[email protected]

In a message dated 22/11/2003 00:06:47 Pacific Standard Time,
sbieser@... writes:


> gang up on Tracey, sometimes getting quite personal about it (see
> above quote), for daring to challenge anti-spanking theory indicates that
> the active listmembers here believe that it is so.
>

It seems to me Scott, that this was not a personal ganging-up on Tracey at
all, but simply asking her to defend her position, or statement that it is ok
to use physical force on children to achieve desired results. If it is ok to
hit or slap children to change their behaviour, then it must be ok to hit her,
or other adults to change the adult's behaviour.Any other answer would indicate
a belief that children are less worthy of respect than adults.
As for the link between unschooling and non-spanking philosophies, I
personally believe that if people are choosing to follow the unschooling way of life,
listening to your children and nurturing them fully, that to also spank and
think it is ok is a contradiction in beleifs. I am sure that people who are
less tired than I am and are far more articulate will address this question more
thoroughly for you. This is the answer of one list member.
Nancy , incredulous in BC


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

[email protected]

sbieser@... writes:


>
> Does everyone here believe that it is impossible to practice "unschooling"
> in terms of academics while also spanking children to correct intolerable
> social behavior? Or is it a simply a common sentiment not necessarily
> derived from unschooling that happens to be shared by the listmembers?
>
> --Scott Bieser
>


I'll go you one better than that. I think even schooling is
incompatible with spanking, much less UNschooling.

I'm new here, an unschooling mom of nearly 15 years, and a public
school professional for many years before that. I was a public school policy
expert during the 80s, when schools in the South began to seriously debate whether
paddling by school deans and principals should continue. (It hasn't)

I've studied the history and politics of it, heard the claims and
defenses, read the research, made some mistakes, and finally lived my own
conclusions. I've come to see the same root problem with schooling, corporal
punishment, censorship, political correctness, factory sweatshops, apartheid, and
fundamentalism, namely the belief that behavior attitudes and performance must be
compelled.

(How someone can justify any form of compulsion or repression with a
"free will" argument is completely beyond me!)

Schools, prisons, represssive regimes, mental treatment institutions,
religious cults -- and to Tracey, yes, even animal experts -- have demonstrated
through horrible experience that no amount of punishment, however brutal, can
create love, learning, enlightenment, civility, or abundant life.

Therefore, the "intolerable social behavior" that concerns me is
following this failed path by responsible adults, not anything done by anyone's
small children.

Spanking adults to correct this unacceptable and harmful social
behavior of theirs is not the answer <eg>. Taking the time to explain kindly and
rationally at that "teachable moment" (exhausting as it is) seems to be working
pretty well, and adult attitudes are improving. This method works even better
with impressionable children btw! JJ







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

pam sorooshian

On Nov 22, 2003, at 7:19 AM, jrossedd@... wrote:

> uring the 80s, when schools in the South began to seriously debate
> whether
> paddling by school deans and principals should continue. (It hasn't)

Not sure about that --- here is something recent from a website on
corporal punishment in schools <www.corpun.com>.

"In the United States, the school CP picture is rather confusing. One
district, Northampton County in North Carolina, is reintroducing the
paddle, though only in the elementary grades. More remarkably, corporal
punishment returns to Tecumseh, Oklahoma, after over a decade of
non-use there. The new rules will provide for a maximum of two swats
per student per day, and only with parental consent. At the same time
CP has been entirely abolished in Galveston, Texas and, after much
debate, in Mobile, Alabama. But Dallas, Texas, having considered
abolition, has now decided against it. Instead paddling will stay, but
only on parental request - an opt-in rather than opt-out system.
Elsewhere in Texas, City View High in Wichita Falls meanwhile prides
itself on its pro-spanking policy, with a principal who keeps his
paddle on display on his desk. A few parents who disagree with the
policy, which even includes swats for such things as shirts not tucked
in, have taken umbrage and moved away. A picture shows the unrepentant
paddling principal with some of his obese 10th-grade students. "

Looking through the website I came across the minutes of a school board
meeting in Lee County, Florida in which they were debating (in 2000) a
proposal to eliminate corporal punishment.


>
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/22/2003 12:40:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... refutes:


> On Nov 22, 2003, at 7:19 AM, jrossedd@... wrote:
>
> > uring the 80s, when schools in the South began to seriously debate
> > whether
> > paddling by school deans and principals should continue. (It hasn't)


If my offhand comment gave the impression that there is no school
anywhere still clinging to the last vestiges of institutionalized corporal
punishment, please let me correct it. That is not what I meant. I was referring to
the clear change that HAS taken place, not trying to overstate reality by
implying an absolute.


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

[email protected]

<<Bottom line, though, is that hitting is hurtful. It hurts a child
physically. It hurts a child psychically. It hurts a relationship. To negate
those bad effects takes a lot of relationship building.>>

Thank you again for correcting my language (I see that is a particular
compulsion for you).... Yes, I intended to use the word anathema. Corporal meaning
having to do with the body. Did I say spanking? Or physical restraint? But, oh,
yes, I do believe in spanking. Yes, judiciously applied-but that will also be
refuted here since none among you (except perhaps those already under
moderation) can consider judicious application of physical corrections. I also
believe in capital punishment and hope Lacy Peterson's husband makes the lights go
out in California.

There are several who consider judicious application to be 'creepy' was that
the phrase used? But, conversely then, they must think that hitting is okay
when enraged because....why again? (said in one post). Raging and loss of
control is acceptable because it wasn't premeditated (the animal equivalent to
uncontrolled anger in humans). Really?

I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable behavior than
be given to flights of animal rage (yes, rage is an animal emotion which is
usually called uncontrolled anger by humans). Yes, it has worked quite well for
me. Its called knowing what punishment is to be applied for a given action in
advance and making that application under those circumstances only. While you
may not find it acceptable. I call it thinking rather than reacting.

