Principles
Lisa E Biesemeyer
For some time now, I have been meaning to ask you all about family principles?
About 6 or so months ago, when I got Sandra's Big Book, I began expanding and
revising our family principles list to include more than "be kind", "be gentle",
"be safe", "be healthy", and "respect each other", yet I still find the
principles I repeat most often are "be kind" and "be safe" (I have a 4.75yo and
twin 16mos). I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself or
others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number of the
principles I have now. Plus, with young children, I find that the more specific
the principle, the easier it is for them to grasp. My 4 year old, Rowan,
understands what it means to be kind to her brother or to be safe while climbing
the couch, but she is not yet comprehending "respect". I have been experimenting
with other ways of saying "respect each other", and it just seems so wordy;
however, I don't think one or two word principles are really any better if they
are too abstract.
I would love to read what other families have for principles.
Thanks.
Lisa B
Lisa Biesemeyer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
About 6 or so months ago, when I got Sandra's Big Book, I began expanding and
revising our family principles list to include more than "be kind", "be gentle",
"be safe", "be healthy", and "respect each other", yet I still find the
principles I repeat most often are "be kind" and "be safe" (I have a 4.75yo and
twin 16mos). I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself or
others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number of the
principles I have now. Plus, with young children, I find that the more specific
the principle, the easier it is for them to grasp. My 4 year old, Rowan,
understands what it means to be kind to her brother or to be safe while climbing
the couch, but she is not yet comprehending "respect". I have been experimenting
with other ways of saying "respect each other", and it just seems so wordy;
however, I don't think one or two word principles are really any better if they
are too abstract.
I would love to read what other families have for principles.
Thanks.
Lisa B
Lisa Biesemeyer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-For some time now, I have been meaning to ask you all about family principles? -=-
I don't think "family principles" is the best way to think of principles. I can't impose my principles on other people's consciences, but I can make my own decisions based on what I believe is important for me to do.
-=- I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself or
others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number of the
principles I have now.-=-
I think it reads like a rule that someone could break.
-=-Plus, with young children, I find that the more specific
the principle, the easier it is for them to grasp. My 4 year old, Rowan,
understands what it means to be kind to her brother or to be safe while climbing
the couch, but she is not yet comprehending "respect". I have been experimenting
with other ways of saying "respect each other", and it just seems so wordy;
however, I don't think one or two word principles are really any better if they
are too abstract. -=-
Young children shouldn't need to grasp the idea of principles. They need parents with priorities.
One thing that helped when my kids were little was for me to remind them in moments of conflict (and to remind myself, when necessary) that each of them needed to feel safe in his own home. That doesn't need to be called any one word. It did involve safety, and it involved peace, and it involved place--that this was Marty's home, and so Kirby couldn't overcome Marty socially or physically without being reminded that Marty needed privacy and safety because he lived here.
Then, though, with guests, we were in the habit of letting guests choose the game, or the activity, or at least letting the guest have the veto, because a guest should feel welcome and safe, and should have fun so that he might want to come over again.
The kids didn't need to have all that bigger picture in their heads. I did. I used those ideas to coach them, and gradually they internalized some (maybe most, maybe all) of those ideas. There was never a test. There were just decisions made that got warmer or got colder, that worked better, or not as well, as other decisions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't think "family principles" is the best way to think of principles. I can't impose my principles on other people's consciences, but I can make my own decisions based on what I believe is important for me to do.
-=- I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself or
others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number of the
principles I have now.-=-
I think it reads like a rule that someone could break.
-=-Plus, with young children, I find that the more specific
the principle, the easier it is for them to grasp. My 4 year old, Rowan,
understands what it means to be kind to her brother or to be safe while climbing
the couch, but she is not yet comprehending "respect". I have been experimenting
with other ways of saying "respect each other", and it just seems so wordy;
however, I don't think one or two word principles are really any better if they
are too abstract. -=-
Young children shouldn't need to grasp the idea of principles. They need parents with priorities.
One thing that helped when my kids were little was for me to remind them in moments of conflict (and to remind myself, when necessary) that each of them needed to feel safe in his own home. That doesn't need to be called any one word. It did involve safety, and it involved peace, and it involved place--that this was Marty's home, and so Kirby couldn't overcome Marty socially or physically without being reminded that Marty needed privacy and safety because he lived here.
Then, though, with guests, we were in the habit of letting guests choose the game, or the activity, or at least letting the guest have the veto, because a guest should feel welcome and safe, and should have fun so that he might want to come over again.
The kids didn't need to have all that bigger picture in their heads. I did. I used those ideas to coach them, and gradually they internalized some (maybe most, maybe all) of those ideas. There was never a test. There were just decisions made that got warmer or got colder, that worked better, or not as well, as other decisions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Here's something Pam Sorooshian wrote a few years ago about principles:
http://sandradodd.com/pam/principles.html
Other things I've collected are here:
http://sandradodd.com/principles
I don't think it's necessary for a person, or a family, to codify a list of "their principles." I think the idea of knowing what one thinks is important is part of forming an awareness of the world and of oneself, but making a list to live by could keep a person from growing and changing.
Sandra
http://sandradodd.com/pam/principles.html
Other things I've collected are here:
http://sandradodd.com/principles
I don't think it's necessary for a person, or a family, to codify a list of "their principles." I think the idea of knowing what one thinks is important is part of forming an awareness of the world and of oneself, but making a list to live by could keep a person from growing and changing.
Sandra
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 29, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Lisa E Biesemeyer wrote:
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules.
Principles are what you use to help *you* decide between better and
not so good. Principles are what you use to create the atmosphere you
value in your home.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> yet I still find theIt sounds like you've just substituted principles for rules and expect
> principles I repeat most often are "be kind" and "be safe"
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules.
Principles are what you use to help *you* decide between better and
not so good. Principles are what you use to create the atmosphere you
value in your home.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
Lisa E Biesemeyer <l.biesemeyer@...> wrote:
Children will catch on to your principles if they have reason to value them. If they live in an environment that feels kind to *them* - each one of them, personally - they have reasons to value kindness. And when they are able, they'll extend that to other people, too. So there's *another* catch - if your child is tired or hungry or out-of-sorts in some way, it won't much matter how much he or she values kindness, s/he won't have any to spare for other people. Adults do that too. If your grumpy, how much harder is it to be kind?
If you're trying to explain your principles to your kids, nevermind that - I mean stop trying to explain! The idea isn't to replace "no" with wordy explanations of why not, but to help your kids find other, better solutions - hopefully proactively so they don't notice a solution was ever necessary. If they're having trouble getting along, they need your company and awareness and creativity, not your explanations. You respect *them* better by being aware of their unique needs - some of which are developmental.
