Re: Creating Solutions
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/20/2006 12:56:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
The thing is, I think it's a GOOD skill to learn to give for others. <<<<<<<
In my mind it would only be a good thing if it is what you "want" to do. It
*is* your preference, to see someone else happy. Not a good thing if you
feel you *have* to. If you feel there are no other options, or solutions.
Just my thought,
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
The thing is, I think it's a GOOD skill to learn to give for others. <<<<<<<
In my mind it would only be a good thing if it is what you "want" to do. It
*is* your preference, to see someone else happy. Not a good thing if you
feel you *have* to. If you feel there are no other options, or solutions.
Just my thought,
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/20/2006 12:56:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
There are just some times when two people have needs that are mutually
exclusive and there's no possible way to meet both needs. <<<<<<<<
We have not found that to be true in our home and lives. It does mean being
committed to finding a solution that meets the underlying needs to everyone.
Commitment to the process, communication of thoughts, feelings and ideas,
working together.
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
There are just some times when two people have needs that are mutually
exclusive and there's no possible way to meet both needs. <<<<<<<<
We have not found that to be true in our home and lives. It does mean being
committed to finding a solution that meets the underlying needs to everyone.
Commitment to the process, communication of thoughts, feelings and ideas,
working together.
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
"It does mean being
committed to finding a solution that meets the underlying needs to
everyone."
But see, that sounds like rhetoric to me. Meeting underlying needs is
great, but you still aren't getting exactly what you want initially. I
still want a dog, but I don't have one.
My love for Markus is greater than my need for a greyhound. So
everything in my life is exactly what I choose. But that involves
compromise of some things we'd like. Dh would like our house to be
spotless....he realizes that the other family members have different
ideas so he meets that need in some creative ways, none of which
involve having our home be ultra-tidy or nattering at the other people
living here.
I can think of SO many day to day solutions we've come up with that
work great, but involve a bit of "giving up"......again, not a
negative thing to us. I see giving to and for others something that is
healthy when done for the right reasons.
I also think parents SHOULD give up some of their own needs in order
to meet the needs of their child. That's part of being a parent. My
very real NEED for sleep is not as important as a babies need to
nurse. I see it as giving my child what they need, my CHOICE and yet I
ignore my biological need for sleep to do that.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
committed to finding a solution that meets the underlying needs to
everyone."
But see, that sounds like rhetoric to me. Meeting underlying needs is
great, but you still aren't getting exactly what you want initially. I
still want a dog, but I don't have one.
My love for Markus is greater than my need for a greyhound. So
everything in my life is exactly what I choose. But that involves
compromise of some things we'd like. Dh would like our house to be
spotless....he realizes that the other family members have different
ideas so he meets that need in some creative ways, none of which
involve having our home be ultra-tidy or nattering at the other people
living here.
I can think of SO many day to day solutions we've come up with that
work great, but involve a bit of "giving up"......again, not a
negative thing to us. I see giving to and for others something that is
healthy when done for the right reasons.
I also think parents SHOULD give up some of their own needs in order
to meet the needs of their child. That's part of being a parent. My
very real NEED for sleep is not as important as a babies need to
nurse. I see it as giving my child what they need, my CHOICE and yet I
ignore my biological need for sleep to do that.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Ren Allen
~~In my mind it would only be a good thing if it is what you "want" to
do. It *is* your preference, to see someone else happy. Not a good
thing if you feel you *have* to~~
Absolutely. Service done out of a sense of duty or because a person
feels they have no choice isn't service at all. True giving comes from
the heart. That's why I think negotiation and compromise are useful
tools though. It give us all a chance to figure out what is really
important in the moment and how to eventually get what we want.......
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
do. It *is* your preference, to see someone else happy. Not a good
thing if you feel you *have* to~~
Absolutely. Service done out of a sense of duty or because a person
feels they have no choice isn't service at all. True giving comes from
the heart. That's why I think negotiation and compromise are useful
tools though. It give us all a chance to figure out what is really
important in the moment and how to eventually get what we want.......
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Vickisue Gray
Sometimes you HAVE to whether you want to or not.
(Example: my MIL now living with us.)
Vicki
learning to be tolerant
----- Original Message ----
From: "Genant2@..." <Genant2@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:07:25 AM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Creating Solutions
In a message dated 11/20/2006 12:56:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com writes:
The thing is, I think it's a GOOD skill to learn to give for others. <<<<<<<
In my mind it would only be a good thing if it is what you "want" to do. It
*is* your preference, to see someone else happy. Not a good thing if you
feel you *have* to. If you feel there are no other options, or solutions.
Just my thought,
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(Example: my MIL now living with us.)
