Guidance
[email protected]
I was out mowing the lawn and thinking about all that's been written
lately. I think that there is a communication issue about some of the
terms being tossed around.
Several new posters have said that children need guidance, so they want
to (or DO) set limits.
I promise our kids aren't wild monkeys because we don't set limits.
They don't strangle kittens for fun. They don't watch porno all night.
They're not shooting up in the bathroom. And yet they have "unlimited"
access to the world (limited only by natural limits---not arbitrary
ones).
What we're saying is that lifting limits (not all at once---just saying
"yes" more) and trusting our kids to make well-thought out decisions
(even though they may not be the decisions *we* would make) will ensure
that they will trust us to stand by them when they *do* have bigger
issues to deal with.
Do my children experiment a *little* outside their comfort zones? You
bet! That's how they figure out the world. That's how they decide what
*their* personal boundaries/limits are. Still, at 11, Duncan does NOT
want to watch love/sex scenes or realistic violence.
Do they do it without my input? No. I'm there to guide and make
suggestions and help if they bite off more than they can chew. They
know I'm always nearby to "rescue" them if they need it.
Guidance? Maybe you think that's about keeping things from them until
you're ready to let them know about it.
To me, it means keeping them safe from things that could be harmful
until *THEY* are ready to test their limits. How do I know when they
are ready? Because the whole world is open to them, they do it with
baby steps. They don't need to ask permission or sneak.
I didn't watch Kill Bill when Duncan was around. He wouldn't appreciate
it. (It bothered me a bit as well!) He was a little frightened by a
couple of scenes in Lord of the Rings, but I held him close and told
him when he could open his eyes. We talked about it a lot afterwards.
If I had told him that the movie was just too intense for him, he would
have believed me because he trusts me. But if I had refused to let him
watch because *I* know better, he may have begged to watch, gone, and
gotten scared, but not want to tell me how scared he was (and lived
with that fear for days/weeks/months) OR he could have gone to see it
without me and never tell me that he saw it.
Lying, sneaking and guilt are not good for any relationship, and since
my relationship with my boys is THE most important thing, we work
together to get what they need.
Guidance, to me, means walking hand-in-hand while pointing out
potential problems and possible solutions. I do NOT tell him what to
do, but I'm happy to tell him what *I* would do IF he asks. I'm OK if
he decides on a different course---it could be a better one than I
would have chosen. If not, I'm happy to help him get out of the
uncomfortable position he's in. He knows I trust him, so he trusts me.
If I were to have limited his world (by not allowing certain shows or
by keeping certain things "secret" or hidden or by not talking about
them) how would he be able to make decisions? Then I wouldn't be
*guiding* him; I'd be *stopping* him from exploring his world. If I
were to somehow feed him my perceptions (TV's bad, junk food's bad,
some programs/movies are bad/not worthy) that became counter to what
*HE* thinks are good or valuable, then what's a child to do? What
become his options? Lie? Sneak? Be filled wih guilt?
If he can't trust me to trust him with small things like tv and sodas,
how do I think he will trust me with *such* bigger issues like drugs
and sex?
Trust doesn't develop overnight. It's a process that takes years and
years and years. The earlier you start, the sooner it'll be a part of
your lives.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
lately. I think that there is a communication issue about some of the
terms being tossed around.
Several new posters have said that children need guidance, so they want
to (or DO) set limits.
I promise our kids aren't wild monkeys because we don't set limits.
They don't strangle kittens for fun. They don't watch porno all night.
They're not shooting up in the bathroom. And yet they have "unlimited"
access to the world (limited only by natural limits---not arbitrary
ones).
What we're saying is that lifting limits (not all at once---just saying
"yes" more) and trusting our kids to make well-thought out decisions
(even though they may not be the decisions *we* would make) will ensure
that they will trust us to stand by them when they *do* have bigger
issues to deal with.
Do my children experiment a *little* outside their comfort zones? You
bet! That's how they figure out the world. That's how they decide what
*their* personal boundaries/limits are. Still, at 11, Duncan does NOT
want to watch love/sex scenes or realistic violence.
Do they do it without my input? No. I'm there to guide and make
suggestions and help if they bite off more than they can chew. They
know I'm always nearby to "rescue" them if they need it.
Guidance? Maybe you think that's about keeping things from them until
you're ready to let them know about it.
To me, it means keeping them safe from things that could be harmful
until *THEY* are ready to test their limits. How do I know when they
are ready? Because the whole world is open to them, they do it with
baby steps. They don't need to ask permission or sneak.
I didn't watch Kill Bill when Duncan was around. He wouldn't appreciate
it. (It bothered me a bit as well!) He was a little frightened by a
couple of scenes in Lord of the Rings, but I held him close and told
him when he could open his eyes. We talked about it a lot afterwards.
If I had told him that the movie was just too intense for him, he would
have believed me because he trusts me. But if I had refused to let him
watch because *I* know better, he may have begged to watch, gone, and
gotten scared, but not want to tell me how scared he was (and lived
with that fear for days/weeks/months) OR he could have gone to see it
without me and never tell me that he saw it.
Lying, sneaking and guilt are not good for any relationship, and since
my relationship with my boys is THE most important thing, we work
together to get what they need.
Guidance, to me, means walking hand-in-hand while pointing out
potential problems and possible solutions. I do NOT tell him what to
do, but I'm happy to tell him what *I* would do IF he asks. I'm OK if
he decides on a different course---it could be a better one than I
would have chosen. If not, I'm happy to help him get out of the
uncomfortable position he's in. He knows I trust him, so he trusts me.
If I were to have limited his world (by not allowing certain shows or
by keeping certain things "secret" or hidden or by not talking about
them) how would he be able to make decisions? Then I wouldn't be
*guiding* him; I'd be *stopping* him from exploring his world. If I
were to somehow feed him my perceptions (TV's bad, junk food's bad,
some programs/movies are bad/not worthy) that became counter to what
*HE* thinks are good or valuable, then what's a child to do? What
become his options? Lie? Sneak? Be filled wih guilt?
If he can't trust me to trust him with small things like tv and sodas,
how do I think he will trust me with *such* bigger issues like drugs
and sex?
Trust doesn't develop overnight. It's a process that takes years and
years and years. The earlier you start, the sooner it'll be a part of
your lives.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
rn9302000
"If I were to have limited his world (by not allowing certain shows or
by keeping certain things "secret" or hidden or by not talking about
them) how would he be able to make decisions?"
Kelly what you said makes a lot of sense. But I guess I am still stuck
on some of it because my kids are so young......7 yo and 3
yo........here is another example of my setting limits.
a couple of sundays ago hubby and I were watching the Sopranos....the
kids were watching a movie of their choice in the other room......but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the sopranos?
In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
watch something else.
but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
viewing, and I did say no.
by keeping certain things "secret" or hidden or by not talking about
them) how would he be able to make decisions?"
Kelly what you said makes a lot of sense. But I guess I am still stuck
on some of it because my kids are so young......7 yo and 3
yo........here is another example of my setting limits.
a couple of sundays ago hubby and I were watching the Sopranos....the
kids were watching a movie of their choice in the other room......but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the sopranos?
In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
watch something else.
but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
viewing, and I did say no.
D Smith
I know you asked Kelly. However, I have a suggestion
for next time. Maybe let them watch a few mintues,
maybe something where no one is getting whacked, and
them suggest watching something that you know they
would enjoy? I know that mostly my son just wants to
be with us, that it's not about what's on. He used to
enjoy scary movies with me. (I think they are funny).
But know he has decided that some are just too scary.
Just take baby steps. Giant leaps are not good for or
your kids. Instead of quickly stating no, think and
hopefully you can find a good reason to say yes.
danie
____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
for next time. Maybe let them watch a few mintues,
maybe something where no one is getting whacked, and
them suggest watching something that you know they
would enjoy? I know that mostly my son just wants to
be with us, that it's not about what's on. He used to
enjoy scary movies with me. (I think they are funny).
