The past couple of weeks have been hard for me. Rather, I've made them hard for myself. There seem to be good reasons to be in a funk -- Gary is still away, working, six days a week; the economic crisis has so many implications and we appear powerless to do much about it; my local unschooling group isn't seeing as many families at outings as have joined us online; a home across the street was robbed yesterday, sometime around 8 or 9 am, no less! Plenty of 'reasons' to be worried and stressed, leaving me feeling very out of sorts.
What to do about it? Well, I know I can choose to be happy even when not everything is as I'd like things to be. I've done it before. I can fake it til I feel it, which sometimes works. I can choose to look at my life, to smile at my children, to enjoy the sunshine and blue sky, I can think of Gary even when he's not home and know that I am loved.
Along the way I stumble across reasons to be happy and grateful for all I have -- even when it's not exactly the way I'd like it.
We live in a house that meets our needs for comfort and safety, even with an increase in the mortgage and too many legos on the floor.
Our children are happy, healthy and full of energy. They laugh at the most silly and simple things. Our house is filled with more joy and laughter than my own childhood had.
I have wonderful, amazing friends who really understand me -- and they still like me!
So why is it such a challenge for me to really embrace joy and happiness? To sit with it and feel truly happy and at peace for more than a few minutes? I'm doing my best to get to those answers, walking through the unhappy moments. After all, I don't have to be happy each moment to have a joyful life. I want to be happy overall, tho.
I got a bit closer today, as I woke thinking about how to be happier today, how to reach the end of my day feeling like it was well-spent -- no, even better, that it was well-enjoyed, that I really did spend my day grateful for and celebrating the good I have.
What came to me is that, while I can choose to be happy with less than I had plans for, less than I ideally want, somewhere inside myself, I struggle with feeling like I want it known -- on record, as it were -- that while I made the best of it, this wasn't my plan. I feel like I need people to know I wanted more.
Is that really what I want tho -- to be acknowledged as some tragic soul who wanted more but was denied it? Who figured out a way to make the best of it and sometimes to be grateful and express joy, despite life not being what I planned? What does that do for me, really?
Let's see...
it might relieve me of responsibility for making my own joy, claiming my own happiness,
it might just garner some sympathy from others, more likely, tho it will only garner pity and resentment from folks who say 'why is she so bitter?' (shades of my mother, definitely)
it certainly distracts me from embracing each moment as it comes into my life, from truly being happy right now,
most unforgivable of all, in my book (and this is my book, yes?), it lets 'them' win... let's who win? lack, frustration, disappointment, all those who've said 'you'll see -- life's not always what you want it to be'
Yes, not letting them win may seem like a poor motivation, but it's been a guiding force for me. Sometimes it's good force. It reinforces my determination to keep walking when I could just sit down and give up. Other times, it's not really helpful because it can become a rallying cry for a battle, when I'd be better off just walking away and letting go. Who cares if it looks like 'they' won? When I find my joy then I'm the one who wins the day.
Still, tho, why this frustration with choosing to be happy with less than ideal conditions? I'm beginning to see it's really about fear and distrust. Fear that if I smile and find a way to be happy with now (while still holding hope for more of what I want at some time) others will stop trying; will think I'm happy enough so there's no point in helping me have more. Distrust that the universe really has any good to offer me. Doubt that I have any right to expect as much good as I want. A little anger that others appear to have all they want -- at least they have things that I'd like to have -- while what I want feels like such a struggle. And a measure of petulance that it's not supposed to be this hard.
And, really, is 'my plan' better than what I do have right now?
I have a wonderful husband who loves me, friends who understand me, beautiful healthy kids who love me (I am still daily awed by how much my kids love me. I don't know why it still surprises me after 23 yrs, but it does. Who ever knew I'd be so valued?) We live in a house that meets our needs, in a city we all consider absolutely home, with wonderful fall weather all around me.
Really, how could I choose not to be happy? And that's my epiphany - every time I deny myself the right to be happy and joyous right here, right now, I'm actively choosing NOT to be happy.
So, in this moment, to quote a friend I love, whose path is recently much more rock-strewn than my own ~~ "I want to be happy. So I am."
Then today this quotation showed up in my email box, and it was such a good reminder for me:
We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about." ~Charles Kingsley
But even more, I can choose to be enthusiastic about even the most ordinary things.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
On gunplay
Another collection of my thoughts that has appeared elsewhere online, imported here.