Vicki
learning to be tolerant
----- Original Message ----
From: "Genant2@..." <Genant2@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:07:25 AM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Creating Solutions
In a message dated 11/20/2006 12:56:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com writes:
The thing is, I think it's a GOOD skill to learn to give for others. <<<<<<<
In my mind it would only be a good thing if it is what you "want" to do. It
*is* your preference, to see someone else happy. Not a good thing if you
feel you *have* to. If you feel there are no other options, or solutions.
Just my thought,
Pam G
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: starsuncloud@...
But see, that sounds like rhetoric to me. Meeting underlying needs is
great, but you still aren't getting exactly what you want initially. I
still want a dog, but I don't have one.
-=-==-
The difference is what is it *you* really want? *What* does Markus
*really* want?
Markus doesn't want hair? Responsibility? Another mouth to feed?
Licking? Scooping poop? WHAT is the issue?
Do you really want a dog? A smaller dog? A furry thing? Sometihng to
run with? Soemthing to cuddle? Someting to train? How many ways can I
misspell something? <g>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My love for Markus is greater than my need for a greyhound. So
everything in my life is exactly what I choose. But that involves
compromise of some things we'd like.
-=-=-=-
No one is compromising. He's not giving even a little. You don't even
have a cat. Nothing is getting done at all.
-=-=-==-
Dh would like our house to be
spotless....he realizes that the other family members have different
ideas so he meets that need in some creative ways, none of which
involve having our home be ultra-tidy or nattering at the other people
living here.
-=-=-=-=-
Knowing *what* bothers him is the first step towards consent. My piles
bother Ben. If things are put away, he can deal with dirt. The house
doesn't have to be spotless: as long as I can tidy up and not make more
piles, I'm meeting his needs.
-=-=-=-==-
I can think of SO many day to day solutions we've come up with that
work great, but involve a bit of "giving up"......again, not a
negative thing to us. I see giving to and for others something that is
healthy when done for the right reasons.
-=-=-=-=-
Maybe if you were to change your vocabulary---just as we tell newbies
to unschooling to do! Change your words *first*. Then your mindset and
intent change as you go with the better understanding of words.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I also think parents SHOULD give up some of their own needs in order
to meet the needs of their child. That's part of being a parent. My
very real NEED for sleep is not as important as a babies need to
nurse. I see it as giving my child what they need, my CHOICE and yet I
ignore my biological need for sleep to do that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I think you need to be old enough to actually *consent*---or your
caregiver needs to act in your behalf. <g> As the parent, that's part
of your job---to act as your child's "consentor." <bwg>
~Kelly
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
From: starsuncloud@...
But see, that sounds like rhetoric to me. Meeting underlying needs is
great, but you still aren't getting exactly what you want initially. I
still want a dog, but I don't have one.
-=-==-
The difference is what is it *you* really want? *What* does Markus
*really* want?
Markus doesn't want hair? Responsibility? Another mouth to feed?
Licking? Scooping poop? WHAT is the issue?
Do you really want a dog? A smaller dog? A furry thing? Sometihng to
run with? Soemthing to cuddle? Someting to train? How many ways can I
misspell something? <g>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My love for Markus is greater than my need for a greyhound. So
everything in my life is exactly what I choose. But that involves
compromise of some things we'd like.
-=-=-=-
No one is compromising. He's not giving even a little. You don't even
have a cat. Nothing is getting done at all.
-=-=-==-
Dh would like our house to be
spotless....he realizes that the other family members have different
ideas so he meets that need in some creative ways, none of which
involve having our home be ultra-tidy or nattering at the other people
living here.
-=-=-=-=-
Knowing *what* bothers him is the first step towards consent. My piles
bother Ben. If things are put away, he can deal with dirt. The house
doesn't have to be spotless: as long as I can tidy up and not make more
piles, I'm meeting his needs.
-=-=-=-==-
I can think of SO many day to day solutions we've come up with that
work great, but involve a bit of "giving up"......again, not a
negative thing to us. I see giving to and for others something that is
healthy when done for the right reasons.
-=-=-=-=-
Maybe if you were to change your vocabulary---just as we tell newbies
to unschooling to do! Change your words *first*. Then your mindset and
intent change as you go with the better understanding of words.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I also think parents SHOULD give up some of their own needs in order
to meet the needs of their child. That's part of being a parent. My
very real NEED for sleep is not as important as a babies need to
nurse. I see it as giving my child what they need, my CHOICE and yet I
ignore my biological need for sleep to do that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I think you need to be old enough to actually *consent*---or your
caregiver needs to act in your behalf. <g> As the parent, that's part
of your job---to act as your child's "consentor." <bwg>
~Kelly
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
wuweimama
--- In [email protected], "Ren Allen"
<starsuncloud@...> wrote:
Pam:
Ren:
initially. I> still want a dog, but I don't have one.
compromise by choice in your family. I don't agree that parents
"should give up some of their own needs in order to meet the needs of
their children". I don't believe it is necessary. I do trust that
there are solutions which don't involve coercion or compromise that
meet the needs of all members of a family. We'd love to trouble shoot
with you on the CL group, if you'd like.
