Attachment Parenting and Independence
So I found this chart on Pinterest, about ‘Training Children to be Independent’ from the book ‘Teaching Your Children to Fly’ by Merrilee Boyack, and reading through it, I had some thoughts. My first thought, of course, was, ‘Well, clearly, I am doing things wrong’. Then, I thought about all my children know how to do and cut myself some slack. Now, looking at it again, I am wondering if I have short-changed them, or if this chart is a little ambitious (at least for us).
I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before, but we follow an ‘attachment parenting‘ style philosophy with our kids. The basic idea behind this style of parenting is that by meeting a child’s need for a close attachment to their parents (through parenting practices such as extended breastfeeding, baby-wearing, co-sleeping, no ‘cry-it-out’, limited mother/child separation, etc.), you’re allowing them a firm foundation of parental trust that allows them to venture further into the world as they’re ready rather than pushing them to be too independent, too fast. The ideal throughout childhood is interdependence, not co-dependence or independence. This, in my opinion, is a healthy balance between ‘free-range parenting‘ and ‘helicopter parenting‘.
Though I believe wholeheartedly in the AP approach, I do sometimes flirt with the idea of a more free-range style in the scheme of helping your child develop independence in a ‘real world’ way, especially as the kids get older. While I do firmly believe that children are capable of doing more than parents often give them credit for, pushing them to be independent for the sake of being independent isn’t good either, which is the crux of my issues with ‘free range’ parenting. It seems like too much, too soon, and unnecessary – independence for independence sake – in virtually all of the examples I have read about.
In looking at this list, I am also torn between my perceptions of being a ‘good mother’ as my grandmother would define it (think June Cleaver) and more feminist ideals. Not that there isn’t anything good to be taken from that video; good manners are, after all, good manners; though there are some things seriously wrong with the perceptions and ideas perpetuated in it (Mom and Daughter OWE it to the men to look nice?? Don’t make Mom and Dad uncomfortable by talking about your feelings – wouldn’t want honest communication or anything…). I want my kids to know how to function in the real world – cook, clean properly, do laundry, be able to repair things in their home or on their car, and other basic skills. But I also don’t want to be the kind of parent who sees their kids as mini-servants, there to fetch and carry, thinly veneered as ‘fostering independence’.
So how does one find balance?
I would imagine that has to do with knowledge vs. expectation. Yes, I expect my kids to clean up after themselves and contribute to the running of the household (especially when the majority of the ‘mess; is theirs to begin with). But I don’t expect them to do things just because there is an arbitrary age at which to begin them. I think that child-rearing and (I don’t know what the specific term might be… I’m going to say ‘adult training’ despite the potential negative connotations… just go with it until I think of something better) are not incompatible. Adult training is part of child rearing – an integral part. I’d say that the goal of child rearing is adult training, even – preparing your children to be productive members of their family and society as adults.
But some of these things on this list make me wonder who would really expect their X-year-old to do XYZ. Taken as a general guideline or goal, and recognizing that yes, a 5-year-old can be expected to empty the trash, and fostering such skills, but that knowing how to do something does not make it his responsibility to do so, then this list is fine. I certainly helped my children to use the toaster and microwave at young ages (though admittedly, this was more so I could sleep in on weekends than it was to make them prepared to be adults), and they do have regular chores to attend to on a daily basis. But they aren’t solely responsible for fulfilling these responsibilities in the same way that you might expect an adult to fill them (i.e.: completely independently). There are still age-appropriate reminders and a parent to go behind them to make sure that whatever task was carried out completely. This is part of adult training, in my opinion. I do send my kids into the grocery store with either cash or a debit card to pick up a small list, alone. As their mother, with an eye towards their future, I present them with opportunities to explore on their own (today, we went hiking in a familiar area – they have the skill and are responsible enough to run ahead, and I allowed them to do so) and make their own decisions. But they are also given guidance and structure, especially with money (savings/contributions to charity and the like) and what our expectations of them are as members of our family. I think these are age-appropriate independences, and having my supervision (not molly-coddling) is the ‘inter-dependent’ part. They know that I will be here for them if they need me.
I’m curious to see what others think about this list, and how you prepare your children for the ‘real world’.
Warmly,
~h
Religion and Education
This is a topic that I have been meaning to write about for a long time – that of having to learn Science and History in order to teach Science and History to my children.
One of the problems that I have with my religious upbringing is the complexity of the mis-information that I was exposed to in the church about science and history, even to the point of being told to ignore or devalue what was taught in school. It’s not so much what was taught; anything that is learned can be revised or corrected with further education; it was more the method – the implication that what is being taught is absolute truth because it comes from Divine Inspiration.
I can specifically remember hearing in sermons and discourses, and reading in publications by the church that address such topics as Darwin, evolution, age of the earth, Biblical ‘historical’ events – things that I believed that I had a complete education about. I grew up confident that thing things I learned about those subjects were both factual and superior to those published by professionals in those fields because we had Divine Guidance and they were ‘just’ scientists, historians, anthropologists, and other professionals in those fields, who, even with all their fancy education, lacked Divine Guidance to see the to the Truth of things.
This is a fallacy. I have suffered because of it, and were I less contentious parent, my children would have, also.
This reasoning, ‘we know because we have God’; is indicative of the arrogance that Christianity breeds, and it is this arrogance that I feel is utterly detrimental to the processes of education. The ideas that: God has chosen you and your religious counterparts to receive ’special’ knowledge; that your understanding of a subject is superior regardless of the current accepted factual understanding of research, physics or nature may say; that your education about such matters is complete because you have God on your side, essentially absolves the individual of the need to study, learn, seek, and to find out for themselves. It imbues them with a false sense of expertise on subjects that they are piteously ignorant of. Worse, it leads vastly under-educated individuals to perpetuate misinformation based on a woefully lacking basic understanding of historical events and the way the universe works. Detriment sets in when these same dreadfully under-educated children grow up with that false expertise and become the next generation of teachers and law-makers.
I use words like ‘woefully’, ‘piteously’ and ‘dreadfully’, because it is! I had literally had no idea how much I didn’t know until I started having to contemplate teaching my children. I was left without so much as a rudimentary understanding of what the theory of evolution is because of how badly Darwin’s work is misrepresented by my parents’ religion. It wasn’t until I started homeschooling that I realized exactly how misguided and even maliciously under-educated the churches want their subjects. If for nothing else, then the possibility that their ’have a building, obviously need a builder’ analogy is utterly irrelevant ; the possibility that evolution ‘might’ be true would, in effect, erase the need for a Creator. It’s not like God (in whatever form or concept you wish it) couldn’t exist for other reasons – but once you start exploring the possibility that life didn’t have, doesn’t need an intentional beginning… that opens the door to so may other questions that religion cannot answer.
One of the things I heard over and over as a child was that secondary education was, at the least, unnecessary and at the worst, actually harmful to God’s People. First of all, because we’re ‘living in the last days’, and so occupations like Doctor or Lawyer, which require many years of schooling that take away from the task assigned all True Christians, to ‘preach the Word’, would be irrelevant after Armageddon (or God’s Righteous Cleansing of the Earth of all Wickedness) because people will be perfectly healthy and sin-less (so no disease, death or injustice). Why waste all that time in school when you could be out there preaching?!
Secondly, beware! Exposure to too much thinking can ‘educate’ God right out of you! The more you’re exposed to other faiths (because mixing with ‘The World’ is bad), and philosophical ideas (which just confuse a good, God-Fearing mind), the farther away from being ‘sheep-like’, meek and mild one becomes. My answer to that was always, ‘Yeah… and? Sheep are stupid creatures. They’re not intelligent enough to save themselves even if the herd is leading them to their ultimate demise. Who in their right mind wants to emulate sheep?!’. But we’re supposed to be sheep, with Jesus as our Shepherd, following along, doing what we’re told.
I also grew up to eschew the concept of ’independent thinking’. After all, that’s what got us into this mess – Eve decided to think for herself and eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad instead of blindly following what God told her. If she had remained innocent and ignorant, then she wouldn’t have doomed mankind to sin and death. That idea/teaching has always bothered me, because without full disclosure, educated decision making is absent. Eve didn’t have full disclosure. She was asked to choose to remain ignorant or educate herself. And human nature, the desire we were CREATED with according to creationism, was her downfall. That smacks of being set up to fail. Oh, sure – arguments can be made that Eve was told what would happen, but how many of us have a baby who just has to touch the pretty flame before learning that it is, indeed hot, just as mommy has always warned? Do we doom the child to die for fulfilling the need to find that out for himself? Of course not.
As an adult, when I realized just how badly misinformed I was, it put me in the unique position of finding out for myself what the facts say. I am not an unintelligent person. I enjoy reading, research, writing, history – all fun things for me. Unfortunately, physics and biology and history are very, very complex subjects, with literally millions of years of information to wade through. So even though I have done my level best (and continue to) read and watch and listened to books, videos, and lectures, there does come a point where I have to defer to the experts. I choose to defer those who have devoted their lives to learning, understanding and teaching such things, and I gladly defer to their superior knowledge of their subject. After all, if they’ve devoted their lives to these fields of study, then they know infinitely more about them that I could learn as either an individual seeking to further my own education, or as a homeschool teacher. Deferring to their superior knowledge in no way absolves my responsibility to continue learning.
