Lyla Wolfenstein

i know i have read some good discussion on this list about the oft quoted fallacy of "putting on your own oxygen mask first" and "if mom ain't happy ain't nobody happy" etc.

i have searched a bit and can't seem to find it. anyone have links to those discussions or pages on sandra's or joyce's site?

thanks!

lyla

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-i know i have read some good discussion on this list about the oft
quoted fallacy of "putting on your own oxygen mask first"-=-

I don't think that's a fallacy. In literal airplane emergency
situations, the baby won't be able to assist the mom.


About people extending that too every aspect of their own lives and
saying they need an hour-long bubble bath...

I'll look, but so far I've found this:
sandradodd.com/chores/gift
http://sandradodd.com/service
http://sandradodd.com/being/

Sandra



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


Robin Bentley

On Jan 26, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Lyla Wolfenstein wrote:

> i know i have read some good discussion on this list about the oft
> quoted fallacy of "putting on your own oxygen mask first" and "if
> mom ain't happy ain't nobody happy" etc.
>
> i have searched a bit and can't seem to find it. anyone have links
> to those discussions or pages on sandra's or joyce's site?

http://sandradodd.com/phrases
http://sandradodd.com/peace/mama

Links are listed on "peace/mama", too. The AlwaysLearning link takes
you right to the discussion!

Robin B.

Robin Bentley

>
> http://sandradodd.com/phrases
> http://sandradodd.com/peace/mama
>
> Links are listed on "peace/mama", too. The AlwaysLearning link takes
> you right to the discussion!

Oh, and I found them by using the search feature at the bottom of
Sandra's Unschooling page and typing "if momma ain't happy" <g>.

Robin B.

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

Lyla Wolfenstein

-=-i know i have read some good discussion on this list about the oft
quoted fallacy of "putting on your own oxygen mask first"-=-

I don't think that's a fallacy. In literal airplane emergency
situations, the baby won't be able to assist the mom.

About people extending that too every aspect of their own lives and
saying they need an hour-long bubble bath...
*******************

yes, that is what i meant. sorry i wasn't more clear. thanks!

lyla

MARKETPLACE
Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.



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

Lyla Wolfenstein

***********
Oh, and I found them by using the search feature at the bottom of
Sandra's Unschooling page and typing "if momma ain't happy" <g>.

Robin B.
**********

thanks robin - i feel sheepish - i am usually a really good internet searcher, not sure what happened there :)

i was looking for something to offer when i (so frequently) hear that oft-quoted truism. i do think it's a truism, but not true, and not thoughtful or examined. it's often used not only as a threat, as sandra says on that page, but also, more subtly, as an internal excuse to not do what our kids really need for us to do. whether that is unschooling, laying with them when they go to bed, helping/cleaning up for them, etc.

i think the topic of mother burnout and isolated parenting is a very valuable topic to discuss and examine, but that concept is used so flippantly, sometimes by others trying to be "helpful" toward a mother expressing feelings of burnout, and i wish it got examined more.

the discussion on that page isn't quite in depth enough for me to use (as a link) to get the point i am trying to make across for others, as i realize, reading it, that it's really years worth of posts on this list and a more global mental collection of perspectives from the unschooling voices out there, that i am trying to distill. and it's too much to distill, maybe?

lyla



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

Sandra Dodd

-=-
thanks robin - i feel sheepish - i am usually a really good internet
searcher, not sure what happened there :)-=-

Hey, I didn't find it first try myself.


I have a new search with five unschooling sites all in one!
http://unschooling.blogspot.com



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

Lyla Wolfenstein

wow! i didn't even know you could do that! thanks!

lyla
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandra Dodd
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] "mom's needs first"



-=-
thanks robin - i feel sheepish - i am usually a really good internet
searcher, not sure what happened there :)-=-

Hey, I didn't find it first try myself.

I have a new search with five unschooling sites all in one!
http://unschooling.blogspot.com

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





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

Robin Bentley

On Jan 26, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Lyla Wolfenstein wrote:

> ***********
> Oh, and I found them by using the search feature at the bottom of
> Sandra's Unschooling page and typing "if momma ain't happy" <g>.
>
> Robin B.
> **********
>
> thanks robin - i feel sheepish - i am usually a really good internet
> searcher, not sure what happened there :)

No need! It was by serendipity that I remembered there was a search
feature. And I had a good combination of words. So I thought I'd pass
that avenue along <g>.

Robin B.

Marina DeLuca-Howard

In extraordinary circumstances it is good to put on your oxygen mask first,
because that can save the baby. My friend's neighbour noticed she was
having postpartum psychotic episodes. She fearfully told her husband, went
on heavy medication, went back to work as a lawyer and he became the primary
caregiver. She played, sang to and changed the baby under dad's watchful
eye. When I met him he was a control freak kind of guy, but when my friend
told me this story I realized why he helicoptered around his only child.

I might be pro breastfeeding and a big advocate of mothers and babies, but
if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it is a
case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe. The episodes for her were
brief, and she was lucid enough to know putting her baby's needs first in
this case meant dad bottlefeeding, her returning to work on medication and
her not being alone with the baby, even though she was envisioning mothering
him differently. It was difficult for her to get help, but she did it. I
have seen them over the years and she truly loves her son--but for the first
few months of his life she needed to "have an oxygen mask".

