or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › My perceptions of HS'ed kids growing up is influencing my decision now...advice?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My perceptions of HS'ed kids growing up is influencing my decision now...advice? - Page 6

post #101 of 193
The *reason* Nemo risked himself by swimming out to the boat was that he was 1) oversheltered by his dad and 2) unaware of the danger because he was unusually niave due to his sheltered state.

I agree that parents must find a balance for their own families.

Both extremes are (in my opinion) unhealthy.

db
post #102 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
I gave the example that I would probably not take my 6 yr old and my almost-3 yr old to an - movie.
I'm still trying to figure out what "an - movie" is. I can't respond as to whether or not I think that's over-sheltering until I know what it is.

Quote:
I also mentioned that I would not give "equal time" to views I consider immoral. Are you considering these examples extreme, moderate, or neither?
I think it all depends on how old the kids are.

I think that what's going on over in Iraq is immoral. My kids and I talk about it a lot. I think they need to know what's going on in the world, especially since their dad is over there.

I have a serious problem with Internet smut. My teenager and I have discussed it at length, because I want him to know exactly what my issues are with it and why.

I don't approve of lying and sneaking. When I notice someone doing that, I point it out to my kids as an example of how NOT to behave.

I don't think people can truly recognize "good" unless they also know of "bad."

I also think that over-sheltering can backfire. My friend was a fanatic about not letting her kid play with toy guns or watch movies that contained fighting (like Power-Rangers stuff) when he was little. Guess whose kid is obsessed with BB guns and violent video games now? Guess whose kid is the bully/hitter of the bunch?

And as DebraBaker said, kids who are completely kept in the dark about the big-bad-world will not be able to recognize danger once they're in it.
post #103 of 193
Quote:
What about Gordan Neufeld and Gabor Mate, authors of the hypershelterers' manifesto "Hold On to Your Kids"? I
This book has nothing to do with hyper-sheltering your kids. It is about nurturing a strong attachment with your child so that they can be out and about, have friends and yes, even go to school, and develop healthy relationships while still being anchored by a solid, attached relationship at home.
post #104 of 193
I was *weird and dorky* and I went to public school!

Maybe the homeschooled children seem *weird and dorky* because they are not like the usual herd you were used to teaching? It seems my children's cousins won't talk to any adults only children and I think it's because they have been institutionalized to segregate themselves that way!

I like the way my son is never embarrassed or offended when he plays with other non-homeschooled children! He's so free!!!
post #105 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2tadpoles
I also think that over-sheltering can backfire. My friend was a fanatic about not letting her kid play with toy guns or watch movies that contained fighting (like Power-Rangers stuff) when he was little. Guess whose kid is obsessed with BB guns and violent video games now? Guess whose kid is the bully/hitter of the bunch?
I agree with your statement and also wanted to point out antedotal evidence that my children's cousin is showered with violent toys like guns and swords and violent video games and he is the agressive bully/hitter of the family. My son has been sheltered from those bad influences and he is not a bully or obsessed with it. I have noticed he registers mild shock as I do when I see violence and I am glad he notices it and is bothered by it a little. It shows he has empathy. It's scary the way some children are unaffected by violence.
post #106 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2tadpoles
I'm still trying to figure out what "an - movie" is. I can't respond as to whether or not I think that's over-sheltering until I know what it is.
Sorry, I meant to say "an R-rated movie." Sometimes I'm typing with a kid on my lap or while doing other things, and I miss a word.

Quote:
I think it all depends on how old the kids are.


I agree; I think most people would. But specifically--what is appropriate for a 6 yr old, for example?

Quote:
I think that what's going on over in Iraq is immoral. My kids and I talk about it a lot. I think they need to know what's going on in the world, especially since their dad is over there.


We talk about it a lot too, and the kids know *why* I think it's immoral. I don't give "equal time" to other points of view. Do you think that's appropriate?

Quote:
I have a serious problem with Internet smut. My teenager and I have discussed it at length, because I want him to know exactly what my issues are with it and why.


