Food choices vs food restrictions question

[Tammy]

Hi all. 

 

We started unschooling about 5 years ago . It started with only the schooling part of our lives and since that seemed relatively easy for me to do I read more I tried to expand the same type philosophy into other parts of our lives ( chores , food , TV etc.) Thats where I have the problem. I can't seem to let go of traditional lines of thinking in some areas  . The main question I am having  is in regards to food choices.

 

I have let go in a false sense of the word . I did lift the restrictions but I don't feel like I really let go of it in my mind. I just don't buy stuff I don't want them eating alot of ( candies , cakes , soda's etc.) and since they just eat whatever is here they really don't say much.  So I really haven't made the switch to letting go of restrictions I just found a way around it in a sense.  I just don't trust the process.

 

My problem with it all boils down to me .... I ate lots of junk as a kid ( and loved it ) now as an adult I eat healthy and work out but I still really love "junk" and to be honest would eat nothing but junk all day , everyday , happily if I could. I love the flavor and taste of  "junk" I only eat healthy because I have to for my health , not because I enjoy the flavor or food.  . My fear with letting them eat what they want is based on , well , me.   I see how hard it is for me to eat healthy when I really  only want junk so how can I trust they will not eat junk 24/7 if when based on my past..I didn't learn that. I mean I know I eat healthy now and that is a choice , but its a choice based on fear of what I would look like or that I will have a heart attack from eating junk all the time not based on.." hey , I like this food ."

 

How do I let them eat whatever they want when I know I may be setting them up for a lifetime of crappy eating habits.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tammy]

That sounds like a good idea to just buy more of what I know they like and "ease" into the food issue. I made the mistake of jumping head first into what I didn't quite understand before ( I was one of those who said " OK , we're unschooling !" now lets turn your whole world upside down .... the confussion that ensued was good for no one :(

I will keep just reading and letting it all sink in. Smetimes it seems as if I have a actual physical block against the information . It really takes a while for it to get where it needs to be in my brain before I can get it.


Meredith said:

tammy wrote:Yes , I do ask them but they don't really ever ask for much . I feel they want too but kind of already know that I wont buy the "junk" so they don't bother asking . They do ask for some and I do get it , but I don't feel they feel free to ask for it...

Ray lived with his bio mom for a few years and while he was there his food was restricted to "healthy choices" and he learned not to ask for what he really wanted. So when he came back to our home we'd take note of things he liked and buy a little extra. Having read unschooling lists for years, I knew to "ease in" rather than dumping all the rules he knew at once, so I'd pick up one thing he liked, but get more of it than he was used to and do that consistently until I'd get ready to go shopping, and there's still be some... jello for example - left over. Then I'd go for the next "forbidden" food. By now he tends to like home-made sweets better than store bought, and doesn't drink nearly as much cola as he used to do. He still prefers white rice to brown, though, and semolina pasta to whole wheat, so that's what we stock, but he enjoys cooking all manner of healthy meals for the family.

[Tammy]

Bruce Luke Mitchell said:

Joyce said: Do your kids want to see sex with donkeys?!?

The answer is yes. Here is a reply to that question, from my children today, especially the older one. I introduced it by saying sex is natural, and we touched on how people can do weird/unusual stuff in sex just like all that 'Ripley's Believe It or Not' stuff. Then I asked had they heard of sex with animals, which I mentioned is illegal and doesn't happen too often. The younger one said no, the older one said that he had heard about a bull and a woman (reference to that Greek myth that produced the Minotaur). Then I asked whether they would like to see that, even if just to see how weird it was? The older one said, "Maybe just to see how weird it is, but I'm more interested in seeing how birds mate, especially swifts - because sometimes swifts even mate when they're flying". We went on to discuss about what animals can mate with others, such as lions can with tigers (produce ligers), but I wasn't too sure about all the ins and outs (pun intended), so we looked here, and found evidence of wild moose trying to get it on with horses and orangutans with female humans. So, the simple answer to your question is yes ............

