[email protected]

<< Sometimes

simple isn't going to be organic or non-toxic or politically correct, and

sometimes with small children that's okay because being with them in peace

and love is more important (sorry folks) than saving the world. >>

Why is that a "sorry folks"?

I think a kid sitting in her patient mother's lap eating a twinkie is way
better off than one whose mom is a jittery wreck about the future of the
rainforest and is making her eat spotty apples with organic almond butter and drink
guava juice, and then the mom bursts into tears because of the war in Iraq.

In the 50's, motherly self-righteousness seems to have involved clean stoves,
Pine-Sol-ed floors, and starched ironing, and kids were damaged or neglected
in the pursuit of those perfections. Now I see moms intent on world-wide
level concerns while their kids are just wanting some direct interaction without
being told their interests are dangerous, ecologically unsound, politically
incorrect or serving corporate demons.

Sometimes a kid might love a plastic pony whose eyes are too big.
It would be a true shame if a kid loved the pony more than the mom.

Sandra

Dianne

<<I think a kid sitting in her patient mother's lap
eating a twinkie is way better off than one whose mom
is a jittery wreck about the future of the
rainforest and is making her eat spotty apples with
organic almond butter and drink guava juice, and then
the mom bursts into tears because of the war in
Iraq.>>

Maybe you meant something in your post that I am
missing, but this is not an either/or thing, either
happy and loved and filled with junk food or natural
diet and neurotic mother and ruined childhood. Why
not a happy kid in a patient mother's lap eating an
all natural fruit snack and chocolate milk made with
homemade chocolate syrup. If a mom has concerns about
the rainforest why does that make her a jittery wreck.
Why would she automatically burst into tears because
of the war in Iraq unless she has a family member
serving there. (I hope you don't actually know a
mother like the one you described. That would be
pretty sad.)

A mother is a whole person, who not only raises her
child, but also may have concerns about the world her
child is growing up in. I am not just concerned about
the environment I am raising my child in at home, but
also the world he lives in now and will have to live
in as an adult.

<<Now I see moms intent on world-wide level concerns
while their kids are just wanting some direct
interaction without being told their interests are
dangerous, ecologically unsound, politically
incorrect or serving corporate demons.>>

Direct interaction is about the mom and the child.
That is all that has to be present. Now if the mom is
on the phone crusading all the time or spending all
her time at rallies and meetings with no time for her
kids that would be a bad thing.
I am not a big fan of politically correct, but I would
certainly tell my child if something is dangerous.
Ecologically unsound? I would not harp on this until
all the joy was sucked out of life, but I would
discuss my beliefs and feelings about this (although
if my child just wanted to cuddle I wouldn't say let's
talk about saving the planet instead). I am not sure
what a kid might be interested in doing that would be
ecologically unsound. And corporate demons?
Consumerism can be a big problem. If my child is not
interested in having my values, I would at least like
him to have his own values, not what he has been
brainwashed into thinking from TV commercials whose
only interest is in selling a product. If a child's
idea of direct interaction with mother is to go to the
store and buy as many toys that were seen on TV as
possible, then I guess there could be a problem in
more ways than one.
I am not sure from your comments if you really have a
problem with people who follow a natural diet. But
this is something I was thinking about in the
discussion about the three kids who are fighting too
much and the mom whose little girl has behavior
problems when she eats certain things. A lot of
people, kids and adults, have food sensitivities
and/or food allergies that can cause behavior
problems. Everyone talks about sugar and
hyperactivity, but I have no problem with sugar. A
lot of what people think of having sugar in it
actually has corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is
everywhere and some people have corn allergies (my
nephew and I do). Highly processed snacks and
convenience foods also contain a lot of artificial
colors and flavors and artificial colors in particular
can cause behavior problems. A change in diet can
sometimes make a big difference in behavior.
Here are a couple of web sites:
http://www.feingold.org/
http://www.foodcanmakeyouill.co.uk/
http://www.brendasampson.wellington.net.nz/book1/book1-1-3.html


=====
Dianne in Tacoma, WA
Well behaved women don't make history.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/5/04 8:01:10 PM, angels_heart82@... writes:

<< If a mom has concerns about
the rainforest why does that make her a jittery wreck.
>>

Many jittery wrecks blame the rainforest or something else entirely out of
their control and then try to micromanage their children's lives to make up for
their free-floating frustrations.

Some of them are unschoolers, and if someone lists priorities and the child's
happiness isn't in the top five or six, I worry. If someone tries to assure
the list that she really cares about her child's future and so she has to stop
all wars and make sure all homesless are sheltered so that her child can be
happy, I think she's got screwy priorities.

It's an example, and it's made up, but it's based in experience.

-=-Why would she automatically burst into tears because
of the war in Iraq unless she has a family member
serving there. (I hope you don't actually know a
mother like the one you described. That would be
pretty sad.)-=-

It's not automatic. When people work up a bundle of depression and fear of
the world and lack of control, they're often looking out and about at what they
would like to change instead of looking at their own personal wellbeing.
Many people who try to over-control their children (and their environment, the
color of their toys, the material of which their toys are made, whether their
sheets and clothing are logo-free, etc.) are projecting some lack of control
and could probably do WAY better to look at emotional, direct human factors.

-=-<<I think a kid sitting in her patient mother's lap
eating a twinkie is way better off than one whose mom
is a jittery wreck about the future of the
rainforest and is making her eat spotty apples with
organic almond butter and drink guava juice, and then
the mom bursts into tears because of the war in
Iraq.>>

-=-Maybe you meant something in your post that I am
missing, but this is not an either/or thing,-=-

It's not an either or thing, but health food eaten in sorrow is less healthy
than junk eaten in joy. In around those two vague data clumps are LOTS of
shades of emotion and other biological factors.

-=- Everyone talks about sugar and
hyperactivity,-=-

Some people look it up instead of going by the tales of daycare moms, and
find that studies have proven no connection between sugar and hyperactivity. The
"everyone" talking about it should stop.

Sandra

Kristina Kahney

SandraDodd@... wrote:

>Many people who try to over-control their children (and their >environment, the
>color of their toys, the material of which their toys are made, >whether their
>sheets and clothing are logo-free, etc.) are projecting some >lack of control
>and could probably do WAY better to look at emotional, direct >human factors.

