Andrea Burlingame

From: "christy_imnotred"

"I got in a huge "discussion" on a pre-unschooling list about not
controlling tv and food. I said I didn't control these things because I
respected my son as a whole person who knew what he wanted and needed."

This is something I have difficulty with as someone still coming to
understand unschooling at a deeper level. We don't currently have tv
access, mostly because where we live, we would have to purchase cable to get
it, but also because my husband and I aren't really much into tv. But we
do rent dvd's or check them out from the library. Now, my 4 yo girl,
Stella, didn't watch anything on the television screen until she was almost
3 (except for the very occasional time we had something on and she looked at
it and then toddled away to do something else) and I felt good about that
not only because of the research that talks about the dangers to a child's
developing brains, but also because she didn't seem interested. Also, she
just LOVES being read to and we do this alot. Stories we read to her spark
her imagination in really great ways when she plays.

Now she has come to enjoy watching "kid's movies," as she calls them. She
and Annie, the 3 yo, love to sit down in the afternoon/evening when I'm
cooking dinner and watch a movie. This isn't really a problem in and of
itself, but inevitably she wants to watch movies just all the time,
sometimes even asking for a movie before the sleep is dried from her eyes in
the morning. When I tried out just letting them have unlimited access, the
girls, especially Stella, would want to do nothing but watch movies. And I
could plainly see it wasn't good for them. After watching for an hour or
two or sometimes more, they would be SO grumpy or completely wound up.
Stella even gets circles under her eyes after a long bout of tv. If it was
early in the day, I could take them outside to do something fun and physical
afterwards, but in the evenings, they'd just be fit to be tied right around
bedtime. Also, Stella's play started to be really regimented and
unimaginative. She would no longer combine stories and add her own elements
to them, but she would say exactly what she heard on the show. While she
would occassionally learn something interesting, I felt she learned much
more and had more fun when she was getting more varied input. We'd still
read to her during this time of unlimited tv, and she loved that, but her
play was so much different. I went back to limiting tv, because I felt she
didn't know how to self-limit yet. In other words, I protected her from
herself. Is that disrespectful? Does the unschooling philosophy not take
into consideration that children may not yet be able to determine what is
good for them in certain situations?

Food is another thing. People are always asking me, "How do you get your
kids to eat that?" Usually this refers to vegetables, but sometimes they
mean almost anything but processed snack food stuff. I've just not had the
food problems some people seem to have. I think much of this is just my
kids' taste, but also I just always had healthy food options in the house
and not alot of processed food. I didn't worry to much about it, although
my husband has needed some coaching (which he is very resistant to. He
sometimes says things like "good job" when one of the girls eats everything
on her plate. That makes me cringe! I usually say, "You must have been
hungry" when one of my children shows me their "clean plate.") I do
occassionally prepare a seperate meal for someone who doesn't want what the
rest of us are having, so there is sometimes a choice, but not always,
depending on what we are having, my energy level, etc... We do have a
general rule that if you decide not to eat what is served (or what I made
special for you), or if you only eat a few bites and say, "I'm full," it is
not okay to turn right around eat candy, chips, cookies or whatever as an
alternative. Oh, they sometimes ask, but I do say "No," except on some rare
occasions like a birthday party or a family outing when we completely skip
lunch in favor of ice cream and pretzels or something like that. Clearly, I
do control food to an extent, even though I always make healthy food
available that they can eat anytime, even right before dinner, like fruit
and baby carrots. Does this go against an unschooling philosophy?

~Andrea

Jennifer Altenbach

I would be interested in the replies to this question, particularly this
part:

<<<Does the unschooling philosophy not take
into consideration that children may not yet be able to determine what
is
good for them in certain situations?>>>

In our case, I am interested in how this applies to food. We have done
unlimited TV for a few months now with my 4yo and he was exhibiting many
of the same behaviors that Andrea referred to, but now he watches less
and turns it off on his own, so I guess he has found how he wants to do
it, and honestly he would choose playing with me over TV watching any
day, I'm just not always available. I do have to say that he only
watches public television or movies because we don't have cable so he
sees very little advertising, which brings me to my real question..


You all were discussing whether we control our kids wrt food, or whether
they control themselves. This, I understand. BUT, I worry right now at
the age of 4 that if I did not choose healthy, organic foods for my son
AND he was exposed to the barrage of advertising for junk food (and
pesticide-laden food and highly processed food and food harvested by
slave laborers and food that is unsustainably grown, etc), he would
choose to eat the junk food, and therefore be under the control of the
food industry and the advertisers, which to me is less preferable than
being under my control. Those ad companies have put millions into
researching just how to get the kids to want the product being
advertised, and they have infiltrated kids' lives through the media and
of course in the schools too (one of the zillions of reasons we
homeschool). Now I have thought about this a lot in the context of what
you all have been talking about, and I presume that unschooled kids can
and should be trusted to critically analyze the advertising and know
when they are being manipulated. I can see someone like Sandra's Holly
being able to do this. But at four? Five? How do you know when they
are ready to make the decisions on their own?

Right now, I'm comfortable buying my son something he sees at the
grocery store that he wants to try, even if it is candy or chips or
something-but we only go to the natural foods store. I do let him taste
foods that I would never buy at other people's houses. So far we have
not had many problems. But as he gets a little older and is exposed to
more advertising and more kids and more people's houses, I feel that we
are about to start down a slippery slope. How do we proceed from here?

Very interesting.

Jenny




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

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/3/04 10:36:52 PM, salten@... writes:

<< Does the unschooling philosophy not take
into consideration >>

"The unschooling philosophy" isn't a thing.
Not in the way that it takes anything into consideration.

Lots of people are giving their best advice, and the best of the best of all
that advice is (in my opinion, when I give advice) that which is closest to
natural and un-selfconscious everyday stuff (where "everyday" might still apply
to really COOL days).

-=-children may not yet be able to determine what
is good for them in certain situations?-=-

Traditionally, it doesn't matter WHAT a child thinks about a situation. If
the parents say "Sit down, right there, this way, and eat the food we put in
front of you, without complaining. Eat all of it. With a fork. Then we will
give you a treat/dessert. Eat it. With a fork. Now clean up (or submit
yourself to be cleaned up) and get in the bed and shut up and go to sleep."

If a child determines that he's not hungry, or doesn't like green beans, or
would rather just have the apple pie and the chicken and no bread or potatoes,
he will be told he does not know what is good for him. Worse, he might be
told "If you know what is good for you, you will do what I say."

HOW ON EARTH can kids know what's good for them in circumstances like that?

There are many here who know without any doubt that a child who is NOT made
to eat a certain way at a certain time will still eat enough, and a variety,
and more peacefully and happily.

HOW can a child know when he's tired and wants to go to bed, if he's made to
go to bed before he's tired, consistently? Alone? In the dark?

-=- We have done
unlimited TV for a few months now with my 4yo and he was exhibiting many
of the same behaviors that -=-

"Exhibiting behaviors"?
That's so clinical. Do you mean he was making choices?

-=-You all were discussing whether we control our kids wrt food, or whether
they control themselves. This, I understand.-=-

I keep trying to get people NOT to talk about whether a child is
"controlling" or "regulating" himself. Ideally, he will not be "controlling" anything,
but will be honestly feeling and paying attention to his body, moods, etc., to
decide whether he needs food, or sleep, or some alone time. For real reasons.
Not because he knows it's time to eat, but because he can tell he needs
juice, or protein, or vegetables.

-=-BUT, I worry right now at
the age of 4 that if I did not choose healthy, organic foods for my son
AND he was exposed to the barrage of advertising for junk food (and
pesticide-laden food and highly processed food and food harvested by
slave laborers and food that is unsustainably grown, etc), he would
choose to eat the junk food, and therefore be under the control of the
food industry and the advertisers-=-

You just talked about control and you're doing it again.
Why would you not think he could be "under the control" of his own desires
and curiosity?

-=-if I did not choose healthy, organic foods for my son. . .-=-

Do you tell him what to eat and when? Is he getting to make any choices from
the available foods?

-=-he would
choose to eat the junk food, and therefore be under the control of the
food industry and the advertisers, which to me is less preferable than
being under my control. -=-

Do what you prefer to do. Don't worry about what we think. Just do what you
think is best and right. If control is preferable to you than something
else, then hang on to your control.

-= Those ad companies have put millions into
researching just how to get the kids to want the product being
advertised, and they have infiltrated kids' lives through the media and
of course in the schools too (one of the zillions of reasons we
homeschool). -=-

It sounds like advertisers have infiltrated YOUR life and is causing you to
make major life decisions based on hiding from them. At my house, they're not
controlling me or my kids. At your house, they have helped cause you to
unschool, and to be afraid, and to prefer controlling your child.

-=- I presume that unschooled kids can
and should be trusted to critically analyze the advertising and know
when they are being manipulated. I can see someone like Sandra's Holly
being able to do this. But at four? Five? -=-

Holly is the way she is because she has been treated as a seeing being all
her life. ("Seeing being" is a term from "Whole Child, Whole Parent.") I
didn't wait for her to be four or six or ten to let her make decisions about when
she was hungry, or whether she wanted to turn down a food she didn't want. I
didn't tell her that some foods were evil and some were godly. I didn't
scare her about food. And she loves artichokes, and cheese, and spinach. She
turned down some pudding she was given today after a taste, because it was too
sweet for her. She gave it to someone else who did want it.

