saturnfire16

Any time there is talk of limits it enevitably turns to discussions
about tv and sugar. It's strange how these are such big issues when
there are so many *other* things that all parents, even unschoolers,
don't expose their kids to because of they believe those things are
harmful. I mean, Pagans don't generally read Bible stories to their
kids. Most parents don't bring home marajuana or cigarettes to their
kids just in case they might be interested. They don't make a point
of buying things made by child labor. Or take their kids to see
abortions, just in case the kids might want one someday. Or take
their kids to church even though they're aetheists.

No limits doesn't mean *intentionally exposing* your kids to things
you believe are harmful. People can and will debate all day about
whether or not sugar is harmful or tv is harmful or religion is
harmful or the lack of religion is harmful or if eating meat is wrong
or not or whether we should go out of our way to not buy from
unethical businesses. But those conclusions have nothing to do with
limits. Those conclusions based on individual experiences and values
and knowledge.

Having limits or no limits comes in when, in the course of living
life, kids are exposed to things that the parent disagrees with or
believes are harmful. And if we're living full, rich, exciting,
interesting lives, then this will probably happen often! At that
point, the parent can choose whether or not they will limit that
thing.

And if we choose, no limits, then we have a lot of choices about how
to handle it. It doesn't have to be "No limits- so go do whatever
you want!" It's no limits with the parent as the guide and the
mentor, explaining why they believe that thing is harmful, but
letting the kid explore and learn and make their own decision. Or
not decide yet, and leave it open to more discussion and thought.

Maybe the "harmful thing" is sugar or tv or meat or consumerism or
religion or aethism or drugs or whatever. It's going to be different
in every family. Having no limits is about the way we handle
whatever that "harmful thing" is for us, when our kid gets interested
in it.

Sandra Dodd

-=-Having limits or no limits comes in when...-=-

I think instead of having the dichotomy of limits or no limits, it's
clearer and more nurturing and more partner-like to have no arbitrary
limits.

Limits for the sake of limits, bedtime by the clock, TV on a timer,
eating pre-measured amounts of mom-chosen foods at pre-set hours is
at one end. The other end seems to be a wildly imagined "never sleep
until you pass out, watch TV as much as possible, and eat whatever
you can find as constantly as you want."

Creating an unschooling nest for learning about food and sleep and
all should involve soft, clean beds and interesting homemade food
easily available, and a comfortable place to watch TV with a batter
in the remote and maybe a table with some art supplies in there too.

Making it easy for kids to eat and sleep and play and learn doesn't
need to involve a crazed dash toward limitless "freedom."

Choices and options in the hundreds is way more freedom than "Sit
like I told you to sit and eat what I told you to eat, or else." But
it can create a muddle to think of it as "no limits."

Sandra

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

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

Any time there is talk of limits it enevitably turns to discussions
about tv and sugar. It's strange how these are such big issues when
there are so many *other* things that all parents, even unschoolers,
don't expose their kids to because of they believe those things are
harmful. I mean, Pagans don't generally read Bible stories to their
kids. Most parents don't bring home marajuana or cigarettes to their
kids just in case they might be interested. They don't make a point
of buying things made by child labor. Or take their kids to see
abortions, just in case the kids might want one someday. Or take
their kids to church even though they're aetheists. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I am agnostic/atheist and I do take my kids to church when I go with my husband ( who is a Church going man).
I do not FEAR it.
My kids do not want to do drugs or go see abortions but they want to see TV and eat sugar stuff ( they are eating jelly rings right now.
I do not fear sugar or TV.
MY 2 year old daughter Gigi has been wanting the Sleeping Beauty horse for 4  or more months now.
Yesterday we went to Target again just to see the horse. She has been waiting for it. We have bought other stuff for her she wanted but now
she really wants the horse and just 10 minutes ago jumped on my lap and told me that.
I was going to wait for Christmas to give her the horse ( we are pretty broke this year).
But I am just going to see if I can get it to her  before that.
I do not fear consumerism on my children. I have always given anything they ask for if we could afford.
They are  amazingly patient and wonderful about getting things and waiting and choosing what they want most.
I thing all this is about FEAR.
Why would you FEAR TV?
or Sugar?
People live with those fears and that holds them back in their life. When you unschool you need to be willing to
question those fears. IF you live with them you just make your world a lot smaller.