But know he has decided that some are just too scary.
Just take baby steps. Giant leaps are not good for or
your kids. Instead of quickly stating no, think and
hopefully you can find a good reason to say yes.
danie
____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
Ren Allen
~~...but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? ~~
Rather than saying "no", just be open to the moment. Did they really
want to watch it anyway, or simply BE with you? If being with Mum and
Dad was the object, then saying "let's find a show we all like" would
be a great tactic rather than saying "you can't watch this".
There have been times that dh and I were watching something we knew a
child wasn't able to handle, so we simply stopped it and said "I think
this show will really bother you, let's watch something we all like"
and that was fine.
It's not about exposing your kids to anything and everything, I think
young children should be shown books/shows/ etc...that are more tame.
But I've also learned that some young children like Alien vs. Predator
and other things I would have deemed to violent.
Jalen likes some pretty freaky shows, and has NO ill effect from it.
His older sister was very sensitive for a long time and is now
beginning to like some scary movies at age 10. Each of my kids are so
different in regard to their preferences. I'd never learn that if I
was more bent on limiting, than expanding.
Trevor really wants me to watch "Saw" and "Saw 2". NO WAY. I don't
care for outright horror most of the time now...just can't handle some
of it. He loves those movies and would enjoy discussing it with me
because it's intelligent horror that puts the characters in some
bizarre catch 22's.
They all love anime. Some of that is pretty dark, but the discussions
spawned from that are amazing.
The key isn't about exposing kids to anything they aren't ready for.
The key is IF the child is fascinated, how are you going to find a way
to help them navigate? How are you going to help them get what they
want (and how is everyone in the situation going to get what they need
out of it)? How can we expand their worlds?
They may watch something they aren't ready for, because of a
fascination. Are we there for them without being ready to slam a limit
on them for the next time, shouting that we don't trust them now
because they made a mistake? Are we willing and able to let them make
mistakes and still trust them? Can we quit relying on limits as the
fix-all? Because it might be a bandage in the moment, making the
parents feel better. Hell, a limit is sure easier than truly being a
guide.
But the effort it takes to be there for them, to dialogue, to support,
to navigate is so much healthier than slapping a limit on something
just because it causes some discomfort.
The question I ask myself often is "how can everyone get what they
want from this?"
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? ~~
Rather than saying "no", just be open to the moment. Did they really
want to watch it anyway, or simply BE with you? If being with Mum and
Dad was the object, then saying "let's find a show we all like" would
be a great tactic rather than saying "you can't watch this".
There have been times that dh and I were watching something we knew a
child wasn't able to handle, so we simply stopped it and said "I think
this show will really bother you, let's watch something we all like"
and that was fine.
It's not about exposing your kids to anything and everything, I think
young children should be shown books/shows/ etc...that are more tame.
But I've also learned that some young children like Alien vs. Predator
and other things I would have deemed to violent.
Jalen likes some pretty freaky shows, and has NO ill effect from it.
His older sister was very sensitive for a long time and is now
beginning to like some scary movies at age 10. Each of my kids are so
different in regard to their preferences. I'd never learn that if I
was more bent on limiting, than expanding.
Trevor really wants me to watch "Saw" and "Saw 2". NO WAY. I don't
care for outright horror most of the time now...just can't handle some
of it. He loves those movies and would enjoy discussing it with me
because it's intelligent horror that puts the characters in some
bizarre catch 22's.
They all love anime. Some of that is pretty dark, but the discussions
spawned from that are amazing.
The key isn't about exposing kids to anything they aren't ready for.
The key is IF the child is fascinated, how are you going to find a way
to help them navigate? How are you going to help them get what they
want (and how is everyone in the situation going to get what they need
out of it)? How can we expand their worlds?
They may watch something they aren't ready for, because of a
fascination. Are we there for them without being ready to slam a limit
on them for the next time, shouting that we don't trust them now
because they made a mistake? Are we willing and able to let them make
mistakes and still trust them? Can we quit relying on limits as the
fix-all? Because it might be a bandage in the moment, making the
parents feel better. Hell, a limit is sure easier than truly being a
guide.
But the effort it takes to be there for them, to dialogue, to support,
to navigate is so much healthier than slapping a limit on something
just because it causes some discomfort.
The question I ask myself often is "how can everyone get what they
want from this?"
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Fetteroll
On May 17, 2007, at 12:55 AM, rn9302000 wrote:
which was to be with you. And turning it off was the right solution.
But the initial no, it's too violent has increased the curiosity
factor, and a desire beyond the initial curiosity. A plain door isn't
any where near as intriguing as a door with a big read "DO NOT ENTER"
sign on it!
By saying no, it's too violent, you're saying in essence -- basically
what they internalize that you're saying to them -- "I don't trust
your ability to handle this." It might be true that they aren't ready
for the violence, but by saying you don't trust their ability, it
becomes an internal challenge to test that limit.
Picture Uncle John at the family reunion saying to the kids "That
rock's too high. You can't jump off of it," with the expectation that
the kids *will* jump off the rock. ;-)
That's the state of mind "No" creates. "No" is a personal challenge!
It's natural to want to test our personal limits. Especially limits
others doubt we're up to. Especially with kids who know they're
growing and changing everyday. What they couldn't do last week they
know it's possible they can do today.
Instead of no, mindful parents will give information: "Sopranos is
very violent. There's a lot of killing and people being mean to each
other. If you'd like to watch, we can try it."
A child who has been hearing no *won't* hear that information in the
same way as a child who trusts that his parent is working to get them
what they want. A child who has heard no will hear what they've
always heard: "No, I don't trust you can handle it." It takes time to
build up trust that a parent really is trying to help them.
For a child who has been mindfully parented, they *know* their
parents want to help them get what they want. If a parent says
something is violent, it's a piece of information to *help* them
decide. They *trust* the parent understands what bothers them
personally (for my daughter it was moving skeletons) and the
information is tailored specifically to them. But they also know that
their limits are always changing. (My daughter can watch movies with
moving skeletons now.) If they decide to watch they know they can
turn it off at any time, they know they pick it up again later when
they feel ready, they know if they have nightmares from watching that
their parents will comfort them. They *trust* that their parents are
their partners in getting what they want from life so they trust
information is to help them not to put up barriers around them.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> butThe point, as you did, is to get to what the kids *really* want,
> they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
> watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
> feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
> limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the
> sopranos?
> In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
> watch something else.
> but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
> viewing, and I did say no.
which was to be with you. And turning it off was the right solution.
But the initial no, it's too violent has increased the curiosity
factor, and a desire beyond the initial curiosity. A plain door isn't
any where near as intriguing as a door with a big read "DO NOT ENTER"
sign on it!
By saying no, it's too violent, you're saying in essence -- basically
what they internalize that you're saying to them -- "I don't trust
your ability to handle this." It might be true that they aren't ready
for the violence, but by saying you don't trust their ability, it
becomes an internal challenge to test that limit.
Picture Uncle John at the family reunion saying to the kids "That
rock's too high. You can't jump off of it," with the expectation that
the kids *will* jump off the rock. ;-)
That's the state of mind "No" creates. "No" is a personal challenge!
It's natural to want to test our personal limits. Especially limits
others doubt we're up to. Especially with kids who know they're
growing and changing everyday. What they couldn't do last week they
know it's possible they can do today.
Instead of no, mindful parents will give information: "Sopranos is
very violent. There's a lot of killing and people being mean to each
other. If you'd like to watch, we can try it."
A child who has been hearing no *won't* hear that information in the
same way as a child who trusts that his parent is working to get them
what they want. A child who has heard no will hear what they've
always heard: "No, I don't trust you can handle it." It takes time to
build up trust that a parent really is trying to help them.
