Sandra Dodd

The thread on "handling disrespect respectfully" is disturbing me,
and I'm trying to figure out why. I want to bring the ideas away
from the particulars/individuals.

I'm very grateful to those who have patiently tried to explain the
hows and whys of what seems, to some, like limits and "no" and
punishment, but it really the compassionate assistance of one human
by a loving other.



This is just in general to any mom involved who's questioning advice
that seems harsher than "non-coercion."

Did you tell your child "I will never punish you"?

Did you tell your child "I will protect you from any consequences of
your actions, no matter how harmful"?

If you did, you shouldn't have. If you didn't, what do you care if
it feels like a punishment?

If you're not hitting him or shaming him or "grounding him" or
forcing him to eat spinach or to go to bed and stay there at 8:00 at
night, good.

If you're indicating to him by word and deed that he's free to do any
damned thing he can think up and you'll stand there smiling and
saying "I love you," NOT good.

In the vast space between those things are many good, thoughtful,
mindful, rational options.



I guess it's my same old concern: Some people take a
misunderstanding of something they half read or didn't consider
carefully enough, they move too far too fast without understanding
the principles involved, and then blame unschooling for bad results.



Sandra






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

Cindy Fox

I have really enjoyed this thread and I so totally agree with you
that there is a world of options. I also ABSOLUTELY believe I can
still LOVE someone and at the same time NOT tolerate their
behavior.

>>>Did you tell your child "I will protect you from any consequences
of your actions, no matter how harmful"?

This NOT the same as "I will always love you, no matter what you
do" which is what I felt was being discussed in the other posts.

>>>If you did, you shouldn't have. If you didn't, what do you care
if it feels like a punishment?

I care because communication takes two people, and my message (and
actions) only mean what others take them to mean. If they don't
take it as I intended it, it doesn't make me right and them wrong,
but it does mean that communication between us has failed. I care
how they feel because I love them and I want them to learn, not feel
punished. I don't think people learn from punishment or rather, they
learn things you didn't intend. What they learn is important to me.

>>>If you're indicating to him by word and deed that he's free to do
any damned thing he can think up and you'll stand there smiling and
saying "I love you," NOT good.

I see the question of `Will you still love me no matter what I do?'
as looking for *reassurance* of my love, not permission
for `misbehavior'.

I have no problem with standing there angry looking and saying, "I
love you, but I am NOT happy right now!"

Loving someone does not equal tolerating all behaviors.

c.

Joanna Murphy

--- In [email protected], "Cindy Fox" <outreach@...> wrote:
>
> I have really enjoyed this thread and I so totally agree with you
> that there is a world of options. I also ABSOLUTELY believe I can
> still LOVE someone and at the same time NOT tolerate their
> behavior.

The example wasn't talking about behavior that could be "tolerated" or not--she was
using a more extreme example of one child killing another child. With that example, I
would be way beyond thoughts of whether I could tolerate the behavior.

In a certain sense I think there is a semantics issue going on. A person's behavior IS part
of them--it's the visible manifested part of their personality acting in/on the world. To
separate a person from their behavior is just as off-base as it is to assume that a person is
only the sum of their behavior.

To say either that you won't love a child in the same way who commits an atrocity or to
say you will continue to love them, but not love their behavior may, in effect, amount to
the same thing--both statements are a rejection of the antisocial behavior--which stems
from thoughts and feelings within the person that caused the behavior. Either statement
is a rejection, to some extent, of the person. I've been in the situation of having my
"behavior not liked" but been told that the person "loved me," and I didn't actually feel
loved, because my behavior WAS an expression of ME.

I think the second statement is a more politically correct one, but the first strikes me as
more upfront and honest. That's not to say I would verbalize that at anytime, and
especially in the midst of a conflict with my kids, or anyone, but when that love bond is
weakened, the person can usually feel it anyway.

Joanna

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/10/2008 10:11:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Sandra@... writes:

If you're indicating to him by word and deed that he's free to do any
damned thing he can think up and you'll stand there smiling and
saying "I love you," NOT good.

In the vast space between those things are many good, thoughtful,
mindful, rational options.


guess it's my same old concern: Some people take a
misunderstanding of something they half read or didn't consider
carefully enough, they move too far too fast without understanding
the principles involved, and then blame unschooling for bad results.




****
yes i see it too. and it's for those reasons why unschooling kids have had a
bad rap, of being disrepectful , rude kids.
People *are* becomig more aware but that's the picture many people still
have, and it's probably from those families that think it's ok for their kids
to do anything they want, total freedom no matter how it affects others.

And when life caves in on them they blame unschooling.


~marcia simonds
HarmonyWoodsFarm
_http://www.xanga.com/livefreeinharmony_
(http://www.xanga.com/livefreeinharmony)



**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)


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

Cindy Fox

--- In [email protected], "Joanna Murphy"
<ridingmom@...> wrote:
> Either statement
> is a rejection, to some extent, of the person.