My kids don't know about internet smut, or smut at all, because they've never been exposed to it. By the time they're teenagers I'll certainly tell them about it just so they know what it is, but I wouldn't show it to them. Is that over-sheltering?

Quote:
I don't approve of lying and sneaking. When I notice someone doing that, I point it out to my kids as an example of how NOT to behave.


Me too.

Quote:
I don't think people can truly recognize "good" unless they also know of "bad."


I agree. But how intimately acquainted do they have to be with "bad" at what age is the question, I think.

Quote:
I also think that over-sheltering can backfire. My friend was a fanatic about not letting her kid play with toy guns or watch movies that contained fighting (like Power-Rangers stuff) when he was little. Guess whose kid is obsessed with BB guns and violent video games now? Guess whose kid is the bully/hitter of the bunch?


I know there are cases like this, and cases of the opposite, but we can't really know what causes these things. Maybe that kid would have been less violent if he had been exposed to it more, maybe he would have been more violent. We can't ever know.

Quote:
And as DebraBaker said, kids who are completely kept in the dark about the big-bad-world will not be able to recognize danger once they're in it.


In some cases, maybe. I should look up this Nemo movie so I know what y'all are talking about...

But I don't think you need to know the specifics of something to understand danger. I've talked to my kids, especially the older one, about not going with strangers because someone might hurt them. I didn't tell them about kidnapping or sexual molestation because they don't need to know something that serves no purpose but to scare them.

Although I wasn't thinking even so much of sheltering kids from danger or things that would scare them as sheltering them from immorality. I was thinking of that because of the connection being made to religion. That's why I was asking about *concrete specifics*--what are we actually talking about?
post #107 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanbaby
This book has nothing to do with hyper-sheltering your kids. It is about nurturing a strong attachment with your child so that they can be out and about, have friends and yes, even go to school, and develop healthy relationships while still being anchored by a solid, attached relationship at home.
It's open to interpretation I think. They were arguing that children being drawn in to peer culture is not a desirable thing, which is all I'm saying. "Hypershelter" was Debra Baker's term; I was quoting her. I don't think there's anything "hyper" about trying to prevent kids from falling into the peer-centered pop-culture trap.
post #108 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntLavender
I have noticed he registers mild shock as I do when I see violence and I am glad he notices it and is bothered by it a little. It shows he has empathy. It's scary the way some children are unaffected by violence.
This is the point I was trying to make. People *should* be shocked at violence. They *should* be shocked and upset at these evil things. But if they're exposed to it repeatedly at a young age, they become desensitized. If one person dies it's a tragedy, if a thousand people die it's a statistic (or however Stalin said it).
post #109 of 193
It's interesting that we're discussing one subsection of homeschoolers as being too sheltering or isolationists-I think a big part of society thinks ALL homeschoolers are!

We're a Christian family (specifically Catholic-although I still lean toward my non-denominational Christian upbringing) and I always thought our son would go to a private Christian (probably Catholic) school. I wanted that because I didn't want learning about our faith to be separate from the bulk of our son's day. (So much time is spent in school!) But my son started having problems in his Catholic preschool (he has a mild autism spectrum disorder, but we didn't know it at the time) and we were asked to leave. I learned then (and through other discussions and other people's experiences) that for a kid with some special needs, a private religious school isn't always the best place.

Public school was much more welcoming, but there were influences there that I wasn't happy about (and my son isn't happy there.) My son learned the term, "fu*#ing b!$ch" in KINDERGARTEN from another kid! That same kid told my son about "kissing girls' boobies." And strangely, the say no to drugs campaign starts in pre-k in our district! My son didn't need to know anything about drugs at 4!

