Article by unschooled teen critiqued harshly elsewhere
Sandra Dodd
I was quoted in a report (a two-part essay for a writing assignment),
and it's a good one, on video games.
Someone cited it on a Christian homeschooling mom's blog, and she
went off, declared it "horseshit," and naming people.
I've already responded twice. I thought if anyone here was in a
CALM, collected, polite but analytical mood, it might be a topic to
look at. I'm not asking for "support." I'm holding my own, and am
not worried about the effect on unschoolers at all. I still thought
some of you might find it interesting, or maybe be able to bridge the
gap between her beliefs and mine. Interpreters, perhaps. <g>
If you go here I've saved the mom's comments and the link to the essays:
http://sandradodd.com/game/zach
The author doesn't know he's being discussed elsewhere so DON'T,
please, leave a note about that there. His mom would like to spare
him the knowledge for a while, or maybe always. I don't blame her at
all.
Here's the not-so-balanced critique:
http://barefootmeandering.com/archives/2008/05/from-the-misguided-
parent-files/
The blog author's mind won't be changed, but some of her readers'
might. Go gently, if you go, please.
Sandra
and it's a good one, on video games.
Someone cited it on a Christian homeschooling mom's blog, and she
went off, declared it "horseshit," and naming people.
I've already responded twice. I thought if anyone here was in a
CALM, collected, polite but analytical mood, it might be a topic to
look at. I'm not asking for "support." I'm holding my own, and am
not worried about the effect on unschoolers at all. I still thought
some of you might find it interesting, or maybe be able to bridge the
gap between her beliefs and mine. Interpreters, perhaps. <g>
If you go here I've saved the mom's comments and the link to the essays:
http://sandradodd.com/game/zach
The author doesn't know he's being discussed elsewhere so DON'T,
please, leave a note about that there. His mom would like to spare
him the knowledge for a while, or maybe always. I don't blame her at
all.
Here's the not-so-balanced critique:
http://barefootmeandering.com/archives/2008/05/from-the-misguided-
parent-files/
The blog author's mind won't be changed, but some of her readers'
might. Go gently, if you go, please.
Sandra
graberamy
><< The blog author's mind won't be changed, but some of her readers'I'd be surprised if someone who would actually read that blog minds
> might. Go gently, if you go, please.>>
would actually be changed. I couldn't get past the "go back and do you
math or another astronaut will be killed!"!!
I used to buy into that anti tv, anti video gaming stuff. Then I had a
son who was a "gamer", and he helped me see the error of my ways.
Thinking about it though, I don't think my "gamer" has played a game all
week... [:O] !!LOL
And her comment about things kids learn from video games can be learned
in real life...ugh!! Video gaming is real. Doesn't Nintendo spend like
a billion dollars a year on research alone?? I'm guessing that's real
$$!
Closed minds, like this blogger and that anti text article Pam shared
just irk me!!
I'll have to give it some time before I can "go gently!" [:D]
amy g
iowa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/16/2008 10:48:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
graber@... writes:
<<<Video gaming is real. Doesn't Nintendo spend like
a billion dollars a year on research alone?? >>>
As I read through it, the thought came to my mind, "Where would Shigeru
Miyamoto ("father of modern video gaming") be if his parents had made him put
down the drawings and take up a musical instrument or made him read
'educational' material or just took his drawing tools from him and declared they weren't
'worthwhile'?" Where would video gaming be today? Where would our kids be and
this fun, educational thing the whole family can enjoy? Granted, those
probably wouldn't be good arguments to use in that blog, but to minds that aren't
closed... A second thought occurred to me, where would Kirby be if his mom
had said nasty things about video games or banned them from their home? Which
of course led me to the thought of: What is possibly being destroyed in kids
who's parents make them feel bad about things they enjoy, who control or
forbid things that excite their kids? What might the world be missing out on
because these kids weren't allowed to persue their interests, something they're
good at-something they might be the best in the world at??
Peace,
De
**************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]
graber@... writes:
<<<Video gaming is real. Doesn't Nintendo spend like
a billion dollars a year on research alone?? >>>
As I read through it, the thought came to my mind, "Where would Shigeru
Miyamoto ("father of modern video gaming") be if his parents had made him put
down the drawings and take up a musical instrument or made him read
'educational' material or just took his drawing tools from him and declared they weren't
'worthwhile'?" Where would video gaming be today? Where would our kids be and
this fun, educational thing the whole family can enjoy? Granted, those
probably wouldn't be good arguments to use in that blog, but to minds that aren't
closed... A second thought occurred to me, where would Kirby be if his mom
had said nasty things about video games or banned them from their home? Which
of course led me to the thought of: What is possibly being destroyed in kids
who's parents make them feel bad about things they enjoy, who control or
forbid things that excite their kids? What might the world be missing out on
because these kids weren't allowed to persue their interests, something they're
good at-something they might be the best in the world at??
Peace,
De
**************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]
Sandra Dodd
I've been thrown off that blog now anyway. <g>
http://sandradodd.blogspot.com
I commented a bit about it there.
I haven't reviewed carefully, but I think the questions she
complained that I didn't answer were whether I would let my kid smoke
a joint or whether I would let one of boys have a Playboy.
Her kids are little. She doesn't know the answers to her own
questions, really, although she probably thinks she does.
I have never given my children marijuana, nor have I ever encouraged
them.
I have never bought one of my boys a girly magazine, but when Kirby
turned 18 his friends at work gave him a subscription to Penthouse.
Here's what, about that:
When I heard one of my kids had smoked dope, we talked about it
(joked about it) and some stories were told that clarified some
things, and some reminders were voiced about safety, legal risks and
side issues, and that was that.
What are my options? Throw a fit? "Forbid"? Threaten?
Kirby didn't always open the magazines right away. Some were in his
bathroom, in the cabinet. Some were on a shelf. When he moved, he
didn't take them.
When Kirby moved he had just been 21 for a month. Someone had bought
him a bottle of tequila for a birthday gift. He never opened it. It
sat on the counter in the kitchen, and he didn't take it to Texas
when he went.
That is my experience with drugs and "playboy" at my house. It's
calm, it's open, it's honest, it's not an emergency, it's not a focus
or a big deal.
I didn't figure the list of an uptight Christian mom who's teaching
Latin to small children was a good forum for issues I understand
better than she does. I think SHE would have thrown a fit,
forbidden and threatened. She did forbid, even without that. I'm
not allowed to comment on her blog.
That does not break my heart. It doesn't even dent my happiness. <g>
Sandra
http://sandradodd.blogspot.com
I commented a bit about it there.
I haven't reviewed carefully, but I think the questions she
complained that I didn't answer were whether I would let my kid smoke
a joint or whether I would let one of boys have a Playboy.
Her kids are little. She doesn't know the answers to her own
questions, really, although she probably thinks she does.
I have never given my children marijuana, nor have I ever encouraged
them.
I have never bought one of my boys a girly magazine, but when Kirby
turned 18 his friends at work gave him a subscription to Penthouse.
Here's what, about that:
When I heard one of my kids had smoked dope, we talked about it
(joked about it) and some stories were told that clarified some
things, and some reminders were voiced about safety, legal risks and
side issues, and that was that.
What are my options? Throw a fit? "Forbid"? Threaten?
Kirby didn't always open the magazines right away. Some were in his
bathroom, in the cabinet. Some were on a shelf. When he moved, he
didn't take them.
When Kirby moved he had just been 21 for a month. Someone had bought
him a bottle of tequila for a birthday gift. He never opened it. It
sat on the counter in the kitchen, and he didn't take it to Texas
when he went.
That is my experience with drugs and "playboy" at my house. It's
calm, it's open, it's honest, it's not an emergency, it's not a focus
or a big deal.
I didn't figure the list of an uptight Christian mom who's teaching
Latin to small children was a good forum for issues I understand
better than she does. I think SHE would have thrown a fit,
forbidden and threatened. She did forbid, even without that. I'm
not allowed to comment on her blog.
That does not break my heart. It doesn't even dent my happiness. <g>
Sandra
Janet Renk
<<I was quoted in a report (a two-part essay for a writing assignment),
and it's a good one, on video games.
Someone cited it on a Christian homeschooling mom's blog, and she
went off, declared it "horseshit," and naming people.>>
I started to read the mom's blog, but almost immediately felt sad and depressed so I stopped. I've never been involved much in discussions about video games because they're not an issue in our house. They're available, there are no restrictions. Sometimes my girls don't touch them for weeks; sometimes they're played daily for weeks; sometimes a few hours here and there. My girls are not addicted, mindless video playing zombies. They're happy, interesting, living, learning people who play video games whenever they choose.
However, I do know someone personally whose son would fit the mom's, from the above blog, description of kids who have no limits set on games/TV, etc. It's my sister's boy, and I know this family very well. He plays video games from the time he gets home from school until he falls asleep. He talks video games constantly. I've never seen him indicate interest in anything else. If a mom like the one above saw my nephew, she would point to him and say "he proves my point". But that's unfair. Because there's so much more to it than just video games. Video games are just one of many things that he could be devoting his time to. But another huge element in this is parental involvement. My sister is not involved in her son's life. Since he started school she seems to feel that he should be able to entertain himself. She doesn't provide anything else for him. She's off doing her thing, and there he is - all alone. And the games are there.
