Children "need you to make choices for them"

[Jen]

I was asked to write a parenting column for a local blog about Radical Unschooling/Consensual Living. In the comment section, a women left the comment that "Children need parents to make choices for them because it makes them feel safe and secure."

My immediate reaction, of course, is, "My child DOES feel safe and secure!" But I'm pretty sure that's the along the same lines of "Nu-uh!!" Even after thinking about it though, I'm having a hard time articulating a response, so I thought I'd post here and see if you all could help me come up with a thought out response to this comment!

Thanks!

[James Marcus Bach]

Sandra Dodd said:

People tend to strike (either way--withholding services or "striking a bargain") with adversaries, not with partners. While you feel this way worked, the goal (to get your son to do more so you wouldn't be annoyed) wasn't the only one. If a mom is willing to do laundry or pick up dishes, the child will be willing to do it for the mom after a while. If a mom's goal is to get the child to do it for himself, she might achieve that goal and no more. That could be a loss.

Gail Higgins wrote something beautiful about this recently here:

http://gail-hummingbirdhaven.blogspot.com/2009/07/just-clean-kitche...

In this case, "strike a bargain" is not code for fighting. It means to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. We are not adversaries in this house. Nor I hope on this forum.

Let me clarify the theory behind the solution. The goal here was not to change anyone's behavior. My goal was to help Lenore resolve her own feelings of resentment about Oliver having different desires and standards of living than her own, while at the same time not pressuring Oliver to do things he doesn't want to do. This is about Lenore, not Oliver. Oliver was perfectly satisfied with the situation.

In general, I find that trying to change other people puts me in a weak situation and tends to weaken relationships. Where I have power is in my own feelings and non-manipulative actions.

Okay, so Lenore is upset and she asks me for help. My first order solution is to remind Lenore that if she doesn't like doing things for people whom she feels don't appreciate it, she can just stop. I suspected that Oliver wouldn't want her to stop, and would then come to her and seek a deal. If that hadn't happened, we would have had to shrug and live with it, although I think I would also talk him about our feelings, just to make sure that he understood them. Family members do care about each other's feelings, too.

Well, of course, Oliver values what he gets from Lenore, and so they did make a deal.

Even if Oliver's behavior hadn't changed, my goal would have been satisfied, because I was focusing on the person who had the problem: Lenore.

Of course I feel that this worked. It works great. Everyone's happy. It's exactly how adults get along with each other in a peaceful free society.

What we don't do is threaten to withhold basic rights: food, water, shelter, etc. His mother or me cleaning up after him is not a basic right, past about the age of seven.

One more example: Before I became a radical homeschooler, I had a few rules about Oliver's homeschooling. I noticed that Oliver would try to circumvent those rules. That made me angry. I realized that I don't want to be angry, and that the person who had the problem was me, not Oliver (who was just being a normal kid, in my judgment). Therefore, I got rid of the rules, dumped my expectations, and immediately felt better.

[Sandra Dodd]

-=-My goal was to help Lenore resolve her own feelings of resentment about Oliver having different desires and standards of living than her own, while at the same time not pressuring Oliver to do things he doesn't want to do. -=-

It seems to be a good solution.

What seems to me to be a better solution, not in your family, James, but as a possibility for the dozens of people who will read this forum today and in weeks and months to come, is that the mother can find ways not to feel resentment.

I hope you did read that link to Gail's blog; I hope everyone who comes here will. It's wonderful.

-=-His mother or me cleaning up after him is not a basic right, past about the age of seven.-=-

Where did you get that age? Seems arbitrary. What if he were physically or mentally disabled; would that change is "basic rights"? What if he were a mad genius kind of person working on art projects or music or something (playing a video game with huge concentration every waking moment), would that change how you felt about him having "the right" to be cared for?

I think looking at a child's "rights" instead of what a mother can give him generously and willingly is adversarial at a basic level. It's not about fighting. It's about seeing the child as very separate and figuring out who's winning or losing in little situations.

It seems in your terminology that a child over the age of seven who's being cleaned up after is infringing on the rights of the parents.

This is better for radical unschoolers to consider, in my experience:
http://sandradodd.com/chores/gift

[James Marcus Bach]

"What seems to me to be a better solution, not in your family, James, but as a possibility for the dozens of people who will read this forum today and in weeks and months to come, is that the mother can find ways not to feel resentment."


My idea was exactly a way for Lenore to deal with that feeling. I'm sure there are others. It's okay, Sandra, for there to be many ways and many voices on this forum, right?

"Where did you get that age? Seems arbitrary."

