Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Naomi Aldort on TV
Sandra Dodd
-=- Even unschooling parents tend to fall innocently into this
habitual school-acquired trend of telling others to bend and fit into
a common trend.-=-
People don't bend to become unschoolers. They stand up tall enough to
look all around.
After attempting to shame anyone who will kowtow to another's
directions for what to do, this comes:
-=You will protect him from alcohol, coffee, sugar, gambling, guns,
violence, commercial seductions, streets, drugs, ocean waves, crime,
certain areas of the city, etc. 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.-=-
YOU WILL.
Some people make exceptions
The disconnect below wouldn't have lasted a day in a discussion like
this, but as she's not in a position to have people question then it
just slides by:
-=-If you want your son to think freely, appreciate his ideas, avoid
manipulative praise and criticism, and don�t impose your world view.-=-
Followed, after a while, by:
-=-Create an environment that provides plenty to enjoy and explore
that is not polluting the body or mind. When happy with what is, a
child does not search for what isn�t.-=-
If the parent's world view defines what is polluting to the mind or
body, then the environment is an imposition of the parental world view.
I don't mind imposing a lot of my world view on my kids. I think kids
should have some privacy, and that there should be peace in a house.
I think parents should go way out of their way to make their kids'
lives happy. I think houses should be available for those who live
there to do things even if the things are messy, as long as the things
aren't hurting others or breaking a law the parents aren't willing to
risk standing up to. I'm not saying no laws are ever broken in my
house. I'm saying if I'm uncomfortable with something I say no, and
the the kids know I only say that when it's serious. If a twenty-year-
old drinks a beer at my house I'm not going to call the cops. If a
twenty-year-old (mine or anyone's) were to bring in a kilo of drugs
and ask me for ziploc bags, I would say NO, and get that out of here,
and what were you thinking?! (That last thing hasn't happened, so
I'm working hypothetically there.)
-= However, a child who �needs� candy or a movie is not free.-=-
How was that she described her son's view of his life? A movie?
My kids have never confused a movie with freedom (nor a lack thereof),
nor have I ever seen their lives as movies.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
habitual school-acquired trend of telling others to bend and fit into
a common trend.-=-
People don't bend to become unschoolers. They stand up tall enough to
look all around.
After attempting to shame anyone who will kowtow to another's
directions for what to do, this comes:
-=You will protect him from alcohol, coffee, sugar, gambling, guns,
violence, commercial seductions, streets, drugs, ocean waves, crime,
certain areas of the city, etc. 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.-=-
YOU WILL.
Some people make exceptions
The disconnect below wouldn't have lasted a day in a discussion like
this, but as she's not in a position to have people question then it
just slides by:
-=-If you want your son to think freely, appreciate his ideas, avoid
manipulative praise and criticism, and don�t impose your world view.-=-
Followed, after a while, by:
-=-Create an environment that provides plenty to enjoy and explore
that is not polluting the body or mind. When happy with what is, a
child does not search for what isn�t.-=-
If the parent's world view defines what is polluting to the mind or
body, then the environment is an imposition of the parental world view.
I don't mind imposing a lot of my world view on my kids. I think kids
should have some privacy, and that there should be peace in a house.
I think parents should go way out of their way to make their kids'
lives happy. I think houses should be available for those who live
there to do things even if the things are messy, as long as the things
aren't hurting others or breaking a law the parents aren't willing to
risk standing up to. I'm not saying no laws are ever broken in my
house. I'm saying if I'm uncomfortable with something I say no, and
the the kids know I only say that when it's serious. If a twenty-year-
old drinks a beer at my house I'm not going to call the cops. If a
twenty-year-old (mine or anyone's) were to bring in a kilo of drugs
and ask me for ziploc bags, I would say NO, and get that out of here,
and what were you thinking?! (That last thing hasn't happened, so
I'm working hypothetically there.)
-= However, a child who �needs� candy or a movie is not free.-=-
How was that she described her son's view of his life? A movie?