Wow , from a question about food we somehow arrived at donkey/animal sex?! Can I ask why you would feel the need to ask them if they wanted to see sex with animals ? My oldest son is 21 and I also have a teen and a pre teen son and not once do I ever plan on asking that question to any of them.

kids have a natural curiosity about sex , which is fine but none of my sons ( I have all boys) have ever asked about anything like that and believe me I have sons that feel free enough to ask and tell me anything ( and have)

I just dont get why you would bring that up to them . That isn't their natural curisity, it was you bringing it to them .

[Tammy]

OK ... A while ago ( a year or so I think?) I "faux" let go of food restrictions (I bought more than ever but it was not real freedom because I made sure that I didn't get what *I* didn't want them eating) I'm not sure how long it lasted ( a while) but somewhere along the way we slowly reverted back to our old ways till we were basically back at square one . I still buy more than I use to but I want to move past that to the true freedom of choice talked about.

This time I feel I have a better grasp on how to do this and can see why I want to do this ( I didn't see it before, I just wanted so badly for them to have that kind of choice that I jumped in without really ever letting go, so they never REALLY had the choice)

So how do I combat the fear if ( when) it raises its ugly head again?

I am more clear this time on why and what I want to do but I still know fear is going to come up ( either fear of what others {family} have to say about it or panic that I'm screwing it up or some irrational fear)

How did/do you all get past that?

[Bruce Mitchell]

Tammy said: Can I ask why you would feel the need to ask them if they wanted to see sex with animals ?

I wouldn't normally unless it came up naturally. Perhaps when they're older after looking at an encyclopaedia of sexual practices, such discussions might arise naturally. I can't see myself suggesting we search out videos of human-animal sex, unless they seriously wanted to see it as an example of what humans have done, a sort of 'Horrible Sexual History'. A criminologist might watch evil acts to be better equipped for encountering it in real life, and so a sexologist (or a criminologist specializing in sexual crime) might watch this stuff for training.
I decided to ask them yesterday because various people seemed to think they would not want to see sex with animals; Sandra thought it was an extreme assertion; Joyce asked do my kids want to see sex with donkeys; Meredith thought I was missing a significant point. The discussion with my boys led to an interesting investigation into cross-species sex.
I figured it wasn't an extreme assertion. They have a natural curiosity of the weird and wonderful a la 'Ripleys Believe It or Not', so it struck me as obvious it might interest them.

Another real-life example of my more normal behaviour comes from yesterday. We were on an outing with the local homeschooling network, touring a Georgian house in Edinburgh. We were all kitted out in period gear. The tour lady decided to make mention in the bedroom of a large metal syringe-type device with an extra-long nozzle. She asked us what we thought it was. No-one knew. She told us it was for enemas. My boy asked what that was. I said to him it was something you put up your 'a-hole' for cleaning. I don't plan to now ask him whether he wants to see videos of colonic irrigation, nor to now discuss anal sex, rimming and so on. If these things are later raised by him, I would definitely offer to find a video of colonic irrigation. At their age, I 'd avoid strewing 99 different videos of anal sex, if they raised that, rather simply saying it happens a fair bit and quite a number of people enjoy it, whilst others do not.

I suppose maybe another reason I might ask them would be if we came across it naturally, as reported in a news article, or read about as in the Minotaur myth, and they didn't believe that humans could do it. I suppose I wouldn't immediately go for the video route, rather the book or internet route. I guess that would be sufficient to satisfy their disbelief, curiosity.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

*** I figured it wasn't an extreme assertion. They have a natural curiosity of the weird and wonderful a la 'Ripleys Believe It or Not', so it struck me as obvious it might interest them. ***

I meant are they seeking out those kind of images themselves. Paying attention to what they're exploring on their own is one way of getting to know who they are as people and what interests them to support and expand on. Parents make all sorts of assertions their kids will see porn and violent movies if they give them free access to cable as though those had some universal attraction for everyone. But kids seek out more of what interests them. My daughter no more sought out slasher movies or porn than she did political talk shows.

I loved Ripley's Believe It Or Not as a kid too. If my mom had presented the question about animal sex as you did, I probably would have said yes too. But that would be so far removed from what I was seeking out on my own.

I'm glad the discussion went well, but I'm sorry. I'll be more careful of how I ask the question in the future.