---Meredith
>I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself orThe catch with principles is you aren't trying to teach them. If *your* personal, guiding principle in a situation is "do no harm" then look for ways to make decisions and solve problems that aren't harmful (personally I find a "positive" works better than a "negative" - its easier for me to know how to be kind than "not harming").
> others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number of the
> principles I have now. Plus, with young children, I find that the more specific
> the principle, the easier it is for them to grasp.
Children will catch on to your principles if they have reason to value them. If they live in an environment that feels kind to *them* - each one of them, personally - they have reasons to value kindness. And when they are able, they'll extend that to other people, too. So there's *another* catch - if your child is tired or hungry or out-of-sorts in some way, it won't much matter how much he or she values kindness, s/he won't have any to spare for other people. Adults do that too. If your grumpy, how much harder is it to be kind?
>I have been experimentingRespect can mean so many things, some of which overlap and even contradict each other, that it can be clunky as a principle. And it isn't reasonable to expect young children to extend respect to anyone who hasn't earned it - most of the time they don't have that much empathy.
> with other ways of saying "respect each other"
If you're trying to explain your principles to your kids, nevermind that - I mean stop trying to explain! The idea isn't to replace "no" with wordy explanations of why not, but to help your kids find other, better solutions - hopefully proactively so they don't notice a solution was ever necessary. If they're having trouble getting along, they need your company and awareness and creativity, not your explanations. You respect *them* better by being aware of their unique needs - some of which are developmental.
>I don't think one or two word principles are really any better if theyYour principles only need to be meaningful and make sense to you. If *you* know what you mean, you can use that as a starting point for making choices. I find kindness helpful as a principle because it's a good starting point for making decsions - it is kind to be helpful, to be proactive, to remember to take care of myself, to try to see the perspective of others. I don't think I've ever told my kids any of that - and yet much of the time they're pretty kind.
> are too abstract.
---Meredith
Lisa E Biesemeyer
"It sounds like you've just substituted principles for rules and expect
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules."
I am still learning about principles vs. rules (though we have not ever really
had "rules" during my kids' lives), so this may be so. How does a parent
communicate to a young child an idea of how to treat another person, for
example, aside from modeling that principle? In a scenario where one child is
hitting another child, for example. Does not a parent ask the child hitting to
be kind to the other child? This is exactly the conversation I would like to
have :-)
Lisa B
Lisa Biesemeyer
________________________________
From: Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 8:42:59 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Principles
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules."
I am still learning about principles vs. rules (though we have not ever really
had "rules" during my kids' lives), so this may be so. How does a parent
communicate to a young child an idea of how to treat another person, for
example, aside from modeling that principle? In a scenario where one child is
hitting another child, for example. Does not a parent ask the child hitting to
be kind to the other child? This is exactly the conversation I would like to
have :-)
Lisa B
Lisa Biesemeyer
________________________________
From: Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 8:42:59 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Principles
On Mar 29, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Lisa E Biesemeyer wrote:
> yet I still find the
> principles I repeat most often are "be kind" and "be safe"
It sounds like you've just substituted principles for rules and expect
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules.
Principles are what you use to help *you* decide between better and
not so good. Principles are what you use to create the atmosphere you
value in your home.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
> In a scenario where one child isDoes asking the child to be kind stop the hitting?
> hitting another child, for example. Does not a parent ask the child
> hitting to
> be kind to the other child?
*You* can be kind while you separate the kids. *Your* principle should
be that your kids can be safe in their home. Kindness can be a
nebulous concept for little ones when they're filled with emotion.
Here's a page "When Siblings Fight" from Sandra's site: http://sandradodd.com/peace/fighting
She tells the story of how she dealt with disputes between Kirby and
Marty when they were little, which includes this:
"For little kids at home, I separate them. A trick I learned as a Jr.
High teacher has served well. To break up a fight, grab the loser and
remove him. He WANTS to be saved. If you grab the winning participant,
you might get hurt. If you remove the underdog, they both save face.
He can think he wouldn't necessarily have lost. The winner still
thinks he won."
There's more about what to say to them later, including problem
solving. The part that made the most sense to me was to first separate
them, not talk at them.
I could be wrong, but it seems you want your kids to absorb your
newfound principles by repeating them over and over; you're hoping
your kids will "get it" without actually showing them and helping them.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
Lisa E Biesemeyer <l.biesemeyer@...> wrote:
Rather than "be kind", think to yourself "how can I help you be kind?" Sometimes it helps to ask out loud "how can I help?" if the dynamic can still be shifted with words and attention.
---Meredith
>How does a parentThere's another factor that plays into this, which Joyce mentioned... maybe in a different thread, I'v forgotten - which is to assume your kids are doing the best they can at the moment. You don't have to teach them to be good so much as set them up so that its easier to make better choices. When things get tense and kids quarrel, you set them up so they have a better chance of making better choices in the future, while also treating them with kindness and respect in the moment. That means treating *everyone* with kindness and respect, which can sometimes take some prioritizing.
> communicate to a young child an idea of how to treat another person, for
> example, aside from modeling that principle?
Rather than "be kind", think to yourself "how can I help you be kind?" Sometimes it helps to ask out loud "how can I help?" if the dynamic can still be shifted with words and attention.
---Meredith
Lisa E Biesemeyer
"It sounds like you've just substituted principles for rules and expect
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules."
I am still learning about principles vs. rules, as is my husband (though we have
not really had specific "rules" during my kids' lives), so there is definitely a
place of overlap. However, I rarely expect my kids to understand, accept, or
obey (in fact, I cringe at obey), though there are times that I'm certain I've
flubbed up in this area. I work very hard to model the types of values that I
would like my children to value as well as talk about what, how, and why X is
usually better than Y in various situations (i.e. moving away from someone who
is bothering you (and not listening to your requests to stop) is usually better
than staying where they can continue to bother you. Why? Because staying where
they can continue to bother you may result in you or them getting hurt or you
getting angry and yelling or hitting them, etc).
I would not expect my 1 year olds to understand this at all right now let alone
accept it or obey . I do think that my 4 year old is able to understand it
(after talking about it and doing it), but she is not expected to accept it (she
may think the space she is in is worth staying in or defending) or obeying (she
tells me no, and I accept that, though I may not always like it ;-)). I have
also modeled this principle (or versions of it) in various ways (moving if one
of my kids is being/playing too roughly with me, moving my car on the road if
another car is driving erratically, moving my kids out of the way if someone is
walking toward them and not watching for them, etc.). Interestingly, it is not
until writing this that I realized that this is a principle that I have,
something I value. This is what I want to get better at: seeing such principles.
