[email protected]

In a message dated 7/30/2004 3:01:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
scubamama@... writes:
However, in compromise and even in democracy someone
concedes something. A dictatorship assumes someone dictates or
decides, no matter if it is benevolent. Common preference means
choosen by agreement of the parties involved, no one concedes or
decides for the others involved.

A whole new way of interacting? For many adults and for most
children, yes. It IS respecting (attention to, consideration of,
reguard for) others, but it is more than benevolence (kindness), it
is honoring another's right to self-determination.
--------------

Whoever's suggestion is proposed and carried in the situation to change
things from old ways to news ways has more power and influence than others in the
situation. <g>

If a mom didn't have the power to control, she wouldn't have the power to
release that control.

"Honoring another's rights" is a decision the parents make, within the
purview that is under their control.

They can give up their control willingly, but it doesn't dissolve their
responsibility, so underneath the appearance and visible reality of equality, there
is still a responsibility that is beyond parental philosophy.

Sandra


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

eriksmama2001

The construct of parenting in our culture is different than in other
cultures. Parenting philosophy does not supercede human rights any
more than the philosophy of ownership supercedes the human rights of
slaves. The rights of the individual human reguardless of age, sex,
religion, nationality, sexual orientation, ability and race are not
all legally protected rights in America. Agreed. But indeed, these
rights are not given or conveyed by a society, individuals are born
with these rights. It is only when another individual supercedes
these inalienable rights does power over another exist. The actions
of the second create the existence of power and control by usurping
the birth rights of humans to freedom of self-determination.

Children are not "property" (a cultural construct) any more than
black people ever were. It is the action of controling another's
freedoms that creates the power dynamic. Power only exists when one
can or does use it over another's will. Freedom supercedes power. One
is born with freedom of self-determination; it is not given or
released to one.

One is responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is my
point, it is the act of acting that creates the responsibility to
another if it impacts or obstucts another's freedom. One is
responsible not to impact or obstuct another with your choosen
actions because their freedom pre-exists your action.

Honoring another's rights to self-determination assumes that we are
born with self-determination. Thus, self-determination or freedom can
only be taken away. You seem to be saying that one is given
opportunities for self-determination as a gift because parents have
the power to control. However, I believe this matrix is imposed and
only created by the parents' choice to act against a child's will.
And that the power construct does not exist when the child is not
forced against his will. I do believe we have a responsibility not to
force anyone against their will because we have no right to power or
control over another human being.

Thanks for the discussion. Perhaps we disagree about one's innate
self-determination. Most two year olds I have ever met sure seem to
have innate self-determination. lol.

Pat


--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/30/2004 3:01:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> scubamama@e... writes:
> However, in compromise and even in democracy someone
> concedes something. A dictatorship assumes someone dictates or
> decides, no matter if it is benevolent. Common preference means
> choosen by agreement of the parties involved, no one concedes or
> decides for the others involved.
>
> A whole new way of interacting? For many adults and for most
> children, yes. It IS respecting (attention to, consideration of,
> reguard for) others, but it is more than benevolence (kindness), it
> is honoring another's right to self-determination.
> --------------
>
> Whoever's suggestion is proposed and carried in the situation to
change
> things from old ways to news ways has more power and influence than
others in the
> situation. <g>
>
> If a mom didn't have the power to control, she wouldn't have the
power to
> release that control.
>
> "Honoring another's rights" is a decision the parents make, within
the
> purview that is under their control.
>
> They can give up their control willingly, but it doesn't dissolve
their
> responsibility, so underneath the appearance and visible reality of
equality, there
> is still a responsibility that is beyond parental philosophy.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robyn Coburn

<<<The construct of parenting in our culture is different than in other
cultures. >>>

This is interesting. When you say "our culture" do you mean modern Western
democracies, or just the US, or are you looking smaller than that and mean
the sub-culture of Unschoolers or respectful parents? Is there only one
"construct"?

<<<One is responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is my
point, it is the act of acting that creates the responsibility to
another if it impacts or obstucts another's freedom. One is
responsible not to impact or obstuct another with your choosen
actions because their freedom pre-exists your action.>>>>

I don't think children have the wider vision to always grasp the
consequences of their actions. My experience is that much of a young child's
behavior is experimental in nature to determine "what happens when I..."
Some parenting practices hold that ignorance and testing against them.
Unschooling does not, but we still stop our kids from hurting themselves or
others, we still keep them safe.

If one of our children behaves in certain ways that are negative or cause
problems for others *our* (Unschoolers and gentle parents) reactions are
going to be different than those of "ordinary" parents. This is shown by the
posts on this list. Children think that what happens in their own home is
the "norm" and the "right way", and often get surprised that all families
don't do things the same way when they first discover differences. Other
kids are surprised that Jayn is never punished.