Many of the compelling arguments against what many of you have called
spanking seem well considered, though mixed into discussions containing veiled
personal attacks which makes remaining on topic challenging. My beliefs are simple.
If a my child disregards rules that have been developed for the protection and
safety of that child, or where the property of others is concerned, then that
child is given an escalating form of punishment. Physical punishment is
applied rarely but applied when deemed necessary *to me*. You don't agree that
there is any case where a child could escalate to a point where a physical
reprimand is in order and I don't agree. You (meaning those on the list vociferously
opposed to 'spanking') don't see where any behavior on the part of a child
could warrant a physical reprimand. So, we don't agree. You believe that it will
lead to long term injury, psychic damage. We don't agree.

You (again meaning the listers who have responded) don't seem to understand
that as adults we have hopefully already been trained and don't need physical
reminders ever-well unless you want to get into the aspects of socially deviant
behavior (i.e., habitual criminals, etc.), which I doubt. Children IMO aren't
mini adults. There long term consequential thinking isn't developed until
there late teens and more typically early twenties. So application of cause and
effect is far more functional until that time when the frontal lobes of the
brain 'close' making long term consequential thinking concrete. Some actions
aren't open for debate. Period.

I have been called in obtuse language a variety of rather colorfully
descriptive and rather unpleasant things. Many of these directed simply because of the
verbiage I choose. How sad that you must make personal, though cloaked,
attacks in order to support your self righteousness. English isn't as standardized
as you might think.

Animal nature is well defined in humans, just denied. Every time a person
reacts to a situation rather than acts on a situation they are dealing with their
animal nature. Understanding this goes a long way to aiding many in their
change from reaction to action thinking. Exactly what Shan was talking
about-interrupting her reacting (animal) nature for her acting (human) nature. I am sad
to know that this aspect of the shadow persona so well discussed by Carl Jung
and others is so easily discounted here. Unschooling.

Karma isn't an excuse. But, when one wishes to embrace a dogma it should be
fully embraced and not just the cozy parts. Its rather hypocritical to say that
only the pleasant aspects of karma should be accepted while the shadow side
is ignored. Shadow has as many lessons as light to offer. That, I believe, is
why it is manifest still on the Earth. To infer that a soul isn't part of their
own contract incarnate is to play God/dess.

Hitting has come back time and again into the discussion being only equated
with abuse and lack of restraint. How sad is that? I think that the difference
is that we can't ever agree that there would ever be an appropriate time to
apply physical punishment. I say grey and you say no there is only the word
"black" there is not another word in the dictionary that could ever be tolerated
in this discussion. In other words, to be simple for your understanding, there
is not a single case where you would find 'spanking' appropriate. And I don't
agree.

Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the throws of a
'tantrum.' Its okay, in other words, to withdraw your emotional support and
caring to indicate your displeasure of the child's actions? I think I understood
that correctly. That was suggested several times as an acceptable course of
action. Sorry, but, I don't accept that as anything but child abuse. Setting up a
child to perform because they can only obtain love, acceptance and communion
because they act within a certain set of accepted behaviors is far to passive
aggressive for me. I see it as far more damaging than the abrupt here and done
of a physical spank. It is insidious.

For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think you have
deluded yourselves.

Good-day

Tracey


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/22/03 4:36:26 PM, tntinsol@... writes:

<< Thank you again for correcting my language (I see that is a particular
compulsion for you).... Yes, I intended to use the word anathema. >>

It might seem like a compulsion to you because you came here trying to bowl
people over with words you don't use very well.

If you meant anathema then you meant to say love is forbidden?

-=-<<Why too is it that Love and Physical tools
are considered anathema? >>

-=-Please, if you're going to use ten dollar words, use them correctly.
You've
misused "anathema" where you probably meant "mutually exclusive."-=-

Two moderators have asked you directly to tell us about your children and
your unschooling. I'll be the third.

How old are your children? How long have you been unschooling?

-=-Many of the compelling arguments against what many of you have called
spanking seem well considered, though mixed into discussions containing
veiled
personal attacks which makes remaining on topic challenging.-=-

The topic is unschooling, and I will request once again that you DO get on
topic.

-=-Children IMO aren't
mini adults. There long term consequential thinking isn't developed. . .Some
actions
aren't open for debate. Period. -=-

4. If you have a belief or practice that you don't want held up to public
examination, don't post it to the list.

The other list policies are here:
http://sandradodd.com/lists/info

-=-Many of these directed simply because of the
verbiage I choose. How sad that you must make personal, though cloaked,
attacks in order to support your self righteousness. English isn't as
standardized
as you might think. -=-

If you don't intend to use standard English, post elsewhere.

My preference would be that you would stay, read the policies of the list
again, and tell us about your personal involvement with unschooling.

Sandra

Tia Leschke

> I also
>believe in capital punishment and hope Lacy Peterson's husband makes the
>lights go
>out in California.

Wow! And he hasn't even been convicted yet.


>There are several who consider judicious application to be 'creepy' was that
>the phrase used? But, conversely then, they must think that hitting is okay
>when enraged because....why again? (said in one post). Raging and loss of
>control is acceptable because it wasn't premeditated (the animal
>equivalent to
>uncontrolled anger in humans). Really?

I didn't read any posts that said raging and loss of control is acceptable,
premeditated or not.


>I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable behavior than
>be given to flights of animal rage (yes, rage is an animal emotion which is
>usually called uncontrolled anger by humans).

It seems you only see two choices here.

> We don't agree.

No. We don't.


>You (again meaning the listers who have responded) don't seem to understand
>that as adults we have hopefully already been trained

I think if you're really here to understand unschooling better, you might
want to move away from this idea of training and look more to the idea of
nurturing.

> Some actions
>aren't open for debate. Period.

One way to shut down discussion.


>I have been called in obtuse language a variety of rather colorfully
>descriptive and rather unpleasant things.

