Re: A few issues
Alison Broadbent
On Nov 5, 2005, at 6:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
to me it does come down to a very simple concept: respect. I try to
relate to my ds in as respectful a manner as I'm able. I think when
you have a core concept like that, issues are much easier to see.
Before my ds was born someone said that he liked to, whenever he picked
up his baby, to say what he was doing and where they were going. Ding!
I heard in my mind. I had never thought of that and so much else fell
into place. Food controls didn't come off (at least about sugar) until
he was almost 3. That has been the hardest one for me bc for almost 3
years i saw him eating lots of candy and I'm Ms. Organic. he didn't
want the organic candies but only the colorful chemical ones. He has
now slowed waaaay down on those and has also started to see for himself
how certain candies make him mad and sad.
All those things your dh is asking about are not unrelated. Do you
have an overriding philosophy? I think the overriding child rearing
philosophy in our prevailing culture, although it is presented as
learning to be a civil person has more to do w/ expedience. What's
easiest for the parent and that's made to look like the parent is being
a responsible adult.
Alison
> <<<<< The total list of topics he wanted info on (some I suggested,I certainly don't mean to deflect important questions your dh has but
> because
> I knew they'd be covered well) were:
>
> - Rules v. Principles
> - Dicipline/Rewards
> - Manners
> - Personal Hygiene
> - Chores
> - Eating
> - Bedtime
> - TV
> - School
to me it does come down to a very simple concept: respect. I try to
relate to my ds in as respectful a manner as I'm able. I think when
you have a core concept like that, issues are much easier to see.
Before my ds was born someone said that he liked to, whenever he picked
up his baby, to say what he was doing and where they were going. Ding!
I heard in my mind. I had never thought of that and so much else fell
into place. Food controls didn't come off (at least about sugar) until
he was almost 3. That has been the hardest one for me bc for almost 3
years i saw him eating lots of candy and I'm Ms. Organic. he didn't
want the organic candies but only the colorful chemical ones. He has
now slowed waaaay down on those and has also started to see for himself
how certain candies make him mad and sad.
All those things your dh is asking about are not unrelated. Do you
have an overriding philosophy? I think the overriding child rearing
philosophy in our prevailing culture, although it is presented as
learning to be a civil person has more to do w/ expedience. What's
easiest for the parent and that's made to look like the parent is being
a responsible adult.
Alison
Pamela Sorooshian
On Nov 6, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Alison Broadbent wrote:
said, "I'm going to shut the door - it might be loud." My daughter
was maybe 9 months old. I was really STRUCK by how kind and
respectful that was - why NOT warn the child before slamming a big
heavy car door right next to her? That was my DING moment!
The person I learned this from was trained in the RIE philosophy -
Resources for infant Educators (which they prefer to call "educarers.")
<www.rie.org>.
Here are some tidbits:
In order to foster quality care RIE encourages:
Basic trust in the child to be an initiator, an explorer and a self
learner.
An environment for the child that is physically safe, cognitively
challenging and emotionally nurturing
Time for uninterrupted play.
Freedom to explore and interact with other infants.
Involvement of the child in all care activities to allow the child to
become an active participant rather than a passive recipient.
Sensitive observation of the child in order to understand his/her needs.
Consistency, clearly defined limits and expectations to develop
discipline.
RIE is a non-profit organization that has developed and is teaching a
unique philosophy and methodology in working with infants. The RIE
approach, based onRespect, helps raise authentic infants who are:
competent, confident, curious, attentive, exploring, cooperative,
secure, peaceful, focused, self-initiating, resourceful, involved,
cheerful, aware, interested and inner-directed.
The teachings of Magda Gerber, Founding Director of RIE, are
presented in the books, Dear Parent: Caring for Infants with Respect
and Your Self Confident Baby. RIE also publishes a quarterly
newsletter, Educaring, as well as an audio tape and video tapes,
which present various aspects of the RIE philosophy.
Here is an excerpt from her book:
***If infants are ready to do something, they will do it. In fact,
when they are ready, they have to do it.
When I visit centers or families, I often feel sad or frustrated
because the children, to my mind, are doing beautiful things; the
adults say, however, "But why don't they do something?"�and
"something" is always something the children cannot do. When we give
a child the message, "If only you would..." or "If only you
wouldn't...," that child does not feel okay.
Try to feel you are that infant: you feel you have to perform, you
have to do, you have to create something. If you are lying peacefully
on your back, then you should be sitting up. Even if you cannot sit
up, you should. You feel that the important people in your life
expect something of you that you cannot deliver. However, a child who
cannot sit, cannot sit. Yes, you can prop pillows around an infant,
but that only gives the illusion that he can sit. Sitting means that
the infant has developed through all the stages from lying to
sitting. Learning to sit is different from sitting. It does not
happen the way many people think it does�by first putting a baby into
a sitting position so he will learn.
How can we tell whether our expectations are developmentally
appropriate? By observing, accepting and enjoying what the infant is
self-initiating and practicing all by himself.***
So - I read these and was very very taken by them - incorporated them
into my own parenting (along with bits and pieces of every other
philosophy that made sense to me, of course). This level of respect
was sort of my standard, from then on, but it was hard to find once
the kids were school age - until I ran into unschoolers.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Before my ds was born someone said that he liked to, whenever heWhen my oldest was a baby, someone else put her in the car seat and
> picked
> up his baby, to say what he was doing and where they were going.
> Ding!
> I heard in my mind. I had never thought of that and so much else fell
> into place.
said, "I'm going to shut the door - it might be loud." My daughter
was maybe 9 months old. I was really STRUCK by how kind and
respectful that was - why NOT warn the child before slamming a big
heavy car door right next to her? That was my DING moment!
The person I learned this from was trained in the RIE philosophy -
Resources for infant Educators (which they prefer to call "educarers.")
<www.rie.org>.
Here are some tidbits:
In order to foster quality care RIE encourages:
Basic trust in the child to be an initiator, an explorer and a self
learner.
An environment for the child that is physically safe, cognitively
challenging and emotionally nurturing
Time for uninterrupted play.
Freedom to explore and interact with other infants.
Involvement of the child in all care activities to allow the child to
become an active participant rather than a passive recipient.
Sensitive observation of the child in order to understand his/her needs.
Consistency, clearly defined limits and expectations to develop
discipline.
RIE is a non-profit organization that has developed and is teaching a
unique philosophy and methodology in working with infants. The RIE
approach, based onRespect, helps raise authentic infants who are:
competent, confident, curious, attentive, exploring, cooperative,
secure, peaceful, focused, self-initiating, resourceful, involved,
cheerful, aware, interested and inner-directed.
The teachings of Magda Gerber, Founding Director of RIE, are
presented in the books, Dear Parent: Caring for Infants with Respect
and Your Self Confident Baby. RIE also publishes a quarterly
newsletter, Educaring, as well as an audio tape and video tapes,
which present various aspects of the RIE philosophy.
Here is an excerpt from her book:
***If infants are ready to do something, they will do it. In fact,
when they are ready, they have to do it.
When I visit centers or families, I often feel sad or frustrated
because the children, to my mind, are doing beautiful things; the
adults say, however, "But why don't they do something?"�and
"something" is always something the children cannot do. When we give
a child the message, "If only you would..." or "If only you
wouldn't...," that child does not feel okay.
Try to feel you are that infant: you feel you have to perform, you
have to do, you have to create something. If you are lying peacefully
on your back, then you should be sitting up. Even if you cannot sit
up, you should. You feel that the important people in your life
expect something of you that you cannot deliver. However, a child who
cannot sit, cannot sit. Yes, you can prop pillows around an infant,
but that only gives the illusion that he can sit. Sitting means that
the infant has developed through all the stages from lying to
sitting. Learning to sit is different from sitting. It does not
happen the way many people think it does�by first putting a baby into
a sitting position so he will learn.
How can we tell whether our expectations are developmentally
appropriate? By observing, accepting and enjoying what the infant is
self-initiating and practicing all by himself.***
So - I read these and was very very taken by them - incorporated them
into my own parenting (along with bits and pieces of every other
philosophy that made sense to me, of course). This level of respect
was sort of my standard, from then on, but it was hard to find once
the kids were school age - until I ran into unschoolers.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ingrid Van den Peereboom
Thanks for the link and information, Pamela. Lots of interesting stuff in
there.
I wonder at their belief in crying as a "normal" expression of a baby,
though. I'd rather qualify it as typical of certain cultures that raise kids
in a distant way, the very way they seem to be teaching, with the
improvement of oral communication and freedom of movement for the baby. A
young baby with no health problem, breastfed on demand, constantly carried ,
who receives massages and doing EC is not very likely to have lot of things
to cry out ...
Ingrid+7
www.peau-a-peau.be
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]De la part de Pamela
Sorooshian
Envoyé : dimanche 6 novembre 2005 20:40
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
there.