For a child who has been mindfully parented, they *know* their
parents want to help them get what they want. If a parent says
something is violent, it's a piece of information to *help* them
decide. They *trust* the parent understands what bothers them
personally (for my daughter it was moving skeletons) and the
information is tailored specifically to them. But they also know that
their limits are always changing. (My daughter can watch movies with
moving skeletons now.) If they decide to watch they know they can
turn it off at any time, they know they pick it up again later when
they feel ready, they know if they have nightmares from watching that
their parents will comfort them. They *trust* that their parents are
their partners in getting what they want from life so they trust
information is to help them not to put up barriers around them.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
a couple of sundays ago hubby and I were watching the Sopranos....the
kids were watching a movie of their choice in the other room......but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the sopranos?
In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
watch something else.
but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
viewing, and I did say no.
*****************
Top line: They want to watch Sopranos.
Actual bottom line: They want to watch TV with us.
I would have said, "This show is probably too intense for you guys. Let's see what else is on... Oooh, 'AirBud' is on, I bet you girls would like that! It has a dog just like Uncle Timmy has!"
No limits, No "No. You can't".
Elissa
"What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare."
-- from "Leisure," by W.H. Davies
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kids were watching a movie of their choice in the other room......but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the sopranos?
In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
watch something else.
but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
viewing, and I did say no.
*****************
Top line: They want to watch Sopranos.
Actual bottom line: They want to watch TV with us.
I would have said, "This show is probably too intense for you guys. Let's see what else is on... Oooh, 'AirBud' is on, I bet you girls would like that! It has a dog just like Uncle Timmy has!"
No limits, No "No. You can't".
Elissa
"What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare."
-- from "Leisure," by W.H. Davies
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/17/2007 3:51:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
I know you asked Kelly. However, I have a suggestion
for next time. Maybe let them watch a few mintues,
maybe something where no one is getting whacked, and
them suggest watching something that you know they
would enjoy? <<<<<<<<<<,
I guess if it were me I would also talk to my children. Before watching it.
If they came into the room, and I have done this with my boys before, I
pause the movie, or change the channel. And we talk, what is it that they
want...to be with mom and dad...to watch what we are watching...to watch something
together not necessarily what we are watching...something totally
different....etc. And if they want to watch what we are watching, I will explain what
we are watching to them, not in gory detail. I will explain that the
violence and blood may be something they are not comfortable with. I might try to
compare it to something they have watched prior saying "it is more than XYZ or
less than ABC etc). I would help provide all the information available so
they can make a good informed decision. I don't try to decide for them but do
feel that, as someone who loves them very much, I want to help them gather
as much information as they need to be able to make decisions. And they do
ask my opinion. They trust me. They will say something like "mom do you think
I would like it?" or something like that. They know I will give them an
honest answer. My youngest is always there for me too. He knows that I don't
like bloody, gory movies, so he knows when to cover my eyes, LOL. And I do
the same for him. He'll say "don't peek mom...I'll tell you when it is
over."
I think when you build that great relationship you can do that for each
other and no one feels "controlled". You have built that trust.
OK just a couple thoughts this morning.
Pam G
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
I know you asked Kelly. However, I have a suggestion
for next time. Maybe let them watch a few mintues,
maybe something where no one is getting whacked, and
them suggest watching something that you know they
would enjoy? <<<<<<<<<<,
I guess if it were me I would also talk to my children. Before watching it.
If they came into the room, and I have done this with my boys before, I
pause the movie, or change the channel. And we talk, what is it that they
want...to be with mom and dad...to watch what we are watching...to watch something
together not necessarily what we are watching...something totally
different....etc. And if they want to watch what we are watching, I will explain what
we are watching to them, not in gory detail. I will explain that the
violence and blood may be something they are not comfortable with. I might try to
compare it to something they have watched prior saying "it is more than XYZ or
less than ABC etc). I would help provide all the information available so
they can make a good informed decision. I don't try to decide for them but do
feel that, as someone who loves them very much, I want to help them gather
as much information as they need to be able to make decisions. And they do
ask my opinion. They trust me. They will say something like "mom do you think
I would like it?" or something like that. They know I will give them an
honest answer. My youngest is always there for me too. He knows that I don't
like bloody, gory movies, so he knows when to cover my eyes, LOL. And I do
the same for him. He'll say "don't peek mom...I'll tell you when it is
over."
I think when you build that great relationship you can do that for each
other and no one feels "controlled". You have built that trust.
OK just a couple thoughts this morning.
Pam G
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
Joyce, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! I guess I do better some times more than others. My 6 yo had a Frankenstein fascination and wanted to see the original movie. Hubby and I said it may be kind of scary are you sure? and she said yes, and we all watched it. and she did fine with it, but did find it a bit scary. But we did discuss it first and told her what to expect and she did still choose to watch.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
I don't remember exactly how I said it, but I did say no sopranos is not a kids show, and we did find a movie everyone was happy to watch together. But maybe I did peak their curiosity because sometimes they say "is sopranos on tonight"...........:(
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
On May 17, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Ren Allen wrote:
stand to watch. Many scripts for movies and TV shows are available on
the internet. It might be possible to read the scripts, if being able
to discuss those movies with you in particular is important to
Trevor. I have sometimes not wanted to finish watching a movie that
was disturbing me, and then have gone to read the script (or a
complete summary at a spoiler website like www.themoviespoiler.com)
so I can find out how it ends.
Su
> Trevor really wants me to watch "Saw" and "Saw 2". NO WAY. I don'tI have an idea about that! I can stand to read some things I can't
> care for outright horror most of the time now...just can't handle some
> of it. He loves those movies and would enjoy discussing it with me
> because it's intelligent horror that puts the characters in some
> bizarre catch 22's.
stand to watch. Many scripts for movies and TV shows are available on
the internet. It might be possible to read the scripts, if being able
to discuss those movies with you in particular is important to
Trevor. I have sometimes not wanted to finish watching a movie that
was disturbing me, and then have gone to read the script (or a
complete summary at a spoiler website like www.themoviespoiler.com)
so I can find out how it ends.
Su
Fetteroll
On May 18, 2007, at 12:23 AM, Kendrah Nilsestuen wrote:
more than lack of TV.
I think the biggest miscommunication in these discussions about TV is
that the anti-TV people think we're holding TV up as a bastion of
learning when we're really discussing the effect of parent imposed
limits on learning and relationships, and about holding fears up to
close examination.
I don't think a child will be harmed by not having TV. But I think
the relationship between parent and child *will* be harmed by a
parent saying no to something a child is interested in. At some point
children will see TV and realize that it's something their family
*could* have and every no the parent says -- even when those nos are
heart felt rational explanations of why the parent thinks TV isn't a
good thing for their family -- whittles away at the relationship
between parent and child.
But even further, if the no stands between the child and something
they're really interested in, the only options the parent is giving
the child is to keep battering at the no or to sneak behind the
parent's back. That, too, is not good for the relationship. (Though
the child might be learning a lot about how to get around rules! ;-)
we'd go.
That's not the same atmosphere as me fearing the effects of tractor
pulls and hoping she doesn't ever ask but *saying* if she ever asks
that I'd take her.
Your fears, even unspoken, will affect the atmosphere of the home and
will affect your children's freedom to ask. You can't not live your
life with the fears you have towards TV -- it might be as subtle as a
stiffening of your body when you hear a mother relate how her 4 yo
loves the news -- and not communicate that you have fears to your
kids. They won't feel as free to ask for TV as they might a book or a
toy.
So it isn't the lack of TV that will elicit discussion but your
*reasons* for not having a TV. It's your fears and your decision to
soothe them rather than examine them in the light of facts that will
elicit discussion.
I tossed out my aluminum cookware when I heard aluminum might be a
cause of Alzheimers. Might. It was just a fear I chose to soothe
rather than take a chance on. No big deal. It was my decision that
affected me.
But your fear is affecting the atmosphere you're creating for your
kids. They *can't* feel as free around TV with that huge fear in you.
you? Did you watch because you wanted to be with your mom? How much
did she understand that it upset you? If she didn't, why didn't she?