Marina


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

Vidyut Kale

"if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it is
a
case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe."

I understand that what you mean. The words jolted me :D Of course, meeting
her need for assistance dealing with this perceived need is what you are
talking about.

Its an incredible story.

Vidyut

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Marina DeLuca-Howard <
delucahoward@...> wrote:

>
>
> In extraordinary circumstances it is good to put on your oxygen mask first,
> because that can save the baby. My friend's neighbour noticed she was
> having postpartum psychotic episodes. She fearfully told her husband, went
> on heavy medication, went back to work as a lawyer and he became the
> primary
> caregiver. She played, sang to and changed the baby under dad's watchful
> eye. When I met him he was a control freak kind of guy, but when my friend
> told me this story I realized why he helicoptered around his only child.
>
> I might be pro breastfeeding and a big advocate of mothers and babies, but
> if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it is
> a
> case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe. The episodes for her were
> brief, and she was lucid enough to know putting her baby's needs first in
> this case meant dad bottlefeeding, her returning to work on medication and
> her not being alone with the baby, even though she was envisioning
> mothering
> him differently. It was difficult for her to get help, but she did it. I
> have seen them over the years and she truly loves her son--but for the
> first
> few months of his life she needed to "have an oxygen mask".
>
> Marina
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Marina DeLuca-Howard

>I understand that what you mean. The words jolted me :D Of course, meeting
>her need for assistance dealing with this perceived need is what you are
>talking about.

Yes, tragic incidents do occur with mothers who need help, but don't get
any. Just a few blocks from my house an affluent mother, who was an
acquaintance of mine wasn't so lucky. I remember feeling jealous of her
allowance from her husband--just over $100 000 a year though my family
of five lived on less than half of that. She had designer maternity wear,
and her kids had all the best. She decided to have a large family of
closely spaced kids and was already planning her third pregnancy by the time
her second daughter was a month old. This mom planned on tandem nursing
both the younger kids and she cooked gourmet meals, once telling me she
owned fourteen different kinds of mustard. The other mothers marvelled at
her perfection and egged her on: living vicariously on her story, while
aspiring to svelte figures, designer clothes and perfection.

She didn't recognize her baby blues, and as a perfectionist she hid her
stress, so nobody knew. Things ended when she killed her husband, killed
her eldest child, and wounded the middle child but the baby survived
completely unharmed. Her husband placed the emergency call, but by the time
help arrived it was too late and she ended up committing suicide. It is a
horrible story, and I remember for months afterward people being politer to
mothers, worried I suppose we were all ticking time bombs. I think people
were shocked because she seemed to be the "perfect" mother and was already
talking about her fourth unconceived child.

I remember feeling a bit inferior trying to lose "baby weight", with a baby
in a sling, in my whatever happened to be clean clothes that vaguely
matched, with my boys spaced three years apart, saying three kids was our
limit financially and emotionally, if we wanted to give the kids parental
attention and freedom to explore. We didn't speak much after I told her how
hard it is to have three kids and I tried to suggest she focus on the two
girls she already had for a while longer, before having a third child.

Of course, I also knew La Leche mothers who had four kids in six years and
they seemed to cope well meeting the needs of their kids--though I often saw
tears at meetings as they struggled with competing expectations. Many
mothers looked for validation from other mothers because they felt
*bad* serving
frozen lasagna to toddlers or pancakes and fruit three times a day, instead
of the gourmet 'whole' food meals they'd imagined. They felt bad their
husbands were having to do so many chores after work and on weekends. I
remember as a leader we discussed priorities, doing the best you can, and
focusing on loving your family. I wasn't strident about breastfeeding
exclusively, though I did nurse my kids exclusively, because it is better to
have a healthy happy family, and have twins receive the occasional bottle
once a day than have mom fretting and unable to cope.

Mac and cheese by candlelight, served with fruits or salad/veggies made with
love is way better than overstretching with a gourmet meal made of organic
bison, with wild crafted mushrooms served over an exotic grain dish by a
cranky exhausted mother. I learned from my own experience to try to live in
the moment and follow a path with my family, trying to slough of
preconceptions of the perfect mother. It doesn't make you popular when you
focus on love and freedom, but it sure seems to make things better
emotionally for the family as a whole and really what values or ethics are
worth jeopardizing that safe joyfilled nest?

Marina



2010/1/27 Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@...>

>
>
> "if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it is
> a
> case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe."
>
> I understand that what you mean. The words jolted me :D Of course, meeting
> her need for assistance dealing with this perceived need is what you are
> talking about.
>
> Its an incredible story.
>
> Vidyut
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Marina DeLuca-Howard <
> delucahoward@... <delucahoward%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In extraordinary circumstances it is good to put on your oxygen mask
> first,
> > because that can save the baby. My friend's neighbour noticed she was
> > having postpartum psychotic episodes. She fearfully told her husband,
> went
> > on heavy medication, went back to work as a lawyer and he became the
> > primary
> > caregiver. She played, sang to and changed the baby under dad's watchful
> > eye. When I met him he was a control freak kind of guy, but when my
> friend
> > told me this story I realized why he helicoptered around his only child.
> >
> > I might be pro breastfeeding and a big advocate of mothers and babies,
> but
> > if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it
> is
> > a
> > case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe. The episodes for her
> were
> > brief, and she was lucid enough to know putting her baby's needs first in
> > this case meant dad bottlefeeding, her returning to work on medication
> and
> > her not being alone with the baby, even though she was envisioning
> > mothering
> > him differently. It was difficult for her to get help, but she did it. I
> > have seen them over the years and she truly loves her son--but for the
> > first
> > few months of his life she needed to "have an oxygen mask".
> >
> > Marina
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Rent our cottage: http://davehoward.ca/cottage/