But at no point would/should/could I defer to religious amateurs who have absolutely no professional training in that field and claim ‘Divine Guidance’ for their take on things, and yet that’s what millions of people do on a daily basis – probably without even realizing it. Religious leaders generally have training from a seminary school, and if they have historical and/or scientific training, it comes from a theological viewpoint, which is to say, not unbiased. This is especially true in my parents’ religion, where the pinnacle of achievement is to devote your life to God’s Service, putting whatever skills you possess at the disposal of the church leaders. However, coupled with aforementioned aversion to secondary schooling, what you end up with is a bunch of ignorant, but sincere, people with zero educational or scientific expertise to lend to the validity of the religion’s claims on such matters. Claims which, with any depth of examination are easily discredited.
While I was writing this, I was searching for images, and came across this one called ‘A Matrix of Science and Religion by Colleen Scheck. It’s interesting to me; I don’t classify myself as an atheist; if anything I suppose I might be considered agnostic by some, though I purposefully do not claim any religious labels here.
I enjoy the ideas set forth by Humanist organizations, and enjoy learning about native and historical religions with their various deities and ceremonies… these enjoyments make me a hodge-podge of spiritual influences that I choose not to define. Suffice it to say that I am happy with my current state of spirituality and religious practice and it really shouldn’t mater to anyone else what I believe or how I express those beliefs, but I do find this image very interesting. I tend to fall somewhere in the ‘potentially co-existing’ area. I was raised in the opposite spectrum – that religion is set, and science is an ever-changing process (the oft-spoken ideal was that eventually science would ‘catch up’ to our religion), and therefore the two were in constant conflict. Concepts and events like: the age of the earth, the existence and time-frame of dinosaurs, whether or not the Exodus account is true, or the Great Flood happened as the Bible describes it; for individuals who accept the bible as a collection of stories that loosely ‘document’ one part of the world and culture of that time, there is plenty of room for modern science. But having the narrow-minded view that the bible is literal and factual on all counts – means that you must – MUST – at some point choose to blindly disregard things that can be proven.
Knowledge is always preferable to ignorance. Knowledge has the unique task of shaping reality. Things that you know to be true have a profound impact on how you live; on the decisions that you make; on how you spend your money or raise your children. I don’t want my children growing up believing something just because they ‘heard’ it, or ‘read’ it or ‘saw’ it. I want them to believe things because they heard it, AND read it, AND saw it. I want their information to come from various sources, with various agendas pushing that viewpoint. I want them to gather information and make informed decisions based on facts, not blindly follow. When facts from those various sources agree, then – and only then – can something be known. And even then, it may be subject to change as we learn more.
One of my favorite quotes is this, and I thought it would be a fitting close to this article:
“Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard; be Evil.”
~anonymous
Warmly,
~h
Summertime: Week 7
<—- Yes, THIS, exactly.
If you know anything about me at all, then you know that I don’t like to stay home. I will do just about anything to get out of the house, but most days, like ‘good moms’ the world over, I take into consideration the needs of my kids when I go out. In fact, I would say that I go above and beyond with finding fun things for the kids to do that isn’t stuck at home 90% of the time.
So when I start fielding ‘I’m bored’ – no, ‘I’m booooooooooored!!!!’, it makes me a little…. twitchy.
Add to that constant drone of whine the behaviour of my children during a class that I was taking on Sunday evening; I go once every 2 weeks; in this particular (rare) case, silence was of utmost importance and to help with that, they had 2 laptops playing different movies, PLUS a gameboy each, PLUS all the art supplies any kid could possibly want, PLUS books – manga – not even books with chapters or anything!! I totally set them up to succeed in that environment and they were horrendous – making messes, being loud, running in the building, being a nuisance in general – and this mommy has HAD. IT.
I don’t ask a lot from my children; I really don’t. They have schoolwork and chores and even that is kept to the minimum and tailored to their individual needs and abilities. We just had a week full of birthday fun, during which one child’s preferences were met for the most part (when feasible – we’re not that saintly… er … stupid?) and the other was given special treatment to compensate (because we wouldn’t want things to be unfair now, would we? {/sarcasm})… and so the only thing I asked was that they chill out and give me my class time to enjoy.
Aaaaaand, No.
So this week, instead of our schedule looking like this:
- Monday: session II of Tennis Camp
- Tuesday – hike w/ homeschool peeps, SRC Art to Go at AMSET, karate
- Wednesday – BEACH
- Thursday – movie & karate
- Friday – Big Thicket Summer Camp Class
it looks more like this:
- Monday – playing outside
- Tuesday - playing outside
- Wednesday - playing outside
- Thursday - playing outside
- Friday - playing outside – and then writing a paper on ‘why we *all* prefer to have Mom in the Best Mood Possible so she doesn’t go all 1987 on our asses’. (We are a homeschooling family, after all.)
No TV, no computer, no movies, no gameboy, no field trips… just a whole lot of good, old-fashioned YARD to help them appreciate exactly how good they have it (and probably some sneaking off to Grammie’s next door to look pitiful and beg for snacks – she’s been warned though – no TV!!).
In addition to that, one of the things we will be undertaking in a serious way this year will be charity work. Our community has a soup kitchen that I only recently learned about, and I am thinking that we will be organizing and participating some food and toy drives around the holidays. I love them, I really, really do… but so help me, by all that is Holy, I will be extremely disappointed in them END THEM if they don’t straighten out of this ‘entitlement’ crap and learn to show some appreciation!
Brats.
Warmly,
~h
Just DO it.
If you’re unfamiliar with our schedule this year, we have school for four weeks, then take a week-long break, all year long (with a couple extra weeks in December, between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next, which is on Jan 1).
This week, thank all that is sacred in that which was, is and ever shall be, is our off week. We had kind of a wonky schedule over the summer, with a lighter workload and more days off than I’d originally planned. As is wont to happen, I started feeling like things were sliding, so in a fabulous (but misguided) flurry of organization and determination, I announced that we would henceforth be putting our noses to the grindstone and get back on track. Somehow, in my blaze of glory, I decided that the best way to accomplish this was to skip the last break, which put us at 6 weeks straight of school.
Oh, silly young Padawan… there is still much to learn.
The funny thing is, I already knew that this was a mistake. Our schedule last year was 6 weeks on, one off. We only had school 4 days a week, but I realized towards the end of the year that 6 weeks was too long. We all get burned out, and consistently, by the end of week 6, I was seriously struggling to get schoolwork organized and the kids were lollygagging about, doing any and everything but schoolwork. After 5 weeks, max, we all needed a break! This just goes to remind me that, even as a somewhat more experienced homeschooling mom (now that I’m almost through our 2nd year), that lingering ‘school’ mentality still exists.
So, in an effort to maybe have these things sink in (AGAIN), I give you my list of reminders why homeschooling is awesome:
- City ISD school year calendar and State Education Association list of skills by grade: these are not the schedules you’re looking for.
- There WILL BE gaps in their education. No matter where they go to school, or in what style they’re educated, or how many days and weeks they spend learning, there is always MORE to know. No two ideals of what is ‘core knowledge’ will match up, so stop trying to please everyone else! Teach them how to learn, and to love learning that they will be
FINEAMAZING. - For the love of Pete, stop trying to ‘catch up’. Education is a marathon, not a race. They’re going to be ahead in some things and behind in others. That’s okay… they’ll get there when they need to.
- Remember the fun stuff! Education is not just about book learnin’. There are arts and crafts and gluing macaroni and cotton balls to construction paper. It’s creating seed mosaics and painting with food dyes, exploring the world, doing it themselves, and learning at the knee of a seasoned professional with knowledge to share. Revel in the fact that you have freedom from the established norm – the amazing opportunity – to collect these types of learning experiences for your children. Be willing to go out and MAKE them happen for them!
- Breaks are essential to balance. Being parent and teacher is an extremely stressful job. It’s easy – too easy sometimes – to get caught up in the constant pressure and demand for educational excellence that homeschooling parents deal with. It comes from within and from outside – but it cannot rule your relationship with your kids. Take breaks often and enjoy them fully. Laze about and relax!
~h
Vaccine Free does NOT Mean Risk Free
There was a question on one of the pages that I keep up with on Facebook this weekend that dealt with vaccine ‘shedding’ (secondary transmission) and the risk that recently vaccinated children pose for non-vaccinated ones. As a non-vaxing parent, this topic is of interest to me, but it also made me realize that there are a large number of non-vaxing parents who might be doing it wrong.
By ‘wrong’, I mean that they’re mistakenly thinking that by avoiding vaccines and the risks associated with them, they’re in a ‘safe’ zone. Here’s my reply to the original thread (with parenthetical remarks to clarify in absence of the original thread):
I never worried about that (shedding and exposure/danger to my unvaxed kids). If your stance is that not vaxing is ‘safer’, then you understand, accept and are prepared to deal with the fact that your child MIGHT GET SICK. Non-vaxing is not an open door to safety. There ARE risks associated with not vaxing, and it’s our job as non-vaxing parents to educate ourselves on how to properly treat a child with polio or chicken pox or measles or any other disease that they might contract. My kids are unvaxed and healthy – and they have yet to get a so-called VPD. We never worried overmuch about exposure to a vaxed child – but if they got measles or something, we’d treat them according to the research we’ve done and trust that their immune system will be stronger, and that they’ll now have the benefit of long-term immunity to it. I believe that non-vaxing is safer for my kids – but I’m also not blind to the risks associated with that choice.