So we've chosen homeschooling by default I guess. I'm glad that we'll be able to integrate our faith with the rest of our day. I'm glad my son doesn't have to deal with the rejection and disapproval at a private religious school. I'm glad he's not going to be hearing teachers cussed out and about porno movies in elementary school anymore. And I will choose when to discuss issues like drugs with him. So in a way I am sheltering him. In a good way. And I don't feel bad about it at all. (But I won't make him wear high waters...)
post #110 of 193
Quote:
But I don't think you need to know the specifics of something to understand danger. I've talked to my kids, especially the older one, about not going with strangers because someone might hurt them. I didn't tell them about kidnapping or sexual molestation because they don't need to know something that serves no purpose but to scare them.
I am not trying to be argumentative, and I only bring this up because it's kind of a passion of mine, but they are much much much much much more likely to be sexually molested by someone they know and trust than be hurt by a stranger. So talking to them about sexual molestation would be much more likely to keep them safe than talking to them about strangers. In fact, I think talking about stranger danger is more likely to only serve the purpose of scaring them, since sexual molestation is so prevalent. Not that I haven't discussed strangers with my child, but if you're going to pick one thing to discuss with them in hopes of keeping them safe it is sexual molestation by people they know and trust. A very excellent book about this is Protecting the Gift.
post #111 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
This is the point I was trying to make. People *should* be shocked at violence. They *should* be shocked and upset at these evil things. But if they're exposed to it repeatedly at a young age, they become desensitized.
I totally agree with this, homeschooled or not. We live in a big city and there are a lot of buses around. Awhile back there was a huge ad on the side of what seemed like all the buses for some big action movie, and the entire ad was a huge hand holding a gun pointing outwards. It drove me crazy. We would be sitting at a red light and a bus would pull up next to us, with this big gun pointing at us, and I would start ranting about my children becoming desensitized to the sight of a gun. I think it should be a huge deal to see a gun pointed at you. And the fact that these buses are just driving all over town with this image and no one even thinks twice about it - I just don't know what to think about that.

Okay, enough off topic rambling by me.
post #112 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by momofcutie
It's interesting that we're discussing one subsection of homeschoolers as being too sheltering or isolationists-I think a big part of society thinks ALL homeschoolers are!

We're a Christian family (specifically Catholic-although I still lean toward my non-denominational Christian upbringing) and I always thought our son would go to a private Christian (probably Catholic) school. I wanted that because I didn't want learning about our faith to be separate from the bulk of our son's day. (So much time is spent in school!) But my son started having problems in his Catholic preschool (he has a mild autism spectrum disorder, but we didn't know it at the time) and we were asked to leave. I learned then (and through other discussions and other people's experiences) that for a kid with some special needs, a private religious school isn't always the best place.

Public school was much more welcoming, but there were influences there that I wasn't happy about (and my son isn't happy there.) My son learned the term, "fu*#ing b!$ch" in KINDERGARTEN from another kid! That same kid told my son about "kissing girls' boobies." And strangely, the say no to drugs campaign starts in pre-k in our district! My son didn't need to know anything about drugs at 4!

So we've chosen homeschooling by default I guess. I'm glad that we'll be able to integrate our faith with the rest of our day. I'm glad my son doesn't have to deal with the rejection and disapproval at a private religious school. I'm glad he's not going to be hearing teachers cussed out and about porno movies in elementary school anymore. And I will choose when to discuss issues like drugs with him. So in a way I am sheltering him. In a good way. And I don't feel bad about it at all. (But I won't make him wear high waters...)
I know what you mean, the "check your values at the door" atmosphere of most public schools is a big part of the problem. And I know you weren't addressing my question specifically, but this is exactly the kind of concrete example I was looking for. And I agree that "f-----g b----," "kissing girls' boobies," and info on drugs are *not* in any way appropriate for a kindergartener to be exposed to.

