[email protected]

In a message dated 12/17/2001 11:04:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leslie@... writes:


> . Gossip is never really a private matter, that's basically why it's such a
> negative behavior. Those being gossiped about are eventually negatively
> impacted.

I have some issues happening on this topic right now and would like to hear
what others think.

Good women friends "vent" to each other about things happening in their lives
- about their relationships and interactions with other people. And good
friends commiserate and analyze and toss out ideas and chew on the stuff
together. That is how we work through and understand relationships. It is
important work - it is women understanding relationships that tends to create
and hold communities together and talking about real-life situations and
issues is how women develop that understanding.

If a friend comes to me and wants to talk about issues she has with someone
else - isn't it gossip and should I not tell her to keep it to herself, that
I don't want to hear it? Or is it a friend venting her frustrations and
negative feelings to me, a person she trusts? Or, should I listen and then
report what she said to the person she's talking about because it is only
fair that they ought to know what's being said about them?

Just tossing some possibilities out there - I'm interested in what you all
have to say.

--pam


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

Pam Hartley

I find there's a line in there (sometimes more gray than black and white,
but there) that I can draw.

If a friend says to me, "I am so angry with Gloria. The last time she was
over she said I have a messy house, ugly children and a stupid dog, and
what's worse, my casserole recipe sucks" I consider that venting. I will
make appropriate sympathetic noises about the hardships of life and move on.

If a friend says to me, "You're never going to believe what I heard about
Gloria. She's having an affair with a guy who looks like Kevin Costner, only
fatter" I consider that gossip and will turn the subject.

Pam
----------
From: PSoroosh@...
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Gossip
Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2001, 11:53 AM


If a friend comes to me and wants to talk about issues she has with someone
else - isn't it gossip and should I not tell her to keep it to herself, that
I don't want to hear it? Or is it a friend venting her frustrations and
negative feelings to me, a person she trusts? Or, should I listen and then
report what she said to the person she's talking about because it is only
fair that they ought to know what's being said about them?



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/17/01 11:57:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
PSoroosh@... writes:

<< Good women friends "vent" to each other about things happening in their
lives
- about their relationships and interactions with other people. And good
friends commiserate and analyze and toss out ideas and chew on the stuff
together. That is how we work through and understand relationships. It is
important work - it is women understanding relationships that tends to
create
and hold communities together and talking about real-life situations and
issues is how women develop that understanding.

If a friend comes to me and wants to talk about issues she has with someone
else - isn't it gossip and should I not tell her to keep it to herself, that
I don't want to hear it? Or is it a friend venting her frustrations and
negative feelings to me, a person she trusts? Or, should I listen and then
report what she said to the person she's talking about because it is only
fair that they ought to know what's being said about them? >>

OMG Pam we are living parallel lives LOL. This same issues has been
discussed at our park day discussion group and within smaller groups
of people. To avert gossip we (as a group) said "the best way" (nobody
has to, just that some folks thought it was a good idea) to handle
situations (ie, child misbehavior) was to go directly to the parent first.
If did not get response from parent (should try more than once if repeated
offence) it would be ok to go to other friends to discuss situation, to
get feedback or even to warn other parents about said child's behaviors.
I do this all the time. This is how I think best through discussion with
close friends. As to your last statement I would not get involved in a
she said she said situation where one gossips and you go tell on them.
That could get very icky.

Kathy

[email protected]

> To avert gossip we (as a group) said "the best way" (nobody
> has to, just that some folks thought it was a good idea) to handle
> situations (ie, child misbehavior) was to go directly to the parent first.
> If did not get response from parent (should try more than once if repeated
> offence) it would be ok to go to other friends to discuss situation, to
> get feedback or even to warn other parents about said child's behaviors.
>

I hate groups deciding how I have to be. I know you said nobody has to, but
if that's the group's policy, not following it is uncooperative.

Two stories--one ten years old (names are common and kids have moved to
opposite ends of the country), and one one day old:



We had a family in a babysitting co-op in which the little boy had been
sexualized (by a neighbor, or vice versa; ultimately we came to think it was
by the mom, and the neighbor might be a victim too).

He was messing with other kids.

I discovered it when he and Kirby were away for a five day fishing trip in
another state in a cabin without a phone. How thrilled do you think I was??
Marty told me "Michael told me to feel Holly's bones, and we did." It
involved putting their fingers inside a girl a year old. Marty was three,
came upon Michael messing with Holly, and Michael implicated Marty.

So I checked with other families and came up with four other incidents,
usually with boys. Each family had assumed it no big deal, hadn't wanted to
talk to the mom, hadn't wanted to gossip, just told their own child not to be
alone with him.

And in fact, the mom had told me one day "Michael needs to keep his clothes
on when he's playing." I said okay without asking why. In NONE of the
incidents did Michael have pants off. She had never said "And your kids
probably should too." It was summer, and every day was water-day and
sandbox-mud-day.

So as soon as the family came home I talked to the mom, who had been a really
close friend of mine, as peacefully and sympathetically as I could, figuring
we would figure out something positive and compassionate. She wanted to
offer to pay for counseling for my kids. I said they were fine, that wasn't
necessary. She said if it had been Lauren (a five year old; Kirby and
Michael were six) it would have been okay, but that Holly was just a baby and
that wasn't okay.

I had a huge physical wave of fear go down me. I still remember the feeling.
We were on her front porch where the boys couldn't hear us. I said, "So
you're saying it would have been okay with you if he had stuck his finger up
a five year old girl?"