 
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
 






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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Pagans don't generally read Bible stories to their
kids. ... Or take
their kids to church even though they're aetheists. -=-


I'm not Pagan, but I've read my kids Bible stories and more often
just told them Bible stories. Some of those stories are peachy-keen
Bible stories. The only reason for a Pagan to have a fear or
aversion of Bible stories is if they secretly think they're true, or
somehow separate from the secular history of the world. The FACT
that one explanation for different languages is that it was to keep
people from working together to reach as high as where God lives is a
good thing to know. The fact that there are flood stories in many
cultures is cool to know when geological evidence of a huge flood in
the Middle East comes along. Ideas about what happens after death
are common to all people, because people try to make sense of things.

There's a twenty-questions-meme-thing going around I filled out on my
blog today, and one question was about "superstition." I answered it
like this:

14. Why do people still believe in the supernatural?
Lightning, thunders, darkness, wind, sun, fear of lack of water, fear
of too much water. Elemental forces and people's natural urge to find
patterns.

I've offered to take my kids to church. When we go to a wedding or a
funeral, I coach them on expected behaviors in different kinds of
churches. Holly and I have gone just to go. She's gone with other
families.

I don't expect a vegetarian to bring hot dogs home, but I wouldn't
say "good idea!" if a vegetarian told a child "hot dogs will kill you."

I had a friend in college who was raised by a unitarian mother and an
agnostic-to-atheist physicist father, in Los Alamos, New Mexico, in
the 60's. It was a hive of geekdom. I lived down the hill in
Española, in normal-world.

We were in college, and English majors, and he was quite handicapped
by the fact that he didn't know ANY Bible stories. He didn't know
Job from Jonah, and had NO idea what Isaac would've been doing with a
knife and his son tied up. A reference to Jacob and Esau came up in
a class and he was like a deer in the headlights. I, meanwhile,
having grown up with the Bible and the King James Bible, was skating
through Shakespeare classes like I was a native of the 17th century
(relative to my friend Derek, anyway). I never forgot a well-read
adult being so profoundly ignorant of stories that are the basis of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not good.

So if any of you have been hiding from the Bible, don't be that way.
At least find some story books. If you want to balance out stories of
heaven or hell with stories of Valhalla or the boatman at the River
Styx, or if you want to balance baby Jesus stories with baby Krishna
or The Great Pumpkin, it's better than not saying anything at all.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is happy and painless
and it might be fun for you to look up "the real story" (or what you
might have in a Bible, Torah or Koran near you). The coolest
difference for me is the way Joseph revealed himself to them in the
Bible, and how he knew so much about them while they were relatively
clueless: They were speaking Hebrew, which he understood. He only
spoke Egyptian in front of them the whole first visit and sent them
back to Canaan to bring their father. He kept one brother as a
hostage. The musical simplifies that into a beautiful short version,
but the long version is very cool, too.

There was an interview with Ted Neely who plays Jesus in Jesus Christ
Superstar. A TV interviewer in Florida was asking him about the
differences between the musical then (in the 70's) and now. He said
when it was new it was considered blasphemous, and now it's like a
spiritual Sesame Street.

Sandra




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

Laureen

Heya!

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

> -
> We were in college, and English majors, and he was quite handicapped
> by the fact that he didn't know ANY Bible stories. He didn't know
> Job from Jonah, and had NO idea what Isaac would've been doing with a
> knife and his son tied up. A reference to Jacob and Esau came up in
> a class and he was like a deer in the headlights. I, meanwhile,
> having grown up with the Bible and the King James Bible, was skating
> through Shakespeare classes like I was a native of the 17th century
> (relative to my friend Derek, anyway). I never forgot a well-read
> adult being so profoundly ignorant of stories that are the basis of
> Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not good.


Rowan is in the midst of a fascination with gods. All of them. Doesn't
matter what flavor, denomination, color, creed, race... he thinks they're
all fabulous. He's constantly asking me what the god of something-or-other
is. The other day he asked about a god for the computer, and I was able to
pull St. Vidicon of Cathode out of the mix. =)

I was raised completely openly about religion. We went to every church in
town, and discussed the differences and similarities. I've read most of the
major books, and dabbled in the communities that spring up around most
faiths. My husband, OTOH, was raised by evangelical Nazarenes, and when
Rowan started asking about gods, his own reaction was so visceral and so
negative, he had to excuse himself from the room so I could handle the
discussion with equanimity.

For me, learning about religions, all of them, is a lot like learning about
the food of a given culture. You can't understand a people unless you know
what they eat, and why, and having at least a general idea about the
predominant faiths a culture holds really makes a huge difference in how
culturally sensitive and understanding you can be. So restricting
information about religion, just because it's got so much potential for
hot-buttoning, is really hobbling.

