TCS
Elliot Temple
Are you all TCS? www.tcs.ac there is an email list and web forum and
IRC chatroom.
IRC chatroom.
Fetteroll
on 4/28/02 3:57 AM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:
the TCSers <eg>
(TCS = Taking Children Seriously, a parenting philosophy espoused by Sarah
Lawrence for those who haven't run across it.)
I would say that unschoolers are more likely to be less coercive than
non-unschoolers and many discussion revolve around ways to approach specific
kid situations that come up without or with less coercion, but the only
noncoercion that is part of unschooling is not coercing academic learning.
Joyce
> Are you all TCS? www.tcs.ac there is an email list and web forum andSome of us have had some enlightening as well as frustrating debates with
> IRC chatroom.
the TCSers <eg>
(TCS = Taking Children Seriously, a parenting philosophy espoused by Sarah
Lawrence for those who haven't run across it.)
I would say that unschoolers are more likely to be less coercive than
non-unschoolers and many discussion revolve around ways to approach specific
kid situations that come up without or with less coercion, but the only
noncoercion that is part of unschooling is not coercing academic learning.
Joyce
Camille Bauer
but the only
noncoercion that is part of unschooling is not coercing academic learning.>>>
I disagree. Unschooling is about living life. Many unschoolers will say, "it's a way of life". There should be not be coercion at all, because then you stifle learning.
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
noncoercion that is part of unschooling is not coercing academic learning.>>>
I disagree. Unschooling is about living life. Many unschoolers will say, "it's a way of life". There should be not be coercion at all, because then you stifle learning.
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elliot Temple
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
Why shouldn't unschooling and not initiating force against children be
combined? I don't see how a parent could do a very good job of letting a
child learn when ey routinely uses force to enforce eir whims on child.
Force and unschooling seem like opposites to me. Perhaps this is because
children are learning at all times. They spend all their time solving
problems. I don't differentiate between "academic" and other learning; all
types are equally important.
-- Elliot
> on 4/28/02 3:57 AM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:and
>
> > Are you all TCS? www.tcs.ac there is an email list and web forum
> > IRC chatroom.Oh? What happened?
>
> Some of us have had some enlightening as well as frustrating debates with
> the TCSers <eg>
> I would say that unschoolers are more likely to be less coercive thanspecific
> non-unschoolers and many discussion revolve around ways to approach
> kid situations that come up without or with less coercion, but the onlylearning.
> noncoercion that is part of unschooling is not coercing academic
Why shouldn't unschooling and not initiating force against children be
combined? I don't see how a parent could do a very good job of letting a
child learn when ey routinely uses force to enforce eir whims on child.
Force and unschooling seem like opposites to me. Perhaps this is because
children are learning at all times. They spend all their time solving
problems. I don't differentiate between "academic" and other learning; all
types are equally important.
-- Elliot
Fetteroll
on 4/28/02 5:15 AM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:
children. And what exactly constituted damage.
There was another term the TCSers were using that was a lightbulb moment for
me that they had redifined certain words and weren't using them in the
standard way.
chores (just to name a few) in order to learn those skills. She will learn
those from life and adults modeling the behavior. She will learn respect by
me respecting her (and me respecting me too!)
I try to treat her in situations that seem to call for coercion in the same
way I would an adult. I don't think I've damaged (in the standard or TCS
definition) my husband or our relationship the few times I've had to give up
on explanations and just say, "Look, let's just do it my way and then you'll
see what I mean." (That's a huge responsibility and I'm putting his trust in
me at stake so I'd better be right! ;-)
to wait for a while to see how some of us express our ideas on coercion in
discussions we have with more coercive parents. *Don't* make assumptions.
(And it helps to keep the discussion civil if we inflamatory language like
"enforce their whims on a child". If you want to talk about one person
forcing their agenda on another, let's. But if you call them whims I suspect
you'll get more rancor than enlightenment.) I think you will find that the
way of thinking some of us suggest is pretty indistinguishable from TCS. (I
can do a darn good argument why it isn't right to force chores on kids.)
(That doesn't, of course, apply to all unschoolers. More coercive
unschoolers may even be the majority. Who knows? But few will bring up ways
of coercing kids to do nonacademic things because it will always lead to a
debate about why coercion isn't necessary. So you may not be able to start
up a coercion vs noncoercion debate, just a less coercion vs noncoercion
debate.)
I think the difference will be in the extent to which those of us who argue
less coercive methods avoid coercion. Though I keep noncoercion as my goal
in my dealings with my daughter, I don't believe that everytime I've ended
up coercing her because I wasn't clever enough or didn't plan enough that
I've damaged her.
Joyce
> Oh? What happened?We could never really get past the idea that coercion was "damaging" to
children. And what exactly constituted damage.
There was another term the TCSers were using that was a lightbulb moment for
me that they had redifined certain words and weren't using them in the
standard way.
