Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Addiction to TV and Video Games
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/16/2005 8:57:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, SandraDodd@... writes:
I think that if the games or TV are contributing to the 'enjoyability' of the moment---then enjoy it!
If you and your son are complaining that you're not seeing each other enough because of the TV---is it the TV's fault? Why can't you turn it off? Are YOU not in control of yourselves and what you do? Do you not make choices?
Three TVs here---none are on now (Oh, wait! It's 8:14 am. <G>). But we are going to Splash Planet, and indoor water park, today. And a movie tonight. TV won't be turned on at all. If we were addicted, we wouldn't be going out and playing or reading or gardening.
We get to CHOOSE what we do each day. TV is often one of the choices. And a really good one too! See it for what it IS---another window to the world.
~Kelly
>Those games ARE part of his life. If the game is more interesting than what you were offering as an alternative, will you take the game away to make your ideas more interesting? <<<<<<<<If the TV is more interesting than your life, will you remove the TV and cable to make your life more interesting? Maybe more interesting-LOOKING.
I think that if the games or TV are contributing to the 'enjoyability' of the moment---then enjoy it!
If you and your son are complaining that you're not seeing each other enough because of the TV---is it the TV's fault? Why can't you turn it off? Are YOU not in control of yourselves and what you do? Do you not make choices?
Three TVs here---none are on now (Oh, wait! It's 8:14 am. <G>). But we are going to Splash Planet, and indoor water park, today. And a movie tonight. TV won't be turned on at all. If we were addicted, we wouldn't be going out and playing or reading or gardening.
We get to CHOOSE what we do each day. TV is often one of the choices. And a really good one too! See it for what it IS---another window to the world.
~Kelly
Susan Buchholz
Okay... I'm back and didn't have to stay in the hospital all night for tests. Thank goodness. So... I will write one more post on the TV thing because I think I've spent enough time debating it. For goodness sake, I've spent more time debating it (or rather, just sharing with folks how we do things around here than I do watching the silly thing- That right there is ridiculous.)
Anyway, no it's not the televisions fault if my son and I sit infront of it. That's hardly the problem. And really, there is no problem when each of us has sat down and expressed their needs and wants to each other and discussed it through. My son and I have a written understanding as well. (He came up with that when he was reading about the Bill of Rights). He asked if we could each write the things down on pieces of paper that we each felt we needed for ourselves and what we would each like to see happening in the family/house. Some things were: Thursday night: Board Game Night. Other things were: Friday Lunches: Pizza, Then there was my need of two hours of quiet in the afternoon due to major headache from my illness and reading books before bed. (When we read books at night, he settles down. Son is Asperger's, panic disorder, OCD, ADHD and Tourettes). We have always read book before bed. He loves books before bed. Since I can remember my son has carried around books. Because of
his Asperger's my son can tend to be quite different than other children. He didn't want toys as a child. He wanted radios, computers, mixers (sharp pointy things removed) telephones... but not to play with in the traditional sense, to take apart and build things from- we have some pretty dang cool looking robots in this house.)
Well, we went through some horrible times. We lost several family members (close relations) within in few months period. It was so bewildering and life changing. We suddenly had no money. I mean, no money. It was actually quite terrifying. So, we had to make some hard choices... what do we give up in order to survive? TV was right at the top of the list. He was four going on five at the time. We found that going without TV was an adjustment, but we also found that it was really fun not having one. That was for us. Not saying anyone else has to do it because we do.
Am I saying that the TV is the bringer of evil and the harbinger of death? No. When my sister got us cable and we started watching and watching and watching (new novelty after all those years) we really began to sit there instead of doing the things we once did with each other. After a while, that died down quite a bit. Anymore, it's only on for entertainment purposes and not all that often. We both usually choose a movie to watch over TV if we are going to turn it on at all.
Paying 30 dollars a month for a product we barely ever use seems silly to me. It's silly to spend money needlessly when one doesn't have that much to spend. I would much rather use that 30 dollars (because on my birthday, the cable is discontinued because it was only a present from my sister for a year), for something else. But that's just me. I discussed it with my son.
When my son said he felt like he hadn't seen me all day or was missing me because he'd watched too much TV (a choice I let him make) then he turned it off and left it off. We discussed what would happen when the cable wasn't here anymore. We discussed what that would mean for him and myself. Then we arrive at a decision.
Now, I have to say something here. I think the most valuable discussion that seems to be an undercurrent to the one about this TV thing, is that what are we each doing? Does it influence our children? Do we send them messages about things? Do we help shape them or let them shape themselves? Okay... these are important. Very important issues here. Because... I don't believe for one moment a person just shapes themselves entirely out of nothing. A person learns to shape themselves by learning who they are on their own and testing themselves against what others think and feel and do. So... when a child shapes themselves, or even an adult, that person (whether child or adult) must come up against other ideas, rules, lifestyles, etc... to test themselves. To see if they have really given what they think and believe validity and can stick with it. To be able to define oneself this way is substantial. If a person (and I mean anyone) could live their lives however they wanted doing whatever
they wanted, how ever they wanted, where would be the challenge? Where would be the test? And, I must say, I have been influenced by many people... my parents included. However, I also developed a very strong sense of self (which my son seems to have done as well in spades!)... so it didn't matter what those people said or did around me, even if it meant that for a time I had to do things a different way than what I wanted to. I still found a way to self satisfy and figure out how to do things for myself.
I was brought up in a public school setting, as probably most of us have been. Even though I went through it like the cattle they treated us, I still had that flare and spark for individuality. I found ways to express it and found ways to become me. I think that (and I would never ever say that people should send their children to public schools... ick, yuck, hack bad, bad bad! but that's just my opinion- those places are grim and try to fit everyone into the same silly shape), I think that I am much more defined as the person I am because I was challenged so much as a child growing up. It fueled me. Do I believe my son should be challenged in this way? Heck no. But I believe my son is being challenged daily because he's learning to live with people and around people and compromising and finding that you don't always get your way, period. There are things that must be done, so put down that game and get to it. I need you to help with the laundry because I can't get down the steps
today. Or I need you to help with the dishes because I can't hold them. Your cat needs to be fed and you will do it... sorry, turn off the tv there are things to be done. Does that make me a bad, overly controling Mom? I do not believe it does and I never will. I need that help. That's it. It's just he and I on a mostly daily basis. He's 12, he's able. I'm sure he could learn laundry and cooking and cleaning and budgeting as an adult if he cared to, or even as an older child if he cared to. However, there is a need for it here right now.