There were several recommendations to avoid recently vaccinated friends’ kids, and to avoid people whom you know to have recently had a live-virus vaccine (like flu-mist). I think that’s making it harder than necessary on new parents. Isolation is a factor in PPD, and advising mothers with young babies to isolate themselves in order to avoid exposure to shedding is not the best of plans in my opinion. Now, that’s not to say that I expose(d) my kids, willy-nilly, to germs – more that it is impossible to monitor everyone around you and be aware of their vaccination status. At the park, at the mall, at the grocery store – you can’t escape children without living in a bubble.
For one thing, your child is at no more risk by being at a recently vaccinated friend’s house than being in the grocery store where they’re administering flu-mist vaccines. In fact, I’d say there is less risk of exposure because you’re talking about one vaccinated child (who may or may not be shedding) and a store FULL of recently vaccinated people whom you know to be shedding.
Several posters chimed in on that thread with variations of ‘I want to know about this, too”. Now, I understand that some may have and just want as many opinions on the subject as possible – I’m like that and can so totally dig it – but there’s a difference in gathering info and asking ‘what should I do’ on Facebook (or any internet forum) where the quality of the information you get may or may not be up to par. Please understand, I’m not knocking the wisdom of seeking like-minded support. What I am saying is, take what you hear (or read) with a grain of salt and do your own research so that you have a well-rounded pool of information from a variety of resources to draw from, and don’t underestimate the power if your own instinctive reasoning.
Something I want to make abundantly clear here is that avoiding vaccines and the risks that they pose is not the same thing as being risk-free. The decision to vax or not is about gathering information, assessing your personal ideals and lifestyle and doing some risk management. Essentially you’re choosing between, at its most basic:
a) Vaccinating possible benefits: reduced probability of contracting a particular disease or illness and/or shortened duration or severity of illness if contracted possible risks: adverse reactions as mild as a fever or pain at injection site or as severe as developmental delays, long-term/permanent disability; death
b) Not vaccinating possible benefits: less exposure to toxic compounds and heavy metals in infancy, possibility of exposure to a disease and acquiring natural immunity to it, no need for booster shots (and additional exposure to toxic compounds and heavy metals in the developmental years) possible risks: exposure to a disease could lead to a more severe or longer duration of a disease; long-term /permanent disability; death
The risks and benefits of both paths are shockingly similar, aren’t they? This is clearly not a subject to be taken lightly or to be made casually after cruising some blogs and forums online. The part that makes this decision so very personal is how your lifestyle and habits will affect those benefits and risks. Your level of research and personal experience are also going to affect how you’ll lean when it comes to decision-making time. Choosing to keep your kids vax-free comes with a set of responsibilities that all parents should be aware of and actively filling, but that are perhaps even more important when you’re choosing to go against the status-quo. Staying away from people who may inadvertently pose a risk to your child is one way to do that, but I think a far better strategy is to be pro-active with your lifestyle and child-care practices.
Lifestyle and parenting practices play an immeasurable role in your family’s health. If you’re a breastfeeding family, that’s a boost to the immune system for your breastfed kids (no matter how long you breastfed for). If you’re an exclusive and long-term breastfeeding family, that will have an even bigger and more lasting impact on your child’s immune system and overall health. If your family’s nutrition is ‘better’ – more fresh foods and less processed, again, this will have an impact on your child’s health. If you use complimentary alternative and holistic preventative therapies, those will also play a role in your child’s overall health. There are so many factors go into the vaccine debate – but NEVER is your path ‘risk-free’.
As I said before, we don’t vaccinate, but that doesn’t mean that ‘not vaccinating’ is the end of our health management. I went into detail about how we choose to care for our family instead of vaccinating in a previous post. Even though right now Loverly Husband and I are pretty dead-set against the currently available vaccines, we’re not necessarily against the practice of vaccination (two separate issues, BTW). There is new information released every month and medical science is always making new breakthroughs. We keep up with current info, and should safe and effective (meaning reliable and reproducible research/evidence funded by non-biased parties over a reasonable period of time) vaccines come on the market then we will re-evaluate our decision. This is one of those decisions that isn’t made once – it’s one that frequently needs to be updated and revised according to the availability of information – which a contentious parent is always seeking.
Like so many other things associated with having a child, the work associated with this decision is deceiving. I’ve often seen pregnant women stress and worry and research labor and childbirth with the unconscious thought that it will all be over once the baby is here. Then the baby is born and they realize that labor and childbirth was only the tip of the iceberg. Parenting is a long and arduous process – one that is seemingly never-ending when it comes to making decisions or revising old ones. Being responsible for another life (or lives) is an awesome responsibility and not one that can ever afford to be taken lightly. The question of vaccination is one that should be carefully examined and weighed in terms of possible benefit and possible risk – what risks are you willing to assume for what potential benefit to your child and family?
Warmly,
~h
Long Live KICORRCCGHHJ!
(alternatively titled, “Why We Don’t Scout – A Personal Commentary That is in No Way Condemnatory of Those Who Do“)
Kate Miller at GeekMom wrote an article called Cub Scouts: Wonderful or Whack?
This is an interesting article for me because I have considered this aspect of scouting myself, and came to a somewhat similar conclusion. The comments on the article naturally bring a lot of extra commentary to the table, which made for interesting reading.
I don’t have a problem with the Boy Scouts or their Laws, necessarily. I think that open discussion about each point in the BSL is valuable; teaching the kids to think critically about the meaning of each of them and how they each relates to your own beliefs is a good thing. The Boy Scout Law states:
“A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.”
I think the main ‘problem’ I have with the idea of a ‘law’ that a scout must follow is that, in my opinion, these are traits that PEOPLE should have, scout or not. Taking them one by one, I have no trouble with each individual trait as I would define it; but the official meaning of most of them does present the need a ‘qualifier’ to make them fit into my personal ideals.
Naturally, a well-brought-up young man will be courteous and kind and helpful. Meet a child’s physical and emotional needs, value him and what he says and thinks and he will grow up with that dynamic as ‘normal’ and will emulate that behavior in his interactions with others. I belive that this is a key step in developing traits such as loyalty, trustworthiness and bravery and to some extent covers reverence (defining that as ‘deeply respectful’ and directing that towards other people).
But I run into trouble when I read that, according to BSoA’s definition of ‘reverent’, I would be agreeing that ‘A Scout is reverent toward God’. As a secular parent, this would obviously present a problem for me. As a secular parent, I believe in respect for others deeply held beliefs, and teach my children to be also, but that’s all that I think can be reasonably requested. Even opening that statement up to ‘all Gods’ would be problematic; few enough people understand all the facets of their own religions much less the ins-and-outs of others. I do think that it is implied that the Christian God is the target of that reverence. One can’t personally hold deep reverence for something one does not believe in, and religious preference/choice/indoctrination would have a lot to do with which god or gods one believes in. As an organization that is ‘open to all’, I feel that such a statement and requirement makes for a lot of exclusions.
Moving on to ‘bravery; in our part of the world it’s quite common to come across people who hold bigoted world-views. It takes strength of character and bravery to challenge them, and I want my children to grow up knowing how to stand up for the things they believe in; to the fortitude and stamina to oppose discrimination and injustice. I tend to see the BSL version of ‘bravery’ more along that line than the ‘jump off a cliff’ variety (which smacks more of bowing to peer pressure and not being brave at all).
I can also agree to obedience – with a proviso… obedience when the directive has been weighed and deemed appropriate to follow. I’ve never been an advocate of blind obedience (and had many a hot seat to try to convince me otherwise), and really don’t expect it of my kids, either. Yes, of course there are some days when ‘explaining why’ is just beyond my limit of tolerance and I resort to, ‘Because I’m the Mom and I said so, that’s why!”, but really, my JOB as a parent is to help them become productive members of society. I can’t do that and expect them to comply if all I ever ask is blind obedience. At some point, that’ll backfire – as a member of a pretty strict religious upbringing – and though my parents didn’t expect blind obedience for the most part – I saw it again and again and again. The minute the kids were out from under the ruling thumb, they went wild. I don’t want my kids’ world to be filled with ‘no’ and demands for action without reason. I want them to think critically and have the wherewithal to weigh a request or demand and respond with the best course of action. Sometimes that will mean compliance. Sometimes, it may mean rebellion. I want them to know the difference and have the fortitude to act accordingly.
Clean, I actually do have a problem with. There seemed to be a lot of talk in the comments about ‘clean’ referring only to physical cleanliness, and yes, I can agree that BSoA does concern itself with the physical cleanliness of a growing boy and that’s fine. I actually have a couple of Boy Scout handbooks (they make great additions to our field trip box), and there are some sections that do deal with bodily cleanliness and care. But I have a hard time believing that BSoA is only using that definition when they talk about ‘clean’. I wholeheartedly believe that their ‘clean’ also infers ‘moral cleanliness’ as defined by the generally Christian point of view that homosexuals are ‘unclean’. This is not something that I pulled out of my hat; BSoA released a youth leadership statement in 2004 that echoes this line of reasoning:
- “Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.”
What I can agree with is that BSoA does have the right to set whatever exclusionary rules that they like, as long as they remain a private organization. However, my problem is that they market themselves as ‘open to all’ when that’s not really the case. But that’s really another post. Moving on…
For ‘Friendly, Courteous and Cheerful’, I can agree with Ms. Miller’s – ‘Get out of my personality!” I’m not always friendly, courteous and cheerful, indeed, some days I am surly, rude and full of negativity. I try to stay home on those days, and certainly teach my kids to recognize those days when they strike and attempt to stay out of the limelight. It just seems manipulative to try to ‘make’ kids agree to uphold those traits all the time. I can totally see some well-meaning parent giving her kid a guilt trip on a bad day, “Remember hun! The BSL says that Scouts are cheerful and kind!”… asinine.