This is what I'm having a hard time coming to terms with as a "newbie" on this list. I have 4 kids...7,5,3 and 18 months with baby #5 due in October. For the last several years I have been learning about Waldorf, and connected with a Waldorf community locally. There is so much I just love about Waldorf philosophy, and it really resonates within my soul as truth when I watch my children...and of course other parts I totally dismiss :)

Now that my oldest is 7, and I'm rejecting using any kind of curriculum with her-including a Waldorf one, I'm diving more into the unschooling world. What I'm pondering lately is this concept that I keep hearing on this list that if parents choose to control certain things in their house they are automatically "over controlling" and are doing as SAndra's post says above.

There are some things that seem "controlled" by the parent, especially when kids are as young as mine are, by the simple fact that I make certain choices for *myself* and therefore this is what my kids are exposed to. For example, don't like many sweets, and I definitely see behavior changes in my children (no matter what people "talk about") when they have certain food colorings and an extraordinary amount of sugar. But, mainly because I don't care for it it's just not in our house much, and my kids don't really know otherwise. They don't know twinkies exist, not because I wouldn't allow them to have one, but because I just don't buy them so they haven't been exposed to what they are.

However, if we have cake, ice cream or cookies in our home I would never consider telling them they couldn't eat any of it, nor do I try and limit it at all. They get it when they feel like eating some, and they stop when they're done. No big deal to me.

So..this is just one example, but to me this doesn't feel "controlling" at all. By the simple fact that I do the grocery shopping, I do have some control over what I buy. If anyone in our house has a request, husband or child, I will do my best to honor their request if money allows. My children just don't *know* to ask for anything other than what they've been exposed to so far.

This example can be taken to media too. I don't watch much TV at all, and never do I watch during the daytime as it just doesn't interest me. Therefore, this is what my children have had modeled for them in their lives and they choose not to watch much TV either. I have never said "no" when they ask to watch, but after 30 minutes to one hour they are all up and playing somewhere again. It is rare that they would sit through a movie, it's like they just get bored with it.

I didn't "limit" TV over the years, but I didn't sit them down with a program guide and tell them all of the 599 channels we have to choose from either. So, like my previous example, they only know what we've lived and they have lived with my influence as the caregiver home with them all day.

And, I admit, I do have issues with my young children being exposed to media (whether it's TV programs, commercials, etc) that is overly commercial, sexual, violent or just degrading in general. So, when they ask to watch TV I turn it on a non commercial channel, like PBS or Noggin to avoid commercials. OR, I record things on tivo and fast forward through the commercials (which they like to do anyway). They never, ever, ask for "other" channels...they don't know they exist really. So, I do not say "no", but I'm not exposing them to the whole line-up either.

I've always not quite fit in with the Waldorf crowd, because in their "opinion" I give my children way too much freedom. Now, I'm beginning to feel like I don't mesh with the unschoolers either because I "control" too much.

One last example would be video games. We don't play them, and my children have no idea what they even are. They've never seen one/them and wouldn't know it if they did. The same with computer games....

It just seems that as they find out about these things on their own, they'll be ready to have them in their lives. But, if my child said they would really like a computer game, or video game, I wouldn't be opposed to getting them one either. So, what's the balance?

I am in a good place now, where I'm really thinking about my beliefs and what feels right with my children. Questioning why I do things the way I do, opening up for change. So, I welcome thoughts and comments to aid me in my process. Thanks to you all so much for reading all of this~
Espavo,
Kristina




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

Kristina Kahney

Dianne <angels_heart82@...> wrote:

I do believe my
child needs clean air and water. And I am concerned
about chemical additives in highly processed foods.
Many of these have never been proven safe. I am also
concerned about pesticides in our food and genitically
modified organisms (these aren't even called
genetically modified foods, they are "organisms")
This doesn't mean that I micromanage my child's life
or I am trying to control external aspects of our
lives to make up for lack of control in my own life.
If you said you didn't feed your child Drano because
it is toxic, no one would think you were were
micromanaging or projecting your own lack of control
onto your child.
*********************************************************
Ok,
Diane has said some of what I wanted to say, and I totally agree with you here. I buy organic, healthy whole foods for many reasons. I believe it is the best way to nourish our bodies (just like I chose breastfeeding my children for the same reason), I like supporting the environment in this way, and frankly it's a less expensive way to feed our family. Less processed foods, more whole foods.

There are things I choose as a mother when they're babies, such as unassisted birth, breastfeeding, not vaccinating, cloth diapering, attachment parenting, co-sleeping, etc. I have made all of these decisions after much soul searching and thinking about what, intuitively, feels right for my child. It feels hard just to seemingly throw all of my values aside because my child is some certain age and expect them to understand all aspects and ramification of every decision they make. They can certainly understand a great deal (I see my now 7 yo having great comprehension of these issues) but not as completely as an adult can (when we're speaking of a 5 or 7 yo versus an adult).

I don't expect my kids to understand *why* we eat organic food at their ages (7 and under)....I certainly explain it to them, but I don't get a sense that they can really and fully grasp an issue such as this at their age, so I make this decision for us. Just as I wouldn't hold up a bottle of formula next to my breast to an infant and expect them to choose, they wouldn't have the ability yet. I've always felt that through modeling and sharing in non-judgemental ways *why* I make the choices that I do and then allowing them to come into thier own beliefs and choices as they grow seems natural. And allowing them to have different choices and beliefs than I do, this seems key to me too.

*BUT*, as a very close knit homeschooling family where I am thier main influence, at their age their choices are limited to what I've exposed them too. And that was what my last post was about.... :)
Kristina





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

Dawn Adams

Kristina:

So..this is just one example, but to me this doesn't feel "controlling" at all. By the simple fact that I do the grocery shopping, I do have some control over what I buy. If anyone in our house has a request, husband or child, I will do my best to honor their request if money allows. My children just don't *know* to ask for anything other than what they've been exposed to so far.

This example can be taken to media too. I don't watch much TV at all, and never do I watch during the daytime as it just doesn't interest me. Therefore, this is what my children have had modeled for them in their lives and they choose not to watch much TV either. I have never said "no" when they ask to watch, but after 30 minutes to one hour they are all up and playing somewhere again. It is rare that they would sit through a movie, it's like they just get bored with it.

I didn't "limit" TV over the years, but I didn't sit them down with a program guide and tell them all of the 599 channels we have to choose from either. So, like my previous example, they only know what we've lived and they have lived with my influence as the caregiver home with them all day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe you're interpreting the unschooling idea of not controlling as giving them limitless options. It's certainly not, I couldn't afford that. It's simply letting their choices be their own. So, when your kids feel hungry they're free to eat and free to pick what they want to eat. It doesn't mean you supply them wth every food choice under the sun.