She stopped, got quiet, and didn't look at me. The question had
short-circuited her thoughts and the dialog was pretty much over.

She hadn't been happy that I had inquired of other families. She had known
NONE of it, though. She was denying that Michael was a problem. She said
"All kids play at sex."

They don't.

[Kirby hadn't had any problems, and I didn't figure he would, because between
the two of those boys Kirby was the dominant idea-getter.]

So anti-gossip rules don't solve all, and go-to-the-mom rules don't either.

Maybe the thing to do is for each mom to use her own judgment about how to
deal with stuff. Some have NO ability to be confrontational and will need a
go-between. It's not a sin to ask for help.

This weekend we had ten houseguests. One was a mom with two kids, and her
treatment of them grated on me worse and worse all weekend. I told the
person who had arranged for them to stay with us. (It was crash space for a
medieval feast; they had driven from Colorado Springs.). She talked to the
leader of the group the woman was in. He said he had issues with the way she
talks to her kids and treats them too, but didn't know how to deal with it.

So now, because of some communication, he knows the problem is bad enough
that she's not welcome here next year (she's been here three years, but only
had the baby last year as an infant and this year as a beginning toddler).

What turned the tide for me was her saying "that little shit" about her eight
year old son, while he was one room away. I don't have to have that in my
house. I defended him in the story analysis (he hadn't been where he said he
would be when they were ready to go, but for good reason--and I know that
building and those people and easily saw the kid's side). I made a couple of
suggestions casually about how to keep the baby from crying.

I'm considering writing to the mom, because if she never likes me anymore it
doesn't matter. And if she'll treat her kids better it will be good for all
mankind. And the wife of that same group leader is pregnant, and I would
much hate for her to take the other mom's actions as any sort of model or
pattern.

Sandra


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/17/01 3:15:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

<<
I hate groups deciding how I have to be. I know you said nobody has to, but
if that's the group's policy, not following it is uncooperative.>>>

I probably didn't word what I was trying to say very well. We were having
a discussion, and the concensus was that it was a good idea to go to
other mom first etc etc. Some folks were asking the same question (as Pam)
in our group, what is/isn't gossip. Out of the 25 folks there 10 of us were
speaking to that topic. And not all of us agreed on everything. No one
took notes. No rules were made. No one is in charge of seeing that
anyone follows any guidelines. Our group doesn't have a policy of any
kind, we only have a mission statement originally written by our founder
(you know her Sandra, its Charlie Miles' old group in So. CA) .


<< Maybe the thing to do is for each mom to use her own judgment about how
to
deal with stuff. Some have NO ability to be confrontational and will need a
go-between. It's not a sin to ask for help.
>>

I agree. I have had to deal with kid incidents lately, what seems to be a
lot.
I have had to talk through them quite a bit before I was able to discuss it
with the other parents involved. Some folks I am able to go right up to
them and speak up, others I have a really hard time and there are actually
two families that I know that the parents are so unresponsive (my child
would never...) that I don't even bother. Luckily we don't see them hardly
ever. So your right every situation is going to be different that is for
sure.

Kathy

Sharon Rudd

Good Grief!! It never ends!!! You get your own house
cleaned and here comes the rest of the world tromping
yuck all over!!It does seem that other people could
stop the abuse cycle with their own awareness! But
nope. Most have to have their faces pushed right into
it! And their butts kicked, too!

Poor little guys.....who will grow up (maybe). Will
they ever know better?

Oooo I get so mad! I don't care if "mother" like the
ones you described like me or not, either. I do tend
to be a buttinski.....once I had to leave a public
(but isolated) beach and find some law enforcement to
help with a situation that was getting progressively
more dangerous......my intervention didn't help at
all....then there are the idiots who put ice cubes in
the babies diapers "cause they look so cute when they
squirm"!! and on and on.

If a person behaves in a decent way they should have
no fear of gossip. Asking for understanding of
something that seems alien is not gossip. Gossip
isn't necessarily bad, anyway. Discussing who married
who and who dates who and who just did what and who is
ill or better or who has a birthday coming up is how
we find out....

I didn't get too far in reading of the posts to find
out what you replied to....your personal experiences
just woke me up, again. Thanks, Sandra. We can't ever
let those sensors relax, even in our own homes.

To feel that wave of fear....and then actually
confront the source is BRAVERY. That is an aspect
MOTHER LOVE that is sometimes hard to manifest.

Thanks again
Sharon of the Swamp



> I had a huge physical wave of fear go down
me..........

It's not a sin to ask for help...............
>
> So now, because of some communication, he knows the
> problem is bad enough
> that she's not welcome here next year...........
>
> What turned the tide for me was her saying "that
> little shit" about her eight
> year old son............. I don't have to have that
in my house. >
> Sandra


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

[email protected]

This just terrifies me. It feels like parents are sometimes the worst
thing that can happen to a kid. You wonder if anything can ever be right
when an unimaginable threat can come from a child.

It's a powerful story Sandra.

