Bridget E Coffman

No Sandra, here's the difference:

I say, "This is what works for me. If what you are doing is not working
you might want to think about it but if you found something that works
for you, I'd love to hear about it even if I won't be able to use it."

While you seem to being saying, "Your problems would all go away if you
would just do what I do." You never acknowledge that other people may
have different needs than you, that other children may have problems
your's don't. That anyone else could possible have found a way of doing
things that works as well as yours.

I have no discord in my household and very happy kids. They have free
reign over their food intake (with the exception of allergens - which may
or may not be restricted depending on the point of development.) But,
because I had to step in and limit certain foods at certain times, and
because I have had to step in and take control of the TV with my OCD son,
you assume that my family if chock full of badness.

I certainly hope you respect the individuality of your children more than
you respect the individuality of those on this list with you. I never
said you were nuts. I never even said you way can't work. I'm sure it
does work for some. And I'm equally certain that you are doing a
disservice to those for whom it can't work for one reason or another by
suggesting that they just aren't doing it right.

Bridget


> From: SandraDodd@...
> Subject: Re: Re: Why the sea...
>
>
> << I see that same self-rightiousness rearing it's head in the
> > "let them watch whatever they want" camp. >>
>
> But here's the difference:
> Those who are complaining of discord, frustration, unhappy kids,
allergies
> are those who are defending limits.
>
> Thos saying "we don't have those problems" are suggesting removing the

> limits, and have success stories to go with their decisions.
>
> In the course of offering suggestions of things which have worked well
for
> us, we're being insulted by those totally unwilling to consider doing
that,
> sure that we're nuts.
>
> It's exactly like structured families and school-using families'
analysis of
> unschooling. It will never work, how will they learn to read, how
will they
> learn math, they'll never get a job, they won't write unless you
> make them, etc.
>
> The food thing works like unschooling works, and for many of the same
> reasons. Humans are organisms with the inborn need and ability to
grow and
> learn. Controls often backfire.
>
> Sandra
>


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it
goes on.
- Robert Frost

Joseph Fuerst

Sandra: I do believe I grasp what you're talking about in giving children
choices in their food selection. This has worked splendidly in our
household in general. BUT my daughters condition required her NOT to eat
some foods...regardless of thier level of healthiness and whether or not
they were available. She could choose a healthy diet and still jeapordize
her well-being.....even her life. She does not even have the option to
experiment with how things make her body function and feel. People coping
with a child's nut allergies have even a tougher road to hoe than our
daughter. Especially during the toddler/pre-school years.

Overall, I agree and understand the principle. And "follow your tasebuds"
was not the best choice of words. I'm trying to unschool myself in this
area, as a matter of fact. Using the book Outsmarting Your Female Fat Cell,
which basically promotes being in touch with your body'y food cravings and
desires....and when they are satisfied, even I gravitate toward a balanced
healthy diet over the long haul.

For those who have trouble understanding the concept....Penelope Leach
offers a good discussion in Your Baby And Child.

Susan

<< Should she simply follow her taste buds,
she could still get into trouble..... >>


When kids are allowed free choice, they don't go by taste buds.

It's seeming impossible for some people to begin to grasp what we're talking
about. Kids who have free choice eat protein, vegetables, fruit. Not ONLY
those, but they eat all kinds of food, by choice. And when it has been
choice (because they become hungry for all kinds of foods--the body balances
itself), they have no aversions to any foods they've been forced to eat.

Fetteroll

on 11/14/01 3:29 PM, Bridget E Coffman at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> "This is what works for me. If what you are doing is not working
> you might want to think about it but if you found something that works
> for you, I'd love to hear about it even if I won't be able to use it."

The biggest problem in discussing the idea of control in general is that
most people begin with the socially implanted idea that control is the norm.
It's what children need. So someone suggesting "I have come to the
conclusion that control works for my kids," is really a reinforment of the
social norm.

The idea many are working towards is to throw away that idea and begin with
a new base of operations, a new norm: the idea that control isn't necessary,
that children will self-regulate when given the freedom to do so.

It's from that point that we can begin modifying for our specific family's
needs.

Getting to that point, though, isn't just a matter of replacing one thought
with another. The idea that adults know what is better for children than
children do is deeply ingrained in us. The children-must-be-controlled
messages of society that we've been immersed in from the time *we* were
infants make it very easy to look at a child indulging in video games or
junk food for a couple of months, to see the changes in his personality and
come to the conclusion that he can't regulate himself and, therefore, must
be regulated from the outside.