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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I might be pro breastfeeding and a big advocate of mothers and
babies, but
if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien
it is a
case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe. The episodes for her
were
brief, and she was lucid enough to know putting her baby's needs first
in
this case meant dad bottlefeeding, her returning to work on medication
and
her not being alone with the baby, even though she was envisioning
mothering
him differently-=-

So that comes down to being another "put the baby first" story.

Many moms seem to feel that they can't be present for their children
until "their own needs are met," but kids' needs can't be put off
much, or the whole world is needy. And honestly, I bet we all know
families where every single family member has a lifetime of unmet needs.

Sandra

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

[email protected]

After I had my third child, I had a neighbor who had the picture perfect house. She was frugal, made everything from scratch, house was spotless and she threw the most amazing parties. It was Christmas time and I found myself crying because I couldn't keep my house up, and I couldn't even make a pie from scratch like my mom use to. My Mom happened to call just then and when I told her my frustration (not being as great as the neighbor and unable to make pie) she chuckled a bit and told me she hadn't make a pie from scratch in many years. She bought them from the store already made. I was shocked. She reminded me my kids love me just the way I am and so does she. And just after this conversation with my Mom, my then 8 year old who was listening to the whole thing told me how he loved our house more then the neighbors because even though the house "looks" perfect it is not a fun place to be. That is why their kids play at our house. Sometimes the things we think are important really aren't. I think a lot of Mom's needs would be met if she were not stressing herself out trying to be what someone else deems is perfection. My needs were met that day. Not by homemade pie or a clean house. They were met by love from my Mom and my son.

Tiffani



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marina DeLuca-Howard" <delucahoward@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:42:05 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] "mom's needs first"

>I understand that what you mean. The words jolted me :D Of course, meeting
>her need for assistance dealing with this perceived need is what you are
>talking about.

Yes, tragic incidents do occur with mothers who need help, but don't get
any. Just a few blocks from my house an affluent mother, who was an
acquaintance of mine wasn't so lucky. I remember feeling jealous of her
allowance from her husband--just over $100 000 a year though my family
of five lived on less than half of that. She had designer maternity wear,
and her kids had all the best. She decided to have a large family of
closely spaced kids and was already planning her third pregnancy by the time
her second daughter was a month old. This mom planned on tandem nursing
both the younger kids and she cooked gourmet meals, once telling me she
owned fourteen different kinds of mustard. The other mothers marvelled at
her perfection and egged her on: living vicariously on her story, while
aspiring to svelte figures, designer clothes and perfection.

She didn't recognize her baby blues, and as a perfectionist she hid her
stress, so nobody knew. Things ended when she killed her husband, killed
her eldest child, and wounded the middle child but the baby survived
completely unharmed. Her husband placed the emergency call, but by the time
help arrived it was too late and she ended up committing suicide. It is a
horrible story, and I remember for months afterward people being politer to
mothers, worried I suppose we were all ticking time bombs. I think people
were shocked because she seemed to be the "perfect" mother and was already
talking about her fourth unconceived child.

I remember feeling a bit inferior trying to lose "baby weight", with a baby
in a sling, in my whatever happened to be clean clothes that vaguely
matched, with my boys spaced three years apart, saying three kids was our
limit financially and emotionally, if we wanted to give the kids parental
attention and freedom to explore. We didn't speak much after I told her how
hard it is to have three kids and I tried to suggest she focus on the two
girls she already had for a while longer, before having a third child.

Of course, I also knew La Leche mothers who had four kids in six years and
they seemed to cope well meeting the needs of their kids--though I often saw
tears at meetings as they struggled with competing expectations. Many
mothers looked for validation from other mothers because they felt
*bad* serving
frozen lasagna to toddlers or pancakes and fruit three times a day, instead
of the gourmet 'whole' food meals they'd imagined. They felt bad their
husbands were having to do so many chores after work and on weekends. I
remember as a leader we discussed priorities, doing the best you can, and
focusing on loving your family. I wasn't strident about breastfeeding
exclusively, though I did nurse my kids exclusively, because it is better to
have a healthy happy family, and have twins receive the occasional bottle
once a day than have mom fretting and unable to cope.

Mac and cheese by candlelight, served with fruits or salad/veggies made with
love is way better than overstretching with a gourmet meal made of organic
bison, with wild crafted mushrooms served over an exotic grain dish by a
cranky exhausted mother. I learned from my own experience to try to live in
the moment and follow a path with my family, trying to slough of
preconceptions of the perfect mother. It doesn't make you popular when you
focus on love and freedom, but it sure seems to make things better
emotionally for the family as a whole and really what values or ethics are
worth jeopardizing that safe joyfilled nest?