It reminded me of conversation I had last year with a homeschooling mom. She was complaining that she was constantly battling her kids over television, and then she asked me how I handled TV. I told her we didn't have any restrictions on TV viewing. She was shocked - I think because my girls didn't fit the mold she had in mind of what a child would be like with no restrictions. Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until night. That reminded me of the time that my 10 yr old dd and I watched Green Acres all day on TV Land. We drank hot choclate, snuggled on the couch and made pancakes for dinner in honor of Lisa Douglas. So I related that story to my friend and told her how I'm glad I didn't miss that opportunity because of restrictions. She said a day like that once in awhile is fine, but with her kids it would be every day.
That's when I start getting this ill feeling in my stomach. Because it's said like an insult. As though her kids are too lazy or unmotivated to do anything else unless she tells them what to do. I'm not very good with choosing my words and tone of voice when in conversations like this, but I took a deep breath and gave it a shot. I told her at first her kids might watch TV non-stop because they've haven't been able to before but that it would probably not last. That if it did, it would be because there wasn't anything better to do, and that it was her job as a mom to make her home an interesting and alive place to live. I think she got a little irritated at that - my placing the responsibility on her but I went ahead to say how children often times don't have the means - money, ability to schedule activities, transportation, help with the details - to do many things they would like. Just because a kid can read and write and tell you what they want, doesn't mean they can make it happen. I don't know if she ever changed her rules about TV, but I guess she had something new to consider.
I've since regretted I said 'something better to do', because I didn't mean that. That's ranking TV below other activities. Sometimes there is something better to do like going to the zoo, or fishing, or whatever, and sometimes watching TV is the better thing to do.
So that was all to say that I don't think it's just video games, but the whole homelife that plays a huge part in it. Life needs to be interesting and alive and big and varied. And from all that if they choose video games or TV, good. But a lot of times mind choose other things, too.
Janet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
and it's a good one, on video games.
Someone cited it on a Christian homeschooling mom's blog, and she
went off, declared it "horseshit," and naming people.>>
I started to read the mom's blog, but almost immediately felt sad and depressed so I stopped. I've never been involved much in discussions about video games because they're not an issue in our house. They're available, there are no restrictions. Sometimes my girls don't touch them for weeks; sometimes they're played daily for weeks; sometimes a few hours here and there. My girls are not addicted, mindless video playing zombies. They're happy, interesting, living, learning people who play video games whenever they choose.
However, I do know someone personally whose son would fit the mom's, from the above blog, description of kids who have no limits set on games/TV, etc. It's my sister's boy, and I know this family very well. He plays video games from the time he gets home from school until he falls asleep. He talks video games constantly. I've never seen him indicate interest in anything else. If a mom like the one above saw my nephew, she would point to him and say "he proves my point". But that's unfair. Because there's so much more to it than just video games. Video games are just one of many things that he could be devoting his time to. But another huge element in this is parental involvement. My sister is not involved in her son's life. Since he started school she seems to feel that he should be able to entertain himself. She doesn't provide anything else for him. She's off doing her thing, and there he is - all alone. And the games are there.
It reminded me of conversation I had last year with a homeschooling mom. She was complaining that she was constantly battling her kids over television, and then she asked me how I handled TV. I told her we didn't have any restrictions on TV viewing. She was shocked - I think because my girls didn't fit the mold she had in mind of what a child would be like with no restrictions. Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until night. That reminded me of the time that my 10 yr old dd and I watched Green Acres all day on TV Land. We drank hot choclate, snuggled on the couch and made pancakes for dinner in honor of Lisa Douglas. So I related that story to my friend and told her how I'm glad I didn't miss that opportunity because of restrictions. She said a day like that once in awhile is fine, but with her kids it would be every day.
That's when I start getting this ill feeling in my stomach. Because it's said like an insult. As though her kids are too lazy or unmotivated to do anything else unless she tells them what to do. I'm not very good with choosing my words and tone of voice when in conversations like this, but I took a deep breath and gave it a shot. I told her at first her kids might watch TV non-stop because they've haven't been able to before but that it would probably not last. That if it did, it would be because there wasn't anything better to do, and that it was her job as a mom to make her home an interesting and alive place to live. I think she got a little irritated at that - my placing the responsibility on her but I went ahead to say how children often times don't have the means - money, ability to schedule activities, transportation, help with the details - to do many things they would like. Just because a kid can read and write and tell you what they want, doesn't mean they can make it happen. I don't know if she ever changed her rules about TV, but I guess she had something new to consider.
I've since regretted I said 'something better to do', because I didn't mean that. That's ranking TV below other activities. Sometimes there is something better to do like going to the zoo, or fishing, or whatever, and sometimes watching TV is the better thing to do.
So that was all to say that I don't think it's just video games, but the whole homelife that plays a huge part in it. Life needs to be interesting and alive and big and varied. And from all that if they choose video games or TV, good. But a lot of times mind choose other things, too.
Janet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-
I could be rich if I made people bets on stuff like that, if they
would keep the terms of the bet. I could say "Let them watch it for
a month, and if they watch Cartoon Network that last day, all day,
I'll give you $100."
The kids would quit before a week was up, if they really trusted
their mom to go a month. And how much more if they trust their mom
to go forever?
But I bet for $100 the moms would try to make their kids watch from
morning to afternoon. <bwg>
I used to offer people $5 if I was wrong about.... I don't remember
what. Anyone from the AOL days remember? Maybe it was about kids
eating nothing but candy. Something. Moms would say their kids
would [whatever] and I'd say "If they do I'll give you $5."
Nobody ever claimed it.
I wasn't making a bet where I'd get the $5, though.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-
I could be rich if I made people bets on stuff like that, if they
would keep the terms of the bet. I could say "Let them watch it for
a month, and if they watch Cartoon Network that last day, all day,
I'll give you $100."
The kids would quit before a week was up, if they really trusted
their mom to go a month. And how much more if they trust their mom
to go forever?
But I bet for $100 the moms would try to make their kids watch from
morning to afternoon. <bwg>
I used to offer people $5 if I was wrong about.... I don't remember
what. Anyone from the AOL days remember? Maybe it was about kids
eating nothing but candy. Something. Moms would say their kids
would [whatever] and I'd say "If they do I'll give you $5."
Nobody ever claimed it.
I wasn't making a bet where I'd get the $5, though.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
You win. They lose. If they can't defend their point of view without
resorting to that.
anybody here who keeps goats, btw) and that reference to teaching
Latin I knew these people were Luddites, so I didn't bother. I posted
a pro-videogaming message at Smashing Brother's blog instead.
Bob
>LOL
> I've been thrown off that blog now anyway. <g>
>
You win. They lose. If they can't defend their point of view without
resorting to that.
>As soon as I saw that picture of the goats (no offence intended to
> I didn't figure the list of an uptight Christian mom who's teaching
> Latin to small children was a good forum for issues I understand
> better than she does.
anybody here who keeps goats, btw) and that reference to teaching
Latin I knew these people were Luddites, so I didn't bother. I posted
a pro-videogaming message at Smashing Brother's blog instead.
Bob
riasplace3
--- In [email protected], "Janet Renk" <jrenk@...> wrote:
Same experiences here. My kids have complete access to their games,
but very seldom choose them.
This week (this being Friday night) they've only played games one
day, and not even half of that day.
They've been outside bird watching, riding bikes, hunting "treasure"
with their Daddy and his metal detector, they've watched some tv,
read some books, colored in some coloring books, drew pictures, wrote
stories, visited a friend and went out for pizza, played with the
animals, helped clean the house, worked on the landscaping for their
playhouse...there's probably more I'm not thinking of.
Since another *biggie* for people is the food thing (I noticed that
also came up in the comments on her blog) I'll go ahead and say we
went to a birthday party tonight and my kids didn't even have a piece
of birthday cake, but now that we're home my youngest is having chili
beans.
Maybe it *is* all anecdotal evidence. Whatever. We're happy.
Ria
> I've never been involved much in discussions about video gamesplay >video games whenever they choose.
>because they're not an issue in our house. They're available, there
>are no restrictions. Sometimes my girls don't touch them for weeks;
>sometimes they're played daily for weeks; sometimes a few hours here
>and there. My girls are not addicted, mindless video playing
>zombies. They're happy, interesting, living, learning people who
Same experiences here. My kids have complete access to their games,
but very seldom choose them.
This week (this being Friday night) they've only played games one
day, and not even half of that day.
They've been outside bird watching, riding bikes, hunting "treasure"
with their Daddy and his metal detector, they've watched some tv,
read some books, colored in some coloring books, drew pictures, wrote
stories, visited a friend and went out for pizza, played with the
animals, helped clean the house, worked on the landscaping for their
playhouse...there's probably more I'm not thinking of.
Since another *biggie* for people is the food thing (I noticed that
also came up in the comments on her blog) I'll go ahead and say we
went to a birthday party tonight and my kids didn't even have a piece
of birthday cake, but now that we're home my youngest is having chili
beans.
Maybe it *is* all anecdotal evidence. Whatever. We're happy.
