What's TCS? - Page 8 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#211 of 233 Old 10-08-2005, 03:50 PM
Dar
 
Dar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassykat
I do question the logic of allowing a two-year old outside alone, just because his older sister is outside alone. The potential for danger or an accident is huge.
But no one is advocating that, or at least TCS isn't. There's a whole world of possibilities besides forbidding and allowing... with TCS, there is no forbidding and no allowing. There's only solution-finding. It's a different paradigm.

Quote:
I have done no research on children being born with innate rationale--does this mean that there is existing research that children are rational from birth, or that no one can prove that children aren't rational at birth?
The latter. Or. at least, no one has disproved it as of yet.

Dar

 
fambedsingle1.gifSingle mom to Rain (1/93) , grad student, and world traveler earth.gif


  

Dar is offline  
#212 of 233 Old 10-08-2005, 04:35 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
**Edited because I decided not to continue debating.**
dharmamama is offline  
#213 of 233 Old 10-09-2005, 06:54 AM
 
babybugmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: At the Dingo Cafe'
Posts: 10,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Again - although the discussion is intense I think everyone is doing a great job of keeping it on topic and not personal. I am thoroughly enjoying reading everyone's thoughts and opinions. It's fascinating the *business* of parenting. I'm even using lots of thoughts here with my own little one. Thanks for keeping such a potentially charged conversation simply fascinating.
babybugmama is offline  
#214 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 10:56 AM
 
Kateri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I haven't had a chance to read much of this thread (apologies if this was already brought up) but this philosophy sounds very much in line w/ Alfie Kohn's _Unconditional Parenting_. Quite likely this book was mentioned? I read _UP_ over the summer and was very impressed and inspired. Have been working hard to reduce any of my controlling tendencies and to invite everyone to problem solve. As a result, I have been feeling much closer to and connected with my children. I'm also very impressed w/some of the solutions my kids come up with and how it seems to make them feel as they bring up ideas/solutions/plans/goals. It's wonderful! Think I need to work w/ giving my youngest more autonomy. It feels as though I'm carting him around alot and managing him in a way that works w/the rest of our goals a little more often than he may be happy with.
Kateri is offline  
#215 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 12:48 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To those interested in Unconditional Parenting,

I found a "Unconditional Parenting" 'tribe' in the 'Finding Your Tribe Forum'. It is inspirational to me.

Another similar mentor of mine is Jan Fortune Wood. She has a website called 'autonomous child'. Here is a link: http://www.autonomouschild.co.uk/

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#216 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 01:18 PM
 
TinkerBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharmamama
Ps. Just to make sure we're on the same page regarding terminology, it is my understanding (based on reading the TCS pages and having email conversations with David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge) that a child is being "coerced" any time they are not completely happy with any outcome or solution. FTR, I don't believe that is coercion. To me, coercion is making a person act against their will. I believe that people can be not completely happy (or even unhappy) with a given situation but still not be acting against their will.

Also, I wanted to add that I had a very bizarre email exchange with David Deutsch in which he told me that, had my nephew been raised in a TCS family, he wouldn't have had Asperger's. I thought that recasting a neurobiological disorder as a parenting disorder was off the wall, to say the least.

Namaste!

I would have been LIVID about the snide remark about your nephew. Who does this man think he is? I am sorry, but he sounds like he is very ignorant.

I mean no disrespect. If a person wants to raise their children TCS, do it. I personally just do not agree or could raise my children that way.
TinkerBelle is offline  
#217 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 02:20 PM
 
UUMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
UP isn't a TCS book. But AK is where I fall on the relaxed parenting spectrum. AK talks about his children's bedtimes, schools etc. Not TCS. But not mainstream, either.
UUMom is offline  
#218 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 02:49 PM
 
HappyHSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.
HappyHSer is offline  
#219 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 02:56 PM
 
amyamanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: VT (zone 5)
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dar
Of the three TCS families I used to hang with, one had two children (one of whom had Down Syndrome, and the mom was single), one had 4...
Dar, is there any chance you'd be willing to put me in touch with your TCS friend who has 4 kids? I have tried in vain to find practical support for making this work. We are as non-coercive as we can manage, but with four little kids close in age it often seems next to impossible to negotiate a common preference that meets everyone's needs. Their needs are often so immediate and critical, we don't have time to discuss long enough to find a common preference before it's too late. Also lots of needs get shelved while others must take priority, and I hate that but there isn't much I can do about it. I feel like I am always saying "You will have to wait until after I'm done with her, and he will have to wait until after I help you, and she is last in line, and then I need desperately to do X for myself (water, pee, whatever), and that is just the way it has to be"...

I would really love to be able to talk with someone who feels they are successful with TCS who has 4+ kids. If you would PM me, I'd appreciate it - maybe your friend could e-mail me...or if anyone else knows anyone who is TCSing with 4+ kids I would be so grateful to be able to talk with them. I have two friends IRL with 5 kids each, and they are very gentle and positive with their kids, but they are ultimately more coercive than I am, and I need a mentor or a role model or something to share some tricks with me and reassure me that it is do-able! If in fact it is.