Marina



2010/1/27 Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@...>

>
>
> "if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it is
> a
> case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe."
>
> I understand that what you mean. The words jolted me :D Of course, meeting
> her need for assistance dealing with this perceived need is what you are
> talking about.
>
> Its an incredible story.
>
> Vidyut
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Marina DeLuca-Howard <
> delucahoward@... <delucahoward%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In extraordinary circumstances it is good to put on your oxygen mask
> first,
> > because that can save the baby. My friend's neighbour noticed she was
> > having postpartum psychotic episodes. She fearfully told her husband,
> went
> > on heavy medication, went back to work as a lawyer and he became the
> > primary
> > caregiver. She played, sang to and changed the baby under dad's watchful
> > eye. When I met him he was a control freak kind of guy, but when my
> friend
> > told me this story I realized why he helicoptered around his only child.
> >
> > I might be pro breastfeeding and a big advocate of mothers and babies,
> but
> > if mom's convinced she needs to kill her baby because he is an alien it
> is
> > a
> > case of meeting her need so everyone can be safe. The episodes for her
> were
> > brief, and she was lucid enough to know putting her baby's needs first in
> > this case meant dad bottlefeeding, her returning to work on medication
> and
> > her not being alone with the baby, even though she was envisioning
> > mothering
> > him differently. It was difficult for her to get help, but she did it. I
> > have seen them over the years and she truly loves her son--but for the
> > first
> > few months of his life she needed to "have an oxygen mask".
> >
> > Marina
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Rent our cottage: http://davehoward.ca/cottage/


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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

Jenny Cyphers

***i was looking for something to offer when i (so frequently) hear that oft-quoted truism. i do think it's a truism, but not true, and not thoughtful or examined. it's often used not only as a threat, as sandra says on that page, but also, more subtly, as an internal excuse to not do what our kids really need for us to do. whether that is unschooling, laying with them when they go to bed, helping/cleaning up for them, etc.

i think the topic of mother burnout and isolated parenting is a very valuable topic to discuss and examine, but that concept is used so flippantly, sometimes by others trying to be "helpful" toward a mother expressing feelings of burnout, and i wish it got examined more.***

I've come to the conclusion over and over again that it's pure selfishness, that feeling. It's putting one's own needs above the needs of others. Lots of people do it in lots of ways and find reasons to justify it.

Yesterday, Margaux wanted to play tag with me. I've never been a fan of tag, even as a little girl, and I was really tired yesterday, fighting an ear infection. I really wanted to psych myself up to playing with her because I AM a fan of Margaux, so I put music on and it was really really helping me to gain momentum that I could keep going. Margaux got really upset about it and insisted I turn it off. So, it kind of ruined the whole thing for me and I told her she was being really mean and that I didn't feel like playing anymore because of the huge big stink she made over the music.

The whole experience was unpleasant. She went to her room to play with her barbies and I went to the kitchen and cried and then started cleaning up a storm because that always helps me think more clearly about a situation. Of course most mothers would feel completely justified in insisting on playing music while playing tag, but I really didn't, it made me feel terrible. It was a stuck moment for me.

So, instead of revisiting the whole thing of playing tag and listening to music or not, I pulled out my mop and bucket and filled it with pine sol, something I think smells terrible, but I know for a fact that Margaux loves the smell of, and she loves to mop. So I went in to where she was and told her I was using pine sol to mop the floor and that she would be welcome to join me if she wanted. She said "no" at first, but then decided that it sounded fun. We had a really good time cleaning the floor together. Then, rather than revisit the idea that put us at odds, we did something different, we played hide and seek and barbies for the rest of the day.

I wish I could've moved past my needing music, I wish that we'd never been at odds. Our needs were at odds with one another and it created tension, but the very last thing I wanted was to have my needs trump hers. Since that was my focus and where I am at, I found another way to BE with her that we could both enjoy. Tag, for Margaux is a way of deep connection, is goes back to baby-hood games of "I'm gonna get you!", so hide and seek was very appropriate for that same connection.





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

thecugals

--- In [email protected], Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:

--Our needs were at odds with one another and it created tension, but the very last thing I wanted was to have my needs trump hers.--

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it sounds like you're saying her needs trump yours. If your daughter was playing with a sibling who was a year or two older, would you have told that sibling she had to play exactly how Margaux wanted? You probably would have tried to help them find a way to play that would have been fun for both of them. I don't think you ought to feel bad about trying to make the activity fun for the both of you. And in the end you got what you were shooting for--a nice connection with your daughter.

I tend to put everybody else's needs before mine--husband's and kiddos'--which means that my own needs often go unmet. Heck, I didn't even realize I had any special needs (ha ha--I'm a special needs parent). I just wondered why I kept feeling depressed all the time.

So now I'm thinking that if traditional parenting is adult-centered, radical unschooling need not be child-centered. Everyone's needs, even Mom's, should be considered.

Beth C.