"Principles are what you use to help *you* decide between better and
not so good. Principles are what you use to create the atmosphere you
value in your home"
Ok. I understand this as a definition, and I would understand it better for
application with some real world *these are my/our principles* discussion. So,
what do other people consider their principles (for themselves, in their
households, etc)? Principles seemed to me to be things like: be kind, be safe,
respect others, UNTIL I read Sandra's Big Book and Sandra's site, and some of
the ideas that she calls principles make so much sense to me, but I don't seem
to be very often coming up with or recognizing such as principles myself.
Sandra's principles are clear and not abstract concepts. I don't have the book
on me now, but one such principle is something along the lines of *children will
be and feel safe in our home*. I see this as another way, a more concrete way,
for saying the principles safety, respect, kindness. I would love to read more.
Lisa B
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the kids to understand, accept and obey them like rules."
I am still learning about principles vs. rules, as is my husband (though we have
not really had specific "rules" during my kids' lives), so there is definitely a
place of overlap. However, I rarely expect my kids to understand, accept, or
obey (in fact, I cringe at obey), though there are times that I'm certain I've
flubbed up in this area. I work very hard to model the types of values that I
would like my children to value as well as talk about what, how, and why X is
usually better than Y in various situations (i.e. moving away from someone who
is bothering you (and not listening to your requests to stop) is usually better
than staying where they can continue to bother you. Why? Because staying where
they can continue to bother you may result in you or them getting hurt or you
getting angry and yelling or hitting them, etc).
I would not expect my 1 year olds to understand this at all right now let alone
accept it or obey . I do think that my 4 year old is able to understand it
(after talking about it and doing it), but she is not expected to accept it (she
may think the space she is in is worth staying in or defending) or obeying (she
tells me no, and I accept that, though I may not always like it ;-)). I have
also modeled this principle (or versions of it) in various ways (moving if one
of my kids is being/playing too roughly with me, moving my car on the road if
another car is driving erratically, moving my kids out of the way if someone is
walking toward them and not watching for them, etc.). Interestingly, it is not
until writing this that I realized that this is a principle that I have,
something I value. This is what I want to get better at: seeing such principles.
"Principles are what you use to help *you* decide between better and
not so good. Principles are what you use to create the atmosphere you
value in your home"
Ok. I understand this as a definition, and I would understand it better for
application with some real world *these are my/our principles* discussion. So,
what do other people consider their principles (for themselves, in their
households, etc)? Principles seemed to me to be things like: be kind, be safe,
respect others, UNTIL I read Sandra's Big Book and Sandra's site, and some of
the ideas that she calls principles make so much sense to me, but I don't seem
to be very often coming up with or recognizing such as principles myself.
Sandra's principles are clear and not abstract concepts. I don't have the book
on me now, but one such principle is something along the lines of *children will
be and feel safe in our home*. I see this as another way, a more concrete way,
for saying the principles safety, respect, kindness. I would love to read more.
Lisa B
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lisa E Biesemeyer
"One thing that helped when my kids were little was for me to remind them in
moments of conflict (and to remind myself, when necessary) that each of them
needed to feel safe in his own home. That doesn't need to be called any one
word. It did involve safety, and it involved peace, and it involved
place--that this was Marty's home, and so Kirby couldn't overcome Marty
socially or physically without being reminded that Marty needed privacy and
safety because he lived here."
I just read this after I wrote about that principle in the last email I sent
:-). Thanks for putting into a scenario. That's really helpful.
Lisa B
________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
moments of conflict (and to remind myself, when necessary) that each of them
needed to feel safe in his own home. That doesn't need to be called any one
word. It did involve safety, and it involved peace, and it involved
place--that this was Marty's home, and so Kirby couldn't overcome Marty
socially or physically without being reminded that Marty needed privacy and
safety because he lived here."
I just read this after I wrote about that principle in the last email I sent
:-). Thanks for putting into a scenario. That's really helpful.
Lisa B
________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 3/29/2011 6:02 AM, Lisa E Biesemeyer wrote:
it mean you shouldn't defend yourself in case you might harm your
attacker? Does it mean you shouldn't eat meat? No stepping on an ant? It
is too absolute and too out-of-context.
Principles allow a person room to consider and think about how to apply
it. I wouldn't like "Be safe," as a principle, either. How safe? Safe
from everything that could possibly happen? Never take any risk, no
matter how small?
A principle I live by would be more like, "Try to be the source of good
in the world." That leaves it to me to figure out how to behave, with
"be the source of good" as my guideline.
As an unschooling parent, a really important principle for me was,
"Create a lifestyle for our family that offers lots of varied
experiences, information, and ideas." Decisions we made about what to
do on vacations or where to spend our money or whether to buy a new
couch would all be examined with the "Learning Lifestyle" principle in
mind.
Principles don't tell us what to do. They HELP us decide what to do.
Rules tell us what to do. They do not allow us to decide what to do.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself orIt isn't a really sensible way to try to live, imo. Mushy thinking. Does
> others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number
> of the
> principles I have now.
it mean you shouldn't defend yourself in case you might harm your
attacker? Does it mean you shouldn't eat meat? No stepping on an ant? It
is too absolute and too out-of-context.
Principles allow a person room to consider and think about how to apply
it. I wouldn't like "Be safe," as a principle, either. How safe? Safe
from everything that could possibly happen? Never take any risk, no
matter how small?
A principle I live by would be more like, "Try to be the source of good
in the world." That leaves it to me to figure out how to behave, with
"be the source of good" as my guideline.
As an unschooling parent, a really important principle for me was,
"Create a lifestyle for our family that offers lots of varied
experiences, information, and ideas." Decisions we made about what to
do on vacations or where to spend our money or whether to buy a new
couch would all be examined with the "Learning Lifestyle" principle in
mind.
Principles don't tell us what to do. They HELP us decide what to do.
Rules tell us what to do. They do not allow us to decide what to do.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***In a scenario where one child is
hitting another child, for example. Does not a parent ask the child hitting to
be kind to the other child? This is exactly the conversation I would like to
have :-)***
I never really like to have that sort of conversation ;) However, in those
instances with kids where they are doing things that are simply not okay, I
generally tell that kid to please stop and then help them do something
different.
In the case of running where a kid should walk, it's better to say, please walk.
In the case of a kid hitting another kid, it's better to say stop. Then find
out why a kid is to the point of hitting, and usually it is because there is a
need for more of a parental presence to help that kid navigate their world.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hitting another child, for example. Does not a parent ask the child hitting to
be kind to the other child? This is exactly the conversation I would like to
have :-)***
I never really like to have that sort of conversation ;) However, in those
instances with kids where they are doing things that are simply not okay, I
generally tell that kid to please stop and then help them do something
different.