*** I 'd avoid strewing 99 different videos of anal sex ***

Please don't imply anyone suggests anything remotely like that. The point of strewing isn't to indiscriminately expose kids to everything in the world. It's to sprinkle their lives with things we think might interest them.

*** I asked them this today, say they were surfing the internet, came across a YouTube video showing an real-life (not fictional) evil person decapitating a person and the blood spurting out, would they watch. The younger one said he would. The older one said he would, but if he didn't like it, he would turn it off. ***

I'm not surprised. Empathy can develop early in some kids but it can also lag far behind their intellectual understanding. And it won't necessarily be uniform. Knowing something is real isn't the same as being able to understand from another person's point of view. My daughter's reaction at 10 to the 9/11 attacks was to ask if they'd rebuild the buildings. Had she been 18, her reaction would have been very different. She has the ability to see a broader picture.

*** By the way, I was talking about fiction and real-life (whether news or by murderers) and snuff. Younger children find it difficult to discern reality from fiction, and it can be seen as all real. ***

I think the adult view of children's grasp on fantasy and reality is too simplistic. From observing my daughter and objectively looking at myself (so the sample size is small) I think kids see reality in broader terms of possibility than adults do. My daughter held onto her belief that Pokemon could exist for a long time, but she didn't confuse the stories on TV with reality. Her belief had logic. You can't prove something doesn't exist, only that it's unlikely.

And while I know scary movies aren't real, if they're depicting something that could happen, I avoid them. I have no intention of seeing Jaws ;-) On the other hand, I have no problem admiring the technological capabilities of war machines while also preferring we lived in a world where people didn't think it necessary to create such things.

Empathy isn't simple and straightforward!

[Bruce Mitchell]

Joyce said: ...are they seeking out those kind of images themselves. Paying attention to what they're exploring on their own is one way of getting to know who they are as people and what interests them to support and expand on.

No to donkey stuff and no to seeking out real-life killings. They have an innocent interest or curiosity in the weird and wonderful.
Yes to wanting to see a nuclear bomb explosion underground (as asked by my younger boy a few minutes ago); we watched the biggest bomb a few weeks ago.

Joyce said: And while I know scary movies aren't real, if they're depicting something that could happen, I avoid them.

This is what I'm talking about when I say I cannot allow something. Perhaps I am just saying it a bit stronger, perhaps the same. By avoiding things, whether specific foods or scary movies or whatever, I am controlling/guiding/influencing/leading/choosing/whatever. The parent, in their wisdom, detects danger.
My older boy has an ambivalent attitude to sex, on the one hand wanting to leave sex till he's older, or on the other hand, as stated earlier in this thread, giving the historical porn movie as his favourite (despite having only looked at the cover).
I'm well aware that, 'Paying attention to what they're exploring on their own is one way of getting to know who they are as people and what interests them to support and expand on.' I'm doing this so often every day with them.

Joyce said: I think the adult view of children's grasp on fantasy and reality is too simplistic.

Possibly so, but in my experience, my children have feared in real life some things that are fantasy on movies (e.g. monsters in their room).

Joyce said: The point of strewing isn't to indiscriminately expose kids to everything in the world. It's to sprinkle their lives with things we think might interest them.

This again is my point. The parent does choose, vet, restrict, discriminate, control matters. When they are older and want stuff about sex, I would sprinkle with such things. 99 of one type is is unlikely, but 99 sprinkles of different and interesting views on sex, whether book or video or whatever may be possible over a period of time, if they were really showing interest.

[Joyce Fetteroll]

****** And while I know scary movies aren't real, if they're depicting something that could happen, I avoid them. ******
*** This is what I'm talking about when I say I cannot allow something. Perhaps I am just saying it a bit stronger ***

*If* you mean, as I did, that I avoid what I don't like but you're calling it "allow", you're saying it in a way that won't convey the idea of being a child's partner to anyone else.

If you're putting the concept of "avoiding what they don't like" into the same idea box as "keeping away what you don't want them to have" and labeling them both "not allow", the two different ideas will get treated as though they're the same. It will be confusing when they go along sometimes and are angry other times.