Ria
Schuyler
I don't know. Some days the television is on the cartoon channels much of the day. It doesn't mean they are watching it, but it is on. Right now Linnaea is watching The Suite Life of Zach and Cody, eating grapes and playing in a chair top that she's removed from it's legs, hard to describe. She dressed her 18 inch doll earlier as the excitement begins to overtake us at the idea of coming to the U.S. Simon has been watching Yugioh episodes on the laptop while playing a Yugioh game on his DS. So, the television may be on much of the time in our house, but it isn't always, often the main focus of the activity. Does that earn me 100.00 dollars (I only have £ on my keyboard, so I can't dollar sign it, without going through a much larger palaver than just blathering on).
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 17 May, 2008 12:46:08 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Article by unschooled teen critiqued harshly elsewhere
-=-Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-
I could be rich if I made people bets on stuff like that, if they
would keep the terms of the bet. I could say "Let them watch it for
a month, and if they watch Cartoon Network that last day, all day,
I'll give you $100."
The kids would quit before a week was up, if they really trusted
their mom to go a month. And how much more if they trust their mom
to go forever?
But I bet for $100 the moms would try to make their kids watch from
morning to afternoon. <bwg>
I used to offer people $5 if I was wrong about.... I don't remember
what. Anyone from the AOL days remember? Maybe it was about kids
eating nothing but candy. Something. Moms would say their kids
would [whatever] and I'd say "If they do I'll give you $5."
Nobody ever claimed it.
I wasn't making a bet where I'd get the $5, though.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 17 May, 2008 12:46:08 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Article by unschooled teen critiqued harshly elsewhere
-=-Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-
I could be rich if I made people bets on stuff like that, if they
would keep the terms of the bet. I could say "Let them watch it for
a month, and if they watch Cartoon Network that last day, all day,
I'll give you $100."
The kids would quit before a week was up, if they really trusted
their mom to go a month. And how much more if they trust their mom
to go forever?
But I bet for $100 the moms would try to make their kids watch from
morning to afternoon. <bwg>
I used to offer people $5 if I was wrong about.... I don't remember
what. Anyone from the AOL days remember? Maybe it was about kids
eating nothing but candy. Something. Moms would say their kids
would [whatever] and I'd say "If they do I'll give you $5."
Nobody ever claimed it.
I wasn't making a bet where I'd get the $5, though.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Does that earn me 100.00 dollars (I only have £ on my keyboard, so
I can't dollar sign it, without going through a much larger palaver
than just blathering on).-=-
First I would've had to have started siphoning that money IN. <g>
Albuquerque is in the U.S. New Mexico is part of the U.S. (Some
people don't know that, and I'm facetiously suggesting Schuyler might
be one of them, though she used to live here.)
Are you just doing Washington and Kansas and straight back home?
The business about getting tossed off the blog stuck in my head a
while. I understand asking a person to leave a party, but really,
she DID use my name in some very negative ways up top there. Then I
thought of another reason that was bothering me. The post was called
"From the Misguided Parent Files" and that's irritating.
I'm not "misguided." I'm self-guided. I've had influences, but I've
picked through those influences, considered their ideas, tried them
out, asked other people how things were going with their own quests.
Perhaps she feels "guided." Probably. And so others must have been
"misguided."
Oh well...
Sandra
I can't dollar sign it, without going through a much larger palaver
than just blathering on).-=-
First I would've had to have started siphoning that money IN. <g>
Albuquerque is in the U.S. New Mexico is part of the U.S. (Some
people don't know that, and I'm facetiously suggesting Schuyler might
be one of them, though she used to live here.)
Are you just doing Washington and Kansas and straight back home?
The business about getting tossed off the blog stuck in my head a
while. I understand asking a person to leave a party, but really,
she DID use my name in some very negative ways up top there. Then I
thought of another reason that was bothering me. The post was called
"From the Misguided Parent Files" and that's irritating.
I'm not "misguided." I'm self-guided. I've had influences, but I've
picked through those influences, considered their ideas, tried them
out, asked other people how things were going with their own quests.
Perhaps she feels "guided." Probably. And so others must have been
"misguided."
Oh well...
Sandra
Ren Allen
~~Same experiences here. My kids have complete access to their games,
but very seldom choose them.~~
I have four children that play and one plays almost exclusively. That
IS his world, his passion and main interest. I think the problem with
parents like the blog author, is seeing a lot of video gaming as a
problem. I think it's what some people love more than anything and it
need not be demonized or put-down. Some people will turn that into a
career or find a different balance for themselves. I don't think
there's anything wrong with being VERY into video games.
Maybe if gamers were supported better, they wouldn't have to feel
badly about their love of gaming. They wouldn't get labeled "addicted"
and they might have better tools for making money at it! I just don't
think another human gets to decide what is "too much" time on gaming.
That's an individual thing.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
but very seldom choose them.~~
I have four children that play and one plays almost exclusively. That
IS his world, his passion and main interest. I think the problem with
parents like the blog author, is seeing a lot of video gaming as a
problem. I think it's what some people love more than anything and it
need not be demonized or put-down. Some people will turn that into a
career or find a different balance for themselves. I don't think
there's anything wrong with being VERY into video games.
Maybe if gamers were supported better, they wouldn't have to feel
badly about their love of gaming. They wouldn't get labeled "addicted"
and they might have better tools for making money at it! I just don't
think another human gets to decide what is "too much" time on gaming.
That's an individual thing.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Ren Allen
~~=-Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-~~
I'd agree with her. What's the problem with THAT?:)
I can say that cartoon network is on in my basement most of the day.
Jalen comes and goes from it and he's usually quite willing to go with
us on other activities. He likes more tv than most of us. Trevor likes
more video games than most of us. Is that wrong or bad? Nah.
I don't agree that unlimited access equals kids who don't care about a
thing. It does equal kids that get their fill though...and that's
always good in my book. Parents shouldn't release controls in order to
get a certain result though. They should release controls because it's
a lovely way to LIVE.:)
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-~~
I'd agree with her. What's the problem with THAT?:)
I can say that cartoon network is on in my basement most of the day.
Jalen comes and goes from it and he's usually quite willing to go with
us on other activities. He likes more tv than most of us. Trevor likes
more video games than most of us. Is that wrong or bad? Nah.
I don't agree that unlimited access equals kids who don't care about a
thing. It does equal kids that get their fill though...and that's
always good in my book. Parents shouldn't release controls in order to
get a certain result though. They should release controls because it's
a lovely way to LIVE.:)
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Schuyler
We are doing Oregon and Washington and maybe (if the car rental place allows it) a quick swing into Canada, then we are flying to Minnesota for a week (mom's in MN, grandma is in KS) then back to the UK.
I now have a woman who I am not on speaking terms with. I've never had that before. She started a conversation with me when she was in a bad mood about how her children would eat chocolate 24 hours a day if they let them. I said we probably shouldn't have this conversation. She decided it would be good and David joined in, but she took the greatest offense with me. So, she called me the next day saying she didn't want to be friends anymore and then went around or called around to the homeschooling group that we have the closest ties with and told everyone that I said she was an effin' bad mother. So we aren't talking. I mean we say hello and all that, but nothing more. Her daughter and Linnaea are close friends, and fortunately she didn't decide to shut that off, although she said she was going to. I think her husband didn't let it go there.
I still dwell on it. Actually, my sister in law won't talk to me anymore either, for much the same reason. I figure there is something irrascible about me that makes other people uncomfortable and even angry. What disturbed me most was having her tell all these other people, people whom I'm not close friends with but who I interact with regularly, lies about me. I didn't talk about it with anyone, really. I figured it was a private fight. Also I felt really bad for upsetting her. I am the more capable debator, she was disadvantaged coming into the debate.
You aren't misguided. I've read through all of the discussion at her blog, well, skimmed some of the responses. I could write someone's ear off about human nature, David is just writing a paper on the marginal utility of food and children (Pam, he was so hoping you'd be in Oregon, he just gave a talk on it at UEA and figures he can do an all theoretical paper instead of a data paper, there is a lot of evidence out there that children who have control over what they eat are less prone to bingeing, overeating, and not recognizing the feeling of being full, than children who are told what and when to eat), but that is all from an evolutionary understanding of humans, it isn't the most comfortable perspective to offer a group of people who want to look at children as being the bearers of Original Sin. Some people don't want to know that there are other ways of looking at children, at their charges, their chattel. If children can think and measure and make
decisions without being limited and controlled and herded, than what was the point of all the misery. The people I find most defensive are the ones most invested. Often the children. I've had discussions with kids who have to know that they cannot be as good or as smart or as successful if they don't go to school. Maybe your words made her to aware of how sandy her foundation is.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 17 May, 2008 2:01:05 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Article by unschooled teen critiqued harshly elsewhere
-=-Does that earn me 100.00 dollars (I only have £ on my keyboard, so
I can't dollar sign it, without going through a much larger palaver
than just blathering on).-=-
First I would've had to have started siphoning that money IN. <g>
Albuquerque is in the U.S. New Mexico is part of the U.S. (Some
people don't know that, and I'm facetiously suggesting Schuyler might
be one of them, though she used to live here.)
Are you just doing Washington and Kansas and straight back home?
The business about getting tossed off the blog stuck in my head a
while. I understand asking a person to leave a party, but really,
she DID use my name in some very negative ways up top there. Then I
thought of another reason that was bothering me. The post was called
"From the Misguided Parent Files" and that's irritating.
I'm not "misguided." I'm self-guided. I've had influences, but I've
picked through those influences, considered their ideas, tried them
out, asked other people how things were going with their own quests.
Perhaps she feels "guided." Probably. And so others must have been
"misguided."
