Sarah

Kate,

I am saying it is important to offer your best theories to your
children. I am saying that no one needs stress imposed on them . . .
life, unfortunately, does this just fine.

Actually, sharing one's best theories with a child, and being completely
honest with them, allows the child to use his or her own mind to come to
conclusions about his or her own life and body. This actually gives the
child a better foundation for facing the real world. The child has been
making decisions all along, and therefore, the real world is less scary
and stressful.

I am saying that there are possible win-win situations for all involved
in every situation.

Take the teeth example. I would definitely offer one's best theories
to their child regarding tooth brushing. If they were interested, I
would buy a tooth paste they might like, show them how to brush in front
of their favorite TV show, tell them the possible consequences of
improper brushing, offer chewing gum, tell them about the benefits of
eating lots of carrots, take them to talk with a dentist. I am saying
to give all the information that you have available to your children. I
have noticed that the lack of coercion allows children to make informed
decisions. These children are not rebelling. They are not having to
decipher between facts and lies. The children I know who have
information backing them make very logical decisions. They also like to
be around adults that are their friends. They like too brush side by
side, or take baths together, or say please and thank you because the
adults in their life model good behavior.

I am advocating giving children some credit, letting them use their
minds, trusting them.

Teaching an interested party is not setting boundaries, imo. Take the
car. A child who is learning to drive will probably be eager to learn,
keep themselves and the family car safe. A hypothetical teen in the US
probably has a pretty good idea what accepted road rules are. If this
same teen, for some reason, doesn't like, say, going slow, a parent
might show the teen a wide, open, empty space where the two can practice
going fast in a safe manner. They might also practice going slow, or
not signaling. If this child really likes speed, the parent might help
them go sky diving or take racing lessons, or, well, the list is
endless. The point is the teen can learn safety and also satisfy other
desires. The parent and child would probably talk a lot about cause and
effect. The teen would set their own boundaries because they have
learned to trust their own judgment.

I am not advocating laissez faire parenting. What I am talking about is
aware, kind and honest parenting.

If you are interested, I would highly recommend reading through this
site:
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/index.html

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes

kate mcdaniel wrote:

> Sarah,
> Just on a curiousity level, are you implying that we should not set
> standards for our children?
> Are you saying, for example, don't teach them the proper way to brush
> their
> teeth....who then deals with the pain of tooth decay? The parent or
> the
> child? Isn't it our responsibility as parents to teach them the
> correct
> method so that the child has a reduced chance of pain from tooth decay
> and
> the parent less cost in fixing damaged teeth?
> Or, don't teach them the proper way to drive (setting boundries),
> let them
> learn by their own interest,experiences....please try to explain that
> to a
> police officer or to the person your child damaged by their lack of
> boundries.
>
> Kate

[email protected]

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Sarah <sld29@c...> wrote:
> Kate,
>
> I am saying it is important to offer your best theories to your
> children. I am saying that no one needs stress imposed on
them . . .
> life, unfortunately, does this just fine.
>
I always tried to bring my kids up to be Independant. When they were
young they decided what they wanted to wear, and believe me that was
*fashion* in itself! They chose their own friends. Older kids went
to ps - but they decided if they would do the home work or not. They
knew the consiquences(sp) if it wasn't completed. We did have
bounderies and a few rules - but these were safty rules more than
anything.
I dont ever remember actually *showing* any of my kids how to brush
their teeth - they just did it. 3 of my adult children have never
had a filling or a tooth pulled. One of these 3 was a real sweet
tooth as a child, ate more lollies (candies?)than any child should,
and still has beautiful teeth (another myth out the window!) My
youngest dd 12yrs old. Has never had a filling or a tooth pulled.
Her second teeth grew before her baby teeth fell out, some times
pushing the baby tooth out - some times growing behind or infront of
the baby tooth, and remained there untill her baby tooth became lose.

So my kids were all brought up the same. Some suffer from stress
some dont. so I think it all depends on the person themselves to how
much stress they will encounter.

marianne - my 2cents worth

Tammy Graves

ok, lets call it a truse already.
I can understand where both of you are correct.


|--------+----------------------->
| | Sarah |
| | <sld29@...|
| | .edu> |
| | |
| | 05/16/2001 |
| | 03:31 PM |
| | Please |
| | respond to |
| | Unschooling-d|
| | otcom |
| | |
|--------+----------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: [email protected] |
| cc: (bcc: Tammy Graves/DF/HCIA) |
| Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Brain |
| atrophy |
>---------------------------------------------------------|








"Eileen M." wrote:

> There seems to be a problem here in coping with a
> world that isn't black and white... in this specific
> case, in discriminating between Authoritative and
> Authoritarian styles of parenting. Sarah makes a
> huge, and IMO unwarranted, leap from 'reasonable
> boundaries' and 'natural stressors' to 'inflicting
> hurt' and having boundaries 'arbitrarily crammed down
> their throats'.

I wrote:

> No one needs to
> > have stress imposed on them, particularly by a
> > trusted advisor, namely
> > their parent.

Eileen wrote:

> Yes, they do.

Me again:

Sorry I made an unwarranted, leap from 'reasonable
boundaries' and 'natural stressors' to 'inflicting
hurt'. I took the above statement to mean you were purposely imposing
stress on your child. I think purposely imposing stress is inflicting
hurt. I am truly sorry if I misunderstood.

> She equates having boundaries to
> having a miserable childhood.

Actually, I equate artificial, imposed, and arbitrary boundaries to an
unhappy child in a given moment. Continued use of these artificial
boundaries probably could lead to a miserable childhood.


> But studies *also* show that permissive parenting
> often leads to immaturity, lack of impulse control,
> lack of independence and self reliance, lack of social
> responsibility; correlational studies establish a
> relationship between permissive parenting styles and
> procrastination, lowered achievement motivation, goal
> avoidance, lowered self esteem, dysfunctional/avoidant
> coping skills, as well as a dysfunctional ability to
> assess the reasons for low achievement and frustration
> (external assessment, leading to goal avoidance and
> feelings of helplessness and anger).

I have also read about permissive parenting, and that is not what I am
talking about. I am talking about alleviating as much stress as
possible from the lives of everyone in my family, not imposing it. I am
also talking about respecting the wishes of the children in my life.

The approach is not one of do nothing (permissive) or of control
(authoritarian). The idea of taking children seriously does not fit any
of the three approaches (permissive, authoritative, authoritarian).
Taking children seriously is not self-sacrifice or narcissism. Common
preferences are about helping the entire family, in their individual
endeavors, find happiness.

I am not a permissive parent, I am a parent involved moment by moment in
a child's life. I strive to make each of our moments happy for both us.