<<<However, I believe this matrix is imposed and
only created by the parents' choice to act against a child's will.
And that the power construct does not exist when the child is not
forced against his will. I do believe we have a responsibility not to
force anyone against their will because we have no right to power or
control over another human being.>>>

Jayn doesn't really understand, since she has never lived on the ground
floor, that the man downstairs is disturbed by her jumping games late at
night. Sometimes she gets excited and forgets. It is up to me to help her be
quiet. Sometimes that means I have to tell her she may not jump on the floor
right now. The principle is Consideration for Others. She gets the benefit
of that principle also. Sometimes she is deliberately contrary, but I don't
get to say "Oh well to heck with my sleeping neighbors". I have to find ways
to stop the problem behavior in the short term, and talk about the long term
also. In this case that is to remind her how much more freedom she has when
she is awake during the day instead of the night, and how that will be the
situation again soon.

Robyn L. Coburn


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/30/2004 11:07:04 PM Central Standard Time,
dezigna@... writes:

Jayn doesn't really understand, since she has never lived on the ground
floor, that the man downstairs is disturbed by her jumping games late at
night. Sometimes she gets excited and forgets. It is up to me to help her be
quiet. Sometimes that means I have to tell her she may not jump on the floor
right now. The principle is Consideration for Others. She gets the benefit
of that principle also. Sometimes she is deliberately contrary, but I don't
get to say "Oh well to heck with my sleeping neighbors". I have to find ways
to stop the problem behavior in the short term, and talk about the long term
also. In this case that is to remind her how much more freedom she has when
she is awake during the day instead of the night, and how that will be the
situation again soon.



~~~

Yes, I think sometimes what I hear missing from TCS/NCP or common preference
discussions is the idea that autonomy should include that children *want* to
treat others as they would like to be treated.

What I find is that autonomy means that if a child doesn't want to treat
others like they would like to be treated, then that's perfectly okay. I
suppose that's a consistent position, considering that it would negate total
autonomy if you imposed any kind of principle on children. But I don't see how the
children can be totally autonomous and self-directing when in fact they are
vitally dependent on their parents from birth.

Karen


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

eriksmama2001

--- In [email protected], "Robyn Coburn"
<dezigna@c...> wrote:
> <<<The construct of parenting in our culture is different than in
other
> cultures. >>>
>
> This is interesting. When you say "our culture" do you mean modern
Western
> democracies, or just the US, or are you looking smaller than that
and mean
> the sub-culture of Unschoolers or respectful parents? Is there only
one
> "construct"?
>

Our culture of nuclear family type parenting is one construct of
interacting with children. Other cultures have extended family
philosophies of interacting with children. Hunter/gather cultures
have even broader constructs of interacting with children. Basically
parenting is a selected or assume way of interacting with children.

There are many ways of interacting with others, some consensual some
authoritarian, some compromise, etc. Many individuals are interacted
with as a group, some with decisions made through representation,
some without, just as the rights of women in our culture has changed
within the family and outside the family unit. The construct varies
with each individual involved unless the individuals are treated as a
group such as by race, sex or by age segregation. Then one's
individuality and self-determination is ignored.

Our culture generally has a continuum of ignoring or deciding for
children without representation, just as women and blacks had ignored
or limited represenation in the past. Now in many arenas women and
blacks have the right not to be forced to do things against their
will. Our culture has choosen to protect these rights legally.
However, as humans these rights, whether recognized by law or not,
are inalienable human rights of self-determination.

In consensual living with children these same inalienable human
rights of self-determination are not obstucted by force reguardless
of age also.

> <<<One is responsible for the consequences of their actions. That
is my
> point, it is the act of acting that creates the responsibility to
> another if it impacts or obstucts another's freedom. One is
> responsible not to impact or obstuct another with your choosen
> actions because their freedom pre-exists your action.>>>>
>
> I don't think children have the wider vision to always grasp the
> consequences of their actions. My experience is that much of a
young child's
> behavior is experimental in nature to determine "what happens when
I..."
> Some parenting practices hold that ignorance and testing against
them.
> Unschooling does not, but we still stop our kids from hurting
themselves or
> others, we still keep them safe.

I do agree that there is a fine line between stoping our kids from
hurting themselves or others and forcing a child to do something
against his will. Imminent danger assumes those involved act to
protect life. Protecting life is exactly the opposite of coercion.
Coercion is a process of destroying one's ability of self-protection.
For who else but the individual can know what is best for them?

>
> If one of our children behaves in certain ways that are negative or
cause
> problems for others *our* (Unschoolers and gentle parents)
reactions are
> going to be different than those of "ordinary" parents. This is
shown by the
> posts on this list. Children think that what happens in their own
home is
> the "norm" and the "right way", and often get surprised that all
families
> don't do things the same way when they first discover differences.
Other
> kids are surprised that Jayn is never punished.
>

Agreed, punishment for acting in what one chooses is in one's own
best interest does not change the belief or prevent the desire,
impedes it perhaps. But "a man convinced against his will, is of the
same opinion still."--an old German saying.


