Johanna

Hello Ren,

> I see most "no's" as a closed door. My goal is to be more creative
> than that. If I say "no", it has something to do with safety or
> personal boundaries. (Ren Allen)

I agree. But talking with others who think they parent rather
peacefully, I often come across the argument, that my personal
boundaries seem to just be a lot lower than other people's and my
defintion of safety is just a lot "freeer" than that of most people.

While others see a safety issue in watching TV, I don't. You see what
I mean? People don't just limit watching TV or playing video games
just "because", but because it they think it's not safe.

While others see a safety issue in letting their kids go naked on the
street in winter, I don't. People don't just force their kids socks
on without reason, they do it, because they think it's not safe (they
fear they get ill).

While others are afraid of letting their kids play with fire, I am
not. They don't just limit and not help them with learning about
fire, because they "want to" use their "power", they do it, because
they truely believe that this is a safety issue.


So I'm kind of stuck here – do I –do we– just have lower limits,
lower boundaries, a looser view of safety?

I agree though, there are parents who just "use their power" over
their kids and really randomly apply limits and so on, tell them lies
and just try to form their kids into a mold they believe it's best.
But I have met some who are very close to what I'd call radical
unschoolers, but just have other views on what is safe and what is
not. They just want to protect their kids from bad things to happen
to them.

Who is to say what is objectively "safe" or not?

Who can help me thinking this further?

Greetings from Germany :-)

Johanna
(P.S.: German mailinglist growing every week :-) We are 66 now and
very talkative :-) Yay!)


--
Unerzogen! | dialog@... | http://www.unerzogen.de |
unerzogen-subscribe@...

Sylvia Toyama

While others see a safety issue in watching TV, I don't. You see what
I mean? People don't just limit watching TV or playing video games
just "because", but because it they think it's not safe.

While others are afraid of letting their kids play with fire, I am
not. They don't just limit and not help them with learning about
fire, because they "want to" use their "power", they do it, because
they truely believe that this is a safety issue

*****

I think in these situations, saying NO because it's a safety issue is very short-sighted.

Do these parents really think their child is never going to see a TV in his life, never going to use fire in his life? If so, they're mistaken. TV is everywhere and kids who can't watch it at home will watch it elsewhere -- in childhood and adulthood. At some point in life, everyone needs to know how to use fire -- camping, lighting the pilot on the furnace or stovetop, candles, etc. Fire is captivating and kids who don't know have any real-life experience in how it works -- in a controlled setting with a parent involved -- often feel compelled to experiment with it. That's the real danger.

Sure, TV can bring some dangerous thoughts in (I guess, not really my belief, but to some it seems dangerous) and fire can hurt. It's the (perceived) danger in these actions that makes it more important to find a way to facilitate your child's exploration. Give them a safe enviroment, with you there to show them the dangers, and how to protect themselves and others. Guide them, don't limit them.

There's also the loss of trust and credibility issue for those parents. If a Mom tells her child, 'fire is bad - it will hurt you -- stay away from it' but he see her light a candle or start a fire, and it looks safe for her (after all she doesn't get hurt) she's been contradictory. Why would Mom do something she's told me is always dangerous? Then someday he or some other child he knows lights a match or lighter and isn't hurt. He thinks, "okay so now Mom lied to me -- it isn't always dangerous." But he can't tell her he's made this observation because she's already told him 'no, you can't do that.' He'll be in trouble with her -- he'd rather take his chances with fire. How is he going to figure out when/where/how fire is safe? Does this very concerned parent really want her child figuring this out entirely on his own?

Now substitute the word drugs or sex for fire above -- that's how it extends when parents just say no and shut down all reasonable discussion, which is what arbitrary no does. Kids learn that Mom is lying to them, because she doesn't think they have the ability to learn this new skill, try this new thing. So they don't consult her -- after all, she'd only say no.

*****
While others see a safety issue in letting their kids go naked on the
street in winter, I don't. People don't just force their kids socks
on without reason, they do it, because they think it's not safe (they
fear they get ill).

This is one is just silly -- people don't get sick from having wet, cold feet. If one continued to be cold and wet, until one was tired -- and did so for days on end, the immune system might be weakened and that person might become ill in the presence of a virus, but illness doesn't spring forth from allowing a child to be barefoot on a cold or wet street.

Sylvia


Gary (dh)
Will (almost 22!) Andy (10-1/2) and Dan (almost 6)

Peace is the vibrant space which stimulates the dance of kindness, merriment and freedom. ~ unknown




http://ourhapahome.blogspot.com








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Johanna

Hello Sylvia

> Do these parents really think their child is never going to see a
> TV in his life, never going to use fire in his life?

No, they just think, it is dangerous if watched all day and therefore
should be limited to some hours daily only. Or should be introduced
later, when the kids are more able to "know the difference between
reality and fiction" or whatever. Or they think if they'd have to
watch tv with them all day to guide and explain, they'd rather limit
it because they just don't habe time.