I understand, but I disagree. I don't think it is rejection of the
person as I don't equate people as identical to their actions.

Actions are fleeting and can not match all of a person's values and
intentions. Internal conflicts in conjunction with external
situations can cause odd or tragic actions.

We're getting deep into hypothicals here, since the question was a
broad statement of one sibling killing another. I would guess you'd
have different feelings if a sibling hit another with a car versus
snuck up on them at night, but then what if they have developed a
mental defect, such as schizophrenia, would you love them less?

I took the original point as a query along the lines of:
Does loving someone unconditionally give tacit approval of their
behavior?

I don't think so.

I still care for people who have hurt me very deeply. I feel loss,
confusion, sadness, disappointment, anger and many other emotions,
but I also feel love and caring. To me, it is a parallel system,
rather than a sum of the feelings into one numerical type value on a
scale of Love - Hate. I go back and forth or hold both at once.

I've been in the situation of having my
> "behavior not liked" but been told that the person "loved me," and
I didn't actually feel
> loved, because my behavior WAS an expression of ME.

I too have had this experience, but in my experience, the tone of
voice was saying something different than the words and what I felt
was the disconnect between the words and the acutal feelings of the
speaker.

> I think the second statement is a more politically correct one,
but the first strikes me as
> more upfront and honest.

I hear you, but they are still two different statements to me.

c.

Pamela Sorooshian

On May 12, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Cindy Fox wrote:

>
> I took the original point as a query along the lines of:
> Does loving someone unconditionally give tacit approval of their
> behavior?

I started to respond, but got into a big long discussion about what
"love" even means - and final deleted my whole post, unsent, because I
thought we'd really gone beyond what is useful. Let me just say that
if my child committed a horrible act - a rape, torture, murder, for
example - there would still be an aspect of mother's love somewhere in
me, but it would be a desperate kind of wishful love - wishing my
child could be a person I could truly feel good about loving. So -
there ya go - i used the word multiple times in the same sentence -
meaning different things - and I think most people probably "get" the
difference, so I'm going to stop now.

I think the point Sandra is making is that parents sometimes think
unschooling means not showing any kind of disapproval of anything
their children do, and sometimes they do absolutely everything they
can to keep the child from actually experiencing any kind of bad
feelings as a result of their own behavior.

This is really not fair to the child. It is in the child's best
interest to feel those bad feelings that arise when they do mean,
thoughtless, out-of-control things, for example. The parents don't
need to ADD to it by punishing the child, but they ought to help the
child connect with that part of themselves that feels empathy for the
person they've hurt. And therefore parents ought to be clear about the
behavior being problematic. Don't sit there and be all sweetness and
smiles, saying, "I love you no matter what you do," as if everything
is just fine, when it is not.

-pam






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

Sandra Dodd

-=-The parents don't
need to ADD to it by punishing the child, but they ought to help the
child connect with that part of themselves that feels empathy for the
person they've hurt. And therefore parents ought to be clear about the
behavior being problematic. Don't sit there and be all sweetness and
smiles, saying, "I love you no matter what you do," as if everything
is just fine, when it is not.-=-



It happens outside of homeschooling, too. I know someone who's full-
on obnoxious, and her parents used to tell her that any problems she
had were because she was smarter than the other kids and they were
"just jealous." I've had the urge to smack her, seriously. I
finally ran her out of my life. I'm glad she doesn't have children
and I hope she never does.

Her adult life would be immensely better if her parents had helped
her learn to be nice rather than telling her there was no reason for
her to even bother to try, because the rest of the people in the
world were simply inferior beings. YUCK!!



Holly mentioned, unrelated to any of this, the other day that she's
sorry so many parents want their kids to be diagnosed with problems
so the parents don't have to learn to be better parents, and then the
kids will act however they want to and say "Oh, I didn't take my
meds today" as an excuse.

Relationships, and fostering relationships. That's important for
unschooling to work. It's important for living in the world.



Sandra

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

hpmarker

I agree completely, Pam. Clearly, there's a big difference between
responding to a child when he is actually mean and thoughtless and
conversing with a child about what would happen if her were to be mean
and thoughtless. In my own case, my child (6 y/o ds) is a boy who can
spiral into extreme emotions that are distressing to him afterward if I
do not perceive the triggers in time, though I've now become fairly
good at that (after much trial by fire!). As far as when he poses
hypotheticals about doing rude stuff, I will give much thought to
Sandra's opinion that these are not good conversations to have, at
least in the way we are having them. The reason I've thought these
conversations with ds were, at worst, neutral is that they allow him to
discuss thoughts that he might otherwise hide and/or feel guily about.
I do not require that my child share all of his thoughts, but if the
thoughts are troubling him, and he brings them to me, I feel honored
that he would share them with me, in calm moments, for discussion. We
also discuss the very important line between thoughts and actions.
I've told him many times that we'd all be in jail at one time or
another if we could be arrested for our thoughts. My childhood
contained an over-abundance of guilt, which is baggage I do not want my
child to carry. But I also do not want to overcompensate and leave my
child feeling adrift.
I know the original topic in this thread concerned actual deeds as
opposed to thoughts, but the unconditional love aspect caught my
attention, and I'm always open to fine tuning my thinking.