And, I admit, I do have issues with my young children being exposed to media (whether it's TV programs, commercials, etc) that is overly commercial, sexual, violent or just degrading in general. So, when they ask to watch TV I turn it on a non commercial channel, like PBS or Noggin to avoid commercials. OR, I record things on tivo and fast forward through the commercials (which they like to do anyway). They never, ever, ask for "other" channels...they don't know they exist really. So, I do not say "no", but I'm not exposing them to the whole line-up either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But the point is that if they asked to watch something different or wanted to watch the commercials, would you respect that choice? BTW, you'll likely find as I have that an unschooling kid with an active mind is not going to be unduly influenced by a TV commercial.

I've always not quite fit in with the Waldorf crowd, because in their "opinion" I give my children way too much freedom. Now, I'm beginning to feel like I don't mesh with the unschoolers either because I "control" too much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think you've just got the wrong impression about control.

One last example would be video games. We don't play them, and my children have no idea what they even are. They've never seen one/them and wouldn't know it if they did. The same with computer games....

It just seems that as they find out about these things on their own, they'll be ready to have them in their lives. But, if my child said they would really like a computer game, or video game, I wouldn't be opposed to getting them one either. So, what's the balance?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seems you've found it.

Dawn (in NS)







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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 2:54:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kkahney@... writes:

One last example would be video games. We don't play them, and my children
have no idea what they even are. They've never seen one/them and wouldn't know
it if they did. The same with computer games....

It just seems that as they find out about these things on their own, they'll
be ready to have them in their lives. But, if my child said they would
really like a computer game, or video game, I wouldn't be opposed to getting them
one either. So, what's the balance? <<<<


Your oldest is 7. Most kids aren't exposed to a lot of things before "school
age", so it's easy to keep things from them.

As your children get older and are exposed to new and, to them, *really*
cool things, will you really and truly be ready to let them? It's easy now
because of their ages. But in five years when your oldest is 12 and your youngest
(so far) is four, will you be OK letting these "outside, UnWaldorfy" things
intrude on the youngest's life? Will your oldest feel "cheated" in that she
didn't get to play with video games or eat a Big Mac or watch "Ed, Edd, and
Eddy" like all her friends? And what about the younger ones? Will you still be
protecting them to the same extent----or will you be able to back off and
allow your oldest to bring the "outside" world" in?

Just a few questions to throw at you! <g>

~Kelly







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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 1:55:57 AM Central Standard Time,
angels_heart82@... writes:

This doesn't mean that I micromanage my child's life
or I am trying to control external aspects of our
lives to make up for lack of control in my own life.
If you said you didn't feed your child Drano because
it is toxic, no one would think you were were
micromanaging or projecting your own lack of control
onto your child.



~~~

If the shoe doesn't fit, why are you trying to stuff your foot into it? ;-)

It was an illustration. There are as few people who love and cuddle their
kids patiently while feeding them junk food as there are who stress about the
rainforest and make their kids a nervous wreck.

But I do know some of both. If you're not one of them, good. :)

Karen


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 2:56:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
angels_heart82@... writes:

You have gone from talking moms who feed their kids
organic food and are concerned about the environment
to moms who control the logo of their kids sheets. I
think these are two far different categories.<<<<

Most of the moms I know who do one, often do the other. They seem to go
hand-in-hand around here.

I live between two extremes---either bible-thumpers who want keep their kids
from the spiritual evil outside world or crunchy earthmoms who want to keep
their kids from the commercial evil outside world! <g> Then there's ME, the
radical unschoolers! <BWG>


>>>>>I can't agree that junk eaten happily is better than
healthy food eaten unhappily. <<<<<

Really?

If I want to happily eat a Big Mac followed by a Twinkie and my husband
says, "No, honey. I need you to stay healthy! I love you! I've made this
delicious plate of lentils and rice"----which I HATE----I can't even stand the smell
of them cooking! Well, I can tell you, for sure, that I'd be pretty
miserable.

Now, I can choose all, by MYSELF, to eat a salad with organic, chemical-free
vegetables from my own garden----and eat it joyfully. But when I want a
Snickers bar, well---that's what I want. If I'm forced to eat one of those nasty
carob wheat-free rocks because someone else thinks it's "better" for
me,---well....

Moms' will shame their kids into eating only healthful foods. I see it all
the time. There's a boy who goes to park with us. I often pick up fast food
for me and Duncan. This child gets only organic vegetarian. That's fine, if
it's his choice----but he continually asks whether he may have a french fry or a
coke. No---it's carrot sticks and water because "that *junk* is bad for
you." Sad kid.

Better for a child (a PERSON) to understand what is best for his body, but
to still be able to choose "unhealthful" foods than to eat only what someone
else decides is acceptable.

>>>> Food eaten unhappily is
never a good thing, but if you believe junk food is
unhealthy it is still going to be unhealthy no matter
what your emotional state is while eating it.<<<<<

Sure, it'll still be unhealthful---and actually whether you believe it or
NOT. But the point is that your emotional state is MORE important. And the
relationship between a child and his mother is MORE important than ANY food he
can put in his mouth.

~Kelly





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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 6:45:58 AM Central Standard Time,
Wishbone@... writes:

Maybe you're interpreting the unschooling idea of not controlling as giving
them limitless options. It's certainly not, I couldn't afford that. It's
simply letting their choices be their own. So, when your kids feel hungry they're
free to eat and free to pick what they want to eat. It doesn't mean you
supply them wth every food choice under the sun.


~~~

There are natural limits and natural restrictions that make it impossible to
offer unlimited choices. Money and time are the two that I bump up against
most often.

In fact, one of the most useful things I got out of the TCS/NCP debates in
the old AOL forum was the idea of the coercion of time and money. Sometimes
both of these things can cause me to act in ways I regret. Identifying that
I'm being coerced by time and money limitations helps me put my choices in
perspective, and I usually make better ones.

Karen


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

Kelly Muzyczka

> >>>> Food eaten unhappily is
>never a good thing, but if you believe junk food is
>unhealthy it is still going to be unhealthy no matter
>what your emotional state is while eating it.<<<<<
>
>Sure, it'll still be unhealthful---and actually whether you believe it or
>NOT. But the point is that your emotional state is MORE important. And the
>relationship between a child and his mother is MORE important than
>ANY food he
>can put in his mouth.
>
>~Kelly

And it's a matter of degree, too. One twinkee, or two or 12 eaten over
time in an atmosphere of love and trust just AINT GONNA KILL YA!!