In the case of running where a kid should walk, it's better to say, please walk.
In the case of a kid hitting another kid, it's better to say stop. Then find
out why a kid is to the point of hitting, and usually it is because there is a
need for more of a parental presence to help that kid navigate their world.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 3/29/2011 6:40 PM, Jenny Cyphers wrote:
wouldn't step in the middle of them and make sure it stopped?
Depending on the kids and their ages and their history and my knowledge
of them, I might talk with them once the hitting had stopped. I might
find out from each of them what they thought had gone wrong and I might
ask if they could think of some other way they could have handled it and
I might give some suggestions. I kind of doubt I'd ever just ask them to
be kind...the problem isn't likely to be that they were being unkind,
more likely they were reacting out of frustration and anger. What they
probably need, to avoid resorting to hitting, is help with other ways to
handle frustration. And, possibly, a parent to be more present and aware
when tensions are building so she/he can step in sooner with help,
rather than after tempers have exploded. And, if hitting is an ongoing
problem, the parent should probably find ways to let the kids have more
space and time away from each other -- too much forced togetherness is
sometimes the real problem.
The principles are for the parent, not something the parent is trying to
teach (impose on) a child.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> ***In a scenario where one child isYou wouldn't just say, "Stop?" And if that didn't work, immediately, you
> hitting another child, for example. Does not a parent ask the child
> hitting to
> be kind to the other child? This is exactly the conversation I would
> like to
> have :-)***
wouldn't step in the middle of them and make sure it stopped?
Depending on the kids and their ages and their history and my knowledge
of them, I might talk with them once the hitting had stopped. I might
find out from each of them what they thought had gone wrong and I might
ask if they could think of some other way they could have handled it and
I might give some suggestions. I kind of doubt I'd ever just ask them to
be kind...the problem isn't likely to be that they were being unkind,
more likely they were reacting out of frustration and anger. What they
probably need, to avoid resorting to hitting, is help with other ways to
handle frustration. And, possibly, a parent to be more present and aware
when tensions are building so she/he can step in sooner with help,
rather than after tempers have exploded. And, if hitting is an ongoing
problem, the parent should probably find ways to let the kids have more
space and time away from each other -- too much forced togetherness is
sometimes the real problem.
The principles are for the parent, not something the parent is trying to
teach (impose on) a child.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Adeia J
On 3/29/2011 6:02 AM, Lisa E Biesemeyer wrote:
1) No diminishing. Period.
2) Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.
3) Honoring and upholding each other, adult to adult, adult to child, child to child, human to dog/turtle/fish is paramount and insisted upon in all interactions (and if the adults screw it up with each other, our daughter reminds us).
4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show (or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).
5) Our goal: A wholly loved child, respected and upheld, given the freedom and space to grow as she will, naturally, and without our impedance. A wholly loving and open partnership (marriage in our case), where we share each other with our daughter, while retaining our personal relationship with one another.
This looks like - never saying to her, you're not _________ enough. Never telling her she's less or we're more (and not allowing that concept to be felt even if not said). It looks like helping her remember to treat others as we treat each other in our home, while still building her ability to develop and maintain her boundaries. It looks like absolutely no ridicule, not inferred, not spoken, not shown in body expression, nothing. And it looks like encouraging her to experience her feelings and ideas, share them, experiment and grow, and know that she is fully supported the moment she needs us, but until then, we stay out of the way.
> I read the other day the principle, "do no harm to yourself orI think this concept is valid. In our home, we hold the following truths and I can see how the statement "do no harm to yourself or others" correlates.
> others", and I decided that I like that so much better than a number
> of the principles I have now.
1) No diminishing. Period.
2) Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.
3) Honoring and upholding each other, adult to adult, adult to child, child to child, human to dog/turtle/fish is paramount and insisted upon in all interactions (and if the adults screw it up with each other, our daughter reminds us).
4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show (or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).
5) Our goal: A wholly loved child, respected and upheld, given the freedom and space to grow as she will, naturally, and without our impedance. A wholly loving and open partnership (marriage in our case), where we share each other with our daughter, while retaining our personal relationship with one another.
This looks like - never saying to her, you're not _________ enough. Never telling her she's less or we're more (and not allowing that concept to be felt even if not said). It looks like helping her remember to treat others as we treat each other in our home, while still building her ability to develop and maintain her boundaries. It looks like absolutely no ridicule, not inferred, not spoken, not shown in body expression, nothing. And it looks like encouraging her to experience her feelings and ideas, share them, experiment and grow, and know that she is fully supported the moment she needs us, but until then, we stay out of the way.
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Lisa E Biesemeyer wrote:
trying to meet that they used a not so great solution on?
If you tell the child to be kind, that's assuming the child stood
poised between a kind solution and an unkind one and chose the unkind
one.
Assume the child doesn't know how to use kindness or patience or
safety in that particular situation. Assume they're doing the best
they can. They need your help to find better solutions. Kids don't
want to hurt themselves or someone else. But they also have needs. And
they often can't figure out how to meet the need *and* not hurt someone.
When you step back and look at it, principled choices are more complex
because they aren't direct. A principled solution almost always
involves taking one or more side steps away from what someone wants.
And quite often the principled approaches, especially when done
inexpertly, aren't effective! And if a solution doesn't work all that
well there isn't much incentive to keep using it to get better at it.
The child wants to meet their need *and* not hurt themselves or
someone else, but the need is top priority. If you brush the need
aside for a lesson on how we need to be kind to each other, the child
isn't likely to listen. They're focused on their need and waiting out
your override of their need with your need to teach a lesson.
If you're disagreeing with someone on some jam you're both in and
someone steps in to educate you on how to properly argue, wouldn't
that be annoying? Isn't your priority fixing the jam? And then someone
comes along with their own agenda to fix you, totally blowing off your
problem because theirs is more important? What the heck?? you might be
thinking about them. Wouldn't you want them to fix the jam?
Don't assume that just because kids are doing something unkind that
they don't understand about kindness. And don't assume that since they
know to be kind they're, therefore, deliberately choosing unkindness.
Assume they want to be kind, that they know about kindness, and don't
know how to be kind in this particular situation.
Use your principles to find better solutions. *Be* their better
solutions. They need to see loads and loads of examples of how to do
things in a more complex ways before they can figure out how to come
up with them on their own.
They may pick up a bit from you solving your own problems with your
principles (modeling) but they'll pick up tons more from seeing the
principles used to solve their problems and meet their needs.
Like this:
obvious, doesn't mean they don't understand. Trust they're thinking
beings! Trust they can grasp the obvious when they're able and until
then you'll need to help them figure out how to make it work in the
jam they're in.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Does not a parent ask the child hitting toBut what problem was the child trying to solve, what need were they
> be kind to the other child? This is exactly the conversation I would
> like to
> have :-)
trying to meet that they used a not so great solution on?