Trustworthy, I can agree with, but again this is something that PEOPLE should strive to be – not something that one must be a Scout to exemplify. I really don’t see how Boy Scouts could possibly instill ‘trustworthiness’ into a child. That seems to be a parental role. Loverly Husband and I underscore trustworthiness with our kids all the time. We want a good foundation built now so that when they’re 16 and asking to borrow the car, we can trust that they’ll go where they say they’re going, with whom they say they’ll be with and be back when they agreed to be back. Talking about trust and granting small freedoms now as their level of maturity and responsibility indicates lays that foundation far better than any Boy Scout activity ever could.
“So, enough with tearing down TLHFCKOCTBCR. I want to prepare for the day when BSA calls and begs me to rewrite the Boy Scout Law for them. Here’s my official redraft:
“A scout is kind, inquisitive, creative, open-minded, resilient, resourceful, confident, collaborative, globally aware, honest, helpful, and just.”
I guess that would be KICORRCCGHHJ. These are the qualities I think a boy should aspire to as he grows into a man. Or a girl into a woman for that matter. Or a transgendered child into a… oh, you get the point.”
I guess we’ll just have to work on instilling those traits into our kids without the Boy Scouts.
Huzzah!
~h
Bratty Kids: Tattling
“There is no such thing as a tattle tale‘ claims Kristin at Preschool Daze. Part of me disagrees with her vehemently; another part of me recognizes the wisdom and concern in that statement.
Yesterday was our monthly Park Day with our homeschooling group. We had our first ‘group birthday’ party, with cheesecake and singing (even though we mistakenly overlooked a couple of our lovely December babes – much love to Puddles and MamaT), which was fun and the beginning of a fun tradition, I hope. The kids played well together for about the first 5 minutes, then the whole thing went to hell in a handbasket. I don’t know why; maybe it was the weather or the alignment of planets – maybe they just missed each other and didn’t know how to handle the intense joy they were feeling at seeing each other again after so long – whatever it was, they were driving each other, and the mamas, absolutely starkers.
It’s a challenge, knowing when to let them work it out between themselves and knowing when to intervene. Today was a perfect example of an environment where there was no clear-cut ‘wrong-doer’. Each child involved could have altered his or her behavior slightly to help alleviate the tension. It’s frustrating as a mom to know that and see that, to suggest it and then watch your child completely ignore your suggestions on how they can personally, positively affect a situation.
Kids will be kids. I try to respect that, and not to let that bug me overmuch, even when they seem to be deliberately pushing my buttons. One of the down sides to having children who are used to being ‘heard’ is that when they feel that an injustice, however slight, is being done to them or a friend, they expect to be heard and justice restored. That’s worth something to me; to know that my children have the confidence to speak up and the expectation and confidence that the authority figures in their life will intervene in order to protect them. As frustrating as it can be to play referee, I value the behind-the-scenes processes that have created this confidence.
I’m sure you’ve seen Facebook’s current cartoon character meme:
‘Change your profile picture to a cartoon character from your childhood and invite your friends to do the same. Until Monday (Dec 6) there should be no human faces on Facebook, but an invasion of memories. This is a campaign to raise awareness for the need to stop violence against children.’
I don’t always play along with stuff like that, because I think that for the majority of people, ‘raising awareness’ is the end of their thought process. They do their part to appear fashionable without ever following that awareness with action. I said as much on my personal Facebook wall, and have been engaged in discussion with several friends about that. One of my friends, a new one whom I’m happy to claim as such, made the excellent point that as a parent her efforts to prevent violence against children begin with her own child. In raising her son in an environment with fully functioning and concerned parents, she is working to ensure the next generation will value the same.
From that perspective, yes; I am willing to play referee when the need arises. But then again, having siblings of my own, I know exactly how much effort can go into deliberately toeing the line of bugging the crap out of your sister/brother, which might get a verbal reprimand vs. outright bullying, which typically leads to more severe consequences.
I’ve also been keeping an eye on the ‘It gets better’ project, which is primarily a site to raise awareness for LGBT teens who may be enduring bullying, ridicule and other forms of outright abuse that life gets better as an adult. I’ve also seen it used to condemn bullying of any sort, and to encourage victims of bullying to seek help. Though none of our kids seem to be gay, they are all getting to the age of being more aware of sexuality and pairing up; LBB has a ‘girlfriend’ now, an even though it’s quite innocent, the girl in question’s mother and I have had extensive conversations between ourselves and with the children about what is appropriate and what is not. Interestingly, we’ve also both initiated conversations with our own younger children about teasing their older sibs about ‘liking’ someone an how hurtful that can be.
Anyone who ever thought that being a parent was an easy job is sorely mistaken. I was under the impression that it got easier as they got older and more independent; so far that’s not true. There are myriad nuances to helping them grown into caring, open-minded, responsible adults and I hope I am up to the challenge.
Warmly,
~h
Silly Questions
Every once in a while, I come across questions posed to homeschoolers. Sometimes, they’re well thought out questions from people who seem to genuinely want to understand why homeschoolers might make the decisions that they do.
Other times, not so much.
Offering up the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that these questions are in the ‘sincere’ category:
1. Is it worth trading a childs social life for a “better” education?
To put this question into perspective, here’s the author’s position:
Homeschooling is a great way to make a child book smart. The down side is that homeschooling hinders social development. Homeschool kids tend to become brilliantly educated and social retarded. By sheltering your child, you prevent them from learning how to deal with everyday social situations. Homeschoolers are shy for the most part and lack interpersonal skills.
Le sigh.
Honestly, I find this laughably ignorant. This assertion caters to two homeschooling stereotypes, that homeschooled children become some kind of super-students simply by virtue of being ‘home schooled’, and that not growing up in an institutionalized environment somehow creates socially inept citizens. Neither stereotype is true, yet people really seem to enjoy perpetuating them. Other bloggers have clarified the ‘socialization vs. socializing‘ distinction, so rather than re-hash that, I’ll link and let you read Smrt Mama’s post outlining the differences between the two.
I think that an important point in this question is the idea that a child’s social life is or should revolve around peers. My ‘social life’ as an adult is filled with people of all ages. By virtue of being homeschooled, my children’s social circle also includes people of all ages – children both younger and older than they are, and adults of all ages with whom they have little difficulty conversing – much more so than they would have if there were stuck in school for 8+ hours every day. I think that the wider age range of social contacts that most homeschoolers enjoy is far more indicative of ‘real life’ as an adult than the segregated peer groups that most schools employ. I also think that many people place more importance than is due on socializing. Yes, children need to have friends of similar ages, but they’re better socialized when they are not limited to peer groups for social contact. So in short, I don’t think that there is any ‘sacrifice’ involved in the social life of homeschoolers.
2. Are you really qualified to teach your child if you don’t have a teaching degree?
Absolutely. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if I were not fully capable of managing my child’s primary education, then the school systems that educated me (which include both the local public school system and homeschooling) have fallen short of their mark.
Another misconception that I have run into numerous times is that homeschoolers ‘do it all themselves’. Again most, if not all, homeschooling parents I know take full advantage of the bounty of resources available to homeschooling students. From videos and teacher’s manuals to mentors and fully supported online curriculums and local remedial teaching centers, none of us who homeschool are going it ‘alone’. Additionally, many homeschooling parents reach out to the online support communities and local support groups for more hands-on help and encouragement.
I’ve posted about gaps in education before; neither educational system is without gaps. The primary goal of education is to impart basic skills (reading, writing and foundational maths) and the know-how to obtain the information one needs when one needs it. Both the public school system and homeschooling teachers augment those basic skills with a variety of other core information and even among public schools, there is a wide range of what is considered ‘core’. Homeschoolers don’t miss out on that any more than if they moved from one ISD to another during their school career.
3. Which would be better for the child: homeschooling or active parental involvement in public schooling?
The fallacy in this question is assuming that both methods have equal effect for the child. The structure of homeschooling is in no way comparable to a brick-and-mortar classroom setting. In a homeschooling environment, one or two children are the focus of the teacher at all times. Even in larger families, the ratio of student to teacher is still far less than you would ever find in the public education system. No school can compete with that level of individual attention. That alone has tremendous benefit to the student.
Ask yourself this: if you were learning a new skill, how would you learn faster? In a classroom where you will be expected to progress at a set rate regardless of your individual ability, or with a dedicated mentor at your side and ample time to master each step of the process? Homeschooling is in no way a cake walk. It is hours of work and study and preparation on the parent’s part – and that’s before the child even enters the picture. Few parents take on the monumental task of being the primary educator for their children. Those who do are committed and dedicated. When education is free and available for the taking, for a parent to choose another path speaks volumes.
The most dedicated and involved parent in a school is only as effective as the system allows. Even volunteering in parent-teacher groups is only as effective as the system allows. Most schools don’t allow parents in the classroom as regular volunteers; they consider them a distraction. Most teachers are set in their ways, so suggestions or ideas that upset the apple cart are overlooked or disregarded, or impractical in large group settings. Speaking from experience, it was incredibly frustrating to see improvements that could be made, suggest them, be willing to work to implement them, and have those efforts go exactly nowhere. As a homeschooling parent, I feel like my efforts on my children’s behalf are far more effective and worthwhile.
4. How do you plan on developing your childs social skills if you are homeschooling them? Homeschool groups are like social special ed classes and don’t help children develop social skills that can be applied later on in life.