--
~~L!

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

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


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

saturnfire16

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-Having limits or no limits comes in when...-=-
>
> I think instead of having the dichotomy of limits or no limits,
it's
> clearer and more nurturing and more partner-like to have no
arbitrary
> limits.
>
> Limits for the sake of limits, bedtime by the clock, TV on a
timer,
> eating pre-measured amounts of mom-chosen foods at pre-set hours
is
> at one end. The other end seems to be a wildly imagined "never
sleep
> until you pass out, watch TV as much as possible, and eat whatever
> you can find as constantly as you want."
>
> Creating an unschooling nest for learning about food and sleep and
> all should involve soft, clean beds and interesting homemade food
> easily available, and a comfortable place to watch TV with a
batter
> in the remote and maybe a table with some art supplies in there too.
>
> Making it easy for kids to eat and sleep and play and learn
doesn't
> need to involve a crazed dash toward limitless "freedom."
>
> Choices and options in the hundreds is way more freedom than "Sit
> like I told you to sit and eat what I told you to eat, or else."
But
> it can create a muddle to think of it as "no limits."
>
> Sandra

Right, no arbitrary limits. That's what I meant and should have
said. :)

saturnfire16

--- In [email protected], BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
<polykowholsteins@...> wrote:
>
> Any time there is talk of limits it enevitably turns to discussions
> about tv and sugar. It's strange how these are such big issues when
> there are so many *other* things that all parents, even
unschoolers,
> don't expose their kids to because of they believe those things are
> harmful. I mean, Pagans don't generally read Bible stories to their
> kids. Most parents don't bring home marajuana or cigarettes to
their
> kids just in case they might be interested. They don't make a point
> of buying things made by child labor. Or take their kids to see
> abortions, just in case the kids might want one someday. Or take
> their kids to church even though they're aetheists.?> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-
>
> I am agnostic/atheist and I do take my kids to church when I go
with my husband ( who is a Church going man).
> I do not FEAR it.
> My kids do not want to do drugs or go see abortions but they want
to see TV and eat sugar stuff ( they are eating jelly rings right now.
> I do not fear sugar or TV.
> MY 2 year old daughter Gigi has been wanting the Sleeping Beauty
horse for 4?or more months now.
> Yesterday we went to Target again just to see the horse. She has
been waiting for it. We have bought other stuff for her she wanted
but now
> she really wants the horse and just 10 minutes ago jumped on my lap
and told me that.
> I was going to wait for Christmas to give her the horse? we are
pretty broke this year).
> But I am just going to see if I can get it to her?before that.
> I do not fear consumerism on my children. I have always given
anything they ask for if we could afford.
> They are?amazingly patient and wonderful about getting things and
waiting and choosing what they want most.
> I thing all this is about FEAR.
> Why would you FEAR TV?
> or Sugar?
> People live with those fears and that holds them back in their
life. When you unschool you need to be willing to
> question those fears. IF you live with them you just make your
world a lot smaller.
>
> ?> Alex Polikowsky
> http://polykow.blogspot.com/
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
> ?>
>
>


I agree that a lot of arbitrary limits are based on fear. But I was
talking about well thought out, researched, questioned things, that a
parent still believes to be harmful. Obviously, you don't believe
church is harmful. I think it depends on the church, but some people
think any of it is harmful.

But whether or not you or I or anyone else agree's on *what* is
harmful, we all believe *something* to be harmful, and don't
intentionally expose our kids to it. But as unschoolers, when our
kids are confronted with these things as we go about exciting,
interesting lives, we can then choose to have no arbitrary limits.
Then we can discuss them with our kids, and partner with them in
navigating those things.

I don't intentionally expose my 3 year old to Paganism. To me, this
is no different than the parent who doesn't intentionally expose her
3 year old to tv. If both choices are well-thought out, researched
and often questioned. I don't agree with that parent's beliefs about
tv, but I can respect the choice.

I think the test comes when my child says "My friend told me about
Paganism, and I think it's cool." Am I going to say "We don't
believe in that! You can't see that kid anymore!"? Or am I going to
partner with her to navigate what she believes. Or when the parent
with no tv has her kid come to her and say "I saw Spongebob at my
friend's house. I want a tv!" Is she going to say "No, tv is bad!"
Or is she going to partner with her child?

saturnfire16

-=-Pagans don't generally read Bible stories to their
kids. ... Or take
their kids to church even though they're aetheists. -=-


>
> So if any of you have been hiding from the Bible, don't be that
way.
> At least find some story books. If you want to balance out stories
of
> heaven or hell with stories of Valhalla or the boatman at the River
> Styx, or if you want to balance baby Jesus stories with baby
Krishna
> or The Great Pumpkin, it's better than not saying anything at all.
>



I was playing devil's advocate with Bible story/church thing. I know
Pagans who avoid any hint of Christianity like the plague (no pun
intended). So naturally they are wary of me. For the record, I'm a
Messianic Christian.

