Sandra Dodd

-=-How does unschooling teach the vital difference between needs and
wants?-=-

If you think that's a vital difference, I'm guessing you didn't
breastfeed your children. I could be wrong.



If I'm right, it's still not too late to assume that a baby wouldn't
ask for what it didn't need, and if you kept a young child cheerful
and comfortable and fed and feeling safe, he would be content. And
from contentment comes more contentment.



If a child is needy for more stuff, more space, more more more, it's
very likely that he's heard no and don't and stop (wasn't this just
discussed this afternoon too??) The less a child has, the more he
will want. The more of a parent's time and attention a child has,
the fewer things he will want. (Sunday afternoon... moms of young
school boys should be hanging out with their kids.)

Here are articles on respect and abundance:

http://sandradodd.com/respect

http://sandradodd.com/t/economics



Sandra




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

Paula Sjogerman

On Nov 9, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:

> -=-How does unschooling teach the vital difference between needs and
> wants?-=-


Quinn, 15, reading that question over my shoulder replied "I need
food, water, oxygen and sleep. Everything else is gravy."

Paula

Jenny C

> -=-How does unschooling teach the vital difference between needs and
> wants?-=-


One of the very first concepts that I took to heart when we decided to
unschool, was that very often there really isn't a difference between a
needs and wants.

This is the general line of thinking for me; I don't NEED a washing
machine, but I sure like to have one. The same could be said for many
many things that I own and use. I don't need plate glass windows, the
pioneers seemed to do without them, I don't even need running water or
flush toilets to exist and live out my life. Many people in the world
don't have those things and live and raise children and grandchildren.

So, it seems extremely hypocritical to tell a child that they can't have
something that they want because they seemingly don't "need" it. When a
child wants something, it should be thoughtfully considered, just as an
adult would consider wether or not to buy lightbulbs; Do they need the
light right away, can we afford the bulb, do we have something already
that will suffice, or do we absolutely need it right now right away,
and, do we want to buy the cheapest generic brand or the energy
efficient one that will last longer, but cost more, or something
inbetween?

H Sand

good point!

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Jenny C <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
>
>
>> -=-How does unschooling teach the vital difference between needs and
>> wants?-=-
>
> One of the very first concepts that I took to heart when we decided to
> unschool, was that very often there really isn't a difference between a
> needs and wants.
>
> This is the general line of thinking for me; I don't NEED a washing
> machine, but I sure like to have one. The same could be said for many
> many things that I own and use. I don't need plate glass windows, the
> pioneers seemed to do without them, I don't even need running water or
> flush toilets to exist and live out my life. Many people in the world
> don't have those things and live and raise children and grandchildren.
>
> So, it seems extremely hypocritical to tell a child that they can't have
> something that they want because they seemingly don't "need" it. When a
> child wants something, it should be thoughtfully considered, just as an
> adult would consider wether or not to buy lightbulbs; Do they need the
> light right away, can we afford the bulb, do we have something already
> that will suffice, or do we absolutely need it right now right away,
> and, do we want to buy the cheapest generic brand or the energy
> efficient one that will last longer, but cost more, or something
> inbetween?
>
>

Laureen

Heya!

I wasn't going to reply. But this one really hits my buttons...

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> posted,
but did not originally write:

> -=-How does unschooling teach the vital difference between needs and
> wants?-=-
>

Why not ask; how does school teach the vital difference between needs and
wants?

The answer being, school teaches children that going to the bathroom and
eating, both bodily functions that are not readily or healthily put on
schedules, are more like wants, to be bestowed at the convenience of an
adult, and having nothing to do with the utterly valid sensations of a
child's growing body.

And for that reason and that reason alone, I'd be keeping my kids out of
school.




--
~~L!

