jaeschool <[email protected]>

Well, I was not licking my wounds.. I have been MIA just doing normal
parenting stuff, getting ready for Christmas, etc.. Bet you guys
thought I had rode my dead horse on outta here.. :-) I read the 90
some messages that have been posted since I checked my email. I have
copied the original text, then added my replies after the asterisks.
I know a lot of you dont give a rats ass what I have to say.. Thats
OK.. I gonna say it anyway..And its 10 times more that 2 cents.

**********************************
Sarcasm comes from a root meaning to cut. Sandra was tryinh to help
if you're
not interested in looking at yourself maybe its not time to ask the
questions.

Renee
**************
I didnt ask any questions. I made a statement about how I manage my
household, and judgement was passed on me.
**********************
The mom should have a right to talk and be among
adults and still be respected by her children. The kids do not have
to be the
center piece of every conversation and discussion.
Beth
*******************
I agree, Beth. I respect my children by not interrupting thier
converstations or demanding them to do things for me when I they are
occupied. I expect the same from them Someone said that is how
children learn patience and respect. . Someone else replied that
children learn to ignore others by being ignored themselves. I dont
think we are talking about ignoring our children at all.. Rather
asking them to wait ( therefore, show respect) for us to attend to
them. Yeah yeah, barring emotional or physical emergencies. If I
am in a converstation with an adult and my 7 yo says .. Moma, Moma,
Moma ( 3 times fast before I can even answer) come see watch my
trick.. come watch my trick. I would say.. OK, JP. I will come see
your trick as soon as I finish talking to Judy. He may continue to
insist. "JP, I will be finished in a just a minute, go practice it
some more, I will come watch you in just a minute.. If I
immediately end my converstation with Judy, doesnt that show
disrespect to Judy? and also show that my "business" it not as
important as JP's? If I was on the phone, I would try to wrap
the conversation up as quickly as possible, or say i would call her
back. in a few minutes. If she was at my house, I would suggest we
go watch his trick. But, I wouldnt just DROP EVERYTHING and go watch
that second.
Along these same lines.. here this was stated"
<<< While a parent who concentrates 100% on her kids all the time
has a special gift of unlimited time and energy with her kids, it
might have the deficit of her children not seeing her pursue any of
her own goals and plans. She might never take time for herself, and
her own needs. >>

Ren replied:
No one here has advocated this.
In fact, one of the main principles of unschooling here, is that the
parent
passionately and joyously follow their interests, thereby being a
good
example of how to live a meaningful life and stay curious and
interested in
life.>>>>
In order to insure this balance of both parents and
children "passionately and joyously follow their interests" There
has to be some give and take. Robin talked about not being able to
work on her novel . In order to allow her children to follow thier
wants and interests, she has to put her writing on the back burner.
There ARE many many practical problems that come into play when
everyone tries do whatever they want to. Just like the scenario
with my son wanting to go with his friends, but everyone else wanting
to go camping. Compromises DO have to exist.

Here is an example from this morning. JP got up wanting pancakes
for breakfast.. "Moma, Moma, can you make pancakes.!". I was just
waking up.. "Oh.. yeah. I'll make some.. but I want to drink a cup of
coffee first.". DH gets my coffee and JP says again." Moma, come
on.. make the pancakes, I want some, Im hungry" I reply.. "OK OK.. I
will, just let me finish this coffee first.. I gotta get woke up"
Two minutes later.. "Come on Moma, lets make the pancakes, hurry up
and drink your coffee" Well, the coffee was good and hot and I
couldnt just chug it down. and I also needed to get dressed and use
the bathroom. .. So, I said "Honey, I wil make the pancakes, just
hold on a couple of minutes" He is still impatiently hurrying me
up.. So, then I say. " Hey, I've got a good idea, why dont you go
get everything ready to help me make the pancakes" He says
enthusiatisically, "OK.. what do I get out" I tell him the
ingredients and supplies.. "Flour, milk, eggs, sugar, butter, oil.
the griddle, a bowl and measuring cup" He thinks a minute and
says "will you write it down" I make the list and off he goes. I
finish my coffee and get dressed and in about 5 minutes hes back
upstairs jumping up and down so excited.. " I got it ready, I got
everything" "GREAT!.. good job, now lets go make the pancakes!" He
helps me measure and stir and everybody is happy.. and the pancakes
were delicisous ( as usual, since I am a great cook).. What would
JP have learned if I had said.. "OK".. jumped up and ran downstairs
and made the pancakes right away like he asked? We compromised..
I got to drink my coffee and get woke up and spend 15 mins or so
getting ready to do downstairs.. He got to feel needed and helpful by
getting the things ready. PLUS he got to read and follow directions,
measure and stir.
*******************