Oh well...
Sandra
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I now have a woman who I am not on speaking terms with. I've never had that before. She started a conversation with me when she was in a bad mood about how her children would eat chocolate 24 hours a day if they let them. I said we probably shouldn't have this conversation. She decided it would be good and David joined in, but she took the greatest offense with me. So, she called me the next day saying she didn't want to be friends anymore and then went around or called around to the homeschooling group that we have the closest ties with and told everyone that I said she was an effin' bad mother. So we aren't talking. I mean we say hello and all that, but nothing more. Her daughter and Linnaea are close friends, and fortunately she didn't decide to shut that off, although she said she was going to. I think her husband didn't let it go there.
I still dwell on it. Actually, my sister in law won't talk to me anymore either, for much the same reason. I figure there is something irrascible about me that makes other people uncomfortable and even angry. What disturbed me most was having her tell all these other people, people whom I'm not close friends with but who I interact with regularly, lies about me. I didn't talk about it with anyone, really. I figured it was a private fight. Also I felt really bad for upsetting her. I am the more capable debator, she was disadvantaged coming into the debate.
You aren't misguided. I've read through all of the discussion at her blog, well, skimmed some of the responses. I could write someone's ear off about human nature, David is just writing a paper on the marginal utility of food and children (Pam, he was so hoping you'd be in Oregon, he just gave a talk on it at UEA and figures he can do an all theoretical paper instead of a data paper, there is a lot of evidence out there that children who have control over what they eat are less prone to bingeing, overeating, and not recognizing the feeling of being full, than children who are told what and when to eat), but that is all from an evolutionary understanding of humans, it isn't the most comfortable perspective to offer a group of people who want to look at children as being the bearers of Original Sin. Some people don't want to know that there are other ways of looking at children, at their charges, their chattel. If children can think and measure and make
decisions without being limited and controlled and herded, than what was the point of all the misery. The people I find most defensive are the ones most invested. Often the children. I've had discussions with kids who have to know that they cannot be as good or as smart or as successful if they don't go to school. Maybe your words made her to aware of how sandy her foundation is.
Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 17 May, 2008 2:01:05 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Article by unschooled teen critiqued harshly elsewhere
-=-Does that earn me 100.00 dollars (I only have £ on my keyboard, so
I can't dollar sign it, without going through a much larger palaver
than just blathering on).-=-
First I would've had to have started siphoning that money IN. <g>
Albuquerque is in the U.S. New Mexico is part of the U.S. (Some
people don't know that, and I'm facetiously suggesting Schuyler might
be one of them, though she used to live here.)
Are you just doing Washington and Kansas and straight back home?
The business about getting tossed off the blog stuck in my head a
while. I understand asking a person to leave a party, but really,
she DID use my name in some very negative ways up top there. Then I
thought of another reason that was bothering me. The post was called
"From the Misguided Parent Files" and that's irritating.
I'm not "misguided." I'm self-guided. I've had influences, but I've
picked through those influences, considered their ideas, tried them
out, asked other people how things were going with their own quests.
Perhaps she feels "guided." Probably. And so others must have been
"misguided."
Oh well...
Sandra
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Margaret
Along those lines...
I just read an interview with a family friend who had, it seems,
programmed and published a couple of Atari games when he was 17. He
only made two before doing other work, but it was really interesting
to read about the path he took. He definitely was not in an
unschooling family, but it seemed like an unschooly path to me. The
interview was done for a book that someone wrote about early video
game makers and the whole thing seems to be online. This is the link
to his interview. You can easily navigate to the mail menu to see the
other interviews if you are interested.
http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/LUDWIG.HTM
I just read an interview with a family friend who had, it seems,
programmed and published a couple of Atari games when he was 17. He
only made two before doing other work, but it was really interesting
to read about the path he took. He definitely was not in an
unschooling family, but it seemed like an unschooly path to me. The
interview was done for a book that someone wrote about early video
game makers and the whole thing seems to be online. This is the link
to his interview. You can easily navigate to the mail menu to see the
other interviews if you are interested.
http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/LUDWIG.HTM
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM, <Sanguinegirl83@...> wrote:
>
> As I read through it, the thought came to my mind, "Where would Shigeru
> Miyamoto ("father of modern video gaming") be if his parents had made him
> put
> down the drawings and take up a musical instrument or made him read
> 'educational' material or just took his drawing tools from him and declared
> they weren't
> 'worthwhile'?" Where would video gaming be today? Where would our kids be
> and
> this fun, educational thing the whole family can enjoy?
Sandra Dodd
Schuyler, I'm really sorry the other mom in your group had a shut-
down reaction. You warned her!
On the list from which I'm banned, I'm being discussed by name and
it's pretty irritating not to be able to defend myself at this point.
-=-Last year I spoke at a conference where Sandra was also speaking.
In listening to her, both in her talks and as she chatted in the
speakers lounge, it was very clear to me that there was little if any
common ground in our views on education or, very probably, our life
philosophies. (I would doubt she remembers me at all; I was the lone
classical speaker at a conference dominated by unschoolers.)
-=-In particular, I remember a talk she gave called something like
“Iron Homeschooler” (I’m sure I’m getting that name wrong!). It was a
play on Iron Chef: people in the audience would throw out a random
word or phrase and Sandra would come up with a whole list of possible
research topics to create a unit study. It was funny and apparently
delighted the audience. But I remember thinking, okay, that’s
amusing, but a smattering of research on “blue suede shoes” is not an
education. It’s trivia.-=-
Maybe I should defend myself on my blog. I don't like to politicize
blogs like that (not mine). Darn it.
Drew Campbell wrote that. I followed a link. I found a photo. I
don't recognize him. He didn't say which conference. He wrote this,
too, which could also use a clarifying defense:
-=-For some people “unschooling” means that education is entirely,
100% child-led - and that includes the learning of basic literacy and
numeracy skills. Others gently guide their children in certain
directions by “strewing” materials around the house; the parents are
choosing the material, but the children are choosing whether or not
to pick it up.-=-
I don't use "child led" as a term or concept. It's just too puny,
it's too thin. It's not about a relationship between the child and
the family.
But as to "strewing," THAT, by God, is my term and concept, and I
can't even go there and say so.
So if anyone here wants to bandy some links about there in my
defense, the "smattering of research" was not "research," it was the
connections that can be made with and to ANYthing.
http://sandradodd.com/dot/elvis
As to trivia,
http://sandradodd.com/triviality
All of the history of Catholicism is trivia if one doesn't believe in
heaven, hell or the infallability of the pope.
It's history, too, and I LOVE history, and I could go on for hours
about the effect on culture of the Catholic church on six continents,
and the protestant reformation, and its effect on things like the
current U.S. Presidential race, and American Education, but unless
it's going to be on a test, it's "trivia."
But most of all, I have never, once, seen an episode of Iron Chef. I
don't have cable, and though I've heard cook-friends hoot that it's
fun, I don't even know how it works, so I couldn't have done anything
as "a play on Iron Chef." What he's talking about was "That's Not
Educational," a game I've played at a few conferences, and the first
time was here:
Home=Education, August 23-25, 1996, Sacramento, California
Words as Toys
"That's Not Educational!"
Unschooling with Abandon
Exploring the Middle Ages
So 12 years later, in a place where I can't defend myself, someone
else is explaining what I intended and what I believe and what I do?
Yeeks. I think I'll go and work in the yard.
Sandra
down reaction. You warned her!
On the list from which I'm banned, I'm being discussed by name and
it's pretty irritating not to be able to defend myself at this point.
-=-Last year I spoke at a conference where Sandra was also speaking.
In listening to her, both in her talks and as she chatted in the
speakers lounge, it was very clear to me that there was little if any
common ground in our views on education or, very probably, our life
philosophies. (I would doubt she remembers me at all; I was the lone
classical speaker at a conference dominated by unschoolers.)
-=-In particular, I remember a talk she gave called something like
“Iron Homeschooler” (I’m sure I’m getting that name wrong!). It was a
play on Iron Chef: people in the audience would throw out a random
word or phrase and Sandra would come up with a whole list of possible
research topics to create a unit study. It was funny and apparently
delighted the audience. But I remember thinking, okay, that’s
amusing, but a smattering of research on “blue suede shoes” is not an
education. It’s trivia.-=-
Maybe I should defend myself on my blog. I don't like to politicize
blogs like that (not mine). Darn it.
Drew Campbell wrote that. I followed a link. I found a photo. I
don't recognize him. He didn't say which conference. He wrote this,
too, which could also use a clarifying defense:
-=-For some people “unschooling” means that education is entirely,
100% child-led - and that includes the learning of basic literacy and
numeracy skills. Others gently guide their children in certain
directions by “strewing” materials around the house; the parents are
choosing the material, but the children are choosing whether or not
to pick it up.-=-
I don't use "child led" as a term or concept. It's just too puny,
it's too thin. It's not about a relationship between the child and
the family.
But as to "strewing," THAT, by God, is my term and concept, and I
can't even go there and say so.
So if anyone here wants to bandy some links about there in my
defense, the "smattering of research" was not "research," it was the
connections that can be made with and to ANYthing.
http://sandradodd.com/dot/elvis
As to trivia,
http://sandradodd.com/triviality
All of the history of Catholicism is trivia if one doesn't believe in
heaven, hell or the infallability of the pope.