But one twinkee, or two or 12 eaten in a spirit of rebellion or sneakiness
can lead to an eating disorder, not to mention the lack of trust in the
parent child relationship.

My sons right now are living on a diet of chicken nuggets, chocolate,
cereal and milk and breastmilk. (Depending on the kid!) I was THRILLED
that they both had some mac and cheese yesterday. But over time, the eat
well enough. They are growing like weeds and are hugely healthy. Those
chocolate bars are NOT GOING TO KILL THEM.

But feeling like having a chocolate bar is a big deal and that Mom is
keeping all the good stuff for herself.....

Kelly

J. Stauffer

<<<<<So, what's the balance? >>>>>

I think that parents do control some things just like you posted, by what
groceries they buy, by whether or not they like to go to the mall, by
whether or not they have a computer or more than one tv.

I think the issues come up when the kids are old enough to be out on their
own, out from under mom's vision. Is mom going to have a fit because the
11yo bought a gameboy with his birthday money? Is mom going to have a fit
because 13yo watched an R movie at a friends' house?

I think the balance comes in when you have to work on meeting everyone's
desires and learning to control ourselves rather than others. My dd is a
vegetarian but would never dream of telling the rest of us not to have meat.
I can't stand to spend time at the mall, but I take my dd when she asks.

We eat healthy food at home, mostly organic because as a "good mom" I can't
see giving my kids something I think is bad for them. I simply don't buy
it. The kids eat what they want when they are out and about.

I don't think that is any different than someone who has issues around
alcohol not having alcohol in their home, not supplying to their kids. My
kids have always been free to have any alcohol. They choose not to.

Julie S.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristina Kahney" <kkahney@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] peace and love (was something else)


>
>
> SandraDodd@... wrote:
>
> >Many people who try to over-control their children (and their
>environment, the
> >color of their toys, the material of which their toys are made, >whether
their
> >sheets and clothing are logo-free, etc.) are projecting some >lack of
control
> >and could probably do WAY better to look at emotional, direct >human
factors.
>
> This is what I'm having a hard time coming to terms with as a "newbie" on
this list. I have 4 kids...7,5,3 and 18 months with baby #5 due in October.
For the last several years I have been learning about Waldorf, and connected
with a Waldorf community locally. There is so much I just love about Waldorf
philosophy, and it really resonates within my soul as truth when I watch my
children...and of course other parts I totally dismiss :)
>
> Now that my oldest is 7, and I'm rejecting using any kind of curriculum
with her-including a Waldorf one, I'm diving more into the unschooling
world. What I'm pondering lately is this concept that I keep hearing on this
list that if parents choose to control certain things in their house they
are automatically "over controlling" and are doing as SAndra's post says
above.
>
> There are some things that seem "controlled" by the parent, especially
when kids are as young as mine are, by the simple fact that I make certain
choices for *myself* and therefore this is what my kids are exposed to. For
example, don't like many sweets, and I definitely see behavior changes in my
children (no matter what people "talk about") when they have certain food
colorings and an extraordinary amount of sugar. But, mainly because I don't
care for it it's just not in our house much, and my kids don't really know
otherwise. They don't know twinkies exist, not because I wouldn't allow them
to have one, but because I just don't buy them so they haven't been exposed
to what they are.
>
> However, if we have cake, ice cream or cookies in our home I would never
consider telling them they couldn't eat any of it, nor do I try and limit it
at all. They get it when they feel like eating some, and they stop when
they're done. No big deal to me.
>
> So..this is just one example, but to me this doesn't feel "controlling" at
all. By the simple fact that I do the grocery shopping, I do have some
control over what I buy. If anyone in our house has a request, husband or
child, I will do my best to honor their request if money allows. My children
just don't *know* to ask for anything other than what they've been exposed
to so far.
>
> This example can be taken to media too. I don't watch much TV at all, and
never do I watch during the daytime as it just doesn't interest me.
Therefore, this is what my children have had modeled for them in their lives
and they choose not to watch much TV either. I have never said "no" when
they ask to watch, but after 30 minutes to one hour they are all up and
playing somewhere again. It is rare that they would sit through a movie,
it's like they just get bored with it.
>
> I didn't "limit" TV over the years, but I didn't sit them down with a
program guide and tell them all of the 599 channels we have to choose from
either. So, like my previous example, they only know what we've lived and
they have lived with my influence as the caregiver home with them all day.
>
> And, I admit, I do have issues with my young children being exposed to
media (whether it's TV programs, commercials, etc) that is overly
commercial, sexual, violent or just degrading in general. So, when they ask
to watch TV I turn it on a non commercial channel, like PBS or Noggin to
avoid commercials. OR, I record things on tivo and fast forward through the
commercials (which they like to do anyway). They never, ever, ask for
"other" channels...they don't know they exist really. So, I do not say "no",
but I'm not exposing them to the whole line-up either.
>
> I've always not quite fit in with the Waldorf crowd, because in their
"opinion" I give my children way too much freedom. Now, I'm beginning to
feel like I don't mesh with the unschoolers either because I "control" too
much.
>
> One last example would be video games. We don't play them, and my children
have no idea what they even are. They've never seen one/them and wouldn't
know it if they did. The same with computer games....
>
> It just seems that as they find out about these things on their own,
they'll be ready to have them in their lives. But, if my child said they
would really like a computer game, or video game, I wouldn't be opposed to
getting them one either. So, what's the balance?
>
> I am in a good place now, where I'm really thinking about my beliefs and
what feels right with my children. Questioning why I do things the way I do,
opening up for change. So, I welcome thoughts and comments to aid me in my
process. Thanks to you all so much for reading all of this~
> Espavo,
> Kristina
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

J. Stauffer

<<<<Identifying that
> I'm being coerced by time and money limitations helps me put my choices
in
> perspective, and I usually make better ones.>>>>

This really struck me. Could you elaborate?

Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <tuckervill2@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] peace and love (was something else)


>
> In a message dated 8/6/2004 6:45:58 AM Central Standard Time,
> Wishbone@... writes:
>
> Maybe you're interpreting the unschooling idea of not controlling as
giving
> them limitless options. It's certainly not, I couldn't afford that. It's
> simply letting their choices be their own. So, when your kids feel hungry
they're
> free to eat and free to pick what they want to eat. It doesn't mean you
> supply them wth every food choice under the sun.
>
>
> ~~~
>
> There are natural limits and natural restrictions that make it impossible
to
> offer unlimited choices. Money and time are the two that I bump up
against
> most often.
>
> In fact, one of the most useful things I got out of the TCS/NCP debates in
> the old AOL forum was the idea of the coercion of time and money.
Sometimes
> both of these things can cause me to act in ways I regret. Identifying
that
> I'm being coerced by time and money limitations helps me put my choices
in
> perspective, and I usually make better ones.
>
> Karen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

J. Stauffer

<<<<Better for a child (a PERSON) to understand what is best for his body,
but
> to still be able to choose "unhealthful" foods than to eat only what
someone
> else decides is acceptable.>>>>

But again, mom controlling or kid getting all choices aren't the only two
options. There are lots of ways things can work out.

I cannot in good conscience go out and buy my kids stuff that I truly
believe in my heart is bad for them. I wouldn't feel that I had done the
right thing, I would be upset. Not fair to me.

I cannot in good conscience force the kids to live the way I want to. As an
unschooler and with my spiritual beliefs, it would be wrong. Not fair to the
kids.

So the way we work it is that I don't buy junk food. The kids get a
generous amount of spending money and they are welcome to buy it or have it
when over at a friends' house, etc.. I also work to make sure that the
healthy food I serve is stuff they like. This morning we had whole wheat
pancakes made with honey, our own free-range eggs, applesauce and whole raw
milk from our own goats. I go out of my way to make sure the stuff is
healthy and palatable but if the kids want a pop-tart they are going to have
to pop for it themselves.

julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <kbcdlovejo@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] peace and love (was something else)


> In a message dated 8/6/2004 2:56:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> angels_heart82@... writes:
>
> You have gone from talking moms who feed their kids
> organic food and are concerned about the environment
> to moms who control the logo of their kids sheets. I
> think these are two far different categories.<<<<
>
> Most of the moms I know who do one, often do the other. They seem to go
> hand-in-hand around here.
>
> I live between two extremes---either bible-thumpers who want keep their
kids
> from the spiritual evil outside world or crunchy earthmoms who want to
keep
> their kids from the commercial evil outside world! <g> Then there's ME,
the
> radical unschoolers! <BWG>
>
>
> >>>>>I can't agree that junk eaten happily is better than
> healthy food eaten unhappily. <<<<<
>
> Really?
>
> If I want to happily eat a Big Mac followed by a Twinkie and my husband
> says, "No, honey. I need you to stay healthy! I love you! I've made this
> delicious plate of lentils and rice"----which I HATE----I can't even
stand the smell
> of them cooking! Well, I can tell you, for sure, that I'd be pretty
> miserable.
>
> Now, I can choose all, by MYSELF, to eat a salad with organic,
chemical-free
> vegetables from my own garden----and eat it joyfully. But when I want a
> Snickers bar, well---that's what I want. If I'm forced to eat one of
those nasty
> carob wheat-free rocks because someone else thinks it's "better" for
> me,---well....
>
> Moms' will shame their kids into eating only healthful foods. I see it all
> the time. There's a boy who goes to park with us. I often pick up fast
food
> for me and Duncan. This child gets only organic vegetarian. That's fine,
if
> it's his choice----but he continually asks whether he may have a french
fry or a
> coke. No---it's carrot sticks and water because "that *junk* is bad for
> you." Sad kid.
>
> Better for a child (a PERSON) to understand what is best for his body, but
> to still be able to choose "unhealthful" foods than to eat only what
someone
> else decides is acceptable.
>
> >>>> Food eaten unhappily is
> never a good thing, but if you believe junk food is
> unhealthy it is still going to be unhealthy no matter
> what your emotional state is while eating it.<<<<<
>
> Sure, it'll still be unhealthful---and actually whether you believe it or
> NOT. But the point is that your emotional state is MORE important. And the
> relationship between a child and his mother is MORE important than ANY
food he
> can put in his mouth.
>
> ~Kelly
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 10:26:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kkahney@... writes:

There are things I choose as a mother when they're babies, such as
unassisted birth, breastfeeding, not vaccinating, cloth diapering, attachment
parenting, co-sleeping, etc. I have made all of these decisions after much soul
searching and thinking about what, intuitively, feels right for my child. It feels
hard just to seemingly throw all of my values aside because my child is some
certain age and expect them to understand all aspects and ramification of
every decision they make. They can certainly understand a great deal (I see my
now 7 yo having great comprehension of these issues) but not as completely as
an adult can (when we're speaking of a 5 or 7 yo versus an adult). <<<

ANd when they become parents, how will you feel if they decide to C-section,
bottle-feed, vaccinate, disposable diaper, spank, and use cribs?

They need to be allowed to make their own decisions without your shaming
them or their upsetting you. Will you be OK in five years when things (and their
ideas) may change?

~Kelly





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

Dawn Adams

Kristina writes:
It feels hard just to seemingly throw all of my values aside because my child is some certain age and expect them to understand all aspects and ramification of every decision they make. They can certainly understand a great deal (I see my now 7 yo having great comprehension of these issues) but not as completely as an adult can (when we're speaking of a 5 or 7 yo versus an adult).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How to they get to the point where they do understand though? Experience. If you (a general you, not specificly you) deny them choice you deny them the experience they'll need later. My daughter (6)knows from experience that sugary junk food does nothing to satisfy her hunger so she can make informed choices about what to eat when she is hungry. For me, the experience and learning that comes from letting them choose chocolate and cheesies for a lunch will lead to a much healthier lifestyle and attitude down the road. I wonder if sometimes in our worry about keeping our kids healthy today we don't hurt them when they are out on their own.

I don't expect my kids to understand *why* we eat organic food at their ages (7 and under)....I certainly explain it to them, but I don't get a sense that they can really and fully grasp an issue such as this at their age, so I make this decision for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My daughter, after a horrible night where she couldn't get to sleep, understands why chocolate doesn't work as a bedtime snack. She knows peanut butter sandwiches are good cavity causers because they sit on her teeth all night and understands that cheese has lots of protein that fills her up. So her bedtime snack choice is usually cheese. Maybe your kids aren't getting enough credit?

