Continuum concept and unschooling
kayb85
I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the continuum
concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
centered.
For example, the article at http://www.continuum-
concept.org/reading/whosInControl.html is an article written by the
author of Continuum Concept talking about why not to be child
centered.
Sheila
concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
centered.
For example, the article at http://www.continuum-
concept.org/reading/whosInControl.html is an article written by the
author of Continuum Concept talking about why not to be child
centered.
Sheila
Inna Manni
um... I read the article you are talking about and I read the book...
I think that C.C. is really not about what is in the center of what,
but about how babies have evolved to expect certain treatment at
certain stages of their lives... like, the baby expects to go through
the labour and birth, expects being held and breastfed, expects to be
near a caretacer at all times... the author suggests that this is how
human babies have been treated until recently and that the new things
like cribs, being left alone in nurseries, being fed formula on a
schedule, etc - are confusing babies and making them screwed up
psychologically for the rest of their lives.
The way I think CC works with uschooling: the author suggests that
children expect to become part of adult society by being around the
adults, by learning through watching... like, one of the the examples
she uses is the two year old girl, who have been watching other women
work, wanting to join in and do the work herself. I this that's
pretty much unschooling in the nutshell, no?
--Inna Manni
--- kayb85 <sheran@...> wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
I think that C.C. is really not about what is in the center of what,
but about how babies have evolved to expect certain treatment at
certain stages of their lives... like, the baby expects to go through
the labour and birth, expects being held and breastfed, expects to be
near a caretacer at all times... the author suggests that this is how
human babies have been treated until recently and that the new things
like cribs, being left alone in nurseries, being fed formula on a
schedule, etc - are confusing babies and making them screwed up
psychologically for the rest of their lives.
The way I think CC works with uschooling: the author suggests that
children expect to become part of adult society by being around the
adults, by learning through watching... like, one of the the examples
she uses is the two year old girl, who have been watching other women
work, wanting to join in and do the work herself. I this that's
pretty much unschooling in the nutshell, no?
--Inna Manni
--- kayb85 <sheran@...> wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the continuum__________________________________
>
> concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
> completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
> I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
> philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
> child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
> centered.
>
> For example, the article at http://www.continuum-
> concept.org/reading/whosInControl.html is an article written by the
>
> author of Continuum Concept talking about why not to be child
> centered.
>
> Sheila
>
>
>
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
kate_sitzman
I had wondered the same thing. It seems like the net result is very
similar in practice (to the degree that it is even possible to be
100% CC in the idustrialized world) but the reasoning that gets you
there is a shade different. I think in both cases you have natural
learning, and a shift away from schoolish paradigms, and you also
have children that are not inhibited in their endeavors or
overmanaged, but the difference is more pronounced in the mind of
the parent. As an unschooler I would probably see myself more as a
facilitator for the child, where as a cc'er I would see myself more
as a model for the child. Not that a cc child has any obligation to
emulate the model, or that either role is mutually exclusive, but I
think it's the idea that in unschooling, the parent would find
themselves drawn into the child's world (playing yu-gi-oh for
example) and in cc the parent would just do adult work (make it
accessible) and let the child join in the adult world (or not) at
their own inclination. The parent works alongside the child, but the
parent doesn't really play per se, or follow the child's passions -
that is up to the child. I think both philosophies can inform each
other because they both work on the principle of giving your
children autonomy, but they do not seem interchangeable.
Kate
--- In [email protected], "kayb85" <sheran@p...>
wrote:
similar in practice (to the degree that it is even possible to be
100% CC in the idustrialized world) but the reasoning that gets you
there is a shade different. I think in both cases you have natural
learning, and a shift away from schoolish paradigms, and you also
have children that are not inhibited in their endeavors or
overmanaged, but the difference is more pronounced in the mind of
the parent. As an unschooler I would probably see myself more as a
facilitator for the child, where as a cc'er I would see myself more
as a model for the child. Not that a cc child has any obligation to
emulate the model, or that either role is mutually exclusive, but I
think it's the idea that in unschooling, the parent would find
themselves drawn into the child's world (playing yu-gi-oh for
example) and in cc the parent would just do adult work (make it
accessible) and let the child join in the adult world (or not) at
their own inclination. The parent works alongside the child, but the
parent doesn't really play per se, or follow the child's passions -
that is up to the child. I think both philosophies can inform each
other because they both work on the principle of giving your
children autonomy, but they do not seem interchangeable.
Kate
--- In [email protected], "kayb85" <sheran@p...>
wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether thecontinuum
> concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy arethe
> completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
> I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
> philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
> child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
> centered.
>
> For example, the article at http://www.continuum-
> concept.org/reading/whosInControl.html is an article written by
> author of Continuum Concept talking about why not to be child
> centered.
>
> Sheila
the_clevengers
--- In [email protected], "kayb85" <sheran@p...>
wrote:
primarily about how we raise babies and young children - about how
our human biological destiny has certain expectations about birth,
breastfeeding, being held in-arms, etc. and that it can be traumatic
for infants to be without these things that their bodies expect. It's
an interesting book, though I don't necessarily agree with all of the
author's assertions, I think it is very thought-provoking and
something worth reading.
Personally, I don't see Unschooling as particularly child-centered,
at least not the way it plays out in our family. DH and don't hang
around our children, waiting for them to want to learn or do
something and then instantly jump in to help them learn things.
Largely, each member of our family goes about our own interests, and
when someone needs helping out, we help each other out. Because our
society is more complex than that of the native Yequana that Liedloff
writes about, there is of necessary more things that I need to do for
my kids. I need to tranport them places, for instance. But they learn
things alongside adults - like cooking, housework, reading,
gardening, writing, building, or putting together a grocery list.
Learning as just part of life is, I think, pretty compatible with
what Liedloff describes in her book.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the continuumI've read the Continuum Concept and for me the thrust of the book was
> concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
> completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
> I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
> philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
> child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
> centered.
primarily about how we raise babies and young children - about how
our human biological destiny has certain expectations about birth,
breastfeeding, being held in-arms, etc. and that it can be traumatic
for infants to be without these things that their bodies expect. It's
an interesting book, though I don't necessarily agree with all of the
author's assertions, I think it is very thought-provoking and
something worth reading.
Personally, I don't see Unschooling as particularly child-centered,
at least not the way it plays out in our family. DH and don't hang
around our children, waiting for them to want to learn or do
something and then instantly jump in to help them learn things.