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

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


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

Sandra Dodd

-=-This is the general line of thinking for me; I don't NEED a washing
machine, but I sure like to have one. The same could be said for many
many things that I own and use. I don't need plate glass windows, the
pioneers seemed to do without them, I don't even need running water or
flush toilets to exist and live out my life. Many people in the world
don't have those things and live and raise children and
grandchildren.-=-



Few of us "need" to unschool, but for various reasons we WANT to.
But having decided that's what we want, then there are things we need
to do.

If I decide I want a working motor vehicle for whatever combination
of reasons my husband and I decide merit having a car instead of
riding the bus or walking, then there are need. Windshield wiper
blades are no longer a "want" as they might be for someone who
didn't own a car at all but had a desire to own a wiper blade. <g>
Gasoline before driving into the mountains or the desert... need, not
want.

We've decide to own a house instead of renting. Some maintenance is
a need rather than a want. The front door needs to close, or the
cold wind will come in (and maybe the bad neighbors).

There is a lot of "if... then" in the world. Maybe the best example
that comes around on these discussions is about whether people "have
to" wash the dishes. Is that a want or a need? There are many
alternatives.



Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

I've been copying the original questioner on some of the responses.
I've received this:

-=-Sandra,
I never gave you permission to post my questions publicly but you
chose to do so. I'm not sure why someone would do that other than to
be spiteful but that's OK. I could really care less. As for joining
your "groups"...why the hell would I want to? I have questions and I
am curious..I find it interesting what people do and how they live.
However, it's been made abundantly clear I am not welcome to question
or have another opinion that doesn't jive with what you preach.
Gotta go now...my boys are coming in from playing outside with their
friends....-=-

Response to that person who wrote to me on the side on Sunday:

You wrote "I have questions and I am curious..I find it interesting
what people do and how they live." That's "why the hell" you might
want more input than just mine. Either you want to know or you
don't. But on the Always Learning list there are over 1000 people
(at the moment yahoogroups says 1902 members, but I know man of them
aren't reading regularly or have mail bouncing or whatever), and they
DO want answers to questions and they DO care.

-=-I never gave you permission to post my questions publicly -=-

I never asked. The answers to all those questions were already on my
site, but you wanted personal attention, so I provided the attention
of hundreds of unschoolers.


How is it spiteful to get a person answers to questions?
What is spiteful is wasting the time of a stranger in insulting ways,
so either join the list or stop writing to me, period. Don't write
to ANY unschoolers. You don't want it; you don't like it. Cease
your stalker-like behavior. Anything tacky or rude that's sent to me
will be published because harrassment isn't okay, and my e-mail
address is published on my site specifically because I'm keeping an
unschooling site. NOBODY kept you from reading that if you were
curious about what people do and how they live.

I haven't revealed the name of the correspondent, but am willing to
if the side mail doesn't stop.

Sandra

Sandra Dodd

I don't know if she read the links or just looked for things not to
like about the posted comments, but this came from the original
questioner:

-=-Hmm...interesting post indeed. The assumption that a parent's
time and love can make up for all things...very popular opinion but
just not true. I can remember when my boys were infants and the
colic was so intense. No amount of love, attachment or holding
solved it. I read things similar to the opinion below and it made me
feel less than adequate. I was a new mom looking for support (from
anywhere at that point!) and all I received from your "community" was
what you just gave below. Thanks but no thanks! The fact remains
that needs and wants are different....you need to eat but you may not
want what's available. Our life has limitations on not only material
things but emotional things as well. For example, "Why does
Christmas come sooner?" or " Why can't Grandma and Granpda live with
us?" are things I cannot change no matter how much I may want to.

-=-No amount of love, attachment or holding solved it. -=-

Unschooling isn't about colic. A mother of a colicky firstborn
doesn't know whether she's going to put that child in school. But
one way or the other, if love, attachment and holding don't "solve
it," do they make it better? Do they help create a relationship for
the during and after that? Is love better than anger? Is attachment
better than putting him in a crib and setting the alarm for morning
feeding time? Is holding better than ignoring?

