Joseph Fuerst

Lorraine Goods wrote:
> >I had limits placed on me during certain times of my life when I
> >really
> >don't think I would have been able to handle the freedom of making
> >my own
> >choices. For instance, in junior high school, a bunch of my friends
> >started staying out late, experimenting w/drugs, sex etc. I was not
> >allowed to do these things and would have gotten in big trouble if
> >I'd
> >tried them and gotten caught. Looking back on these times, I think
> >that if
> >I had been allowed to engage in such behaviors the results would
> >have been
> >disastrous -- pregnancy, overdose, etc. By the time I got to
> >college, and
> >I did start experimenting w/smoking pot, having boyfriends and
> >such, I was
> >much better able to handle it.

I think it's quite a leap from limting TV to satying out late at Jr High
school age (what? 13, 13, 14 yrs old?) These are quite separate, I think.
Unschooling doesn't mean giving your children freedom carte blanche to to
whatever, whenever. It's not about them having complete power in all
decisions...that would be overwhelming for a child.
I think that those more likely to "stay out late, partying and
experimenting with sex, drugs, rock-n-roll ;-) are those who are
disassociated in their relationships with their parents. Those who may be
rebeling against the 'controls' placed on them; those whose parents are
too busy to truly relate anc ommunicate with them.
Unschooling provides such a greater opportunity for healthy parent-child
relationships....not nearly as much interference from schools, peers, etc.
JMHO,
Susan

Joseph Fuerst

> From: "Lynda" <lurine@...>
> Subject: Re: Organics - Susan
>
> Also, testing has shown that grains grown in European (NOT central and
south
> america DDT and various other carcinogens are still used in great
> quantities) countries have less residual pesticides. If you can't go the
> organic route totally, then op for imported Italian pastas. You can
> frequently find them at discount food stores if you buy by the case. I
know
> around here if you buy by the case the imports are $10/case (20 - 1#
> packages).
>
> A good book to read, if you can find it, is Diet for a Poisoned Planet
which
> tells you which foods are safest to eat if you can't go completely
organic.
>
> Lynda
Thanks for the book ref...I'll look for that. In re: the imported
pasta....I could live with that! We love pasta dishes at our house. Though
if I get a Dx of PCOS, I may have to limit the pastas
:-( ......though I imagine that pasta is lower on the glycemic index(?).
And I do cook it al dente, which I've heard slows the rise in blood sugar.
Susan

[email protected]

In a message dated 1/3/02 8:19:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, fuerst@...
writes:

<< Diet for a Poisoned Planet >>

I found my copy on half.com along with Diet for A New America which I would
also highly recommend.

Kathy

Lorraine Goods

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Joseph Fuerst wrote:

> Unschooling doesn't mean giving your children freedom carte blanche to to
> whatever, whenever. It's not about them having complete power in all
> decisions...that would be overwhelming for a child.

Thanks for clarifying, that is exaclty what I was asking. I do think
excessive TV watching is quite harmful to children so yes, I would put it
in the "danger" category, along w/excessive partying and the like.

Best,
Lynn

Leslie Moyer

+ Thanks for clarifying, that is exaclty what I was asking. I do think
+ excessive TV watching is quite harmful to children so yes, I would put it
+ in the "danger" category, along w/excessive partying and the like.

I think it was Margaret Mead (?) who told of a culture where very young
children were allowed to go near a fire and learn for themselves what "hot"
meant. Did I read that, maybe, in _The Continuum Concept_? Interesting
story if I could remember it!

But one difference I see is that "hot" has direct consequences and "TV" has
more indirect ones. Still, I think you could effect the same result if you
gave your son ALL the facts and let him choose.....maybe not because I don't
know your son, but this has always worked well for my children to-date. For
us, the OUTCOME was similar....the process for setting the rules was just
different. And the kids' reaction to it when THEY set the rules vs. when
*I* set the rules is profoundly more positive. I'm not suggesting "no
rules"....I'm suggesting allowing your son at least *some* informed choice
in making the rules.

When you let your children make choices (and mistakes) and give them the
responsibility for making choices and following them, then they really do
learn, above all, to TRUST you when you *do* have to set limits. I'd much
rather my children make mistakes when they're young than when the stakes are
higher and my level of control is diminished.

You and I might disagree about the "danger" of TV, though when my kids were
five I, too, had more conservative views about it. (I read Winn's books and
others like it.) For you, it really *may* be as dangerous as fire or drugs
or a busy street. For me it is not. I said before that choices carry with
it responsibility. If *you* make the rules then *you* carry the
responsibility for seeing they are followed. If your son makes the rules
then *he* carries the responsibility. Different aged children are capable
of handling different levels of responsibility. Only you know what those
limits are for your children. However, the more responsibility he is
allowed, the better he will be at handling it when the life-or-death choices
really *do* come up....and the more he'll believe you when you haven't had
the need to set limits *for* him in the past.

--Leslie

Lorraine Goods

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Leslie Moyer wrote:

> I think it was Margaret Mead (?) who told of a culture where very young
> children were allowed to go near a fire and learn for themselves what "hot"
> meant. Did I read that, maybe, in _The Continuum Concept_? Interesting
> story if I could remember it!