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes




Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com

To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom

Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
http://www.home-ed-magazine.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Sarah

> Can you explain what stress they are getting naturally if you are
> removing
> all boundaries

Can you explain what stress you get naturally without having an
arbitrary boundary adding to it? Can you see how the world offers a
fair amount of stress naturally? Why the need for artificial
boundaries? Would you like it if your husband, say, thought you needed
just a little more stress because, well, you hadn't learned it well
enough when you were a child?

> and believe that simple lessons in living in the real world
> shouldn't be taught? What, "he took my toy" or "waaaa, my Barbie
> broke?"

I don't believe that simple lessons are not learned. Sometimes a broken
toy is lesson enough... I don't need to teach that. What, exactly, is
your question?

> As to being sent to bed when a parent determined the time, there are
> more
> than one type of doing this. The arbitrary, "it is 9 p.m., you will
> go to
> bed" and the parent who is aware of a child who gets beyond the point
> of
> knowing their are tired and keeps going like they are in a race with
> the
> Energizer bunny. I have one of those and I send her to bed. The
> minute her
> head hits the pillow she is out. If you don't send her to bed, she
> gets
> physically ill. I'm thinking the "stress" of being sent to bed is
> better
> for her than the "stress" of vomiting and spending a day in bed with a
>
> fever.

Why does one make themselves sick when they are tired? Certainly this
is not typical behavior. I actually know a two year old who has had a
complete absence of coercion regarding bedtime. She will say she is
tired at 7:30 or 10:30, when she is tired. She walks herself to bed and
may or may not ask for an adult to accompany her. Certainly a person
will be able to determine how tired they feel. A brand new infant
sleeps when he or she is tired, no one had to teach this baby how to
sleep.

> And, children do not "naturally" use phrases such as "please" and
> "thank
> you."

Are you sure? A child mimics behavior of adults naturally. That is how
they learn to talk, walk, eat, etc. I know children who say please and
thank you naturally. They also like to discuss manners and occasionally
experiment with exceedingly good manners to see people smile, act
impressed, or give them a compliment. Children, I believe, are born
inherently good, they like to see people smile, feel proud of
themselves, have friends.

> Quite frankly, without any of the very minimal boundaries talked
> about, I'm not thinking the child is going to grow up to be a very
> "nice"
> person.

Frankly, children with truths behind them seem nicer than very coerced
and controlled children who may be bullies in the absence of adults.
These children are able to talk intelligently about being nice or being
mean. But, really, the point is not whether or not they are nice, but
rather if they are respected as individuals and complete beings.
Children who see respect, learn it.

> Part of the problem, IMHO, with the world today is that society is too
>
> narcistic. Parents who lived through WWII went out of their way to
> give,
> give, give to their kids and now we seeing a whole load of folks that
> are so
> materialistic that, quite frankly, it sucks! And their kids are
> spoiled
> brats that no one wants to be around.

What does materialism have to do with this conversation? Do you think
children who are able to intelligently discuss money, materialism, even
WWII will grow up materialistic? I'm sorry, but I don't see the
correlation.

> Living in a group and learning give and take is not going to rob any
> child
> of their childhood or happiness. Learning to share is not a
> detrimental
> stress.

Why do you think a child won't learn to share if they are respected?

> I wouln't go so far as to say a spoiled brat is in for a miserable
> life, but
> they sure are in for a rude awakening because the rest of the world
> isn't
> going to cater to their unrealistic expectations of being catered to.

Children who are raised finding common preferences will grow up wanting
to find common preferences with others. This is most certainly not
being catered to. Also, isn't spoiled something left to rot? How does
one get spoiled by unconditional love and respect?

> It seems cruel to cater to a child's every whim and then expect them
> to be
> able to handle real life.

It is not about catering to a child's every whim. It is about
respecting a child's autonomy. It is about searching for ways to make
everyone in the family happy.

> The real world isn't going to run around finding
> other options for something as simple as "it's time to go shopping,
> get your
> shoes on."

What if the child really doesn't want to go shopping. If there is
another option, what will the child learn from being forced to go? I
have noticed that most kids like going on outings, though, so this is
probably a non issue.

> The rest of the world isn't going to say,"oh, I'm sorry this
> doesn't suit your needs, I'll pospone the family's needs or make
> alternate
> arrangements so that I don't inconvenience your play time."

The rest of the world might like to have a delivered pizza rather than a
home-made meal, though. The rest of the world might like their
preferences acknowledged as well.

> I have met quite a few unschoolers, several of whom are currently
> attending
> college. All had some basic social boundaries taught and were
> expected to
> be contributing members of the family unit.

Why do you think a child will not want to help in the house if they are
not told to do so? Might a child like to vacuum and dust? I know I
love to vacuum and not because my Mom stands behind me telling me it
must be done. I know lots of kids who like to garden, paint, arrange
shoes, fold clothes, wash windows, etc.

> They don't consider that to be
> a contributing factor to any childhood unhappiness. In fact, when I
> asked a
> friend's daughter (she is now 22 and attending Stanford), she looked
> at me
> like I had a screw loose, "Yeah, we had one of *those" in my freshman
> class,
> he lasted about 3 months and dropped out."

One of those what? Respected kids. Are you saying that a child who
grows up respected will not be motivated?

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes

Eileen M.

--- Sarah <sld29@...> wrote:

> I have also read about permissive parenting, and
> that is not what I am
> talking about. I am talking about alleviating as
> much stress as
> possible from the lives of everyone in my family,
> not imposing it. I am
> also talking about respecting the wishes of the
> children in my life.

In speaking of imposing inconvenience on others in
order to indulge a child's whim to play for a bit
longer (I would say that making someone waste extra
time, effort and money in driving back and forth,
imposing your child on a neighbor or friend, wasting
money on a babysitter that could more reasonably be
spent on things that would benefit the entire family,
or expecting the entire family to starve until your
child *feels* like going to the store is imposing
inconvenience on others) rather than explaining to the
child that s/he is part of a family/wider community
and that compromise is sometimes necessary in order to
promote the common good and in order to incline others
to occasionally compromise on your behalf *is*
permissive parenting. It fits the definition of
permissive parenting provided by the studies, which
may in your case not impose stress on your family, but
which has been shown is studies to frequently result
in stress for the entire family.

And while your example seems reasonable to you, it
seems arbitrary and unfair to me, as it involves
respecting the wishes of one person over the wishes of
others either on the basis of age or on the basis of
their having originated from your body.
>
> The approach is not one of do nothing (permissive)
> or of control
> (authoritarian).

