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.
Monday, July 28, 2008
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)