Ariella

<<Our homeschooling wasn't top-down. Each child decided as he or she was
school-age. And they're all home at 12, 15 and 18.>>

Well, I consider ours top down. We started homeschooling. As they got older they could, of course, choose whether to continue, or whether to go about their education in some other way. However, when they were 5, I didn't send them to school, we unschooled. To me, that shows a certain bias. :-) Of the 5, one unschooled completely, two have gone to school in high school, one still unschools and one is just 2;

<<Living where we live wasn't top down either. We asked all the kids
what they would like in a house and we made a list and looked. Holly and Kirby
were disappointed at first because Kirby doesn't like change, and Holly had
liked another house we almost had but lost. They're happy now, though. She
has changed rooms three times (four rooms have been "her room" in six
years). The last change was because she wanted more shelves, so she talked me out of my office upstairs. <g> >>

Again, I guess I don't see that as not top down for us. My husband and I choose the state we live in before the children came along. We have discussed moving, we have family in two different states and none here. We haven't moved because the kids don't want to. They have friends here, the two in high school like the school they attend, etc. However, had we started out in a different state, then they probably would have chosen to stay there. My oldest did choose to move closer to family in another state when she was 19, and lived there for almost 5 years, although she is back home with us now.

<<I think philosophy is more important than politics. Politics has to do
with interpersonals. Philosophy is internal to the person.>>

I think they are both important, and philosophy is probably more important to me. I feel that many of my beliefs and values are based on my personal philosophy of life. Homeschooling/unschooling fit right in with my earthy crunchy parenting philosophy, and that's why we started out that way.However, for us, at least, homeschooling and unschooling were political as well.

-- think they have a right to "know" my husband and I as we are, not
as a facade we put on for their benefit.--

<<This suggests (perhaps unintentionally) that others here are putting on
a facade.>>

It was not my intent to suggest that others are putting on a facade. I apologize if it came across that way. What I tried to say was that for us, putting our beliefs aside to let the children buy/have/do what they wanted would seem to be a false relationship. I *do* care about what products/people/companies we support and do not support. I would have to put that aside and pretend that I did not. We chose to focus on explaining what we liked and disliked about things, and emphasize that everyone gets to choose for themselves what is important, and what actions they want to take supporting those.

For my family, as I said, that seems to have worked, because they have shown that they will make decisions independently of their father and I. They can even hold their own in heated discussions about our differences. Sometimes I've been the one to re-think a position, or change my mind. Sometimes none of changes anything, but we certainly understand each other's positions.

Ariella



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

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

Ariella

Replying to several posts at once here.

I tried to make it clear that I won't spend my money on things I don't approve of, and that the kids may spend their money on things if they wish. However, I am trying to be factual, as well. When my children are/were small, they didn't get much choice, it is true. I boycott Nestle, I don't spend my money on Nestle, and so they didn't get Nestle, either, as long as they wre dependent on me to get it. If my two year old picks up a Butterfinger at the grocery store, I say that mommy doesn't like to buy that kind, and point to a nice Hershey something next to it. So far, so good with that one.

When they got Nestle trick or treating I didn't make them throw it out. If they got a Disney video as a gift, they could keep it and watch it. When they got older and had spending money, they could choose to buy Nestle with it. For most of my children, most of the time, by the time they had their own money they didn't choose to buy it.

The Nestle boycott has been going on since about 1980. I don't see that my refusing to buy Nestle for the last 20+ years has had much of an effect on them, it's true. However, for me it's about *me*, about personal integrity. No, it won't matter to Nestle if I only boycott them 98% of the time. It does matter to me. It also matters to me that I model my consistenty in standing up for the things I believe. It does, however, keep me from going off the deep end if someone else gives my kids a Crunch bar.

I boycotted Nestle before I had any children. My husband, my oldest daughter and I decided to boycott Disney several years ago, when the others were too young to voice an opinion. Other things that have come up since then we have discussed and decided as a family. Things that only *I* personally won't buy, like McDonald's, I don't refer to as a family boycott. Things that we all decided not to buy, like Nestle, I consider the family to be boycotting, even if some members of the family aren't as strict about it as others. Since we all made the decision, and since everyone abides by it most of the time, I consider the family to be boycotting.

There are a few things that we all originally decided on that later on one or more of the kids decided they didn't agree with any longer. In those cases, I also don't say that the family boycotts those things (or whatever) but if it came up I might say that I or my husband or my oldest daughter or whoever does.

Some things I don't feel that strongly about, but if I care enough to research something, talk it over with my family, and decide to not support it, then I'm going to act on my decision. If I didn't particularly care for Nestle, but I was willing to buy it now and again, I wouldn't say I boycott them.

