Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] TV, was Re: Is Unschooling A Transformation?
Bill and Diane
>Yes. We don't. When dh and I met, I owned 3 TVs, and none of them
>
>Are there people on this list that DON'T own t.v.'s? Just wondering.
>
worked. He brought in a small B&W, because he couldn't imagine life
without TV. A year and a half later, we sold that one and haven't had
one since. That was several years before we had kids, though.
I figure at some point we'll probably get one, but no one seems that
interested right now. We'll need it for the game systems, right? I just
don't like it. I don't like noise, the pace of most programs seems
boggling to me, but most of all, I can't have it on in the background.
If it's ON I'm WATCHING it, and I don't like that. Maybe we could use
the basement idea.
When we're at friends' houses and all the kids watch TV, my two just
don't gravitate toward it. The other kids will all be yelling at them to
"come watch the movie!" but they're just not interested. In motel rooms
they love to play with the remote, but not really watch. I'll usually
turn on the weather channel at some point, and that gets them started
with it.
The thing I *most* disagree with, though, is the families who have TV,
but don't think the kids should watch it. Then they set the kids'
bedtimes so they can watch their own shows. Do as I say, not as I do.
:-) Diane
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 8:49:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, cen46624@...
writes:
have many TVs. And watch them off and on. But when we go to a hotel or when
people come over my boys want to play. They don't want to watch TV. Maybe
because they can do that anytime. So my boys are kind of the same as yours
but we do watch TV. And when kids come over that are TV restricted at home
all they want to do is watch TV or play the computer. They aren't able to
watch TV or play whatever computer game they like at home. So they are glued
to them at our house. My boys are always complaining about that. The kids
come over to play and they won't play.
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> When we're at friends' houses and all the kids watch TV, my two justI have found the opposite to be true well maybe not the exact opposite. We
> don't gravitate toward it. The other kids will all be yelling at them to
> "come watch the movie!" but they're just not interested. In motel rooms
> they love to play with the remote, but not really watch. I'll usually
> turn on the weather channel at some point, and that gets them started
> with it.
>
>
have many TVs. And watch them off and on. But when we go to a hotel or when
people come over my boys want to play. They don't want to watch TV. Maybe
because they can do that anytime. So my boys are kind of the same as yours
but we do watch TV. And when kids come over that are TV restricted at home
all they want to do is watch TV or play the computer. They aren't able to
watch TV or play whatever computer game they like at home. So they are glued
to them at our house. My boys are always complaining about that. The kids
come over to play and they won't play.
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heidi <[email protected]>
We own a TV, but it is only for movies. We live in the middle of
nowhere, and can only get the NBC channel IF the TV is upstairs. We
brought it up last year for the Olympics...I'm from SLC and simply
HAD to watch. That was when I watched my first and only episode
of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" and that hilarious ad lib/
impromptu program. Otherwise the TV lives in the basement where ZERO
local stations come through.
Anyway. In discussing how unschooling is going to manifest itself in
our home, the TV has come up often. I think the mind flourishes best
when it is in contact with real stuff: building a treehouse,
wrassling with your sister on the floor, reading Tom Swift, etc. so
we've thought about putting a limit on the amount of time in front of
the TV. Hubby and I are already self-limited. It isn't ever on just
because. But in thinking it through, the only way to really do it
would be to put the TV away. Maybe not get rid of it entirely, but
stick in an out of the way place and make a movie night a very
special event.
Dunno. Just thinking out loud. Again.
Heidi
--- In [email protected], Bill and Diane
<cen46624@v...> wrote:
nowhere, and can only get the NBC channel IF the TV is upstairs. We
brought it up last year for the Olympics...I'm from SLC and simply
HAD to watch. That was when I watched my first and only episode
of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" and that hilarious ad lib/
impromptu program. Otherwise the TV lives in the basement where ZERO
local stations come through.
Anyway. In discussing how unschooling is going to manifest itself in
our home, the TV has come up often. I think the mind flourishes best
when it is in contact with real stuff: building a treehouse,
wrassling with your sister on the floor, reading Tom Swift, etc. so
we've thought about putting a limit on the amount of time in front of
the TV. Hubby and I are already self-limited. It isn't ever on just
because. But in thinking it through, the only way to really do it
would be to put the TV away. Maybe not get rid of it entirely, but
stick in an out of the way place and make a movie night a very
special event.
Dunno. Just thinking out loud. Again.
Heidi
--- In [email protected], Bill and Diane
<cen46624@v...> wrote:
> >wondering.
> >
> >Are there people on this list that DON'T own t.v.'s? Just
> >had
> Yes. We don't. When dh and I met, I owned 3 TVs, and none of them
> worked. He brought in a small B&W, because he couldn't imagine life
> without TV. A year and a half later, we sold that one and haven't
> one since.
Angela
I think personalities come in to play in whether or not kids are drawn to
the tv as much as whether it is restricted or not. Some kids, like my
oldest, are just not drawn to the tv. My youngest likes it a little more,
but both would leave it in a heart beat to play with their friends or to
play a game with me or listen to a book. I used to restrict it when they
were little, but I don't anymore. They are now 8 and 6. I have a friend
who claims her kids would do nothing but watch tv all the time if she let
them. I know you might think that is because she does restrict it, but I
restricted my kids tv viewing for many years and they still don't like it
that much. So it seems to me that isn't just restriction vs. no restriction
that makes a kid want to watch more, but personalities of the kids come into
play there too.
Angela in Maine
mailto:unschooling@...
My Unschooling Page
http://userpages.prexar.com/rickshaw/
"What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say."
Emerson
Pam wrote:
I have found the opposite to be true well maybe not the exact opposite.Pam
G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the tv as much as whether it is restricted or not. Some kids, like my
oldest, are just not drawn to the tv. My youngest likes it a little more,
but both would leave it in a heart beat to play with their friends or to
play a game with me or listen to a book. I used to restrict it when they
were little, but I don't anymore. They are now 8 and 6. I have a friend
who claims her kids would do nothing but watch tv all the time if she let
them. I know you might think that is because she does restrict it, but I
restricted my kids tv viewing for many years and they still don't like it
that much. So it seems to me that isn't just restriction vs. no restriction
that makes a kid want to watch more, but personalities of the kids come into
play there too.
Angela in Maine
mailto:unschooling@...
My Unschooling Page
http://userpages.prexar.com/rickshaw/
"What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say."
Emerson
Pam wrote:
I have found the opposite to be true well maybe not the exact opposite.Pam
G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
the_clevengers <[email protected]>
--- In [email protected], genant2@a... wrote:
TVs, but a few do. When we've had large groups of people over, the
only kids who discovered our TV downstairs and kept repeatedly asking
me to turn it on were ones who had TVs in their house. One 10 y.o.
boy actually became very upset with me when I explained that our TV
isn't hooked up to an antenna or cable, so it doesn't actually get
any TV shows. He was mad about that. I've just got it hooked up to a
VCR so I can watch stuff while I'm cycling. It was weird to see these
kids keep coming back to the TV like moths to a flame. But the rest
of the kids were upstairs playing.
My son was at a friend's house last week, one of our few friends who
does have a TV out in the living room, and my son has never asked to
turn it on when we've been there. I think it depends a lot on the
personalities of the kids involved, most likely.
Some random thoughts, unconnected to your particular post: I guess I
see the TV/no TV thing as just a matter of choice. I know some folks
think kids who don't have TV are deprived, but really they just have
different things in their lives during that time when they'd be
watching the TV. It doesn't have to be a value judgement - better or
worse - it's just different. So, some families choose to watch TV,
and some choose to do different things. We spent Saturday morning
going to a live vaudeville show, on a bike ride, and to a park.
Someone else might spend it watching Saturday morning cartoons. It's
just a different choice of activities for that time. We spend our
evening hours playing games with the kids, reading books, going
swimming, etc. Again, we've just chosen a different set of activities.
And if kids who don't watch TV want to watch it when they go to a
house where it's on, well that's natural. When my kids go to their
friend's house where the mom always does great crafts stuff, that's
all they want to do there. I'm more or less craft-impaired. :-) Does
that mean my kids are craft-deprived and will be in need of a
psychiatrist to fix their craft-deprivation later in life? :-) And my
experience hasn't been that my kids crave TV at friend's houses in
any case.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
> I have found the opposite to be true well maybe not the exactopposite. We
> have many TVs. And watch them off and on. But when we go to ahotel or when
> people come over my boys want to play. They don't want to watchTV. Maybe
> because they can do that anytime. So my boys are kind of the sameas yours
> but we do watch TV. And when kids come over that are TV restrictedat home
> all they want to do is watch TV or play the computer. They aren'table to
> watch TV or play whatever computer game they like at home. So theyare glued
> to them at our house. My boys are always complaining about that.The kids
> come over to play and they won't play.Interesting, I've found the opposite. Most of our friends don't have
TVs, but a few do. When we've had large groups of people over, the
only kids who discovered our TV downstairs and kept repeatedly asking
me to turn it on were ones who had TVs in their house. One 10 y.o.
boy actually became very upset with me when I explained that our TV
isn't hooked up to an antenna or cable, so it doesn't actually get
any TV shows. He was mad about that. I've just got it hooked up to a
VCR so I can watch stuff while I'm cycling. It was weird to see these
kids keep coming back to the TV like moths to a flame. But the rest
of the kids were upstairs playing.
