Radical unschoolers and rude kids - Page 7

[UUMom]

Originally Posted by heartmama

I have never seen consensus regarding what constitutes coercion.

I think it's partly because individual experiences tend to shape our perception of what we think is "true".

In my experience it is possible to use distraction as a form of coercion. Another person might not see it that way. That's okay.

I think tricks are manipulation, or coersion. Problem solving and creating happiness isn't. If the child starts to cry even when you try to present something in the carseat, fi, but you tricked him to trap him, and he can't get out but is straining and crying to, and you drive off anyway, that's coersion. Everyone happy all around isn't.

[heartmama]

Clarifying~I'm just agreeing with whomever said these are subjective beliefs. Ds says he wants to ride in the car without a seatbelt. I come up with all kinds of incentives, safety information to give him (he is safer), and brainstorming sessions to help make the seatbelt agreeable. He winds up agreeing to ride with a seatbelt. There is no protest from him at that point. But there is a bottomline...that was not what he actually wanted. He never really got what he wanted~to ride in the front seat. That did not happen.

I can say "Well, I am only giving him more information so that he can make a fully informed decision", and I can choose to see that as different than coercion. But I don't think it's different. What is an informed decision? What information is given? It's subjective. It reflects a value system~mine~what I want and what I believe.

I can say "But ds was free to not ride in the car~to stay home, to call the manufacturer and have the airbags disabled". But my experience is that ds is much less likely to choose this path than, say, my neighbors or my great aunt Louise. There seems to be a space in ds' reality that fits hand in hand with my existence~and whatever form my information takes, will shape what ds considers his own beliefs and desires~and my information winds up being a framework for reality. It isn't something external he picks up and puts down like a jacket. My concerns, what I choose to present as important or useful information, are soaked up into his own viewpoint like a sponge~and this is something I think children are wired to do.

I can say "But there is no threat to him if he ignores my information, so it's not really coercive". External threats pale in comparison to the deepest of all childhood fears~the no-parent fear. You can't stop this or prevent it. It is a universal, primal fear. Children are born wired to form, build, and maintain attachments to primary caregivers. Everything about a baby is meant to get a caregiver's attention and attachment, and in turn, the baby forms a deep and specific attachment right back. Children are very fragile, to varying degree's, when they feel at odds with their caregiver. It is not the same as having a difference of opinion with a college classmate. Rejecting what a parent thinks bumps up against a primal inclination to do exactly the opposite~to mimic, to copy, to absorb, to internalize everything about a primary caregiver.

In hindsight I think the significance of avoiding external punishments had nothing to do with avoiding coercion or reducing the scope of my influence as a parent. Coercion is inevitable, built into the fabric of our interactions. It is there and nothing I can do will change this. The significant result of not using punishment has been what I *did* do instead. I did engage ds in cooperative thinking. I did encourage words, listening, empathy, and verbal communication~so that the result is ds learned this way of communicating, he absorbed these ways of living, and has the ability now to cooperate, use words, and get along easily with others. In hindsight this is so inevitable and obvious to me, but I don't think I got it for a long time. I thought parenting was about avoiding certain mistakes. Really, it's much more than that.

My disclaimer~these are just my thoughts, and not a disagreement with anything said here. I wanted to add it while I had time. This is such a great discussion!

[luv my 2 sweeties]

I haven't been around much lately because I've been trying to cut back on my computer time, but tonight I decided to indulge. Thanks to all of you participating in this thread for making it so worth my time tonight! You've intrigued and inspired me. I always learn so much from MDC moms!

[UUMom]

Heartmama wrote--" I can say "Well, I am only giving him more information so that he can make a fully informed decision", and I can choose to see that as different than coercion. But I don't think it's different. What is an informed decision? What information is given? It's subjective. It reflects a value system~mine~what I want and what I believe."

Are you saying that you feel giving him information about children and statistical car safety is manipulating him to want to ride more safely in the car? I ask beause I have heard some people say theyve felt manipulated by lowered mortailty stats into keeping their children in booster seats, whereas in the old days, kids have 'been fine' in regular lap belts.

Does knowing that children in booster seats are safer make you feel manipulated into using one? Do you feel you've tricked your kid into sitting in the back by telling him kids are statistically safer when they sit in the back?

[thismama]

Man, y'all are a lot more patient than me! I'm more like, "Get in the carseat now! We're in a hurry!"

[heartmama]

UUMom~what I'm trying to say in that post, is that my best attempt at being an impartial provider of information will not lift me out of the the context of our relationship. I am not an impartial provider of information in the eyes of ds. No matter what I say, no matter how I say it, the words of a parent are often not taken to an impartial place in a child's heart.