Dictionary.com defines social skills as: the personal skills needed for successful social communication and interaction. Most children learn ‘social skills’ at home, before they ever school. Basic social skills are reinforced every day – how to wait your turn, how to stand in a queue, to be polite, to be respectful. One need never set foot inside a school to master basic social skills.
Homeschool groups and co-ops are excellent opportunities, though not essential, for both socialization and social growth. Any type of ‘group’ setting is an opportunity for social growth, and an opportunity for bettering your communication skills no matter what your age. Library book clubs, doctor’s office waiting rooms, in line at the grocery store, visiting the park – all are opportunities for social interaction – a venue for practicing one’s social skills, and better at actually exercising them than at a playdate or event where you know everyone there. Improving communication is an ongoing process that should not end. Sad would be the day, indeed, when one feels that s/he hasn’t anything left to learn about communication and interacting with people.
It’s obvious to me that the person posing these question has little interaction with ‘real’ homeschoolers. More likely, he or she is repeating what’s been overheard, or is letting fear speak for them. The heavy focus on social opportunities makes me think that the questioner is a young person as well. From that perspective, I can see how you might fear such a scenario when you’re accustomed to the daily social gathering of ‘school’. I hope that I’ve answered these questions with my usual mix of sass and insight. Feel free to add your own replies in the comments!
Warmly,
~h
Secular Musings
Why is there a need for a secular homeschool group? Why would you join a secular homeschool group?
This seems to have come up in response to an inquiry I made of some of the other homeschooling groups in the area. There is a free class for teachers and homeschooling parents through the TX Parks & Wildlife called Project Wild that we’re about to participate in, and since we need to have X number of people to set up a local class, I contacted some of the groups in the area to see if they might have an interest in this as well. Somehow, that ‘good intention’ has morphed into widespread fear that I might be trying to ‘bring the homeschooling groups together’ for some strange and scary ‘interfaith’ activities that may or may not be designed to subvert their kids away from the church.
Le sigh.
I love the picture above, because it is the personification of what is wrong with faith-based groups. They don’t understand, and they don’t want to understand. I am reminded of Chris Tse’s words in his amazing poem, “I’m Sorry I’m a Christian“:
…so confident of my own beliefs that I would never even think to think about thinking about yours.
Why ‘secular’? Mainly… because I am not ‘one of you’. I don’t feel comfortable in your groups because everything you say (esp. re: history and science and Biblical ‘truth’) is presented as fact with no room for discussion. I don’t share your convictions on those points; why would I subject myself to an environment where there is only room for one truth and not even respect for anything else? That is why we both need, and have, and have joined, a secular group.
My question to you is, ‘Why can’t you do anything without it being steeped in your faith? Do you not derive strength and fortitude from any other source? What would you/will you do if ever your faith is proven to be false? Will you cease to have a reason to live and give up all hope or will you still find that you are the same, concerned, loving parent intent on doing the best you can for your kids? That sounds sarcastic; I know it does, and yet it is an honest question.
I have long left the faith I was raised in and have remained constant. I am still the same person I have always been and I manage do so on the sole merit of my own authority, not because of faith or belief or religious dictates. I have not changed. What I believe and believe in has. I refuse to allow adherents of any religion to dictate how I feel about things, what I can see, what I can listen to, who I can be friends with or grant them authority over any other aspect of my life and lifestyle. I’m both capable of and interested in doing those things for myself.
All that said, I really do think that the Christian homeschooling community at large gets a bad rap a lot of the time. I think that the vast majority of homeschoolers are probably ‘normal’ people. They laugh at funny jokes, they watch TV, they like music – you know, normal. It’s that vocal few who have the drive (or narcissistic personality disorder?) to start and successfully run a homeschooling group who end up speaking for the group because that’s what group leaders do – whether or not all the members of a group feel that way, simply by being associated with XYZ group, people assume that you feel that way, too. For example, in my group, there are several moms who are deeply religious. I know, right? I’ll wait a minute while you reconcile that shocking thought in your head…
… Yes. DEEPLY religious. As in, their religion defines them as people and dictates their behavior and response in any given situation. I’d definitely call that deeply religious… and yet they are in a secular homeschooling group. Why? Well, because the tenets of their faith do not jive with the tenets of the already-established faith-based groups in this area. Or maybe because their main goal in homeschooling is to educate, not indoctrinate. Or maybe it’s because we have a planned group activity every week. Or maybe it’s because our motto is “Triangle Homeschoolers – This is the place where people are awesome to each other.” Either way, association and participation in a secular group does not offer commentary on the state of our members’ faith or religious convictions. Just because the group as a whole does not lean in any one particular religious direction does not mean that the members are not zealous in their own beliefs. Think ‘separation of church and state’.
Bottom line is that I (and by extension, my group) am in no way as influential as you seem to think. While it would totally rock if that were so, it’s simply not true. If a secular group is not for you, then don’t join it. We are no threat to you or your children or your beliefs or your faith-based group. My advice would be to simply ignore what doesn’t apply or appeal to you. Better yet, why don’t you come see what we’re all about before you make up your mind?
Warmly,
~h
(Sorry for the 3-days late SecThurs post… I am back-dating it though, which is cheating, I admit, but this post needed a LOT of editing.)
Summer Days…
As much as I wish I could wax poetic about the long days of summer slipping by, the truth is in Southeast Texas, we still have MONTHS of ‘summer’ to enjoy (if by ‘enjoy’ you mean ‘seek refuge from the soul-sucking humidity and glaring obscenity of brightness that used to be sunshine in the dark, cool confines of your home’). I am not even kidding.
While it’s true that some kids have gone back to school already, most of the local ISDs don’t start until Monday. Our homeschool group is having a “Not Back to School Park Day” to celebrate this blessed event, in which the libraries will once again return to the quiet haven we’ve known them to be, parks will be devoid of the 500 rowdy school aged children bogarting the swings, and museums once again get so little traffic that they’re over-helpful when homeschooling kiddos visit them… ahhhh.
Since here, many homeschooling families are involved in co-ops, and co-op groups likewise start next week (they usually follow the ISD’s schedule since many families have kids in both), we’re getting in quite a bit of last-minute visiting and play-dating with friends in. Today, we had lunch and spent the afternoon with my friend PB&JMom and her four kidlets.
The most amazing thing about visiting with this family for my kids is that they have BOYS. Almost all of my friends either have all girls, or have boys that are much older or much younger than mine. Not to say that the kids don’t all play well, they really do, but there is an entirely different dynamic at work when you have a group of boys similar in age.
For the majority of the day, the boys were neither seen nor heard from. They played legos, then video games for a bit, then went out to play in the yard, then set out down the road a ways to catch minnows and explore and just be boys…
The boys had a wonderful time… they were out, alone, exploring the world around them and quite happy to be masters of their own destiny, if only for an afternoon. So much fun was had that they were quite reluctant to leave – something that I never thought I would say I was glad to see (because when they were very small fry, a change in the status quo – like leaving a playdate – was call for a meltdown of epic proportions… now, it’s just a mild rumbling of dissent, but a realization that we’re seeing these same friends for two days in a row next week, so maybe the world will not, in fact, end, after all). They jumped into the van sweaty and muddy and hungry and content.
While they were gone, I started thinking about the whole ‘free range kids movement’ and became all annoyed again (as ever I do when I think about many of the extreme POVs found in that sector). This, to me, is what childhood should be about… freedom, but not at the expense of good sense. PB&JMom’s boys know their boundaries and are familiar with the area. There were four (actually 5 since a neighbor’s little boy joined them), so no one child was left alone – the buddy system in full effect. They actually did get scraped up a bit from scrambling down to get the bucket, yet no one came crying to mom about it – and let me just say that ALL of these children are ‘attached’ kids.
The assertions that ‘AP’ parents don’t let their kids experience anything really bug the crap out of me because it’s not true - at least in all cases. PB&JMom and I were enjoying our conversation in the house while the boys were out – for most of the afternoon. I sent them out with my camera (which is shatter-proof and waterproof; basically, it is kid-proof and one of the few things I consider ‘essential’ childcare equipment) to do as they will. Their only instruction today really was , ‘Don’t die.’
Generalizations are generally a bad thing, you know {wink}, and the generalization that AP automatically equals over-protective hovering is flat-out fallacious. I stand by what I said in my previous thoughts on free range kids post. I agree that kids need freedom to explore; I just don’t think that they need to be foisted into the world without a net, which is how it seems to me more often than not when I read FRK-style parenting blogs, which, ironically is another generalization – and one that I am sure makes ‘normal’ FRK moms pretty hacked off to read!
It’s not that I am opposed to the FRK movement overall. There are aspects of it that I wholeheartedly agree with. But so many factors will go into what is safe or right for each family; location is a big one – and I don’t think that any of us can truly judge another’s choices without being in their shoes… and even then, personal preference, personal philosophy and experience will still make those things different. I also happen to be of the opinion that the only way to be sure of what it is that I believe is to continually challenge myself on it… which is why I read things that might make me annoyed; it makes me think, and I do totally respect that. Anyway… enough philosophizing for one post, I think. {wink}
We had an awesome, fantastic, super-duper day and I want to end it on a high note. Tomorrow is Secular Thursday, so if you’re reading this and not currently a ST blogger, then I really encourage you to splash about in that puddle. Write about what secular homeschooling means to you and link back to Smrt Lernins Secular Thursday page with your post. The list there is growing and its so nice to have a great list of blogs to browse in the evening.