Like?

>Many of these directed simply because of the
>verbiage I choose. How sad that you must make personal, though cloaked,
>attacks in order to support your self righteousness. English isn't as
>standardized
>as you might think.

You don't seem to get that people are seeing *your* use of language as a
way to make yourself look superior (even though it doesn't). As I said in
another post, your writing reads like a teacher lecturing ignorant
students. When it appears that you are putting yourself on a pedestal, at
least some people are going to try to knock you off it.




>Karma isn't an excuse. But, when one wishes to embrace a dogma it should be
>fully embraced and not just the cozy parts. Its rather hypocritical to say
>that
>only the pleasant aspects of karma should be accepted while the shadow side
>is ignored. Shadow has as many lessons as light to offer. That, I believe, is
>why it is manifest still on the Earth. To infer that a soul isn't part of
>their
>own contract incarnate is to play God/dess.

I believe you're the only one who brought up Karma in this discussion.


>Hitting has come back time and again into the discussion being only equated
>with abuse and lack of restraint. How sad is that? I think that the
>difference
>is that we can't ever agree that there would ever be an appropriate time to
>apply physical punishment. I say grey and you say no there is only the word
>"black" there is not another word in the dictionary that could ever be
>tolerated
>in this discussion. In other words, to be simple for your understanding,
>there
>is not a single case where you would find 'spanking' appropriate. And I don't
>agree.

I think you've said that. We don't agree. I believe there's always a better
solution.


>Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the throws of a
>'tantrum.' Its okay, in other words, to withdraw your emotional support and
>caring to indicate your displeasure of the child's actions? I think I
>understood
>that correctly. That was suggested several times as an acceptable course of
>action. Sorry, but, I don't accept that as anything but child abuse.
>Setting up a
>child to perform because they can only obtain love, acceptance and communion
>because they act within a certain set of accepted behaviors is far to passive
>aggressive for me. I see it as far more damaging than the abrupt here and
>done
>of a physical spank. It is insidious.

Actually, I only saw one person suggest this. Several people mentioned
needing to separate themselves briefly from the child, but only to get
themselves under control, not as a way of teaching the child. The person
who suggested it as a way of teaching the child was strongly disagreed with.


>For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think you have
>deluded yourselves.

I think it's delusional to think that humans need to be trained.
Tia

Dawn Adams

Tracy writes;
>Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the throws of a
>'tantrum.' Its okay, in other words, to withdraw your emotional support and
>caring to indicate your displeasure of the child's actions? I think I understood
>that correctly. That was suggested several times as an acceptable course of
>action. Sorry, but, I don't accept that as anything but child abuse. Setting up a
>child to perform because they can only obtain love, acceptance and communion
>because they act within a certain set of accepted behaviors is far to passive
>aggressive for me. I see it as far more damaging than the abrupt here and done
>of a physical spank. It is insidious.

Me;
Um, most of the post I saw agreed with you about ignoring tantrams

Tracy again;
>For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think you have
>deluded yourselves.

Me again;
Who said no training? I think unschooling is about that though rather its about a child training his/herself based on adult examples, or that's a part of it. Ot do you equate no spanking with no training?

Tracey:
Good-day

Me;
Look, I don't think I and the others would have had such a hard time with your verbiage if your arguments for spanking hadn't been so vague. In the post I'm responding to you were clear about the circumstances under which you would spank so thank you for that. If you think it's effective in those circumstance, say that. But to drag animal nature and karma into the argument to justify it seemed bizarre. It seemed an attempt to place those who don't spank into the category of denial...as unconductive to debate as you find some of the blanket condemnations of spanking.





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

Dawn Adams

>For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think you have
>deluded yourselves.

I think it's delusional to think that humans need to be trained.
Tia

I wish those people who believe in training would ask...Who trains an infant to crawl to its mothers breast? To sit up? To smile? To walk? To talk? And why in the heck do they think that the ability they used to discover and pratice those wonderful things suddenly disapears at some point in a young childs life? I would like proof that theres some radical change in their brain that makes them incapable of learning by obervation and imitation (Which accounts for the overwhelming amount of learning babies and toddlers do) and only responsive to teaching and training. Harumph.

Dawn (awaiting brain scan readouts in Nova Scotia)



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

Tia Leschke

>
>
> Dawn (awaiting brain scan readouts in Nova Scotia)

What kind of brain scan have you had, Dawn? I hope it's not for something
serious.
Tia

averyschmidt

> Did I say spanking? Or physical restraint?

You said corporal punishment, which many assumed to mean spanking.
Are there other forms of physical pain or harm (besides spanking)
that you consider acceptable to inflict on a child?
What else do you have in your corporal punishment "tool" box?

> There are several who consider judicious application to
be 'creepy' was that
> the phrase used? But, conversely then, they must think that
hitting is okay
> when enraged because....why again?

To me, hitting a child is never okay, rage or no.
I think what was meant is that hitting in a rage is more
understandable than a calm, calculating approach. People who have
smacked in a moment of frustration usually feel remorse and are very
sorry that it happened- their sense of compassion is healthy and
active. The hitting was a mistake, in other words, and as humans we
can make mistakes and be forgiven. But to rationally endorse it as
a "training tool" strikes me as totally lacking in compassion. The
very idea makes my blood run cold.

> I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable
behavior than
> be given to flights of animal rage (yes, rage is an animal emotion
which is
> usually called uncontrolled anger by humans). Yes, it has worked
quite well for
> me.

What works quite well for you? Hitting your own children? Or
somebody hitting *you* for "unacceptable behavior"- either now or
when you were younger?
Is it acceptable to you for mentally retarded adults to have
physical punishment "judiciously applied" for their mistakes? How
about the elderly? If I'm having a difficult day and somehow take
it out on my husband- speaking rudely to him mabye (unacceptable)-
does he have the right to smack me?
I'm guessing your "gray area" has to do with children only. You
aren't alone- there are many people who see children as second class
citizens. It's just odd to come across one of them on an
unschooling list.