If you've begun from the perspective of no control is necessary, it isn't
helpful to suggest to someone whose norm is control who is searching for
reinforcement that in such-and-such a particular instance control is
necessary that yes, sometimes control is neceessary.

The idea that has been suggested, that parents know what's best for their
kids, doesn't fly. If that were so, then the only people needing
psychiatrists would be those who have chemical imbalances or didn't have
parents.

Another problem is that we, as a society, don't respect kids. It's portrayed
as perfectly normal that kids will occasionally protest against what we feel
is best for them. So we can easily be feel that "something that works" can
be something that makes the child miserable (until, presumably, they're old
enough to "see the light") but protects the child from something we feel
might happen or might become permanent.

I think it's helpful to begin from the norm of respecting our children. To
treat them in terms of helping them grow as we would a close friend. We too
often see it perfectly normal to treat our chldren in the name of "love" in
ways that would have our friends avoiding us like the plague.

If you've begun from the perspective that respect is a given and concluded
that a special needs child needs someone to step in to help him learn to
respect himself, then it isn't as helpful to the mother of what is more
likely an average child to have the idea of disrespect as a normal tool
reinforced. She's already got that every where she turns.

Joyce


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

[email protected]

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
>
> The biggest problem in discussing the idea of control in general
> is that most people begin with the socially implanted idea that
> control is the norm. It's what children need. So someone
> suggesting "I have come to the conclusion that control works for
> my kids," is really a reinforment of the social norm.
>
> The idea many are working towards is to throw away that idea and
> begin with a new base of operations, a new norm: the idea that
> control isn't necessary, that children will self-regulate when
> given the freedom to do so.

Joyce,

I firmly respect your opinion here BUT.....

I've considered myself an unschooler for 11 years now, ever since I
first read John Holt and decided my oldest was not ever attending
traditional school.

Over the years, I have had this idea forced on me on nearly every
unschooling list I've been on. I've been called a control freak
because I expect my children to make their beds and brush their
teeth. My parenting has been attacked and I've been told I certainly
must not bea "real unschooler". Now I'm not saying that you are doing
this, Joyce. I believe I understand the message of your post - With
ideas about how to force and control children so readily available,
it is important to put other messages out there (am I hearing you
correctly?). I just want to voice an opinion that says please don't
narrowly define unschooling for me. For me, I know that experience
plays a big part in life. For me, my experience is SOMETIMES more
important, more vital than the opinions of my children. But I share
it with them rather than lay down the law. This has been a life long
effort of building a relationship and trust where my word means
something to them. I do know more than they do in many areas but my
trust in them bleeds through and affects both of our decisions. BUt
if push came to shove, I am the parent and the authority in the
household. I've been known to force or manipulate to get kids off a
plateu or to move them beyond a comfort level they've stayed at a bit
too long. I've pushed them into activities that exposed them to ideas
they thought they wouldn't like because I knew/felt there was value
(and most of the time I was right). I consider these nudges to be
parenting responsibilities. I've helped my kids get over fears and
opened their eyes to differences of opinion.

For some, I know I don't live up to the title "unschooler". But for
me, it is a term still evolving and not one I'm always comfortable
with. Life-learner feels so much better. And if these nudges and
authority keep me from the select group, so be it.

I hope this doesn't feel attacking, Joyce. I'm not wanting to oppose
your views but you reminded me of some previous situations in the
unschooling community that I wanted to address.

in peace,

Chris O'Connor

Fetteroll

on 11/18/01 10:31 PM, chrisoco@... at chrisoco@... wrote:

> I just want to voice an opinion that says please don't
> narrowly define unschooling for me.

But no one can define it for *you* unless you accept their definition. :-)

> I've pushed them into activities that exposed them to ideas
> they thought they wouldn't like because I knew/felt there was value
> (and most of the time I was right).

And I've done similar (though I would say encourage would describe it
better, like suggesting how about trying it for 10 or 15 minutes and if you
don't like it we'll do something else -- which she is free to turn down).

But just because children sometimes (or even usually) end up liking it
doesn't make it right to force them to do something they don't want to. I
think a good litmus test of behavior is would we behave this way towards a
friend? Would we want our husbands to treat us and think about us that way?

> For me, I know that experience
> plays a big part in life. For me, my experience is SOMETIMES more
> important, more vital than the opinions of my children. But I share
> it with them rather than lay down the law. This has been a life long
> effort of building a relationship and trust where my word means
> something to them.