I agree with Pam, the key is being committed to finding solutions that
meet the underlying needs of everyone. Is "getting exactly what you
want initially" the priority? From my experience, if all needs are
met, the initial strategy becomes obsolete.
Pat
<starsuncloud@...> wrote:
Pam:
> "It does mean being> committed to finding a solution that meets theunderlying needs to> everyone."
Ren:
> But see, that sounds like rhetoric to me. Meeting underlying needsis> great, but you still aren't getting exactly what you want
initially. I> still want a dog, but I don't have one.
>people> living here.
> My love for Markus is greater than my need for a greyhound. So
> everything in my life is exactly what I choose. But that involves
> compromise of some things we'd like. Dh would like our house to be
> spotless....he realizes that the other family members have different
> ideas so he meets that need in some creative ways, none of which
> involve having our home be ultra-tidy or nattering at the other
>is> healthy when done for the right reasons.
> I can think of SO many day to day solutions we've come up with that
> work great, but involve a bit of "giving up"......again, not a
> negative thing to us. I see giving to and for others something that
>I> ignore my biological need for sleep to do that.
> I also think parents SHOULD give up some of their own needs in order
> to meet the needs of their child. That's part of being a parent. My
> very real NEED for sleep is not as important as a babies need to
> nurse. I see it as giving my child what they need, my CHOICE and yet
>***Ren, it sounds like you experience a lot of 'giving up' and
compromise by choice in your family. I don't agree that parents
"should give up some of their own needs in order to meet the needs of
their children". I don't believe it is necessary. I do trust that
there are solutions which don't involve coercion or compromise that
meet the needs of all members of a family. We'd love to trouble shoot
with you on the CL group, if you'd like.
I agree with Pam, the key is being committed to finding solutions that
meet the underlying needs of everyone. Is "getting exactly what you
want initially" the priority? From my experience, if all needs are
met, the initial strategy becomes obsolete.
Pat
Ren Allen
~~I agree with Pam, the key is being committed to finding solutions that
meet the underlying needs of everyone. ~~
Again, give me a good solution to having your sleep needs met with
three older children that need you and a baby that nurses at night?
Ignoring the baby is not an option, napping when you have an intense
child that does not nap is not an option and when that child is going
through a phase that they need to nurse every two hours. There are
times that the babies needs ARE more important. If a person isn't
ready to deal with that reality, I don't see how they'll make a good
parent.
That isn't my reality any longer, but it was for quite a while....I
can live without enough sleep for periods of time in order to make
sure my child is safe and getting breastmilk.
We just had a very long discussion over at AU about not allowing a
small child to hurt animals. I don't think the child was consenting to
being gentle...some things are not acceptable, mainly where safety is
concerned. If Jalen wants to throw a rat up and down I need to stop
that. As much as we can discuss alternatives and underlying needs,
sometimes his desire collides with another beings need for safety.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
meet the underlying needs of everyone. ~~
Again, give me a good solution to having your sleep needs met with
three older children that need you and a baby that nurses at night?
Ignoring the baby is not an option, napping when you have an intense
child that does not nap is not an option and when that child is going
through a phase that they need to nurse every two hours. There are
times that the babies needs ARE more important. If a person isn't
ready to deal with that reality, I don't see how they'll make a good
parent.
That isn't my reality any longer, but it was for quite a while....I
can live without enough sleep for periods of time in order to make
sure my child is safe and getting breastmilk.
We just had a very long discussion over at AU about not allowing a
small child to hurt animals. I don't think the child was consenting to
being gentle...some things are not acceptable, mainly where safety is
concerned. If Jalen wants to throw a rat up and down I need to stop
that. As much as we can discuss alternatives and underlying needs,
sometimes his desire collides with another beings need for safety.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
wuweimama
--- In [email protected], Vickisue Gray
<vickisue_gray@...> wrote:
do. Neither does dh or ds. No one coerces anyone to do anything they
don't want to do in our home.
There is always a choice.
Pat
<vickisue_gray@...> wrote:
>My experience is that I don't *have to* do anything I don't want to
> Sometimes you HAVE to whether you want to or not.
> (Example: my MIL now living with us.)
> Vicki
> learning to be tolerant
do. Neither does dh or ds. No one coerces anyone to do anything they
don't want to do in our home.
There is always a choice.
Pat
Danielle Conger
Ren Allen wrote:
this, but feel compelled. *g*)
But there's a huge difference, imo, between saying that something
extreme needs to stop in the moment and bypassing the problem solving
strategies by which everyone's needs may be met.
Even in that discussion, there was a whole lot of brainstorming that
went on as to how mom could keep the animals safe *and* meet the child's
need, which may have been for play, for attention, for space, for time
to learn and develop, etc.
I don't think that stepping in and stopping something immediate
precludes the possibility of finding a win/ win solution.
