Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1454
Julie Stauffer
<<Especially family....who want to "correct" your child>>
We went to a family reunion this summer. I did not realize how relaxed we
had become until we were around the other families. I had always thought my
SIL was kind of a nut, in the nicest way possible :), because she was sooo
concerned about her kids, their feelings, giving them freedom. This trip I
was right there with her, supporting her and vice versa, against the other
SIL, otherwise known as the tyrant. The difference was sooo immense.
Nice SIL took all the kids out on the boat skiing, letting them take turns
driving, no one forced to do anything, everyone allowed to do what they felt
comfortable doing (My 8yo parked the boat in the slip and did a better job
than most of the adults).
Then there was the tyrant..... The kids decided they wanted to cook supper
for everybody one night, talking 25 people. So nice SIL and I took them to
the store to buy what they needed. When it came time to do the cooking,
nice SIL and I asked the kids if they wanted us to help and they declined.
We took some pictures and sat on the couch talking, close enough to answer
any questions that might arise. The tyrant walked in, gave orders, took
over, told the kids they were wrong, then complained because the kids moved
on to do other things. We tried to make several suggestions to the tyrant,
like "Why don't you come over here with us?", "At our house, it works better
if the adults leave the kids to do their own projects", etc., all to no
avail.
The tyrant went so far as to tell my 10yo it was time for bed, what to snack
on and when, how to fix her hair for family pictures, etc.. I repeatedly
told tyrant that the kids were used to making these decisions for themselves
but she didn't seem to even hear me. I finally told my kids that they
couldn't be mean to their aunt, but they didn't have to mind her either.
Made for an uncomfortable week.
Julie
We went to a family reunion this summer. I did not realize how relaxed we
had become until we were around the other families. I had always thought my
SIL was kind of a nut, in the nicest way possible :), because she was sooo
concerned about her kids, their feelings, giving them freedom. This trip I
was right there with her, supporting her and vice versa, against the other
SIL, otherwise known as the tyrant. The difference was sooo immense.
Nice SIL took all the kids out on the boat skiing, letting them take turns
driving, no one forced to do anything, everyone allowed to do what they felt
comfortable doing (My 8yo parked the boat in the slip and did a better job
than most of the adults).
Then there was the tyrant..... The kids decided they wanted to cook supper
for everybody one night, talking 25 people. So nice SIL and I took them to
the store to buy what they needed. When it came time to do the cooking,
nice SIL and I asked the kids if they wanted us to help and they declined.
We took some pictures and sat on the couch talking, close enough to answer
any questions that might arise. The tyrant walked in, gave orders, took
over, told the kids they were wrong, then complained because the kids moved
on to do other things. We tried to make several suggestions to the tyrant,
like "Why don't you come over here with us?", "At our house, it works better
if the adults leave the kids to do their own projects", etc., all to no
avail.
The tyrant went so far as to tell my 10yo it was time for bed, what to snack
on and when, how to fix her hair for family pictures, etc.. I repeatedly
told tyrant that the kids were used to making these decisions for themselves
but she didn't seem to even hear me. I finally told my kids that they
couldn't be mean to their aunt, but they didn't have to mind her either.
Made for an uncomfortable week.
Julie
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/11/01 8:12:01 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< No offense but many of you say you don't give your kids chores . . . but,
they help do this and that, or they take care of this. Guess what?
Those are chores. No matter what you want to call tham and what the
level of cooperation is, they are still chores. Perhaps the reason why
you jumped on me for our job list when it is nearly identical to
lovemary's(?) was because we call a chore 'a chore' in this house. We
have chosen not to call cleaning the toilet and opportunity to do
something together. But, if it helps y'all to get stuff done to call it
chutes and ladders, go for it.
Bridget >>
I didn't post but once on this subject a bit ago. I have to say even in
my own head I do not call what I do around here chores. They are things that
need to be done for this house to function. I do not call taking out the
garbage a chore. I just do it when I take the dog out. Or dd jumps up and
says she will do it. I swear b/c we have not made anything mandatory or a
"chore" my child actively participates.
mostly......her room is driving me nuts and she knows it....so it doesn't
get done.......hmmmm I must make it a non issue once again. Thanks for the
reminder.
NICKI~
[email protected] writes:
<< No offense but many of you say you don't give your kids chores . . . but,
they help do this and that, or they take care of this. Guess what?
Those are chores. No matter what you want to call tham and what the
level of cooperation is, they are still chores. Perhaps the reason why
you jumped on me for our job list when it is nearly identical to
lovemary's(?) was because we call a chore 'a chore' in this house. We
have chosen not to call cleaning the toilet and opportunity to do
something together. But, if it helps y'all to get stuff done to call it
chutes and ladders, go for it.