-=- Also, the judgment of what I should/shouldn't be doing proves
what I have said all along about Unschoolers...they are mean, snide
and arrogant. I thought you'd be different but I guessed wrong. I
don't think the comments you've chosen were helpful as much as mean.
-=-

Unschoolers are not "my community." I try not to use that phrase,
though it's used by others. I much prefer to talk about principles
and practices.

I think when people want support, anything other than "There's
nothing more you can do. Don't feel guilty" might sound mean or
snide. This is what support too often looks like:
http://sandradodd.com/support

And to arrogance, it would seem to be humble for unschoolers to
preface their statements with things like "I'm sure parents of school
kids are discovering the same thing, but..." or "I'm sure it's
nothing special, but..." or "It might be a fluke, but my kids really
trust me." But when a child learns to read happily on her own,
that's exciting! And when a teenaged boy will sit right next to (or
in the lap of <g>) his mom or dad in front of other people, that is
NOT the same as typical school-kid behavior. And when an employer or
boss contacts the parents and gushes about the teen employee or
student, saying he's never seen anyone who's that attentive and who
shows so much creative initiative, that's not something about which
one can honestly say "I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with
his having been unschooled.

If we deprecate the exciting differences, it would make parents of
our detractors feel better. But at what cost? Our integrity and
their hope of seeing the difference.

If someone does think we're mean, snide and arrogant, why come back
(a year and a half ago, and now again, to ask for more of the same
answers she got when her boys were infants? What psychology is that?

http://sandradodd.com/confidence
That's about arrogance vs. confidence.

I will not be dishonest to comfort someone who, instead of reading my
site or just not reading it writes to me and tells me unschooling
isn't for her, she isn't asking for help, and she's doing fine in her
life, and then lists a string of questions garnished with insults.
I won't pussyfoot around what has made relationships between me and
my kids good.

Sandra
P.S. I thought this had been sent two days ago. Just goes to hint
at how many windows I've had opened on my computer lately...




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

prism7513

But
> one way or the other, if love, attachment and holding don't "solve
> it," do they make it better? Do they help create a relationship for
> the during and after that? Is love better than anger? Is attachment
> better than putting him in a crib and setting the alarm for morning
> feeding time? Is holding better than ignoring?

This seems to me to be good advice for my questions about my son's
meltdowns. There are many times when it's just the way he reacts to
not getting his way 100% of the time. (He always wants to be the one
to use the remote and not let his sister take a turn. Or yesterday he
told me I should go outside with him to play while she [6] watched the
babies, etc.)

Maybe I can't always give him exactly what he wants, and after I have
done what I *can* do, if he still gets upset, how I react positively
to him is not so much about *fixing* him or his emotions, but simply
being there *for* him when he needs me and how he needs me. Not making
his needs seem silly or bad. Not talking him to death. Just softening
the blow...

> And when a teenaged boy will sit right next to (or
> in the lap of <g>) his mom or dad in front of other people, that is
> NOT the same as typical school-kid behavior.

I'm not saying this to negate the point, but my sister and I still
occasionally sit on our dad's lap, and my doula's daughters both sat
on their father's lap at church, even. She is one of the families that
I try to emulate as far as relationships go in part *because* of the
lap-sitting. I wanted that for my kids, as well. Both my family and
hers were schooled, however.

Deb

Joanna Murphy

> I'm not saying this to negate the point, but my sister and I still
> occasionally sit on our dad's lap, and my doula's daughters both sat
> on their father's lap at church, even. She is one of the families that
> I try to emulate as far as relationships go in part *because* of the
> lap-sitting. I wanted that for my kids, as well. Both my family and
> hers were schooled, however.
>
> Deb
>
It's still different for teenage boys than it is for girls, although that's very sweet.