Largely, each member of our family goes about our own interests, and
when someone needs helping out, we help each other out. Because our
society is more complex than that of the native Yequana that Liedloff
writes about, there is of necessary more things that I need to do for
my kids. I need to tranport them places, for instance. But they learn
things alongside adults - like cooking, housework, reading,
gardening, writing, building, or putting together a grocery list.
Learning as just part of life is, I think, pretty compatible with
what Liedloff describes in her book.
Blue Skies,
-Robin-
Robyn Coburn
<<The way I think CC works with uschooling: the author suggests that
children expect to become part of adult society by being around the
adults, by learning through watching... like, one of the the examples
she uses is the two year old girl, who have been watching other women
work, wanting to join in and do the work herself. I this that's
pretty much unschooling in the nutshell, no?>>
What I found hard to reconcile to unschooling is the idea that adults should
*not* play children�s games with children, in favor of the above type of
example almost exclusively, which I read in an article/excerpt on the
website. I have not read the whole book. The attachment parenting of babies
stuff made sense, but I had already received all that information from other
sources. I also didn�t like the description of the father at the restaurant
ordering the daughter�s, who was not a baby, food without any consultation.
His take charge decision making, without �fuss�, was presented as a great
thing for both kids and adults. There was definitely a sense pervading the
article that parents know best, and that children should *only* mimic adults
rather than have their own childish activities. Perhaps the book expands in
other directions. I�m not likely to read the whole thing though, since I
don�t want to start feeling guilty that I put baby Jayn down on her mat to
play sometimes. ;)
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
children expect to become part of adult society by being around the
adults, by learning through watching... like, one of the the examples
she uses is the two year old girl, who have been watching other women
work, wanting to join in and do the work herself. I this that's
pretty much unschooling in the nutshell, no?>>
What I found hard to reconcile to unschooling is the idea that adults should
*not* play children�s games with children, in favor of the above type of
example almost exclusively, which I read in an article/excerpt on the
website. I have not read the whole book. The attachment parenting of babies
stuff made sense, but I had already received all that information from other
sources. I also didn�t like the description of the father at the restaurant
ordering the daughter�s, who was not a baby, food without any consultation.
His take charge decision making, without �fuss�, was presented as a great
thing for both kids and adults. There was definitely a sense pervading the
article that parents know best, and that children should *only* mimic adults
rather than have their own childish activities. Perhaps the book expands in
other directions. I�m not likely to read the whole thing though, since I
don�t want to start feeling guilty that I put baby Jayn down on her mat to
play sometimes. ;)
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kayb85
> The way I think CC works with uschooling: the author suggests thatexamples
> children expect to become part of adult society by being around the
> adults, by learning through watching... like, one of the the
> she uses is the two year old girl, who have been watching otherwomen
> work, wanting to join in and do the work herself. I this that'sThat often happens with unschooling...but then again the mom might be
> pretty much unschooling in the nutshell, no?
trying to do work and the two year old would beg her to stop doing
the work and come play with her.
It seems the continuum concept people would say that the mom should
continue with her work and the child should know not to expect the
mom to go play. If the child wants the mom, the child joins in with
the adult thing. The unschooler would say to drop the work and go
play with the child.
Yet www.continuum-concept.org seems to be pretty proud that John Holt
endorsed them.
I'm asking because sometimes finding a balance is difficult for me.
I know I've been told (at unschooling.com?) that it's important for
moms to pursue their own interests, yet when I try to pursue my own
interests I feel I'm always having to tell a child "later" to
something they want to do. If I'm focusing on being a mom who meets
her children's needs, then sometimes I don't have time to even think
about what my interests might be, let alone persue them. Sometimes
it seems that my kids are more demanding than some others' kids from
the impression I get here from some posts.
So how the continuum concept adults doing their work and kids being
free to either do the adult work or play on their own versus
unschooling mom whose kids want her playing legos, watching blues
clues, and helping with kid crafts all days is interesting to me
right now. I appreciate the responses. :)
Sheila
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/22/04 2:33:01 PM, sheran@... writes:
<< I'm asking because sometimes finding a balance is difficult for me.
I know I've been told (at unschooling.com?) that it's important for
moms to pursue their own interests, yet when I try to pursue my own
interests I feel I'm always having to tell a child "later" to
something they want to do. >>
"Always" is a bad word to be thinking or using.
Once might be too much, or maybe five times with an invitation for the child
to stay and watch what you're doing might be pretty cool for the kid and you
both.
<<If I'm focusing on being a mom who meets
her children's needs, then sometimes I don't have time to even think
about what my interests might be, let alone persue them. >>
With toddlers, that's true of a lot of people, but toddlers get older by the
second.
<<So how the continuum concept adults doing their work and kids being
free to either do the adult work or play on their own versus
unschooling mom whose kids want her playing legos, watching blues
clues, and helping with kid crafts all days is interesting to me
right now. >>
The book and research weren't about western civilization, though. My boys
can't see their dad at work. It's a closed shop and they would need "need to
know" kinds of security clearance approval. Lots of families are in that
situation. Moms who are emergency room nurses are not going to be seen by their
kids, etc.
In a simpler culture in which people work together in the presence of the
children, other things can happen.
In a culture such as ours where children are expected to have "the task" of
spending many of their youthful years learning a body of knowledge (however
dopey and arbitrary doesn't matter, the expectation remains), if a mother chooses
to step off the assembly line, she has done so in the company of her child
and there ARE still expectations and "requirements."
Unschoolers know the secret, that the required material is out there, in the
air and the drinking water. So although we can have confidence that our
"method" will produce some results the others of our (vast and scattered) tribe
expect, we do need to spend time with our children for lots of reasons. In a
"continuum concept" ideal tribe, the kids are never expected to all be elsewhere.
The parents are cooking, weaving, farming, repairing, telling stories, etc.,
in the natural presence of children.
Our culture seems to be moving QUICKLY away from the presence of children
being considered natural in any way.
Sandra
<< I'm asking because sometimes finding a balance is difficult for me.
I know I've been told (at unschooling.com?) that it's important for
moms to pursue their own interests, yet when I try to pursue my own
interests I feel I'm always having to tell a child "later" to
something they want to do. >>
"Always" is a bad word to be thinking or using.
Once might be too much, or maybe five times with an invitation for the child
to stay and watch what you're doing might be pretty cool for the kid and you
both.
<<If I'm focusing on being a mom who meets
her children's needs, then sometimes I don't have time to even think
about what my interests might be, let alone persue them. >>
With toddlers, that's true of a lot of people, but toddlers get older by the
second.