It's history, too, and I LOVE history, and I could go on for hours
about the effect on culture of the Catholic church on six continents,
and the protestant reformation, and its effect on things like the
current U.S. Presidential race, and American Education, but unless
it's going to be on a test, it's "trivia."
But most of all, I have never, once, seen an episode of Iron Chef. I
don't have cable, and though I've heard cook-friends hoot that it's
fun, I don't even know how it works, so I couldn't have done anything
as "a play on Iron Chef." What he's talking about was "That's Not
Educational," a game I've played at a few conferences, and the first
time was here:
Home=Education, August 23-25, 1996, Sacramento, California
Words as Toys
"That's Not Educational!"
Unschooling with Abandon
Exploring the Middle Ages
So 12 years later, in a place where I can't defend myself, someone
else is explaining what I intended and what I believe and what I do?
Yeeks. I think I'll go and work in the yard.
Sandra
riasplace3
--- In [email protected], "Ren Allen" <starsuncloud@...>
wrote:
I think the problem with
saying my kids were better of that they don't choose to play. I
*wasn't* saying that..some days they play all day, some weeks they
play all week; it's not a problem.
What I was trying to say was they *do* find other things to do, it's
not just games all the time, which is what people worry about when
they're starting to think of taking off restrictions (or trying to
come up with a reason NOT to take off restrictions).
Ria
wrote:
I think the problem with
> parents like the blog author, is seeing a lot of video gaming as ait
> problem. I think it's what some people love more than anything and
> need not be demonized or put-down. Some people will turn that into aI figured, when I wrote my post, that someone would think I was
> career or find a different balance for themselves. I don't think
> there's anything wrong with being VERY into video games.
saying my kids were better of that they don't choose to play. I
*wasn't* saying that..some days they play all day, some weeks they
play all week; it's not a problem.
What I was trying to say was they *do* find other things to do, it's
not just games all the time, which is what people worry about when
they're starting to think of taking off restrictions (or trying to
come up with a reason NOT to take off restrictions).
Ria
Sylvia Toyama
I visited the barefoot meandering blog kinda strikes me as a funny for a Classical Homeschooler's blog -- isn't barefoot meandering a very unregulated activity? <g> It may even be sinful!
Anyway, here's my comment -- it's long and may not even appear I know (tho I think I was gentle and nice).
*****
I, too, came here from a link at Sandra Dodd's group. I read the gaming article, and Zach's essay, and Sandra's words, and all the other comments here. After all that reading, a couple of things occur to me.
1. Steven Johnson, for all the disagreement many folks have for him here, is apparently successful enough to have published a book, right? So, maybe he knows something about something, even if it's only what will sell books. Not a complete and total failure, so maybe some of what he has to say has value. I'm open-minded enough to believe I can't know until I actually read his words.
2. I'm very saddened by the parents who've posted that they have one or a few children who can self-regulate, but another or two who can't. How sad for those children to know Mom thinks they can't self-regulate. I noticed that none of those Moms said 'yet' about their child's perceived inability to self-regulate. Does this mean you believe this particular child will never learn to self-regulate? The s/he will always need someone one or something (limits imposed by society, or God, or parents or spouse?) to be regulated? Wow! I can't imagine truly believing one of my children will never learn to prioritize his life so that he can self-regulate.
3. As to whether or not it's okay for Zach to purportedly tell parents how to treat their kids, and the later acknowledgement that maybe he was only talking to unschooling parents, maybe unschooling parents are the only kind he's known in his life? We are unschoolers, blessed to have a wonderful local community of unschoolers. I don't think my parents (oops, that should have read 'kids') actually see, up close, any non-unschooling parents. Sure, we know some, but my kids seem not to really notice them nor to internalize what those parents are about. Mainstream parents are something they see on TV, and they really don't give it much thought.
4. Drew's bit about what people (children) must know or learn. I don't consider the Bible or Iliad to be essential, except in the context of how they do come up as what folks call trivia. Everyone has their own list, I suspect. For Muslims, it now doubt includes the Koran, for Jews the Talmud, for Communists writings of Lenin, and so on. Now, if we're talking must reads in my world, Atlas Shrugged tops the list -- but at 1000+ pages, it's not one any of my kids or even my husband have tackled. I don't even agree with Ayn Rand and I'm certainly not an adherent of objectivism, but it's an amazing read, as is Stranger In A Strange Land by Heinlein, and even Secret Life of Bees, by Sue Monk Kidd.
5. My experience of trivia (as one whose head is filled with trivia, admittedly) is that so much of what is dismissed as trivia is really an essential part of the rich tapestry of what it means to live in our world. It's kind of like my favorite Star Trek-Next Generation episode -- the one where Piccard lands on a planet where they speak only in metaphors and he knows no history of their culture so he can't communicate. Or in Blast from the Past, where Brendan Fraser walks out of a bomb shelter after 35 yrs totally clueless -- in his own country. Without a head full of trivia -- really comprehensive, contextual knowledge of what has come before -- how do people understand what's being presented today? Yeah, I'm a history geek, with a crazy-glue memory, so I think the value of 'trivia' is seriously under-rated.
And for the record, I think folks were a little unfair to Sandra Dodd (who knows she can be irritating to some people!) whom I do know personally (guessing most folks here have never met or spoken with Sandra IRL). Then again, in my opinion (not irrefutable fact, just my opinion) many parents are unfair and unkind to their own beloved children (tho often very with the best of intentions -- kind of a benevolent malpractice, if you will) so why be surprised when they're unfair to a stranger?
Sylvia -- realizing I may not even be posted here after that last remark, but I will copy this to Sandra's group for them to see!
So there's my two cents worth on the latest villification of Sandra Dodd.
Sylvia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anyway, here's my comment -- it's long and may not even appear I know (tho I think I was gentle and nice).
*****
I, too, came here from a link at Sandra Dodd's group. I read the gaming article, and Zach's essay, and Sandra's words, and all the other comments here. After all that reading, a couple of things occur to me.
1. Steven Johnson, for all the disagreement many folks have for him here, is apparently successful enough to have published a book, right? So, maybe he knows something about something, even if it's only what will sell books. Not a complete and total failure, so maybe some of what he has to say has value. I'm open-minded enough to believe I can't know until I actually read his words.
2. I'm very saddened by the parents who've posted that they have one or a few children who can self-regulate, but another or two who can't. How sad for those children to know Mom thinks they can't self-regulate. I noticed that none of those Moms said 'yet' about their child's perceived inability to self-regulate. Does this mean you believe this particular child will never learn to self-regulate? The s/he will always need someone one or something (limits imposed by society, or God, or parents or spouse?) to be regulated? Wow! I can't imagine truly believing one of my children will never learn to prioritize his life so that he can self-regulate.
3. As to whether or not it's okay for Zach to purportedly tell parents how to treat their kids, and the later acknowledgement that maybe he was only talking to unschooling parents, maybe unschooling parents are the only kind he's known in his life? We are unschoolers, blessed to have a wonderful local community of unschoolers. I don't think my parents (oops, that should have read 'kids') actually see, up close, any non-unschooling parents. Sure, we know some, but my kids seem not to really notice them nor to internalize what those parents are about. Mainstream parents are something they see on TV, and they really don't give it much thought.
4. Drew's bit about what people (children) must know or learn. I don't consider the Bible or Iliad to be essential, except in the context of how they do come up as what folks call trivia. Everyone has their own list, I suspect. For Muslims, it now doubt includes the Koran, for Jews the Talmud, for Communists writings of Lenin, and so on. Now, if we're talking must reads in my world, Atlas Shrugged tops the list -- but at 1000+ pages, it's not one any of my kids or even my husband have tackled. I don't even agree with Ayn Rand and I'm certainly not an adherent of objectivism, but it's an amazing read, as is Stranger In A Strange Land by Heinlein, and even Secret Life of Bees, by Sue Monk Kidd.
5. My experience of trivia (as one whose head is filled with trivia, admittedly) is that so much of what is dismissed as trivia is really an essential part of the rich tapestry of what it means to live in our world. It's kind of like my favorite Star Trek-Next Generation episode -- the one where Piccard lands on a planet where they speak only in metaphors and he knows no history of their culture so he can't communicate. Or in Blast from the Past, where Brendan Fraser walks out of a bomb shelter after 35 yrs totally clueless -- in his own country. Without a head full of trivia -- really comprehensive, contextual knowledge of what has come before -- how do people understand what's being presented today? Yeah, I'm a history geek, with a crazy-glue memory, so I think the value of 'trivia' is seriously under-rated.
And for the record, I think folks were a little unfair to Sandra Dodd (who knows she can be irritating to some people!) whom I do know personally (guessing most folks here have never met or spoken with Sandra IRL). Then again, in my opinion (not irrefutable fact, just my opinion) many parents are unfair and unkind to their own beloved children (tho often very with the best of intentions -- kind of a benevolent malpractice, if you will) so why be surprised when they're unfair to a stranger?
Sylvia -- realizing I may not even be posted here after that last remark, but I will copy this to Sandra's group for them to see!
So there's my two cents worth on the latest villification of Sandra Dodd.
Sylvia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Laureen
Heya!
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> Maybe I should defend myself on my blog. I don't like to politicize
> blogs like that (not mine). Darn it.