-Hallie


--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
> This is really not fair to the child. It is in the child's best
> interest to feel those bad feelings that arise when they do mean,
> thoughtless, out-of-control things, for example. The parents don't
> need to ADD to it by punishing the child, but they ought to help the
> child connect with that part of themselves that feels empathy for
the
> person they've hurt. And therefore parents ought to be clear about
the
> behavior being problematic. Don't sit there and be all sweetness and
> smiles, saying, "I love you no matter what you do," as if everything
> is just fine, when it is not.
>
>

lspswr

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

> Holly mentioned, unrelated to any of this, the other day that she's
> sorry so many parents want their kids to be diagnosed with problems
> so the parents don't have to learn to be better parents, and then
the
> kids will act however they want to and say "Oh, I didn't take my
> meds today" as an excuse.
>
> Relationships, and fostering relationships. That's important for
> unschooling to work. It's important for living in the world.
>
----------
This pretty much sums things up for me and our situation. We took ds
out of school because they demanded that we get a diagnosis so that
they would be ABLE to treat him the way that he needed to be treated.
With a diagnosis they would be ABLE to make allowances for his needs
(standing and moving instead of sitting quietly, thinking out-loud
instead of silently....). There were other factors as well, but the
point was that they were unwilling/unable to allow him to learn in the
way that best suited him; THEY needed an "excuse" to meet his needs and
be able to justify treating him differently.

This also goes toward our interactions with others. I absolutely know
that if I was to throw a diagnosis word around with other people they
would "make allowances" for ds's behavior at times -- which would make
things more comfortable for *ME* but would not be helpful to ds or his
process of learning respectful appropriate behavior. I really debate
at times if getting a "label" would be helpful for *him* but ultimately
the goal is to be able to interact with people in meaningful and
appropriate ways and having an "label" wouldn't teach him anything
other than that he's "different" and therefore he isn't "able" to
control his actions. It would go a long way toward improving *MY*
relationships with others, and maybe if others thought he had a label
they would temper their interactions which might not put him in
situations in which he feels his back is against the wall. I really
don't know what is the "right" thing to do, but I DO know that by
changing my behavior and embracing unschooling principles things have
been MUCH better. Changing the way *I* interact with him has helped to
model much more respectful behavior for him which he can take into his
own interactions and relationships. Like I said a few days ago, it's a
lot better but still has a long way to go.

Holly is a wise woman!
Linda

lspswr

--- In [email protected], "lspswr" <lspswr@...> wrote:
>
I absolutely know that if I was to throw a diagnosis word around
with other people they would "make allowances" for ds's behavior at
times -- which would make things more comfortable for *ME* but would
not be helpful to ds or his process of learning respectful
appropriate behavior. I really debate at times if getting a "label"
would be helpful for *him* but ultimately the goal is to be able to
interact with people in meaningful and appropriate ways and having
an "label" wouldn't teach him anything other than that
he's "different" and therefore he isn't "able" to control his
actions. It would go a long way toward improving *MY* relationships
with others, and maybe if others thought he had a label they would
temper their interactions which might not put him in situations in
which he feels his back is against the wall. I really don't know
what is the "right" thing to do, but I DO know that by changing my
behavior and embracing unschooling principles things have been MUCH
better. <

I also wanted to point out that by giving you more information here
and providing context you perhaps understand where I'm coming from in
better ways. In that way, the information (label?) is more
understandable and you can see the improvements instead of just the
problems. So is the label useful/helpful/needed? Would it be
helpful for us in society in general? Perhaps. I really don't
know. But it would probably "protect" the reputation of unschooling
from those who see us and assume that it's the unschooling that has
created these issues. I imagine that there are quite a few of us in
a similar situation who arrived at unschooling because of its
benefits, and not as an excuse for our parenting.

Linda

Sandra Dodd

-=-So is the label useful/helpful/needed? Would it be
helpful for us in society in general? Perhaps. I really don't
know. But it would probably "protect" the reputation of unschooling
from those who see us and assume that it's the unschooling that has
created these issues. -=-



Depends on the label, but I had to choose yes or no, I'd say "NO,"
it's better to treat Bobby as Bobby, not Bobby who's dyslexic and ADD
or whatever.

More damage would be done to unschooling by the labeling, I think.



Sandra




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

Cindy Fox

--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>And therefore parents ought to be clear about the
> behavior being problematic. Don't sit there and be all sweetness
and
> smiles, saying, "I love you no matter what you do," as if
everything
> is just fine, when it is not.
>
> -pam

I agree. But still, it is possible to love the person and hate the
behavior.