Deb L


On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:13:15 EST SandraDodd@... writes:
>
> We had a family in a babysitting co-op in which the little boy had
> been
> sexualized (by a neighbor, or vice versa; ultimately we came to
> think it was
> by the mom, and the neighbor might be a victim too).
>
> He was messing with other kids.
>
> I discovered it when he and Kirby were away for a five day fishing
> trip in
> another state in a cabin without a phone. How thrilled do you think
> I was??
> Marty told me "Michael told me to feel Holly's bones, and we did."
> It
> involved putting their fingers inside a girl a year old. Marty was
> three,
> came upon Michael messing with Holly, and Michael implicated Marty.
>
> So I checked with other families and came up with four other
> incidents,
> usually with boys. Each family had assumed it no big deal, hadn't
> wanted to
> talk to the mom, hadn't wanted to gossip, just told their own child
> not to be
> alone with him.
>
> And in fact, the mom had told me one day "Michael needs to keep his
> clothes
> on when he's playing." I said okay without asking why. In NONE of
> the
> incidents did Michael have pants off. She had never said "And your
> kids
> probably should too." It was summer, and every day was water-day
> and
> sandbox-mud-day.
>
> So as soon as the family came home I talked to the mom, who had been
> a really
> close friend of mine, as peacefully and sympathetically as I could,
> figuring
> we would figure out something positive and compassionate. She
> wanted to
> offer to pay for counseling for my kids. I said they were fine,
> that wasn't
> necessary. She said if it had been Lauren (a five year old; Kirby
> and
> Michael were six) it would have been okay, but that Holly was just a
> baby and
> that wasn't okay.
>
> I had a huge physical wave of fear go down me. I still remember the
> feeling.
> We were on her front porch where the boys couldn't hear us. I
> said, "So
> you're saying it would have been okay with you if he had stuck his
> finger up
> a five year old girl?"
>
> She stopped, got quiet, and didn't look at me. The question had
> short-circuited her thoughts and the dialog was pretty much over.
>
> She hadn't been happy that I had inquired of other families. She
> had known
> NONE of it, though. She was denying that Michael was a problem.
> She said
> "All kids play at sex."
>
> They don't.
>
> [Kirby hadn't had any problems, and I didn't figure he would,
> because between
> the two of those boys Kirby was the dominant idea-getter.]
>
> So anti-gossip rules don't solve all, and go-to-the-mom rules don't
> either.
>
> Maybe the thing to do is for each mom to use her own judgment about
> how to
> deal with stuff. Some have NO ability to be confrontational and
> will need a
> go-between. It's not a sin to ask for help.
>
> This weekend we had ten houseguests. One was a mom with two kids,
> and her
> treatment of them grated on me worse and worse all weekend. I told
> the
> person who had arranged for them to stay with us. (It was crash
> space for a
> medieval feast; they had driven from Colorado Springs.). She talked
> to the
> leader of the group the woman was in. He said he had issues with
> the way she
> talks to her kids and treats them too, but didn't know how to deal
> with it.
>
> So now, because of some communication, he knows the problem is bad
> enough
> that she's not welcome here next year (she's been here three years,
> but only
> had the baby last year as an infant and this year as a beginning
> toddler).
>
> What turned the tide for me was her saying "that little shit" about
> her eight
> year old son, while he was one room away. I don't have to have that
> in my
> house. I defended him in the story analysis (he hadn't been where
> he said he
> would be when they were ready to go, but for good reason--and I know
> that
> building and those people and easily saw the kid's side). I made a
> couple of
> suggestions casually about how to keep the baby from crying.
>
> I'm considering writing to the mom, because if she never likes me
> anymore it
> doesn't matter. And if she'll treat her kids better it will be good
> for all
> mankind. And the wife of that same group leader is pregnant, and I
> would
> much hate for her to take the other mom's actions as any sort of
> model or
> pattern.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/17/2001 11:29:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Natrlmama@... writes:


> what is/isn't gossip.

That is partly the question. This doesn't have to do with kids behavior
necessarily, though. That seems to me to be a slightly different issue. My
question is really about gossip among adults.

Sandra, you and I have talked before about men calling it gossip when women
are doing relationship work. My questions are really coming from that basis.

How do we draw the line between being a good friend who is listening to
someone vent and rant and say negative things about someone else and who is
commiserating and offering a sympathetic response versus gossip that should
just be stopped by telling the person you don't want to hear it, for example.

Second, when should someone "report" on what they've been told in this kind
of context - women who are supposedly good friends talking privately about
their feelings and issues.

--pam


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

KT

> How do we draw the line between being a good friend who is listening to
> someone vent and rant and say negative things about someone else and
> who is
> commiserating and offering a sympathetic response versus gossip that
> should
> just be stopped by telling the person you don't want to hear it, for
> example.

If I'm listening to another woman go on about the way another person
looks or does things or behaves, *and* I sense that this person will not
be amenable to hearing if I have another point of view, or if they won't
listen if I'm giving the benefit of the doubt or trying to see the other
side of it, then I think that's probably gossip. I often *do* try to
see the other side or to give copious benefit of the doubt, in order to
not feel guilty for gossiping. I try to do this without hurting the
feelings of the person I am speaking to, because she may, indeed, be
working on relationship issues. But sometimes the truth hurts.

>
>
> Second, when should someone "report" on what they've been told in this
> kind
> of context - women who are supposedly good friends talking privately
> about
> their feelings and issues.

Never, unless asked to, or it's causing problems in a group or something
like that. If a person is spreading lies, though, I think it's wise to
tell the lie-spreader that you won't keep a secret about who's telling
the lies. Depending on what the lie is and if I know anything about it,
I've been known to disprove the lie right to the lie-spreader's face.
Always giving them a way out (because I've never met anyone who spreads
lies over and over again out of vindictiveness).