Warmly,
~h
Experts and Their Assorted Opinions
If there’s one thing I have learned since becoming a parent, it is that everyone, including those who have never met your kids and those who have zero experience with children, period, seems to think that they are child-rearing experts and that despite the fact that you never once asked for their opinions, feel the need to share it with you – and then have the nerve to be annoyed at you for disregarding their advice. It’s even worse when said would-be advisor actually does have a little bit of knowledge or experience – as if that somehow makes them the expert on this situation or on your child and requires you to be grateful to be on the receiving end of such gems of parental wisdom. Strangely enough, this isn’t a phenomenon limited to new parents. Take a hungry or over-tired 7-year-old child out in public and see how much ‘helpful’ advice you get, or tell someone about the experience and see how you ‘should have’ handled it.
Meet the REAL Experts: We call them “Parents”
If there is one thing that I want to say, one message that I want to get out into the world, it is this:
Parents, please remember that YOU are the expert on your child!
No one is more uniquely qualified to handle your child better than you are. In saying that, even the terminally argumentative can surely figure out that I am automatically disqualifying anyone who doesn’t like their kids or kids in general, is a selfish or immature parent (or is otherwise incapable of putting the needs of someone else, whom they’re entirely responsible for, ahead of their own), or who has been declared unfit or had their parental rights stripped, from inclusion that statement. If that’s not you, then you’re already aware that every decision regarding your child’s care and upbringing must be made with your child’s needs in mind – and no one knows more about your kiddo and how his or her needs might best be met than you do[1].
The problem in our society is that we forget that. Much like when we’re pregnant and at the OB’s office we mysteriously forget that the last 30 years living inside said body pretty much makes you the expert on anything that happens with or to that body the moment that the OB tells you whats best rather than offering an opinion on what might be a possible course of action or treatment and letting us decide (but that’s another issue).
When it comes to our kids though, as new parents we’re often looked upon with condescension – like somehow we’re not capable of deciding a course of action. We forget that by the end of the first day, a new mom has had more hands-on time with her babe than anyone else (excluding NICU families here – but you get the point). In most cases, that, added with the biological imperative that parents have to protect their young gives the new parent a distinct edge that cannot be duplicated.
I’m not saying that new parents shouldn’t ask for or listen to advice or support – far from it! Even the most experienced mama benefits from having a helping hand in the first few weeks. My point here is that we should take note of who we’re asking for advice and support, what their qualifications for giving advice are, and why they’re giving it; what their motivation in advocating that course of action is.
Just recently, I’ve spoken with 2 new moms, one who was using Babywise as a guide, and one with a ‘helpful’ MIL who probably meant to be but in reality was anything but. In both cases, the mom in question’s natural instincts were intruded upon to the point that she really couldn’t tell which way they were pointing her. I sincerely hope that both of those moms ended their conversations with me feeling more in control of their own mothering. One thing that my business partner and I tell our clients is that when seeking mothering advice, find someone who is the mom she wants to be, or one who has the kind relationship with her kids that she wants to have and ask that mom for advice. Or at the very least, ask that mom for book or website recommendations. Asking someone who is not doing what you want to do, or isn’t selling what you want to buy is just going to end in frustration and possibly hurt feelings.
It seems that asking friends or family would be a good idea, and it certainly can be – but not always. Your mother, sister, aunt and all love you and want only the best for you and your child, but often their advice comes from a desire to validate their own choices, regardless of whether they’re actually happy with the choices they made. That sounds harsh to say, but it’s true. Our choices are validated when others follow suit. When we make different choices than our mother or mother-in-law did, effectively, we’re saying that her was is/was wrong and that she wasn’t /isn’t a good mother. It’s not something many will verbalize, but unconsciously it’s there and often causes conflict. If that’s the case, reassurance and validation can go a long way towards mending that relationship without compromising on the things you believe are best for your child.
Something else to consider is the timeline. Information changes! What was commonly done 10, 15 and 20 years ago is contraindicated today. Sleep training with the ‘Ferber Method‘ is still touted as the way to go, but many don’t realize that Dr. Richard Ferber recanted his advice on sleep training and actually recommends the exact opposite of what he once promoted. Even this notorious ‘expert’ now bows to the superior wisdom of the parent on the subject of ‘what is best’ for their own families. Putting cereal in baby’s bottle at days or weeks old was commonplace is now widely regarded as dangerous, yet many grandmas (and pedi’s here in Southeast Texas!!) still tell new moms to do just that ‘to help baby sleep’.
We tend to forget the value in ‘been there, done that’ advice. Take a moment to examine the issue you’re having and seek advice from those who have experienced what you’re dealing with and most importantly, have solved the issue in a way that is compatible with your personal philosophy or parenting goals. There are moms groups like La Leche Leagueand Attachment Parenting International support groups that specialize in supporting parents and making sure that the advice shared among the parents in their groups is factual, effective and research-based.
Take breastfeeding, for example. Many new moms seek breastfeeding management advice from their pediatrician. On the surface, that seems to be a good idea, but look closer and you’ll find that there are much better sources of information. Pediatricians are generally not specifically educated in the normal course of breastfeeding. They’re trained to look for pathology – medical problems that need medical solutions. If your baby is not gaining weight, then their first course of action is often to supplement with formula, whereas a lactation consultant – someone who is specifically educated in breastfeeding management – knows that formula supplementation is a slippery slope that often has detrimental effects on breastfeeding. An LC knows that there are steps to be taken that are better at solving weight gain issues that will preserve the breastfeeding relationship and will support you as you take them. Bad information from ill-informed, uneducated or out-dated sources leads to adverse affects on your milk supply, which can (has and does!) lead to mom feeling like she failed at breastfeeding, which can lead to depression[2].
Another source of bad breastfeeding information is relatives and friends who either did not breastfeed or did not breastfeed successfully. Women who, in many cases, also got bad information from their pediatricians or friends and relatives. Having such ‘helpful’ expressions of doubts and constant second guessing only erodes mom’s confidence and ability to be effective at instinctively navigating her way through nurturing her babe. Worse, passing on bad information only perpetuates the cycle of failed breastfeeding attempts. In the age in information, it’s easy to find credible information online that addresses most topics, but we need confidence in ourselves to be able to overlook face to face instruction and go with something as impersonal as a website or article.
That’s just one example – where the baby is born, where the baby sleeps, how often baby is to be held, how the baby is diapered, whether the baby is vaccinated or not – it seems that each and every aspect of parenting is up for challenge by someone. As support people, we need to be aware of the things we say to new moms and dads. Sharing our negative or horrible experiences with pregnant and new parents is virtually always detrimental. What new parents need is encouragement to do research – read, ask questions, attend support groups – gather information! There’s an adage about ‘when you know better, you do better’. That’s the position that many of us ‘experienced’ moms find ourselves in – having a wealth of knowledge and experience and knowing how it feels to learn something years later that would have made a difference in the choices we made. It’s tough to see someone making the wrong choices, but who is to say what’s right or wrong?
We need to encourage the new parents in our lives to trust themselves – trust that they can make good decisions – and then we need to step back and trust in their ability to do right for their own families. After all, they’re the ones who have to live with the choices they make. If the baby sleeps in their bed, then trust that they have a good reason for doing so, and let them do it. If they nurse the baby every hour, trust that they’ve done the research on how breastfeeding works and that they know their baby best and can accurately determine when the best time to feed the baby is.
As mothers and fathers, we need to learn to be more proactive when learning about the options we have, and to be more assertive when it comes to advocating for what we feel is on our kids’ best interest. We also need to learn to listen to what the doctor/therapist/neighbor/mother in law says and take that into consideration, but ultimately one of the perks of being The Mama [3] is that you get to make the decision. Let’s make sure they’re good ones.
Warmly,
~h
[1] I have found that many disagreements regarding parenting issues come when one parent (the primary caregiver) wants to do one thing and the other parent (often the ‘breadwinner’) wants to do something else. Most often, that dynamic is mom-at-home, dad-at-word so for the purposes of this illustration, that’s the dynamic I’m using. If your sitch is different, then replace pronouns or monikers as needed so that the shoe fits.
If communication or disagreement with your bread-winning hubby or partner is an issue, then the analogy of ‘mothering is my JOB, just like XYZ is your job. I take it as seriously as you take your job, by reading, looking up information, consulting with professionals and peers in my profession (i.e.: other mothers) and continually endeavoring to do my job better – just like you do. As the primary caregiver, this is the course of action I feel is best based on my ‘training’.‘ may work – with tweaks and expansion as required by your family’s dynamic.
[2] I went looking for articles to back that statement up and found mostly articles that dealt with a mom suffering with PDD or clinical depression who is also breastfeeding and the guilt associated with stopping nursing. I probably could find other material, but I am satisfied just speaking from experience – I have personally worked with mothers who suffered an onset of depression (both diagnosed and treated and who went undiagnosed) after they ‘failed’ at breastfeeding. I use the term ‘failed’ very loosely here as in most of those cases, it was a lack of good information and mis-treatment of a breastfeeding management issue by what should have been a trusted professional (i.e.: pediatrician, OB, L&D nurse or nursery nurse) that was a direct result of the ‘failure’. They were cases of the medical system failing the mother by not providing adequate resources for the health and benefit of their clients, yet most mothers will not see it that way. They internalize it as a personal failure – which can and does lead to depression and long-term negative impact on the woman as a mother.