For the sake of accuracy, however, I still have to say that I feel most of these things started out as top down decisions. My two year old doesn't get Nestle, even though he can have candy. I expect it to be several years before he has the financial ability to honestly decide for himself whether he wants to boycott Nestle or not. In the meantime, I am going to continue to say that I don't want to spend my money on that particular thing, and would he like a Reese's cup instead. FWIW, I have bought him food at McDonald's, even though I won't eat there, because I buy it occasionaly for others in the family who have decided that they don't boycott McDonald's.

Oh, and I waited a while to give my kids the dead babies version of Nestle. For years I simply said that Mommy didn't like to buy nestle products. I think my middle girls were about 11 and 12 before I went through the whoole nine yards with them, because they asked. However, I will talk about what I don't like about Disney to even the two year old sometimes. Depends on the situation.

Ariella

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

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

Fetteroll

on 10/8/04 3:16 PM, Ariella at soulmotherof5@... wrote:

> I *do* care about what products/people/companies we support and do not
> support.

Sometimes you are using "we" (the family) and sometimes you are using "I" to
mean the decisions you (and your husband) make. That makes the ideas you're
trying to convey unclear.

> What I tried to say was that for us, putting our beliefs aside to let the
> children buy/have/do what they wanted would seem to be a false relationship.

But I think this has shifted from a discussion of ideas to a discussion of
why putting certain restrictions on your kids works for your family. If
other people took what you've described and tried it in their homes there
are many people who'd find, because their children's personalities are
different than your children's, that their kids were suppressing what they
prefered in order to make mom happy. And they might be looking forward to
the day when they could be on their own and buy a Nestle's candy bar without
feeling there was a vulture of disapproval perched on their shoulder.

It's more useful to the list -- because it's part of the list's goals -- to
offer ideas that are respectful because they aren't personality dependent.

> For my family, as I said, that seems to have worked, because they have shown
> that they will make decisions independently of their father and I.

If you want to discuss how to raise children with respect who are confident
in their own decisions despite opposition, that would be useful. But if what
you know is based on children who are genetically strong willed, it's not
going to be generally useful.

Joyce

averyschmidt

> But I think this has shifted from a discussion of ideas to a
discussion of
> why putting certain restrictions on your kids works for your
family. If
> other people took what you've described and tried it in their
homes there
> are many people who'd find, because their children's personalities
are
> different than your children's, that their kids were suppressing
what they
> prefered in order to make mom happy. And they might be looking
forward to
> the day when they could be on their own and buy a Nestle's candy
bar without
> feeling there was a vulture of disapproval perched on their
shoulder.

This reminds me of an incident from yesterday.
I was at the local skatepark with 2 of my children and 3 other moms
and their children. There was a soda machine which had various
kinds of soda and also water bottles. One boy (age 10) had a bunch
of change in his pocket but but needed a little more from his mom to
have enough for a drink. He then came back with a Mountain Dew.
His mom saw, said "absolutely not" and took the Mountain Dew away,
putting it under her legs. She said "I thought you were getting
water!" to which he replied "I pushed the water button but Mountain
Dew came out." She wouldn't let him drink it, so he immediately
deferred to her and skated away without the slightest complaint or
even a tiny attempt at negotiation.
I was completely amazed, and said so.

My oldest son would have protested *loudly* if I had taken control
of him in that way, as he has since he was a toddler. He has a very
strong voice. Even my second son, who's much "easier" (goes along
with his father and I without argument) would have *at least*
attempted to negotiate. This boy- nothing.

The ensuing conversation ended up with the moms agreeing it was a
personality thing. Which led me to think... isn't it worrisome for
a child to obey so unquestionably? To go against his own wishes and
desires *so* automatically without even thinking of asserting his
own voice? I'm glad my children think for themselves.

Patti

Kelly Muzyczka

>The ensuing conversation ended up with the moms agreeing it was a
>personality thing. Which led me to think... isn't it worrisome for
>a child to obey so unquestionably? To go against his own wishes and
>desires *so* automatically without even thinking of asserting his
>own voice? I'm glad my children think for themselves.
>
>Patti


Not to mention now the kid is going without a drink. Not so healthy.

I have a friend who says it's taken her decades to get over being a "good
Catholic girl." Her family is unschoolers and we have talked about just
this.

I know my second kid would have fit right into a school setting. He LOVES
being with other kids in a setting like that. Can go along with almost
anything. What a shock my big one would have been if he'd come second!


Kelly
I love mankind, it's people I can't stand. --Linus

[email protected]

<< One boy (age 10) had a bunch

of change in his pocket but but needed a little more from his mom to

have enough for a drink. He then came back with a Mountain Dew.

His mom saw, said "absolutely not" and took the Mountain Dew away,

putting it under her legs. She said "I thought you were getting

water!" to which he replied "I pushed the water button but Mountain

Dew came out." She wouldn't let him drink it, so he immediately

deferred to her and skated away without the slightest complaint or

even a tiny attempt at negotiation.