When Mom has Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, Sjogren's Syndrome, etc... etc... etc..., she needs the help. Does that mean things have to be turned off. Yup. My son doesn't have a sense of time. He doesn't understand the passing of time until it's gone. He is always shocked when the day turns to evening and so much time has passed. He knows how to tell time, but he doesn't understand it's workings. From what I've learned from my friends who also have children with my son's challenges, a lot of their children (not all) deal with the same thing. So... my son has no idea how much time he's really spent on a game or watched TV. The idea that things fit into half an hour slots continually seems confusing to him and it makes him angry because of it. So, I say, time's up, you've been there for two hours, time to do something else 'cause Mom needs help.
As far as a TV being another window to the world... in some cases I believe you are correct. But over all, it's not like that for me. That's my personal view. Whether my son would agree with that or not, I don't know, he's asleep. We came to an agreement over it for different reasons.
So, I think, really, the larger issue here, the bigger debate, would be whether we influence our children and their choices or not? I would have to say we do. Even if we don't mean to. I would say that children watch us and they make their choices based on a lot different things... but they watch us and they do learn from us and we definately learn from them. We learn soooooo much from them it's amazingly wonderful. Why isn't it equally wonderful to have that available for a child?
Ben Franklin, a major "rebel" and unschooled child, did learn things he did not want to learn nor have interest in... but then he used those things in a very positive way to do things he did want to do. That man had many positive people in his life who became an influence to him. Many of them were hard working people with very, very strong ideas, opinions and voices. He gravitated toward them because they represented learning experiences that would help him grow in the areas he felt were needed. When I read the autobiography of Ben Franklin I was deeply, deeply impressed (and I have to read it again, there was just so much in it) by his fierce sense of self, but his overwhelming sense of others. He kept his views, fine tuned them, even changed his life at points due to the influence of folks he found to be important and strong people in their values and opinions. His family life was sometimes very difficult, but he strived for what he felt was important to him and those things did
influence him and caused him to think. I have read about other great unschooled minds who have done just the same. I think a little challenge is a danged good thing.
My son can fight against me and voice out his opinion when I have done something he feels is wrong. That's great and I welcome it. It means he's developing into his own man. How much more could a mother ask for? Does that mean I back down? No... because then he didn't develop into his own man inspite of someone else opposing him, he developed into someone who doesn't see that people have their own choices and demands on life as well. He's developed without challenge and opposition. And life, my friends, as we all very well know, is filled to the hilt with opposition. Sometimes, it's the stuff that gives it spice. It's the stuff that gives us the courage to fit for our selves, others and the right to be free. Not opression, that is different and horrendous. Oppression is the supression of all rights of an individual... and that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people being the people they are because they developed around people being the people they are. He makes his
own choices every day... and so do I, very independent of each other. We don't talk about those choices... just live them. Then, as a family, there are some things that must be done. That's it. And as a family, there is compromise and discussion, challenge and even arguements and the agreement to not agree.
That's just my opinion, though. That is what I have tested and found to be true for myself and how I will live my life and I do wish for everything my son learns to be himself through all that people will do and say and feel around him. That's why I don't squash him when he tells me something is a load of _____, or that is totally not fair, or I have no idea why you do that, Mom... I'll never do that. Fine... that's great. That's what you need, kid... and you'll go far! Speak your mind and live by your own set of values and beliefs, no matter what. That's the spice of life.
Peace,
Susan
kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
In a message dated 2/16/2005 8:57:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, SandraDodd@... writes:
I think that if the games or TV are contributing to the 'enjoyability' of the moment---then enjoy it!
If you and your son are complaining that you're not seeing each other enough because of the TV---is it the TV's fault? Why can't you turn it off? Are YOU not in control of yourselves and what you do? Do you not make choices?
Three TVs here---none are on now (Oh, wait! It's 8:14 am. <G>). But we are going to Splash Planet, and indoor water park, today. And a movie tonight. TV won't be turned on at all. If we were addicted, we wouldn't be going out and playing or reading or gardening.
We get to CHOOSE what we do each day. TV is often one of the choices. And a really good one too! See it for what it IS---another window to the world.
~Kelly
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anyway, no it's not the televisions fault if my son and I sit infront of it. That's hardly the problem. And really, there is no problem when each of us has sat down and expressed their needs and wants to each other and discussed it through. My son and I have a written understanding as well. (He came up with that when he was reading about the Bill of Rights). He asked if we could each write the things down on pieces of paper that we each felt we needed for ourselves and what we would each like to see happening in the family/house. Some things were: Thursday night: Board Game Night. Other things were: Friday Lunches: Pizza, Then there was my need of two hours of quiet in the afternoon due to major headache from my illness and reading books before bed. (When we read books at night, he settles down. Son is Asperger's, panic disorder, OCD, ADHD and Tourettes). We have always read book before bed. He loves books before bed. Since I can remember my son has carried around books. Because of
his Asperger's my son can tend to be quite different than other children. He didn't want toys as a child. He wanted radios, computers, mixers (sharp pointy things removed) telephones... but not to play with in the traditional sense, to take apart and build things from- we have some pretty dang cool looking robots in this house.)
Well, we went through some horrible times. We lost several family members (close relations) within in few months period. It was so bewildering and life changing. We suddenly had no money. I mean, no money. It was actually quite terrifying. So, we had to make some hard choices... what do we give up in order to survive? TV was right at the top of the list. He was four going on five at the time. We found that going without TV was an adjustment, but we also found that it was really fun not having one. That was for us. Not saying anyone else has to do it because we do.