I told my son that I'd believe anything he says (he of the vivid
imagination), right up until he asks me to act on that belief...and then
I might need proof. Same thing with grownups...if I believe and then
form an opinion on someone (the act on the belief) based on what you
say, it damn well better be the truth.

Karen

[email protected]

<< Discussing who married
who and who dates who and who just did what and who is
ill or better or who has a birthday coming up is how
we find out.... >>

I believe the word "gossip" was created by men who wanted to keep women more
isolated.

Before cheap printing, TV and the internet, the way women learned about
cooking, quilting, childbearing, canning, etc., was hearing other women's
stories. The way they learn social realities (what to worry about and warn
their daughters about) is hearing what happened to other people regarding
infidelity, divorce, violence, drinking, and all else of a nature to affect
the families.

But when women were separated and alone, the men had more control over what
the wives knew. So men condemned gossip, and said gossips were lazy and
should be home doing laundry or ironing underwear.

What about doing laundry together? No, that leads to gossip.

"The nuclear family" and the isolation of pioneer life are legacies in much
of the U.S. which is interesting now that the internet can bring everyone
into the same laundryroom, as it were.

There is malice and there is information exchange. If someone gets divorced,
I can use knowing not to invite them both over together, not to send them a
Christmas card together and so forth. It's social necessity. There are
parts I do NOT need to know. And finding ways to make one or the other of
them more unhappy is just hateful. But failing to discuss it at all on the
grounds that it's gossip keeps much of culture from smoothly continuing.

Some things need to be discussed so that the person doesn't have to repeat it
over and over for every person she meets: miscarriage, childbirth, marriage,
divorce, death of a family member. Those should be spread as the important
information they are. And the details are more or less needed by some, and
not needed by others.

One thing we can't prescribe or enforce is common sense. Making rules like
"no gossip" doesn't allow common sense the freedom it needs to operate.

Those with more social skills and social awareness will make others' lives
better, and those with little to none will make people's lives worse. That's
the way it has always been and will always be.

Sandra

Sandra

[email protected]

> > . Gossip is never really a private matter, that's basically why it's such
a
> > negative behavior. Those being gossiped about are eventually negatively
> > impacted.
>
> I have some issues happening on this topic right now and would like to
hear
> what others think.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm one of those people who started out
truly dense about interpersonal relations. I'm still learning. I'm terribly
thick-skinned, and have a tendency to assume the same of others. I'm also a
very straight-up communicator, and really had no clue that some people in the
world have hidden agendas. I was and am particularly naive and susceptible to
manipulation when it comes to rooting for underdogs. I'm also really bad at
asking for help or appearing weak. Most of what I know about relating to
people in a healthy way has been learned pretty late in life. What I'm saying
is that I'm no expert, but here are some things I've learned.

A very wise woman once said to me regarding gossip that the problem with
gossip is not that people gossip too much, but that they don't do enough of
the right sort of gossiping.

Hurtful, slanderous gossip exchanged with the voice of the rather arch lady
elephant in Dumbo and with sly winks is right out. Pretty much, if I find
that I can transfer what I'm thinking about or hearing from someone with that
sort of a voice, I really don't need to say it. Obviously, that's
oversimplified (and if you haven't seen Dumbo, I guess it's also hard to
relate to).

On the other hand, the right sort of gossip can bring a group together and be
supportive of a person. Suppose that someone in your group just suddenly
stopped showing up to gatherings. You have no idea what's up. You call her
house, no answer. You go over, no one's home. The neighbour comes out and
says, "Oh, Jenny had to fly to Texas suddenly because her mom had a stroke."
That's certainly gossip ("rumour or talk of a personal, intimate or
sensational nature"), however, I would maintain that it's the sort of gossip
that is beneficial. It allows the rest of us to prepare to lend a hand when
we can. Similar to this is spreading of good news ("David passed his Ph.D.
defense!" "Shannon had a baby girl!") -- this is also by definition gossip,
but is a courtesy to the hearer as well -- perhaps they weren't aware, and
now gives them the opportunity to offer well wishes to the new Dr. or mom.

I find it interesting that "gossip" (when applied to people) not only
referred to someone who habitually spread gossip, but it could also mean "a
close friend" in days gone by. Also interesting to me that gossip is rarely
applied to men.

> If a friend comes to me and wants to talk about issues she has with someone
> else - isn't it gossip and should I not tell her to keep it to herself,
that
> I don't want to hear it? Or is it a friend venting her frustrations and
> negative feelings to me, a person she trusts? Or, should I listen and then
> report what she said to the person she's talking about because it is only
> fair that they ought to know what's being said about them?

For me, truth has to do with what makes useful talk. If someone wants to blow
hot air and lies around, I usually find that I'm needed elsewhere, just after
asking the person if s/he has spoken to the one they are talking about. If
its just beefing due to putting up with grating personalities, I'll listen
and do the tongue-cluck until they've calmed down enough to "rejoin polite
society" (as my mom would put it); no real input needed from me. If it's an
honest problem, then I listen sympathetically and offer advice. If it's an
honest problem that the other person is not aware they are causing, I
certainly will talk to the person about approaching that other person and
bringing it to light. Sometimes our best helpers are the ones who aren't
afraid to tell us our zippers are down and we have spinach in our teeth.

