Naomi Aldort on TV & junk food
[email protected]
A few months ago, I asked Naomi Aldort some questions about TV & junk food, after joining a couple of radical unschooling groups. Totally new to the concept of unschooling and to parenting in general, I was very confused with the opposite messages I was getting from Radical Unschoolers and from unschooling advocates like Naomi and Gatto.
Naomi answered at:
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/1004/ask_naomi_aldort_freedom.htm
I'm hoping it's OK to post this link here for the ideas to be discussed.
Best,
Clara
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Naomi answered at:
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/1004/ask_naomi_aldort_freedom.htm
I'm hoping it's OK to post this link here for the ideas to be discussed.
Best,
Clara
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marla
Hey Clara,
Great question. I've thought about this alot, too. I once went to a lecture by Alfie Kohn (author of "Unconditional Parenting") and asked him about his feelings on homeschooling/ unschooling. At that time he felt that the best education was one that included a leader, who introduced a topic and ways to explore it, and a group of peers to work with each other on it. I've also spoken to Naomi on occasion and read many of her articles and her book and don't always feel completely comfortable with her point of view. I think I sometimes feel guilty of being a bad parent after reading her articles. Not always, but on occasion. I still think she has some cool stuff to say, though. I think that it is important to explore what you feel and believe is important and true to you and your family and leave the rest.
I hope that helps!
Marla
Great question. I've thought about this alot, too. I once went to a lecture by Alfie Kohn (author of "Unconditional Parenting") and asked him about his feelings on homeschooling/ unschooling. At that time he felt that the best education was one that included a leader, who introduced a topic and ways to explore it, and a group of peers to work with each other on it. I've also spoken to Naomi on occasion and read many of her articles and her book and don't always feel completely comfortable with her point of view. I think I sometimes feel guilty of being a bad parent after reading her articles. Not always, but on occasion. I still think she has some cool stuff to say, though. I think that it is important to explore what you feel and believe is important and true to you and your family and leave the rest.
I hope that helps!
Marla
Joyce Fetteroll
Apr 11, 2010 03:46:16 PM, [email protected] wrote:
******A few months ago, I asked Naomi Aldort some questions about TV & junk food, after joining a couple of radical unschooling groups. Totally new to the concept of unschooling and to parenting in general, I was very confused with the opposite messages I was getting from Radical Unschoolers and from unschooling advocates like Naomi and Gatto.
Naomi answered at:
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/1004/ask_naomi_aldort_freedom.htm
*******
***** Naomi:The fact that learning is constant and unknown to us is an argument against media and junk food, rather than for it; it is the reason we want to protect what the child is exposed to until his unique direction emerges from within and he is strong enough to stay rooted in himself. *****
Her whole argument is based on the assumption that "media" and sugar are dangerous and addictive substances that are more powerful than children. She is saying children can't protect themselves from the (supposed) bad effects until they're older and more knowledgeable. One reason they can't protect themselves, she says, is the damage doesn't show up immediately.
***** However, a child who “needs” candy or a movie is not free; the experience of candy or TV has created the illusion of a need. That which chooses is manipulated by the choice. The industry does a great job of manufacturing a sense of need. *****
What real life children has she based these assumptions and conclusions on? Unschooled children who have been raised by connected parents who provide a rich supportive environment?
If what she was saying was true, always unschooled children should show far more profound effects of this damage than any other group of children. Have you been to an unschooling conference to see the effects on long time unschooling kids? Have you talked to long time unschoolers about what they've actually experienced?
***** In the formative years, passive external stimulations hinder a child’s freedom to be herself because they become part of what shapes her choices. For example, choosing sugar is shaped by the addictive nature of sugar; it is not a free choice. *****
So why aren't all radically unschooled kids sugar addicts?
***** I am sure you have heard parents say, “Oh, come on, just be more loose and let her enjoy the cookies…it won’t kill her,” or, “Some TV is good for him.” Even unschooling parents tend to fall innocently into this habitual school-acquired trend of telling others to bend and fit into a common trend. *****
Have you read any advice here that is merely opinion, that lacks analysis of real life data like the above?
If you think this list is nothing more than a bunch of opinions based on what works for each of us, that there's no digging into the ideas, no observation of what really happens in families and why, no constant examination and questioning then you should be getting advice elsewhere.
***** In addition, children are capable of making wise choices when they can witness the results of their actions right away. But they have adult parents to guide and protect them from anything that has a long term harmful impact that they cannot foresee. *****
One of the sticking places in understanding unschooling is expecting kids on their own to make the same decisions the parent would. If mom expects even a long time unschooling child to stop at one piece of candy or watch only the shows she thinks are quality or always prefer organic foods to their conventional counterparts she's setting herself up for disappointment and her child up for failure.
Unschooling isn't trusting the child to make mom's "right" decisions but for kids' understanding of what's important to them to grow as they make choices and experience life. They will like things parents don't because their personalities and tastes are different, because their bodies are different, because the negative aspects are worth putting up with (for now) for the positive aspects.
For instance children tend to like sweet cereal when adults don't not because they haven't been taught what is best for their bodies (or because sugar is addictive). It's because they need lots of calories to grow. And they have small stomachs -- and lots of more interesting things to do -- so they need and prefer lots of calories in small packages often. To an adult a child's choices look poor but the kids are listening to their bodies.
That shouldn't be interpreted as "Keep the candy bowl full and step back." It's a recognition of a biochemical reality. If you ask, people will have lots of ideas of what their kids liked when going through the fast growth stage. There are a lot of ideas on Sandra's monkey platter page.
http://sandradodd.com/monkeyplatters
***** Clara: As a child, I was not allowed to have a Barbie doll and we didn’t have a TV, for which I’m forever grateful to my parents, even though it made me feel different from my peers at the time. *****
Why? What negative effect do you fear Barbies and TV would have had on you? What real life data do you base your fear on? Are they radically unschooled? Or conventionally parented schooled kids?
Do you know of or read first hand accounts of long time unschooled kids who've ended up with the effects you fear?
***** Why worship being like everyone else? *****
Are people worshiping being like everyone else? Her language is emotionally manipulative.
Humans are social creatures. We want connections with each other. Finding others who share interests and experiences is part of connecting.
Schooled kids want connections too but there's an unhealthy aspect to their need for connection. Part of it is they've been pulled from their family support to fend for themselves when they're not developmentally ready. They spend their childhood years seeking a substitute and for many kids it means taking on the likes and dislikes of a peer group so they'll be accepted.
But exploring what other people find interesting is part of the process of connecting to others. When we first moved into our house my daughter and the girl across the street, Stephanie, made some attempts at friendship. Kathryn loved pretending with animals and Stephanie loved dolls. For a while Kathryn enjoyed playing dolls with Stephanie and said she liked how Stephanie played with them. (She obviously brought a passion about dolls to their play.) But the friendship fizzled and my daughter went back to her animals and ignored the few dolls she had. It wasn't a peer pressure thing or a way to be like everyone else. It was an avenue to connect with someone else. But what the avenue connected to wasn't drawing enough for Kathryn to keep up an interest without Stephanie.
***** Much TV and junk toys and foods can be the cause of the child’s loss of freedom. *****
Again, what's the foundation of this statement? What radically unschooled kids is she basing it on?
My daughter isn't addicted to either TV or sugar even though she's had free access to both for 18 years. She doesn't over power a desire to watch TV or eat sugar with knowledge. She chooses what she prefers to do and eat based on personal preferences. Neither TV nor sugar are prominent in her life by her own choice.
***** I kept our home stocked with only healthy food and natural tools of art, play, and learning, and I stirred our family social connections with awareness. As a result, my children were free to do as they wished and didn’t experience restrictions. *****
That statement doesn't make logical sense.
Is she saying that if she'd had TV and conventional foods that her kids would have felt restrictions? Or that she would have restricted them?
I'm guessing, based on the above, she's saying the addictive nature of TV and sugar would have imposed restrictions. But she's just guessing based on her own fears.
It's funny that once someone removes the addiction-colored glasses the behavior they saw as addiction becomes engagement and interest.
***** Oliver, our youngest, has recently reflected on his childhood, saying those were the most happy years he can ever imagine. He said he recalls getting up each morning and feeling overjoyed with anticipation for the day. *****
Is she implying kids who have TV and sugar in their lives can't say the same? Based on what personal experience?
***** Clara: Many unschoolers’ view is that banning something tells the child he isn’t as powerful as the thing, so someone must keep it away from him. *****
You left off the rest of discussion. That's the problem with learning through "sound bites." The full picture gets lost.
It's no secret to kids that the world is bigger and more powerful than they are. Naomi implies that unschoolers suggest lying to the child to tell them they're more powerful when they aren't. Please show where someone has said that.
What unschoolers have said is to work with the child to tackle the problem and find ways to deal with it. In the process of figuring out how to overcome the obstacles in safe and respectful ways, the child will gain a better understanding of the problem and they'll also be reassessing whether they really want to tackle it or not.
An example is older kids going to parties where there might be drinking. There are more choices than blithely letting the child go ignoring all the problems that might happen and telling the child no and explaining all the things that could go wrong that the child might not be able to handle. Better is to empower the child. Strategies like letting them know they can always have a ride home no matter what, no questions asked, providing a cell phone, building up a habit of calling home to let the parents know if they're going somewhere else and so on.
That doesn't apply to TV and sugar, though. Radically unschooled kids aren't being overpowered by either.
***** The child does have the power to face her own weaknesses and to stay away from things – initially with your guidance and, later, on her own. *****
That's the strategy conventional parents use which often results in rebellious teens.
Is that the attitude you would like your husband to have towards you? How would it make you feel if he did? Yes, you're an adult and have a different relationship but imagine how you'd feel. Children are just as human and prefer people who want to help them approach an obstacle rather than explain why they can't. Kids are already aware that they have less power than adults. They've lived with that their whole life.
What if you replace the child in the above scenario with a handicapped person? Handicapped people are already to well aware of the obstacles they face. They want to find ways around the obstacles to get what they want.
***** We can avoid controlling by not exposing in the first place and by providing clear and kind leadership. Children yearn for parental guidance and are powerful enough to not always get their way. *****
Just picture a man giving that advice to another man about how his relationship with his new wife should be.
If you thought that attitude would damage your relationship with a friend or partner, why do you think it would not damage a relationship with a child?
***** Clara: I’ve heard from unschoolers that kids who aren’t limited treat TV a lot like they treat books: as a resource. Is that really true? *****
Whoa. Why are you asking her if what we're saying is true? Do you think we're lying???
***** As a teenager, one of my sons wanted to play video games. He provided for me pro and con articles, which we both read and discussed for a couple of weeks. We concluded that it was fine for him. He was into these games very part-time for about two years. *****
What if you wanted to try something new like clog dancing and you had to provide pro and con articles and discuss it with your husband for a couple of weeks? Would it be wonderful if all that he agreed it would be fine for you?
***** In their late teens, two of our sons tried junk food for a while and came to value healthy eating and lifestyle even more. The youngest is not interested in junk food even when away from home. *****
And?? My daughter has had the freedom to eat convenience foods her whole life and prefers to eat the way my husband I eat.
If control worked, every parent would be a genius at parenting. It takes no great skill to limit a child's world to what they parent believes is best. What's hard is maintaining the relationship. Some kids are compliant. Some kids may naturally have similar tastes to the parents. Some parents are so great at building the relationship in other ways that the parts that are closed off to them aren't as big a deal as they are to kids who feel disconnected from their parents. Not sure why it worked for her, but for millions of parents control fails spectacularly.