Am I saying that the TV is the bringer of evil and the harbinger of death? No. When my sister got us cable and we started watching and watching and watching (new novelty after all those years) we really began to sit there instead of doing the things we once did with each other. After a while, that died down quite a bit. Anymore, it's only on for entertainment purposes and not all that often. We both usually choose a movie to watch over TV if we are going to turn it on at all.
Paying 30 dollars a month for a product we barely ever use seems silly to me. It's silly to spend money needlessly when one doesn't have that much to spend. I would much rather use that 30 dollars (because on my birthday, the cable is discontinued because it was only a present from my sister for a year), for something else. But that's just me. I discussed it with my son.
When my son said he felt like he hadn't seen me all day or was missing me because he'd watched too much TV (a choice I let him make) then he turned it off and left it off. We discussed what would happen when the cable wasn't here anymore. We discussed what that would mean for him and myself. Then we arrive at a decision.
Now, I have to say something here. I think the most valuable discussion that seems to be an undercurrent to the one about this TV thing, is that what are we each doing? Does it influence our children? Do we send them messages about things? Do we help shape them or let them shape themselves? Okay... these are important. Very important issues here. Because... I don't believe for one moment a person just shapes themselves entirely out of nothing. A person learns to shape themselves by learning who they are on their own and testing themselves against what others think and feel and do. So... when a child shapes themselves, or even an adult, that person (whether child or adult) must come up against other ideas, rules, lifestyles, etc... to test themselves. To see if they have really given what they think and believe validity and can stick with it. To be able to define oneself this way is substantial. If a person (and I mean anyone) could live their lives however they wanted doing whatever
they wanted, how ever they wanted, where would be the challenge? Where would be the test? And, I must say, I have been influenced by many people... my parents included. However, I also developed a very strong sense of self (which my son seems to have done as well in spades!)... so it didn't matter what those people said or did around me, even if it meant that for a time I had to do things a different way than what I wanted to. I still found a way to self satisfy and figure out how to do things for myself.
I was brought up in a public school setting, as probably most of us have been. Even though I went through it like the cattle they treated us, I still had that flare and spark for individuality. I found ways to express it and found ways to become me. I think that (and I would never ever say that people should send their children to public schools... ick, yuck, hack bad, bad bad! but that's just my opinion- those places are grim and try to fit everyone into the same silly shape), I think that I am much more defined as the person I am because I was challenged so much as a child growing up. It fueled me. Do I believe my son should be challenged in this way? Heck no. But I believe my son is being challenged daily because he's learning to live with people and around people and compromising and finding that you don't always get your way, period. There are things that must be done, so put down that game and get to it. I need you to help with the laundry because I can't get down the steps
today. Or I need you to help with the dishes because I can't hold them. Your cat needs to be fed and you will do it... sorry, turn off the tv there are things to be done. Does that make me a bad, overly controling Mom? I do not believe it does and I never will. I need that help. That's it. It's just he and I on a mostly daily basis. He's 12, he's able. I'm sure he could learn laundry and cooking and cleaning and budgeting as an adult if he cared to, or even as an older child if he cared to. However, there is a need for it here right now.
When Mom has Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, Sjogren's Syndrome, etc... etc... etc..., she needs the help. Does that mean things have to be turned off. Yup. My son doesn't have a sense of time. He doesn't understand the passing of time until it's gone. He is always shocked when the day turns to evening and so much time has passed. He knows how to tell time, but he doesn't understand it's workings. From what I've learned from my friends who also have children with my son's challenges, a lot of their children (not all) deal with the same thing. So... my son has no idea how much time he's really spent on a game or watched TV. The idea that things fit into half an hour slots continually seems confusing to him and it makes him angry because of it. So, I say, time's up, you've been there for two hours, time to do something else 'cause Mom needs help.
As far as a TV being another window to the world... in some cases I believe you are correct. But over all, it's not like that for me. That's my personal view. Whether my son would agree with that or not, I don't know, he's asleep. We came to an agreement over it for different reasons.
So, I think, really, the larger issue here, the bigger debate, would be whether we influence our children and their choices or not? I would have to say we do. Even if we don't mean to. I would say that children watch us and they make their choices based on a lot different things... but they watch us and they do learn from us and we definately learn from them. We learn soooooo much from them it's amazingly wonderful. Why isn't it equally wonderful to have that available for a child?
Ben Franklin, a major "rebel" and unschooled child, did learn things he did not want to learn nor have interest in... but then he used those things in a very positive way to do things he did want to do. That man had many positive people in his life who became an influence to him. Many of them were hard working people with very, very strong ideas, opinions and voices. He gravitated toward them because they represented learning experiences that would help him grow in the areas he felt were needed. When I read the autobiography of Ben Franklin I was deeply, deeply impressed (and I have to read it again, there was just so much in it) by his fierce sense of self, but his overwhelming sense of others. He kept his views, fine tuned them, even changed his life at points due to the influence of folks he found to be important and strong people in their values and opinions. His family life was sometimes very difficult, but he strived for what he felt was important to him and those things did
influence him and caused him to think. I have read about other great unschooled minds who have done just the same. I think a little challenge is a danged good thing.
My son can fight against me and voice out his opinion when I have done something he feels is wrong. That's great and I welcome it. It means he's developing into his own man. How much more could a mother ask for? Does that mean I back down? No... because then he didn't develop into his own man inspite of someone else opposing him, he developed into someone who doesn't see that people have their own choices and demands on life as well. He's developed without challenge and opposition. And life, my friends, as we all very well know, is filled to the hilt with opposition. Sometimes, it's the stuff that gives it spice. It's the stuff that gives us the courage to fit for our selves, others and the right to be free. Not opression, that is different and horrendous. Oppression is the supression of all rights of an individual... and that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people being the people they are because they developed around people being the people they are. He makes his
own choices every day... and so do I, very independent of each other. We don't talk about those choices... just live them. Then, as a family, there are some things that must be done. That's it. And as a family, there is compromise and discussion, challenge and even arguements and the agreement to not agree.
