Is this a proper Radical Parenting Analogy?
aplan4life
I never give advice on any of these questions because we are not
there yet...LOL However, after reading many of your posts, I just
want to check if I'm understanding things properly....
We have laws in this country to protect the rights of others, not
all are good and some are downright stupid; usually the ones that
tell us what we can/cannot do in our own homes...those need to be
axed, those kind of laws infringe on how people are, therefore an
attempt to control people. There are laws meant to keep peace, like
not starting your hammering or power tools up at 7 am and/or doing
loud construction, blaring music, etc. til' all hours of the night,
making it hard for your neighbors to sleep. Laws like that are not
really made for respectful people who are considerate and would
never do that just because they have principles and care about
others.
I was thinking this morning about Radical Unschooling and have to
admit that at first, I thought it was a permission slip for
disaster. I DO NOT ANYMORE! :-) Now I see it kind of like our
system in the US. (Whether my husband will ever understand is one
thing, but then again, he isn't the one reading and seeking answers
to learn what I "think" I have learned) A person in the home,
despite how old or young, has freedom. Freedom to do what they
want...so long as it does not infringe on anothers rights within the
home; i.e. a person needs to have a good nights sleep (at least I
do), in order to function properly the next day and you certainly
cannot go to work tired the next day because of being kept awake.
So, although the child has the freedom to stay up as late as they
want, but they do not have the right to make noise that infringes
upon the right to sleep of other family members. When the rights of
others in the home have been infringed upon, certain freedoms get
taken away fully or are cut down, until the child understands that
it is unacceptable to be disrespectful of others within the home.
Other areas I can see this now are with television. This is an
example, I don't know because we haven't let loose the reigns: It is
okay that you watch whatever movie you want, so long as you don't
act out the violence on anyone, or watch a sexually explicit movie
and tell small children or other children what you have seen or
speak obscenities around other kids. Although it is alright for you
to watch those movies, some people are not ready for their children
to hear those things. You can imagine pissed I was, when my daughter
was 6 and a 5 year old boy said "I want to have sex with you, like
Neo does to Trinity. 'I want to have sex with you and wiggle', 'I
want to put my pee-pee in you like they do in the movies, etc.
etc." My daughter already knew what sex was in a general sense
because we talk about it for reasons of protection of her body and
what is not allowed to be touched, etc. But a 5 year old child
talking like that bothers me. However, I highly doubt, that in a
loving environment produced from a radical unschooling, natural
parenting that any of your children would have ever said a thing
like that. I cannot see that happening with your children at all.
Matter of fact, I don't see any of you experienced ones even having
to say "not to do that" because I have a strong feeling that they
naturally wouldn't. KWIM?
I see this now with the food issues also. A child is not infringing
on an adults rights by eating when they feel like it and not at a
set supper time, or eating what they want. It would be an
infringement though if they went and took a brand new package, can,
etc. and threw it in the trash or dumped it down the garbage
disposal just for the heck of it (my reasoning is that most people
can't afford to have that go on and can't just over look it)that
cost mom and/or dad money or that was something a sibling had bought
and desired. Again, raised in a home with principles, it's one of
those things that would more than likely never have to be spoken, as
a "don't do that" because it just wouldn't happen.
It's about Freedom and Rights and not about do's and don'ts. Enjoy
your freedom, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of
others. If you misuse your freedoms, they will be dwindled down or
cutoff, in the area of freedom that you have caused anothers rights
to be violated. Am I close or am I waaaaaay off?
~Sandy, who is really trying her hardest to "get this" :-)
there yet...LOL However, after reading many of your posts, I just
want to check if I'm understanding things properly....
We have laws in this country to protect the rights of others, not
all are good and some are downright stupid; usually the ones that
tell us what we can/cannot do in our own homes...those need to be
axed, those kind of laws infringe on how people are, therefore an
attempt to control people. There are laws meant to keep peace, like
not starting your hammering or power tools up at 7 am and/or doing
loud construction, blaring music, etc. til' all hours of the night,
making it hard for your neighbors to sleep. Laws like that are not
really made for respectful people who are considerate and would
never do that just because they have principles and care about
others.