[3] or The Papa, or whatever your chosen role and honorific {wink}
Cost Effective Eco-Consciousness
I’ve been trying to write this post about the dilemma that I, and I’m sure lots of moms on limited budgets, have. The issue is the high cost of organically and/or availability of locally grown produce, and the cost of ‘green’ or ‘natural’ cleaning, beauty and household products vs. mainstream ones. Thrown into this issue as well are the extremely high and un-covered by insurance alternative healthcare options like homeopathy, herbs and supplements, acupuncture/acupressure and other such things are. It seems that the things that are less chemically toxic, better for the environment and that promote overall health instead of merely masking symptoms are usually out of reach when you’re not in that top 10% of the financial bracket.
This post was prompted, in part, by this article over atPeaceful Parenting‘s blog. The point of the article being posted on that blog was absolutely valid – the question, “Are we really saving money on groceries today if we have a bigger health bill tomorrow?” is definitely one to ponder. The issue I have with this lies in the comments section. I was appalled and annoyed at the judgement and condemnation that I saw there. Only one person mentioned the financial straits that some parents are faced with that makes the grocery game (and learning to play it well) something that some families need to do in order to feed their families.
For me, personally, our situation is not that dire but learning to coupon better and keep track of what we have on-hand and what we need to add to that for specific recipes would stretch our grocery budget. In some cases, that would mean not choosing the ‘greener’ option but choosing to buy what I had a coupon for. That’s not to say that I don’t make better nutritional/less processed choices when possible, but I’m inclined to make my dollar go as far as it can, and if playing the grocery game can help with that then I’m willing to do that. The problem is that articles like that one, and the comments that accompany it make me feel like I’m spinning my wheels – instead of getting healthier by eating better, am I un-doing whatever the good stuff has done by picking something ‘less’?
Then the conspiracy theorist in me comes out to play… the part of me that says, “Sure, you can eat better foods, but you can’t avoid the toxins in literally every other aspect of your life. The air we breathe and the soil our local produce is grown in is tainted beyond redemption thanks to the oil and paper/logging industries that keep our local economy afloat.” And let’s not forget about the insecticides that the county comes out with to keep the mosquito population from carrying us away (and the Off! that I spray my kids down with when they’re going to be outside for a long time – which we have to use because they’re allergic to the soy-based alternatives we’ve tried – and going bug-spray-less means lots of skeeter bites that itch, which means lots of lidocaine being slathered on because they’re allergic to bites, without which leads to infection and scarring - so, a little deet is the lesser of about four evils in that scenario).
It makes me wonder just how much of the organic/green buzz is pure propaganda. Does it make THAT much of a difference what you eat and what you clean your house with when so many other areas of your life are filled with toxins and chemical exposure that you cannot avoid? I just don’t know.
In the process of trying to write this post (this is the 3rd draft…), I kept getting distracted with the thought that a lot of my complaining when it comes to the cost factor sounds like excuses. Even though some of it is valid (like the probability that companies who make many of the greener products have caught on to the fact that people will simply pay more for those products and have no incentive to bring the cost down to a more comparable level), a lot of it comes down to choice. very time I start to say, “It costs too much”, I get conflicted with the fact that we spent $7 at Chick Fil A the other day. Granted, that’s the only time we’ll go to CFA until the week after next, but still… Then there’s the fact that if I worked, finances would be less of an issue (but then, not really, because at least during the summers, I’d only be working to pay for childcare; and the toll that working would take on my family would be prohibitive as well – so me working really isn’t an option).
What I’ve come to realize is that the good thing about being truly eco-conscious is that as long as you’re willing to forgo the flashy, showy, “Look how AWARE and INVOLVED in SAVING THE EARTH I am!!” stuff, keeping your home clean and eating with organic in mind is not all that hard to do. Frugality goes hand-in-hand with eco-consciousness, so thrift shopping and recycling clothing and household goods happily plays into this as well. Things like cleaning with vinegar, baking soda, borax, essential oils and castile soap – and making your own soaps and bath/beauty products. The fun thing about that is that it doubles as a hobby – so that’s more bang for your buck! Instead of buying re-usable shopping bags, make them from old sheets and clothing. Better yet, help the kids make and decorate them! Call it arts and crafts {smile}. Curtains, toys and decorating can also be liberated from old clothes and sheets. Art quilts, re-purposing old tee shirts and sweaters, even fabric scraps can be made into something awesome.
Let’s not forget about gardening and composting and vermicomposting! If you have boys, this is something they’ll dig most enthusiastically (girls, too – I’m not being sexist, lol). Growing your own little garden is (relatively) easy and requires less work than you might think. Now, I’m not talking about growing huge amounts of food or anything, esp. to start with. But you can grow a few tomatoes, onions and other fruits and veg fairly easily to supplement what you buy. We’ve been saving seeds from nearly everything lately – especially cherries! I have visions of a cherry tree-lined driveway in a few years…. We’re just getting started with the whole gardening/composting thing – but I’ll tell you what – going to visit and having your child finish up a banana and ask, “Hey Mom, where’s the compost bin?” at someone else’s house makes you smile.
I will say that some of the things that are most expensive to start with are good quality essential oils and herbs. Herbs, you can actually grow and dry yourself – and you can infuse them with intent as they’re growing, which is a nice touch, esp if you’re going to be using them for healing in your home. Oils – splurge. Buy from a reputable company and you’ll get more out of the product. Even if you just want to dabble, get the good stuff. Inferior quality oils don’t hold their fragrance and you won’t want to use the product you made. Also, if you’re using herbs and essential oils in a medicinal capacity you definitely want the best you can find. Some oils are more expensive than others. Start with more affordable oils and buy one at a time to build your collection. When you’re literally using drops at a time, they tend to last a while.
I guess what was really bugging me was the judgmental attitude from those who either aren’t faced with the same financial considerations, or just didn’t think before they wrote. It bugs me that most of those people probably have more than a couple of eco-consciousness contradictions in their lives – we all do. For some of us, diet is our main focus, for others, it may be household upgrades (like solar power, rain water collection or the like), for others it may be something else. There’s a fine line between taking advantage of modern conveniences and knowing which of those to forgo in favor of meeting whatever ideal is important at the moment. I think that every step we take with mindful intent, we’re improving the health and lives of our families, and that is what is important.
Warmly,
~h
Movie Ratings
You know, I really don’t put a whole lot of stock in what the Motion Picture Association of America says, thinks or recommends. When it comes to deciding what our kids can and cannot watch, read or listen to, Loverly Husband and I have our own list of considerations that we consult to decide if something is “appropriate” material for our kids to consume.
For the longest time, my favorite MPAA warning was ‘mortal peril’ I forget what movie it was now*, but out of all the things to be warned about on the warning labels, that one caught my eye. i’m not saying that the movie was worth watching or commenting on the appropriateness of whatever movie that was – just that the combination of the words “mortal” and “peril” appealed to me in some ineffable way… it could have said ‘life threatening situations’ or any number of other things, but ‘mortal peril’ just made my day.
Then came “smoking caterpillar”.
It’s on the label for the new Alice in Wonderland. It made me stop and look again… are we really at a point in our society that parents need to be warned about a smoking caterpillar? We’re all aware, in this day and age, that smoking is bad for your health, yet as reasonably intelligent human beings, we’re allowed to make our own choice as to whether or not we’ll partake in that particular past time. No doubt we’ve had to explain that to our children on more than one occasion – that even though something isn’t healthy, some people choose to do it anyway.
So why that particular warning? I saw the new Alice. The Jabberwocky, even the bandersnatch is pretty scary (or would be for a little). There’s a sword fight and an entire village is destroyed by fire. Surely that is more worrisome than a smoking caterpillar (which is only on screen for a few minutes, vs. quite a bit of screen time for other images). Surely we, as parents, aren’t going to let the classic and spellbinding story of Alice down the rabbit hole slip through our fingers because we’re afraid our kids might be negatively influenced by a smoking CATERPILLAR?? Our dearly beloved offspring are certainly aware that since caterpillars in real life are decidedly mute, that it would stand to reason that they’ll likewise not smoke a hookah in real life… and logic would bear out that just because things happen in a book or on TV or in a movie does not mean that we should emmulate such things. I’d even go so far as to say that in many cases, books, television shows and movies show us a character with personality traits that harm him or her, thus the lesson is: do NOT emmulate this person!
Loverly Husband and I recently watched This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a documentary about the MPAA’s rating system and how that has impacted film makers and our culture in general. In particular, John Waters was interviewed (I have always found Mr. Waters to be well spoken and enjoyable to listen to especially on the topic of censorship) and he made many good points, including that the ratings system seems to be more concerned with sex in film than with wholesale violence. I think that is a relevant and salient point – I’ve seen terribly violent movies that are PG rated (action blockbusters – think Bruce Willis, Will Smith & Mel Gibson, movies with high body counts but no blood/gore) but movies that show relatively mild sexual situations are slapped with an R rating out of hand… that’s backwards if you ask me. Sex is a natural part of life, indeed, none of us would be here were it not for sex. However violence… violence is not natural and shouldn’t be an everyday part of anyone’s life, much less that of a child. So how is it that witnessing on-screen sexual situations is seen as more damaging? Children will at some point grow up and engage in sexual activity. If we’ve done our job as parents, then they’ll never be involved in a violent situation (at least as the perpetrator) like those depicted in ‘shoot-em-up’ films.