Permissive parenting is not Doing Nothing... there are
two styles of permissive parenting; in several of the
studies these two permissive styles were examined as
seperate, though related, styles. As I mentioned in
my post. I attributed the warm/responsive type to
your description of your preferred actions, rather
than the neglectful type. As I also mentioned in my
post.

The idea of taking children
> seriously does not fit any
> of the three approaches (permissive, authoritative,
> authoritarian).

According to the descriptions in the studies, all
three parenting styles *can* take children very
seriously indeed, and taking children and their needs
seriously is inherent in the Authoritative approach.
If one is going to get meaning out of studies, one
must use their definition of terms. We could say that
their studies are not useful because they use
different definitions than *you* would use... but then
what useful conclusions could be reached thereby? You
were the one who said you would be interested to read
the studies, I provided some sources.

> Taking children seriously is not self-sacrifice or
> narcissism. Common
> preferences are about helping the entire family, in
> their individual
> endeavors, find happiness.

Sometimes preferences are *not* common, and then one
must either give to one side, the other, or
compromise. You are, at least in your example,
consistantly giving in to the whims/wishes of one
person and inconveniencing others in the process.
That is not equitable treatment. It goes beyond
'taking children seriously'... or perhaps takes *them*
seriously but doesn't take anyone *else* seriously.
What is your definition of narcissism?
>
> I am not a permissive parent,

I go by the definitions in the studies (this seems
reasonable, as they coined the prases in the first
place), and by your descriptions of what you would do
in the particular instances cited. By their
definition, what you describe is permissive parenting.
You, of course, could be using a different
definition, but that makes discourse on the issue
rather difficult.

I am a parent involved
> moment by moment in
> a child's life. I strive to make each of our
> moments happy for both us.
>
In what way do you think that people who choose
different ways of dealing with children than yourself
*not* involved moment by moment in their child's life
or *not* striving to make the lives of all involved
happy?

Eileen


> Sarah Anderson-Thimmes
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Sarah

"Eileen M." wrote:

> There seems to be a problem here in coping with a
> world that isn't black and white... in this specific
> case, in discriminating between Authoritative and
> Authoritarian styles of parenting. Sarah makes a
> huge, and IMO unwarranted, leap from 'reasonable
> boundaries' and 'natural stressors' to 'inflicting
> hurt' and having boundaries 'arbitrarily crammed down
> their throats'.

I wrote:

> No one needs to
> > have stress imposed on them, particularly by a
> > trusted advisor, namely
> > their parent.

Eileen wrote:

> Yes, they do.

Me again:

Sorry I made an unwarranted, leap from 'reasonable
boundaries' and 'natural stressors' to 'inflicting
hurt'. I took the above statement to mean you were purposely imposing
stress on your child. I think purposely imposing stress is inflicting
hurt. I am truly sorry if I misunderstood.

> She equates having boundaries to
> having a miserable childhood.

Actually, I equate artificial, imposed, and arbitrary boundaries to an
unhappy child in a given moment. Continued use of these artificial
boundaries probably could lead to a miserable childhood.


> But studies *also* show that permissive parenting
> often leads to immaturity, lack of impulse control,
> lack of independence and self reliance, lack of social
> responsibility; correlational studies establish a
> relationship between permissive parenting styles and
> procrastination, lowered achievement motivation, goal
> avoidance, lowered self esteem, dysfunctional/avoidant
> coping skills, as well as a dysfunctional ability to
> assess the reasons for low achievement and frustration
> (external assessment, leading to goal avoidance and
> feelings of helplessness and anger).

I have also read about permissive parenting, and that is not what I am
talking about. I am talking about alleviating as much stress as
possible from the lives of everyone in my family, not imposing it. I am
also talking about respecting the wishes of the children in my life.

The approach is not one of do nothing (permissive) or of control
(authoritarian). The idea of taking children seriously does not fit any
of the three approaches (permissive, authoritative, authoritarian).
Taking children seriously is not self-sacrifice or narcissism. Common
preferences are about helping the entire family, in their individual
endeavors, find happiness.

I am not a permissive parent, I am a parent involved moment by moment in
a child's life. I strive to make each of our moments happy for both us.

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes

Sarah

Diving back in her again :) After this, Eileen, maybe we could take
this off-list, if you'd like to continue the conversation? My personal
email is sld29@....

"Eileen M." wrote:

> In speaking of imposing inconvenience on others in
> order to indulge a child's whim to play for a bit
> longer (I would say that making someone waste extra
> time, effort and money in driving back and forth,
> imposing your child on a neighbor or friend, wasting
> money on a babysitter that could more reasonably be
> spent on things that would benefit the entire family,
> or expecting the entire family to starve until your
> child *feels* like going to the store is imposing
> inconvenience on others)

Maybe there is a solution which would not be construed as imposing an
inconvenience. Grandmothers in our family, for instance, love to have
the opportunity to come play with a child while parents run errands.
Sometimes parent prefers to leave a child who doesn't like errands at
home or with a neighbor who likes trading child care. In this case, the
decision to go to the store alone is a common preference. Again, I am
not advocating sacrifice on the behalf of anyone. The goal is to find a
preference for everyone.

> rather than explaining to the
> child that s/he is part of a family/wider community
> and that compromise is sometimes necessary in order to
> promote the common good and in order to incline others
> to occasionally compromise on your behalf *is*
> permissive parenting.

I am happy for you, if compromise works for you. I tend to try to find
a way which allows *everyone* to get what they want. Lots of creative
ideas may eliminate the need for sacrifice on any person's part. It is
not permissive parenting, if all parties are happy with the outcome.
Even the gentle permissive parenting the "studies" refer to, involves
parental sacrifice for the good of the child.

> It fits the definition of
> permissive parenting provided by the studies, which
> may in your case not impose stress on your family, but
> which has been shown is studies to frequently result
> in stress for the entire family.

See above.

> And while your example seems reasonable to you, it
> seems arbitrary and unfair to me, as it involves
> respecting the wishes of one person over the wishes of
> others either on the basis of age or on the basis of
> their having originated from your body.

Once again, the wishes of *everyone* are weighed equally and the goal is
to find a preference which each person finds genuinely appealing and
preferable. The child is not given any more or less respect than the
adults.

> According to the descriptions in the studies, all
> three parenting styles *can* take children very
> seriously indeed, and taking children and their needs
> seriously is inherent in the Authoritative approach.

I still claim that imposing artificial boundaries is not taking children
seriously. I call that lying.

> If one is going to get meaning out of studies, one
> must use their definition of terms. We could say that
> their studies are not useful because they use
> different definitions than *you* would use... but then
> what useful conclusions could be reached thereby? You
> were the one who said you would be interested to read
> the studies, I provided some sources.