My Mom was one who never allowed my brother to play with guns—toy or real. We lived in the country until he was 10, and every other boy he knew had a pellet gun. By high school, my brother's life dream was to be a Marine Recon Ranger (he ultimately got 4-F'd) and he could field-strip and reassemble a M-I in under a minute. As an adult, he keeps a gun in the house and shoots at a target range, but has never shot anyone.
My Mom was one who never allowed my brother to play with guns—toy or real. We lived in the country until he was 10, and every other boy he knew had a pellet gun. By high school, my brother's life dream was to be a Marine Recon Ranger (he ultimately got 4-F'd) and he could field-strip and reassemble a M-I in under a minute. As an adult, he keeps a gun in the house and shoots at a target range, but has never shot anyone.
When oldest son was young, I 'allowed' gunplay. He had nerf guns, noisy machine guns, a paintball gun at 15, and spent two years of high school in ROTC. He, too, announced his desire to become a Marine. At 16, he quit all that, and explained that while he still enjoys target practice with real guns, he doesn't believe he could ever kill another human being.
Both my son and brother are decent human beings, with no violent tendencies. My son does seem a gentler soul than my brother—or maybe just less battered by life, so less angry.
I believe kids are smarter than many adults give them credit for. I know mine are. As unschoolers, we know our kids are bright enough to figure out there's a difference between real violence and game playing. I'd bet that as free children living more autonomous lives, they understand that you don't have to have a gun to be violent towards someone else. That violence isn't about guns (they're just tools, after all)—violence is about power and control over other people. My instincts tell me that people who have been controlled, limited or denied by other (more powerful) people are more likely to be violent than those who have been respected and supported in pursuit of their own lives.
from a recent discussion on divorce
I posted a reply over at RU sharing some of my thoughts on divorce and its effects on kids.
After a bit of clean up and some cutting, here's what I have to say:
I used to disagree with the idea that divorce should be avoided whenever possible. I felt then that if one person in the couple was deeply unhappy and wanted out, their right to happiness might mean divorce was the right, or maybe least-bad, answer. I grew up in a home with two parents who should have never married. It wasn't entirely hellish, but close enough that I used to wish my parents would divorce. They finally did when I was 18, just after I left home, and it was beyond hellish for my younger brother and sister who wanted nothing more than to survive long enough to leave home (as I had).
I was divorced once, tho I'm married now. I left an abusive marriage when I saw my then-husband hit our infant son. I used to argue that there were good reasons for divorce aside from abuse. I could even say that kids can turn out okay in divorces -- my oldest son Will and many other kids have turned out okay. But now that I look at Will -- he's 23, and I remarried when he was 10 -- I see the damage a divorce did. Even a good, necessary divorce. The man he is today is in many ways defined by the years he spent as the child of a single mom. His perspective on the world is shaped by that. And he didn't grow up with parents fighting over him (we had only one contact with my ex after we left) or grandparents criticizing Mom.
In recent years I've watched three marriages end to divorce, in unschooling families, and heard news of at least one other, just in my own city which has changed my perspective somewhat. I've also factored in the damage I see in my younger siblings, and the long-term effects on Will, and now, absent abuse (adult or child), I would encourage everyone else to stay married and find a way to work it out. Not to stay and suffer, but to really commit to re-making their marriage into something that protects and blesses their entire family.
This isn't a Christian perspective. Neither is it a non-feminist opinion. I consider it a more pragmatic one. Even in a 'good' divorce, kids have to leave their childhood home on a rotating basis, negotiate new household expectations, spend holidays with only one parent, meet new partners.
In the past few years, I've really come to appreciate the example my in-laws give us, and Gary as a child, about what really is involved in a good marriage. They weren't as good at putting it into words as I might have liked, the but the way they live their marriage is a wonderful example. I can see where I missed huge and very essential lessons in marriage as a result of the fact that neither of my parents were willing to do what it takes to make marriage work.
I hope we can be an equally good example for our kids when they choose partners and get married.
After a bit of clean up and some cutting, here's what I have to say:
I used to disagree with the idea that divorce should be avoided whenever possible. I felt then that if one person in the couple was deeply unhappy and wanted out, their right to happiness might mean divorce was the right, or maybe least-bad, answer. I grew up in a home with two parents who should have never married. It wasn't entirely hellish, but close enough that I used to wish my parents would divorce. They finally did when I was 18, just after I left home, and it was beyond hellish for my younger brother and sister who wanted nothing more than to survive long enough to leave home (as I had).
