate in my
> opinion.
>






If you want others to be happy, Practice Compassion. If you want to be
happy, Practice Compassion.
~Dalai Lama

Society is too afraid to judge.
>



Which society to you live in? It cannot be where I am! :D I find judgment
everywhere I go!!
Possibly one of the largest, toughest challenges to MySelf has been the
letting go of my inner judge and accepting the flow of life without judging
what happens as good/bad/right/wrong... it just IS -- what *I* do in
situations, how *I* choose to react to those situations is often where the
self-judging comes in. Choosing something different than the status quo
around you is just that, a choice. Pointing out to our children that there
are other, different (kinder, calmer, feel-better) choices available is
doing more for them than was done for the child who grows up to spank her
kids.
--
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.blogspot.com


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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:33 AM, John Rizzo wrote:

> I do feel the need to point out when people are not being rational in
> their sensitivities. I think this is vital for raising thinking
> children.

Like, sending thank you notes? (Just not sure what you mean by "not
rational.")

I got a thank you card from my niece today. She is 20 and moved into
her first apartment and I took her a plant. She wrote a thank you
note that said:

***
Dear Aunt Pam,

Thank you so much for the plant. I put it on the balcony, and it is
growing well there. It is in bloom and smells so good.

Thanks again,

Love,

Becky
****

I gave the plant to her in person, so I think it was unnecessary to
send a thank you card when she already said thank you in person.

My sister, Becky's mom, always made her kids write thank you cards
after birthday parties, etc.. I didn't like getting them because I
could just picture them sitting at the table, wishing they were off
playing, while their mom made them write a note to me. I didn't like
them associating me with that. I never made my kids do it. I'm sure
my sister thought that was discourteous, but even Miss Manners
doesn't think you ought to send thank you cards if you received the
gift in person.

And, now her 20 yo is sending thank you cards on her own because she
thinks it is the right thing to do.

I don't think it'll hurt her to send thank you cards and there will
be people who will be happy to get them. I'd rather have had a quick
phone call, myself, than a formal little card that I just tossed into
the recycling box.

Recognition that you've received a gift and that you appreciate it is
a good thing. I've flaked on doing that and felt bad about it.

Sitting kids at a table and forcing thank you cards out of them - not
so good.

But there are lots of other ways to help them show their appreciation.

-pam




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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Property rights and social conventions seemed to be two big
> sensitivities. Neither one matters much to me, so my children will
not
> be restricted in the home on most issues that encompass these
headings,
> but they are taught that other people have different sensitivities.
>
> I do feel the need to point out when people are not being rational in
> their sensitivities. I think this is vital for raising thinking
> children.-=-


Years ago there was an infamous discussion at unschooling.com, in
which a proponent of a parenting philosophy called NCP (non-coercive
parenting) assured us all that her children COULD walk on coffee
tables, because if they wanted to she would make sure somehow that
they were able to do it. I told her to stay away from my house,
then. That seemed unreasonable to her.

I didn't care.

And honestly, I own two ratty coffee tables, and if her kids came
over and wanted to walk on them I would have said "absolutely; go for
it."

What I would NOT have is someone else telling me what her kids could
do in my house with something I owned.

So if "property rights" seem no more than an irrational sensitivity,
keep your kids away from my car, my house, my computer, my pets and
my yard.

And do I feel like I "own" my pets? I feed them all they want and
they have a door to get out of the house, and the dog and three cats
can leave the yard. Do they? They're all nine to eleven years old.
They're here every day (one cat was missing for a few days and showed
up sick, but is fine now). We're nice to our pets. We share our
house with them in exchange for the things they do for us. The city
of Albuquerque certainly considers them ours, though, and we could be
legally or financially liable. And if anyone from outside our
family was abusive to any of them I would turn fiercely protective.

Perhaps it's just a social convention, or perhaps it's property
rights, but it's not an irrational sensitivity.

Sandra

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

Pamela Sorooshian

I'm still not getting the focus on things being "irrational." I agree
with you on the rest - violent, disrespectful, not nice, unkind,
mean, and on and on....I'm not afraid to judge, obviously <G>.

Meaning of "irrational" - not logical?

So - okay, just thinking out loud, trying to follow your reasoning....

You think it is irrational to not want kids walking on the dining
table because there is no logical reason for not letting them do it,
right?
You think it is irrational to hit or grab things from kids because
there is no logical reason for it?

So your objection to these things is based on whether there are
logical reasons for them, or not?

The problem I see with this line of reasoning is that common
courtesies may not seem logical/rational in a narrow context, but
they are rational when looked at from a larger perspective of people
all getting along happily with each other.

-pam




On Aug 28, 2007, at 8:02 AM, John Rizzo wrote:

> When my daughter sees my sister spank my nephews, I explain that it is
> irrational, violent and disrespectful, but that is how they live. We
> don't criticize the action to them, we just tolerate the behavior and
> use it as an opportunity to teach. The teaching is a judgment.
>
> I would say that spanking children and grabbing from children are
> commonly accepted in society, but I will not teach my children to
> respect these actions. Judging in both situations is appropriate in my
> opinion.
>
> Society is too afraid to judge.



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