My kids have never confused a movie with freedom (nor a lack thereof),
nor have I ever seen their lives as movies.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vidyut Kale
"However, a child who �needs� candy or a movie is not free."
What is "needing" a candy or movie at all? The way I understand it, kids may
WANT candy or a movie, but if they are frustrated enough, there is a need.
Not for candy or movie, but for the freedom to choose what they like.
I think its pointless to let things go till this need develops and then
label the child as not free.
Not how I would like to see my child.
Vidyut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What is "needing" a candy or movie at all? The way I understand it, kids may
WANT candy or a movie, but if they are frustrated enough, there is a need.
Not for candy or movie, but for the freedom to choose what they like.
I think its pointless to let things go till this need develops and then
label the child as not free.
Not how I would like to see my child.
Vidyut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Vidyut Kale wrote:
them to mean in the context they're using them in ;-)
If someone wanted (or needed ;-) to get technical, need might be
defined as something essential to life like water or food or air. But
humans are more complex than mere bags of biochemistry. We have
emotional needs too.
For unschoolers intent on building relationships, it helps to see
needs and wants as the same thing. While I could say Kathryn doesn't
need that Krokus album on vinyl. She won't die without it so it's a
want not a need. But there's an emotional component that only she can
feel. That album might be just the treat (or food?) her soul needs.
In terms of being the one she trusts to help her get what she wants,
it doesn't matter if it's treat or essential nutrients. What's
important is the importance *she* places on it.
Since Naomi Aldort believes sugar and TV are addictive, her wording
("However, a child who needs candy or a movie is not free.")
suggests she's using "need" to mean the need of a drug addict. Someone
addicted to drugs isn't free. Someone addicted to sugar -- in her mind
-- isn't freely choosing. The addiction (supposedly) is choosing for
the child.
Joyce
> What is "needing" a candy or movie at all? The way I understand it,Need and want have definitions that fluctuate by what someone wants
> kids may
> WANT candy or a movie, but if they are frustrated enough, there is a
> need.
them to mean in the context they're using them in ;-)
If someone wanted (or needed ;-) to get technical, need might be
defined as something essential to life like water or food or air. But
humans are more complex than mere bags of biochemistry. We have
emotional needs too.
For unschoolers intent on building relationships, it helps to see
needs and wants as the same thing. While I could say Kathryn doesn't
need that Krokus album on vinyl. She won't die without it so it's a
want not a need. But there's an emotional component that only she can
feel. That album might be just the treat (or food?) her soul needs.
In terms of being the one she trusts to help her get what she wants,
it doesn't matter if it's treat or essential nutrients. What's
important is the importance *she* places on it.
Since Naomi Aldort believes sugar and TV are addictive, her wording
("However, a child who needs candy or a movie is not free.")
suggests she's using "need" to mean the need of a drug addict. Someone
addicted to drugs isn't free. Someone addicted to sugar -- in her mind
-- isn't freely choosing. The addiction (supposedly) is choosing for
the child.
Joyce
Sandra Dodd
Vidyut, this is perfect:
-=-What is "needing" a candy or movie at all? The way I understand it,
kids may
WANT candy or a movie, but if they are frustrated enough, there is a
need.
Not for candy or movie, but for the freedom to choose what they like.-=-
There's talk in La Leche League and attachment parenting and
unschooling sometimes about the difference in what young children need
and what they want. Does a toddler "need" for his mom to pick him
up, once he can walk? Does a child "need" to sleep with her parents?
I really like Vidyut's point above, in all that context.
Sandra
-=-What is "needing" a candy or movie at all? The way I understand it,
kids may
WANT candy or a movie, but if they are frustrated enough, there is a
need.
Not for candy or movie, but for the freedom to choose what they like.-=-
There's talk in La Leche League and attachment parenting and
unschooling sometimes about the difference in what young children need
and what they want. Does a toddler "need" for his mom to pick him
up, once he can walk? Does a child "need" to sleep with her parents?