That's just my opinion, though. That is what I have tested and found to be true for myself and how I will live my life and I do wish for everything my son learns to be himself through all that people will do and say and feel around him. That's why I don't squash him when he tells me something is a load of _____, or that is totally not fair, or I have no idea why you do that, Mom... I'll never do that. Fine... that's great. That's what you need, kid... and you'll go far! Speak your mind and live by your own set of values and beliefs, no matter what. That's the spice of life.
Peace,
Susan
kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
In a message dated 2/16/2005 8:57:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, SandraDodd@... writes:
>Those games ARE part of his life. If the game is more interesting than what you were offering as an alternative, will you take the game away to make your ideas more interesting? <<<<<<<<If the TV is more interesting than your life, will you remove the TV and cable to make your life more interesting? Maybe more interesting-LOOKING.
I think that if the games or TV are contributing to the 'enjoyability' of the moment---then enjoy it!
If you and your son are complaining that you're not seeing each other enough because of the TV---is it the TV's fault? Why can't you turn it off? Are YOU not in control of yourselves and what you do? Do you not make choices?
Three TVs here---none are on now (Oh, wait! It's 8:14 am. <G>). But we are going to Splash Planet, and indoor water park, today. And a movie tonight. TV won't be turned on at all. If we were addicted, we wouldn't be going out and playing or reading or gardening.
We get to CHOOSE what we do each day. TV is often one of the choices. And a really good one too! See it for what it IS---another window to the world.
~Kelly
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elizabeth Hill
**
Well, we went through some horrible times. We lost several family members (close relations) within in few months period. It was so bewildering and life changing. We suddenly had no money. I mean, no money. It was actually quite terrifying.**
Hi, Susan --
I think when people are profoundly unhappy, they may use TV like an anesthetic. And that could be what you and your son were doing at that time in your life. Your perception on that is valid.
When my husband was struggling with a job he couldn't do (at a start-up when our son was an infant) and knew he was likely to be fired, he spent pretty much every single waking minute glued to computer games. He was acting like an "addict" and I was pretty frustrated with him. After the crisis passed, he didn't need to jump into the computer and hide any more, then his computer use became more moderate. (Yes, I would prefer him to step away from the computer more often and come talk to me while I wash the dishes, but that isn't his idea of wild fun. <g>)
When life isn't overwhelming and people aren't in pain, they have a greater ability to regulate their own activities and are likely to watch somewhat less TV than overwhelmed unhappy people, in my experience.
Betsy
Well, we went through some horrible times. We lost several family members (close relations) within in few months period. It was so bewildering and life changing. We suddenly had no money. I mean, no money. It was actually quite terrifying.**
Hi, Susan --
I think when people are profoundly unhappy, they may use TV like an anesthetic. And that could be what you and your son were doing at that time in your life. Your perception on that is valid.
When my husband was struggling with a job he couldn't do (at a start-up when our son was an infant) and knew he was likely to be fired, he spent pretty much every single waking minute glued to computer games. He was acting like an "addict" and I was pretty frustrated with him. After the crisis passed, he didn't need to jump into the computer and hide any more, then his computer use became more moderate. (Yes, I would prefer him to step away from the computer more often and come talk to me while I wash the dishes, but that isn't his idea of wild fun. <g>)
When life isn't overwhelming and people aren't in pain, they have a greater ability to regulate their own activities and are likely to watch somewhat less TV than overwhelmed unhappy people, in my experience.
Betsy
Pam Sorooshian
On Feb 19, 2005, at 5:53 AM, Susan Buchholz wrote:
to stay overnight.
I want to suggest to you that you take another deep breath (I'm sure
you've taken a few already <g>) and be really careful to not take
anything said here in a personal way. You're NOT debating about whether
YOU are doing the right thing - nobody knows you, your life, your
personality, your family, your style, etc. The debates are all about
ideas - the "idea" of restricting television, the idea of an adult and
a child making a joint decision to limit something, the idea of "not
teaching," and so on.
The end of a discussion here can easily be - "Well, this was a good
discussion and I think I have a better understanding of what others
think about this." Or it could be, "This has helped me gain a deeper
understanding of my own reasons for my decision."
The end result of a discussion here does not need to be: "Ah, you're
right and I'm going to change my ways."
The goal is analytical - it is to dig down deep into the ideas we hold
and think about the basis of those ideas.
It truly isn't really to persuade you to change your mind as much as it
is to provide a forum where you can, if you desire, stretch and open
and try on thinking things in ways you haven't done.
Sandra used to have a talk she gave in which she told people they
should spend some time thinking dangerous thoughts. Think about things
in ways you don't usually. Let yourself be willing to think anything -
don't push any thought away, follow it, no matter what. She used to say
if it was too scary, that you could duct tape yourself to a chair and
get somebody to act as a spotter - I really liked that image. But,
really, just thinking dangerous thoughts isn't dangerous - you can
think them and go on with life as is - you don't have to act on them.
This is a list for pushing ourselves to think dangerous thoughts - and
it can be uncomfortable and scary and the WORST is when somebody really
doesn't want to, but they find themselves here being pushed to do it.
Back then, I sat down with the purpose of just thinking dangerous
thoughts for a while. I mean, I actually took time and sat in a chair
just to sort of make myself think. For me, thinking dangerous thoughts
worked like this: I'd think, "Well, what if it is true that tv is
addicting and if I don't control them they'll be addicted and they'll
be couch potatoes and they'll all get fat and lazy and will be
depressed with no friends and never find a spouse and not get married
and I'll have no grandchildren."
Or - "Well, what if tv is addicting and I control it and they don't
learn to control it themselves and then when they grow up and have
their own place they get a tv and they just sit and watch all the time
and don't study for their college classes and can't graduate and
they're stuck in lousy jobs that they hate and they're miserable and
they blame me."
These are the kinds of trains of thought that I let myself think - kind
of had to make myself think - because I naturally tended to think in
mind-ruts - my mind just would go where it had always gone before - so
I had to make myself take different turns and see where those went.
So - here on this list - we're doing it together - in writing - with
1600+ strangers watching. Gosh, does this make anybody nervous? It is
sort of the amazing power of the internet that we can exchange ideas in
such a public way and yet keep our privacy at the same time. Cool for
some. Too freaky for others.