Highwaters could make a comeback yet! Big floppy lace hairbows seem to be coming back and I never thought I'd see those again...
post #113 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanbaby
I am not trying to be argumentative, and I only bring this up because it's kind of a passion of mine, but they are much much much much much more likely to be sexually molested by someone they know and trust than be hurt by a stranger. So talking to them about sexual molestation would be much more likely to keep them safe than talking to them about strangers. In fact, I think talking about stranger danger is more likely to only serve the purpose of scaring them, since sexual molestation is so prevalent. Not that I haven't discussed strangers with my child, but if you're going to pick one thing to discuss with them in hopes of keeping them safe it is sexual molestation by people they know and trust. A very excellent book about this is Protecting the Gift.
I take your point, and I really do appreciate your concern. I think they're pretty safe because the only adults they're ever alone with are me, my husband, my niece, and their semi-regular babysitter. And although I haven't discussed the specifics of sexual molestation, they both know that they should never take their clothes off in front of anybody and no one should ever take his clothes off in front of them. We can get more specific as they get older. I've tried to avoid the "all strangers are bad and scary" concept and I've never told them not to talk to strangers (which I think is a pretty silly thing to teach anyway since most of us talk to strangers all the time), but specifically not to go anywhere with someone they don't know or without talking to me.

A few people have recommended that book to me. I'll have to check it out.

Semi-off-topic, but related to sheltering, in the book "A Return to Modesty" Wendy Shalit suggests that the increase in child-on-child sexual harassment is related to earlier and earlier sex ed, and that teaching young children to be sexually open inhibits them from exercising their natural boundaries. To be sure this is outside her field, but an interesting idea.



Quote:
I totally agree with this, homeschooled or not. We live in a big city and there are a lot of buses around. Awhile back there was a huge ad on the side of what seemed like all the buses for some big action movie, and the entire ad was a huge hand holding a gun pointing outwards. It drove me crazy. We would be sitting at a red light and a bus would pull up next to us, with this big gun pointing at us, and I would start ranting about my children becoming desensitized to the sight of a gun.
That's disgusting. Do people not think about these things, or do they just not care?

Quote:
I think it should be a huge deal to see a gun pointed at you.
Trust me, it is.

Quote:
And the fact that these buses are just driving all over town with this image and no one even thinks twice about it - I just don't know what to think about that.
Most Americans are at the same time so sheltered from actual violence and so desensitized to the "entertainment" version, why should they think twice?

It's certainly a sad commentary on our mainstream society.
post #114 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
Highwaters could make a comeback yet! Big floppy lace hairbows seem to be coming back and I never thought I'd see those again...
Hmm. I give acid washed jeans and spandex pants about two years. Which starlet will wear them first?
post #115 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
Although I wasn't thinking even so much of sheltering kids from danger or things that would scare them as sheltering them from immorality. I was thinking of that because of the connection being made to religion. That's why I was asking about *concrete specifics*--what are we actually talking about?
Well, I guess I'm not actually sure, because I don't equate morality with religion. I know plenty of non-religious people with high values and integrity, and lots of religious folks who don't, so the two things don't seem to have much to do with each other.

No Morality Without The Bible?

Quote:
We have used human intelligence to cure diseases, split the atom, and invent a technology that has us reaching for the stars, yet [they] would have us believe that we are too stupid to discover that lying, stealing, and [edited by Mothering.com] are harmful enough to the general welfare to be considered morally wrong. That view of life is about as pessimistic as any that can be imagined.....
post #116 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna
Semi-off-topic, but related to sheltering, in the book "A Return to Modesty" Wendy Shalit suggests that the increase in child-on-child sexual harassment is related to earlier and earlier sex ed, and that teaching young children to be sexually open inhibits them from exercising their natural boundaries. To be sure this is outside her field, but an interesting idea.
I don't believe that sex ed will teach a child to objectify themselves either sexually or as a commodity, in part because it is not presented in this context. This is a larger cultural issue, and it even goes beyond advertising -- though the ad industry is a huge component. I'd recommend Lost Icons: Reflections on Cultural Bereavement by Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury), particularly the first essay.

We're homeschooling partially to shelter; but not from other people's beliefs or from information, etc. Even if we believed ps would meet our children's academic needs (we don't), we wouldn't want them thrown into a cynically "sophisticated" peer group. I just don't believe segregating according to age is the best or a natural way to bring up children. That said, we hope to give them a broader range of experience and exposure to ideas, etc. than they would receive in school. So I say seriously that we homeschool to open the world to them, even though we intentdto shelter them from a small component.