I have also learned that some people need intermediaries (another lesson from
that same wise woman, learned when I was venting to HER about how much some
people kept venting to ME...) to approach other people for them, and are not
often good about asking in plain English for help. It may come veiled as
gossip or venting. I have no problem running interference for myself, but not
everyone is as thick-skinned. So when someone comes venting, I now am savvy
enough to ask, "Do you want me to talk to him about it?"

I have also learned the importance of gathering enough information on a topic
to determine whether it is truth or balderdash. Some completely true things
masquerade as absurd simply because we have had limited exposure to them.

Naturally, just because something is true does not mean it should be spread
around if the person doesn't wish it. But sometimes people do it because they
need support dealing with it. When I was going to have a biopsy to check for
lymphoma, I really didn't want people knowing about it (see above, under
"weakness"), but my husband really needed to talk to someone about it so he
could process it. Difference in family culture: my family were stoic silent
types, his were talkers.

Anyway, I've learned so much about dealing with other humans from this wise
woman, and I continue to do so on a daily basis now that I'm on this list --
thanks, Sandra!! (Any misrepresentations of her words are failings on my
part, not mistakes of hers!)

Peace,
Wynn
still young in the ways of learning and being

Tia Leschke

At 12:17 PM 18/12/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> > How do we draw the line between being a good friend who is listening to
> > someone vent and rant and say negative things about someone else and
> > who is
> > commiserating and offering a sympathetic response versus gossip that
> > should
> > just be stopped by telling the person you don't want to hear it, for
> > example.
>
>If I'm listening to another woman go on about the way another person
>looks or does things or behaves, *and* I sense that this person will not
>be amenable to hearing if I have another point of view, or if they won't
>listen if I'm giving the benefit of the doubt or trying to see the other
>side of it, then I think that's probably gossip. I often *do* try to
>see the other side or to give copious benefit of the doubt, in order to
>not feel guilty for gossiping. I try to do this without hurting the
>feelings of the person I am speaking to, because she may, indeed, be
>working on relationship issues. But sometimes the truth hurts.

I think I draw the line between going on and on about what another person
is doing that impacts on the speaker and/or their family, and going on and
on about what someone is doing that does not.
Tia

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

[email protected]

> I think I draw the line between going on and on about what another person
> is doing that impacts on the speaker and/or their family, and going on and
> on about what someone is doing that does not.
>

That's a good measure.

Maybe "just gossip" can be when it's of no consequence to the speaker or
listener either one, so it's not news and not instructional example, just
talking.

What the families I talked about did in their own homes I wouldn't have known
or cared about. What they did in and to mine did.

Sandra


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/18/01 1:22:39 PM Mountain Standard Time,
Otterspur@... writes:


> Anyway, I've learned so much about dealing with other humans from this wise
> woman, and I continue to do so on a daily basis now that I'm on this list
> --
> thanks, Sandra!! (Any misrepresentations of her words are failings on my
>

More pressure! Oh no!

Wynn and I have known each other for many years, and for a while she even
lived in range (Colorado, instead of the current New York and the former
Maryland). It was SCA issues and not homeschooling issues we talked about
for the longest time.

Sandra


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

[email protected]

Someone from another list mentioned a homeschooling court case in Mass.
Does anyone know about this? Is this a CPS thing and the family
happens to be homeschooling, or is this a legal challenge to
homeschooling, or am I just gossiping?

Deb L

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/18/2001 12:22:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Otterspur@... writes:


> . The neighbour comes out and
> says, "Oh, Jenny had to fly to Texas suddenly because her mom had a
> stroke."
> That's certainly gossip ("rumour or talk of a personal, intimate or
> sensational nature"), however, I would maintain that it's the sort of
> gossip
> that is beneficial.

Sandra (sorry - speaking for you Sandra) said once that if she and Keith were
to divorce, she'd really want us all to gossip about it so that SHE wouldn't
have to be the one to tell everybody. Makes sense to me -- when my bil died,
it was clearly of benefit to my sister for the information to spread quickly
and widely so that she would face having to tell people as few times as
possible.

So, okay, that kind of "gossip" I understand - I'd count it under
"information that is useful for people to have - clearly serving a useful
purpose." So I'm crossing that off my list of what I consider gossip <G>.

What about the "just venting" kind? Example: A group of friends sitting
around and one walks away and one of the others says, "She is just driving me
crazy today with going on and on about blah blah blah...". Not particularly
nice to say it, I guess, but I wonder if there isn't a purpose to it -
everybody else learning from it that going on like that is annoying to this
person, for example. Maybe someone else says, "Well, she needs somebody to
talk to about this blah, blah, blah so that's why she's going on like that."
And so on.... further analysis. Is this sort of a case of women together
developing their interpersonal intelligence? And, should one of these women
then TELL the person that, when she got up, someone else complained about
her? Why or why not?

(I've made up this scenario - it isn't something that has happened or
anything - but it seems likely enough - probably has happened when I have
walked away from a group, I just betcha <BEG>. It is close enough to
something that has recently happened that it would be really interesting to
hear people's ideas on it.)

--pam


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

Helen Hegener

At 6:25 PM -0700 12/18/01, ddzimlew@... wrote:
>Someone from another list mentioned a homeschooling court case in Mass.
>Does anyone know about this? Is this a CPS thing and the family
>happens to be homeschooling, or is this a legal challenge to
>homeschooling, or am I just gossiping?