I was thinking this morning about Radical Unschooling and have to
admit that at first, I thought it was a permission slip for
disaster. I DO NOT ANYMORE! :-) Now I see it kind of like our
system in the US. (Whether my husband will ever understand is one
thing, but then again, he isn't the one reading and seeking answers
to learn what I "think" I have learned) A person in the home,
despite how old or young, has freedom. Freedom to do what they
want...so long as it does not infringe on anothers rights within the
home; i.e. a person needs to have a good nights sleep (at least I
do), in order to function properly the next day and you certainly
cannot go to work tired the next day because of being kept awake.
So, although the child has the freedom to stay up as late as they
want, but they do not have the right to make noise that infringes
upon the right to sleep of other family members. When the rights of
others in the home have been infringed upon, certain freedoms get
taken away fully or are cut down, until the child understands that
it is unacceptable to be disrespectful of others within the home.
Other areas I can see this now are with television. This is an
example, I don't know because we haven't let loose the reigns: It is
okay that you watch whatever movie you want, so long as you don't
act out the violence on anyone, or watch a sexually explicit movie
and tell small children or other children what you have seen or
speak obscenities around other kids. Although it is alright for you
to watch those movies, some people are not ready for their children
to hear those things. You can imagine pissed I was, when my daughter
was 6 and a 5 year old boy said "I want to have sex with you, like
Neo does to Trinity. 'I want to have sex with you and wiggle', 'I
want to put my pee-pee in you like they do in the movies, etc.
etc." My daughter already knew what sex was in a general sense
because we talk about it for reasons of protection of her body and
what is not allowed to be touched, etc. But a 5 year old child
talking like that bothers me. However, I highly doubt, that in a
loving environment produced from a radical unschooling, natural
parenting that any of your children would have ever said a thing
like that. I cannot see that happening with your children at all.
Matter of fact, I don't see any of you experienced ones even having
to say "not to do that" because I have a strong feeling that they
naturally wouldn't. KWIM?
I see this now with the food issues also. A child is not infringing
on an adults rights by eating when they feel like it and not at a
set supper time, or eating what they want. It would be an
infringement though if they went and took a brand new package, can,
etc. and threw it in the trash or dumped it down the garbage
disposal just for the heck of it (my reasoning is that most people
can't afford to have that go on and can't just over look it)that
cost mom and/or dad money or that was something a sibling had bought
and desired. Again, raised in a home with principles, it's one of
those things that would more than likely never have to be spoken, as
a "don't do that" because it just wouldn't happen.
It's about Freedom and Rights and not about do's and don'ts. Enjoy
your freedom, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of
others. If you misuse your freedoms, they will be dwindled down or
cutoff, in the area of freedom that you have caused anothers rights
to be violated. Am I close or am I waaaaaay off?
~Sandy, who is really trying her hardest to "get this" :-)
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/27/05 5:52:07 AM, aplan4life@... writes:
I don't think that's a good entry point.
If a young child has freedom, it should be within a framework in which he's
safe and with which he's familiar.
-=-So, although the child has the freedom to stay up as late as they
want, but they do not have the right to make noise that infringes
upon the right to sleep of other family members. -=-
I used to say midnight ("try to be asleep by midnight, please"), but there
were always possible exceptions. When Kirby was 13 or so I said 5:00 a.m.
because I thought his dad would be cranky if Kirby was still up when he left for
work. Turned out Keith was NOT cranky about it, kinda thought it was cute to
see Kirby slaving away over a complicated video game, and so I told Kirby
"never mind."
I don't think the opposite of an arbitrary bedtime is "the freedom to stay up
as late as they want." In a way it is, but if that latter is the frenzied
freedom of "how far can I go?" it's not healthy or good.