Sandra Dodd

-=-I don't intentionally expose my 3 year old to Paganism. To me, this
is no different than the parent who doesn't intentionally expose her
3 year old to tv.-=-

I don't like the "intentional exposure" construct you have going
here. It feels like you're arguing with and about something that
hasn't existed on this list before.

"To partner with" a child at some point instead of having lived like
that all along feels to be a step removed from direct awareness of
the child all along, too.

-=-Or am I going to partner with her to navigate what she believes. -=-

What she believes won't be something that needs to be navigated. It
will evolve as people answer her questions, and she sees and thinks
and asks more questions.

-=-Or when the parent with no tv has her kid come to her and say "I
saw Spongebob at my friend's house. I want a tv!" Is she going to say
"No, tv is bad!" Or is she going to partner with her child? -=-

For the purposes of these discussions, only the kind of parenting
that helps unschooling work is worthy of discussion. And I would
hope an unschooling parent isn't having an adversarial relationship
with the child in the first place.

-=-I was playing devil's advocate with Bible story/church thing. I
know Pagans who avoid any hint of Christianity like the plague (no
pun intended). So naturally they are wary of me. For the record, I'm
a Messianic Christian. -=-

As much as possible, please try to speak from personal experience and
don't play devil's advocate. Sometimes it's useful, but I think if
you can move away from the idea of "intentionally exposing a child"
to something it might help.

Sandra




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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Nov 25, 2008, at 7:51 PM, saturnfire16 wrote:

> I think the test comes when my child says "My friend told me about
> Paganism, and I think it's cool." Am I going to say "We don't
> believe in that! You can't see that kid anymore!"? Or am I going to
> partner with her to navigate what she believes. Or when the parent
> with no tv has her kid come to her and say "I saw Spongebob at my
> friend's house. I want a tv!" Is she going to say "No, tv is bad!"
> Or is she going to partner with her child?


The test? Test of what?

Unschooling is not waiting until a child happens to run into something
and then, grudgingly partner with them, feeling like you have to
because, darn it, the kid got exposed even though I tried to keep him
from it. Unschooling is bringing the world to them - thinking about
what might interest them and exposing them to it.

-pam

Pamela Sorooshian

I'm not a Pagan or a Christian, but I purposely exposed my kids to the
teachings and culture of both. It is interesting stuff and I knew my
kids would find it so. Also, we have books of and about different
religions, and that includes a few different versions of the Bible.

-pam

On Nov 25, 2008, at 7:57 PM, saturnfire16 wrote:

> -=-Pagans don't generally read Bible stories to their
> kids. ... Or take
> their kids to church even though they're aetheists. -=-

Sandra Dodd

There's a famous poster that says "Expose Yourself to Art." Some of
you will have that image in your heads already.

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Expose-Yourself-to-Art-
Posters_i424084_.htm


This statement is true:
-=-Unschooling is bringing the world to them - thinking about
what might interest them and exposing them to it.-=-

It still reminds me of people "exposing themselves" to things. <g>

Creating a rich environment doesn't need to include cupcakes with
nuts, and it doesn't need to include neo-Paganism treated with more
gravity than it deserves, and it doesn't have to include anything
graphic about abortion.

On the other hand, a sanitized version of the world is not "rich."

And a version of the world that includes all of the mother's fears
and prejudices and dire warnings and "truths" becomes either a
curriculum or a polluted version of the world.

Children aren't the only ones to learn when a learning environment is
created!

Pam, I love this:

-=-Unschooling is not waiting until a child happens to run into
something and then, grudgingly partner with them, feeling like you
have to because, darn it, the kid got exposed even though I tried to
keep him from it-=-

I have said sometimes, when people have likened what I do to what
conservative school-at-home families do that some people homeschool
because they think schools are presenting their kids with too much
information. Others do so because they think the schools aren't
presenting enough.



Sandra

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

Jenny C

> I agree that a lot of arbitrary limits are based on fear. But I was
> talking about well thought out, researched, questioned things, that a
> parent still believes to be harmful.