Bridget >>
I didn't post but once on this subject a bit ago. I have to say even in
my own head I do not call what I do around here chores. They are things that
need to be done for this house to function. I do not call taking out the
garbage a chore. I just do it when I take the dog out. Or dd jumps up and
says she will do it. I swear b/c we have not made anything mandatory or a
"chore" my child actively participates.
mostly......her room is driving me nuts and she knows it....so it doesn't
get done.......hmmmm I must make it a non issue once again. Thanks for the
reminder.
NICKI~
Fetteroll
on 9/11/01 10:09 AM, Bridget E Coffman <rumpleteasermom@...> wrote:
convey the wrong idea". If we give someone partial information (which we
rarely can avoid) and from their cultural context they build up a picture
that doesn't match the situation we're trying to communicate, if we return
with "No, you're wrong, you not getting it" the response will be different
than if we return with "I'm sorry, I didn't explain that very well."
Since the above was an example of your adding your similar example to
someone who was unplugging the TV without the child realizing it, was it
wrong for readers to assume your child *also* didn't realize what you were
doing?
Without the explanation it was an additional example of dishonesty. With the
explanation it was an example of control. You've told us why you feel it
necessary to control, but it doesn't make it not control.
Joyce
> I want to give you an example of how that is not quite anAnd my suggestion was "just go back and figure out how they've managed to
> accurate statement ... I jumped in and said, I don't unplug our I just
> disconnect the cable from the antenna. I was immediately pounced upon,
> told that I am being dishonest with my children (who BTW know exactly
> what I do to the TV)
convey the wrong idea". If we give someone partial information (which we
rarely can avoid) and from their cultural context they build up a picture
that doesn't match the situation we're trying to communicate, if we return
with "No, you're wrong, you not getting it" the response will be different
than if we return with "I'm sorry, I didn't explain that very well."
Since the above was an example of your adding your similar example to
someone who was unplugging the TV without the child realizing it, was it
wrong for readers to assume your child *also* didn't realize what you were
doing?
Without the explanation it was an additional example of dishonesty. With the
explanation it was an example of control. You've told us why you feel it
necessary to control, but it doesn't make it not control.
Joyce
Bridget E Coffman
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:46:00 -0400 Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
writes:
I was still fielding accusations of dishonesty from several here. There
IS a responsibility for the reader to actually READ the clarifications
and not just go with that first impression to their deathbed.
Bridget
~~~~If electricity comes from electrons...does that mean that morality
comes from morons?~~~~
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell;
And by and by my Soul returned to me,
And answered, "I Myself am Heaven and Hell." -- The Rubaiyat
writes:
>it
> Since the above was an example of your adding your similar example to
> someone who was unplugging the TV without the child realizing it, was
> wrong for readers to assume your child *also* didn't realize what youwere
> doing?No, but even AFTER I specified that my children knew what I did and why,
>
I was still fielding accusations of dishonesty from several here. There
IS a responsibility for the reader to actually READ the clarifications
and not just go with that first impression to their deathbed.
Bridget
~~~~If electricity comes from electrons...does that mean that morality
comes from morons?~~~~
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell;
And by and by my Soul returned to me,
And answered, "I Myself am Heaven and Hell." -- The Rubaiyat
Lynda
That isn't an example of dishonesty. that's an example of miscommunication.
AND, she did come back and explain it and people are still harping. In
fact, she explained it in great depth. I don't have to go back to look, it
was about being the only one who could fix it once it was unhooked. They
know it, she knows it, the whole list knows it if they bothered to read what
was written, not what they decided was written. So what's dishonest.
Lynda
AND, she did come back and explain it and people are still harping. In
fact, she explained it in great depth. I don't have to go back to look, it
was about being the only one who could fix it once it was unhooked. They
know it, she knows it, the whole list knows it if they bothered to read what
was written, not what they decided was written. So what's dishonest.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1454
> on 9/11/01 10:09 AM, Bridget E Coffman <rumpleteasermom@...> wrote:
>
> > I want to give you an example of how that is not quite an
> > accurate statement ... I jumped in and said, I don't unplug our I just
> > disconnect the cable from the antenna. I was immediately pounced upon,
> > told that I am being dishonest with my children (who BTW know exactly
> > what I do to the TV)
>
> And my suggestion was "just go back and figure out how they've managed to
> convey the wrong idea". If we give someone partial information (which we
> rarely can avoid) and from their cultural context they build up a picture
> that doesn't match the situation we're trying to communicate, if we return
> with "No, you're wrong, you not getting it" the response will be different
> than if we return with "I'm sorry, I didn't explain that very well."