I wonder at their belief in crying as a "normal" expression of a baby,
though. I'd rather qualify it as typical of certain cultures that raise kids
in a distant way, the very way they seem to be teaching, with the
improvement of oral communication and freedom of movement for the baby. A
young baby with no health problem, breastfed on demand, constantly carried ,
who receives massages and doing EC is not very likely to have lot of things
to cry out ...
Ingrid+7
www.peau-a-peau.be
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]De la part de Pamela
Sorooshian
Envoyé : dimanche 6 novembre 2005 20:40
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
On Nov 6, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Alison Broadbent wrote:
> Before my ds was born someone said that he liked to, whenever he
> picked
> up his baby, to say what he was doing and where they were going.
> Ding!
> I heard in my mind. I had never thought of that and so much else fell
> into place.
When my oldest was a baby, someone else put her in the car seat and
said, "I'm going to shut the door - it might be loud." My daughter
was maybe 9 months old. I was really STRUCK by how kind and
respectful that was - why NOT warn the child before slamming a big
heavy car door right next to her? That was my DING moment!
The person I learned this from was trained in the RIE philosophy -
Resources for infant Educators (which they prefer to call "educarers.")
<www.rie.org>.
Here are some tidbits:
In order to foster quality care RIE encourages:
Basic trust in the child to be an initiator, an explorer and a self
learner.
An environment for the child that is physically safe, cognitively
challenging and emotionally nurturing
Time for uninterrupted play.
Freedom to explore and interact with other infants.
Involvement of the child in all care activities to allow the child to
become an active participant rather than a passive recipient.
Sensitive observation of the child in order to understand his/her needs.
Consistency, clearly defined limits and expectations to develop
discipline.
RIE is a non-profit organization that has developed and is teaching a
unique philosophy and methodology in working with infants. The RIE
approach, based onRespect, helps raise authentic infants who are:
competent, confident, curious, attentive, exploring, cooperative,
secure, peaceful, focused, self-initiating, resourceful, involved,
cheerful, aware, interested and inner-directed.
The teachings of Magda Gerber, Founding Director of RIE, are
presented in the books, Dear Parent: Caring for Infants with Respect
and Your Self Confident Baby. RIE also publishes a quarterly
newsletter, Educaring, as well as an audio tape and video tapes,
which present various aspects of the RIE philosophy.
Here is an excerpt from her book:
***If infants are ready to do something, they will do it. In fact,
when they are ready, they have to do it.
When I visit centers or families, I often feel sad or frustrated
because the children, to my mind, are doing beautiful things; the
adults say, however, "But why don't they do something?"and
"something" is always something the children cannot do. When we give
a child the message, "If only you would..." or "If only you
wouldn't...," that child does not feel okay.
Try to feel you are that infant: you feel you have to perform, you
have to do, you have to create something. If you are lying peacefully
on your back, then you should be sitting up. Even if you cannot sit
up, you should. You feel that the important people in your life
expect something of you that you cannot deliver. However, a child who
cannot sit, cannot sit. Yes, you can prop pillows around an infant,
but that only gives the illusion that he can sit. Sitting means that
the infant has developed through all the stages from lying to
sitting. Learning to sit is different from sitting. It does not
happen the way many people think it doesby first putting a baby into
a sitting position so he will learn.
How can we tell whether our expectations are developmentally
appropriate? By observing, accepting and enjoying what the infant is
self-initiating and practicing all by himself.***
So - I read these and was very very taken by them - incorporated them
into my own parenting (along with bits and pieces of every other
philosophy that made sense to me, of course). This level of respect
was sort of my standard, from then on, but it was hard to find once
the kids were school age - until I ran into unschoolers.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
Pamela Sorooshian
I don't think they encourage "constantly carrying" either. I wasn't
promoting anybody ADOPTING their philosophy --- but 21 years ago,
that's what I ran into and it had a big influence on me. Looking
back, I see how it espoused a lot of the same ideas that I eventually
found in unschooling.
That's all. The focus of it is really on teachers in daycare
situations, anyway.
-pam
promoting anybody ADOPTING their philosophy --- but 21 years ago,
that's what I ran into and it had a big influence on me. Looking
back, I see how it espoused a lot of the same ideas that I eventually
found in unschooling.
That's all. The focus of it is really on teachers in daycare
situations, anyway.
-pam
On Nov 6, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Ingrid Van den Peereboom wrote:
> A
> young baby with no health problem, breastfed on demand, constantly
> carried ,
> who receives massages and doing EC is not very likely to have lot
> of things
> to cry out ...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
"I'd rather qualify it as typical of certain cultures that raise kids
in a distant way, the very way they seem to be teaching, with the
improvement of oral communication and freedom of movement for the baby. A
young baby with no health problem, breastfed on demand, constantly
carried ,
who receives massages and doing EC is not very likely to have lot of
things
to cry out .."
I disagree.
Probably 90% (maybe more) of average babies won't have much reason to
cry with an AP style of parenting. But my youngest child, Jalen, was
next to me from the moment he was born, breastfed on demand until 4.5
years old, worn in a sling etc....and he could CRY! He even woke in
the middle of the night, for most of his life SCREAMING.
He is slowly outgrowing this.
I never would have thought a child raised this way could cry the way
he did. Granted, it wasn't a constant (except the night thing), but he
found plenty of reasons to cry whether I was holding him or not.
He had a very frustrating time until he could communicate, since he
was a "late" talker. I really wish I'd learned basic sign language to
help him through this. We constantly explained things to him and
talked to him, but HE couldn't communicate back as well. It frustrated
him AND us.
He was so incredibly descriptive, he could tell a whole story with his
own sign language (a charades of sorts), but once he could talk, some
of the frustration ebbed.
Some kids are just intense. They feel things MORE than other people.
This might lead to more crying than one would believe in spite of
being raised very gently and respectfully.
I do believe crying is a natural form of communication for a baby.
That doesn't mean I believe it should just be ignored or accepted....I
always believe in responding to any form of communication a baby uses.
Ren
in a distant way, the very way they seem to be teaching, with the
improvement of oral communication and freedom of movement for the baby. A
young baby with no health problem, breastfed on demand, constantly
carried ,
who receives massages and doing EC is not very likely to have lot of
things
to cry out .."
I disagree.
Probably 90% (maybe more) of average babies won't have much reason to
cry with an AP style of parenting. But my youngest child, Jalen, was
next to me from the moment he was born, breastfed on demand until 4.5
years old, worn in a sling etc....and he could CRY! He even woke in
the middle of the night, for most of his life SCREAMING.
He is slowly outgrowing this.
I never would have thought a child raised this way could cry the way
he did. Granted, it wasn't a constant (except the night thing), but he
found plenty of reasons to cry whether I was holding him or not.
He had a very frustrating time until he could communicate, since he
was a "late" talker. I really wish I'd learned basic sign language to
help him through this. We constantly explained things to him and
talked to him, but HE couldn't communicate back as well. It frustrated
him AND us.
He was so incredibly descriptive, he could tell a whole story with his
own sign language (a charades of sorts), but once he could talk, some
of the frustration ebbed.
Some kids are just intense. They feel things MORE than other people.
This might lead to more crying than one would believe in spite of
being raised very gently and respectfully.
I do believe crying is a natural form of communication for a baby.
That doesn't mean I believe it should just be ignored or accepted....I
always believe in responding to any form of communication a baby uses.
Ren
Danielle Conger
Ren Allen wrote:
hubris with the girls--if everyone just raised their children the way
*I* did, they would have amazing, loving, empathetic, generous, yadda,
yadda, children. I was so sure it was AP--and, of course, much of it was.
Sam came and helped me redefine what amazing, loving children look like,
and they're not always easy. ;) But, they're always rewarding, and they
benefit just as much, if not *more*, from the AP and Unschooling, and
they help *us* grow and stretch in amazing, glorious ways that "easy"
children do not.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
> I disagree.Ditto, most of what Ren said. I believe Sam came to me because of my
> Probably 90% (maybe more) of average babies won't have much reason to
> cry with an AP style of parenting. But my youngest child, Jalen, was
> next to me from the moment he was born, breastfed on demand until 4.5
> years old, worn in a sling etc....and he could CRY! He even woke in
> the middle of the night, for most of his life SCREAMING.
> He is slowly outgrowing this.
> I never would have thought a child raised this way could cry the way
> he did. Granted, it wasn't a constant (except the night thing), but he
> found plenty of reasons to cry whether I was holding him or not.
hubris with the girls--if everyone just raised their children the way
*I* did, they would have amazing, loving, empathetic, generous, yadda,
yadda, children. I was so sure it was AP--and, of course, much of it was.