For several years we at Home Education Magazine have been following
the ongoing case of the Bryant family of Waltham, Massachusetts. In
1997, when the Waltham city school officials requested that the
Bryant's two children, then ages seven and nine, be tested and that
the family provide the district with progress reports, the Bryants
refused, saying that the state does not have the authority to monitor
or control the education of their children.

On December 14, 2001, an article in the Waltham, MA News-Tribune
described the latest development in this case: "The two children of
George and Kim Bryant have been placed in the custody of the
Department of Social Services because their parents refuse to submit
a home-schooling lesson plan to the Waltham School Department." Here
is a link to the article:

Bryants lose court battle:
Social Service now guardian of Waltham children in homeschooling case
Friday, December 14, 2001
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/local_regional/waltbryants12142001.htm

On Saturday, December 15 the story was picked up by the larger Boston Herald:
Waltham home-school kids put in DSS custody
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/home212152001.htm
"Kim and George Bryant have argued it is their right to home school
the children without filing reports or testing results with the city
school department because, in their opinion, there's no such
requirement in the U.S. Constitution."

This case involves several issues of importance, primarily how the
interests of the state conflict with the interests of the individual
family. For an excellent overview, links to articles and commentary,
email updates, how to get involved and how to send an encouraging
note to the Bryant family, please see this page at the Educational
Freedom website:
http://www.educationalfreedom.com/pages/bryant.html

Helen

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/18/01 7:51:37 PM Mountain Standard Time,
PSoroosh@... writes:


> . Is this sort of a case of women together
> developing their interpersonal intelligence?
>

Sometimes it's just exactly that.

<<And, should one of these women then TELL the person that, when she got up,
someone else complained about her? Why or why not?>>

I think no.

Why not, because if she can't think of a way to constructively and tactfully
make the situation better, saying something will make things worse.

If someone complains about someone I'm really close to and I think the
complaint's legitimate, I'll try to find a way to suggest to them that they
might want to try to avoid doing X. Or not do it as much. Or the next time
I'm where the two of them are I'll try to steer the conversation or seating
arrangements so that the irritation's minimized.

Sandra


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

Fetteroll

on 12/18/01 8:25 PM, ddzimlew@... at ddzimlew@... wrote:

> Someone from another list mentioned a homeschooling court case in Mass.
> Does anyone know about this? Is this a CPS thing and the family
> happens to be homeschooling, or is this a legal challenge to
> homeschooling, or am I just gossiping?

Here's what I posted to the Unschooling list:

---
Though I'm from Mass I haven't been following this case on the state HSing
group's list because of the legalistic nitpicking. (It makes me realize why
people get fed up with unschooling nitpicking ;-)

It seemed shockingly uncaring to me that MA homeschoolers weren't supporting
the Bryants but apparently their case is based around their contention that
the compulsory attendance law goes against state constitutionally guaranteed
parental rights so the law itself is unconstitutional. There's a hugely
steep learning curve involved in figuring out what in the world anyone is
talking about in order to try to decide if such a law can be (legally)
unconstitutional and if so whether it is and whether that really has
anything to do with the legalities of homeschooling in MA. Basically the
rallying cry is too muddled to get everyone to answer the call.

(The Bryants stance is they don't have to submit an education plan to be
approved by the Superintendent since the compulsory attendance law is
unconstitutional. One of the problems that prevents people from rallying
around the case is that the education plan is not a much of a hoop to jump
through (I use Carol Narigon's which I can pass on if anyone's interested)
and the case law is very clear that the state can't dictate the manner of
education so unschooling is very easy in MA.)

There's been a good summary of the two Mass homeschooling points of view on
the case and why the Bryants aren't being backed universally by
homeschoolers in MA on the MHLA email list. (The second list has had many
ongoing discussions about it and others.)

masshomelearningassoc at Yahoo Groups (supposedly the MHLA list for
nonpolitical homeschooling discussions but a good summary)
MAhomeschoolers at Yahoo Groups (the MHLA list for political talk)

Whether the Bryants have helped the homeschooling atmosphere in Mass as they
claim, or hindered as MHLA claims, apparently no real changes can happen if
the foundation of the changes keeps coming back to the argument of whether
to work with what is there (compulsory attendance laws and others) or
whether that's ridiculous because the laws are unconstitutional. :-/

The scary/sad part is the DSS involvement in what is by-the-legal-book
educational neglect and therefore child neglect, but which doesn't match
reality since the kids are clearly being well educated. (They probably know
a lot more about law than a lot of lawyers!)

---

I also clarified that MA doesn't have homeschooling laws, per se. Being
"otherwise educated" is mentioned in the compulsory attendance law. The
rules and regulations on homeschooling are based on a case, The Care and
Protection of Charles, that, sometimes ambiguously, states what is required
of homeschoolers -- an education plan and the superintendent *can* ask for
some form of assessment but the parents need to agree on the form -- and the
scope of the superintendent's involvement.

No one wants to overturn Charles because if it's interpretted "properly" ;-)
it makes homeschooling easy. The state group is working on a set of
guidelines for superintendents (with the state I believe) to make
interpretation more uniform throughout the state.

Joyce



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

[email protected]

Thank you, Helen.
Deb L





On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:49:23 -0800 Helen Hegener
<HEM-Editor@...> writes:
> For several years we at Home Education Magazine have been following
> the ongoing case of the Bryant family of Waltham, Massachusetts. ...