As I was writing that, I thought to myself that maybe I should stop
short of saying living consensually because stopping something
mid-action isn't always "consensual" within the moment, even if it may
have been a negotiated solutions outside of the moment.
I think that's where I see where Ren's coming from, but also see the
point that compromise doesn't need to be part of a consensual lexicon.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (9), Julia (7), Sam (6)
http://www.organiclearning.blogspot.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Connections: ezine of unschooling and mindful parenting
http://connections.organiclearning.org
>Awwww, maannnnn! (That's me whining because I don't to jump all over
> We just had a very long discussion over at AU about not allowing a
> small child to hurt animals. I don't think the child was consenting to
> being gentle...some things are not acceptable, mainly where safety is
> concerned. If Jalen wants to throw a rat up and down I need to stop
> that. As much as we can discuss alternatives and underlying needs,
> sometimes his desire collides with another beings need for safety.
>
this, but feel compelled. *g*)
But there's a huge difference, imo, between saying that something
extreme needs to stop in the moment and bypassing the problem solving
strategies by which everyone's needs may be met.
Even in that discussion, there was a whole lot of brainstorming that
went on as to how mom could keep the animals safe *and* meet the child's
need, which may have been for play, for attention, for space, for time
to learn and develop, etc.
I don't think that stepping in and stopping something immediate
precludes the possibility of finding a win/ win solution.
As I was writing that, I thought to myself that maybe I should stop
short of saying living consensually because stopping something
mid-action isn't always "consensual" within the moment, even if it may
have been a negotiated solutions outside of the moment.
I think that's where I see where Ren's coming from, but also see the
point that compromise doesn't need to be part of a consensual lexicon.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (9), Julia (7), Sam (6)
http://www.organiclearning.blogspot.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Connections: ezine of unschooling and mindful parenting
http://connections.organiclearning.org
Ren Allen
~~I don't think that stepping in and stopping something immediate
precludes the possibility of finding a win/ win solution.
As I was writing that, I thought to myself that maybe I should stop
short of saying living consensually because stopping something
mid-action isn't always "consensual" within the moment, even if it may
have been a negotiated solutions outside of the moment.~~
That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to say. Just because I DO step in at
the moment, does not mean the process is thrwarted or bypassed. That's
what I"m trying to say (not as eloquently) when I say the need isn't
getting met in the MOMENT but it is being met long term.
In the moment, sometimes a very fast response is needed by a person
with the ability to keep members safe. That doesn't mean I don't sit
down with both victim and attacker to discuss what we can do
differently, what each person's needs are and truly listen to their
frustration and/or feelings.
Sometimes the immediate action is NOT consensual at all...but the
follow up is all about that. Thank you for putting into words what I
was obviously having difficulty doing.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
precludes the possibility of finding a win/ win solution.
As I was writing that, I thought to myself that maybe I should stop
short of saying living consensually because stopping something
mid-action isn't always "consensual" within the moment, even if it may
have been a negotiated solutions outside of the moment.~~
That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to say. Just because I DO step in at
the moment, does not mean the process is thrwarted or bypassed. That's
what I"m trying to say (not as eloquently) when I say the need isn't
getting met in the MOMENT but it is being met long term.
In the moment, sometimes a very fast response is needed by a person
with the ability to keep members safe. That doesn't mean I don't sit
down with both victim and attacker to discuss what we can do
differently, what each person's needs are and truly listen to their
frustration and/or feelings.
Sometimes the immediate action is NOT consensual at all...but the
follow up is all about that. Thank you for putting into words what I
was obviously having difficulty doing.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Vickisue Gray
Wish it could be so simple in my life.
But today's a bad day to discuss the in's and out's
At the moment the sacrifice is not worth it
----- Original Message ----
From: wuweimama <wuweimama@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 7:37:47 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Creating Solutions
--- In unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com, Vickisue Gray
<vickisue_gray@ ...> wrote:
do. Neither does dh or ds. No one coerces anyone to do anything they
don't want to do in our home.
There is always a choice.
Pat
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But today's a bad day to discuss the in's and out's
At the moment the sacrifice is not worth it
----- Original Message ----
From: wuweimama <wuweimama@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 7:37:47 PM
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Creating Solutions
--- In unschoolingbasics@ yahoogroups. com, Vickisue Gray
<vickisue_gray@ ...> wrote:
>My experience is that I don't *have to* do anything I don't want to
> Sometimes you HAVE to whether you want to or not.
> (Example: my MIL now living with us.)
> Vicki
> learning to be tolerant
do. Neither does dh or ds. No one coerces anyone to do anything they
don't want to do in our home.
There is always a choice.
Pat
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Danielle Conger
Ren Allen wrote
I'm in the midst of figuring out for myself some very difficult, nuancy
philosophical issues. One of which (and I can hear Pat typing away
furiously with the whole victim/ attacker duality) is the whole blame/
fault paradigm.