The fewer clicks a blog like that gets, the fewer comments, the sooner
it's water under the bridge. Smart SEO strategy demands it. =)
> As to trivia,
>
> http://sandradodd.com/triviality
I had two friends over for lunch yesterday; they're visiting from the
UK. He's a lifetime UK resident, she was raised in Czechoslovakia
under communist rule, and emigrated to the UK when she could. So,
their cultural context for things is completely different from ours.
I don't even remember what we were discussing; the internet, politics,
technology, something like that. And my friend, who is an ubergeek,
popped off with some factoid. His girlfriend said something about his
prodigious grasp of trivia, and he shot back with "well, no, because
it's only trivia if it's never going to get you free alcohol at the
bar."
Which reminded me of the small Northern California town where I did my
undergrad degree. The botany professor had a deal with a local
barkeep, and he would give one free beverage-of-choice to anyone who
knew the correct term for the unrolling of a fern frond (circinate
vernation).
So there you have it... a piece of information that can be used in
trade for a commodity. That makes it not trivia, yes? And yet how many
people live their entire lives happily unaware of it? Probably the
vast majority. It's certainly not curricula in any school I've ever
been to, other than in this one professor's class. It wasn't even "on
the test" in any other class. It was just his thing. And here I am,
years later, and I still remember it. Because it had use for me, my
brain categorized it as "useful". and kept it on the front burner. Go
figure.
> So 12 years later, in a place where I can't defend myself, someone
> else is explaining what I intended and what I believe and what I do?
> Yeeks. I think I'll go and work in the yard.
There is no thought control, and anyone who's going to believe what
someone says about a third party, unsubstantiated, isn't all that
concerned with intellectual rigor anyway.
On the whole video gaming thing... it's so sad I don't even know where
to start. So I'm not going to.
--
~~L!
~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
Writing here:
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
Evolving here:
http://www.consciouswoman.org/
~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~
Schuyler
I often ramble way away from my point. I think I probably did that in my reply. Sigh... I think it is okay to let other people talk about you without joining in. Those people who believe you are misguided, like Drew, the lone classical speaker (talk about a point of pride), aren't going to ever agree with how you represent yourself. Whereas those people who come over and see you being villified and get curious and wander over to Sandradodd.com and discover what you do represent, well, they get to make up their own minds. I think that was where I was going with my no-longer-friend who told everyone else what a baddy I was. I can't defend myself. If I do I make the fight go on and on and on. I don't gain anything and she gets the attention that she so craves.
At least that's what I wanted to say.
Oh, and the fact that you were banned, talk about giving you the gift of martyrdom! Man excommunicated, very cool.
---------------
On the list from which I'm banned, I'm being discussed by name and
it's pretty irritating not to be able to defend myself at this point.
-=-Last year I spoke at a conference where Sandra was also speaking.
In listening to her, both in her talks and as she chatted in the
speakers lounge, it was very clear to me that there was little if any
common ground in our views on education or, very probably, our life
philosophies. (I would doubt she remembers me at all; I was the lone
classical speaker at a conference dominated by unschoolers.)
-=-In particular, I remember a talk she gave called something like
“Iron Homeschooler” (I’m sure I’m getting that name wrong!). It was a
play on Iron Chef: people in the audience would throw out a random
word or phrase and Sandra would come up with a whole list of possible
research topics to create a unit study. It was funny and apparently
delighted the audience. But I remember thinking, okay, that’s
amusing, but a smattering of research on “blue suede shoes” is not an
education. It’s trivia.-=-
Maybe I should defend myself on my blog. I don't like to politicize
blogs like that (not mine). Darn it.
Drew Campbell wrote that. I followed a link. I found a photo. I
don't recognize him. He didn't say which conference. He wrote this,
too, which could also use a clarifying defense:
-=-For some people “unschooling” means that education is entirely,
100% child-led - and that includes the learning of basic literacy and
numeracy skills. Others gently guide their children in certain
directions by “strewing” materials around the house; the parents are
choosing the material, but the children are choosing whether or not
to pick it up.-=-
I don't use "child led" as a term or concept. It's just too puny,
it's too thin. It's not about a relationship between the child and
the family.
But as to "strewing," THAT, by God, is my term and concept, and I
can't even go there and say so.
So if anyone here wants to bandy some links about there in my
defense, the "smattering of research" was not "research," it was the
connections that can be made with and to ANYthing.
http://sandradodd.com/dot/elvis
As to trivia,
http://sandradodd.com/triviality
All of the history of Catholicism is trivia if one doesn't believe in
heaven, hell or the infallability of the pope.
It's history, too, and I LOVE history, and I could go on for hours
about the effect on culture of the Catholic church on six continents,
and the protestant reformation, and its effect on things like the
current U.S. Presidential race, and American Education, but unless
it's going to be on a test, it's "trivia."
But most of all, I have never, once, seen an episode of Iron Chef. I
don't have cable, and though I've heard cook-friends hoot that it's
fun, I don't even know how it works, so I couldn't have done anything
as "a play on Iron Chef." What he's talking about was "That's Not
Educational," a game I've played at a few conferences, and the first
time was here:
Home=Education, August 23-25, 1996, Sacramento, California
Words as Toys
"That's Not Educational!"
Unschooling with Abandon
Exploring the Middle Ages
So 12 years later, in a place where I can't defend myself, someone
else is explaining what I intended and what I believe and what I do?
Yeeks. I think I'll go and work in the yard.
Sandra
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At least that's what I wanted to say.
Oh, and the fact that you were banned, talk about giving you the gift of martyrdom! Man excommunicated, very cool.
---------------
On the list from which I'm banned, I'm being discussed by name and
it's pretty irritating not to be able to defend myself at this point.
-=-Last year I spoke at a conference where Sandra was also speaking.
In listening to her, both in her talks and as she chatted in the
speakers lounge, it was very clear to me that there was little if any
common ground in our views on education or, very probably, our life
philosophies. (I would doubt she remembers me at all; I was the lone
classical speaker at a conference dominated by unschoolers.)
-=-In particular, I remember a talk she gave called something like
“Iron Homeschooler” (I’m sure I’m getting that name wrong!). It was a
play on Iron Chef: people in the audience would throw out a random
word or phrase and Sandra would come up with a whole list of possible
research topics to create a unit study. It was funny and apparently
delighted the audience. But I remember thinking, okay, that’s
amusing, but a smattering of research on “blue suede shoes” is not an
education. It’s trivia.-=-
Maybe I should defend myself on my blog. I don't like to politicize
blogs like that (not mine). Darn it.
Drew Campbell wrote that. I followed a link. I found a photo. I
don't recognize him. He didn't say which conference. He wrote this,
too, which could also use a clarifying defense:
-=-For some people “unschooling” means that education is entirely,
100% child-led - and that includes the learning of basic literacy and
numeracy skills. Others gently guide their children in certain
directions by “strewing” materials around the house; the parents are
choosing the material, but the children are choosing whether or not
to pick it up.-=-
I don't use "child led" as a term or concept. It's just too puny,
it's too thin. It's not about a relationship between the child and
the family.
But as to "strewing," THAT, by God, is my term and concept, and I
can't even go there and say so.
So if anyone here wants to bandy some links about there in my
defense, the "smattering of research" was not "research," it was the
connections that can be made with and to ANYthing.
http://sandradodd.com/dot/elvis
As to trivia,
http://sandradodd.com/triviality
All of the history of Catholicism is trivia if one doesn't believe in
heaven, hell or the infallability of the pope.
It's history, too, and I LOVE history, and I could go on for hours
about the effect on culture of the Catholic church on six continents,
and the protestant reformation, and its effect on things like the
current U.S. Presidential race, and American Education, but unless
it's going to be on a test, it's "trivia."
But most of all, I have never, once, seen an episode of Iron Chef. I
don't have cable, and though I've heard cook-friends hoot that it's
fun, I don't even know how it works, so I couldn't have done anything
as "a play on Iron Chef." What he's talking about was "That's Not
Educational," a game I've played at a few conferences, and the first
time was here:
Home=Education, August 23-25, 1996, Sacramento, California
Words as Toys
"That's Not Educational!"
Unschooling with Abandon
Exploring the Middle Ages
So 12 years later, in a place where I can't defend myself, someone
else is explaining what I intended and what I believe and what I do?
Yeeks. I think I'll go and work in the yard.
Sandra
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Janet Renk
<<~~=-Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as much as
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-~~
I'd agree with her. What's the problem with THAT?:)>>
I don't think I expressed myself clearly in that e-mail. The mom that made the comment about having Cartoon Network on all day - what she meant is that her kids would turn into zombies watching Cartoon Network from morning tilll night. You know, their eyes would turn square or whatever that book was about.
My point to her was to ask if there were other interesting, creative things going on in her home for her children to choose from. And was she helping her kids make things happen that they couldn't do by themselves.
What I realized later, and unfortunately did not express well to that other mom, was if there were other exciting, interesting, big things going on, and her child still chose to watch TV or play games then that's where we need to trust that that's the better choice for that child at that time.
Also, and this is my own children since I know them well, never throw a fit if I ask them to stop -TV or games or whatever - so we can go somewhere or if something came up. I believe this is because they know they can continue with it later. It's available.
The TV is always on in my house. That doesn't mean my girls are always watching it. They will plop on a couch for a while, and then get up to do something else. Right now the Disney Channel is on, one is sort of watching while looking at an American Girl catalog, another is buried deep in a Charlie Bone book, and the other two are outside picking up rocks while dad rototills. That's pretty normal.