I was completely amazed, and said so.

>>

I think it's sadistic of the mom to withhold liquid from a child who's
skating, while she's sitting. But then I live in the desert where it's no joke, no
option, withholding liquid. And I'm not sadistic.

I think a case of Mountain Dew would do less damage to that child than a
single moment with a mother who disregards him and his needs to that extent.

But here I am again, taking the side of a child. And that's why some parents
get really angry with me, because I honestly think parenting should be about
children, not about parents' comfort and parental control. When there is an
adversarial relationship between a parent and child (as in this one, where the
mom "WON" by confiscating that drink, and the child LOST), it makes a child
small. It wounds the child. And if it doesn't wound the mother to be so cruel
to her own child, there's something defective in that mother.

IF for some reason he really couldn't (for health reasons) have Mountain Dew,
and if I were the mom, I'd've jumped up and gone to get a bottle of water.
And if Mountain Dew came out when I pused the water button, I would have
apologized profusely and in public to that child, and found him some water as
quickly as possible.

Is that about unschooling?
It's about respect for children, anyway.
I'm always surprised by people who will spend their whole lives, all day, all
week, all year with their children but who don't learn to respect and trust
them.

When a child goes to school and the mother's relationship with him is distant
or cold, school and other separations and expectations can take some of the
blame.

Oh well. It wasn't an unschooling family, was it?

Sandra

averyschmidt

> And if it doesn't wound the mother to be so cruel
> to her own child, there's something defective in that mother.

She truly believes things like Mountain Dew (caffeine, corn syrup)
are dangerous for a child and it's her role as "mother bear" to
protect him from such things. So she felt she had his best
interests at heart.

> Oh well. It wasn't an unschooling family, was it?

Well, yes and no. She's quite anti-school/school at home, but
believes controlling children to a large degree is part of doing her
job as their mother. Actually she doesn't even see it as
controlling, she sees it as protecting.
Therefore, if I let *my* kids drink Mountain Dew I'm not doing a
good job of protecting my children in her eyes.
I know many mothers like this, I just brought up this particular
example because it was fresh in my mind.

It's often implied to me that I don't protect (read "control") my
children enough. Whether it's Mountain Dew, climbing trees, or
whatever, my children make their own choices as to what's in their
comfort range, and this makes other people very uncomfortable.

There was a little boy here the other day who had never skateboarded
before and within a very short time of using one of our extras had
picked it up quickly. He said that he had asked for a skateboard
last year (for his birthday?) but didn't get one. When his mom came
for him she was visibly nervous and tense watching him.
We live five blocks from the ocean, and this little boy lives even
closer, but she told me that her son doesn't go in it because she's
taught him that the ocean is "not his friend." She seems to believe
that danger is lurking everywhere and it's only her hyper-vigilance
and rules keeping him safe. He seems to believe her.

Patti

Robyn Coburn

<<<<The ensuing conversation ended up with the moms agreeing it was a
personality thing. Which led me to think... isn't it worrisome for
a child to obey so unquestionably? To go against his own wishes and
desires *so* automatically without even thinking of asserting his
own voice? I'm glad my children think for themselves.>>>>

I agree. I have posted in the past that I don't expect unthinking obedience
from Jayn, and I don't get it!

In some parenting philosophies disobedience is the only crime that must be
punished. Kids are immediately spanked for disobeying.

My astonishment here is that the mother didn't find another way to get her
son some water or more acceptable offering from the machine - like give him
more coins. What was that about? I go to great lengths to get Jayn water
when she needs it - I think it is pretty crucial to well being when kids are
being physical in the heat. She was pretty rude to him, didn't even
acknowledge that the machine had screwed him. Maybe she didn't believe him -
if he was trying to "get away with something" wouldn't he have drunk the MD
over by the machine.

Robyn L. Coburn

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004

Robyn Coburn

<<<<The ensuing conversation ended up with the moms agreeing it was a
personality thing. Which led me to think... isn't it worrisome for
a child to obey so unquestionably? To go against his own wishes and
desires *so* automatically without even thinking of asserting his
own voice? I'm glad my children think for themselves.>>>>

I agree. I have posted in the past that I don't expect unthinking obedience
from Jayn, and I don't get it!

In some parenting philosophies disobedience is the only crime that must be
punished. Kids are immediately spanked for disobeying.

My astonishment here is that the mother didn't find another way to get her
son some water or more acceptable offering from the machine - like give him
more coins. What was that about? I go to great lengths to get Jayn water
when she needs it - I think it is pretty crucial to well being when kids are
being physical in the heat. She was pretty rude to him, didn't even
acknowledge that the machine had screwed him. Maybe she didn't believe him -
if he was trying to "get away with something" wouldn't he have drunk the MD
over by the machine.