> There long term consequential thinking isn't developed until
> there late teens and more typically early twenties. So application
of cause and
> effect is far more functional until that time when the frontal
lobes of the
> brain 'close' making long term consequential thinking concrete.

Let's assume this is true. (It's not. My 10 and 8yo's "long term
consequential thinking" is up and running- probably in large part
because I didn't short circuit it with spankings and other
punishments- but for the sake of the argument we'll pretend).
So corporal punishment is necessary why?

> Every time a person
> reacts to a situation rather than acts on a situation they are
dealing with their
> animal nature. Understanding this goes a long way to aiding many
in their
> change from reaction to action thinking.

So now you're saying that we should avoid this "animal nature." But
in your first post you basically endorsed smacking as okay because
animals in the wild do it, and hey we're all animals right?

> For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think
you have
> deluded yourselves.

There are people on this list who are lifelong unschoolers with
grown and nearly grown children who were never "trained" and yet
are, by all accounts, lovely people.
So who's deluded?
How old are your children? How long have you been unschooling?

Patti

zenmomma2kids

>>But, oh, yes, I do believe in spanking. Yes, judiciously applied-
but that will also be refuted here since none among you (except
perhaps those already under moderation) can consider judicious
application of physical corrections.>>

What is it that you are hoping to correct out of your children with
spanking? I'm curious, really. What behaviors would result in
judiciously applied spanking?

My kids don't obey me. But they don't disobey me either. I don't set
up the rules and hand them down. That's sets up an us vs. them
situation that I have found is not the best way to nurture love and
connectedness. I give respect and expect it in return. When I screw
up with them, I apologize. They do the same for me.

Maybe what's missing from this discussion is the fact that many of us
with older, never spanked, much or always unschooled and mindfully
parented kids, do/did not have the need or desire to spank. It's not
an overnight, magic, perfect kid kind of thing. But it is product of
many years of mindfully connnecting with our children. My kids act as
a part of our family. They like and respect me as I do them. It shows
I think.

I'll say it again, there has NEVER been a situation that I've looked
back on and wished I had hit my child.

>> There are several who consider judicious application to
be 'creepy' was that the phrase used? But, conversely then, they must
think that hitting is okay when enraged because....why again? >>

I think the point was that no hitting is okay. Losing control and
then regretting and making amends for it is understandable, if
regrettable behavior. Judicious application sounds a lot like
premeditated to me.

Call me a finge movement kind of gal, but planning out when, where
and why I'm going to hit my child and make them hurt and cry is not
acceptable. And yes, it sounds creepy.

>>I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable
behavior than be given to flights of animal rage>>

Again, what are these behaviors that you experience that would
require either hitting or rage? We don't have those here. When Shan
described what happened with her son, lots of people responded with
ways to eliminate those situations so that they don't happen for her
again either.

>>Children IMO aren't mini adults.>>

No. But they are still people in their own right. I don't hit people.

>>Some actions aren't open for debate. Period.>>

Such as?

>> For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think
you have deluded yourselves. >>

Deluded ourselves how and of what? I'm living in a peaceful,
respectful, kind and generous family. We live and learn and we don't
hit. And I've seen it time and again in other families who are
mindful and respectful of their children. I've seen many, many
families who spank too. Have you really experienced a family that
mindfully parents?

Life is good.
~Mary, still wondering why you won't introduce yourself

Betsy

** You don't agree that there is any case where a child could escalate
to a point where a physical reprimand is in order and I don't agree. You
(meaning those on the list vociferously opposed to 'spanking') don't see
where any behavior on the part of a child could warrant a physical
reprimand. So, we don't agree.**

Do we agree about unschooling?

I'd like to know if you agree that unschooling is a great way to raise
and educate children. You haven't said.

Right now you are acting more like a troll than like a member of the
community here. Part of my reason for saying this is I find it odd that
you can't write in a normal conversational tone.

Debating how many angels can dance on a pin, or whether there are ever
circumstances that justify spanking, or any other hypothetical
abstraction isn't the best use of this list. We're here to help real
people raise real kids. Debating points of philosophy is sometimes
entertaining, but not so much on the topic of spanking.

**...but that will also be refuted here since none among you (except
perhaps those already under moderation) can consider judicious
application of physical corrections.**

This is so pompous that on top of being aggravating you sound
ridiculous. There are hundreds of parents on this list and you can't
know who spanks or who spanks "judiciously" or doesn't.

It's a mistake to argue with "the list" as if it were a single entity.

"None among you"? You're way out on a limb with that statement.


Betsy


**Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the throws
of a 'tantrum.'**

Not "throws", "throes".

zenmomma2kids

>> I believe you're the only one who brought up Karma in this
discussion.>>

Actually I mentioned the Karma wheel first. I have seen time and
again that what I put out into the Universe will most definitely come
back to me. I choose to put good things out there.

Call me selfish.

Life is good.
~Mary

zenmomma2kids

>>My kids act as a part of our family. They like and respect me as I
do them. It shows I think.>>

Oops, that should be "It shows, (COMMA!!!!) I think." As in I think
our mutual love and respect is obvious.

Life is good.
~Mary

Sara

Tracey, I'm not a regular poster on this list. I've only known these
folks for a short period of time and they may not like what I'm about
to say to you... but here goes.

They have been very cordial to you and I find it a scream that three
times in your last post you've accused them of veiled attacks....what
a hoot! They're being pretty straight with you about what they think!
But I'm sure you don't agree! :P.... And here's the kicker...from
where I stand, they all have something you'll (at this point in time)
never understand and you SHOULD be worried about that. They are so
full of insight, love, and respect for young people and you may think
you have some of these traits too but it's very obvious you don't
understand their angle. So...don't critize what you truly don't get!