***** After a childhood of organic, healthy food, they internalized a sense of self-care that was not shakable by peers and the industry. *****
If a parent provides organic healthy food with love while allowing the child to freely explore, it's far more likely the child will embrace organic healthy food than if they've never had a choice (or a "choice" controlled through persuasion.)
It's natural to want even more what someone is blocking you from having. You can even get people to want something they weren't interested in by telling them they can't have it ;-)
***** TV has never become an attraction in their teen and adult lives. *****
And? My daughter watches a lot of videos of 80's rock groups because that's her passion but she doesn't watch much regular TV. Not because she doesn't like it! But because she has so many other things she's choosing to do first.
The "never become an attraction" attitude bothers me. I think it suggests TV has no redeeming value and the only reason someone would watch it was because of "attraction", like being manipulated or mesmerized.
What if someone kept books from their child and once grown said "Books have never become an attraction in their teen and adult lives." Doesn't something sound off about it?
***** You will protect him from alcohol, coffee, sugar, gambling, guns, violence, commercial seductions, streets, drugs, ocean waves, crime, certain areas of the city, etc. *****
My daughter has had access to a lot of that and yet she hasn't embraced any of them at 18. She even works at Starbucks and hasn't developed a daily coffee habit even though she gets free drinks all day long. Even though we both drink lattes she usually chooses non-caffeinated drinks while she works.
I didn't need to protect her. I gave her information over the years not to make her make the right choices but for her to use when she made choices. She's had sips of alcohol and prefers non-alcohol. (I had the same as a kid and also prefer non-alcohol.) Maybe it's genetics but others have said the same.
***** You will also insist on him wearing a seat-belt in a car, a helmet on a bike, and other restrictions for his protection, or to accommodate laws or the needs of others. Your own life isn’t without things being off limits either and you are fine. Your son can handle reality and is counting on your management. *****
Her "reality" is that TV and sugar and non-organic foods and video games are dangerous like riding without a seatbelt. But if so the evidence should be glaringly obvious in radically unschooled kids but it isn't.
***** When happy with what is, a child does not search for what isn’t. *****
I'm not sure that's great! Is the goal to create kids who are happy with what the parent has exposed them to? Honestly that sounds like a science fiction scenario to create the perfect society so people are content with what the government gives them.
***** Happiness and self-reliance have nothing to do with the child getting whatever she wants and everything to do with freedom from commercial manipulation. *****
Again, where's her data to back up her statement? How does she explain radically unschooled kids who are happy and self-reliant when they've had free access to commercial TV and a partner who helps them find ways that are safe and respectful to do what they want?
***** Clara: I’d be very interested in the language you use when explaining your family’s choice to eat a certain way or to not watch TV at home.
Naomi: I often said nothing and life simply went on. If asked, my language was simple, “This is how we do it based on my knowledge.” Or I engaged in a conversation that responded to a particular inquiry as much as the child wanted. There is no need to protect your child from his family or apologize for being you. It is a burden for a child to get explanations for everything. He need not be the CEO of the family. Give him a break. Let him be a child and play freely in an environment you provide with his aspirations in mind. *****
I can pretty much guarantee that wouldn't work in most families! It could be her kids were very accepting and liked the security of someone making the decisions. As a child I found comfort in knowing there was a "right" way for life to be so I didn't push the envelope. I don't know if my parents realized they just got lucky with my personality or if they thought their "success" with me was because of what they did. So her attitude would probably have worked with me. It wouldn't have with my daughter though! And I know lots of kids question *everything* and wouldn't accept "This is how we do it."
There is no magic formula in what she says. She either doesn't know what else she was doing that made this "work" for her or her kids were content to go along with life as it was.
Joyce
******A few months ago, I asked Naomi Aldort some questions about TV & junk food, after joining a couple of radical unschooling groups. Totally new to the concept of unschooling and to parenting in general, I was very confused with the opposite messages I was getting from Radical Unschoolers and from unschooling advocates like Naomi and Gatto.
Naomi answered at:
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/1004/ask_naomi_aldort_freedom.htm
*******
***** Naomi:The fact that learning is constant and unknown to us is an argument against media and junk food, rather than for it; it is the reason we want to protect what the child is exposed to until his unique direction emerges from within and he is strong enough to stay rooted in himself. *****
Her whole argument is based on the assumption that "media" and sugar are dangerous and addictive substances that are more powerful than children. She is saying children can't protect themselves from the (supposed) bad effects until they're older and more knowledgeable. One reason they can't protect themselves, she says, is the damage doesn't show up immediately.
***** However, a child who “needs” candy or a movie is not free; the experience of candy or TV has created the illusion of a need. That which chooses is manipulated by the choice. The industry does a great job of manufacturing a sense of need. *****
What real life children has she based these assumptions and conclusions on? Unschooled children who have been raised by connected parents who provide a rich supportive environment?
If what she was saying was true, always unschooled children should show far more profound effects of this damage than any other group of children. Have you been to an unschooling conference to see the effects on long time unschooling kids? Have you talked to long time unschoolers about what they've actually experienced?
***** In the formative years, passive external stimulations hinder a child’s freedom to be herself because they become part of what shapes her choices. For example, choosing sugar is shaped by the addictive nature of sugar; it is not a free choice. *****
So why aren't all radically unschooled kids sugar addicts?
***** I am sure you have heard parents say, “Oh, come on, just be more loose and let her enjoy the cookies…it won’t kill her,” or, “Some TV is good for him.” Even unschooling parents tend to fall innocently into this habitual school-acquired trend of telling others to bend and fit into a common trend. *****
Have you read any advice here that is merely opinion, that lacks analysis of real life data like the above?
If you think this list is nothing more than a bunch of opinions based on what works for each of us, that there's no digging into the ideas, no observation of what really happens in families and why, no constant examination and questioning then you should be getting advice elsewhere.
***** In addition, children are capable of making wise choices when they can witness the results of their actions right away. But they have adult parents to guide and protect them from anything that has a long term harmful impact that they cannot foresee. *****
One of the sticking places in understanding unschooling is expecting kids on their own to make the same decisions the parent would. If mom expects even a long time unschooling child to stop at one piece of candy or watch only the shows she thinks are quality or always prefer organic foods to their conventional counterparts she's setting herself up for disappointment and her child up for failure.
Unschooling isn't trusting the child to make mom's "right" decisions but for kids' understanding of what's important to them to grow as they make choices and experience life. They will like things parents don't because their personalities and tastes are different, because their bodies are different, because the negative aspects are worth putting up with (for now) for the positive aspects.
For instance children tend to like sweet cereal when adults don't not because they haven't been taught what is best for their bodies (or because sugar is addictive). It's because they need lots of calories to grow. And they have small stomachs -- and lots of more interesting things to do -- so they need and prefer lots of calories in small packages often. To an adult a child's choices look poor but the kids are listening to their bodies.
That shouldn't be interpreted as "Keep the candy bowl full and step back." It's a recognition of a biochemical reality. If you ask, people will have lots of ideas of what their kids liked when going through the fast growth stage. There are a lot of ideas on Sandra's monkey platter page.
http://sandradodd.com/monkeyplatters
***** Clara: As a child, I was not allowed to have a Barbie doll and we didn’t have a TV, for which I’m forever grateful to my parents, even though it made me feel different from my peers at the time. *****
Why? What negative effect do you fear Barbies and TV would have had on you? What real life data do you base your fear on? Are they radically unschooled? Or conventionally parented schooled kids?
Do you know of or read first hand accounts of long time unschooled kids who've ended up with the effects you fear?
***** Why worship being like everyone else? *****
Are people worshiping being like everyone else? Her language is emotionally manipulative.
Humans are social creatures. We want connections with each other. Finding others who share interests and experiences is part of connecting.
Schooled kids want connections too but there's an unhealthy aspect to their need for connection. Part of it is they've been pulled from their family support to fend for themselves when they're not developmentally ready. They spend their childhood years seeking a substitute and for many kids it means taking on the likes and dislikes of a peer group so they'll be accepted.
But exploring what other people find interesting is part of the process of connecting to others. When we first moved into our house my daughter and the girl across the street, Stephanie, made some attempts at friendship. Kathryn loved pretending with animals and Stephanie loved dolls. For a while Kathryn enjoyed playing dolls with Stephanie and said she liked how Stephanie played with them. (She obviously brought a passion about dolls to their play.) But the friendship fizzled and my daughter went back to her animals and ignored the few dolls she had. It wasn't a peer pressure thing or a way to be like everyone else. It was an avenue to connect with someone else. But what the avenue connected to wasn't drawing enough for Kathryn to keep up an interest without Stephanie.
***** Much TV and junk toys and foods can be the cause of the child’s loss of freedom. *****
Again, what's the foundation of this statement? What radically unschooled kids is she basing it on?
My daughter isn't addicted to either TV or sugar even though she's had free access to both for 18 years. She doesn't over power a desire to watch TV or eat sugar with knowledge. She chooses what she prefers to do and eat based on personal preferences. Neither TV nor sugar are prominent in her life by her own choice.
***** I kept our home stocked with only healthy food and natural tools of art, play, and learning, and I stirred our family social connections with awareness. As a result, my children were free to do as they wished and didn’t experience restrictions. *****
That statement doesn't make logical sense.
Is she saying that if she'd had TV and conventional foods that her kids would have felt restrictions? Or that she would have restricted them?
I'm guessing, based on the above, she's saying the addictive nature of TV and sugar would have imposed restrictions. But she's just guessing based on her own fears.
It's funny that once someone removes the addiction-colored glasses the behavior they saw as addiction becomes engagement and interest.
***** Oliver, our youngest, has recently reflected on his childhood, saying those were the most happy years he can ever imagine. He said he recalls getting up each morning and feeling overjoyed with anticipation for the day. *****
Is she implying kids who have TV and sugar in their lives can't say the same? Based on what personal experience?
***** Clara: Many unschoolers’ view is that banning something tells the child he isn’t as powerful as the thing, so someone must keep it away from him. *****
You left off the rest of discussion. That's the problem with learning through "sound bites." The full picture gets lost.
It's no secret to kids that the world is bigger and more powerful than they are. Naomi implies that unschoolers suggest lying to the child to tell them they're more powerful when they aren't. Please show where someone has said that.
What unschoolers have said is to work with the child to tackle the problem and find ways to deal with it. In the process of figuring out how to overcome the obstacles in safe and respectful ways, the child will gain a better understanding of the problem and they'll also be reassessing whether they really want to tackle it or not.
An example is older kids going to parties where there might be drinking. There are more choices than blithely letting the child go ignoring all the problems that might happen and telling the child no and explaining all the things that could go wrong that the child might not be able to handle. Better is to empower the child. Strategies like letting them know they can always have a ride home no matter what, no questions asked, providing a cell phone, building up a habit of calling home to let the parents know if they're going somewhere else and so on.
That doesn't apply to TV and sugar, though. Radically unschooled kids aren't being overpowered by either.
***** The child does have the power to face her own weaknesses and to stay away from things – initially with your guidance and, later, on her own. *****
That's the strategy conventional parents use which often results in rebellious teens.
Is that the attitude you would like your husband to have towards you? How would it make you feel if he did? Yes, you're an adult and have a different relationship but imagine how you'd feel. Children are just as human and prefer people who want to help them approach an obstacle rather than explain why they can't. Kids are already aware that they have less power than adults. They've lived with that their whole life.
What if you replace the child in the above scenario with a handicapped person? Handicapped people are already to well aware of the obstacles they face. They want to find ways around the obstacles to get what they want.
***** We can avoid controlling by not exposing in the first place and by providing clear and kind leadership. Children yearn for parental guidance and are powerful enough to not always get their way. *****
Just picture a man giving that advice to another man about how his relationship with his new wife should be.
If you thought that attitude would damage your relationship with a friend or partner, why do you think it would not damage a relationship with a child?