Joanna

Sandra Dodd

-=- And when a teenaged boy will sit right next to (or
>
> in the lap of <g>) his mom or dad in front of other people, that is
> NOT the same as typical school-kid behavior.
>

I'm not saying this to negate the point, but my sister and I still
occasionally sit on our dad's lap, and my doula's daughters both sat
on their father's lap at church, even. She is one of the families that
I try to emulate as far as relationships go in part *because* of the
lap-sitting. I wanted that for my kids, as well. Both my family and
hers were schooled, however.
-=-

It doesn't negate the point. That's not typical school-kid
behavior. It's an exception.

It's fairly typical unschooler behavior, though.

I see teenaged girls holding their moms' hands at the mall once in a
while, and I assume they went to school. I see girls holding their
mom's hands all the time among unschoolers.

The criticism of that would be that it's immature, the kids aren't
detaching, they need to be with people their own age, they're not
going through proper stages...

One bad thing about child development theory as it is misused and
abused is that school's effects have been put onto the charts as
natural. Normal (because it has become normal, in the literal sense
of the word). Inevitable (which, if school is required with no
exceptions, it would generally be).

Just recently Holly and I were talking about the 60's and what the
effects of the counter culture activities and thought were. We
talked about quite a few aspects, but I said people were interested
in looking at what was natural with people as organisms. "Organic"
didn't mean what it means now that the USDA owns it. It had to do
with what was biologically adaptive, what would be if culture and
history hadn't affected the things we do and believe.

"So is that why they went barefooted?" she asked? And yes, that was
why. I told her about Earth Shoes (the early version, from Canada,
not the later company that bought out the famous name and made more
mainstream shoes. I told her about women's shoes before then--too
pointy, too narrow, too small.

And so attachment parenting is one of those things. Instead of
looking at what our parents did, or even great grandparents, think of
how homo sapiens would care for offspring if they could be seen
without the trappings of later thought. How do other primates take
care of theirs? How do other mammals?

When I had babies and was helping other moms understand nighttime
mothering, co-sleeping, feeding on demand and all that, one image I
used to reassure them was that if a fox has seven kits, it doesn't
dig seven little dens, put one in each and come back to check on them
in the morning. They sleep with her. It's safer, it's warmer, they
can nurse. I'd hardly ever get to the end of my little speech,
though, before the mom was laughing and totally understanding it.
But one thing I didn't say in those days, because I hadn't thought of
it yet, is that they learn how to be foxes. What's natural to many
species like that is that they become reproductive within the first
year or two, and they'll be better mothers if they've been mothered
well.

Sandra

Laureen

Heya

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

>
> When I had babies and was helping other moms understand nighttime
> mothering, co-sleeping, feeding on demand and all that, one image I
> used to reassure them was that if a fox has seven kits, it doesn't
> dig seven little dens, put one in each and come back to check on them
> in the morning. They sleep with her. It's safer, it's warmer, they
> can nurse. I'd hardly ever get to the end of my little speech,
> though, before the mom was laughing and totally understanding it.
> But one thing I didn't say in those days, because I hadn't thought of
> it yet, is that they learn how to be foxes. What's natural to many
> species like that is that they become reproductive within the first
> year or two, and they'll be better mothers if they've been mothered
> well.


One of the critical, crucial, seriously important things I believe my sons
are learning, by virtue of being at home instead of at school, is the act of
nurturing young. It's not on the curricula. (BWG). But when else, how else
more appropriately, do humans learn about how to nurture human young, if not
with helping with their own siblings?

The boys are astonishing. They were helping with their sister from Day #1.
Rowan's knowledge of baby needs, started with his brother, is spot on: he
knows when she has to go potty, he knows when she's hungry, and he lets me
know. And Kestrel is an absolute master at making her laugh... when no one
else can get to her, Kestrel gets right in her face, which I would think
would upset her, but suddenly, the sun comes out of the clouds for her. When
we were driving home from a recent trip and Aurora had had quite enough of
her carseat, thanks much (she's rear-facing on a bench seat between the two
boys' seats), the boys sang endless rounds of Stevie Wonder's "Uptight
(Everything's Alright)" to keep her happy (go figure; it's one of their
favorite songs). So there we are, heading down the highway, with two singing
boys and a baby giggling like a maniac.