> <<<However, I believe this matrix is imposed and
> only created by the parents' choice to act against a child's will.
> And that the power construct does not exist when the child is not
> forced against his will. I do believe we have a responsibility not
to
> force anyone against their will because we have no right to power
or
> control over another human being.>>>
>
> Jayn doesn't really understand, since she has never lived on the
ground
> floor, that the man downstairs is disturbed by her jumping games
late at
> night. Sometimes she gets excited and forgets. It is up to me to
help her be
> quiet. Sometimes that means I have to tell her she may not jump on
the floor
> right now. The principle is Consideration for Others. She gets the
benefit
> of that principle also. Sometimes she is deliberately contrary, but
I don't
> get to say "Oh well to heck with my sleeping neighbors". I have to
find ways
> to stop the problem behavior in the short term, and talk about the
long term
> also. In this case that is to remind her how much more freedom she
has when
> she is awake during the day instead of the night, and how that will
be the
> situation again soon.
>

It sounds like you choose to find ways to help her to understand the
consequences of her actions and to redirect her. That is not
coercion. She has a choice to jump. Unless you sit on her
indefinitely, of course. You have a choice to explain the possibility
of being evicted. You could choose to move to the first floor,
provide other jumping options, go outside, etc. Saying stop and
making someone stop are not the same.


> Robyn L. Coburn
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/30/04 7:28:31 PM, scubamama@... writes:

<< But indeed, these rights are not given or conveyed by a society,
individuals are born

with these rights. >>

"Indeed" is too strong a word to use for an idea that is itself a
philosophical construct. It's an ideal about humanity created by a subset of humans.
There are other, conflicting ideals. So within the "truth" of your view, the
others are sickly wrong and inhumane. But that doesn't make yours right
"indeed" except from your own philosophy.

The British Empire had a definition of "savage" for a long time, and
"primitive," and it was absolutely true that those people were savage and primitive
(compared to England, BY ENGLAND'S DEFINITION). Defining the terms is a
reality at a philosophical level.

-=-The construct of parenting in our culture is different than in other

cultures.-=-

I don't think so. I don't thin there's a culture on earth nor ever has been
where the parents have NO responsibility to feed and care for their own
children, at least the mothers. And usually there are clear cultural
responsibilities laid on grandparents, and uncles and aunts, and siblings. Behavioral,
financial, religious, physical-needs responsibilities.

-=- Parenting philosophy does not supercede human rights any

more than the philosophy of ownership supercedes the human rights of

slaves. -=-

To this I can only say that you're not looking at history or reality, you're
looking at wishful-thinking airy-fairy philosophical ideals.

-=-But indeed, these

rights are not given or conveyed by a society, individuals are born

with these rights.-=-

Then a culture in which any individual doesn't have equal rights is
inherently evil?
And the response should be... what?

There has not ever been a culture, large or tiny, where each person has equal
rights. The most ideal commune ever attempted (which is now defunct, in
every case, I'd bet) had a hierarchy.

If looking at history doesn't change your mind, look at biology. Which
primates are proof that the natural state of man could be total freedom and
equality? Or does your model depend upon their having souls and higher reason?
(Which argument declares other primates primitive savages.)

-=- The actions

of the second create the existence of power and control by usurping

the birth rights of humans to freedom of self-determination. -=-

If your kids voted for you to move away and leave the alone, would you?

-=-Children are not "property" (a cultural construct) any more than

black people ever were.-=-

Cave men turned their caves over to any other people or animals who came by?
Or did they have, pre-language, a concept of property or territory? And the
idea that all slaves were "black" ignores thousands of years of recorded
history entirely, doesn't it?

-=-One is responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is my

point, it is the act of acting that creates the responsibility to

another if it impacts or obstucts another's freedom.-=-

Children are not responsible for the consquences of their actions. Not
legally in most cases (except horrendous premeditated criimes) and not socially or
emotionally. Those parents who hold children fully "responsible for the
consequences of their actions" before the children are old enough to know what
they were doing when they broke or lost or hurt something are considered ignorant
and abusive.

-=-You seem to be saying that one is given

opportunities for self-determination as a gift because parents have

the power to control. However, I believe this matrix is imposed and

only created by the parents' choice to act against a child's will. -=-

And I think you're not seeing history and biology clearly at all.

Sandra

Have a Nice Day!

Yes, I think sometimes what I hear missing from TCS/NCP or common preference
discussions is the idea that autonomy should include that children *want* to
treat others as they would like to be treated.

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

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. When I try to discuss NCP or our variation of it, people miss this point, and I couldn't put my finger on what component they were missing.

Most parenting assumes that children are self centered, etc. And they are.... developmentally. But I assume that with maturity and that wider vision, they will want to treat others the same as they'd like to be treated. Until their maturity takes over, I try to help them see how to do that.

I'm still not perfect at it, and my oldest child is mature enough to understand all of this and still chooses sometimes to be annoying to others. Thats when I say enough is enough. But then I suppose that is a natural consequence to his being annoying too :o).

Kristen


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/30/04 10:06:59 PM, dezigna@... writes:

<< Sometimes that means I have to tell her she may not jump on the floor
right now. The principle is Consideration for Others. She gets the benefit
of that principle also. Sometimes she is deliberately contrary, but I don't
get to say "Oh well to heck with my sleeping neighbors". I have to find ways
to stop the problem behavior in the short term, and talk about the long term
also. >>

I bet if you had adult guests and they were jumping, you would also explain
to them that they needed to stop because the downstairs tenants would be
disturbed.

-=-I don't get to say "Oh well to heck with my sleeping neighbors".-=-

Yeah, that would amount to saying "Oh well, to heck with living in this
apartment."

I like the principle of keeping my family intact, and I won't do or let the
kids do things that could endanger that. I don't want them taken away. I
don't want to be in jail or anything that would keep me from being with them, so I
use that as a primary principal. I'm stunned when someone will let their
political principles come before their parenting. When a family is separated by
social services because a parent is protesting a law or something, my insides
fall.

Sandra

eriksmama2001

I do believe that humans are interdependent. It is a cultural myth of
our age to believe humans are independent. Autonomous and independent
are not synonymous (that is hard to say.lol). Autonoumous is self-
directed. Independent is self-dependent. One can be both self-
directed and interdependent when one lives consensually with others.

I do believe that the innate infant/mother relationship is a
symbiotic one. Harmoniously beneficial to both parties. Because of
the harmonious nature of consensual living, I do believe that
children want to remain interdependent. Why would one want to
separate from a relationship that doesn't make you do anything you
don't want to do?

Interdependence and consensual living are both processes of
interacting with others, innate processes. The constructs of power
and independence are *learned* processes of living separately from
others. The use of power and fear in relationships can not create
connectivity or love. It is precisely the use of coercion that
destroys the desire for interdependence. Can one live without
connectivity or love?

Pat


--- In [email protected], tuckervill2@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/30/2004 11:07:04 PM Central Standard Time,
> dezigna@c... writes:
>
> Jayn doesn't really understand, since she has never lived on the
ground
> floor, that the man downstairs is disturbed by her jumping games
late at
> night. Sometimes she gets excited and forgets. It is up to me to
help her be
> quiet. Sometimes that means I have to tell her she may not jump on
the floor
> right now. The principle is Consideration for Others. She gets the
benefit
> of that principle also. Sometimes she is deliberately contrary,
but I don't
> get to say "Oh well to heck with my sleeping neighbors". I have to
find ways
> to stop the problem behavior in the short term, and talk about the
long term
> also. In this case that is to remind her how much more freedom she
has when
> she is awake during the day instead of the night, and how that
will be the
> situation again soon.
>
>
>
> ~~~
>
> Yes, I think sometimes what I hear missing from TCS/NCP or common
preference
> discussions is the idea that autonomy should include that children
*want* to
> treat others as they would like to be treated.
>
> What I find is that autonomy means that if a child doesn't want to
treat
> others like they would like to be treated, then that's perfectly
okay. I
> suppose that's a consistent position, considering that it would
negate total
> autonomy if you imposed any kind of principle on children. But I
don't see how the
> children can be totally autonomous and self-directing when in fact
they are
> vitally dependent on their parents from birth.
>
> Karen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/04 8:50:12 AM, scubamama@... writes:

<< Other cultures have extended family

philosophies of interacting with children. Hunter/gather cultures

have even broader constructs of interacting with children. Basically

parenting is a selected or assume way of interacting with children.

>>

So ALL adults have power over them? <g>

You can't really make a general statement about "hunter/gather cultures."
They're not all the same culture, and there aren't many of them left anyway, and
they are by their very nature tiny. The children know everyone in the group.

-=-Many individuals are interacted

with as a group, some with decisions made through representation,

some without, just as the rights of women in our culture has changed

within the family and outside the family unit. -=-

That's not clearly written, or else I can't clearly read it. But "the rights
of women in our culture" have not changed universally within the culture
(using it as the universe of the moment, for this paragraph), and the failure of
the equal rights amendment, it's clear that legally women aren't equal. Yes,
things have changed hugely, but there are still subcultures in which women's
rights are curtailed bigtime, and they have to wear dresses and headcoverings.
I suppose they have the right to bail out of those families and run away,
but they would be leaving children and relatives and homes. Those are all
"cultural constructs," but the fact is that every human lives within a culture.
Even hermits are described and evaluated in terms of the culture from which
they remove themselves. Are they mystics, or nutcases, or harmless hermits or
crazy vets? They don't get to define themselveple are.

-=-The construct varies

with each individual involved unless the individuals are treated as a

group such as by race, sex or by age segregation. Then one's

individuality and self-determination is ignored. -=-

No child is ignored by everyone.
Is his individuality ignored?
Does he HAVE self-determination?
Only to the extent someone gives it to him.

Try not to have a stroke. <g>

Do illegal Mexican's along the border of the U.S. have equal rights to
American citizens? Should they? Generally in some ways their kids do, but the
adults don't.

-=-However, as humans these rights, whether recognized by law or not,

are inalienable human rights of self-determination. -=-

According to what sourse of truth?
Or proven by what scientific observation?

-=-In consensual living with children these same inalienable human

rights of self-determination are not obstucted by force reguardless