It's the differences between "helping kids avoid what *they* don't want" and "avoiding what you don't want that they do" that's important in how kids react to them.

Would it make sense for my husband to say he doesn't allow me to watch Jaws? Or won't allow Jaws into the house? Where's the push or pull of Jaws trying to get in that he's fighting against?

It's *polite* if he chooses to watch it sometime other than during family movie watching time! But that has very little to do with "not allowing" it.

*** I am controlling/guiding/influencing/leading/choosing/whatever. ***

In practice, the words aren't nearly as important as the why behind the action. When thinking about the concepts or writing about concepts for others, it helps to choose words that don't have connotations that create vastly different images for other people.

If I want to be clear to others who are reading, I can't just say I filtered what my daughter had access to. It doesn't paint a picture that's any different from what conventional parents do when they block movies and games and internet sites because of mature content. But if I say I use my greater capacity to sort through the myriad of choices to help her find things that I believe will interest her and eliminate the things that probably won't, it paints a different picture. My filter is based on my understanding of her preferences, not on my preferences for her.

*** ' I'm doing this [paying attention] so often every day with them. ***

But what ideas are you painting for others about unschooling when you write about what you do? If you say you can't allow your kids to watch mature movies, it doesn't sound any different from what conventional parents do. People don't come to specialized sites to hear how people do the same old same old. They come for different ideas. If someone goes to a vegetarian site to find out about eliminating meat, they trust the site won't waste their time with discussions about eating meat they could find at Cooking.com. If the site betrays their trust, they'll go elsewhere.

Here we can help parents explore how to make whatever new idea that appeals to them work for their unique families. *Not* rigidly make people adhere to a new idea as though it were law while their families suffer! (How could we do that?) But, for instance, help their kids explore what interests them in ways they'll feel secure, loved, respected and powerful.

If parents prefer to control what their kids see and eat and do, there are loads of sites that offer support and ideas for doing that. Here people can explore and try on different ideas to add to conventional ideas this society is awash in to find what works for them.

*** Possibly so, but in my experience, my children have feared in real life some things that are fantasy on movies (e.g. monsters in their room). ***

That's my point. I think it does kids a disservice to see a belief in monsters or Santa or Pokemon as a confusion between fantasy and reality. I didn't see any evidence that my daughter couldn't see the difference between a story and real life. What she saw was possibilities that the world "out there" might be more different than what was immediately around her. It's more a matter of kids remaining in a state of skepticism. They haven't yet decided there's enough proof that what adults say doesn't exist really doesn't. (And there's a big emotional factor too. Kids are relatively powerless which makes the world scarier to them. That is their reality -- a very different world than their parents live in -- until they're older.) (And lots of stories explore that concept of kids living in a different reality than their parents.)

It might seem like word quibbling, but if a parent shifts their view of their child from being ignorant to the child seeing the world in terms of greater possibilities -- as creative people do :-) -- they might be able to find more patience for another night of monster fear when they'd rather the child just go to sleep so they can get some rest.

****** The point of strewing isn't to indiscriminately expose kids to everything in the world. It's to sprinkle their lives with things we think might interest them. ******
*** This again is my point. The parent does choose, vet, restrict, discriminate, control matters. ***

If your point is to write about what you do and you don't care that your words paint a different picture, then your word choice is immaterial. You can call it hunting snarks if you want.

But if you're suggesting you're doing what I've written -- used my daughter's preferences to help her find what she's interested in and avoid what she's not interested in -- then the words do matter because none of those says anything like that. From a viewpoint of conventional parenting, they all sound like what people are already familiar with.

Every time someone paints a conventional picture, there will be responses that paint a more unschooling picture. No one needs to let go of conventional ideas, but the forum is for ideas that help parents put the relationship first and work everything around that.

*** When they are older and want stuff about sex ***

To help kids explore their interests, age is irrelevant. It's about knowing who they are and helping them explore. It's not about strewing age appropriate material but about knowing who they are and what they like and don't like and strewing the type of thing that particular child might find interesting.

[Meredith]

It's more a matter of kids remaining in a state of skepticism. They haven't yet decided there's enough proof that what adults say doesn't exist really doesn't.