For me, it's been illuminating to accept this dynamic rather than redouble my efforts to diminish the evidence of it. I'm not sure this looks very different than what you are saying. But my focus isn't on being impartial or never coercing. Instead I want to live in a way that exemplifies the values I find inspiring~communication, listening to each other, empathy, cooperation, trust etc. If I just focus on that, the rest falls into place without a lot of second guessing and self doubt (which is what happens if my focus is on 'not' doing something or 'not' being a certain way).

[UUMom]

I think we all struggle at times. It's good to accept that.

You write this: "But my focus isn't on being impartial or never coercing. Instead I want to live in a way that exemplifies the values I find inspiring~communication, listening to each other, empathy, cooperation, trust etc. If I just focus on that, the rest falls into place without a lot of second guessing and self doubt (which is what happens if my focus is on 'not' doing something or 'not' being a certain way)."

It seems to me that when you offer honest information you are communitcating in a cooperative and trusting way. (sharing stats on child car safety, fi, is critical. You'd be doing your child a disservice, imo, if you didn't share information on how he can help keep himself safer. He's old enough to process the information, after all).

You *are* honoring your values and principles by sharing ipportant information with children, even it means they actually listen to what you're saying. You aren't coersing your child by sharing reality. Sometimes we want to spare our children from harsh realities/stats, but that's not helpful to older children as they venture out into the world as it is.

I think being honest as you are with your older child isn't manipulation or coercion. Do you see what i am saying/asking?

[hsmamato2]

Originally Posted by heartmama

Clarifying~I'm just agreeing with whomever said these are subjective beliefs. Ds says he wants to ride in the car without a seatbelt. I come up with all kinds of incentives, safety information to give him (he is safer), and brainstorming sessions to help make the seatbelt agreeable. He winds up agreeing to ride with a seatbelt. There is no protest from him at that point. But there is a bottomline...that was not what he actually wanted. He never really got what he wanted~to ride in the front seat. That did not happen.

I can say "Well, I am only giving him more information so that he can make a fully informed decision", and I can choose to see that as different than coercion. But I don't think it's different. What is an informed decision? What information is given? It's subjective. It reflects a value system~mine~what I want and what I believe.

I can say "But ds was free to not ride in the car~to stay home, to call the manufacturer and have the airbags disabled". But my experience is that ds is much less likely to choose this path than, say, my neighbors or my great aunt Louise. There seems to be a space in ds' reality that fits hand in hand with my existence~and whatever form my information takes, will shape what ds considers his own beliefs and desires~and my information winds up being a framework for reality. It isn't something external he picks up and puts down like a jacket. My concerns, what I choose to present as important or useful information, are soaked up into his own viewpoint like a sponge~and this is something I think children are wired to do.

I can say "But there is no threat to him if he ignores my information, so it's not really coercive". External threats pale in comparison to the deepest of all childhood fears~the no-parent fear. You can't stop this or prevent it. It is a universal, primal fear. Children are born wired to form, build, and maintain attachments to primary caregivers. Everything about a baby is meant to get a caregiver's attention and attachment, and in turn, the baby forms a deep and specific attachment right back. Children are very fragile, to varying degree's, when they feel at odds with their caregiver. It is not the same as having a difference of opinion with a college classmate. Rejecting what a parent thinks bumps up against a primal inclination to do exactly the opposite~to mimic, to copy, to absorb, to internalize everything about a primary caregiver.

In hindsight I think the significance of avoiding external punishments had nothing to do with avoiding coercion or reducing the scope of my influence as a parent. Coercion is inevitable, built into the fabric of our interactions. It is there and nothing I can do will change this. The significant result of not using punishment has been what I *did* do instead. I did engage ds in cooperative thinking. I did encourage words, listening, empathy, and verbal communication~so that the result is ds learned this way of communicating, he absorbed these ways of living, and has the ability now to cooperate, use words, and get along easily with others. In hindsight this is so inevitable and obvious to me, but I don't think I got it for a long time. I thought parenting was about avoiding certain mistakes. Really, it's much more than that.

Absolutely brilliantly said!

[tudou]

Originally Posted by thismama

Man, y'all are a lot more patient than me! I'm more like, "Get in the carseat now! We're in a hurry!"

[ErikaDP]

Wow! I just wanted to pop back in to say Great Thread!
I now have to go back and read the 5 pages that have been added since I posted here on Monday!

Take Care,
Erika :

[2tadpoles]

Originally Posted by Dar

So negotiation and problem-solving are coercion?

I think they can be. Negotiation sometimes means that neither party really gets what they want. It's often settling for less than what you want in order to avoid conflict.

Problem-solving is different. If the problem is that your child doesn't want to ride in the carseat because the fabric itches the backs of her thighs, then a solution might be for the child to wear pants or sit on a towel. Of course that isn't coercion.