of age also. -=-

BY FORCE!
Oh, is that all you're saying?
Then no problem. I thought you meant family policy, persuasion, reason.
All those bars to inalienable self-determination.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/04 8:50:12 AM, scubamama@... writes:

<< Imminent danger assumes those involved act to

protect life. Protecting life is exactly the opposite of coercion.
Coercion is a process of destroying one's ability of self-protection. >>

You know what?
That is bullshit.

Now I remember more clearly why every TCS/NCP discussion ends up really
irritating me. They have their own made-up definitions of coercion.

-=-For who else but the individual can know what is best for them?-=-

Bullshit again.
A child who goes out to play in the water all day in the desert without
sunscreen or shade might have NO idea how sick a person can get from sun exposure,
how unable to even lie in a bed they could be from second degree sunburn.

If individuals always knew what was best for them, there would be no reason
to lock up cleaning supplies when people had infants. Just store the Drano
next to the Cheerios. Rat poison next to Parmesan cheese.

-=-But "a man convinced against his will, is of the

same opinion still."--an old German saying. -=-

Whatever. If they're dead, they don't get any more opinions, or will.

-=-Saying stop and making someone stop are not the same.-=-

It depends on the relationship between the people.
And differing relationships between people is a fact of human existence.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/04 9:23:05 AM, scubamama@... writes:

<< Why would one want to separate from a relationship that doesn't make you
do anything you don't want to do?>>

Well that's a reasonable question, and asked in the context of an unschooling
list, an irritating one. The tense used suggests it's theoretical, but if
you knew my children (anyone reading this) and saw them in their own home, you
would see something that works better in practice than the theories of the
TCS/NCP families *as far as most people will ever know,* since they won't discuss
their families.

-=-The constructs of power

and independence are *learned* processes of living separately from

others.-=-

?
Don't understand what you mean to say.

Sandra

Schuyler Waynforth

--- In [email protected], "eriksmama2001"
<scubamama@e...> wrote:

> > <<<The construct of parenting in our culture is different than in
> other
> > cultures. >>>

And in a later post wrote in an attempt to clarify :

>
> Our culture of nuclear family type parenting is one construct of
> interacting with children. Other cultures have extended family
> philosophies of interacting with children. Hunter/gather cultures
> have even broader constructs of interacting with children.
Basically
> parenting is a selected or assume way of interacting with children.
>

If by selected you mean biologically, evolutionary selected than I
agree. If by selected you mean a mental construct than I can't agree.
Parenting is important to the survival of individuals. If you and
your partner don't parent, particularly for hunter-gatherers, your
children die. It is so important to have parents that among a few
cultures (the Ache of Paraguay and the Inuit) that there are such
things as secondary fathers, that is men who through involvement
sexually or just as close friends are seen as having some
responsibility over the welfare and upbringing of the child.
However, if things get tough, if food is scarce, the welfare of that
child remains in the hands of the biological parents. Those children
among the Ache who have two parents alive and few extended family are
much more likely to survive to adulthood than those children who have
only one parent and a lot of extended family alive. So, I would
argue that your picture of the world is wrong.

Parenting is not a philosophy, it is a requirement. When the
philosophy was Rousseau's, he put all of his children in foundling
hospitals where they died. He had 5 children that he allowed to
experience the world in a way that did them chronic and horrible
damage. It was not their "right" to be treated with dignity and
respect. It was not their "right" to have self-determination.

--- In [email protected], "eriksmama2001"
<scubamama@e...> wrote:
>One
>is born with freedom of self-determination; it is not given or
>released to one.
And
>The rights of the individual human reguardless of age, sex,
> religion, nationality, sexual orientation, ability and race are not
> all legally protected rights in America. Agreed. But indeed, these
> rights are not given or conveyed by a society, individuals are born
> with these rights.


If you argue that everyone is "born with the freedom of self-
determination" and that "these rights are not given or conveyed by a
society, individuals are born with these rights" then you seem to be
arguing that it is biological. So, one could argue that certain
species of spiders have the "right" to eat their mothers. Or that
bats have the "right" to include mosquitoes in their diets. But
those "rights" aren't protected under any constitution or United
Nations document. Because they aren't rights, they are biologically
determined. The right of self-determination (which I had to look up
to be sure I understood what I was responding to as it sounds so very
jingoistic) exists only if the social structures exist to allow it.

I think I'm getting too convoluted. What I want to say is that in
the post today my husband got a letter asking him to confirm his
voting information. It said "don't lose your right to vote". I
don't have a right to vote in the United Kingdom, because I am a
resident alien here. In order to participate in an election this
year I have to register to vote by absentee ballot. It is my right
to do so. However, it is not a right I was born with. It is only a
right I achieved by being a United States citizen who has reached
(and superseded) the age of majority. The way I parent my children
is a choice. I choose, fully and absolutely, to make their lives as
happy and stress-free as I can possibly do. I choose to follow the
path of an unschooling mother. I choose to let my son get a mohawk
and dye his hair purple. I choose to let my daughter wear the same
dress day in and day out without being harassed or made to feel
embarrassed by her choices. But those are choices I make. It is not
the right of my children to experience such things. It is only