-=-How do you know when they
are ready to make the decisions on their own? -=-

How did you know when they were ready to start talking? Stand up? Walk?

-=- But as he gets a little older and is exposed to
more advertising and more kids and more people's houses, I feel that we
are about to start down a slippery slope. How do we proceed from here?
-=-

My advice is to look at him directly, not through the lens of your fear of
advertising. Advertising is between you and him. Advertising is WAY, way
bigger in your life than it is at my house, and we have broadcast TV, and magazines
lying around.

Sandra

Jennifer Altenbach

Yay! I'm glad I stayed up late-it's all buzzing around in my head and I
would have been up a while thinking about it anyway. Let's see...


<<<Traditionally, it doesn't matter WHAT a child thinks about a
situation. If
the parents say "Sit down, right there, this way, and eat the food we
put in
front of you, without complaining. Eat all of it. With a fork. Then
we will
give you a treat/dessert. Eat it. With a fork. Now clean up (or
submit
yourself to be cleaned up) and get in the bed and shut up and go to
sleep.>>

Well, we're already pretty far from traditional. We don't tell our kids
when, where, or how to eat, nor do we use dessert as a motivator. We
usually only clean them up if they are goopy. The what to eat part
doesn't come at meal time, rather at grocery shopping time. If my son
doesn't want to eat a portion of his meal, he doesn't have to, although
I do encourage (not force) him to at least taste it.

<<If a child determines that he's not hungry, or doesn't like green
beans, or
would rather just have the apple pie and the chicken and no bread or
potatoes,
he will be told he does not know what is good for him. Worse, he might
be
told "If you know what is good for you, you will do what I say."

HOW ON EARTH can kids know what's good for them in circumstances like
that?>>>

LOL-- my son thinks that "good for him" means that it tastes good.
He'll specifically say that about things that he really likes.

<<There are many here who know without any doubt that a child who is NOT
made
to eat a certain way at a certain time will still eat enough, and a
variety,
and more peacefully and happily.>>

This has been the case with my son. But he has not been exposed to lots
of junk food, so I guess I wasn't sure if it would stay that way when he
was.

(snip)

<<<"Exhibiting behaviors"?
That's so clinical. Do you mean he was making choices?>>>

Sorry-that's the scientist in me talking. I was referring to the
moodiness, lethargy, circles under the eyes, etc. that Andrea had
described as being a result of watching TV in her daughter. Do you mean
he was choosing to be grouchy? Gosh it sure seems like it sometimes ;)


<<<-=-You all were discussing whether we control our kids wrt food, or
whether
they control themselves. This, I understand.-=-

I keep trying to get people NOT to talk about whether a child is
"controlling" or "regulating" himself. Ideally, he will not be
"controlling" anything,
but will be honestly feeling and paying attention to his body, moods,
etc., to
decide whether he needs food, or sleep, or some alone time. For real
reasons.
Not because he knows it's time to eat, but because he can tell he needs
juice, or protein, or vegetables.>>>>

Right, gotcha. You were making the same point recently to someone who
was talking about their child "self-regulating".

(snip)

<<<You just talked about control and you're doing it again.
Why would you not think he could be "under the control" of his own
desires
and curiosity?>>>

I was using the word control because it was used in an earlier post
about parents controlling what the child eats. Here, I was wondering
how much control the media has over what the child eats. But you are
saying that ultimately he is just following his desires, and that he can
not be manipulated by advertising? I'm not quite sure I understand this
part.


<<<-=-if I did not choose healthy, organic foods for my son. . .-=-

Do you tell him what to eat and when? Is he getting to make any choices
from
the available foods?>>>>

The only way I limit his choices is in what we have in the house. Today
he had cereal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner--his choice. My inner
voice objected, but outwardly I did not.

<<<<-=-he would
choose to eat the junk food, and therefore be under the control of the
food industry and the advertisers, which to me is less preferable than
being under my control. -=-

Do what you prefer to do. Don't worry about what we think. Just do
what you
think is best and right. If control is preferable to you than
something
else, then hang on to your control.>>>>>

I'm not so much worried about what you think (although I do care) as I
am curious about how you navigate these kinds of issues. For me, it's
social justice issues and environmental considerations that are limiting
factors. But for a more concrete example, what if the child has a
severe food allergy? Clearly in this case the parents DO need to limit
the child's food choices.

<<<<-= Those ad companies have put millions into
researching just how to get the kids to want the product being
advertised, and they have infiltrated kids' lives through the media and
of course in the schools too (one of the zillions of reasons we
homeschool). -=-

It sounds like advertisers have infiltrated YOUR life and is causing you
to
make major life decisions based on hiding from them. At my house,
they're not
controlling me or my kids. At your house, they have helped cause you to

unschool, and to be afraid, and to prefer controlling your child.>>>>

Hey, at least they did one good thing! OK, so it would be helpful for
me to remember that all the research that has been done about how kids
are victimized by advertising has been done on schooled kids within the
traditional framework. He's only a victim of it if he has not learned
to think for himself, and he can't learn to think for himself if he is
never given any choices. I think I understand.


(snip)

<<<< I
didn't tell her that some foods were evil and some were godly.>>>

Aaaaahhhh, this one's gonna be hard for me! Not that ice cream is evil
and broccoli is godly, but that Roundup Ready soybeans are EVIL and the
tomato that we grew in the backyard is godly. My biases will clearly
come through here, but I'll try not to use those exact words (they've
been flung around enough lately anyway..)


<<<-=-How do you know when they
are ready to make the decisions on their own? -=-

How did you know when they were ready to start talking? Stand up?
Walk?>>>>

Why didn't I expect this question to be answered with a question? (Just
playing "Questions Only" here <g>) So you just know, huh. OK.

<<<<My advice is to look at him directly, not through the lens of your
fear of
advertising. Advertising is between you and him. Advertising is WAY,
way
bigger in your life than it is at my house, and we have broadcast TV,
and magazines
lying around.>>>>

Good advice, Sandra. It reminds me of the idea that when you resent
someone, you give your life over to him, and he controls you. I do have
some pretty strong feelings about this as you can tell. I'll try to
keep them out of my relationship with my kids.

Thanks,
Jenny


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

pam sorooshian

On Jun 3, 2004, at 8:51 PM, Jennifer Altenbach wrote:

> BUT, I worry right now at
> the age of 4 that if I did not choose healthy, organic foods for my son
> AND he was exposed to the barrage of advertising for junk food (and
> pesticide-laden food and highly processed food and food harvested by
> slave laborers and food that is unsustainably grown, etc), he would
> choose to eat the junk food, and therefore be under the control of the
> food industry and the advertisers, which to me is less preferable than
> being under my control.

He's four. You do the shopping - let him have a chance to make "A"
choice when you're at the store. You don't have to fill your kitchen up
with unhealthy not organic foods if you prefer to buy healthy organic
foods.

And - this idea that our kids will be under the control of the
advertisers shows SO little faith in parents and kids abilities to
think for themselves. Advertising isn't magic. They aren't casting
spells on us. We're smart - we think - we know they're trying to
manipulate us. We watch HOW they're trying to do it, we talk about it,
we analyze it, and we simply do not have to fall for it. It really is
just NOT that tough to become advertising-savvy. My kids are totally
unimpressed by advertising, especially television advertising. They
are, in fact, as likely to be turned OFF to a product because they find
the advertising manipulative.

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

SHYRLEY WILLIAMS

I feel like I'm at my wits end at the moment :-(

I've always advocated non-coercive parenting, talking with your children, letting them make their own choices re food, tv, computers etc etc.

I appear to have bred litle brats.

The 3 of them (12, 10 and 9) spend their time fighting and bitching. They all appear to hate each other. The fights will reach a physical level if I don't intervene so I spend my entire day asking one or the other to leave one of their siblings alone. And its quite nasty fighting. Name calling, punching, threatening etc.

We rarely go out as one of them wont want to go. Sometimes they announce they wont go to the event becasue they wish to annoy one of the others. If we find an HE class only one will wish to go, usually Heather while the boys will complain and moan and make the whole experience hell as they don't want to participate or wait outside. Bryn never wants to leave the house so we can't go on the home-education camps this month as he wont come. If I *make* him he'll ruin the week for everyone else. I don't believe in making him go but it means none of us can go :-(

We don't have relatives or friends nearby who could watch the child who doesn't wish to leave the house - and who'd want to come to my house, leaving their own kids anyway? At 10 and 9 I don't believe the boys are old enough to be left for several hours anyway. Lots of people knock on the door throughout the day which would scare them. I did try a group for women with post-natal depression. I managed 20 minutes before the boys called on the mobile asking me to come back. I was hoping to do an hour.

As for the computer, they fight over it constantly. Initially we had it so they had an hour then gave up the machine for the one next in line but even then they fight or claim they have 10 minutes more. It's not like its limited, they can play 24/7 and do so but still they fight.

Right now I cant see any way out of this. I have to drag them to various hospital appointments for the sick baby which they all resent but careful explanations of why we have to go and how its not the baby's fault she's brain damaged fall on deaf ears.

Bedtimes are a pain too. We abolished bedtimes about 4 years ago. I figured kids know when they are tired but nooooooooooooooo. They stay up as late as possible, sometimes to annoy a sibling who wishes to go to bed (Heather wont go upstairs unless someone else is going to bed as she's scared of vampires) then they all leap out of bed at 7am after 5 hours sleep to beat each other to the computer. Which means they are crabby and bad tempered all day.