I never had doubt of my mother's love, no matter my actions or
appearance (which can be a result of actions or non-actions). She
absolutely showed disapproval for inappropriate actions, but I felt
more that she was surprised or shocked by the action and that it was
not in line with how she viewed me. That she thought better of me
than that and I could show her by my actions in the future. Thus I
felt her disappointment, trust and belief. Tools to learn from.

On the other hand, my father's love was definately conditional and I
never felt any expectations, just demands, with little expectation
of success. It was almost as if I had failed before I had started
simply because of his judgements of my behavior or appearance as all
that I was.

I do not approve of all behavior and I express such, but I trust
that the person is doing their best at the time and given time and
information, they will improve. I learned this first with my father.

c.

graberamy

<<<Holly mentioned, unrelated to any of this, the other day that she's
> sorry so many parents want their kids to be diagnosed with problems
> so the parents don't have to learn to be better parents, and then the
> kids will act however they want to and say "Oh, I didn't take my
> meds today" as an excuse.>>>

Lydia had a girl on her cheerleading squad (who does take meds for her
behavior, and yes Holly is correct she does use not taking them as an
excuse for bad behavior) say she was feeling "crazy" today because she
ate a candy bar. Lydia said she was just awful that day, pulling the
girls hair, stepping on their feet, pinching, all in the name of a
"joke". Using a candy bar as an excuse for bad behavior. This girl is
almost 11.

We have had on going issues with this teammate, but it's been quite a
learning experience for Lydia...and myself.

amy g

barefootmamax4

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> This is just in general to any mom involved who's questioning
advice
> that seems harsher than "non-coercion."
>
> Did you tell your child "I will never punish you"?
>
> Did you tell your child "I will protect you from any consequences
of
> your actions, no matter how harmful"?
>
> If you did, you shouldn't have. If you didn't, what do you care
if
> it feels like a punishment?

Because the understanding is what makes the difference. If the child
can see it as not a punishment you are still on the same team. If it
feels like a punishment to him/her than you are still creating an
adversarial relationship no matter what you intentions.

>> If you're indicating to him by word and deed that he's free to do
any
> damned thing he can think up and you'll stand there smiling and
> saying "I love you," NOT good.

What about indicating to him that you are upset with the
behavior,what about showing clearly thet you are angry? That is not
showing force but also not giving unconitional approval.When is it
acceptable to cross the line of free choice and move into force of
compliance?Then you are adversaries not partners. Now you have a
battle of wills ,a powerplay weather you wanted it or not.


I am starting to see that a blanket statement of :when safety of the
child or another person is threatened that use of force is OK?

What about just plain old disrespect or hurtful words like "shut up"
or namecalling? Does that justify force or just plain old disapproval?

I see this as the same problem lawmakers have in our country. Laws
are made to protect everyone's civil liberties, but at some point
protecting one person's civil liberty often means stepping on
another's. At what point does a racial insult become freedom of
speach and vice versa? When does that become any insult against a
person is illegal, especially the president? At what point does a
person take responsibility for falling of a curb and breaking thier
ankle or should the town be held accountable?

It really seems to get down to no more than a personal judgement
call, and yes that does leave the book wide open to interpret it just
about any way you like. I know someone who believes it is an unloving
act NOT to punish her children with a paddle because they must learn
obiedience to their parents and to God.Is that child abuse or her
civil right to choose as her religon dictates, especially if she
truly believes not spanking them will send both them and her to hell.

-Kelly

Lyla Wolfenstein

i am not sure what this means, and still haven't really figured out what *i* think about how i'd like to translate this into action, but several years ago, my daughter (now 13) said to me "i don't WANT you to love me just because you're my mom - i want you to love me because i am ME!"

she was basically wanting to know how i saw HER - WHAT i loved about HER. and she specifically challenged me with "what if i killed someone?!" (not something she would ever do, not even a guilty thought, i am sure - just that she was trying to think of the most horrendous thing she could to challenge my (perhaps misplaced, still not sure what i think about that) unconditional love....)

i have been mulling those sentiments over for 2-3 years now! and trying to be very aware of showing her my love in personal ways - unconditional in the sense of reaching through her anger, or other "difficult" emotions, when those occur- not rejecting the "dark side" - but reaching through it - not around it, not ignoring it - and still trying to make sure that my love is expressed (and felt) as personal/connected to her as an individual, not just "my daughter."

just thought i'd share that perspective from her when she was about 10-11 - i had never really scrutinized the concept of unconditional love before she brought it up, so insightfully...

warmly, Lyla





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

Sandra Dodd

-=->
> This is just in general to any mom involved who's questioning
advice
> that seems harsher than "non-coercion."
>
> Did you tell your child "I will never punish you"?
>
> Did you tell your child "I will protect you from any consequences
of
> your actions, no matter how harmful"?
>
> If you did, you shouldn't have. If you didn't, what do you care
if
> it feels like a punishment?