I want a study that says children need parents to impose stress. The
authors to which you refer talk about parenting styles. None, that I am
aware of, say, "Jane needs a parent to give her stress in order to
handle the world effectively."

> Sometimes preferences are *not* common, and then one
> must either give to one side, the other, or
> compromise.

I assert there is always a way to find a common preference. Again, I
urge you to read through this site:
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/index.html


> You are, at least in your example,
> consistantly giving in to the whims/wishes of one
> person and inconveniencing others in the process.

I never "give in." I never "let" my child win. I try to make sure that
I am happy with the outcomes of our decisions. I try to make sure I am
not self-sacrificing (which I believe begets resentment, but that is
another post). I don't believe I have ever inconvenienced another
person in this approach to parenting. We may have to sit and think
creatively for some time before a common preference is reached, but when
we really try, we have always succeeded. I am not saying that I am
perfect. I have imposed my will before. I have, in that circumstance,
said I was sorry and began brainstorming better solutions for future
similar circumstances. I am still learning. I hope I am always
searching for better ways to interact with the special people in my
life.

> That is not equitable treatment. It goes beyond
> 'taking children seriously'... or perhaps takes *them*
> seriously but doesn't take anyone *else* seriously.
> What is your definition of narcissism?

Actually, it takes everyone seriously.

> In what way do you think that people who choose
> different ways of dealing with children than yourself
> *not* involved moment by moment in their child's life
> or *not* striving to make the lives of all involved
> happy?

I believe imposing one's will doesn't make people happy. I don't
understand this question.

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes

Judie C. Rall

>
> I asked, what stress do they get naturally when you have removed all
> boundaries.

The stress of having to suffer the consequences of their actions
without boundaries.


Judie C. Rall

Find out how I developed financial freedom at:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/gatheringplace/financialcassette.html

Judie C. Rall

> Could we all agree to disagree on this, and move on?
>
> Marianne - who is getting stressed with the whole thing


It seems to me there has been a lot of strong disgreement lately. I
know people are going to disagree. However, I joined this list
because I thought that, because unschooling is an unconventional
choice, that there would be people on this list who were open to
different ways of doing things, and different ideas, and who weren't
going to get stressed out about people having different ideas. I
think I've had enough.

Judie

Lynda

Obviously someone does not have an answer when a question is answered with a
question that mirrors the initial question.

I'll try to make this simple, you stated they get enough stress naturally
without placing boundaries on them.

I asked, what stress do they get naturally when you have removed all
boundaries.

To which you replied "> Can you explain what stress you get naturally
without having an arbitrary boundary adding to it?" Hello, I believe that
was my question. What stress are they getting naturally without any
boundaries.

So, again, if there are no boundaries to your child exactly what stress is
the world putting on them. What, they have to decide between an orange and
apple for lunch? Or an extreme decision between Legos and Sesame Street?

And I really think your comment about a husband was silly, to say the least.
If nothing else, it was non-responsive.

As to a child going to sleep when they are tired, that is not a given nor is
it even a norm, including infants. That happens in some children and in a
perfect world without outside stimuli. Hey, I'm betting that is why mothers
try to make a quiet space for infants to sleep in, ya know, no loud noises,
pull the blinds, that sort of thing. But maybe they shouldn't do this since
that is arbitrary.

I'm glad you know one child who does this. I've known dozens that don't.
And quite a few that get so tired that they can make themselves physically
ill. Sometimes it is a positive thing for someone to be looking out for the
well-being of another. Of course, that would be in a world where everything
isn't black and white.

The problem here is that all children are not the same and your ideas are no
different than ps and are exactly what you are railing against others
about--arbitrary. Each child needs to be looked at as an individual. What
works for one may not work for another. What works for one style of
parenting may not work for another. What may be defined as a "spoiled brat"
in one person's eyes may be just peachy in another's.

And boundaries are not the only environment that creates bullies. One of
the worst little creeps in our neighborhood was raised exactly as you
describe--loving, nurturing, family meetings to make decisions,
homeschooled, no coersion, etc., etc., etc. This kid is sly and he is nasty
and he has parent manipulation down to a fine science.

As I said, it isn't all black and white and any given parenting method won't
work the same on all children, nor will it work for all children.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah" <sld29@...>