Switching topics. As for whether religion is a necessary component of morality, that seems to be such a pessimistic, fear based view of humans. Both because it says we need some external force to keep us good and because it tends to make one fearful of those who believe either something different than ourselves or something difficult for us to understand. Some of the most principled and moral individuals I know are atheist. Our household is atheist, but we are big on personal responsibility. Last night at bedtime, I spoke with my oldest a transgression earlier in the day (long story) and asked if she had apologized yet. She started to say M (friend) told her to do it, but stopped (with no reaction or prompting from me) and said, "No, I did it. It was me." That's very difficult for a 4 yo and I am proud of her. She apologized to the injured party first thing this morning without further discussion on my part.

Edited to fix some typos.
post #117 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna

Semi-off-topic, but related to sheltering, in the book "A Return to Modesty" Wendy Shalit suggests that the increase in child-on-child sexual harassment is related to earlier and earlier sex ed, and that teaching young children to be sexually open inhibits them from exercising their natural boundaries. To be sure this is outside her field, but an interesting idea.
I highly disagree with this. The increase in child sexual harassment has a lot more to do with people actually taking it seriously instead of writing it off as "boys will be boys." It's reported. Boys looking up girls skirts, teasing them about breast size, calling other boys "fags" etc happened all the time in my small rural town, where outre things like sex ed were forbidden other than "fornication is evil" messages from our middle school teachers. Sexual harrassment happened in my mother's generation (1950s) all the time, but it was usually considered the girl's fault somehow.

If anything, I think that schools and society are better about telling young women that they don't have to put up with harrassment or assault, and they can report it and not be considered at fault. People actually care. There was such a huge shift between my middle school years and high school years (early 1990s).
post #118 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2tadpoles
Well, I guess I'm not actually sure, because I don't equate morality with religion. I know plenty of non-religious people with high values and integrity, and lots of religious folks who don't, so the two things don't seem to have much to do with each other.

No Morality Without The Bible?
I didn't mean to suggest that people had to be of a specific religion to be moral. I was just trying to trace the winding chain of subtopics of this thread--the 1st poster said that hs kids were perceived as dorky, and several people suggested that this was because hs'ing was dominated by religious people who gave hs'ers a bad name and "hypersheltered" their kids from negative influences. We were talking about sheltering in the sense of sheltering them from negative influences, which is associated with Christian hs'ers (though certainly not exclusively). So that's the kind of sheltering I was thinking of, not sheltering from danger or things that would scare them.

That was too long an explanation...

As to that article... I'm not sure we really want to go there. But the biggest fallacy I see in that line of argument (that people could figure out for themselves that certain things are wrong) is that people *still do those things.* If people were 100% rational creatures, and it were just common sense that they should behave a certain way, no one would behave differently. The fact is that while it is in humanity's and society's collective best interest for everyone to abide by a basic code of conduct, it is in people's individual best interests to do whatever they want and take whatever they can get their hands on. You can argue all day long about how respect for private property is the foundation of social order and disrespect for this will lead to chaos, and I will nod and agree with you in theory, but if you leave a pile of money unguarded on a table, it will be in my individual best interest to take it, and I will do so, *unless* I
a) am afraid of being caught and punished, or
b) have a sense of morality that tells me that stealing is wrong.
And we gd'ers know how flimsy and fleeting fear of punishment is as a motivator.

So I don't think it's a question of whether people have the logical capability to discern that vice is not in the collective best interests of society or humanity as a whole, but whether this rational knowledge alone is sufficient motivation for people to put aside their own selfish interests. A brief look at human behavior past and present would indicate that it is not.

I also don't think it's fair to credit curing diseases, etc. to "humanity." Those things were done by specific individuals with years of training and research. I suppose you could include their predecessors who provided that training and research, but at best you would be able to credit "the scientific community," which has never been more than a tiny tiny fraction of humanity as a whole. Most people throughout most of history have been illiterate. I've certainly never cured a disease or split an atom.