Robyn L. Coburn

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004

David Lewis

***I think a case of Mountain Dew would do less damage to that child than
a
single moment with a mother who disregards him and his needs to that
extent.***

When Dylan was pretty little he'd sometimes get a red bumpy rash on the
palms of his hands. It started about the time he discovered modeling
clay and people around us suggested he was having a reaction to some
ingredient in the clay. The dye was the chief suspect. I talked to
Dylan and mentioned the idea the clay might be causing his rash and he
said he'd rather have the rash then give up the clay.

His rash would come and go and he was often playing with clay, getting
more and different types.
We tried different clays from art supply stores but he really liked the
colored clays. Relatives and friends kept offering advice and my sister
in law said more than once "If he was my child that'd be the end of that
clay!"

He would lay a vinyl table cloth on the floor and sit and work on clay.
Sometimes he'd stand up and mash it with his little bare feet. He had
rash on his feet too, so more and more it seemed like the clay, but Dylan
was absolutely willing to trade out the fun and fulfillment of clay for
the sometimes discomfort of the rash. (He makes wonderful dinosaurs and
monsters and is very interested in claymation animation style movies.)

We visited a doctor who said "contact dermatitis."

I couldn't take the clay away from him.

Fast forward to this spring, his rash got quite bad and he decided he'd
like to see a doctor to see if there was a cream or something he could
use. We had tried different over the counter stuff and some things
seemed to help for a little while but the rash would return. He was in
martial arts and though he could wear Tae Kwon Do shoes which covered the
rash on his feet he was getting comments from kids in class about the
rash on his palms. It was bad, splitting and thick skinned and itchy.

We went to a dermatologist who took one look and said it was psoriasis.


How about that?

Dylan believed me when I said it was probably clay, but he made the
choice to continue to work with it.
I could have fought with him, taken away the clay and made him miserable
for how many weeks or months before we discovered it wasn't clay at all.
I could have remained convinced it was some kind of contact dermatitis
and started eliminating other things he loved. I could have decided it
was an allergy and made him give up his favorite things.

Little side note here; He quit eating peppers and tomatoes and potatoes
about the time his rash appeared and a couple things that sometimes
exacerbate psoriasis for some people are peppers, tomatoes and potatoes.

Kids know more about what they need and don't need than most people ever
consider. I'm glad I listened to what he wanted. I wouldn't have done
him any good and he wouldn't feel the same way about me today if I
hadn't.

Deb L

[email protected]

In a message dated 10/9/04 10:15:22 AM, dezigna@... writes:

<< In some parenting philosophies disobedience is the only crime that must be
punished. Kids are immediately spanked for disobeying. >>

I've been spanked on the spot because my mother was wrong about something.

Like the boy who pressed water and got Mountain Dew--at least his mom didn't
"spank him for lying" without even checking. That's why I thought she should
go and try to buy some water. He might have been absolutely and simply
correct that the water slot was loaded with Mountain Dew.

I've been "spanked for lying" when I was telling the truth.
It is certainly not a good way to reward truthfulness.

Sandra

Elizabeth Hill

** We live five blocks from the ocean, and this little boy lives even
closer, but she told me that her son doesn't go in it because she's
taught him that the ocean is "not his friend." She seems to believe
that danger is lurking everywhere and it's only her hyper-vigilance
and rules keeping him safe. He seems to believe her. **

What an unfortunate way to live.

I've been thinking about how fear is used to motivate people. It is
particularly apparent in some of the discussion about the U.S.
presidential election. And someone at the park pointed out that teasers
for the evening news are usually about danger. "Tune in to find about
the new hazard in our water..."

What can we suggest to people who might move towards unschooling that
will help them bypass fear or transcend it or dismiss it? (Or vaporize
it with laughter like a bogart in the Harry Potter books.)

Desensitisation and experience are starting points to deal with fear of
the unknown, I think. (Hence the oft-repeated advice that one needs to
jump off the cliff or jump into the water and just do it.)

(Maybe this is too hypothetical, since I'm not really talking about a
specific person.)

Betsy

TreeGoddess

On Oct 9, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Elizabeth Hill wrote:

> [I've been thinking about how fear is used to motivate people.
> It is particularly apparent in some of the discussion about the U.S.
> presidential election. And someone at the park pointed out that
> teasers for the evening news are usually about danger. "Tune in
> to find about the new hazard in our water..."]


I was just grumbling out loud last night when the 'teaser' for the 6
o'clock news the following day was all ominous with a deep-voiced man
saying "Learn what YOU need to know about the dangers in Halloween
candy!" Oh, c'mon . . . is it -really- anything that we all haven't
heard for the last 25+ years? Yeah, yeah, check the wrappers, toss out
anything smooshed or 'suspicious', etc. Is this considered "news"??

-Tracy-