My son was at a friend's house last week, one of our few friends who
does have a TV out in the living room, and my son has never asked to
turn it on when we've been there. I think it depends a lot on the
personalities of the kids involved, most likely.
Some random thoughts, unconnected to your particular post: I guess I
see the TV/no TV thing as just a matter of choice. I know some folks
think kids who don't have TV are deprived, but really they just have
different things in their lives during that time when they'd be
watching the TV. It doesn't have to be a value judgement - better or
worse - it's just different. So, some families choose to watch TV,
and some choose to do different things. We spent Saturday morning
going to a live vaudeville show, on a bike ride, and to a park.
Someone else might spend it watching Saturday morning cartoons. It's
just a different choice of activities for that time. We spend our
evening hours playing games with the kids, reading books, going
swimming, etc. Again, we've just chosen a different set of activities.
And if kids who don't watch TV want to watch it when they go to a
house where it's on, well that's natural. When my kids go to their
friend's house where the mom always does great crafts stuff, that's
all they want to do there. I'm more or less craft-impaired. :-) Does
that mean my kids are craft-deprived and will be in need of a
psychiatrist to fix their craft-deprivation later in life? :-) And my
experience hasn't been that my kids crave TV at friend's houses in
any case.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 8:30:40 AM, unschooling@... writes:
<< I have a friend
who claims her kids would do nothing but watch tv all the time if she let
them. I know you might think that is because she does restrict it, but I
restricted my kids tv viewing for many years and they still don't like it
that much. >>
Your kids are unrestricted and they don't like it that much.
Her kids are restricted and she "knows" they would only watch tv if she let
them.
She won't know unless she lets them.
Sandra
<< I have a friend
who claims her kids would do nothing but watch tv all the time if she let
them. I know you might think that is because she does restrict it, but I
restricted my kids tv viewing for many years and they still don't like it
that much. >>
Your kids are unrestricted and they don't like it that much.
Her kids are restricted and she "knows" they would only watch tv if she let
them.
She won't know unless she lets them.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 8:50:39 AM, diamondair@... writes:
<< I guess I
see the TV/no TV thing as just a matter of choice. I know some folks
think kids who don't have TV are deprived, but really they just have
different things in their lives during that time when they'd be
watching the TV. It doesn't have to be a value judgement - better or
worse - it's just different. >>
If the value of the thought processes of the parents are really lame, then
it's worse, not just different (in MY opinion and experience).
Some parents have invalid reasons for their TV views. Nonsensical reasons.
Illogical reasons.
And passing illogical or dishonest reasoning on to kids doesn't promote
natural learning. They figure out early that the parents are not being calm
and accepting, but that they're kind of superstitious and paranoid.
<< So, some families choose to watch TV,
and some choose to do different things. >>
We have TVs. But we are not a family that chooses to watch TV, as opposed to
a family that chooses to do different things. We are a family that chooses
to offer a full range of options and see our children do all kinds of things
wholly by their own choice.
Holly's watching Mr. Rogers. She's 11. I didn't tell her to. She came in
here to show me the dress Lady Aberline's wearing. Holly really liked it.
Keith came home from work sick. He was watching Fight Club, from the bed,
when I was in there last. He's probably asleep now. Last night Marty, Keith
and I worked on tent repairs for a couple of mid-sized medieval-style tents
we have. Tonight we have one more grommet repair (which will involve leather
and glue). Holly and I are going shopping today to a fabric store and to
look for some used shoes we can paint purple for an outfit she needs for
Saturday. The boys are both sick too, poor guys. Sleeping.
Our family's quite busy. But I never have once thought they were only doing
something because TV wasn't an option. Every time they're out playing orc
ball or playing boffers in the back field or off gaming, it's because they
would rather do that than watch TV. I think that's cooler than doing it
without options.
<<We spent Saturday morning
going to a live vaudeville show, on a bike ride, and to a park.
Someone else might spend it watching Saturday morning cartoons. >>
My kids have never had any interest in the Saturday morning cartoons (if
there even are any anymore). Saturday isn't a "special day" for them.
If there were a live vaudeville show here they would never have let TV keep
them from going (though on Saturday morning nobody here ever watches any).
But I worry more about a family without any bike, park, vaudeville show who
just lies and says the TV doesn't work, or says yes it works, but you can't
watch it.
<<It's
just a different choice of activities for that time. We spend our
evening hours playing games with the kids, reading books, going
swimming, etc. Again, we've just chosen a different set of activities.>>
This is still not a true representation of having television or videos
available. It's not a choice to do that instead of reading, swimming or
playing games.
Sandra
<< I guess I
see the TV/no TV thing as just a matter of choice. I know some folks
think kids who don't have TV are deprived, but really they just have
different things in their lives during that time when they'd be
watching the TV. It doesn't have to be a value judgement - better or
worse - it's just different. >>
If the value of the thought processes of the parents are really lame, then
it's worse, not just different (in MY opinion and experience).
Some parents have invalid reasons for their TV views. Nonsensical reasons.
Illogical reasons.
And passing illogical or dishonest reasoning on to kids doesn't promote
natural learning. They figure out early that the parents are not being calm
and accepting, but that they're kind of superstitious and paranoid.
<< So, some families choose to watch TV,
and some choose to do different things. >>
We have TVs. But we are not a family that chooses to watch TV, as opposed to
a family that chooses to do different things. We are a family that chooses
to offer a full range of options and see our children do all kinds of things
wholly by their own choice.
Holly's watching Mr. Rogers. She's 11. I didn't tell her to. She came in
here to show me the dress Lady Aberline's wearing. Holly really liked it.
Keith came home from work sick. He was watching Fight Club, from the bed,
when I was in there last. He's probably asleep now. Last night Marty, Keith
and I worked on tent repairs for a couple of mid-sized medieval-style tents
we have. Tonight we have one more grommet repair (which will involve leather
and glue). Holly and I are going shopping today to a fabric store and to
look for some used shoes we can paint purple for an outfit she needs for
Saturday. The boys are both sick too, poor guys. Sleeping.
Our family's quite busy. But I never have once thought they were only doing
something because TV wasn't an option. Every time they're out playing orc
ball or playing boffers in the back field or off gaming, it's because they
would rather do that than watch TV. I think that's cooler than doing it
without options.
<<We spent Saturday morning
going to a live vaudeville show, on a bike ride, and to a park.
Someone else might spend it watching Saturday morning cartoons. >>
My kids have never had any interest in the Saturday morning cartoons (if
there even are any anymore). Saturday isn't a "special day" for them.
If there were a live vaudeville show here they would never have let TV keep
them from going (though on Saturday morning nobody here ever watches any).
But I worry more about a family without any bike, park, vaudeville show who
just lies and says the TV doesn't work, or says yes it works, but you can't
watch it.
<<It's
just a different choice of activities for that time. We spend our
evening hours playing games with the kids, reading books, going
swimming, etc. Again, we've just chosen a different set of activities.>>
This is still not a true representation of having television or videos
available. It's not a choice to do that instead of reading, swimming or
playing games.
Sandra
Bill and Diane
That's what I've heard many times, so I try to be aware of what my kids
are doing when there's TV available freely. If they looked like they
really were interested, I'd probably start looking into getting one. I
figure it's inevitable someday, anyhow.
My big complaint was when I'd go over to some (adult) friends' house and
all THEY'd want to do was watch TV, even though they'd invited us over!
Not invited to watch TV, either, nor was it a particular show they
wanted to share, just whatever was on that evening.
:-) Diane
are doing when there's TV available freely. If they looked like they
really were interested, I'd probably start looking into getting one. I
figure it's inevitable someday, anyhow.
My big complaint was when I'd go over to some (adult) friends' house and
all THEY'd want to do was watch TV, even though they'd invited us over!
Not invited to watch TV, either, nor was it a particular show they
wanted to share, just whatever was on that evening.
:-) Diane
>And when kids come over that are TV restricted at home
>all they want to do is watch TV or play the computer. They aren't able to
>watch TV or play whatever computer game they like at home. So they are glued
>to them at our house. My boys are always complaining about that. The kids
>come over to play and they won't play.
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 12:13:45 PM, cen46624@... writes:
<< My big complaint was when I'd go over to some (adult) friends' house and
all THEY'd want to do was watch TV, even though they'd invited us over!
Not invited to watch TV, either, nor was it a particular show they
wanted to share, just whatever was on that evening. >>
That's horribly tacky.
Sometimes we do invite someone or people over to watch a movie, but they know
and we know and we totally clean up enough good places to sit and make
popcorn! But more often if we have company it's to play games and so we
sometimes eat fast so we can play longer.
For such flighty, disorganized people we can be pretty focussed!
Sandra
<< My big complaint was when I'd go over to some (adult) friends' house and
all THEY'd want to do was watch TV, even though they'd invited us over!
Not invited to watch TV, either, nor was it a particular show they
wanted to share, just whatever was on that evening. >>
That's horribly tacky.