I really really have a hard time with excessve packaging. It really is
a trigger for me, wastefulness and environmental issues at the fore.
When my children go to the store to purchase something, I keep my mouth
shut about it.

When I'm disassembling all the paper product from plastic (think barbies
here), it takes me a long time, and the kids notice. On one b-day, my
daughter received several barbie/bratz type things, and it took me
literally 2 hrs to open them all and seperate the recycling from the
garbage.

I could make it a big ethical environmental issue. I could boycott
those products. I could write the companies that do that. I could give
charitable donations to companies that work on my behalf to get those
companies to stop. I could seek out similar toys with less packaging.
I have a TON of choices. The one I won't sacrifice is my children's
happiness in purchasing and enjoying those things. I'm not even going
to put my negative voice into the purchase of those things because I
dislike the packaging.

My kids KNOW that I feel strongly about environmental issues and ethical
consumerism because I seek out the more ethical choices when I make my
own purchases and I recycle and do as much as I can in that end. We
talk about it. One day, they may adopt my ideals, and one day they may
decide that I was too extreme about it and relax on it in their own
lives. Either way, they will have each made a knowledgable choice for
themselves, just like I did.

Jenny C

> There's a famous poster that says "Expose Yourself to Art." Some of
> you will have that image in your heads already.
>
> http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Expose-Yourself-to-Art-
> Posters_i424084_.htm


The mayor of Portland Oregon from 1985-1992, when I was a kid, was the
guy who did that! He did that before he was the mayor, but people loved
him for it! Bud Clark <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Clark>

Heck, if a kid can remember a mayor, from a large city in which she
didn't even live in directly, he must've done something interesting!






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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Nov 26, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:

> Creating a rich environment doesn't need to include cupcakes with
> nuts, and it doesn't need to include neo-Paganism treated with more
> gravity than it deserves, and it doesn't have to include anything
> graphic about abortion.

I recently noticed cupcakes are a big fad right now and mentioned it
my kids, who, of course, were already well aware of it, and we did
have a conversation about food fads and marketing and imagining what
would be the next "thing" and the effect recession will have on that
kind of business.

Is there anything that a rich unschooling environment must include?

-pam

Sandra Dodd

-=-When I'm disassembling all the paper product from plastic (think
barbies
here), it takes me a long time, and the kids notice.-=-



The other day, seemingly out of the blue, Holly said "I'm glad we
recycle." She takes her own Barbies and My Little Ponies out of the
packages now, but she she was younger, I would take the twist ties
and put them in the twist-tie drawer, and the flat background
cardboard went either into my stuff if it had a solid color (I use
cardboard to pack books to mail, and for other things), or if it had
an artsy background I gave it to her to use as a Barbie backdrop.
The rest of the stuff was split into plastic recycling or paper.
There's burnable paper and trash paper and recycling paper (different
collections).

I didn't think of it as anything but resources of twist ties which I
use for trashbags and the bags I put homemade bread in and that I
fasten plastic up for morning glories and moonflowers. I wasn't
thinking negative thoughts about Mattel or the planet when I sorted
that out, I was just doing what seemed best to do with what had come
into the house.

Sandra

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

saturnfire16

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-I don't intentionally expose my 3 year old to Paganism. To me,
this
> is no different than the parent who doesn't intentionally expose her
> 3 year old to tv.-=-
>
> I don't like the "intentional exposure" construct you have going
> here. It feels like you're arguing with and about something that
> hasn't existed on this list before.


I'm not meaning to argue about it. It was just an idea I had been
mulling around in my head and put it here to see what you all
thought. And maybe to offer a different perspective on tv, sugar and
all the other things we consciously or unconsciously limit.


>
> "To partner with" a child at some point instead of having lived
like
> that all along feels to be a step removed from direct awareness of
> the child all along, too.

> -=-Or am I going to partner with her to navigate what she
believes. -=-
>
> What she believes won't be something that needs to be navigated.
It
> will evolve as people answer her questions, and she sees and
thinks
> and asks more questions.
>
> -=-Or when the parent with no tv has her kid come to her and
say "I
> saw Spongebob at my friend's house. I want a tv!" Is she going to
say
> "No, tv is bad!" Or is she going to partner with her child? -=-
>
> For the purposes of these discussions, only the kind of parenting
> that helps unschooling work is worthy of discussion. And I would
> hope an unschooling parent isn't having an adversarial
relationship
> with the child in the first place.