If you tell the child to be kind, that's assuming the child stood
poised between a kind solution and an unkind one and chose the unkind
one.
Assume the child doesn't know how to use kindness or patience or
safety in that particular situation. Assume they're doing the best
they can. They need your help to find better solutions. Kids don't
want to hurt themselves or someone else. But they also have needs. And
they often can't figure out how to meet the need *and* not hurt someone.
When you step back and look at it, principled choices are more complex
because they aren't direct. A principled solution almost always
involves taking one or more side steps away from what someone wants.
And quite often the principled approaches, especially when done
inexpertly, aren't effective! And if a solution doesn't work all that
well there isn't much incentive to keep using it to get better at it.
The child wants to meet their need *and* not hurt themselves or
someone else, but the need is top priority. If you brush the need
aside for a lesson on how we need to be kind to each other, the child
isn't likely to listen. They're focused on their need and waiting out
your override of their need with your need to teach a lesson.
If you're disagreeing with someone on some jam you're both in and
someone steps in to educate you on how to properly argue, wouldn't
that be annoying? Isn't your priority fixing the jam? And then someone
comes along with their own agenda to fix you, totally blowing off your
problem because theirs is more important? What the heck?? you might be
thinking about them. Wouldn't you want them to fix the jam?
Don't assume that just because kids are doing something unkind that
they don't understand about kindness. And don't assume that since they
know to be kind they're, therefore, deliberately choosing unkindness.
Assume they want to be kind, that they know about kindness, and don't
know how to be kind in this particular situation.
Use your principles to find better solutions. *Be* their better
solutions. They need to see loads and loads of examples of how to do
things in a more complex ways before they can figure out how to come
up with them on their own.
They may pick up a bit from you solving your own problems with your
principles (modeling) but they'll pick up tons more from seeing the
principles used to solve their problems and meet their needs.
Like this:
> I work very hard to model the types of values that IThat's way too much explanation. Just because they don't do the
> would like my children to value as well as talk about what, how, and
> why X is
> usually better than Y in various situations (i.e. moving away from
> someone who
> is bothering you (and not listening to your requests to stop) is
> usually better
> than staying where they can continue to bother you. Why? Because
> staying where
> they can continue to bother you may result in you or them getting
> hurt or you
> getting angry and yelling or hitting them, etc).
obvious, doesn't mean they don't understand. Trust they're thinking
beings! Trust they can grasp the obvious when they're able and until
then you'll need to help them figure out how to make it work in the
jam they're in.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
"Adeia J" <thecleverwind@...> wrote:
Understanding the reasons behind your own rules can help you find your principles (or values or whatever you want to call them) and that includes the baggage and fears that lead you to feel a need to make a rule.
As a rule applied to others, "no diminishing" seems dismissive. If you've modeled putting your kids down, then they'll do it to one another. Making a rule becomes a case of "do as I say, not as I do". If you haven't modeled that sort of behavior, then rather than dismissing the needs of the person being rude and dismissive, look directly at those needs. What frustration or unhappiness led your child to call a sibling stupid (or whatever)? How can you address those needs better, now and in the future? A rule "no diminishing" doesn't get to the "why" - and so it diminishes you and your family. Its an end point. Principles are starting places.
There's a contradiction between "respect of autonomy" and "instilled". If you're instilling, you are assuming someone's autonomous decision making will send him or her in the wrong direction. If you begin from the perspective that kids (and adults, too) are doing the best they can, there's nothing to instill. Instead your focus can shift to "how can I help?" And that shift moves you closer to your principles of respect and esteem.
Autonomy is an idea that means widely different things to different people. As a principle, that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as *you* are clear what you mean by it, but in a discussion its problematic. Why do you want to respect isolation and disconection (which is how some people will read "autonomy")?
Those are your principles in the sense we mean. 1-4 are more like rules or reminders - things that come out of your own childhood, perhaps, or your spouse's. You have a lot to say about upholding and avoiding put-downs, so I'm guessing you got a lot of that!
George, my partner, needed a lot of support when Ray was younger, in terms finding alternatives to put-downs. Just like with kids, it helped to assume he was doing the best he could in the moment, and look for ways to help him do better - which included openly appreciating him when he *did* do better, when he was warm and kind and thoughtful rather than sharp and dismissive. And in terms of unschooling, it also meant not putting him down when he floundered around, not having better tools in the moment.
---Meredith
>In our home, we hold the following truths"We" statements are problematic - it assumes a degree of "group think" that generally doesn't exist as much as parents would like it to. Kids can parrot parental expectations without agreeing or sharing the same "truths". Those are your principles, but not necessarily those of your children, not truths but goals or ideals.
> 1) No diminishing. Period.That's a rule that seems to have some baggage behind it! Do you struggle not to put down things your children say and do? That was something I struggled with when Ray was little - in my experience, it was how parents taught children to be adults, but diminishing everything childish.
Understanding the reasons behind your own rules can help you find your principles (or values or whatever you want to call them) and that includes the baggage and fears that lead you to feel a need to make a rule.
As a rule applied to others, "no diminishing" seems dismissive. If you've modeled putting your kids down, then they'll do it to one another. Making a rule becomes a case of "do as I say, not as I do". If you haven't modeled that sort of behavior, then rather than dismissing the needs of the person being rude and dismissive, look directly at those needs. What frustration or unhappiness led your child to call a sibling stupid (or whatever)? How can you address those needs better, now and in the future? A rule "no diminishing" doesn't get to the "why" - and so it diminishes you and your family. Its an end point. Principles are starting places.
> 4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity**************
There's a contradiction between "respect of autonomy" and "instilled". If you're instilling, you are assuming someone's autonomous decision making will send him or her in the wrong direction. If you begin from the perspective that kids (and adults, too) are doing the best they can, there's nothing to instill. Instead your focus can shift to "how can I help?" And that shift moves you closer to your principles of respect and esteem.
Autonomy is an idea that means widely different things to different people. As a principle, that's not necessarily a bad thing as long as *you* are clear what you mean by it, but in a discussion its problematic. Why do you want to respect isolation and disconection (which is how some people will read "autonomy")?
> 5) Our goal: A wholly loved child, respected and upheld, given the freedom and space to grow as she will, naturally, and without our impedance. A wholly loving and open partnership (marriage in our case), where we share each other with our daughter, while retaining our personal relationship with one another.************
Those are your principles in the sense we mean. 1-4 are more like rules or reminders - things that come out of your own childhood, perhaps, or your spouse's. You have a lot to say about upholding and avoiding put-downs, so I'm guessing you got a lot of that!