Or that what we say does exist really does, if they don't have an experience to back it up. I love that description - a state of skepticism. Some kids seem willing to set aside skepticism and trust the words of parents more readily than others, though and I think that's a source of confusion in discussions like this. If your kids are willing to take your word for things, great! Realize, though, that that's a personality issue, not a result of "good parenting", and be sure to follow through on your "trust mes" so you can keep that trust.

Both my kids are tremendous skeptics and have been from the start. Ray was always so skeptical about comments like "that will break" or "you'll get hurt" that at times it was safer to say nothing of the sort so he wouldn't test the limits of that assertion. Mo's not as intense in terms of physicality, but is enormously skeptical about everything - and really, from her perspective, I say the most amazingly ridiculous things: Butterflies come from caterpillars? Frogs from tadpoles? Corn grows on a plant? Red and blue make purple? That smushed thing in the road was a possum? You gotta be kidding me, lady!

[Meredith]

I am more clear this time on why and what I want to do but I still know fear is going to come up ( either fear of what others {family} have to say about it or panic that I'm screwing it up or some irrational fear)

How did/do you all get past that?

I get past issues like that by being aware of my own learning process. I'm less likely to fall prey to fear and more to frustration - but I know my learning process pretty well, and I know that frustration is a part of it! So one of the things I do when I get frustrated is remind myself of exactly that - hey, this is the part where I get frustrated! I must be learning ;) If you know that you're going to be fearful again in the future, is there some way you can remind yourself that getting scared is part of your learning process?

[Bruce Mitchell]

Joyce said: If you're putting the concept of "avoiding what they don't like" into the same idea box as "keeping away what you don't want them to have" and labeling them both "not allow", the two different ideas will get treated as though they're the same. It will be confusing when they go along sometimes and are angry other times.

I was putting "avoiding what I don't like because I detect danger for my children and/or for our family balance" into the same idea box as "keeping away what you don't want them to have because I detect danger for my children and/or for our family balance".

Speaking in terms of principles (rather than the intricacies of specific words and their combinations), is it not about ‘connection vs. power’, ‘partner-type talk [as you mention] vs. authoritarian talk’, or simply ‘tone of voice’?
I’d obviously acknowledge the use of the word cannot/ allow/etc. has links more to power/authority/etc.
In dealing with issues with my children, my basic plan is to first of consider the situation from child’s point-of-view, then utilize discussion in a child-friendly environment, consider their feelings/input, then find something which works well for us all. So, this approach if indeed applied, does involve a partner or connection type approach. There may be times when a limitation means I have to override their choices (e.g. money limitation or gut instinct that their preference is dangerous), when the fact is that I have ultimately controlled the outcome, but there was connection before that.

I/we have worked a bit with better wording in the past, such as, when toddlers, “keep the juice in the mug” (child tends to picture juice in mug) as opposed to “don’t spill the juice” (child tends to picture spilling the juice). Under the onslaught of our past lifestyle, that approach has often been forgotten, but sometimes recovered. I’d say that under intense stress (e.g. dangerous country and huge building project) my tendency has been to forget it all and be authoritarian, but thankfully I have worked hard to have a lifestyle where such intense stress is now rare.

Yesterday, my older son noticed a few of the expensive light fittings in the flat I am renting - above where we all three had played a few win-win games with a beach ball recently – were almost hanging off. My immediate reaction was that we cannot play here again and said this in a straightforward manner (i.e. not angry). There was risk of both glass flying, the hassle of cleaning it up, and the expense to my pocket. Here, my control or influence was applied to me too. We all three have to stop playing our fun game in that place. I suppose I could have discussed it with them first before making my comment, but they say they understood clearly the risk of breakage expense but less the danger aspect.