Many people here don't even read the name of the person posting
before
reading, so I doubt the jabs were aimed at you.
We don't even know "you"
We only know what is told to us.
Elissa
No one on this board has said YOU are anything of the sort.
You is generral here, not specific. And I don't think that you have
been
reading long enough BEFORE posting for the first time, otherwise YOU
would
understand that already.
Elissa
***************
Thats nothing but a cop out. When someone says something and another
person makes a direct response to it, then it is aimed at you. If I
say, I eat red meat every day.. Then someone replies.. If you eat red
meat, you are an animal hater.. Then.. DUHH. obviously they mean I am
an animal hater.. Comments have been made in direct response to
statements I have made. I dont care if folks use my name or not, no
one is naive enough to think they are "general statements"
*************

My 3 (THREE!) year old knows when
he is tired and asks to go to bed, he knows that if he is not tired
he can
watch cartoons quietly in our bed as long as he lets us sleep. He
knows that
he needs to stay in our room but wouldn't be likely to wander the
apt. at
night since there's no one around.
*****************
I would suggest keeping your bedroom door locked. I have
personally known of children getting up at night and wondering
around the house or even outside. There have to be safety standards
at practice.
********************
I would have spent alot of time trying to find ways for him to
determine deep
down what was important and let him know that it was ok to do just
the one.
Was there other options besided staying home or with the Gparents?
Could he
have stayed at a few different friends houses? something really fun
to make
up for missing the camping trip?
Elissa
********
All options were offered and refused by Landon. You know, Ive been
thinking alot about my own teenage years. I know that when my folks
said that I had to be by midnight, I thought they were crazy, just
trying to be mean and controlling. Well, now I am an adult, I've
lived 35 years and I have some experience and wisdom. My folks were
right....staying out after midnight is not safe.. I wanted to go to
the beach with my friend my JR year of high school. I couldnt go
unless an adult chaperone went too.. OMG, how embarrassing, how awful
of my parents, how dare they not trust me!!.. Well, guess what, I now
thank them for the guidance and rules they enforced. Even with an
adult along( they didnt follow us around everywhere), we managed to
get drunk a couple of times, hook up with strange guys, and get lost
downtown. I would have gotten in WAY more trouble, maybe even dead,
if there was not an adult along. I cant agree that children always
know what is best for them.. They are CHILDREN. .. how can 13 or 14
or 16 years compare to 35 , or 40 , or 60 in knowing about life???
It's funny, I dont resent my parents for caring about me and NOT
letting me do everything I wanted to.
****************
Children really want so little - why can't they have it, if it's
within our
power?
Linda
***********
My children want a lot that I cant give them.. My son wants a go cart
for Christmas. Even if it was within my means, I wouldnt get him
one because I know that he is implusive and does not have the skills
to be safe on a go cart.
**************

am not sure what you're talking about. Who is "defensive"
and "disruptive"?
For being so UN-schooling you guys sure like to label things and
people. Is
this also part of your unschooling approach?
I am an observer and I express what I've been observing. This list
actually
smells too much like a clique to me.
Yol
You're free to question anything at all. There are no gods here though
you've been trying to draw a picture of some conflict between gods and
mortals. That conflict doesn't exist because we're all just moms and
dads
with ideas about a better life for our kids.

You're free to judge my comments, anyone can, but it means little to
me
because like everyone else here, my parenting choices have been held
up
to much criticism and scrutiny over the years. Theres very little I
haven't already heard, although I know I still have much to consider.

***I am an observer and I express what I've been observing.***

Isn't this what I did and what you are now so angry about?
It's what happens here. We read, we consider, we learn, we question,
we
make observations. Is there some part of that seems contrary to what
this list is for?

Deb L
**********************
"Distruptive and defensive" seems to be defined and not agreeing 100%
with what some others practice.. Also, defending our own practices
when we are judged harshly for them. There IS a double standard
here.. Its so easy to see when reading through the posts.
***********

I wouldn't say that Elissa!!
But you are quite a pretty lil thang....and when I say little people,
I mean
she's about as big around as my ARM!! sheesh

Ren
***********
I have looks and brains.. :-) And, for the record, I am 5'3" and I
weigh 250 pounds.