> At some point in life, everyone needs to know how to use fire --
> camping, lighting the pilot on the furnace or stovetop, candles,
> etc. Fire is captivating and kids who don't know have any real-life
> experience in how it works -- in a controlled setting with a parent
> involved -- often feel compelled to experiment with it. That's the
> real danger.

I agree with you and I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that my 7-
year-old daughter knows how to handle and extinguish fire, for
instance, when I go outside of the house. But these parents think
that whatever... young children don't have the motoric ability or...
just responsability to handle fire responsibly, and therefore should
learn to handle fire with they are *older* (not never, of course).
Also, these parents usually have been raised the same way and were
never allowed to play with fire either, and they "turned out well"
anyway, and at some point, just later, older, they learned to handle
fire anyway (well some didn't ;-))...
>
> Sure, TV can bring some dangerous thoughts in (I guess, not really
> my belief, but to some it seems dangerous) and fire can hurt. It's
> the (perceived) danger in these actions that makes it more
> important to find a way to facilitate your child's exploration.
> Give them a safe enviroment, with you there to show them the
> dangers, and how to protect themselves and others. Guide them,
> don't limit them.

I think they don't think about "just some thoughts" TV might bring in
or that fire hurts. They are thinking about neurons in the brain that
don't connect well, addiction to TV, the whole house burning, the kid
feeling very competent with fire while he isn't yet and then letting
candles lit somewhere unattended... It doesn't matter how you explain
that TV is not bad, they will believe that TV is bad because books,
magazines, e-zines and everybody is saying it, based on "studies" and
so on. TV itself broadcastes shows saying how bad high TV consum is
for kids, and when they let their kids do it (after limiting, of
course), they seem them watching TV all day and think "aha, addicted".

Anyway, no matter if it is the case or not – who can say that
objectively anyway? – the thing is, that they have another definition
of what is already dangerous and what not.
>
> There's also the loss of trust and credibility issue for those
> parents. If a Mom tells her child, 'fire is bad - it will hurt you
> -- stay away from it' but he see her light a candle or start a
> fire, and it looks safe for her (after all she doesn't get hurt)
> she's been contradictory. Why would Mom do something she's told me
> is always dangerous? Then someday he or some other child he knows
> lights a match or lighter and isn't hurt. He thinks, "okay so now
> Mom lied to me -- it isn't always dangerous."

That might be true for some parents, but not for all. The one's I'm
talking about are honest with their children and tell them: "I think
it is dangerous for kids, because you don't have the ability to
handle it yet. Sometimes it might be OK and nothing happens, but
sometimes not. Therefore I limit it" - they don't say it's 100%
dangerous you see? So when the kids do it on their own secretly they
might find out it doesn't hurt, but mom said it didn't hurt all the
time, so it wasn't a lie. And they would tell their children, that
they can do it "when they are older", and they are really allowed to
do it, when they are older.

Anyway, it's still "dangerous" to do it this way, because the
children will feel how their parents don't trust them – but, this was
not my question.

It is true, that we *trust* our children more – but isn't this trust
also based on they way we define what is "dangerous" for us and what
not?

> But he can't tell her he's made this observation because she's
> already told him 'no, you can't do that.' He'll be in trouble with
> her -- he'd rather take his chances with fire. How is he going to
> figure out when/where/how fire is safe? Does this very concerned
> parent really want her child figuring this out entirely on his own?
>
Well just later!
>>
>> While others see a safety issue in letting their kids go naked on the
>> street in winter, I don't. People don't just force their kids socks
>> on without reason, they do it, because they think it's not safe (they
>> fear they get ill).
>
> This is one is just silly -- people don't get sick from having wet,
> cold feet. If one continued to be cold and wet, until one was tired
> -- and did so for days on end, the immune system might be weakened
> and that person might become ill in the presence of a virus, but
> illness doesn't spring forth from allowing a child to be barefoot
> on a cold or wet street.

I agree – but this friend thinks this is already dangerous. I know
it's even more dangerous to trying to protect your immune system from
illnesses, but she just fears them. And this is because she defines
"safety" differently.

Greetings
Johanna


--
Unerzogen! | dialog@... | http://www.unerzogen.de |
unerzogen-subscribe@...

plaidpanties666

--- In [email protected], Johanna <dialog@...> wrote:
>> It is true, that we *trust* our children more ? but isn't this
trust
> also based on they way we define what is "dangerous" for us and
what
> not?

I used to think tv was "dangerous", some of my friends still do and
are aghast at my recent "sell out". The rest want to know if they
can come watch the playoffs....

I think the difference is not so much a different definition as a
willingness to challenge our own boundaries and question our own
definitions. Watching my own kid in real life has led me to
challenge all sorts of previously held ideas about food, media,
violence, and learning. I've seen friends go through a similar
process. But only friends who are willing to challenge their own
Truths. That's hard. It can feel like giving up a little bit of Who
We Are. And to some extent, that's what it is.

I'm certainly not the same person I was five years ago. But I didn't
expect to be, either.

---Meredith (Mo 5, Ray 13)