-=-Because the understanding is what makes the difference. -=-

That doesn't answer the question.

If someone never told a child he could do anything on earth he wanted
to, then he should have no expectation that he can.

If someone DID tell a child something like that, then she's created
her own terrible problem and it's going to need some repair that
wouldn't have been necessary if she'd been her child's partner in the
first place.



Sandra






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

Sandra Dodd

-=-i have been mulling those sentiments over for 2-3 years now! and
trying to be very aware of showing her my love in personal ways -
unconditional in the sense of reaching through her anger, or other
"difficult" emotions, when those occur- not rejecting the "dark side"
- but reaching through it - not around it, not ignoring it - and
still trying to make sure that my love is expressed (and felt) as
personal/connected to her as an individual, not just "my daughter."-=-

This is a perfect window into the problem of "unconditional love,"
expressed as it sometimes is, discussed as it often is.

Then come other reactionary things to that concept, like "tough
love." When there's a theory or movement that gets a name like that,
people start looking at the name instead of the feelings and responses.

It's like the problem with pointing and saying look, and people are
looking at your finger.

Some parents say, out loud in words, "I love all my children
equally." Why say something like that? It invites challenge.
Some parents say "I loved you before you were born and I'll always
love you." Maybe that's an attempt to express the biochemical
changes that come upon a pregnant woman (and they're BIGtime real,
when they work well) and that infuse a healthy relationship with a
child.

Sometimes it gets confused with Bible ideas, like "I love you as
Christ love the church" (marriage problem sometimes). If a couple
has a fullblown Baptist wedding and then they stop being religious,
THEN what is the basis of the relationship? And DOES Christ love the
church? (And which church? <bwg>) Unconditionally? <HUGEbwg>

If when a child wants reassurance of love the parent quotes the
Bible, the condition seems to be "If the Bible is true, then I love
you."

Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-If the child
can see it as not a punishment you are still on the same team. If it
feels like a punishment to him/her than you are still creating an
adversarial relationship no matter what you intentions. -=-

If it's NOT punishment, then make it not punishment. DO something
fun and real and exciting with the child. Keep him from the other
child for a while by taking him to Disneyland, if you can afford it.
Let some time pass. Find opportunities to be together when the
subject might naturally come up of how to be when you're afraid or
angry or jealous or confused. It might come up by watching movies
with kid-relationships.

Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-If the child
can see it as not a punishment you are still on the same team. If it
feels like a punishment to him/her than you are still creating an
adversarial relationship no matter what you intentions. -=-

If it's NOT punishment, then make it not punishment. DO something
fun and real and exciting with the child. Keep him from the other
child for a while by taking him to Disneyland, if you can afford it.
Let some time pass. Find opportunities to be together when the
subject might naturally come up of how to be when you're afraid or
angry or jealous or confused. It might come up by watching movies
with kid-relationships.

Sandra

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

keetry

> > Either statement
> > is a rejection, to some extent, of the person.


If I follow this line of reasoning, then any time I disapprove of or
reject a behavior, I am disapproving of or rejecting the person who
exhibited the behavior. That's just not true. There are certain
behaviors, as we've been discussing, that I just cannot allow, like
hurting another person. So, I tell my son that I will not let him
hit his brother, for example. If he doesn't stop hitting, I have to
remove him from the situation because I can't allow my baby to be
hurt like that. I am rejecting the hitting but not my son. He may
not understand that, though. That's when I think it's important that
I tell and show him that I do still love him.

BTW, I want to make it clear that I was not disagreeing that a child
who is hurting another needs to be removed from the situation. I do
agree that unschooling does not mean that we let our children do
whatever they want without any regard for anyone else.

Alysia

Sandra Dodd

> > Either statement
> > is a rejection, to some extent, of the person.

-=-If I follow this line of reasoning, then any time I disapprove of or
reject a behavior, I am disapproving of or rejecting the person who
exhibited the behavior. That's just not true. -=-



I agree.

There is an element of "you're getting warm" and "you're getting
cold," though. And some parents DO have a way of rejecting a child
outright for small offenses.



With me and my friends, it's like warm and cold have 100 little
steps. I can be really angry that Ben stood me up, but still love
Ben. I know him; he forgets. If I get really mad, it's because I
had unrealistic expectations of Ben. If Keith stood me up, I'd be
sure he was in an accident, because I know Keith and he'll be where
he says he'll be, when he said he would be. It's one of his best
traits.

And so with our children, if we know them well, we can know what to
expect, know their strengths and weaknesses.

Sandra

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

Joanna Murphy

--- In [email protected], "keetry" <keetry@...> wrote:
>
> > > Either statement
> > > is a rejection, to some extent, of the person.
>
>
> If I follow this line of reasoning, then any time I disapprove of or
> reject a behavior, I am disapproving of or rejecting the person who
> exhibited the behavior.