-pam
> Okay... I'm back and didn't have to stay in the hospital all night forGlad things went well for you, Susan - or at least that you didn't have
> tests. Thank goodness. So... I will write one more post on the TV
> thing because I think I've spent enough time debating it. For goodness
> sake, I've spent more time debating it (or rather, just sharing with
> folks how we do things around here than I do watching the silly thing-
> That right there is ridiculous.)
to stay overnight.
I want to suggest to you that you take another deep breath (I'm sure
you've taken a few already <g>) and be really careful to not take
anything said here in a personal way. You're NOT debating about whether
YOU are doing the right thing - nobody knows you, your life, your
personality, your family, your style, etc. The debates are all about
ideas - the "idea" of restricting television, the idea of an adult and
a child making a joint decision to limit something, the idea of "not
teaching," and so on.
The end of a discussion here can easily be - "Well, this was a good
discussion and I think I have a better understanding of what others
think about this." Or it could be, "This has helped me gain a deeper
understanding of my own reasons for my decision."
The end result of a discussion here does not need to be: "Ah, you're
right and I'm going to change my ways."
The goal is analytical - it is to dig down deep into the ideas we hold
and think about the basis of those ideas.
It truly isn't really to persuade you to change your mind as much as it
is to provide a forum where you can, if you desire, stretch and open
and try on thinking things in ways you haven't done.
Sandra used to have a talk she gave in which she told people they
should spend some time thinking dangerous thoughts. Think about things
in ways you don't usually. Let yourself be willing to think anything -
don't push any thought away, follow it, no matter what. She used to say
if it was too scary, that you could duct tape yourself to a chair and
get somebody to act as a spotter - I really liked that image. But,
really, just thinking dangerous thoughts isn't dangerous - you can
think them and go on with life as is - you don't have to act on them.
This is a list for pushing ourselves to think dangerous thoughts - and
it can be uncomfortable and scary and the WORST is when somebody really
doesn't want to, but they find themselves here being pushed to do it.
Back then, I sat down with the purpose of just thinking dangerous
thoughts for a while. I mean, I actually took time and sat in a chair
just to sort of make myself think. For me, thinking dangerous thoughts
worked like this: I'd think, "Well, what if it is true that tv is
addicting and if I don't control them they'll be addicted and they'll
be couch potatoes and they'll all get fat and lazy and will be
depressed with no friends and never find a spouse and not get married
and I'll have no grandchildren."
Or - "Well, what if tv is addicting and I control it and they don't
learn to control it themselves and then when they grow up and have
their own place they get a tv and they just sit and watch all the time
and don't study for their college classes and can't graduate and
they're stuck in lousy jobs that they hate and they're miserable and
they blame me."
These are the kinds of trains of thought that I let myself think - kind
of had to make myself think - because I naturally tended to think in
mind-ruts - my mind just would go where it had always gone before - so
I had to make myself take different turns and see where those went.
So - here on this list - we're doing it together - in writing - with
1600+ strangers watching. Gosh, does this make anybody nervous? It is
sort of the amazing power of the internet that we can exchange ideas in
such a public way and yet keep our privacy at the same time. Cool for
some. Too freaky for others.
-pam
Pam Sorooshian
There are some very basic unschooling principles that have emerged and
been articulated more and more clearly over the years, because of these
types of discussions.
The most basic of all would have to do with trust - trust that if the
tv, for example, is interfering with other activities that the child
wants, that the child will learn to choose those other activities over
watching tv. There are those who see tv as having so much power that
they truly think it is addicting and that the child loses the ability
to make choices regarding it. Let me say that I can see why they have
that idea, judging by the way I see tv-watching happening sometimes (in
other people's homes). I understand it. I understand the visual, too,
of slack-jawed children staring blankly, unmoving, at the flickering
screen at tv shows with seemingly little valuable content. I get it. I
understand the fear and the annoyance and the worry.
What got me past seeing all that, to seeing a somewhat different
visual, was trying to be a realist. Seriously. I wanted my kids to have
self-control and I realized that, realistically, if I did the
controlling for them that they were not practicing self-control.
I had to look straight at that question and try to answer it: "How
were they going to learn to live in a tv-saturated culture and make
reasonable choices for themselves that they were happy with if I
controlled the tv for them and didn't give them the freedom to learn
about it in their own way.?"
That idea turned out to be just a stepping-stone and I don't even think
about it that way at all anymore. And I even forget to talk about that
step of my own experience of tv in our lives.
So - there ya go. I'm not asking for agreement. I don't need it. Just
thoughts of mine that might stir up some for somebody else. Or not. It
helped me to write it - to remember my own thinking when my kids were
younger. So thanks for that opportunity.
-pam
been articulated more and more clearly over the years, because of these
types of discussions.
The most basic of all would have to do with trust - trust that if the
tv, for example, is interfering with other activities that the child
wants, that the child will learn to choose those other activities over
watching tv. There are those who see tv as having so much power that
they truly think it is addicting and that the child loses the ability
to make choices regarding it. Let me say that I can see why they have
that idea, judging by the way I see tv-watching happening sometimes (in
other people's homes). I understand it. I understand the visual, too,
of slack-jawed children staring blankly, unmoving, at the flickering
screen at tv shows with seemingly little valuable content. I get it. I
understand the fear and the annoyance and the worry.
What got me past seeing all that, to seeing a somewhat different
visual, was trying to be a realist. Seriously. I wanted my kids to have
self-control and I realized that, realistically, if I did the
controlling for them that they were not practicing self-control.
I had to look straight at that question and try to answer it: "How
were they going to learn to live in a tv-saturated culture and make
reasonable choices for themselves that they were happy with if I
controlled the tv for them and didn't give them the freedom to learn
about it in their own way.?"
That idea turned out to be just a stepping-stone and I don't even think
about it that way at all anymore. And I even forget to talk about that
step of my own experience of tv in our lives.
So - there ya go. I'm not asking for agreement. I don't need it. Just
thoughts of mine that might stir up some for somebody else. Or not. It
helped me to write it - to remember my own thinking when my kids were
younger. So thanks for that opportunity.
-pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/19/05 11:24:06 AM, ecsamhill@... writes:
<< When life isn't overwhelming and people aren't in pain, they have a
greater ability to regulate their own activities >>
They were regulating their activities before, though, by watching as much as
they needed to escape and be alone.
"Regulation" doesn't always mean turning something off, does it?
Regulation has to do with rules, and there must be better ways to consider
decision making than "self regulation."
Sandra
<< When life isn't overwhelming and people aren't in pain, they have a
greater ability to regulate their own activities >>
They were regulating their activities before, though, by watching as much as
they needed to escape and be alone.
"Regulation" doesn't always mean turning something off, does it?
Regulation has to do with rules, and there must be better ways to consider
decision making than "self regulation."
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/19/05 11:36:46 AM, pamsoroosh@... writes:
<< It truly isn't really to persuade you to change your mind as much as it
is to provide a forum where you can, if you desire, stretch and open
and try on thinking things in ways you haven't done. >>
And whether any one individiual stretches or thinks, others will be doing so.
Lots of people read without even ever writing. Some write once in a while.
Some take an idea and it sits quietly inside them for a couple of years until
it suddenly pops out making sense someday.
Sandra
<< It truly isn't really to persuade you to change your mind as much as it
is to provide a forum where you can, if you desire, stretch and open
and try on thinking things in ways you haven't done. >>
And whether any one individiual stretches or thinks, others will be doing so.
Lots of people read without even ever writing. Some write once in a while.
Some take an idea and it sits quietly inside them for a couple of years until
it suddenly pops out making sense someday.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 2/19/05 8:53 AM, Susan Buchholz at bookwood01@... wrote:
life that led to no TV.
But the discussion shouldn't be about you. The discussion should be about
principles and philosophy, about how we treat our children, about our
relationships with each other, and awareness of what our actions look and
feel like to our kids and how we can make better choices.
principles. Discussion is what the people who stick with the list are
looking for (since they can't get it from other lists). There are lists that
trade personal stories. There are lists that trade tips. Different lists for
different needs.
them. But it does sound like you're reading the conversation as being about
your situation which prompted you to feel the need to explain what's
happening in your life better.
It shouldn't be about your situation. Discussion should be about the
principles that will help you and others unschool better.
We all could end up financially less able to provide what we once could
whether that's TV or a car or dinners at restaurants. WHAT we are less able
to provide doesn't matter. But HOW we involve our kids in the change is
important to our relationship with our kids. It's useful to discuss how we
can respect their needs when we can't afford what we once could. So I think
by focusing on TV you're glossing over the more important aspects of how
respectfully you invovled your son in the decision making of what to let go!
:-)
Someone said that it's easy to identify principles because they can be
summed up in one word. Like kindness, respect, love, support, trust.
If someone presents a problem or an idea to the list, the responses will
focus on solutions that will be in keeping with unschooling principles.
There aren't any principles involved when our finances are hurting. It's an
event in life. But there are many ways to involve kids in that event. Some
of those ways are respectful and trusting. Some of them disrespectful and
treating them as helpless.
Helping people to see ways that they don't have to compromise respect and
trust just to solve some problem helps people unschool better.
As for lack of TV, it's hard to discuss. For one thing, most people aren't
facing circumstances that remove TV from their lives. So getting to not
having TV would involve someone imposing it "because it's a good idea" on
the rest of the family.
For another thing, TV isn't a problem. TV is just a thing. But a problem
that involves TV might be family members frequently going off to watch
separate TVs. So it isn't the TVs that's the problem. It's the separation.
(It could be everyone reading or going separate places and, therefore, not
interacting with each other.)
It wouldn't be useful to discuss on the list how to make the family stop
watching TV so they can interact. But it would be useful to discuss how the
family can reconnect.
I don't know if that helps you understand how the list works any better or
not.
Joyce
> Am I saying that the TV is the bringer of evil and the harbinger of death?No. What you're describing are some specific incidents that happened in your
life that led to no TV.
But the discussion shouldn't be about you. The discussion should be about
principles and philosophy, about how we treat our children, about our
relationships with each other, and awareness of what our actions look and
feel like to our kids and how we can make better choices.
> I tend to write that way and I don't mean to cause any distress byIt isn't distressful. It's just that the list is oriented toward discussing
> it.
principles. Discussion is what the people who stick with the list are
looking for (since they can't get it from other lists). There are lists that
trade personal stories. There are lists that trade tips. Different lists for
different needs.
> But honestly, I wasn't takingIt didn't sound like you were taking things personally as in offended by
> things personally, just passionately.
them. But it does sound like you're reading the conversation as being about
your situation which prompted you to feel the need to explain what's
happening in your life better.
It shouldn't be about your situation. Discussion should be about the
principles that will help you and others unschool better.
We all could end up financially less able to provide what we once could
whether that's TV or a car or dinners at restaurants. WHAT we are less able
to provide doesn't matter. But HOW we involve our kids in the change is
important to our relationship with our kids. It's useful to discuss how we
can respect their needs when we can't afford what we once could. So I think
by focusing on TV you're glossing over the more important aspects of how
respectfully you invovled your son in the decision making of what to let go!
:-)
Someone said that it's easy to identify principles because they can be
summed up in one word. Like kindness, respect, love, support, trust.
If someone presents a problem or an idea to the list, the responses will
focus on solutions that will be in keeping with unschooling principles.
There aren't any principles involved when our finances are hurting. It's an
event in life. But there are many ways to involve kids in that event. Some
of those ways are respectful and trusting. Some of them disrespectful and
treating them as helpless.
Helping people to see ways that they don't have to compromise respect and
trust just to solve some problem helps people unschool better.
As for lack of TV, it's hard to discuss. For one thing, most people aren't
facing circumstances that remove TV from their lives. So getting to not
having TV would involve someone imposing it "because it's a good idea" on
the rest of the family.
For another thing, TV isn't a problem. TV is just a thing. But a problem
that involves TV might be family members frequently going off to watch
separate TVs. So it isn't the TVs that's the problem. It's the separation.