Sometimes we do invite someone or people over to watch a movie, but they know
and we know and we totally clean up enough good places to sit and make
popcorn! But more often if we have company it's to play games and so we
sometimes eat fast so we can play longer.
For such flighty, disorganized people we can be pretty focussed!
Sandra
[email protected]
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:49:23 -0000 "the_clevengers
<diamondair@...>" <diamondair@...> writes:
on were ones >who had TVs in their house. One 10 y.o. boy actually
became very upset with >me when I explained that our TV isn't hooked up
to an antenna or cable, so it >doesn't actually get any TV shows. He was
mad about that.
I have had the same thing happen here. While we do have three televisions
and one VCR, none of them are hooked up to antennas or cable. The only
station that comes in clearly is PBS, and we mostly just watch videos.
When we have had groups of people over for Thanksgiving or New Years,
both adults and children have gotten upset with me that they could not
watch Football games. And I mean, really upset, to the point of
dysfunctional. They would pace around like lost puppies. I'd find them
sitting in their cars in subzero weather tuned in to the radio. Some
people, (my Dad) actually went home. I would hate for something to have
that much of a hold on me. My children can watch TV or tapes at their
whim, and when they go to visit other people, they are there to spend
that time with those people. DD5 often comes home from Grandma's
disappointed, because the first thing my Mom does is turn on cartoons for
her. DD would much rather spend the time doing something *with* Grandma.
She does think it is pretty cool that cartoons are on all night there
though.
Wende
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
<diamondair@...>" <diamondair@...> writes:
> When we've had large groups of people over, the only kids whodiscovered >our TV downstairs and kept repeatedly asking me to turn it
on were ones >who had TVs in their house. One 10 y.o. boy actually
became very upset with >me when I explained that our TV isn't hooked up
to an antenna or cable, so it >doesn't actually get any TV shows. He was
mad about that.
I have had the same thing happen here. While we do have three televisions
and one VCR, none of them are hooked up to antennas or cable. The only
station that comes in clearly is PBS, and we mostly just watch videos.
When we have had groups of people over for Thanksgiving or New Years,
both adults and children have gotten upset with me that they could not
watch Football games. And I mean, really upset, to the point of
dysfunctional. They would pace around like lost puppies. I'd find them
sitting in their cars in subzero weather tuned in to the radio. Some
people, (my Dad) actually went home. I would hate for something to have
that much of a hold on me. My children can watch TV or tapes at their
whim, and when they go to visit other people, they are there to spend
that time with those people. DD5 often comes home from Grandma's
disappointed, because the first thing my Mom does is turn on cartoons for
her. DD would much rather spend the time doing something *with* Grandma.
She does think it is pretty cool that cartoons are on all night there
though.
Wende
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 2:13:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, cen46624@...
writes:
all off playing and we were eating. It happened to be the time when one of
those reality shows was on so they turned on a TV in the kitchen and that is
what we did...eat and watch this program that they "couldn't miss".
LOL...sad
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> My big complaint was when I'd go over to some (adult) friends' house andFriends of ours did that once. Invited us over for dinner. The boys were
> all THEY'd want to do was watch TV, even though they'd invited us over!
> Not invited to watch TV, either, nor was it a particular show they
> wanted to share, just whatever was on that evening.
>
>
all off playing and we were eating. It happened to be the time when one of
those reality shows was on so they turned on a TV in the kitchen and that is
what we did...eat and watch this program that they "couldn't miss".
LOL...sad
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 1:44:40 PM, love-it-here@... writes:
<< When we have had groups of people over for Thanksgiving or New Years,
both adults and children have gotten upset with me that they could not
watch Football games. And I mean, really upset, to the point of
dysfunctional. >>
That's about sports, not TV.
I think the assumption of gatherings on those days is generally that the
football games will be available. If they'd known in advance they could've
stayed home and you wouldn't have had upset people or a story to tell us.
I don't watch sports, and my husband rarely does, but I have friends who DO
watch football, and it would be cruel for someone to lure them with social
obligation to a place where they couldn't watch the Cowboys or the Steelers,
were it one of their days.
Sandra
<< When we have had groups of people over for Thanksgiving or New Years,
both adults and children have gotten upset with me that they could not
watch Football games. And I mean, really upset, to the point of
dysfunctional. >>
That's about sports, not TV.
I think the assumption of gatherings on those days is generally that the
football games will be available. If they'd known in advance they could've
stayed home and you wouldn't have had upset people or a story to tell us.
I don't watch sports, and my husband rarely does, but I have friends who DO
watch football, and it would be cruel for someone to lure them with social
obligation to a place where they couldn't watch the Cowboys or the Steelers,
were it one of their days.
Sandra
the_clevengers <[email protected]>
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
their kids. We all pick and choose, based on our own interests,
abilities, etc. For instance, our children are offered the ability to
go flying in our airplane whenever they choose. Should I then say
that any other parents who choose not to purchase an airplane and
learn how to fly it are limiting their children's options because
it's not available to their children?
Though some might have different options. This morning, my kids said
they wanted to go flying, and I could take them up. If they said they
wanted to watch Powderpuff girls, that would've been impossible as we
don't choose to use our money on cable TV. In another family, if the
kids had said in the morning that they wanted to go flying, that
would've been impossible. However, the Powderpuff girls would've been
an option for that family because they chose to use their money for
cable TV and not for airplane payments.
In this scenario, I see two families who have chosen to use their
money on two different options and therefore their children have
different options available to them. It seems to me that in this
scenario, you see one family who is deprived because they don't have
a TV, and one family who is not deprived because they do.
Ditto, we sometimes don't even realize it *is* Saturday, LOL!
doing that, so I'm not sure I see the point. Our TV doesn't work in
the sense that it is not hooked up to a cable, therefore gets little
programming, but our kids do watch movies on it (it has a VCR
attached).
they have snow, and therefore sledding, cross-country skiing, and
snowshoeing are available. Some people live on a beach, and therefore
swimming and surfing are available. Some people choose to own
bicycles, some people choose not to put their money into bicycles.
Some people choose to spend money on a membership to a club with a
pool, or in a house with a pool so that swimming is always an option.
Some people own airplanes so that flying is always an option. Some
people choose to have TVs available as an option, or playstations, or
computers. These are all options and not a single one of us has all
of these available.
For some reason, TV is seen by many as a "better" option, or a
necessary one, or one that kids are "deprived" if they don't have
access to. I think that's about as strange as if I suddenly started
insisting that everyone who doesn't own an airplane is depriving
their kids by not giving them the ability to go flying whenever they
want to. My kids do happen to have that option. They also have a TV
that does get a couple of channels fuzzily via rabbit-ear antennas
and they occasionally ask to watch it, and they do watch it on those
occasions. But they're as deprived by their lack of cable TV as other
kids are by their lack of ability to take to the air.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
who grew up with no cable TV but the marvelous gift of wings
>of things
> In a message dated 2/4/03 8:50:39 AM, diamondair@e... writes:
> We are a family that chooses
> to offer a full range of options and see our children do all kinds
> wholly by their own choice.I'm not sure that any one family offers a full range of options to
their kids. We all pick and choose, based on our own interests,
abilities, etc. For instance, our children are offered the ability to
go flying in our airplane whenever they choose. Should I then say
that any other parents who choose not to purchase an airplane and
learn how to fly it are limiting their children's options because
it's not available to their children?
> Our family's quite busy. But I never have once thought they wereonly doing
> something because TV wasn't an option.Don't think I've seen that implied or said.
> I think that's cooler than doing itI sincerely doubt that any kids on this list have "no options".
> without options.
Though some might have different options. This morning, my kids said
they wanted to go flying, and I could take them up. If they said they
wanted to watch Powderpuff girls, that would've been impossible as we
don't choose to use our money on cable TV. In another family, if the
kids had said in the morning that they wanted to go flying, that
would've been impossible. However, the Powderpuff girls would've been
an option for that family because they chose to use their money for
cable TV and not for airplane payments.
In this scenario, I see two families who have chosen to use their
money on two different options and therefore their children have
different options available to them. It seems to me that in this
scenario, you see one family who is deprived because they don't have
a TV, and one family who is not deprived because they do.
> My kids have never had any interest in the Saturday morningcartoons (if
> there even are any anymore). Saturday isn't a "special day" forthem.
Ditto, we sometimes don't even realize it *is* Saturday, LOL!
> But I worry more about a family without any bike, park, vaudevilleshow who
> just lies and says the TV doesn't work, or says yes it works, butyou can't
> watch it.Yeah, that would be a bit weird. But I don't see any families here
doing that, so I'm not sure I see the point. Our TV doesn't work in
the sense that it is not hooked up to a cable, therefore gets little
programming, but our kids do watch movies on it (it has a VCR
attached).
> This is still not a true representation of having television orvideos
> available. It's not a choice to do that instead of reading,swimming or
> playing games.Right, but nobody has every choice. Some people live in areas where
they have snow, and therefore sledding, cross-country skiing, and
snowshoeing are available. Some people live on a beach, and therefore
swimming and surfing are available. Some people choose to own
bicycles, some people choose not to put their money into bicycles.