*********
Anyway just wanted to say Hi. My name is Pam. My children (Dallen-8
and
Phillip-5) have never been to public school, we started out as
relaxed
homeschoolers/some unit studies etc. But we dumped that quickly and
have
been unschooling ever since. What a group.
I will go back to lurkdom for a while to get the feel of the group.
Take care all,
Pam
******
Hmmm, Pam, *squinting my eyes.. you look familar, have I seen you
somewhere before :-)
Glad to see you here..
************


<< The toothpick and marshmallow structures burn BEAUTIFULLY in the
fireplaces. >>

I sure wish I would have thought of that. My kids love to burn stuff.
*********
Mine too... When we went camping over Thanksgiving, the kids were
twirling burning sticks ( at my encouragment) to see
the "fireworks".. and my son poked the burning stick in his eye.
That was a hard lesson learned.. but, I guess more effective than.
Put that stick down!, you might poke your eye out! Although, with an
infection and patched eye for 4 days, JP wished I had made him put
the stick down. He said. .Moma, why didnt you tell me NO!
*********
roasting over the candle at the table
*******
Yeah, JP loves candles too.. And he accidentally poured hot wax over
his head last week.. His hair was glued with molten wax to his head.
Its just now starting to flake out. I guess he learned another good
lesson . Dont pick up burning pillars candles that are over your head.
*********
OH! Last night one of the kids received a bag of Lego candy! Made of
sugar---totally edible---and you can build with it TOO! Major cool!

~Kelly
******
My kids love those too. Only place I have found them is at Cracker
Barrell.
*********************


Julie asked:
> Is picking up before watching TV for "parental convenience"
or "living for
> principles, not rules"?
>
I replied:
I would say, its for "family convenience" So no one trips and falls..
So,
toys are not lost or broken, so mold doesnt start to grow on dishes.
And,
I have to say, its not like a daily thing. .. Its more like. OK guys,
we cant
walk in here, there is no where to sit down.. You need to get this
stuff up
before the TV comes back on. .. Or.. OK, Ethan, you've been playing
that
game ( on the PC) for 2 hours, JP wants to play, you can find
something else
to do or let him play with you. ..or maybe, JP, I need to finish my
homework,
you can play again when Im finished. ..

**********
I am curious as to why no one replied to my response. I have
replied to many posts and they are basically ignored or only a minute
part of them responded to.. Maybe I am not on blocked or just my
messages automaticlly deleted.. Another form or "cliqueness".. I
was thinking, this list is a lot like High School.. or heck, even
middle school. I want my children to be exposed to diversity,
accepted for what and who they are and what they beleive ( without
judgment) I am an advocate for equality of respect and acceptance.
Why do the unschooling police want to act like a group of Queen
Bees. that wont allow anyone "in" unless that are clones of them??
There have even been subtle advice to "just leave if you dont like
it" Well, I am NOT leaving. I wont be bullied by others into
agreeing with every aspect of thier lifestyle. I wont try to change
them, and again, I must reiterate.. I HAVE NOT JUDGED... I think my
parenting methods are just as valid and worthy as the next persons.
I know I can gain knowledge and learn from others. I think that
others can learn from me as well.

Teresa

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> I know a lot of you dont give a rats ass what I have to say..

If you assume that or have gotten that impression from how you are
interpretting what people write then you are going to read that attitude
into people's replies and it won't help you hear what they really are
saying.

I could say the attitude isn't there. And we could do a yes it is/no it
isn't battle. But I can say that people who post here do care about *ideas*
and the principles of unschooling. If they didn't, they wouldn't respond.

> I made a statement about how I manage my
> household, and judgement was passed on me.

Then it's because you've taken a discussion about an idea and assumed
someone was saying something personal about you.

It *is* hard to separate ourselves from our ideas. For lots of us we feel
our ideas *are* us. If our ideas or something we've done gets criticized
then we feel like someone is criticizing us.

Often, I think -- and this *isn't* personal but talking about the *idea* of
feeling personal attachment to ideas -- we feel like the choices we make in
life are on the order of "Do what feels right and hope for the best." If it
turns out badly, we can't be blamed because we're all just doing the best we
can and everything is chancy at best anyway." Criticism would feel like
someone was saying "Why did you roll a 1. You should have rolled a 6."

I think one of the great things about this list is that people *don't* make
that assumption. It's assumed we *can* understand. And we generate a *lot*
of words talking about the whys of things.