It's not arbitrary. I didn't pick that at random. But it is my sense of things, based on my assumptions, etc. I'm sure good arguments could be made for different ages. It's not really about age, of course, but about a level of competence.

"What if he were physically or mentally disabled; would that change is "basic rights"?"


Oh yes. Lot's of things would change my assessment. I take lots of things into account. I like to be reasonable.

"What if he were a mad genius kind of person working on art projects or music or something (playing a video game with huge concentration every waking moment), would that change how you felt about him having "the right" to be cared for?"


No, nothing changes his right to be cared for. The right to be cared for is sacrosanct.

But that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about certain physical services that one might do for another person around the house. For instance, picking up trash that someone else has thrown on the carpet. Cleaning spills. You know-- general household things. Roommates figure out amongst themselves how to cooperate and live together. So do families.

"I think looking at a child's "rights" instead of what a mother can give him generously and willingly is adversarial at a basic level. It's not about fighting. It's about seeing the child as very separate and figuring out who's winning or losing in little situations."


I like that phrase "generously and willingly."

I don't think I'm talking about an "instead" situation. Both things matter. There is a difference between things that our children can absolutely expect from us, and a whole host of other things we might or might not feel like doing that aren't what one might call core services.

We are parents, but we are also undeniably people who have our own things we want to do. Our lives do not center on our children. Instead, we interact with each other as people and the family has a common center.

If you think that's adversarial, then, I guess I don't see your point at all. I'm talking about ordinary cooperative living between people. It's not about winning or losing.

"It seems in your terminology that a child over the age of seven who's being cleaned up after is infringing on the rights of the parents."


No, I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. As I said clearly, it's not the child's problem. It's not the child's fault. The child is not infringing on anyone's rights by accepting a gift that he is given.

However, each of us gets to choose what we do for other people. Except that for certain kinds of services a parent provides for her child, there IS no choice-- you just have to provide them; it would be cruel not to. For other non-critical services there is a choice. So you can choose not to give those non-critical gifts.

If my son hurts my feelings, I may not want to play with him anymore. This is no crime on my part. But it would be (in my mind) if I threatened to stop feeding him. I think that's an important distinction.

[Sandra Dodd]

-=-Except that for certain kinds of services a parent provides for her child, there IS no choice-- you just have to provide them; it would be cruel not to. For other non-critical services there is a choice. So you can choose not to give those non-critical gifts.-=-

Of course there's a choice. You could give your child up for adoption. You could abandon him or murder him.

When people feel they have no choice, they feel powerful and resentful. When they wake up every morning and choose to stay home rather than run off, they have chosen, again, that family, that house, that life, and they are not in a "have to" situation.

-=-If my son hurts my feelings, I may not want to play with him anymore. This is no crime on my part. But it would be (in my mind) if I threatened to stop feeding him. I think that's an important distinction.-=-

For unschooling, playing and safety and confidence and relationships are as important as food. If your son hurts your feelings and you don't want to play with him for a while, that's fine. If you never wanted to play with him again, that's as bad as not feeding him (for unschoolers; not for government requirements).

[Joyce Fetteroll]

**My idea was exactly a way for Lenore to deal with that feeling. I'm sure there are others.**

I helps people who come along next month or 3 years from now, though, if advice given is seen in a more generalized light than in a "what worked for us" light.

If you're not here 3 years from now to explain the personalities involved, the advice will read as though you suggest parents should put their needs first and let their child figure out how to fit their needs in around it.

Most people coming into unschooling are coming from conventional parenting where the mindset is to conform kids to the parent's convenience. So what you've written will sound *from that point of view* like a reinforcement of what they already know.

To help people let go of that conventional thinking, they need to do some mental house cleaning before they can build relationships. Part of that mental housecleaning is finding ways to joyfully take care of our kids needs rather than seeing the tasks as "have tos".

That's not the whole of it! We shouldn't just be doing, doing, doing and stuffing down resentment. That's no better! But since the pendulum for most people is swung towards the parents first side, it helps to find healthy ways to put our families first so we can better see what our real needs are and what are just resentments over family sucking up our time.

I suspect you're already beyond that. You were helping you wife see that she was falling into the "I have to" trap and you pointed out that she didn't "have to". But to move your advice beyond a report of something that worked for your unique family in your unique situation towards something that will help others in very different situations, it helps to understand how the ideas you post will read to someone who may be in a very different mind set. To someone who is still caught on the idea that kids need to make life less inconvenient for their parents, then what they'll read is that they can stop doing their kids' laundry so the kids will have to do it themselves.

I know that's not what you meant, but it's how it will get read by many.

** It's okay, Sandra, for there to be many ways and many voices on this forum, right? **

It's easy to write what we each do. It's not so easy to write about it while you've got an ear tuned to how it will read to someone coming from mainstream parenting.