If the problem is that the child hates to be restrained....well, there's really no way to solve that other than not riding in the car. Since that isn't practical for most families, some sort of coercion probably comes into effect in order to keep the child safe and the parents sane. Two-year-olds don't really care about statistics on child restraints.

I'm not sure I agree with the term "your way"... I think it's more about trying to negotiate a solution that works for me, and for the other person too if I care about that person. I don't generally had a "way", but instead certain elements that are important to me. So, my child's safety would be important to me, and I'd want her to be transported safely.

And that is "your way." It's important to you. If you were a parent who couldn't care less about buckling up, then that would be "your way."

It seems to me that a lot of people like to soften words, ideas, or phrases to make them more PC or palatable. I don't do that. I apologize if my ideas sound overly blunt or direct.

I don't think punishment is necessarily related to rules, either... and I do think it's easier to create rules, yes. There's less discussion, problem-solving, thinking... but in the long run, I'm not sure that's a good thing. I can't create rules to cover any situation my teen may run up against, and I feel more comfortable knowing that she doesn't rely on rules to decide what to do, but instead works from core values and problem-solving...

I think that most intelligent kids and teens create their own set of rules, ethics, or codes from whatever core values and problem-solving skills they've learned.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by 2tadpoles

I think they can be. Negotiation sometimes means that neither party really gets what they want. It's often settling for less than what you want in order to avoid conflict.

I consider successful negotiation to mean that everyone gets what he wants. A "mutually agreeable solution", in TCS parlance. No one settles.

Problem-solving is different. If the problem is that your child doesn't want to ride in the carseat because the fabric itches the backs of her thighs, then a solution might be for the child to wear pants or sit on a towel. Of course that isn't coercion.

So what differentiates this from negotiation? Two people want different things, and they discuss and brainstorm until they find an idea that both are completely happy with. I don't see how giving the child a towel to sit on is different from giving him a snack to it. I think this *can* be coercive, but it certainly doesn't need to be.

If the problem is that the child hates to be restrained....well, there's really no way to solve that other than not riding in the car. Since that isn't practical for most families, some sort of coercion probably comes into effect in order to keep the child safe and the parents sane. Two-year-olds don't really care about statistics on child restraints.

See, the black and white thinking is something that radical unschoolers endeavor to free themselves of. One could do some expperiments to help a child understand the importance of restraints... or maybe a different carseat would be more to the child's liking, one that felt less restrictive. I'm sure there are other ideas.

And that is "your way." It's important to you. If you were a parent who couldn't care less about buckling up, then that would be "your way."

I think "your way" implies a specific course of action, rather than a value, which is what I'm talking about. I value safety, but I'm flexible about how that happens. If walking or taking the bus or leaving Rain with the neighbor are preferable to her than coming with me in a carseat, that's fine.

It seems to me that a lot of people like to soften words, ideas, or phrases to make them more PC or palatable. I don't do that. I apologize if my ideas sound overly blunt or direct.

I don't think it's a matter of being "PC" (although I have issues with that term) or blunt, but I think there are nuances to the issue that you're not seeing. I do have my opinions about what is important, but I don't require than Rain share them. Maybe that's what it comes down to.

I think that most intelligent kids and teens create their own set of rules, ethics, or codes from whatever core values and problem-solving skills they've learned.

I see a lot of kids and teens who are stuck at the rule-following stage, and can't seem to make good decsions when there isn't a rule.

dar

[oceanbaby]

Originally Posted by thismama

Man, y'all are a lot more patient than me! I'm more like, "Get in the carseat now! We're in a hurry!"

[Needle in the Hay]

2tadpoles, I just meant that it wasn't "helpful" to the interesting exchange of ideas that this thread was getting to be. JMO but maybe I should have left that out of my other post. Obviously other people didn't mind discussing sugarcoating with you!

[2tadpoles]

Originally Posted by Dar

I consider successful negotiation to mean that everyone gets what he wants. A "mutually agreeable solution", in TCS parlance. No one settles.

Of course that would be successful negotiation.

I said that *sometimes* people have to settle for less. If there is one cookie and two people want it, they obviously aren't each going to be able to have the whole cookie at that given time. Just because both people agree to have half the cookie, or they agree that A can have the whole cookie today and B can have the whole cookie next time, doesn't mean they each really got what they wanted.

So what differentiates this from negotiation? Two people want different things, and they discuss and brainstorm until they find an idea that both are completely happy with. I don't see how giving the child a towel to sit on is different from giving him a snack to it. I think this *can* be coercive, but it certainly doesn't need to be.

If you think about which instances could be defined as coercive, then that will explain how it differs from negotiation.