As an example, if someone asks what to do about a kid throwing a tantrum in
a store, on most parenting lists they'll get a range of ideas from the
viewpoint of the gaol being to stop the tantrums. Here people will help dig
and figure out why the tantrums are happening, what it looks like from the
child's point of view, what the parent's reaction looks like from the
child's point of view and then from that understanding, offer what they've
done that works.

Another thing that happens -- and this is a biggie -- is that not everyone's
parenting goals match the goals of the most frequent posters. This is
probably the source of the feeling there's a clique. Some of the frequent
posters are *very* passionate about applying the principles of unschooling
to parenting.

If someone's goal is improving their relationship with their child and
helping the child feel like he has reasonable control over his world and his
voice is taken seriously then that's a very different goal from someone who
would approach the tantrum scenario and say the first thing that must be
done is getting the child to realize that's unacceptable behavior.

It's not that end-the-tantrum-now thinking is wrong because it *would* work
if someone's goal is changing a child's behavior. But that the two goals
coexist about as peacefully as unschooling and curriculum advice do. They
could coexist if we were just throwing out ideas and people could pick and
choose from them. But they can't coexist peacefully if we're discussing
principles. And that *is* what many people come to the list for is the
discussion of the principles and reasoning behind what we do.

I'm sure lots of people would feel more comfortable if we were just throwing
out ideas for people to pick and choose from. They'd feel they could
participate more. But lots of people *wouldn't* like that because they do
want to extend the principles of unschooling into parenting. And that isn't
something people can get too many places. Whereas they can get general
parenting advice just about anywhere.

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> He may continue to
> insist. "JP, I will be finished in a just a minute, go practice it
> some more, I will come watch you in just a minute..

This one's more difficult to translate into understandable terms.

This is, again, about the *idea* behind what you're saying. I'm not
criticizing you or saying I'm better.

The goal of the type of parenting discussed here (is there a word for it?
"The type of parenting discussed here" and "extending unschooling principles
into parenting" is awfully awkward!) *isn't* to teach a child how to judge
what is and isn't important from an adult's point of view. We trust that
what is important will change as the child matures. The goal is to model the
respect we'd like them to give to others.

From the child's point of view this scenario is "I've got something I think
is important enough to interrupt you for." If we respond with "No, you've
judged wrong. Even though from your point of view two adults talking looks
unimportant, it's just one of those thing you have to remember is more
important," what have we modeled for them? We've modeled that you dole out
your attention based on your perception of the world, not on the trust and
regard you have for someone.

If you came to a child all excited -- something on the level of excitement
your 7 yo is expressing, like aliens landed in the back yard ;-) -- and he
said "Just a minute" and returned to something that from your point of view
looked trivial and you persisted that it was *really* important, how would
you want him to respond?

If we come to someone all excited about something, we'd want them to trust
that we weren't interrupting for frivolous reasons and that it really was
important. So that's what we should model for our kids. We should show that
we trust their judgement and respond how we'd want others to respond to us.

If we want children to treat others with respect, then we need to treat them
with respect. *Not* when *we* think they deserve respect but when *they*
think they deserve respect. Sometimes it helps to translate a scenario into
a husband and wife scenario.

If we say to our husband "This is something I'm *really* excited about," --
like having won a million dollars -- we'd want our husbands to interrupt
what they're doing and pay attention to us. We wouldn't want them to react
in a way that said "Regardless of the tone you're using, I think I'm a
better judge of what is important enough to interrupt this conversation
for." (Now doesn't that sound condescending?)

(Now if the child were interrupting every 5 seconds, that's a different
scenario. Trying to get across the whys and wherefores of this kind of
thinking doesn't work well with made up scenarios that can be what-ifed into
a corner. It's the motivations behind the actions that are important, not
the actions so it works best with real scenarios.)

In order for kids to know we take what they say seriously we have to see
what the world looks like from their point of view. We can't judge the
importance of something from the adult point of view and second guess their
judgement. We have to let them know we trust their judgement.

Maturity *will* bring a *different* (not necessarily better ;-)
understanding about what is and isn't important.

The other part of the model is to model respect for what others feel is
important by respecting what *children* think is important. So if a child is
in the middle of a video game or something that doesn't look important to us
but is important to them, we model how we'd want them to treat interrupting
something we think is important by asking them for attention when they come
to a convenient stopping point.