For instance, Kathryn took college math classes when she was 14. It's something that worked for her. But I need to be conscious of what context I drop that into. I don't want unschoolers to feel anxious that their 14 yos are glued to the Spongebob marathon and not doing college course work ;-) Does that make sense?

** Oh yes. Lot's of things would change my assessment. I take lots of things into account. I like to be reasonable. **

But your judgement of when he's able to care for himself is about you with your unique background and family. How does the idea read and how does it help another family? It's too vague to be a useful philosophy. It's like saying we should all be good parents.

Any parent feeling -- not even saying out loud -- toward their child, "You're 7 now (or 9 or 13) and are old enough to be able to do this," won't help build relationships. To build relationships it helps to see the world through their eyes, to hear our words through their ears, to feel our actions through their understanding of the world.

No matter how true it is, no matter his good intent, if my husband decided I was old enough at 53 to be able to walk into a car dealership and buy a car by myself, it would feel like an abandonment if he did that.

If a parent 2 years from now reads that your wife stopped doing what she resented doing and your son happily came to fix the situation, they're going to be very confused when their child is angry and resentful -- or maybe even doesn't notice!

What builds relationships is inviting kids along, asking for help, appreciating help given. (But that's to vague to be helpful ;-)

** We are parents, but we are also undeniably people who have our own things we want to do. Our lives do not center on our children. Instead, we interact with each other as people and the family has a common center. If you think that's adversarial, then, I guess I don't see your point at all. I'm talking about ordinary cooperative living between people. It's not about winning or losing. **

And if you can express what you do to someone coming from a conventional parenting mindset so that it doesn't sound like more of what they already understand, then that would be great.

It takes a lot of practice and feed back and objectivity to write so that people from multiple mindsets can get a handle on what's different about what you're saying from what they already understand.

To help them understand, it helps to build a bridge. But to build a bridge, it helps to understand where they're coming from and how and why they see the world as they do. What you're doing is describing the island you're living on and the words you're using are making your island sound a lot like conventional parenting islands. Every conventional parent would agree that adults are people with their own wants.

But how can a parent meet their own wants *and* build good relationships? Most of us grew up in conventional homes where parents had sort of a mental tally of all the things they did for others (including the non-requests like making dinner, doing laundry and so on) and all the things they did for themselves. At some point the tally would reach the breaking point and they would cut off the child for asking for too much. There was sort of a unspoken promise that when we kids got to be adults it would be our turn, but since our parents were adults, it was their turn. Turns out that our parents lied! ;-) When we get to be adults, we find life full of obligations. And unintentionally we fall into a resentment trap of all this stuff that sucks up our time. And we wonder when it will be our turn. And we can end up taking our turn by stealing it from our kids -- as our parents did to us -- by saying "No, I'm tired of doing that for you. Now it's my turn to do something for me."

It doesn't sound like you're there. It sounds like you have a decent handle on the relationship dynamics. Maybe your parents were never like that which is cool! *But* -- BUT -- you're writing to people who are there, or are partially away from there, or who could easily fall back into being there. And what you're writing sounds from that point of view a lot like what they already know: "Go with your feelings. If you feel resentful about doing for the kids, then don't do it."

Does that help make Sandra's response any clearer? Does it make more sense why what's straight forward sharing to you might be read very differently -- in fact practically the opposite -- of what actually happens in your home and why Sandra's saying "Wait, look at it in this light."?

[James Marcus Bach]

Hi Joyce,

I think I am writing generally useful advice. I'm sorry that it irritates you.

I think the best thing we can do is offer our own takes on these subjects and trust people to sort it out for themselves.

I'm a little surprised that you and Sandra seem to take such a defensive and paternal concern for what people will think when reading my words. What could be more inconsistent with the idea of unschooling than to presume that readers cannot learn from each other without your corrective filter?

It's okay that you disagree with me, but there's no need for the patronizing tone, ladies. Apparently your theory of radical unschooling is not the only one that exists. So, deal with it.

-- James

[Joyce Fetteroll]

** So, deal with it. **

I deal with ideas that sound like conventional parenting and education advice with alternatives that many have found helpful over the years to build relationships and let go of the grip of school. It's what I wanted to read when I was first exploring unschooling.

[Pamela Sorooshian]

James - I suggest you read the content and ignore any tone you perceive. Based on many years of experience, I promise you that the tone you think you're hearing is not what you'd perceive if you were talking to Joyce or Sandra in person. Maybe it'll help to know that Joyce is very very quiet and soft-spoken, but also very very logical and clear. Sandra has a sweet voice, but very quick - I'm a smart enough person, but her wit leaves me in the dust sometimes. She thinks faster and makes more immediate connections than anybody else I've ever met.