Another real-life example from yesterday and today regarding violence: My boys yesterday watched nearly the entire Lord of the Rings extended version, apart from the final disc, 9 hours total viewing. My older son today remarked (without me asking anything) that the scariest, weirdest part of it all was when Smeagol (Gollum) strangles and kills his friend to get possession of the one ring for the first time. So, it wasn’t decapitation of orcs’ heads (orc is bad guy), nor the balrog or Sauron (both typical evil bosses), or any of the other violent battle scenes – all these were understandable in the play between good and bad. It was when something good, a strong partnership, turned swiftly into evil/horror. For me, this type of horror is more like real-life horror, where from an innocent situation, something really unexpected, gut-wrenching happens. This is like the Jaws theme. Also like the Doctor Who theme of the angel statue coming alive and transforming into a demonic face. Also, I remember seeing once that a main way to create horror in movies is to distort the human face. It is these sorts of movies, whether they are age 12 or 18 or even PG that I tend to automatically, at their current age, to not allow. The language I would hope to use with them in relation to these is let’s watch it when you’re older and explain why (and not, you are not allowed to watch, with no discussion or explanation). The thrust is minimizing this disturbing horror. The ‘push or pull of Jaws trying to get in’ is that there seems to be a cultural trend, even in kid’s movies, for them to become sicker, more violent and dark. An age 18 movie in 1958 on Dracula was rated 18 but rereleased in 2007 uncut was age 12.

On a sidenote, I just remembered an incident in Cape Town when we lived there, which was Jaws-like, where an old lady who had swum in the ocean every day for decades went out as usual to be told that there was reports of a great white in the bay, but she disregarded the advice, saying she’d been doing this every morning for years without any problems. She was horrifically killed (see reference to it here). I have swum a one mile swimming challenge at this very beach; trailing behind the main group, I was alone for a fair bit and quite concerned about sharks.

Joyce said: My filter is based on my understanding of her preferences, not on my preferences for her.

Yes, I like this. But I feel it is more complex. For me, there is a transition from baby (where mother or parents do all the choosing of foods or exact content of breastmilk), to adulthood, where the former child is making all decisions. First of all, it is based on parent’s understanding of most children’s preferences until I can detect otherwise. This is where movie age ratings might guide us; I could then look up at IMDB and see exactly why the rating is given, then decide if this is good for my kid or not. The transition is from giving child roots to wings. Parent ensures roots are good, whilst encouraging wings as they mature. Parent has to make all decisions over the years becomes choice/discussion/win-win/child-led finally becoming child taking more then all responsibility.
However, I am aware that even a baby and mother can be seen as child-led and/or a collaboration right from the start. The baby and mother supposedly both agree the right moment to start a natural birth. The natural living parent is attuned to the baby’s cues (not demands) and responds sensitively, so it can be seen as child-led.
A problem is where the parents start using what they think, or have been told, is best for child, whether medical birth or baby formula or conventional schooling or dictatorial parenting (e.g. sleep training), but where what is best in the first instance is actually what is more natural, like home birth, breastfeeding, unstructured home schooling and win-win parenting. It is hard to start like this and unlearn the conditioning of mainstream society. Then the parents must incorporate a filter that is sensitive to their child, and so they move from the norm to the natural.

Joyce said: But what ideas are you painting for others about unschooling when you write about what you do? If you say you can't allow your kids to watch mature movies, it doesn't sound any different from what conventional parents do. People don't come to specialized sites to hear how people do the same old same old. They come for different ideas.

I have found that not allowing my kids to watch mature movies is unlike those around us! Most of the kids around my kids of similar age seem to have watched plenty of age 15 and 18 movies (allowed by their parents) and played video games like this. Some of these games now include raping women (see here and here). The new or different idea is not so much a return to an ‘oppressive rules-based morality, or an idealized past’, but to an ‘inborn moral intelligence, an inner guidance system that can lead us – if we know how to cultivate it in ourselves and others’; these are quotes from John Bradshaw’s book ‘Reclaiming Virtue’, where he says that ‘knowing how to make good moral choices depends on having an informed and mature conscience’. Now, he’s taken 500 pages to explain this, so it can be difficult to explain deep concepts in a few words at RUN or wherever, and it is easy to be misunderstood, as there is much to explain. Even if my kids do not see the 15 and 18 movies at their current age they can be discussed in this home, so creating an informed and mature conscience.
So, it seems to me that I must avoid the use of the word unschooling in my posts, discussions, chats, and writings. It seems better to use win-win parenting (& home education), although I just googled that and there seems to be an organization for this. So, perhaps natural family living or eclectic or attachment parenting & education.