I was divorced once, tho I'm married now. I left an abusive marriage when I saw my then-husband hit our infant son. I used to argue that there were good reasons for divorce aside from abuse. I could even say that kids can turn out okay in divorces -- my oldest son Will and many other kids have turned out okay. But now that I look at Will -- he's 23, and I remarried when he was 10 -- I see the damage a divorce did. Even a good, necessary divorce. The man he is today is in many ways defined by the years he spent as the child of a single mom. His perspective on the world is shaped by that. And he didn't grow up with parents fighting over him (we had only one contact with my ex after we left) or grandparents criticizing Mom.
In recent years I've watched three marriages end to divorce, in unschooling families, and heard news of at least one other, just in my own city which has changed my perspective somewhat. I've also factored in the damage I see in my younger siblings, and the long-term effects on Will, and now, absent abuse (adult or child), I would encourage everyone else to stay married and find a way to work it out. Not to stay and suffer, but to really commit to re-making their marriage into something that protects and blesses their entire family.
This isn't a Christian perspective. Neither is it a non-feminist opinion. I consider it a more pragmatic one. Even in a 'good' divorce, kids have to leave their childhood home on a rotating basis, negotiate new household expectations, spend holidays with only one parent, meet new partners.
In the past few years, I've really come to appreciate the example my in-laws give us, and Gary as a child, about what really is involved in a good marriage. They weren't as good at putting it into words as I might have liked, the but the way they live their marriage is a wonderful example. I can see where I missed huge and very essential lessons in marriage as a result of the fact that neither of my parents were willing to do what it takes to make marriage work.
I hope we can be an equally good example for our kids when they choose partners and get married.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Parents who lie
Yesterday, I was enjoying a quiet moment to myself (no kids) at a favorite local restaurant. A large family group -- 6 adults and 5 kids -- settled in at the next table. As I read my book, I could overhear snippets of conversation. Before food arrived, I heard the mom threaten 'time-out' twice to one child or another. I considered moving to another table, but I really liked my spot there on patio.
When the food arrived, the little girl (she was 4) was very excited to see her oatmeal arrive. Soon, tho, she wasn't so happy, because it wasn't as tasty as she expected. Then, she complained that she didn't want the milk her mom had ordered for her. She wanted root beer, like her older brother (J) and cousins were having.
Little girl said "I want root beer. Why can't I have it?"
Mom said, "No, because you're not old enough."
"But J has root beer."
And Mom actually said, "The restaurant said no one younger than 5 can have soda."
Does this mom actually think her daughter won't figure out that's a lie? Maybe not today, but someday. More likely, daughter will learn that Mom lies -- to get her own way, and to shut off any further discussion.
And someday the parents will wonder why their little girl lies to get her way and to keep them out of her business.....
I just really can't go out in public anymore without being saddened at the way adults treat children.
When the food arrived, the little girl (she was 4) was very excited to see her oatmeal arrive. Soon, tho, she wasn't so happy, because it wasn't as tasty as she expected. Then, she complained that she didn't want the milk her mom had ordered for her. She wanted root beer, like her older brother (J) and cousins were having.
Little girl said "I want root beer. Why can't I have it?"
Mom said, "No, because you're not old enough."
"But J has root beer."
And Mom actually said, "The restaurant said no one younger than 5 can have soda."
Does this mom actually think her daughter won't figure out that's a lie? Maybe not today, but someday. More likely, daughter will learn that Mom lies -- to get her own way, and to shut off any further discussion.
And someday the parents will wonder why their little girl lies to get her way and to keep them out of her business.....
I just really can't go out in public anymore without being saddened at the way adults treat children.
Monday, July 28, 2008
This Moment
On a yahoo unschoolers' group, there's currently a discussion about choosing to fully engage in each moment. At least, that's what I'm getting from it. It dovetails with other thoughts playing out in my life right now.
This past year has been a difficult one for me. Gary being gone 3 (or more) days at a time, week after week for 10 months, has provided ample opportunities for personal growth. That's a good thing, but it didn't always feel good in each moment. There were moments when staying right here felt almost impossible. Gradually, the moments, hours and days have gotten better. I owe much of that the amazing community of friends in my life. People both here in my daily life, and those I only see online, who gave me space, emotional support, and sometimes a kick in the pants (Diana was even kind enough to deliver her kick with a hug).