***** Clara: I’ve heard from unschoolers that kids who aren’t limited treat TV a lot like they treat books: as a resource. Is that really true? *****
Whoa. Why are you asking her if what we're saying is true? Do you think we're lying???
***** As a teenager, one of my sons wanted to play video games. He provided for me pro and con articles, which we both read and discussed for a couple of weeks. We concluded that it was fine for him. He was into these games very part-time for about two years. *****
What if you wanted to try something new like clog dancing and you had to provide pro and con articles and discuss it with your husband for a couple of weeks? Would it be wonderful if all that he agreed it would be fine for you?
***** In their late teens, two of our sons tried junk food for a while and came to value healthy eating and lifestyle even more. The youngest is not interested in junk food even when away from home. *****
And?? My daughter has had the freedom to eat convenience foods her whole life and prefers to eat the way my husband I eat.
If control worked, every parent would be a genius at parenting. It takes no great skill to limit a child's world to what they parent believes is best. What's hard is maintaining the relationship. Some kids are compliant. Some kids may naturally have similar tastes to the parents. Some parents are so great at building the relationship in other ways that the parts that are closed off to them aren't as big a deal as they are to kids who feel disconnected from their parents. Not sure why it worked for her, but for millions of parents control fails spectacularly.
***** After a childhood of organic, healthy food, they internalized a sense of self-care that was not shakable by peers and the industry. *****
If a parent provides organic healthy food with love while allowing the child to freely explore, it's far more likely the child will embrace organic healthy food than if they've never had a choice (or a "choice" controlled through persuasion.)
It's natural to want even more what someone is blocking you from having. You can even get people to want something they weren't interested in by telling them they can't have it ;-)
***** TV has never become an attraction in their teen and adult lives. *****
And? My daughter watches a lot of videos of 80's rock groups because that's her passion but she doesn't watch much regular TV. Not because she doesn't like it! But because she has so many other things she's choosing to do first.
The "never become an attraction" attitude bothers me. I think it suggests TV has no redeeming value and the only reason someone would watch it was because of "attraction", like being manipulated or mesmerized.
What if someone kept books from their child and once grown said "Books have never become an attraction in their teen and adult lives." Doesn't something sound off about it?
***** You will protect him from alcohol, coffee, sugar, gambling, guns, violence, commercial seductions, streets, drugs, ocean waves, crime, certain areas of the city, etc. *****
My daughter has had access to a lot of that and yet she hasn't embraced any of them at 18. She even works at Starbucks and hasn't developed a daily coffee habit even though she gets free drinks all day long. Even though we both drink lattes she usually chooses non-caffeinated drinks while she works.
I didn't need to protect her. I gave her information over the years not to make her make the right choices but for her to use when she made choices. She's had sips of alcohol and prefers non-alcohol. (I had the same as a kid and also prefer non-alcohol.) Maybe it's genetics but others have said the same.
***** You will also insist on him wearing a seat-belt in a car, a helmet on a bike, and other restrictions for his protection, or to accommodate laws or the needs of others. Your own life isn’t without things being off limits either and you are fine. Your son can handle reality and is counting on your management. *****
Her "reality" is that TV and sugar and non-organic foods and video games are dangerous like riding without a seatbelt. But if so the evidence should be glaringly obvious in radically unschooled kids but it isn't.
***** When happy with what is, a child does not search for what isn’t. *****
I'm not sure that's great! Is the goal to create kids who are happy with what the parent has exposed them to? Honestly that sounds like a science fiction scenario to create the perfect society so people are content with what the government gives them.
***** Happiness and self-reliance have nothing to do with the child getting whatever she wants and everything to do with freedom from commercial manipulation. *****
Again, where's her data to back up her statement? How does she explain radically unschooled kids who are happy and self-reliant when they've had free access to commercial TV and a partner who helps them find ways that are safe and respectful to do what they want?
***** Clara: I’d be very interested in the language you use when explaining your family’s choice to eat a certain way or to not watch TV at home.
Naomi: I often said nothing and life simply went on. If asked, my language was simple, “This is how we do it based on my knowledge.” Or I engaged in a conversation that responded to a particular inquiry as much as the child wanted. There is no need to protect your child from his family or apologize for being you. It is a burden for a child to get explanations for everything. He need not be the CEO of the family. Give him a break. Let him be a child and play freely in an environment you provide with his aspirations in mind. *****
I can pretty much guarantee that wouldn't work in most families! It could be her kids were very accepting and liked the security of someone making the decisions. As a child I found comfort in knowing there was a "right" way for life to be so I didn't push the envelope. I don't know if my parents realized they just got lucky with my personality or if they thought their "success" with me was because of what they did. So her attitude would probably have worked with me. It wouldn't have with my daughter though! And I know lots of kids question *everything* and wouldn't accept "This is how we do it."
There is no magic formula in what she says. She either doesn't know what else she was doing that made this "work" for her or her kids were content to go along with life as it was.
Joyce
Sandra Dodd
-=- I once went to a lecture by Alfie Kohn (author of "Unconditional
Parenting") and asked him about his feelings on homeschooling/
unschooling. At that time he felt that the best education was one that
included a leader, who introduced a topic and ways to explore it, and
a group of peers to work with each other on it. -=-
He's not an unschooler and he's not a homeschooler nor is he a
supporter of either.
-=- I've also spoken to Naomi on occasion and read many of her
articles and her book and don't always feel completely comfortable
with her point of view. I think I sometimes feel guilty of being a bad
parent after reading her articles-=-
I have never felt the least twinge of fear that I was a bad parent
after reading articles by people who claim to understand unschooling
but who really only dismiss it.
The way the questions were asked was not very neutral, and her
responses weren't at all neutral.
There are half a dozen (probably many more) who are out there making a
fair deal of critical noise about radical unschooling and general, and
this list in more particular, but they have either never come to help
people freely, or never come to discuss unschooling with people for
any length of time, or they came to this list or some such place, lost
several arguments, went away and badmouthed the list. Or started
their own list and gave a lame version of similar information. Or
they never did unschool, never have understood it, and yet still
explain how wrong it is.
It isn't easy to understand unschooling. It's not easy to do it even
when people do start to understand it. It's much easier to find
reasons to dismiss it.
As it's being offered freely, nobody loses a commission or anything if
someone comes here and doesn't become an unschooler.
I have more to say more particularly about the responses, but first I
sleep!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Parenting") and asked him about his feelings on homeschooling/
unschooling. At that time he felt that the best education was one that
included a leader, who introduced a topic and ways to explore it, and
a group of peers to work with each other on it. -=-
He's not an unschooler and he's not a homeschooler nor is he a
supporter of either.
-=- I've also spoken to Naomi on occasion and read many of her
articles and her book and don't always feel completely comfortable
with her point of view. I think I sometimes feel guilty of being a bad
parent after reading her articles-=-
I have never felt the least twinge of fear that I was a bad parent
after reading articles by people who claim to understand unschooling
but who really only dismiss it.
The way the questions were asked was not very neutral, and her
responses weren't at all neutral.
There are half a dozen (probably many more) who are out there making a
fair deal of critical noise about radical unschooling and general, and
this list in more particular, but they have either never come to help
people freely, or never come to discuss unschooling with people for
any length of time, or they came to this list or some such place, lost
several arguments, went away and badmouthed the list. Or started
their own list and gave a lame version of similar information. Or
they never did unschool, never have understood it, and yet still
explain how wrong it is.
It isn't easy to understand unschooling. It's not easy to do it even
when people do start to understand it. It's much easier to find
reasons to dismiss it.
As it's being offered freely, nobody loses a commission or anything if
someone comes here and doesn't become an unschooler.
I have more to say more particularly about the responses, but first I
sleep!
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
I appreciate Joyce taking the time to respond so thoroughly to this.
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Joyce Fetteroll wrote:
> ***** In the formative years, passive external stimulations hinder a child’s freedom to be herself because they become part of what shapes her choices. For example, choosing sugar is shaped by the addictive nature of sugar; it is not a free choice. *****
>
> So why aren't all radically unschooled kids sugar addicts?
I find my own kids' relationships to sugar snacks so interesting. They like them unabashedly and sometimes eat quite a bit, but on the other hand, nobody complains if we don't have candy in the house sometimes for a few weeks at a time--if someone says, "I wish we had some chocolate," we will either look for a chance to get some, or bake something, or put it on the list for the next regular trip to the grocery store, depending on how urgent it feels.
On the one hand, my kids sometimes eat so much candy at one time that if candy-restricting parents saw it, they'd be appalled, be sure my kids were addicted, and feel vindicated. On the other hand, two summers ago I threw my sons a joint birthday party that included an elaborate ice-cream sundae bar with several kinds of ice cream and every cool topping I could think of. When I invited the kids to come have sundaes, the other kids all ran over immediately to start making theirs. Both of my kids were too busy with an activity we'd been doing to stop and eat. They never did have sundaes during the party. They were glad their friends enjoyed them but sugar didn't exert such a strong pull on them that they'd drop everything to have some.
(I was not like that as a child. I was a sugar hound. At a birthday party, I'd be thinking the whole time, "when do we get cake...when do we get cake...how long until the cake." One reason I chose not to restrict my kids' eating was that I did not want to feed that kind of obsession, if they were predisposed to it. I don't know, for me, how much was predisposition and how much was a response to scarcity, but I wonder if the predisposition would have manifested in that kind of out-of-control thinking and behavior without the environmental element as well.)
> ***** I am sure you have heard parents say, “Oh, come on, just be more loose and let her enjoy the cookies…it won’t kill her,” or, “Some TV is good for him.” Even unschooling parents tend to fall innocently into this habitual school-acquired trend of telling others to bend and fit into a common trend. *****
>
> Have you read any advice here that is merely opinion, that lacks analysis of real life data like the above?
What struck me about it was the idea that letting kids watch TV or eat cookies is a mindless ("innocent") decision rather than one that has been carefully thought out. I hear this a lot among local homeschoolers who restrict sugar--that we moms who don't just "don't know" how bad it is, rather than that, say, we've read all the same articles they have without being convinced. Or that we're more convinced by the arguments in something like the book "Preventing Childhood Eating Problems," which advocates an environment of abundance and non-restriction.
Also, I don't get how people can argue that there is no TV that is good for kids. Planet Earth? That's bad for kids? The Life of Birds?
> ***** Oliver, our youngest, has recently reflected on his childhood, saying those were the most happy years he can ever imagine. He said he recalls getting up each morning and feeling overjoyed with anticipation for the day. *****
>
> Is she implying kids who have TV and sugar in their lives can't say the same? Based on what personal experience?
My son Eric wakes up excited to get to whatever it is he wants to do. Sometimes that's running right to a video game--pretty often, actually. But sometimes it's continuing a Playmobil game with his brother or getting back to a Lego project he didn't finish the day before, or heading into his little sister's room to snuggle and watch SpongeBob with her. Sometimes he plays video games practically all day, and sometimes (less often) he doesn't play video games at all, and most days he does a whole big mix of things. One thing all his days have in common is that at the end of them, he likes to come cuddle with me in the recliner, and almost no matter what shape his day took, he says, "I had a really good day today."
I believe that kids who are being parented differently can also have this experience. But those parents should do me the favor of considering the possibility that yes, kids who have TV and sugar in their lives can also be tremendously happy.
> If control worked, every parent would be a genius at parenting. It takes no great skill to limit a child's world to what they parent believes is best. What's hard is maintaining the relationship. Some kids are compliant. Some kids may naturally have similar tastes to the parents. Some parents are so great at building the relationship in other ways that the parts that are closed off to them aren't as big a deal as they are to kids who feel disconnected from their parents.