Thanks.

Amanda, mom to Everest (12), Alden (10-1/2), Ellery (7-1/2), & Avery (6)
amyamanda is offline  
#220 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 03:11 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.
First I want to say it was very brave of you to say this in this forum and I hope that the other readers can take this with a grain of salt and know that it is not us per-se that you are referring to as "unhealthy" but that groups of people who embrace radical ideas (many of whom are very healthy and rational) do tend to attract those who do not.

I have never thought about this myself but after reading your statement I have realized that in my experience also this is true.
I have many times sought belonging in groups whose Ideas I share and been turned off by many of the people I have met. Without realizing it it has been a recurring theme. (just want to add that it is also highly likely that others who share my beliefs think I am a complete nutjob. I am not claiming to represent one side in particular LOL). Until this moment I had not seen the connection.
This may be completely off topic but I want to thank you for mentioning this and tell you that it helps me see some things in a new light.
Joline
johub is offline  
#221 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 03:26 PM
 
HappyHSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
First I want to say it was very brave of you to say this in this forum and I hope that the other readers can take this with a grain of salt and know that it is not us per-se that you are referring to as "unhealthy" but that groups of people who embrace radical ideas (many of whom are very healthy and rational) do tend to attract those who do not.
Yes, that's why I was very clear about the issue isn't the philosophy or the organization.

I wrote a blog post a long time ago about this dynamic in attachment parenting. I don't think any aspect of AP is unhealthy or permissive. I do think the tools of AP are a place where permissiveness or unhealthyness can manifest.
HappyHSer is offline  
#222 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 03:35 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.

So, is "mainstream" healthy? Our culture of coercion is healthy? Conventional is healthy? Sheeple is healthy? I guess it depends on what one values. Mainstream, conventional, sheeple don't value thinking for themselves, in my experience. And I don't think that is too healthy, imo. Unless one wants them to do what they are told to do.

Pat, very radical fringe, thankyouverymuch.

P.S. TCS/NCP ain't just a theory in our home. (And TCS is an *educational* theory, not a parenting theory) It is a way of living consensually with other humans, even young and inexperienced ones.

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#223 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 03:44 PM
 
HappyHSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
So, is "mainstream" healthy? Our culture of coercion is healthy? Conventional is healthy? Sheeple is healthy? I guess it depends on what one values. Mainstream, conventional, sheeple don't value thinking for themselves, in my experience. And I don't think that is too healthy, imo. Unless one wants them to do what they are told to do.
Pat, my post was exceedingly clear. It said nothing about mainstream being healthy, better, desirable. There is nothing in my post that suggests being a sheeple as a good choice.
HappyHSer is offline  
#224 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 04:08 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
Yes, that's why I was very clear about the issue isn't the philosophy or the organization.

I wrote a blog post a long time ago about this dynamic in attachment parenting. I don't think any aspect of AP is unhealthy or permissive. I do think the tools of AP are a place where permissiveness or unhealthyness can manifest.
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#225 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 04:14 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.

Pat
Which is why you are more likely to find TCS'ers within an AP philosophy than in a mainstream parenting group.
Pretty much what Happy is saying.
Good example.
johub is offline  
#226 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 04:21 PM
 
HappyHSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.
I'm completely familiar with TCS theory and rhetoric. I didn't call TCS permissive. I wouldn't, if only because I don't want to have that discussion.

However, seeing as I do believe in an authority structure in parenting and excluding TCS/NCP, I do see a higher level of permissivenss in AP circles, both online and in person. *Permissiveness*, however wasn't my point.

My point is that the more extreme the philosophy, the higher percentage of people in it that are not healthy. That's true in the counter cultural groups I'm a card carrying member of. It's an observation.
HappyHSer is offline  
#227 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 04:51 PM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

I also believe that parents need to be the authority figures. Not authoritarian, but authoritative. By reneging on this responsibility, I will go ahead and say that I think TCS is "permissive". Just because this permissiveness is done deliberately and ideologically doesn't mean it is anything less.

Sorry to be so harsh, but after reading countless threads about TCS, I really think people need to speak up against it. I find it to be a dangerous idea, and not just in the you-will-get-hit-by-a-truck sense, but I think it encourages the wrong sorts of things in a child. And rationality isn't one of them. By pretending that young children can be rational, I think an entirely different lesson is being meted out.

Infants, toddlers, and young children are potentially rational, but I don't think you're truly rational til adulthood, and even then it's questionable. Sorry, my dissertation is about how we are ultimately all irrational underneath the rational facade. I am in philosophy, and in this field rationality is fast becoming a code word for those whose ideology is controlling, moralistic, and ego-centered. No one can agree on what is rational, so for someone to call themselves that or others, that is just another way of saying that they are "good" and "just" where everyone else is "bad" and irrational.

But that's getting technical. Young children are motivated by an entirely different set of issues than one of rationality. I don't think it respects the child to ascribe that to him or her, and to have expectations that just does not fit.