All this growth has brought me to a place I'd been avoiding most of my life -- being with myself. I've stayed busy, very busy, mostly because I've never been comfortable just being alone with myself. That would require me to be still for a few moments, and I've never been good at that. It would mean I had to acknowledge my own needs - not distractions or indulgences (I'm good that seeing those) -- but my real needs. I'd have to take care of me, honor myself and love myself. Yeah, really not good at that, because first I need to claim my worth. So, what do I do instead? I stay busy, I overbook myself, I avoid being home.
In the midst of this very busy season, I've had such unbelievable love and support from my children, and from Gary, of course. Will comes over and hangs out with us, giving me another adult in the house. Andy asks me when I'm going to make time to take a bath and relax. Dan provides quiet moments and the sweetest hugs. Sometime in this past year, I've met myself. And I see I need more -- from me. I need to BE in each moment - unhurried. I need order and peace and joy. Most of all I need to stop once in a while.
My first step in this was to give up multi-tasking. A big order, since I've multi-tasked virtually my entire life. Certainly for my entire life, I've been a champion multi-tasker. Gary has often told the boys, "Mom can only do 12 things at once and she's at that now, so give her a break." We used to joke about it. Really, tho, I've always envied people who can sit and do nothing for any length of time. Even when I look like I'm doing nothing, I'm mentally filing thru the bills or our schedule, finding several things to worry about doing later! Bad habits and hard to break.
No more, tho. I'm taking time to choose each moment, to either stop what I was doing and be fully present to do the next thing, or to ask for a moment to wrap things up so I can do the next thing. More changes are coming, I know. For today, tho - this moment - it's enough to claim my right to do one thing at a time, to rest once in a while, to have a clean, non-cluttered place in my head and in my soul, and yes in my house -- to just BE.
This past year has been a difficult one for me. Gary being gone 3 (or more) days at a time, week after week for 10 months, has provided ample opportunities for personal growth. That's a good thing, but it didn't always feel good in each moment. There were moments when staying right here felt almost impossible. Gradually, the moments, hours and days have gotten better. I owe much of that the amazing community of friends in my life. People both here in my daily life, and those I only see online, who gave me space, emotional support, and sometimes a kick in the pants (Diana was even kind enough to deliver her kick with a hug).
All this growth has brought me to a place I'd been avoiding most of my life -- being with myself. I've stayed busy, very busy, mostly because I've never been comfortable just being alone with myself. That would require me to be still for a few moments, and I've never been good at that. It would mean I had to acknowledge my own needs - not distractions or indulgences (I'm good that seeing those) -- but my real needs. I'd have to take care of me, honor myself and love myself. Yeah, really not good at that, because first I need to claim my worth. So, what do I do instead? I stay busy, I overbook myself, I avoid being home.
In the midst of this very busy season, I've had such unbelievable love and support from my children, and from Gary, of course. Will comes over and hangs out with us, giving me another adult in the house. Andy asks me when I'm going to make time to take a bath and relax. Dan provides quiet moments and the sweetest hugs. Sometime in this past year, I've met myself. And I see I need more -- from me. I need to BE in each moment - unhurried. I need order and peace and joy. Most of all I need to stop once in a while.
My first step in this was to give up multi-tasking. A big order, since I've multi-tasked virtually my entire life. Certainly for my entire life, I've been a champion multi-tasker. Gary has often told the boys, "Mom can only do 12 things at once and she's at that now, so give her a break." We used to joke about it. Really, tho, I've always envied people who can sit and do nothing for any length of time. Even when I look like I'm doing nothing, I'm mentally filing thru the bills or our schedule, finding several things to worry about doing later! Bad habits and hard to break.
No more, tho. I'm taking time to choose each moment, to either stop what I was doing and be fully present to do the next thing, or to ask for a moment to wrap things up so I can do the next thing. More changes are coming, I know. For today, tho - this moment - it's enough to claim my right to do one thing at a time, to rest once in a while, to have a clean, non-cluttered place in my head and in my soul, and yes in my house -- to just BE.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Feminist Homeschooling?
Earlier today, I came across a discussion at Radical Unschoolers' Network about an article that appeared recently in bitch magazine online. The author was writing about what she called ‘feminist homeschooling’ and use the phrase 'Radical "unschooling" Moms' in the article's subtitle.
I posted a reply at RU Network. Here it is -- still no excuse, tho, to skip the network.