Last night, Kestrel (while holding his sister) asked me when we were having
another baby. I said that we probably weren't, but that he could have all
the babies he wanted when he grew up and became a Papa like his Papa. He
thought on that for a few minutes, and said "As many babies as I can love?"
I said "yep, that's how it works." He got all smiley, and kept playing with
Aurora.

I feel like this experience they've had, Rowan with two baby siblings and
Kestrel with one, will go a long way towards giving them the tools and the
underpinning for being nurturing men when their time comes, instead of
flailing around like their father and I did.

--
~~L!

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

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


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

Joanna Murphy

> One bad thing about child development theory as it is misused and
> abused is that school's effects have been put onto the charts as
> natural. Normal (because it has become normal, in the literal sense
> of the word). Inevitable (which, if school is required with no
> exceptions, it would generally be).

When my oldest was little, my MIL found that series about each year--Your Two Year Old,
etc. They were like little magic books for me and helped us soooo much. I didn't have a
clue into child brains and couldn't appreciate the changes that were causing my sweet
little son to run and hide in department stores and then laugh meniacally when I got upset
(and had to shut the store down twice before I figured out that this wasn't working for
us!).

Anyway, the books were incredibly, eerily relevant for us, down to quotes about what a
child of that age might say, but once the series got to "school age" and he came home
from school, everything changed. It seemed clear that the information was no longer
about developmental stages of a person, it was about how a person is affected by school.
There was a clear divergence wherein the gap widened increasing with years spent in
school, and the information got increasing irrelevant.

Joanna

Jenny C

And when a teenaged boy will sit right next to (or
> in the lap of <g>) his mom or dad in front of other people, that is
> NOT the same as typical school-kid behavior.

Chamille still holds my hand when we are out and about. It's something
I never expected! At 14, I never would've held my mother's hand in
public! Sometimes, I'm holding hands with each of my kids as if they
are both little ones, and we all walk together in that way to our
destination. Sometimes Chamille links arms instead. When we go ice
skating Chamille always skates with me holding my hand. It's really
sweet!

The other night I was really upset with my husband and my younger
daughter. I was tired, I know, not really a good excuse, but, it felt
as if they were ganging up on me to make me miserable. It wasn't really
the case, it's just how it felt to me. Chamille, rather than get
involved, came over and gave me a big hug and a "cheer up, it's ok",
sort of smile. It was her way of reminding me to be calm and sweet.

I really don't know any other teens that do this, except the unschooled
ones and an occasional homeschooled one. I think it's rare in
traditional families, where traditional parenting happens. It's very
common among unschoolers, and I've seen it among homeschoolers. I'm
sure it's not coincidence. Something is different.

Jenny C

> -=-Hmm...interesting post indeed. The assumption that a parent's
> time and love can make up for all things...very popular opinion but
> just not true.

I've never ever heard unschooling advice say that a parent's time and
love can make up for all things. It seems she's overstepping and
generalizing based on some assumptions herself. This is classic
projecting.

Time and love will always help a situation or moment be better. There
are things in life that can't be made up. Years of spanking a child,
for instance, isn't something you can make up to a child. You can
change and stop and apologize, and maybe in time, the damage will
lessen, but it won't change the fact that spanking happened and caused
damage.

Every time we do better as a parent, when we are kinder, gentler, more
loving, it makes life better for all of us, that is truth. It's hard to
find something truer than that! We can do a lot to damage our kids!
It's easy to ignore it and call it normal and even healthy. The
challenging part is to find better ways to parent, that doesn't do
damage, and a parent can do that in every moment of every day, with
every decision they make in how they relate to their children.

Each interaction with our kids can be moments to make our relationships
BETTER. If we aren't doing that, than each moment is mediocre at best,
and damaging at worst. I'm not shooting for mediocrity or damage, so
I'm going for better, and better is always, well, BETTER.

saturnfire16

> But when else, how else
> more appropriately, do humans learn about how to nurture human young,
if not
> with helping with their own siblings?