through my choices and my husbands choices that they are able to
experience such things at this time in their lives.

Words are important and empowering. I find it much more empowering
to understand that it is through my awareness, through my choices,
through my vigilance that my children have a level of self-
determination that is far in excess of that which I experienced. If
it was their right to do so, than what I did would be determined by
others.

Schuyler Waynforth

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/04 11:14:29 AM, s.waynforth@... writes:

<< The right of self-determination (which I had to look up

to be sure I understood what I was responding to as it sounds so very

jingoistic) exists only if the social structures exist to allow it. >>

That's what I was trying to say but you said it better, Schuyler.

And thanks for the anthropological examples and details.

-=- I choose to follow the

path of an unschooling mother. I choose to let my son get a mohawk

and dye his hair purple. I choose to let my daughter wear the same

dress day in and day out without being harassed or made to feel

embarrassed by her choices. But those are choices I make. It is not

the right of my children to experience such things. It is only

through my choices and my husbands choices that they are able to

experience such things at this time in their lives. -=-

In conversations in the past about chores and related topics, sometimes some
poster or other has said "It's their house too," or "It's not just our house"
(meaning the parents).

I've always agreed. But at the next-deeper level, it IS our house (our names
are on the paperwork) and we have given the kids more access, control and say
over house use than most kids get, and more than we "have" to give them. The
only reason we could do that is because it's our house.

If we were living in government housing, it wouldn't BE our house, and if
inspections were an issue we wouldn't have the right to pass on to our children
the right to have their rooms however they wanted and to keep Lego in the
dining room.

Sandra
---------------------------------------

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/2004 2:09:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Sandra
Dodd@... writes:

In conversations in the past about chores and related topics, sometimes some

poster or other has said "It's their house too," or "It's not just our
house"
(meaning the parents).

I've always agreed. But at the next-deeper level, it IS our house (our
names
are on the paperwork) and we have given the kids more access, control and
say
over house use than most kids get, and more than we "have" to give them.
The
only reason we could do that is because it's our house. <<<<

It's their house too, because we choose to let it be so.

~Kelly







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

Kelly Muzyczka

>It's their house too, because we choose to let it be so.
>
>~Kelly

But not legally.

If you chose to let the lawn get bad enough for the city to intervene or
some such--your children would not be questioned about the state of the
property. You would be.

What are basically giving our children is the illusion of ownership. Now,
in most cases it's such a non-issue that that illusion is as good as
real. But it is not a legal right or reality.

Now, you COULD put your kids names on the deed, I suppose, but I wonder
what the repercussions of having minors on the paperwork would be. You'd
have to own it outright, 'cause I can't see a bank allowing that.

Kelly

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/04 12:49:36 PM, mina@... writes:

<< What are basically giving our children is the illusion of ownership. Now,
in most cases it's such a non-issue that that illusion is as good as
real. But it is not a legal right or reality. >>

We're sharing rights without responsibility.

Just the other day, we were cited for branches in the front and for storing
things outside. We have two weeks to clean it all up. If we don't, Keith
could be fined or jailed. If Keith runs away, I could be fined or jailed.
Nothing would or could happen to the kids for the litter. If both their parents
have run away to avoid yard cleaning or a fine, they might be taken to foster
homes. But they wouldn't be fined for litter in the yard. It's not their
house, in that way.

Yet Kirby is on day three now of an on-again sometimes off-again multi-player
Halo game that began on his birthday. He didn't ask if they can just leave
that stuff up until people get tired of it, but we don't really mind. If I
need that room back, I'll let him know. But I don't for weeks. I doubt it will
be there for weeks, anyway. Some people will want their TVs or X-Boxes back.
Marty, for one. Kirby, in a few days.

There were five or so extra teens sleeping here last night. Kirby didn't
ask, but we weren't surprised, nor did we mind. It's his house too, but Keith
is the one who got up and worked in the yard. When/if the kids move out, it's
our house. When/if we die, it will be in some part or ways probably theirs.
Nothing new, or shocking, but really ancient practice.

Sandra

Julie Bogart

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
It's his house too, but Keith
> is the one who got up and worked in the yard. When/if the kids move out, it's
> our house. When/if we die, it will be in some part or ways probably theirs.
> Nothing new, or shocking, but really ancient practice.
>
This is just as true with parenting practices. I found out from CPS that slapping a child in
the face while yelling isn't child abuse from a legal point of view. Neither is spanking with
a wooden instrument or hand, requiring a child to stay home 24/7 even if she is a teen,
restricting access to all forms of entertainment, keeping her out of school against her will,
requiring her to only wear skirts, no make-up, etc. Yelling at her, shaming her, grounding
her, punishing her more than her siblings is not child abuse according to the state either.

The reason I bring this up is that our kids are highly conscious of the fact that we have
chosen to parent as we do but that it is because we have the power to make that decision.
They can't require us to treat them fairly (from the way they understand fair). They are our
kids and according to the state, they must live under the guidelines we believe are best for
them.

What drew me to mindful parenting (as Sandra calls it) is that I realized that when
