Sunita T.

> geez! im gone for 5 days and a riot breaks out! what's up with all
you gals at each others collective throats?
>
> i guess this goes to the second poster who was implementing certain limitations for her son:i think that i would probably do
the same thing in your situation. i probably dont fit the entire
mold of unschooling anyway. there are certain things im going to do
differently b/c im doing christian unschooling and have other
factors to contend with as well. my son is allergic to milk, not
lactose, just milk in general when in liquid uncooked form. i have
to put restrictions on him because of his medical condition. he is
not even 2 yet and doesnt know about what im doing anyway. he wont
remember the bleeding diaper rashes and days of uncontrollable
diarrhea, but i will and so will his father. when he's old enough to
understand then we will tell him what's up and if he feels he can
handle the consequences, it's on him not me any longer. just like
with your son and his food intake and now onto his eyes. we are
watching my son for eye problems b/c it does run in both our
families and we both have had our own eye problems *mine were when i
was younger*.
> so i do commend you for being MINDFUL of your child and his
health and setting up reasonable limitations until he is able to
fully comprehend the repercussions involved. ***THE END***
>
> ::::now, speaking just for myself here, i know that my
parenting style being "different" as it has been called and every
move i make has been analyzed by family members at every turn of my
son's life. my whole thing is that if everyone was intent on their
own stuff more and just tolerated that people have different views
on unschool, parenting, and life in general maybe debates like
these could be avoided on and off the computer.
>
> just my 2 cents...dont go "throwing them at my head" LOL
>
> Suni


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

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

Fetteroll

on 12/23/04 11:14 AM, Sunita T. at kingzjewel@... wrote:

> i guess this goes to the second poster who was implementing certain
> limitations for her son:i think that i would probably do
> the same thing in your situation.

I think it's helpful to see the advice given on unschooling lists as
*alternatives* to control for those parents who want to figure out how to
trust and respect their kids *and* help their kids with their problems.

I think everyone can figure out how to take over control from a child! And
there are lots of lists where parents will share their methods of control.

But if parents don't want to use control, they often don't know what else
they can do. There's a vast range of choices between controlling kids and
ignoring kids but there aren't many places those choices get discussed. (But
1000's of places where control of children gets discussed.)

> there are certain things im going to do
> differently b/c im doing christian unschooling and have other
> factors to contend with as well.

And there are certain things that someone who "unschools except for math"
will do differently than someone who "unschools everything". But that won't
make their advice about math unschooling.

Pam Sorooshian said years ago that her kids had to go to religious services.
But she's never suggested that making kids go to services was unschooling
advice. And she's never suggested that, because of her religous beliefs,
advice that's not based on the unschooling philosophy was unschooling.

It's okay to pick and choose. It's okay to adapt. It's okay to not extend
the unschooling philosophy into every aspect of your lives. But just because
an unschooler does something that doesn't automatically mean the action is
based on the unschooling philosophy.

> my son is allergic to milk, not
> lactose, just milk in general when in liquid uncooked form. i have
> to put restrictions on him because of his medical condition. he is
> not even 2 yet and doesnt know about what im doing anyway.

I could call not letting my daughter play on the highway at 2 restricting
her. And I could call not letting her watch more than 1 hour of TV
restricting her.

But the importance lies in their differences rather than their similarities.

Getting run over by a car is a real danger with known unpleasant
consequences. Drinking milk for your son has known unpleasant consequences.

We know our kids don't want those consequences -- I'm sure your son wants
diarrhea less than you do! -- so we help them avoid the causes while they're
still too young to understand the connections between the cause and the
effect and too young to avoid the causes. So I wouldn't call not giving milk
to your son a restriction. I would call it helping him get what he wants:
being healthy and safe.

But once he gets old enough to want the ice cream his cousin has, there are
more options than "No," and "Do whatever you want to because you know the
consequences." The area between the two that encompasses respect and trust
is where people on this list can help with ideas.

*If* our goal is to trust and respect our kids -- which is the type of
advice offered on this list -- then helping kids get what they want is a
better path to that goal than restricting them from what we fear. All kids
want to be safe and healthy! But they want other things too. Our job is to
help them explore their options. Sometimes they'll have to set a goal at a
lower prioirty to get something else. (Like setting aside sleep needs in
order to experience staying up all night.)

> when he's old enough to
> understand then we will tell him what's up and if he feels he can
> handle the consequences, it's on him not me any longer.

I think rather than letting go, a better option is always being there to
help and support them in what they're trying to achieve. There may be more
options he could explore than no milk for the rest of his life. If I were in
that position, I'd love to have my mom there to help me explore my
alternatives.