<<So how the continuum concept adults doing their work and kids being
free to either do the adult work or play on their own versus
unschooling mom whose kids want her playing legos, watching blues
clues, and helping with kid crafts all days is interesting to me
right now. >>
The book and research weren't about western civilization, though. My boys
can't see their dad at work. It's a closed shop and they would need "need to
know" kinds of security clearance approval. Lots of families are in that
situation. Moms who are emergency room nurses are not going to be seen by their
kids, etc.
In a simpler culture in which people work together in the presence of the
children, other things can happen.
In a culture such as ours where children are expected to have "the task" of
spending many of their youthful years learning a body of knowledge (however
dopey and arbitrary doesn't matter, the expectation remains), if a mother chooses
to step off the assembly line, she has done so in the company of her child
and there ARE still expectations and "requirements."
Unschoolers know the secret, that the required material is out there, in the
air and the drinking water. So although we can have confidence that our
"method" will produce some results the others of our (vast and scattered) tribe
expect, we do need to spend time with our children for lots of reasons. In a
"continuum concept" ideal tribe, the kids are never expected to all be elsewhere.
The parents are cooking, weaving, farming, repairing, telling stories, etc.,
in the natural presence of children.
Our culture seems to be moving QUICKLY away from the presence of children
being considered natural in any way.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/21/04 6:48:37 PM, sheran@... writes:
<< I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the continuum
concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
centered. >>
I think it's helpful to people who are starting off with breastfeeding or
family bed or attachment parenting or unschooling to have the reassurance that,
anthropologically speaking, children learn from the world around them. It
helps people in western culture to see something about how people would live
naturally, as we tend to live in very contrived and false-to-biology ways.
So reading Leidloff will help unschoolers, but it's not an interchangeable
thing.
Sandra
(reading e-mail backwards, again...)
<< I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the continuum
concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is more
child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
centered. >>
I think it's helpful to people who are starting off with breastfeeding or
family bed or attachment parenting or unschooling to have the reassurance that,
anthropologically speaking, children learn from the world around them. It
helps people in western culture to see something about how people would live
naturally, as we tend to live in very contrived and false-to-biology ways.
So reading Leidloff will help unschoolers, but it's not an interchangeable
thing.
Sandra
(reading e-mail backwards, again...)
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
Peace,
Amy
>children
> Our culture seems to be moving QUICKLY away from the presence of
> being considered natural in any way.The word QUICKLY caught my attention -- are there things you're
>
> Sandra
seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
Peace,
Amy
Dawn Adams
Amy writes:
The word QUICKLY caught my attention -- are there things you're
seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
Toughening laws against youth offenders and shutting them away instead of caring about them. Just get them out of our sight.
The demonization of teenagers. Again, out of our sight, they steal stuff anyway.
Mothers on TV. OK, some are okay but that one on CSI, the redhead? Her daughter was there to drive one plot and then gone again. Keep her out of our sight. (Sidenote - Has there ever been a female corpse on either CSI that wasn't slim, young and dressed scantily?)
School. Of course.
The move to keep teenagers out of adulthood. No sex, no drugs untill you're out of school. And NO getting out of school or you're a bum. We don't want to see them on the streets anyway...they steal stuff.
Actually I think I'm making more of a case for how we treat teenagers. Which is horribly. That's been bothering me a LOT lately.
I'm rambling.
Dawn (in NS)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The word QUICKLY caught my attention -- are there things you're
seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
>>>>>>>Not addressed to me but here's my contribution. The Child-Free people. I respect people who don't want to have children. They know what's best for them. However, when I've heard some of the people associated with this movement speak or be interviewed they carry on a) as if parents are mindless minions of domineering children, b) the burden children can be to someone's life and c) how just plain awful it is that parents get all those special privledges at work.
Toughening laws against youth offenders and shutting them away instead of caring about them. Just get them out of our sight.
The demonization of teenagers. Again, out of our sight, they steal stuff anyway.
Mothers on TV. OK, some are okay but that one on CSI, the redhead? Her daughter was there to drive one plot and then gone again. Keep her out of our sight. (Sidenote - Has there ever been a female corpse on either CSI that wasn't slim, young and dressed scantily?)
School. Of course.
The move to keep teenagers out of adulthood. No sex, no drugs untill you're out of school. And NO getting out of school or you're a bum. We don't want to see them on the streets anyway...they steal stuff.
Actually I think I'm making more of a case for how we treat teenagers. Which is horribly. That's been bothering me a LOT lately.
I'm rambling.
Dawn (in NS)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/22/04 3:32:35 PM, arcarpenter@... writes:
<< > Our culture seems to be moving QUICKLY away from the presence of
children
seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
of hundreds of years.
Quickly is within two or three generations. Kindergarten is pretty much a
given now, and wasn't around a hundred years ago (not as a "grade in school" at
any rate), and now there are grown people who wouldn't know kindergarten was
a recent thing.
Early reading is recent. Kids used to go to school at 7 or 8, not 4 or 5.
So much of the "reading difficulty" is nothing but that. Same system, kids
MUCH younger.
Daycare as a given thing is new. Leaving kids with grandmothers or aunts,
not so new; taking them to child-storage areas outside the home, new.
It is new for children to have their own rooms. It's cool, for the sake of
privacy and taking care of their Barbies (new) and Lego (new), but biologically
and as to mammalian behavior, you never see a fox dig six little holes and
put one kit in each saying "See ya in the morning!"
It's new with huge schools where the kids are separated into "their own
grade" for them to be discouraged or even forbidden to play with kids who are older
or younger. In a one-room school, or even two or three room schools, mixed
age is "normal" and accepted as an asset and advantage. When kids aren't in
school, playing in mixed-age groups is seen as good and sensible. So the
"kids his own age" phenomenon and concern are VERY new, culturally speaking (and I
hope will be temporary).
Sandra
<< > Our culture seems to be moving QUICKLY away from the presence of
children
> being considered natural in any way.The word QUICKLY caught my attention -- are there things you're
>
> Sandra
seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
>>Well when I'm thinking "culture" and change all in one thought, I'm thinking
of hundreds of years.
Quickly is within two or three generations. Kindergarten is pretty much a
given now, and wasn't around a hundred years ago (not as a "grade in school" at
any rate), and now there are grown people who wouldn't know kindergarten was
a recent thing.
Early reading is recent. Kids used to go to school at 7 or 8, not 4 or 5.
So much of the "reading difficulty" is nothing but that. Same system, kids
MUCH younger.
Daycare as a given thing is new. Leaving kids with grandmothers or aunts,
not so new; taking them to child-storage areas outside the home, new.
It is new for children to have their own rooms. It's cool, for the sake of
privacy and taking care of their Barbies (new) and Lego (new), but biologically
and as to mammalian behavior, you never see a fox dig six little holes and
put one kit in each saying "See ya in the morning!"