Joyce said: Here we can help parents explore how to make whatever new idea that appeals to them work for their unique families. *Not* rigidly make people adhere to a new idea as though it were law while their families suffer! (How could we do that?) But, for instance, help their kids explore what interests them in ways they'll feel secure, loved, respected and powerful.
If parents prefer to control what their kids see and eat and do, there are loads of sites that offer support and ideas for doing that. Here people can explore and try on different ideas to add to conventional ideas this society is awash in to find what works for them.

I personally feel and felt that there is rigidity in the way unschooling paints the idea of children doing as they like. I can understand this is a reaction to society’s restraint, and a need to explain the new in attractive simple terms, but in unschooling information there seems to be a neglect of the parent’s well-being and needs. Much is written about how important it is to attune to the children’s needs, but little emphasis is on the danger of excessive sacrifice by the parent. My way of addressing this dilemma is to call unschooling win-win parenting and schooling.
If anything, win-win is about ongoing flexibility and discussion and choice, which seems to me less rigid than unschooling’s no control.

Joyce said: The point of strewing isn't to indiscriminately expose kids to everything in the world. It's to sprinkle their lives with things we think might interest them.
Bruce said: This again is my point. The parent does choose, vet, restrict, discriminate, control matters.
Joyce said: If your point is to write about what you do and you don't care that your words paint a different picture, then your word choice is immaterial. You can call it hunting snarks if you want.

I care what I write about. I also feel words can limit what we’re trying to say. For me, ‘hunting snarks’ is totally meaningless and doesn’t work. I’ve read about some Native American languages where there is less emphasis on individual words (like say the English language), and more a combining of words into one word to get a more complete meaning.

Then Joyce said: But if you're suggesting you're doing what I've written -- used my daughter's preferences to help her find what she's interested in and avoid what she's not interested in -- then the words do matter because none of those says anything like that. From a viewpoint of conventional parenting, they all sound like what people are already familiar with.

Yes, I think I see your point. How to convey and distinguish this way of parenting, which is not like conventional parenting? Do new words have to be invented, because personally I find some of the ways unschooling are presented to be, in my opinion, somewhat misleading? There seems to me to be parental choice and influence and guiding and sensitivity and discrimination about dangerous things (now referred to as ‘the former’) all accompanying the child-led style process (the last being seemingly more the focus of much unschooling info). The lack of emphasis of the former I personally have found confusing and misleading. The amount of the former varies over time from baby to adult. My best answers thus far to a new word to describe this aspect of unschooling are ‘win-win parenting’ or ‘attachment parenting’ or ‘natural family living’. It seems more precise, for me, but I’m sure these need to be thoroughly explained to many and could easily be misinterpreted.

Then Joyce said: Every time someone paints a conventional picture, there will be responses that paint a more unschooling picture. No one needs to let go of conventional ideas, but the forum is for ideas that help parents put the relationship first and work everything around that.

Putting ‘the relationship’ first: Which relationship do you put first in unschooling, then? Is it the family or the child(ren)? Based on my last comment above, I have interpreted unschooling as putting the family relationship first, but have expressed my feeling that often (from unschooling writings rather than actual practice) the child is put first, possibly to the detriment of the excessively sacrificial parent. If it is purely child-led, it sounds like permissive parenting, which has a bad rap (see here), which Sandra’s whatif page seems to be responding to? The Wikipedia reference I have just given does not even give an unschooling type possibility in the category responsive and undemanding, this style only being labelled indulgent. This is not the way of unschooling nor win-win parenting, both of which I’d categorize as responsive and undemanding.
Perhaps looking at these four categories of parenting, I’m somewhere between responsive/demanding and responsive/undemanding.

Bruce said: ‘Younger children find it difficult to discern reality from fiction, and it can be seen as all real.’

Regarding the confusion between fantasy and reality, Joyce seems to be saying kids can discern the difference but, because they live in a less powerful reality and have scepticism, they become afraid. What I was talking about was that children cannot discern the two, and there can be a reflection of power issues of the adult world (as you say they less powerful in the adult world), and this can be disturbing. I very much see that they live a different reality. For me, there is an invisible world, where (as-yet undetectable-with-scientific instruments) energies exist (you might feel the good energy in a place where people have thought good thoughts and the evil at Auschwitz). I never said to my kids that monsters do not exist. I suggest to them that they do, in our imaginations at the very least, and we need to link with the energies of goodness, such as angels and light imagery.