> I don't differentiate between "academic" and other learning; allNeither do I. I don't believe I need to force my daughter to be polite or do
> types are equally important.
chores (just to name a few) in order to learn those skills. She will learn
those from life and adults modeling the behavior. She will learn respect by
me respecting her (and me respecting me too!)
I try to treat her in situations that seem to call for coercion in the same
way I would an adult. I don't think I've damaged (in the standard or TCS
definition) my husband or our relationship the few times I've had to give up
on explanations and just say, "Look, let's just do it my way and then you'll
see what I mean." (That's a huge responsibility and I'm putting his trust in
me at stake so I'd better be right! ;-)
> I don't see how a parent could do a very good job of letting aAnd I think it will be *very* *VERY* helpful before you begin debating this
> child learn when ey routinely uses force to enforce eir whims on child.
to wait for a while to see how some of us express our ideas on coercion in
discussions we have with more coercive parents. *Don't* make assumptions.
(And it helps to keep the discussion civil if we inflamatory language like
"enforce their whims on a child". If you want to talk about one person
forcing their agenda on another, let's. But if you call them whims I suspect
you'll get more rancor than enlightenment.) I think you will find that the
way of thinking some of us suggest is pretty indistinguishable from TCS. (I
can do a darn good argument why it isn't right to force chores on kids.)
(That doesn't, of course, apply to all unschoolers. More coercive
unschoolers may even be the majority. Who knows? But few will bring up ways
of coercing kids to do nonacademic things because it will always lead to a
debate about why coercion isn't necessary. So you may not be able to start
up a coercion vs noncoercion debate, just a less coercion vs noncoercion
debate.)
I think the difference will be in the extent to which those of us who argue
less coercive methods avoid coercion. Though I keep noncoercion as my goal
in my dealings with my daughter, I don't believe that everytime I've ended
up coercing her because I wasn't clever enough or didn't plan enough that
I've damaged her.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/02 3:08:34 AM, curi@... writes:
<< Why shouldn't unschooling and not initiating force against children be
combined? I don't see how a parent could do a very good job of letting a
child learn when ey routinely uses force to enforce eir whims on child.
Force and unschooling seem like opposites to me. >>
They can be. Force and coercion aren't equal. And the TCS
particular-definition of "coercion" goes beyond what it is generally believed
to be, and purposely so, for rhetorical purposes. So the debate is close to
the surface.
One seeming-central aspect of the TCS belief is not telling stories about
exactly what happens and how it works, so occasionally someone used to come
to AOL or www.unschooling.com and say those who talked about their children
were being disrespectful of them. And if you asked the TCS proponent(s) to
explain more closely how it actually works at their house, the request was
denied. All the stories were theory without examples.
Sandra
<< Why shouldn't unschooling and not initiating force against children be
combined? I don't see how a parent could do a very good job of letting a
child learn when ey routinely uses force to enforce eir whims on child.
Force and unschooling seem like opposites to me. >>
They can be. Force and coercion aren't equal. And the TCS
particular-definition of "coercion" goes beyond what it is generally believed
to be, and purposely so, for rhetorical purposes. So the debate is close to
the surface.
One seeming-central aspect of the TCS belief is not telling stories about
exactly what happens and how it works, so occasionally someone used to come
to AOL or www.unschooling.com and say those who talked about their children
were being disrespectful of them. And if you asked the TCS proponent(s) to
explain more closely how it actually works at their house, the request was
denied. All the stories were theory without examples.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 4/28/02 4:41 AM, Camille Bauer at goddessofwisdom2@... wrote:
academics.
Once someone accepts that academics can be learned without being forced,
then for some the obvious next question is can't they learn everything
without being forced to?
But that's an extension of unschooling. For some it's integral. But for the
purposes of this list, it isn't.
That doesn't mean we can't discuss why someone feels it's necessary to
enforce chores and politeness and sticking out agreements to be on a team! I
think it's a natural and healthy mind stretch for those thinking about
unschooling. (If they want to participate.) But it isn't part of the
definition of unschooling.
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
> I disagree. Unschooling is about living life. Many unschoolers will say, "it'sFor the purposes of this list unschooling is just about not forcing
> a way of life". There should be not be coercion at all, because then you
> stifle learning.
academics.
Once someone accepts that academics can be learned without being forced,
then for some the obvious next question is can't they learn everything
without being forced to?
But that's an extension of unschooling. For some it's integral. But for the
purposes of this list, it isn't.
That doesn't mean we can't discuss why someone feels it's necessary to
enforce chores and politeness and sticking out agreements to be on a team! I
think it's a natural and healthy mind stretch for those thinking about
unschooling. (If they want to participate.) But it isn't part of the
definition of unschooling.
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
[email protected]
I have a huge problem with the description I've seen here of TCS.
If that's what it's like, I want nothing to do with it!
I should make my dh wait at the airport or take a cab when he's expecting me
so my child can continue a project?
Boy, I bet that teaches the child a lot of empathy and respect for others.
I think there is a respectful way to go about getting the child ready to go,
I think it's very disrespectful to dh to not show up at a prearranged time.
Dh would understand if I was late, trying to help a child calm down. I don't
think it's very kind, loving or healthy to just not show up!!!
I think that by this description, it would teach children that their needs
are the only ones that matter, the rest of the house can revolve around them.
Families don't live in a vacuum. Everyone has needs and sometimes one person
foregoes their own for another.
There are ways to give children respect and dialogue healthy social skills
that don't involve what I just read about TCS.
WOW!
Ren
If that's what it's like, I want nothing to do with it!
I should make my dh wait at the airport or take a cab when he's expecting me
so my child can continue a project?
Boy, I bet that teaches the child a lot of empathy and respect for others.
I think there is a respectful way to go about getting the child ready to go,
I think it's very disrespectful to dh to not show up at a prearranged time.
Dh would understand if I was late, trying to help a child calm down. I don't
think it's very kind, loving or healthy to just not show up!!!
I think that by this description, it would teach children that their needs
are the only ones that matter, the rest of the house can revolve around them.
Families don't live in a vacuum. Everyone has needs and sometimes one person
foregoes their own for another.
There are ways to give children respect and dialogue healthy social skills
that don't involve what I just read about TCS.
WOW!
Ren
Tia Leschke
>And when I spent a bit of time on their list, a number of years ago, a
>One seeming-central aspect of the TCS belief is not telling stories about
>exactly what happens and how it works, so occasionally someone used to come
>to AOL or www.unschooling.com and say those who talked about their children
>were being disrespectful of them. And if you asked the TCS proponent(s) to
>explain more closely how it actually works at their house, the request was
>denied. All the stories were theory without examples.
large percentage of the regular posters to that list didn't have any
children. I find I get far more helpful info about being non-coercive or
at least less coercive right here.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Camille Bauer
Once someone accepts that academics can be learned without being forced,
then for some the obvious next question is can't they learn everything
without being forced to?>>>
Good point Joyce :) Unschooling is actually helped me find TCS.
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
then for some the obvious next question is can't they learn everything
without being forced to?>>>
Good point Joyce :) Unschooling is actually helped me find TCS.
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:06:20 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
about Cacie and mention her by name (and this was when everyone else
would tell actual stories about their kids, but use a different name, and
I can't remember the name... Fred? something like that). I had asked her
if it was okay, and she said it was, and that was that. Everything seemed
a lot more *real* back then, I knew who the people were, and who their
kids were, and who didn't have kids... it was a lot of fun, and I still
think the underlying theory, as a philosophical theory, is sound. Some of
the main posters were, of course, nuts, and at the big TCS get-together a
few years back it became pretty clear which those were...
I resubbed a couple of years ago and my first post was censored because
the moderator thought I was not disguising my child's identity enough...
they had changed the FAQ to disallow the use of children's names even
when the children had given permission. The funny thing was that the post
wasn't even about my child at all, but about another child.
Dar (aka Sista Dar of The Church of Sarah)
> One seeming-central aspect of the TCS belief is not telling storiesabout
> exactly what happens and how it works, so occasionally someone used tocome
> to AOL or www.unschooling.com and say those who talked about theirwas
> children were being disrespectful of them. And if you asked the TCS
> proponent(s) to
> explain more closely how it actually works at their house, the request
> denied. All the stories were theory without examples.A long, long time ago, when I was on the TCS list, I used to tell stories
about Cacie and mention her by name (and this was when everyone else
would tell actual stories about their kids, but use a different name, and
I can't remember the name... Fred? something like that). I had asked her
if it was okay, and she said it was, and that was that. Everything seemed
a lot more *real* back then, I knew who the people were, and who their
kids were, and who didn't have kids... it was a lot of fun, and I still
think the underlying theory, as a philosophical theory, is sound. Some of
the main posters were, of course, nuts, and at the big TCS get-together a
few years back it became pretty clear which those were...
I resubbed a couple of years ago and my first post was censored because
the moderator thought I was not disguising my child's identity enough...
they had changed the FAQ to disallow the use of children's names even
when the children had given permission. The funny thing was that the post
wasn't even about my child at all, but about another child.
Dar (aka Sista Dar of The Church of Sarah)
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 3:26:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
freeform@... writes:
"Ben"?
<g>
Kate Davis
Law Office of Kathleen M.P. Davis, Chartered
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 950
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
freeform@... writes:
> A long, long time ago, when I was on the TCS list, I used to tell storiesWas it . . . .
> about Cacie and mention her by name (and this was when everyone else
> would tell actual stories about their kids, but use a different name, and
> I can't remember the name... Fred? something like that).
"Ben"?
<g>
Kate Davis
Law Office of Kathleen M.P. Davis, Chartered
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 950
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:32:32 EDT Katedavislawfirm@... writes:
remember, I got to the lull and thought, "Ralph!" That was it, and there
were Ralphies and Ralphettes, for the younger and female crowds.
Dar
> In a message dated 4/28/2002 3:26:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,name, and
> freeform@... writes:
> >(and this was when everyone else
> > would tell actual stories about their kids, but use a different
> > I can't remember the name... Fred? something like that).No... that must be The New and Improved TCS Name. :-) But you helped me
>
>
>
> Was it . . . .
>
> "Ben"?
remember, I got to the lull and thought, "Ralph!" That was it, and there
were Ralphies and Ralphettes, for the younger and female crowds.
Dar
Elliot Temple
From: <starsuncloud@...>
Olivia shouldn't have scheduled conflicts like this in the first place.
TCS doesn't decide what kids should be like then force this vision on them.
Doing so would necesitate that all flaws are passed on to the next
generation. We let kids make their own choices. So, no "teaching".
that he had a fit, but not OK to be late because Ben was learning? I don't
understand.
TCS does not advocate self-sacrifice except when parents FAIL. The vast
majority of the time, a Common Preference will be reached instead.
Everyone can be happy.
Apparently you didn't like the suggestions I gave for Olivia. I don't know
all about you, so I can't give perfect answers for your life. You need to
find your own solutions, using creativity, that are suited to your own
situation, and also to Ben.
solution. If she was not, strike that off the list and think of an
alternative she is happy with.
solutions to hypothetical problems that didn't really have enough detail
for good answers. Your own situation is not going to be exactly the same
as Olivia's and your preferences will be different, so finding a solution
that fits your preferences and your child's will be different. I just gave
ideas that seemed reasonable to me. *shrugs*
> I have a huge problem with the description I've seen here of TCS.me
> If that's what it's like, I want nothing to do with it!
> I should make my dh wait at the airport or take a cab when he's expecting
> so my child can continue a project?I said to phone him and explain didn't I? If not, my bad. Honestly,
Olivia shouldn't have scheduled conflicts like this in the first place.
> Boy, I bet that teaches the child a lot of empathy and respect forothers.
TCS doesn't decide what kids should be like then force this vision on them.
Doing so would necesitate that all flaws are passed on to the next
generation. We let kids make their own choices. So, no "teaching".
> I think there is a respectful way to go about getting the child ready togo,
> I think it's very disrespectful to dh to not show up at a prearrangedtime.
> Dh would understand if I was late, trying to help a child calm down.It's OK for Olivia to be late because she was busy upsetting Ben enough
that he had a fit, but not OK to be late because Ben was learning? I don't
understand.
> I don'tneeds
> think it's very kind, loving or healthy to just not show up!!!
> I think that by this description, it would teach children that their
> are the only ones that matter, the rest of the house can revolve aroundthem.
TCS does not advocate self-sacrifice except when parents FAIL. The vast
majority of the time, a Common Preference will be reached instead.
Everyone can be happy.
Apparently you didn't like the suggestions I gave for Olivia. I don't know
all about you, so I can't give perfect answers for your life. You need to
find your own solutions, using creativity, that are suited to your own
situation, and also to Ben.
> Families don't live in a vacuum. Everyone has needs and sometimes oneperson
> foregoes their own for another.Yes, my assumption was Olivia was happy to do everything I listed as a
solution. If she was not, strike that off the list and think of an
alternative she is happy with.
> There are ways to give children respect and dialogue healthy socialskills
> that don't involve what I just read about TCS.TCS is not about specific solutions. These were just hypothetical
solutions to hypothetical problems that didn't really have enough detail
for good answers. Your own situation is not going to be exactly the same
as Olivia's and your preferences will be different, so finding a solution
that fits your preferences and your child's will be different. I just gave
ideas that seemed reasonable to me. *shrugs*
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 6:09:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:
have whims and impulses that need to be catered to, it is Olivia's fault for
having allowed her husband to schedule a return flight on an airline during a
time at which her son might not be ready to go to the airport. Her bad.
Man, I wish *MY* parents had followed *TCS* parenting!
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
curi@... writes:
> Honestly,Oh. That's a good point. Gosh, what with having kids and all, who might
> Olivia shouldn't have scheduled conflicts like this in the first place.
>
have whims and impulses that need to be catered to, it is Olivia's fault for
having allowed her husband to schedule a return flight on an airline during a
time at which her son might not be ready to go to the airport. Her bad.
Man, I wish *MY* parents had followed *TCS* parenting!
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 6:09:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:
"lessons" learned by the first. So, "teaching."
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
curi@... writes:
> TCS doesn't decide what kids should be like then force this vision on them.It seems to me that there is value in passing on to the next generation the
> Doing so would necesitate that all flaws are passed on to the next
> generation. We let kids make their own choices. So, no "teaching".
>
"lessons" learned by the first. So, "teaching."
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Camille Bauer
It seems to me that there is value in passing on to the next generation the
"lessons" learned by the first. So, "teaching.">>>
What value is there in teaching lessons? Doesn't that contradict unschooling?
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"lessons" learned by the first. So, "teaching.">>>
What value is there in teaching lessons? Doesn't that contradict unschooling?
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 6:31:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
goddessofwisdom2@... writes:
be "taught" "lessons" about respecting others, treating others well, and just
being generally all-around good chaps and chappettes.
I think the answer is yes.
It appears to me, based upon the way "Olivia" is supposed to rear "Ben," that
"Olivia" might disagree with me. (Which is, of course, somewhat bizarre in
the light of the fact that Olivia does not even exist!!).
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
goddessofwisdom2@... writes:
> It seems to me that there is value in passing on to the next generation theThe subject is not unschooling. It is TCS. The issue is: should children
>
> "lessons" learned by the first. So, "teaching.">>>
>
> What value is there in teaching lessons? Doesn't that contradict
> unschooling?
>
be "taught" "lessons" about respecting others, treating others well, and just
being generally all-around good chaps and chappettes.
I think the answer is yes.
It appears to me, based upon the way "Olivia" is supposed to rear "Ben," that
"Olivia" might disagree with me. (Which is, of course, somewhat bizarre in
the light of the fact that Olivia does not even exist!!).
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/02 5:34:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Oh. I see. Remind me not to send my child to anybody who practices
*this*
method of parenting, as, or so it would seem, *their* child would always
*win*. >>
Amen to that Kate!!
I also don't like the idea of not guiding your child at ALL!! ?That's a
parents job.....helping them see how their behavior affects other people,
dialoguing about different attitudes etc.... You seriously think that the
mistakes of the previous generation won't be passed on if we refuse to
"teach" them anything?
Ren
[email protected] writes:
<< Oh. I see. Remind me not to send my child to anybody who practices
*this*
method of parenting, as, or so it would seem, *their* child would always
*win*. >>
Amen to that Kate!!
I also don't like the idea of not guiding your child at ALL!! ?That's a
parents job.....helping them see how their behavior affects other people,
dialoguing about different attitudes etc.... You seriously think that the
mistakes of the previous generation won't be passed on if we refuse to
"teach" them anything?
Ren
Camille Bauer
<<I also don't like the idea of not guiding your child at ALL!! ?>>>
TCS isn't "hands off" parenting Ren. A TCS parent is a trusted advisor. Just like when you offer ideas for fun things to do during the day, you would offer things for any situation.
<< You seriously think that the
mistakes of the previous generation won't be passed on if we refuse to
"teach" them anything?>>
Do you teach math? Do you teach history? science? etc... then what do you do? You offer your best theories but in the end it is up to that person to decide.
If you don't have to teach math, history, whatever why do you have to teach anything else? Would you just continue along the lines of offering your best theories?
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
TCS isn't "hands off" parenting Ren. A TCS parent is a trusted advisor. Just like when you offer ideas for fun things to do during the day, you would offer things for any situation.
<< You seriously think that the
mistakes of the previous generation won't be passed on if we refuse to
"teach" them anything?>>
Do you teach math? Do you teach history? science? etc... then what do you do? You offer your best theories but in the end it is up to that person to decide.
If you don't have to teach math, history, whatever why do you have to teach anything else? Would you just continue along the lines of offering your best theories?
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elliot Temple
From: <starsuncloud@...>
most problems it to communicate more information to the child. We're
constantly criticised because "children can't understand advice" and now we
get the reverse? Reminds me of when someone called me a communist.
should give advice, but let child decide if ey agrees or not. Teaching
means parents has a specific concept of how children should be, and forces
it on the child, instead of letting child decide how to be.
> I also don't like the idea of not guiding your child at ALL!!What? TCS advocates parents as advisors not enforcers. The solution to
most problems it to communicate more information to the child. We're
constantly criticised because "children can't understand advice" and now we
get the reverse? Reminds me of when someone called me a communist.
> ?That's aThere is a difference between *presenting* advice and *teaching*. Parents
> parents job.....helping them see how their behavior affects other people,
> dialoguing about different attitudes etc.... You seriously think that the
> mistakes of the previous generation won't be passed on if we refuse to
> "teach" them anything?
should give advice, but let child decide if ey agrees or not. Teaching
means parents has a specific concept of how children should be, and forces
it on the child, instead of letting child decide how to be.
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:02:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:
I mean, literally, ROFL.
My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him that he
ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream for
breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)
ROFL. I love it!!
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
curi@... writes:
> There is a difference between *presenting* advice and *teaching*. ParentsLOL.
> should give advice, but let child decide if ey agrees or not.
I mean, literally, ROFL.
My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him that he
ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream for
breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)
ROFL. I love it!!
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 4/28/02 7:08 PM, Katedavislawfirm@... at Katedavislawfirm@...
wrote:
My daughter could have ice cream for breakfast. She eats some nontraditional
stuff for breakfast but I can only remember one time her eating ice cream.
Joyce
wrote:
> My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him that heWell, why not? What would happen if you didn't say no?
> ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream for
> breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)
My daughter could have ice cream for breakfast. She eats some nontraditional
stuff for breakfast but I can only remember one time her eating ice cream.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:27:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
When I DO say "no" he eats something other than ice cream.
It is simply hysterically funny to me to think that "Olivia" would have me do
otherwise.
Fundamental difference of opinion between me and the non-existent "Olivia."
I'm sure she doesn't mind!
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
> > My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him thatI don't always say no. And, when I don't, he eats ice cream for breakfast.
> he
> > ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream for
> > breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)
>
> Well, why not? What would happen if you didn't say no?
When I DO say "no" he eats something other than ice cream.
It is simply hysterically funny to me to think that "Olivia" would have me do
otherwise.
Fundamental difference of opinion between me and the non-existent "Olivia."
I'm sure she doesn't mind!
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:49:34 EDT starsuncloud@... writes:
won't *learn*. And there are many ways to learn something beisdes
actually doing a rude, dangerous, unkind, or otherwise inadvised thing.
Children can learn through watching other people (social learning is the
technical term), through reading, through asking questions, through
watching tv, through figuring out for themselves what would be best... a
million ways!
And, the part of TCS theory which always seems to be ignored is the
"sharing your best theories" piece. If I see that my child is, say
refusing to share her sand toys with a group of kids at the park, and I
believe that this behavior is not going to get her the results that she
really wants (i.e., friends), then according to TCS, I *must* explain to
her what I'm seeing, and what I think the result will be,and why, and I
must continue to dialogue with her about this until one of us rationally
convinces the other (or until she doesn't want to talk about it anymore,
in which case the TCS parent would shut up but remain nearby).She may
convince me ("I want to play by myself anyway, and these kids borrowed
someone else's sand toys last week and threw them over the fence." ) or I
may convince her, or we may come up with one of the famous Mutually
Agreeable Solutions, like offering some not-very-valuable sand toys for
open play, which not sharing the prized Dragon Shovel Set.
Dar
> I also don't like the idea of not guiding your child at ALL!! ?That'sa
> parents job.....helping them see how their behavior affects otherpeople,
> dialoguing about different attitudes etc.... You seriously thinkBut just because you refuse to "teach", doesn't mean that the children
> that the
> mistakes of the previous generation won't be passed on if we refuse
> to "teach" them anything?
won't *learn*. And there are many ways to learn something beisdes
actually doing a rude, dangerous, unkind, or otherwise inadvised thing.
Children can learn through watching other people (social learning is the
technical term), through reading, through asking questions, through
watching tv, through figuring out for themselves what would be best... a
million ways!
And, the part of TCS theory which always seems to be ignored is the
"sharing your best theories" piece. If I see that my child is, say
refusing to share her sand toys with a group of kids at the park, and I
believe that this behavior is not going to get her the results that she
really wants (i.e., friends), then according to TCS, I *must* explain to
her what I'm seeing, and what I think the result will be,and why, and I
must continue to dialogue with her about this until one of us rationally
convinces the other (or until she doesn't want to talk about it anymore,
in which case the TCS parent would shut up but remain nearby).She may
convince me ("I want to play by myself anyway, and these kids borrowed
someone else's sand toys last week and threw them over the fence." ) or I
may convince her, or we may come up with one of the famous Mutually
Agreeable Solutions, like offering some not-very-valuable sand toys for
open play, which not sharing the prized Dragon Shovel Set.
Dar
[email protected]
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:08:04 EDT Katedavislawfirm@... writes:
How about talking to Ben about nutrition, maybe pointing out how he feels
a couple of hours after he's eaten a bowl of ice cream (and nothing
else), and comparing it to how he feels after he's eaten a scrambled egg?
Actually, IME kids who aren't coerced around food tend to eat oddly but
healthily. We generally eat birthday cake for breakfast the next day,
often an ice cream cake, but other than that Cacie (um... I mean
"Ralphette") doesn't usually want ice cream from breakfast. For the last
two days she's had asparagus for dinner.
Dar
> My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* himthat he
> ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice creamfor
> breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)I tend to yell and scream when people tell me what to do, too.
>
> ROFL. I love it!!
How about talking to Ben about nutrition, maybe pointing out how he feels
a couple of hours after he's eaten a bowl of ice cream (and nothing
else), and comparing it to how he feels after he's eaten a scrambled egg?
Actually, IME kids who aren't coerced around food tend to eat oddly but
healthily. We generally eat birthday cake for breakfast the next day,
often an ice cream cake, but other than that Cacie (um... I mean
"Ralphette") doesn't usually want ice cream from breakfast. For the last
two days she's had asparagus for dinner.
Dar
Elliot Temple
From: <Katedavislawfirm@...>
child's icecream intake, making choices for child, on the false assumption
that parent is infallible. This violates child's right to make own
choices. And, in a more practical vein:
Do you really want to have to tell your child NO all the time? To deny
things ey wants? Wouldn't it be better if you could always say "yes,"
nothing go wrong, less stress, happier child, etc...
If Olivia lets Ben have icecream whenever he wants, the novelty will soon
where off, and Olivia will find that Ben eats pretty much normally and
healthily by choice. The only reason many kids are icecream fanatics is
that it was systematically denied to them, so when they can get any, they
do not act rationally.
> In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:27:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,breakfast.
> fetteroll@... writes:
>
> > Well, why not? What would happen if you didn't say no?
>
> I don't always say no. And, when I don't, he eats ice cream for
> When I DO say "no" he eats something other than ice cream.And this is one thing TCS considers a problem. Parenting is controlling
child's icecream intake, making choices for child, on the false assumption
that parent is infallible. This violates child's right to make own
choices. And, in a more practical vein:
Do you really want to have to tell your child NO all the time? To deny
things ey wants? Wouldn't it be better if you could always say "yes,"
nothing go wrong, less stress, happier child, etc...
If Olivia lets Ben have icecream whenever he wants, the novelty will soon
where off, and Olivia will find that Ben eats pretty much normally and
healthily by choice. The only reason many kids are icecream fanatics is
that it was systematically denied to them, so when they can get any, they
do not act rationally.
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:
all the right places.
Second, let's look at this post (and by parsing the statements in the post, I
mean no disrespect to the poster emself (or is that erself) -- I really don't
know).
A statement is made that "Parenting is controlling child's ice cream intake,
making choices for the child, on the false assumption that parent is
infallible." Partly true, but mostly false. I know that I, for one, do not
believe that I, or any parent, is infallible. Nor do I believe a child is
infallible. I agree, however, that the parenting decision in this situation
does, indeed, control the child's ice cream intake and "make choices for the
child." I am comfortable with that fact. I am 34. Ben is 3. I might not
be infallible, but my guess is that, when it comes to making nutrition and
dietary calls, I am less fallible than is he.
A question is asked "Do you really want to have to tell your child NO all the
time?" Um, no. I believe I clearly stated in the original post that only
sometimes do I say no to this bit of impulsiveness on Ben's <g> part.
However, if Ben wanted to go out and kill the neighbor's puppies every day <
egads> then yes, I would really want to have to tell him NO each and every
time he wanted to do that. (And I would also want to get him some serious
outside counseling . . . but, fortunately, my little Ben doesn't want to kill
the neighbors' puppies . . . . or, at least, he doesn't that I know of.)
The statement is made "If Olivia lets Ben have ice cream whenever he wants,
the novelty will soon wear off, and Olivia will find that Ben eats pretty
much normally and healthily by choice." LOL. Personally, my little Ben
doesn't want ice cream for the novelty of it. He wants it because it's just
so darn yummy. (I know this, because he told me so.) <g>
Finally, and just for the record, I do not "systematically" deny little
Benjamin <g> the ice cream he so desires. It's just that sometimes, and for
my own reasons (whether they be fallible, infallible, rational, or not) I'd
prefer that the family eat pancakes for breakfast. (And, yes, sometimes
little Ben gets his with a side of ice cream, and sometimes he does not.)
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
curi@... writes:
> And this is one thing TCS considers a problem. Parenting is controllingFirst, please forgive me if I laugh. This subject just seems to tickle me in
> child's icecream intake, making choices for child, on the false assumption
> that parent is infallible. This violates child's right to make own
> choices. And, in a more practical vein:
>
> Do you really want to have to tell your child NO all the time? To deny
> things ey wants? Wouldn't it be better if you could always say "yes,"
> nothing go wrong, less stress, happier child, etc...
>
> If Olivia lets Ben have icecream whenever he wants, the novelty will soon
> where off, and Olivia will find that Ben eats pretty much normally and
> healthily by choice. The only reason many kids are icecream fanatics is
> that it was systematically denied to them, so when they can get any, they
> do not act rationally.
>
all the right places.
Second, let's look at this post (and by parsing the statements in the post, I
mean no disrespect to the poster emself (or is that erself) -- I really don't
know).
A statement is made that "Parenting is controlling child's ice cream intake,
making choices for the child, on the false assumption that parent is
infallible." Partly true, but mostly false. I know that I, for one, do not
believe that I, or any parent, is infallible. Nor do I believe a child is
infallible. I agree, however, that the parenting decision in this situation
does, indeed, control the child's ice cream intake and "make choices for the
child." I am comfortable with that fact. I am 34. Ben is 3. I might not
be infallible, but my guess is that, when it comes to making nutrition and
dietary calls, I am less fallible than is he.
A question is asked "Do you really want to have to tell your child NO all the
time?" Um, no. I believe I clearly stated in the original post that only
sometimes do I say no to this bit of impulsiveness on Ben's <g> part.
However, if Ben wanted to go out and kill the neighbor's puppies every day <
egads> then yes, I would really want to have to tell him NO each and every
time he wanted to do that. (And I would also want to get him some serious
outside counseling . . . but, fortunately, my little Ben doesn't want to kill
the neighbors' puppies . . . . or, at least, he doesn't that I know of.)
The statement is made "If Olivia lets Ben have ice cream whenever he wants,
the novelty will soon wear off, and Olivia will find that Ben eats pretty
much normally and healthily by choice." LOL. Personally, my little Ben
doesn't want ice cream for the novelty of it. He wants it because it's just
so darn yummy. (I know this, because he told me so.) <g>
Finally, and just for the record, I do not "systematically" deny little
Benjamin <g> the ice cream he so desires. It's just that sometimes, and for
my own reasons (whether they be fallible, infallible, rational, or not) I'd
prefer that the family eat pancakes for breakfast. (And, yes, sometimes
little Ben gets his with a side of ice cream, and sometimes he does not.)
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/02 5:26:55 PM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< > My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him
that he
The TCS discussion all by itself is going to be irritating enough without us
making up extreme examples.
Sandra
<< > My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him
that he
> ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream forIf it's something that's never really happened, let's not discuss it, please.
> breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.) >>
The TCS discussion all by itself is going to be irritating enough without us
making up extreme examples.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 7:56:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
freeform@... writes:
First, Ben is 3. He yells and screams even when people don't tell him what
to do. Heck, he yells and screams even when he *gets* to eat the ice cream.
Second, do you *really* yell and scream when people tell you what to do? I
do sometimes, but judges tend not to like lawyers who do that habitually, so
I try to curb the screaming part.
Third, Ben is drinking a Dr. Pepper right now, and "Sue" is eating a
cardboard Dora dominoe. Nutrition does not seem to be the driving force in
this house at this particular time. Maybe *I* should look more into the
subject of nutrition.
Finally, I cannot believe I am engaging in conversation on this subject. I
thought very seriously about deleting this entire post before sending it, but
then decided that it was worth sending, if for no other purpose then for its
entertainment value. (Forgive me, please, if you are not entertained. I was
very much entertained by the writing of it.) And, again, I mean no
disrespect whatsoever to any of the individual posters on this subject. I
just happen to find the subject itself a most absurd little bird.
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
freeform@... writes:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:08:04 EDT Katedavislawfirm@... writes:Wow.
> > My son (I'll call him "Ben") would just LOVE if I just *advised* him
> that he
> > ought not scream and yell just because I won't let him eat ice cream
> for
> > breakfast. (Well, at least, not every day.)
> >
> > ROFL. I love it!!
>
> I tend to yell and scream when people tell me what to do, too.
>
> How about talking to Ben about nutrition, maybe pointing out how he feels
> a couple of hours after he's eaten a bowl of ice cream (and nothing
> else), and comparing it to how he feels after he's eaten a scrambled egg?
> Actually, IME kids who aren't coerced around food tend to eat oddly but
> healthily. We generally eat birthday cake for breakfast the next day,
> often an ice cream cake, but other than that Cacie (um... I mean
> "Ralphette") doesn't usually want ice cream from breakfast. For the last
> two days she's had asparagus for dinner.
>
> Dar
>
First, Ben is 3. He yells and screams even when people don't tell him what
to do. Heck, he yells and screams even when he *gets* to eat the ice cream.
Second, do you *really* yell and scream when people tell you what to do? I
do sometimes, but judges tend not to like lawyers who do that habitually, so
I try to curb the screaming part.
Third, Ben is drinking a Dr. Pepper right now, and "Sue" is eating a
cardboard Dora dominoe. Nutrition does not seem to be the driving force in
this house at this particular time. Maybe *I* should look more into the
subject of nutrition.
Finally, I cannot believe I am engaging in conversation on this subject. I
thought very seriously about deleting this entire post before sending it, but
then decided that it was worth sending, if for no other purpose then for its
entertainment value. (Forgive me, please, if you are not entertained. I was
very much entertained by the writing of it.) And, again, I mean no
disrespect whatsoever to any of the individual posters on this subject. I
just happen to find the subject itself a most absurd little bird.
Kate Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]