It's new with huge schools where the kids are separated into "their own
grade" for them to be discouraged or even forbidden to play with kids who are older
or younger. In a one-room school, or even two or three room schools, mixed
age is "normal" and accepted as an asset and advantage. When kids aren't in
school, playing in mixed-age groups is seen as good and sensible. So the
"kids his own age" phenomenon and concern are VERY new, culturally speaking (and I
hope will be temporary).
Sandra
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
outside activities, starting younger.
Good points!
Amy
> So thespeaking (and I
> "kids his own age" phenomenon and concern are VERY new, culturally
> hope will be temporary).Some other very new things: longer days at school and more scheduled
>
outside activities, starting younger.
Good points!
Amy
Tara
Hello, I am Tara and I am new. I read the article on the continuum
concept. What I kept thinking was, yeah that would work in a natural
society where children can see many adults first hand, on a daily
basis, working together on things that sustain that community, while
all the other children play together. In western society it would
just be neglectful, because we don't have that kind of community
involvement and cooperation. Peace - Tara (P.S. Nice to meet
everyone!)
concept. What I kept thinking was, yeah that would work in a natural
society where children can see many adults first hand, on a daily
basis, working together on things that sustain that community, while
all the other children play together. In western society it would
just be neglectful, because we don't have that kind of community
involvement and cooperation. Peace - Tara (P.S. Nice to meet
everyone!)
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/22/04 3:32:35 PM, arcarpenter@c... writes:
>
> << > Our culture seems to be moving QUICKLY away from the presence
of
>
> children
>
> > being considered natural in any way.
>
> >
>
> > Sandra
>
>
> The word QUICKLY caught my attention -- are there things you're
>
> seeing lately that make you think the trend is really intensifying?
>
> >>
>
> Well when I'm thinking "culture" and change all in one thought,
I'm thinking
> of hundreds of years.
>
> Quickly is within two or three generations. Kindergarten is
pretty much a
> given now, and wasn't around a hundred years ago (not as a "grade
in school" at
> any rate), and now there are grown people who wouldn't know
kindergarten was
> a recent thing.
>
> Early reading is recent. Kids used to go to school at 7 or 8,
not 4 or 5.
> So much of the "reading difficulty" is nothing but that. Same
system, kids
> MUCH younger.
>
> Daycare as a given thing is new. Leaving kids with grandmothers
or aunts,
> not so new; taking them to child-storage areas outside the home,
new.
>
> It is new for children to have their own rooms. It's cool, for
the sake of
> privacy and taking care of their Barbies (new) and Lego (new), but
biologically
> and as to mammalian behavior, you never see a fox dig six little
holes and
> put one kit in each saying "See ya in the morning!"
>
> It's new with huge schools where the kids are separated
into "their own
> grade" for them to be discouraged or even forbidden to play with
kids who are older
> or younger. In a one-room school, or even two or three room
schools, mixed
> age is "normal" and accepted as an asset and advantage. When
kids aren't in
> school, playing in mixed-age groups is seen as good and
sensible. So the
> "kids his own age" phenomenon and concern are VERY new, culturally
speaking (and I
> hope will be temporary).
>
> Sandra
kayb85
yet when I try to pursue my own
them later, but when I'm doing something of my own, I tell
them "later" too ofen.
need me a lot!
I have a group of friends who I've known for years who I like to
talk to online very regularly. I've been spending two hours a day
online lately, and that's just not working for my family. Till I
spend that time online, do necessary cooking/cleaning/household
tasks, other stuff like showers and appointments, there's not much
time left for cool projects, games, and long conversations with the
kids. I've been finding myself saying, "Yeah, that would be cool to
do someday" but then someday never comes. That's not the kind of
mommy I want to be.
I had a sobering conversation with my daughter tonight when I tucked
her in. She's been bored lately. Nothing she's doing is interesting
her. She came right out and told me if I would spend less time on
the computer that I'd be able to do more things with her. She's
right. :(
So today I told my friends that I need to cut the time I spend with
them, explained why, and asked them to remind me if they see me doing
more than occasionally popping in to say hi. I can't afford to get
into long, deep conversations on a regular basis if I'm going to be
the kind of mommy I want to be.
The time will come when my kids won't need me so much and I'll have
more time for me and my own interests.
They'd be in a hut next to mine and our kids could play while we
talked. But talking to my friends online doesn't allow for any
interactions with my kids.
Sheila
>Yeah, always was the wrong word to use. I'm not *always* telling
> interests I feel I'm always having to tell a child "later" to
>
> something they want to do. >>
>
> "Always" is a bad word to be thinking or using.
them later, but when I'm doing something of my own, I tell
them "later" too ofen.
> <<If I'm focusing on being a mom who meetsthink
>
> her children's needs, then sometimes I don't have time to even
>older by the
> about what my interests might be, let alone persue them. >>
>
> With toddlers, that's true of a lot of people, but toddlers get
> second.My kids aren't toddlers. They're 4, 6, and 10. But they seem to
need me a lot!
I have a group of friends who I've known for years who I like to
talk to online very regularly. I've been spending two hours a day
online lately, and that's just not working for my family. Till I
spend that time online, do necessary cooking/cleaning/household
tasks, other stuff like showers and appointments, there's not much
time left for cool projects, games, and long conversations with the
kids. I've been finding myself saying, "Yeah, that would be cool to
do someday" but then someday never comes. That's not the kind of
mommy I want to be.
I had a sobering conversation with my daughter tonight when I tucked
her in. She's been bored lately. Nothing she's doing is interesting
her. She came right out and told me if I would spend less time on
the computer that I'd be able to do more things with her. She's
right. :(
So today I told my friends that I need to cut the time I spend with
them, explained why, and asked them to remind me if they see me doing
more than occasionally popping in to say hi. I can't afford to get
into long, deep conversations on a regular basis if I'm going to be
the kind of mommy I want to be.
The time will come when my kids won't need me so much and I'll have
more time for me and my own interests.
> The book and research weren't about western civilization, though.Yeah. In a simpler culture my best friends wouldn't be online.
They'd be in a hut next to mine and our kids could play while we
talked. But talking to my friends online doesn't allow for any
interactions with my kids.
Sheila
pam sorooshian
On Feb 22, 2004, at 1:30 PM, kayb85 wrote:
they had parents who were busy with their own "projects." That's not
necessarily good or bad, but probably its true in many cases.