> > Can you explain what stress they are getting naturally if you are
> > removing
> > all boundaries
>
> Can you explain what stress you get naturally without having an
> arbitrary boundary adding to it? Can you see how the world offers a
> fair amount of stress naturally? Why the need for artificial
> boundaries? Would you like it if your husband, say, thought you needed
> just a little more stress because, well, you hadn't learned it well
> enough when you were a child?
>
> > and believe that simple lessons in living in the real world
> > shouldn't be taught? What, "he took my toy" or "waaaa, my Barbie
> > broke?"
>
> I don't believe that simple lessons are not learned. Sometimes a broken
> toy is lesson enough... I don't need to teach that. What, exactly, is
> your question?
>
> > As to being sent to bed when a parent determined the time, there are
> > more
> > than one type of doing this. The arbitrary, "it is 9 p.m., you will
> > go to
> > bed" and the parent who is aware of a child who gets beyond the point
> > of
> > knowing their are tired and keeps going like they are in a race with
> > the
> > Energizer bunny. I have one of those and I send her to bed. The
> > minute her
> > head hits the pillow she is out. If you don't send her to bed, she
> > gets
> > physically ill. I'm thinking the "stress" of being sent to bed is
> > better
> > for her than the "stress" of vomiting and spending a day in bed with a
> >
> > fever.
>
> Why does one make themselves sick when they are tired? Certainly this
> is not typical behavior. I actually know a two year old who has had a
> complete absence of coercion regarding bedtime. She will say she is
> tired at 7:30 or 10:30, when she is tired. She walks herself to bed and
> may or may not ask for an adult to accompany her. Certainly a person
> will be able to determine how tired they feel. A brand new infant
> sleeps when he or she is tired, no one had to teach this baby how to
> sleep.
>
> > And, children do not "naturally" use phrases such as "please" and
> > "thank
> > you."
>
> Are you sure? A child mimics behavior of adults naturally. That is how
> they learn to talk, walk, eat, etc. I know children who say please and
> thank you naturally. They also like to discuss manners and occasionally
> experiment with exceedingly good manners to see people smile, act
> impressed, or give them a compliment. Children, I believe, are born
> inherently good, they like to see people smile, feel proud of
> themselves, have friends.
>
> > Quite frankly, without any of the very minimal boundaries talked
> > about, I'm not thinking the child is going to grow up to be a very
> > "nice"
> > person.
>
> Frankly, children with truths behind them seem nicer than very coerced
> and controlled children who may be bullies in the absence of adults.
> These children are able to talk intelligently about being nice or being
> mean. But, really, the point is not whether or not they are nice, but
> rather if they are respected as individuals and complete beings.
> Children who see respect, learn it.
>
> > Part of the problem, IMHO, with the world today is that society is too
> >
> > narcistic. Parents who lived through WWII went out of their way to
> > give,
> > give, give to their kids and now we seeing a whole load of folks that
> > are so
> > materialistic that, quite frankly, it sucks! And their kids are
> > spoiled
> > brats that no one wants to be around.
>
> What does materialism have to do with this conversation? Do you think
> children who are able to intelligently discuss money, materialism, even
> WWII will grow up materialistic? I'm sorry, but I don't see the
> correlation.
>
> > Living in a group and learning give and take is not going to rob any
> > child
> > of their childhood or happiness. Learning to share is not a
> > detrimental
> > stress.
>
> Why do you think a child won't learn to share if they are respected?
>
> > I wouln't go so far as to say a spoiled brat is in for a miserable
> > life, but
> > they sure are in for a rude awakening because the rest of the world
> > isn't
> > going to cater to their unrealistic expectations of being catered to.
>
> Children who are raised finding common preferences will grow up wanting
> to find common preferences with others. This is most certainly not
> being catered to. Also, isn't spoiled something left to rot? How does
> one get spoiled by unconditional love and respect?
>
> > It seems cruel to cater to a child's every whim and then expect them
> > to be
> > able to handle real life.
>
> It is not about catering to a child's every whim. It is about
> respecting a child's autonomy. It is about searching for ways to make
> everyone in the family happy.
>
> > The real world isn't going to run around finding
> > other options for something as simple as "it's time to go shopping,
> > get your
> > shoes on."
>
> What if the child really doesn't want to go shopping. If there is
> another option, what will the child learn from being forced to go? I
> have noticed that most kids like going on outings, though, so this is
> probably a non issue.
>
> > The rest of the world isn't going to say,"oh, I'm sorry this
> > doesn't suit your needs, I'll pospone the family's needs or make
> > alternate
> > arrangements so that I don't inconvenience your play time."
>
> The rest of the world might like to have a delivered pizza rather than a
> home-made meal, though. The rest of the world might like their
> preferences acknowledged as well.
>
> > I have met quite a few unschoolers, several of whom are currently
> > attending
> > college. All had some basic social boundaries taught and were
> > expected to
> > be contributing members of the family unit.
>
> Why do you think a child will not want to help in the house if they are
> not told to do so? Might a child like to vacuum and dust? I know I
> love to vacuum and not because my Mom stands behind me telling me it
> must be done. I know lots of kids who like to garden, paint, arrange
> shoes, fold clothes, wash windows, etc.
>
> > They don't consider that to be
> > a contributing factor to any childhood unhappiness. In fact, when I
> > asked a
> > friend's daughter (she is now 22 and attending Stanford), she looked
> > at me
> > like I had a screw loose, "Yeah, we had one of *those" in my freshman
> > class,
> > he lasted about 3 months and dropped out."
>
> One of those what? Respected kids. Are you saying that a child who
> grows up respected will not be motivated?
>
> Sarah Anderson-Thimmes
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Lynda

You've have danced all around the stress issue. How do you define stress?
Is it anything that the child doesn't want to do?

And, "artificial" boundaries = lying? Exactly what do you define as
artificial boudaries? Bedtime? How exactly is that lying?

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah" <sld29@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Brain atrophy


> Diving back in her again :) After this, Eileen, maybe we could take
> this off-list, if you'd like to continue the conversation? My personal
> email is sld29@....
>
> "Eileen M." wrote:
>
> > In speaking of imposing inconvenience on others in
> > order to indulge a child's whim to play for a bit
> > longer (I would say that making someone waste extra
> > time, effort and money in driving back and forth,
> > imposing your child on a neighbor or friend, wasting
> > money on a babysitter that could more reasonably be
> > spent on things that would benefit the entire family,
> > or expecting the entire family to starve until your
> > child *feels* like going to the store is imposing
> > inconvenience on others)
>
> Maybe there is a solution which would not be construed as imposing an
> inconvenience. Grandmothers in our family, for instance, love to have
> the opportunity to come play with a child while parents run errands.
> Sometimes parent prefers to leave a child who doesn't like errands at
> home or with a neighbor who likes trading child care. In this case, the
> decision to go to the store alone is a common preference. Again, I am
> not advocating sacrifice on the behalf of anyone. The goal is to find a
> preference for everyone.
>
> > rather than explaining to the
> > child that s/he is part of a family/wider community
> > and that compromise is sometimes necessary in order to
> > promote the common good and in order to incline others
> > to occasionally compromise on your behalf *is*
> > permissive parenting.
>
> I am happy for you, if compromise works for you. I tend to try to find
> a way which allows *everyone* to get what they want. Lots of creative
> ideas may eliminate the need for sacrifice on any person's part. It is
> not permissive parenting, if all parties are happy with the outcome.
> Even the gentle permissive parenting the "studies" refer to, involves
> parental sacrifice for the good of the child.
>
> > It fits the definition of
> > permissive parenting provided by the studies, which
> > may in your case not impose stress on your family, but
> > which has been shown is studies to frequently result
> > in stress for the entire family.
>
> See above.
>
> > And while your example seems reasonable to you, it
> > seems arbitrary and unfair to me, as it involves
> > respecting the wishes of one person over the wishes of
> > others either on the basis of age or on the basis of
> > their having originated from your body.
>
> Once again, the wishes of *everyone* are weighed equally and the goal is
> to find a preference which each person finds genuinely appealing and
> preferable. The child is not given any more or less respect than the
> adults.
>
> > According to the descriptions in the studies, all
> > three parenting styles *can* take children very
> > seriously indeed, and taking children and their needs
> > seriously is inherent in the Authoritative approach.
>
> I still claim that imposing artificial boundaries is not taking children
> seriously. I call that lying.
>
> > If one is going to get meaning out of studies, one
> > must use their definition of terms. We could say that
> > their studies are not useful because they use
> > different definitions than *you* would use... but then
> > what useful conclusions could be reached thereby? You
> > were the one who said you would be interested to read
> > the studies, I provided some sources.
>
> I want a study that says children need parents to impose stress. The
> authors to which you refer talk about parenting styles. None, that I am
> aware of, say, "Jane needs a parent to give her stress in order to
> handle the world effectively."
>
> > Sometimes preferences are *not* common, and then one
> > must either give to one side, the other, or
> > compromise.
>
> I assert there is always a way to find a common preference. Again, I
> urge you to read through this site:
> http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/index.html
>
>
> > You are, at least in your example,
> > consistantly giving in to the whims/wishes of one
> > person and inconveniencing others in the process.
>
> I never "give in." I never "let" my child win. I try to make sure that
> I am happy with the outcomes of our decisions. I try to make sure I am
> not self-sacrificing (which I believe begets resentment, but that is
> another post). I don't believe I have ever inconvenienced another
> person in this approach to parenting. We may have to sit and think
> creatively for some time before a common preference is reached, but when
> we really try, we have always succeeded. I am not saying that I am
> perfect. I have imposed my will before. I have, in that circumstance,
> said I was sorry and began brainstorming better solutions for future
> similar circumstances. I am still learning. I hope I am always
> searching for better ways to interact with the special people in my
> life.
>
> > That is not equitable treatment. It goes beyond
> > 'taking children seriously'... or perhaps takes *them*
> > seriously but doesn't take anyone *else* seriously.
> > What is your definition of narcissism?
>
> Actually, it takes everyone seriously.
>
> > In what way do you think that people who choose
> > different ways of dealing with children than yourself
> > *not* involved moment by moment in their child's life
> > or *not* striving to make the lives of all involved
> > happy?
>
> I believe imposing one's will doesn't make people happy. I don't
> understand this question.
>
> Sarah Anderson-Thimmes
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