everyone is aware of who has the real power, laying down those rights to control and
coerce is a powerful expression of love and respect.

But these are choices made by parents who could change the entire scheme of life in one
fell swoop and not be in violation of the state. Kids know this. It seems disingenuous to
talk about rights of children if we are extending those rights beyond the rights of parents
to raise them as they best see fit.

According to the law, children have the right to not be molested or physically beaten so as
to leave marks. Neglect can also be quantified as abuse of a child's rights. Beyond that,
parents have the say. And as unschoolers, I'm glad.

Julie B

queenjane555

--- In [email protected], "eriksmama2001"
<scubamama@e...> wrote:

>Protecting life is exactly the opposite of coercion.

How so? If you are forcing someone to stop a behavior that they want
to continue, even if that behavior would result in death, isnt that
exactly coercion? And not the "opposite of coercion"? Maybe you need
to define coercion. I looked up "coerce" in the dictionary and it
said: 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of
pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. 2. To dominate, restrain,
or control forcibly 3. To bring about by force or threat.



> Coercion is a process of destroying one's ability of self-
>protection.

Can you elaborate on what you mean? Maybe with concrete examples? It
seems in the context of unschooling, when i speak of "noncoercive
parenting techniques", i generally mean no forced bedtimes, meals,
chores etc. I think coercing a child in this context can result in
things like an unwillingness to freely engage in behaviors (like
cleaning)if not forced, and an atmosphere of disrespect (child more
likely to be disrespectful because the parent is), but i dont see how
it would "destroy one's ability of self-protection"...not that i
really understand what you mean by those words.

> For who else but the individual can know what is best for them?

I think it is very common for individuals (adults and children)to
make decisions that ultimately are not good (and sometimes very bad)
for them. Sometimes individuals minds are so clouded by other things
(like drugs, or a bad relationship, or being "caught up in the
moment", or greed, etcetc)that they DONT know whats best for them. An
example: a family member recently went through a situation in which
she made legal decisions that will have long term financial
repercussions (contracts and such)for her. When she was riding the
"high" she was on (emotional high...we think she may have been going
thru some kind of manic phase or something) she was SO sure she was
doing the right thing for herself, we could not talk to her about it,
she thought she was making the "best" decisions. We felt very
strongly this would all turn out badly, and a month or two later,
when the emotional high and the novelty wore off, she realizes (too
late) she made a mistake. People dont always know whats best for
them. And thats ok, its ok to make mistakes. But my point is that
people often DONT know what is best for themselves. That doesnt mean
we should (or shouldnt)coerce them into making what we think is the
right decision. But the above statement just isnt factually true.


Katherine

Danielle Conger

Schuyler wrote: But
> those "rights" aren't protected under any constitution or United
> Nations document. Because they aren't rights, they are biologically
> determined. The right of self-determination (which I had to look up
> to be sure I understood what I was responding to as it sounds so very
> jingoistic) exists only if the social structures exist to allow it.
==============

Exactly, "civil rights" are civil precisely because they are granted within
the civil structure, allowed and guaranteed under law. "Rights" only exist
within the social contract that offers them. As a term, "rights" is an 18th
century product of Western Englightenment thinking and a Neoclassical
interpretation/adoption of Greek city-state ideals. Rights and individual
autonomy--"all men are created equal" and "right to life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness" kind of thing--are also products of this 18th century
kind of thinking. The "individual" is a relatively new thing, historically
speaking. In my understanding, even in the Western world (I can't speak of
other cultures) early religious and dynastic structures had little room for
the "individual" as s/he came to be described by philosophers like Rousseau
and which we (in the US, anyway) hold to be "self-evident". Yet, these
truths of individual autonomy are self-evident in very limited ways when we
look a little more closely. All men weren't, in fact, created equal. Slaves
could be seen as 3/4 of a person without the glaring self-contradiction that
we see now. Women and children were chattel. Enlightenment ideals exchanged
a "might makes right" for a "wealth makes rights" way of doing things.

Rights have become more universal throughout time, but not without major
civil rights battles. As Sandra pointed out, the Equal Rights Ammendment
that would have guaranteed women equal rights under the constitution failed
to be adopted. Just recently, the American government actually considered
ammending the constitution to explicitly deny the right for gay people to
marry. Children are still considered chattel for the parents to raise as
they see fit, as Julie points out. Equal rights and universal autonomy is
still a myth--even in America.

Personally, I find the idea of children's rights interesting in the context
of the US and other democracies that pretend to universal ideals of equal
rights. I find the exclusions pretty interesting--at any given time, what
group is it okay to exclude from the privilege of universal rights and why.
Slaves, women, Japanese, children, homosexuals... Deb L's article in the
recent Life Learning magazine is particularly poignant in this context. Why
is a person denied the right to vote one day, but deemed fully capable and
granted that right the next? What switch gets turned? Why 18 and not 12 or
16 or 25?

As unschoolers, do we have a deeper sense of democracy and individual
rights? Or, do we orchestrate benevolent dictatorships like Sandra
mentioned?

For me, I would say our home functions as a social contract, and this gets
into the punishment question as well. Rights and autonomy are respected as
long as individuals are participating in the social contract that makes