There is an attentiveness and a focus that is necessary for unschooling
parents - but there is also an aspect of "having a life" of their own
that is important, too. Seems like that balance is what Sheila is
seeking and I have to say that it is hard to nail down because the
equilibrium point shifts constantly as the kids grow and change and
life circumstances change and WE grow and so on.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> Sometimes it seems that my kids are more demanding than some others'Or maybe some kids learned, over time, to be more independent because
> kids from
> the impression I get here from some posts.
they had parents who were busy with their own "projects." That's not
necessarily good or bad, but probably its true in many cases.
There is an attentiveness and a focus that is necessary for unschooling
parents - but there is also an aspect of "having a life" of their own
that is important, too. Seems like that balance is what Sheila is
seeking and I have to say that it is hard to nail down because the
equilibrium point shifts constantly as the kids grow and change and
life circumstances change and WE grow and so on.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
pam sorooshian
On Feb 22, 2004, at 4:53 PM, SandraDodd@... wrote:
IMPATIENTLY for 2nd grade to start because that was when they would
pull out the learn-to-read books (Dick and Jane). A week went by.
Another week. And another. I complained almost DAILY to my mom that we
weren't learning to read yet. I remember very very clearly the day the
very first big book was put up on the easel and we read: "Come, Dick.
Come, come."
Okay - stop LAUGHING those really were the words. Can you imagine?
And then I remember there was a picture of Spot, the dog, shown
crouched down over some little creature, I can't remember if it was a
squirrel or a bird or what - and Dick is saying to Spot, "Look, Spot.
Look, look. Oh, look. See, see. Oh, see." And I'm thinking that when
the teacher turns the page, the dog will have snatched up that little
creature and make a meal out of it. Yikes! (Not so, of course.)
Anyway - nobody was in any hurry to get us reading. Not like today at
all. And - doesn't anybody notice that we had far fewer kids with
serious reading problems in those days? And those that read later were
considered slower, but not disabled.
Oh wait - I forgot - they blame today's problems all on tv, don't
they!!!
Well - tv was new then and kids spent many many hours watching a whole
lot of cartoons and western movies (that was most of the kids' fare)
plus Howdy Doody, Romper Room, Chucko the Clown (he may have been
local), Captain Kangaroo, and Sheriff John. I Love Lucy!!! And I loved
game shows - especially "What's My Line."
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> Early reading is recent. Kids used to go to school at 7 or 8, not 4I'll be 52 on Saturday and I remember so well how I waited all summer
> or 5.
> So much of the "reading difficulty" is nothing but that. Same system,
> kids
> MUCH younger.
IMPATIENTLY for 2nd grade to start because that was when they would
pull out the learn-to-read books (Dick and Jane). A week went by.
Another week. And another. I complained almost DAILY to my mom that we
weren't learning to read yet. I remember very very clearly the day the
very first big book was put up on the easel and we read: "Come, Dick.
Come, come."
Okay - stop LAUGHING those really were the words. Can you imagine?
And then I remember there was a picture of Spot, the dog, shown
crouched down over some little creature, I can't remember if it was a
squirrel or a bird or what - and Dick is saying to Spot, "Look, Spot.
Look, look. Oh, look. See, see. Oh, see." And I'm thinking that when
the teacher turns the page, the dog will have snatched up that little
creature and make a meal out of it. Yikes! (Not so, of course.)
Anyway - nobody was in any hurry to get us reading. Not like today at
all. And - doesn't anybody notice that we had far fewer kids with
serious reading problems in those days? And those that read later were
considered slower, but not disabled.
Oh wait - I forgot - they blame today's problems all on tv, don't
they!!!
Well - tv was new then and kids spent many many hours watching a whole
lot of cartoons and western movies (that was most of the kids' fare)
plus Howdy Doody, Romper Room, Chucko the Clown (he may have been
local), Captain Kangaroo, and Sheriff John. I Love Lucy!!! And I loved
game shows - especially "What's My Line."
-pam
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 02/23/2004 6:37:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
Password. Ozzie and Harriet. The People's Choice (with the bassett
hound whose thoughts you could hear aloud!)
But as a child I also saw the Kennedy funeral on tv as a child. And
Jack Ruby.
And Selma, Alabama. Lester Maddox and George and Wallace and police
dogs and water hoses and my world coming to an end, it seemed.
I was just the age my DD is now when I watched man take his first step
onto the surface of the moon -- or more properly, on the Zenith console tv
in our den! I remember writing about it in my journal, just mentioning it with
carwashes and sleepovers as something else I had done, something that happened
to ME. :)
JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
> Well - tv was new then and kids spent many many hours watching a wholeSky King. Mighty Mouse. Ranger Hal.
> lot of cartoons and western movies (that was most of the kids' fare)
> plus Howdy Doody, Romper Room, Chucko the Clown (he may have been
> local), Captain Kangaroo, and Sheriff John. I Love Lucy!!! And I loved
> game shows - especially "What's My Line."
>
Password. Ozzie and Harriet. The People's Choice (with the bassett
hound whose thoughts you could hear aloud!)
But as a child I also saw the Kennedy funeral on tv as a child. And
Jack Ruby.
And Selma, Alabama. Lester Maddox and George and Wallace and police
dogs and water hoses and my world coming to an end, it seemed.
I was just the age my DD is now when I watched man take his first step
onto the surface of the moon -- or more properly, on the Zenith console tv
in our den! I remember writing about it in my journal, just mentioning it with
carwashes and sleepovers as something else I had done, something that happened
to ME. :)
JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heidi
In the primitive culture in which the author discovered the continuum
concept, the adults' time is taken up with working. They must spend
their days doing adult work in order to get the family fed. Not as
much leisure time for a mom to set aside the food preparation and
play...Yequana volleyball...with the kids. Their own work absorbs the
adults and older children, and the babies watch and imitate as they
grow up.
In our culture, we have leisure. Especially a stay at home mom,
unless she is raising farm animals and keeping a fire in the wood
stove lit and spinning, weaving, sewing the family's clothing...well,
then, that's not our culture! L A stay at home mom, these days, has
lots of time to devote to playing with the kids: the workload is
decreased to the point that we CAN do what the kids want.
blessings, HeidiC
but I
concept, the adults' time is taken up with working. They must spend
their days doing adult work in order to get the family fed. Not as
much leisure time for a mom to set aside the food preparation and
play...Yequana volleyball...with the kids. Their own work absorbs the
adults and older children, and the babies watch and imitate as they
grow up.