I really like Vidyut's point above, in all that context.
Sandra
Kerrie Thomas
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Vidyut, this is perfect:Yes!!!! Some people look at wants vs needs in an immediate way. Eg
>
> -=-What is "needing" a candy or movie at all? The way I understand it,
> kids may
> WANT candy or a movie, but if they are frustrated enough, there is a
> need.
> Not for candy or movie, but for the freedom to choose what they
> like.-=-
>
> There's talk in La Leche League and attachment parenting and
> unschooling sometimes about the difference in what young children need
> and what they want. Does a toddler "need" for his mom to pick him
> up, once he can walk? Does a child "need" to sleep with her parents?
>
> I really like Vidyut's point above, in all that context.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
food is a need because without it, we die. But most people agree love
is a need. You may not die without it, but it would be a pretty
horrible life. Emotional safety is a need for the same reason
(physical safety too but that's stating the obvious.)
Yet even with believing safety and love are real needs, so many turn
down opportunities to provide those feelings, to meet those needs. I
know one of the times I feel most safe and loved is when snuggled up
with my childen in bed, sleepily giggling or making up fairytales in
the dark. I imagine they feel the same way. If I didn't have trust in
my kids, and followed the old fear-filled philosophy of "Get the kids
out of your bed now or it'll never happen!" I think of all those
lovely moments, they'd be non-existent, potentially replaced with
feelings of fear.
My kids are only young, 4.5 and 2 yrs, so I don't feel I have alot to
contribute here yet, I just read with interest! But this part stood
out to me. I can see how important it is for kids to feel emotionally
safe, and I trust it's most definately a need. This includes freedom
to explore.
Bun
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
Laurie
>>What I am writing is not about food or sugar, but when I read "there's an emotional component that only she can feel," I thought immediately of my daughter feeling on top of the world riding her bike to the store with me trusting her to be okay. Right now my daughter is on her way to pick up mozzerella cheese and pizza dough at the local store on her bike. And she is SO happy to be doing this. She has been asking to walk there for a few days and I have been afraid to let her go because I worry about her going by herself. I have been thinking on this alot as I do usually find ways to meet my kids wants/needs. This took me a few days to feel okay about. Today she offerred to go to pick up the items we needed and suggested she ride her bike so she can go faster as the store will be closing soon (she had already called to check the time the store closed and that they had what we wanted to buy). I thought about it and agreed and she was ecstatic. I said yes because I realize that she will likely be safe and fine and it means so much to her to go by herself. To help me feel better, she agreed to call me after she checks out so I know when she is on her way home (she just called) and to walk her bike across the street and in the parking lot. Anyway, I totally agree that helping our kids to do what they want (whether emotional or physical or both) is so important and fosters a great relationship. I feel so good about this! :)
> For unschoolers intent on building relationships, it helps to see
> needs and wants as the same thing. While I could say Kathryn
> doesn't need that Krokus album on vinyl. She won't die without it
> so it's a want not a need. But there's an emotional component that > only she can feel. That album might be just the treat (or food?)
> her soul needs. In terms of being the one she trusts to help her get what she wants, it doesn't matter if it's treat or essential nutrients. What's important is the importance *she* places on it.
Laurie
Joyce Fetteroll
On Apr 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Bun wrote:
We had just finished watching a time travel episode of Voyager about
alternate timelines and I pointed out that if she hadn't been in this
time line, that little girl wouldn't have had her ecstatic bike ride :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Anyway, I totally agree that helping our kids to do what they wantI showed this to Kathryn and she said "Awesome!"
> (whether emotional or physical or both) is so important and fosters
> a great relationship. I feel so good about this! :)
We had just finished watching a time travel episode of Voyager about
alternate timelines and I pointed out that if she hadn't been in this
time line, that little girl wouldn't have had her ecstatic bike ride :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]