I find myself drawn to RU, C-L, TCS ideas precisely because of my
thoughts about rights, justice, equity, etc.
Yet, the more I think about connection and relationship paradigms, the
more I see that this way of thinking is a roadblock to trust,
partnership, connection, relationship thinking. Rights, justice, equity
fall by the wayside in consensual thinking.
More and more I've been thinking about my own phrasing (and that of
other RU-ers as well)--everyone has a "right" to be safe in their home.
Well, yeah. That's not really something I'm going to dispute or
repudiate. But there comes a point where I can see that phraseology
working in much the same way as loaded political polls, for instance.
While I wouldn't check a "no" box to the question "everyone has a right
to live safely in his/ her own home," I can see how the focus on that
question can preclude all kinds of solutions that might be mutually
agreeable.
Am I ready to give up the thought of "rights" altogether? No way. Not
yet, anyway. But, I'm continually evolving and changing. (Hey Kelly! Did
I just figure out my talk topic? Maybe so!)
What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority, as a
parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to the
exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.
Emily (9), Julia (7), Sam (6)
http://www.organiclearning.blogspot.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Connections: ezine of unschooling and mindful parenting
http://connections.organiclearning.org
>But even this I find myself wanting to tweak and continue to dialog over...
> In the moment, sometimes a very fast response is needed by a person
> with the ability to keep members safe. That doesn't mean I don't sit
> down with both victim and attacker to discuss what we can do
> differently, what each person's needs are and truly listen to their
> frustration and/or feelings.
>
> Sometimes the immediate action is NOT consensual at all...but the
> follow up is all about that. Thank you for putting into words what I
> was obviously having difficulty doing.
>
I'm in the midst of figuring out for myself some very difficult, nuancy
philosophical issues. One of which (and I can hear Pat typing away
furiously with the whole victim/ attacker duality) is the whole blame/
fault paradigm.
I find myself drawn to RU, C-L, TCS ideas precisely because of my
thoughts about rights, justice, equity, etc.
Yet, the more I think about connection and relationship paradigms, the
more I see that this way of thinking is a roadblock to trust,
partnership, connection, relationship thinking. Rights, justice, equity
fall by the wayside in consensual thinking.
More and more I've been thinking about my own phrasing (and that of
other RU-ers as well)--everyone has a "right" to be safe in their home.
Well, yeah. That's not really something I'm going to dispute or
repudiate. But there comes a point where I can see that phraseology
working in much the same way as loaded political polls, for instance.
While I wouldn't check a "no" box to the question "everyone has a right
to live safely in his/ her own home," I can see how the focus on that
question can preclude all kinds of solutions that might be mutually
agreeable.
Am I ready to give up the thought of "rights" altogether? No way. Not
yet, anyway. But, I'm continually evolving and changing. (Hey Kelly! Did
I just figure out my talk topic? Maybe so!)
What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority, as a
parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to the
exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.
> --~~Danielle
>
Emily (9), Julia (7), Sam (6)
http://www.organiclearning.blogspot.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Connections: ezine of unschooling and mindful parenting
http://connections.organiclearning.org
Deb Lewis
***What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority, as a
parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to the
exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.***
I think radical unschoolers care about the rights of children specifically
because of their relationships, though. One feeds the other. We problem
solve because we care about the rights of our kids to do what they want to
do. And then we discover our attention to their rights and needs creates an
environment of consensual living.
I think it becomes a continuum in the unschooling family.
***What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority, as a
parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to the
exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.***
If a child's right to safety is more important than another child's right to
play rough, the first child has his rights recognized when mom steps in to
protect him and the second child gives up his game. We can see this two
ways. We can see the right to safety vs. the right to hurt someone. That's
easy - we don't have a "right" to hurt someone else (except in self defense
or possibly in defense of others) But the second child probably doesn't
think he has a "right" to hurt anyone. He probably just wants to have his
need for physical play met. There are probably other ways to meet the need
for rough, physical play for that child without infringing on the rights of
others to be safe. So, we can recognize and protect the right of the first
child to be safe and we can recognize and facilitate the right of the second
child to have his need for physical play met, in a safe way.
The moment of intervention on behalf of a child being hurt will probably not
look like consensual living. The solution to the underlying problem can,
though.
*** I'm in the midst of figuring out for myself some very difficult, nuancy
philosophical issues. One of which <snip> is the whole blame/
fault paradigm.***
Danielle, let me 'splain you. We blame others when they're at fault. When
we're at fault we blame others LOUDLY <g>
Do we need a new paradigm?!? I'm liking this one fine.<g>
Deb Lewis
parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to the
exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.***
I think radical unschoolers care about the rights of children specifically
because of their relationships, though. One feeds the other. We problem
solve because we care about the rights of our kids to do what they want to
do. And then we discover our attention to their rights and needs creates an
environment of consensual living.