Janet
Recent Activity
a.. 16New Members
b.. 1New Links
Visit Your Group
Best of Y! Groups
Discover groups
that are the best
of their class.
Moderator Central
An online resource
for moderators
of Yahoo! Groups.
Dog Groups
on Yahoo! Groups
discuss everything
related to dogs.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until
night. -=-~~
I'd agree with her. What's the problem with THAT?:)>>
I don't think I expressed myself clearly in that e-mail. The mom that made the comment about having Cartoon Network on all day - what she meant is that her kids would turn into zombies watching Cartoon Network from morning tilll night. You know, their eyes would turn square or whatever that book was about.
My point to her was to ask if there were other interesting, creative things going on in her home for her children to choose from. And was she helping her kids make things happen that they couldn't do by themselves.
What I realized later, and unfortunately did not express well to that other mom, was if there were other exciting, interesting, big things going on, and her child still chose to watch TV or play games then that's where we need to trust that that's the better choice for that child at that time.
Also, and this is my own children since I know them well, never throw a fit if I ask them to stop -TV or games or whatever - so we can go somewhere or if something came up. I believe this is because they know they can continue with it later. It's available.
The TV is always on in my house. That doesn't mean my girls are always watching it. They will plop on a couch for a while, and then get up to do something else. Right now the Disney Channel is on, one is sort of watching while looking at an American Girl catalog, another is buried deep in a Charlie Bone book, and the other two are outside picking up rocks while dad rototills. That's pretty normal.
Janet
Recent Activity
a.. 16New Members
b.. 1New Links
Visit Your Group
Best of Y! Groups
Discover groups
that are the best
of their class.
Moderator Central
An online resource
for moderators
of Yahoo! Groups.
Dog Groups
on Yahoo! Groups
discuss everything
related to dogs.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joanna Murphy
>The way your name was used reminded me of a parent trying to shame their child. Tight lips,
> The business about getting tossed off the blog stuck in my head a
> while. I understand asking a person to leave a party, but really,
> she DID use my name in some very negative ways up top there.
>
disapproving, tilted head, finger pointed. It's a good thing she didn't have your middle name,
because I have no doubt that she would have used it too.
Joanna
Sandra Dodd
-=-What I was trying to say was they *do* find other things to do, it's
not just games all the time, which is what people worry about when
they're starting to think of taking off restrictions (or trying to
come up with a reason NOT to take off restrictions). -=-
Once upon a time, we were being measured in our TV viewing, not by
ME, but by an outside agency about which we're not supposed to speak,
but y'know.... ratings.
I said right up front, when we were solicited to participate, that we
let our kids watch what they want, and we might not be a good sample
to represent our area. No, no, no, said someone who told me never to
tell we talked. (HOW on earth can a person such as myself, so prone
to telling stories, have been stuck with a secret like that AND then
have a kid who's got a secret job!?? It pains me...)
So twice I got long distance calls from a distant place asking me to
go and turn on a television (two different ones, once) so they could
see if their monitoring equipment was operational, because their
records indicated the television had not been watched for a full month.
We don't have cable, as I've said. We can see huge transmitters out
the window. (They look small, because they're on the top of a mile-
high mountain, but we've seen them up close; huge.) We had at that
time five or six operational televisions, and most hooked up to video
games and players of one thing or another.
I **told** them we let the kids watch whenever they want. How could
anyone be surprised that some months, on some equipment, it was zero??
And lately, Holly and I watch more movies and TV on our computers
than sitting in a soft chair looking across the room at a box.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
not just games all the time, which is what people worry about when
they're starting to think of taking off restrictions (or trying to
come up with a reason NOT to take off restrictions). -=-
Once upon a time, we were being measured in our TV viewing, not by
ME, but by an outside agency about which we're not supposed to speak,
but y'know.... ratings.
I said right up front, when we were solicited to participate, that we
let our kids watch what they want, and we might not be a good sample
to represent our area. No, no, no, said someone who told me never to
tell we talked. (HOW on earth can a person such as myself, so prone
to telling stories, have been stuck with a secret like that AND then
have a kid who's got a secret job!?? It pains me...)
So twice I got long distance calls from a distant place asking me to
go and turn on a television (two different ones, once) so they could
see if their monitoring equipment was operational, because their
records indicated the television had not been watched for a full month.
We don't have cable, as I've said. We can see huge transmitters out
the window. (They look small, because they're on the top of a mile-
high mountain, but we've seen them up close; huge.) We had at that
time five or six operational televisions, and most hooked up to video
games and players of one thing or another.
I **told** them we let the kids watch whenever they want. How could
anyone be surprised that some months, on some equipment, it was zero??
And lately, Holly and I watch more movies and TV on our computers
than sitting in a soft chair looking across the room at a box.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keetry
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
the people who said they started with a very different perspective of
children from you. They said they don't come from the perspective that
children are born innocent and good. To me, that only means they must
think children are all born "bad". Very, very sad.
Alysia
>been
> Perhaps she feels "guided." Probably. And so others must have
> "misguided."I think that's it. The thing about that blog I found really sad was
the people who said they started with a very different perspective of
children from you. They said they don't come from the perspective that
children are born innocent and good. To me, that only means they must
think children are all born "bad". Very, very sad.
Alysia
Sandra Dodd
-=-. Then again, in my opinion (not irrefutable fact, just my
opinion) many parents are unfair and unkind to their own beloved
children (tho often very with the best of intentions -- kind of a
benevolent malpractice, if you will) so why be surprised when they're
unfair to a stranger?-=-
OH my gosh, Sylvia!!! I *love* "benevolent malpractice."
Half an hour later, it's not up. I guess she changed her blog so she
can edit me out and had to catch everyone else too.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
opinion) many parents are unfair and unkind to their own beloved
children (tho often very with the best of intentions -- kind of a
benevolent malpractice, if you will) so why be surprised when they're
unfair to a stranger?-=-
OH my gosh, Sylvia!!! I *love* "benevolent malpractice."
Half an hour later, it's not up. I guess she changed her blog so she
can edit me out and had to catch everyone else too.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-There is no thought control, and anyone who's going to believe what
someone says about a third party, unsubstantiated, isn't all that
concerned with intellectual rigor anyway.-=-
If there's no thought control, why are people afraid of video games
and cults? (And how long before there is a game that IS a cult? And
can I be the cult leader?)
Perhaps some people are gullible/susceptible/prefer leadership
involving unquestioning faith and obedience.
Maybe I am too.
My yard looks nicer than it did earlier today!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
someone says about a third party, unsubstantiated, isn't all that
concerned with intellectual rigor anyway.-=-
If there's no thought control, why are people afraid of video games
and cults? (And how long before there is a game that IS a cult? And
can I be the cult leader?)
Perhaps some people are gullible/susceptible/prefer leadership
involving unquestioning faith and obedience.
Maybe I am too.
My yard looks nicer than it did earlier today!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-The way your name was used reminded me of a parent trying to shame
their child. Tight lips,
disapproving, tilted head, finger pointed. It's a good thing she
didn't have your middle name,
because I have no doubt that she would have used it too.-=-
OH YEAH! "And you, Miss Sandra Lynn Dodd, with the allegedly "happy"
children, you are not welcome here."
Sometimes people say "They can't take away your birthday."
Here's what cannot be taken away from me at this point: My children
grew up free and happy. If we count Holly at 16 and a half as
grown. Or My children grew up free and happy and in a year and a
half, they can't take that away from me. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
their child. Tight lips,
disapproving, tilted head, finger pointed. It's a good thing she
didn't have your middle name,
because I have no doubt that she would have used it too.-=-
OH YEAH! "And you, Miss Sandra Lynn Dodd, with the allegedly "happy"
children, you are not welcome here."
Sometimes people say "They can't take away your birthday."
Here's what cannot be taken away from me at this point: My children
grew up free and happy. If we count Holly at 16 and a half as
grown. Or My children grew up free and happy and in a year and a
half, they can't take that away from me. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keetry
> ~~=-Her first comment was that if she let her kids watch TV as muchas
> they wanted to they would have Cartoon Network on from morning until=============
> night. -=-~~
My older son had all the behaviors of a kid addicted to video games
from about the age of 13-16. He was also coming from a place of having
them limited. Once I let go of that and decided to just let him do
what he wanted, he got really interested in other things. Most of the
time he was out with his friends skateboarding, rehearsing with his
band, going to the beach, hanging out, teenage stuff. The only time he
played video games after that was when there wasn't anything else to
do.
My 4yo likes to have the TV on whenever he's in the house. However,
he's almost always willing to turn it off to go somewhere with us or
play outside with a friend or help me in the kitchen. He can and does
walk away whenever he wants.
Alysia
Vicki Dennis
Perfect! Made me smile. And since I'm pretty sure Sandra lists her middle
name at her website (along with her parents and grandparents), it just goes
to show that the *whatever she is* neglected pretty basic and classical
research. Because you are right..........if she had known the middle name
would have certainly used it...............I hear it in my head and my
imagination is infallible :-).
vicki
name at her website (along with her parents and grandparents), it just goes
to show that the *whatever she is* neglected pretty basic and classical
research. Because you are right..........if she had known the middle name
would have certainly used it...............I hear it in my head and my
imagination is infallible :-).
vicki
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Joanna Murphy <ridingmom@...> wrote:
> It's a good thing she didn't have your middle name,
> because I have no doubt that she would have used it too.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
There's about a ton more there. It's up to 55 comments. The blog
owner wrote:
-=-I would ask that y’all not try to explain Sandra’s views to me,
tell me what a pleasant person she is, or post any links to her site.