Stepping off.
Mommay is offline  
#228 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 06:24 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmmmm......and it was also said,

yeah:

I also believe men to be the authority figures. Not authoritarian, but authoritative. By reneging on this responsibility, I will go ahead and say that I think men are "permissive". Just because this permissiveness is done deliberately and ideologically doesn't mean it is anything less.

Sorry to be so harsh, but after reading countless threads about women being rational, I really think people need to speak up against it. I find it to be a dangerous idea, and not just in the you-will-get-hit-by-a-truck sense, but I think it encourages the wrong sorts of things in a woman. And rationality isn't one of them. By pretending that women can be rational, I think an entirely different lesson is being meted out.

Infants, toddlers, and young children, women are potentially rational, but I don't think you're truly rational unless you are a man, and even then it's questionable. Sorry, my dissertation is about how we are ultimately all irrational underneath the rational facade. I am in philosophy, and in this field rationality is fast becoming a code word for those whose ideology is controlling, moralistic, and ego-centered. No one can agree on what is rational, so for someone to call themselves that or others, that is just another way of saying that they are "good" and "just" where everyone else is "bad" and irrational.

But that's getting technical. Women are motivated by an entirely different set of issues than one of rationality. I don't think it respects a woman to ascribe that to her, and to have expectations that just does not fit.




Stepping off

Yep, authoritarian ideology sounds the same no matter who says it. But then who says what is or isn't rational? If you disagree with another's "motivations", they must be 'irrational'? Or just "because I said so"? Another time honored authoritarian reasoning......

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#229 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 07:20 PM
 
Fuamami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHSer
I'm completely familiar with TCS theory and rhetoric. I didn't call TCS permissive. I wouldn't, if only because I don't want to have that discussion.

However, seeing as I do believe in an authority structure in parenting and excluding TCS/NCP, I do see a higher level of permissivenss in AP circles, both online and in person. *Permissiveness*, however wasn't my point.

My point is that the more extreme the philosophy, the higher percentage of people in it that are not healthy. That's true in the counter cultural groups I'm a card carrying member of. It's an observation.
HappyHSer, I would agree, to an extent, but I would also argue that the more radical members are also usually much more visible, as they are more involved, passionate, etc. So the percentage of non-radicals could be very, very high, but the ones who are really LIVING for the cause, as opposed to just being interested/involved, skew the perception. Or not?

I could see how TCS could get dangerous, or at least unhealthy, as in the example of Hunsberger's being negated or blamed on an authoritarian family. But I'm not sure I understand how assuming children are rational could be dangerous. Could you elaborate, Mommay?

Mommy to kids

Fuamami is offline  
#230 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 07:26 PM
 
HappyHSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
HappyHSer, I would agree, to an extent, but I would also argue that the more radical members are also usually much more visible, as they are more involved, passionate, etc. So the percentage of non-radicals could be very, very high, but the ones who are really LIVING for the cause, as opposed to just being interested/involved, skew the perception. Or not?
Yes, I can agree with that.
HappyHSer is offline  
#231 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 07:30 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Men and women are both fully grown adults responsible for theirselves. It is a humongous stretch of the imagination to equate the relationship between two adults with the relationship between an adult and their child.
I know that there are a few who have made that leap. But the metaphor just has no meaning for those of us who havent.
joline
johub is offline  
#232 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 07:33 PM
 
HappyHSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Men and women are both fully grown adults responsible for theirselves. It is a humongous stretch of the imagination to equate the relationship between two adults with the relationship between an adult and their child.
I know that there are a few who have made that leap. But the metaphor just has no meaning for those of us who havent.
Yes. It's the same reason the "real world" arguement against GD (or homeschooling, for that matter) hold no merit for me.

The parent/child relationship is unique and analogies made that compare it to adult interaction are therefore limited in usefulness to me.
HappyHSer is offline  
#233 of 233 Old 11-04-2005, 08:31 PM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Scubamam, Huh? I think I understood you to be saying that I was being authoritarian, but without the extensive quotes, can you explain how I was being authoritarian? I'm not trying to be cheeky. I need the men thing and women thing explained.

Obviously, I don't agree with TCS and I stated my opinions without blunting it, which maybe was rude. But does that make me authoritarian? I don't consider opinions authoritarian. Only when it's used to control or limit the free will of others do I find it authoritarian. But I don't expect TCS'ers to speak only when they agree with me, just as I am free to voice my opinion even when it doesn't agree with TCS. So again, am I being authoritarian or am I just disagreeing with TCS?

Nietzsche once talked about the "tyranny of the weak". A phenomenon in which some group is so fanatically opposed to a show of assertiveness that forced "tameness", a dull equality, and total submissiveness prevails. But to whom would everyone submit? Nietzsche thought this phenomena was motivated by a fear of our natural powers, and brought on by a society gone too far in the way of artifice. I usually don't defend Nietzsche, but was reminded of him.
Mommay is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off