(It could be everyone reading or going separate places and, therefore, not
interacting with each other.)
It wouldn't be useful to discuss on the list how to make the family stop
watching TV so they can interact. But it would be useful to discuss how the
family can reconnect.
I don't know if that helps you understand how the list works any better or
not.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/20/05 10:24:48 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< As for lack of TV, it's hard to discuss. For one thing, most people aren't
facing circumstances that remove TV from their lives. So getting to not
having TV would involve someone imposing it "because it's a good idea" on
the rest of the family. >>
And with TV, my advice seems weird and wrong sometimes, because we don't have
cable (three times now the "should we get cable?" question has arisen, and my
husband has a standing "no" for financial reasons, but every time, two of the
kids have shrugged and said, "no, it's not worth it"). We keep getting TVs
given to us, and all we have to do to get eight or ten stations is plug it
into the wall. Transmitter towers are in plain view, on the top of the
mountains right outside. So the "put one in every room" recklessness with which I
say "it's no big deal" is based on that. Yet we don't have The Discovery
Channel or the History Channel, and I didn't know they were showing torture and
axe murder previews during mainstream kid-prime-time.
We use TVs to play DVDs and videos and to run video game systems, of which we
have (not counting duplicates) seven. We NEED TV's, and we're not talking
"television" exclusively.
We have books and games and toys and tools and magazines and computers, too.
We have soft quiet spots and automobiles that go lots of places too.
And now I'm rambling. <g>
Sandra
<< As for lack of TV, it's hard to discuss. For one thing, most people aren't
facing circumstances that remove TV from their lives. So getting to not
having TV would involve someone imposing it "because it's a good idea" on
the rest of the family. >>
And with TV, my advice seems weird and wrong sometimes, because we don't have
cable (three times now the "should we get cable?" question has arisen, and my
husband has a standing "no" for financial reasons, but every time, two of the
kids have shrugged and said, "no, it's not worth it"). We keep getting TVs
given to us, and all we have to do to get eight or ten stations is plug it
into the wall. Transmitter towers are in plain view, on the top of the
mountains right outside. So the "put one in every room" recklessness with which I
say "it's no big deal" is based on that. Yet we don't have The Discovery
Channel or the History Channel, and I didn't know they were showing torture and
axe murder previews during mainstream kid-prime-time.
We use TVs to play DVDs and videos and to run video game systems, of which we
have (not counting duplicates) seven. We NEED TV's, and we're not talking
"television" exclusively.
We have books and games and toys and tools and magazines and computers, too.
We have soft quiet spots and automobiles that go lots of places too.
And now I'm rambling. <g>
Sandra
averyschmidt
> Yet we don't have The Discoveryor Cartoon Network, or Nickleodeon, or MTV, or The Travel Channel,
> Channel or the History Channel,
or The Learning Channel, or Comedy Central, or Food Network, or
Animal Planet, or National Geographic, or Fuel... that's the few I
could think of off the top of my head. Cable is a more than worthy
unschooling tool, IMO, and we're far from rich. Just throwing out
my opinion for anyone on the fence about cable vs. antenna...
> and I didn't know they were showing torture andMy husband and I have been shocked recently at the previews for
> axe murder previews during mainstream kid-prime-time.
horror films shown on network tv (as in abc and cbs). I'm thinking
of the commercials for movies like The Grudge and The Cursed...
these freaked *me* out and I'm an adult. I haven't seen any of the
previews on cable, and I'd say that as a family we watch
considerably more cable than network. Although now that I think
about it, cable previews (and shows themselves) tend to be more
sexualized than network- especially MTV with The Real World and
such. But then my kids see sexuality bothers me less than my kids
seeing violence. I'd almost rather them watch Sex and the City than
the news, come to think of it.
Patti
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/22/05 7:11:04 AM, patti.schmidt2@... writes:
<< Cable is a more than worthy
unschooling tool, IMO, and we're far from rich. Just throwing out
my opinion for anyone on the fence about cable vs. antenna...
The kids say they already watch enough and wouldn't want to watch more just
because it was paid for.
We got DSL in December, at Kirby's urging. He wanted to have X-Box live, and
they've played that a lot. Because of that, on Marty's birthday people were
able to upload new Karaoke Revolution songs for him.
They watch a lot of DVDs. They rent, borrow or buy the best of what their
friends have said was good on Comedy Central. If we had the history channel,
Keith and I would probably gain more guilt than knowledge, because we already
feel guilty not watching more of the stuff we know we'd like on PBS.
Though I'm a staunch defender of kids' choices and not taking the TV away
from them, we don't watch it all that much. When we've stayed where there was
cable, they've either turned it off and gone outside or watched shows they
could've watched at home.
-=- But then my kids see sexuality bothers me less than my kids
seeing violence. I'd almost rather them watch Sex and the City than
the news, come to think of it.-=-
I watched the news last night and dreamed about a car wreck. The news isn't
a very good show. <g>
Holly likes the weird dating shows on WB and FOX, but seems to like to see
what people wore on the "dates" and to marvel at how shallow and stupid it seems
some people can be. I think if she went to school, she would already have
known how the competition for attention goes, but she's only used to honest
relationships so those shows are like little social train wrecks for her. And
while she's watching that, she'll be playing with her pet rats, or putting
elaborate braided hairdos on her My Little Ponies, or doing knotwork on graph
paper.
If we lived where the only choice for getting TV was cable, we would
definitely have cable. What we have now is the hundreds of dollars a year savings.
We have Netflix and we live a couple of hundred yards from two video stores.
No one's languishing from lack of input.
-=-Just throwing out
my opinion for anyone on the fence about cable vs. antenna... -=-
Anyone who can afford it and wants it, I think it's a great thing.
Sandra
<< Cable is a more than worthy
unschooling tool, IMO, and we're far from rich. Just throwing out
my opinion for anyone on the fence about cable vs. antenna...
>>I agree. I've been the only "yes" vote all these years.
The kids say they already watch enough and wouldn't want to watch more just
because it was paid for.