As soon as I announced I was pregnant I got all kinds of comments and
horror stories about the jealousy of older siblings. After my second
was born, people would ask, right in front of my older daughter "Is she
jealous? Is she throwing fits? I bet you miss mommy's time, don't
you?" Well, no actually, she's not jealous, but if you keep asking
that, she might start to wonder if there's some reason she should be!

She's so helpful and intuitive about her sister's needs. She's
learning how to be a mommy. She knows when her sister is hungry by the
subtle signals and will say "Mommy, nurse the baby!" She *wants* me to
nurse and hold the baby even when she was having a hard time with
weaning after the baby was born.

Of course, there are times when she wants me and I can't hold her or
play with her because the baby needs me. But she's not *desperate* and
doesn't go to desperate measures to get my attention because she knows
that as soon as I am able I will put the baby down or give baby to
daddy or hold them both at the same time. She's able to put the baby's
needs before her own, because she knows that her needs will get met.
It's not a competition and there is no scarcity of love to fight over
or be jealous of.

Sandra Dodd

-=-I'm not shooting for mediocrity or damage, so
I'm going for better, and better is always, well, BETTER.-=-

How could anyone argue with that? <bwg>

(But they do...)



Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-But when else, how else
more appropriately, do humans learn about how to nurture human young,
if not
with helping with their own siblings?-=-

Ideally, by having been nurtured and by seeing other adults nurturing
young.
If they want to help, cool, but it's not their job and they shouldn't
be expected to help. Children with no interest in helping with
siblings shouldn't be faulted for it. Some people have that
curiosity and lots of nurturing urge and others have less of it.

Sandra

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

prism7513

>
> And so attachment parenting is one of those things. Instead of
> looking at what our parents did, or even great grandparents, think of
> how homo sapiens would care for offspring if they could be seen
> without the trappings of later thought. How do other primates take
> care of theirs? How do other mammals?
>

When I had my first daughter, I felt out-of-sync with the Christian
community as a whole mostly in part because of one famous doctor and
his parenting beliefs, which were opposite mine. As I searched in
myself as to whether APing was "compatible" with my views of God, I
thought of the idea of Adam & Eve and their first baby. The idea that
they would ignore him, put him in another living space (not sure WHERE
they live ;) ), etc. made no sense to me. I imagine instead that they
were *enthralled* with their new little human being and couldn't get
enough of him. They took him everywhere and kept him close all the
time. Why would they even *think* of doing anything differently?

I also found it interesting while at the Cleveland Zoo there was an
orangutan mother with a toddler and a newborn, and both were nursing.
However, she did gently bat the older orangutan away while letting the
newborn remain. It mirrored my own relationship with my two oldest so
well that I had to laugh. I had more in common with the "monkey" than
most of my human friends :)

Deb

prism7513

> -=-I'm not shooting for mediocrity or damage, so
> I'm going for better, and better is always, well, BETTER.-=-
>
> How could anyone argue with that? <bwg>
>
> (But they do...)
>


Think of the argument I'm sure you've heard before when you describe
your lifestyle, "Oh, *I* just don't know how you can do it. I could
*never* do that with my kids." (*that* being "homeschooling"
"unschooling" "attachment parenting" etc.)

I think to myself, "But in 20 years, if you could pretty much
guarantee (and I know there no "guarantee", but surely the odds are
better as have been pointed out) that your relationship with your
children would be many times better *because* of what you choose to do
today, would you *then* be able to do it?"

Kind of like our good friends who just recently split up in a
"friendly" manner because the mom wanted "some space" to herself. She
sees her present feelings and pain and neither of them want to work it
out or get to the bottom of things. It's too much work, too much money
(for counseling) or too much "something." But I wonder if they could
see their kids in 20 years from now if they'd change their minds and
would *find* the time, energy and money to fix their relationship...