Fetteroll

on 12/18/01 11:49 PM, Helen Hegener at HEM-Editor@...
wrote:

> "The two children of
> George and Kim Bryant have been placed in the custody of the
> Department of Social Services because their parents refuse to submit
> a home-schooling lesson plan to the Waltham School Department."

It's a minor clafification -- since the whole aspect of DSS being involved
in this is just too crazy making -- just so people have the proper image of
the family's situation in their heads but the Bryants currently have
physical custody of their 2 children (who are 12 and 13). DSS supposedly
needs to approve of various decisions (biggies like education, where they
live, medical care, marriage, and so on -- the Bryants may not move the
children out of state until they're 16). They are still homeschooling and
have submitted an education plan since they have a court order to do so.
(Their objection was that the ed plan requirement was illegal because the
compulsory attendance law went against the state constitution. But they will
comply with a court order.)

Of course DSS could decide to take physical custody at any time.

And now that I read through it again, things still aren't perfectly clear.
One of the Bryants arguements is that the Supreme Judicial Court can't make
laws according to the state constitutuion. (The Charles case is refered to
as case law.) So nothing that's said in Charles applies. Others say Charles
isn't law but clarification of existing law.

Well, that part just makes the head spin which is why the case generates
more of a sigh of irritation in most MA homeschoolers than a stance for or
against.

Joyce


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/19/2001 4:44:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:


> Well, that part just makes the head spin which is why the case generates
> more of a sigh of irritation in most MA homeschoolers than a stance for or
> against.

And - just asking - isn't it an irritation to many because most homeschoolers
in MA are perfectly happy with existing law/case law since they are able to
do any kind of homeschooling and they consider the requirements to be
perfunctory? Aren't many MA homeschoolers concerned about increased publicity
as the Bryant case spreads across the country and people get involved who
don't live in MA and don't necessarily fully understand the subtleties and
don't have to live, themselves, with the repercussions of any changes in
homeschooling legalities that they might bring about there?

--pam


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

Helen Hegener

At 7:48 AM -0500 12/19/01, Fetteroll wrote:
>Well, that part just makes the head spin which is why the case generates
>more of a sigh of irritation in most MA homeschoolers than a stance for or
>against.

Thanks for the clarification, Joyce. This is a complex, convoluted
issue at best, several years in the making, and I'm monitoring
several lists now just trying to follow the whole thing. I do believe
there's an important bottom line here though, and I am determined to
dog it down until I can make the whole thing - the case, the issues
it raises, etc. - clear and understandable.

Helen

Fetteroll

on 12/19/01 11:40 AM, PSoroosh@... at PSoroosh@... wrote:

> isn't it an irritation to many because most homeschoolers
> in MA are perfectly happy with existing law/case law since they are able to
> do any kind of homeschooling and they consider the requirements to be
> perfunctory?

In most towns that's true. In some towns superintendents ask for more than
what's *apparently* allowed by the case law. (Nothing unique in that to MA,
of course!) And it's that "apparently" that can cause some abuses so not
everyone is happy. But they're unhappy because of the wide ranges of
interpretations (and because some homeschoolers prefer to go along with what
they're told to do, which, considering the daunting task of figuring this
stuff out alone if you're not internet savvy, perhaps isn't unreasonable)
not because of the case law. A much simpler solution than this pretty
convoluted court case is to write up a clarification.

> Aren't many MA homeschoolers concerned about increased publicity
> as the Bryant case spreads across the country and people get involved who
> don't live in MA and don't necessarily fully understand the subtleties and
> don't have to live, themselves, with the repercussions of any changes in
> homeschooling legalities that they might bring about there?

I don't know how many people are thinking that far ahead since we've never
experienced this situation before! I've just been cringing every time I see
the case mentioned, knowing that it looks way different from the outside
than from the inside. It sure looks like a massive abuse that needs fixed.

Joyce


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/20/2001 4:28:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:


> A much simpler solution than this pretty
> convoluted court case is to write up a clarification.

Thanks Joyce. That is helpful in understanding what's going on there.

--pam


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

Nanci Kuykendall

>> . Gossip is never really a private matter, that's
>>basically why it's such a > negative behavior. Those
>>being gossiped about are eventually negatively
>> impacted.

>Good women friends "vent" to each other about things
>happening in their lives
.....
>That is how we work through and understand
>relationships.
>If a friend comes to me and wants to talk about
>issues she has with someone else - isn't it
>gossip.... Or is it a friend venting ......
>Or, should I listen and then report what she said
...?

I tend to agree that there is a line where venting
becomes gossip. That line is not only crossed by the
venter/gossiper, but also can be crossed by their
audience. As when natural venting behavior is
followed up by questions and speculations about the
subject of the frustration. "That Gloria must have
marital problems to be so insecure and attack you like
that. Maybe her husband is cheating on her." Now the
venting about Gloria the rude, becomes gossip about
her personal life that is no one's business.

I tend to avoid gossip wherever and whenever I can,
finding it decisively uncomfortable and contrary to my
personality. I value honest and find gossip to be
inherently dishonest behavior. I also am fairly proud
of the fact that I lie terribly and am completely
transparent at it. Some folks find me painfully
honest and don't like me for it, but I try to use tact
and keep my mouth shut about things that are not my
business or that I have nothing nice to say about.