In our culture, we have leisure. Especially a stay at home mom,
unless she is raising farm animals and keeping a fire in the wood
stove lit and spinning, weaving, sewing the family's clothing...well,
then, that's not our culture! L A stay at home mom, these days, has
lots of time to devote to playing with the kids: the workload is
decreased to the point that we CAN do what the kids want.
blessings, HeidiC
but I
> think it's the idea that in unschooling, the parent would findthe
> themselves drawn into the child's world (playing yu-gi-oh for
> example) and in cc the parent would just do adult work (make it
> accessible) and let the child join in the adult world (or not) at
> their own inclination. The parent works alongside the child, but
> parent doesn't really play per se, or follow the child's passions -<sheran@p...>
> that is up to the child. I think both philosophies can inform each
> other because they both work on the principle of giving your
> children autonomy, but they do not seem interchangeable.
>
>
> Kate
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "kayb85"
> wrote:more
> > I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on whether the
> continuum
> > concept philosophy and the radical unschooling philosophy are
> > completely compatable. I know John Holt recommended the book and
> > I've seen it recommended here. I definitely see how the two
> > philosophies overlap, but to me, it seems like unschooling is
> > child-centered whereas continuum concept insists it's not child-
> > centered.
> >
> > For example, the article at http://www.continuum-
> > concept.org/reading/whosInControl.html is an article written by
> the
> > author of Continuum Concept talking about why not to be child
> > centered.
> >
> > Sheila
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/23/04 2:08:54 AM, pamsoroosh@... writes:
<< There is an attentiveness and a focus that is necessary for unschooling
parents - but there is also an aspect of "having a life" of their own
that is important, too. Seems like that balance is what Sheila is
seeking and I have to say that it is hard to nail down because the
equilibrium point shifts constantly as the kids grow and change and
life circumstances change and WE grow and so on. >>
Sometimes the point at which people will recommend to a mom that she pursue
some of her own interests is when she seems totally co-dependent on her
children for her own emotional satisfaction, or intellectual satisfaction.
I have always liked music, and I remember going through a few years when the
only music I "studied," researched and learned was Raffi (I would tell the
kids which songs were traditional and which were his originals), or Sesame Street
(I often knew who had written it), or Animaniacs (they had some really great
stuff). Weird Al was the closest I was coming sometimes to adult music. <g>
But that's not a bad thing. Holly and I have looked for lyrics and composer
for a names song that Bob and Olivia sang on Sesame Street long ago. It has
two lines that the go together. The first lines are "I like my name, it fits me
to a T, I like my name, it even sounds like me..." (Just in case any of you
happen to have a lead we don't have.)
So one of my interests easily overlapped with what was going on in their
lives already, and I wasn't feeling crowded. It's efficient and good in many
ways when unschooling parents can get truly interested in kid-stuff when their
kids are little.
But when and if a mom is complaining that she feels she has no life, people
recommend that she find something that seems lifelike to her. If she complains
that she's tired of kids' music, people recommend she listen to some other
kinds of music on her own. It's not always so much a recommendation for the
mom's sake (though in part it is) as it is "find something that will soothe you
so that you don't torment and resent the kids."
And as the kids get older, it's helpful for them to see parents pursuing
interests not just because the kids might be interested in doing the same things,
but because they see how to balance a life with a hobby in it. My husband's
been doing woodwork for a few years now, and he mostly uses it as a relaxing
time and an artistic outlet. The kids will go out and watch him and talk to
him sometimes. They're learning a little about what kinds of woods carve more
easily and about how much scrap there might be from a project, and what the
safety considerations of hand carving are, and how patterns can be transferred,
but not because anyone's telling them, just because they're there.
Nobody else (not even me, even though I messed a little with woodcarving
years ago) has said "Can I try it?" They might someday, and they might never.
That's okay.
I don't think it would be good for a parent to have a hobby that totally
excluded a child, something so dangerous or removed that the child couldn't even
see them do it. Really fragile hobbies like pouring, firing and painting
little ceramic things, might be cruel to do in front of kids you don't want to
have touching anything. I quit sewing for a few years when the kids were little
because I didn't have room to leave my things out and I didn't want a toddler
to get pins and needles in him or on the floor while I was changing the baby.
Sandra
<< There is an attentiveness and a focus that is necessary for unschooling
parents - but there is also an aspect of "having a life" of their own
that is important, too. Seems like that balance is what Sheila is
seeking and I have to say that it is hard to nail down because the
equilibrium point shifts constantly as the kids grow and change and
life circumstances change and WE grow and so on. >>
Sometimes the point at which people will recommend to a mom that she pursue
some of her own interests is when she seems totally co-dependent on her
children for her own emotional satisfaction, or intellectual satisfaction.
I have always liked music, and I remember going through a few years when the
only music I "studied," researched and learned was Raffi (I would tell the
kids which songs were traditional and which were his originals), or Sesame Street
(I often knew who had written it), or Animaniacs (they had some really great
stuff). Weird Al was the closest I was coming sometimes to adult music. <g>
But that's not a bad thing. Holly and I have looked for lyrics and composer
for a names song that Bob and Olivia sang on Sesame Street long ago. It has
two lines that the go together. The first lines are "I like my name, it fits me
to a T, I like my name, it even sounds like me..." (Just in case any of you
happen to have a lead we don't have.)
So one of my interests easily overlapped with what was going on in their
lives already, and I wasn't feeling crowded. It's efficient and good in many
ways when unschooling parents can get truly interested in kid-stuff when their
kids are little.
But when and if a mom is complaining that she feels she has no life, people
recommend that she find something that seems lifelike to her. If she complains
that she's tired of kids' music, people recommend she listen to some other
kinds of music on her own. It's not always so much a recommendation for the
mom's sake (though in part it is) as it is "find something that will soothe you
so that you don't torment and resent the kids."
And as the kids get older, it's helpful for them to see parents pursuing
interests not just because the kids might be interested in doing the same things,
but because they see how to balance a life with a hobby in it. My husband's
been doing woodwork for a few years now, and he mostly uses it as a relaxing
time and an artistic outlet. The kids will go out and watch him and talk to
him sometimes. They're learning a little about what kinds of woods carve more
easily and about how much scrap there might be from a project, and what the
safety considerations of hand carving are, and how patterns can be transferred,
but not because anyone's telling them, just because they're there.
Nobody else (not even me, even though I messed a little with woodcarving
years ago) has said "Can I try it?" They might someday, and they might never.
That's okay.