>
> Since the above was an example of your adding your similar example to
> someone who was unplugging the TV without the child realizing it, was it
> wrong for readers to assume your child *also* didn't realize what you were
> doing?
>
> Without the explanation it was an additional example of dishonesty. With
the
> explanation it was an example of control. You've told us why you feel it
> necessary to control, but it doesn't make it not control.
>
> Joyce
>
>
>
> 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]
In a message dated 9/12/01 11:03:42 AM, lurine@... writes:
<< That isn't an example of dishonesty. that's an example of
miscommunication.
AND, she did come back and explain it and people are still harping. In
fact, she explained it in great depth. I don't have to go back to look, it
was about being the only one who could fix it once it was unhooked. They
know it, she knows it, the whole list knows it if they bothered to read what
was written, not what they decided was written. So what's dishonest.
without good intent. I've been told that some of these who are so vehemently
defending questionable stuff are on another list together, so I wonder (and
have been asking, in various ways) how much of the recent noise has been for
the sake of disruption. A kind of social vandalism.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
<< That isn't an example of dishonesty. that's an example of
miscommunication.
AND, she did come back and explain it and people are still harping. In
fact, she explained it in great depth. I don't have to go back to look, it
was about being the only one who could fix it once it was unhooked. They
know it, she knows it, the whole list knows it if they bothered to read what
was written, not what they decided was written. So what's dishonest.
>>I think part of what's dishonest is that someone has come onto this list
without good intent. I've been told that some of these who are so vehemently
defending questionable stuff are on another list together, so I wonder (and
have been asking, in various ways) how much of the recent noise has been for
the sake of disruption. A kind of social vandalism.
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
Fetteroll
on 9/12/01 1:02 PM, "Lynda" <lurine@...> wrote:
The *action* her statement was about -- supplied in the context of a mom
pulling the TV plug and saying it was broken -- was interpretted as another
example of a mom being dishonest with her kids.
Does this:
dishonest?
Joyce
> That isn't an example of dishonesty. that's an example of miscommunication.Her *statement* wasn't dishonest. Her statement miscommunicated her meaning.
The *action* her statement was about -- supplied in the context of a mom
pulling the TV plug and saying it was broken -- was interpretted as another
example of a mom being dishonest with her kids.
Does this:
> Since the above was an example of your adding your similar example tomake sense if you interpret it as saying I was saying her *statement* was
> someone who was unplugging the TV without the child realizing it, was it
> wrong for readers to assume your child *also* didn't realize what you were
> doing?
>
> Without the explanation it was an additional example of dishonesty. With
> the explanation it was an example of control. You've told us why you
> feel it necessary to control, but it doesn't make it not control.
dishonest?
Joyce
Bridget E Coffman
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:13:39 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
I am friends with someone else who asked me to join this list because
she wanted my input here. She knows me well enough to know just exactly
what my educational and (life) style is and she felt I had something to
offer here.
I personally resent the implication that I am just here to 'cause
trouble' and I should think one or two others will be just as annoyed
with that statement.
Bridget
~~~~~~~~~~~~ F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If electricity comes from electrons . . .
. . . does that mean that morality comes from morons?
>list
> I think part of what's dishonest is that someone has come onto this
> without good intent. I've been told that some of these who are sovehemently
> defending questionable stuff are on another list together, so I wonder(and
> have been asking, in various ways) how much of the recent noise hasbeen for
> the sake of disruption. A kind of social vandalism.I am on a list with Lynda but did not know she was here until I got here.
>
> Sandra
>
I am friends with someone else who asked me to join this list because
she wanted my input here. She knows me well enough to know just exactly
what my educational and (life) style is and she felt I had something to
offer here.
I personally resent the implication that I am just here to 'cause
trouble' and I should think one or two others will be just as annoyed
with that statement.
Bridget
~~~~~~~~~~~~ F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If electricity comes from electrons . . .
. . . does that mean that morality comes from morons?
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/12/2001 1:56:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
Nance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> , so I wonder (andA vast conspiracy maybe???? :)
> have been asking, in various ways) how much of the recent noise has been
> for
> the sake of disruption. A kind of social vandalism.
>
> Sandra
>
Nance
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lynda
Hey Bridget,
So someone fell on their head and woke up with delusions of grandeur,
*again.* I mean, really now, thinking they would be important enough for
someone to go to all that trouble. NOT!