What did she do to help you with your fears? If she knew and didn't
do anything, why didn't she? If she knew and was ineffectual, why was
she?
This fear is unfounded in a mindful home. While it's impossible to
prevent a sensitive child from accidently seeing something that will
upset them -- whether on TV or in real life -- when we're sensitive
to what our kids want, we won't be helping them find things that
will upset them. At 15 my daughter has probably never seen the news.
She's seen ads for it. She's seen parodies of it. She just as *zero*
interest in news.
It's not that she's never seen or heard or read something upsetting
but I recognize that's inevitable and we handle it as it happens.
Dealing with things that upset us is part of life.
Why do you fear your 3 yo will see things that will upset her? Is she
particularly sensitive so that even Disney movies or a commercial
might upset her? (There are several people on the list with very
sensitive children who can give you some strategies that have worked
for them.) Or are you projecting your own childhood onto someone who
isn't you?
But put it this way: If your child saw -- in real life -- a dog hit
by a car, you'd be able to help him a lot better from a mindset of
peace and calm that tragedy and being upset is a part of life than if
you'd structured your life around the fear that he might see a dog
hit by a car so lived your life far from streets and dogs and cars
and then had a head full of additional fears that this event had
traumatized him for life.
I think it will help you to examine even further what happened to you
as a child. There was some disconnection that kept you seeing things
that were harming you. You could have turned it off. Your mother
could have turned it off. But something in your home life kept you
watching. It wasn't the TV, but you've chosen to blame the TV. It's
easier to blame the TV than to dig further. It's easier to ban TV
than to take what *feels* like risks (but, from experience with
mindfully parented unschooled kids we've shown you plenty of counter
examples.)
I think your husband too is cutting off the discussion because of
fears. It's much easier to ease a fear than face it. He has grasped
at the easy solution of getting rid of TV because he fears the
effects. It's a lot harder to drag those fears out and examine them
against what really happens with kids who are given freedom.
I think if you had read on the list long you wouldn't ask whether
people are making unexamined decisions about their kids. ;-) There
isn't a practice with kids that hasn't been held up and examined and
looked at rationally in the light of real experience with real
unschooled kids. It's what the writers on the list love to do. :-)
examine our motives behind our choices, especially choices that
affect our kids.
But your question comes from the point of view that TV is harmful.
What we're asking you to examine is what were the causes behind what
happened to you? We have kids who have the freedom to watch whatever
they want and the same thing hasn't happened to them. Why? With the
same factor (TV) the outcome is different so it can't be the TV.
You're comparing your life and our lives but there's some *other*
factor that's caused the different outcomes. *That's* what you need
to examine.
and pictured yourself not ever watching then it made sense.
But we're always growing and changing and decisions that made sense
for the person we used to be won't necessarily make sense now.
(BTW, used copies of The Golden Girls seasons go for about $25 on
Amazon :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> However, with youngFirst, I think "No," interferes with learning and relationships far
> children, especially, wouldn't it just be better not to have the TV
> in the house in the first place?
more than lack of TV.
I think the biggest miscommunication in these discussions about TV is
that the anti-TV people think we're holding TV up as a bastion of
learning when we're really discussing the effect of parent imposed
limits on learning and relationships, and about holding fears up to
close examination.
I don't think a child will be harmed by not having TV. But I think
the relationship between parent and child *will* be harmed by a
parent saying no to something a child is interested in. At some point
children will see TV and realize that it's something their family
*could* have and every no the parent says -- even when those nos are
heart felt rational explanations of why the parent thinks TV isn't a
good thing for their family -- whittles away at the relationship
between parent and child.
But even further, if the no stands between the child and something
they're really interested in, the only options the parent is giving
the child is to keep battering at the no or to sneak behind the
parent's back. That, too, is not good for the relationship. (Though
the child might be learning a lot about how to get around rules! ;-)
> At some point when the children areI haven't yet taken my daughter to a tractor pull but if she asked
> older and inevitably ask for a TV
we'd go.
That's not the same atmosphere as me fearing the effects of tractor
pulls and hoping she doesn't ever ask but *saying* if she ever asks
that I'd take her.
Your fears, even unspoken, will affect the atmosphere of the home and
will affect your children's freedom to ask. You can't not live your
life with the fears you have towards TV -- it might be as subtle as a
stiffening of your body when you hear a mother relate how her 4 yo
loves the news -- and not communicate that you have fears to your
kids. They won't feel as free to ask for TV as they might a book or a
toy.
So it isn't the lack of TV that will elicit discussion but your
*reasons* for not having a TV. It's your fears and your decision to
soothe them rather than examine them in the light of facts that will
elicit discussion.
I tossed out my aluminum cookware when I heard aluminum might be a
cause of Alzheimers. Might. It was just a fear I chose to soothe
rather than take a chance on. No big deal. It was my decision that
affected me.
But your fear is affecting the atmosphere you're creating for your
kids. They *can't* feel as free around TV with that huge fear in you.
> maybe theHave you asked yourself why you watched so much news when it upset
> effects of watching the violence won't be quite as harsh as it
> would've been for a three year old.
you? Did you watch because you wanted to be with your mom? How much
did she understand that it upset you? If she didn't, why didn't she?
What did she do to help you with your fears? If she knew and didn't
do anything, why didn't she? If she knew and was ineffectual, why was
she?
This fear is unfounded in a mindful home. While it's impossible to
prevent a sensitive child from accidently seeing something that will
upset them -- whether on TV or in real life -- when we're sensitive
to what our kids want, we won't be helping them find things that
will upset them. At 15 my daughter has probably never seen the news.
She's seen ads for it. She's seen parodies of it. She just as *zero*
interest in news.
It's not that she's never seen or heard or read something upsetting
but I recognize that's inevitable and we handle it as it happens.
Dealing with things that upset us is part of life.
Why do you fear your 3 yo will see things that will upset her? Is she
particularly sensitive so that even Disney movies or a commercial
might upset her? (There are several people on the list with very
sensitive children who can give you some strategies that have worked
for them.) Or are you projecting your own childhood onto someone who
isn't you?
> Even if we discuss it with themNo, we can't erase something.
> the images have been burned into their minds, we can't fix that or
> take that away. Doesn't this seem valid?
But put it this way: If your child saw -- in real life -- a dog hit
by a car, you'd be able to help him a lot better from a mindset of
peace and calm that tragedy and being upset is a part of life than if
you'd structured your life around the fear that he might see a dog
hit by a car so lived your life far from streets and dogs and cars
and then had a head full of additional fears that this event had
traumatized him for life.
> Sure don't refuse it, butThe key phrase above is "*think* it may have ill effects".
> why offer it up in the first place if we think it may have ill
> effects?
I think it will help you to examine even further what happened to you
as a child. There was some disconnection that kept you seeing things
that were harming you. You could have turned it off. Your mother
could have turned it off. But something in your home life kept you
watching. It wasn't the TV, but you've chosen to blame the TV. It's
easier to blame the TV than to dig further. It's easier to ban TV
than to take what *feels* like risks (but, from experience with
mindfully parented unschooled kids we've shown you plenty of counter
examples.)
I think your husband too is cutting off the discussion because of
fears. It's much easier to ease a fear than face it. He has grasped
at the easy solution of getting rid of TV because he fears the
effects. It's a lot harder to drag those fears out and examine them
against what really happens with kids who are given freedom.
> Why not just rid ourselves of the television? Is it becauseWhy give up something that *we* know from experience isn't harmful? ;-)
> as adults we don't want to give it up?
I think if you had read on the list long you wouldn't ask whether
people are making unexamined decisions about their kids. ;-) There
isn't a practice with kids that hasn't been held up and examined and
looked at rationally in the light of real experience with real
unschooled kids. It's what the writers on the list love to do. :-)
> If that is the case are weIt's always a good question to ask! It's always good to dig deep and
> then being mindful to our children's needs?
examine our motives behind our choices, especially choices that
affect our kids.