> If I
> immediately end my converstation with Judy, doesnt that show
> disrespect to Judy? and also show that my "business" it not as
> important as JP's?

As an adult hopefully Judy understands that what is important to a child is
different than what is important to an adult. If not, you could model it for
her :-) That it is the level of importance to the child we need to respond
to rather than the thing the child is interrupting us for.

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> In order to insure this balance of both parents and
> children "passionately and joyously follow their interests" There
> has to be some give and take.

Yes. But making the kid give to show them how things need to balance out
doesn't model giving. It models the stronger gets to have their way.

Yes, in the early years it *is* unbalanced. But that doesn't mean we can't
tell them when we're honestly tired. But we do it *not* because we want to
teach them to respect our feelings. But because we want to model being
honest about feelings and respecting ones self.

We model respect when we respect their expressions of their feelings. Even
when we judge that they can't be as tired (or whatever) as they say they
are. We have to trust that they are being honest about their feelings and
respond accordingly and we will be modeling how to respond to other's
feelings.

That's all a bit airy-fairy and really needs some real life scenarios to
make it clear.

> What would
> JP have learned if I had said.. "OK".. jumped up and ran downstairs
> and made the pancakes right away like he asked? We compromised..
> I got to drink my coffee and get woke up and spend 15 mins or so
> getting ready to do downstairs.. He got to feel needed and helpful by
> getting the things ready. PLUS he got to read and follow directions,
> measure and stir.

No, that was a good win-win solution! That was very creative! (And it's also
why real life scenarios are much better to use as discussion points than
made up ones.)

I probably just compounded the misunderstanding in my last post ;-) But what
I'm trying to say is that we can't train kids to judge what is important and
what isn't but insiting that they respect that some adult needs are more
important than kid needs. (But we can model respect for self by letting them
know what our needs are.) We help them learn respect by treating them with
respect. Instead of saying, "No, you have to wait because my need for coffee
is greater than your need for pancakes," you showed respect for his feelings
(that pancakes were important) by suggesting something that he could do to
help you meet his needs which cleverly got your own needs met at the same
time. :-)

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> Thats nothing but a cop out. When someone says something and another
> person makes a direct response to it, then it is aimed at you. If I
> say, I eat red meat every day.. Then someone replies.. If you eat red
> meat, you are an animal hater.. Then.. DUHH. obviously they mean I am
> an animal hater.. Comments have been made in direct response to
> statements I have made. I dont care if folks use my name or not, no
> one is naive enough to think they are "general statements"

No, it isn't a cop out. You can take idea discussion personally as though
they are attacking you and not your idea. And you'll get hurt a lot.

To keep it in the realm of realish scenarios a more likely exchange is:

"We unschool except for math."

"That's not unschooling." And someone would usually go on to explain why
they don't think "unschool except for math" fits in with their concept of
unschooling.

People will read it as though it said "You're not an unschooler." But that's
not what the statement says. It's talking about the *idea* of unschooling
and the *idea* of whether it can encompass the concept of mandated math
instruction.

Because someone objected, does it mean the second person is right and their
idea of what unschooling is overrides anyone else's? No. It means the first
person should tell us how they see mandated math fitting into the
unschooling philosophy.

It will probably shake out into two different definitions of unschooling
with two different goals.

And the clash between differing goals is where the rigidness gets sensed.

The goals of unschooling -- as defined here -- are pretty broad! But they
*are* child centered, child respectful. (No matter how it gets described it
gets interpretted to mean something no one means!) And any ideas that don't
have the goal of child respect in mind do get questioned.

So why is there so much adamancy from some very vocal people that the "child
centered" (whatever you'd call it!) viewpoint is right?

The How To Talk So Your Kids Will Listen book was when I first saw that
children see the world differently than we do. (I mean something more
profound than what those words are saying!) I mean that to an adult it's
"obvious" that the living room should be kept cleaned up. But to a child
it's "obvious" that it makes no sense to spend time putting things away that
they're just going to take out tomorrow. Most people would say the adult is
right. But we're *both* right. We just have different view points. Different
priorities. But if I insist that my viewpoint is right because I'm an adult
and know better (or whatever justification I use), how does that model
solving problems when two people disagree? It doesn't. It models the
stronger person gets their way and the weaker person gives in.

Once I started seeing how different the world looked from a child's point of
view (based on what was important to them) I started to see how the messages
I thought I was sending were being received very differently. When I thought
I was saying "I've had more experience so that's why I know my way is
right," what she was hearing was "Your ideas aren't as good. I'm bigger and
stronger so we get to do it my way."