Some people choose to spend money on a membership to a club with a
pool, or in a house with a pool so that swimming is always an option.
Some people own airplanes so that flying is always an option. Some
people choose to have TVs available as an option, or playstations, or
computers. These are all options and not a single one of us has all
of these available.
For some reason, TV is seen by many as a "better" option, or a
necessary one, or one that kids are "deprived" if they don't have
access to. I think that's about as strange as if I suddenly started
insisting that everyone who doesn't own an airplane is depriving
their kids by not giving them the ability to go flying whenever they
want to. My kids do happen to have that option. They also have a TV
that does get a couple of channels fuzzily via rabbit-ear antennas
and they occasionally ask to watch it, and they do watch it on those
occasions. But they're as deprived by their lack of cable TV as other
kids are by their lack of ability to take to the air.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
who grew up with no cable TV but the marvelous gift of wings
Kelle Kjeer
Hi,
New here, and I have to jump in about this TV thread. What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids unlimited choices, or start from infancy?
Trying to figure out if I fit in as an unschooler.
Kelle
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 01/27/2003
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
New here, and I have to jump in about this TV thread. What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids unlimited choices, or start from infancy?
Trying to figure out if I fit in as an unschooler.
Kelle
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 01/27/2003
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stephanie Elms
> New here, and I have to jump in about this TV thread. What IUnlimited tv does not mean that you sit your young kids down in front of NYPD blue
> am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and
> restrict your children's viewing to shows that you deem
> appropriate, does that imply that you are depriving them of a
> learning opportunity and you are not unschooling? What about
> porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is
> super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when
> you give kids unlimited choices, or start from infancy?
or ER and tell them to enjoy. My kids are 6 and almost 3 and they would not enjoy
watching something with a lot of violence or porn. Since reading here, I have become
more comfortable with trusting my children to decide if something is appropriate.
My oldest loves the crocodile hunter. When the movie came out, my immediate reaction was
that it was not something that I wanted Jason to see (things blowing up etc). We watched
a clips show on tv and Jason told me that he did not want to see the movie because
it looked too scary. He did the same thing with Spider Man, saw some ads and decided that
he did not want to see it.
So, yes I am "limiting" tv because I am not taping (we have tivo) ER or NYPD Blue for the
boys (and we choose only to watch it when they are in bed). But I am not limiting it because
if they showed a real interest in wanting to see it for whatever reason, I would let them
watch it (with me next to them). It has actually been very freeing for me and I am seeing
my kids as people who have a good sense of what they are ready for rather then fragile
things that need to be protected (I am not sure that made sense). I used to be the type
that would try to flip the channel if an ad for a violent movie came on (fox football
used to drive me nuts!). But I realized that it had the potential of creating more
interest, so I stopped. And neither of my kids have been traumatized so far!
I think that "no limits" means that we as parents do not decide what is "good" for them...
for example, only letting them watch "educational" tv. It is trusting that kids can make
good choices for themselves, even if those choices are not the ones that we would make.
Stephanie E.
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 7:19:22 PM, diamondair@... writes:
<< However, the Powderpuff girls would've been
an option for that family because they chose to use their money for
cable TV and not for airplane payments.
<It seems to me that in this
scenario, you see one family who is deprived because they don't have
a TV, and one family who is not deprived because they do.
-=-> But I worry more about a family without any bike, park, vaudeville
show who
doing that, so I'm not sure I see the point.-=-
There are people who do both. There've been a couple of people admit lying
to kids. One said when she didn't want them to watch it she would unplug it,
then try to turn it on and say, "Oh. It's not working."
<<Right, but nobody has every choice. Some people live in areas where
they have snow, and therefore sledding, cross-country skiing, and
snowshoeing are available. >>
I've never heard of anyone saying "If I let my kids ski, they would just ski
all day," or "When he's skiing he's like a zombie" or "Skiing rots his brain"
or "I've read a book that says skiing will affect his mental development, so
we just don't have skis."
If airplanes and televisions cost the same there would be lots more
airplanes, no doubt.
Sandra
<< However, the Powderpuff girls would've been
an option for that family because they chose to use their money for
cable TV and not for airplane payments.
>>We don't have either one. It's Powerpuff girls. I have the waffle iron.
<It seems to me that in this
scenario, you see one family who is deprived because they don't have
a TV, and one family who is not deprived because they do.
>>It's not "deprivation," it's a question of villifying a medium.
-=-> But I worry more about a family without any bike, park, vaudeville
show who
> just lies and says the TV doesn't work, or says yes it works, butyou can't
> watch it.-=-Yeah, that would be a bit weird. But I don't see any families here
doing that, so I'm not sure I see the point.-=-
There are people who do both. There've been a couple of people admit lying
to kids. One said when she didn't want them to watch it she would unplug it,
then try to turn it on and say, "Oh. It's not working."
<<Right, but nobody has every choice. Some people live in areas where
they have snow, and therefore sledding, cross-country skiing, and
snowshoeing are available. >>
I've never heard of anyone saying "If I let my kids ski, they would just ski
all day," or "When he's skiing he's like a zombie" or "Skiing rots his brain"
or "I've read a book that says skiing will affect his mental development, so
we just don't have skis."
If airplanes and televisions cost the same there would be lots more
airplanes, no doubt.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 8:50:12 PM, kelle@... writes:
<< Trying to figure out if I fit in as an unschooler. >>
You can be an unschooler without caring what other people do about TV.
<<What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict
your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply
that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not
unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is
super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids
unlimited choices, or start from infancy?>>
Depends what your priorities are.
Depends how old your children are.
A child who is super-sensitive to death or suffering wouldn't choose to watch
the news, right?
I myself choose not to watch the news. It's a festival of death and
suffering.
<< What about porn?>>
We don't have any porn channels.
<<Or violence? >>
I don't much like violence, but in the context of a story sometimes there's
violence.
Do you mean Tom & Jerry or Roadrunner/Coyote violence? Fight Club violence?
War coverage violence?
We don't subscribe to Newsweek anymore, partly because I was tired of photos
of dead people.
I hate to pass through where anyone's watching WWF (WWE, any kind of
theatrical soap-opera wrestling) but my husband watches it a couple of times
a month. Sometimes the boys watch it with him. I think it's awful. They
think it's fun and funny. It hasn't made them get tattoos or hit anyone with
a chair.
Before we were unschoolers we gave our kids choices about food. Not
"unlimited choices," because we didn't have all the food in the world. But
free choices, yes. We didn't make them eat food they didn't want to eat. We
let them try foods if they wanted to try them. We let them have more if they
wanted more.
We let them choose which clothes to wear, of the clothes they had. Marty
wore a tiger suit (no mask or hood, just the body part) for most of a year.
We let them choose what toys to play with, of the toys they had.
We let them choose what videos to watch, of the videos we had.
We let them choose to watch TV shows. They never were interested in things
they weren't interested in. When they were little they didn't like things
without kids or animals.
As they got older and could understand stories they chose from a broader
range. When they could request foods from the store, that increase their
food choices. When they could save allowance and buy what they wanted to,
that increased their toy options.
There was never a time when we made all their choices for them, or limited
their choices based on what WE thought was good for them against their will.
When there's been an edgy matter we've told them what we thought, and they've
told us why they wanted to try or do the thing, and we'd convince them to
wait a bit, or they'd convince us they wanted to try it. Lots of
communication.
I think the stereotype or the extreme examples in these case are presupposing
that a child given free reign will watch porn, smoke cigars and stay up 48
hours without sleeping. The extreme examples are given in a reactionary and
challenging way, kind of as an insult to those who "claim" to give their
children freedoms. It does get tiring, but it's worth explaining again,
because each time it comes around, some more families loosen up arbitrary
rules that weren't serving any useful purposes but to give them something to
stress and argue about.
Sandra
<< Trying to figure out if I fit in as an unschooler. >>
You can be an unschooler without caring what other people do about TV.
<<What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict
your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply
that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not
unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is
super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids
unlimited choices, or start from infancy?>>
Depends what your priorities are.
Depends how old your children are.
A child who is super-sensitive to death or suffering wouldn't choose to watch
the news, right?
I myself choose not to watch the news. It's a festival of death and
suffering.
<< What about porn?>>
We don't have any porn channels.
<<Or violence? >>
I don't much like violence, but in the context of a story sometimes there's
violence.
Do you mean Tom & Jerry or Roadrunner/Coyote violence? Fight Club violence?
War coverage violence?
We don't subscribe to Newsweek anymore, partly because I was tired of photos
of dead people.
I hate to pass through where anyone's watching WWF (WWE, any kind of
theatrical soap-opera wrestling) but my husband watches it a couple of times
a month. Sometimes the boys watch it with him. I think it's awful. They
think it's fun and funny. It hasn't made them get tattoos or hit anyone with
a chair.
Before we were unschoolers we gave our kids choices about food. Not
"unlimited choices," because we didn't have all the food in the world. But
free choices, yes. We didn't make them eat food they didn't want to eat. We
let them try foods if they wanted to try them. We let them have more if they
wanted more.