But it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. Faith, by definition, is something you believe without needing proof. People of faith believe what we do because we believe it's true, not because we think it makes good social engineering.
post #119 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoHiddenFees
I don't believe that sex ed will teach a child to objectify themselves either sexually or as a commodity, in part because it is not presented in this context. This is a larger cultural issue, and it even goes beyond advertising -- though the ad industry is a huge component. I'd recommend Lost Icons: Reflections on Cultural Bereavement by Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury), particulary the first essay.
I certainly wouldn't give a free pass to the ad industry or other elements of pop culture, and Shalit doesn't either. But her point, which I'm inclined to agree with, is that sex ed is part of this. Not because it teaches kids to objectify themselves, but because the teachers are so focused on being "open" about sexuality and attaching no significance to it. If sexual parts are no different than any other parts, why would it be so much worse to grab someone's crotch than to grab their hand? In an environment that is respectful of privacy, modesty, and chastity, this would be self-evident, but when the educational establishment is trying to drill those traits out of kids at the earliest possible age, it's understandable that the kids would be confused. Why is little Johnny being yelled at for looking up little Janey's skirt when his whole life every adult who has ever taught him has told him (verbally or otherwise) that sex has no more moral, emotional, or spiritual significance than shaking hands?

Quote:
We're homeschooling partially to shelter; but not from other people's beliefs or from information, etc. Even if we believed ps would meet our children's academic needs (we don't), we wouldn't want them thrown into a cynically "sophisticated" peer group. I just don't believe segregating according to age is the best or a natural way to bring up children. That said, we hope to give them a broader range of experience and exposure to ideas, etc. than they would receive in school. So I say seriously that we homeschool to open the world to them, even though we intent to shelter them from a small component.
I agree with this, and I think most "uberreligious" Christian hs'ers would, too.

Quote:
Switcing topics. As for whether religion is a necessary component of morality, that seems to be such a pessimistic, fear based view of humans.


Well, I think that there's plenty of good reason to have, if not a *pessimistic* view of humans, at least not to be naive about the human capacity for evil.

Quote:
Both because it says we need some external force to keep us good
I would consider religious belief an *internal* force. It's based on an a person's individual beliefs and personal self discipline, not something external like threat of punishment.

Quote:
and because it tends to make one fearful of those who believe either something different than ourselves or something difficult for us to understand.
How so? I'm not fearful of people with other beliefs unless they're trying to force me to live by their beliefs. Disagreement isn't fear.

Quote:
Some of the most principled and moral individuals I know are atheist. Our household is atheist, but we are big on personal responsibility. Last night at bedtime, I spoke with my oldest a transgression earlier in the day (long story) and asked if she had apologized yet. She started to say M (friend) told her to do it, but stopped (with no reaction or prompting from me) and said, "No, I did it. It was me." That's very difficult for a 4 yo and I am proud of her. She apologized to the unjured party first thing this morning without further discussion on my part.
I'm glad your daughter is learning such strong values
post #120 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingspaghettimama
I highly disagree with this. The increase in child sexual harassment has a lot more to do with people actually taking it seriously instead of writing it off as "boys will be boys." It's reported. Boys looking up girls skirts, teasing them about breast size, calling other boys "fags" etc happened all the time in my small rural town, where outre things like sex ed were forbidden other than "fornication is evil" messages from our middle school teachers. Sexual harrassment happened in my mother's generation (1950s) all the time, but it was usually considered the girl's fault somehow.

If anything, I think that schools and society are better about telling young women that they don't have to put up with harrassment or assault, and they can report it and not be considered at fault. People actually care. There was such a huge shift between my middle school years and high school years (early 1990s).
I certainly agree with you regarding teens and pre-teens, but kindergarteners? 1st graders? Young children who really, literally have no concept that what they're doing is wrong? *Something* is telling them that it's okay to do this. Advertising and pop culture are a big part of this, but sex ed as currently taught reinforces those pop culture messages and gives them the air of authority and scientific fact.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at Home and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › My perceptions of HS'ed kids growing up is influencing my decision now...advice?