This IS an unschooling list...and it's obvious to me you have no real
reason for being here accept to pick apart others belief's. Why do
that on a list that does not support your viewpoint? Gotta wonder?! I
also wonder how your own children view you; I'm sure they have a
small amount of fear of you (as I know you wish them to have.) This
list is NOT about parenting and schooling using fear. So zip yer lip
and listen or risk being challeged everytime you post the poopy you
post. It's that simple.

Also....I want to know why you would come here and end your posts
with Hugs, then warmly, then whatever the last one was? If you've
always been accepted in other social situations and this is your
first rebuff, I could understand it... but somehow I don't think this
is the first time you've argued on a list that doesn't believe in
spanking. It's also clear your reading comprehension is not at it's
best, because it's having you come across as trollish. Nothing veiled
about that complaint...is there?

My apologies to the list owners, moderators and regular posters; I
can no longer be as tolerent and explanatory as you have been. I
realize Stacey could really learn from this list but my gut feeling
says she won't. It would be good to someday see Stacey do a
turnaround of sorts because she did learn something here. Sara in NC


--- In [email protected], tntinsol@a... wrote:
> <<Bottom line, though, is that hitting is hurtful. It hurts a child
> physically. It hurts a child psychically. It hurts a relationship.
To negate
> those bad effects takes a lot of relationship building.>>
>
> Thank you again for correcting my language (I see that is a
particular
> compulsion for you).... Yes, I intended to use the word anathema.
Corporal meaning
> having to do with the body. Did I say spanking? Or physical
restraint? But, oh,
> yes, I do believe in spanking. Yes, judiciously applied-but that
will also be
> refuted here since none among you (except perhaps those already
under
> moderation) can consider judicious application of physical
corrections. I also
> believe in capital punishment and hope Lacy Peterson's husband
makes the lights go
> out in California.
>
> There are several who consider judicious application to be 'creepy'
was that
> the phrase used? But, conversely then, they must think that hitting
is okay
> when enraged because....why again? (said in one post). Raging and
loss of
> control is acceptable because it wasn't premeditated (the animal
equivalent to
> uncontrolled anger in humans). Really?
>
> I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable
behavior than
> be given to flights of animal rage (yes, rage is an animal emotion
which is
> usually called uncontrolled anger by humans). Yes, it has worked
quite well for
> me. Its called knowing what punishment is to be applied for a given
action in
> advance and making that application under those circumstances only.
While you
> may not find it acceptable. I call it thinking rather than reacting.
>
> Many of the compelling arguments against what many of you have
called
> spanking seem well considered, though mixed into discussions
containing veiled
> personal attacks which makes remaining on topic challenging. My
beliefs are simple.
> If a my child disregards rules that have been developed for the
protection and
> safety of that child, or where the property of others is concerned,
then that
> child is given an escalating form of punishment. Physical
punishment is
> applied rarely but applied when deemed necessary *to me*. You don't
agree that
> there is any case where a child could escalate to a point where a
physical
> reprimand is in order and I don't agree. You (meaning those on the
list vociferously
> opposed to 'spanking') don't see where any behavior on the part of
a child
> could warrant a physical reprimand. So, we don't agree. You believe
that it will
> lead to long term injury, psychic damage. We don't agree.
>
> You (again meaning the listers who have responded) don't seem to
understand
> that as adults we have hopefully already been trained and don't
need physical
> reminders ever-well unless you want to get into the aspects of
socially deviant
> behavior (i.e., habitual criminals, etc.), which I doubt. Children
IMO aren't
> mini adults. There long term consequential thinking isn't developed
until
> there late teens and more typically early twenties. So application
of cause and
> effect is far more functional until that time when the frontal
lobes of the
> brain 'close' making long term consequential thinking concrete.
Some actions
> aren't open for debate. Period.
>
> I have been called in obtuse language a variety of rather
colorfully
> descriptive and rather unpleasant things. Many of these directed
simply because of the
> verbiage I choose. How sad that you must make personal, though
cloaked,
> attacks in order to support your self righteousness. English isn't
as standardized
> as you might think.
>
> Animal nature is well defined in humans, just denied. Every time a
person
> reacts to a situation rather than acts on a situation they are
dealing with their
> animal nature. Understanding this goes a long way to aiding many in
their
> change from reaction to action thinking. Exactly what Shan was
talking
> about-interrupting her reacting (animal) nature for her acting
(human) nature. I am sad
> to know that this aspect of the shadow persona so well discussed by
Carl Jung
> and others is so easily discounted here. Unschooling.
>
> Karma isn't an excuse. But, when one wishes to embrace a dogma it
should be
> fully embraced and not just the cozy parts. Its rather hypocritical
to say that
> only the pleasant aspects of karma should be accepted while the
shadow side
> is ignored. Shadow has as many lessons as light to offer. That, I
believe, is
> why it is manifest still on the Earth. To infer that a soul isn't
part of their
> own contract incarnate is to play God/dess.
>
> Hitting has come back time and again into the discussion being only
equated
> with abuse and lack of restraint. How sad is that? I think that the
difference
> is that we can't ever agree that there would ever be an appropriate
time to
> apply physical punishment. I say grey and you say no there is only
the word
> "black" there is not another word in the dictionary that could ever
be tolerated
> in this discussion. In other words, to be simple for your
understanding, there
> is not a single case where you would find 'spanking' appropriate.
And I don't
> agree.
>
> Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the
throws of a
> 'tantrum.' Its okay, in other words, to withdraw your emotional
support and
> caring to indicate your displeasure of the child's actions? I think
I understood
> that correctly. That was suggested several times as an acceptable
course of
> action. Sorry, but, I don't accept that as anything but child
abuse. Setting up a
> child to perform because they can only obtain love, acceptance and
communion
> because they act within a certain set of accepted behaviors is far
to passive
> aggressive for me. I see it as far more damaging than the abrupt
here and done
> of a physical spank. It is insidious.
>
> For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think
you have
> deluded yourselves.
>
> Good-day
>
> Tracey
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tia Leschke

>
>
>Actually I mentioned the Karma wheel first. I have seen time and
>again that what I put out into the Universe will most definitely come
>back to me. I choose to put good things out there.