But your question comes from the point of view that TV is harmful.
What we're asking you to examine is what were the causes behind what
happened to you? We have kids who have the freedom to watch whatever
they want and the same thing hasn't happened to them. Why? With the
same factor (TV) the outcome is different so it can't be the TV.
You're comparing your life and our lives but there's some *other*
factor that's caused the different outcomes. *That's* what you need
to examine.
> Please someone tell meIt was a reason that made sense at the time! If you weren't watching
> that I'm being mindful of my child's needs and that I didn't sell my
> TV and episodes of The Golden Girls that I had on DVD for no reason!:)
and pictured yourself not ever watching then it made sense.
But we're always growing and changing and decisions that made sense
for the person we used to be won't necessarily make sense now.
(BTW, used copies of The Golden Girls seasons go for about $25 on
Amazon :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
~~At some point when the children are
older and inevitably ask for a TV and they see this show maybe the
effects of watching the violence won't be quite as harsh as it
would've been for a three year old. ~~
Maybe, maybe not. I still think you're giving those images too much
power. And I doubt a three year old would ever see those violent
images because you'd probably have "Blues Clues" and other sweet shows
on when they wanted to watch, right?:)
THe issue really isn't about whether you have a tv or not. But if you
said the exact same thing about books "Wouldn't it be better to just
not have them in the house until they ask for them?" does it sound the
same? Worse? Better?
Limiting a form of communication out of fear may not be the best
reason for not having one. Viewing tv as potentially harmful is not
only fear-based, but inaccurate. It's just a box that when turned on,
has information we choose to access. That's all. Just like a book, or
a radio.
I think the way a parent handles images viewed, has a greater effect
than the images themselves. If a child DOES see something before
they're ready, the parent has an opportunity to calmly support,
explain tv/movie effects and not be overreactive.
What if your child saw real-life violence? How are you going to censor
that? What if they watched an animal or a person get hit by a car? My
children were with me immediately following a pedestrian accident
where the woman was unconsicous laying in the street. I stopped to
help. By stopping to assist, they were given full view of everything.
I remember being very upset on occasions as a child because my Dad
always stopped to help at car wrecks (he had training and always
carried certain emergency items with us, including army blankets) and
I saw some things that were pretty intense for a young child. The
manner in which my parents handled it really helped me. Real life
violence always affected me on a much deeper level than anything a tv
could offer up!! I knew it was REAL.
My upsetness was a process of dealing with real people being injured
(and one time transporting injured people due to the nature of
emergency help in remote locations in Alaska) and how to cope with
that. I'd say it was a very positive experience in my life, though it
was sometimes scary to see a car on fire, or injured people etc...
TV just can't come close to that in my mind! After seeing injured
people, it stays with me. Tv is just entertainment or
information...big deal.
I understand that everyone has a different level of sensitivity and tv
will affect others, where it isn't affecting me. I just don't see how
a tv image can have this horrible life-long impact if the parents are
being supportive and assisting their children in having their needs met.
I also work in a business where we learn about movie/tv effects and
study that. My kids see magazines that show how to create realistic
zombies and injuries and what-not. How to make a believable scene or
special effect is a common topic of discussion. I think knowing all
that behind-the-scenes information gives the violent or intense scenes
a lot less power.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
older and inevitably ask for a TV and they see this show maybe the
effects of watching the violence won't be quite as harsh as it
would've been for a three year old. ~~
Maybe, maybe not. I still think you're giving those images too much
power. And I doubt a three year old would ever see those violent
images because you'd probably have "Blues Clues" and other sweet shows
on when they wanted to watch, right?:)
THe issue really isn't about whether you have a tv or not. But if you
said the exact same thing about books "Wouldn't it be better to just
not have them in the house until they ask for them?" does it sound the
same? Worse? Better?
Limiting a form of communication out of fear may not be the best
reason for not having one. Viewing tv as potentially harmful is not
only fear-based, but inaccurate. It's just a box that when turned on,
has information we choose to access. That's all. Just like a book, or
a radio.
I think the way a parent handles images viewed, has a greater effect
than the images themselves. If a child DOES see something before
they're ready, the parent has an opportunity to calmly support,
explain tv/movie effects and not be overreactive.
What if your child saw real-life violence? How are you going to censor
that? What if they watched an animal or a person get hit by a car? My
children were with me immediately following a pedestrian accident
where the woman was unconsicous laying in the street. I stopped to
help. By stopping to assist, they were given full view of everything.
I remember being very upset on occasions as a child because my Dad
always stopped to help at car wrecks (he had training and always
carried certain emergency items with us, including army blankets) and
I saw some things that were pretty intense for a young child. The
manner in which my parents handled it really helped me. Real life
violence always affected me on a much deeper level than anything a tv
could offer up!! I knew it was REAL.
My upsetness was a process of dealing with real people being injured
(and one time transporting injured people due to the nature of
emergency help in remote locations in Alaska) and how to cope with
that. I'd say it was a very positive experience in my life, though it
was sometimes scary to see a car on fire, or injured people etc...
TV just can't come close to that in my mind! After seeing injured
people, it stays with me. Tv is just entertainment or
information...big deal.
I understand that everyone has a different level of sensitivity and tv
will affect others, where it isn't affecting me. I just don't see how
a tv image can have this horrible life-long impact if the parents are
being supportive and assisting their children in having their needs met.
I also work in a business where we learn about movie/tv effects and
study that. My kids see magazines that show how to create realistic
zombies and injuries and what-not. How to make a believable scene or
special effect is a common topic of discussion. I think knowing all
that behind-the-scenes information gives the violent or intense scenes
a lot less power.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Ren Allen
~~
I'm trying to remember that I am not my mother. For that matter my
daughter & son are not me. What had adverse effects on me, may not be
the same for them. I see that, or at least I'm trying to.~~
I think your self-analysis has really extracted the crux of this
entire issue (for you).....it wasn't about the tv at all. The true
hurt came from a parent that wasn't truly there for you. It got all
linked in with the tv, because of it's presence, but the real damage
came from a negligent parent (that was probably doing the best she
could at the time).
What if your Mum had used the TV as a time to bond with YOU? What if
she had smiled and looked happy when you entered the room? What if
she'd said "what do you want to watch?" or offered up a million other
options, or simply chosen to be with YOU in whatever activity you felt
like exploring? What if she'd dug in the dirt and had water fights and
made art and taken walks (just to be with you) and generally embraced
you as the beautiful person you are? What kind of feelings might you
have about tv in that instance?
Your mother had the true power, not the tv. I'm really sorry the
negative feelings got all wrapped up in that package. It's great that
you've been able to analyze the truth of the situation and see it for
what it really is. That's hard to do.
If tv is just one option among many and a parent is walking the path
of mindfulness and joy, it isn't going to be a harmful influence at
all. In fact, it will expand the learning and connecting experiences
within that family.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
I'm trying to remember that I am not my mother. For that matter my
daughter & son are not me. What had adverse effects on me, may not be
the same for them. I see that, or at least I'm trying to.~~
I think your self-analysis has really extracted the crux of this
entire issue (for you).....it wasn't about the tv at all. The true
hurt came from a parent that wasn't truly there for you. It got all
linked in with the tv, because of it's presence, but the real damage
came from a negligent parent (that was probably doing the best she
could at the time).
What if your Mum had used the TV as a time to bond with YOU? What if
she had smiled and looked happy when you entered the room? What if
she'd said "what do you want to watch?" or offered up a million other
options, or simply chosen to be with YOU in whatever activity you felt
like exploring? What if she'd dug in the dirt and had water fights and
made art and taken walks (just to be with you) and generally embraced
you as the beautiful person you are? What kind of feelings might you
have about tv in that instance?
Your mother had the true power, not the tv. I'm really sorry the
negative feelings got all wrapped up in that package. It's great that
you've been able to analyze the truth of the situation and see it for
what it really is. That's hard to do.