Could we all agree to disagree on this, and move on?

Marianne - who is getting stressed with the whole thing

Angela

Hopefully, you have just had enough of the conversation, not the list.
Lost of people just don't want to get into it sometimes, but they are out
there believing differently than mainstream society.

Angela in Maine
Unschooling mom to two beautiful daughters.
www.geocities.com/autonomousangela


-----It seems to me there has been a lot of strong disgreement lately. I
know people are going to disagree. However, I joined this list
because I thought that, because unschooling is an unconventional
choice, that there would be people on this list who were open to
different ways of doing things, and different ideas, and who weren't
going to get stressed out about people having different ideas. I
think I've had enough.

Judie



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

Tammy Graves

Hear, hear....

Please stay on the list, but lets change the subject. I too am trying to learn
from all of you so I like hearing all the different topics and views. This one
however, has fallen more into a debate and I dont want to be part of it. I would
rather hear how each one of you are succeeding or the different troubles you've
had. My oldest (6) is really looking forward to going to ps for first grade. My
dh say's let her try it and we will just have to keep a good eye on her and the
moment she starts showing troubles, we can pull her out. How about views on
this?





Hopefully, you have just had enough of the conversation, not the list.
Lost of people just don't want to get into it sometimes, but they are out
there believing differently than mainstream society.

Angela in Maine
Unschooling mom to two beautiful daughters.
www.geocities.com/autonomousangela


-----It seems to me there has been a lot of strong disgreement lately. I
know people are going to disagree. However, I joined this list
because I thought that, because unschooling is an unconventional
choice, that there would be people on this list who were open to
different ways of doing things, and different ideas, and who weren't
going to get stressed out about people having different ideas. I
think I've had enough.

Judie



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


Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com

To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom

Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
http://www.home-ed-magazine.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Nanci Kuykendall

>children get a pretty incredible amount of stress
>naturally. Nobody needs to impose it upon them. I
>also think it is a sad statement to say that a child
>is in for a miserable life if they have a happy
>childhood.

This subject has begun to reach me on a personal
level, so I thought I would take th time to reply
here. I agree with the above, childhood is stressful,
in the extreme. Learning about the world, making
embarrassing and painful mistakes, being treated
poorly by adults and other children alike sometimes,
and being constantly subjected to the will of others
is very stressful indeed. I have very strong and
distinct memories of my childhood, going back to age
two, before which my memory is spotty. I REMEMBER
what it feels like to be a child, and so I have
sympathy for children and try to see things from their
point of view.

>When I hear of grown unschoolers, free schoolers,
>and adults with relatively easy childhoods, I hear
>of people who seem happy and fulfilled..........that
>bounce back from the burns and social ostracism
>because these are the people with high self
>esteems, ...........These are the people who can
>handle
>challenges because boundaries weren't arbitrarily
<crammed down their throats.

Here again, I agree. I came from a two parent, upper
middle class home. But I had a terrible childhood,
because my home was also dysfunctional, abusive and
alcoholic. My father was the disciplinarian, and you
had to walk around him on eggshells, never knowing
when his own stressful day or the wrong word or deed
would set off a beating or screaming tirade directed
at you. But my father was also over emotional
(particularly when drunk), physically affectionate,
and expressed interest in our education.

My mother was the ultimate in disinterested. She had
her "things" and her social circle and could really
care less what we did. She had no identity or self
esteem of her own, and no backbone. When Dad was
working or away on business, which was often, we ran
wild, went where we wanted, were gone for days on end,
threw wild parties, and so on. Mom either was not
around or did not care enough to fight with us. She
never disciplined us, ever. She often called me names
like "stupid little slut" and "bitch" but never
enforced any rules.

So you can see that I had both extremes. The totally
uninvolved and non-disciplining parent, and the
overbearing athoritarian parent. Both were terrible.
I grew up hating my father for abusing and controlling
me, and hating my mother for not caring and not
acting. Neither one felt supportive, and I grew up
with poor self esteem, poor anger management, and very
little ability to deal with stress, which I recieved
in such great quantity. Not until my life was
happier, and I had done a great deal of healing and
reversal of the damage of my childhood was I better
able to deal with stress.

It is still a daily struggle, not to let the little
things overwhelm me. As the child of an alcoholic, I
deal with a lot of guilt, anger, loss and depression.
I have had depression since I was a toddler. When I
was still growing up, every little thing would send me
quaking and sobbing. Now that I have a happy home and
healthy relationships around me, I have that resevoir
of strength from which to draw upon to help me through
the stress of daily life.

>> My son, for instance, finds it extremely stressful
>>to talk about or deal with learning social skills
>>such as meeting people's eyes, dealing with bullies,
>>making friendly advances to people, etc... but if I
>>indulge him in his avoidant behavior he will not
>>learn these things,

Do you really think of it as indulgant to let your
child be who he is, and express himself the way he
feels comfortable? I was not a shy child, and spoke
my mind (still do) sometimes to my detriment, and
stepped right up to do drama, debate and spelling
bees. But I have learned from life, and my many
hurts, to be more reticent, to hold back, to make
friends slowly and be shy in large groups or with new
people. My parents were always telling everyone that
I was NOT SHY, and I was so bold, and I talked a lot,
and wasn't I a good little hostess and wasn't I funny.
They forced me to answer the door for their large
company parties (100-300 people) and for smaller
dinner parties and social events. They made me give
introductions and take coats and make conversation
with strange adults. I am uncomfortable with my level
of socail interaction and am an artificially
introverted person.