George, my partner, needed a lot of support when Ray was younger, in terms finding alternatives to put-downs. Just like with kids, it helped to assume he was doing the best he could in the moment, and look for ways to help him do better - which included openly appreciating him when he *did* do better, when he was warm and kind and thoughtful rather than sharp and dismissive. And in terms of unschooling, it also meant not putting him down when he floundered around, not having better tools in the moment.
---Meredith
Deb Lewis
***"do no harm to yourself or others"***
I like the idea but believe it's impossible to live without doing harm. It would leave me feeling like I couldn't live according to my own principle. I couldn't drive for fear of splattering bees on my windshield or exacerbating someone's asthma.
***"Try to be the source of good in the world."***
I like this too, but it's too big for me and I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) live up to it in all things.
After having taken care of my father when he was dying, my mother in her illness and my aunt at various times of need and my in-laws, I feel less and less inclined to try be the source of good in the world. Maybe I'm getting old. The world is full of misery and while I feel it more deeply than I wish I did, I am not equipped to fix it. I believe Pam was talking more about her world: Family, friends, coworkers, unschoolers and how that in various ways and times might radiate out into the larger world. And I'm glad Pam is up for this because she's been a source of good in my little world for many years. <g>
I'm pretty comfortable with, *Try not to do anything horrible to your fellow creatures.* The negative wording suits my dark nature<g> and "horrible" lets me choose to be, on occasions I think it warranted, direct, abrupt or uncivil without feeling I made great compromises.<g>
I moved my mother into a nursing home last fall. She has dementia and I had been taking care of her (with my sister, trading off) for many years. I didn't want to be the source of good for my mom any more. It was costing me a lot, physically, emotionally, it was costing my family a lot. I *could* take care of her until she dies, keep her with family, with people who really know her, but I don't want to and so I did something that was unpleasant for her. Not horrible, but surely not good.
I confronted a mom who hit her child and knocked him down, and I suppose she thought of me and of my interference as horrible, but I saw it (chose to see it<g>) as justified. She may have felt some anger but I don't consider her displeasure horrible. Surely not worse than walloping someone a third your size.
It also lets me speak or act out against stupidity or injustice when I see it, when it's in my power to do so, but doesn't have the effect of making me feel inclined to go out into the world and fight stupidity and injustice wherever it occurs. Fighting injustice wherever it occurs is a great thing! But I'm not up to such an enormous task.
It lets me consider that other creatures value their existence and peace as much as I value mine and so I try to live like that matters.
The benefit of having guiding principles is that, as Pam pointed out, they aid in making decisions. People who have no principles can seem/be erratic in their choices and goals. Knowing what you believe (if it's rational) makes life easier.
I didn't try to make Dylan adopt my principles. I have them because they help me make better choices. He has his own.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I like the idea but believe it's impossible to live without doing harm. It would leave me feeling like I couldn't live according to my own principle. I couldn't drive for fear of splattering bees on my windshield or exacerbating someone's asthma.
***"Try to be the source of good in the world."***
I like this too, but it's too big for me and I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) live up to it in all things.
After having taken care of my father when he was dying, my mother in her illness and my aunt at various times of need and my in-laws, I feel less and less inclined to try be the source of good in the world. Maybe I'm getting old. The world is full of misery and while I feel it more deeply than I wish I did, I am not equipped to fix it. I believe Pam was talking more about her world: Family, friends, coworkers, unschoolers and how that in various ways and times might radiate out into the larger world. And I'm glad Pam is up for this because she's been a source of good in my little world for many years. <g>
I'm pretty comfortable with, *Try not to do anything horrible to your fellow creatures.* The negative wording suits my dark nature<g> and "horrible" lets me choose to be, on occasions I think it warranted, direct, abrupt or uncivil without feeling I made great compromises.<g>
I moved my mother into a nursing home last fall. She has dementia and I had been taking care of her (with my sister, trading off) for many years. I didn't want to be the source of good for my mom any more. It was costing me a lot, physically, emotionally, it was costing my family a lot. I *could* take care of her until she dies, keep her with family, with people who really know her, but I don't want to and so I did something that was unpleasant for her. Not horrible, but surely not good.
I confronted a mom who hit her child and knocked him down, and I suppose she thought of me and of my interference as horrible, but I saw it (chose to see it<g>) as justified. She may have felt some anger but I don't consider her displeasure horrible. Surely not worse than walloping someone a third your size.
It also lets me speak or act out against stupidity or injustice when I see it, when it's in my power to do so, but doesn't have the effect of making me feel inclined to go out into the world and fight stupidity and injustice wherever it occurs. Fighting injustice wherever it occurs is a great thing! But I'm not up to such an enormous task.
It lets me consider that other creatures value their existence and peace as much as I value mine and so I try to live like that matters.
The benefit of having guiding principles is that, as Pam pointed out, they aid in making decisions. People who have no principles can seem/be erratic in their choices and goals. Knowing what you believe (if it's rational) makes life easier.
I didn't try to make Dylan adopt my principles. I have them because they help me make better choices. He has his own.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
***2) Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.***
When Dylan was little he had a friend whose mom was newly religious. Fundamentalist christian. The boys loved Godzilla movies but she believed that they could damage her child's soul because of certain scenes where islanders bow to a giant moth and some other's I forget now. There was maybe some issue with the word "god" being part of Godzilla.
That mom later reformed and felt foolish about the whole Godzilla business and came to think *she* might have damaged her son and their relationship by her refusal to trust him and respect his choices.
Lot's of people don't believe there is such a thing as a soul. How can one person determine what might damage a non existent thing inside another person?
***4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show (or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).***
Four seems in direct conflict with two, and with itself. How can one respect someone's autonomy and intelligence and not allow them something they want?
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
When Dylan was little he had a friend whose mom was newly religious. Fundamentalist christian. The boys loved Godzilla movies but she believed that they could damage her child's soul because of certain scenes where islanders bow to a giant moth and some other's I forget now. There was maybe some issue with the word "god" being part of Godzilla.
That mom later reformed and felt foolish about the whole Godzilla business and came to think *she* might have damaged her son and their relationship by her refusal to trust him and respect his choices.
Lot's of people don't believe there is such a thing as a soul. How can one person determine what might damage a non existent thing inside another person?
***4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show (or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).***
Four seems in direct conflict with two, and with itself. How can one respect someone's autonomy and intelligence and not allow them something they want?
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 30, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Adeia J wrote:
husband? Did the two of you discuss what you believed and how you
wanted to raise your kids and come up with the list?
I think the "do no harm to yourself or others" was an attempt to craft
family principles that the kids were expected to adopt as their own.
