Saturday, April 30, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
"Violence does not teach"
"An ancient Buddhist scripture says, "The mind does not find peace, nor does it enjoy pleasure and joy, nor does it find sleep or fortitude when the thorn of hatred dwells in the heart." Hate is a wound. Hate is the product of a rift in our own being. If the wound is repaired, hate has no use.
Clinical research refutes the widespread notion that blows from open hands, paddles, switches, hairbrushes, wooden spoons, or belts teaches children how to distinguish right from wrong or the meaning of respect. In fact, the research shows the opposite. Violence does not heal; it is not meant to.
Real discipline is not to be confused with mere obedience to physical strength. That might be a good way to prepare children for life in an authoritarian society, but what if we want to raise autonomous and happy adults who love themselves and others? What if we want our young ones to aspire to something more than surviving childhood"
Violence does not teach (Click Here To Read More)
By Algernon D'Ammassa
The Deming Headlight, April 4, 2011
Clinical research refutes the widespread notion that blows from open hands, paddles, switches, hairbrushes, wooden spoons, or belts teaches children how to distinguish right from wrong or the meaning of respect. In fact, the research shows the opposite. Violence does not heal; it is not meant to.
Real discipline is not to be confused with mere obedience to physical strength. That might be a good way to prepare children for life in an authoritarian society, but what if we want to raise autonomous and happy adults who love themselves and others? What if we want our young ones to aspire to something more than surviving childhood"
Violence does not teach (Click Here To Read More)
By Algernon D'Ammassa
The Deming Headlight, April 4, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
"When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?"
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?c=y&articleID=119483704
This is an interesting slide show of historic photographs showing that for many decades young children were all dressed in dresses and frilly hats to simplify dressing. The first photo, in fact, is a delightful photograph of Franklin Roosevelt in a dress, curled blond hair, shiny shoes and a frilly hat. They are samples from a book titled Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America, by Jo B. Paoletti, a historian at the University of Maryland.
Several weeks ago I was in a discussion with some other mothers about color, toys and gender, so I found these photos to be especially telling.
Three excerpts from an article about the book:
"“It’s really a story of what happened to neutral clothing,” says Paoletti, who has explored the meaning of children’s clothing for 30 years. For centuries, she says, children wore dainty white dresses up to age 6. “What was once a matter of practicality—you dress your baby in white dresses and diapers; white cotton can be bleached—became a matter of ‘Oh my God, if I dress my baby in the wrong thing, they’ll grow up perverted,’ ” Paoletti says."
"For example, a Ladies’ Home Journal article in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti."
“There is a whole community out there of parents and kids who are struggling with ‘My son really doesn’t want to wear boy clothes, prefers to wear girl clothes.’ ” She hopes one audience for her book will be people who study gender clinically. The fashion world may have divided children into pink and blue, but in the world of real individuals, not all is black and white."
I don't really have anything to add to this other than that I've been mulling it all over in my head for quite some time so I found these pictures timely.
This is an interesting slide show of historic photographs showing that for many decades young children were all dressed in dresses and frilly hats to simplify dressing. The first photo, in fact, is a delightful photograph of Franklin Roosevelt in a dress, curled blond hair, shiny shoes and a frilly hat. They are samples from a book titled Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America, by Jo B. Paoletti, a historian at the University of Maryland.
Several weeks ago I was in a discussion with some other mothers about color, toys and gender, so I found these photos to be especially telling.
Three excerpts from an article about the book:
"“It’s really a story of what happened to neutral clothing,” says Paoletti, who has explored the meaning of children’s clothing for 30 years. For centuries, she says, children wore dainty white dresses up to age 6. “What was once a matter of practicality—you dress your baby in white dresses and diapers; white cotton can be bleached—became a matter of ‘Oh my God, if I dress my baby in the wrong thing, they’ll grow up perverted,’ ” Paoletti says."
"For example, a Ladies’ Home Journal article in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti."
“There is a whole community out there of parents and kids who are struggling with ‘My son really doesn’t want to wear boy clothes, prefers to wear girl clothes.’ ” She hopes one audience for her book will be people who study gender clinically. The fashion world may have divided children into pink and blue, but in the world of real individuals, not all is black and white."
I don't really have anything to add to this other than that I've been mulling it all over in my head for quite some time so I found these pictures timely.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
By the time she spanks, it is the mom’s second misbehavior...
"By the time she spanks, it is the mom’s second misbehavior. The first is whatever she did or did not do to cause the child to “misbehave.” A 15-month-old or a 3-year-old may be curious, impatient, goading, erring, attention-seeking and cuddle-requiring. But children are never really “bad” until parents mistreat them or teach them bad behavior. The mom or dad who is so threatened by a 2-year-old’s attempts at demonstrating a little autonomy that they would need to spank should take lessons in self-esteem.
YOU, as the parent, are so unquestionably in charge, you don’t need to lord it over a baby. Instead of a “time out,” what is needed in the case of a child who is acting out is a “time in,” where the parent pays attention to the “naughty” child giving it the love that its “misbehavior” is actually crying for."
Spanking is the second mistake
By Leslie Cabarga
Ventura County Online, April 7, 2011
YOU, as the parent, are so unquestionably in charge, you don’t need to lord it over a baby. Instead of a “time out,” what is needed in the case of a child who is acting out is a “time in,” where the parent pays attention to the “naughty” child giving it the love that its “misbehavior” is actually crying for."
Spanking is the second mistake
By Leslie Cabarga
Ventura County Online, April 7, 2011
Monday, April 04, 2011
Real Grass For Our Nature Table
I bought a small bag of lawn grass and sprouted it in a tray under my grow light. It is not thick, but still tall and fun and now joyously taking over our nature table.
Here, Deirdre and BatConnor have brought in their Schleich animals for some nature play.
That rock on the right is our General Grievous rock. We painted rocks one day and Daddy drew them each a character. Deirdre's has Dora on it.
Not shown - our baby caterpillars arrived 30 minutes after I took these pictures. We had so much fun the last time we raised butterflies, we knew we had to do it again once spring arrived. They now have a home on the nature table until they're ready to move to the Butterfly Pavilion.
Here, Deirdre and BatConnor have brought in their Schleich animals for some nature play.
That rock on the right is our General Grievous rock. We painted rocks one day and Daddy drew them each a character. Deirdre's has Dora on it.
Not shown - our baby caterpillars arrived 30 minutes after I took these pictures. We had so much fun the last time we raised butterflies, we knew we had to do it again once spring arrived. They now have a home on the nature table until they're ready to move to the Butterfly Pavilion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)