Housework. They never want to help. Sometimes they will do a task if I ask, sometimes they say no. But I now feel like a skivvy. Its worse as the baby is very needy. She feeds hourly and needs to be held constantly. The house is falling apart round my ears. I am exhausted doing all the washing, cleaning, laundry. None of them will wash up as its 'yucky'. They wont hang the laundry outside as they reckon the line is too high. My mother wouldn't have stood for this and we were *made* and expected to do chores. They leave their stuff lying around and then complain when something isn't washed.

Ay tips, or even better, anyoe want them?

Shyrley



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

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

Andrea Burlingame

> << Does the unschooling philosophy not take
> into consideration >>
>
> "The unschooling philosophy" isn't a thing.
> Not in the way that it takes anything into consideration.

This isn't helpful to me. This seems like quibbling over semantics. One
reason I haven't posted in the past when I wanted to understand something
more clearly or because I recognized some truth, but couldn't quite grasp
it, is because I was afraid I woudn't word my question or explanation in
just the right, most efficient, clear and intelligent language and then the
heart of my questions would go unanswered while I defended or apologized for
my mistatement, which obviously missed it's mark. I just want to know your
opinions about whether someone who unschools with their family would be
"wrong" or "disrespectful" if they chose to protect their young children
from the harms of being in front of a screen for too many hours a day, and
if yes, why? And what might be better? I'm not trying to prove you wrong,
or find holes in unschooling; I'm just trying to get a handle on some of
the more slippery parts for me. I understand that you are thinking of all
the readers on this list and that you want people to push past the habits in
the way they think. Maybe that's why you felt it important to point out
this misstep in the logic of my language, but couldn't I just get a real
answer to my real question. I mean, afterall, I AM trying to push past the
habits of my thinking to get to a deeper understanding of unschooling and
how it can liberate my family. Isn't the heart of what I am asking plain
enough? Can't I get an answer without being nitpicked apart on this small
stuff? I'm truly not trying to be beligerent here. I just feel really
frustrated.


> Lots of people are giving their best advice, and the best of the best of
all
> that advice is (in my opinion, when I give advice) that which is closest
to
> natural and un-selfconscious everyday stuff (where "everyday" might still
apply
> to really COOL days).

Okay, maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not getting this. Could you put this
another way for me?


> Traditionally, it doesn't matter WHAT a child thinks about a situation.
If
> the parents say "Sit down, right there, this way, and eat the food we put
in
> front of you, without complaining. Eat all of it. With a fork. Then we
will
> give you a treat/dessert. Eat it. With a fork. Now clean up (or submit
> yourself to be cleaned up) and get in the bed and shut up and go to
sleep."
>
> If a child determines that he's not hungry, or doesn't like green beans,
or
> would rather just have the apple pie and the chicken and no bread or
potatoes,
> he will be told he does not know what is good for him. Worse, he might be
> told "If you know what is good for you, you will do what I say."
>
> HOW ON EARTH can kids know what's good for them in circumstances like
that?

Yes. This sounds pretty bad, alright, but what if this isn't what's going
on. What if a child is being allowed plenty of choice, but is consistently
choosing something that is making them ill or surly or depressed--something
that is yummy and quite fine for anyone in small amounts-- and over time
the parent feels the need to protect the child from herself, because she is
not self-regulating in a way that is healthy? This isn't happening in my
home with food, but it was with movies. It goes to my original question,
which put another way, asks: Why not guide them or choose for them until
they older and more able to see and understand the effect their choices
cause?

More basically, how do I give my children choices, while also protecting
them? For me the answer is as clear as a bell for some things, but not for
others. I mean, of course I let my children choose some of what we buy to
eat, and sometimes it isn't something I would choose for them myself. But I
still primarily decide what I am going to cook, and while I may let them
choose to eat something else, most of the time I would not let them choose
candy, for instance, as the alternative. In that way I control their
eating to an extent. I think that I'm pretty comfortable with this
approach, but I wonder if I'm missing some illumination that might make me
completely rethink this. This is why I ask these questions. I don't want
to miss something importand and useful because I didn't push past my own
current understandings.

Am I making any sense here?

~Andrea

Fetteroll

on 6/3/04 4:46 PM, Andrea Burlingame at aburlingame@... wrote:

> I went back to limiting tv, because I felt she
> didn't know how to self-limit yet. In other words, I protected her from
> herself. Is that disrespectful?

If you were spending a lot of time on the computer and your husband decided
to limit your computer time because you obviously didn't know how to self
limit, would that be disrespectful?

What if he said "Here's some of the problems ..." and "How can we work this
out?"

> We do have a
> general rule that if you decide not to eat what is served (or what I made
> special for you), or if you only eat a few bites and say, "I'm full," it is
> not okay to turn right around eat candy, chips, cookies or whatever as an
> alternative.

What if you were served something you detest or something that you normally
liked but had had too much recently so it was looking a bit repulsive and
there were something you loved for dessert would that rule feel respectful?

> Does this go against an unschooling philosophy?

Some unschoolers will unschool only academics. Some unschoolers will extend
the philosophy that kids will learn by living a full and rich life into
parenting.

It depends what you're goals and values are. I think the most valuable thing
we can do is offer what actually happens in our families when children are
respected and our thoughts (which includes debate and new viewpoints and
asking hard questions and so on). From that people can weigh the goals and
values and decide if it sounds like something they want.

The real questions are what are your goals and values. What methods are you
choosing to meet them and why?

If you want your children to be adult healthy eaters, forbidding cookies
unless sufficient dinner is consumed isn't the only choice. If your want
your children to not be grumpy after they watch TV, limiting TV isn't the
only way.

For people who want to put respect high on their priority list, we're
offering ways put respect first and how to work other things around that.

Joyce

Fetteroll

> Does the unschooling philosophy not take into consideration that children may
> not yet be able to determine what is good for them in certain situations?

If we see our goal as helping them make decisions rather than helping them
make good decisions (or, more likely, the decisions we'd want them to make)
then the question doesn't need asked.

We shouldn't be giving them choices that are imminently dangerous, like
whether or not to play in the street.

We should be examining the truth of what we've decided not to direct into
their path. The street is a dangerous place to play! But is a bag of chips
or even a month of chips or grumpiness from TV on the same level of danger?

We should live our values and respect their need to explore -- which
includes doing things that have negative consequences -- and respect that
they're trusting us to not let them harm themselves and trusting us to help
them solve their problems.

A grumpy child doesn't want to feel grumpy any more than an adult does! But
a grumpy child -- or a grumpy adult! -- doesn't want what they're enjoying
taken away from them. Children and adults want tools to help them get what
they want. We can give them feed back about how their behavior is affecting
us so they can become aware of a problem. We can help them become aware of
what might be causing the problem. The problem isn't simply too much TV and
the solution isn't simply limiting the time. The problem is perhaps being
inactive for to long and one solution might be moving around while watching
or watching in short spurts. The problem might be there aren't enough other
opportunities that are as much fun as TV and as easily available. Or ...

If your child were doing something you saw as valuable -- like creating
amazing scultures or ??? -- which made them grumpy, what would your answer
be? Would it be controling the time they were allowed to be creative?

Joyce

Fetteroll

on 6/3/04 11:51 PM, Jennifer Altenbach at salten@... wrote:

> But at four? Five? How do you know when they
> are ready to make the decisions on their own?

The question you're really asking isn't when are they ready to make
decisions but when will they make the same decisions I would make for them.

> But as he gets a little older and is exposed to
> more advertising and more kids and more people's houses, I feel that we
> are about to start down a slippery slope. How do we proceed from here?

By trusting that the choices you make for yourself are good for a reason. By
trusting that nothing he's likely to want to do at 4 or 5 is as dangerous or
wonderful as you fear it will be and can be sampled. (And you're there to
protect him from real danger and explain when something looks deceptively
fun and safe. Meaning traffic as opposed to Doritos or Survivor.)

The reason advertisers need to spend so much money on advertising is because
it's not all that effective! As soon as someone gets the very easily grasped
concept that someone is trying to make something look so wonderful that
you'll give them your money, it's pretty easy to see commercials for what
they are.

Joyce

[email protected]

Betsy wrote:

<<<<< I didn't mean to post something that hits so close to home.
Sorry for say something that seemed so personal. >>>>>

Don't be :-) I'm just glad I have my daughter still home
so I can do things better.

And, as she reminds me regularly, "I won't have to make those
same mistakes, Mom."

Andrea wrote:

<<<<< but couldn't I just get a real answer to my real question.
>>>>>

But Andrea, it was a real answer. The unschooling philosophy really
isn't a thing so much as something you do (think of the bike
riding analogy - you just have to DO it . . . . . )

<<<<< if they chose to protect their young children from the harms
of being in front of a screen for too many hours a day, and if yes,
why? >>>>>

For some reason, this young child wants/needs to watch movies. Watch
them with her - really BE with her while she is watching.
Uncritically. Put yourself in her shoes and try to really see what
she is getting out of them. Find pleasure in what she finds pleasure
in. Take alot of time and watch with her each time she wants to
watch.

Do this with her for a week - or two weeks - or however long it takes
for you to SEE what she is getting out of it. Really look at her -
watch her - try feel what she feels about the movie. Bring her food,
discuss the movie(s), relate it to other things in her life, point
out things you find amusing, appreciate the movie.

And do it without any criticism or negativity.

Most children "know" if we disapprove even if we don't
verbalize it.