I must have missed that one. I agree.


>Call me selfish.

I could call you that, but I don't think you are. <g>
Tia

Tia Leschke

> >>My kids act as a part of our family. They like and respect me as I
>do them. It shows I think.>>
>
>Oops, that should be "It shows, (COMMA!!!!) I think." As in I think
>our mutual love and respect is obvious.

You generally also show that you think. <g>
Tia

Fetteroll

on 11/22/03 6:18 PM, tntinsol@... at tntinsol@... wrote:

> since none among you (except perhaps those already under
> moderation) can consider judicious application of physical corrections.

I *can* consider it. I *choose* not to because it's damaging to the child
and the relationship.

> I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable behavior than
> be given to flights of animal rage

I would rather treat my daughter as a fellow human being who doesn't
understand how the world works and then to help her understand than either
of those options.

I would rather model for my daughter that when needs conflict that there are
better ways to solve the problem than by being bigger and stronger and
hitting someone.

> If a my child disregards rules that have been developed for the protection and
> safety of that child, or where the property of others is concerned, then that
> child is given an escalating form of punishment.

If they understand the rules and the rules are sensible why are they be
pushing the limits repeatedly?

If they don't understand the rules then hitting isn't an explanation.

If the rules don't make sense then hitting doesn't make them make sense.

If a child needs something that the rules prevent her from having, then it's
up to the parents to help her get that in a safe way not put up barriers and
punishments.

> You don't agree that
> there is any case where a child could escalate to a point where a physical
> reprimand is in order and I don't agree.

If this were a debate of theory -- like whether intelligent life exists on
other planets -- then we couldn't take the debate any further than agreeing
or disagreeing.

But people who have thoughtfully chosen not to hit their children know it
isn't necessary because they have kids -- sometimes challenging kids -- and
they don't hit them. They have found ways to solve problems that don't
involve hitting.

People can bring problems here that they would solve with hitting a child.
We can help them find ways that don't involve hitting if they want to find
ways to live more peacefully with their children.

(A better place is the NoMoreSpanking list.
([email protected]) It isn't a list to debate
spanking but a place to find other ways to solve problems.)

> So, we don't agree. You believe that it will
> lead to long term injury, psychic damage. We don't agree.

If it's damaging to adults, why is it not damaging to children?

Treating children in ways that would be damaging to adults gets justified by
the fact that children are different. But the justification isn't well
supported. Just because children are different doesn't mean they are some
other creature entirely.

Children's understanding of the world isn't the same as an adult's but they
can understand that someone hitting them to make them stop hitting doesn't
make sense. They can understand that it doesn't make sense for someone who
says they love them and will protect them to hit them. They can understand
that it's a whole lot better to be bigger and stronger than smaller and
weaker.

Different isn't stupid.

> You (again meaning
> the listers who have responded) don't seem to understand
> that as adults we have hopefully already been trained and don't need physical
> reminders ever

Training implies that people choose to behave acceptably because of negative
associations (from punishment) with unacceptable behavior.

As an adult I choose behavior that makes sense, not because I've been
trained not to make unacceptable choices.

My daughter, being human, also chooses behavior that makes sense *to her*.
She's trying to meet her needs and choosing what seems the best way to do
that. If she chooses ways that are hurtful or dangerous, it's up to me to
make sure she and others are safe and then help her figure out what she
wants and help her figure out better ways of getting it.

She's a thinking human being who needs help meeting her needs and figuring
out how the world works.

There are better ways that people can solve differences than by hitting each
other. As an adult I should be able to come up with better ways to resolve
conflicts with a smaller human who lacks my understanding of the world than
by hitting her.

> Children IMO aren't
> mini adults. There long term consequential thinking isn't developed until
> there late teens and more typically early twenties. So application of cause
> and
> effect is far more functional until that time when the frontal lobes of the
> brain 'close' making long term consequential thinking concrete.

Sounds fancy. Doesn't match my observations though.

True, a child doesn't experience the world the same as an adult. Their needs
are different. Their understanding is different.

But just because they don't have the same capacity to think things through
as an adult does, doesn't mean they're incapable of thought and that,
therefore, the only means to stop their unacceptable behavior is hitting
them.

Children will perceive the world differently when they're older, because 1)
someone is helping them understand and 2) because their brains function
differently because of age.

In the meantime, we can work to understand what the world looks like to them
and work *with* their understanding rather than punishing them because they
don't have the capacities, knowledge and skills that an adult does.

> Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the throws of a
> 'tantrum.'

Not at all. I think that was a bad idea.

> I think I understood
> that correctly. That was suggested several times as an acceptable course of
> action.

Obviously you don't understand correctly since it was only suggested once.
If you read it into other people's suggestions you weren't reading carefully
enough. (It will help to supply quotes if you want to discuss it further.)

> Many of these directed simply because of the
> verbiage I choose. How sad that you must make personal, though cloaked,
> attacks in order to support your self righteousness. English isn't as
> standardized
> as you might think.

The purpose of using English on this list should be so someone else can
understand our thoughts. If your goal was to get people to understand what
you're thinking, then when people point out they can't understand what
you're saying, you'd use that to figure out how to be clearer rather than
getting defensive of the way you're writing.

So, apparently, you're using English for a different purpose than
communicating your thoughts. Apparently you're trying to dazzle people with
a lot of intellectual sounding phrases so that it appears that you know a
lot more than the person who is reading so they'd be foolish to question
what you're saying.

That's not what this list is for. To continue to use the list for that
purpose is to waste people's time.