I do my absolute best to be my child's partner all along. But as a
fallible human being, who is still deschooling, and will always have
baggage from the past to deal with, there will be times when I have
to make a conscious choice to be her partner in *that* moment, about
*that* issue. That is especially hard with issues that are
uncomfortable, but that's probably when it's the most important.

saturnfire16

--- In [email protected], Pamela Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 7:51 PM, saturnfire16 wrote:
>
> > I think the test comes when my child says "My friend told me about
> > Paganism, and I think it's cool." Am I going to say "We don't
> > believe in that! You can't see that kid anymore!"? Or am I
going to
> > partner with her to navigate what she believes. Or when the
parent
> > with no tv has her kid come to her and say "I saw Spongebob at my
> > friend's house. I want a tv!" Is she going to say "No, tv is
bad!"
> > Or is she going to partner with her child?
>
>
> The test? Test of what?
>
> Unschooling is not waiting until a child happens to run into
something
> and then, grudgingly partner with them, feeling like you have to
> because, darn it, the kid got exposed even though I tried to keep
him
> from it. Unschooling is bringing the world to them - thinking
about
> what might interest them and exposing them to it.
>
> -pam
>

To the test of "how much do I *really* believe that it's ok for my
child to make different choices than me? Will I support those and
help my child explore those choices even if they make me
uncomfortable?"


Rather than grudgingly, I was thinking of it as an opportunity.

My oldest is only three. When she is older, if I think she might be
interested in learning about Paganism or anything else that I don't
believe in, then I'll introduce it her to it if she hasn't found it
already.

But I *get* why unschoolers with strong convictions about tv or sugar
or whatever don't run out and bring those things home. In my
experience, everyone has *something* like that. But maybe I'm
wrong. Maybe it's just because I'm still deschooling that I feel
that way, and none of you do. I can deal with that and that's why I
posted about it, because I'm here to learn. :)

Sandra Dodd

-=-Is there anything that a rich unschooling environment must
include?-=-

Music, art, history, humor, games, puzzles, commentary on things that
come by and expose themselves <bwg>, food, comfortable places to sit
and sleep, food, explorations and high-speed computer access.

(I hope others sent lists too!)

Sandra

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

saturnfire16

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> There's a famous poster that says "Expose Yourself to Art." Some of
> you will have that image in your heads already.
>
> http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Expose-Yourself-to-Art-
> Posters_i424084_.htm


hahahahaha! That's hilarious! Ok, expose was the wrong word. I don't
know how else to say it though....

Sandra Dodd

-=--=-I don't intentionally expose my 3 year old to Paganism. To me,
this is no different than the parent who doesn't intentionally expose
her 3 year old to tv.-=--=-



I think it different in a couple of ways. "Paganism" isn't a thing.
It's not a seashell or a banana. You can't possibly discuss paganism
in any historical concept with a three year old.

People don't expose three year olds to sex or reproduction, generally
speaking, but if a three year old asks about babies being born, there
are simple, brief responses that will answer them honestly without a
world of discussion, which they wouldn't understand anyway.

Today Holly asked about Socialism. She's seventeen, and she asked.
I didn't "expose her to Socialism" when she was three, but it's
because it's not something she could have begun to grasp.



TV, on the other hand is not a philosophical construct with
associated behaviors. TV is a medium and a tool and a portal. To
hide TV from a child in this culture would be like hiding books and
all printed word from a child in this culture, or to hide all
recorded sound.



Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Ok, expose was the wrong word. I don't
know how else to say it though....-=-



Expose and exposure aren't right or wrong words, it's just that if
you insist on a phrase, you need to be able to defend it. I think
reading here might help you:

http://sandradodd.com/strewing

Each link leads to other links.



Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I *get* why unschoolers with strong convictions about tv or sugar
or whatever don't run out and bring those things home. In my
experience, everyone has *something* like that.-=-

Finding and clinging to blind spots and fears and prejudices doesn't
make unschooling work better.

-=- Maybe it's just because I'm still deschooling that I feel that
way, and none of you do.-=-

It's probably not productive to declare what "none of us" do or think
or feel. There are over 1900 e-mail addresses on this list. Maybe a
few hundred aren't at all active. Still, I doubt there's much that
could be said of the group as a group as to how they feel about
something.

Sandra

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

Jenny C

> I didn't think of it as anything but resources of twist ties which I
> use for trashbags and the bags I put homemade bread in and that I
> fasten plastic up for morning glories and moonflowers. I wasn't
> thinking negative thoughts about Mattel or the planet when I sorted
> that out, I was just doing what seemed best to do with what had come
> into the house.
>


Yes, this is absolutely true! It's totally my hangup, and makes it even
better to not say anything about it. Margaux is a good reminder that
things that I consider useless or garbage, she absolutely doesn't. She
likes to save the cardboard back drops and some of the little plastic
things and creates uses for them.