I know a couple of families locally who are homeschoolers but not unschoolers, where the moms are very much among my role models for respectful, loving, engaged parenting. They both do more structured homeschooling than we do, but they're also both families where the kids and the mom make decisions together about what to work on, and they're willing to switch gears if something doesn't work. The family invests a lot of resources in supporting the kids in their interests and explorations. I think that I could take that kind of approach with my son Carl, and it would be fine. It would not be fine with Eric (in fact, what I thought was a very gentle experiment in oh-so-slightly structured work on some reading and math concepts this past fall only reinforced how very much Eric needs not to feel like he's being pushed--lesson learned. Again. *sigh*).
> Not sure why it worked for her, but for millions of parents control fails spectacularly.
We have a housemate, a young man who lives with us and does yardwork and childcare in exchange for his room (the boys love him--he knows all about video games, anime, manga, and he's a genius with the Legos). He grew up with a mom who allowed no sugar at all, no video games, no TV. He was allowed to have Playmobil toys but his mother took all the weapons away first, stuff like that. He has grown up to be a perfectly normal young man but he still carries a lot of pain from his mother's restrictions, and he once told me a story about how he would binge on sweets during weekends at his father's house. She thought she was making him strong and healthy, but it damaged their relationship. Sometimes he will say things to me like, "Why would anybody do that to a kid?"or "Sometimes I wish my family weren't my family." It still hurts when he thinks about it.
I sometimes joke that one of my parenting goals is that when my kids are grown and living on their own, and the phone rings and it's me, their immediate response isn't, "Oh, shit, it's my mother."
> ***** You will protect him from alcohol, coffee, sugar, gambling, guns, violence, commercial seductions, streets, drugs, ocean waves, crime, certain areas of the city, etc. *****
My two-year-old daughter likes to drink my coffee in the morning. It's half-decaf, with cream. She takes a big sip, sets the cup down with a bang, and declares, "Ummm, that good coffee!"
Oops. Failure to protect. I'm going to try to do better about the violence and the drugs, though. I promise.
> There is no magic formula in what she says. She either doesn't know what else she was doing that made this "work" for her or her kids were content to go along with life as it was.
As an unschooling parent, I do try to remind myself that what works for my kids may not work for others--or, as I said above, that what would be a disaster for Eric might be just fine with someone else's kids. It's easy to fall into the fallacy of generalizing to all kids from your own sample of one or two or three kids. (Though I was attracted to unschooling because I hoped that what unschooling parents were describing their family lives being like would be generalizable to mine!)
There's a lot of fear in the kind of parenting that thinks even a tiny taste of TV or sugar will overwhelm children and damage them forever. I don't stick my head in the sand about problems in the world, but I don't want my kids to live in a culture of fear.
Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
clara_bellar
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
> ***** Clara: Iâve heard from unschoolers that kids who arenât limited treat TV a lot like they treat books: as a resource. Is that really true? *****No! She chopped the question into bits to answer each part separately (she doesn't usually do that in that website) and she edited it. It was very long. She understandably cut some of my questions (which is maybe why you tell me at one point that I left something out) and less understandably here added "Is that really true?". I would never have put it this way, maybe she thought that after separating this bit from the rest and taking it out of context it was necessary to add something and to make it a question. I have so much respect and gratitude for this group and have acquired so much more clarity in the past few months since I asked these questions. But even then I would never have asked "is that really true?". I believed that it was true in the families who described it and was curious to read her perspective.
>
> Whoa. Why are you asking her if what we're saying is true? Do you think we're lying???
> Why? What negative effect do you fear Barbies and TV would have had on you? What real life data do you base your fear on? Are they radically unschooled? Or conventionally parented schooled kids?I know understand that the effects Barbies & TV had on my cousins would not happen in a radically unschooling family. My cousins were schooled, conventionally parented, and maybe even unparented. A negative effect, for instance, was that a cousin was obsessed with body image at a very young age and wanted to look like her Barbie. I found it very sad when I later found out that a human girl with a Barbie's proportions would be a monster. (the length of the legs is not realistic, etc.)
Susanne
Hi all,
I read Clara's mail and Naomi's response last night, and couldn't stop thinking about it. I think, by reading the questions you asked, it might be helpful to understand what limitation does. It creates an artificial state of mind, where there is no freedom to make a real, personal choice. I will illustrate this statement with my own youth, because it is very fitting I think.
I grew up without television for the first 11 years, and ended up sneaking to the neighbors to watch very nice, positive children's tv shows. When we did get a tv, we were limited to 1 hour per day. It created a huge amount of stress, sneakiness and arguments between me and my parents. My sisters didn't fight their decisions as much, they just sneakily watched tv when they could. The same goes for sugar.
Because of the lack of trust I experienced at my parents home, I left it early, and at 17 I moved to Amsterdam and got lost on every single subject my parents hadn't trust me with to make my own decisions. Alcohol, cigarettes, school, sex, clubbing, piercing, television: I had no control over these things, no personal view of what was right for me or what was wrong for me. I knew their thoughts, and I knew I didn't agree with the limits they set, so I just lost it.
I was very much in control over the things they had always left me free to do, and had never set any limits for. I had my own money at a very young age, bought my own clothing, cooked, did grocery shoppings, traveled the country and later the world very young and without their supervision, biked everywhere by myself.... those things have always been mine, I never wondered off my own path, have always been able to make my own decisions, and it kept me safe and made me strong.
(it fits right in with one of the last paragraphs of Joyce's response:
As a child I found comfort in knowing there was a "right" way for life to be so
I didn't push the envelope. I don't know if my parents realized they just got
lucky with my personality or if they thought their "success" with me was because
of what they did. So her attitude would probably have worked with me. It
wouldn't have with my daughter though! And I know lots of kids question
*everything* and wouldn't accept "This is how we do it."< )
What would happen if you would trust your own children? Good things, bad things? What would have happened if your parents would have trusted you to make your own decisions as a child- would you have lost it, really? Are there any unschooling kids that have lost it?
Bye, Susanne (The Netherlands)
I read Clara's mail and Naomi's response last night, and couldn't stop thinking about it. I think, by reading the questions you asked, it might be helpful to understand what limitation does. It creates an artificial state of mind, where there is no freedom to make a real, personal choice. I will illustrate this statement with my own youth, because it is very fitting I think.
I grew up without television for the first 11 years, and ended up sneaking to the neighbors to watch very nice, positive children's tv shows. When we did get a tv, we were limited to 1 hour per day. It created a huge amount of stress, sneakiness and arguments between me and my parents. My sisters didn't fight their decisions as much, they just sneakily watched tv when they could. The same goes for sugar.
Because of the lack of trust I experienced at my parents home, I left it early, and at 17 I moved to Amsterdam and got lost on every single subject my parents hadn't trust me with to make my own decisions. Alcohol, cigarettes, school, sex, clubbing, piercing, television: I had no control over these things, no personal view of what was right for me or what was wrong for me. I knew their thoughts, and I knew I didn't agree with the limits they set, so I just lost it.
I was very much in control over the things they had always left me free to do, and had never set any limits for. I had my own money at a very young age, bought my own clothing, cooked, did grocery shoppings, traveled the country and later the world very young and without their supervision, biked everywhere by myself.... those things have always been mine, I never wondered off my own path, have always been able to make my own decisions, and it kept me safe and made me strong.
(it fits right in with one of the last paragraphs of Joyce's response:
>I can pretty much guarantee that wouldn't work in most families! It could be herkids were very accepting and liked the security of someone making the decisions.
As a child I found comfort in knowing there was a "right" way for life to be so
I didn't push the envelope. I don't know if my parents realized they just got
lucky with my personality or if they thought their "success" with me was because
of what they did. So her attitude would probably have worked with me. It
wouldn't have with my daughter though! And I know lots of kids question
*everything* and wouldn't accept "This is how we do it."< )
What would happen if you would trust your own children? Good things, bad things? What would have happened if your parents would have trusted you to make your own decisions as a child- would you have lost it, really? Are there any unschooling kids that have lost it?
Bye, Susanne (The Netherlands)
Schuyler
Naomi: A child may try something in hiding no matter how open and free her
home is. This is a natural part of growing up and becoming independent.
However, if the child is happy with her life and trusting you, and if
she knows that
conflicting views can be discussed, she has no reason to hide her
actions. As a
teenager, one of my sons wanted to play video games. He provided for me
pro and
con articles, which we both read and discussed for a couple of weeks. We concluded that it was fine for him. He was into these games very
part-time for
about two years.
<and then>
Clara: I’d be very interested in the language you use when explaining your
family’s choice to eat a certain way or to not watch TV at home.
Naomi: I often said nothing and life simply went on. If asked, my language
was simple, “This is how we do it based on my knowledge.” Or I engaged
in a
conversation that responded to a particular inquiry as much as the child wanted.
There is no need to protect your child from his family or apologize for
being
you. It is a burden for a child to get explanations for everything. He
need not
be the CEO of the family. Give him a break. Let him be a child and play
freely
in an environment you provide with his aspirations in mind.
-----------
Her son demonstrated a desire to do something and had to convince her that his desire had merit. Clearly he was brushed off at first when he said he wanted to play video games. Clearly her belief that a child need not be the CEO of the family has gotten in the way of her children wanting to do what they want to do, it has stopped them from exploring the world in valuable and meaningful ways and they had to wait until they were in a position to research the articles required to demonstrate the value of the action they wanted to take. Clearly the environment that she provided didn't have his aspirations truly in mind. It is not as though I've never been uncomfortable with things that Simon or Linnaea are interested in, but their interest was the source of my understanding that there was value in the thing. I didn't need them to do research on the pros and cons of whatever it was, I just needed to deal with my own problems with whatever on my own. Usually
looking to them to see the merit in the thing was all that it took. Like watching David laugh and laugh at South Park. His enjoyment enriched my experience and my view of the show.
I find it fascinating when parents are sure that their children's embracing the limits they've placed on them is evidence that those limits were good parenting tools. My dad spanked me because his dad spanked him because his dad spanked him and so on back up and through. That doesn't mean that spanking was a good parenting tool, but it was a known parenting tool. Dad passed it on because it was something that he believed was effective at harnassing his wild nature. Not time, not maturity, but the hitting of him as a child. And I passed it on until I realised, fully realised, that hitting a child was about my anger and not about their deeds. Simon and Linnaea could have grown up to believe that spanking was done with love and that "it hurt me more than it hurt them." And they'd believe that because believing that your parent is acting out of love is so very, very important to a child. Believing that the limitations that are arbitrarily set in place by
your parents are there because they love you and they want you to have the best possible life is such a huge part of loving your parents. It doesn't make your actions as a parent loving actions. It just makes your child's vision of you a vision informed by their love and need to be loved.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
home is. This is a natural part of growing up and becoming independent.
However, if the child is happy with her life and trusting you, and if
she knows that
conflicting views can be discussed, she has no reason to hide her
actions. As a
teenager, one of my sons wanted to play video games. He provided for me
pro and
con articles, which we both read and discussed for a couple of weeks. We concluded that it was fine for him. He was into these games very
part-time for
about two years.
<and then>
Clara: I’d be very interested in the language you use when explaining your
family’s choice to eat a certain way or to not watch TV at home.
Naomi: I often said nothing and life simply went on. If asked, my language
was simple, “This is how we do it based on my knowledge.” Or I engaged
in a
conversation that responded to a particular inquiry as much as the child wanted.
There is no need to protect your child from his family or apologize for
being
you. It is a burden for a child to get explanations for everything. He
need not
be the CEO of the family. Give him a break. Let him be a child and play
freely
in an environment you provide with his aspirations in mind.