Overall, I wasn't really impressed with the article.
The whole topic of feminism is a challenge for me. The idea that unschooling is somehow an obstacle to feminism? I'm not crazy about feminism and the way it's presented anyway.
I'm 45 yrs old, and grew up in the days when the feminist message made it very clear that no self-respecting girl should want to be 'just a mom and wife.' Child care was beneath anyone but babysitters and grandmothers. My mother was always back to work 3 wks after having a baby.
I can see that in the 70's, feminism was very much about giving women rights to self-determination. Feminism started as a great idea -- everyone is entitled to self-determination, to find and define their own identity in the world. In that time, there was a need to help women find the power in their own lives to not be dependent on a partner who mistreats, abuses or controls them. Women didn't have any real expectation of rights to fair divorce, reasonable child support and custody or equal protection in domestic disputes. In some instances, women were denied equal access to colleges, jobs and legal equity.
As happens in so many instances, tho, feminism was more a reaction than a response. Not surprisingly, there was much anger, posturing and just general flailing about -- at times, it looked like an all-out tantrum against anything traditionally feminine. Feminism, in many ways, pitted women against children. It said women are ultimately more important than their children.
Wow, there's a message to send your children.
From the age of 10 or so, whenever I told people that the only thing I knew I wanted was to be a Mom, that I wanted to stay home with my kids, I was told I was 'too smart' to be just a Mom. Somehow being a Mom was viewed as a 'just' vocation, presumably only for lazy, not-so-bright women. Who wanted to be 'tied' to a baby?
Recently, my brother told me that he believes I'm 'not living up to my potential' as a person. I could be doing much more important things than being home with my kids, let them go to school. Apparently, spending my time with my kids isn't worth full-time effort -- it can't possibly really engage an adult full-time. Really, caring for children is so unimportant it can be done by any string of minimum-wage-paid daycare workers. It sounds to me like he thinks adults pursuing their own interests is more important than adults supporting their children in exploring the world. Oh wait -- that is what he thinks! And that may be his reality, but it's not mine.
I was bothered by this question: Can women trade their careers for their families without sacrificing a few of their feminist values - the very values that inspired many of them to homeschool in the first place?
I'm always suspicious when anyone tries to tell me how I should feel/behave/respond based solely on the fact that I'm a woman (or because I'm white, or whatever group they lump me into).
The author then goes on to talk about a Mom who worries that her economic dependence on her husband could set a bad example for her daughter. Would she prefer that the wife support the husband, or is both parents working as proof of each partner's independence the only acceptable model? Isn't the Mom's contribution of time and energy at home valuable? Is there no place in feminism for interdependence?
The idea that choosing to be at home always means we're vulnerable and dependent is offensive to me. It implies that no matter how successful a partnership is, the woman can't really trust that it will work out. Really it says women can't trust any man. That's not a message I want to send to our sons. I spent years -- decades -- getting past that message myself. My definition of a family is one where any adults involved in providing for their children need to do whatever is required to meet the children's needs. In the early years, it works best when one parent is able to be home. Being the one at home need not be a precarious, dependent position. Certainly it doesn't define one's inherent value as a person.
I understand the premise of equal rights and protections for everyone -- women, men, people of color, those of any economic class. I see it more as a call for individual rights; for everyone to have the right to find his/her own authentic call to joy and life and happiness. It's all about choice -- some women choose to have a full-time career, some choose to spend time at home with children instead. Many of us have the opportunity to spend a season of our lives in each pursuit.
I've been a single working Mom (with my child in school then), then a work-at-home Mom with one child in school and an infant at home, now I'm an at home, unschooling Mom. As it happens, I'm happiest at home with our kids. I don't feel diminished in any way by choosing to be at home with my kids. I'm not powerless because Gary earns the money. I don't feel that I'm giving Will, Andy & Dan the message that the only option for a woman is to stay home and care for the kids.
This brings me to the part of the article that really did offend me. Near the end of the article, the question was posed: What does it mean to raise a feminist kid?
Do I need to raise feminist boys? Is that the same as raising masculinist girls? Is that even possible? I'd much rather we helped our kids to embrace the ideal that every individual, regardless of sex, race or class, has a birthright to define oneself, free of titles that separate us from each other.
Is there really a feminist homeschooling movement? Wouldn't the kids be better served by a 'kid-ist' homeschooling movement?