The main reason I choose to keep making better choices for my family
is because I want to be able to look back in 20 years, or 30 or 50,
and regret as few moments in my life as possible.

Deb

prism7513

> It's not a competition and there is no scarcity of love to fight over
> or be jealous of.
>


My two oldest are VERY close as friends. They are 22 months apart. So
far, they seem very close to the twins, who are almost 3 years later.
There were, and still are sometimes, moments when the babies' needs
mean that some of their needs had to wait, but for the most part we
tried to find other ways of including everyone and having fun.

I've never been sure if it is their age gap or not, but I don't know
ANY other families that seem to have such "close" siblings, not in age
but in relations. They do fight, but more often they are inseparable.
And from day one with the babies they were there playing with them,
making them laugh, and now running around with them. Dr. Sears
mentioned in one of his books that co-sleeping siblings fight less
often than siblings who sleep in separate bedrooms. Not sure if that's
true or not, but so far my kids get along far better than my sister
and I ever did. (We shared a room for under a month because we talked
too much. Maybe if my parents hadn't minded us talking, we would have
remained close as sisters - I don't know...)

Deb

Robyn L. Coburn

> -=-But when else, how else
> more appropriately, do humans learn about how to nurture human young,
> if not
> with helping with their own siblings?-=->>>>>

Some children don't have siblings. I guess they must learn some other way.

Jayn loves little children and babies. She goes out of her way to play with
the two year old across the courtyard, and is very sweet with her. When we
are standing in line at checkouts near a baby she will entertain him or her
with peekaboo or singing little songs. Other mothers smile and are grateful.

Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com

Cindy Andras

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
And when a teenaged boy will sit right next to (or
> in the lap of <g>) his mom or dad in front of other people, that is
> NOT the same as typical school-kid behavior.

I wanted to agree with Sandra here, and also maybe give some hope to
families who are coming to these ideas later in their child's life.
My 16 year old son is very much like this. We pulled him out of
school as a young teen; though, only three years into our unschooling
journey, I am very much reaping the benefits of my relationship with
my teen, as well as being able to give him the gift of himself.

Sandra Dodd

-=-I am very much reaping the benefits of my relationship with
my teen, as well as being able to give him the gift of himself.-=-

I still forget, sometimes, for a moment, that my kids don't have the
pressures of the kids at school grilling them about their romantic
relationships (or lack thereof). When my kids make decisions about
girlfriends and boyfriends it has never been because other people
were pressuring them to do more, break up, get a boyfriend, take a
girl out and report back. The difference it makes is so big it's
like a whole different world. I see them doing things and thinking
in ways I NEVER, ever (ever) could have done or imagined. Thoughtful
and mature ways. They make and break friendships based on factors
wholly different from what I had and experienced and saw growing up.
And their relationships with siblings and parents are different too.
It seems clear in these stages that school would've been like a
debilitating disease that would have crippled their ability to be
themselves as they are now. School stunts and mangles 'selves.'

Even though I did well in school, academically and socially, and I
had boyfriends and best girlfriends, it was all in and of school.
The relationships were known and public, and played out within and
around the framework of school's schedules.

We had no idea there were different ways and places to be!

We didn't know what we neede or wanted. We were told we needed school.

Sandra

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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:12 PM, prism7513 wrote:

> The main reason I choose to keep making better choices for my family
> is because I want to be able to look back in 20 years, or 30 or 50,
> and regret as few moments in my life as possible.


Every single night I'd like to go to bed regretting as few moments in
my day as possible.


-pam

Pamela Sorooshian

On Nov 14, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Robyn L. Coburn wrote:

>> -=-But when else, how else
>> more appropriately, do humans learn about how to nurture human young,
>> if not
>> with helping with their own siblings?-=->>>>>
>
> Some children don't have siblings. I guess they must learn some
> other way.

And some children are the youngest in the family so they don't have
younger siblings to learn on.