I think it becomes a continuum in the unschooling family.
***What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority, as a
parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to the
exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.***
If a child's right to safety is more important than another child's right to
play rough, the first child has his rights recognized when mom steps in to
protect him and the second child gives up his game. We can see this two
ways. We can see the right to safety vs. the right to hurt someone. That's
easy - we don't have a "right" to hurt someone else (except in self defense
or possibly in defense of others) But the second child probably doesn't
think he has a "right" to hurt anyone. He probably just wants to have his
need for physical play met. There are probably other ways to meet the need
for rough, physical play for that child without infringing on the rights of
others to be safe. So, we can recognize and protect the right of the first
child to be safe and we can recognize and facilitate the right of the second
child to have his need for physical play met, in a safe way.
The moment of intervention on behalf of a child being hurt will probably not
look like consensual living. The solution to the underlying problem can,
though.
*** I'm in the midst of figuring out for myself some very difficult, nuancy
philosophical issues. One of which <snip> is the whole blame/
fault paradigm.***
Danielle, let me 'splain you. We blame others when they're at fault. When
we're at fault we blame others LOUDLY <g>
Do we need a new paradigm?!? I'm liking this one fine.<g>
Deb Lewis
wuweimama
--- In [email protected], "Deb Lewis" <d.lewis@...> wrote:
Danielle wrote:
***What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority,
as a parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to
the exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.***
Deb replied:
I think radical unschoolers care about the rights of children
specifically because of their relationships, though. One feeds the
other. We problem solve because we care about the rights of our kids
to do what they want to do. And then we discover our attention to
their rights and needs creates an environment of consensual living.
I think it becomes a continuum in the unschooling family.
Pat responds:
Deb, in Consensual Living, the focus in on feelings and needs, rather
than "rights"; and on creating solutions when conflicts arise, that
address the underlying needs, rather than enforcing "rights".
Danielle:
***What I can see is that if someone who carries cultural authority,
as a parent does, is exclusively focused on the issue of "rights" to
the exclusion of a focus on problem solving, then the whole
consensual-living paradigm is thwarted before it even gets going.***
Deb:
If a child's right to safety is more important than another child's
right to play rough, the first child has his rights recognized when
mom steps in to protect him and the second child gives up his game. We
can see this two ways. We can see the right to safety vs. the right to
hurt someone. That's easy - we don't have a "right" to hurt someone
else (except in self defense or possibly in defense of others) But the
second child probably doesn't think he has a "right" to hurt anyone.
He probably just wants to have his need for physical play met.
There are probably other ways to meet the need for rough, physical
play for that child without infringing on the rights of others to be
safe. So, we can recognize and protect the right of the first child to
be safe and we can recognize and facilitate the right of the second
child to have his need for physical play met, in a safe way.
The moment of intervention on behalf of a child being hurt will
probably not look like consensual living. The solution to the
underlying problem can, though.
Pat:
I agree that addressing the underlying needs of both parties is the
goal. However, in my experience when we create a sense of entitlement
of "rights", then individuals vie for the "more important", or
priority "right". The focus on "rights" creates an obstacle to sharing
a *common goal*.
The discussion becomes "I have a right" and "he violated my rights".
There becomes an either/or quality to the interaction, rather than
spending energy on 'my needs are xyz and your needs are abc, how can
we solve for both?' Most conflicts do seem to escalate when one person
isn't hearing another person's needs, and then the unheard person
'takes matters into his own hands', as it were. The construct of 'I
have a right to xyz', seems to encourage 'enforcing my right', often
in a physical manner. Or, the parent may 'protect the child's rights'.
None of these represent the 'working together' paradigm of a common
goal of all the needs being addressed. It seems derailed at figuring
out who is in the "right", and who is in the "wrong".
If instead, we state our needs/wants/desires (rather than our
entitlement) for xyz, the other person doesn't need to *defend* his
"right" to xyz. To me it just seems more steamline to discuss needs,
rather than get in a debate about whose "right" is more important. For
instance, if ds is sitting in the chair that dh ALWAYS sits in, dh
could claim "I have a right to sit in MY chair". Then ds is left to
DEFEND, or GIVE UP, what he has. Or else...what? Dh must enforce his
"right", or give up his "rights" to the chair? If dh were to state, 'I
need someplace to sit'; and ds is sitting in the chair that dh ALWAYS
sits in, there are many solutions to the dilemma which don't involve
enforcing a sense of entitlement. Do you see how "rights" obstuct
accessing the multitude of solutions?
In the event of one person hitting another, I have found it more
effective to Facilitate Safety by removing the injured person; and
model empathy for the feelings and needs of the injured person, while
also validating the feelings and needs of the angry person. In the
heat of the moment, it is A LOT to do! But, it is easier, in my
experience to remove the injured party than to remove the angry party.