My husband was almost cripplingly shy as a child,
didn't speak up, had few friends, was awkward and
reserved. He still is very shy and quiet, but has
learned, in his own time and way, to talk openly, make
friends, joke with acquaintances, and deal with larger
social settings without TOO much discomfort. He had a
relatively loving and happy childhood, with supportive
parents who did not push him to be and do more than he
wanted. He is comfortable with his level of
interaction and will always be an introverted person.

We have one child who is very gregarious and
extroverted, dynamic and flambouyant. We have another
who is just like his father, very sweet, and shy,
quiet and sensative. I let them both be who they are,
and some days my "introvert" will talk off the ear of
another diner in a restaurant and my "extrovert" will
hide his face against me and not want to talk to his
own cousin. I assume they will take on as much as
they are comfotable with in the course of their lives.
If they do not like speaking in public, in front of
crowds, than they will avoid it and if they like to
act or perform in public they will seek it. To each
his own, and there is not a "required" amount of
social interaction in our culture.

>Or maybe, just like talking or walking, he would
>learn these things on his own, when he felt >ready.

Here again, I agree, obviously.

Nanci K.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Sarah

Lynda wrote:

> So, again, if there are no boundaries to your child exactly what
> stress is
> the world putting on them. What, they have to decide between an
> orange and
> apple for lunch? Or an extreme decision between Legos and Sesame
> Street?

Many things could be labeled stressful in one's life. This goes for
children as well as adults. Here are some examples of things that a
child may find stressful despite parent's best attempts:

A death
A nightmare
A fight with a friend
moving
a new sibling
holidays
controlling relatives
judgmental neighbors
learning to fit into society and still be an individual
deciding to go to school or not
poverty
A parental argument
an illness
the doctor's office
crossing the street
rude store clerks
having to wait too long for food
saying good bye to a moving friend
Seeing a loved one get sick or old
divorce
coming to grips with the Universe and its immensity
The declining state of Mother Earth
People who don't recycle
Choosing a profession, or opting not to
A mean uncle
Acid rain
peer pressure
gangs
littering
drug addiction
alcoholism
marijuana being illegalized for medicinal purposes (just threw that in
since I've been pretty good at opening the worm cans)
sexuality
being gay
being hetero
not sharing a religious belief with a community
being late
missing loved ones
teething
growing pains
consequences of their own decisions
being poor
starving children
orphanages
thoughts of kidnappers

I could go on and on about the stresses in life that occur naturally or
unfortunately. I find I am a happier person if I focus on the good. I
try to show children as much happiness as I can. This includes not
adding additional stress to an already stressful world.


> And I really think your comment about a husband was silly, to say the
> least.
> If nothing else, it was non-responsive.

I'm sorry you thought it was silly. I thought it was demonstrating that
no one needs to impose stress on another individual. I was actually
trying to be a little funny. Poor attempt, I suppose. Stress, and
don't we know it as mothers, comes naturally.

> As to a child going to sleep when they are tired, that is not a given
> nor is
> it even a norm, including infants. That happens in some children and
> in a
> perfect world without outside stimuli. Hey, I'm betting that is why
> mothers
> try to make a quiet space for infants to sleep in, ya know, no loud
> noises,
> pull the blinds, that sort of thing.

Actually, many children fall asleep in a sling with the whole world
doing its thing right around their heads. I know kids who sleep through
dogs, siblings, talking, etc. A lot of mothers choose to use a sling
for this reason alone.

> I'm glad you know one child who does this. I've known dozens that
> don't.
> And quite a few that get so tired that they can make themselves
> physically
> ill.

I'm sorry to hear that. I thought falling asleep was natural.

> Sometimes it is a positive thing for someone to be looking out for the
>
> well-being of another.

I feel that I go above and beyond the call of looking out for the
well-being of others. In fact, I think many parents don't look at what,
exactly, looking out for one's own means.

> Of course, that would be in a world where everything
> isn't black and white.

I actually believe the world is many shades of gray. Choosing to try to
find common preferences for all involved takes a lot of work. It also
accounts for many personality styles and wishes. Taking individual
preferences into account is definitely not a black and white issue.

> The problem here is that all children are not the same and your ideas
> are no
> different than ps and are exactly what you are railing against others
> about--arbitrary.

I'm sorry. I don't understand this statement. I understand that every
child is a unique individual. Common preferences honor the individual.
This is not about the easiest solution for the parent. This is about
the action that will make all involved truly happy.

> Each child needs to be looked at as an individual. What
> works for one may not work for another. What works for one style of
> parenting may not work for another.

I am not talking about one style of parenting. I am talking about
approaching each person as an individual. If you think each child
should be approached differently, as an individual, and with care, we
must be on the same page, right?

> What may be defined as a "spoiled brat"
> in one person's eyes may be just peachy in another's.

Well, that's true. Most people I know that genuinely are looking out
for my best interests, strive to help me be happy, talk to me honestly,
are involved with me in the moment, emulate the good they see in others,
and are pretty happy themselves don't strike me as spoiled brats. To
each his own, I guess.

> And boundaries are not the only environment that creates bullies. One
> of
> the worst little creeps in our neighborhood was raised exactly as you
> describe--loving, nurturing, family meetings to make decisions,
> homeschooled, no coersion, etc., etc., etc. This kid is sly and he is
> nasty
> and he has parent manipulation down to a fine science.

His parents are probably self-sacrificing.

> As I said, it isn't all black and white and any given parenting method
> won't
> work the same on all children, nor will it work for all children.

Exactly. That is why I am advocating that each parent look at each
child as an individual with individual desires which make that child
happy.

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes

Sarah

Lynda wrote:

> And, "artificial" boundaries = lying? Exactly what do you define as
> artificial boudaries? Bedtime? How exactly is that lying?

Saying, "We have to go to the store right now," when you don't, is
lying. Saying, "You have to go to bed," when one doesn't, is a lie.
Coming up with ways to teach a child stress without telling them what
you are doing is lying. And lately I have been thinking about the words
want, need, must, have to, etc. and found I may not be telling the truth
as much a I'd like.

One other point I wanted to address from another post, was the idea of
playtime being a whim. Play, for children, is loved work. It is
learning, experimenting, trying new ideas, living, being at peace with
one's self. It is definitely no whim.