That said - I was away from the discussion for a couple of days so I'd like to go back to something that jumps out at me in your example.

You said your son was now doing things for himself so that you wouldn't be annoyed with him. "(Lenore had been upset with him "living like a caveman", so I suggested she review some of the many things she does for him and simply stop doing some of them until he noticed and asked for her help. Then she could strike a bargain with him."

To me - this is punishment. "Yes, I used to straighten up your legos for you, but I won't do it anymore unless you agree to take a shower every day." I don't see how that is not just a very conventional parenting technique. How is this not punishing him for not showering by taking something away?

[James Marcus Bach]

Pamela Sorooshian said:

To me - this is punishment. "Yes, I used to straighten up your legos for you, but I won't do it anymore unless you agree to take a shower every day." I don't see how that is not just a very conventional parenting technique. How is this not punishing him for not showering by taking something away?

How is it punishment when we require nothing of him? Every human gets to decide for him or herself what they wish to do or not do. The atmosphere and attitude in our house is low stress and do as you like. But if someone wants something from someone else, and that person is not inclined to give it, then we have a meeting of minds about that and make an agreement, or we shrug and live with it.

The alternative I see is forced labor (for the parents) and resentment. I'm not convinced there's a third option, but there may be.

There is nothing remotely like punishment, here. The only way in which this is not like three adults sharing a house is that there are certain things we don't expect Oliver to do (that we would expect an adult to do) and there are certain things we wouldn't make part of a bargain (he doesn't bargain for his food).

Smiles govern our household, as a rule. Affection flows. And what I'm describing is how adults get to together to solve problems peacefully in work life, too.

I suspect what's getting you all upset is that I come from a scientific/engineering/economics background. I speak using words like "bargaining" which perhaps you associate with bad men who twirl their mustaches and smoke stogies. Perhaps you are confusing my household, where each of us does what makes us happy, every day, with a Dickensian workhouse.

What could I say that would help you relax and consider that maybe we're on the same side?

[Sandra Dodd]

-=-What could I say that would help you relax and consider that maybe we're on the same side?-=-

Is that your goal?

My goal is to look at any ideas presented and discuss how they could help or hinder unschooling. I think you wrote earlier that your son isn't fully unschooled, that your wife requires learning/teaching/schoolwork (not those words) of him. If I've confused your writing with someone else's, I'm sorry; it happens. I'm in England, so I'm not as willing to spend half an hour digging through old discussions as I would if I were home where half an hour is more easily spent.

If you're not really full-on unschooling, then I think your ideas will necessarily be compromises from a family that doesn't understand unschooling as well as a family in which unschooling has been long established and is coming naturally now.

As to your suspicions about engineering and economics, or you could look for yourself to learn more about those people you've jumped in to insult.
http://sandradodd.com/joycefetteroll
http://sandradodd.com/pamsorooshian

I only have a BA in English, so maybe you're right that I'm "all upset" because you "come from a scientific/engineering/economics background." If it makes you feel better to think that I'm just a girlie who doesn't understand logic, then take that comfort. You might need some comfort. And you might need some humility.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

The problem is that some see these discussions like a coffee klatch of unschoolers at Starbucks and others see them like a Wikipedia of unschooling. For those who come for unschooling fellowship, ambiguity is part of life. For those who come here for unschooling information, clarity is important. Which is "better" depends on what someone needs but unfortunately the two goals tend to clash.

When I first starting out unschooling, I wanted a Wikipedia of how to let go of old ways and make the new ways work. Now, 14 years later, it's what I'm still drawn to and what I offer back. (As a side effect, I've made friends and met several people in real life, though we've never met at Starbucks ;-)

While the online gathering and sharing with fellow unschoolers sounds like a great idea, what I've seen happen in practice is that after the initial rush of finding like minded folks, there's no substance to draw people back to continue the fellowship. There isn't a reason to set aside time to visit. The lists last a month or so and then languish.

In that vein, it will help to see this not as a discussion of what's happening in your home but a discussion of ideas put onto the board. If a real life peaceful outcome is expressed in language that paints a harsh picture for others, it can confuse a reader's growing understanding of how to have more peaceful relationships in their own home.

In this medium at least, words speak way louder than actions ;-) The words will persist even if you're not around to clarify what the real actions were behind them. If someone writes something unclear or untrue at Wikipedia, someone else will come along and edit it.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

** I think I am writing generally useful advice. I'm sorry that it irritates you. **

I think what you're doing in your home could be useful. The way you've written it, though, is unclear and reads as harsh.