> Karma isn't an excuse. But, when one wishes to embrace a dogma it should be
> fully embraced and not just the cozy parts. Its rather hypocritical to say
> that
> only the pleasant aspects of karma should be accepted while the shadow side
> is ignored.

Embrace your dogma fully but keep the ideas that are counter to the purpose
of the list off the list.

The purpose of the list isn't to provide a place for people who call
themselves unschoolers to discuss whatever they want. The purpose of the
list is to help people understand and get to unschooling. And, for those
parents who want to extend the unschooling philosophy into parenting, it's
for discussing that too. Here's the list description. Maybe you missed it:

>> Unschooling is not a homeschool teaching method. It refers to a philosophy of
>> natural learning as well as the lifestyle that results from living according
>> to the principles of that philosophy.
>>
>> The most basic principle of unschooling is that children are born with an
>> intrinsic urge to explore -- for a moment or a lifetime -- what intrigues
>> them, as they seek to join the adult world in a personally satisfying way.
>> Because of that urge, an unschooling child is free to choose the what, when,
>> where and how of his/her own learning from mud puddles to video games and
>> SpongeBob Squarepants to Shakespeare! And an unschooling parent sees his/her
>> role, not as a teacher, but as a facilitator and companion in a child's
>> exploration of the world.
>>
>> Unschooling is a mindful lifestyle which encompasses, at its core, an
>> atmosphere of trust, freedom, joy and deep respect for who the child is. This
>> cannot be lived on a part-time basis. Unschooling sometimes seems so
>> intuitive that people feel they've been doing it all along, not realizing it
>> has a name. Unschooling sometimes seems so counterintuitive that people
>> struggle to understand it, and it can take years to fully accept its worth.
>>
>> The purpose of this list is to move out of our own comfort zones as we
>> critically examine our beliefs, ideas, and viewpoints about learning, and
>> seek a deeper understanding of unschooling and more respectful relationships
>> with our children.
>>
>> Please read for at least a week or two, before posting, to get a feel for the
>> list. New members are on moderation, to avoid spam and other disruptions.
>> "List Posting Policies" can be found in the files area of this list or, along
>> with other list information, at: <http://www.sandradodd.com/lists/info>.

Joyce

Dawn Adams

>
> Dawn (awaiting brain scan readouts in Nova Scotia)

What kind of brain scan have you had, Dawn? I hope it's not for something
serious.
Tia

Whoops! I was trying to be funny Tia, I meant the brain scans that prove kids need training. :) Obviously that joke failed.

Dawn (rethinking he approach to humour :) )


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/22/2003 9:20:11 AM Central Standard Time,
jrossedd@... writes:


> I was a public school policy
> expert during the 80s, when schools in the South began to seriously debate
> whether
> paddling by school deans and principals should continue. (It hasn't)
>
>

~~~

The debate hasn't continued, perhaps, but the paddling has, at least in some
high schools I'm aware of.

Tuck


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/22/2003 5:36:24 PM Central Standard Time,
tntinsol@... writes:


> You (again meaning the listers who have responded) don't seem to understand
>
> that as adults we have hopefully already been trained and don't need
> physical
> reminders ever-well unless you want to get into the aspects of socially
> deviant
> behavior (i.e., habitual criminals, etc.), which I doubt. Children IMO
> aren't
> mini adults. There long term consequential thinking isn't developed until
> there late teens and more typically early twenties. So application of cause
> and
> effect is far more functional until that time when the frontal lobes of the
> brain 'close' making long term consequential thinking concrete. Some actions
>
> aren't open for debate. Period.
>

~~~

You're on the wrong list. You might as well admit it now and take off. Or,
you could stay and listen instead of talk and learn something new.

Tuck


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

Tia Leschke

>
> > Dawn (awaiting brain scan readouts in Nova Scotia)
>
>What kind of brain scan have you had, Dawn? I hope it's not for something
>serious.
>Tia
>
>Whoops! I was trying to be funny Tia, I meant the brain scans that prove
>kids need training. :) Obviously that joke failed.

I thought that might be the case, but I wanted to be sure before taking it
that way. Glad it was a joke.
Tia

joylyn

I've been watching, this person started something and then left, has not
responded to any post. She's still on the list (or was yesterday
evening). I smell something funny.

Joylyn

tntinsol@... wrote:

> <<Bottom line, though, is that hitting is hurtful. It hurts a child
> physically. It hurts a child psychically. It hurts a relationship. To
> negate
> those bad effects takes a lot of relationship building.>>
>
> Thank you again for correcting my language (I see that is a particular
> compulsion for you).... Yes, I intended to use the word anathema.
> Corporal meaning
> having to do with the body. Did I say spanking? Or physical restraint?
> But, oh,
> yes, I do believe in spanking. Yes, judiciously applied-but that will
> also be
> refuted here since none among you (except perhaps those already under
> moderation) can consider judicious application of physical
> corrections. I also
> believe in capital punishment and hope Lacy Peterson's husband makes
> the lights go
> out in California.
>
> There are several who consider judicious application to be 'creepy'
> was that
> the phrase used? But, conversely then, they must think that hitting is
> okay
> when enraged because....why again? (said in one post). Raging and loss of
> control is acceptable because it wasn't premeditated (the animal
> equivalent to
> uncontrolled anger in humans). Really?
>
> I would rather apply a thought out punishment for unacceptable
> behavior than
> be given to flights of animal rage (yes, rage is an animal emotion
> which is
> usually called uncontrolled anger by humans). Yes, it has worked quite
> well for
> me. Its called knowing what punishment is to be applied for a given
> action in
> advance and making that application under those circumstances only.
> While you
> may not find it acceptable. I call it thinking rather than reacting.
>
> Many of the compelling arguments against what many of you have called
> spanking seem well considered, though mixed into discussions
> containing veiled
> personal attacks which makes remaining on topic challenging. My
> beliefs are simple.
> If a my child disregards rules that have been developed for the
> protection and
> safety of that child, or where the property of others is concerned,
> then that
> child is given an escalating form of punishment. Physical punishment is
> applied rarely but applied when deemed necessary *to me*. You don't
> agree that
> there is any case where a child could escalate to a point where a
> physical
> reprimand is in order and I don't agree. You (meaning those on the
> list vociferously
> opposed to 'spanking') don't see where any behavior on the part of a
> child
> could warrant a physical reprimand. So, we don't agree. You believe
> that it will
> lead to long term injury, psychic damage. We don't agree.
>
> You (again meaning the listers who have responded) don't seem to
> understand
> that as adults we have hopefully already been trained and don't need
> physical
> reminders ever-well unless you want to get into the aspects of
> socially deviant
> behavior (i.e., habitual criminals, etc.), which I doubt. Children IMO
> aren't
> mini adults. There long term consequential thinking isn't developed until
> there late teens and more typically early twenties. So application of
> cause and
> effect is far more functional until that time when the frontal lobes
> of the
> brain 'close' making long term consequential thinking concrete. Some
> actions
> aren't open for debate. Period.
>
> I have been called in obtuse language a variety of rather colorfully
> descriptive and rather unpleasant things. Many of these directed
> simply because of the
> verbiage I choose. How sad that you must make personal, though cloaked,
> attacks in order to support your self righteousness. English isn't as
> standardized
> as you might think.
>
> Animal nature is well defined in humans, just denied. Every time a person
> reacts to a situation rather than acts on a situation they are dealing
> with their
> animal nature. Understanding this goes a long way to aiding many in their
> change from reaction to action thinking. Exactly what Shan was talking
> about-interrupting her reacting (animal) nature for her acting (human)
> nature. I am sad
> to know that this aspect of the shadow persona so well discussed by
> Carl Jung
> and others is so easily discounted here. Unschooling.
>
> Karma isn't an excuse. But, when one wishes to embrace a dogma it
> should be
> fully embraced and not just the cozy parts. Its rather hypocritical to
> say that
> only the pleasant aspects of karma should be accepted while the shadow
> side
> is ignored. Shadow has as many lessons as light to offer. That, I
> believe, is
> why it is manifest still on the Earth. To infer that a soul isn't part
> of their
> own contract incarnate is to play God/dess.
>
> Hitting has come back time and again into the discussion being only
> equated
> with abuse and lack of restraint. How sad is that? I think that the
> difference
> is that we can't ever agree that there would ever be an appropriate
> time to
> apply physical punishment. I say grey and you say no there is only the
> word
> "black" there is not another word in the dictionary that could ever be
> tolerated
> in this discussion. In other words, to be simple for your
> understanding, there
> is not a single case where you would find 'spanking' appropriate. And
> I don't
> agree.
>
> Although apparently its fine to ignore your child while in the throws
> of a
> 'tantrum.' Its okay, in other words, to withdraw your emotional
> support and
> caring to indicate your displeasure of the child's actions? I think I
> understood
> that correctly. That was suggested several times as an acceptable
> course of
> action. Sorry, but, I don't accept that as anything but child abuse.
> Setting up a
> child to perform because they can only obtain love, acceptance and
> communion
> because they act within a certain set of accepted behaviors is far to
> passive
> aggressive for me. I see it as far more damaging than the abrupt here
> and done
> of a physical spank. It is insidious.
>
> For those of you who equate unschooling with no training I think you have
> deluded yourselves.
>
> Good-day
>
> Tracey
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c8gcm40/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/EXP=1069630475/A=1853619/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178356&partid=4116732>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Dawn Adams

Joylyn writes;

>I've been watching, this person started something and then left, has not
>responded to any post. She's still on the list (or was yesterday
>evening). I smell something funny.
>
>Joylyn

Me too. But I think it related to my lack of housekeeping skills. :)

Dawn (sorry, couldn't resist!!!)


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/23/03 1:04:28 PM, joylyn@... writes:

<< I've been watching, this person started something and then left, has not
responded to any post. She's still on the list (or was yesterday
evening). I smell something funny. >>

I rejected a couple of posts (after letting two through I probably should
have rejected) and I asked her to review the rules and introduce herself if she
wants to participate any further.

She can still read, and if a post is sent talking about her own unschooling,
I'll let that through.

Sandra

joylyn

SandraDodd@... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 11/23/03 1:04:28 PM, joylyn@... writes:
>
> << I've been watching, this person started something and then left,
> has not
> responded to any post. She's still on the list (or was yesterday
> evening). I smell something funny. >>
>
> I rejected a couple of posts (after letting two through I probably should
> have rejected) and I asked her to review the rules and introduce
> herself if she
> wants to participate any further.
>
> She can still read, and if a post is sent talking about her own
> unschooling,
> I'll let that through.

OK, thanks for explaining.

Joylyn

>
>
> Sandra
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cv3ccbo/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/EXP=1069709423/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Lori

Hello, I just wanted to post a quick intro... I've been reading for a
few weeks, and thought that I'd introduce myself before jumping into
all of the good conversation.

My name is Lori Upchurch, I live in Chicago with my family, three kids-
Louise, almost 8, Winston, age 4, and little Benji who is 7 months old
tomorrow. Also in the house is my husband John, and our pets.

We've been unschooling since taking our daughter out of kindergarden in
2000. We are fortunate to have a great community of like minded folks
to hang out with and explore the city with.

It's snowing and cold here today, the first of the season. I look
forward to reading and writing with you this winter... already a lot of
what I've been reading has taken me further into the world of gentle
parenting. I need that these days, we are under endless construction
(that was supposed to be done at the beginning of october!) and I am
walking around feeling like I've been punched in the stomach worrying
about it... I have to remember to breathe and be with my kids, this
list has been helping me do that!

Lori