And in my opinion, it is much easier to discuss underlying needs, than
to debate "rights" in the heat of the angry moment! Even very young
children can identify with core feelings and needs, as those are not
in dispute. It is often an "infrigement" on perceived "rights" that
precipitates conflict, ime. But, we have the choice to focus on
"rights", or not, in our home. We choose to focus on feelings and
needs instead.
I haven't heard ds say, nor he heard us say, 'I have a right to abc'.
He is very quick to articulate his needs, and we ours; and then we all
are trouble shooting together to create a solution which encompasses
all needs. He is amazingly adept at it because he trusts that his
needs will be addressed, and just suggests alternatives which also
address our needs. We do the same thing; and generally, it is very
quick that we find a solution which is preferable to everyone. No one
is spending time defending their needs or qualifying or justifying
their needs as "more important". It is so, so much easier to reach
agreement when everyone is working toward the same goal: everyone's
needs are addressed.
Danielle:
*** I'm in the midst of figuring out for myself some very difficult,
nuancy philosophical issues. One of which <snip> is the whole blame/
fault paradigm.***
Deb:
Danielle, let me 'splain you. We blame others when they're at fault.
When we're at fault we blame others LOUDLY <g>
Do we need a new paradigm?!? I'm liking this one fine.<g>
Pat:
Deb, I know you are joking here, but this IS how conflicts escalate
within a blame/fault paradigm from my experience. One person stakes a
claim, and another either is blamed, or must *give in*. In our family,
we'd rather focus on feelings and needs and work to address those as a
team; not as a competition for whose "rights" are "more important" and
who is at fault for breaching them.
Pat
Ren Allen
~~! But, it is easier, in my
experience to remove the injured party than to remove the angry party.~~
Not always possible. Works great if the angry party isn't angry enough
to start breaking things, chasing down the injured party AND the
parent to create more harm, smashing doors, walls etc....
Jalen is slowly getting more and more tools so this isn't a very
common scenario any longer, but there are times that removing him is
the ONLY option. Especially in a room full of friends and family that
have a RIGHT (yes, I believe in rights) to peace and safety and
unbroken eardrums.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
experience to remove the injured party than to remove the angry party.~~
Not always possible. Works great if the angry party isn't angry enough
to start breaking things, chasing down the injured party AND the
parent to create more harm, smashing doors, walls etc....
Jalen is slowly getting more and more tools so this isn't a very
common scenario any longer, but there are times that removing him is
the ONLY option. Especially in a room full of friends and family that
have a RIGHT (yes, I believe in rights) to peace and safety and
unbroken eardrums.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Deb Lewis
***in Consensual Living, the focus in on feelings and needs, rather
than "rights"; and on creating solutions when conflicts arise, that
address the underlying needs, rather than enforcing "rights".***
I don't see rights as things that need enforcing within our family. We're
all concerned with living well together. There's no denial of rights.
There's no enforcement of rights. As parents and the big people with power
we deliberately talked about rights because we were parenting differently
than almost all other parents Dylan knew. When Dylan wondered why some
parents took away a kid's X box, we talked about the ideas that allow some
people to comfortably control and coerce others. There was no
establishment of rights within our home as an establishment of rights within
a system of government. The rights always were.
Maybe in a family with lots of kid things are different but I'm thinking
back to the days when we'd get our nieces and nephews for three months in
the summer. We went from a house with one kid to a house with six kids.
We got along well because everyone knew their needs would be addressed.
Again, there was no need for enforcement of rights because there was no
denial of rights.
I believe some needs have priority. The need to be safe is a higher
priority than the need to smack something with a stick. The kid who was the
something being smacked needs to be helped to safety. The kid who needs to
smack then, needs help to find something that's ok to smack.
I think basic needs are a priority. Food when someone's hungry. Sleep when
someone is tired, a potty when someone needs to go, safety when someone is
being injured, those needs take priority but that doesn't mean other needs
get ignored.
***None of these represent the 'working together' paradigm of a common
goal of all the needs being addressed.***
And I think our common goal of working together to meet the needs of all
family members is what helps us understand children have the same rights as
adults.<g>
***If dh were to state, 'I
need someplace to sit'; and ds is sitting in the chair that dh ALWAYS
sits in, there are many solutions to the dilemma which don't involve
enforcing a sense of entitlement. Do you see how "rights" obstuct
accessing the multitude of solutions?***
I think we don't mean the same thing when were talking about rights. My
right so sit on my chair is a general right because I was born in a country
where people have the right to own property. Under my philosophy of
unschooling though, I don't have more right to a chair in a home I share
equally with other people. Anyone in my house would move from one chair to
another if anyone else said, "I wanted to sit there." No struggle over
rights would ensue because no one has more right to any particular chair
than anyone else.
My kid has the same rights his dad and I have in our house. He doesn't have
the same rights we have in society. I compensate for that as much as
possible when I can, out in the world. At home though, he's not desperate
to get the last piece of cake in order to enforce his right to have the same
number of pieces of cake his dad or I had. It doesn't happen. He's not
fighting for anything because he's not in any danger of losing anything.