Madelyn can tell just by the set of my lips. I've been known to
go into another room and talk to her through the door just so she
can't see my face :-) Her main intelligence is interpersonal,
though, so she has a gift for "knowing" what people feel - if
you're child has a different gift, it may be easier for you to
hide your displeasure/discomfort/negativity . . . . .


Make it your priority to watch with her and after a week or two you
will know about the pleasure your daughter is getting from watching
and she will know that you support her need/want.


<<<<< Why not guide them or choose for them until they older and
more able to see and understand the effect their choices cause?
>>>>>>>

Because you are sowing the seed of self doubt.


Your child is capable right now of deciding how things make her feel.
She doesn't want to feel yucky and be grumpy. You can help her
but first you have to "get" why she is watching. Then you can
point things out - and she will take into consideration what you say
because she trusts that you are on her side - that you want for her
what she wants.

<<<<< I don't want to miss something importand and useful because I
didn't push past my own current understandings. >>>>>


Keep pushing - it's worth it!



Mercedes
who just got back from the midnight showing of the new Harry Potter
and should be in bed - the birds just started chirping. . . . .

Fetteroll

on 6/4/04 2:51 AM, Jennifer Altenbach at salten@... wrote:

> Do you mean
> he was choosing to be grouchy? Gosh it sure seems like it sometimes ;)

Because there was something that was worth feeling grouchy for!

But that's not his only option. I'm sure he'd much rather find a way to get
the good parts while minimizing the bad parts. That's all part of learning
how to problem solve.

If we really like something, we're willing to put up with the bad parts.
Vegetarians are willing to make eating more difficult (or expensive) because
they feel they're getting something that's worth it. A baby comes with
*lots* of bad parts, but we seem to think the good parts more than outweigh
the bad. ;-) Working on a project might be worth staying up all night and
feeling grumpy the next day for.

But for many things, once we've experienced the good for a while, the bad
isn't worthwhile any more. It might be fun staying up for 24 hours a few
times, but it wears thin pretty quick for most people!

> But you are
> saying that ultimately he is just following his desires, and that he can
> not be manipulated by advertising? I'm not quite sure I understand this
> part.

I think they can understand advertising. I think they can sample things
advertised and make judgments about whether they're good or bad and in the
process learn more about how advertising companies try to manipulate them
into wanting something that turns out not to be "exactly as advertised." And
the more the do this, the less influence advertising has on them.

> For me, it's
> social justice issues and environmental considerations that are limiting
> factors.

And if your husband were a card carrying member of the NRA and wanted guns
displayed prominently, would that feel like he was respecting your values?

We teach others to respect us by us respecting them. Part of respecting
someone is accepting that they do value what they're choosing.

> But for a more concrete example, what if the child has a
> severe food allergy? Clearly in this case the parents DO need to limit
> the child's food choices.

It's best to stick with real examples than made up ones. While some children
do have allergies, not all allergies are the same nor do they need treated
the same. The answers for helping someone treat the child respectfully while
helping them keep themselves safe will lie in why the child is behaving as
they do -- like why the child is reaching for peanuts for instance -- rather
than in what is wrong.

If you put safety first, then control seems a viable option. If you put
respect first, then control doesn't look so great. But loosing control as a
tool doesn't mean we've lost all options! There are other options and people
on the list can help.

Joyce

Dawn Adams

>Sandra writes:
> "The unschooling philosophy" isn't a thing.
> Not in the way that it takes anything into consideration.

Andrea writes:
This isn't helpful to me. This seems like quibbling over semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd venture to guess that it would be helpful if you didn't see it has quibbling. Instead of writing it off as unhelpful put some work into thinking about it and how it may challenge what you currently think.

I just want to know your
opinions about whether someone who unschools with their family would be
"wrong" or "disrespectful" if they chose to protect their young children
from the harms of being in front of a screen for too many hours a day, and
if yes, why? And what might be better?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think it's the limiting that's the real problem, but rather how you seem unwilling to challenge the assumption that 'being in front of a screen for too many hours' is a bad thing. How long did you lift your limits? Did you consider that you childrens reaction to limitless TV was not the TV's fault but the years before where they had little exposure to it? Are you willing to challenge the thought that TV is not a bad thing?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong,
or find holes in unschooling; I'm just trying to get a handle on some of
the more slippery parts for me. I understand that you are thinking of all
the readers on this list and that you want people to push past the habits in
the way they think. Maybe that's why you felt it important to point out
this misstep in the logic of my language, but couldn't I just get a real
answer to my real question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I thought Sandra's response was a real answer. If there's a specific answer you want like, yes, what you're doing is just fine, maybe tell everyone that when you ask the question. :)

I mean, afterall, I AM trying to push past the
habits of my thinking to get to a deeper understanding of unschooling and
how it can liberate my family. Isn't the heart of what I am asking plain
enough? Can't I get an answer without being nitpicked apart on this small
stuff? I'm truly not trying to be beligerent here. I just feel really
frustrated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think the way of answering here is more geared towards helping the questioner find out the answer for himself. I find the nitpicking gives me a bunch of points to take from the list and consider. I much prefer that to a straight yes or no...The people on this list don't really know me so it's up to me to think through what's been said and come to my own conclusion. Maybe you've still got that teacher model in your head where there's an expectation (though false) that they know the right answer.



Yes. This sounds pretty bad, alright, but what if this isn't what's going
on. What if a child is being allowed plenty of choice, but is consistently
choosing something that is making them ill or surly or depressed--something
that is yummy and quite fine for anyone in small amounts-- and over time
the parent feels the need to protect the child from herself, because she is
not self-regulating in a way that is healthy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Let her keep making the choice and she'll make the connection. Any reasonable person would.

This isn't happening in my
home with food, but it was with movies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You kept TV out of you house to a large part for a long time though. It should be expected that they'll binge for awhile. And really, how unhealthy was it? Were their teeth falling out? Limbs being broken? Rashs breaking out?

It goes to my original question,
which put another way, asks: Why not guide them or choose for them until
they older and more able to see and understand the effect their choices
cause?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They can see and understand the effects now if you let them. They'll never have a chance to if you're constantly blocking those effects by throwing up limits. How long do you really think your children would be zombies to the TV? Do you honestly think they might not get sick of it in a few weeks or months? That they would forever be slaves to it?You're having a hard time getting this because you're not willing (yet) to believe you can trust your kids.

More basically, how do I give my children choices, while also protecting
them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Protecting them to me means supervising them in a pool or keeping the big knives out of my toddlers reach (while he's in his everything's-a-sword Aragorn phase), not rationing their chocolate or Dragontales intake

, For me the answer is as clear as a bell for some things, but not for
others. I mean, of course I let my children choose some of what we buy to
eat, and sometimes it isn't something I would choose for them myself. But I
still primarily decide what I am going to cook, and while I may let them
choose to eat something else, most of the time I would not let them choose
candy, for instance, as the alternative. In that way I control their
eating to an extent. I think that I'm pretty comfortable with this
approach, but I wonder if I'm missing some illumination that might make me
completely rethink this. This is why I ask these questions. I don't want
to miss something importand and useful because I didn't push past my own
current understandings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here's the limit you've put in place for yourself...'I can't trust my kids to recognize the concequences of their choices or make reasonable choices'. That's what you have to challenge or any advice you get here will just continue to frustrate you. I also think you have an exaggerated sense of danger if you think TV and candy are so dangerous that you have to compromise your quest to unschool. They will not keel over after 3 days of eating gumballs (I really doubt they'd get anywhere near that far as they'd notice how bad they felt after the first day) or 2 weeks of movies.

Dawn (in NS)



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

Fetteroll

on 6/4/04 5:40 AM, Andrea Burlingame at aburlingame@... wrote:

> But I
> still primarily decide what I am going to cook, and while I may let them
> choose to eat something else, most of the time I would not let them choose
> candy, for instance, as the alternative.

But why would you not let them? Is the reason because you fear the draw of
candy more than you fear the consequences of making them feel like you don't
care?

My daughter is allowed to eat candy instead of dinner and always has been
able to. Even when her tastes were limited to a few foods, she didn't
subsist on candy. She has always had Halloween candy and Easter candy
hanging around months (and sometimes years!) after the holidays.

It's not that you can't control their food or not control except for a
little bit. But if you want to treat them how you'd want someone else to
treat you, then you'll find a different way to get what you want.

If your goal is respect and healthy eating, then a better option than no
candy if you dont eat dinner is other easily grabbed or made options. Like
PBJ and PB and banana and trail mix in a baggie and muffins and canned
fruit.

> I think that I'm pretty comfortable with this
> approach, but I wonder if I'm missing some illumination that might make me
> completely rethink this.

What you're missing is how it feels from inside of them. Imagine a world
where you can't choose what you eat. Where someone makes something -- and
it's usually yucky -- and you have to eat it or have some boring snack or go
hungry. Even though there's something yummy in easy reach.

Children will respond the way *they* see the world. No matter how wonderful
we think the meal is, if it's yucky to them and the alternatives have been
done to death, they're going to react as though life were like the above
scenario.

Life with kids *is* inconvenient. But it's way more inconvenient for them!
And if we make it more yucky for our convenience when they know we could
choose to make it less yucky, we're saying "I don't care," and too many of
those do build up.

Joyce

Elizabeth Hill

** There are many here who know without any doubt that a child who is
NOT made
to eat a certain way at a certain time will still eat enough, and a
variety,
and more peacefully and happily.