We let them choose which clothes to wear, of the clothes they had. Marty
wore a tiger suit (no mask or hood, just the body part) for most of a year.
We let them choose what toys to play with, of the toys they had.
We let them choose what videos to watch, of the videos we had.
We let them choose to watch TV shows. They never were interested in things
they weren't interested in. When they were little they didn't like things
without kids or animals.
As they got older and could understand stories they chose from a broader
range. When they could request foods from the store, that increase their
food choices. When they could save allowance and buy what they wanted to,
that increased their toy options.
There was never a time when we made all their choices for them, or limited
their choices based on what WE thought was good for them against their will.
When there's been an edgy matter we've told them what we thought, and they've
told us why they wanted to try or do the thing, and we'd convince them to
wait a bit, or they'd convince us they wanted to try it. Lots of
communication.
I think the stereotype or the extreme examples in these case are presupposing
that a child given free reign will watch porn, smoke cigars and stay up 48
hours without sleeping. The extreme examples are given in a reactionary and
challenging way, kind of as an insult to those who "claim" to give their
children freedoms. It does get tiring, but it's worth explaining again,
because each time it comes around, some more families loosen up arbitrary
rules that weren't serving any useful purposes but to give them something to
stress and argue about.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 2/4/03 10:52 PM, Kelle Kjeer at kelle@... wrote:
unschooling.
What if you really wanted a sewing machine and your husband bought one for
you but said you could only use it for an hour a day?
Quite frankly when my 11 yo daughter is flipping through channels she
doesn't pause on shows that aren't cartoons or have animals in them or have
kids no more than a couple years older than her.
Why would a chld choose to watch porn? (If it were even easily available to
them.) What in flipping through channels would make a child stop at porn and
say "Hmm, that looks interesting"?
Do you think that by treating them lovingly that they would watch violent
shows and come to the conclusion that it's better to beat people up?
My daughter loves video games like Kirby and Mario where the cute main
character eats and beats up other "cute" characters before they beat him up.
She accepts it as the way things are in the game. But those "values" doesn't
translate into real life.
you two to watch together?
Letting them choose doesn't translate into putting things on they don't want
to watch. It means allowing them to trust their own fears and likes and
dislikes to decide whether they want to watch something or not. It means
honoring their feelings and not putting on movies you know they wouldn't
like. It means if they find something disturbing in a movie that seemed okay
that the movie can be shut off or they can go do something else.
(If you don't know about Screen It! (http://www.screening.com) it would help
you figure out what scenes might bother your children. Then you can warn
them if it's something they really want to see. Or pass it by if it doesn't
sound interesting. They detail scenes in loads of different catagories that
might bother children (or parents), like sex and swear words and jump scenes
and scary music and violence and so on.)
the world home to them. You judge by your family's interests rather than by
what's good for them or bad for them.
Joyce
> What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict yourWell I would look at the principles involved rather than what is or isn't
> children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply that
> you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not unschooling?
unschooling.
What if you really wanted a sewing machine and your husband bought one for
you but said you could only use it for an hour a day?
> What about porn?Do your kids want to watch porn?
Quite frankly when my 11 yo daughter is flipping through channels she
doesn't pause on shows that aren't cartoons or have animals in them or have
kids no more than a couple years older than her.
Why would a chld choose to watch porn? (If it were even easily available to
them.) What in flipping through channels would make a child stop at porn and
say "Hmm, that looks interesting"?
> Or violence?Again, do they want to watch violence? And if they did, what would it mean?
Do you think that by treating them lovingly that they would watch violent
shows and come to the conclusion that it's better to beat people up?
My daughter loves video games like Kirby and Mario where the cute main
character eats and beats up other "cute" characters before they beat him up.
She accepts it as the way things are in the game. But those "values" doesn't
translate into real life.
> Or if you know your child is super-sensitiveIf you hated horror movies, would your husband rent one and put it on for
> to death or suffering?
you two to watch together?
Letting them choose doesn't translate into putting things on they don't want
to watch. It means allowing them to trust their own fears and likes and
dislikes to decide whether they want to watch something or not. It means
honoring their feelings and not putting on movies you know they wouldn't
like. It means if they find something disturbing in a movie that seemed okay
that the movie can be shut off or they can go do something else.
(If you don't know about Screen It! (http://www.screening.com) it would help
you figure out what scenes might bother your children. Then you can warn
them if it's something they really want to see. Or pass it by if it doesn't
sound interesting. They detail scenes in loads of different catagories that
might bother children (or parents), like sex and swear words and jump scenes
and scary music and violence and so on.)
> Is there an age when you give kids unlimited choices,It depends what you mean by unlimited. You don't need to bring everything in
> or start from infancy?
the world home to them. You judge by your family's interests rather than by
what's good for them or bad for them.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/4/03 10:50:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kelle@... writes:
get up and turn the channel. My boys can handle a certain amount of
violence. We don't have any porn on our cable but seeing how they deal with
the sex scenes in some movies I don't' believe that would appeal to them at
the ages they are now (5 and 8). They are usually bored with the sex stuff
right now. If I think a movie is something that they won't like I tell them
ahead of time (it's kind of scary) if they want to watch we do and they have
the freedom to turn it off if they don't like it. And they have before. If
they happened to see something pornographic I would talk with them about it
and why I don't feel it is a "good thing" to watch. We discuss a lot of what
we see on TV even the commercials.
I don't see the lack of TV as lack of a learning opportunity as much as a
lack of choice. A lack of trust on my part. But that is just my opinion and
nonrestrictive TV for us has worked out just fine.
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kelle@... writes:
> What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrictI believe in choice so my boys have always had the TV choice since they could
> your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply
> that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not
> unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is
> super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids
> unlimited choices, or start from infancy?
>
>
get up and turn the channel. My boys can handle a certain amount of
violence. We don't have any porn on our cable but seeing how they deal with
the sex scenes in some movies I don't' believe that would appeal to them at
the ages they are now (5 and 8). They are usually bored with the sex stuff
right now. If I think a movie is something that they won't like I tell them
ahead of time (it's kind of scary) if they want to watch we do and they have
the freedom to turn it off if they don't like it. And they have before. If
they happened to see something pornographic I would talk with them about it
and why I don't feel it is a "good thing" to watch. We discuss a lot of what
we see on TV even the commercials.
I don't see the lack of TV as lack of a learning opportunity as much as a
lack of choice. A lack of trust on my part. But that is just my opinion and
nonrestrictive TV for us has worked out just fine.
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
Kelle,
I too am new to officially choosing unschooling as our named "method" and I also feel like there is a lot of freedom here when it comes to tv. I tend to disagree for my children.
I own 2 television, one in my bedroom one in the living room. Before my current partner came into my life we did not have the tvs on at all during the week (sunday at bedtime it went off and did not come back on until friday evening) He changed that a bit in so much as he lived alone for many years and his habit was to ALWAYS have the tv on I guess even if just for the background noise. Well with 3 children around, you don't need background noise! So after 5 months living in "our" life he see the value of no tv during the week or at minimal during the day. He has noticed that if the tv is on, nothing gets done! The older children neglect helping with the baby, they don't do their chores unless constantly reminded and nagged. And for me unschooling is about stopping the nagging...so why would I set that same situation up by allowing the tv to be on non-stop?
What is currently happening around out house is the tv is not supposed to be one during the day but after dinner we might sit and watch Jeopardy together, then maybe we watch another hour or two depending on what is on. But honestly there is so much junk on tv.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we only get our 4 or 5 local channels. And every time I turn around there is some comment being made about sex-it doesn't matter what time of day it is either! For my personal likes there is just too much of this on. I guess it might be better if I had cable or satalite that I could program to show only the channels that might help educate or entertain my children in appropriate childlike ways but alas, that is not an option.
I did just join netflix so we will be getting some really cool documentary stuff in the mail soon. That will be something the kids will enjoy and they can feel like they aren't being deprived. They are also enjoying my new computer with some of the cool games on it. Not sure how I feel about that one yet. I guess anything in moderation is ok but I really hate the content on tv most times.
I also think it is just best if we do set some limits for our chilren. Many times we have had this discussion on the unassisted birth board I belong to in so much as many of us there practice AP. But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having a bit more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 & 11 year old. To me it equates to making sure my 9 month old doesn't stick anything into his mouth that might harm him or anything into a socket in the wall. I am sure as my children age, I will offer more and more freedom as I have already done that in many areas of their lives.
Anyway...working it all out as we adjust to a new way of doing things.
Debra
I too am new to officially choosing unschooling as our named "method" and I also feel like there is a lot of freedom here when it comes to tv. I tend to disagree for my children.
I own 2 television, one in my bedroom one in the living room. Before my current partner came into my life we did not have the tvs on at all during the week (sunday at bedtime it went off and did not come back on until friday evening) He changed that a bit in so much as he lived alone for many years and his habit was to ALWAYS have the tv on I guess even if just for the background noise. Well with 3 children around, you don't need background noise! So after 5 months living in "our" life he see the value of no tv during the week or at minimal during the day. He has noticed that if the tv is on, nothing gets done! The older children neglect helping with the baby, they don't do their chores unless constantly reminded and nagged. And for me unschooling is about stopping the nagging...so why would I set that same situation up by allowing the tv to be on non-stop?