What we have here, is not failure to communicate, but failure by some of us
to pay homage and genuflect at the feet of the self-proclaimed ruling
emprass (misspelling is intentional, so don't call the spelling police <g>)
of unschoolingdom. Heaven forbid, shock, call out the press, we had the
audacity to not agree with all the royal utterances and proclamations.
Personally, I'm LAHNWH and usually do. The in-their-own-minds royal court
chit chats off-list and comes up with all kinds of theories the basis for
which are about as substantial as quicksand.
View them as a learning experience, sort of an examples of various societal
ills--vanity, narcissim, megalomania. We do. In fact, this sort of thing
provides lots of entertainment for the "troops."
There are tons of good folks on this list that don't feed into the "I am the
only voice of unschooling" nonsense and have lots to offer.
Lynda
So someone fell on their head and woke up with delusions of grandeur,
*again.* I mean, really now, thinking they would be important enough for
someone to go to all that trouble. NOT!
What we have here, is not failure to communicate, but failure by some of us
to pay homage and genuflect at the feet of the self-proclaimed ruling
emprass (misspelling is intentional, so don't call the spelling police <g>)
of unschoolingdom. Heaven forbid, shock, call out the press, we had the
audacity to not agree with all the royal utterances and proclamations.
Personally, I'm LAHNWH and usually do. The in-their-own-minds royal court
chit chats off-list and comes up with all kinds of theories the basis for
which are about as substantial as quicksand.
View them as a learning experience, sort of an examples of various societal
ills--vanity, narcissim, megalomania. We do. In fact, this sort of thing
provides lots of entertainment for the "troops."
There are tons of good folks on this list that don't feed into the "I am the
only voice of unschooling" nonsense and have lots to offer.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: Bridget E Coffman <rumpleteasermom@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1454
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:13:39 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
> >
> > I think part of what's dishonest is that someone has come onto this
> list
> > without good intent. I've been told that some of these who are so
> vehemently
> > defending questionable stuff are on another list together, so I wonder
> (and
> > have been asking, in various ways) how much of the recent noise has
> been for
> > the sake of disruption. A kind of social vandalism.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
>
> I am on a list with Lynda but did not know she was here until I got here.
> I am friends with someone else who asked me to join this list because
> she wanted my input here. She knows me well enough to know just exactly
> what my educational and (life) style is and she felt I had something to
> offer here.
>
> I personally resent the implication that I am just here to 'cause
> trouble' and I should think one or two others will be just as annoyed
> with that statement.
>
> Bridget
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> If electricity comes from electrons . . .
> . . . does that mean that morality comes from morons?
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Tia Leschke
At 02:09 PM 9/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
both Lynda and Sandra have to say........except when they say things to
each other.
Tia
Tia Leschke leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
********************************************************************************************
It is the answers which separate us, the questions which unite us. - Janice
Levy
>Hey Bridget,Wow! As a relative newcomer to this list, I've quite enjoyed most of what
>
>So someone fell on their head and woke up with delusions of grandeur,
>*again.* I mean, really now, thinking they would be important enough for
>someone to go to all that trouble. NOT!
>
>What we have here, is not failure to communicate, but failure by some of us
>to pay homage and genuflect at the feet of the self-proclaimed ruling
>emprass (misspelling is intentional, so don't call the spelling police <g>)
>of unschoolingdom. Heaven forbid, shock, call out the press, we had the
>audacity to not agree with all the royal utterances and proclamations.
both Lynda and Sandra have to say........except when they say things to
each other.
Tia
Tia Leschke leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
********************************************************************************************
It is the answers which separate us, the questions which unite us. - Janice
Levy
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/12/2001 11:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
leschke@... writes:
both have an incredible opportunity and have said so. . . they have so much
they could learn from each other, and are really mirrors for the other. I
dont think either is right or wrong. I just think they both get so pissed at
the other for exhibiting qualitites they don't like about themselves. My own
armchair diagnosis . . . since they seem to be so prevalent on here, I
thought I would jump in with my own . . . it's probably worth about as much
as I charge for it. . . niente. :)
lovemary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
leschke@... writes:
> Wow! As a relative newcomer to this list, I've quite enjoyed most of what:) Tia. . . you probably are saying what a lot of people feel. I think they
> both Lynda and Sandra have to say........except when they say things to
> each other.
> Tia
>
>
both have an incredible opportunity and have said so. . . they have so much
they could learn from each other, and are really mirrors for the other. I
dont think either is right or wrong. I just think they both get so pissed at
the other for exhibiting qualitites they don't like about themselves. My own
armchair diagnosis . . . since they seem to be so prevalent on here, I
thought I would jump in with my own . . . it's probably worth about as much
as I charge for it. . . niente. :)
lovemary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]