Ranee wrote:
> "pennyaline" wrote:
> > I had meant that to be a joke, but after reading your reply I gave it
some
> > more thought and I'm now convinced that, yes damn it!! That's exactly
what
> > public education is doing, and always has done.
>
> Please find me some of these public school made conservatives. I can
> assure you that our schools did not produce any, and the few that
> remained conservative, or became so later, did so in spite of our
> teachers and administration.

Then what is the public school system doing? It certainly isn't in the
business of producing Liberals.


> > That depends largely on the child. Some things are "nature," you
realize.
>
> Some things are nature, indeed, and some circumstances tend to foster
> those natural things, or create them.

Circumstances cannot "create" a natural state that already exists. But I do
understand the point you're making, and I do agree that *some* daycares (not
all of them) can seem to turn innocent loveable children into Devil's spawn
in no time flat.

However, don't forget to factor in the parental influence or lack thereof.


> > Won't need it because they aren't in daycare?? Your pediatrician is a
> > dimwit!
>
> On the contrary. There are some circumstances which greatly increase
> one's risk of exposure. There are some circumstances which render that
> risk virtually nil. Our kids' chances of running into this particular
> disease was practically nothing, while the kids in daycare had a
> significantly increased risk of it. It was worthwhile for children in
> daycare to have the vaccine to protect them, and not worth the risk of
> side effects for my children to have them. This is very basic cost-risk
> analysis.

Look to the future as you do your cost-risk analysis. When the kids go off
to college, they'll have to get all of the vaccinations they are missing
now.


> > Do you keep your children in plastic bubbles? Incidentally, do you know
that
> > asthma is an autoimmune disease? If they're gonna get it, they're gonna
get
> > it.
>
> Not necessarily. There are certain things which create a welcome
> environment for it, one being repeated respiratory infection. I don't
> happen to believe that being ill, even at a low grade, is healthy for
> small children, whose immune systems are not only weaker, but are not
> physically able to take many of the medications that could help them.

We disagree again. Autoimmune disorders seem to manifest themselves no
matter what. Allergies, URIs, pollution, second-hand smoke, first-hand
smoke, the absence of some naturally occurring enzymes in the body, physical
and psychological stressors... all pitch in to stimulate the body to rebel
against itself.


> > Uhhhhh... So, things are STILL limited to the family unit, right?
>
> I wonder what it is about family life that makes you distrust a
> family centered atmosphere for toddlers, preschoolers and
> kindergarteners.

I don't distrust family centered atmosphere. Shall I suggest that you
distrust socializing children more broadly early on in life?


> I think you are the only one who feels that way. My children come
> into contact with all sorts of people, from different races,
> ethnicities, social strata, religions, etc. Of course we ground them in
> our values, but that does not mean that we keep them from all other
> people.
>
> BTW, do you go out of your way to expose your children to
> conservatives, and take them to different religious services and such to
> make sure that they are exposed to people and thoughts beyond yourself?

Yes, I went out of my way to expose my child to different things. Now that
she is an adult, she does it for herself.


> > And that relates to home schooling how?
>
> Because, there is still socialization in the home for them as well as
> the social contact with other homeschooling children in co-ops and 4-H
> groups and scouting troops and church/synagogue/mosque environments,
> etc. One of the great arguments about home schooling is how the
> children aren't socialized well enough. This is mostly a problem for
> only children, and those whose siblings are so far in age from them as
> for them to have no playmates at home. Children with siblings near
> their age learn how to share, how to negotiate, how to interact with
> others, and so on.

You almost had me sold, until you said that children with siblings near
their age learn how to share

Children benefit immensly from learning to interact and negotiate with other
children outside their family circle. We don't behave the same way with
outsiders as we do with our families, after all.


> > These things creep in when your kids simply step out of the house to
play.
> > Three and four year olds are especially susceptible.
>
> This, I think, is a fine example of how different homeschooled and
> privately educated (in schools which discipline) children and public
> school children (and those private schools which refuse to uphold their
> rules). Most of the children I know or have known who were privately
> educated with discipline, or homeschooled do not behave in this way.
> Even at such a young age, the children I have known who led a family
> centered life are much more polite, disciplined and respectful. Sure,
> you occasionally hear something, but it is usually corrected and the
> child shows a real regret or remorse at having been rude, mean, or
> whatever.

My belief is that any child who lives in a family has a family centered
life, no matter where the child goes to school. So if it is the family
centered life that is the deciding factor, all children in families would be
polite, disciplined and respectful.


> We lead the youth group at our church, and the kids are very
> comfortable with us, and it has been refreshing to us how nice they are.
> Even their teasing of each other is not crude. In the past five years,
> since we began this ministry, there have been only three times that we
> have had to deal with serious behavioral problems, and in each of those
> instances, it was with children whose parents took the exposure method
> of parenting that you advocate.

At one point you agree that some things are nature, but in this statement
you maintain that nurture is root of the problem. How can that be?


> Here is where you and I diverge: I believe that it is not only the
> parents' right, but obligation to protect their children from harmful
> influences while they are still too young to understand them, rather
> than to expose them to it while they are still so young, and hope that
> they figure out on their own (with little input from us) that they
> shouldn't be rude, pushy, disrespectful, etc.

You don't realize that we don't diverge here.

A parent who would expose a child to "harmful influences" without standing
by to act as a buffer is being grossly irresponsible. No one of sound mind
and reason would throw a child to the wolves and wait for him to figure out
what to do. Even when it comes to vaccinations, small doses are given and
strategies for easing the child's reaction are offered.

Taking a page from germ theory and the history of vaccinations: controlled
exposure can be a very good thing.


> It is our job as parents
> to prepare them for these things in the world slowly and with certain
> parameters to guide them so that they may behave well, make wise choices
> and become people of honor and integrity, so far as it is within our
> influence. It was our choice to protect our children, not out of any
> fantasy that they would never hear foul language, learn about what we
> consider immoral behavior, or find out about violence and crime, but
> because we wanted them so immersed in what we were teaching as
> authentic, true goodness and charity, so that they would recognize the
> other as false without our having to impress it on them so firmly.

This is a spiritual issue. I can't agree or disagree with you here.


> Our culture, here in the US, is such that it is difficult to
> overprotect young children. Billboards, stores, advertising,
> television, radio, film, even newspapers are full of violence, unhealthy
> sexual behavior, predators, abusers, vulgar language, disrespect toward
> authority, and there is no way to shield our children from that, no
> matter how much we may wish to do so. I would venture to say that it is
> a rare parent who could shelter their child from any of it. That is not
> the goal of protecting them, the goal is to teach them to recognize
> those behaviors, words, actions as unacceptable in themselves and to
> avoid directing their paths toward them.

Very well, but remember that despite all of your efforts, all children
eventually use their newer experiences as adolescents and young adults to
make these decisions on their own.


> Regards,
> Ranee

BTW, a few days back when someone ripped you and your parents for the
spelling of your name --

I had figured that you pronounced your name "Rah-nee" or some such
variation. That it is actually "Reh-nay" never occurred to me!