What is currently happening around out house is the tv is not supposed to be one during the day but after dinner we might sit and watch Jeopardy together, then maybe we watch another hour or two depending on what is on. But honestly there is so much junk on tv.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we only get our 4 or 5 local channels. And every time I turn around there is some comment being made about sex-it doesn't matter what time of day it is either! For my personal likes there is just too much of this on. I guess it might be better if I had cable or satalite that I could program to show only the channels that might help educate or entertain my children in appropriate childlike ways but alas, that is not an option.
I did just join netflix so we will be getting some really cool documentary stuff in the mail soon. That will be something the kids will enjoy and they can feel like they aren't being deprived. They are also enjoying my new computer with some of the cool games on it. Not sure how I feel about that one yet. I guess anything in moderation is ok but I really hate the content on tv most times.
I also think it is just best if we do set some limits for our chilren. Many times we have had this discussion on the unassisted birth board I belong to in so much as many of us there practice AP. But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having a bit more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 & 11 year old. To me it equates to making sure my 9 month old doesn't stick anything into his mouth that might harm him or anything into a socket in the wall. I am sure as my children age, I will offer more and more freedom as I have already done that in many areas of their lives.
Anyway...working it all out as we adjust to a new way of doing things.
Debra
> New here, and I have to jump in about this TV thread. What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids
> unlimited choices, or start from infancy?
>
> Trying to figure out if I fit in as an unschooler.
>
> Kelle
Kelle Kjeer
Thank you. Learning all the time.......!
----- Original Message -----
From: debsusedbooks@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] TV, was Re: Is Unschooling A Transformation?
Kelle,
I too am new to officially choosing unschooling as our named "method" and I also feel like there is a lot of freedom here when it comes to tv. I tend to disagree for my children.
I own 2 television, one in my bedroom one in the living room. Before my current partner came into my life we did not have the tvs on at all during the week (sunday at bedtime it went off and did not come back on until friday evening) He changed that a bit in so much as he lived alone for many years and his habit was to ALWAYS have the tv on I guess even if just for the background noise. Well with 3 children around, you don't need background noise! So after 5 months living in "our" life he see the value of no tv during the week or at minimal during the day. He has noticed that if the tv is on, nothing gets done! The older children neglect helping with the baby, they don't do their chores unless constantly reminded and nagged. And for me unschooling is about stopping the nagging...so why would I set that same situation up by allowing the tv to be on non-stop?
What is currently happening around out house is the tv is not supposed to be one during the day but after dinner we might sit and watch Jeopardy together, then maybe we watch another hour or two depending on what is on. But honestly there is so much junk on tv.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we only get our 4 or 5 local channels. And every time I turn around there is some comment being made about sex-it doesn't matter what time of day it is either! For my personal likes there is just too much of this on. I guess it might be better if I had cable or satalite that I could program to show only the channels that might help educate or entertain my children in appropriate childlike ways but alas, that is not an option.
I did just join netflix so we will be getting some really cool documentary stuff in the mail soon. That will be something the kids will enjoy and they can feel like they aren't being deprived. They are also enjoying my new computer with some of the cool games on it. Not sure how I feel about that one yet. I guess anything in moderation is ok but I really hate the content on tv most times.
I also think it is just best if we do set some limits for our chilren. Many times we have had this discussion on the unassisted birth board I belong to in so much as many of us there practice AP. But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having a bit more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 & 11 year old. To me it equates to making sure my 9 month old doesn't stick anything into his mouth that might harm him or anything into a socket in the wall. I am sure as my children age, I will offer more and more freedom as I have already done that in many areas of their lives.
Anyway...working it all out as we adjust to a new way of doing things.
Debra
> New here, and I have to jump in about this TV thread. What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and restrict your children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does that imply that you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are not unschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child is super-sensitive to death or suffering? Is there an age when you give kids
> unlimited choices, or start from infancy?
>
> Trying to figure out if I fit in as an unschooler.
>
> Kelle
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address 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.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 01/27/2003
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/5/03 9:52:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
debsusedbooks@... writes:
consider it OUR house. We all have to live here. We all have to be
comfortable with the environment, children included. If it came down to who
pays the bills It would be my HUSBAND'S house. I don't work outside the
home. I don't bring in any physical money. But I am lucky in that my dh
sees things the way I do. He also believes that it is OUR house. It doesn't
belong to who can pay the bills but it belongs to the people that live
inside.
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
debsusedbooks@... writes:
> . But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having aI guess that is where we are different. I don't consider it MY house. I
> bit more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 &11
> year old.
consider it OUR house. We all have to live here. We all have to be
comfortable with the environment, children included. If it came down to who
pays the bills It would be my HUSBAND'S house. I don't work outside the
home. I don't bring in any physical money. But I am lucky in that my dh
sees things the way I do. He also believes that it is OUR house. It doesn't
belong to who can pay the bills but it belongs to the people that live
inside.
Pam G.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 2/5/03 9:50 AM, debsusedbooks@... at debsusedbooks@... wrote:
the children want? What do the children find interesting and important?
If we're making the decisions about what is and isn't good for them and that
our values must be their values then are we trusting that they can learn
what they need from life? Or are we trusting that they can learn the things
that we don't care about and we need to make them do the things that are
most important to us until they choose to follow our example?
I think it's helpful to step back and see what principles look like when
applied to other parts of our lives. It's helpful to see what it looks like
from the children's point of view.
What if your husband made the decision that the only reading you could do
was an hour a night from a book he decided was good for the whole family?
How would that feel to you?
chores as mine and don't force her to help, then she does help when she can.
you stop them from asking? Does that mean that they now have no desire to
watch TV or that they have no desire to share what they really feel about TV
with you?
avoid "inappropriate" programs. She has no interest. Why would she?
when they visit homes with unlimited TV?
And again, what do your kids want? What do they find value in?
Attachment parenting is about helping our kids get what they want not in
setting up things so life is most comfortable and convenient for the
parents.
Kids learn to make decisons by making decision. That doesn't mean making the
decisions we would, but weighing the pros and cons and deciding. They don't
necessarily have the experience we do to know all the pros and cons, but as
long as they aren't in any immediate danger, then they have the opportunity
to build up confidence in their decision making powers. They may try out
some decisions that we wouldn't make. They may even see that there are some
not so great consequences but the consequences may be worth it for a while.
(Say like staying up really late knowing that tomorrow they'll feel wiped
out.) But eventually the bad parts out weigh the good parts and they choose
more sensibly.
bad. Do you also know for certain that a child who watches unlimited TV will
be harmed?
Lots of kids here aren't being harmed.
I'm not saying you need to remove the restrictions. But if your restrictions
are based on things that aren't true, then they should be rethought.
decisions for them that when given the opportunity the children will
deliberately choose the things they weren't allowed before just because they
can. And as the children get older, the things they can choose are a lot
more dangerous than how much TV they should watch so there is rarely a good
later age to start until it's too late and their gone.
Joyce
> I tend to disagree for my children.The question for an unschooler though is what do the chldren think? What do
the children want? What do the children find interesting and important?
If we're making the decisions about what is and isn't good for them and that
our values must be their values then are we trusting that they can learn
what they need from life? Or are we trusting that they can learn the things
that we don't care about and we need to make them do the things that are
most important to us until they choose to follow our example?
I think it's helpful to step back and see what principles look like when
applied to other parts of our lives. It's helpful to see what it looks like
from the children's point of view.
What if your husband made the decision that the only reading you could do
was an hour a night from a book he decided was good for the whole family?
How would that feel to you?
> He has noticed that if the tv is on, nothing gets done! The older childrenMy daughter is happy to come help me when I ask. As longs as I see the
> neglect helping with the baby, they don't do their chores unless constantly
> reminded and nagged.
chores as mine and don't force her to help, then she does help when she can.
> And for me unschooling is about stopping theAnd they never asked to watch TV after you decided they couldn't? How did
> nagging...so why would I set that same situation up by allowing the tv to be
> on non-stop?
you stop them from asking? Does that mean that they now have no desire to
watch TV or that they have no desire to share what they really feel about TV
with you?
> And every time I turn around there is some comment being made about sex-itWhy would your children want to watch programs that comment on sex?
> doesn't matter what time of day it is either!
> I guess it might be better if I had cable or satalite that I could program toWe have cable. I've never needed to program it in order for my daughter to
> show only the channels that might help educate or entertain my children in
> appropriate childlike ways but alas, that is not an option.
avoid "inappropriate" programs. She has no interest. Why would she?
> and they can feel like they aren't being deprived.So they *do* want to watch TV more than they are allowed? What do they do
when they visit homes with unlimited TV?
> But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having a bitold.
> more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 & 11 year
And again, what do your kids want? What do they find value in?
Attachment parenting is about helping our kids get what they want not in
setting up things so life is most comfortable and convenient for the
parents.
Kids learn to make decisons by making decision. That doesn't mean making the
decisions we would, but weighing the pros and cons and deciding. They don't
necessarily have the experience we do to know all the pros and cons, but as
long as they aren't in any immediate danger, then they have the opportunity
to build up confidence in their decision making powers. They may try out
some decisions that we wouldn't make. They may even see that there are some
not so great consequences but the consequences may be worth it for a while.