I don't think any human has a natural god-given freedom, despite the
attractive American mythology. In any natural or historical human group, there are
safety issues and issues of power and need. If it's good for the cavemen to
get in the cave and stay there quietly, the alpha male (or let's be
honest--the alpha female) is likely to enforce that. But why would a little caveboy
WANT to hike out, or to stay awake while others are asleep?
In any fortified city scenario (Hittites through... now) if the guy in
charge says "Quiet after 10:00" that's that! The guy in charge wants it quiet
and if you want to stay inside that fortification instead of being let out in
the dark (or worse), you'll be quiet. On the other hand, some guys have been
assigned NOT to go to sleep, but to stay awake as sentries or peacekeepers.
They don't have the freedom to go to sleep when they want to, either.
Modern English-speaking democracies seem to have it all going on,
freedom-wise. But still, the cave family and walled fortress models apply to a house
with people in it. Should the doors be locked at a certain time? If the dad
thinks so, does a kid have the right to unlock them or leave them standing
wide open? Should the garage door be closed, the windows latched, the lights
off (or certain lights left on for security or safety reasons)? Alpha male
(or female) will probably decide that for good reasons and enforce that.
-=-When the rights of
others in the home have been infringed upon, certain freedoms get
taken away fully or are cut down, until the child understands that
it is unacceptable to be disrespectful of others within the home.
-=-
It's easier and friendlier and more empowering to start with the closer
relationship and let the child have more range gradually than to tell the child (or
yourself) that the child has "rights" and "freedom" and then take it away
gradually. That doesn't make philosophical sense.
If a kid's not old enough to stay home alone, he doesn't "have the right" to
stay home. But he'll probably WANT to be with his mom anyway, unless she's
being tacky, arbitrary and irritating. If the mom likes the kid and wants the
kid to be with her, they're experiencing a mutually beneficial relationship
and kids don't tend to want to escape those.
-=-It is okay that you watch whatever movie you want, so long as you don't
act out the violence on anyone, or watch a sexually explicit movie
and tell small children or other children what you have seen or
speak obscenities around other kids. ...-=-
This seems to suggest kids watching movies without the parents' sharing and
discussing. And depending how old the kid is, some movies are probably NOT at
all cool for them to watch. If the parents haven't seen the movie to know
if that child can handle that material, it's irresponsible for the parent to
say "Sure, watch it, just follow the rules for afterwards."
One of Holly's favorite movies is Lawn Dogs. She'll be 14 next week. When
she was 11 and 12 I watched it and would pause when she was in the room, and
advised her that I didn't think it was a movie she should see. There were a
couple of aspects I thought would disturb her. More recently, when she was 13
and wanting to see more Sam Rockwell movies, I warned her it could be
disturbing, and watched it with her. Had she come to a part she didn't want to see,
she wouldn't have hesitated to pause it, fast-forward, or just turn it off
altogether. Having seen it, she knows why I asked her to hold off on it. But
she's trusted my advice for years, because ti was REAL advice, personalized
for her herself, and not an arbitrary "you can't watch it becuase it's rated
R."
To say "You can watch anything you want" is as inflexible as "You can't watch
anything rated R." It's not personalized. It's not comforting, or
protective or compassionate.
My friend Caroline can watch anything she wants. She's in her 50's. She
has the right. But she does not want to watch any movies with snakes in them.
So people who know that always warn her against movies with snake scenes,
and she's grateful.
Children don't want to be afraid or disturbed, and parents can and should
help them find movies they will enjoy the same way parents would find them a good
path down a steep hill while hiking. "You can go down the mountain however
you want to" isn't very helpful when there are cliffs and gullies full of
thorns and perfectly good trails.
-=-Matter of fact, I don't see any of you experienced ones even having
to say "not to do that" because I have a strong feeling that they
naturally wouldn't. KWIM? -=-
We talk all the time about the differences in families caused by religion or
parental trauma or personality differences, and about not rocking other kids'
boats, and about other people having the right NOT to be grossed out or afraid
(kinda related to 'keep your boogers in your nose until you're in private').
