ilovefuzz.com

in my world, taking your kids overseas to live with revolutionaries, regardless of their political orientation, is the sort of thing that should result in your kids being placed with a relative until you figure out what an appropriate environment is for a toddler, and why a war zone isn't it.

The thing about Unschooling is that I kinda get it, on principle. I think that letting kids specialize in the type of subjects they want to learn deeply should start MUCH earlier than it currently does. But, if you leave the curriculum TOTALLY up to the kid, then there's going to be a large amount of cultural history and references that are basically assumed knowledge, that the kid might end being completely ignorant to. And I also suspect that we'll end up with a nation that is even more innumerate and unscientific than they already are. Which is frightening.

specialization shouldn't be the starting point though, thats not how it works, and thats sort of why unschooling is a load of bull.

its a regressive idea to enforce a narrow range of study, because said range as determined by the kid is most likely more narrow than a traditional curriculum.

there needs to be a foundation, yes. it should be broad, but not deep. and thats about the only point i might agree on about unschooling.

Man, fuck that family.

phantasmagorovich wrote:

Witterick and Stocker seem to be raising their three children in a kind of bubble by creating an expectation-free zone, which may be great for experimentation but doesn't help them develop the strength and confidence to be comfortable in the world inhabited by other children and adults.

From this article: Huffington Post

That is pretty much what's wrong about this. Let aside the moral viewpoint which makes these parents wretched beings, it is the meaning of parenting to help children become adults. That means raising them to be independent human beings. That means giving them every chance to be confident and assured persons, capable of thought, frustration, decisions, bearing consequences, planning the future etc. I'm not saying these people are raising Jazz, Kio and Storm to be Zombies, they are thinking they are doing the best for their children. I am sure about that, but I don't think they're right. If you want to raise a child to be a confident individual, you can't alienate him from everybody else. (Remember the girls in the park who refused to play with Jazz?)

this is my only real problem with how these children are being raised. you need to teach your kids how to function within society so that they can choose whether or not they want to separate themselves from it. if people want to be alienated, fine, but don't make that kind of decision for your kids from birth.

like i said, i like the idea behind it, but extremes of ANY kind are almost always a bad thing. i feel like people too often see something they don't like and immediately swing to the opposite end of the spectrum. it's like becoming a satanist because someone was mean to you in church. it just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Here's the mother's response http://www.thestar.com/news/article/998 ... renzy?bn=1

I think those who were quick to judge should read this, she makes an exceptionally thoughtful case for what she's doing.
Kids with parents like this turn out well.

quote from the response: "I would never tell my children (or anyone) to keep a secret. Secrets are not safe and healthy."

these people are insane.

also digging a little deeper in the article re: Mad Mommy's irritation at having a third boy: "I'm shy and idealistic, and my entire career I've worked in abuse and violence prevention." translation: Mom really doesn't like males at all.

Way to pull a quote without context. The full paragraph is:

But we do feel it's important to correct factual errors in the media. Our attempts to make thoughtful, unconditionally loving choices and provide guidance and structure to our children have been labelled “a social experiment.” It's a moment for people everywhere to scrutinize what they hear and see in the media, because it's quite possibly not true.

I would never tell my children (or anyone) to keep a secret. Secrets are not safe and healthy. I, like many parents, have taught my children that some things are private matters, and when you share them, do so honestly with sensitivity and consideration. If I had to convince my children not to share Storm's sex (which I don't because my children simply are not interested at this point) — I would teach them that someone else's genitals and sense of how they relate to their gender is their private business, to be shared by them or in a context where safety and acceptance are paramount.

She was making a pretty compelling point about privacy, something that I would think would ring true to you as a more conservative thinker, Dubkitty.

Oh god I missed the last part of your reply. If you think working in abuse prevention= being a manhating feminist ballcrusher then of course you're gonna disagree with everything she says.

plhogan wrote:Kids with parents like this turn out well.

not always. too much freedom can lead to kids who grow up to be adults who have never learned to curb their behavior when and where it is inappropriate.

the best thing she's said in my opinion is that we do not, in fact, know her or her family. i don't really know how far this goes, or how far it will go.

that being said, i think that progressive or alternative or whatever-you-want-to-call-them methods of teaching and raising children should be treated carefully and taken slowly; we shouldn't just dive headfirst into the water if we don't know how deep it is.

When I say that, I say it with conviction because conservative or progressive, Right or Left I think the best thing for any child across the board is a parent who at least puts this kind of thought into their decisions and parenting. I may disagree with her actions but shit, most people dont give a second thought about how they raise their kids. I mean, no matter what you're gonna fuck your kids up. At least they're paying attention.

plhogan wrote:I mean, no matter what you're gonna fuck your kids up.

Trooff!

By my figuring, with the way politics and beliefs are divided in this country everybodys gonna disagree with about 50% of everyone else's decisions, right? People who take their kids to Church dont agree with those who don't, and people who take their kids to the Modern Art Museum don't agree with those who don't ( bad example but what's a progressive church? The Democratic National Convention?) So with that in mind the only metric we can really use (unless we want to be partisan hacks) is how much attention a parent is paying.

plhogan wrote:By my figuring, with the way politics and beliefs are divided in this country everybodys gonna disagree with about 50% of everyone else's decisions, right? People who take their kids to Church dont agree with those who don't, and people who take their kids to the Modern Art Museum don't agree with those who don't ( bad example but what's a progressive church? The Democratic National Convention?) So with that in mind the only metric we can really use (unless we want to be partisan hacks) is how much attention a parent is paying.

Obi-Wan wrote: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Wait, dubkitty is Uber-conservative (haven't noticed)? ALL churchgoers look down on the non-religious? One can't appreciate art AND religion? Being Democratic is a religion?

What was that about binary relationships and ridiculous assumptions again?