Sam came and helped me redefine what amazing, loving children look like,
and they're not always easy. ;) But, they're always rewarding, and they
benefit just as much, if not *more*, from the AP and Unschooling, and
they help *us* grow and stretch in amazing, glorious ways that "easy"
children do not.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
Robyn Coburn
<<<But my youngest child, Jalen, was
like, and they're not always easy. ;) But, they're always rewarding, and
they benefit just as much, if not *more*, from the AP and Unschooling, and
they help *us* grow and stretch in amazing, glorious ways that "easy"
children do not. >>>>>>
Which just once more shows that AP and Unschooling are not about creating
some kind of pre-ordained "End Product". The wonderful process continues
through childhood and beyond.
Robyn L. Coburn
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005
> next to me from the moment he was born, breastfed on demand until 4.5<<<<< Sam came and helped me redefine what amazing, loving children look
> years old, worn in a sling etc....and he could CRY! He even woke in
> the middle of the night, for most of his life SCREAMING.>>>>
like, and they're not always easy. ;) But, they're always rewarding, and
they benefit just as much, if not *more*, from the AP and Unschooling, and
they help *us* grow and stretch in amazing, glorious ways that "easy"
children do not. >>>>>>
Which just once more shows that AP and Unschooling are not about creating
some kind of pre-ordained "End Product". The wonderful process continues
through childhood and beyond.
Robyn L. Coburn
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005
[email protected]
<<Jalen...next to me from the moment he was born...breastfed on demand...worn in a sling...woke in the middle of the night for most of his life SCREAMING...>>>>
And Zach was offered a variety of nutritional food throughout his life, no coersion, no "bad food" labels and he refused to eat in a way that maintained enough nutrition in his body.
All the kids are different. Most will respond in expected ways, some will not.
Julie S.
And Zach was offered a variety of nutritional food throughout his life, no coersion, no "bad food" labels and he refused to eat in a way that maintained enough nutrition in his body.
All the kids are different. Most will respond in expected ways, some will not.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robyn Coburn <dezigna@...>
Date: Monday, November 7, 2005 9:54 pm
Subject: RE: [unschoolingbasics] A few issues
> <<<But my youngest child, Jalen, was
> > next to me from the moment he was born, breastfed on demand
> until 4.5
> > years old, worn in a sling etc....and he could CRY! He even woke in
> > the middle of the night, for most of his life SCREAMING.>>>>
>
> <<<<< Sam came and helped me redefine what amazing, loving
> children look
> like, and they're not always easy. ;) But, they're always
> rewarding, and
> they benefit just as much, if not *more*, from the AP and
> Unschooling, and
> they help *us* grow and stretch in amazing, glorious ways that
> "easy"
> children do not. >>>>>>
>
> Which just once more shows that AP and Unschooling are not about
> creatingsome kind of pre-ordained "End Product". The wonderful
> process continues
> through childhood and beyond.
>
> Robyn L. Coburn
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date:
> 11/5/2005
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ren Allen
"
All the kids are different. Most will respond in expected ways, some
will not."
Of course.
Maybe it should be prefaced with something about an already healthy child.
You gave a fuller picture with the last post. What I meant by "not
doing your job" is my vision of a child eating ONLY processed food to
the point of malnourishment.
I guess looking at my own child, looking into their eyes, seeing what
they need is more important to me than ANY list or ANY advice.
Not that it isn't worth pondering ALL of it...yes.
But if I have a child that is truly unhealthy, I will do whatever it
takes to help them.
I don't see it as a huge deal to not keep processed food in the
house...I do think it would be harmful to never buy it if it's requested.
Did this child have issues before you adopted him? Are there physical
things that prevent him from listening to his own body? There are more
issues here than a simple "some kids have to be forced".
I can also see a discussion with my kids about why certain foods
aren't good to bring into a home where a child is having a problem.
Mine are pretty good about keeping most red40 away from Jalen. At the
same time, I don't make them eat a certain way for one person in the
house. We find ways to work around that.
If he likes drinking everything...can't you put liquid vitamins in his
orange juice? Maybe it's an issue of texture more than anything else.
I don't know.
You know your child obviously...but when someone tells me they allowed
their child to be malnourished because they ONLY chose processed
foods, it doesn't paint the picture your second post did.
Ren
All the kids are different. Most will respond in expected ways, some
will not."
Of course.
Maybe it should be prefaced with something about an already healthy child.
You gave a fuller picture with the last post. What I meant by "not
doing your job" is my vision of a child eating ONLY processed food to
the point of malnourishment.
I guess looking at my own child, looking into their eyes, seeing what
they need is more important to me than ANY list or ANY advice.
Not that it isn't worth pondering ALL of it...yes.
But if I have a child that is truly unhealthy, I will do whatever it
takes to help them.
I don't see it as a huge deal to not keep processed food in the
house...I do think it would be harmful to never buy it if it's requested.
Did this child have issues before you adopted him? Are there physical
things that prevent him from listening to his own body? There are more
issues here than a simple "some kids have to be forced".
I can also see a discussion with my kids about why certain foods
aren't good to bring into a home where a child is having a problem.
Mine are pretty good about keeping most red40 away from Jalen. At the
same time, I don't make them eat a certain way for one person in the
house. We find ways to work around that.
If he likes drinking everything...can't you put liquid vitamins in his
orange juice? Maybe it's an issue of texture more than anything else.
I don't know.
You know your child obviously...but when someone tells me they allowed
their child to be malnourished because they ONLY chose processed
foods, it doesn't paint the picture your second post did.
Ren
averyschmidt
> You gave a fuller picture with the last post. What I meant by "notto
> doing your job" is my vision of a child eating ONLY processed food
> the point of malnourishment.This surprised me as well, Julie. I think it's important NOT to put
advice from strangers on a mailing list above what we are seeing
with our own eyes in the child right in front of us. If I found
myself in the extreme situation you described I would have had no
problem NOT stocking our pantry with the pre-packaged stuff.
> I can also see a discussion with my kids about why certain foodsI prefer to keep my youngest away from food coloring whenever
> aren't good to bring into a home where a child is having a problem.
> Mine are pretty good about keeping most red40 away from Jalen.
possible. There have been times where, due to many variables, I ask
his older brothers to help me with this by not bringing certain
foods in our home or by keeping it out of sight in their rooms.
How is Zach doing these days?
Patti
[email protected]
<<I don't see it as a huge issue not to keep processed food in the house>>
Well, my kids did. It isn't a huge issue to me but it was/is a problem for the kids. So I am imposing a limit. My choosing not to buy that does limit them. To act as though that isn't a limit is not an honest portrayal.
<<seeing what they need is more important than ANY list or ANY advice>>
I absolutely agree with this. I was a crappy mom in that I kept thinking somewhere this self-regulation is going to kick in. But it was a gradual thing, Zach has been very tiny all his life except in infancy when I was pretty much in charge of what he ate and when. He just kept getting skinnier and skinnier. Doctors said nothing was physically wrong with him, people kept telling me he was losing his baby fat, my other kids self-regulated. And unschooling lists kept telling me that what I was seeing was wrong, that it couldn't possibly happening.
The more I have talked about Zach on the boards, the more I have been contacted by people who have kids like him. I truly believe that there is a small percentage of kids who will learn to self-regulate only in very gradual, very restricted (from an unschooling point of view) manner.
Is Zach better able to control himself than he used to be? yes. Does he have the capacity to eat what will maintain his health? Not yet. I hope to be able to give up the role of food Nazi some day but we aren't there yet.
<<but when someone tells me they allowed their son to become malnourished because they chose ONLY processed foods it doesn't paint the picture your second post did>>
Why? People choose to eat in a manner that makes them fat quite frequently. Problem is that it is much more difficult to diagnose malnutrition in fat people. I was never restricted in my eating in any way, shape or form as a child but while not obese, I am certainly not at an ideal weight for me. Zach simply took it to extremes.
Julie S.
Well, my kids did. It isn't a huge issue to me but it was/is a problem for the kids. So I am imposing a limit. My choosing not to buy that does limit them. To act as though that isn't a limit is not an honest portrayal.
<<seeing what they need is more important than ANY list or ANY advice>>
I absolutely agree with this. I was a crappy mom in that I kept thinking somewhere this self-regulation is going to kick in. But it was a gradual thing, Zach has been very tiny all his life except in infancy when I was pretty much in charge of what he ate and when. He just kept getting skinnier and skinnier. Doctors said nothing was physically wrong with him, people kept telling me he was losing his baby fat, my other kids self-regulated. And unschooling lists kept telling me that what I was seeing was wrong, that it couldn't possibly happening.
The more I have talked about Zach on the boards, the more I have been contacted by people who have kids like him. I truly believe that there is a small percentage of kids who will learn to self-regulate only in very gradual, very restricted (from an unschooling point of view) manner.
Is Zach better able to control himself than he used to be? yes. Does he have the capacity to eat what will maintain his health? Not yet. I hope to be able to give up the role of food Nazi some day but we aren't there yet.