Just as I wouldn't hold up a bottle of formula next to my breast to an infant and expect them to choose, they wouldn't have the ability yet. I've always felt that through modeling and sharing in non-judgemental ways *why* I make the choices that I do and then allowing them to come into thier own beliefs and choices as they grow seems natural. And allowing them to have different choices and beliefs than I do, this seems key to me too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed.

Dawn of NS





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

Mary

From: "Kristina Kahney" <kkahney@...>

<<snipped <There are some things that seem "controlled" by the parent,
especially when kids are as young as mine are, by the simple fact that I
make certain choices for *myself* and therefore this is what my kids are
exposed to.>>



I'm just wondering really about the exposure that the children get to things
that aren't chosen by you. My children are now 18, 9, 8 and 3. There are
many things they don't "know" about because I've chosen, for one reason or
another not to have or do. And this is mainly for the 3 younger kids.
Personal issues, money matters, just not knowing of things myself, etc. I
don't see how anyone can expose themselves to everything there is in the
world. BUT, my kids know about so many things that we don't have or haven't
done or watched or read, etc. It just comes from being out in the world and
having friends and visiting places and families. Even my 3 year old will
come and tell me about a little friend and what they ate or watched or where
they went. That's life. Unless the children are never exposed to kids doing
anything different than themselves, don't they just naturally learn all
about that other stuff without you showing them?

And my children have no schooling friends at all. That's not really because
I chose that, it just worked out that way. They have a nice group of all
homeschooling children that we see regularly and other homes we go to. If I
chose no TV or even just PBS or something, I still can't see how my kids
wouldn't know about Disney and YuGiOh and That's So Raven, etc.!! They
really come to me constantly about things they saw or heard and just full of
questions of topics that are *new* to them.

Mary B

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/04 12:54:34 AM, kkahney@... writes:

<< What I'm pondering lately is this concept that I keep hearing on this
list that if parents choose to control certain things in their house they are
automatically "over controlling" and are doing as SAndra's post says above. >>

If you're not doing what I wrote, then you're not. There's not an
"Automatically."
There is such a thing as over control.
There is such a thing as controlling because it feels good.
There are examples all around of us of families who choose toys because they
look good on the shelf, and limit toys because the shelf is full. Home
decorating takes precedence over child development in some families. Friends of
ours only allowed primary color toys, not pastels. They wanted all toys to
match the decor.

Someone on one of these lists said her mother would re-wrap any Christmas
gifts that didn't match her tree color scheme, in paper that matched it. That's
a burst of control beyond my personal ability for sure.

-=-There are some things that seem "controlled" by the parent, especially
when kids are as young as mine are, by the simple fact that I make certain
choices for *myself* and therefore this is what my kids are exposed to. -=-

That's not the kind of control to which I objected. The logical (meaning
analagous, ultimate, parallel, not "sensible") extension of that would be the
idea that a parent would say to a three year old, "Would you rather watch
Barney's Birthday Special or Women of WalMart?" (Kirby got that for his 18th
birthday from a female friend who works at a video store and thought he would be
amused. The Walmart women aren't wearing their work smocks...)

Of course there are natural limitations in homes. I don't have much country
music. I have a fair amount of really OLD country and old-timey stuff, 40's
and before, but not current popular C&W because it gags me. But if I had a kid
who liked it I wouldn't say "Not in my house." Yet they've "been exposed to"
dozens of musical styles in some depth and breadth, live and video and
recordings, over the years. Yet I didn't provide the top 40 Country updates.

-=- For example, don't like many sweets, and I definitely see behavior
changes in my children (no matter what people "talk about") when they have certain
food colorings and an extraordinary amount of sugar. -=-

People often see what they want to see. I'm saying nothing about food
colorings, but the prevailing "wisdom" that sugar causes kids to be hyper has been
disproven in tests with moms who were sure it was true, and found they were
falsely characterizing an outside agent for the sake of saying no to their
children.

-=-They don't know twinkies exist, not because I wouldn't allow them to have
one, but because I just don't buy them so they haven't been exposed to what
they are. -=-

Holly discovered Twinkies last year, watching a rented DVD of Howdy Doody
shows, and it was the black and white advertisement when Twinkies were first
created in the 50's. They really looked awful in B&W so they were described by
Buffalo Bob in words, but still not appealing. <g> I didn't hide Twinkies from
her. I haven't avoided cookie aisles. She's just always had enough food she
liked that she wasn't out scouting something more, something flashier,
something sweeter.

-=-However, if we have cake, ice cream or cookies in our home I would never
consider telling them they couldn't eat any of it, nor do I try and limit it at
all. They get it when they feel like eating some, and they stop when they're
done. No big deal to me. -=-

Same as here.

-=-I am in a good place now, where I'm really thinking about my beliefs and
what feels right with my children. Questioning why I do things the way I do,
opening up for change. So, I welcome thoughts and comments to aid me in my
process. -=-

If you haven't also read at unschooling.com and sandradodd.com/unschooling
there are lots of ideas there. About parenting and unschooling (another set of
considerations), collections of some of the best posts and little articles are
here:
http:/sandradodd.com/life

It's not the only one right way, but it's a way most people had never
considered.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/04 7:22:31 AM, kbcdlovejo@... writes:

<< Moms' will shame their kids into eating only healthful foods. I see it all

the time. >>

And shame isn't good for digestion.
Crying and eating at the same time hardly works at all, but kids all over the
country are shamed to tears, somewhere, every moment of every day. I hope
it's not as bad as it was when I was little, but I know it still happens. Kids
are forced to eat what they don't want, and after it's cold, and sometimes
it's brought out again for the next meal.

-=--but he continually asks whether he may have a french fry or a
coke. No---it's carrot sticks and water because "that *junk* is bad for
you." Sad kid.-=-

Sadness and sorrow aren't good for digestion.

They're also not good for a peaceful, loving relationship between a mother
and child.

-=-You have gone from talking moms who feed their kids
organic food and are concerned about the environment
to moms who control the logo of their kids sheets. I
think these are two far different categories.-=-

They can both be in the same category of over-controlling the environment for
a hoped-for magical effect.

-=-
Food eaten unhappily is
never a good thing, but if you believe junk food is
unhealthy it is still going to be unhealthy no matter
what your emotional state is while eating it.-=-

Did you mean to say it's the belief that makes it unhealthy?