If tv is just one option among many and a parent is walking the path
of mindfulness and joy, it isn't going to be a harmful influence at
all. In fact, it will expand the learning and connecting experiences
within that family.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Su Penn
On May 18, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Kendrah Nilsestuen wrote:
house when my parents, my brother, and I were all watching the same
TV show--on three different TVs in three different bedrooms. Because
of that, I had a really hard time agreeing when my partner suggested
we get a second TV, or that we move a TV into the kids' room from our
room because they were the only ones who ever watched it. In our
house now, getting a second TV was a step to increase our choices and
reduce conflicts. I like to relax by watching DVDs, and David and the
kids are playing video games together a lot in the evening, and with
one TV we were having trouble all getting to do what we wanted. But I
still have moments--if the kids are watching Blue's Clues on their TV
and I'm watching something on the TV in the living room--when I think
we're on the slippery slope to being the house I grew up in, even
though a lot of other things would have to happen for us to get
there. I would have to stop liking my children, for instance, and
stop caring about what they want and give no thought or attention to
their emotional well-being. That's not likely!
In the house I grew up in--and it sounds like in the one you grew up
in as well--TV was used to avoid reality, to pacify otherwise
bothersome children, and to help us avoid the fights that happened
whenever we spent more than a few minutes together. In my house now,
we use it to relax; to be entertained; to learn; for my five-year-
old, to have some non-napping down time. We use it for family
togetherness.
Because of how I grew up, and because of one period in my young adult
life when I was isolated and depressed (after moving cross-country to
be with a lover, only to get dumped upon arrival) and watched endless
TV--I felt so addicted to it at that time that I eventually packed it
away in my closet--all the anti-TV arguments really resonated with me
for a long time. But I have come to see that TV serves dysfunction in
a dysfunctional family. It was dysfunctional for me during a
dysfunctional time in my life. But it doesn't have so much power that
it can turn a functional, happy family into a dysfunctional one, or
turn a cheerful, happy me into a depressed, addicted me.
Su
mom of Carl, 3, and Eric, almost 6
> My point with sending the above was to explain myself further.You know, I grew up in a house like that, too. There were times in my
> Because of my experience a TV does equal mindless parenting.
house when my parents, my brother, and I were all watching the same
TV show--on three different TVs in three different bedrooms. Because
of that, I had a really hard time agreeing when my partner suggested
we get a second TV, or that we move a TV into the kids' room from our
room because they were the only ones who ever watched it. In our
house now, getting a second TV was a step to increase our choices and
reduce conflicts. I like to relax by watching DVDs, and David and the
kids are playing video games together a lot in the evening, and with
one TV we were having trouble all getting to do what we wanted. But I
still have moments--if the kids are watching Blue's Clues on their TV
and I'm watching something on the TV in the living room--when I think
we're on the slippery slope to being the house I grew up in, even
though a lot of other things would have to happen for us to get
there. I would have to stop liking my children, for instance, and
stop caring about what they want and give no thought or attention to
their emotional well-being. That's not likely!
In the house I grew up in--and it sounds like in the one you grew up
in as well--TV was used to avoid reality, to pacify otherwise
bothersome children, and to help us avoid the fights that happened
whenever we spent more than a few minutes together. In my house now,
we use it to relax; to be entertained; to learn; for my five-year-
old, to have some non-napping down time. We use it for family
togetherness.
Because of how I grew up, and because of one period in my young adult
life when I was isolated and depressed (after moving cross-country to
be with a lover, only to get dumped upon arrival) and watched endless
TV--I felt so addicted to it at that time that I eventually packed it
away in my closet--all the anti-TV arguments really resonated with me
for a long time. But I have come to see that TV serves dysfunction in
a dysfunctional family. It was dysfunctional for me during a
dysfunctional time in my life. But it doesn't have so much power that
it can turn a functional, happy family into a dysfunctional one, or
turn a cheerful, happy me into a depressed, addicted me.
Su
mom of Carl, 3, and Eric, almost 6
Rachel Salavon
I'm going to take some deep breaths and chime in here.
My example of
up of parents letting go of controls. I continue to have issues
with TV and sugar. Since the topic here is TV, I'll focus on that.
My kids have unlimited access to movies and videos. They have their
own Netflix profile. We get movies from the library and the video
store. They watch things on Youtube. They have unlimited access to
computer and video games. But we don't have cable which means we
get almost no television reception.
It's true there is a book out there to support any side of any
issue. There seems to be a whole segment of unschoolers (outside of
this list) who support no tv. It's an interesting subject - one
that has been talked to death here and on other lists. And one that
ties me in knots. Even Naomi Aldort advocates no TV. But I know
people who grew up without TV and they really resent it. I also
know my neighbor (who is 9) feels a bit like Matilda from Roald
Dahl's book because her mom keeps the tv on all the time. But both
of those extremes have to do with adult-centered, top down control,
not unschooling.
Within unschooling, I can see both sides of to have tv or not. How
do you justify not having tv in a free house where we want our
children to have access to every part of our lives? But on the
other hand, it seems that electronic media becomes the eyepiece
through which kids perceive the world. And that doesn't seem real.
We say that schools are constructs that separate children from the
real world. Teachers even say that. "When you get in the real
world, you won't be able to get away with that." But how real is 8
hours of Nickelodeon a day? I think tv is different than a book.
It can be so dazzling and stimulating, that books are no contest.
My kids have seen all of their Nick shows. Some days they watch a
lot of videos and movies, other days they don't. They are far more
interested in books and playing outside than when we had cable.
Maybe the problem was the commercials and always something new
coming up next. They can still watch what they want to watch, but
they are not tied to the tv schedule. I know that the problems we
had with tv - crankiness, fighting, shutting me out - were partly
caused by my issues with tv. But knowing that didn't change my
axieties about it. Perhaps I am still in the process of letting go
control.
Rachel (unschooling 4 children, the oldest is 8 yo)
--- In [email protected], Kendrah Nilsestuen
<carebear-79@...> wrote:
Thanks again for your response. It must get exhausting to repeat
My example of
> the park was to show that the TV is just one more I do to try andIt
> continually control my and therefore my children's environment.
> all goes together I guess.Unschooling happens slowly. It's a series of steps -- mostly made
up of parents letting go of controls. I continue to have issues
with TV and sugar. Since the topic here is TV, I'll focus on that.
My kids have unlimited access to movies and videos. They have their
own Netflix profile. We get movies from the library and the video
store. They watch things on Youtube. They have unlimited access to
computer and video games. But we don't have cable which means we
get almost no television reception.
It's true there is a book out there to support any side of any
issue. There seems to be a whole segment of unschoolers (outside of
this list) who support no tv. It's an interesting subject - one
that has been talked to death here and on other lists. And one that
ties me in knots. Even Naomi Aldort advocates no TV. But I know
people who grew up without TV and they really resent it. I also
know my neighbor (who is 9) feels a bit like Matilda from Roald
Dahl's book because her mom keeps the tv on all the time. But both
of those extremes have to do with adult-centered, top down control,
not unschooling.
Within unschooling, I can see both sides of to have tv or not. How
do you justify not having tv in a free house where we want our
children to have access to every part of our lives? But on the
other hand, it seems that electronic media becomes the eyepiece
through which kids perceive the world. And that doesn't seem real.
We say that schools are constructs that separate children from the
real world. Teachers even say that. "When you get in the real
world, you won't be able to get away with that." But how real is 8
hours of Nickelodeon a day? I think tv is different than a book.
It can be so dazzling and stimulating, that books are no contest.
My kids have seen all of their Nick shows. Some days they watch a
lot of videos and movies, other days they don't. They are far more
interested in books and playing outside than when we had cable.