-=-It's about Freedom and Rights and not about do's and don'ts. -=-
I think it's neither of those.
It's ideally, as I see it, about learning to make decisions.
Practicing that is going to result is some not-so-great decisions, but
practicing on small things, inexpensive and not life-threatening things, is better
than waiting until late teens for the first tastes of freedom, responsibility
and decisionmaking.
Parents could make ALL decisions for children, legally. And ethically,
making all is better than making NONE. But there should be balance. Pretending
that the child has all the legal rights of the adult, and all the
responsibilities, is not balance. It's not honest or healthy or true, either. The
most non-coercive family in the world really DOES need to buy clothes for their
kids and persuade them to wear them in publiic, unless the parents are not
particular about whether the child lives with them or in the custody of social
services. "Whatever" isn't compassion or care.
Parents can delegate a lot of decisionmaking, but they can't let go
altogether.
My kids have a lot of freedom, but they came to that trust through years and
years of little good-decision moments, and from handling little situations
well. Now I would trust them with big situations, but it didn't happen all of a
sudden.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> A person in the home,==============================
> despite how old or young, has freedom. Freedom to do what they
> want...so long as it does not infringe on anothers rights within the
> home
>
I don't think that's a good entry point.
If a young child has freedom, it should be within a framework in which he's
safe and with which he's familiar.
-=-So, although the child has the freedom to stay up as late as they
want, but they do not have the right to make noise that infringes
upon the right to sleep of other family members. -=-
I used to say midnight ("try to be asleep by midnight, please"), but there
were always possible exceptions. When Kirby was 13 or so I said 5:00 a.m.
because I thought his dad would be cranky if Kirby was still up when he left for
work. Turned out Keith was NOT cranky about it, kinda thought it was cute to
see Kirby slaving away over a complicated video game, and so I told Kirby
"never mind."
I don't think the opposite of an arbitrary bedtime is "the freedom to stay up
as late as they want." In a way it is, but if that latter is the frenzied
freedom of "how far can I go?" it's not healthy or good.
I don't think any human has a natural god-given freedom, despite the
attractive American mythology. In any natural or historical human group, there are
safety issues and issues of power and need. If it's good for the cavemen to
get in the cave and stay there quietly, the alpha male (or let's be
honest--the alpha female) is likely to enforce that. But why would a little caveboy
WANT to hike out, or to stay awake while others are asleep?
In any fortified city scenario (Hittites through... now) if the guy in
charge says "Quiet after 10:00" that's that! The guy in charge wants it quiet
and if you want to stay inside that fortification instead of being let out in
the dark (or worse), you'll be quiet. On the other hand, some guys have been
assigned NOT to go to sleep, but to stay awake as sentries or peacekeepers.
They don't have the freedom to go to sleep when they want to, either.
Modern English-speaking democracies seem to have it all going on,
freedom-wise. But still, the cave family and walled fortress models apply to a house
with people in it. Should the doors be locked at a certain time? If the dad
thinks so, does a kid have the right to unlock them or leave them standing
wide open? Should the garage door be closed, the windows latched, the lights
off (or certain lights left on for security or safety reasons)? Alpha male
(or female) will probably decide that for good reasons and enforce that.
-=-When the rights of
others in the home have been infringed upon, certain freedoms get
taken away fully or are cut down, until the child understands that
it is unacceptable to be disrespectful of others within the home.
-=-
It's easier and friendlier and more empowering to start with the closer
relationship and let the child have more range gradually than to tell the child (or
yourself) that the child has "rights" and "freedom" and then take it away
gradually. That doesn't make philosophical sense.