I used this as an example for exactly that reason! Parents can get
hangups about things and call it bad and place limits on them and push
their own ideas harshly onto their children, even when their intentions
may be good or sound reasonable. I've seen how my kids look at the
world in a totally different way than I do, and a lot of times it's way
happier and more fun than my own outlook!

It's a good reminder to really look and listen to our kids instead of
those internal "no" or "can't" or "bad" that sometimes pops into our
parent brains that have in, varying degrees, conditioned responses to
things, whatever those things may be, surely different for different
individuals!

Jenny C

> But I *get* why unschoolers with strong convictions about tv or sugar
> or whatever don't run out and bring those things home. In my
> experience, everyone has *something* like that. But maybe I'm
> wrong. Maybe it's just because I'm still deschooling that I feel
> that way, and none of you do. I can deal with that and that's why I
> posted about it, because I'm here to learn. :)

Well, I used to believe all kinds of things that I thought were good and
right to limit, when I had one 3 yr old. I found unschooling when that
3 yr old turned 5.

From that point forward I worked to make unschooling work better. When
she was 7, then 8, then 9, I had a baby that turned 1, then 2, and is
now 7. All those things that I believed should be limited with my first
3 yr old, I'd let go of by the time my second was 3yrs old. There was
no way in the world I could parent her in that same way because she was
in a house with an older kid who I found ways to be inclusive with.

My second child has been a part of a household with a much older child,
doing things and being exposed to things that a lot of first or only
children at the age of 3 aren't doing and being exposed to. I've seen
how it has made for a different experience, one worth looking at and
exploring.

If you can't imagine limiting sugar when your child is a teenager, then
why would you do it when they are little? Sure, teens, are bigger and
make bigger and better decisions because they're brains are more
developed. I live in a house with one little kid and one teenager, it
would be really hard to tell one kid they could do something and one
not. So, the focus really has to be on what one likes and dislikes and
what works for one and what doesn't.

There will inherently be things they don't like the same as each other.
For a while I couldn't take them both to the mall together, their needs
didn't mesh well at the mall, so we did other things and I took them
seperately to the mall. The same goes for movies. My younger daughter
has watched way more PG-13 and R rated movies than my older daughter
ever did when she was that age! That doesn't mean she always wants to
do that though, mostly she likes age appropriate things. The focus is
on wether or not she'll like it though, and not wether or not it's
"good" for her.


>

Pamela Sorooshian

On Nov 26, 2008, at 3:43 PM, saturnfire16 wrote:

> But I *get* why unschoolers with strong convictions about tv or sugar
> or whatever don't run out and bring those things home.

I think it is most often an irrational fear - fear that tv is powerful
and can magically or psychically or subliminally take control of a
child's mind in evil ways. Maybe your choice of example is that, too.
I mean, maybe you chose that example (not introducing your child to
Paganism) because of that same kind of fear.

In that case, yeah, I guess you understand it <G>, but it doesn't mean
it is good for unschooling.

In my experience, everyone does not have those kinds of irrational
fears.

-pam

> In my
> experience, everyone has *something* like that. But maybe I'm
> wrong. Maybe it's just because I'm still deschooling that I feel
> that way, and none of you do. I can deal with that and that's why I
> posted about it, because I'm here to learn. :)

Joyce Fetteroll

On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:25 PM, saturnfire16 wrote:

> And maybe to offer a different perspective on tv, sugar and
> all the other things we consciously or unconsciously limit.

I don't doubt that people who limit sugar and TV and access to other
religious beliefs and so on have what they believe are good reasons
for the limitations they impose.

But sometimes those reasons don't have a foundation of thought
beneath them. They might be doing what has always been done because
they assume there's a good reason someone decided to do it that way.
(School, imposed bedtimes, 3 square meals a day, brushing twice a
day.) They might be going along with what they've heard because it
sounds sensible and imposing limits is a lot easier than delving into
research they're not confident they can interpret objectively. (It
*does* sound reasonable that exposure a lot of ads will cause kids to
want a lot of things, and that candy will make them ignore more
nutritious food (we can even see that happening if controls are
lifted at Halloween and kids pig out.)