Yes, I'm familiar w/that story. I'm not averse to that philosophy in some
instances, when other parents use to freak out bc I let my son, then 2 or
3, climb up rocks/trees and other things I would always say, "Well, if he
falls, that's part of learning to climb."
>
> But one difference I see is that "hot" has direct consequences and "TV" has
> more indirect ones.<<

Not necesarily. At certain times when I have let my son watch more TV than
usual, I have noticed direct changes in him. Primarily, I find that he's
less able to amuse himself and expects me to entertain him when the TV
goes off. He gets cranky. We've pointed this out to him, and he sees that
feeling this way is neither fun nor to his benefit.

>>I'm suggesting allowing your
son at least *some* informed choice > in making the rules.

We do. He's allowed to watch TV one day a week, for as long as he wants,
and he's allowed to watch whatever he wants, Pokemon, Batman, Dr. Seuss
videos. etc. Once we rented the Matrix, which is rated R. He gets his
fill on these "TV days", and it doesn't even come up as an issue the
remaining six days a week, so it works for us. Glad your method works for
you.

> of handling different levels of responsibility. Only you know what those
> limits are for your children.

My point exactly.

Best,
Lynn

Leslie Moyer

+ > But one difference I see is that "hot" has direct consequences
+ and "TV" has
+ > more indirect ones.<<
+
+ Not necesarily. At certain times when I have let my son watch more TV than
+ usual, I have noticed direct changes in him.

I meant from the child's perspective.

+ >>I'm suggesting allowing your
+ son at least *some* informed choice > in making the rules.
+
+ We do. He's allowed to watch TV one day a week, for as long as he wants,
+ and he's allowed to watch whatever he wants,

That's not choice in *making* the rules....those are choices within the
rules you've made.

--Leslie Moyer

Sarah Carothers

What if your child wants to watch Animal Planet everyday and nothing
else? Would you then change the rules so that he could watch one
'good' show daily rather than an entire day of a mixed bag?
Just curious...
~xx~ ~xx~ ~xx~
Sarah Carothers
puddles@...


On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:58:03 -0600, Leslie Moyer wrote:
>
>+ >>I'm suggesting allowing your
>+ son at least *some* informed choice > in making the rules.
>+
>+ We do. He's allowed to watch TV one day a week, for as
>long as he wants,
>+ and he's allowed to watch whatever he wants,
>
>That's not choice in *making* the rules....those are
>choices within the
>rules you've made.
>
>--Leslie Moyer




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

Lorraine Goods

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Leslie Moyer wrote:

> That's not choice in *making* the rules....those are choices within the
> rules you've made.
>
> --Leslie Moyer

This seems a matter of semantics more than anything else. In any case, I
really don't care to trouble the rest of the list with any more of this
discussion, which is quickly degenerating into a tit-for-tat
argument. You will never convince me that it's in my son's best interest,
long-term of otherwise, to let him watch TV as much as he wants. And I
will never convince you that my "method" is best. So big deal. Let it
go. I still learn a lot from hearing about how others do things, even if
their ways differ from mine. Different strokes for different folks and all
that.

Best,
Lynn

Lorraine Goods

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Sarah Carothers wrote:

> What if your child wants to watch Animal Planet everyday and nothing
> else? Would you then change the rules so that he could watch one
> 'good' show daily rather than an entire day of a mixed bag?
> Just curious...
> ~xx~ ~xx~ ~xx~
> Sarah Carothers

Sounds reasonable. I'm not wed to some "one-day-a-week-only" TV ideology.
What we do is working for us, right now. But if homeschooling has taught
me one thing, it's the importance of being flexible.

Best,
Lynn

Diane

I've decided TV is just an "agree to disagree" issue for me here. I rarely
enter these discussions at all, because in our family we simply don't do TV.
We got rid of ours years before we had kids, and we don't have any rules at
all concerning it.

:-) Diane

Lorraine Goods wrote:

> This seems a matter of semantics more than anything else. In any case, I
> really don't care to trouble the rest of the list with any more of this
> discussion, which is quickly degenerating into a tit-for-tat
> argument. You will never convince me that it's in my son's best interest,
> long-term of otherwise, to let him watch TV as much as he wants. And I
> will never convince you that my "method" is best. So big deal. Let it
> go. I still learn a lot from hearing about how others do things, even if
> their ways differ from mine. Different strokes for different folks and all
> that.
>
> Best,
> Lynn

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Lorraine Goods <lg96@c...> wrote:

>
> Thanks for clarifying, that is exaclty what I was asking. I do think
> excessive TV watching is quite harmful to children so yes, I would
put it
> in the "danger" category, along w/excessive partying and the like.
>
> Best,
> Lynn


I guess the problem is how you define excessive. I limit my son but
not my daughters. The reason is because it does a different thing to
him. The girls (14 an 16) have gone on TV watching binges and I let
it run it's course. Eventually, they look up and do something else.
Wyndham is different. He has other problems that don't allow him to
get past it. He NEEDS to be told to shut it off sometimes. I would
never dream of telling him WHAT to watch, but I am quite confident in
my decision to tell him how much to watch.

But again, the problem here is recognizing the difference. I know
kids that need help learning fiction from reality, I know kids who
need help learning about consummerism and the effects of advertizing,
both of these things can and should be handled without limiting TV.
But if your child is so glue to the tube that he forgets to eat or go
potty on a regular basis and is becoming more and more unhappy and
unhealthy, maybe you need to do something.

Bridget