Nanci K.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

[email protected]

>>
I tend to agree that there is a line where venting
becomes gossip. That line is not only crossed by the
venter/gossiper, but also can be crossed by their
audience. As when natural venting behavior is
followed up by questions and speculations about the
subject of the frustration. "That Gloria must have
marital problems to be so insecure and attack you like
that. Maybe her husband is cheating on her." Now the
venting about Gloria the rude, becomes gossip about
her personal life that is no one's business.
<<

This is where the line gets muddy for me, though. I think that a certain amount of "analyzing" and speculating and figuring out the "whys" and "wherefores" --- is what women DO to help them understand how relationships work and how they fall apart and so on. And I think it is important work.

>>I tend to avoid gossip wherever and whenever I can,
finding it decisively uncomfortable and contrary to my
personality. I value honest and find gossip to be
inherently dishonest behavior. I also am fairly proud
of the fact that I lie terribly and am completely
transparent at it. Some folks find me painfully
honest and don't like me for it, but I try to use tact
and keep my mouth shut about things that are not my
business or that I have nothing nice to say about.
<<

It sounds like you think that women talking together, trying to figure out together what went wrong or whatever, that that is the equivalent of spreading nasty lies about someone. I don't necessarily agree that that is what it always is and it is when it is NOT that, that I'm talking about. I don't think it is so all black and white -- and I think we women live in the gray area. The point is that we NEED to talk to each other - about other people - we need to learn from each other - from other people's mistakes and successes. Suppose we knew someone whose kid seemed to be a mess - doing lots of drugs, sexually promiscuous, lying, stealing, whatever, ... I think it would be reasonable for the two of us, assuming we're good friends, to talk about what we thought went wrong. Was it parenting? What kind? Some traumatic event? Do we think it is a phase? Etc. WE, also being parents, can learn a lot by these kinds of conversations with each other about what we observe happening in other people's lives.

This is different than spreading vicious rumors. I'm not talking about going up to people and saying, "Hey, did you HEEEEAR what so-and-so's kid did?" There seems a difference to me in spreading bad stuff just for the titillation value versus serious discussions among good friends.

But, maybe that's too fine a line to draw. Maybe we humans aren't capable of that distinction?

--pam

Nanci Kuykendall

>There is malice and there is information >exchange.
.....
>Some things need to be discussed so that the person
>doesn't have to repeat it over and over for every
>person she meets: miscarriage, childbirth,
>marriage, divorce, death of a family member. Those
>should be spread as the important information they
>are. And the details are more or less needed by
>some, and not needed by others.
>Sandra

Thanks Sandra. Succinct and another example of what I
was talking about when I agreed that there is a line
that you cross between what is gossip and what is not.


Also, when I said I didn't lie well, that doesn't mean
I NEVER ever lie, although I do try to avoid it
whenever I possibly can. If good taste and/or
kindness dictate that I say something nice, I try to
make it something true. If I feel I HAVE to tell an
untruth to avoid an ugly conflict (this is usually
with family) then I do so sparingly and carefully, but
it is transparent anyway. I think that's alright too.
They know I lied, and they know I did it out of a
concern for the listener/asker, and if they are
offended by that or mad at me for it, I really don't
care. I did my best. But then, I guess I have
learned to laugh and thumb my nose at people's
opinions of me. I have had to. YOU know what I mean
Sandra, oh veteran firestarter.

Nanci K.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:47:31 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:

<< Suppose we knew someone whose kid seemed to be a mess - doing lots of
drugs, sexually promiscuous, lying, stealing, whatever, ... I think it would
be reasonable for the two of us, assuming we're good friends, to talk about
what we thought went wrong. Was it parenting? What kind? Some traumatic
event? Do we think it is a phase? Etc. WE, also being parents, can learn a
lot by these kinds of conversations with each other about what we observe
happening in other people's lives. >>

Suppose one of us in the conversation is somone that kid will confide in and
listen to! Then we need all the information we can get.

Just as some people are tone deaf or math-slow, some aren't really attuned to
interpersonals, don't read other people readily, don't get ideas popping in
their heads about what other people's situations might need for improvement.
Some people don't like ANY music, or ANY math, or ANY interpersonals because
they don't personally like or get it. But some people are not mean AND
they're good with interpersonal relationships. For them, knowing the details
of someone else's marital problems (especially when it's coming from the
principals, but sometimes their two points of view AND the speculation and
suggestion of their closest friends and witnesses) can lead to some
suggestions that keep a couple together.

If I hadn't seen it happen, I wouldn't have that opinion.

Even Kirby was a truly useful marriage counselor to some of his 20+ friends,
at 14.

Partly it has to do with hearing what people are saying and knowing what
they're not saying, and what they're avoiding saying. Sometimes it's the
very thing that some people on the internet squeal about: "You're not taking
me at my word!" In person, especially, those who read eyes and body language
might rate the words third, especially in an emotional situation.

<<There seems a difference to me in spreading bad stuff just for the
titillation value versus serious discussions among good friends.

<<But, maybe that's too fine a line to draw. Maybe we humans aren't capable
of that distinction?
>>

Because some aren't, some believe none are.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:51:24 PM, aisliin@... writes:

<< But then, I guess I have
learned to laugh and thumb my nose at people's
opinions of me. I have had to. YOU know what I mean
Sandra, oh veteran firestarter. >>

I care way more about truth and right than the opinions of others, but I do
care about others' opinion. Mostly I care about the opinions of those who
also care about truth and right.

There is no one that I care more about than I care about truth.

Sandra