If I were in charge of rating movies, I would have much harsher and much more consistent criterion for judging and would make better use of the ratings available, including the X category. I’d rate MANY more movies with an R and many currently R-rated movies would be rated NC-17 which, BTW, should not be viewed as pornographic, in my ratings reality. That’s what your X rating is for… porn and anything that carries the warning “copious amounts of grisly violent bloody death” (i.e.: any teen scream flick, most notably the Freddy movie where the bed vomits a colum of blood, or Bride of Chucky where Chucky and Tiffany kill the newlyweds in a waterbed explosion and RAIN of blood… and the entire “torture porn” genre, a la the Saw and Hostel movies) would fall into the X category as well). NC-17 is a movie intended for adult eyes only – movies that feature stronger sexual situations and movies with extreme language and yes, movies that glorify violence.
It makes me wonder why the current rating are the way they are – is it to make people feel like they’re not as lacking in the moral compass department as they really are? I mean, if you can’t bring yourself to walk into a theater to enjoy a movie that is clearly adult-orineted (i.e.: not intended for the delicate eyes of our young)… is it just a matter of perception? ”Well, I’m not enjoying themes that would the prohibited for decent folks; this movie is only rated “R”. If it were rated NC-17, I wouldn’t watch it”. Do people really need to deceive themselves to that degree? I’m an adult. I can find enjoyment and entertainment in the thrill of a horror movie, of a movie designed to tantalize, even in the occasional shoot ‘em up… I think there actually is a movie called “Shoot ‘Em Up” with Clive Owen that was pretty good… but that’s not the point. I’m an adult. I can choose to watch that and have the presence of mind to differentiate between reality and fiction in such a situation. If there’s something I see in a film that I’d like to replicate in real life, then again, I am an adult and have the resources available to me to do that (unless I wanted to pull a Point Break or something else that’s illegal).
Kids can’t. Yes, I agree that kids shouldn’t be watching movies that feature lots ‘o sex, but the dynamics of relationships… that is something that they can maybe learn from. Given the choice between letting my kids watch full on sex or the bloody dismemberment of a conscious victim by a serial killer (methodical or psychotic – you pick), I’m going to have to go with full sex. I cannot see how that would be more damaging than dismemberment. Obviously, I’m not going to let my kids watch either of those things. I’m just pointing out that there is a real problem with the perception of suitability and rating of content.
Just my thoughts for the evening…
Warmly,
~h
*I thought it was The Spiderwick Chronicles, but it seems I was mistaken.
I Allow My Kids to Play Violent Video Games
Hi there. I’m a parent, and I play violent video games. I have never killed anyone, mugged anyone, maimed or raped anyone, robbed a bank or knocked over any convenience stores, or lived through the Zombie Apocalypse or fought in any Alien Wars. I also allow my kids to play violent video games.
I consider myself an AP parent, with all of the lovey-dovey concepts that go along with it in full practice. I also consider myself a ’crunchy’ mom (scoring 157 on the crunch scale), and I do not find these lifestyles incompatible with allowing my children to experience and participate in video game violence. I thought that I would start off with that clarification so as to give you, dear reader, an idea of where I stand on this issue.
This topic comes up quite a bit in my group of homeschool friends. Most of us have gaming kids, and they often play together online. The confession of which games our kids play is almost always admitted with a shy smile, ducked head and almost shameful countenance, like we’re divulging some horrible secret. I grew up watching Bugs Bunny (of sarcastic, cross-dressing fame) and Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam trick and try to kill each other with horrifying regularity. Then there was Wile E. Coyote, with his unlimited spending account at Acme. Co., try, and fail (often with self-destructive consequence) to off the Roadrunner. Other cartoons, Captain Caveman, Tom & Jerry, Ren & Stimpy, the terminal stupidity of Beavis and Butthead… all had their share of cartoon mayhem and violence. I grew up with video games, like Super Mario Brothers (where the Mario Brothers begin their reign of murder and 8-bit violence on the animal population of Mario World within the very first frame), Contra (where there is nuthin’ but killin’, especially with the ‘up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Start’ cheat code, which allowed a wholesale killing spree virtually without consequence). Though the graphics have improved, the violence in video games nowadays is more often in story format now (movie format, even) and in many, you can choose your path to be less or more violent.
Articulating why I allow my children to play such games is often elusive. Being able to pinpoint exactly why I don’t find them as threatening as Media portrays them is very difficult. But I came across this article on The Escapist by Shamus Young called ‘Violent Video Games are Awesome‘ that does a wonderful job explaining what I haven’t been able to. Katie Couric apparently brought this topic into the limelight yet again(with a beautiful critique by Chris Person on Kotaku), and tweeted for the public to respond with the positive side of video game violence, and Mr. Young’s reply was, in part, thus:
I’ve only quoted a small section of his rebuttal, and I encourage you to read the article in its entirety. His assessment of Ms. Couric’s methods are spot-on, and his reasoning is quite sound. Many of the points that he makes, including that of the regulation and compliance of video game manufacturers to appropriately label their products being far superior to other warning labels, are points that never seem to get brought up in the ‘great debate’.
Another issue lacking in the ‘great debate’ is parental supervision. Aside from the fact that these are MY KIDS and I am the one who gets to decide what they are able to handle and allowed to do, the push to ban video games wrests this decision from my hands and puts it into the hands of a one-size-fits-all government. It implies that I, as a parent, am incapable of making the decision as to what my child should and shouldn’t be allowed to do.
As their parents, Loverly Husband and I have what we consider reasonable rules about video game violence. For one, our kids are not allowed to play games in which you are killing people. So, no ‘Call of Duty’, no ‘Rainbow Six’ – most realistic ‘war games’ are out. However, killing fictional monsters? A-OK. ‘Halo’,’ Gears of War’, and cartoon video game violence (Mario, Sonic, Ratchet & Clank, and the like are all fine). When they are allowed to play games with a more mature ESRB rating, they do so with language and gore off, so no huge blood spatters and gratuitous swearing. This is far less ‘violent’ than movies like even Harry Potter, where people start getting killed by kids in the first movie, and get tortured by wicked adults more or less throughout the franchise, or Chronicles of Narnia, where a sibling group of children lead a war of men and fantasy creatures alike, or Avatar, where an entire civilization is razed in grand American fashion for land and money, then rises up to kill their oppressors (which is what the Native Americans are still being punished for… and the American government is totally fine with that, even to the point of celebrating and revering the perpetrator of this horrific injustice with a national holiday). I dare say that’s done more to desensitize people to real violence and atrocity than killing off fictional invading aliens in a video game.
Another rule for us is that Loverly Husband usually plays it first. There are definitely games that they are not allowed to play – my personal favorite ‘grown up game’ is the Dead Rising franchise; zombie killin’ sprees all around. Games like Alan Wake and L.A. Noir are off the table for the kids. Resident Evil, BioShock, DeadSpace, Grand Theft Auto, Saint’s Row… all are off limits to our kids.
I realize that other parents have different rules for their kids, violent video games or not, and that’s fine. That’s as it should be. When my kids go to friends’ homes that have more restrictive rules, they abide by them. When they visit friends who have less restrictive rules, they are required to follow house rules where they’re at (which means that occasionally, they may play video games that we don’t allow, but in the grand scheme of things, that’s okay with us).
One aspect of this argument is woefully ill-addressed. The constant assumption in this debate is that given the opportunity, kids will always choose violent video games just because they’re available, over others. That’s certainly not true in our house. PeaGreen plays Minecraft on creative with no mobs (no killing at all) more than any other game, ever. LBB’s favorite franchise is Halo, but it’s not just limited to the games. He reads the novels, instruction guides, watches videos of game strategy – it’s more than ‘just a game’ for him. Do they get carried away with it sometimes? Absolutely. They’re both focused, intense kids. When the game gets too consuming, we will either cut back of go for a full media ban for a while (which we’re currently doing in prep for summertime). The same could be said of any recreational activity. Balance in all things, right?
The bottom line is that I don’t think that there is a correlation between kids playing video games and being violent. That logic is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Violence is far more likely in children with underlying issues: depression, behavioural problems, un-diagnosed food sensitivities, developmental disorders, family issues and the like. But these issues are almost never brought up as the reason a child exhibits violent behaviour; instead video games are used as a scapegoats because we want something/someone to blame, and a ‘quick fix’ solution, even if it’s entirely mis-directed. We conveniently tend to forget that:
Loverly Husband and I use common sense and knowledge of our kids, and communication with them to determine when something is within their ability to handle, and to help them understand the difference between entertainment/fantasy and reality. They’re not stupid. They understand that what may be acceptable in a video game is not how one would act in real life. They’re old enough to get that what they do and experience in an entertainment format is vastly different than real life, and we have done our best to ensure that with communication and supervision.
Allowing them to play violent video games does not make me an uninvolved or unconcerned parent, nor do I believe that it increases my children’s tendency to act in a violent manner. On the contrary, we are extremely involved in our children’s lives, and have been told to have an enviable relationship with them. Judge me if you will, but make no mistake about our interest in their welfare.
But if you need more ammo in order to cast me in the role of ‘bad mother’, I also let them listen to heavy metal and rock music, never used a trampoline net, allow them to play near a snake-infested pond, shoot guns and own archery equipment, and occasionally buy them a McDonald’s Happy Meal. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I am going to go teach my kids about evolution and sex.
Warmly,
~h
May 15, 2013 | Categories: Advocacy, Attachment Parenting, FAQ, Parenting, Rambling Thoughts, She said WHAT?, Socialization, Tech Savvy | Tags: attachment parenting, balance, commentary, common sense, family, homeschooling challenges, life-lessons, Parenting, raising responsible adults, video games, violence linked to video games, violent video games | Leave A Comment »