No--if you follow the line of reasoning, then if you disapprove of or reject a behavior, you
are rejecting that behavior--which is an extension of that personality acting on the world.
It doesn't represent the whole person--just a part. My point was that you can't separate
behavior from the person as though the behavior was just some random event, just as
likely to occur as not occur. The behavior came from thoughts and feelings and is an
expression of those. Sometimes we even behave in ways that don't work on purpose in
order to call attention to those thoughts and feelings and get help and support in letting
them go. Sometimes we just can't figure out a better way.

If there is motivation in the relationship, then the person will adjust their behavior to find
ways of expressing themselves that work better in the social world in which they live. It's
just what we do as humans who have bonds with others and wish to maintain and
strenghten those bonds.

Joanna

tmissinne

I wanted to thank you all for this thread, and for talking so openly and honestly about things.
My ds's are only 3 and 2, and I've been doing so much reading and thinking. On some other
groups I've been hearing people say that they've lost friends because their children weren't
being respectful of the other parent/child beliefs. They were clear that they believed it was
the other parents fault, and this was very disturbing to me. I loved so much about
unschooling, but I also really want to teach my children to be kind. I felt very uncomfortable
with the idea that it would be forcing them not to 'be themselves' if I let them know that how
we talk to other people matters.

This thread has clarified alot of my thinking, and given me some great ideas.

Thank you all!
Trisha

Clarissa Fetrow

I think one of the main things my 5 year old is learning is how other
families do things. In the home of one family we know, kids are not allowed
to stand up on any furniture, including the couch. In our home, she is
basically allowed to stand on any piece of furniture (including the dining
table, which I've seen appall and offend some people), as long as it seems
safe. She actually likes knowing that at their house no one stands on the
couch, and very carefully doesn't do it there, and then talks about how she
didn't.
In another family we know, even the littlest children drink coffee, whereas
in our family, children don't.

I think she really enjoys knowing and contrasting these differences.

Clarissa



On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:04 PM, tmissinne <tmissinne@...> wrote:

> I wanted to thank you all for this thread, and for talking so openly and
> honestly about things.
> My ds's are only 3 and 2, and I've been doing so much reading and thinking.
> On some other
> groups I've been hearing people say that they've lost friends because their
> children weren't
> being respectful of the other parent/child beliefs. They were clear that
> they believed it was
> the other parents fault, and this was very disturbing to me. I loved so
> much about
> unschooling, but I also really want to teach my children to be kind. I felt
> very uncomfortable
> with the idea that it would be forcing them not to 'be themselves' if I let
> them know that how
> we talk to other people matters.
>
> This thread has clarified alot of my thinking, and given me some great
> ideas.
>
> Thank you all!
> Trisha
>
>
>


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

Pamela Sorooshian

On May 13, 2008, at 6:53 AM, barefootmamax4 wrote:

> That is not
> showing force but also not giving unconitional approval.When is it
> acceptable to cross the line of free choice and move into force of
> compliance?Then you are adversaries not partners. Now you have a
> battle of wills ,a powerplay weather you wanted it or not.

I just don't see this. If I lost my temper and was about to take a
swing at someone, I'd be pretty darn grateful if my husband stepped in
between us and grabbed hold of my arm and even forcibly walked me away
from the situation. That's not adversarial; that's helpful. He KNOWS
me - he knows I would want to be stopped, if I was thinking clearly.

-pam



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

keetry

--- In [email protected], "Joanna Murphy"
<ridingmom@...> wrote:
>
> > If I follow this line of reasoning, then any time I disapprove
of or
> > reject a behavior, I am disapproving of or rejecting the person
who
> > exhibited the behavior.
>
> No--if you follow the line of reasoning, then if you disapprove of
or reject a behavior, you
> are rejecting that behavior--which is an extension of that
personality acting on the world.
> It doesn't represent the whole person--just a part.

Oh, ok. I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree with you on
this.

>My point was that you can't separate
> behavior from the person as though the behavior was just some
random event, just as
> likely to occur as not occur.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. I think there might be many
behaviors that are basic human nature that don't have anything to do
with the individual person or personality. One type of personality
may be more likely to exhibit the behavior sooner but that doesn't
make the behavior, itself, part of the personality.

Take hitting, for example. I've never known or heard of a child who
never hit anyone or anything. Hitting is basic defense mechanism.
The ability and feeling of need to hit is in us all. I have seen
with my own children that some are more quick to hit than others.
That's part of the child's personality, the impulsiveness about it.
So, I accept the child's impulsiveness. I don't reject that. I don't
compare him to his brother (I have all boys) and tell him he should
be more like the brother who's not as quick to hit. I understand
that he may need more of my time and attention and energy to find
ways to deal without hitting.

