We just don't like the context of witches and sorcery and all . . . not putting down anyone who doesn't care, just our preference.As unschooling continues to unfold, please consider the potential problems of "we" when written by the mom about the set of mom-and-children. How did "we" (your we) decide what you (as a collective group) liked? If you-the-mom made the unilateral decision, it will probably help your writing and your children's development if you say "I" when you mean "I."
It will be somewhere between hard and impossible for your children to know what their interests and preferences are if they feel part of a borg-like "we," when it comes to what's liked.
Someone wrote, about limiting television: "... but it's a choice we've made and live fine with."
Not we. What you mean is it's a choice your husband and you have made because it's convenient for the parents and eases your worries. It doesn't feel the same to your daughter. Rules never feel the same to those who are in control as they do to those who are controlled by them.
A mom came to a discussion and wrote, in the course of her question "We're in grade 2."
I asked, "How many of you are in grade 2?"
"One son," she replied, and went on to defend her position that he had few interests, and she was imposing limitions.
Speaking for a child, expecting a child to be a subset of a mom, seems to be just language, but it touches on psychology, philosophy, spirituality, health, respect, abundance and truth
If speaking for a dyad, or a family, or a group, let it be expansive and empowering, not belittling and limiting.
-=-We have a simple rule in our house, no teeth cleaning means no food, I have explained the importance and my son knows that he has to clean his teeth, we have had tantrums in the past over this but it does not usually last more than a few minutes - no breakfast is a strong motivator.-=-
. . . .
-=-we have had tantrums in the past over this-=-
You had a tantrum, or he did?
Karen James, in 2019:
When parents use (or think) "we," they effectively deny that there exist multiple people with multiple experiences, thoughts and beliefs in the home. I think most of the time the use of "we" is meant to be a warm and inclusive sentiment, but it can be limiting and detrimental to cultivating and nurturing truly trusting relationships because there is often a catch--as long as "we" all agree, we're good. But, what happens, when one person in the relationship has a very different idea, and is aware that it goes against what "we" do or what "we" have agreed on? There needs to be room for more than one voice in a home, I think. Everyone needs to know they have a say and that their perspective will be considered sincerely. Only then there can be mutual trust, I believe.
When I was asking Karen if I could use what she had written above, she had another comment, which she's also let me share:
Something you might find interesting is that years ago, Joyce pointed out to me that I was using "we" in this way. I remember feeling sad, because I had meant it to be endearing. It was hard for me to accept that maybe it wasn't good. She was right though. I'm glad I took the time to consider and reflect on her comment. I'm grateful to her for her time and honesty.
About "we" and about family meetings both:
On Always Learning, Feb 2004, someone asked:What are some of the offerings as consecquences I could make during the family meeting for hitting or when they get out 20 different toys and leave them in the "family area" where we are all suppossed to be able to live (he can get out and put up whatever he likes in his own room, etc.)Sandra Dodd:"Offerings of consequences" is gentle-babble for "punishments" and I don't think punishments are a good way to go.