Perhaps the way we parent would look the same. Perhaps I'd even look like a
control freak next to you ;-) Control is in my nature and I have to
constantly be aware to avoid acting in the way that comes most naturally to
me. (Discussing it at great length helps me be more aware. :-)

I think the difference, though, is the point of view. I see my daughter's
opinion and autonomy as the most important and, if I override her, it's an
abberation. The way you've stated it implies giving your children permission
to do as they see fit with you exercising your perogative to step in when
you see fit.

(Which is an observation and not intended as an argument that my way is
better. Not that I couldn't argue it if someone wanted to discuss it! ;-)

> BUt
> if push came to shove, I am the parent and the authority in the
> household.

Which is your choice. If you choose it because it's easiest and most
efficient for you it's hard to argue. But many of us can effectively argue
that it isn't *necessary* in order for kids to become adults that other
people will like being around.

I *think* a few people can pull it off. They can be authoritarian and their
children can still feel they're respected. But I also think there are far
more people who only think they are respecting their children. (And I'm not
accusing you. Only you can know.) And I also think there are far more people
who don't care whether they're respecting their children or not, but see a
good parent's job as molding kids into the people they are supposed to be,
being aware that children will naturally resist.

I think one of the problems is that control comes naturally to most people.
It's part of society. It's how most of us were raised. If it's working for
you, I think it's *not* the control that's working but the respect. There
are *plenty* of examples of authoritarian parenting that turn out sneaky and
wild kids. So it can't be the control that's the determining factor in how
kids turn out. Describing how you control your kids will only reinforce
people's belief that it is the control that's the deciding factor and
central issue. But, I strongly believe, it's the respect that is the most
important factor and central issue and that doesn't get discussed enough.
It's always treated as an optional side dish. Or something that's so obvious
it needn't be discussed.

Perhaps put it this way: if you had this natural flair for making textbooks
exciting and your kids ran to listen to textbooks from 9-11 every morning,
would it be helpful to new unschoolers to describe your use of textbooks for
2 hours in the morning as unschooling? It's not the part that looks like
standard schooling that needs described to help people break out of their
school think. It's the parts most people don't understand like parents being
enthusiastic themselves about learning.

I think this list, and the message boards even more so, can provide people
with the opportunity to challenge their thinking. If someone doesn't want
the challenge, they can pass it by. If someone feels they've already
challeged themselves enough and come to conclusions that are more in line
with standard thinking, they can pass it by. But I do think having that
opportunity available to challenge standard thinking for people who are
trying out unschooling *is* important. It's a lot easier for people who
don't agree with the challenge to ignore it than it is for people who don't
realize standard thinking can be questioned to seek it out.

There are lots of places to share authoritarian parenting advice. There are
lots of places where parents can just go share what they do with each other
and everyone will cyber-nod and say "That's nice, this is how I do it,"
where no one will ask anyone to consider why they made the choices they did
nor challenge them to defend them.

Of course, one of the problems is that some people separate unschooling and
parenting and others see it all as just life. For those who unschool
learning and whose parenting is by conscious choice more controlling, I can
see how they would feel they were seen as "less than". It's easy for someone
to see their unusual use of textbooks as confusing to new unschoolers so
they'd probably not mention it much. But if someone sees parental authority
in life issues as much a part of unschooling as someone who doesn't, it's
natural to feel attacked.

Some who come to this list don't want to talk about unschooling parenting
(for want of a better phrase). They only want to talk about how to unschool
learning better. They want parenting to be whatever you feel comfortable
with and a respectful exchange of parenting ideas. (And some would like
unschooling to be whatever you feel comfortable with too, but that won't fly
for long ;-)

So, is the answer for those of us who feel the challege is important to keep
quiet? Is the answer for those who see the challenge as a personal attack on
their own ability to think for themselves to keep quiet? Personally I know I
needed the challenge when I first started reading about homeschooling so
I'll need to keep challenging in order to provide that opportunity to others
like me. :-) I figure if someone doesn't doesn't care to question what they
do or feels they've questioned themselves sufficiently they can skip it. But
if they enter in, they won't escape questioning ;-)

> I hope this doesn't feel attacking, Joyce.

Not at all :-) I think the problem is that some people see a challange as an
attack. I often see attacks as a challenge ;-) Of course if the attack is
just an attack and they've no interest in discussing then it's just boring!
(None of which is intended personally to anyone, just general observations
of good discussions and bad.)

> I'm not wanting to oppose
> your views but you reminded me of some previous situations in the
> unschooling community that I wanted to address.

And I suspect it will keep happening everywhere in unschooling since there
will always be people who "unschool" parenting and some who don't. I just
think it's valuable for the discussion to be available for those who get
intrigued by the questioning of what they always assumed was a given.

Joyce


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