I respect that y’all respect her. Please respect that I do not. She
had her chance to have her say, and she squandered it and any chance
of earning my respect.-=-
I can see no advantage in earning the respect of someone who
publically wrote "Horseshit" about that really great essay Zach
wrote. I would be ashamed of the respect of someone who can deny
that "horseshit" is a rude response, and who lacks the conviction of
her own ideas to the point that she wrote "I don’t discount anecdotal
evidence as illogical, and if I implied such, it was unintentional. "
Yeeks, if one writes something strong and it's SITTING there, to say
"I didn't write that" or "I didn't mean that" or "'Horseshit' isn't
derisive" is an embarrassment.
Hot tub. Sleeping. Very, very tired.
Sandra
owner wrote:
-=-I would ask that y’all not try to explain Sandra’s views to me,
tell me what a pleasant person she is, or post any links to her site.
I respect that y’all respect her. Please respect that I do not. She
had her chance to have her say, and she squandered it and any chance
of earning my respect.-=-
I can see no advantage in earning the respect of someone who
publically wrote "Horseshit" about that really great essay Zach
wrote. I would be ashamed of the respect of someone who can deny
that "horseshit" is a rude response, and who lacks the conviction of
her own ideas to the point that she wrote "I don’t discount anecdotal
evidence as illogical, and if I implied such, it was unintentional. "
Yeeks, if one writes something strong and it's SITTING there, to say
"I didn't write that" or "I didn't mean that" or "'Horseshit' isn't
derisive" is an embarrassment.
Hot tub. Sleeping. Very, very tired.
Sandra
kav_ann
== I now have a woman who I am not on speaking terms with. I've
never had that before.==
==Her daughter and Linnaea are close friends, and fortunately she
didn't decide to shut that off, although she said she was going to.
==
I usually lurk inconsistently on this list. This post from Schuyler
struck a cord with me. I had a similar situation happen this past
year. A woman who was a good friend got upset with me about
something that I wrote in an e-mail to her. It was not something
that I wrote in anger or frustration, and I did not expect it to
create animosity or anger in response. Apparently, it did. I did
not find out for a long time, because the *friend* did not respond
or communicate with me about her interpretation of what I had
written. She spread word among our mutual friends in our homeschool
group that she was angry and was not going to send or receive e-
mails from me anymore, or talk to me anymore. We were not in the
habit of talking on a daily basis, so I did not catch on until she
did not follow through on a scheduled play date for our daughters
(some time after the e-mail that apparently offended.) At that
time, I found it odd that I could not reach the *friend* to confirm
and solidify the plans for the playdate. In mentioning the
situation to a mutual friend, I was told that the other woman was
angry with me. Sigh.
I wish my 11yo daughter and her friend were as fortunate as Linnaea
and her friend. In my case, my *friend*'s children and my children
(we each have a dd and a ds) had been friends. When the mother cut
off communication with me, she included my children. It's
unfortuate, because it also affects her own children and other
children in our homeschool community.
Like Schuyler, I felt bad for offending the person. Once I realized
that my words had that unintended affect, I apologized the next time
that I saw the offended *friend* in person. I explained that I had
not intended to hurt her and was sorry for that. She accepted my
apology but said that she was not ready to talk about it. I offered
to meet some time to talk further as soon as she was ready. That
has never happened.
In my case, this woman was also my dd's girl scout leader. In
deciding not to communicate with me, she quit including us in her
communications regarding the girl scout events and meetings, even
after I tried to make amends. Throughout the past year, she has
planned group events that my children are not included in. Her
children are still invited to things that my family plans, but they
do not attend, though the four children still get along very well on
the rare occasions that they are together in group gatherings. I
have had two other occasions where I have tried to reach out to this
other parent, once to wish her a happy birthday, and another time to
send simple good wishes to her and her family. Part of me was
hoping that she would *come to her senses* and stop behaving in such
an inappropriate way. That has not happened.
It is all so very unfortunate when a parent acts out in anger,
especially when children become casualty of the behavior. In
reading Schuyler's comments, I wonder if this kind of thing is not
too unusual? It caught me off-guard; I'm not used to this kind of
behavior and personally don't believe in treating people in this way.
== I figure there is something irrascible about me that makes other
people uncomfortable and even angry. ==
Maybe that's it for me, as well! :-) I have to say that in both
cases, it sounds like the other person involved was the irascible
one!
Is this kind of thing more common than I realize? How have other
parents dealt with it? In our case, it affects our unschooling in
that it affects the group of friends who have the shared life
philosophy of unschooling.
Interestingly, it has been a lesson in social dynamics. My dd
became involved in the discussion because we needed to decide what
to do about girl scouts. Since it was her activity, it needed to be
her decision. Also, the obvious change in friendship and hearing
about activities that she and her brother were not invited to has
led to further discussions. Over the year as the situation has
progressed, we have had many conversations about human behavior -
kind of a natuaral lesson in psychology/sociology lesson. She has
expressed to me that she is amazed that an adult would behave in
such a way. If she were in school, she would likely be dealing with
social dynamics, too; these kinds of things often happen in groups
of girls in school, but as an unschooler she sees it with an adult,
not among children.
Is this a common phenomenon, either in adult groups or due to the
lifestyle that we live? Has anyone else dealt with a similar
situation? I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any insights to
share with me.
thanks in advance,
ann in Iowa
never had that before.==
==Her daughter and Linnaea are close friends, and fortunately she
didn't decide to shut that off, although she said she was going to.
==
I usually lurk inconsistently on this list. This post from Schuyler
struck a cord with me. I had a similar situation happen this past
year. A woman who was a good friend got upset with me about
something that I wrote in an e-mail to her. It was not something
that I wrote in anger or frustration, and I did not expect it to
create animosity or anger in response. Apparently, it did. I did
not find out for a long time, because the *friend* did not respond
or communicate with me about her interpretation of what I had
written. She spread word among our mutual friends in our homeschool
group that she was angry and was not going to send or receive e-
mails from me anymore, or talk to me anymore. We were not in the
habit of talking on a daily basis, so I did not catch on until she
did not follow through on a scheduled play date for our daughters
(some time after the e-mail that apparently offended.) At that
time, I found it odd that I could not reach the *friend* to confirm
and solidify the plans for the playdate. In mentioning the
situation to a mutual friend, I was told that the other woman was
angry with me. Sigh.
I wish my 11yo daughter and her friend were as fortunate as Linnaea
and her friend. In my case, my *friend*'s children and my children
(we each have a dd and a ds) had been friends. When the mother cut
off communication with me, she included my children. It's
unfortuate, because it also affects her own children and other
children in our homeschool community.
Like Schuyler, I felt bad for offending the person. Once I realized
that my words had that unintended affect, I apologized the next time
that I saw the offended *friend* in person. I explained that I had
not intended to hurt her and was sorry for that. She accepted my
apology but said that she was not ready to talk about it. I offered
to meet some time to talk further as soon as she was ready. That
has never happened.
In my case, this woman was also my dd's girl scout leader. In
deciding not to communicate with me, she quit including us in her
communications regarding the girl scout events and meetings, even
after I tried to make amends. Throughout the past year, she has
planned group events that my children are not included in. Her
children are still invited to things that my family plans, but they
do not attend, though the four children still get along very well on
the rare occasions that they are together in group gatherings. I
have had two other occasions where I have tried to reach out to this
other parent, once to wish her a happy birthday, and another time to
send simple good wishes to her and her family. Part of me was
hoping that she would *come to her senses* and stop behaving in such
an inappropriate way. That has not happened.
It is all so very unfortunate when a parent acts out in anger,
especially when children become casualty of the behavior. In
reading Schuyler's comments, I wonder if this kind of thing is not
too unusual? It caught me off-guard; I'm not used to this kind of
behavior and personally don't believe in treating people in this way.
== I figure there is something irrascible about me that makes other
people uncomfortable and even angry. ==
Maybe that's it for me, as well! :-) I have to say that in both
cases, it sounds like the other person involved was the irascible
one!
Is this kind of thing more common than I realize? How have other
parents dealt with it? In our case, it affects our unschooling in
that it affects the group of friends who have the shared life
philosophy of unschooling.
Interestingly, it has been a lesson in social dynamics. My dd
became involved in the discussion because we needed to decide what
to do about girl scouts. Since it was her activity, it needed to be
her decision. Also, the obvious change in friendship and hearing
about activities that she and her brother were not invited to has
led to further discussions. Over the year as the situation has
progressed, we have had many conversations about human behavior -
kind of a natuaral lesson in psychology/sociology lesson. She has
expressed to me that she is amazed that an adult would behave in
such a way. If she were in school, she would likely be dealing with
social dynamics, too; these kinds of things often happen in groups
of girls in school, but as an unschooler she sees it with an adult,
not among children.
Is this a common phenomenon, either in adult groups or due to the
lifestyle that we live? Has anyone else dealt with a similar
situation? I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any insights to
share with me.
thanks in advance,
ann in Iowa