That *doesn't* mean I then switched my attitude to her way is right because
that's how she sees it. It meant that I had to be conscious of how she
viewed the world in order to understand what I was communicating. For
example if I dragged her around all day doing errands from my point of view
it was communicating that there are just some things in life we have to do.
But what she was hearing is that bigger people get to override the feelings
of littler people.

Even if there are some times when there are things we have to do, shouldn't
the message of stronger people get to override weaker people's feelings be
reserved for emergencies? Was getting errands done worth that message? Was
that a message I wanted her to hear every week? (And that was just for
errands! There were other times I was unconsciously sending that message
too.)

I put that into a husband scenario. What if my husband dragged me around all
day to sporting goods stores and made me stay by his side not touching
anything? What if when I asked when we could go home, he said soon -- which
really meant as long as it takes me to be done? What if I said I was hungry
and he said hold on until we get home because the food here's too expensive?
Or he said I could have something inexpensive on his approved list?

It made me more conscious that a lot of the things I thought I had to do
were really things I *chose* to do. I didn't *have* to shop with her. I
didn't even have to shop. It was just more convenient for me. I was sending
the message that it was okay to inconvenience her for my convenience.

Those realizations didn't make me stop shopping ;-) But I'm more conscious
of what she's putting up with for my convenience. I *appreciate* that she's
inconveniencing herself on the times I'm not clever enough or good enough
about planning ahead. I say "Thank you!" And I buy her expensive mall food.
:-) My goal is to treat her the way I'd want my husband to treat me if he
were inconveniencing me that way. (I ain't perfect! I'm still selfish and
stubborn. But I'm better than I was and every time I have to put the
thoughts into words I grow.)

Once I realized I wasn't trapped by all the "have tos" I started seeing more
options for problems. There were more options than the standard "have tos".
It's also freeing. Once you realize that you don't have to cook every night,
that you *could* have take out pizza everynight if you wanted to do that,
then cooking everynight isn't so much of a chore. I do it because I *choose*
to to save money, make more healthy things and so on.

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> All options were offered and refused by Landon.

I think there wasn't much you could do in that situation. The limitations
were natural but he perceived them as imposed and I'm guessing it's because
that's the way he's most familiar with problems being solved in the family.

I think for adults it's natural to solve family problems by analyzing the
situation and then suggesting the most practical solution(s) and the goal is
to get the kids to agree to one of them. Though it solves the immediate
problem efficiently, it also creates other problems in the long run. Those
other problems may be a small price to pay -- as they are for most parents
-- for the efficiency of dealing with things that way. Those other problems
may be seen as self-correcting with maturity and things we just have to put
up with.

But people here would argue that the problems it creates are more profound
than they seem on the surface because they involve relationships. And it
substitutes learning (how to problem solve) by watching for learning by
doing. And it creates control for a teen to fight against rather than
opportunities to figure out how to problem solve.

There are lots of stories here of how people trust their kids and the result
of that trust. (Sandra has recently told about Kirby and Mary B about her
daughter.) It takes sacrificing some guarantees to get something that's even
better. And it isn't about letting go to let them sink or swim. It's about
creating a relationship where they see family as those who are there to help
them solve their problems rather than as part of their problems.

So people here will speak up when they see someone offering parenting advice
that creates the relationship problems they know don't have to exist. That
speaking up is a source of conflict on the list because not everyone accepts
that the "normal" parent-kid relationships are a problem worth solving. But
I know that the traditional parent-teen conflict isn't the type of
relationship I want to have with my daughter. I want something better and I
see the type of relationship I do want and it's coming out of the conscious
parenting explained here, not from traditional parenting advice.

There's a really good book for anyone who is interested called Parent/Teen
Breakthrough: The Relationship Approach by Mira Kirshenbaum and Charles
Foster. Pam S recommends it often and it's very good :-)

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> My children want a lot that I cant give them.. My son wants a go cart
> for Christmas. Even if it was within my means, I wouldnt get him
> one because I know that he is implusive and does not have the skills
> to be safe on a go cart.

This comes from perceiving that people are saying "Give your kids everything
they want." But we're saying help them figure out what they want and help
them figure out ways to get it. If we become the locked door that stands
between them and what they want, the only option we're giving them is to
push against us or sneak around us. If we stand beside them and help them
figure out how they can get from where they are to where they want to be,
then we become their partner.