Maybe the problem was the commercials and always something new
coming up next. They can still watch what they want to watch, but
they are not tied to the tv schedule. I know that the problems we
had with tv - crankiness, fighting, shutting me out - were partly
caused by my issues with tv. But knowing that didn't change my
axieties about it. Perhaps I am still in the process of letting go
control.
Rachel (unschooling 4 children, the oldest is 8 yo)
--- In [email protected], Kendrah Nilsestuen
<carebear-79@...> wrote:
>A
> Wow Joyce, thank you so much for the long and thoughtful response.
> lot of what you said hit home and made a lot of sense. Last nightit
> when I had typed my initial email I had more added but didn't send
> because I felt like I was going into too much detail and gettinginto
Thanks again for your response. It must get exhausting to repeat
> yourself all the time!
>
> Kendrah
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Deb Lewis
***What if your child saw real-life violence? How are you going to censor
that? What if they watched an animal or a person get hit by a car?***
When Dylan was little we were at homeschool park day and he saw his friend
get a spanking. He was so angry and shocked that a mom would hit her kid.
When he watched fake monsters stomp model trains on TV that wasn't violence.
When he watched pretend bad guys pretend to shoot pretend good guys on TV,
that wasn't violence. When he saw that mom hit her kid - that was
violence-.
I've known moms who were afraid of TV violence (as if that's a real thing),
afraid it would harm their kids, but who yanked their kid arms, or spanked
or swatted their kids or who yelled and took away their kids possessions.
That's a wagon load of real life violence more powerful than any TV show.
Deb Lewis
that? What if they watched an animal or a person get hit by a car?***
When Dylan was little we were at homeschool park day and he saw his friend
get a spanking. He was so angry and shocked that a mom would hit her kid.
When he watched fake monsters stomp model trains on TV that wasn't violence.
When he watched pretend bad guys pretend to shoot pretend good guys on TV,
that wasn't violence. When he saw that mom hit her kid - that was
violence-.
I've known moms who were afraid of TV violence (as if that's a real thing),
afraid it would harm their kids, but who yanked their kid arms, or spanked
or swatted their kids or who yelled and took away their kids possessions.
That's a wagon load of real life violence more powerful than any TV show.
Deb Lewis
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: rn930@...
a couple of sundays ago hubby and I were watching the Sopranos....the
kids were watching a movie of their choice in the other room......but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the
sopranos?
In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
watch something else.
but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
viewing, and I did say no.
-=-=-=-=-=-
To clarify: the kids didn't really want to watch The Sopranos. They
wanted to watch TV with you and your husband. They would watch The
Sopranos if that were their only option. It wasn't: you gave the a
better option by changing the channel and watching something you could
all enjoy.
So, did you say "no" or did you say "yes"?
Can you see the difference?
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
From: rn930@...
a couple of sundays ago hubby and I were watching the Sopranos....the
kids were watching a movie of their choice in the other room......but
they decided they did not want to watch their movie they wanted to
watch the show hubby and i were watching. I said no to that because I
feel sopranos is too violent for little kids. so is that setting a
limit? Did I limit their world by not allowing them to watch the
sopranos?
In reality they just wanted to watch tv with us, so we did change to
watch something else.
but bottom line they did seem interested in viewing what we were
viewing, and I did say no.
-=-=-=-=-=-
To clarify: the kids didn't really want to watch The Sopranos. They
wanted to watch TV with you and your husband. They would watch The
Sopranos if that were their only option. It wasn't: you gave the a
better option by changing the channel and watching something you could
all enjoy.
So, did you say "no" or did you say "yes"?
Can you see the difference?
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: carebear-79@...\
By not having a television the subject of violence or sex or
whatever it may be that my child might be exposed to doesn't come up.
Therefore eliminating any discussions or questions that I feel I may
not be prepared to answer or that may take me out of my comfort zone.
Still I wanted to ponder the following...
-=-=-=-=-
That's one the COOLEST things about TV. Sitcoms and these "edgy"
cartoons especially!
They bring up touchy words and subjects that really DON'T come up in
every day conversations! It's an opening to explain how *I* view that
word or situation or subject. Or to clarify what *they* think about it.
ANd to see how they change (like going from "kissing is yucky" at eight
to "why is she licking him?" at eleven to "Mom, what kinds of
contraception have you used?" at 17) <g> Things change! <bwg>
Watching TV and movies together make it really easy to eeaasseee into
difficult discussions like sex and drinking and drugs and suicide and
tons of other subjects that really don't get brought up during supper.
<g>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I wouldn't simply say no. However, with young
children, especially, wouldn't it just be better not to have the TV
in the house in the first place?
-=-=-=-=
No---see my previous post: the Sleeping Beauty example.
-=-=-=-=-
At some point when the children are
older and inevitably ask for a TV and they see this show maybe the
effects of watching the violence won't be quite as harsh as it
would've been for a three year old.
-=-=-=-=-
Really, how often does a child see violence portrayed on TV at three
year old? Blues Clues and Dora don't get too violent!
Why would someone be watching Kill Bill with a three year old in the
room??? Why would someone watch the news with a three year old in the
room? Seriously! Do any of you DO that? Would you?
The thing I'd be worried about in wihholding and then giving tv access
is that the older child would be fascinated for an extended period of
time and make all your predictions come true.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Even if we discuss it with them
the images have been burned into their minds, we can't fix that or
take that away. Doesn't this seem valid?
-=-=-=-=-=-
Helping a child DEAL with difficult images is sooo much more important
than keeping ALL negative things from the child. He *will* see bad
stuff. Knowing how to work through it and talk or act it out and
knowing that mom is willing to help him through a difficult spot is so
much more helpful than just closing his eyes to all "danger" and hoping
that he never has to see it.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Sure don't refuse it, but why offer it up in the first place if we
think it may have ill
effects?
-=-=-=-=-
Well, *I* don't think it *will* have ill effects. So it's there. Right
now at 11:00pm, my husband's asleep. I'm TiVoing Law & Order, my 19
year old is out with friends (probably listening to live Blue Grass),
and my 11 year old is lying on the trampoline with a friend looking at
the stars and talking. No TV. By choice.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Why not just rid ourselves of the television?
-=-=-=-
Don't want to. It brings joy and opportunities and fun and cool places,
people, and animals into our living room. For pennies/day!
-=-=-=-=-
Is it because as adults we don't want to give it up?
-=-=-=-
That's one reason. And since the adults are the omnipotent beings in
this society, we have the power to keep it or trash it.
The children usually have no say. So only the adults can decide.
-=-=-=-=-=-
If that is the case are we then being mindful to our children's needs?
-=-=-=-
I try to be. That's a big part of unschooling.
-=-=-=-=-
Please someone tell me
that I'm being mindful of my child's needs and that I didn't sell my
TV and episodes of The Golden Girls that I had on DVD for no reason!:)
-==-=-
BUNCH of violence on Golden Girls! Don't want the kids to see THAT
violent stuff! <bwg>
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
From: carebear-79@...\
By not having a television the subject of violence or sex or
whatever it may be that my child might be exposed to doesn't come up.
Therefore eliminating any discussions or questions that I feel I may
not be prepared to answer or that may take me out of my comfort zone.
Still I wanted to ponder the following...
-=-=-=-=-
That's one the COOLEST things about TV. Sitcoms and these "edgy"
cartoons especially!
They bring up touchy words and subjects that really DON'T come up in
every day conversations! It's an opening to explain how *I* view that
word or situation or subject. Or to clarify what *they* think about it.
ANd to see how they change (like going from "kissing is yucky" at eight
to "why is she licking him?" at eleven to "Mom, what kinds of
contraception have you used?" at 17) <g> Things change! <bwg>
Watching TV and movies together make it really easy to eeaasseee into
difficult discussions like sex and drinking and drugs and suicide and
tons of other subjects that really don't get brought up during supper.
<g>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I wouldn't simply say no. However, with young
children, especially, wouldn't it just be better not to have the TV
in the house in the first place?
-=-=-=-=
No---see my previous post: the Sleeping Beauty example.
