Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: arguing to no purpose :)
Bronwen
Pam said:
up and laugh or come to the conclusion that I am insane and edge slowly
away.
Person: You let your son play with GUNS!?
Me: Well, yes, but we only let him have the bullets on Saturdays.
Person: There are underlying ANGER ISSUES THERE!
Me: You're so right, I get angry about it all the time. Especially when I
step on one in the middle of the night!
Person: It's only the rampant patriarchal bias in our society and no doubt
your house that allows this!
Me: Oh, gosh, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that. I'll have to ask
my husband what we think.>>>
HA! Oh lordy! I wish I could have thought of those things!
I think usually I am taken by surprize, like it slowly dawns on me that I am not being "heard"--like in the conversation in question-she started it like a "discussion" about guns or whatever. I tried to explain over and over my perspective to this person who I really like and respect. And it wasnt until I got home -and really the next morning, that I felt so awful.
Hmmm,yeah..and I think I was surprized by how effected I was. I dont know, I have spent so much of my time understanding what I am doing around here- that saying my kid has "deep seated underlying anger", was a little much for me.
SHe is was/is at a terrible time in her life- but knowing that was hardly a help when I was first processing the whole thing. Part of me is hoping that her little son is like (?) the kid on this list whose mom kept her first two children smugly away from guns, who was practically born with them in his hand! Makes you rethink everything.
Back to your point- realizing that an argument serves no purpose- good. I think maybe if I get in this situation again, I will just ask something like, "wait-do you think our conversation is serving a purpose?" and "what is it?" I think it would help clarify things! And I would be also remembering that I couldn't *really* think anything until I went home to ask my husband...(hee hee!) Yeah- I have to lighten up!
wow THanks!
Bronwen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>When I get into a conversation with someone who is spoiling for a fight thatI don't want :) I just start making humorous remarks at them until they give
up and laugh or come to the conclusion that I am insane and edge slowly
away.
Person: You let your son play with GUNS!?
Me: Well, yes, but we only let him have the bullets on Saturdays.
Person: There are underlying ANGER ISSUES THERE!
Me: You're so right, I get angry about it all the time. Especially when I
step on one in the middle of the night!
Person: It's only the rampant patriarchal bias in our society and no doubt
your house that allows this!
Me: Oh, gosh, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that. I'll have to ask
my husband what we think.>>>
HA! Oh lordy! I wish I could have thought of those things!
I think usually I am taken by surprize, like it slowly dawns on me that I am not being "heard"--like in the conversation in question-she started it like a "discussion" about guns or whatever. I tried to explain over and over my perspective to this person who I really like and respect. And it wasnt until I got home -and really the next morning, that I felt so awful.
Hmmm,yeah..and I think I was surprized by how effected I was. I dont know, I have spent so much of my time understanding what I am doing around here- that saying my kid has "deep seated underlying anger", was a little much for me.
SHe is was/is at a terrible time in her life- but knowing that was hardly a help when I was first processing the whole thing. Part of me is hoping that her little son is like (?) the kid on this list whose mom kept her first two children smugly away from guns, who was practically born with them in his hand! Makes you rethink everything.
Back to your point- realizing that an argument serves no purpose- good. I think maybe if I get in this situation again, I will just ask something like, "wait-do you think our conversation is serving a purpose?" and "what is it?" I think it would help clarify things! And I would be also remembering that I couldn't *really* think anything until I went home to ask my husband...(hee hee!) Yeah- I have to lighten up!
wow THanks!
Bronwen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Hartley
----------
I don't want :) I just start making humorous remarks at them until they give
up and laugh or come to the conclusion that I am insane and edge slowly
away.
Person: You let your son play with GUNS!?
Me: Well, yes, but we only let him have the bullets on Saturdays.
Person: There are underlying ANGER ISSUES THERE!
Me: You're so right, I get angry about it all the time. Especially when I
step on one in the middle of the night!
Person: It's only the rampant patriarchal bias in our society and no doubt
your house that allows this!
Me: Oh, gosh, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that. I'll have to ask
my husband what we think.
You get the idea. This is all said with a kind and humorous smile, facial
expressions begging her to lighten up.
There is a difference between a serious discussion with someone who
disagrees and a lecture from someone who is Always Right, no matter what. I
don't argue with those who are Always Right, no matter what, not in real
life where I can't take a break, anyway. ;)
Pam, who has posted way too much this morning. Sorry about filling the
mailboxes, I'll go do something else for a few hours and let other people
talk!
>From: [email protected]When I get into a conversation with someone who is spoiling for a fight that
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1399
>Date: Sat, Sep 1, 2001, 12:29 AM
>
> I recently had someone seriously challenge me on the "child battle games"
> thing saying if my son (9) does this, it is because of underlying anger,
> neg. exposure to the patriarc, how did you "allow it", bla bla bla (he was
> playing swords). She has a four year old girl, and a son who is
> one-figures maybe she doesn't want her kids exposed to mine.