Jenny Cyphers

***Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it sounds like you're saying her needs trump yours. If your daughter was playing with a sibling who was a year or two older, would you have told that sibling she had to play exactly how Margaux wanted?***

No, not at all. It's better to find something that works for all parties. We were visiting with a friend last week. The girls were playing and getting along nicely the whole visit, then near the end, the other girl got really upset and was crying because she felt that Margaux was making all the decisions. What had triggered it, was the naming of a doll that already had a name. When we were talking about it, I told the other little girl that Margaux really dislikes it when other kids come over and make all the decisions and have all the ideas. It's true, and even if Margaux was doing that, she will surely understand how that feels, and it's a way to talk about it. Some kids are better at understanding from someone else's viewpoint and others take a while to gain that sort of empathy.

Margaux has gotten a lot better about that sort of thing in the last year. Talking to her about it later, she stated very clearly to me that she was very much trying NOT to do what the other little girl felt she was doing. She said that she was making suggestions, not commands, but the other girl took them as commands. It made her sad that she had been accused of something that she was intentionally trying NOT to do.

The girls were able to work it out and continue playing happily. If they hadn't been able to, it simply would have involved more negotiating. The key is to find ways to mesh each others needs together, not trump one or the others. To me, if I'd insisted on playing my music to play tag, I'd have trumped her very stated needs of not wanting music. Finding something else to play was a better option. It didn't trump my needs, because my need to play music was specific to having and keeping momentum and energy for a rousing game of tag.

***So now I'm thinking that if traditional parenting is adult-centered, radical unschooling need not be child-centered. Everyone's needs, even Mom's, should be considered.***

Mom's needs should be considered, but since moms are usually better at negotiating skills than little kids, sometimes moms can find their needs being met in better ways than with confrontation with a child's needs. I guess it's not either parent or child centered, it's more harmony centered.

________________________________
From: thecugals <thecugals@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 7:35:59 AM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: "mom's needs first"




--- In AlwaysLearning@ yahoogroups. com, Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@. ..> wrote:

--Our needs were at odds with one another and it created tension, but the very last thing I wanted was to have my needs trump hers.--

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it sounds like you're saying her needs trump yours. If your daughter was playing with a sibling who was a year or two older, would you have told that sibling she had to play exactly how Margaux wanted? You probably would have tried to help them find a way to play that would have been fun for both of them. I don't think you ought to feel bad about trying to make the activity fun for the both of you. And in the end you got what you were shooting for--a nice connection with your daughter.

I tend to put everybody else's needs before mine--husband' s and kiddos'--which means that my own needs often go unmet. Heck, I didn't even realize I had any special needs (ha ha--I'm a special needs parent). I just wondered why I kept feeling depressed all the time.

So now I'm thinking that if traditional parenting is adult-centered, radical unschooling need not be child-centered. Everyone's needs, even Mom's, should be considered.

Beth C.







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

sandralynndodd

-=-So now I'm thinking that if traditional parenting is adult-centered, radical unschooling need not be child-centered. Everyone's needs, even Mom's, should be considered.-=-

I agree to an extent, but not to the wall. It shouldn't be 50/50, and the child shouldn't be expected to meet the mom's needs.

The mom should give as much as she possibly can. If she can't give enough to make unschooling better than school, she should put the child in school. If she can't give enough to keep the child from being an absolute mess, she should give him up for adoption.

If a family chooses to have children (and these days it IS a choice, even if the choice was to be Mormon or Catholic or "full quiver"), they have a duty to those children. The children didn't pop up unexpectedly, when the parents are intelligent enough to take care of them at all.

-=-the very last thing I wanted was to have my needs trump hers.--

-=-Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it sounds like you're saying her needs trump yours.-=-

In card games there aren't compromises. Some suites trump others, period.

If a card game analogy (or dominoes/42) is to be used, then one or the other must trump, and in an unschooling discussion, I'd say that should tip toward the child.

Sandra

Vidyut Kale

*"**If she can't give enough to make unschooling better than school, she
should put the child in school." *

lol. I thought you can't *make* unschooling better than school, because
unschooling isn't done, it happens when you allow it?


*"If she can't give enough to keep the child from being an absolute mess,
she should give him up for adoption."
*

Wow? Who decides what constitutes absolute mess? Do you think it can be
concluded before the child grows up?


Don't you think you are being very harsh?

Vidyut


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

Vidyut Kale

"In card games there aren't compromises. Some suites trump others, period."

The suits are not the game. They are the conditions. That is the stage for
the magic to begin, not a 'period'. If a game were as dead decided as you
describe, gambling wouldn't be in industry. Where is any unclarity to gamble
upon? Las Vegas declares your statement absurd. There is such a thing as
play, skill, uh.... compromises( uh... compromized rules.... ch***ing
*cough*)

Sure, I planned children (well, actually, we didn't, but let's say we
understood that these things happen *blush*. We love the son anyway. So now
what? I'm doomed to a life of dancing to his tune? I'd better send him to
school, where someone will take this kind of crap. It is because I love him
that I will not blindly agree. There is a huge difference between
not-interfering and caring. I don't have to stop him, but my true response
being transparent is intimacy - whether I am gung ho, or pulling my hair
out. It would be an insult to him to pretend enthusiasm and support for
everything.

Sure, I can support his curiosity and growth and let him discover natural
consequences. Natural consequences of EVERYTHING that is not dangerous -
this means also the consequences of invading another's space - that the
other will not like it or will succumb, or will get angry, or will not like
it but is open to allowing him with reservation and finding out, or will
avoid him, or whatever pans out. Why exclude emotional intelligence from the
picture?