Rosie, my 17 yo youngest, teaches at karate studio and works really
well with the kids of all ages and especially loves the little ones.
She's going to be an amazing mother some day - it is already obvious.
She learned a lot from paying attention to how SHE herself was
parented and from doing a whole lot of comparing and contrasting and
observing of other families.

-pam

Jenny C

> I still forget, sometimes, for a moment, that my kids don't have the
> pressures of the kids at school grilling them about their romantic
> relationships (or lack thereof).

One of Chamille's pet peeves, if you will, is when, teen girls
especially, talk about boys in a materialistic way. She feels it
demeans them as humans. Part of it is also how narrow these girl's
definition of beauty is. She simply doesn't understand why there is
seemingly only a small handful of boys that are deamed "good looking"
while the rest are deamed "ugly", and everyone seems to agree with one
another.

Chamille's aesthetic is more on the lines of liking or disliking various
types of noses, but can generally find something extremely attractive
about every person she meets. She doesn't like to talk about any of
that with these girls that she is friends with because of the judging
and pettiness. Right now, she's at a point of dismantling a few
friendships over this very thing. She still talks to me about who she
finds attractive, but won't talk to these girls because they would never
see it. She's not aged biased either, she finds some much older guys
attractive, although that's more uncommon.


> and mature ways. They make and break friendships based on factors
> wholly different from what I had and experienced and saw growing up.

Yes, I wouldn't have broken off friendships over boy infatution that
involved narrow and petty views. I would've been more likely to be
involved in that.


> It seems clear in these stages that school would've been like a
> debilitating disease that would have crippled their ability to be
> themselves as they are now. School stunts and mangles 'selves.'

In large and small ways! Right now Chamille has pink hair. The schools
here don't allow students to dye their hair. I've asked several kids
how the school would know if they are dyeing it a more natural hair
color, or lightening it or darkening it or putting highlights in. All
of them said that those things would probably go undetected, but if you
dyed it an unnatural color, you'd be sent home.

Having pink hair may seem superficial, but it's very integral to what
Chamille is exploring in her life right now, which heavily involves
fashion, that she herself creates. Right now she's designed a jacket
that I'm transposing into a pattern for her to sew. In the meantime,
she's making pockets and details. She's replicating a subsection of
Japanese fashion and putting her own ideas into it. She's very
analytical about it and studies it and picks things apart. Our local
store finally started carrying the Gothic Lolita Bible, after months of
asking! It's finally been made in English!

If Chamille wasn't able to have pink hair, it would be like telling her,
her whole project couldn't happen. That would be a huge loss of self!


> The relationships were known and public, and played out within and
> around the framework of school's schedules.

Absolutely! And our kids will have a completely different understanding
about "real" life because of that!

Angela Shaw

My girls have always been easily over stimulated by large groups. In order
to feel comfortable they would need some time away from the group each day.




Every year we go to a family reunion at my sister's house 3 hours away and
we always have a blast and they look forward to it each year. We stay
anywhere from 3 days to a full week. Different years we have done different
things to deal with all of our need for down time.



Some years I've felt able to afford a hotel room and we've gone back in the
afternoon and swam in the pool or had naps in the air conditioning. For a
few years we had a pop up camper that we took and we could withdraw to it
and play some board games or read quietly. The last few years it hasn't
been as much of an issue as the kids are older and more able to cope and
also they realize that the time to hang out with our whole family is limited
and they want to get all they can before it's over. But still, we reserve a
bedroom in my sister's house and we all feel like we can retreat to it when
we need to. Sometimes its just a matter of going on an excursion in the
afternoon to regroup. Popular destinations are the candy store and hiking.
This last summer we had our puppy with us and we would go walk him for an
hour and that was enough.



Even if you can not afford a hotel for the whole two week stay, you might
want to save so you can go for a night or two in the middle of the trip as a
time to recharge. A pool is always a bonus too.



Angela



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