Which is something very different.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I think this concept is valid. In our home, we hold the followingI'm guessing your list of principles refers to just you and your
> truths and I can see how the statement "do no harm to yourself or
> others" correlates.
husband? Did the two of you discuss what you believed and how you
wanted to raise your kids and come up with the list?
I think the "do no harm to yourself or others" was an attempt to craft
family principles that the kids were expected to adopt as their own.
Which is something very different.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
***How does a parent communicate to a young child an idea of how to treat another person,...***
With a four year old, depending, it might be a pretty straightforward expression of your observation. "He doesn't like that." or "That made him so happy."
A sixteen month old (or two!) probably won't care about what you're saying, only about the results they're getting.
But mostly those ideas grow over time and from all the little ways you help your kids solve problems, express your delight in them, help them have fun, day to day. If there are problems between young siblings I think the mom won't find an easy answer by explaining principles of kindness. The mom will have to be with the kids more and help them more and be the one to find solutions, for now.
Respect and kindness are lovely principles. Your kindness in difficult or frustrating situations, your respect for your kids and others, will help your kids eventually see the value in those things.
It seems like you might have thought that adopting certain principles would make daily life easier as everyone got on board with your new plan. The principles are for you, to help you decide how to make better choices and how to respond to, and be with your kids.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
With a four year old, depending, it might be a pretty straightforward expression of your observation. "He doesn't like that." or "That made him so happy."
A sixteen month old (or two!) probably won't care about what you're saying, only about the results they're getting.
But mostly those ideas grow over time and from all the little ways you help your kids solve problems, express your delight in them, help them have fun, day to day. If there are problems between young siblings I think the mom won't find an easy answer by explaining principles of kindness. The mom will have to be with the kids more and help them more and be the one to find solutions, for now.
Respect and kindness are lovely principles. Your kindness in difficult or frustrating situations, your respect for your kids and others, will help your kids eventually see the value in those things.
It seems like you might have thought that adopting certain principles would make daily life easier as everyone got on board with your new plan. The principles are for you, to help you decide how to make better choices and how to respond to, and be with your kids.
Deb Lewis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-1) No diminishing. Period.-=-
I'm guessing you have an infant or very young child.
Sometimes an older child might do something harmful without feeling remorse, and you might find you want to diminish them to the point that they examine their actions.
-=-2) Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.-=-
Who gets to decide what those things are?
Many people believe that unschooling damages children's minds.
I think having someone else decide minutely what will be done or not done diminishes another's intellectual growth.
-=-3) Honoring and upholding each other, adult to adult, adult to child, child to child, human to dog/turtle/fish is paramount and insisted upon in all interactions (and if the adults screw it up with each other, our daughter reminds us).-=-
Only one thing can be paramount. That's how "paramount" works.
And I think "insisted upon" skirts that "diminishing" rule, period.
-=-4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show (or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).-=-
Who instills that respect? What happens if a conversation veers away from the mom's definition of respect? How can one respectfully control another's conversation or activity? What if one person is gaining intelligence and intellectual development (both were on the list) from a tv show, and someone else shuts it off?
-=-5) Our goal: A wholly loved child, respected and upheld, given the freedom and space to grow as she will, naturally, and without our impedance. -=-
Maybe your principles are love, respect, freedom and space. Perhaps that would cover all the other particulars in #1-4.
I don't think a family needs a charter or a constitution.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm guessing you have an infant or very young child.
Sometimes an older child might do something harmful without feeling remorse, and you might find you want to diminish them to the point that they examine their actions.
-=-2) Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.-=-
Who gets to decide what those things are?
Many people believe that unschooling damages children's minds.
I think having someone else decide minutely what will be done or not done diminishes another's intellectual growth.
-=-3) Honoring and upholding each other, adult to adult, adult to child, child to child, human to dog/turtle/fish is paramount and insisted upon in all interactions (and if the adults screw it up with each other, our daughter reminds us).-=-
Only one thing can be paramount. That's how "paramount" works.
And I think "insisted upon" skirts that "diminishing" rule, period.
-=-4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show (or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).-=-
Who instills that respect? What happens if a conversation veers away from the mom's definition of respect? How can one respectfully control another's conversation or activity? What if one person is gaining intelligence and intellectual development (both were on the list) from a tv show, and someone else shuts it off?
-=-5) Our goal: A wholly loved child, respected and upheld, given the freedom and space to grow as she will, naturally, and without our impedance. -=-
Maybe your principles are love, respect, freedom and space. Perhaps that would cover all the other particulars in #1-4.
I don't think a family needs a charter or a constitution.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I confronted a mom who hit her child and knocked him down, and I suppose she thought of me and of my interference as horrible, but I saw it (chose to see it<g>) as justified. She may have felt some anger but I don't consider her displeasure horrible. Surely not worse than walloping someone a third your size. -=-
She probably felt diminshed. I HOPE she did, as hitting a child was apparently making her feel pretty big.
Holly dealt with someone who was drunk recently, and received some verbal abuse I'm pretty sure the disher-outer wouldn't even remember having said. Had it gone further than it did, and become physical (as does sometimes happen with people who have had too much alcohol), I hope Holly would have defended herself, or at least gently disarmed or taken down the other person, to be prone and then maybe pass out and sleep it off. If Holly had been hit, or if Holly had wanted me to intervene, I wouldn't have hesitated to diminish the other person's memory and justification of such actions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
She probably felt diminshed. I HOPE she did, as hitting a child was apparently making her feel pretty big.
Holly dealt with someone who was drunk recently, and received some verbal abuse I'm pretty sure the disher-outer wouldn't even remember having said. Had it gone further than it did, and become physical (as does sometimes happen with people who have had too much alcohol), I hope Holly would have defended herself, or at least gently disarmed or taken down the other person, to be prone and then maybe pass out and sleep it off. If Holly had been hit, or if Holly had wanted me to intervene, I wouldn't have hesitated to diminish the other person's memory and justification of such actions.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
"do no harm to yourself or others"
***Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.***
Well, does smoking count? What about cutting hair? What about tattoos and
piercings? What about breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend? What about
ending a friendship? What about extreme sports?
The thing is, all of those things mentioned above could be considered doing
damage to heart, mind, soul, or body. When I was a kid I was friends with a
girl who wasn't allowed to cut her hair because it was against their religious
belief because it was considered damaging. Some people consider tattoos and
piercings to be extremely damaging. Who gets to decide?
My husband smokes cigarettes. I think it does damage to a person's health, but
I'm certainly not going to tell him it's not allowed.
Breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or any friend can be hugely damaging
to a person's heart and mind and soul. It can hurt hugely, but sometimes it
needs to be done for bigger reasons.