(Say like staying up really late knowing that tomorrow they'll feel wiped
out.) But eventually the bad parts out weigh the good parts and they choose
more sensibly.
> To me it equates to making sure my 9 month old doesn't stick anything into hisYou know for certain that sticking something in a socket could be really
> mouth that might harm him or anything into a socket in the wall.
bad. Do you also know for certain that a child who watches unlimited TV will
be harmed?
Lots of kids here aren't being harmed.
I'm not saying you need to remove the restrictions. But if your restrictions
are based on things that aren't true, then they should be rethought.
> I am sure asMany people say that. Many find that since they have made their children's
> my children age, I will offer more and more freedom as I have already done
> that in many areas of their lives.
decisions for them that when given the opportunity the children will
deliberately choose the things they weren't allowed before just because they
can. And as the children get older, the things they can choose are a lot
more dangerous than how much TV they should watch so there is rarely a good
later age to start until it's too late and their gone.
Joyce
the_clevengers <[email protected]>
> on 2/4/03 10:52 PM, Kelle Kjeer at kelle@j... wrote:restrict your
> > What I am trying to figure out is; if you own a television and
> > children's viewing to shows that you deem appropriate, does thatimply that
> > you are depriving them of a learning opportunity and you are notunschooling? What about porn? Or violence? Or if you know your child
is super-sensitive to death or suffering?
Well, what we do is if the kids want to watch a movie that they know
will have scary parts, I sit down with them and whenever a child
wants to skip a part they say "Pause" and I pause it. Then I can fast-
forward through the scary part for them. If one kid wants to see the
part, they other one can leave the room until we tell them to come
back in. This is what we did the first few times we watched Lord of
the Rings, which they both really wanted to see. After we bought the
DVD and watched all the "Making Of" documentaries, they were a lot
less scared of the bits and they chose to watch the whole thing
through. If we can't pause it - like with a TV show, they'll leave
the room or cover their eyes and ears.
Likewise, when both of my kids wanted to go see Harry Potter in the
theatre, we had read the books so they knew ahead of time that parts
might be scary. I arranged to go with a friend and her kids so that
if I had to leave the theatre with one kid, the other could stay and
watch with our friends. Both kids stayed through the whole thing, but
my son chose to turn around and cover his eyes and ears for parts of
it.
That's just what works here. The kids seem to self-regulate with
regards to what they will find scary.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/5/03 7:52:42 AM, debsusedbooks@... writes:
-=-<<But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having a
bit more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 & 11
year old. To me it equates to making sure my 9 month old doesn't stick
anything into his mouth that might harm him or anything into a socket in the
wall. >>-=-
The implication of this is that if we allow eight and eleven year olds to
make choices about their lives, we're letting babies eat bugs and cigar butts
and stick things into the sockets. Not a nice argument, truly. If the
methods being discussed here were having nasty and dangerous results, nobody
would be recommending them. But they're having sweet, peaceful, surprisingly
great results.
<< if the tv is on, nothing gets done! The older children neglect helping
with the baby, they don't do their chores unless constantly reminded and
nagged. And for me unschooling is about stopping the nagging...so why would
I set that same situation up by allowing the tv to be on non-stop? >>
With over 100 e-mails left to go, I realize I might be duplicating something,
but the good thing about two people saying the same thing is it keeps anyone
from thinking the first was just a weirdo.
Allowing children to choose when to watch television
DOES NOT equal having it on non-stop.
If you don't have chores, there will be nothing to nag about.
If you have to turn the tv off to avoid nagging, that's probably indicative
of some other problems.
<<What is currently happening around out house is the tv is not supposed to
be one during the day but after dinner we might sit and watch Jeopardy
together, then maybe we watch another hour or two depending on what is on. >>
"Depending on what is on" is the way television decisions work, exactly.
But "what is on" isn't the same as choosing days and hours in advance.
Sometimes the one coolest thing is on at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday, or 11:00 at
night on Friday.
<<But honestly there is so much junk on tv. >>
There are some truly trashy magazines. Do you forbid magazines in your house?
Some books are evil crap and should never have been published. Do you still
have books in your house?
There are some atrocious talk shows on the radio, but I never listen to
them. I go through channels until I hear a song I like, and if I don't hear
one I like I turn it off, or put a tape in.
-=-I guess it might be better if I had cable or satalite that I could program
to show only the channels that might help educate or entertain my children in
appropriate childlike ways but alas, that is not an option. -=-
Videos? PBS?
Kids don't tend to watch stuff they're not interested in. Why would they?
They also won't read books they're not interested in.
They also won't read magazines they don't like.
<<I guess anything in moderation is ok but I really hate the content on tv
most times.>>
Some things in moderation are not okay because the kids don't want them. Is
math homework okay in moderation? Are standardized tests okay in moderation?
If children are limited to hearing and seeing only what moms don't hate,
maybe moms need to consciously learn to love lots of things.
Sandra
-=-<<But for me and my house, I prefer some structure as far as me having a
bit more knowledge about life and choices and consequences than my 8 & 11
year old. To me it equates to making sure my 9 month old doesn't stick
anything into his mouth that might harm him or anything into a socket in the
wall. >>-=-
The implication of this is that if we allow eight and eleven year olds to
make choices about their lives, we're letting babies eat bugs and cigar butts
and stick things into the sockets. Not a nice argument, truly. If the
methods being discussed here were having nasty and dangerous results, nobody
would be recommending them. But they're having sweet, peaceful, surprisingly
great results.
<< if the tv is on, nothing gets done! The older children neglect helping
with the baby, they don't do their chores unless constantly reminded and
nagged. And for me unschooling is about stopping the nagging...so why would
I set that same situation up by allowing the tv to be on non-stop? >>
With over 100 e-mails left to go, I realize I might be duplicating something,
but the good thing about two people saying the same thing is it keeps anyone
from thinking the first was just a weirdo.
Allowing children to choose when to watch television
DOES NOT equal having it on non-stop.
If you don't have chores, there will be nothing to nag about.
If you have to turn the tv off to avoid nagging, that's probably indicative
of some other problems.
<<What is currently happening around out house is the tv is not supposed to
be one during the day but after dinner we might sit and watch Jeopardy
together, then maybe we watch another hour or two depending on what is on. >>
"Depending on what is on" is the way television decisions work, exactly.
But "what is on" isn't the same as choosing days and hours in advance.
Sometimes the one coolest thing is on at 9:30 a.m. on a weekday, or 11:00 at
night on Friday.
<<But honestly there is so much junk on tv. >>
There are some truly trashy magazines. Do you forbid magazines in your house?
Some books are evil crap and should never have been published. Do you still
have books in your house?
There are some atrocious talk shows on the radio, but I never listen to
them. I go through channels until I hear a song I like, and if I don't hear
one I like I turn it off, or put a tape in.
-=-I guess it might be better if I had cable or satalite that I could program
to show only the channels that might help educate or entertain my children in
appropriate childlike ways but alas, that is not an option. -=-
Videos? PBS?
Kids don't tend to watch stuff they're not interested in. Why would they?
They also won't read books they're not interested in.
They also won't read magazines they don't like.
<<I guess anything in moderation is ok but I really hate the content on tv
most times.>>
Some things in moderation are not okay because the kids don't want them. Is
math homework okay in moderation? Are standardized tests okay in moderation?
If children are limited to hearing and seeing only what moms don't hate,
maybe moms need to consciously learn to love lots of things.
Sandra
[email protected]
<< But for me and my house >>
<<I guess that is where we are different. I don't consider it MY house. I
consider it OUR house. We all have to live here. >>
"For me and my house" is a Biblical phrase. It's possible that the original
writer is a fundamentalist Christian and this phrase is not uncommon to hear.
To discuss the idea that children also should have rights in the house is
likely to cause a disagreement here which will look like a difference of
philosophy, but it would go along religious lines.
We're really back to whether there is an "us and them" (adults and children)
or whether there can really be a "we" who live together and a we who make
decisions.
Sandra
<<I guess that is where we are different. I don't consider it MY house. I
consider it OUR house. We all have to live here. >>
"For me and my house" is a Biblical phrase. It's possible that the original
writer is a fundamentalist Christian and this phrase is not uncommon to hear.
To discuss the idea that children also should have rights in the house is
likely to cause a disagreement here which will look like a difference of
philosophy, but it would go along religious lines.
We're really back to whether there is an "us and them" (adults and children)
or whether there can really be a "we" who live together and a we who make
decisions.
Sandra
Stephanie Elms
> If we can't pause it - like with a TV show, they'll leaveALl the more reason to get TIVO! You *can* pause tv! I was kind of unsure about
> the room or cover their eyes and ears.
it at first, but I have to say that I would never want to go back to watching
regular tv. It is so easy to use and it gives you so much freedom and control
over tv...you are not tied to the tv schedule and have so much flexibility.
I love how easy it is to record the kids shows (especially the ones after they go
to bed) and it is there whenever they want to watch. No need to worry about missing
favorite programs.