I posted a reply at RU Network. Here it is -- still no excuse, tho, to skip the network.
Overall, I wasn't really impressed with the article.
The whole topic of feminism is a challenge for me. The idea that unschooling is somehow an obstacle to feminism? I'm not crazy about feminism and the way it's presented anyway.
I'm 45 yrs old, and grew up in the days when the feminist message made it very clear that no self-respecting girl should want to be 'just a mom and wife.' Child care was beneath anyone but babysitters and grandmothers. My mother was always back to work 3 wks after having a baby.
I can see that in the 70's, feminism was very much about giving women rights to self-determination. Feminism started as a great idea -- everyone is entitled to self-determination, to find and define their own identity in the world. In that time, there was a need to help women find the power in their own lives to not be dependent on a partner who mistreats, abuses or controls them. Women didn't have any real expectation of rights to fair divorce, reasonable child support and custody or equal protection in domestic disputes. In some instances, women were denied equal access to colleges, jobs and legal equity.
As happens in so many instances, tho, feminism was more a reaction than a response. Not surprisingly, there was much anger, posturing and just general flailing about -- at times, it looked like an all-out tantrum against anything traditionally feminine. Feminism, in many ways, pitted women against children. It said women are ultimately more important than their children.
Wow, there's a message to send your children.
From the age of 10 or so, whenever I told people that the only thing I knew I wanted was to be a Mom, that I wanted to stay home with my kids, I was told I was 'too smart' to be just a Mom. Somehow being a Mom was viewed as a 'just' vocation, presumably only for lazy, not-so-bright women. Who wanted to be 'tied' to a baby?
Recently, my brother told me that he believes I'm 'not living up to my potential' as a person. I could be doing much more important things than being home with my kids, let them go to school. Apparently, spending my time with my kids isn't worth full-time effort -- it can't possibly really engage an adult full-time. Really, caring for children is so unimportant it can be done by any string of minimum-wage-paid daycare workers. It sounds to me like he thinks adults pursuing their own interests is more important than adults supporting their children in exploring the world. Oh wait -- that is what he thinks! And that may be his reality, but it's not mine.
I was bothered by this question: Can women trade their careers for their families without sacrificing a few of their feminist values - the very values that inspired many of them to homeschool in the first place?
I'm always suspicious when anyone tries to tell me how I should feel/behave/respond based solely on the fact that I'm a woman (or because I'm white, or whatever group they lump me into).
The author then goes on to talk about a Mom who worries that her economic dependence on her husband could set a bad example for her daughter. Would she prefer that the wife support the husband, or is both parents working as proof of each partner's independence the only acceptable model? Isn't the Mom's contribution of time and energy at home valuable? Is there no place in feminism for interdependence?
The idea that choosing to be at home always means we're vulnerable and dependent is offensive to me. It implies that no matter how successful a partnership is, the woman can't really trust that it will work out. Really it says women can't trust any man. That's not a message I want to send to our sons. I spent years -- decades -- getting past that message myself. My definition of a family is one where any adults involved in providing for their children need to do whatever is required to meet the children's needs. In the early years, it works best when one parent is able to be home. Being the one at home need not be a precarious, dependent position. Certainly it doesn't define one's inherent value as a person.
I understand the premise of equal rights and protections for everyone -- women, men, people of color, those of any economic class. I see it more as a call for individual rights; for everyone to have the right to find his/her own authentic call to joy and life and happiness. It's all about choice -- some women choose to have a full-time career, some choose to spend time at home with children instead. Many of us have the opportunity to spend a season of our lives in each pursuit.
I've been a single working Mom (with my child in school then), then a work-at-home Mom with one child in school and an infant at home, now I'm an at home, unschooling Mom. As it happens, I'm happiest at home with our kids. I don't feel diminished in any way by choosing to be at home with my kids. I'm not powerless because Gary earns the money. I don't feel that I'm giving Will, Andy & Dan the message that the only option for a woman is to stay home and care for the kids.
This brings me to the part of the article that really did offend me. Near the end of the article, the question was posed: What does it mean to raise a feminist kid?
Do I need to raise feminist boys? Is that the same as raising masculinist girls? Is that even possible? I'd much rather we helped our kids to embrace the ideal that every individual, regardless of sex, race or class, has a birthright to define oneself, free of titles that separate us from each other.
Is there really a feminist homeschooling movement? Wouldn't the kids be better served by a 'kid-ist' homeschooling movement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)