How can a child know when he's tired and wants to go to bed, if he's
made to
go to bed before he's tired, consistently? Alone? In the dark?**

Traditional parenting practices are like a crutch that weakens the
child's judgement? I see that.

** It sounds like advertisers have infiltrated your life and is causing
you to
make major life decisions based on hiding from them. At my house,
they're not
controlling me or my kids. At your house, they have helped cause you to
unschool, and to be afraid, and to prefer controlling your child.**

When my son was little (2) he seemed to be influenced by the pictures on
cereal boxes. At least I noticed that he wanted any kind of cereal with
a spaceship on the box. The fact that I don't remember the names of
these kinds of cereal tells me that he didn't stick with these varied
space cereals for long. Two months ago, he wanted to try American
cheese in pre-wrapped slices. (I think I've seen ads for American
cheese (Kraft singles) on TV. )
I said sure. He ate the first one and didn't like it. (His dad also
find Am. cheese strange, so all the slices are still in the fridge until
I toss them or figure out away to use them as a casserole ingredient.)
Anyway, tossing one pack of cheese isn't "waste", it's "learning materials".

My conclusion is that advertising can make a child interested in trying
a food. But after trying the food once, previous purchasing decisions
are made on what the food tastes like. (Sounds obvious, doesn't it?)

If I had said "No" every time, I wouldn't have been able to observe this
behavior, and I might have increased his curiosity about the forbidden
foods. If I had said leadingly "You don't really want that, do you?" I
would have confused him quite a bit.

** -=-How do you know when they
are ready to make the decisions on their own? -=-

How did you know when they were ready to start talking? Stand up? Walk? **

So, it seems they are ready to start making decisions when they start
trying to make decisions and falling down. Their decision-making
performance isn't likely to be "perfect" on the first day?

Betsy

[email protected]

At 03:51 AM 6/4/04, Jennifer wrote:
>Not that ice cream is evil
>and broccoli is godly, but that Roundup Ready soybeans are EVIL and the
>tomato that we grew in the backyard is godly. My biases will clearly
>come through here, but I'll try not to use those exact words

Those evil/godly words are opinions. As you have already said you are a
scientist, you know that it is important to separate your opinions and
biases from the facts. I consider it my responsibility to get as much truth
as possible to my children, as much as it is possible to know the truth
about something. I also share my opinions but I want them to understand
that they don't have to have the same opinions and that their opinions are
just as valid as mine.

What if your son ends up working for Monsanto? It could happen.

Donna

christy_imnotred

-=-I went back to limiting tv, because I felt she didn't know how to
self-limit yet. In other words, I protected her from
> herself. Is that disrespectful? Does the unschooling philosophy
not take into consideration that children may not yet be able to
determine what is good for them in certain situations?-=-

How long did you let your watch unlimited? You said she hadn't even
seen TV until she was 3, so TV was something pretty new to her.
Given time she would have started doing other things. If you saw it
affecting her behavior you could try discussing that with her. Tell
her I notice you get grumpy when you watch tv for awhile, have you
noticed that? This is what I did with my son (he is 4) over the food
thing. He was eating a lot of sugary foods and it was affecting his
mood. So I talked to him about how people need different types of
food or they get grumpy and don't have enough energy to play. I
talked to him abot protein and how important that was for mood and
energy. He started eating more protein and noticed a difference in
himself. He now makes sure (on his own) that he eats enough protein
everyday. He asks me for each food if it has protein or not.
Sometimes he'll eat it anyway (if it doesn't have protein) but it is
his decision.

Keeping healthy foods in the house is great. Giving them control
over food choices doesn't mean you buy every processed food in the
store, but if they want to try one you let them. You can certainly
still educate them about food and what is and isn't good for us. But
in the end it would be their choice what to eat.

By saying no to sweets you are giving the sweets the power. You are
telling your kids that sweets are so tempting you won't be able to
control yourself if I let you eat them. It makes a kid doubt their
power. To me it is the same with tv and commercials. If I don't let
my son watch them, I'm telling him that these things are more
powerful than you are. You can't handle them. Instead I watch with
him and we discuss what he's seen. He's only 4 but he is very
sceptical of all commercials. He knows what there purpose is and he
knows that they lie to make things look cool. We have bought a few
things he's seen on commercials and most haven't lived up to what the
commercial said. He learned so much from those few experiences.

At some point we have to let our kids make choices, I'd rather do it
now when he is young and I can help him. If he makes bad choices now
the consequences are much smaller than they will be when he is older.

Christy O

Danielle Conger

Andrea wrote:
Now she has come to enjoy watching "kid's movies," as she calls them. She
> and Annie, the 3 yo, love to sit down in the afternoon/evening when I'm
> cooking dinner and watch a movie. This isn't really a problem in and of
> itself, but inevitably she wants to watch movies just all the time,
> sometimes even asking for a movie before the sleep is dried from her eyes
in
> the morning. When I tried out just letting them have unlimited access,
the
> girls, especially Stella, would want to do nothing but watch movies. And
I
> could plainly see it wasn't good for them. After watching for an hour or
> two or sometimes more, they would be SO grumpy or completely wound up.
> Stella even gets circles under her eyes after a long bout of tv. If it
was
> early in the day, I could take them outside to do something fun and
physical
> afterwards, but in the evenings, they'd just be fit to be tied right
around
> bedtime. Also, Stella's play started to be really regimented and
> unimaginative.
=====================================

When my kids were little (they're now 6, 5 and just 4--still pretty little),
we had a similar tv life that Andrea describes. We got no tv reception,
couldn't afford cable and didn't want it, so our tv was strictly for viewing
movies and videos. This was a decision I made when I went to grad school. I
had *very* limited funds, and the decision to sit down and watch a movie was
more carefully weighed than just getting sucked into a "must see" tv night.
When we had children in grad school, time became even more precious. Emily's
favorite movie when she was 18 mos. old was _Little Mermaid_. We'd sit down
and watch movies with her or teletubbies videos, but there was a clear
beginning and end to these. Unless we put another tape in, there wasn't
something that came on immediately after. This may or may not have been
formative in helping my kids turn off the tv when they're done watching Kim
Possible or whatever else it is they want to watch. For Emily, probably, for
Sam who's had tv around all his life and free access to videos and later to
tv, probably not.

Even when we had no tv, my kids watched lots of movies, none of which ever
stifled their imaginations. On the contrary, they would spend hours role
playing The Land Before Time and many other stories from the movies and tv
shows they watched. They still have wonderful imaginations and engage in
all kinds of interactive play. Movies and tv fuel their play as much as
books.

Sam (just turned 4) will often wake up and request his Scooby Doo DVD while
the sleep is still in his eyes. The answer is always yes. Sometimes he'll
watch half an episode and then wander away. Sometimes he'll veg out and
watch episode after episode on the DVD set he got for his birthday--the
complete 1st and 2nd season of Scooby-Doo that I picked up for him because I
knew he'd love it. Some days are just watching days. But, even on the days
where it seems like they've watched tv most of the day, the reality is
they've done lots of other things, too. Same thing with computer games or
whatever else.

We've always practiced attachment parenting, but we've moved towards
non-coercive parenting more and more over the last year and a half in large
part because my youngest is so challenging. He balks at controls the girls
took in stride, and he's given me the opportunity to question positions I
took for granted. I had always made a very kid-friendly home, set up to
allow my children to make as many decisions for themselves as possible and
do as many things for themselves as possible. But there were still controls
in smaller ways that I am working to let go of completely. Much of that has
naturally to do with the kids getting older and more self-sufficient, but
much of that also has to do with reading I've done here, at unschooling.com
and in TCS.

For instance, the kids always had free access to videos, but now, they also
have free access to tv. In part, because we now have cable, but also in part
because I've let them explore the different channels. They have a *huge*
video collection, but in truth, that's still pretty controlling even when
they get to choose and put them in whenever. Their world is larger now with
free access to tv as well. They've also been welcomed to watch things like
Star Wars and, more recently, Lord of the Rings that would have seemed
beyond their reach before. I couldn't wait until I could share those things
that are so important to me with my kids. This list helped me to see that I
didn't have to wait just because some expert said I should, and you know
what, I'm really glad that I didn't wait. The kids are capable of deciding
what they can/ want to handle. When I brought home Spiderman from the
library, they decided it was too scary to watch, so we turned it off. We'll
try it again later.

The kids have always had free access to a computer and have had their own
computer for the past 4 years (they have 2 now). For a long time, they had
only Reader Rabbit, Sesame, Curious George type software--again, much of
this was simply developmental rather than my own controls but limited
nonetheless. Over the past year, though, we've been building our game
collection--all the Magic School Bus, Zoombinis, Carmen Sandiego but also
things like Ages of Empires, Majesty, Lego (which always crashes! grrrr!),
not just "educational" software. And I've realized how much they're learning
no matter what they're playing.

Bedtimes: they used to have a vague bedtime when they would get a tub and dh
would read to them and tuck them in. They never had to turn off the light or
stop playing, but it was time for quiet play in their bedrooms. They decided
when they were really ready to crawl in bed and go to sleep. Now, they no
longer have a bedtime. They still get tub when they're ready for it, but
they're just as welcome to play on the computer or watch a movie (or Justice
League, which comes on Cartoon Network at 10:30pm) after the tub as before
it. We still read to them, but it's no longer part of the bed time
ritual--we've found and created new rituals.