Kelly wrote this, and it's exactly what I meant:

-=-the point is that your emotional state is MORE important. And the
relationship between a child and his mother is MORE important than ANY food
he
can put in his mouth.-=-

Sandra

Ali Kat

I struggled with this "non-control" issue too - especially in regards to media exposure and food. At first, every thing I read seemed scary and like I was expected to give my child EVERY option under the sun. I have slowly begun to realize that this is not necessarily the case. It is allowing my child(ren) to have choices based on the available options while being open to exploring and discovering new options. At least, that is where my thoughts have evovled to at this point.... :)

I don't think of it as controlling unless you say "heck no" without any sincere consideration (and darned solid reason) as to why you are saying "no"... I have learned how to say "yes" and explore things with my daughter. I have learned a new way of approaching things. Instead of saying "we can't", I am learning how to say "how can we...?" I think that I am learning just as much as my daughter in this process!

I keep trying to remind myself of the things I want my daughter to learn, see, experience, think, believe, etc... I want her to be strong, independant, creative, caring, compassionate, and a SMART risk-taker/mistake-maker. I don't want her to grow up with the fear, guilt, opression, and anxiety I have experienced in my own life. To do that, I need to model these things and even change the way I think and look at a problem. It is sometimes very painful, but a good kind of pain...

Ali


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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

Robyn Coburn

<<<<Just as I wouldn't hold up a bottle of formula next to my breast to an
infant and expect them to choose, they wouldn't have the ability yet. >>>>

I had to chuckle at this image. A couple of women in our playgroup have been
trying to get their infant to accept bottles so that they can get a break,
or a chance to go to the store and not have Daddy unable to feed baby if
needed. (Not something I ever aspired to - Jayn has never had a bottle).
They have gotten to the point that the babies will take one fairly easily
from their fathers or other caregivers, but when Mom is there they just want
breast, and will bat the bottle away. Sounds like a strong ability to choose
to me.

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

Robyn Coburn

<<<< "Would you rather watch
Barney's Birthday Special or Women of WalMart?" >>>>

Oh Gosh, are these my ONLY choices????

Heh,heh,heh. ;)

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 8/6/04 8:54:22 AM, jnjstau@... writes:

<< <<<<Better for a child (a PERSON) to understand what is best for his body,

but

> to still be able to choose "unhealthful" foods than to eat only what

someone

> else decides is acceptable.>>>>


<<But again, mom controlling or kid getting all choices aren't the only two

options. There are lots of ways things can work out. >>

Sure, but proposing that one extreme is better than another is not saying the
extremes are the only points on the line.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/2004 10:12:52 AM Central Standard Time,
jnjstau@... writes:

Identifying that
> I'm being coerced by time and money limitations helps me put my choices
in
> perspective, and I usually make better ones.>>>>