<<but when someone tells me they allowed their son to become malnourished because they chose ONLY processed foods it doesn't paint the picture your second post did>>
Why? People choose to eat in a manner that makes them fat quite frequently. Problem is that it is much more difficult to diagnose malnutrition in fat people. I was never restricted in my eating in any way, shape or form as a child but while not obese, I am certainly not at an ideal weight for me. Zach simply took it to extremes.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ren Allen <starsuncloud@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:10 am
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] A few issues
> "
> All the kids are different. Most will respond in expected ways, some
> will not."
>
> Of course.
> Maybe it should be prefaced with something about an already
> healthy child.
>
> You gave a fuller picture with the last post. What I meant by "not
> doing your job" is my vision of a child eating ONLY processed food to
> the point of malnourishment.
> I guess looking at my own child, looking into their eyes, seeing what
> they need is more important to me than ANY list or ANY advice.
>
> Not that it isn't worth pondering ALL of it...yes.
> But if I have a child that is truly unhealthy, I will do whatever it
> takes to help them.
> I don't see it as a huge deal to not keep processed food in the
> house...I do think it would be harmful to never buy it if it's
> requested.Did this child have issues before you adopted him? Are
> there physical
> things that prevent him from listening to his own body? There are more
> issues here than a simple "some kids have to be forced".
>
> I can also see a discussion with my kids about why certain foods
> aren't good to bring into a home where a child is having a problem.
> Mine are pretty good about keeping most red40 away from Jalen. At the
> same time, I don't make them eat a certain way for one person in the
> house. We find ways to work around that.
>
> If he likes drinking everything...can't you put liquid vitamins in his
> orange juice? Maybe it's an issue of texture more than anything
> else.
> I don't know.
> You know your child obviously...but when someone tells me they allowed
> their child to be malnourished because they ONLY chose processed
> foods, it doesn't paint the picture your second post did.
>
> Ren
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
<<I would have had no problem not stocking my pantry with process food>>
So we only trust our children as long as they are living within certain boundaries? Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our kids away from things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is what they are.
This is why you will hear me talking on the lists about looking at the "here and now", seeing if there is a problem right now, not some hypothetical problem in the future. I will talk about arbitrary limits. You will not see me post about "no limits" because I don't think it is an accurage description of how unschooling works.
<<I try to keep red dye away>>
I understand this as well. My youngest has sensitivities to soy. All the kids read labels, Michelle asks if her food has soy, I try to find things with alternatives. No problem, works great, wish it did for Zach.
<<How is Zach doing these days?>>
Right now he healthy. I keep healthy food in the house and he is required to choose from an assortment of foods for his meals. I require that he finish his meals. Because when the processed food left the house, Zach simply quit eating.
We had been able to go for a few months with some sweets occassionally, we would talk about how they aren't "bad" only that they don't have the nutritional elements our bodies need and I would ask him to eat other things with it. It was ok for a while but soon he was eating more and more sweets and less and less of anything with it. So we are kind of back at square 3, at least not square 1. I do see progress but it is requiring much more restriction than I had ever planned on having with any of my children.
I didn't mean to imply that I blame the list because they gave me such and such information. Of course I don't. Like I said, it was a gradual thing and I just kept thinking it would kick in. Finally, I took a close look at Zach and realized that he wasn't getting it, wasn't gonna get it.
But when I see old timers posting to newbies about how kids won't eat a certain way unless it is being caused by some type of goof by the parents (restricting candy, not providing healthy choices), I get a bit miffed.
Julie S.
So we only trust our children as long as they are living within certain boundaries? Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our kids away from things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is what they are.
This is why you will hear me talking on the lists about looking at the "here and now", seeing if there is a problem right now, not some hypothetical problem in the future. I will talk about arbitrary limits. You will not see me post about "no limits" because I don't think it is an accurage description of how unschooling works.
<<I try to keep red dye away>>
I understand this as well. My youngest has sensitivities to soy. All the kids read labels, Michelle asks if her food has soy, I try to find things with alternatives. No problem, works great, wish it did for Zach.
<<How is Zach doing these days?>>
Right now he healthy. I keep healthy food in the house and he is required to choose from an assortment of foods for his meals. I require that he finish his meals. Because when the processed food left the house, Zach simply quit eating.
We had been able to go for a few months with some sweets occassionally, we would talk about how they aren't "bad" only that they don't have the nutritional elements our bodies need and I would ask him to eat other things with it. It was ok for a while but soon he was eating more and more sweets and less and less of anything with it. So we are kind of back at square 3, at least not square 1. I do see progress but it is requiring much more restriction than I had ever planned on having with any of my children.
I didn't mean to imply that I blame the list because they gave me such and such information. Of course I don't. Like I said, it was a gradual thing and I just kept thinking it would kick in. Finally, I took a close look at Zach and realized that he wasn't getting it, wasn't gonna get it.
But when I see old timers posting to newbies about how kids won't eat a certain way unless it is being caused by some type of goof by the parents (restricting candy, not providing healthy choices), I get a bit miffed.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt <patti.schmidt2@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 9:52 am
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
> > You gave a fuller picture with the last post. What I meant by "not
> > doing your job" is my vision of a child eating ONLY processed
> food
> to
> > the point of malnourishment.
>
> This surprised me as well, Julie. I think it's important NOT to
> put
> advice from strangers on a mailing list above what we are seeing
> with our own eyes in the child right in front of us. If I found
> myself in the extreme situation you described I would have had no
> problem NOT stocking our pantry with the pre-packaged stuff.
>
> > I can also see a discussion with my kids about why certain foods
> > aren't good to bring into a home where a child is having a problem.
> > Mine are pretty good about keeping most red40 away from Jalen.
>
> I prefer to keep my youngest away from food coloring whenever
> possible. There have been times where, due to many variables, I
> ask
> his older brothers to help me with this by not bringing certain
> foods in our home or by keeping it out of sight in their rooms.
>
> How is Zach doing these days?
>
> Patti
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
averyschmidt
> <<I would have had no problem not stocking my pantry with processfood>>
> So we only trust our children as long as they are living withincertain boundaries?
Well, you cut off the first part of my sentence which was "If I
found myself in the extreme situation that you described...." My
children have access to all kinds of food- if not actually right in
our home then at the grocery stores and convenience stores nearby
where they are free to come and go and spend whatever available
money they (or I) have.
***Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our kids away from
things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is
what they are.***
In the case of my 6yo and food colors, there are times when I
purposely keep them out of his path. But if they *are* in his path
and he chooses them, then so be it. I believe that in his case,
withholding what he wants is more damaging than some food dye. But
if I can avoid his wanting it (by asking his brothers to, say,
finish their skittles before they come inside) then I do so. If you
want to define that as a rather vague limit but still a limit that's
fine with me. :-) I agree that these situations aren't always black
and white.
> You will not see me post about "no limits" because I don't thinkit is an accurage description of how unschooling works.
I don't either. Life is full of limits. I'm not sure I've ever
read an unschooling-related post where anybody has advised "no
limits." Separating real limits vs. arbitrary limits, finding ways
to say "yes" more and "no" less, and that sort of thing... but
not "no limits."
> Right now he healthy. I keep healthy food in the house and he isrequired to choose from an assortment of foods for his meals. I
require that he finish his meals. Because when the processed food
left the house, Zach simply quit eating.
How long did he go without eating? It does sound like an extreme
situation. :-/ How old was he when you adopted him? (If you don't
mind sharing...)
> But when I see old timers posting to newbies about how kids won'teat a certain way unless it is being caused by some type of goof by
the parents (restricting candy, not providing healthy choices), I
get a bit miffed.
I do think that in the vast majority of cases food problems *are*
caused by too many restrictions and not providing enough healthy and
well-liked choices. That doesn't mean there aren't ever going to be
exceptions or other health-related variables (diabetes, allergies,
etc).
Patti
averyschmidt
> Well, my kids did. It isn't a huge issue to me but it was/is aproblem for the kids. So I am imposing a limit. My choosing not to
buy that does limit them. To act as though that isn't a limit is not
an honest portrayal.
I agree. I'm not sure who's making the dishonest portrayal though.
I'm curious why you limit all of your kids when only one needs it.
Are there ever opportunities for Zach's siblings to have some of the
things they like when their brother is elsewhere? Could they keep
some things in their bedrooms and agree not to eat them in front of
their brother? I'm thinking of my cousin's twin 6yo girls... one has
a life-threatening peanut allergy and the other does not. I know that
the non-allergic child *does* eat and enjoy peanut products even
though her sister can't. I'm sure they have found a way to handle it
sensitively.
Patti
Pamela Sorooshian
On Nov 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, jnjstau@... wrote:
No on-demand feeding?
I'm thinking that there are some pretty deep-seated food issues here
- that might have started IN infancy.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Zach has been very tiny all his life except in infancy when I wasMore to the story. You regulated what he ate when he was an infant?
> pretty much in charge of what he ate and when.
No on-demand feeding?
I'm thinking that there are some pretty deep-seated food issues here
- that might have started IN infancy.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Nov 8, 2005, at 2:15 PM, jnjstau@... wrote:
What did you mean when you said you controlled his food intake when
he was an infant?