I believe that a person might have more need to sit in a particular chair -
my mom needs a higher chair and the chair with the lift to help her stand
up - and because it is our goal to live well together we don't push Grammy
out of the chair. <g> (she's little, I could do it)
***Do you see how "rights" obstuct
accessing the multitude of solutions?***
I think that could be possible in a case were the people involved were used
to having to fight for what they needed or where they felt things were often
unfair.
Our experience has been that because we believe our kid has the same rights
we do we are more able to see solutions that honor everyone's needs.
***know you are joking here, but this IS how conflicts escalate
within a blame/fault paradigm from my experience.***
Yes, I was joking. Other people seldom find me as amusing as I find myself.
I can live with that. <g>
I mostly see conflicts in other families escalate when the people involved
believe they're at risk of not getting what they want, or haven't gotten
what they want.
We throw blame and fault around pretty freely and part of that might be
residual childhood fear of punishment stuff. But generally speaking humans
use the concepts of blame and fault to learn about their world and to
understand natural consequences. Radically unschooled kids might be less
likely to use blame and fault as a means to manipulate others or to comfort
themselves.
Deb Lewis
than "rights"; and on creating solutions when conflicts arise, that
address the underlying needs, rather than enforcing "rights".***
I don't see rights as things that need enforcing within our family. We're
all concerned with living well together. There's no denial of rights.
There's no enforcement of rights. As parents and the big people with power
we deliberately talked about rights because we were parenting differently
than almost all other parents Dylan knew. When Dylan wondered why some
parents took away a kid's X box, we talked about the ideas that allow some
people to comfortably control and coerce others. There was no
establishment of rights within our home as an establishment of rights within
a system of government. The rights always were.
Maybe in a family with lots of kid things are different but I'm thinking
back to the days when we'd get our nieces and nephews for three months in
the summer. We went from a house with one kid to a house with six kids.
We got along well because everyone knew their needs would be addressed.
Again, there was no need for enforcement of rights because there was no
denial of rights.
I believe some needs have priority. The need to be safe is a higher
priority than the need to smack something with a stick. The kid who was the
something being smacked needs to be helped to safety. The kid who needs to
smack then, needs help to find something that's ok to smack.
I think basic needs are a priority. Food when someone's hungry. Sleep when
someone is tired, a potty when someone needs to go, safety when someone is
being injured, those needs take priority but that doesn't mean other needs
get ignored.
***None of these represent the 'working together' paradigm of a common
goal of all the needs being addressed.***
And I think our common goal of working together to meet the needs of all
family members is what helps us understand children have the same rights as
adults.<g>
***If dh were to state, 'I
need someplace to sit'; and ds is sitting in the chair that dh ALWAYS
sits in, there are many solutions to the dilemma which don't involve
enforcing a sense of entitlement. Do you see how "rights" obstuct
accessing the multitude of solutions?***
I think we don't mean the same thing when were talking about rights. My
right so sit on my chair is a general right because I was born in a country
where people have the right to own property. Under my philosophy of
unschooling though, I don't have more right to a chair in a home I share
equally with other people. Anyone in my house would move from one chair to
another if anyone else said, "I wanted to sit there." No struggle over
rights would ensue because no one has more right to any particular chair
than anyone else.
My kid has the same rights his dad and I have in our house. He doesn't have
the same rights we have in society. I compensate for that as much as
possible when I can, out in the world. At home though, he's not desperate
to get the last piece of cake in order to enforce his right to have the same
number of pieces of cake his dad or I had. It doesn't happen. He's not
fighting for anything because he's not in any danger of losing anything.
I believe that a person might have more need to sit in a particular chair -
my mom needs a higher chair and the chair with the lift to help her stand
up - and because it is our goal to live well together we don't push Grammy
out of the chair. <g> (she's little, I could do it)
***Do you see how "rights" obstuct
accessing the multitude of solutions?***
I think that could be possible in a case were the people involved were used
to having to fight for what they needed or where they felt things were often
unfair.
Our experience has been that because we believe our kid has the same rights
we do we are more able to see solutions that honor everyone's needs.
***know you are joking here, but this IS how conflicts escalate
within a blame/fault paradigm from my experience.***
Yes, I was joking. Other people seldom find me as amusing as I find myself.
I can live with that. <g>
I mostly see conflicts in other families escalate when the people involved
believe they're at risk of not getting what they want, or haven't gotten
what they want.
We throw blame and fault around pretty freely and part of that might be
residual childhood fear of punishment stuff. But generally speaking humans
use the concepts of blame and fault to learn about their world and to
understand natural consequences. Radically unschooled kids might be less
likely to use blame and fault as a means to manipulate others or to comfort
themselves.
Deb Lewis