This really struck me. Could you elaborate?




~~~

I know, it struck me, too. :)

I would really like to take Will to see the Yankees play in Yankee Stadium
on our way to Boston for the conference. The only tickets left were $80,
each. We would have to give up something else we wanted to do (maybe Cedar Point
or the whale watch or something else) in order to be able to afford the game
at Yankee Stadium. We decided to look at the schedule and see where else
they might be playing, and it turns out they're playing in Cleveland 4 days
before the conference, and the tickets were only $20 each. So the natural,
concrete contraints of limited funds caused me to look for another way to get
what I want (to take Will to see the Yankees). Because *I* am not the one
making the decision, but we are being "coerced" by the contraints of money, Will
is not bothered by the fact he won't be able to see Yankee Stadium, and is
happy to see them play in Cleveland.

That's a real life example. But I remember the exact example where this
became clear to me. It was the classic "toddler not willing to get in the car
seat", but mom coerced her into the seat because she had a doctor's
appointment. The mom coerced the toddler because of the time coercion of the doctor's
appointment. The TCS/NCP adherents would reject and rebuff that coercion
which might lead them to coerce their child, by cancelling the appointment or
not showing up. Usually my time coercion issues are not about something
involving other people, but just a desire to get something "done" in a reasonable
amount of time, or, "I'd like to be in bed by 10:00 tonight because I'm
tired, so would you PLEASE come up and go to bed so I can help you get to sleep?"

Like Sandra, I don't believe TCS/NCP is practical. However, the idea that
outside forces (time, money) can cause me to react in negative way towards my
self and others is simply profound. I believe the coercion of time and money
can be removed from most situations. Even if it can't, it's easier to make
hard decisions when what is coercing me is idenitified.

Karen




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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/04 8:56:03 AM, jnjstau@... writes:

<< We eat healthy food at home, mostly organic because as a "good mom" I can't

see giving my kids something I think is bad for them. I simply don't buy

it. The kids eat what they want when they are out and about.


<<I don't think that is any different than someone who has issues around

alcohol not having alcohol in their home, not supplying to their kids. >>

I don't think it's the same because alcohol is illegal and known to cause
much death both directly and indirectly. "Issues" around alcohol isn't the same
as "issues" around non-organic food. And what is certified organic isn't
always superior to what's locally grown without the bothering of getting certified
organic. A tomato from my neighbor's back yard is probably better for me
than an organic tomato grown in an organic hydroponic greenhouse and then shipped
six states away where it sat in a truck, then a warehouse and then a grocery
store. But my neighbor's yard isn't "certified organic." (I have tomatoes
in my own back yard, likewise non-pedigreed or degreed, but for the sake of
example...)

I don't "have issues" with alcohol so much as I know from personal experience
the devastation alcohol can bring to lives, and I believe that alcoholism can
be genetically passed on. We don't lock liquor up, and our kids are out and
about with cash in their pockets. I'm not washing their ears and eyes out
with soap when they see an advertisement for alcohol. But I don't think
alcoholic beverages should be equated non-certified produce.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/04 8:26:23 AM, kkahney@... writes:

<< I've always felt that through modeling and sharing in non-judgemental ways
*why* I make the choices that I do and then allowing them to come into thier
own beliefs and choices as they grow seems natural. >>

It is natural.

The problem is when it is judgmental and restrictive and the mom is more
concerned with what's in the food that with what's in her child's emotional
wellbeing.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/6/04 11:06:27 AM, tuckervill2@... writes:

<< Like Sandra, I don't believe TCS/NCP is practical. However, the idea
that
outside forces (time, money) can cause me to react in negative way towards
my
self and others is simply profound. I believe the coercion of time and
money
can be removed from most situations. Even if it can't, it's easier to make
hard decisions when what is coercing me is idenitified. >>

That's a lot of big words. <g>

I see it as "try to get to 'yes'" and Joyce wrote something very cool about
this which I saved here:

http://sandradodd.com/joyce/yes

(and some other voices are there too)

Often parents say "can't" when they mean "don't want to be bothered."
That's a way to "no," and a cushiony justification for "no" because it's
easier to say no.

Here's a passage from an otherwise unrelated article:



Wed, Jul 28, 1993
The first thing [Marty] said after “good morning” was “Mom, if you count to
infinity, is it illegal?”

I explained to him about infinity, with a million plus one and a “gadillion”
plus one. He was fine with the explanation, and I said, “Who told you you
can’t count to infinity?” He said I did, so I explained the difference in things
that are impossible and things that are illegal (have consequences).

"Can't" sounds pretty permanent. We were careful not to say, in our kids'
hearing "Marty can't read." We would cheerfully say, "Marty doesn't read yet" (or
Kirby, or Holly). With that, every time it was discussed we were clearly
indicating that we thought the child WOULD read before long, and it was not a
concern. They were certainly learning in many other ways, as anyone close enough
to discuss their reading could see!

http://sandradodd.com/r/persephonics

(but it's about reading, not about coercion, or maybe they tie in anyway!)

Sandra

Robyn Coburn

<<<<One last example would be video games. We don't play them, and my
children have no idea what they even are. They've never seen one/them and
wouldn't know it if they did. The same with computer games....

It just seems that as they find out about these things on their own, they'll
be ready to have them in their lives. But, if my child said they would
really like a computer game, or video game, I wouldn't be opposed to getting
them one either. So, what's the balance? >>>>

This sparked some thoughts in me. , about strewing and Unschooling and what
happens if we are leaving children to find out about things "on their own".

Strewing is deliberately choosing to make available stuff, activities,
games, technologies, people that the kids might be interested in now or
soon. It is proactive, not passive.

Suppose some parents didn't like horses. They don't ride them, and they
don't live in the country. They rarely watch tv, and don't ever mention that
there is a show called "Mr. Ed" (showing my age), and incidentally don't
have the Westerns channel. They don't go to the petting zoo where there are
foals, or the circus with trick riders, maybe specifically avoiding them, or
maybe just because it never came up. It actually takes work to keep
something this ubiquitous on the fringes of life.

By chance the kid, at some older age, happens to make friends with a girl in
a pony club, and it sparks a fantastic interest. The kid is amazed that
there is this huge culture about horses, and there are games like Barbie
Horse Rescue, and it is an Olympic sport, and there is controversy about the
evolution of horses, and different riding styles, and a whole culture of
clothes and saddles and leather work, and breeds and movies, and the role of
horses in wars and history....and on and on. Connections unlimited. The kids
find out that they have a talent for, or enjoyment of, riding, and maybe
feel resentful that they missed out on years of being part of this culture.

Computer/video games are as broad a category as horses - there are lots of
variations, not one homogenous type of game. The experience of unschooled
children, as described repeatedly on these lists, is so overwhelmingly
positive, so full of fantastic learning, skills building, social interaction
through commonality of interests, connections to other areas of interest,
fun, fun, fun. It seems like deliberately withholding knowledge of this is a
shame.

Unschooling in ACTION. Strew some stuff.

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

J. Stauffer

<<<But I don't think
> alcoholic beverages should be equated non-certified produce.>>>>

Then don't equate it at your house.

We don't eat "certified produce" here either. We eat stuff I grew in an
organic manner from organic seed fertilized by our organically fed goats.

All families are different and the issues they are dealing with are
different. Alcohol supplied to children by their parents isn't illegal in
Texas for one thing. Secondly, my young son has Hepatitis and anything I
can do to ease the job his overworked little liver is forced to do, the
better.

If he was into alcohol, I would refuse to buy it for him for his safety.
Not all Hepatitis carriers who drink will have a bad reaction. He was into
highly processed, chemically laden food. As I have educated myself on the
liver and nutrition, I refused to buy something that I thought might shorten
his life. Not every Hepatits carrier who eats junk food will have a bad
reaction.

People who have lost a child to a predator will be much more
watchful/paranoid than people who have never ran across that in real life.

My dad was a highway patrolman. He saw enough dead kids to last a lifetime
and he is an absolute fanatic about seatbelts at all times, no matter what,
period.

Of course, some people are just nuts <grin>.

Julie S.

----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] peace and love (was something else)


>
> In a message dated 8/6/04 8:56:03 AM, jnjstau@... writes:
>
> << We eat healthy food at home, mostly organic because as a "good mom" I
can't
>
> see giving my kids something I think is bad for them. I simply don't buy
>
> it. The kids eat what they want when they are out and about.
>
>
> <<I don't think that is any different than someone who has issues around
>
> alcohol not having alcohol in their home, not supplying to their kids. >>
>
> I don't think it's the same because alcohol is illegal and known to cause
> much death both directly and indirectly. "Issues" around alcohol isn't
the same
> as "issues" around non-organic food. And what is certified organic isn't
> always superior to what's locally grown without the bothering of getting
certified
> organic. A tomato from my neighbor's back yard is probably better for me
> than an organic tomato grown in an organic hydroponic greenhouse and then
shipped
> six states away where it sat in a truck, then a warehouse and then a
grocery
> store. But my neighbor's yard isn't "certified organic." (I have
tomatoes
> in my own back yard, likewise non-pedigreed or degreed, but for the sake
of
> example...)
>
> I don't "have issues" with alcohol so much as I know from personal
experience
> the devastation alcohol can bring to lives, and I believe that alcoholism
can
> be genetically passed on. We don't lock liquor up, and our kids are out
and
> about with cash in their pockets. I'm not washing their ears and eyes out
> with soap when they see an advertisement for alcohol. But I don't think
> alcoholic beverages should be equated non-certified produce.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Have a Nice Day!

I'm curious.

How did you all arrive at the conclusion that emotional wellbeing was more important than so many other factors?

Not that I disagree, I'm just curious how unschooling evolved into placing so much emphasis on emotional wellbeing.

Kristen
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] peace and love (was something else)



In a message dated 8/6/04 8:26:23 AM, kkahney@... writes:

<< I've always felt that through modeling and sharing in non-judgemental ways
*why* I make the choices that I do and then allowing them to come into thier
own beliefs and choices as they grow seems natural. >>

It is natural.

The problem is when it is judgmental and restrictive and the mom is more
concerned with what's in the food that with what's in her child's emotional
wellbeing.

Sandra



"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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