Weapons--they just weren't going to happen. I've done a total 180 on that
one last November. Emily was marching through the yard, singing "Women of
War, we are Women of War!" She made several declarations that she wanted to
be a soldier, to which I responded with my own beliefs, yadda, yadda. I
realized that I was doing her a major disservice by denying her need to feel
brave and explore concepts of bravery and heroism. Out the door with my
controls and in the door with many different kinds of swords, swordfighting
movies, books about the history of weaponry, etc.

Part of this is just a natural part of the kids being older, but honestly,
more of it is about letting go of controls and my own agendas. Controls are
easy to justify when kids are very little, but conrol grows and becomes more
elaborate as children get older when it should be disappearing. That's what
this list has let me see. That's what non-coercive parenting lets me
practice. I am grateful to have come to these realizations as my children
are growing into themselves. For them, it will seem that it has always been
this way.

--Danielle

http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html

Have a Nice Day!

>

What if a child is being allowed plenty of choice, but is consistently
choosing something that is making them ill or surly or depressed--something
that is yummy and quite fine for anyone in small amounts-- and over time
the parent feels the need to protect the child from herself, because she is
not self-regulating in a way that is healthy? This isn't happening in my
home with food, but it was with movies. It goes to my original question,
which put another way, asks: Why not guide them or choose for them until
they older and more able to see and understand the effect their choices
cause?


More basically, how do I give my children choices, while also protecting
them?

******************************

Over time, they will make the connection *because* they will finally decide they don't like how they feel. Some take longer than others. But rather than setting limits on these things, think about what you could offer as an alternative that they would *choose*.

You said they were watching too many movies for your comfort at one time.

What could you offer them to do instead? And sometimes the trick is not to walk up and say "hey lets to do this today" (only to hear "nah, I just want to watch Spiderman").

Sometimes, you have to work the environment. Set it up so that *you* are the center of the room, doing something really cool. Plant yourself somewhere where you can't be missed. Watch how fast they come and ask you what you are doing. This is how I did it when I took the Girl Scouts camping 2 weeks ago. I didn't think anyone would really be that interested in identifying leaves. But it was part of a badge and I knew they wouldn't be interested if I said "ok everyone, lets identify leaves".

Instead, I had some leaves (which they picked for me the day before), and I had 2 field guides. I sat down in the middle of the porch and just started identifying them. Before long I had a whole group of girls around me doing the same thing.

Chances are, after a little while, they'll want to migrate back to the tv (or whatever their latest passion is). But, you just got them interested in something else for 20 minutes. It will give you more ideas and you can scatter those 20 minute safaris throughout the day.
****************************

For me the answer is as clear as a bell for some things, but not for
others. I mean, of course I let my children choose some of what we buy to
eat, and sometimes it isn't something I would choose for them myself. But I
still primarily decide what I am going to cook, and while I may let them
choose to eat something else, most of the time I would not let them choose
candy, for instance, as the alternative.

***********************

I don't "let" them choose anything. They just choose. If my kids want to eat candy instead of dinner, I might give them all the reasons why I think its a bad idea, especially if all they've eaten is junk all day. But ultimately the choice is theirs. Sometimes they find out I was right.


Kristen

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

[email protected]

I can't remember which post it was but someone mentioned how she does the
family's shopping and cooking and so "controls" the food to a large extent.

I do all the cooking and shopping for my family of five. In that way I am
"in control" as far as what gets made, but it is with respect to everyone
else's input and preferences. I ask them what they want at the store, what
dinners they prefer, if they have any meal requests, etc. If they want
Captain Crunch I buy it but I have to say they don't ask for that kind of
stuff much, i.e. highly processed. Eric (9) wanted pears last week and
Simon (4) wanted popsicles. When I cook a meal and they don't like it I
don't make it again, and if they do like it they will ask to have it again.

Most of the time when I ask what they want at the store or for dinner they
say "nothing". They mean nothing special because they are content with what
I buy and prepare.

Something I do that helps a lot is to make extra of most meals. We either
eat the leftovers for lunches or have them for an alternative when someone
doesn't like the dinner. William doesn't eat fish and never would, but the
rest of us like fish. When we had salmon this week he had a leftover
sausage from the freezer.

Donna

Elizabeth Hill

** I feel like I'm at my wits end at the moment :-( **


{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Shyrley}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

The weekend's coming. Can you get out of the house a bit? To be off by
yourself (with the baby) or to visit with one sympathetic mom, maybe one
from the post-partum group?

Alternatively, can you take one of the kids who likes to go out and
doesn't get to much and walk or do errands and enjoy being a bit
separate from the others? (I don't think that's wrong.) If you are too
physically tired or overwhelmed can you insist that your husband take
one of the kids out Saturday?

Parents who aren't "unschooling all the way" and have videogame limits
get to use gameboy bribery to get kids to go along on outings. That is
they save the gameboy and only allow it when stuck at a sibling's
events. I know it isn't the recommended way to unschool, but I'm
thinking pragmatically about preserving Shyrley's sanity. There are
times when I'm willing to be "unscrupulous". (Maybe a kinder way to do
it would be to buy a new game and just control the timing of when it is
given to the kid.)

Personally, I would be tempted to scrape up money somehow for a
babysitter twice a week so that kids that want to be home and kids that
want to go out can both get what they want, if at all possible. If I
was really grouchy, I'd find the money by cutting back something that I
spent on the kids. I'd get a nice child-minder, not a mean one. But
I'd let the kids know the financial truth, that money could be saved for
other purposes if they didn't need to stay away from an activity or
appointment. I would really prefer not to have to cancel all of the
activities for the other kid(s).

Darn. If you were near people who knew you, getting free rides for one
or two kids to go to an outing should be pretty easy to arrange. People
usually do want to help when you have a baby.

I figure you can't make everybody happy all the time right now. (When I
had a newborn I couldn't even make myself happy, much less another kid,
or a husband.) So take your eyes down from that goal and look at, for
starters, the ONE thing, ONE outing or other form of fun that's most
important to each of the three older kids each week. (I'd ask them
privately and then start brainstorming on the logistics. If it's
impossible to meet all three first choices, then swap in one of the
second choices for awhile. This time period isn't forever.) (Each
month, if each week isn't feasible.)

I know that the move and the new baby and the health worries about the
new baby are extremely stressful for everyone. I'm sure that those
feelings have a big impact on the kids behavior, especially if you have
kids that don't find it easy to express themselves with words or tears.
Do you have some demolition work that the kids can do? Something that
they can pound to smithereens to relieve their feelings? I've heard
that sweating works almost as well as crying for getting the stress
chemicals out of your body.

These answers are pretty general, as I don't know your kids personally.
And I got started writing early in your post and only addressed the
first question or two.

Betsy

christy_imnotred

--- In [email protected], "Danielle Conger"
<danielle.conger@c...> wrote:
They've also been welcomed to watch things like Star Wars and, more
recently, Lord of the Rings that would have seemed beyond their reach
before. I couldn't wait until I could share those things that are so
important to me with my kids. This list helped me to see that I
didn't have to wait just because some expert said I should, and you
know what, I'm really glad that I didn't wait.-=-

My 4 year old loves the Star Wars movies. He pretend to be a Jedi
all the time. I got him a bunch of the Star Wars lego sets and he
makes up elaborate stories with them. I'm so glad I "let" him watch
them. We haven't watched Lord of the Rings yet, but will be getting
them all on DVD soon.

Christy O

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/3/04 9:04:10 PM, aburlingame@... writes:

<< This isn't really a problem in and of

itself, but inevitably she wants to watch movies just all the time,

sometimes even asking for a movie before the sleep is dried from her eyes in

the morning. >>

Why "inevitably"?
I don't think it's a matter of inevitability. That's a damning word to use.

-=-sometimes even asking for a movie before the sleep is dried from her eyes
in

the morning-=-

If she woke up and started reading a book before you got there, would you say
"inevitably"? Would you feel you should never have let her have access to
books?

-=- When I tried out just letting them have unlimited access, the

girls, especially Stella, would want to do nothing but watch movies. -=-

If you had actually done it intead of trying it out, you would have had
different results. Honestly, kids can tell when something is a trial run, and they
will often grasp desperately at whatever they can get out of it before the
mom [inevitably] changes her mind.

-=-And Icould plainly see it wasn't good for them. After watching for an
hour or

two or sometimes more, they would be SO grumpy or completely wound up.-=-

Grumpy when you made them stop?
Or grumpy when it was ongoing and you were sharing it with them and being
with them?

-=- And I could plainly see it wasn't good for them. ...

Stella even gets circles under her eyes after a long bout of tv.-=-

Well you were plainly looking for proof it wasn't any good, so for you I
think it was inevitable (imperative) that you find some.

-=- Also, Stella's play started to be really regimented and

unimaginative. She would no longer combine stories and add her own elements

to them, but she would say exactly what she heard on the show.-=-

Do you every hear people quote their favorite authors or quote Shakespeare
or report something really interesting someone else said, in their exact words?
It's not considered to be a low-intelligence failing.

-=-While she would occassionally learn something interesting, I felt she
learned much

more and had more fun when she was getting more varied input. -=-

How varied are books? They're always paper, and they always go from front to
back, in English. Top to bottom. Every single book. Maybe more varied
input...

-=-I went back to limiting tv, because I felt she

didn't know how to self-limit yet. -=-

So your only acceptable outcome would have been if she had made the choices
you would have made for her?