Stephanie E (who does not work for the TIVO folks, really)
Amie
I hardly ever post, but I feel the need to jump in. I was probably the one that was saying the tv didn't work. I have tried doing the unlimited thing, and my kids WILL sit for 3-4 hours at a time. In fact, they choose that over other things I offer. I am just not Ok with that. It seems addicting to me, and I still am not ok about the research that has been done showing the affects on the developing brain and excess tv. Even though some have it on and aren't watching, I don't think that is healthy for anyone. I rarely watch tv, and I don't feel as though I am missing anything. I just can't sit back and watch my kids sit and sit. Even two hours a day seems like too much to me right now. My kids are 5 1/2.
Has anyone read the book Magical Child, Magical Parent? It is excellent, I think. But, after reading it, I was back again to the tv is not a healthy thing. I don't think it is a healthy thing for anyone, but especially the younger ones whose brains are still developing.I keep reading about the unlimited tv thing, and I just can't feel ok about it. Plus, there is no way I will subject my kids to all of that advertising. That makes me angry (and we DO talk about advertising alot, in fact). And, they do ask me for the things they see on the ads, and that makes me angry that the advertisers are using our children like this.
Anyway, just my two cents...
Amie
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Has anyone read the book Magical Child, Magical Parent? It is excellent, I think. But, after reading it, I was back again to the tv is not a healthy thing. I don't think it is a healthy thing for anyone, but especially the younger ones whose brains are still developing.I keep reading about the unlimited tv thing, and I just can't feel ok about it. Plus, there is no way I will subject my kids to all of that advertising. That makes me angry (and we DO talk about advertising alot, in fact). And, they do ask me for the things they see on the ads, and that makes me angry that the advertisers are using our children like this.
Anyway, just my two cents...
Amie
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/5/2003 10:01:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
"good" students do! ;-PPP~~~~
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Kids don't tend to watch stuff they're not interested in. Why would they?Well, they do it all the time in school. Maybe not ALL of them, but the
> They also won't read books they're not interested in.
> They also won't read magazines they don't like.
"good" students do! ;-PPP~~~~
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 2/6/03 3:09 AM, Amie at amiersa2@... wrote:
isn't a temporary thing. If they fear it will be restricted, they're going
to try to pack in as much as they can. And their fears came true, didn't
they?
better?
An amount of time that you didn't feel interfered with what you wanted to do
but an amount of time that bugged him just because his fears told him it was
too much?
does the research hold more importance for you than what people actually
find is true by living life?
Anything that supports what we want to believe, takes on undue importance in
our minds. Being objective is setting aside what we want to believe and
looking at what is real and true.
What is real and true is that the reasearchers are wrong. At least in the
cases of unschooled kids who have far more hours in their day than schooled
kids. And even in the case of me who went to school *and* had unrestricted
TV. I found the time for lots of TV *and* other things too like drawing and
reading and writing and going outside. And I got into a good college.
So how does the research explain that?
If you consider all the hours in a child's day that are affected by going to
school -- which includes getting ready, homework, recovering from the day --
can you confidently say that what kids get out of those hours is better
spent than if the child had spent those hours doing something that interests
them? Even if it's spent watching TV?
poetry readings and don't feel like I'm mising much. But what does that
mean? It means my tastes are different than someone who adores those things.
Should my not finding meaning in them mean that others shouldn't find
meaning in them?
interested in shouldn't be of primary importance. Unschooling is about
helping *them* explore their interests, not in helping them explore what you
feel is important.
Schools often cover up the windows because the teachers find they can't
compete with what's going on outside. Rather than figuring out what *would*
interest the kids, they choose to make other alternatives duller than the
teacher.
If you can't find things that interest them *more* than TV then either TV is
really important to them or you're not being sensitive to what *they* are
interested in. Have you watched the programs with them and watched them to
see what they find funny or interesting? Have you asked them what they find
so fascinating? Have you talked about their favorite characters and scenes?
Have you tried sharing your favorite movies or old TV shows with them? Have
you looked their shows up on the internet to find behind the scenes types of
things that might interest them?
what worth are they? They serve to help you feel that your fears are
justified even in the face of real life examples that they aren't true.
in their lives and the lives of their children? It's like believing that a
house is haunted because someone presented a good case for it in a book, but
the people who have lived in the house their whole lives say that it isn't
haunted. Why believe a book over real life? Because you wish the book were
true and the people living the life weren't?
uncomfortable reality and why reality doesn't match what you want to be
true.
have discussed the purpose and she knows the purpose is to make money and
can be cynical at times at what advertisers are trying to get people to
believe. I find it more effective to talk about commercials that are aimed
at *me* so I can point out how they're trying to make me believe something
is true to get me to buy something.)
Again, reality doesn't match what we fear will happen. Advertising isn't
that hard to understand. It's a pretty simple concept. I've always trusted
that my daughter is intelligent enough to get the concept.
Joyce
> I have tried doing the unlimited thing, and my kids WILL sit for 3-4 hours atHow long did you try unlimited TV? They need time to realize that freedom
> a time.
isn't a temporary thing. If they fear it will be restricted, they're going
to try to pack in as much as they can. And their fears came true, didn't
they?
> In fact, they choose that over other things I offer.Things that *you* think are better than TV or things *they* think are
better?
> I am just not Ok with that.And what if your husband were not okay with how much time you spent reading?
An amount of time that you didn't feel interfered with what you wanted to do
but an amount of time that bugged him just because his fears told him it was
too much?
> It seems addicting to me, and I still am not ok about the research that hasBut from what people are saying, the research doesn't match reality. Why
> been done showing the affects on the developing brain and excess tv. Even
> though some have it on and aren't watching, I don't think that is healthy for
> anyone.
does the research hold more importance for you than what people actually
find is true by living life?
Anything that supports what we want to believe, takes on undue importance in
our minds. Being objective is setting aside what we want to believe and
looking at what is real and true.
What is real and true is that the reasearchers are wrong. At least in the
cases of unschooled kids who have far more hours in their day than schooled
kids. And even in the case of me who went to school *and* had unrestricted
TV. I found the time for lots of TV *and* other things too like drawing and
reading and writing and going outside. And I got into a good college.
So how does the research explain that?
If you consider all the hours in a child's day that are affected by going to
school -- which includes getting ready, homework, recovering from the day --
can you confidently say that what kids get out of those hours is better
spent than if the child had spent those hours doing something that interests
them? Even if it's spent watching TV?
> I rarely watch tv, and I don't feel as though I am missing anything.I rarely go to sports events, opera, tractor pulls, dog shows, lectures,
poetry readings and don't feel like I'm mising much. But what does that
mean? It means my tastes are different than someone who adores those things.
Should my not finding meaning in them mean that others shouldn't find
meaning in them?
> IIf you want to unschool, being comfortable with what your kids are
> just can't sit back and watch my kids sit and sit. Even two hours a day seems
> like too much to me right now. My kids are 5 1/2.
interested in shouldn't be of primary importance. Unschooling is about
helping *them* explore their interests, not in helping them explore what you
feel is important.
Schools often cover up the windows because the teachers find they can't
compete with what's going on outside. Rather than figuring out what *would*
interest the kids, they choose to make other alternatives duller than the
teacher.
If you can't find things that interest them *more* than TV then either TV is
really important to them or you're not being sensitive to what *they* are
interested in. Have you watched the programs with them and watched them to
see what they find funny or interesting? Have you asked them what they find
so fascinating? Have you talked about their favorite characters and scenes?
Have you tried sharing your favorite movies or old TV shows with them? Have
you looked their shows up on the internet to find behind the scenes types of
things that might interest them?
> But, after reading it, I was back again to the tv is not a healthy thing.But if the thoughts in that book don't match what happens in real life, then
what worth are they? They serve to help you feel that your fears are
justified even in the face of real life examples that they aren't true.
> I don't think it is a healthy thing for anyone, but especially the youngerAnd how do you reconcile that belief to what people are telling you is truth
> ones whose brains are still developing.
in their lives and the lives of their children? It's like believing that a
house is haunted because someone presented a good case for it in a book, but
the people who have lived in the house their whole lives say that it isn't
haunted. Why believe a book over real life? Because you wish the book were
true and the people living the life weren't?
> I keep reading about the unlimited tv thing, and I just can't feel ok aboutSo you hold onto what you want to believe is true rather than examining an
> it.
uncomfortable reality and why reality doesn't match what you want to be
true.
> Plus, there is no way I will subject my kids to all of that advertising. ThatMy daughter sees advertising as a resource. She sees what's available. (We
> makes me angry (and we DO talk about advertising alot, in fact). And, they do
> ask me for the things they see on the ads, and that makes me angry that the
> advertisers are using our children like this.
have discussed the purpose and she knows the purpose is to make money and
can be cynical at times at what advertisers are trying to get people to
believe. I find it more effective to talk about commercials that are aimed
at *me* so I can point out how they're trying to make me believe something
is true to get me to buy something.)
Again, reality doesn't match what we fear will happen. Advertising isn't
that hard to understand. It's a pretty simple concept. I've always trusted
that my daughter is intelligent enough to get the concept.
Joyce