Would your rather be a door or a partner? The people who perceive their
relathionship as partners to their kids have relationships that I admire.
They aren't without conflict but the conflict arises from personal
differences rather than from the power struggle of a stronger person making
a weaker person do what's "right". (Personally getting alog with people is
hard enough that I don't want to compound it by adding in a layer of power
struggle!)

I can't offer advice from experience on the go kart since I've got a quiet
kid who isn't a teen yet! And your son's been controlled so trying out
letting go of control on a go kart sounds like failure waiting to happen.
Like when control is let go on anything: tv, food, school, kids binge on
what they've been denied. Kids will binge on freedom too if they feel that's
been controlled. But if he feels that his own life is in the decisions he
makes, then he's going to be a lot more sensible. He won't make the same
choices you would. He may take risks! (There probably was no holding Evel
Knievel back. And since his son followed in his motorcycle tracks there was
undoubtedly genetic factors.) But he's more likely to take more risks if
what he's really doing is fighting control.

I know that in partnership relationships that the children know their
parents are there to help any way they can and they do care. They know that
advice is advice and not control. Partnership parents might find a trusted
adult who could advise the teen about go karts. (It's often a whole lot
easier to hear advice from somone who's been there and still doing that than
from worrying parents.)

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> "Distruptive and defensive" seems to be defined and not agreeing 100%
> with what some others practice.. Also, defending our own practices
> when we are judged harshly for them. There IS a double standard
> here.. Its so easy to see when reading through the posts.

I think it usually means having goals that differ. We tend to assume we all
have the same goals -- what's best for our kids -- but what we really mean
by that isn't the same across the board. And sometimes if we talk about our
goals we'd agree we had the same but we're actually not prioritizing them
the same way.

Though I don't doubt that most parents would say their relationship with
their children was paramount, that really isn't true in practice because we
strain it everytime we override what they want for what we want. (And, no,
the other option isn't their overriding what we want for what they want!) We
can justify those times! so it seems like those are just exceptions to the
rule. But the parents who really do put relationshps first can offer good
advice on how we don't have to sacrifice relationships and how to build even
better ones.

So if people want the list to be about sharing practices then they're going
to have a hard time here because people will persist in talking about
principles behind our practices. That's what's really valuable about this
list. "What works" isn't good enough. It's the principles behind what works.
It's digging deep to see the relationships and how things look from kid
points of view. It seeing what the consequences are of that kid perception
and ways to avoid those problems.

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 12/15/02 12:26 PM, jaeschool <grlynbl@...> at grlynbl@... wrote:

> I am curious as to why no one replied to my response. I have
> replied to many posts and they are basically ignored or only a minute
> part of them responded to..

Time. Or no one has anything useful to comment on. Generally if no one
responds then they're either nodding in agreement or they have no clue.

Or it may be a matter of thinking you're asking questions when you're really
making statements. (I didn't go back to check so I don't know.) If it
happens a lot, then it's worth wondering if you're not being read the way
you intend.

From a certain perspective the list may seem like a big party or an
afternoon let's-all-kick-back-and-chat get together. That sets up
expectations of "Welcome!"s and nods and smiles and pats on the back and
"Would you like some cookies?" and other feedback that we're welcome and
others are listening to what we're saying that we'd normally get from that
type of gathering. (And cheery chit chat between people who've met people
here they've come to feel are friends probably reinforces that.) But those
are false expectations. The list isn't a tea party gathering of people who
call themselves unschoolers or wannabe unschoolers. It's a discussion list
specifically about unschooling.

Some people do find this list a place to kick back because they share or are
drawn to the ideas they read about here. That's just a side effect. It's
just a consequence of sharing the ideals of the place you happen to be in.
But creating that kick-back feeling isn't the goal of this list and it
doesn't try to be that. It's a place for discussing the unschooling
philosophy. If soemone is looking for a place to kick back then, unless they
are drawn to the type of unschooling ideas expressed here, they would
probably find other lists an easier fit.

That's not telling anyone to get out. It's suggesting people examine what it
is they want from a list and not just assume everyone wants the same and
that every list offers it.

If you want to discuss the unschooling philsophy, this is a really great
place for it :-) If you want to know more about extending the unschooling
philosophy into parenting it's also a great place. Some people may find
other things here that the list wasn't designed for but the list can't be
faulted for not being something that it doesn't intend to be.

Joyce