> just like
> with your son and his food intake and now onto his eyes. we are
> watching my son for eye problems b/c it does run in both our
> families and we both have had our own eye problems *mine were when i
> was younger*.

Bad eyes from too much screen time is not on the order of the certain danger
of getting hit by a Mack truck. And how to restrict kids in order to protect
them from feared danger is not the best topic of discussion on an
unschooling list.

Discussing how to pass on information we strongly believe in -- and help
kids analyze information critically! -- while helping our kids get what they
want *is* a helpful topic for an unschooling list.

> so i do commend you for being MINDFUL of your child and his
> health and setting up reasonable limitations until he is able to
> fully comprehend the repercussions involved.

While the rest of us are UNMINDFUL and let kids do whatever they want
without regard to whether they understand what will happen or not.

No. There are more options than imposing limitations to protect them and
ignoring their problems. And those options get discussed here.

> my whole thing is that if everyone was intent on their
> own stuff more and just tolerated that people have different views
> on unschool, parenting, and life in general maybe debates like
> these could be avoided on and off the computer.

This list was created because there were unschooling beginners who *wanted*
debates and discussion. The Unschooling-101 list blew up because there were
people who wanted to debate and people who wanted to just share what they
did.

So it wouldn't be very helpful to figure out ways to avoid what people
created and joined the list in order to have! ;-)

I think the Unschooling-101 list has been renamed as HEM-NewHomeschoolers.
(Where the word homeschooling is being used synonymous with unschooling,
though the word unschooling isn't necessarily how it gets defined here. But
it might be closer to what you're looking for.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HEM-NewHomeschoolers/

(I think I'm wrong. Unschooling-101 may have been absorbed into the already
existing HEM-NewHomeschoolers. It had a big peak of posts at the same time
this list was created.)

Joyce

Ren Allen

"> so i do commend you for being MINDFUL of your child and his
> health and setting up reasonable limitations until he is able to
> fully comprehend the repercussions involved."

This implies that the rest of us that aren't advocating arbitrary
restrictions, are NOT mindful. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that,
but it sure comes through that way!
I'm a pretty MINDFUL parent. I am constantly examining how we do
things and how I react and trying to adjust my behavior to be more
aware and more mindful.
I think putting arbitrary restrictions on a child, takes a lot less
creativity and mindfulness than sifting through many options and
trying to come up with a useful solution for all involved.
I would say that this list attracts some of the most mindful parents
out there.

Ren

pam sorooshian

>> when he's old enough to
>> understand then we will tell him what's up and if he feels he can
>> handle the consequences, it's on him not me any longer.

Not letting him do something now because it would be "on me" but if he
does it when he's older it is "on him," is a nonproductive way of
thinking about it at all. Who cares who the blame falls on? WHY focus
on that? If he makes a mistake and there is a negative reaction you can
say, "Your own choice - don't blame me?" Wash your hands of it? That's
the feeling the above sentence gives. I've heard this a million times -
in a million different contexts. "I am in charge NOW, while the child
is young I will make decisions for him to protect him. I'm responsible
for his well-being right now. But - when he's older then HE is in
charge and I'm no longer responsible."

It doesn't have to be so cut-and-dried. It doesn't have to be
either/or. And this kind of thinking is dangerous - much better to
focus on developing a solution-oriented relationship-based approach to
life. I say it is dangerous because it is this approach that leads to
two things: (1) kids feeling restricted have the natural human urge to
push back and sometimes to be sneaky about that and (2) when "freed"
from the restrictions they often flounder and/or go too far in taking
advantage of their release.

Instead of focusing on who is in control, better to focus on
maintaining solution-oriented and relationship-based attitudes - this
is what will carry kids (and us) forward with the ability to deal with
whatever life tosses at us - to have a good life NOW and in the future.

Solution-oriented means that you are constantly asking yourselves -
what is the problem and how many solutions can we think of - which
solution do we want to try right now. This is a different attitude
than, "The rule is you cannot have milk and I'm in control of enforcing
that on you."

Relationship-based means that, as you make decisions, you consciously
take into consideration the short and long-term impact on your
relationship that giving orders, imposing rules, taking control will
have - versus the effects that working together to come up with
solutions to very real problems would have, instead.

I've seen it - parents who see themselves as "taking charge" for the
child's own sake, when he is young, are the same parents who keep on
trying to control their older kids, as well. They don't change their
way of relating to children - of seeing parent-child relationships as
one in charge versus the other. And that sets up parents and kids as
adversaries and that is truly dangerous because teenagers who see
parents as adversaries are far more at risk of engaging in all kinds of
behaviors with serious consequences.