Vidyut


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

sandralynndodd

-=-Las Vegas declares your statement absurd.-=-

I let this post through even though I thought it was very impolite.

I very much dislike anything being called "absurd" or "ridiculous."

Parenting is not about gambling. If someone uses an analogy and I follow that analogy, that is not absurd.

I have three children who never went to school and who are happy. People whose children are not school age, whose children might yet go to school and so nothing will have been different, should be very sweet and polite on this list until their children are older and until they/the parents have proven their usefulness. And after that they should continue to be polite.

-=So now what? I'm doomed to a life of dancing to his tune? I'd better send him to
school, where someone will take this kind of crap.-=-

If you define his actual needs as "crap," you probably should send him to school.

-= There is a huge difference between
not-interfering and caring. I don't have to stop him, but my true response
being transparent is intimacy - whether I am gung ho, or pulling my hair
out. It would be an insult to him to pretend enthusiasm and support for
everything.-=-

Wherever you've gathered your unschooling ideas, I don't understand your first two statements. "My true response to being transparent is intimacy" doesn't make sense to me. I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

-= It would be an insult to him to pretend enthusiasm and support for
everything.-=-

No one is asking you to pretend. If you are to be your child's partner rather than his adversary, it can and will (if you want it to, if you work at it) become increasingly easy for you to BE enthusiastic and supportive, without any pretense whatsoever.

-=Sure, I can support his curiosity and growth and let him discover natural
consequences. Natural consequences of EVERYTHING that is not dangerous -
this means also the consequences of invading another's space - that the
other will not like it or will succumb, or will get angry, or will not like
it but is open to allowing him with reservation and finding out, or will
avoid him, or whatever pans out. Why exclude emotional intelligence from the
picture?-=-

Part of having a partner who does have emotional intelligence (or any) is the advantage of sage counsel. I didn't leave my children to discover from other people's responses alone what they might want to do to be courteous and polite. Their lives aren't trial and error. They have me and their dad and many other friends and relatives they can trust and count on to help them do well in the world.

i hope you didn't say "absurd" to your mother in law, because I'm kinda miffed about it myself. Don't exclude emotional intelligence from this picture.

Sandra

sandralynndodd

--- In [email protected], Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@...> wrote:
>
> *"**If she can't give enough to make unschooling better than school, she
> should put the child in school." *
>
> lol. I thought you can't *make* unschooling better than school, because
> unschooling isn't done, it happens when you allow it?


LOL is right up there with "absurd" and "ridiculous" when it follow's someone's serious statement.

I don't know who told you "unschooling isn't done." Do you really believe unschooling is something that just happens? I think you'll feel differently when your child can walk and talk. There are many things to do to make unschooling work.

Simply keeping a child out of school isn't unschooling. In India where school attendance isn't a legal mandate your flexibility is different, but if parents cannot and do not intend to try to make their children's lives better than they would have been in school, then I do think school would be better. (Especially where compulsory attendance laws are in effect.)



> *"If she can't give enough to keep the child from being an absolute mess,
> she should give him up for adoption."
> *
>
> Wow? Who decides what constitutes absolute mess? Do you think it can be
> concluded before the child grows up?
>
>
> Don't you think you are being very harsh?

If a mother intends to put her own desires and preferences before her child's, she will not be a good mother. I don't think I'm being harsh at all to point that out. I've gone to great pains to be what I thought was a good mother, and it didn't just happen.

http://sandradodd.com/nest

I'm not going door to door advising mothers. I'm only advising those who come to this list.

Sandra

Pam Sorooshian

On 1/28/2010 8:31 PM, Vidyut Kale wrote:
> Sure, I can support his curiosity and growth and let him discover natural
> consequences. Natural consequences of EVERYTHING that is not dangerous -
> this means also the consequences of invading another's space - that the
> other will not like it or will succumb, or will get angry, or will not like
> it but is open to allowing him with reservation and finding out, or will
> avoid him, or whatever pans out. Why exclude emotional intelligence from the
> picture?
>

Natural consequences - usually a euphemism for parents being mean enough
to just "let the chips fall where they may" even though they could have
prevented it.

Are you saying it is "natural" for a parent to see the problems coming
and not to step in to help out? As unschoolers, why would we withhold
useful information and advice and guidance and help from our kids?

Vidyut - I find it kind of hard to follow your writing, so I apologize
if I've misunderstood your point.

-pam

Vidyut Kale

Hi Pam,

You did miss my viewpoint, but its fine, since you spoke the essence of it
yourself. You are saying what I did, in response, if not in understanding,
so on some level, the essence of it reached you (I choose to believe).

"Are you saying it is "natural" for a parent to see the problems coming
and not to step in to help out? As unschoolers, why would we withhold
useful information and advice and guidance and help from our kids?"

As unschoolers, or simply members of a family, or being a true friend, I
don't think we should withhold useful information and guidance. It is part
of being engaged in any relationship.