-=-In other words, I protected her from herself. Is that disrespectful? -=-

I think it shows a lack of real observation and analysis, honestly.
From your report, she was watching kid movies without you. If you watched
with her, you and she would have new common interests and experiences. You
could quote the movies with her. You could tie the in to other experiences as the
days, weeks and years come by.

-=- Does the unschooling philosophy not take

into consideration that children may not yet be able to determine what is

good for them in certain situations?-=-

I don't think you're guaranteed to be always right about what's good for her.
If you think what's good for her is keeping you happy, then procede as
you're going.

-=-We do have a

general rule that if you decide not to eat what is served (or what I made

special for you), or if you only eat a few bites and say, "I'm full," it is

not okay to turn right around eat candy, chips, cookies or whatever as an

alternative. Oh, they sometimes ask, but I do say "No," except on some rare

occasions like a birthday party or a family outing when we completely skip

lunch in favor of ice cream and pretzels or something like that. Clearly, I

do control food to an extent-=-

You control it singlehandedly if "we" have a rule that's a rule of your
making.

Here's a collection of food tales from families who've moved away from
control:

http://sandradodd.com/food

and about TV and videos

http://sandradodd.com/tv


Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/4/04 2:50:51 AM, salten@... writes:

<< <<<"Exhibiting behaviors"?
That's so clinical. Do you mean he was making choices?>>>

<<Sorry-that's the scientist in me talking. I was referring to the
moodiness, lethargy, circles under the eyes, etc. that Andrea had
described as being a result of watching TV in her daughter. Do you mean
he was choosing to be grouchy? Gosh it sure seems like it sometimes ;) >>

If my mom were looking for justifications for limiting my choices, I would be
grouchy. If there was a cause, it might be my mom's treatment and my
inability to figure out, at a young age, how to assert myself otherwise.

-=-I was using the word control because it was used in an earlier post
about parents controlling what the child eats. Here, I was wondering
how much control the media has over what the child eats. But you are
saying that ultimately he is just following his desires, and that he can
not be manipulated by advertising? I'm not quite sure I understand this
part.-=-

If someone uses the word "control" three times in one post, that's
indiciative that they are thinking in terms of control, I think.

The media has NO control over what your child eats. None. No control.
Influence? "Power of suggestion"? Maybe. Parents have influence too. And if
they use it carefully, children are unlikely to prefer other input over
parental same-old/same-old.

-=-But you are
saying that ultimately he is just following his desires, and that he can
not be manipulated by advertising? I'm not quite sure I understand this
part.
-=-

Are you manipulated by advertising?
I'm not.
Are you manipulated by things you read here?
I'm not.
Do you think about things you read here, filtering them through your own
knowledge and experience?

Gosh I hope so.

When I see an advertisement for food, on a billboard, side of a truck,
magazine ad, TV commercial, I might think "Oh, I should thaw out that chicken," or
"I wonder if Kirby will have eaten when he gets home?" I have never once in
50 years jumped up zombie-like and gone to that eatery or to a store and bought
that product. It never occurred to me that my kids might, either. And
they haven't.

-=-<<<<-=-he would
choose to eat the junk food, and therefore be under the control of the
food industry and the advertisers, which to me is less preferable than
being under my control. -=-
-=-I'm not so much worried about what you think (although I do care) as I
am curious about how you navigate these kinds of issues. -=-

I don't navigate things that don't exist.
My children have never been under the control of the food industry and the
advertisers.
My children have never been NEARLY under the control of the food industry and
the advertisers, so you're asking how people nagivate an issue that doesn't
exist.

The way people "navigate" their own fears is to pluck them out and lay them
in the sunshine to dry, instead of keeping them in the moist emotional depths
of themselves, unexamined.

-=-But for a more concrete example, what if the child has a
severe food allergy? Clearly in this case the parents DO need to limit
the child's food choices. -=-

Let's not ALL live as though our children have food allergies. That's an
exception.
Let's not say "What if your child is blind?" when someone is recommending
picture books.

-=-At your house, they have helped cause you to
unschool, and to be afraid, and to prefer controlling your child.>>>>

-=-Hey, at least they did one good thing! -=-

I really hope that was a joke. It doesn't reflect well on you if it was an
honest sentiment.

-=-He's only a victim of it if he has not learned
to think for himself, and he can't learn to think for himself if he is
never given any choices. I think I understand.-=-

Maybe starting to get a glimpse.
It's not enough to understand that bicycles can work in theory...

-=-It reminds me of the idea that when you resent
someone, you give your life over to him, and he controls you. I do have
some pretty strong feelings about this as you can tell. -=-

I really (really) would prefer NOT to have this discussion on the list, but
it might help you (or anyone else with similar deepseated anger that's keeping
you from spending that time and energy with your child) to consider farming in
ANY place and time in history, and whether after mass agriculture (from the
Mesopotanian cultures on) there was food grown without some form of slave
labor. Don't talk about it here. Just go and look at history, various cultures,
various places, anything past subsistence farming. Whether serfs or
sharecroppers or farmers having as many kids as they could and taking in orphans, it's
not the current situations that are surprising, it's the lack of historical
perspective of someone who would be that concerned and yet not look at it in
context.

[and as the policies of the list say don't post what you don't want
discussed, I must play my "keep it about unschooling" card and say that I've just
cancelled it out, and this is a small part of a long post, and I don't want it
discussed here]

Sandra
1/3 of "the listowner" triumverate

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/4/04 2:52:08 AM, shyrley.williams@... writes:

<< Bryn never wants to leave the house so we can't go on the home-education
camps this month as he wont come. >>

Leave him with your husband or your mom. Ship him by train to your mom's.
Give him a choice where one of the choices is less attractive than the camp,
but NONE of the choices are preventing the rest of the family from going.

-=-As for the computer, they fight over it constantly. Initially we had it so
they had an hour then gave up the machine for the one next in line but even
then they fight or claim they have 10 minutes more. It's not like its limited,
they can play 24/7 and do so but still they fight.-=-

We've always had whoever has it can play until he's through. The other
cannot bug him, remind him, whine or beg. The other has to leave him alone. It's
worked since they were little, but I had to enforce the "get away and leave
him alone) a few times. It still works now, with two computers and five
people. Someone can say "I'd like to be next" and the person lets that one know
when he's off.

-=-Right now I cant see any way out of this. I have to drag them to various
hospital appointments for the sick baby which they all resent but careful
explanations of why we have to go and how its not the baby's fault she's brain
damaged fall on deaf ears.-=-

Can your husband come home to stay with them while you go to the doctor? Is
his schedule ever flexible, or could he take family leave?

-=-Bedtimes are a pain too. We abolished bedtimes about 4 years ago.-=-

Instead of "abolishing" anything it works better when people loosen up, see
what's really necessary and what's not, and say "yeah, sure!" to their kids
lots and lots of times instead of one big confusing "I don't care anymore."

-=-then they all leap out of bed at 7am after 5 hours sleep to beat each
other to the computer. Which means they are crabby and bad tempered all day.-=-

Whoever had it when he decided to turn it off and go to bed has finished his
turn, and it's the next kid's turn in the morning as soon as he gets up. If
the last-last-night gets up first, he can have it until the rightful-turn kid
gets up and claims it (maybe after toilet and breakfast, at that kid's option).
That's the way it works here. "I'm next" can easily roll around the clock.

-=-They wont hang the laundry outside as they reckon the line is too high. My
mother wouldn't have stood for this and we were *made* and expected to do
chores. -=-

Make a lower line, or get them a box to stand on.
If your mothers methods seem better to you, you should use them. Really.

Unschooling should only even be attempted if it seems better than the
alternatives.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 6/4/2004 4:52:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
shyrley.williams@... writes:
>>We rarely go out as one of them wont want to go. Sometimes they announce
they wont go to the event becasue they wish to annoy one of the others. If we
find an HE class only one will wish to go, usually Heather while the boys will
complain and moan and make the whole experience hell as they don't want to
participate or wait outside. Bryn never wants to leave the house so we can't go on
the home-education camps this month as he wont come. If I *make* him he'll
ruin the week for everyone else. I don't believe in making him go but it means
none of us can go :-(<<<
********************
It doesn't seem fair that one or two kids can have this much power over
everyone else. Isn't this the same as parents forcing kids to go someplace or do
something? Can you tell the child you're sorry he's not interested, but
sometimes he'll have to go, then maybe find something really interesting for him to
do while he's there? Puzzle books? Games? Something you could hide then
pull out for these trips?
>>>Housework. They never want to help. Sometimes they will do a task if I
ask, sometimes they say no. But I now feel like a skivvy. Its worse as the baby
is very needy. She feeds hourly and needs to be held constantly. The house is
falling apart round my ears. I am exhausted doing all the washing, cleaning,
laundry. None of them will wash up as its 'yucky'. They wont hang the laundry
outside as they reckon the line is too high. My mother wouldn't have stood for
this and we were *made* and expected to do chores. They leave their stuff lying
around and then complain when something isn't washed.<<<
******************************
Walmart has really cheap laundry baskets. Could you get each kid a basket,
put their name on it, put it in their room, for them to put their own dirty
clothes in? When the basket's full, they could do their own clothes, and hang
them (lower the line). If they choose not to do it, then they don't have clean
clothes. No arguing, complaining or fussing. Maybe you need to put the ball
in their court quite a bit more. One person can only do so much, and you're
taking care of a baby too. I'd just let everyone know, that you'll do what you
can, but you're spread so thin right now that unless everyone helps, some
things just won't get done. Teach the kids how to cook. Find things around the
house that they LIKE to do, and have them do that. Pay them to pick up some
slack and do some extra things.