Also - those same "oldtimers" have over and over and OVER said not to
go to extremes and totally relax all limits all of a sudden, but to
gradually say "yes" more often and not to make "no" the default, but
to THINK about the reasonableness of requests and responses.
This would mean, for example, that if a child gets up in the morning
and wants to eat left-over birthday cake, a parent would not
automatically say "no" and then give them pancakes, just because cake
doesn't seem like breakfast food, but pancakes do. THAT is thoughtless.
Are you involved in a power struggle with him over food? Over
anything else? Did you go from controlling his food to giving him
all the control over it?
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> But when I see old timers posting to newbies about how kids won'tI mentioned this in my previous post, but I'm asking outright, now.
> eat a certain way unless it is being caused by some type of goof by
> the parents (restricting candy, not providing healthy choices), I
> get a bit miffed.
What did you mean when you said you controlled his food intake when
he was an infant?
Also - those same "oldtimers" have over and over and OVER said not to
go to extremes and totally relax all limits all of a sudden, but to
gradually say "yes" more often and not to make "no" the default, but
to THINK about the reasonableness of requests and responses.
This would mean, for example, that if a child gets up in the morning
and wants to eat left-over birthday cake, a parent would not
automatically say "no" and then give them pancakes, just because cake
doesn't seem like breakfast food, but pancakes do. THAT is thoughtless.
Are you involved in a power struggle with him over food? Over
anything else? Did you go from controlling his food to giving him
all the control over it?
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
"<<I would have had no problem not stocking my pantry with process food>>"
~So we only trust our children as long as they are living within certain
boundaries? Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our kids away from
things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is what
they are.~
Of course we only trust our children within certain boundaries!! It's
called safety and child development!! I've NEVER heard anyone at any
list say NO limits, NO boundaries...ever.
That's a very different thing than saying that we want to act in a
non-coercive manner and let them have choices and freedom.
I am VERY coercive when Jalen chooses to walk towards a busy street,
or jump up on a rail that's two stories up. Heck yes.
Attempting to keep our children safe is parental duty, of course it's
imposting limits, but they're real life limits, with REAL
reasons...not some arbitrary thing that isn't considered carefully.
I have a huge problem with ALL the people in the household being
forced to eat a certain way over one child's issues.
I would not do that. If you keep certain things out of the house, I
understand...but to force a certain diet on everyone is not fair, nor
is it the best way to help people learn to listen to their own bodies.
There are several inconsistencies I don't understand.
First of all, you're saying this child was being given the foods he
was craving in a processed version?
Why would he choose a cookie in a wrapper vs. a cookie on the counter?
Why would a child choose anything in a wrapper if they have the same
food available right in front of them?
That is not a food issue any longer, it's a control issue.
He is trying to gain control for some reason, because he knows you
don't want him to eat those foods.
I have a feeling there was WAY too much food focus and too much focus
on what this child was eating at some point in his life. Maybe I'm
wrong...but regardless of some people choosing unhealthy foods a lot,
this child seems to choose what YOU donn't want him to eat.
I DO believe there are people who will eat mostly sweets and if
processed food is the easiest choice then they'll eat that almost
exclusively. I have a child like that!!
But if there are cookies laying on the counter, he'll eat those as
opposed to rummaging through the cupboards to find a wrapped cookie!
Just looking at general human behavior, they go for the easiest food
that tastes good available.
Forcing him to finish his food is only setting him up for HUGE control
issues. I totally disagree with this, you can claim he is unique all
you want and I think that's a huge mistake.
You're better off putting liquid vitamins in the drinks he loves than
making an issue of forcing him to eat.
That's abuse of another human's spirit.
If he's really going to starve himself if you don't do that, then
there MUST be a physical issue that hasn't been addressed.
Everything I've read so far is telling me it's a control issue though.
Ren
~So we only trust our children as long as they are living within certain
boundaries? Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our kids away from
things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is what
they are.~
Of course we only trust our children within certain boundaries!! It's
called safety and child development!! I've NEVER heard anyone at any
list say NO limits, NO boundaries...ever.
That's a very different thing than saying that we want to act in a
non-coercive manner and let them have choices and freedom.
I am VERY coercive when Jalen chooses to walk towards a busy street,
or jump up on a rail that's two stories up. Heck yes.
Attempting to keep our children safe is parental duty, of course it's
imposting limits, but they're real life limits, with REAL
reasons...not some arbitrary thing that isn't considered carefully.
I have a huge problem with ALL the people in the household being
forced to eat a certain way over one child's issues.
I would not do that. If you keep certain things out of the house, I
understand...but to force a certain diet on everyone is not fair, nor
is it the best way to help people learn to listen to their own bodies.
There are several inconsistencies I don't understand.
First of all, you're saying this child was being given the foods he
was craving in a processed version?
Why would he choose a cookie in a wrapper vs. a cookie on the counter?
Why would a child choose anything in a wrapper if they have the same
food available right in front of them?
That is not a food issue any longer, it's a control issue.
He is trying to gain control for some reason, because he knows you
don't want him to eat those foods.
I have a feeling there was WAY too much food focus and too much focus
on what this child was eating at some point in his life. Maybe I'm
wrong...but regardless of some people choosing unhealthy foods a lot,
this child seems to choose what YOU donn't want him to eat.
I DO believe there are people who will eat mostly sweets and if
processed food is the easiest choice then they'll eat that almost
exclusively. I have a child like that!!
But if there are cookies laying on the counter, he'll eat those as
opposed to rummaging through the cupboards to find a wrapped cookie!
Just looking at general human behavior, they go for the easiest food
that tastes good available.
Forcing him to finish his food is only setting him up for HUGE control
issues. I totally disagree with this, you can claim he is unique all
you want and I think that's a huge mistake.
You're better off putting liquid vitamins in the drinks he loves than
making an issue of forcing him to eat.
That's abuse of another human's spirit.
If he's really going to starve himself if you don't do that, then
there MUST be a physical issue that hasn't been addressed.
Everything I've read so far is telling me it's a control issue though.
Ren
Ren Allen
"<<but when someone tells me they allowed their son to become malnourished
because they chose ONLY processed foods it doesn't paint the picture
your second
post did>>
~Why? People choose to eat in a manner that makes them fat quite
frequently.~
THat's not what I was referring to.
The first post simply said that your child ate only processed foods
and became malnourished.
The second post explained the issues and gave a clearer picture of
parental involvement. I wasn't referring to how people eat or any
other thing...only your posts.
Ren
because they chose ONLY processed foods it doesn't paint the picture
your second
post did>>
~Why? People choose to eat in a manner that makes them fat quite
frequently.~
THat's not what I was referring to.
The first post simply said that your child ate only processed foods
and became malnourished.
The second post explained the issues and gave a clearer picture of
parental involvement. I wasn't referring to how people eat or any
other thing...only your posts.
Ren
[email protected]
<<How long did he go without eating>>
Not long because I got scared. He got really white and his lips turned kind of blue and he would just puke up bile. He will still do this if he doesn't eat dinner, which he would often choose not to do.
So I just put my foot down and made him eat.
<<How old was he when you adopted him?>>
He was a newborn. He seemed perfectly normal and happy until around 18 months or so. Then his eating went way downhill. He stayed at 22 pounds for 2 and a half years. He went from the 70th percentile to off the bottom of the chart. We worked with it for years and years. His move to only processed foods was a gradual thing but that was where he was when things got really bad.
<<I don't think I've ever seen an unschool-related post that suggested "no limits">>
Really??? I find them to be the norm which is where lots of newbies end up in trouble.
Julie S.
Not long because I got scared. He got really white and his lips turned kind of blue and he would just puke up bile. He will still do this if he doesn't eat dinner, which he would often choose not to do.
So I just put my foot down and made him eat.
<<How old was he when you adopted him?>>
He was a newborn. He seemed perfectly normal and happy until around 18 months or so. Then his eating went way downhill. He stayed at 22 pounds for 2 and a half years. He went from the 70th percentile to off the bottom of the chart. We worked with it for years and years. His move to only processed foods was a gradual thing but that was where he was when things got really bad.
<<I don't think I've ever seen an unschool-related post that suggested "no limits">>
Really??? I find them to be the norm which is where lots of newbies end up in trouble.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt <patti.schmidt2@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 6:12 pm
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
> > <<I would have had no problem not stocking my pantry with
> process
> food>>
>
> > So we only trust our children as long as they are living within
> certain boundaries?
>
> Well, you cut off the first part of my sentence which was "If I
> found myself in the extreme situation that you described...." My
> children have access to all kinds of food- if not actually right
> in
> our home then at the grocery stores and convenience stores nearby
> where they are free to come and go and spend whatever available
> money they (or I) have.
>
> ***Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our kids away from
> things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is
> what they are.***
>
> In the case of my 6yo and food colors, there are times when I
> purposely keep them out of his path. But if they *are* in his
> path
> and he chooses them, then so be it. I believe that in his case,
> withholding what he wants is more damaging than some food dye.