I'm looking at the two kinds of "yes" there are. There is one where a child
is exploring curiosity. There is another where a child is exploring
curiosity in directions that are invading another's territory. I am not
saying that we stop them from anything. I am saying that if our space is
getting invaded, it doesn't help to get paralyzed and depressed and feeling
helpless out of an ideal. There is a point where we need to trust our
children with our state of being - whether that point is at 2 months or 20
years. We need to share that okay, you want my computer, but I don't want to
get up and drop what I'm doing. What are the possibilities? <-- I see this
as useful information that helps both of us discover possibilities. Like
said earlier. Those could be another time, another computer, one of us
letting off..... I don't see me doing any favours to my child if I don't
want to drop what I'm doing but I do, because he wants it. That is only
setting the stage for further frustrations for me, and further lack of
knowledge for the child on how his actions may impact another.

A parent being mean is a parent being mean. It may be a natural consequence
if that is how the person is, but that is not our objective. I don't see the
value in generalizing natural consequences to mean that, particularly if
neither of us see them as truly only that. I trust that we all will be able
to see that, if we stop using such generalizations because we believe others
do.


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

Vidyut Kale

Hi Sandra,

I appreciate you letting my post through when you could easily have stopped
it. I understand that you found it impolite and did not like me devaluing it
in any way through calling it absurd, ridiculous or 'lol'. My apologies. My
intention was not to hurt you. I do have a great deal of respect for your
way of thought. It is not my intention to trivialize you in any manner.

I think that perhaps from having being unschooling for so long, you accept
as evident or non-negotiable many things that are not so to someone with a
new perspective for someone who has not developed a capacity for such
choices. I found statements like *"**If she can't give enough to make
unschooling better than school, she should put the child in school." and "If
she can't give enough to keep the child from being an absolute mess, she
should give him up for adoption." extremely crass and judgmental, though I
understand that they make perfect sense where you stand.*

*Yet, it is the rules here that we can examine the words written and not the
intent, so ...*
*
*
*
I may lack experience, but so is the OP of this thread. Things are obviously
in a bad space for her. She is already questioning how her children behave
and that things are not right. How do you think a suggestion for putting
them up for adoption rather than messing them up hits her in this frame of
mind? Being experienced is little use if it cannot be appropriate to
circumstances.

*
*I bet you were right where we are in the beginning and didn't actually
begin knowing it all. How would you have felt when you didn't know what was
to come and things were rough, and some 'expert' suggested that your child
would be better off without your contributions if you were not able to
'crack it'? You still don't know the future. What if they get messed a few
years later? Will you give them up for adoption?*

Or, in other words, I don't know if I can make unschooling better than
school. I don't know if I can keep my child from being an absolute mess. All
I know is that I believe that it is the most respectful choice I can make
for my child. By the time I am forced to accept that I did indeed mess my
child up, it will be too late, since of course, I'm not intentionally
messing him up. My child would also have some security in what was
happening, however messed it was. Would he cope with whatever parents he
would get through adoption? How do I know the adopted parents won't mess him
further? I will never see my child as messed, so I cant trust my own
judgment. I want the best life for him, even if it means I should keep my
toxic self away. Should I send him to school or adoption? By these
standards, does anyone deserve a child at all?

Do you even care, when you say this?

Vidyut

PS: I have read you recommendation for not posting, and I will try and not
involve myself on new threads. However, I find myself unable to stop letting
this be, because I feel very strongly about this. I can unsubscribe now, and
then join when my son is a "successful unschooler" as defined by schooling
age if you prefer. I wonder why schooling age matters so much. I possibly
don't 'get it' since schooling was never a lure for me. Some people plan for
their child to go to school, others don't. We really need to create our own
definitions rather than defining ourselves with respect to schooling.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:14 AM, sandralynndodd <Sandra@...>wrote:

>
>
> -=-Las Vegas declares your statement absurd.-=-
>
> I let this post through even though I thought it was very impolite.
>
> I very much dislike anything being called "absurd" or "ridiculous."
>
> Parenting is not about gambling. If someone uses an analogy and I follow
> that analogy, that is not absurd.
>
> I have three children who never went to school and who are happy. People
> whose children are not school age, whose children might yet go to school and
> so nothing will have been different, should be very sweet and polite on this
> list until their children are older and until they/the parents have proven
> their usefulness. And after that they should continue to be polite.
>
> -=So now what? I'm doomed to a life of dancing to his tune? I'd better send
> him to
> school, where someone will take this kind of crap.-=-
>
> If you define his actual needs as "crap," you probably should send him to
> school.
>
> -= There is a huge difference between
>
> not-interfering and caring. I don't have to stop him, but my true response
> being transparent is intimacy - whether I am gung ho, or pulling my hair
> out. It would be an insult to him to pretend enthusiasm and support for
> everything.-=-
>
> Wherever you've gathered your unschooling ideas, I don't understand your
> first two statements. "My true response to being transparent is intimacy"
> doesn't make sense to me. I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
>
> -= It would be an insult to him to pretend enthusiasm and support for
> everything.-=-
>
> No one is asking you to pretend. If you are to be your child's partner
> rather than his adversary, it can and will (if you want it to, if you work
> at it) become increasingly easy for you to BE enthusiastic and supportive,
> without any pretense whatsoever.
>
> -=Sure, I can support his curiosity and growth and let him discover natural
>
> consequences. Natural consequences of EVERYTHING that is not dangerous -
> this means also the consequences of invading another's space - that the
> other will not like it or will succumb, or will get angry, or will not like
> it but is open to allowing him with reservation and finding out, or will
> avoid him, or whatever pans out. Why exclude emotional intelligence from
> the
> picture?-=-
>
> Part of having a partner who does have emotional intelligence (or any) is
> the advantage of sage counsel. I didn't leave my children to discover from
> other people's responses alone what they might want to do to be courteous
> and polite. Their lives aren't trial and error. They have me and their dad
> and many other friends and relatives they can trust and count on to help
> them do well in the world.
>
> i hope you didn't say "absurd" to your mother in law, because I'm kinda
> miffed about it myself. Don't exclude emotional intelligence from this
> picture.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>