rights and autonomy a mutual thing. So, when there's a squabble between my
three (7, 5 and 4), we try to work it out, come up with a common preference,
but that depends upon everyone's willingness to listen and work things out.
If one of them flat out refuses to brainstorm ideas or stop hitting or
whatever, then that person breeches the social contract with anti-social
behavior and the responsibility falls on them to remove themselves from the
situation.

For instance, if Emily and Julia both want the same Polly Pocket (that
belongs to both of them) and Emily is willing to brainstorm ways to share,
alternate, whatever, but Julia refuses to budge, then Julia forfeits her
right to the Polly Pocket at that moment. Or, if Sam and Emily are
wrestling, but then Emily wants to stop and Sam keeps jumping on her anyway,
he gets removed from the room because he could not respect Emily's right to
say no. Sam doesn't get sent to his room or put in a time out; he just gets
told he needs to find somewhere else to be until he's ready to respect other
people. His options might be his room to play, the playroom, my bedroom to
watch a DVD, the kitchen to bake some bread with me--whatever. For me, the
point is that respect must be mutual. Just last night Sam followed me into
my room screaming at me because we were having sorbet and didn't have ice
cream. He was exhausted. Didn't want a bite of my sorbet to see if he liked
it; nothing was right, basically. So I picked him up and carried him to his
room, telling him that he couldn't scream at me in my room, that I had the
right to be safe and respected in my home. I laid him down in his bed, sat
next to him, rubbed his forhead and started singing his song to him. He
stopped screaming, looked at me and said, "That makes me happy mama." And he
was asleep in about five minutes. Again, not punished, but clear limits were
set.

TCS/NCP work as a tool for me that has been really helpful in defusing my
high need guy, but I'm doubting whether the above scenario would jibe with
hardcore TCS folks. I've seen too many instances where parents in every
effort to be non-coercive end up being coerced out the whazoo by the child.
Some might say that's not really TCS then, but I've seen it enough that it
seems to be a pretty high probability. For me rights and respect need to be
mutual. I don't feel my kids gain anything by learning that they can coerce
those around them because no one will step in to coerce them out of it. I'm
much more of a "your right to extend your fist stops at my face" kind of
person.

--Danielle

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

Robyn Coburn

<<<Yeah, that would amount to saying "Oh well, to heck with living in this
apartment." >>>

James and I spoke to our neighbor below a few months ago, and basically
asked him how bad our "living life" noise was, and also apologized if he was
being disturbed. He was very kind and told us what time he usually went to
bed (really early by my standards), and how he usually slept like a log once
he got to sleep. The fact that he was so nice and understanding made us want
to redouble our efforts to be considerate.

Robyn L. Coburn

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

[email protected]

In a message dated 7/31/04 11:43:26 PM, queenjane555@... writes:

<< Sometimes individuals minds are so clouded by other things

(like drugs, or a bad relationship, or being "caught up in the

moment", or greed, etcetc)that they DONT know whats best for them. >>

Retaliatory divorce is one of those instances. Someone gets really
angry/hurt/embarrassed and divorces as quickly as possible. When the emotions wear
off, she finds herself out of a family and out of a house and out of the entire
rest of her future plans. Not living with the trees she planted, having to
share custody of kids, get a job, etc.

Not all divorces are that way, but I've seen a couple fairly recently that
were.

Someone got divorced to spite the spouse, and found herself in a whole heap
of worse.

Sandra

Have a Nice Day!

Now I remember more clearly why every TCS/NCP discussion ends up really
irritating me. They have their own made-up definitions of coercion.

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

I'm a little confused.

I agree with you Sandra, but I thought that that *was* NCP.

I'm familiar with TCS and I don't really agree with it. I thought NCP was the same as what you all call "Mindful parenting".

What is the difference?

KRisten

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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/1/04 9:36:38 AM, litlrooh@... writes:

<< I'm familiar with TCS and I don't really agree with it. I thought NCP was
the same as what you all call "Mindful parenting".

<<What is the difference? >>

We use everyday English. We use the dictionary definitions.
They declare "coercive" whatever they want to, it seems to me.

Sandra

eriksmama2001

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary
G& C. Merriam Company, Publishers
Springfield, Mass, USA
copyright 1972
ISBN# 87779-214-3
page 160

coerce/vt 1:to restraiin or dominate by nullifying individual will
2: to compel to an act or choice
3: to enforce by force or threat
syn see FORCE

coercion/n: the act, process, or power of coercing

coercive/adj: serving or intended to coerce


Pat

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/1/04 9:36:38 AM, litlrooh@e... writes:
>
> << I'm familiar with TCS and I don't really agree with it. I
thought NCP was
> the same as what you all call "Mindful parenting".
>
> <<What is the difference? >>
>
> We use everyday English. We use the dictionary definitions.
> They declare "coercive" whatever they want to, it seems to me.
>
> Sandra

Robyn Coburn

<<<If we were living in government housing, it wouldn't BE our house, and if

inspections were an issue we wouldn't have the right to pass on to our
children the right to have their rooms however they wanted and to keep Lego
in the dining room.>>>

One of the great things about this list, and its sister lists, is that
sometimes families in the above type of situation have posted about the
conflict between their limited rights and their desire to give their
children greater freedom. The creative solutions have never been about how
to enforce restrictions on the kids, but on how to get around (or live
within) the regulations legally and without property damage. Just wonderful.

Robyn L. Coburn


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004