>
> I was surprizingly flustered and defensive by the whole thing..I had worked
> through so much in terms of realizing that when you develop a trusting,
> honest relationship with someone (your kid or anyone), there often comes a
> point where "ideas" you have about things conflict with thiers- ("we DONT
> play with guns!-no VIOLENCE here!")
I don't want :) I just start making humorous remarks at them until they give
up and laugh or come to the conclusion that I am insane and edge slowly
away.
Person: You let your son play with GUNS!?
Me: Well, yes, but we only let him have the bullets on Saturdays.
Person: There are underlying ANGER ISSUES THERE!
Me: You're so right, I get angry about it all the time. Especially when I
step on one in the middle of the night!
Person: It's only the rampant patriarchal bias in our society and no doubt
your house that allows this!
Me: Oh, gosh, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that. I'll have to ask
my husband what we think.
You get the idea. This is all said with a kind and humorous smile, facial
expressions begging her to lighten up.
There is a difference between a serious discussion with someone who
disagrees and a lecture from someone who is Always Right, no matter what. I
don't argue with those who are Always Right, no matter what, not in real
life where I can't take a break, anyway. ;)
Pam, who has posted way too much this morning. Sorry about filling the
mailboxes, I'll go do something else for a few hours and let other people
talk!
Helen Hegener
At 7:34 AM -0700 9/1/01, Pam Hartley wrote:
Charles Hayes' good newsletter:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Union officer was wounded three times. The
lesson he took from the war that stuck with him for the rest of his
life, according to Menand, was that "certitude leads to violence."
About this Menand writes, "This is a proposition that has an easy
application to ideologues, dogmatists, and bullies-people who think
that their rightness justifies them in imposing on anyone who does
not happen to subscribe to their particular ideology, dogma, or
notion of turf. If the conviction of rightness is powerful enough,
resistance to it will be met, sooner or later by force. There are
people like this in every sphere of life, and it is natural to feel
that the world would be a better place without them."
Charles' always excellent newsletter, comprised of thoughtful essays
on books he's found of particular interest, can be read at
http://www.autodidactic.com/selfnews.htm
like they need to apologize for sharing thoughts and ideas; quite the
contrary, I think one of the problems with this mode of communication
is that everyone starts thinking they need to write in short bursts,
keep it simple, don't clutter peoples' mailboxes. The short
conversational style of most lists is fine, but I find the lists
where people post without concern about length are the most
interesting and thought-provoking. And I enjoy getting my thoughts
provoked. <g>
Besides, from my experience, when one person does start hogging a
list the listmembers will usually let him or her know it's not
appreciated. One has to be pretty garrulous on the keyboard for that
to happen. <g>
Helen
<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>
Helen Hegener, Managing Editor
Home Education Magazine
HEM-Editor@...
http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>
>There is a difference between a serious discussion with someone whoThis paragraph reminded me of something I read yesterday in my friend
>disagrees and a lecture from someone who is Always Right, no matter what. I
>don't argue with those who are Always Right, no matter what, not in real
>life where I can't take a break, anyway. ;)
Charles Hayes' good newsletter:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Union officer was wounded three times. The
lesson he took from the war that stuck with him for the rest of his
life, according to Menand, was that "certitude leads to violence."
About this Menand writes, "This is a proposition that has an easy
application to ideologues, dogmatists, and bullies-people who think
that their rightness justifies them in imposing on anyone who does
not happen to subscribe to their particular ideology, dogma, or
notion of turf. If the conviction of rightness is powerful enough,
resistance to it will be met, sooner or later by force. There are
people like this in every sphere of life, and it is natural to feel
that the world would be a better place without them."
Charles' always excellent newsletter, comprised of thoughtful essays
on books he's found of particular interest, can be read at
http://www.autodidactic.com/selfnews.htm
>Pam, who has posted way too much this morning. Sorry about filling theAw, Pam, I enjoy your perspective. I don't think anyone should feel
>mailboxes, I'll go do something else for a few hours and let other people
>talk!
like they need to apologize for sharing thoughts and ideas; quite the
contrary, I think one of the problems with this mode of communication
is that everyone starts thinking they need to write in short bursts,
keep it simple, don't clutter peoples' mailboxes. The short
conversational style of most lists is fine, but I find the lists
where people post without concern about length are the most
interesting and thought-provoking. And I enjoy getting my thoughts
provoked. <g>
Besides, from my experience, when one person does start hogging a
list the listmembers will usually let him or her know it's not
appreciated. One has to be pretty garrulous on the keyboard for that
to happen. <g>
Helen
<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>
Helen Hegener, Managing Editor
Home Education Magazine
HEM-Editor@...
http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>