See, the black and white thinking is something that radical unschoolers endeavor to free themselves of.

I don't think this is true at all. I think that RU's just have black-and-white thinking on a different plane.

If walking or taking the bus or leaving Rain with the neighbor are preferable to her than coming with me in a carseat, that's fine.

That's great that those options are available to you.

I do have my opinions about what is important, but I don't require than Rain share them. Maybe that's what it comes down to.

So if she isn't required to share them, why would she have to stay with a neighbor or take a bus? Why couldn't she just ride in the car with you, unbuckled?

I see a lot of kids and teens who are stuck at the rule-following stage, and can't seem to make good decsions when there isn't a rule.

I don't think I've ever known any children or teens like this. I've known children who choose to disregard the rules, but all the kids I've known have been thinkers.

[mamamoo]

Originally Posted by 2tadpoles

I don't think I've ever known any children or teens like this. I've known children who choose to disregard the rules, but all the kids I've known have been thinkers.

I know adults like this! My husband is one of them. He has been retraining himself for the last 10 years and still has a very hard time making a good decision on his own because as a child/teen they were all made for him. There were so many rules, and his parents were so controlling. It is so sad to see a grown man not able to even pick out a restraunt, or whatever, let alone make bigger life choices.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by 2tadpoles

I said that *sometimes* people have to settle for less. If there is one cookie and two people want it, they obviously aren't each going to be able to have the whole cookie at that given time. Just because both people agree to have half the cookie, or they agree that A can have the whole cookie today and B can have the whole cookie next time, doesn't mean they each really got what they wanted.

We're delving deeply into TCS-think here, but for me it really is a part of a radical unschooling lifestyle...

The idea that someone wants one thing and only that thing rarely comes up in families who live this way. Those are sometimes called "entrenched theories", and IME people raised without coercion just don't generally think that way. "What you really want" isn't a static thing... it can change as you get more information. That's different than settling, because when you settle, one or both people would have preferred their original option. What we aim for is a mutually agreeable solution, which means that both people end up getting something they want as much or more than what they oroiginally wanted.

In the cookie example, maybe someone would remember that there was ice cream in the freezer and prefer that, or frozen egg rolls, or whatever. Maybe both people would decide that fresh cookies would be even yummier, and bake some together. Again, the black and white "I only want this cookie" thing just doesn't happen much with children raised this way.

If you think about which instances could be defined as coercive, then that will explain how it differs from negotiation.

I see how both proble-solving and negotiation could be done coercively, so no, that really doesn't explain it to me...

I don't think this is true at all. I think that RU's just have black-and-white thinking on a different plane.

I guess I don't see it. I do believe that there are always mutually agreeable solutions, even if we don't see them at the time, so I guess I'm black and white on that... but it has worked well for me to think that way. I suppose if I kept running up against situations with no such solutions, I would change my mind, but I don't...

That's great that those options are available to you.

Well, I have a teenager now, so they're not really applicable to me personally... but the idea is that there are always other solutions, if we think outside the box.

So if she isn't required to share them, why would she have to stay with a neighbor or take a bus? Why couldn't she just ride in the car with you, unbuckled?

Because I'm not required to share her idea that riding unrestrained is okay, either. It works both ways. Actually, if it came up I might look at that as an option, especially in certain circumstances. For example, we lived on a farm for years, and my then-9 year old would drive my car around while I sat next to her. I would feel comfortable with an unrestrained child in the car under those circumstances, too...

dar

[KaraBoo]

Lots of good stuff in this thread!

On the subject of rudeness/rules: generally, we live by principles, or values, as others have mentioned. I say "generally" because I'm human so I make mistakes and fall into authoritarian parenting in my not-so finer moments...Anyway, I have been complimented twice this week already on my dd's manners and her comfort with interacting with adults and children of diff. ages. (I said, both times, "well, compliment HER, not ME" and then laugh but that's a diff. thread...)

Neither one of these situations were in a homeschooling/unschooling hangout scenario. Just normal life.

[chfriend]

Does anyone else have the experience of having their kids be better at generating options until we find one we can both live with than you are? Because my 6 year old just rocks at it.

I'll be in this, well, there's no way out but me just taking over place, and she'll come up with this totally reasonable answer that was right in front of us if I wasn't panic-ing that there is no way to solve it amicably?

It's the strangest feeling. I'm getting all stressed out and she says, well, we could [solution A] or [solution B]. Would either of those work.

And I am left saying, um, yeah, I guess either A or B would work.

[lauradbg]

Yes, chfriend, my daughter is brilliant at finding solutions. She's just very flexible. I get sitff and stuck sometimes and so does my son.

My daughter routinely figures out what we all should do when there is a conflict. She rocks!