-----------
Her son demonstrated a desire to do something and had to convince her that his desire had merit. Clearly he was brushed off at first when he said he wanted to play video games. Clearly her belief that a child need not be the CEO of the family has gotten in the way of her children wanting to do what they want to do, it has stopped them from exploring the world in valuable and meaningful ways and they had to wait until they were in a position to research the articles required to demonstrate the value of the action they wanted to take. Clearly the environment that she provided didn't have his aspirations truly in mind. It is not as though I've never been uncomfortable with things that Simon or Linnaea are interested in, but their interest was the source of my understanding that there was value in the thing. I didn't need them to do research on the pros and cons of whatever it was, I just needed to deal with my own problems with whatever on my own. Usually
looking to them to see the merit in the thing was all that it took. Like watching David laugh and laugh at South Park. His enjoyment enriched my experience and my view of the show.
I find it fascinating when parents are sure that their children's embracing the limits they've placed on them is evidence that those limits were good parenting tools. My dad spanked me because his dad spanked him because his dad spanked him and so on back up and through. That doesn't mean that spanking was a good parenting tool, but it was a known parenting tool. Dad passed it on because it was something that he believed was effective at harnassing his wild nature. Not time, not maturity, but the hitting of him as a child. And I passed it on until I realised, fully realised, that hitting a child was about my anger and not about their deeds. Simon and Linnaea could have grown up to believe that spanking was done with love and that "it hurt me more than it hurt them." And they'd believe that because believing that your parent is acting out of love is so very, very important to a child. Believing that the limitations that are arbitrarily set in place by
your parents are there because they love you and they want you to have the best possible life is such a huge part of loving your parents. It doesn't make your actions as a parent loving actions. It just makes your child's vision of you a vision informed by their love and need to be loved.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
"Habitual school-acquired trend of telling others to bend and fit into a
common trned."
School people virulently anti-tv. TV is blamed for short attention
spans, violent behavior, smart-mouth disrespectful kids, obesity, lack
of imagination, excessive tiredness, lack of physical skills, late
reading, and on and on. Having had one child in school up through 4th
grade, I can say we parents were bombarded with anti-tv propaganda. Any
parent who let their kid watch tv was considered an idiot and a really
lousy parent. School parents very proudly proclaimed how they had gotten
rid of their tv's. School parents sat around and bragged about the
restrictions they had on tv in their house and how little tv little
johnny or jane was allowed to watch.
Blamng TV for anything and everything is very much a part of
school-think. Naomi has apparently swallowed it whole.
I have first-hand evidence of three thoughtful, responsibe, successful
kids who watched tv - as much or as little as they desired, for their
entire childhoods. At 19, 22, and 24, still waiting for all the dire
warnings of the effects of all that tv-watching to come true. Not.
-pam
common trned."
School people virulently anti-tv. TV is blamed for short attention
spans, violent behavior, smart-mouth disrespectful kids, obesity, lack
of imagination, excessive tiredness, lack of physical skills, late
reading, and on and on. Having had one child in school up through 4th
grade, I can say we parents were bombarded with anti-tv propaganda. Any
parent who let their kid watch tv was considered an idiot and a really
lousy parent. School parents very proudly proclaimed how they had gotten
rid of their tv's. School parents sat around and bragged about the
restrictions they had on tv in their house and how little tv little
johnny or jane was allowed to watch.
Blamng TV for anything and everything is very much a part of
school-think. Naomi has apparently swallowed it whole.
I have first-hand evidence of three thoughtful, responsibe, successful
kids who watched tv - as much or as little as they desired, for their
entire childhoods. At 19, 22, and 24, still waiting for all the dire
warnings of the effects of all that tv-watching to come true. Not.
-pam
Joyce Fetteroll
****** and less understandably here added "Is that really true?". I would never have put it this way, maybe she thought that after separating this bit from the rest and taking it out of context it was necessary to add something and to make it a question. *****
Wow. I suppose it's possible it sounded the same to her but, wow, no no no. All sorts of wrong there! Creating quotes from what reporters think someone meant is why they get a bad reputation for inaccuracy! When I immortalize the bits of posts I've responded to on my website I'm tempted to fix typos and obvious misspellings but as much as it pains me, I restrain myself. ;-) The only alteration I make is replacing extraneous rambles with ellipses. I absolutely know I need to not change what they originally wrote.
***** I know understand that the effects Barbies & TV had on my cousins would not happen in a radically unschooling family. *****
But were Barbies and TV the cause? If your cousins had the exact same environment without the Barbies and TV, do you think they would have avoided the negatives?
***** A negative effect, for instance, was that a cousin was obsessed with body image at a very young age and wanted to look like her Barbie. *****
But does school plus conventional parenting plus Barbie equal body image obsession? My sister and friend and I played Barbies without body image issues. Lots of girls do. My Barbies rescued my Beatles dolls. ;-) They're also the reason I began sewing.
What you saw with your cousin was probably a symptom of an underlying problem that Barbie brought out. Barbie wasn't the cause. Perhaps a self esteem problem? A doubt of her parents' unconditional love? A lack of support for who she was? Something was being ignored by her parents or maybe even fed by their interactions with her.
Had there been no Barbie, maybe the signs of an underlying problem would have been more subtle. Or been brought out by something different like fashion magazines.
As an aside, though may have been added to the mix for your cousin, it's interesting to read tales from liberated moms with a desire to avoid the fashion obsession who end up with daughters who are naturally drawn to pink and frills and makeup and sometimes Barbies from a young age. It's who those girls are.
Joyce
Wow. I suppose it's possible it sounded the same to her but, wow, no no no. All sorts of wrong there! Creating quotes from what reporters think someone meant is why they get a bad reputation for inaccuracy! When I immortalize the bits of posts I've responded to on my website I'm tempted to fix typos and obvious misspellings but as much as it pains me, I restrain myself. ;-) The only alteration I make is replacing extraneous rambles with ellipses. I absolutely know I need to not change what they originally wrote.
***** I know understand that the effects Barbies & TV had on my cousins would not happen in a radically unschooling family. *****
But were Barbies and TV the cause? If your cousins had the exact same environment without the Barbies and TV, do you think they would have avoided the negatives?
***** A negative effect, for instance, was that a cousin was obsessed with body image at a very young age and wanted to look like her Barbie. *****
But does school plus conventional parenting plus Barbie equal body image obsession? My sister and friend and I played Barbies without body image issues. Lots of girls do. My Barbies rescued my Beatles dolls. ;-) They're also the reason I began sewing.
What you saw with your cousin was probably a symptom of an underlying problem that Barbie brought out. Barbie wasn't the cause. Perhaps a self esteem problem? A doubt of her parents' unconditional love? A lack of support for who she was? Something was being ignored by her parents or maybe even fed by their interactions with her.
Had there been no Barbie, maybe the signs of an underlying problem would have been more subtle. Or been brought out by something different like fashion magazines.
As an aside, though may have been added to the mix for your cousin, it's interesting to read tales from liberated moms with a desire to avoid the fashion obsession who end up with daughters who are naturally drawn to pink and frills and makeup and sometimes Barbies from a young age. It's who those girls are.
Joyce
nutley1105
******* A negative effect, for instance, was that a cousin was obsessed with body image at a very young age and wanted to look like her Barbie.********
I was a serious ballet student as a child and I became obsessed with body image at a very young age because I wanted to look like one of the girls in my class who had the classic "ballerina" build.
Had anyone realized to what extent I was taking my obsession, I might have been spared the eating disorders I suffered as a teen. Or something else might have triggered them and I might have gotten them anyway.
As far as junk food goes, recently I was watching a guy on PBS (I don't recall his name). He was talking about how he believes that children are born with everything they need to survive in this world and parents need to allow them to develop those already existing skills instead of trying to replace them with what the parent "thinks" they need. And he told a story about how in his house, there was always a huge jar of M&M's on the table, and the kids could take what they wanted whenever they wanted. And the effect was that they didn't take any, because the candy was always available so it wasn't a big deal.
So that's one guy's experience. Given the same set up with a different group of kids, maybe those kids would eat them all.
I was a serious ballet student as a child and I became obsessed with body image at a very young age because I wanted to look like one of the girls in my class who had the classic "ballerina" build.
Had anyone realized to what extent I was taking my obsession, I might have been spared the eating disorders I suffered as a teen. Or something else might have triggered them and I might have gotten them anyway.
As far as junk food goes, recently I was watching a guy on PBS (I don't recall his name). He was talking about how he believes that children are born with everything they need to survive in this world and parents need to allow them to develop those already existing skills instead of trying to replace them with what the parent "thinks" they need. And he told a story about how in his house, there was always a huge jar of M&M's on the table, and the kids could take what they wanted whenever they wanted. And the effect was that they didn't take any, because the candy was always available so it wasn't a big deal.
So that's one guy's experience. Given the same set up with a different group of kids, maybe those kids would eat them all.
Marina DeLuca-Howard
<<< They never did have sundaes during the party. They were glad their
friends enjoyed them but sugar didn't exert such a strong pull on them that
they'd drop everything to have some>>>
Here is what happened at my house this morning.
Me: Can I make pancakes?
Marty: No, I'd rather have French Toast
Me: I don't have the right bread, how about waffles?
Marty: Can you get me cereal?
Me: Sure
Marty: I wanted the other one
Me: Granola?
Marty: Yes, can I get half granola/half Sugar Puffs?
Me: Okay
I assumed my ten year old wanted the cereal he picked out. I do this on
occasion:-( I figured he didn't want the cereal I picked out, because when
we run out of granola nobody reminds me. I have to remember to buy
ingredients and make more, lol. Of course if nobody asked for Cheerios,
Sugar Puffs, or Rice Crispies I probably wouldn't buy them or alternate them
in the right order. The kids choose rotate these cereals amoung
many--including cornflakes, organic cereals, and warm wholegrain/multigrain
versions sweetened only with a light drizzle of maple syrup, cream and
fruit. They seem to know which they want! The favorite changes
constantly--we go weeks with nobody requesting sugary commercial cereals.
Sometimes they have gotten stale and been thrown out.
Many parents who have seen my kids control their own sugar intake assume
they eat nothing but sugar.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
friends enjoyed them but sugar didn't exert such a strong pull on them that
they'd drop everything to have some>>>
Here is what happened at my house this morning.
Me: Can I make pancakes?
Marty: No, I'd rather have French Toast
Me: I don't have the right bread, how about waffles?
Marty: Can you get me cereal?
Me: Sure
Marty: I wanted the other one
Me: Granola?
Marty: Yes, can I get half granola/half Sugar Puffs?
Me: Okay
I assumed my ten year old wanted the cereal he picked out. I do this on
occasion:-( I figured he didn't want the cereal I picked out, because when
we run out of granola nobody reminds me. I have to remember to buy
ingredients and make more, lol. Of course if nobody asked for Cheerios,
Sugar Puffs, or Rice Crispies I probably wouldn't buy them or alternate them
in the right order. The kids choose rotate these cereals amoung
many--including cornflakes, organic cereals, and warm wholegrain/multigrain
versions sweetened only with a light drizzle of maple syrup, cream and
fruit. They seem to know which they want! The favorite changes
constantly--we go weeks with nobody requesting sugary commercial cereals.
Sometimes they have gotten stale and been thrown out.
Many parents who have seen my kids control their own sugar intake assume
they eat nothing but sugar.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marina DeLuca-Howard
<<<And they'd believe that because believing that your parent is acting out
of love is so very, very important to a child. Believing that the
limitations that are arbitrarily set in place by
your parents are there because they love you and they want you to have the
best possible life is such a huge part of loving your parents. It doesn't
make your actions as a parent loving actions. It just makes your child's
vision of you a vision informed by their love and need to be loved.>>>
The sad thing is that engaged families with love and trust as their
foundation can explore sugar, tv and gaming. It takes time and trust. Many
self-styled unschoolers, who are unparenting love Naomi Aldort and quote
her. But I find parents who restrict tv and sugar find it convenient. They
can pursue their own interests--secure their child is chomping on raw
carrots. They don't need to know what their child is doing or be fully
present, because they eliminated risk/contraversy from the environment.