> But
> if I can avoid his wanting it (by asking his brothers to, say,
> finish their skittles before they come inside) then I do so. If
> you
> want to define that as a rather vague limit but still a limit
> that's
> fine with me. :-) I agree that these situations aren't always
> black
> and white.
>
> > You will not see me post about "no limits" because I don't think
> it is an accurage description of how unschooling works.
>
> I don't either. Life is full of limits. I'm not sure I've ever
> read an unschooling-related post where anybody has advised "no
> limits." Separating real limits vs. arbitrary limits, finding
> ways
> to say "yes" more and "no" less, and that sort of thing... but
> not "no limits."
>
> > Right now he healthy. I keep healthy food in the house and he
> is
> required to choose from an assortment of foods for his meals. I
> require that he finish his meals. Because when the processed food
> left the house, Zach simply quit eating.
>
> How long did he go without eating? It does sound like an extreme
> situation. :-/ How old was he when you adopted him? (If you
> don't
> mind sharing...)
>
> > But when I see old timers posting to newbies about how kids
> won't
> eat a certain way unless it is being caused by some type of goof
> by
> the parents (restricting candy, not providing healthy choices), I
> get a bit miffed.
>
> I do think that in the vast majority of cases food problems *are*
> caused by too many restrictions and not providing enough healthy
> and
> well-liked choices. That doesn't mean there aren't ever going to
> be
> exceptions or other health-related variables (diabetes, allergies,
> etc).
>
> Patti
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
<<Are there ever opportunities for Zach's siblings to have some of the things they like when their brother is elsewhere?>>
Of course there are. If it were a black and white "nobody is ever, ever having this stuff", then the issue wouldn't be about Zach and his eating. It would be about me and my feelings about the food. I refuse to villianize food.
<<I'm not sure why you limit all your children...>>>
Not allowing my kids free and ready access to something whenever they want it is a limit. If they have to wait for Zach to be somewhere else, if they have to "finish their skittles outside", etc., that is a limit. Apparently, my idea of my children living in freedom is a broader ideal than the one you hold. I am extremely, excrutiatingly aware when I have to limit my kids. I spend a lot of time thinking about our choices, our lifestyle to try to figure out how to lessen the limits I have to place on them.
<<I'm not sure who's making the dishonest portrayal though>>
This kind of reaction is exactly why you guys don't hear about all the kids like Zach (the ones that contact me). It is repeatedly suggested to them that perhaps they are not telling the truth, perhaps they are just control freaks, surely the parent goofed up somewhere unless there is some diagnosable problem with the kid.
Unschooling isn't public schooling. It isn't one size fits all. Some kids are going to have more bumps along the way. That is normal and expected. The Bell Curve is the shape of expected results in any area. Zach just tends to be quite a distance from the median, mean and mode. That is normal and expected that some kids are going to do that. Trying to act as though these things don't happen doesn't do service to unschooling.
Julie S.
Of course there are. If it were a black and white "nobody is ever, ever having this stuff", then the issue wouldn't be about Zach and his eating. It would be about me and my feelings about the food. I refuse to villianize food.
<<I'm not sure why you limit all your children...>>>
Not allowing my kids free and ready access to something whenever they want it is a limit. If they have to wait for Zach to be somewhere else, if they have to "finish their skittles outside", etc., that is a limit. Apparently, my idea of my children living in freedom is a broader ideal than the one you hold. I am extremely, excrutiatingly aware when I have to limit my kids. I spend a lot of time thinking about our choices, our lifestyle to try to figure out how to lessen the limits I have to place on them.
<<I'm not sure who's making the dishonest portrayal though>>
This kind of reaction is exactly why you guys don't hear about all the kids like Zach (the ones that contact me). It is repeatedly suggested to them that perhaps they are not telling the truth, perhaps they are just control freaks, surely the parent goofed up somewhere unless there is some diagnosable problem with the kid.
Unschooling isn't public schooling. It isn't one size fits all. Some kids are going to have more bumps along the way. That is normal and expected. The Bell Curve is the shape of expected results in any area. Zach just tends to be quite a distance from the median, mean and mode. That is normal and expected that some kids are going to do that. Trying to act as though these things don't happen doesn't do service to unschooling.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt <patti.schmidt2@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2005 6:22 pm
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
> > Well, my kids did. It isn't a huge issue to me but it was/is a
> problem for the kids. So I am imposing a limit. My choosing not
> to
> buy that does limit them. To act as though that isn't a limit is
> not
> an honest portrayal.
>
> I agree. I'm not sure who's making the dishonest portrayal though.
> I'm curious why you limit all of your kids when only one needs it.
>
> Are there ever opportunities for Zach's siblings to have some of
> the
> things they like when their brother is elsewhere? Could they keep
> some things in their bedrooms and agree not to eat them in front
> of
> their brother? I'm thinking of my cousin's twin 6yo girls... one
> has
> a life-threatening peanut allergy and the other does not. I know
> that
> the non-allergic child *does* eat and enjoy peanut products even
> though her sister can't. I'm sure they have found a way to handle
> it
> sensitively.
>
> Patti
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
averyschmidt
> Not long because I got scared. He got really white and his lipsturned kind of blue and he would just puke up bile. He will still
do this if he doesn't eat dinner, which he would often choose not to
do.
What is it exactly that causes him to turn blue and white and vomit
bile? It seems like maybe it's the prospect of being forced to eat,
but maybe I'm missing a part of the puzzle. Why would seeing a meal
put on the table and deciding not to eat it make a person turn blue
and white and throw up?. Other than a long time power struggle?
> We worked with it for years and years. His move to only processedfoods was a gradual thing but that was where he was when things got
really bad.
So what you seem to be saying is that *after* you worked on his diet
for "years and years" he THEN eventually moved to the processed
sugar only diet that caused the malnutrition? In another post you
seemed to imply that it was the radical unschooling advice you
followed that resulted in the malnutrition. Is it possible that his
eventual problems were in response to the "working with" more than
to the freedom? Or perhaps a deadly combination of the two? (Power
struggle/guilt over choices combined with an unlimited supply of the
very foods he knew you didn't want him to eat?)
> <<I don't think I've ever seen an unschool-related post thatsuggested "no limits">>
> Really??? I find them to be the norm which is where lots ofnewbies end up in trouble.
Well, there are lots of archives from this and other lists. If "no
limits" posts from old-timers are the norm it should be easy for you
to point me to a couple of them. I'd really love it if you could do
that, actually, so I can see what it is exactly that's being
interpreted that way by you and by others.
Patti
[email protected]
<<More to the story. You regulated what he ate when he was an infant? No on-demand feeding? I'm thinking there are some pretty deep seated food issues here--that might have started IN infancy>>
What I meant by "when I was pretty much in charge of what he ate and when" was that I bought the formula, I fixed the bottle, I offered it to him when he seemed hungry . The point was that he wasn't making choices about what kind of formula, etc.. Of course, he was fed when he seemed hungry. He was offered the bottle if he seemed out of sorts. Nothing was forced on him, nothing was withheld from him.
I raised Zach the same way I did all the other kids. NONE of them have any lingering issues around food, other than they wish I would buy more poptarts.
Trust me, I have been all over this with many, many doctors and nutritionists. It is just the way Zach is. I didn't do anything to MAKE him this way. I truly don't think he is CHOOSING to be this way. I think it has to do with some kind of craving for the vast amounts of salt and sugar and excito-toxins in pre-packaged food. They taste different than homemade.
What he is finding now that it has been insisted that he try some things is that he likes them. Just yesterday, he said "Wow, tomatoes are good" in a rather shocked fashion. He had a bowl of oatmeal with butter and sugar this morning. Again, I am really trying not to villainize food, nothing wrong with sugar, but the nutrition came from the oatmeal and butter.
Julie S.
What I meant by "when I was pretty much in charge of what he ate and when" was that I bought the formula, I fixed the bottle, I offered it to him when he seemed hungry . The point was that he wasn't making choices about what kind of formula, etc.. Of course, he was fed when he seemed hungry. He was offered the bottle if he seemed out of sorts. Nothing was forced on him, nothing was withheld from him.
I raised Zach the same way I did all the other kids. NONE of them have any lingering issues around food, other than they wish I would buy more poptarts.
Trust me, I have been all over this with many, many doctors and nutritionists. It is just the way Zach is. I didn't do anything to MAKE him this way. I truly don't think he is CHOOSING to be this way. I think it has to do with some kind of craving for the vast amounts of salt and sugar and excito-toxins in pre-packaged food. They taste different than homemade.
What he is finding now that it has been insisted that he try some things is that he likes them. Just yesterday, he said "Wow, tomatoes are good" in a rather shocked fashion. He had a bowl of oatmeal with butter and sugar this morning. Again, I am really trying not to villainize food, nothing wrong with sugar, but the nutrition came from the oatmeal and butter.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1:55 am
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] A few issues
>
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, jnjstau@... wrote:
>
> > Zach has been very tiny all his life except in infancy when I
> was
> > pretty much in charge of what he ate and when.