-=-=-=-=-
At some point when the children are
older and inevitably ask for a TV and they see this show maybe the
effects of watching the violence won't be quite as harsh as it
would've been for a three year old.
-=-=-=-=-
Really, how often does a child see violence portrayed on TV at three
year old? Blues Clues and Dora don't get too violent!
Why would someone be watching Kill Bill with a three year old in the
room??? Why would someone watch the news with a three year old in the
room? Seriously! Do any of you DO that? Would you?
The thing I'd be worried about in wihholding and then giving tv access
is that the older child would be fascinated for an extended period of
time and make all your predictions come true.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Even if we discuss it with them
the images have been burned into their minds, we can't fix that or
take that away. Doesn't this seem valid?
-=-=-=-=-=-
Helping a child DEAL with difficult images is sooo much more important
than keeping ALL negative things from the child. He *will* see bad
stuff. Knowing how to work through it and talk or act it out and
knowing that mom is willing to help him through a difficult spot is so
much more helpful than just closing his eyes to all "danger" and hoping
that he never has to see it.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Sure don't refuse it, but why offer it up in the first place if we
think it may have ill
effects?
-=-=-=-=-
Well, *I* don't think it *will* have ill effects. So it's there. Right
now at 11:00pm, my husband's asleep. I'm TiVoing Law & Order, my 19
year old is out with friends (probably listening to live Blue Grass),
and my 11 year old is lying on the trampoline with a friend looking at
the stars and talking. No TV. By choice.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Why not just rid ourselves of the television?
-=-=-=-
Don't want to. It brings joy and opportunities and fun and cool places,
people, and animals into our living room. For pennies/day!
-=-=-=-=-
Is it because as adults we don't want to give it up?
-=-=-=-
That's one reason. And since the adults are the omnipotent beings in
this society, we have the power to keep it or trash it.
The children usually have no say. So only the adults can decide.
-=-=-=-=-=-
If that is the case are we then being mindful to our children's needs?
-=-=-=-
I try to be. That's a big part of unschooling.
-=-=-=-=-
Please someone tell me
that I'm being mindful of my child's needs and that I didn't sell my
TV and episodes of The Golden Girls that I had on DVD for no reason!:)
-==-=-
BUNCH of violence on Golden Girls! Don't want the kids to see THAT
violent stuff! <bwg>
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: rn930@...
I don't remember exactly how I said it, but I did say no sopranos is
not a kids
show, and we did find a movie everyone was happy to watch together.
But maybe I
did peak their curiosity because sometimes they say "is sopranos on
tonight"...........:(
-=-=-=-
Have you asked them why they're asking?
Maybe they think it's something *really* cool because it's being "kept"
from them (adults do that a lot---sex, drinking, etc., so it just makes
it more attractive). Things that are labled "adult" become incredibly
sought after. I'd avoid that term, "not a kids' show" or "for adults
only"---just makes it too "sparkly"! <g>
Could be that they want to know whether you will be spending the
evening watching TV without them. Could be that they want to talk you
into another movie that you *all* will watch.
Ask them!
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
From: rn930@...
I don't remember exactly how I said it, but I did say no sopranos is
not a kids
show, and we did find a movie everyone was happy to watch together.
But maybe I
did peak their curiosity because sometimes they say "is sopranos on
tonight"...........:(
-=-=-=-
Have you asked them why they're asking?
Maybe they think it's something *really* cool because it's being "kept"
from them (adults do that a lot---sex, drinking, etc., so it just makes
it more attractive). Things that are labled "adult" become incredibly
sought after. I'd avoid that term, "not a kids' show" or "for adults
only"---just makes it too "sparkly"! <g>
Could be that they want to know whether you will be spending the
evening watching TV without them. Could be that they want to talk you
into another movie that you *all* will watch.
Ask them!
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
Ren Allen
~~Not that being a mindful parent isn't work but working with
your children rather than against them is much different.~~
Absolutely!! It is both a difficult journey and also immensely easier.
Because you're right, it's easier to work with a child's natural
interests, fascinations and personalities rather than trying to change
them. It's easier in life to work with nature, to go with what IS
instead of fighting against things.
But because of the way most of us were raised, it can also be a
difficult mindset to embrace. I am constantly having my eyes opened to
areas where I can be more creative, more flexible and have deeper
understanding.
I loved reading about you and your dh's joy in re-discovering
tv/movies. How cool is that? When I feel fearful about something I
really try to evaluate what that message is really about. There are SO
many ways our lives have opened up and joy seeped in because we can
let things flow.
Keep us posted on all the wonderful learning and joy that happens with
tv and movies.:) I'll be interested in hearing all about it!
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
your children rather than against them is much different.~~
Absolutely!! It is both a difficult journey and also immensely easier.
Because you're right, it's easier to work with a child's natural
interests, fascinations and personalities rather than trying to change
them. It's easier in life to work with nature, to go with what IS
instead of fighting against things.
But because of the way most of us were raised, it can also be a
difficult mindset to embrace. I am constantly having my eyes opened to
areas where I can be more creative, more flexible and have deeper
understanding.
I loved reading about you and your dh's joy in re-discovering
tv/movies. How cool is that? When I feel fearful about something I
really try to evaluate what that message is really about. There are SO
many ways our lives have opened up and joy seeped in because we can
let things flow.
Keep us posted on all the wonderful learning and joy that happens with
tv and movies.:) I'll be interested in hearing all about it!
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Brad Holcomb
After reading Non-Violent Communication, my definition of the word
"violence" is simply:
Imposing my will on someone else.
This can happen is so many tiny subtle ways, that it has really helped open
my eyes to all of the violence in our world, and helped me act more
non-violently in our home. -=b.
From: Deb Lewis
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:28 PM
To: unschoolingbasics
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Guidance
I've known moms who were afraid of TV violence (as if that's a real thing),
afraid it would harm their kids, but who yanked their kid arms, or spanked
or swatted their kids or who yelled and took away their kids possessions.
That's a wagon load of real life violence more powerful than any TV show.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"violence" is simply:
Imposing my will on someone else.
This can happen is so many tiny subtle ways, that it has really helped open
my eyes to all of the violence in our world, and helped me act more
non-violently in our home. -=b.
From: Deb Lewis
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:28 PM
To: unschoolingbasics
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: Guidance
I've known moms who were afraid of TV violence (as if that's a real thing),
afraid it would harm their kids, but who yanked their kid arms, or spanked
or swatted their kids or who yelled and took away their kids possessions.
That's a wagon load of real life violence more powerful than any TV show.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deb Lewis
***After reading Non-Violent Communication, my definition of the word
"violence" is simply:
Imposing my will on someone else.
This can happen is so many tiny subtle ways, that it has really helped open
my eyes to all of the violence in our world, and helped me act more
non-violently in our home. -=b.***
I think people who desire to always impose their will on others have a
problem, alright.
But I don't think every communication of disagreement between people is
violence.
I don't think someone saying "I have a better idea lets do it this way." is
anything like having one's face beat bloody. <g>
If someone was getting punched and I thought I could stop it, I'd
definitely impose my will on the hitter. I have stopped people who were
hassling Dylan about school subjects. When Dylan was little I'd stop him
if he was infringing on the rights of others.
Deb Lewis
"violence" is simply:
Imposing my will on someone else.
This can happen is so many tiny subtle ways, that it has really helped open
my eyes to all of the violence in our world, and helped me act more
non-violently in our home. -=b.***
I think people who desire to always impose their will on others have a
problem, alright.
But I don't think every communication of disagreement between people is
violence.
I don't think someone saying "I have a better idea lets do it this way." is
anything like having one's face beat bloody. <g>
If someone was getting punched and I thought I could stop it, I'd
definitely impose my will on the hitter. I have stopped people who were
hassling Dylan about school subjects. When Dylan was little I'd stop him
if he was infringing on the rights of others.
Deb Lewis