Nancy B.




Ay tips, or even better, anyoe want them?

Shyrley


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

[email protected]

<< > "The unschooling philosophy" isn't a thing.

> Not in the way that it takes anything into consideration.


<<This isn't helpful to me. This seems like quibbling over semantics. >>

Maybe it's helpful to some of the other 1500+ people signed up for the list.


I think you're saying "Give me the one answer," and I'm saying "The answer is
inside you," and you're saying, "No, I want the one unschooling answer."

There isn't one unschooling way. We're talking about ideas and principles.
There is no monolith. There is no majority opinion binding on the others.

-=-I was afraid I woudn't word my question or explanation in

just the right, most efficient, clear and intelligent language and then the

heart of my questions would go unanswered while I defended or apologized for

my mistatement, which obviously missed it's mark. -=-

We're dealing in words. It's all we have.

I'm not a good athlete. If I go and play soccer and I miss an easy ball,
what will it help if I say "Right. I was afraid to play because then when I
missed you would all say 'you missed' and then I would have to defend myself'"?

You don't have to defend yourself. Just consider what you read, or not.

-=-I just want to know your

opinions about whether someone who unschools with their family would be

"wrong" or "disrespectful" if they chose to protect their young children

from the harms of being in front of a screen for too many hours a day, and

if yes, why? -=-

I think you had a pretty general idea of what kind of responses you would
get, right?

-=-Isn't the heart of what I am asking plain

enough? Can't I get an answer without being nitpicked apart on this small

stuff?-=-

I didn't get the posts in that same order. I responded to a quote in someone
else's and went to sleep. Luckily, I'm not the only person on this list, so
it shouldn't have mattered. And waiting a few hours shouldn't be too
inconveniencing.

-=-> Lots of people are giving their best advice, and the best of the best of

all

> that advice is (in my opinion, when I give advice) that which is closest

to

> natural and un-selfconscious everyday stuff (where "everyday" might still

apply

> to really COOL days).-=-

-=-Okay, maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not getting this. Could you put this

another way for me?-=-

Sorry. It was convoluted.
People are trying to share with you what happens on a good day.
They're honestly offering freely to show you how it can be.

-=- Why not guide them or choose for them until

they older and more able to see and understand the effect their choices

cause?-=-

Because they don't learn to choose for themselves.
That's one reason.
Because the parent won't know the child as well if the child lives to the
parent's specifications. That's another reason.

-=-I don't want to miss something importand and useful because I didn't push
past my own

current understandings.-=-

But you don't want the answers to involve semantics?
Thoughts very often involve words, terms, connotations of words.
If you don't think those things matter, it will be more difficult for people
to share their ideas with you, when words are all they have to use.

Sandra

Sylvia Toyama

I'll add my voice to those who've said have the kids do their own laundry. By 10 they can certainly start being responsible for their own clean clothes. I started Will on his own laundry at 10 or 11. For a time, it meant he wore dirty clothes, and a few times after three or so weeks of that, I would do the laundry for him. My rule was I got to keep whatever spare change fell out in my washer or dryer. He's terrible about leaving stuff in his pockets and I don't check pockets for people old enough to do their own laundry. I would dig up all sorts of change in the washer, as well as a few ruined items (pocket video games, notes from friends, etc.) from pockets. It only took a few times of that for him to decide that he'd rather not have me doing his laundry! My mil added a few later steps -- things like how to sort, how to choose a dryer cycle, etc -- the summer he spent with them when he was 13.

Already, the boys (3 & 8) have their own hampers in their rooms, and both put away their own clothes once folded. Each has tried his hand at folding, and they sometimes help me fold laundry as it comes off the line. I'm beginning to think it's time to show Andy how the washer and dryer work, because he will change clothes three times some days. He's become quite the clothes-horse. Dan, at 3, is just the opposite -- he chooses an outfit and wants to wear it until it falls off his body in rags. Gary reminds me it saves on laundry.

Another huge bonus for us is that Gary's employer provides dry cleaning for uniforms, saving me three loads a week. When we both worked office jobs, things went to the cleaners as much as possible, leaving my weekends free of special laundry and ironing. Could you send some clothes to the cleaners -- at least your husband's things?

Also, what about paper plates and other disposable dishes/flatware? Not terribly spendy if you shop for good sales, and certainly less hassle about dishwashing.

Gotta go -- Dan's just brought me a 'present' of something in the picnic cooler.

Syl


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

Julie Bogart

--- In [email protected], SHYRLEY WILLIAMS
<shyrley.williams@b...> wrote:

Yuck! Shyrley, this sounds very hard.

> The 3 of them (12, 10 and 9) spend their time fighting and bitching.
They all appear to hate each other. The fights will reach a physical
level if I don't intervene so I spend my entire day asking one or the
other to leave one of their siblings alone. And its quite nasty
fighting. Name calling, punching, threatening etc.

Have you ever read _Siblings Without Rivalry_ by Faber and Mazlisch?
That book really helped my husband and me.

I see my role as the person to help facilitate communication between my
kids. We have a practice in our home that when a kid has a beef with
another kid (usually shows up in yelling or calling a name), they both
sit on the couch with one of us (parents) and we act like a therapist
helping create space for both perspectives and making sure that both
kids really hear the other perspective.

This practice takes consistency and a lot of work, but the results are
totally worth it. Sometimes sitting on the couch all together has taken
two hours to get through the issues. But the key has been making it a
habit.

Sometimes we're asked if we "required" them to sit and discuss if they
didn't want to. We used to when they were little. But now we don't.
Instead, if they can't resolve the crisis themselves, we put the
activities on hold until they are ready to discuss or we schedule a
time to take up the issue.

We have a policy that everyone in the home deserves respectful
treatment. When respectful treatment isn't happening, we see it as our
job to reset the thermostat so that all of our kids can regain their
voice and dignity. It's just too easy for the older ones or the more
verbally skilled ones to run over their siblings.

I know it's worked because my teens now tell me they are shocked when
they see other families allow the siblings to mistreat each other.

>
> As for the computer, they fight over it constantly. Initially we had
it so they had an hour then gave up the machine for the one next in
line but even then they fight or claim they have 10 minutes more. It's
not like its limited, they can play 24/7 and do so but still they
fight.

Have another family meeting. We discovered that our time lengths were
too short (after discussing for two hours). We changed the time amounts
to two hour turns and bought an additional computer. That changed
everything. They just about never argue. The person who goes after the
one on the computer gives a ten minute warning to help the one on the
computer to transition off of it.

>
> Right now I cant see any way out of this. I have to drag them to
various hospital appointments for the sick baby which they all resent
but careful explanations of why we have to go and how its not the
baby's fault she's brain damaged fall on deaf ears.

Do they have gameboys? Can they go to a friend's house? Kids often
resent sick siblings. Can your husband help out in some way (coming
home during the doctor's appointments and making up the work hours on
the weekends)?
>
> Bedtimes are a pain too. We abolished bedtimes about 4 years ago. I
figured kids know when they are tired but nooooooooooooooo. They stay
up as late as possible, sometimes to annoy a sibling who wishes to go
to bed (Heather wont go upstairs unless someone else is going to bed as
she's scared of vampires) then they all leap out of bed at 7am after 5
hours sleep to beat each other to the computer. Which means they are
crabby and bad tempered all day.

How about rotating who starts the day on the computer? We do that with
front seat turns in the car.

I'm worried about "wanting to annoy" siblings. This seems bigger than
bedtimes.

>
> Housework. They never want to help. Sometimes they will do a task if
I ask, sometimes they say no. But I now feel like a skivvy. Its worse
as the baby is very needy. She feeds hourly and needs to be held
constantly. The house is falling apart round my ears. I am exhausted
doing all the washing, cleaning, laundry. None of them will wash up as
its 'yucky'. They wont hang the laundry outside as they reckon the line
is too high. My mother wouldn't have stood for this and we were *made*
and expected to do chores. They leave their stuff lying around and then
complain when something isn't washed.
>
> Ay tips, or even better, anyone want them?

You sound exhausted and understandably so. Hanging laundry and hand
washing dishes is a pain (did it in Morocco for years).

Couple of thoughts.

Put loose change in the washing up water. Kid who washes digs for
change. Light candles and play CD of choice for kid who does dishes.

Get a step ladder for the wash line. Ask kids to wash and hang only
their own clothes. If they don't wash and hang them, then they wear
dirty ones. You can skip doing their laundry for three weeks at a time.
If they still wear filthy clothes, after three weeks, ask your dh to
take the kids to the park while you do laundry for one day. Then start
over.

Hire a teen neighbor to do light housekeeping. I earned money in high
school doing that. Just let her come once a week to vacuum, clean
bathrooms and dust.

Will your baby let a teen hold her? Perhaps hire her to hold the baby
and you do the cleaning...

Hope some of this helps. I really feel for you.

Julie B

Have a Nice Day!

I wanted to make a suggestion for the computer as well.

We have 5 people and 1 computer that is limping along.

Our guideline was you could stay on 1 hour (we increased that to 2 hours) if someone was waiting to get on. Otherwise, one person would be on for the entire day.

Since then, we've gone to each of them negotiating when they'll get off and on amongst themselves.

That seems to work well.

Kristen

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