>
> More to the story. You regulated what he ate when he was an
> infant?
> No on-demand feeding?
>
> I'm thinking that there are some pretty deep-seated food issues
> here
> - that might have started IN infancy.
>
> -pam
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
averyschmidt
> <<Are there ever opportunities for Zach's siblings to have some ofthe things they like when their brother is elsewhere?>>
>ever, ever having this stuff", then the issue wouldn't be about Zach
> Of course there are. If it were a black and white "nobody is
and his eating.
You said in another post "I made the other kids do without so Zach
wouldn't be tempted." I was responding to the exact wording you
used.
> Not allowing my kids free and ready access to something wheneverthey want it is a limit. If they have to wait for Zach to be
somewhere else, if they have to "finish their skittles outside",
etc., that is a limit.
This, for me, is where the idea of principles vs. rules/limits comes
in. Asking my older boys to finish their skittles outside is about
courtesy and principles and thinking of their little brother's best
interests. It's not about limiting or "not allowing" them. If they
actually cared about eating them inside we'd have come up with
another solution together which may have even resulted in just going
ahead and sharing them with their brother. We don't have a hard and
fast rule about food colors here, just some guiding factors.
>Apparently, my idea of my children living in freedom is a broaderideal than the one you hold.
I'm not sure how.
> <<I'm not sure who's making the dishonest portrayal though>>the kids like Zach (the ones that contact me). It is repeatedly
> This kind of reaction is exactly why you guys don't hear about all
suggested to them that perhaps they are not telling the truth,
perhaps they are just control freaks, surely the parent goofed up
somewhere unless there is some diagnosable problem with the kid.
Oh no. :-/ I wasn't suggesting that *you* were being dishonest. I
was sincerely asking you who *you* thought was being dishonest.
Clearly you thought somebody was being dishonest about limits (you
said something like "trying to act like it's not a limit is a
dishonest portrayal), and it wasn't at all clear to me who was doing
that.
> Trying to act as though these things don't happen doesn't doservice to unschooling.
I think I, and others, are trying to *understand* you story and
Zach's path, not trying to act as if things don't happen.
Patti
[email protected]
<<Why would a child choose anything in a wrapper when the same thing is right in front of them?>>
I don't know. But that is exactly what was happening. I am not forcing a diet on all the kids because of Zach. I am simply not buying it or bringing it into the house.
Again, I am doing all the same things you say you would do...but because Zach acts in an unexpected way, you are assuming I am some kind of control freak. I am really not. There may well be a physical aspect that needs to be addressed. But we can't find it and not for lack of trying.
There is way to much food focus and focus on what this kid is eating. I agree 100 percent. Only the focus came after the health issues, not before.
You seem to think that this is the way I want it. That I think it needs to be this way. It isn't this way with my other kids. I don't think Zach is unique....that is my whole point. Other people talk to me about their kids having some area that they simply can't seem to get the handle on in self-regulation. When they try to discuss it on the list, they get hammered.
Anyway, we've been down this road before. Or at least I have. I posted about Zach after someone (I think Patty) informed a poster that kids wouldn't eat all the halloween candy to the point of not feeling well if they had other choices. I simply posted that my son would. That not all kids fall into that category of kids that Patty has experience with. I just brought it up to remind people that even with the best of intentions, with what we think are the best ideals of parenting, there can be huge bumps in the road that no one was expecting.
I'm not going to post about Zach anymore because he isn't some kind of freak, he's a 12 yo boy who is struggling, and I'm not some controlling wigged-out mom, just somebody trying to keep her kid healthy.
Julie S.
I don't know. But that is exactly what was happening. I am not forcing a diet on all the kids because of Zach. I am simply not buying it or bringing it into the house.
Again, I am doing all the same things you say you would do...but because Zach acts in an unexpected way, you are assuming I am some kind of control freak. I am really not. There may well be a physical aspect that needs to be addressed. But we can't find it and not for lack of trying.
There is way to much food focus and focus on what this kid is eating. I agree 100 percent. Only the focus came after the health issues, not before.
You seem to think that this is the way I want it. That I think it needs to be this way. It isn't this way with my other kids. I don't think Zach is unique....that is my whole point. Other people talk to me about their kids having some area that they simply can't seem to get the handle on in self-regulation. When they try to discuss it on the list, they get hammered.
Anyway, we've been down this road before. Or at least I have. I posted about Zach after someone (I think Patty) informed a poster that kids wouldn't eat all the halloween candy to the point of not feeling well if they had other choices. I simply posted that my son would. That not all kids fall into that category of kids that Patty has experience with. I just brought it up to remind people that even with the best of intentions, with what we think are the best ideals of parenting, there can be huge bumps in the road that no one was expecting.
I'm not going to post about Zach anymore because he isn't some kind of freak, he's a 12 yo boy who is struggling, and I'm not some controlling wigged-out mom, just somebody trying to keep her kid healthy.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ren Allen <starsuncloud@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:46 am
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] A few issues
> "<<I would have had no problem not stocking my pantry with process
> food>>"
> ~So we only trust our children as long as they are living within
> certainboundaries? Where is the boundary? Attempting to keep our
> kids away from
> things is imposing limits. They may be rather vague but that is what
> they are.~
>
>
> Of course we only trust our children within certain boundaries!! It's
> called safety and child development!! I've NEVER heard anyone at any
> list say NO limits, NO boundaries...ever.
> That's a very different thing than saying that we want to act in a
> non-coercive manner and let them have choices and freedom.
>
> I am VERY coercive when Jalen chooses to walk towards a busy street,
> or jump up on a rail that's two stories up. Heck yes.
>
> Attempting to keep our children safe is parental duty, of course it's
> imposting limits, but they're real life limits, with REAL
> reasons...not some arbitrary thing that isn't considered carefully.
>
> I have a huge problem with ALL the people in the household being
> forced to eat a certain way over one child's issues.
> I would not do that. If you keep certain things out of the house, I
> understand...but to force a certain diet on everyone is not fair, nor
> is it the best way to help people learn to listen to their own bodies.
>
> There are several inconsistencies I don't understand.
> First of all, you're saying this child was being given the foods he
> was craving in a processed version?
> Why would he choose a cookie in a wrapper vs. a cookie on the counter?
> Why would a child choose anything in a wrapper if they have the same
> food available right in front of them?
> That is not a food issue any longer, it's a control issue.
> He is trying to gain control for some reason, because he knows you
> don't want him to eat those foods.
>
> I have a feeling there was WAY too much food focus and too much focus
> on what this child was eating at some point in his life. Maybe I'm
> wrong...but regardless of some people choosing unhealthy foods a lot,
> this child seems to choose what YOU donn't want him to eat.
>
> I DO believe there are people who will eat mostly sweets and if
> processed food is the easiest choice then they'll eat that almost
> exclusively. I have a child like that!!
> But if there are cookies laying on the counter, he'll eat those as
> opposed to rummaging through the cupboards to find a wrapped
> cookie!
> Just looking at general human behavior, they go for the easiest food
> that tastes good available.
>
> Forcing him to finish his food is only setting him up for HUGE control
> issues. I totally disagree with this, you can claim he is unique all
> you want and I think that's a huge mistake.
> You're better off putting liquid vitamins in the drinks he loves than
> making an issue of forcing him to eat.
> That's abuse of another human's spirit.
> If he's really going to starve himself if you don't do that, then
> there MUST be a physical issue that hasn't been addressed.
> Everything I've read so far is telling me it's a control issue
> though.
> Ren
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
<<Why would seeing a meal on the table cause someone to turn white...>>>
LOL. It wasn't my cooking <grin>. It was being without food for a period of time. Zach is so skinny that he simply doesn't have any reserves. If he doesn't eat dinner, he will literally be shaking, white and throwing up in the morning. It is a reaction to LACK of food. But I see where I wasn't clear in my posting.
"Working with" included carrots grated into pizza sauce, zucchini in muffins, things that were suggested by pediatric nutritionists. Nothing coersive. I have NEVER meant to imply that unschooling advice caused Zach's issues. It most certainly didn't. But when people talk about their kids having issues with various things, it tends to be seen as black and white on the boards. People keep telling you that you aren't seeing what you are seeing, that you must be a control freak somewhere.
I am just here to say that these kids exist, in much larger numbers than I would have thought actually and that as oldtime unschoolers we need to be careful of the words we use.
Julie S.
LOL. It wasn't my cooking <grin>. It was being without food for a period of time. Zach is so skinny that he simply doesn't have any reserves. If he doesn't eat dinner, he will literally be shaking, white and throwing up in the morning. It is a reaction to LACK of food. But I see where I wasn't clear in my posting.