Joyce said: To help kids explore their interests, age is irrelevant.
Robyn Coburn says this at Sandra’s website: I will add that I believe that she will start seeking out or being attracted to programs with sexual content (of any kind) at the appropriate developmental time when her inner questioning arrives at that place.

I feel Joyce’s statement is perhaps too sweeping. I think I understand what you are trying to say, in that a four year old might get into calculus, and another child might only start reading in his/her teens. However, in order to strew, surely in the absence of obvious cues from child, you try stuff out and you might start with typical developmental ideas, and then adjust as necessary. So, in the absence of obvious cues, age is one of a few guides to help children explore their interests. This I think is what Robyn is trying to say at Sandra’s website. There are developmental influences that a parent can be aware of, such as puberty brings biological changes linked to sexuality, so the parent can expect child to probably get interested in sexuality, and more intelligently/sensitively strew. So, for me, age is relevant.

Meredith said: Ray was always so skeptical about comments like "that will break" or "you'll get hurt" that at times it was safer to say nothing of the sort so he wouldn't test the limits of that assertion.

I rarely say to my kids “that will break”, tending to assert things in terms of that will probably break, you could hurt yourself really badly. For example, we walk on pavements, and I have them always walk on the inside (away from the road), saying it’s unlikely but don’t want them getting all excited and falling off the edge to be crushed by a car. Hopefully, I won’t get all excited and do that either, but I am more focussed on safety than they.
In stating facts about the world, I also have similar talk, where assertions are made like: scientists say the universe started 14 billion years ago, Christians and Jews say this, other myths say this, whilst others consider there to be an invisible world that science cannot (yet) measure. So, I don’t get scepticism from my kids. Though, as you say, this may be more of [or also] a personality thing.
I don’t assert the invisible world does not exist. I say science says there is an invisible world of x-rays and other energies, but science does not recognize a world of angels or demons or ghosts, although, in my opinion, there is such a world. The best way to avoid the demons is to live a good life and/or link with light in your life.

Summing up, I think after this thread dies down, I’ll be quiet in terms of commenting to others at RUN, as perhaps I don’t seem to have grasped the system of unschooling, and/or perhaps seem to have adopted something slightly or somewhat different to unschooling which incorporates many elements of unschooling. I do intend to continue reading the posts to better develop my understanding. Thank you to all for allowing me to express my position and for your time and input on all these matters. You have been very helpful for me!

I also wish to say that this has taken up a lot of my time and taken me away somewhat from my kids, although it has indirectly been all about my kids and my relationship with them, about helping us. Anyway, I’m really going to try and avoid doing too much more replying and be more with them!!

[Meredith]

Much is written about how important it is to attune to the children’s needs, but little emphasis is on the danger of excessive sacrifice by the parent.

In long-winded discussions like this one, that's true. People get bogged down in competing theories, and not much is said about real life problem solving. At the same time, however, in this very thread, there's a small, quiet discussion about how a parent can reduce her own stress and not feel quite so overwhelmed, while also staying true to her personal values. Maybe the theoretical discussion about movies and sex and violence can move to another thread? Perhaps to the "Philosophy discussion" board where it belongs?

[Bruce Mitchell]

That's fine. Please move the offending parts, if you want! Not that aware of where everything belongs on this site, but now I know for the future - thank you.

Meredith said:

Much is written about how important it is to attune to the children’s needs, but little emphasis is on the danger of excessive sacrifice by the parent.

In long-winded discussions like this one, that's true. People get bogged down in competing theories, and not much is said about real life problem solving. At the same time, however, in this very thread, there's a small, quiet discussion about how a parent can reduce her own stress and not feel quite so overwhelmed, while also staying true to her personal values. Maybe the theoretical discussion about movies and sex and violence can move to another thread? Perhaps to the "Philosophy discussion" board where it belongs?