Maybe what happened in your home is similar to if I were knocking myself out cooking gourmet meals each night and getting irritated that my daughter wasn't appreciating them. It would be good advice for me to stop doing that! It would help me greatly to see that I was putting a great deal of time into creating a gift that perhaps no one wanted. (Unless I realized *I* wanted the gourmet meals and I should then stop expecting appreciation from others.) And if my daughter then said, "Hey, maybe we could have those big meals once a week. I miss them," then I'd have a better handle on where to direct my energies.

What you actually wrote sounds closer to the scenario that Pam translated it into.

It helps greatly to match our gifts to our family's wants and likes. Maybe that's what you meant, but it isn't what you wrote and isn't what will be read.

** I think the best thing we can do is offer our own takes on these subjects and trust people to sort it out for themselves.**

In the absence of clear information while people are immersed in a world where this style of living runs counter to what seems to make sense, that's very difficult for most people to do. (Including myself.)

What you wrote, what will persist for years to come, suggests that if a parent is irritated by what they're doing for their child, they should just stop. Someone trying that at home is unlikely to end up with results that make them happy because it reads like a power game.

** I'm a little surprised that you and Sandra seem to take such a defensive and paternal concern for what people will think when reading my words.**

Because it's what I would have wanted done when I was first starting out.

I didn't want to be told what to do, but I wanted clear examples of what the unschooling philosophy looked like in practice, analysis of what worked and *why* it worked, so I could understand the philosophy better, so I could find ways to make it work in my own unique family.

As an example, it took me a long time to understand how unschooling worked with math. While the words "people learn by living" is clear, that doesn't mean the philosophy actually works in real life. When the question of what to do about Algebra came up back in the AOL message board days, plenty of nervous "unschoolers" said they used Saxon math. A few said their kids learned from life. But were the outcomes even close to equivalent? With math anxiety running rampant in the US, were the ones sitting back letting their kids learn math from life just not caring? I needed real life examples to help my confidence grow that unschooling wasn't just some airy philosophy suited only for artsy folk.

A more parenting example, it's common wisdom that kids need to be made to do chores or they'll grow up thinking they need to be waited on. That even makes sense. It's easy to picture that happening. So when radical unschoolers say it's not so, that if a parent owns cleaning, invites the kids joyfully into the process, accepts no as a valid answer, thanks them for taking time to help, that they will join in as they're able, the words are clear, but is it true for every family? If some unschoolers have chore chart, why does that "work" for them and for 10s of thousands of others it causes strife? And did those "unschoolers" have to resort to chore charts because the "don't make them" philosophy doesn't work for every family?

What I needed was analysis of the mechanisms that lay beneath the actions. Why do chore charts "work" for some? How does not making children clean ever get them to clean? The answer lies in different goals, different definitions of "works", what people are willing to give up to get something else, in personalities, and in how people interact. But that answer becomes clear only through people opening up their lives and through clearly expressing their ideas and their actions. It doesn't come from "Here's what works for us." We can't know the mechanisms (the personalities, how the parents interact with kids, how the kids feel about it, how it affects their relationship, what the parents do to repair the damage to the relationships, etc.) that make this "work" for them.

What I've found over the years is that if people are willing to examine their ideas and their actions, to look at their kids instead of where they want their kids to be, that a philosophy centered around relationships doesn't depend on particular personalities or some inexpressible and unexamined interaction between parents and children. It works for sound reasons based on basic human psychology: that we respect those who treat us with respect, that we are kind to those who treat us with kindness.

** What could be more inconsistent with the idea of unschooling than to presume that readers cannot learn from each other without your corrective filter?**

What you see as a corrective filter, I saw when I was starting out as someone showing their critical analysis of an idea. (I also saw others deconstructing the same idea and their critical analysis.) By watching others do that, by turning over their ideas and analyzing them myself, by trying it out, by having my own ideas come under scrutiny and having to really think about things and write clearer, I understood the philosophy better.

If this were just philosophy divorced from reality, the more forceful voices might influence the conclusion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but it wouldn't mean much more than that. But this is real theory that people can try out at home. :-) So unschoolers can say here's what works, here's why it works, here's the part that's preventing it from working for you and why and here's some ways you can try to get it to work.

Without a clear picture of what lies beneath an action and why it's working (and what someone's definition of working is!) if they're trying to get someplace specific (like better relationships and unschooling), it's going to make it a lot harder than clear examples and clear analysis. A vague suggestion that a mom should stop doing things for her child isn't going to help someone build better relationships in their own family. But an analysis of goals and why things work and why other things don't work will help someone figure out how to get radical unschooling to work for their unique family.