If a kid's not old enough to stay home alone, he doesn't "have the right" to
stay home. But he'll probably WANT to be with his mom anyway, unless she's
being tacky, arbitrary and irritating. If the mom likes the kid and wants the
kid to be with her, they're experiencing a mutually beneficial relationship
and kids don't tend to want to escape those.
-=-It is okay that you watch whatever movie you want, so long as you don't
act out the violence on anyone, or watch a sexually explicit movie
and tell small children or other children what you have seen or
speak obscenities around other kids. ...-=-
This seems to suggest kids watching movies without the parents' sharing and
discussing. And depending how old the kid is, some movies are probably NOT at
all cool for them to watch. If the parents haven't seen the movie to know
if that child can handle that material, it's irresponsible for the parent to
say "Sure, watch it, just follow the rules for afterwards."
One of Holly's favorite movies is Lawn Dogs. She'll be 14 next week. When
she was 11 and 12 I watched it and would pause when she was in the room, and
advised her that I didn't think it was a movie she should see. There were a
couple of aspects I thought would disturb her. More recently, when she was 13
and wanting to see more Sam Rockwell movies, I warned her it could be
disturbing, and watched it with her. Had she come to a part she didn't want to see,
she wouldn't have hesitated to pause it, fast-forward, or just turn it off
altogether. Having seen it, she knows why I asked her to hold off on it. But
she's trusted my advice for years, because ti was REAL advice, personalized
for her herself, and not an arbitrary "you can't watch it becuase it's rated
R."
To say "You can watch anything you want" is as inflexible as "You can't watch
anything rated R." It's not personalized. It's not comforting, or
protective or compassionate.
My friend Caroline can watch anything she wants. She's in her 50's. She
has the right. But she does not want to watch any movies with snakes in them.
So people who know that always warn her against movies with snake scenes,
and she's grateful.
Children don't want to be afraid or disturbed, and parents can and should
help them find movies they will enjoy the same way parents would find them a good
path down a steep hill while hiking. "You can go down the mountain however
you want to" isn't very helpful when there are cliffs and gullies full of
thorns and perfectly good trails.
-=-Matter of fact, I don't see any of you experienced ones even having
to say "not to do that" because I have a strong feeling that they
naturally wouldn't. KWIM? -=-
We talk all the time about the differences in families caused by religion or
parental trauma or personality differences, and about not rocking other kids'
boats, and about other people having the right NOT to be grossed out or afraid
(kinda related to 'keep your boogers in your nose until you're in private').
-=-It's about Freedom and Rights and not about do's and don'ts. -=-
I think it's neither of those.
It's ideally, as I see it, about learning to make decisions.
Practicing that is going to result is some not-so-great decisions, but
practicing on small things, inexpensive and not life-threatening things, is better
than waiting until late teens for the first tastes of freedom, responsibility
and decisionmaking.
Parents could make ALL decisions for children, legally. And ethically,
making all is better than making NONE. But there should be balance. Pretending
that the child has all the legal rights of the adult, and all the
responsibilities, is not balance. It's not honest or healthy or true, either. The
most non-coercive family in the world really DOES need to buy clothes for their
kids and persuade them to wear them in publiic, unless the parents are not
particular about whether the child lives with them or in the custody of social
services. "Whatever" isn't compassion or care.
Parents can delegate a lot of decisionmaking, but they can't let go
altogether.
My kids have a lot of freedom, but they came to that trust through years and
years of little good-decision moments, and from handling little situations
well. Now I would trust them with big situations, but it didn't happen all of a
sudden.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/27/2005 7:36:36 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
-=-It's about Freedom and Rights and not about do's and don'ts. -=-
I think it's neither of those.
~~~
I think Sandy is on the cusp of realizing it's about principles, and not
rules.
Freedom and Rights=principles
do's and don'ts= rules
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
-=-It's about Freedom and Rights and not about do's and don'ts. -=-
I think it's neither of those.
~~~
I think Sandy is on the cusp of realizing it's about principles, and not
rules.
Freedom and Rights=principles
do's and don'ts= rules
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]