Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


So one of my mantra's lately when I'm feeling blue has been.

I am who I am and that is enough, And its enough because I am where I am and its enough. Its enough because I am who I am....etc, etc

I'm perusing my various Waldorf homeschooling blogs, forums, yahoo groups, etc, and silently lamenting to myself that I'm not Waldorfy enough.

Then I said wait a minute. I am enough. We are enough. Okay, so we aren't the full on all organic food and clothing, living on a farm growing our own food, while raising our own sheep and using it to create our clothes, and haven't owned a TV in years, who's kids not only don't own a single plastic toy but have no idea who in the hell Spiderman is, never seen a comic book, never played a video game family. But its okay. We are enough.

We are our own family. And although my kids watch more TV than I think is healthy, and they have plastic toys, we are doing our best to raise them to be ethical, thoughtful, and kind people. We are giving them the best education possible. Guess what? Its enough. And it will continue to be enough as long as we continue to do our best and strive to improve.

It is enough.

Now where in the hell is the heavy duty lamp timer I bought to put on the TV? I'm gonna cut down their babble box consumption somehow. I'm almost ready to get rid of it...but not yet.


( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 9th, 2010 07:47 am (UTC)
Honey, you and Joe are two of the most functional (as opposed to DYSfunctional), loving, thoughtful, and wise people I know. Your kids are healthy and happy, you've taken the ultimate interest in providing them with a superb education, Joe is SuperDad...it's more than enough. It makes me inadequate sometimes. Especially when I eat one of your dinners. :)
Mar. 9th, 2010 01:54 pm (UTC)
Into everyone's life there enters someone who crochets market bags out of belly button lint. You just have to say 'good for you' and go on living your life your way.
Mar. 9th, 2010 03:09 pm (UTC)
Wow! What a visual! Thank you for the first laugh of the day.
Mar. 9th, 2010 05:37 pm (UTC)
I don't have my Bloom County books with me, so I can't look up the exact reference. A web search shows that it was a sweater Opus made from his BBL, but I don't remember whether it was for the rabbit or the woodchuck.

I am so ashamed.
Mar. 9th, 2010 10:34 pm (UTC)
Did he really? I wrote dryer lint first and then belly button lint seemed funnier. Maybe my brain remembered Opus and neglected to tell me I would be plagerizing if I used it.
Mar. 10th, 2010 04:48 am (UTC)
Please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were copying. I was instead trying to reflect on why BBL is the ultimate hippy granola fiber material. You recognized that it's funnier, just like the Rule of Comedy: "Underpants" is funnier than "underwear".
Mar. 10th, 2010 01:51 pm (UTC)
Well, for goodness sakes. "Underpants" IS funnier than "underwear!" How odd. Kind of like "My foot hurts" seems more feminine than "My feet hurt."
Mar. 9th, 2010 09:04 pm (UTC)
You know, I'm not convinced that going all the way on the Waldorf thing is in the best interest of the kids. They have to live in the real world eventually, and depriving them of all the pop cultural references that their peers will be using would be doing them a serious disservice. Strictly limiting that consumption, sure... preventing it entirely, not such a good idea, IMHO.

Or to look at it from another perspective, what sort of reasonable educational goal involves withholding information that the rest of the world is intimately familiar with?
Mar. 10th, 2010 12:23 am (UTC)
Its not a permanent denial. Its a denial of as much of electronic media in all forms until age appropriate (deemed to be high school or teen years, which ever happens first). Young children do not need exposure to LOTS of TV (hell nobody does). Studies keep showing it again and again. You have discipline problems, learning problems, sleeping problems, etc, etc all associated with exposure to electronic media (TV, Movies, Internet, etc).

So yes, I agree, they do need to know about the real world. But I want them to be able to be kids and play imaginatively without having to resort to recreating the last episode of Dora the Explorer they saw. When they are old enough, then they can get exposure.

The phenomenon of todays kids of not knowing how or not being able to function without electronics or electronic prompts...dismays me. I want my kids to have the chance to think outside the box...before they get put in the box with everyone else.

Does that make sense? I have to admit, a lot of the people who's blogs etc I see are a lot more granola hippie crunchy than me. For example, I use cloth diapers, I cannot even think about using elimination communication.

I'm just trying to remind myself that their way isn't necessarily my way. My kids will watch TV, even though its the worst thing in the world for someone on the spectrum like Ike. I just want to limit it and not fight with these people every time they get "bored". And we will read comic books, 'cause I think they are a good thing, and we will game and game and game. =)
Mar. 10th, 2010 05:34 am (UTC)
Oh BTW, this anti-technology of Waldorf has been around since the beginning. When radios were first becoming popular, the schools recommended that homes not have one as it is better for a student to hear and see a live performance rather than hearing a recording through an object.
Mar. 10th, 2010 01:10 am (UTC)
Isn't it amazing that there are so few sociopaths, considering every woman on the planet is a BAD mother, RUINING her children?

I only read parenting articles for entertainment.
Mar. 10th, 2010 04:43 am (UTC)
Clearly your immunity to pop culture/current events is strong. Otherwise, you'd know that the country is up to its ass in sociopaths shooting up everything in sight.

Fortunately, we're now allowed to pack heat into the National Parks, so we have at least one refuge from nutjobs.

Mar. 10th, 2010 02:01 am (UTC)
I feel like I should add more.

As you know, I was a child development major. The first two classes you take are Child Development, where you learn the major theories- Piaget, Erickson, Freud and Vygotsky, and Child in the Community, where you learn sociological principals. We didn't learn about Waldorf and the othe pop-philosophies until after we learned the science of the developing child. The way we learned them was basically they were all just ways of interpreting the major theories.

So I don't get wrapped up in subscribing to any one philosophy, whether it's Waldorf, Montessori, Reggio Emelia, etc. I look at individual practices, like logic toys from Montessori, longterm art projects from Reggio or form drawing from Waldorf and compare to what Piaget said, Erickson said and so on. And of course, does it fit with our family's lifestyle, my teaching style and, most importantly, would it work for Mel?
Mar. 10th, 2010 05:32 am (UTC)
What do you mean by pop-philosophy? To me it sounds as if you are saying its something new and hasn't been around long.

Steiner was a contemporary of Freud and Vygotsky.

I totally agree on taking what fits. For us, its pretty much all waldorf, the philosophy is finally being backed up by science.
Mar. 11th, 2010 02:06 am (UTC)
Yes, I know he was a contemporary, but his works are not included among the major theories. Or at least it's not when you study child development.
Mar. 11th, 2010 02:20 am (UTC)
And technically, Vygotsky is an "emergent" theory, but he was at least in the texbook. And I really liked him. When I first started Montessori was all the rage for middle-class white families.
Mar. 12th, 2010 07:55 pm (UTC)
I just read that over and it sounds like I'm saying Vygotsky has something to do with Montessori. He doesn't. I threw that in there because that's why I say "pop-philosophy." Different teaching philosophies go in and out of style.
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

January 2016
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones