family responsibility
LLindsey
it is very true that the children have no choice in their position as the younger, smaller least powerful members of a family.. but this is the the way it is. It's not going to change any time soon. and to be a human and a member of a human family is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby aligator or turtle --(to mention species who do not have the demands of a family... only those of survival)....
i try to teach my kids a practical approach to life. They are a member of this family and therefore must do the best they can within that framework.
None of us has total freedom in our life choices. a child, especially a young child, is self centered--in their mind the world revolves around them.. as they SHOULD think, it is instinct. (species survival and all that). So we make many decisions for them and some of us try to give them the benefit of choices that do not affect their survival. Of course they don't think this is fair. it is not fair. It is not necessarily meant to be fair. it is meant to be an effective means of surviving until it is their turn to reproduce.
therefore, my children will help me with the chores...
and they will be civil to each other.. and me..
rudeness is not tolerated (well, not quietly anyway).. and i yell and scream a lot and so do my kids (and we laugh and cry a lot). we are not a perfect family by any means.. nor I an example of parenting perfection. ..we're all adequately neurotic.. (and have shrinks for that..) but we are definitely and interesting bunch (including daughter and grandson.. and eight year old and fourteen year old)
(oh, and yes, my husband has not given me sufficient choices .. so i'm divorcing him... i'm an adult and can do that. ) (thank goodness!!!! lololll)
Linda
i try to teach my kids a practical approach to life. They are a member of this family and therefore must do the best they can within that framework.
None of us has total freedom in our life choices. a child, especially a young child, is self centered--in their mind the world revolves around them.. as they SHOULD think, it is instinct. (species survival and all that). So we make many decisions for them and some of us try to give them the benefit of choices that do not affect their survival. Of course they don't think this is fair. it is not fair. It is not necessarily meant to be fair. it is meant to be an effective means of surviving until it is their turn to reproduce.
therefore, my children will help me with the chores...
and they will be civil to each other.. and me..
rudeness is not tolerated (well, not quietly anyway).. and i yell and scream a lot and so do my kids (and we laugh and cry a lot). we are not a perfect family by any means.. nor I an example of parenting perfection. ..we're all adequately neurotic.. (and have shrinks for that..) but we are definitely and interesting bunch (including daughter and grandson.. and eight year old and fourteen year old)
(oh, and yes, my husband has not given me sufficient choices .. so i'm divorcing him... i'm an adult and can do that. ) (thank goodness!!!! lololll)
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Fetteroll
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] de-lurking
on 6/27/02 9:00 AM, lllindsey at llindsey@... wrote:
> it is my nemisis.. and i tend
> to order my kids to do it.. --my justification to them for these
> demands is that as a member of the family they enjoy the percs of
> their situation..i.e. lots of STUFF.. video games, food, shelter,
> computers etc.. so as members of the family that provides this for
> them they have a responsibility to contribute to said family at
> their own level of ability-- as do i and their father.. adn their
> older sister when she was living here. this works very well.. IN
> THEORY
If you look at it from the child's point of view, or change it around to a
new sitaution, it becomes clearer why the children don't see the
reasonableness of this.
Adults get to choose where to live and pretty much dictate how money gets
spent (or at least can veto any purchase). We may think we're pretty
generous about kid choices but if we turn it around it is very controlling.
Imagine your husband deciding on his own where you would live, which house
to buy (to primarily suit his needs but taking into account any needs of
yours that he deemed worthy) and how the decor would look. He would listen
to your suggestions but they'd only be taken into consideration if they
didn't interfere with his needs. Say he's a big sports fan (and you're not)
and he decided the house would be a shrine to his favorite team. If you had
a special non-sports related picture he might suggest it could hang on the
refrigerator or in a corner of your room so it didn't interfer with his
decorating scheme.
All meals would conform to his idea of good with maybe a little concession
to your tastes (potato chips instead of pretzels). You might get to go to
your favorite restaurant once in a while but your order couldn't be too far
off what he thought you should eat and couldn't be too expensive.
If you wanted to buy something outside your regular allowance -- like a book
or something -- you'd need to convince him that it was worthy of purchase
and you'd need to later demonstrate that you were using it enough for it to
have been worthy of purchase or you'd hear about it the next time you wanted
something.
If you wanted to go somewhere or get something at the store, it would have o
wait until it was convenient for your husband to take you.
In a way, ending up in a family is not unlike going to school. There's no
choice about being born/going to school (at least not for most kids!) or
what family/school you'll end up with. The adults are supposedly thinking of
everything the kids need and supplying them with it and expecting the kids
to appreciate it. The kids don't, of course, because what the adults are
really supplying is what the *adults* want the kids to have, not what the
kids want.
We may have decided what we wanted for our kids was a big backyard. Then it
seems reasonable since the kids live there and should appreciate it, they
should mow it when they're old enough. But as much as the kids might enjoy
the backyard, they didn't choose it and knowing what they'd need to do to
"pay" for it (for the rest of their childhoods) they might have chosen --
had they been able to be informed and been allowed the choice -- to buy a
house with a miniscule yard next to a park. So why should they appreciate
it?
It's sort of like getting showered by nothing but expensive Barbies and
parephernalia at every gift giving occasion when you've told people that
what you really love is dinosaurs. Should you think it's wonderful and
appreciate the "thoughtfulness" of the gift givers? Or are the "gifts"
really forms of control?
But if we act as though our children are partners without demanding that
they act as partners then they will be partners because it's more joy
inspiring to be invited with open arms with no strings attached than it is
to be required to uphold your membership in something you never asked to
join.
Joyce
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 6/27/02 1:41 PM, LLindsey at llindsey@... wrote:
protection. When our thinking stops at "this is the the way it is" then we
protect what those with the authority feel comfortable with. The ones left
out of the equation are the ones with no power.
It's the argument that maintained slavery, keeps kids trudging to school,
keeps people from questioning their religious beliefs, has kept people
confined to their class or lot in life, has kept dictatorial governments in
power, has blocked the handipcapped from participating in society and on and
on and on. It may appear to be those with power protecting the little guy
from chaos, but it's those in power protecting themselves from being
subjected to being uncomfortable or inconvenienced without any control over
it.
approach parenting with the attitude that providing them with a safe and
secure environment to be able to be able to make choices in comes first and
making decisions for them is a last resort.
discussion personally as though they're being told they're not parenting
properly. But that isn't it at all. The discussions provide those who care
to self-examine with the opportunity to do so, to see things from new points
of view, to potentially, through self-examination, to discover -- for
themselves -- new and better ways to be with their families.
We might think our kids have it pretty nice: basically no responsibilities
and free time to explore. But those aren't theirs by right but because we
have the power to give it to them. (Or take it away.) When power is
unbalanced, being kind to the powerless doesn't negate the fact that their
lives share more in common with a prison than a partnership.
The point of the disucssion isn't to tell people they're wrong for choosing
to parent conventionally. (Though I or whoever is participating may think
someone is wrong! ;-) That *isn't* the purpose!) The purpose is to provide
an opportunity for people to self-examine and see that how we parent isn't
dictated by "how things are". How we parent is a *choice*. And the
discussion provides an opportunity to discover more joyful options -- for
the empowered *and* the powerless -- that are available that could be chosen
instead.
Joyce
> it is very true that the children have no choice in their position as theAnd again those aren't the only two choices: to be the least powerful or no
> younger, smaller least powerful members of a family.. but this is the the way
> it is. It's not going to change any time soon. and to be a human and a member
> of a human family is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby aligator or
> turtle --(to mention species who do not have the demands of a family... only
> those of survival)....
protection. When our thinking stops at "this is the the way it is" then we
protect what those with the authority feel comfortable with. The ones left
out of the equation are the ones with no power.
It's the argument that maintained slavery, keeps kids trudging to school,
keeps people from questioning their religious beliefs, has kept people
confined to their class or lot in life, has kept dictatorial governments in
power, has blocked the handipcapped from participating in society and on and
on and on. It may appear to be those with power protecting the little guy
from chaos, but it's those in power protecting themselves from being
subjected to being uncomfortable or inconvenienced without any control over
it.
> a child, especially a young child, is self centered--in their mind the worldAnd perhaps a way of thinking that allows us to see more choices is to
> revolves around them.. as they SHOULD think, it is instinct. (species survival
> and all that). So we make many decisions for them and some of us try to give
> them the benefit of choices that do not affect their survival.
approach parenting with the attitude that providing them with a safe and
secure environment to be able to be able to make choices in comes first and
making decisions for them is a last resort.
> we are not a perfect family by any means.. nor I an example of parentingWhen these parenting discussions start some people tend to take the
> perfection.
discussion personally as though they're being told they're not parenting
properly. But that isn't it at all. The discussions provide those who care
to self-examine with the opportunity to do so, to see things from new points
of view, to potentially, through self-examination, to discover -- for
themselves -- new and better ways to be with their families.
We might think our kids have it pretty nice: basically no responsibilities
and free time to explore. But those aren't theirs by right but because we
have the power to give it to them. (Or take it away.) When power is
unbalanced, being kind to the powerless doesn't negate the fact that their
lives share more in common with a prison than a partnership.
The point of the disucssion isn't to tell people they're wrong for choosing
to parent conventionally. (Though I or whoever is participating may think
someone is wrong! ;-) That *isn't* the purpose!) The purpose is to provide
an opportunity for people to self-examine and see that how we parent isn't
dictated by "how things are". How we parent is a *choice*. And the
discussion provides an opportunity to discover more joyful options -- for
the empowered *and* the powerless -- that are available that could be chosen
instead.
Joyce
kayb85
This is a fascinating discussion.
My personal position is that God created us in such a way so that
children, being among the weaker, needier members of the human race,
have parents who will protect and care for them.
God gave parents a natural love and desire to care for their
offspring, and he gave offspring the gift of parents so that someone
who cares for their well being would be their first introduction to
the human race.
It is through parents that we are supposed to learn self-confidence
and healthy ways of dealing with things.
I have changed a lot in my parenting style. I used to be a James
Dobson style parent and now I am at the point where I don't make my
kids do anything they don't want to do. However, where I draw the
line is that I don't let them take advantage of me either. For
example, if I am going to keep my house in a somewhat decent order, I
CAN'T run around cleaning up after them all the time. I have tried
and I literally cannot do it all. So, each person in my family,
regardless of whether they are a child or an adult, must clean up
after themselves. I am there to love and nourish my children, but I
won't be their maid for them unless it's something that they
physically can't do for themselves. So, if they are going to
bake,they may bake as much as they want but I will not clean up their
mess. And I won't allow them to force me to live in a house that is
filthy. They must clean up. If they don't clean up, then they can't
bake next time. I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone,
even our children, to take advantage of us.
The same thing goes for bedtime. They have rights, but they have to
learn to balance those rights by not taking advantage of someone
else. It is unsafe for my 3 and 5 year olds to be in a house by
themselves unsupervised. Therefore, they may stay up as long as I am
up. If I'm up until 3 am and they want to be up with me, that's
fine. However, if I am going to bed at 11 they must go to bed then
too. It wouldn't be safe for them to be up without me.
Sheila
My personal position is that God created us in such a way so that
children, being among the weaker, needier members of the human race,
have parents who will protect and care for them.
God gave parents a natural love and desire to care for their
offspring, and he gave offspring the gift of parents so that someone
who cares for their well being would be their first introduction to
the human race.
It is through parents that we are supposed to learn self-confidence
and healthy ways of dealing with things.
I have changed a lot in my parenting style. I used to be a James
Dobson style parent and now I am at the point where I don't make my
kids do anything they don't want to do. However, where I draw the
line is that I don't let them take advantage of me either. For
example, if I am going to keep my house in a somewhat decent order, I
CAN'T run around cleaning up after them all the time. I have tried
and I literally cannot do it all. So, each person in my family,
regardless of whether they are a child or an adult, must clean up
after themselves. I am there to love and nourish my children, but I
won't be their maid for them unless it's something that they
physically can't do for themselves. So, if they are going to
bake,they may bake as much as they want but I will not clean up their
mess. And I won't allow them to force me to live in a house that is
filthy. They must clean up. If they don't clean up, then they can't
bake next time. I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone,
even our children, to take advantage of us.
The same thing goes for bedtime. They have rights, but they have to
learn to balance those rights by not taking advantage of someone
else. It is unsafe for my 3 and 5 year olds to be in a house by
themselves unsupervised. Therefore, they may stay up as long as I am
up. If I'm up until 3 am and they want to be up with me, that's
fine. However, if I am going to bed at 11 they must go to bed then
too. It wouldn't be safe for them to be up without me.
Sheila
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> on 6/27/02 1:41 PM, LLindsey at llindsey@w... wrote:
>
> > it is very true that the children have no choice in their
position as the
> > younger, smaller least powerful members of a family.. but this is
the the way
> > it is. It's not going to change any time soon. and to be a human
and a member
> > of a human family is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby
aligator or
> > turtle --(to mention species who do not have the demands of a
family... only
> > those of survival)....
>
> And again those aren't the only two choices: to be the least
powerful or no
> protection. When our thinking stops at "this is the the way it is"
then we
> protect what those with the authority feel comfortable with. The
ones left
> out of the equation are the ones with no power.
>
> It's the argument that maintained slavery, keeps kids trudging to
school,
> keeps people from questioning their religious beliefs, has kept
people
> confined to their class or lot in life, has kept dictatorial
governments in
> power, has blocked the handipcapped from participating in society
and on and
> on and on. It may appear to be those with power protecting the
little guy
> from chaos, but it's those in power protecting themselves from being
> subjected to being uncomfortable or inconvenienced without any
control over
> it.
>
> > a child, especially a young child, is self centered--in their
mind the world
> > revolves around them.. as they SHOULD think, it is instinct.
(species survival
> > and all that). So we make many decisions for them and some of us
try to give
> > them the benefit of choices that do not affect their survival.
>
> And perhaps a way of thinking that allows us to see more choices is
to
> approach parenting with the attitude that providing them with a
safe and
> secure environment to be able to be able to make choices in comes
first and
> making decisions for them is a last resort.
>
> > we are not a perfect family by any means.. nor I an example of
parenting
> > perfection.
>
> When these parenting discussions start some people tend to take the
> discussion personally as though they're being told they're not
parenting
> properly. But that isn't it at all. The discussions provide those
who care
> to self-examine with the opportunity to do so, to see things from
new points
> of view, to potentially, through self-examination, to discover --
for
> themselves -- new and better ways to be with their families.
>
> We might think our kids have it pretty nice: basically no
responsibilities
> and free time to explore. But those aren't theirs by right but
because we
> have the power to give it to them. (Or take it away.) When power is
> unbalanced, being kind to the powerless doesn't negate the fact
that their
> lives share more in common with a prison than a partnership.
>
> The point of the disucssion isn't to tell people they're wrong for
choosing
> to parent conventionally. (Though I or whoever is participating may
think
> someone is wrong! ;-) That *isn't* the purpose!) The purpose is to
provide
> an opportunity for people to self-examine and see that how we
parent isn't
> dictated by "how things are". How we parent is a *choice*. And the
> discussion provides an opportunity to discover more joyful options -
- for
> the empowered *and* the powerless -- that are available that could
be chosen
> instead.
>
> Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/30/02 10:39:58 AM, sheran@... writes:
<< So, if they are going to
bake,they may bake as much as they want but I will not clean up their
mess. And I won't allow them to force me to live in a house that is
filthy. They must clean up. If they don't clean up, then they can't
bake next time. I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone,
even our children, to take advantage of us. >>
Doesn't this depend on their real abilities, though, and not what the parents
wish their abilities were?
I'm not very tall. I can get things OFF a high shelf but can't put them back
up. Three people in my family are taller than I am, and if I get something
down I don't think it's unreasonable to ask one of them, when he comes by, to
put it back up. I could get a chair and do it, but it's easier and safer to
ask one of them to do it.
There's a kind of tradition in many families that whoever cooks doesn't have
to clean up. It doesn't apply in all instances, but I'd rather have one of
my kids cook and me clean up than to never have them cook at all.
If the whole task is too daunting, it might just keep them from wanting to
learn to bake.
And what an eight year old can do in terms of the operation of cleaning
supplies, etc., is not what a fourteen year old can do. And the attention
span of an eight year old might not even make it to the end of the
peanut-butter-cookie-making project. She might peter out about after the
first tray. So I can finish the other batches and clean up, but she STILL
actually baked.
I see my kids' happiness and their learning opportunities as a much higher
priority than my own personal comfort and the cleanliness of the kitchen.
If the cleanliness of the kitchen were my first priority, they wouldn't be
allowed to use it at all. But learning and joy come first here.
(I think Sheila said the same thing in "unless it's something that they
physically can't do for themselves," but for the idea-polishing benefit of
others who are still undecided, I've presented the commentary above.)
Sandra
<< So, if they are going to
bake,they may bake as much as they want but I will not clean up their
mess. And I won't allow them to force me to live in a house that is
filthy. They must clean up. If they don't clean up, then they can't
bake next time. I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone,
even our children, to take advantage of us. >>
Doesn't this depend on their real abilities, though, and not what the parents
wish their abilities were?
I'm not very tall. I can get things OFF a high shelf but can't put them back
up. Three people in my family are taller than I am, and if I get something
down I don't think it's unreasonable to ask one of them, when he comes by, to
put it back up. I could get a chair and do it, but it's easier and safer to
ask one of them to do it.
There's a kind of tradition in many families that whoever cooks doesn't have
to clean up. It doesn't apply in all instances, but I'd rather have one of
my kids cook and me clean up than to never have them cook at all.
If the whole task is too daunting, it might just keep them from wanting to
learn to bake.
And what an eight year old can do in terms of the operation of cleaning
supplies, etc., is not what a fourteen year old can do. And the attention
span of an eight year old might not even make it to the end of the
peanut-butter-cookie-making project. She might peter out about after the
first tray. So I can finish the other batches and clean up, but she STILL
actually baked.
I see my kids' happiness and their learning opportunities as a much higher
priority than my own personal comfort and the cleanliness of the kitchen.
If the cleanliness of the kitchen were my first priority, they wouldn't be
allowed to use it at all. But learning and joy come first here.
(I think Sheila said the same thing in "unless it's something that they
physically can't do for themselves," but for the idea-polishing benefit of
others who are still undecided, I've presented the commentary above.)
Sandra
Cheryl Duke
>I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone, even our children, totake advantage of us.
At what point does it become the parent taking advantage of the child? It
seems in many families that the children are considered free labor. What
level of *clean* is necessary and how much of that is the child's
responsibility?
In our home I claim responsibility for the inside of the house, my husband
takes care of the cars and most of the yard. We share the garage and I do
most of the garden because it was my idea anyway. However, that doesn't
mean I end up doing *all* the housecleaning.
I used to require that my son keep his room clean. He is 9. Well, that
wasn't working at all and we always ended up in terrible fights with me
screaming and him crying. It was awful and it felt all wrong. Now, I no
longer expect him to clean or help with anything. His room is now his
domain. It belongs to him, everything in it belongs solely to him. His
belongings, his room are not extensions of my belongings. Once something is
given to him, it is his. I asked him if it was ok for me to enter his room
and keep it cleaned up. He said that was fine. I let him know when I am
going to clean and I usually ask him if he wants to give me a hand.
Occasionally he says no but you know what, he pitches in almost every time.
His room stays pretty clean most of the time now and I am not doing all of
the work. Sometimes I go in there and he already has it done for me. That
never would have happened before when it was *expected.*
> The same thing goes for bedtime. They have rights, but they have toWe are still working this out. My husband and I need to have some time
> learn to balance those rights by not taking advantage of someone
> else. It is unsafe for my 3 and 5 year olds to be in a house by
> themselves unsupervised. Therefore, they may stay up as long as I am
> up. If I'm up until 3 am and they want to be up with me, that's
> fine. However, if I am going to bed at 11 they must go to bed then
> too. It wouldn't be safe for them to be up without me.
alone too so we are trying to balance this out with the kids having a choice
of bedtimes. The little one usually falls asleep by 9 or 9:30 so she isn't
an issue yet. We have explained to our 9 year old that we need some time to
ourselves and he seems to understand so around 9 or 9:30 he hangs out in his
room and reads. If we are just sitting around in the office playing games
or reading, we invite him to join us. If we need to be alone he seems to
repect that too. We let him know when we are going to bed and we turn out
the lights but we slip him a flashlight to read under the covers. He thinks
it's fun that way. I'd love to hear how other people work this out.
Cheryl
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/30/02 12:39:16 PM Central Daylight Time,
cheryl@... writes:
get out of day time clothes and into what ever you sleep in or don't sleep
in. It means reading quietly, working on a puzzle, watching a program,
playing with something by ones self in their own room until you get tired and
decide on your own to actually go to bed. The reason we *choose* (for lack of
a better word) this particular time is when Darin gets home from work (12 to
15 hour days) he doesn't take any time for himself, he wants to spend time
with the kids, and by 10 he is ready for his own alone time, which means
computer or playstation, and the kids are ready to be apart from each other.
Also at 10 I like to watch reruns of Law and Order on A&E, and that is my
alone time. After 11 - 11:30 it is *our* time together. So far this has
worked out, but there is no hard fast rule either. No one is being told to go
to bed, everyone gets some down time before bed, and everyone chooses when
he/she wants to actually go to sleep. (I think it is better for their natural
body patterns as well.) The only person who goes by an alarm is Darin because
he goes out to work. I don't care if I go to bed before my kids, because they
know if they really need something they can get me or Darin. We had a family
bed up until Jack was about 4 and he decided he wanted his own bed and Moly
started kicking too much. I still wake up some mornings with one or both of
them in our bed. Moly is a late to bed, early to rise person. She doesn't, at
this time, require as much sleep as me. Why should I make her go to bed just
because it suits me? Jack is usually asleep by 10:30, he falls asleep fast
and hard. He will literally play until he is asleep. Then he gets up sometime
around 3am and plays some more, gets something to eat (P.B. and honey) and
goes to the bathroom. He never wakes us up, he is very quiet and the only
reason I know he does this is that I suffer from insomnia. Then he goes back
to bed (not his own, most times it is ours or the couch) and sleeps until he
gets up which varies and I never know if he is going to be up at 7 or at 10.
I have no clue why he gets up in the middle of the night. I think he may have
intense dreams like me and gets up to work through them, but I don't know.
All I know is that this *system* works for us, it gives us all time to
decompress, be apart (which I think is very important) and pursue our own
interests totally uninterrupted.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cheryl@... writes:
> We are still working this out. My husband and I need to have some timeAround 10 pm every one starts to go off on their own. In our house that means
> alone too so we are trying to balance this out with the kids having a choice
> of bedtimes. The little one usually falls asleep by 9 or 9:30 so she isn't
> an issue yet. We have explained to our 9 year old that we need some time to
> ourselves and he seems to understand so around 9 or 9:30 he hangs out in his
> room and reads. If we are just sitting around in the office playing games
> or reading, we invite him to join us. If we need to be alone he seems to
> repect that too. We let him know when we are going to bed and we turn out
> the lights but we slip him a flashlight to read under the covers. He thinks
> it's fun that way. I'd love to hear how other people work this out.
>
> Cheryl
>
get out of day time clothes and into what ever you sleep in or don't sleep
in. It means reading quietly, working on a puzzle, watching a program,
playing with something by ones self in their own room until you get tired and
decide on your own to actually go to bed. The reason we *choose* (for lack of
a better word) this particular time is when Darin gets home from work (12 to
15 hour days) he doesn't take any time for himself, he wants to spend time
with the kids, and by 10 he is ready for his own alone time, which means
computer or playstation, and the kids are ready to be apart from each other.
Also at 10 I like to watch reruns of Law and Order on A&E, and that is my
alone time. After 11 - 11:30 it is *our* time together. So far this has
worked out, but there is no hard fast rule either. No one is being told to go
to bed, everyone gets some down time before bed, and everyone chooses when
he/she wants to actually go to sleep. (I think it is better for their natural
body patterns as well.) The only person who goes by an alarm is Darin because
he goes out to work. I don't care if I go to bed before my kids, because they
know if they really need something they can get me or Darin. We had a family
bed up until Jack was about 4 and he decided he wanted his own bed and Moly
started kicking too much. I still wake up some mornings with one or both of
them in our bed. Moly is a late to bed, early to rise person. She doesn't, at
this time, require as much sleep as me. Why should I make her go to bed just
because it suits me? Jack is usually asleep by 10:30, he falls asleep fast
and hard. He will literally play until he is asleep. Then he gets up sometime
around 3am and plays some more, gets something to eat (P.B. and honey) and
goes to the bathroom. He never wakes us up, he is very quiet and the only
reason I know he does this is that I suffer from insomnia. Then he goes back
to bed (not his own, most times it is ours or the couch) and sleeps until he
gets up which varies and I never know if he is going to be up at 7 or at 10.
I have no clue why he gets up in the middle of the night. I think he may have
intense dreams like me and gets up to work through them, but I don't know.
All I know is that this *system* works for us, it gives us all time to
decompress, be apart (which I think is very important) and pursue our own
interests totally uninterrupted.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
do you REALLY think an intelligent person stops with only two choices??.. i thought that was the domain of the ignorant..
but that IS the way it is! they are here.. we are here.. there must be some kind of cooperation.. children or adult .. cooperation must prevail
L
but that IS the way it is! they are here.. we are here.. there must be some kind of cooperation.. children or adult .. cooperation must prevail
L
----- Original Message -----
From: Fetteroll
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] family responsibility
on 6/27/02 1:41 PM, LLindsey at llindsey@... wrote:
> it is very true that the children have no choice in their position as the
> younger, smaller least powerful members of a family.. but this is the the way
> it is. It's not going to change any time soon. and to be a human and a member
> of a human family is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby aligator or
> turtle --(to mention species who do not have the demands of a family... only
> those of survival)....
And again those aren't the only two choices: to be the least powerful or no
protection. When our thinking stops at "this is the the way it is" then we
protect what those with the authority feel comfortable with. The ones left
out of the equation are the ones with no power.
It's the argument that maintained slavery, keeps kids trudging to school,
keeps people from questioning their religious beliefs, has kept people
confined to their class or lot in life, has kept dictatorial governments in
power, has blocked the handipcapped from participating in society and on and
on and on. It may appear to be those with power protecting the little guy
from chaos, but it's those in power protecting themselves from being
subjected to being uncomfortable or inconvenienced without any control over
it.
> a child, especially a young child, is self centered--in their mind the world
> revolves around them.. as they SHOULD think, it is instinct. (species survival
> and all that). So we make many decisions for them and some of us try to give
> them the benefit of choices that do not affect their survival.
And perhaps a way of thinking that allows us to see more choices is to
approach parenting with the attitude that providing them with a safe and
secure environment to be able to be able to make choices in comes first and
making decisions for them is a last resort.
> we are not a perfect family by any means.. nor I an example of parenting
> perfection.
When these parenting discussions start some people tend to take the
discussion personally as though they're being told they're not parenting
properly. But that isn't it at all. The discussions provide those who care
to self-examine with the opportunity to do so, to see things from new points
of view, to potentially, through self-examination, to discover -- for
themselves -- new and better ways to be with their families.
We might think our kids have it pretty nice: basically no responsibilities
and free time to explore. But those aren't theirs by right but because we
have the power to give it to them. (Or take it away.) When power is
unbalanced, being kind to the powerless doesn't negate the fact that their
lives share more in common with a prison than a partnership.
The point of the disucssion isn't to tell people they're wrong for choosing
to parent conventionally. (Though I or whoever is participating may think
someone is wrong! ;-) That *isn't* the purpose!) The purpose is to provide
an opportunity for people to self-examine and see that how we parent isn't
dictated by "how things are". How we parent is a *choice*. And the
discussion provides an opportunity to discover more joyful options -- for
the empowered *and* the powerless -- that are available that could be chosen
instead.
Joyce
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
here here.. well said
L
(oh, that's me Linda LL--- just putting on L is faster and easier.. not trying to hide or anything.. just always sign my emails that way)
L
(oh, that's me Linda LL--- just putting on L is faster and easier.. not trying to hide or anything.. just always sign my emails that way)
----- Original Message -----
From: kayb85
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: family responsibility
This is a fascinating discussion.
My personal position is that God created us in such a way so that
children, being among the weaker, needier members of the human race,
have parents who will protect and care for them.
God gave parents a natural love and desire to care for their
offspring, and he gave offspring the gift of parents so that someone
who cares for their well being would be their first introduction to
the human race.
It is through parents that we are supposed to learn self-confidence
and healthy ways of dealing with things.
I have changed a lot in my parenting style. I used to be a James
Dobson style parent and now I am at the point where I don't make my
kids do anything they don't want to do. However, where I draw the
line is that I don't let them take advantage of me either. For
example, if I am going to keep my house in a somewhat decent order, I
CAN'T run around cleaning up after them all the time. I have tried
and I literally cannot do it all. So, each person in my family,
regardless of whether they are a child or an adult, must clean up
after themselves. I am there to love and nourish my children, but I
won't be their maid for them unless it's something that they
physically can't do for themselves. So, if they are going to
bake,they may bake as much as they want but I will not clean up their
mess. And I won't allow them to force me to live in a house that is
filthy. They must clean up. If they don't clean up, then they can't
bake next time. I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone,
even our children, to take advantage of us.
The same thing goes for bedtime. They have rights, but they have to
learn to balance those rights by not taking advantage of someone
else. It is unsafe for my 3 and 5 year olds to be in a house by
themselves unsupervised. Therefore, they may stay up as long as I am
up. If I'm up until 3 am and they want to be up with me, that's
fine. However, if I am going to bed at 11 they must go to bed then
too. It wouldn't be safe for them to be up without me.
Sheila
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> on 6/27/02 1:41 PM, LLindsey at llindsey@w... wrote:
>
> > it is very true that the children have no choice in their
position as the
> > younger, smaller least powerful members of a family.. but this is
the the way
> > it is. It's not going to change any time soon. and to be a human
and a member
> > of a human family is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby
aligator or
> > turtle --(to mention species who do not have the demands of a
family... only
> > those of survival)....
>
> And again those aren't the only two choices: to be the least
powerful or no
> protection. When our thinking stops at "this is the the way it is"
then we
> protect what those with the authority feel comfortable with. The
ones left
> out of the equation are the ones with no power.
>
> It's the argument that maintained slavery, keeps kids trudging to
school,
> keeps people from questioning their religious beliefs, has kept
people
> confined to their class or lot in life, has kept dictatorial
governments in
> power, has blocked the handipcapped from participating in society
and on and
> on and on. It may appear to be those with power protecting the
little guy
> from chaos, but it's those in power protecting themselves from being
> subjected to being uncomfortable or inconvenienced without any
control over
> it.
>
> > a child, especially a young child, is self centered--in their
mind the world
> > revolves around them.. as they SHOULD think, it is instinct.
(species survival
> > and all that). So we make many decisions for them and some of us
try to give
> > them the benefit of choices that do not affect their survival.
>
> And perhaps a way of thinking that allows us to see more choices is
to
> approach parenting with the attitude that providing them with a
safe and
> secure environment to be able to be able to make choices in comes
first and
> making decisions for them is a last resort.
>
> > we are not a perfect family by any means.. nor I an example of
parenting
> > perfection.
>
> When these parenting discussions start some people tend to take the
> discussion personally as though they're being told they're not
parenting
> properly. But that isn't it at all. The discussions provide those
who care
> to self-examine with the opportunity to do so, to see things from
new points
> of view, to potentially, through self-examination, to discover --
for
> themselves -- new and better ways to be with their families.
>
> We might think our kids have it pretty nice: basically no
responsibilities
> and free time to explore. But those aren't theirs by right but
because we
> have the power to give it to them. (Or take it away.) When power is
> unbalanced, being kind to the powerless doesn't negate the fact
that their
> lives share more in common with a prison than a partnership.
>
> The point of the disucssion isn't to tell people they're wrong for
choosing
> to parent conventionally. (Though I or whoever is participating may
think
> someone is wrong! ;-) That *isn't* the purpose!) The purpose is to
provide
> an opportunity for people to self-examine and see that how we
parent isn't
> dictated by "how things are". How we parent is a *choice*. And the
> discussion provides an opportunity to discover more joyful options -
- for
> the empowered *and* the powerless -- that are available that could
be chosen
> instead.
>
> Joyce
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cheryl Duke
No one is being told to go
He was raised by an army drill sargeant. Everyone was on a schedule and
everyone stuck to it no matter what. He has loosened up quite a bit over
the years and so I am not too worried about it. He will get over the
"bed-time" thing too. I am just so happy right now that he is ok with
unschooling.
The only person who goes by an alarm is Darin because
to work without spending hours on the highway in rush hour. He likes to be
in bed by 10. I would prefer to go to bed around midnight. He feels like
he has to stay up if I do, then he gets all grumpy when he doesn"t get
enough sleep. We usually compromise and go to bed around 11. I don't care
so much if we don't go to bed at the same time but it is important to him.
If I can't sleep, I just get up after he falls asleep (which is usually
pretty quick).
<snip>Why should I make her go to bed just
can't get to sleep with any lights on. The flashlight thing was a
compromise that works for us because Connor thinks it's fun. He still gets
to stay up as late as he wants but it doesn't keep us from getting to sleep.
He's happy - we're happy.
<snip> All I know is that this *system* works for us, it gives us all time
to
equally important and to find a way that works for everyone. The parents
don't have to sacrifice their needs for the kids and the kids don't need to
be treated like second-class citizens. Every family is different....I think
being flexible is important too because needs will change as everyone grows
and gets older. Jobs change, schedules change, people change.
cheryl
> to bed, everyone gets some down time before bed, and everyone chooses whennatural
> he/she wants to actually go to sleep. (I think it is better for their
> body patterns as well.)This sounds ideal. I have to slowly work in these things with my husband.
He was raised by an army drill sargeant. Everyone was on a schedule and
everyone stuck to it no matter what. He has loosened up quite a bit over
the years and so I am not too worried about it. He will get over the
"bed-time" thing too. I am just so happy right now that he is ok with
unschooling.
The only person who goes by an alarm is Darin because
> he goes out to work.My husband also. Unfortunately he has to get up really really early to get
to work without spending hours on the highway in rush hour. He likes to be
in bed by 10. I would prefer to go to bed around midnight. He feels like
he has to stay up if I do, then he gets all grumpy when he doesn"t get
enough sleep. We usually compromise and go to bed around 11. I don't care
so much if we don't go to bed at the same time but it is important to him.
If I can't sleep, I just get up after he falls asleep (which is usually
pretty quick).
<snip>Why should I make her go to bed just
> because it suits me?I agree. We do the lights-out thing because we have a small house and we
can't get to sleep with any lights on. The flashlight thing was a
compromise that works for us because Connor thinks it's fun. He still gets
to stay up as late as he wants but it doesn't keep us from getting to sleep.
He's happy - we're happy.
<snip> All I know is that this *system* works for us, it gives us all time
to
> decompress, be apart (which I think is very important) and pursue our ownFinding a good balance takes time, to understand that everyone's needs are
> interests totally uninterrupted.
equally important and to find a way that works for everyone. The parents
don't have to sacrifice their needs for the kids and the kids don't need to
be treated like second-class citizens. Every family is different....I think
being flexible is important too because needs will change as everyone grows
and gets older. Jobs change, schedules change, people change.
cheryl
Fetteroll
on 6/30/02 6:54 PM, llindsey@... at llindsey@... wrote:
presenting one choice as being better than an obviously bad choice is a
popular argument tactic, e.g., "to be a human and a member of a human family
is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby aligator or turtle --(to
mention species who do not have the demands of a family... only those of
survival)...."
you're using cooperation in the way many adults do with children as in "You
need to cooperate," which means, in other words, "You need to stop trying to
do what you want and do what I want you to."
Any statement that includes "must" should set off alarm bells. Perhaps some
will turn out true -- as in we must have oxygen to survive! But our society
has unconsciously filled us with oodles of them so "musts" and "shoulds" and
"need tos" are well worth examining. (For example: Children must go to
school to learn. We must have 3 meals a day. Children must have regular
bedtimes. Parents must present a consistent and united front.)
(And I've found the people who frequent here and the Unschooling.com message
board (and the old AOL HSing forum) like Sandra and PamS and PamH among
others have been invaluable in helping me examine those! :-)
The point of these parenting discussions isn't that conventional methods
don't work but that they aren't the only choice available. So for people to
jump into a discussion and insist that their methods are valid and they're
going to stick by them is to miss the point. The purpose of the discussion
*isn't* to force people to think a particular way. The purpose is to
*provide an opportunity* -- by asking questions and saying "that's not your
only choice" -- for people to question themselves on why they've made the
choices they have. Some people, because of that opportunity, may come to
realize that for them the pros aren't worth the price they've been paying
and that by rethinking what's important to them and examining their
priorities they may increase family joy. Through the discussions some people
get the opportunity to realize that letting go of something that seemed so
important is a small price to pay to get something greater that they hadn't
realized existed.
Some people may feel their level of joy the rest of the time is more than
sufficient to outweigh the moments of nonjoy or the results are worth the
negatives of the process so they're going to continue doing what they're
doing. That's fine. The discussion *isn't* intended to make them change what
they're doing so the effect of jumping in to declare that they aren't going
to change is in effect trying to stop an opportunity for *others* to grow
and change.
If you don't want to change, don't change! :-) Just skip the discussion and
let it continue for those who are finding some benefit in it.
There is no agenda to make everyone here toe a particular parenting line.
Yes, I know, it may seem that way since conventional parenting does get
questioned everytime it comes up. But that's because conventional (coercive)
parenting *isn't* unschooling. Which *doesn't* mean conventional parenters
aren't unschoolers! People can be unschoolers and parent conventionally.
There's nothing in the philosophy that says unschooling needs to apply to
parenting. But that means discussing conventional parenting *isn't*
discussing unschooling any more than discussing math programs is
unschooling. And there *is* an agenda to keep the discussion on unschooling.
But some people *do* extend unschooling into parenting so discussing how to
unschool parenting *is* discussing unschooling. That doesn't mean people
can't question it! For example, "How will they learn to be polite unless we
make them?" or any other seeming impossibility. It doesn't mean they can't
disagree that it's possible. (But it's hard to make that argument valid
since there are parents and kids here who are living it.)
So, what it boils down to is that for some parenting is separate from
unschooling so for those people discussing parenting is *not* discussing
unschooling. (There are *plenty* of places where people can get conventional
parenting and housekeeping advice based on conventional American
priorities.) Or unschooling *does* encompass parenting, In which case
someone will face a huge uphill battle trying to defend conventional
parenting as unschooling. Conventional parenting techniques don't apply the
concepts of child-led learning (or any other definition of unschooling.)
So for some people discussing parenting in an unschooling forum is an
opportunity to discuss a way of parenting that for some is a natural
outgrowth of letting children learn naturally. Forcing children to do chores
is not a natural outgrowth of unschooling so discussing that isn't
discussing unschooling.
There aren't too many places where people have the opportunity to reexamine
their priorities from a "children as fellow and competent human beings"
(though not the best way to phrase it) point of view. So if people want to
continue with whatever conventional practices work for them, then they
should. But it denies others the opportunity to reexamine their priorities
and explore extending unschooling into parenting by insisting that something
that isn't unschooling should be acknowledged as valid.
Joyce
> do you REALLY think an intelligent person stops with only two choices??.. iI think that either many do stop there or want to imply that they do since
> thought that was the domain of the ignorant..
presenting one choice as being better than an obviously bad choice is a
popular argument tactic, e.g., "to be a human and a member of a human family
is perhaps preferable to the choices of a baby aligator or turtle --(to
mention species who do not have the demands of a family... only those of
survival)...."
> but that IS the way it is! they are here.. we are here.. there must be someMaking choices for children doesn't sound like cooperation to me. Unless
> kind of cooperation.. children or adult .. cooperation must prevail
you're using cooperation in the way many adults do with children as in "You
need to cooperate," which means, in other words, "You need to stop trying to
do what you want and do what I want you to."
Any statement that includes "must" should set off alarm bells. Perhaps some
will turn out true -- as in we must have oxygen to survive! But our society
has unconsciously filled us with oodles of them so "musts" and "shoulds" and
"need tos" are well worth examining. (For example: Children must go to
school to learn. We must have 3 meals a day. Children must have regular
bedtimes. Parents must present a consistent and united front.)
(And I've found the people who frequent here and the Unschooling.com message
board (and the old AOL HSing forum) like Sandra and PamS and PamH among
others have been invaluable in helping me examine those! :-)
The point of these parenting discussions isn't that conventional methods
don't work but that they aren't the only choice available. So for people to
jump into a discussion and insist that their methods are valid and they're
going to stick by them is to miss the point. The purpose of the discussion
*isn't* to force people to think a particular way. The purpose is to
*provide an opportunity* -- by asking questions and saying "that's not your
only choice" -- for people to question themselves on why they've made the
choices they have. Some people, because of that opportunity, may come to
realize that for them the pros aren't worth the price they've been paying
and that by rethinking what's important to them and examining their
priorities they may increase family joy. Through the discussions some people
get the opportunity to realize that letting go of something that seemed so
important is a small price to pay to get something greater that they hadn't
realized existed.
Some people may feel their level of joy the rest of the time is more than
sufficient to outweigh the moments of nonjoy or the results are worth the
negatives of the process so they're going to continue doing what they're
doing. That's fine. The discussion *isn't* intended to make them change what
they're doing so the effect of jumping in to declare that they aren't going
to change is in effect trying to stop an opportunity for *others* to grow
and change.
If you don't want to change, don't change! :-) Just skip the discussion and
let it continue for those who are finding some benefit in it.
There is no agenda to make everyone here toe a particular parenting line.
Yes, I know, it may seem that way since conventional parenting does get
questioned everytime it comes up. But that's because conventional (coercive)
parenting *isn't* unschooling. Which *doesn't* mean conventional parenters
aren't unschoolers! People can be unschoolers and parent conventionally.
There's nothing in the philosophy that says unschooling needs to apply to
parenting. But that means discussing conventional parenting *isn't*
discussing unschooling any more than discussing math programs is
unschooling. And there *is* an agenda to keep the discussion on unschooling.
But some people *do* extend unschooling into parenting so discussing how to
unschool parenting *is* discussing unschooling. That doesn't mean people
can't question it! For example, "How will they learn to be polite unless we
make them?" or any other seeming impossibility. It doesn't mean they can't
disagree that it's possible. (But it's hard to make that argument valid
since there are parents and kids here who are living it.)
So, what it boils down to is that for some parenting is separate from
unschooling so for those people discussing parenting is *not* discussing
unschooling. (There are *plenty* of places where people can get conventional
parenting and housekeeping advice based on conventional American
priorities.) Or unschooling *does* encompass parenting, In which case
someone will face a huge uphill battle trying to defend conventional
parenting as unschooling. Conventional parenting techniques don't apply the
concepts of child-led learning (or any other definition of unschooling.)
So for some people discussing parenting in an unschooling forum is an
opportunity to discuss a way of parenting that for some is a natural
outgrowth of letting children learn naturally. Forcing children to do chores
is not a natural outgrowth of unschooling so discussing that isn't
discussing unschooling.
There aren't too many places where people have the opportunity to reexamine
their priorities from a "children as fellow and competent human beings"
(though not the best way to phrase it) point of view. So if people want to
continue with whatever conventional practices work for them, then they
should. But it denies others the opportunity to reexamine their priorities
and explore extending unschooling into parenting by insisting that something
that isn't unschooling should be acknowledged as valid.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/1/02 9:39:27 AM, cheryl@... writes:
<< Every family is different....I think
being flexible is important too because needs will change as everyone grows
and gets older. Jobs change, schedules change, people change.
(or in our case, we changed houses)
In our old house everyone had to get REALLY quiet because the bedrooms all
touched.
We have the luxury in our bigger house of having some people asleep and
others awake and active because there are literally two different roofs, and
even the big main part of the house is big enough to get pretty far from
sleeping others.
I realize it's a luxury, and we take advantage of it too! People who have to
get up early are given isolation, alarm clocks, and consideration. Those who
stayed up late are given a lot of quiet until noon, when we can go ahead and
turn music on and make full-volume noise.
Those who get up early sneak out quietly.
It's working.
Sandra
<< Every family is different....I think
being flexible is important too because needs will change as everyone grows
and gets older. Jobs change, schedules change, people change.
>>Houses change!
(or in our case, we changed houses)
In our old house everyone had to get REALLY quiet because the bedrooms all
touched.
We have the luxury in our bigger house of having some people asleep and
others awake and active because there are literally two different roofs, and
even the big main part of the house is big enough to get pretty far from
sleeping others.
I realize it's a luxury, and we take advantage of it too! People who have to
get up early are given isolation, alarm clocks, and consideration. Those who
stayed up late are given a lot of quiet until noon, when we can go ahead and
turn music on and make full-volume noise.
Those who get up early sneak out quietly.
It's working.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 6/30/02 12:38 PM, kayb85 at sheran@... wrote:
make it but want someone else to do it for them.
I suspect that they may appreciate the cleanness -- a neat room does have a
sense of peace about it that most people notice -- but that they *don't*
expect you to do it.
If someone in my family loved flowers and always had a fresh arrangement on
the table, I'd certainly appreciate the flowers, but, since I don't
appreciate them enough to make the effort worth it for me to do it myself, I
wouldn't expect them to keep doing it. In fact I'd be a bit miffed to find
out that they expected me to appreaciate it. I'd want them to be doing
things that they found joy in, not things that they wanted others to
appreciate.
If we do do something for others, it should be because we find joy in
knowing they will (or might if we're guessing they'll like something)
appreciate it, *not* in *expecting* them to appreciate it.
Some of the housework discussion is about trying to get across the idea that
what we do *is* a choice. We shouldn't clean because others expect us to. We
shouldn't clean because we have to. We should work towards doing whatever
brings us joy. If working towards our joy is making others lives less joyful
then perhaps we should turn the problem upside down or rethinking what's
really important to us to find new ways of tackling it to increase
everyone's joy :-)
(And it often helps to find joy in housecleaning to realize we don't ever
have to do it again. And that when we do it it's because we want to see the
toilet go from yucky to sparkling, a room go from trashed to orderly ;-)
Maybe it'll be every day. Maybe it'll be once a year. Whenever *we* want to
appreciate the transformation. It's our choice.)
exploration is free and joyful is way more valuable than a childhood spent
in neat house where the exploration is limited to what the children are
willing to set up and clean up.
We have the rest of our lives after the kids are gone to keep the house
neat. The kids have only a few years of childhood. What is learned in those
times of joyful exploration is worth a great deal more than memories of how
neat mom kept the house.
shouldn't be equated with letting their needs trample ours or others.
Letting kids have their way doesn't help them learn to resolve conflicts.
Imposing our way on them doesn't help either and, in fact, teaches them that
being in a position to impose your way on those who are less powerful is a
useful technique of getting your way.
How would you resolve a conflict of interest with another adult? The ways
most parents choose to resolve conflicts between themselves and a child
would drive most friends away. :-/
and a half hour to clean up for 10 minutes of painting. And it seemed like I
should insist that if she wanted to paint that she be involved in setting
and cleaning up. The result was she chose not to paint.
So what was gained? 20 years later, what would be more important? She might
not remember every time she painted but she'd remember an atmosphere of the
freedom to do so. Or she'd remember an atmosphere of "No, it's not worth it
to me." Even a dozen times of not cleaning up art materials isn't worth the
price of the memory of an atmosphere of "Yes, let's eplore!"
Joyce
> but ISeeing you as their maid implies that they want the house to be the way you
> won't be their maid for them unless it's something that they
> physically can't do for themselves.
make it but want someone else to do it for them.
I suspect that they may appreciate the cleanness -- a neat room does have a
sense of peace about it that most people notice -- but that they *don't*
expect you to do it.
If someone in my family loved flowers and always had a fresh arrangement on
the table, I'd certainly appreciate the flowers, but, since I don't
appreciate them enough to make the effort worth it for me to do it myself, I
wouldn't expect them to keep doing it. In fact I'd be a bit miffed to find
out that they expected me to appreaciate it. I'd want them to be doing
things that they found joy in, not things that they wanted others to
appreciate.
If we do do something for others, it should be because we find joy in
knowing they will (or might if we're guessing they'll like something)
appreciate it, *not* in *expecting* them to appreciate it.
Some of the housework discussion is about trying to get across the idea that
what we do *is* a choice. We shouldn't clean because others expect us to. We
shouldn't clean because we have to. We should work towards doing whatever
brings us joy. If working towards our joy is making others lives less joyful
then perhaps we should turn the problem upside down or rethinking what's
really important to us to find new ways of tackling it to increase
everyone's joy :-)
(And it often helps to find joy in housecleaning to realize we don't ever
have to do it again. And that when we do it it's because we want to see the
toilet go from yucky to sparkling, a room go from trashed to orderly ;-)
Maybe it'll be every day. Maybe it'll be once a year. Whenever *we* want to
appreciate the transformation. It's our choice.)
> I don't think it's healthy for us to allow anyone,In terms of unschooling, a childhood spent in a messy house where
> even our children, to take advantage of us.
exploration is free and joyful is way more valuable than a childhood spent
in neat house where the exploration is limited to what the children are
willing to set up and clean up.
We have the rest of our lives after the kids are gone to keep the house
neat. The kids have only a few years of childhood. What is learned in those
times of joyful exploration is worth a great deal more than memories of how
neat mom kept the house.
> However, where I draw theNor should we, then, impose our needs on our kids. Not forcing the kids
> line is that I don't let them take advantage of me either.
shouldn't be equated with letting their needs trample ours or others.
Letting kids have their way doesn't help them learn to resolve conflicts.
Imposing our way on them doesn't help either and, in fact, teaches them that
being in a position to impose your way on those who are less powerful is a
useful technique of getting your way.
How would you resolve a conflict of interest with another adult? The ways
most parents choose to resolve conflicts between themselves and a child
would drive most friends away. :-/
> So, if they are going toI used to be this way about art. It seemed like it took 15 minutes to set up
> bake,they may bake as much as they want but I will not clean up their
> mess.
and a half hour to clean up for 10 minutes of painting. And it seemed like I
should insist that if she wanted to paint that she be involved in setting
and cleaning up. The result was she chose not to paint.
So what was gained? 20 years later, what would be more important? She might
not remember every time she painted but she'd remember an atmosphere of the
freedom to do so. Or she'd remember an atmosphere of "No, it's not worth it
to me." Even a dozen times of not cleaning up art materials isn't worth the
price of the memory of an atmosphere of "Yes, let's eplore!"
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/1/02 10:39:27 AM Central Daylight Time,
cheryl@... writes:
of us to have that alone time. But we don't do a lights out, simply because
one child is afraid of the dark, and so am I for that matter. And because I
believe that if a light on in one room is bothering someone in another room
then a closed door is an option. My son turns on a lamp and the room light in
his room. After he falls asleep Darin or I turn off his room light but leave
the lamp on. Moly turns her own lights off. I sleep with the light on in our
closet and the door cracked. It used to bug my husband, but he saw how
absolutely terrified I became if we tried to leave the light off. Then we
tried another solution, I would go to bed before him and he would turn the
light off when he came to bed. That didn't work either, because somewhere in
my subconscious I could hear that click and would wake up screaming. We were
able to make one compromise, we arrange the bedroom so our bed is very close
to the closet, we shut the closet door to a crack and if I wake up with my
frequent nightmares or insomnia, then I can stay on the bed and open the
closet door a little more. That way I don't turn on a light and wake Darin
up.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cheryl@... writes:
> agree. We do the lights-out thing because we have a small house and weWe have a small house too, and that is why I feel it is so important for all
> can't get to sleep with any lights on. The flashlight thing was a
> compromise that works for us because Connor thinks it's fun. He still gets
> to stay up as late as he wants but it doesn't keep us from getting to sleep.
> He's happy - we're happy.
>
> <snip> All I know is that this *system* works for us, it gives us all time
> to
> > decompress, be apart (which I think is very important) and pursue our own
> > interests totally uninterrupted.
of us to have that alone time. But we don't do a lights out, simply because
one child is afraid of the dark, and so am I for that matter. And because I
believe that if a light on in one room is bothering someone in another room
then a closed door is an option. My son turns on a lamp and the room light in
his room. After he falls asleep Darin or I turn off his room light but leave
the lamp on. Moly turns her own lights off. I sleep with the light on in our
closet and the door cracked. It used to bug my husband, but he saw how
absolutely terrified I became if we tried to leave the light off. Then we
tried another solution, I would go to bed before him and he would turn the
light off when he came to bed. That didn't work either, because somewhere in
my subconscious I could hear that click and would wake up screaming. We were
able to make one compromise, we arrange the bedroom so our bed is very close
to the closet, we shut the closet door to a crack and if I wake up with my
frequent nightmares or insomnia, then I can stay on the bed and open the
closet door a little more. That way I don't turn on a light and wake Darin
up.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kayb85
Two thoughts are running through my head.
1. If the kids are going to bed at the same time mom and dad are,
when do mom and dad have...ummm...well, you know what. ;) In our
situation, dh has to get up for work at 5. He needs to be in bed by
10 at the latest, sometimes even as early as 9. On his days off, he
can handle staying up until midnight but that means being asleep by
midnight. That means we need kids to be asleep by 11 at the latest
on his days off or we do nothing in bed but sleep. (blush!)
2. You can't please everyone. I have three children, ages 9, 5, and
3. My oldest wants to go to swimming lessons tomorrow morning. If I
let my 3 year old stay up as late as he wants, he still has to get up
in enough time to take the 9 year old to swimming lessons. He will
be cranky and make everyone miserable. So do I let him sleep in as
late as he wants or do I take the 9 year old swimming? Obviously I
can't leave a 3 year old home alone.
1. If the kids are going to bed at the same time mom and dad are,
when do mom and dad have...ummm...well, you know what. ;) In our
situation, dh has to get up for work at 5. He needs to be in bed by
10 at the latest, sometimes even as early as 9. On his days off, he
can handle staying up until midnight but that means being asleep by
midnight. That means we need kids to be asleep by 11 at the latest
on his days off or we do nothing in bed but sleep. (blush!)
2. You can't please everyone. I have three children, ages 9, 5, and
3. My oldest wants to go to swimming lessons tomorrow morning. If I
let my 3 year old stay up as late as he wants, he still has to get up
in enough time to take the 9 year old to swimming lessons. He will
be cranky and make everyone miserable. So do I let him sleep in as
late as he wants or do I take the 9 year old swimming? Obviously I
can't leave a 3 year old home alone.
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/1/02 10:44:47 PM Central Daylight Time, sheran@...
writes:
homes every now and then... One of my best friends and I *trade* kids for a
night every few weeks. Do you have a lock on your door? Give them a video and
go *take a nap* How about the shower? (oh I hope no one's kids are reading
this.)
walk?
When my kids were 3 they still had bed times. Three year olds still need them
(IMHO) They also still took naps as well. But that is just me! Nothing I like
better than to lay down and sing a song to a chubby little toddler as they
drift off to sleep with the sun shining in their hair.
~Nancy~who thinks her clock is still ticking.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> Two thoughts are running through my head.You could get up at 4? You could have the kids go stay at friends/familys
>
> 1. If the kids are going to bed at the same time mom and dad are,
> when do mom and dad have...ummm...well, you know what. ;) In our
> situation, dh has to get up for work at 5. He needs to be in bed by
> 10 at the latest, sometimes even as early as 9. On his days off, he
> can handle staying up until midnight but that means being asleep by
> midnight. That means we need kids to be asleep by 11 at the latest
> on his days off or we do nothing in bed but sleep. (blush!)
homes every now and then... One of my best friends and I *trade* kids for a
night every few weeks. Do you have a lock on your door? Give them a video and
go *take a nap* How about the shower? (oh I hope no one's kids are reading
this.)
>How far away are the lessons? Could your nine year old ride his (?) bike, or
> 2. You can't please everyone. I have three children, ages 9, 5, and
> 3. My oldest wants to go to swimming lessons tomorrow morning. If I
> let my 3 year old stay up as late as he wants, he still has to get up
> in enough time to take the 9 year old to swimming lessons. He will
> be cranky and make everyone miserable. So do I let him sleep in as
> late as he wants or do I take the 9 year old swimming? Obviously I
> can't leave a 3 year old home alone.
>
walk?
When my kids were 3 they still had bed times. Three year olds still need them
(IMHO) They also still took naps as well. But that is just me! Nothing I like
better than to lay down and sing a song to a chubby little toddler as they
drift off to sleep with the sun shining in their hair.
~Nancy~who thinks her clock is still ticking.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kayb85
> You could get up at 4? You could have the kids go stay atfriends/familys
> homes every now and then... One of my best friends and I *trade*kids for a
> night every few weeks. Do you have a lock on your door? Give them avideo and
> go *take a nap* How about the shower? (oh I hope no one's kids arereading
> this.)Lol! Dh keeps saying he's going to get around to getting a lock on
the door...
> How far away are the lessons? Could your nine year old ride his (?)bike, or
> walk?Half hour drive. You don't walk to much in our town.
Sheila
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/1/02 10:02:00 PM, Dnowens@... writes:
<< You could get up at 4? You could have the kids go stay at friends/familys
homes every now and then... One of my best friends and I *trade* kids for a
night every few weeks. Do you have a lock on your door? Give them a video and
go *take a nap* How about the shower? (oh I hope no one's kids are reading
this.) >>
That. <g>
And drawing from my own experience (not that I haven't done all the above
too...):
While the kids are still all awake, rent a (new! exciting!) video and tell
them you need to go hang out with their dad a while, but you'll be back when
the movie's over. Tell them since it's rented if there are any parts you'd
really like, they can show you the next day. (That will keep them from
coming to get you to show you something you'd really enjoy.)
I came to enjoy quickies. Pre-kids, half hour and 45-minute sessions were
normal. Sometimes wham, bam isn't so bad! (Unless you've always had wham
bam, in which case see some of the above.)
When I had toddlers I would get "touched out" and so a lot of fondling and
random carress was NOT high on my needs list. Now that they're bigger, I
like the long appointments better again.
Usually after the conjugal deed was done, I'd get back up and hang out with
the kids some more, or I would have arranged for Kirby to take care of
last-minute bedtime stuff and told them after the movie if they really needed
me to come back there and get me.
Now that they're older I say "I need to hang out with Keith a while," and
they don't need details.
For early morning stuff, I'd carry the toddler to the car with a blanket and
a pillow and stay with that one while the older one did whatever (unless it
was the hottest or coldest part of the year).
Sandra
<< You could get up at 4? You could have the kids go stay at friends/familys
homes every now and then... One of my best friends and I *trade* kids for a
night every few weeks. Do you have a lock on your door? Give them a video and
go *take a nap* How about the shower? (oh I hope no one's kids are reading
this.) >>
That. <g>
And drawing from my own experience (not that I haven't done all the above
too...):
While the kids are still all awake, rent a (new! exciting!) video and tell
them you need to go hang out with their dad a while, but you'll be back when
the movie's over. Tell them since it's rented if there are any parts you'd
really like, they can show you the next day. (That will keep them from
coming to get you to show you something you'd really enjoy.)
I came to enjoy quickies. Pre-kids, half hour and 45-minute sessions were
normal. Sometimes wham, bam isn't so bad! (Unless you've always had wham
bam, in which case see some of the above.)
When I had toddlers I would get "touched out" and so a lot of fondling and
random carress was NOT high on my needs list. Now that they're bigger, I
like the long appointments better again.
Usually after the conjugal deed was done, I'd get back up and hang out with
the kids some more, or I would have arranged for Kirby to take care of
last-minute bedtime stuff and told them after the movie if they really needed
me to come back there and get me.
Now that they're older I say "I need to hang out with Keith a while," and
they don't need details.
For early morning stuff, I'd carry the toddler to the car with a blanket and
a pillow and stay with that one while the older one did whatever (unless it
was the hottest or coldest part of the year).
Sandra
Lewis
Does anyone have a good recommendation of a good unschooling magazine, or
periodical?
I have recently acquired two free magazines with an unschooling attitude,
one Life Learning, and the other Paths of Learning. Both have wonderful
articles. I have shared them with my husband, and family members that just
don't get it, and need to see some of the readings.
TIA
Debbie
in NW Washington State
periodical?
I have recently acquired two free magazines with an unschooling attitude,
one Life Learning, and the other Paths of Learning. Both have wonderful
articles. I have shared them with my husband, and family members that just
don't get it, and need to see some of the readings.
TIA
Debbie
in NW Washington State
micnico1
How did you get these for free?
Nicole
Nicole
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lewis" <lapin@o...> wrote:
> Does anyone have a good recommendation of a good unschooling
magazine, or
> periodical?
>
> I have recently acquired two free magazines with an unschooling
attitude,
> one Life Learning, and the other Paths of Learning. Both have
wonderful
> articles. I have shared them with my husband, and family members
that just
> don't get it, and need to see some of the readings.
>
> TIA
>
> Debbie
> in NW Washington State
Tia Leschke
>Set up a stereo in your bedroom, and put in on just loudly
>
>1. If the kids are going to bed at the same time mom and dad are,
>when do mom and dad have...ummm...well, you know what. ;)
enough? <g> Eventually your kids will stay up later than you anyway.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Lewis
I think off of search engines on the internet, or from advertisements in the
back of another magazine.
Really, I cannot remember! We had to move from our home recently (sex
offender next door). We put the house up for sale, and moved into a 900
square foot rental house (5 people!). My life is one big disorganized mess!
This week, we are closing on the sale of our home, to someone that does not
mind the neighbor (whatever!!), and closing on a new house. With our lives
spread apart from here, to the storage unit, to MIL house (6 rabbits), and
my parents barn, (appliances and garden tools) it is hard to keep ANYTHING
straight!
So,,,,,,,there it is.
Debbie
back of another magazine.
Really, I cannot remember! We had to move from our home recently (sex
offender next door). We put the house up for sale, and moved into a 900
square foot rental house (5 people!). My life is one big disorganized mess!
This week, we are closing on the sale of our home, to someone that does not
mind the neighbor (whatever!!), and closing on a new house. With our lives
spread apart from here, to the storage unit, to MIL house (6 rabbits), and
my parents barn, (appliances and garden tools) it is hard to keep ANYTHING
straight!
So,,,,,,,there it is.
Debbie
Cheryl Duke
But we don't do a lights out, simply because
wandering through a completely dark house. They *do* have a problem with
closed doors though. Maybe it was seeing Monsters Inc? I often wonder how
we develop our individual fears...
Cheryl
> one child is afraid of the dark, and so am I for that matter. And becauseI
> believe that if a light on in one room is bothering someone in anotherroom
> then a closed door is an option.We are all ok with the dark. In fact, my little one has no problem
wandering through a completely dark house. They *do* have a problem with
closed doors though. Maybe it was seeing Monsters Inc? I often wonder how
we develop our individual fears...
Cheryl
Cheryl Duke
> I realize it's a luxury, and we take advantage of it too! People who haveto
> get up early are given isolation, alarm clocks, and consideration. Thosewho
> stayed up late are given a lot of quiet until noon, when we can go aheadand
> turn music on and make full-volume noise.That sounds SO nice. One day my little one might find cartoons more
>
> Those who get up early sneak out quietly.
>
> It's working.
interesting than pouncing on me to wake me up early on Saturday mornings.
Then again....I miss the older one doing that! I think I'll just enjoy it
while I can. I can sleep when I get old!
Cheryl
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/3/02 9:09:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
cheryl@... writes:
do, then there is a reason for it. When looking at a new house, one of the
first things I do is check to see where the light switch is in a bedroom
measuring the distance from switch to bed area. I check to see how many
outlets to plug lamps in, and I check closets for lights as well. All closets
must have a bulb. I am obsessive about it. Light in a bedroom is a must have.
It is the first thing I look for in a house and if the house doesn't fit the
bill in that area, I won't even bother looking at the rest. No sense falling
in love with a beautiful home when the lighting is inadequate.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cheryl@... writes:
> But we don't do a lights out, simply becauseTrust me, if you are an adult and have an irrational fear of the dark like I
> > one child is afraid of the dark, and so am I for that matter. And because
> I
> > believe that if a light on in one room is bothering someone in another
> room
> > then a closed door is an option.
>
> We are all ok with the dark. In fact, my little one has no problem
> wandering through a completely dark house. They *do* have a problem with
> closed doors though. Maybe it was seeing Monsters Inc? I often wonder how
> we develop our individual fears...
>
> Cheryl
do, then there is a reason for it. When looking at a new house, one of the
first things I do is check to see where the light switch is in a bedroom
measuring the distance from switch to bed area. I check to see how many
outlets to plug lamps in, and I check closets for lights as well. All closets
must have a bulb. I am obsessive about it. Light in a bedroom is a must have.
It is the first thing I look for in a house and if the house doesn't fit the
bill in that area, I won't even bother looking at the rest. No sense falling
in love with a beautiful home when the lighting is inadequate.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
carolyn
Joyce,
This whole piece has helped me to see things in a different way and to
change my behavior. Thanks so much for writing it!
Carolyn
Fetteroll wrote:
Seeing you as their maid implies that they want the house to be the way
you make it but want someone else to do it for them.
<great stuff snipped>
This whole piece has helped me to see things in a different way and to
change my behavior. Thanks so much for writing it!
Carolyn
Fetteroll wrote:
Seeing you as their maid implies that they want the house to be the way
you make it but want someone else to do it for them.
<great stuff snipped>
Fetteroll
on 7/6/02 1:39 PM, carolyn at nielsonc@... wrote:
Joyce
> Joyce,You're welcome! :-)
> This whole piece has helped me to see things in a different way and to
> change my behavior. Thanks so much for writing it!
> Carolyn
Joyce
> Fetteroll wrote:
>
> Seeing you as their maid implies that they want the house to be the way
> you make it but want someone else to do it for them.
> <great stuff snipped>