As a parent though I see learning to make choices is important and a natural
part of learning. It is my job to be there, and to advise. I also know my
kids live in the real world. I am really proud of their choices, honestly.
What if the children were going eating an entire carton of ice cream twice a
day? I might need to be more available to offer more opportunities for
variety or might consider that real cream, sugar and chocolate/strawberries
could be used to make our own. They would be getting calcuim, protein and
vitamins if they were willing to eat the homemade version. I don't think
its coercion that stops a child from eating only chocolate, but the
opportunity to explore and parents willing to explore with their families
can help meet a growing child's desires in a fun way!
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
of love is so very, very important to a child. Believing that the
limitations that are arbitrarily set in place by
your parents are there because they love you and they want you to have the
best possible life is such a huge part of loving your parents. It doesn't
make your actions as a parent loving actions. It just makes your child's
vision of you a vision informed by their love and need to be loved.>>>
The sad thing is that engaged families with love and trust as their
foundation can explore sugar, tv and gaming. It takes time and trust. Many
self-styled unschoolers, who are unparenting love Naomi Aldort and quote
her. But I find parents who restrict tv and sugar find it convenient. They
can pursue their own interests--secure their child is chomping on raw
carrots. They don't need to know what their child is doing or be fully
present, because they eliminated risk/contraversy from the environment.
As a parent though I see learning to make choices is important and a natural
part of learning. It is my job to be there, and to advise. I also know my
kids live in the real world. I am really proud of their choices, honestly.
What if the children were going eating an entire carton of ice cream twice a
day? I might need to be more available to offer more opportunities for
variety or might consider that real cream, sugar and chocolate/strawberries
could be used to make our own. They would be getting calcuim, protein and
vitamins if they were willing to eat the homemade version. I don't think
its coercion that stops a child from eating only chocolate, but the
opportunity to explore and parents willing to explore with their families
can help meet a growing child's desires in a fun way!
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rebecca M.
--- In [email protected], claramont@... wrote:
You can academically unschool without bringing the rest of the "whole life" idea into your lives (and then you may want to quietly unsubscribe from unschooling lists). When we decided to unschool "for real", I had initially thought that's what we'd do - academically unschool. The radical, however, just snuck in and started to permeate the rest of our lives and I realized I'd have to carefully examine many of my biases -- and change my behaviour as a result (which I'm working on all the time).
I have Aldort's book. Other than skimming most of the book to figure out if I liked her S.A.L.V.E. technique, I didn't really get beyond her acknowledgements in terms of thinking deeply about her content. This is because she writes the most amazing thing on the 2nd page about her son, Jonathan. "Jonathan, taught me, among other things, that no matter how loving and great a mother I may be, the child makes up his own movie of his childhood and this is the only childhood he has." This is the only thanks she offers this particular son (her eldest).
I've thought a lot about that sentence since reading it. Is she saying that her child does not perceive her a loving and great mother? Is she saying she was 'great mother' anyway, despite his feelings that he did not have a happy childhood and that he doesn't remember her as a great and loving mother? Is that relationship less than trusting and loving and this is her way of justifying that? Or her way of invalidating his feelings?
Or? I have no idea but that sentence, which I remember verbatim, is the only thing that stuck with me. It troubled me a great deal.
In her book, Aldort does discuss limiting parental control of their children and the importance of trusting our children; but it seems, from her Natural Life column, that she's advocating control of the child through the environment or even directly (as per her TV and cookie comment in the first section). Perhaps she might be contradicting herself? She's not perfect and despite her claims of parental greatness and "magic", I imagine she's just as human and fallible as the rest of us.
Aldort has many lovely things to say that support respectful parenting. However, when parents are really connected with their kids in this radical unschooling way, they don't need her S.A.L.V.E. technique (who can remember all the steps anyway when you are in the middle of something?) because they already have something much much better. Trust and connection and relationship.
Rebecca
>Clara, I totally get that someone might have the urge to embrace unschooling and join up with online groups... and then have a bunch of successive "yeah, buts" when bumping up against radical, whole-life unschooling ideas that go against previously dearly held assumptions about the world. Sometimes, new ideas will never sit right and you'll need to decide that for yourself. It's really not a matter that someone's (who you've identified as an "expert") ideas negate the ideas and experiences of a group of parents who practice (live/breathe) whole-life unschooling.
> A few months ago, I asked Naomi Aldort some questions about TV & junk food, after joining a couple of radical unschooling groups. Totally new to the concept of unschooling and to parenting in general, I was very confused with the opposite messages I was getting from Radical Unschoolers and from unschooling advocates like Naomi and Gatto.
>
You can academically unschool without bringing the rest of the "whole life" idea into your lives (and then you may want to quietly unsubscribe from unschooling lists). When we decided to unschool "for real", I had initially thought that's what we'd do - academically unschool. The radical, however, just snuck in and started to permeate the rest of our lives and I realized I'd have to carefully examine many of my biases -- and change my behaviour as a result (which I'm working on all the time).
I have Aldort's book. Other than skimming most of the book to figure out if I liked her S.A.L.V.E. technique, I didn't really get beyond her acknowledgements in terms of thinking deeply about her content. This is because she writes the most amazing thing on the 2nd page about her son, Jonathan. "Jonathan, taught me, among other things, that no matter how loving and great a mother I may be, the child makes up his own movie of his childhood and this is the only childhood he has." This is the only thanks she offers this particular son (her eldest).
I've thought a lot about that sentence since reading it. Is she saying that her child does not perceive her a loving and great mother? Is she saying she was 'great mother' anyway, despite his feelings that he did not have a happy childhood and that he doesn't remember her as a great and loving mother? Is that relationship less than trusting and loving and this is her way of justifying that? Or her way of invalidating his feelings?
Or? I have no idea but that sentence, which I remember verbatim, is the only thing that stuck with me. It troubled me a great deal.
In her book, Aldort does discuss limiting parental control of their children and the importance of trusting our children; but it seems, from her Natural Life column, that she's advocating control of the child through the environment or even directly (as per her TV and cookie comment in the first section). Perhaps she might be contradicting herself? She's not perfect and despite her claims of parental greatness and "magic", I imagine she's just as human and fallible as the rest of us.
Aldort has many lovely things to say that support respectful parenting. However, when parents are really connected with their kids in this radical unschooling way, they don't need her S.A.L.V.E. technique (who can remember all the steps anyway when you are in the middle of something?) because they already have something much much better. Trust and connection and relationship.
Rebecca
Sandra Dodd
-=. Totally new to the concept
of unschooling and to parenting in general, I was very confused with the
opposite messages I was getting from Radical Unschoolers and from
unschooling
advocates like Naomi and Gatto.-=-
Perhaps that's where the problem started.
Maybe you wanted to avert your own confusion by getting Naomi Aldort
to agree with us, or for us to agree with Naomi. I'm not comfortable
with her column, which seems clearly about the ideas on this list, nor
with the responses that will generate.
Naomi Aldort is giving advice for money. And what she's selling is
AWESOME, compared to what people get from other family therapists.
And her kids are musicians, which is top of my list for good things to
be.
Yet she doesn't really understand that things we discuss on this list
because it's not what she herself advocates and she doesn't need to
know it. Her kids are already older and she has no need for different
ways.
For those just deciding how to be with their children, there are
countless advice sources, books, videos, theories, affirmations,
charts you can buy to keep track of homework and chores, probably a
million different bits you can look at and choose or reject. There's
not time to look at a million different bits (maybe you could look at
one or two thousand over a few years, and still be present for your
kids).
Some people want to unschool. We can help them.
For those who don't want to unschool, we don't do follow up "Please
come back to church" post cards or any such thing. We're here
discussing the details of what helps unschooling work well. That's all.
If people don't like what we're talking about, that's okay. If people
want to bring "experts" to dispute us, that's not as fine. If 100
professional advice givers say we're wrong, it cannot ever change the
fact that so many of us have actually and truly used these ideas and
our kids learned and are bright and happy, and that they would be
defending the basis of the personal advice they're selling. We're not
talking about what we think we might do. We're talking about the
lives of children now in their teens or young adulthood, and what
worked and why. We're admitting when we learned what and what we used
to try, all the time. It doesn't cost $145 an hour, nor even $35 an
hour. It's free.
I have other comments, but the topic is so broad and has so many
aspects that it seems better to separate the responses a bit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
of unschooling and to parenting in general, I was very confused with the
opposite messages I was getting from Radical Unschoolers and from
unschooling
advocates like Naomi and Gatto.-=-
Perhaps that's where the problem started.
Maybe you wanted to avert your own confusion by getting Naomi Aldort
to agree with us, or for us to agree with Naomi. I'm not comfortable
with her column, which seems clearly about the ideas on this list, nor
with the responses that will generate.
Naomi Aldort is giving advice for money. And what she's selling is
AWESOME, compared to what people get from other family therapists.
And her kids are musicians, which is top of my list for good things to
be.
Yet she doesn't really understand that things we discuss on this list
because it's not what she herself advocates and she doesn't need to
know it. Her kids are already older and she has no need for different
ways.
For those just deciding how to be with their children, there are
countless advice sources, books, videos, theories, affirmations,
charts you can buy to keep track of homework and chores, probably a
million different bits you can look at and choose or reject. There's
not time to look at a million different bits (maybe you could look at
one or two thousand over a few years, and still be present for your
kids).
Some people want to unschool. We can help them.
For those who don't want to unschool, we don't do follow up "Please
come back to church" post cards or any such thing. We're here
discussing the details of what helps unschooling work well. That's all.
If people don't like what we're talking about, that's okay. If people
want to bring "experts" to dispute us, that's not as fine. If 100
professional advice givers say we're wrong, it cannot ever change the
fact that so many of us have actually and truly used these ideas and
our kids learned and are bright and happy, and that they would be
defending the basis of the personal advice they're selling. We're not
talking about what we think we might do. We're talking about the
lives of children now in their teens or young adulthood, and what
worked and why. We're admitting when we learned what and what we used
to try, all the time. It doesn't cost $145 an hour, nor even $35 an
hour. It's free.
I have other comments, but the topic is so broad and has so many
aspects that it seems better to separate the responses a bit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
> ***** In the formative years, passive external stimulations hinder a child’s freedom to be herself because they become part of what shapes her choices. For example, choosing sugar is shaped by the addictive nature of sugar; it is not a free choice. *****-=-=-=-=-
>
> So why aren't all radically unschooled kids sugar addicts?
Here is how it looks in my family:
We always have sweets and candy in the house. Lots of it. My husband , who was limited as a kid, loves cookies, donuts, candy and chocolate. My kids grew up with lots around. Do they eat them? Yes they do.
But just Saturday at the supermarket all my daughter , who is just 4 years old, wanted was bananas because we were out during the week.
Last night all she wanted for dinner was honeydew and ham. This morning she had a bite of an Oreo, some noodle soup and her favorite thing Parmesan cheese.
She could have eaten of the many sweets, candy etc in the house.
The Easter candy is spread all over the floor and not even a forth of the eggs were eaten. She also did not even eat her 2 chocolate bunnies. My son did eat his bunny but not the eggs.
At 7 his favorite food, last time I asked, is strawberry.
My kids will constantly ask for fruit instead off all the "junk" ( as called by people) and sweets we have in the house.