I'm just thinking out loud here so I'm not sure I agree totally with
what I'm saying here, either. It's all very complex. I appreciate
the discussion of ideas.

Alysia

Laureen

Heya!

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Lyla Wolfenstein <lylaw@...> wrote:

> i have been mulling those sentiments over for 2-3 years now! and trying to
> be very aware of showing her my love in personal ways - unconditional in the
> sense of reaching through her anger, or other "difficult" emotions, when
> those occur- not rejecting the "dark side" - but reaching through it - not
> around it, not ignoring it - and still trying to make sure that my love is
> expressed (and felt) as personal/connected to her as an individual, not just
> "my daughter."


Horrendous tempers run in both my and DH's families. People who break
things, throw things, get in fights, end up in jail. Clearly, not a lot of
good management skills there. =)

When DH and I met, he was considered by our mutual social group to be
"scary". And having grown up in a very rough neighborhood, he projected
that, as a "leave me alone" thing. "Fear me!" was the message. And because
of my own history, I wasn't a lot different. People were... concerned, when
we got together. "It's like nitro dating glycerine!" one friend exclaimed,
"and this can't end well!!!"

The first time we had a squabble, sure enough, we both puffed like prairie
chickens. I imagine it was pretty funny from the outside. And what we both
realized was that it was a test... sure, I'm playing scary, but do *you*
fear me? Am I really scary? Have I scared you? And then we realized that you
don't test the people you love. When you love people, you just say "I feel
scary and mean and I need reassuring" and the people who love you say "well
sure you're stomping around and acting fearsome; how can I help? What do you
really need?" and usually, it's just a matter of a clearly-stated need, and
a heartfelt response.

We've both mellowed hugely, just because finally, we don't have to escallate
just to be heard. The trust about being really listened to is there, so
neither of us feel the need to reach for the antics of our
emotionally-fraught youths.

The first time Rowan "threw a tantrum" (I hate that word, but I'm not sure
what else to call it), we hung out with him, reassured him that we were
right there for him once he worked out the crazies, and just stayed in the
space. He wasn't scary, he was just having big emotions. I think he had one
other tantrum, ever. Same deal with Kestrel... his first major tantrum (he
was little, probably 18-19 months or so), my MiL was visiting. Kes is a far
more intense kid than Rowan, and his tantrum was pretty spectacular. I took
him into a quiet, darkened room, removed sharp objects and corners, and let
him go for it, while sitting quietly with him until he wound down. He threw
things (I handed him stuffed animals and pillows and stuff), he headbanged
into the bed, he screamed like he was being tortured. That took about 20
minutes. He eventually sobbed to a stop, crawled into my lap, and wanted to
nurse and just be held and reassured. My MiL commented "I don't know how you
didn't hit him." And yet... here we were, totally together, trust intact.
She couldn't see it. Go fig. Kes had I think two or three more of those, but
at nearly three, seems to be pretty much done.

They're just big emotions, and everyone feels big and ugly and scary and
mean sometimes. I think that if we, as parents and partners, can just hold
the attitude that "you're not scary, you're just moving through the big
stuff, and I'm here for you, cause I did exactly the same thing once and
here I am on the other side", the whole thing loses its power.

--
~~L!

~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
Writing here:
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/

Evolving here:
http://www.consciouswoman.org/
~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~


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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Horrendous tempers run in both my and DH's families. People who break
things, throw things, get in fights, end up in jail. Clearly, not a
lot of
good management skills there. =)-=-



I think it's that biochemisty is fast on the adrenaline surge. I
know people that way. I'm not as bad as some, but bad. Kirby is
too. So we helped Kirby, specifically, learn ways to feel it and
counteract it. I guess that's a self-management skill.



I have some other friends that you could be poking their faces and
insulting their mothers and stepping on their toes and they'd still
be totally rational and non-emotional. One is an assistant district
attorney. GOOD TRAIT for that job!!! Perfect. One used to be an air
traffic controller. Now he works at the post office. No danger of
him shooting the joint up.



-=-The trust about being really listened to is there, so neither of
us feel the need to reach for the antics of our emotionally-fraught
youths.-=-

What a beautiful phrase!

-=-his tantrum was pretty spectacular. I took him into a quiet,
darkened room, removed sharp objects and corners, and let him go for
it, while sitting quietly with him until he wound down. He threw
things (I handed him stuffed animals and pillows and stuff), he
headbanged into the bed, he screamed like he was being tortured. That
took about 20 minutes. He eventually sobbed to a stop-=-

I've had two tantrums as an adult. Both had witnesses. Nobody hit
me, thank God, and they were both for good reasons, and everyone
involved knew it, and they stayed close and listened but let me yell
it out and I cried until my abdomen ached all kinds of ways, and then
I was all better. It was a little like puking when you're food
poisoned. It was like my biochemistry was all filled up with
poisonous overload and I had to get it out.