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

Joanna

--- In [email protected], Vidyut Kale <wide.aware@...> wrote:
>
> "In card games there aren't compromises. Some suites trump others, period."
>
> The suits are not the game. They are the conditions. That is the stage for
> the magic to begin, not a 'period'. If a game were as dead decided as you
> describe, gambling wouldn't be in industry. Where is any unclarity to gamble
> upon? Las Vegas declares your statement absurd. There is such a thing as
> play, skill, uh.... compromises( uh... compromized rules.... ch***ing
> *cough*)

I don't understand the last part of this paragraph, but as far as I know bridge isn't a game that is played in Las Vegas like poker or blackjack. Bridge is the game that you referenced by speaking of trumping. There are rules to playing bridge, and some suites trump others, period. You brought in the analogy, Sandra just followed it through. You can't go changing the analogy and then call her absurd.
>
Joanna

Robin Bentley

>
> -= There is a huge difference between
> not-interfering and caring. I don't have to stop him, but my true
> response
> being transparent is intimacy - whether I am gung ho, or pulling my
> hair
> out. It would be an insult to him to pretend enthusiasm and support
> for
> everything.-=-
>
> Wherever you've gathered your unschooling ideas, I don't understand
> your first two statements. "My true response to being transparent
> is intimacy" doesn't make sense to me. I honestly don't know what
> you're talking about.

I understood that phrase ("...my true response being transparent is
intimacy...") to mean when she responds authentically (ie. with anger,
frustration, happiness, sadness, or whatever emotion), that particular
emotion creates intimacy between parent and child.

And while I understand the thought behind that statement in terms of
"being our authentic selves," it doesn't necessarily create the
intimacy one might want. A child might end up knowing intimately that
his mother can't be trusted to be his willing and helpful partner in
negotiating the world.

And if one's authentic self is to be an unenthusiastic fun-squasher
(or religious-ritual-insister in the case of a mother-in-law), how
much and how long will a child want to be around that?

Robin B.



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

Schuyler

Sure, I can support his curiosity and growth and let him discover natural
consequences. Natural consequences of EVERYTHING that is not dangerous -
this means also the consequences of invading another's space - that the
other will not like it or will succumb, or will get angry, or will not like
it but is open to allowing him with reservation and finding out, or will
avoid him, or whatever pans out. Why exclude emotional intelligence from the
picture?
----------

Natural does not exclude parental assistance. Simply letting something run it's course is not natural. Helping a child to negotiate a new or difficult thing is totally natural. So, letting them screw up as a "learning opportunity" (not your words, but they've been said before) isn't a natural consequence, it's closer to neglect than to nature. Not that neglect isn't also within the bounds of natural, but neglect isn't really about facilitating learning in a safe and nurturing environment, whereas unschooling is. And why would you want to piss off other people by making their annoyance a learning moment for your child?

I was playing WoW with a 19 year old boy who started telling me angry tales of this girl he had gotten involved through WoW. They met in real life and soon afterwards she dumped him in the game. And he was furious at her. I figured she wasn't as impressed with him in real life as she had been on-line and that his expectations of what a WoW girlfriend would offer him were greater than what would actually be the case. So what he learned, through natural consequences, was that girls were bitches and unreliable, and not that his expectations were greater than they probably should have been. And there wasn't anyone in his life to help him to see those things. He only had his experience and his sense of injustice to mold his understanding of what happened.

I wouldn't hold my breath for natural consequences to give a full and rich picture of the world that helps a child to become better at recognizing the needs of others. Helping someone leads to them being more helpful, looking to bigger picture understandings with them, helps them to see a bigger picture.

Schuyler

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

Robin Bentley

>>
>> The suits are not the game. They are the conditions. That is the
>> stage for
>> the magic to begin, not a 'period'. If a game were as dead decided
>> as you
>> describe, gambling wouldn't be in industry. Where is any unclarity
>> to gamble
>> upon? Las Vegas declares your statement absurd. There is such a
>> thing as
>> play, skill, uh.... compromises( uh... compromized rules.... ch***ing
>> *cough*)
>
> I don't understand the last part of this paragraph, but as far as I
> know bridge isn't a game that is played in Las Vegas like poker or
> blackjack. Bridge is the game that you referenced by speaking of
> trumping. There are rules to playing bridge, and some suites trump
> others, period. You brought in the analogy, Sandra just followed it
> through. You can't go changing the analogy and then call her absurd.

I think the "compromised rules...ch***ing" is "cheating," though I
have no idea what that part has to do with the discussion of meeting
children's needs.

Maybe it's just too late at night for me to get it...

Robin B.



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