People who do extreme sports know that there is a big risk of bodily damage and
yet they do it anyway. It's part of the thrill of the sport, the danger. Would
it be okay to discourage a kid from exploring that if they really wanted to do
it? What if that kid decided they wanted to be a Hollywood stunt person?
Jackie Chan has broken almost every bone in his body.
Some moms think too much candy is damaging, or red food dye, or any kind of
artificial colors. Some moms really believe that too much wheat is going to
hurt their children or too much sugar will make them sick. Who gets to decide
that?
The problem with that idea, is that it's too much like a rule and not so much
about living with your kids helping them find peace and happiness. That idea
requires a constant judgement on someone's part to decide what defines damage or
harm. It's not that we shouldn't make these sorts of judgement calls, that's a
huge part of living, continuously deciding in any moment what will work and what
won't and why and sizing up the situation.
Living within the parameter of doing no harm isn't nearly as huge as living
within the parameter of helping kids find peace and happiness in their
endeavors.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
***Nothing that can damage the heart, mind, soul, or body is allowed.***
Well, does smoking count? What about cutting hair? What about tattoos and
piercings? What about breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend? What about
ending a friendship? What about extreme sports?
The thing is, all of those things mentioned above could be considered doing
damage to heart, mind, soul, or body. When I was a kid I was friends with a
girl who wasn't allowed to cut her hair because it was against their religious
belief because it was considered damaging. Some people consider tattoos and
piercings to be extremely damaging. Who gets to decide?
My husband smokes cigarettes. I think it does damage to a person's health, but
I'm certainly not going to tell him it's not allowed.
Breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or any friend can be hugely damaging
to a person's heart and mind and soul. It can hurt hugely, but sometimes it
needs to be done for bigger reasons.
People who do extreme sports know that there is a big risk of bodily damage and
yet they do it anyway. It's part of the thrill of the sport, the danger. Would
it be okay to discourage a kid from exploring that if they really wanted to do
it? What if that kid decided they wanted to be a Hollywood stunt person?
Jackie Chan has broken almost every bone in his body.
Some moms think too much candy is damaging, or red food dye, or any kind of
artificial colors. Some moms really believe that too much wheat is going to
hurt their children or too much sugar will make them sick. Who gets to decide
that?
The problem with that idea, is that it's too much like a rule and not so much
about living with your kids helping them find peace and happiness. That idea
requires a constant judgement on someone's part to decide what defines damage or
harm. It's not that we shouldn't make these sorts of judgement calls, that's a
huge part of living, continuously deciding in any moment what will work and what
won't and why and sizing up the situation.
Living within the parameter of doing no harm isn't nearly as huge as living
within the parameter of helping kids find peace and happiness in their
endeavors.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
-=-4) Respect of autonomy, intelligence, self-esteem, intellectual and physical
development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show
(or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).-=-
***Who instills that respect? What happens if a conversation veers away from the
mom's definition of respect? How can one respectfully control another's
conversation or activity? What if one person is gaining intelligence and
intellectual development (both were on the list) from a tv show, and someone
else shuts it off?***
I'd say zombies are very disrespectful of non zombies! Yet, I've watched a LOT
of zombie movies! I think it would be far more disrespectful to ignore my
daughter's passion for zombie movies, in fact it would definitely feel
diminishing to her.
We knew a family where the dad didn't like Sponge Bob and wouldn't let the kids
watch the show because he felt it was stupid and that the kids shouldn't watch
stupid shows, that they should watch better shows. Here, I'm going to be
diminishing (and judgmental) and say that dad was being stupid AND
disrespectful! Sponge Bob is awesome! See how that works? Who gets to decide?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
development, and value is instilled in every activity, conversation, and tv show
(or book) that we watch (or it gets shut off).-=-
***Who instills that respect? What happens if a conversation veers away from the
mom's definition of respect? How can one respectfully control another's
conversation or activity? What if one person is gaining intelligence and
intellectual development (both were on the list) from a tv show, and someone
else shuts it off?***
I'd say zombies are very disrespectful of non zombies! Yet, I've watched a LOT
of zombie movies! I think it would be far more disrespectful to ignore my
daughter's passion for zombie movies, in fact it would definitely feel
diminishing to her.
We knew a family where the dad didn't like Sponge Bob and wouldn't let the kids
watch the show because he felt it was stupid and that the kids shouldn't watch
stupid shows, that they should watch better shows. Here, I'm going to be
diminishing (and judgmental) and say that dad was being stupid AND
disrespectful! Sponge Bob is awesome! See how that works? Who gets to decide?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
-----We knew a family where the dad didn't like Sponge Bob and wouldn't let the kids
watch the show because he felt it was stupid and that the kids shouldn't watch
stupid shows, that they should watch better shows. Here, I'm going to be
diminishing (and judgmental) and say that dad was being stupid AND
disrespectful! Sponge Bob is awesome! See how that works? Who gets to decide?-----
As an interesting aside....Noor was watching Sponge Bob a few nights ago and paused the scene to ask me what famous painting they were referencing. It was Salvador Dali's "Persistence of Memory." So we spent some time looking at Dali paintings and talking about my grandmother, an artist, who once rode with Dali, on the back of his motorcycle.
Hardly meaningless, or trivial. Sponge Bob is actually ripe with cultural, historical, and literary allusions. I've caught Shakespeare, Lord of the Flies, Van Gogh, the Civil War......
If setting the stage for learning, happily and freely, is a principle, it would seem that "instilling" one's prejudices is counterintuitive.
Here's that Sponge Bob episode:
http://spongebob.nick.com/videos/clip/procrastination-full-episode.html
Brie
Brie
watch the show because he felt it was stupid and that the kids shouldn't watch
stupid shows, that they should watch better shows. Here, I'm going to be
diminishing (and judgmental) and say that dad was being stupid AND
disrespectful! Sponge Bob is awesome! See how that works? Who gets to decide?-----
As an interesting aside....Noor was watching Sponge Bob a few nights ago and paused the scene to ask me what famous painting they were referencing. It was Salvador Dali's "Persistence of Memory." So we spent some time looking at Dali paintings and talking about my grandmother, an artist, who once rode with Dali, on the back of his motorcycle.
Hardly meaningless, or trivial. Sponge Bob is actually ripe with cultural, historical, and literary allusions. I've caught Shakespeare, Lord of the Flies, Van Gogh, the Civil War......
If setting the stage for learning, happily and freely, is a principle, it would seem that "instilling" one's prejudices is counterintuitive.
Here's that Sponge Bob episode:
http://spongebob.nick.com/videos/clip/procrastination-full-episode.html
Brie
Brie