And sometimes those reasons are based on fear. Sometimes fear can
cause people to research to support their fear rather than understand
what they fear better and see the situation more objectively.
Sometimes the information itself is skewed because the only ones
writing and researching are those who are afraid.

For instance, it's much easier to find research on the negative
effects of television than on the positive effects. It's much easier
to find articles on how bad sugar is than to find articles on why you
shouldn't worry. It's much easier to find the negative effects of
secularism than the positive effects.

It's much easier and more comforting to build protective walls
against what we fear than to face the fears and find out the truth.

I think when unschoolers start arguing against limiting TV what
people believe we're saying is that our opinion is better than yours
and you need to keep your opinion to yourself about TV and sugar and
plastic.

But what we're doing is reporting what *really* happens when kids are
free to explore the world in a supportive home, and free to use and
refine their own internal guides in an environment where parents are
there to help them make decisions. (Not make the decision we want
them to, but make their own decisions.)

What we pass on about TV and video games and candy isn't what we
guess will happen. It's not what we hope will happen while we look
through unschooling rosy glasses. It's what actually does happen. And
then also our best guesses at why unschoolers get different results
than what conventional parents fear will happen (and sometimes see
happen).

There are vegetarian parents who help their kids explore the world of
food without forcing them or guilting them into becoming vegetarians.

There are parents who dislike TV who find a way to see TV through
their kids and see the benefits of it. (And their kids don't end up
watching porn at 6!)

I remember at least one fundamentalist Christian who said she wasn't
forcing her beliefs on her kids and was allowing them to make up
their own minds about religion.

Fear is not a good mix to add to unschooling. Even fear of school is
not good. It narrows the world when we need to open doors for kids.

Joyce

Deb Lewis

***I don't intentionally expose my 3 year old to Paganism. ***

Then you better not tell her the days of the week, the months of the year or the names of the planets or constellations. <g> Don't tell her the names of flowers like narcissus, dianthus or achillea.

***... the parent who doesn't intentionally expose her
3 year old to tv.***

It seems unkind to deliberately keep information of interest from someone else. Man, wouldn't parents be disgusted if a kid failed to share some important or interesting information with them? "The bank called, your account is overdrawn." "Aunt Persnickety is coming over tomorrow at 7:00 AM." "Stephanie Staphylococcus was here and tried on all your clothes."

I know there were millions of things I failed to introduce to my son because I never knew or thought of them and I can tell you my failure and ignorance never did a thing to make my sons life better.
When we can we should always do more, offer more, think more, and make our bit of the world as big and full as we can for our kids. Our kid's lives get bigger and better when our thinking gets bigger and better.

Deb Lewis

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-When we can we should always do more, offer more, think more, and
make our bit of the world as big and full as we can for our kids. Our
kid's lives get bigger and better when our thinking gets bigger and
better. -=-

I'm adding that to the random quotes generator at
http://sandradodd.com/unschooling

Thank you, Deb, for making me sit up with this:

-=-Then you better not tell her the days of the week, the months of
the year or the names of the planets or constellations. <g> Don't
tell her the names of flowers like narcissus, dianthus or achillea. -=-

There's a difference, though, between ancient history and the fabric
of culture and language, and recently-reconstituted "ancient"
religions. Christianity is certainly not additive free nor
homogenous. It might not be worth exploring with every three year
old, but it's nothing to hide from, either!

Sandra

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

saturnfire16

Then you better not tell her the days of the week, the months of the
year or the names of the planets or constellations. <g> Don't tell her
the names of flowers like narcissus, dianthus or achillea.


>
> There's a difference, though, between ancient history and the fabric
> of culture and language, and recently-reconstituted "ancient"
> religions. Christianity is certainly not additive free nor
> homogenous. It might not be worth exploring with every three year
> old, but it's nothing to hide from, either!
>
> Sandra
>


Thank you Sandra! That is what I was trying to say.

I don't hide from Paganism. I know pagans, and as I said before, they
are wary of me because I'm a Christian, but I have no problem with
them. I gladly let my kids play with theirs. Obviously, I know that
paganism has historical value, and every day context. And, like I said
in another post, if my kid comes home and says "Mom, my friend told me
about their beliefs and I think it's cool!" We'd go find out more!

But I'm not going to take my 3 year old to a Pagan coven to see one of
their rituals, when there are so many other exciting and interesting
things to do to keep our lives rich and full. Someday, sure. At some
point she will be interested in what other people believe and why and
then we'll go explore it all. But not now.

Anyway, this whole thing started out having nothing to do with
Paganism. I just used that as an example, though obviously a bad one.