I don't think it would be good for a parent to have a hobby that totally
excluded a child, something so dangerous or removed that the child couldn't even
see them do it. Really fragile hobbies like pouring, firing and painting
little ceramic things, might be cruel to do in front of kids you don't want to
have touching anything. I quit sewing for a few years when the kids were little
because I didn't have room to leave my things out and I didn't want a toddler
to get pins and needles in him or on the floor while I was changing the baby.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/23/04 6:39:16 AM, jrossedd@... writes:
<< Sky King. Mighty Mouse. Ranger Hal. >>
I don't remember Ranger Hal, but in the Sky King era there was a show called
Fury, about two kids who had a horse named Fury, and lived with their dad and
a grumpy old male "hand" who played housekeeper and childminder. (I think it
might've been Harry Morgan, but I'm not sure.) They missed their mom, and I
felt sorry for them.
I liked Whirlybirds, about two guys in one of those then-new two-passenger
helicopters who would rescue people. I used to sit and watch every movement of
the pilot and imitate it where I was sitting, and I was pretty sure I
could've flown a helicopter.
I remember my television watching involving a lot of thinking about the
characters and situations, about danger and love and coping.
Sgt. Preston of the Yukon was sometimes a little too exciting for me. I
feared for his dog's safety. I think the soundtrack music was scary sometimes.
But because of that show I became more interested in remote ranger stations and
horse-back patrols. I wasn't in Canada, but even in New Mexico there were
rescue teams and sheriff's deputies who worked on horseback, and my neighbor was
a fish'n'game officer. And because of that show I learned that there WAS a
"Canada" and they weren't part of the U.S. and they had "Royal Mounties." So I
was ripe to figure out why they had "royal" if they didn't have a king, and
all that ties in to that.
I hung out with my mom quite a bit too, and I learned songs from her and she
told me stories of when she was little (the depression, itinerant
cotton-picking in west Texas, black-out nights in Carlsbad during the war) but I think I
learned more from TV shows.
Sandra
<< Sky King. Mighty Mouse. Ranger Hal. >>
I don't remember Ranger Hal, but in the Sky King era there was a show called
Fury, about two kids who had a horse named Fury, and lived with their dad and
a grumpy old male "hand" who played housekeeper and childminder. (I think it
might've been Harry Morgan, but I'm not sure.) They missed their mom, and I
felt sorry for them.
I liked Whirlybirds, about two guys in one of those then-new two-passenger
helicopters who would rescue people. I used to sit and watch every movement of
the pilot and imitate it where I was sitting, and I was pretty sure I
could've flown a helicopter.
I remember my television watching involving a lot of thinking about the
characters and situations, about danger and love and coping.
Sgt. Preston of the Yukon was sometimes a little too exciting for me. I
feared for his dog's safety. I think the soundtrack music was scary sometimes.
But because of that show I became more interested in remote ranger stations and
horse-back patrols. I wasn't in Canada, but even in New Mexico there were
rescue teams and sheriff's deputies who worked on horseback, and my neighbor was
a fish'n'game officer. And because of that show I learned that there WAS a
"Canada" and they weren't part of the U.S. and they had "Royal Mounties." So I
was ripe to figure out why they had "royal" if they didn't have a king, and
all that ties in to that.
I hung out with my mom quite a bit too, and I learned songs from her and she
told me stories of when she was little (the depression, itinerant
cotton-picking in west Texas, black-out nights in Carlsbad during the war) but I think I
learned more from TV shows.
Sandra
J. Stauffer
<<< I don't think it would be good for a parent to have a hobby that totally
I used to sew a lot when the kids were little, but did it after they went to
bed.
DH is a fireman for a hobby. The kids see him get to drive the Santa into
town on the firetruck and occassionally go down to the station with him when
he needs to pick something up or whatever. For the most part, the kids'
view of his hobby is that his pager goes off and he leaves, often not
returning for hours. It isn't much of a problem because I am here.
I used to study karate many nights a week. I was with the kids during the
day and in the evenings, dh was with them, focusing on them, so it wasn't
much of a problem.
I can see where it would be a problem if the kids were left to their own
devices and mom was off writing poetry, needing quiet to think, or whatever.
Julie S.
> excluded a child, something so dangerous or removed that the childcouldn't even
> see them do it. >>>>I think it kind of depends, like most things, on how you work it.
I used to sew a lot when the kids were little, but did it after they went to
bed.
DH is a fireman for a hobby. The kids see him get to drive the Santa into
town on the firetruck and occassionally go down to the station with him when
he needs to pick something up or whatever. For the most part, the kids'
view of his hobby is that his pager goes off and he leaves, often not
returning for hours. It isn't much of a problem because I am here.
I used to study karate many nights a week. I was with the kids during the
day and in the evenings, dh was with them, focusing on them, so it wasn't
much of a problem.
I can see where it would be a problem if the kids were left to their own
devices and mom was off writing poetry, needing quiet to think, or whatever.
Julie S.
Dawn Adams
JJ writes:
Sky King. Mighty Mouse. Ranger Hal.
Dawn (in NS)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sky King. Mighty Mouse. Ranger Hal.
>>>>>>>>.For me...Battle of the Planets! It inspired hours of play for my siblings and me. Now I have some DVDs of it (on loan from the siblings with no kids) and wow...it stank. What made it great was what we did with it. And I'm seeing it spark the same interest in my daughter. Even bad TV can be marvelous.
Dawn (in NS)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/23/04 10:42:16 AM, jnjstau@... writes:
<< I can see where it would be a problem if the kids were left to their own
devices and mom was off writing poetry, needing quiet to think, or whatever.
even see.
Sandra
<< I can see where it would be a problem if the kids were left to their own
devices and mom was off writing poetry, needing quiet to think, or whatever.
>>Yeah, I was thinking sky-diving or Mt. Everest Climbing as what kids couldn't
even see.
Sandra
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], "Dawn Adams"
<Wishbone@s...> wrote:
again.
Good points. I remember when TV's Mad About You did the baby thing --
I was pregnant at the same time as Jamie. And then they had the
baby -- and after a few episodes, life was back to normal. They were
out and about without the baby, constantly.
Really didn't match my experience at the time, y'know?
Amy
<Wishbone@s...> wrote:
> Mothers on TV. OK, some are okay but that one on CSI, theredhead? Her daughter was there to drive one plot and then gone
again.
Good points. I remember when TV's Mad About You did the baby thing --
I was pregnant at the same time as Jamie. And then they had the
baby -- and after a few episodes, life was back to normal. They were
out and about without the baby, constantly.
Really didn't match my experience at the time, y'know?
Amy
Kelly Lenhart
> Mothers on TV. OK, some are okay but that one on CSI, the redhead? Herdaughter was there to drive one plot and then >gone again. Keep her out of
our sight.
Ok, I have to defend Catherine Willows here. -smile- They don't talk much
about ANYONE's private life on the show, on purpose. Her daughter actually
gets mentioned a bit more than, say, Jorja Fox's cat or something. They
also talk some about the head guy's deafness, but that's about it.