Once was before I had kids, and I drove home three miles or so and
then came in screaming and crying, and Keith followed me into the
bedroom where I throw myself across and wailed. I hadn't taken five
or six breaths deep enough to wail again when I heard the friend who
had pissed me off come to the door. He had jumped in the car and
followed me, to apologize and to make sure I was okay. That didn't
suck. And he had grabbed a rose from the big rosebush by his door, too.

I heard Keith say "I don't think she wants to talk yet," or some
such, and I heard their voices through my crying and (literally)
biting the edge of the mattress because I didn't want him to hear me
crying but I was still seriously furious. Keith brought me the
rose. It was white, and big. And I'm still friends with the guy to
this day.

The second time was after I had kids, but they weren't home. Two
friends were with me, cooking, and a third came to tell me something
because she wanted me to know as soon as possible. It was a social
think, unrecoverable, very frustrating for me, and she knew I would
be crushed. She didn't come to crush me, she came to let me get it
out while I was home, before the three of us drove over to the site
and I found out in front of 150 people. It was good. The three
people who saw me blow totally understood.

In both cases, had I had someone there to say "breathe" in the moment
I was processing the information before I went into "kill" mode (or
if I had thought to breathe myself) and thought to take a really long
slow deep-as-possible breath, I wouldn't have had the toxic
uncontrollable overload.

So with younger kids who don't know the world so well, whose time
perspective is still like a day is a year and a week is forever, who
aren't quite sure of permanence and frequency and distance, little
things can easily be overwhelming.

Sandra

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

cathyandgarth

--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
> I just don't see this. If I lost my temper and was about to take a
> swing at someone, I'd be pretty darn grateful if my husband stepped
in
> between us and grabbed hold of my arm and even forcibly walked me
away
> from the situation. That's not adversarial; that's helpful. He KNOWS
> me - he knows I would want to be stopped, if I was thinking clearly.
>

This is good for me to hear right now ... about two weeks ago we were
at an open gym and another couple of kids were there that my son has a
*history* with, one in particular that has pretty consistently started
things with my son and then, in my opinion, played innocent so that his
mom sided with him. I have tried to keep an open mind and walk the
fine line of validating my son's feelings and not being okay with
aggressive/violent actions and trying to keep the other boy's
perspective in mind. At this open gym event however the boy and
another child were really antagonizing my son and his friends, I tried
to give my son some coaching, and I started sticking close by as it
seemed like things were getting more heated, but the other kids just
kept running up and randomly hitting them with these foam things until
my son actually got hurt when one got him in the eye. When my son got
hurt he flew into a rage and I had to physically hold him back as he
flailed and screamed (I have never seen him get mad like that at
someone outside of our immediate family). If I hadn't held him back he
would have physically injured the other boy ... it would not have been
helpful to either one of them if I had stood aside and let that
happen. So, yes, I used force on my child. But after he had calmed
down enough, and we talked a little and he was able to walk away and go
back to playing with his friends, then I went over to the other two
kids, and in a voice I rarely even use with my own children told them
that what they were doing was not cool and it had to stop now, and it
was NOT okay to keep hitting and antagonizing my son and his friends.
I do not like to step in for another child's parent, but I felt that I
really needed to let my son know that even though it wasn't okay to
physically fight with or scream abuse at the other boy, I was still on
his side, I wasn't going to just sit there and keep telling him to turn
the other cheek, in essence saying that it was okay for the other kids
to behave and treat him inappropriately / disrespectfully.

Anyway, these threads have been so perfect for me, because I have found
myself over the last couple of weeks realiving the entire episode,
wondering over and over if it happened again would I handle it the same
way? Of course, I can't know for sure, but reading other folks
thoughts on these subjects has really helped me to clarify my own
thinking and feel more okay with the force I did use on my child and
way I talked to the other kids. I can't imagine that I ever would just
let my kid beat another kid up because he *deserved* it, but I have to
admit that thought came to me often ... My son has a good heart though,
I don't think that he would have been very happy with himself if I had
let him do that.

I don't know, I guess that I am still mulling it over ... thinking
about how things played out, if there was anything I could have done to
keep it from happening, etc. No real questions, but I get such great
insight from these lists, from folks who see things that I haven't
noticed, that I felt compelled to post.

Cathy in CO

Sandra Dodd

-=-, then I went over to the other two
kids, and in a voice I rarely even use with my own children told them
that what they were doing was not cool and it had to stop now, and it
was NOT okay to keep hitting and antagonizing my son and his friends.
I do not like to step in for another child's parent, but I felt that I
really needed to let my son know that -=-

How was that "stepping in for another child's parent"?

I was with you until you started to explain (I think) that you did it
so your son would see that you weren't approving of the other boys'
behavior. Is that why you talked to them?

(You don't have to answer. I'm asking more so you'll think about
it, but if you want to clarify, that's cool too.)

Sandra




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