Carrots here are a must. I have to have them !
Gigi loves to eat peas right out of the pods in the garden.
Does that look like kids who are addicted to sugar??
> ***** You will protect him from alcohol, coffee, sugar, gambling, guns, violence, commercial seductions, streets, drugs, ocean waves, crime, certain areas of the city, etc. *****
-=-=-=--=-=-=-
In Brazil I grew up drinking milk with coffee in the morning. I don't even care for coffee now!
My brother has been an avid surfer all his life and I was one of the first big time bodyboarders in Brazil.
I am sure glad my mom did not protect me from Ocean Waves. What she did was give us the skills to survive big waves or rip currents that all kids who live right by the ocean learn.
I would say that over 90% of people who drown or have to be rescued at the beach are people that are unfamiliar with the ocean and did not grow up going to the beach.
We knew from early on when to get in, out, dive under a big wave, run from the wave, get out of a rip current by letting it take you out and swimming parallel to the beach, how to float etc.
My father was in advertising and we sure discussed a lot about commercials and ads. What worked , what did not, what was good, what was not. No one is my house was seduced by commercials I guarantee you!
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
foehn_jye
--- In [email protected], "clara_bellar" <claramont@...> wrote
Was your question to Naomi posed because you were looking for clarification for yourself and your family? Or was that, too, a part of the documentary?
>>>>>>>>She chopped the question into bits to answer each part separately (she doesn't usually do that in that website) and she edited it.<<<<<<<<<<I had read your question/response on Mothering.com and I've been tossing Naomi's response around in my head for the last several week. I've enjoyed reading the responses by Joyce etc. However, as was asked by the Moderator of the Always Unschooled group, are you cross posting all the RU lists in an effort to openly discuss your question/response with Naomi Aldort, or are these responses going to be included in your Documentary?
>>>>>>I have so much respect and gratitude for this group and have acquired so much more clarity in the past few months since I asked these questions. <<<<<<<<<
Was your question to Naomi posed because you were looking for clarification for yourself and your family? Or was that, too, a part of the documentary?
--- In [email protected], "clara_bellar" <claramont@...> wrote:
> Maybe I did that because I know Naomi. I've interviewed her for a documentary.
--- In [email protected], "sheeboo" wrote: Are you looking for meat for your film or conversation for your family's growth?
Unlike Aldort, we all "work" for free here. Please be clear about your
intentions. ---
Sandra Dodd
-=-. It's easy to fall into the fallacy of generalizing to all kids
from your own sample of one or two or three kids. (Though I was
attracted to unschooling because I hoped that what unschooling parents
were describing their family lives being like would be generalizable
to mine!)-=-
It's wrong to generalize, but it's NOT wrong to accept the data as
part of the real world.
Most children who have learned to read went to school and had reading
classes, lessons, special readers, phonics "rules" to memorize.
People say all the time, and they "prove" that that's how and why
those kids learned to read. The "proof" comes in the form of the
flood of lame research done by people getting masters' degrees and
PhDs in education, proving that one classroom method is slightly
better than another, or "prooving" (again) that kids who have
breakfast or whose houses are more peaceful will do better in the
classroom.
How easy would it be to define dogs as four-legged animals?
Yet there are three-legged dogs. Many. Some people have never seen
them. I knew one personally, and have seen three others closely.
My children learned to read without being taught.
If my children were the only children in the history of the world who
learned without being taught, it would still be a fact that some
children have learned to read without lessons--that a child can learn
to read without lessons.
But my children are not the only ones. There are many. There were
many even before school's existed, though it was harder without being
surrounded by talking video games and movies with subtitles and
printed boxes all over the kitchen, and signs on every street and
building and shelf.
Sandra
from your own sample of one or two or three kids. (Though I was
attracted to unschooling because I hoped that what unschooling parents
were describing their family lives being like would be generalizable
to mine!)-=-
It's wrong to generalize, but it's NOT wrong to accept the data as
part of the real world.
Most children who have learned to read went to school and had reading
classes, lessons, special readers, phonics "rules" to memorize.
People say all the time, and they "prove" that that's how and why
those kids learned to read. The "proof" comes in the form of the
flood of lame research done by people getting masters' degrees and
PhDs in education, proving that one classroom method is slightly
better than another, or "prooving" (again) that kids who have
breakfast or whose houses are more peaceful will do better in the
classroom.
How easy would it be to define dogs as four-legged animals?
Yet there are three-legged dogs. Many. Some people have never seen
them. I knew one personally, and have seen three others closely.
My children learned to read without being taught.
If my children were the only children in the history of the world who
learned without being taught, it would still be a fact that some
children have learned to read without lessons--that a child can learn
to read without lessons.
But my children are not the only ones. There are many. There were
many even before school's existed, though it was harder without being
surrounded by talking video games and movies with subtitles and
printed boxes all over the kitchen, and signs on every street and
building and shelf.
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
-=-My kids will constantly ask for fruit instead off all the
"junk" ( as called by people) and sweets we have in the house.-=-
That wasn't Clara, but I did want to comment on Clara's title for this
thread, " Naomi Aldort on TV & junk food."
For the purposes of the discussion on this list it helps for people
not to use that term. If someone defines some food as "junk food"
that is keeping them from thinking clearly just as having a pair of
glasses with a landscape already painted on them would keep them from
seeing clearly.
And this was in a Clara post:
"I found it very sad when I later found out that a human girl with a
Barbie's proportions would be a monster. (the length of the legs is
not realistic, etc.) "
"Monster" is an emotion-soaked word. And to say you "found out"
literally says you looked for it, but I think in context it means you
were told that and you accepted it as truth. Maybe the "monster"
word was from the person who told you that. Maybe you added it
later. But to either quote or come up with a word like "monster" or
"junk" will keep you from having all your reasoning skills available
to make good decisions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"junk" ( as called by people) and sweets we have in the house.-=-
That wasn't Clara, but I did want to comment on Clara's title for this
thread, " Naomi Aldort on TV & junk food."
For the purposes of the discussion on this list it helps for people
not to use that term. If someone defines some food as "junk food"
that is keeping them from thinking clearly just as having a pair of
glasses with a landscape already painted on them would keep them from
seeing clearly.
And this was in a Clara post:
"I found it very sad when I later found out that a human girl with a
Barbie's proportions would be a monster. (the length of the legs is
not realistic, etc.) "
"Monster" is an emotion-soaked word. And to say you "found out"
literally says you looked for it, but I think in context it means you
were told that and you accepted it as truth. Maybe the "monster"
word was from the person who told you that. Maybe you added it
later. But to either quote or come up with a word like "monster" or
"junk" will keep you from having all your reasoning skills available
to make good decisions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-= "Jonathan, taught me, among other things, that no matter how loving
and great a mother I may be, the child makes up his own movie of his
childhood and this is the only childhood he has.-=-
"Makes up his own movie"?
My children aren't making up their lives, nor creating their lives,
nor imagining nor manifesting their lives.
They have lived their lives, right in that moment where they were. It
wasn't a movie. They didn't make it up.
And let's assume that the quote isn't exact (or at least that the
first comma wasn't there)...
The person who may have described her child's life as a movie he made
up is writing about "authentic parenting"?
I don't use the word "authentic" because there aren't things in our
lives that are inauthentic for that to contrast against. The fewer
terms and the less jargon people use, the better, if they're trying to
look at real, breathing, immediate life.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
and great a mother I may be, the child makes up his own movie of his
childhood and this is the only childhood he has.-=-
"Makes up his own movie"?
My children aren't making up their lives, nor creating their lives,
nor imagining nor manifesting their lives.
They have lived their lives, right in that moment where they were. It
wasn't a movie. They didn't make it up.
And let's assume that the quote isn't exact (or at least that the
first comma wasn't there)...
The person who may have described her child's life as a movie he made
up is writing about "authentic parenting"?
I don't use the word "authentic" because there aren't things in our
lives that are inauthentic for that to contrast against. The fewer
terms and the less jargon people use, the better, if they're trying to
look at real, breathing, immediate life.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
-=-My kids will constantly ask for fruit instead off all the
"junk" ( as called by people) and sweets we have in the house.-=-
I wrote "junk food" . I don't call it junk food in my house. I have made a big effort in the past of not calling it "junk".
It really does make a difference once you stop seeing or calling it "junk" and start calling it by its name, be a donut or some Oreos or whatever it is.
I will be more careful not to use that here too.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"junk" ( as called by people) and sweets we have in the house.-=-
I wrote "junk food" . I don't call it junk food in my house. I have made a big effort in the past of not calling it "junk".
It really does make a difference once you stop seeing or calling it "junk" and start calling it by its name, be a donut or some Oreos or whatever it is.
I will be more careful not to use that here too.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rebecca M.
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
I quite like what Sandra write about the authentic bit.
I have this niggly feeling, though, that this whole conversation is part of some research for Clara's documentary as this conversation is now happening on 3 different unschooling lists. Or maybe I'm making it up. :)
Rebecca
> And let's assume that the quote isn't exactI did go back to the source to find her exact words (and comma usage). It's an exact, from-the-book quote. I'm pretty sure you weren't questioning as you were zooming in on a part of what was said, but I did want to clarify.
>"Makes up his own movie"?I think this is why I found that particular statement so disturbing. Also, gushing thanks is given to other children. Just not this one - this one who sees his childhood differently than she does so must be making it up.
>My children... have lived their lives, right in that moment where they were.
>Itwasn't a movie. They didn't make it up.
I quite like what Sandra write about the authentic bit.
I have this niggly feeling, though, that this whole conversation is part of some research for Clara's documentary as this conversation is now happening on 3 different unschooling lists. Or maybe I'm making it up. :)
Rebecca
Sandra Dodd
-=-I did go back to the source to find her exact words (and comma
usage). It's an exact, from-the-book quote. I'm pretty sure you
weren't questioning as you were zooming in on a part of what was said,
but I did want to clarify.-=-
I was hoping that first comma was just a typo.
That reminds me that this afternoon's chat is on writing! <g>
http://sandradodd.com/room
(afternoon at my house; evening in Europe)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
usage). It's an exact, from-the-book quote. I'm pretty sure you
weren't questioning as you were zooming in on a part of what was said,
but I did want to clarify.-=-
I was hoping that first comma was just a typo.
That reminds me that this afternoon's chat is on writing! <g>
http://sandradodd.com/room
(afternoon at my house; evening in Europe)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I have this niggly feeling, though, that this whole conversation is
part of some research for Clara's documentary as this conversation is
now happening on 3 different unschooling lists. Or maybe I'm making it
up. :)-=-
I might bristle and feel we were being used if I didn't know for sure
that the discussions would be clarifying for many readers.
It does seem a shame, though, that it's been made about an individual
rather than about the ideas. I would not have liked to have discussed
a Naomi Aldort column on this list as any of my first few choices, at
all. It did seem pretty pointedly to be about the ideas discussed on
this list, though.
There was a poster who stirred it up here a few months ago and it
turned out she's working on a PhD in education. That didn't seem
worth bringing to the list, because the questions she asked were still
helpful to those exploring unschooling, and to experienced unschoolers
figuring out the nuances and technicalities of what they're doing.
Still, the dishonesty disturbs me philosophically and morally.
I like honesty.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
part of some research for Clara's documentary as this conversation is
now happening on 3 different unschooling lists. Or maybe I'm making it
up. :)-=-
I might bristle and feel we were being used if I didn't know for sure
that the discussions would be clarifying for many readers.
It does seem a shame, though, that it's been made about an individual
rather than about the ideas. I would not have liked to have discussed
a Naomi Aldort column on this list as any of my first few choices, at
all. It did seem pretty pointedly to be about the ideas discussed on
this list, though.