"Working with" included carrots grated into pizza sauce, zucchini in muffins, things that were suggested by pediatric nutritionists. Nothing coersive. I have NEVER meant to imply that unschooling advice caused Zach's issues. It most certainly didn't. But when people talk about their kids having issues with various things, it tends to be seen as black and white on the boards. People keep telling you that you aren't seeing what you are seeing, that you must be a control freak somewhere.
I am just here to say that these kids exist, in much larger numbers than I would have thought actually and that as oldtime unschoolers we need to be careful of the words we use.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt <patti.schmidt2@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:09 am
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
> > Not long because I got scared. He got really white and his lips
> turned kind of blue and he would just puke up bile. He will still
> do this if he doesn't eat dinner, which he would often choose not
> to
> do.
>
> What is it exactly that causes him to turn blue and white and
> vomit
> bile? It seems like maybe it's the prospect of being forced to
> eat,
> but maybe I'm missing a part of the puzzle. Why would seeing a
> meal
> put on the table and deciding not to eat it make a person turn
> blue
> and white and throw up?. Other than a long time power struggle?
>
> > We worked with it for years and years. His move to only
> processed
> foods was a gradual thing but that was where he was when things
> got
> really bad.
>
> So what you seem to be saying is that *after* you worked on his
> diet
> for "years and years" he THEN eventually moved to the processed
> sugar only diet that caused the malnutrition? In another post you
> seemed to imply that it was the radical unschooling advice you
> followed that resulted in the malnutrition. Is it possible that
> his
> eventual problems were in response to the "working with" more than
> to the freedom? Or perhaps a deadly combination of the two?
> (Power
> struggle/guilt over choices combined with an unlimited supply of
> the
> very foods he knew you didn't want him to eat?)
>
> > <<I don't think I've ever seen an unschool-related post that
> suggested "no limits">>
>
> > Really??? I find them to be the norm which is where lots of
> newbies end up in trouble.
>
> Well, there are lots of archives from this and other lists. If
> "no
> limits" posts from old-timers are the norm it should be easy for
> you
> to point me to a couple of them. I'd really love it if you could
> do
> that, actually, so I can see what it is exactly that's being
> interpreted that way by you and by others.
>
> Patti
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
Julie's situation with Zach is extreme. She knows it. We know it. This is beating a dead horse.
Several (not all, right?) of Julie's children are adopted. They came with issues. Julie's doing her best to work *with* them. Most of us will never have to face some of her serious problems.
I think in the past many of our posts could have been *interpreted* as suggesting no limits. They *must* because moms repeatedly come back and tell us that thay relinquished *all* control and the kids went wild.
So we need to be more careful in how we present things and in how we represent our own families.
I have said *repeatedly* that we have no limits. I MEAN that we have no arbitrary limits.
I think---and on THIS list in particular---that we MUST be specific. And I think we MUST take into consideration that every child is not our own---each one is different. I think we must NOT assume every child is healthy physically and emotionally!
Let's please end this discussion on Zach. I think Julie's doing everything she can to help make his life pleasant and rule-free. But the child has special issues that must be addressed. She's doing that.
Thanks!
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Several (not all, right?) of Julie's children are adopted. They came with issues. Julie's doing her best to work *with* them. Most of us will never have to face some of her serious problems.
I think in the past many of our posts could have been *interpreted* as suggesting no limits. They *must* because moms repeatedly come back and tell us that thay relinquished *all* control and the kids went wild.
So we need to be more careful in how we present things and in how we represent our own families.
I have said *repeatedly* that we have no limits. I MEAN that we have no arbitrary limits.
I think---and on THIS list in particular---that we MUST be specific. And I think we MUST take into consideration that every child is not our own---each one is different. I think we must NOT assume every child is healthy physically and emotionally!
Let's please end this discussion on Zach. I think Julie's doing everything she can to help make his life pleasant and rule-free. But the child has special issues that must be addressed. She's doing that.
Thanks!
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sylvia Toyama
Why would a child choose anything in a wrapper when
the same thing is right in front of them?>>
*****
When someone comes up with the answer to this, let me
know please. There can be any number of reasons why
what's already in front of them is in front of them
isn't good enough -- the just love to open several
things one after the other, often without finishing
the last thing they opened.
Sylvia
Mom to Will (20) Andy (9) and Dan (4.5)
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
the same thing is right in front of them?>>
*****
When someone comes up with the answer to this, let me
know please. There can be any number of reasons why
what's already in front of them is in front of them
isn't good enough -- the just love to open several
things one after the other, often without finishing
the last thing they opened.
Sylvia
Mom to Will (20) Andy (9) and Dan (4.5)
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Ren Allen
"I think---and on THIS list in particular---that we MUST be specific.
And I think
we MUST take into consideration that every child is not our own---each
one is
different. "
Of course.
And I think
we MUST take into consideration that every child is not our own---each
one is
different. "
Of course.
[email protected]
<<clearly you thought somebody was being dishonest about limits>>
Oh no. I dont' think somebody is sitting around trying to come up with falsehoods. I think sometimes we assume that people understand when we say 'Joyfully and without limits" we really mean with lots of friendly negotiation and no arbitrary limits.
Julie S.
Oh no. I dont' think somebody is sitting around trying to come up with falsehoods. I think sometimes we assume that people understand when we say 'Joyfully and without limits" we really mean with lots of friendly negotiation and no arbitrary limits.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: averyschmidt <patti.schmidt2@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:24 am
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
>
> > <<Are there ever opportunities for Zach's siblings to have some
> of
> the things they like when their brother is elsewhere?>>
> >
> > Of course there are. If it were a black and white "nobody is
> ever, ever having this stuff", then the issue wouldn't be about
> Zach
> and his eating.
>
> You said in another post "I made the other kids do without so Zach
> wouldn't be tempted." I was responding to the exact wording you
> used.
>
> > Not allowing my kids free and ready access to something whenever
> they want it is a limit. If they have to wait for Zach to be
> somewhere else, if they have to "finish their skittles outside",
> etc., that is a limit.
>
> This, for me, is where the idea of principles vs. rules/limits
> comes
> in. Asking my older boys to finish their skittles outside is
> about
> courtesy and principles and thinking of their little brother's
> best
> interests. It's not about limiting or "not allowing" them. If
> they
> actually cared about eating them inside we'd have come up with
> another solution together which may have even resulted in just
> going
> ahead and sharing them with their brother. We don't have a hard
> and
> fast rule about food colors here, just some guiding factors.
>
> >Apparently, my idea of my children living in freedom is a broader
> ideal than the one you hold.
>
> I'm not sure how.
>
> > <<I'm not sure who's making the dishonest portrayal though>>
>
> > This kind of reaction is exactly why you guys don't hear about
> all
> the kids like Zach (the ones that contact me). It is repeatedly
> suggested to them that perhaps they are not telling the truth,
> perhaps they are just control freaks, surely the parent goofed up
> somewhere unless there is some diagnosable problem with the kid.
>
> Oh no. :-/ I wasn't suggesting that *you* were being dishonest.
> I
> was sincerely asking you who *you* thought was being dishonest.
> Clearly you thought somebody was being dishonest about limits
> (you
> said something like "trying to act like it's not a limit is a
> dishonest portrayal), and it wasn't at all clear to me who was
> doing
> that.
>
> > Trying to act as though these things don't happen doesn't do
> service to unschooling.
>
> I think I, and others, are trying to *understand* you story and
> Zach's path, not trying to act as if things don't happen.
>
> Patti
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
Thank you Kelly.
To be honest, that is what I was trying to communicate but you did a much better job than I. I know Zach is extreme and I brought him up because the extremeness helps to delineate things better....or at least that was the plan LOL.
Julie S.
To be honest, that is what I was trying to communicate but you did a much better job than I. I know Zach is extreme and I brought him up because the extremeness helps to delineate things better....or at least that was the plan LOL.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: kbcdlovejo@...
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 10:58 am
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Re: A few issues
> Julie's situation with Zach is extreme. She knows it. We know it.
> This is beating a dead horse.
>
> Several (not all, right?) of Julie's children are adopted. They
> came with issues. Julie's doing her best to work *with* them. Most
> of us will never have to face some of her serious problems.
>
> I think in the past many of our posts could have been
> *interpreted* as suggesting no limits. They *must* because moms
> repeatedly come back and tell us that thay relinquished *all*
> control and the kids went wild.
>
> So we need to be more careful in how we present things and in how
> we represent our own families.
>
> I have said *repeatedly* that we have no limits. I MEAN that we
> have no arbitrary limits.
>
> I think---and on THIS list in particular---that we MUST be
> specific. And I think we MUST take into consideration that every
> child is not our own---each one is different. I think we must NOT
> assume every child is healthy physically and emotionally!
>
> Let's please end this discussion on Zach. I think Julie's doing
> everything she can to help make his life pleasant and rule-free.
> But the child has special issues that must be addressed. She's
> doing that.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> Conference Coordinator
> Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
> http://liveandlearnconference.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0xXolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>