Sarah Anderson-Thimmes

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/17/01 12:29:41 PM, sld29@... writes:

<< > And, "artificial" boundaries = lying? Exactly what do you define as
> artificial boudaries? Bedtime? How exactly is that lying? >>

Parents have lied for years. They say "You have to get eight hours of sleep."

They say "If you don't brush your teeth they will all fall out."

They say "If you don't go to school you won't learn how to read."

They say "If you don't learn to get up and get to school on time you'll never
have a job."

Most of them were saying that because their parents told them.
Most of them weren't thinking about what they were saying, they were
parroting acceptable statements in this culture without thinking.

Maybe they weren't being liars, they were just being thoughtless.

Maybe they were too lazy to think through WHY they wanted those things done,
and how they could explain it in compassionate and truthful ways, or how they
could persuade the children to think the things were important.

Once part of the wall falls, there is no longer a solid wall. If we don't
believe that tests and school are absolutely necesary for life on this
planet, we must question the other things. The wall of traditional lies is
breached. Do we build it back or try to live without the wall?

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/17/01 12:34:00 PM, sld29@... writes:

<< > And I really think your comment about a husband was silly, to say the
> least.
> If nothing else, it was non-responsive.

[I agree with:
<<I'm sorry you thought it was silly. I thought it was demonstrating that
no one needs to impose stress on another individual. >>]

No, her comment about a husband inducing stress was a sensible, rational
analogy. What's good for a child should be good for an adult. Or do you
treat your children as some other manner of being? They are people.

This, on the other hand, is sarcastic and belittling:

<<What, they have to decide between an
> orange and
> apple for lunch? Or an extreme decision between Legos and Sesame
> Street?>>

And you know what else? They can have an apple AND an orange for lunch, and
they can play with Lego while they watch Sesame Street.

Or I could torture them and torment and stress them, but if that made me feel
like a better parent I would be in need of some counseling for my sick self.

Sandra

Judie C. Rall

> One other point I wanted to address from another post, was the idea of
> playtime being a whim. Play, for children, is loved work. It is
> learning, experimenting, trying new ideas, living, being at peace with
> one's self. It is definitely no whim.

And, it's something we adults should be doing more of. And if we
have to work, we should make our work as much like play as
possible.


Judie C. Rall

Find out how I developed financial freedom at:
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/gatheringplace/financialcassette.html

Lynda

'twould appear the voice of experience speaketh: "This, on the other hand,
is sarcastic and belittling--Or I could torture them and torment and stress
them, but if that made me feel like a better parent I would be in need of
some counseling for my sick self."


----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>


>
> In a message dated 5/17/01 12:34:00 PM, sld29@... writes:
>
> << > And I really think your comment about a husband was silly, to say the
> > least.
> > If nothing else, it was non-responsive.
>
> [I agree with:
> <<I'm sorry you thought it was silly. I thought it was demonstrating that
> no one needs to impose stress on another individual. >>]
>
> No, her comment about a husband inducing stress was a sensible, rational
> analogy. What's good for a child should be good for an adult. Or do you
> treat your children as some other manner of being? They are people.
>
> This, on the other hand, is sarcastic and belittling:
>
> <<What, they have to decide between an
> > orange and
> > apple for lunch? Or an extreme decision between Legos and Sesame
> > Street?>>
>
> And you know what else? They can have an apple AND an orange for lunch,
and
> they can play with Lego while they watch Sesame Street.
>
> Or I could torture them and torment and stress them, but if that made me
feel
> like a better parent I would be in need of some counseling for my sick
self.
>
> Sandra
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

Sarah writes:

> I assert there is always a way to find a common preference. Again,
I
> urge you to read through this site:
> http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/index.html
>


I'd second Sarah's urging to read through this site. While I am not a
total TCS (Taking Children Seriously) convert, I spent some time
lurking on the TCS list and learned a *lot*. It is amazing to see how
many different ways there really are to come at an issue with a
child, and how with some creativity, time, and thought, one can come
to a common preference. I think anyone who could keep an open mind
and not become defensive could benefit from reading the TCS site and
list. It certainly gave me a lot more ideas for my own parenting.

Blue Skies!
-Robin-
Mom to Mackenzie (8/28/96) inventor of new and wonderful things
and Asa (10/5/99) singer of protest songs
http://www.geocities.com/the_clevengers Flying Clevenger Family

Pam Hartley

----------
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1242
>Date: Fri, May 18, 2001, 2:00 AM
>

>> One other point I wanted to address from another post, was the idea of
>> playtime being a whim. Play, for children, is loved work. It is
>> learning, experimenting, trying new ideas, living, being at peace with
>> one's self. It is definitely no whim.
>
> And, it's something we adults should be doing more of. And if we
> have to work, we should make our work as much like play as
> possible.

Robert Frost wrote (this is from memory, so please excuse a mistaken word or
two):

Only where love and need are one
And the work is play for mortal stakes
Is the deed every truly done
For Heaven's and the future's sakes

It's the best unschooling, unworking poetry I know. <g>

"Make our work as much like play" is exactly what all those "expert" life
managers mean when they say, "find what you love, and then find a career to
surround it".

It's good advice.

Pam (and Wally) Hartley, booksellers, unschoolers and home businesspeeps

[email protected]

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Cindy Ferguson <crma@i...> wrote:
> I lurked on one of the TCS lists a while. I was appalled at how the
> adults treated one another. People would post asking for help and
get
> flamed for what they were doing. I figured the people who posted
might
> treat their children seriously but forgot that other adults should
be
> accorded the same respect. Or maybe not...


Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. That's one of the reasons I never
posted on the list. But I did find much of the discussion really
interesting, even if highly theoretical in many cases (as I remember,
several of the more vocal members didn't even *have* children). But I
still think it was worth reading. It definitely opened my eyes to the
many possibilities that are out there, and made me challenge my
assumptions.


Blue Skies!
-Robin-
Mom to Mackenzie (8/28/96) inventor of new and wonderful things
and Asa (10/5/99) singer of protest songs
http://www.geocities.com/the_clevengers Flying Clevenger Family

[email protected]

I think fundamentalism can take on many forms and cover a wide range
of issues, TCS and unschooling included. Our world is not black or
white. Must all unschooling parents practice common preferences or
TCS in order to qualify as true unschoolers, and be treated without
condescension? As parents, we are all human and should, I think, be
respectful and understanding of the unique challenges of trying to do
what is best for our individual children. For example, many of the
pro-common preferences parents convey, to me, impression that they
are raising a "superior" brand of child by using a "superior" brand
of parenting while those of us who aren't are oppressive, coercive
throwbacks to the dark ages. Those characterizations remind me very
much of the broadbrush preaching on the religious broadcasts I used
to listen to. You know, "All homosexuals are pedophiles, etc...."