And when she does talk about her, it's realistic.
Now is the point were I mention that I am a HUGE Marg Helgenberger fan, have
been since China Beach. So I tend to pay a lot of attention to her, er,
character. Yeah, that's it, her character--no, no, not the gorgeous figure
and totally diverting face, really, honest......
Kelly
(who has always had a thing for slim, powerful redheads anyway)
Kelly Lenhart
>> The book and research weren't about western civilization, though.I was thinking about this.
>Yeah. In a simpler culture my best friends wouldn't be online.
>They'd be in a hut next to mine and our kids could play while we
>talked. But talking to my friends online doesn't allow for any
>interactions with my kids.
How valid is it that the grownups in these societies NEVER play with their
kids. That just doesn't seem like human nature. Ok, so they need to spend
more daily time on subsistence, fair 'nuff. And it's just way more
important in those societies that this kind of things gets done, daily, on
time, etc. (I mean, honestly, we can always do the dishes tomorrow, or
after the kids are asleep, etc.)
But I still can't imagine a human society where Mom and Dad or Uncle Louie
NEVER drops what they are doing with a laugh and chases the kids around the
campfire for a couple minutes.
Kelly
pam sorooshian
On Feb 23, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Kelly Lenhart wrote:
Sounds unlikely.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> But I still can't imagine a human society where Mom and Dad or UncleAnd didn't they dance or sing or play sports together?
> Louie
> NEVER drops what they are doing with a laugh and chases the kids
> around the
> campfire for a couple minutes.
Sounds unlikely.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
Heidi
Some other of what she writes about in this tribe sounds a little
off, to me, too. There were knives lying about, and the babies played
with them but didn't have injuries? REALLY? I very much doubt that,
especially in light of other reading, where another anthropologist
describes scars on some of the children. They play without fear
around an open pit and no one ever falls in? Really.
I enjoyed the book, but found it to be a bit "Noble Savage". Not that
we in civilized western society don't have room for improvement,
but ...can it possibly be that human beings always get along with
each other, without envy, strife, enmity? I simply can not believe
that. She either didn't observe them long enough, nor in enough
detail, or not objectively enough. IMO
blessings, HeidiC
--- In [email protected], pam sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
off, to me, too. There were knives lying about, and the babies played
with them but didn't have injuries? REALLY? I very much doubt that,
especially in light of other reading, where another anthropologist
describes scars on some of the children. They play without fear
around an open pit and no one ever falls in? Really.
I enjoyed the book, but found it to be a bit "Noble Savage". Not that
we in civilized western society don't have room for improvement,
but ...can it possibly be that human beings always get along with
each other, without envy, strife, enmity? I simply can not believe
that. She either didn't observe them long enough, nor in enough
detail, or not objectively enough. IMO
blessings, HeidiC
--- In [email protected], pam sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@m...> wrote:
>Uncle
> On Feb 23, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Kelly Lenhart wrote:
>
> > But I still can't imagine a human society where Mom and Dad or
> > Louie
> > NEVER drops what they are doing with a laugh and chases the kids
> > around the
> > campfire for a couple minutes.
>
> And didn't they dance or sing or play sports together?
>
> Sounds unlikely.
>
> -pam
> National Home Education Network
> <www.NHEN.org>
> Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
> through information, networking and public relations.
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], "J. Stauffer"
<jnjstau@g...> wrote:
sometimes write the words himself) when he was 3 and 4, because he
wanted to have something to show my writer's group when they came to
my house. He doesn't care to do that anymore, but he still has a
great relationship with everyone in the group. And we're pretty good
about working around when I need some writing time -- sometimes I jot
down ideas while he's playing, and I just put down the pen when he
needs something or he's ready for me to play. Sometimes I go off for
a night with my laptop (Christmas present -- thank you, lovely
husband) and get the ideas down that have been circling in my head
all week. I usually write something down before I go to bed at night.
I think the hobbies where there are sharp things -- working with
stained glass comes to mind -- can be the worst. I had a friend who
did that -- she had a separate room with a door that closed. But
even so, if she was working during naptime and her daughter came to
get her, she had to stop at the door for fear of stepping on sharp
shavings or breathing in chemicals, or distracting mom during a
delicate operation.
On the other hand, if it's your passion, you can find a way. Take
classes at a studio one night a week, or wait until the kids are
older. They do grow up -- that toddler stage lasts for such a short
time.
Peace,
Amy
<jnjstau@g...> wrote:
> I can see where it would be a problem if the kids were left totheir own
> devices and mom was off writing poetry, needing quiet to think, orwhatever.
>Fisher used to write stories (tell them to me, draw pictures,
> Julie S.
sometimes write the words himself) when he was 3 and 4, because he
wanted to have something to show my writer's group when they came to
my house. He doesn't care to do that anymore, but he still has a
great relationship with everyone in the group. And we're pretty good
about working around when I need some writing time -- sometimes I jot
down ideas while he's playing, and I just put down the pen when he
needs something or he's ready for me to play. Sometimes I go off for
a night with my laptop (Christmas present -- thank you, lovely
husband) and get the ideas down that have been circling in my head
all week. I usually write something down before I go to bed at night.
I think the hobbies where there are sharp things -- working with
stained glass comes to mind -- can be the worst. I had a friend who
did that -- she had a separate room with a door that closed. But
even so, if she was working during naptime and her daughter came to
get her, she had to stop at the door for fear of stepping on sharp
shavings or breathing in chemicals, or distracting mom during a
delicate operation.
On the other hand, if it's your passion, you can find a way. Take
classes at a studio one night a week, or wait until the kids are
older. They do grow up -- that toddler stage lasts for such a short
time.
Peace,
Amy
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/23/04 3:05:09 PM, arcarpenter@... writes:
<< I remember when TV's Mad About You did the baby thing --
I was pregnant at the same time as Jamie. And then they had the
baby -- and after a few episodes, life was back to normal. They were
out and about without the baby, constantly. >>
After Rachel had a baby on Friends, Holly never failed to say "Where's the
baby?" or "What about the baby?"
She thought it would be a story with a baby in it after that. Only once in a
while do they seem to have a baby.
Sandra
<< I remember when TV's Mad About You did the baby thing --
I was pregnant at the same time as Jamie. And then they had the
baby -- and after a few episodes, life was back to normal. They were
out and about without the baby, constantly. >>
After Rachel had a baby on Friends, Holly never failed to say "Where's the
baby?" or "What about the baby?"
She thought it would be a story with a baby in it after that. Only once in a
while do they seem to have a baby.
Sandra