We got DSL in December, at Kirby's urging. He wanted to have X-Box live, and
they've played that a lot. Because of that, on Marty's birthday people were
able to upload new Karaoke Revolution songs for him.
They watch a lot of DVDs. They rent, borrow or buy the best of what their
friends have said was good on Comedy Central. If we had the history channel,
Keith and I would probably gain more guilt than knowledge, because we already
feel guilty not watching more of the stuff we know we'd like on PBS.
Though I'm a staunch defender of kids' choices and not taking the TV away
from them, we don't watch it all that much. When we've stayed where there was
cable, they've either turned it off and gone outside or watched shows they
could've watched at home.
-=- But then my kids see sexuality bothers me less than my kids
seeing violence. I'd almost rather them watch Sex and the City than
the news, come to think of it.-=-
I watched the news last night and dreamed about a car wreck. The news isn't
a very good show. <g>
Holly likes the weird dating shows on WB and FOX, but seems to like to see
what people wore on the "dates" and to marvel at how shallow and stupid it seems
some people can be. I think if she went to school, she would already have
known how the competition for attention goes, but she's only used to honest
relationships so those shows are like little social train wrecks for her. And
while she's watching that, she'll be playing with her pet rats, or putting
elaborate braided hairdos on her My Little Ponies, or doing knotwork on graph
paper.
If we lived where the only choice for getting TV was cable, we would
definitely have cable. What we have now is the hundreds of dollars a year savings.
We have Netflix and we live a couple of hundred yards from two video stores.
No one's languishing from lack of input.
-=-Just throwing out
my opinion for anyone on the fence about cable vs. antenna... -=-
Anyone who can afford it and wants it, I think it's a great thing.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 2/22/05 2:53 AM, averyschmidt at patti.schmidt2@... wrote:
better than kids seeing violence this morning and then there's the argument
:-)
I've read those arguments and think "It makes sense but ... "
But I haven't been able to figure out what follows the but ;-)
I think that while sex is an expected part of life and violence isn't, the
reason for putting sex in movies is because people like things that make
them think about sex :-) And the reason for putting violence isn't to make
people think about committing violence.
Healthy people may have sex after a sexy movie. :-)
Healthy people won't go shoot someone after a violent movie.
It didn't bother me when Kathryn watched all sorts of mayhem being performed
on demons in Buffy. But the sexy scenes made me uncomfortable and I think
it's because it was several steps beyond where she was at the time in terms
of sexuality. She probably tuned much of it out but it just felt weird.
Joyce
> But then my kids see sexuality bothers me less than my kidsFor some reason I was thinking about the argument that kids seeing sex is
> seeing violence. I'd almost rather them watch Sex and the City than
> the news, come to think of it.
better than kids seeing violence this morning and then there's the argument
:-)
I've read those arguments and think "It makes sense but ... "
But I haven't been able to figure out what follows the but ;-)
I think that while sex is an expected part of life and violence isn't, the
reason for putting sex in movies is because people like things that make
them think about sex :-) And the reason for putting violence isn't to make
people think about committing violence.
Healthy people may have sex after a sexy movie. :-)
Healthy people won't go shoot someone after a violent movie.
It didn't bother me when Kathryn watched all sorts of mayhem being performed
on demons in Buffy. But the sexy scenes made me uncomfortable and I think
it's because it was several steps beyond where she was at the time in terms
of sexuality. She probably tuned much of it out but it just felt weird.
Joyce
averyschmidt
> For some reason I was thinking about the argument that kids seeingsex is
> better than kids seeing violence this morning and then there's theargument
> :-)Well, when I made the Sex and the City vs. the news comment I was
sort of kidding. My children actually have no interest in shows
about sex.
I also think there are different categories of violence, and that a
movie can be violent without being scary and vice versa.
I can handle any amount of realistic violence with no problem- The
Patriot comes to mind. But add a heebie jeebie type "scariness" and
I just CANNOT do it. You couldn't pay me to watch The Blair Witch
Project for example. (My kids like to ask me about movies like
that "Would you watch it for a hundred dollars?" "Nope." "Would
you watch it for a thousand dollars?" and so on.) I lost a lot of
sleep over The Sixth Sense. Supernatural stuff has bothered me
deeply my whole life.
I just find it ironic that movies like The Grudge are rated PG-13
and other movies are rated R because they show naked bodies or
people saying the F word. The rating system doesn't make a whole
lot of sense to me.
Patti
Heidi
The ads for The Curse are pretty creepy. It's got my 17 year old
drooling (she loves "creepy" horror movies, though not bloody ones,
except Shawn of the Dead...has anyone seen that one? It's pretty
funny...and The Curse ads also cause my 10 year old to hide her face.
I also do not appreciate the ads for Saw. Ugh.
my mil nuts, who thought we shouldn't be exposing our kids to "such
violence" and yet, at her house, with my kids in the room, non-stop
CNN...hello?
blessings, heidiC
drooling (she loves "creepy" horror movies, though not bloody ones,
except Shawn of the Dead...has anyone seen that one? It's pretty
funny...and The Curse ads also cause my 10 year old to hide her face.
I also do not appreciate the ads for Saw. Ugh.
>than
> > and I didn't know they were showing torture and
> > axe murder previews during mainstream kid-prime-time.
>
> My husband and I have been shocked recently at the previews for
> horror films shown on network tv (as in abc and cbs). I'm thinking
> of the commercials for movies like The Grudge and The Cursed...
> these freaked *me* out and I'm an adult. I haven't seen any of the
> previews on cable, and I'd say that as a family we watch
> considerably more cable than network. Although now that I think
> about it, cable previews (and shows themselves) tend to be more
> sexualized than network- especially MTV with The Real World and
> such. But then my kids see sexuality bothers me less than my kids
> seeing violence. I'd almost rather them watch Sex and the City
> the news, come to think of it.we used to watch Emergency 911, or whatever it was called. It drove
>I'd almost rather them watch Sex and the City than
> the news, come to think of it.
my mil nuts, who thought we shouldn't be exposing our kids to "such
violence" and yet, at her house, with my kids in the room, non-stop
CNN...hello?
blessings, heidiC
>
> Patti