There was a poster who stirred it up here a few months ago and it
turned out she's working on a PhD in education. That didn't seem
worth bringing to the list, because the questions she asked were still
helpful to those exploring unschooling, and to experienced unschoolers
figuring out the nuances and technicalities of what they're doing.
Still, the dishonesty disturbs me philosophically and morally.
I like honesty.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
A note on the quote:
"BTW, it wasn't an "exact" quote from the book.
"She started by using his whole name. Jonathan Aldort. I left off the
Aldort.
"Otherwise, it was exactly as Naomi wrote it. Crazy comma usage and
all."
Just to be clear, for the record... :-)
Sandera
"BTW, it wasn't an "exact" quote from the book.
"She started by using his whole name. Jonathan Aldort. I left off the
Aldort.
"Otherwise, it was exactly as Naomi wrote it. Crazy comma usage and
all."
Just to be clear, for the record... :-)
Sandera
foehn_jye
Whoops, I posted too quickly. I read this question/answer series in Natural Life Magazine, Not Mothering.com. My apologies.
I wanted to add that reading Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves was useful for me personally, as I found many useful tips that helped me to actually focus on my children and what they were communicating to me rather than having a spontaneous reaction to what they were saying, which was often handled not very respectfully on my part. Reading that book gave me some skills to parent my own children better.
When we chose to pull our daughter from school, listening to Naomi Aldort's audio disks, Trusting our Children, Trusting Ourselves, really helped me to feel confident in my decision. Again, I heard specific things that helped to reinforce my developing ideas about learning without school.
In the past I have found that when I respect and admire the work of someone, I feel the urge to follow their manner of doing things in the hopes that those things will make my own life be similar to what it is that I'm reading/hearing. Naomi's life sounds fantastic when I read/hear about their experiences and the manner in which her children have navigated their lives. However, I am not Naomi, and my children are my own. Our experiences are being shaped every single day. I can either focus on what I hope my life will be based on what other people are saying/doing, or I can focus on being present for my children, being compassionate, understanding, helpful, funny, resourceful, respectful, and most of all real.
I think that Naomi's responses to the questions were very much tailored to make Clara feel okay about choosing to not have a TV or to offer up candy, but they didn't actually get to the heart of what it is that experienced unschoolers are saying about these topics.
I wanted to add that reading Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves was useful for me personally, as I found many useful tips that helped me to actually focus on my children and what they were communicating to me rather than having a spontaneous reaction to what they were saying, which was often handled not very respectfully on my part. Reading that book gave me some skills to parent my own children better.
When we chose to pull our daughter from school, listening to Naomi Aldort's audio disks, Trusting our Children, Trusting Ourselves, really helped me to feel confident in my decision. Again, I heard specific things that helped to reinforce my developing ideas about learning without school.
In the past I have found that when I respect and admire the work of someone, I feel the urge to follow their manner of doing things in the hopes that those things will make my own life be similar to what it is that I'm reading/hearing. Naomi's life sounds fantastic when I read/hear about their experiences and the manner in which her children have navigated their lives. However, I am not Naomi, and my children are my own. Our experiences are being shaped every single day. I can either focus on what I hope my life will be based on what other people are saying/doing, or I can focus on being present for my children, being compassionate, understanding, helpful, funny, resourceful, respectful, and most of all real.
I think that Naomi's responses to the questions were very much tailored to make Clara feel okay about choosing to not have a TV or to offer up candy, but they didn't actually get to the heart of what it is that experienced unschoolers are saying about these topics.
Sandra Dodd
-=-I think that Naomi's responses to the questions were very much
tailored to make Clara feel okay about choosing to not have a TV or to
offer up candy, but they didn't actually get to the heart of what it
is that experienced unschoolers are saying about these topics.-=-
Is Clara working on a documentary that Naomi didn't know about?
The urge to tailor responses to make the other person feel okay about
choices is strong in many women, but is it "authentic"? Sometimes
it's cowardice. Sometimes it's a way to seem close and compassionate
while not actually saying anything personal. The more it has the
gloss of being thoughtful and personal, the warmer the other mom might
feel.
This list isn't about that soothing, cooing energy and so sometimes
people say I'm being mean.
A friend of mine is a kung fu teacher and one of the other students
(teachers) at his level wrote a novel, and in the novel he revealed
secrets of the school. The teacher of the teachers, the master of
that set of schools (whatever the terminology is in kung fu sub-world)
did the regular annual gathering, where he runs classes for his
students who all have schools of their own. What I was told was that
the others in the group expected him to throw that guy out, to disown
him, to tell him off--something big. What he did was to withhold
useful feedback from him. When they did their drills and forms (kata
if it were karate, but whatever, in kung fu), he would give the other
students suggestions and criticisms. To this guy who had betrayed his
agreement the teacher would just say "good." Not really pay close
attention to him, not help him. And in the context of the gathering,
it was a big shaming thing, that all the guy was getting was something
between "good job" and "whatever."
I don't want to treat people like fluff. I don't want to treat moms as
though they're fragile and need a pat on the head and "good job!"
Anyone that fragile will be unable to unschool, and should probably go
and buy a curriculum.
If someone really does want to unschool, it's going to take looking at
her own ideas, terminology, and attitudes really closely, to weed out
that "what will screw it up" set.
http://sandradodd.com/screwitup
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tailored to make Clara feel okay about choosing to not have a TV or to
offer up candy, but they didn't actually get to the heart of what it
is that experienced unschoolers are saying about these topics.-=-
Is Clara working on a documentary that Naomi didn't know about?
The urge to tailor responses to make the other person feel okay about
choices is strong in many women, but is it "authentic"? Sometimes
it's cowardice. Sometimes it's a way to seem close and compassionate
while not actually saying anything personal. The more it has the
gloss of being thoughtful and personal, the warmer the other mom might
feel.
This list isn't about that soothing, cooing energy and so sometimes
people say I'm being mean.
A friend of mine is a kung fu teacher and one of the other students
(teachers) at his level wrote a novel, and in the novel he revealed
secrets of the school. The teacher of the teachers, the master of
that set of schools (whatever the terminology is in kung fu sub-world)
did the regular annual gathering, where he runs classes for his
students who all have schools of their own. What I was told was that
the others in the group expected him to throw that guy out, to disown
him, to tell him off--something big. What he did was to withhold
useful feedback from him. When they did their drills and forms (kata
if it were karate, but whatever, in kung fu), he would give the other
students suggestions and criticisms. To this guy who had betrayed his
agreement the teacher would just say "good." Not really pay close
attention to him, not help him. And in the context of the gathering,
it was a big shaming thing, that all the guy was getting was something
between "good job" and "whatever."
I don't want to treat people like fluff. I don't want to treat moms as
though they're fragile and need a pat on the head and "good job!"
Anyone that fragile will be unable to unschool, and should probably go
and buy a curriculum.
If someone really does want to unschool, it's going to take looking at
her own ideas, terminology, and attitudes really closely, to weed out
that "what will screw it up" set.
http://sandradodd.com/screwitup
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Totally new to the concept of unschooling and to parenting in
general, I was very confused with the opposite messages I was getting
from Radical Unschoolers and from unschooling advocates like Naomi and
Gatto.-=-
How new to parenting?
Totally new?
John Taylor Gatto isn't "an unschooling advocate." He is a school
reform writer. He's a former teacher with a mass of negative stories
about New York schools. His kids weren't unschooled. He's not an
unschooler. He will take money to speak at conferences, and he has a
couple of books that have been the WD40 that broke the bolts that held
some people fastened to the idea that school WAS a part of life.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
general, I was very confused with the opposite messages I was getting
from Radical Unschoolers and from unschooling advocates like Naomi and
Gatto.-=-
How new to parenting?
Totally new?
John Taylor Gatto isn't "an unschooling advocate." He is a school
reform writer. He's a former teacher with a mass of negative stories
about New York schools. His kids weren't unschooled. He's not an
unschooler. He will take money to speak at conferences, and he has a
couple of books that have been the WD40 that broke the bolts that held
some people fastened to the idea that school WAS a part of life.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
quote from Naomi **** Give him a break. Let him be a child and play freely in an environment you provide with his aspirations in mind. *****
We know a mom that does that. Her intentions are/were good, but that isn't at all what her daughter feels about all that well intentioned "free" play and mom structured environment. Mom saw that her daughter loved dance and is supporting that, has her daughter's whole future planned out, has structured her daughter's environment with those dance aspirations in mind. There is no denying that her daughter loves to dance, loves taking classes, or that her mom isn't trying very hard to provide a supportive dance environment.
Guess what's missing? The child's voice. It's simply that. Her schedule is so full that she never gets to do any of the other things she likes. Her mom doesn't see those things as bigger or better than that one aspiration that she's freely provided for. That's what happens when parents start creating a child's environment in that way, the child gets lost in the equation, it becomes more about what mom wants and mom gets to feel good about all that wonderful stuff she's providing for her child. Since it's all based on what the parent provides, even with the child's aspirations in mind, there isn't wiggle room for growth and change in that. Once a parent decides for a child what the child's aspirations are, they've stopped seeing the child as a person with aspirations with their own destinies.
That child ran away from home in deep frustration. All she wanted to do was to have a little bit of time to just hang out with friends, freely hang out with friends with no mom involvement, no mom to provide for her aspirations and no mom creating her environment. And that is what Joyce is saying when she says that this way of being won't work for most families! There will always be kids that react to that kind of control, even well intentioned as it may be, even if the parent is really kind about all that free play and environment structuring.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We know a mom that does that. Her intentions are/were good, but that isn't at all what her daughter feels about all that well intentioned "free" play and mom structured environment. Mom saw that her daughter loved dance and is supporting that, has her daughter's whole future planned out, has structured her daughter's environment with those dance aspirations in mind. There is no denying that her daughter loves to dance, loves taking classes, or that her mom isn't trying very hard to provide a supportive dance environment.
Guess what's missing? The child's voice. It's simply that. Her schedule is so full that she never gets to do any of the other things she likes. Her mom doesn't see those things as bigger or better than that one aspiration that she's freely provided for. That's what happens when parents start creating a child's environment in that way, the child gets lost in the equation, it becomes more about what mom wants and mom gets to feel good about all that wonderful stuff she's providing for her child. Since it's all based on what the parent provides, even with the child's aspirations in mind, there isn't wiggle room for growth and change in that. Once a parent decides for a child what the child's aspirations are, they've stopped seeing the child as a person with aspirations with their own destinies.
That child ran away from home in deep frustration. All she wanted to do was to have a little bit of time to just hang out with friends, freely hang out with friends with no mom involvement, no mom to provide for her aspirations and no mom creating her environment. And that is what Joyce is saying when she says that this way of being won't work for most families! There will always be kids that react to that kind of control, even well intentioned as it may be, even if the parent is really kind about all that free play and environment structuring.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I know understand that the effects Barbies & TV had on my cousins would not happen in a radically unschooling family. My cousins were schooled, conventionally parented, and maybe even unparented. A negative effect, for instance, was that a cousin was obsessed with body image at a very young age and wanted to look like her Barbie. ***
Barbie, for that child, was probably a world of escape, where everyone was happy and beautiful and could create their own realities. Her own life didn't mirror that and she wanted to "be" her barbie. I think the body issues probably had less to do with barbie and more to do with growing up in an environment that wasn't healthy and positive. Barbie just became the scape goat in that scenario.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Barbie, for that child, was probably a world of escape, where everyone was happy and beautiful and could create their own realities. Her own life didn't mirror that and she wanted to "be" her barbie. I think the body issues probably had less to do with barbie and more to do with growing up in an environment that wasn't healthy and positive. Barbie just became the scape goat in that scenario.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]