Bedtime

What about Bedtime you ask. Surely you don't let your 2 year old decide for himself when he will sleep? Won't he just stay awake all night? And then sleep all morning?

Well. Yes to everything.

I'm not sure if K has EVER been a fan of bedtime though...or sleep really. I mean, he LIKES his sleep in the sense that he GOES to sleep, but he was never one of those babies that takes two and three naps a day and then go down for a 12 hour night sleep. In fact, I distinctly remember sleep as being a huge question mark as far as I was concerned on the parenting spectrum.

There's sooo much hype about the amount of sleep children need. It can get to a person. It had me convinced for a while that I was somehow failing in the mothering department because my kid (if compared with the research, parenting books, and advice I was receiving) LITERALLY never slept.

I distinctly remember it starting back when I was pregnant. As part of our Bradley birth class, N and I were asked to fill out a rough schedule of a day with a newborn. It was supposed to show us that a baby was ridiculously time consuming and to prepare us for what lay ahead. Frankly, it was terrifying. But, what I remember most is that the baby was supposedly doing nothing but nursing, pooping, and sleeping. NOTHING else.

And then we brought K home. *sigh* He didn't really seem to sleep that much. He was wide awake half the night, most of the day, and I remember walking around the block in the snow because there was nothing else to DO with a wide awake infant in the middle of winter.

It wasn't detrimental to N and I at all. I mean, it was unexpected given what we had been told, but I just wore K wherever we went so he slept when needed and watched the world around him when awake. To tell the truth, I didn't give it much thought except to wonder how other babies were sleeping all the time.

When K was around 6 months old, I began to get worried. He was crawling. He was in to EVERYTHING, and he didn't nap. AT ALL. (I'm really not kidding.) He woke between 10-11am, and stayed up wide eyed and bushy-tailed until N and I collapsed around 1am. I had started going to a few Mom groups, making friends, and doing a good deal of parenting research and suddenly it seemed as though K wasn't sleeping enough.

I read a few books on night sleep training.

I commiserated with a fellow Mom friend who's child honest to goodness never ever slept.

I thought that I needed to instigate a  Bedtime.

I started up a routine, warm bath, massage, bedtime stories, nursing, ect...the whole works. But nothing worked. K wouldn't sleep unless we ALL went to bed, and somehow N and I always seemed to stay up late irregardless of the Baby.

We moved to Puerto Rico when K was 12 months old, and suddenly he was taking a nap in the mid-afternoon and crashing for the night at 8pm. Just like that. I didn't change anything. He was walking and running and spending every day at the park, the beach, and out in the hot sun, and he was actually needing more sleep.

Imagine that.

Of course, we weren't unschoolers just yet. We were still struggling with our own hang-ups about parenting without authoritarianism. N and I were, essentially, still deschooling ourselves from what we thought represented a 'good' child.

So, I ignored what was probably THE most obvious indication that my child was perfectly capable of deciding his own sleep schedule and became a bit rigid about bedtime and naptime. I won't lie. It was WONDERFUL to KNOW that the baby would be down at 1pm, sleep for two hours, and then go down for the night at 9pm.

But at some point in those next few months, K stopped needing all that extra sleep. It started getting REALLY hard to get him down for a nap. And 'bedtime' became an unbearable battle of wills that left me stressed out and frustrated at the 'wasted' hour of nursing that resulted in nothing but a recharged toddler.

Even as recent as 3 or 4 months ago, I was struggling with my issues regarding K's sleep.

I was more lax. I 'let' him stay up until I saw signs that indicated he was tired and then I would scoop him up and settle down in bed for a long nursing down. Which, often didn't work.

But, for the past two months or so, we've been trying a less stressful approach. N stays up late. He's just a night owl. I stay up mediocre late...about midnight and then I really need to lay down, chill out for a bit, and go to sleep. K varies. Some nights he's asking for milk and stories in the bedroom at 8pm, some nights he stays up until 5am perfectly content. (TOTALLY not kidding!)

So, now, I go to bed when tired. That's just it. I have released whatever last resolve I had about bedtime for K, and I worry about myself. I respect that he's done NOTHING but show me he can choose for himself when he needs to sleep, and I have stepped back.

Nighttime is a LOT less stressful. I play with K without dreading the hour or two of nursing that may or may not get him to sleep or nagging him about whether or not he's tired. N and I have lost some bit of our 'alone' time, but we can still talk and cuddle. N and K get some quality time together that they both enjoy. We all seem a bit more chill.

And, yes. We all sleep late. It's rare that we're all up before 11am, but we are aware of that and make sure not to schedule anything for the morning.

It's not a bad deal.

It's funny how some of the hardest things I've had to do as a parent involve letting go of my own perceptions of what constitutes a childhood, a 'good' parent, and a 'good' child. Sometimes I wonder if K will have a much easier time of raising his children. Will life be more fun and games right from the beginning because he can't remember or imagine any other WAY to raise a child?

This post was part of Unschooling Monday sponsored by Owlet Designs.Make sure to check out the rest of the participating posts!

Park Parenting

We go fairly consistently to one particular park. Not only does it have a fairly adequate play structure in terms of fun, but it's also a dumping ground for everyone's unwanted toys. There are bikes, cars, play kitchens, ect... all over the place and, one would think it ought to be a place you could sit back and let your child run rampant.

One would think.

I tend to sit back on a picnic blanket and read, write, or knit. I trust that K will come find me if he needs my assistance, and I trust that he's not some sort of mean-spirited child who wants to hurt others.

It's rare that I see any other mothers doing this. I really and truly don't get it.

I don't really WANT K to be dependent on me for his protection, his fun, his creativity, ect... Those are all great parenting qualities, and I DO hope that I provide them when needed, but at the park? When there's something like a hundred other little children to play with? And toys? And sand and water?

The thing is, I DO play with K at the park if there's no one else there. Or if I can tell he's bored or if he asks me to participate more directly. But I don't see other parents doing that.

Instead, they come to the park with the intention of following behind their kid and intercepting whenever there's the slightest indication of...well...anything.

You can tell that the kids would rather their parents disappeared for a bit. Especially as one of the most common spots to play is underneath the main play structure where adults CAN'T reach them.

The parents even acknowledge that their children have just run under a wooden play structure to get away from them and they STILL don't sit back!

Seriously.

It probably shouldn't bother me as much as it does except that it makes me feel as though I should be on guard. If K falls...which does happen...other mothers SWOOP in (literally...you can feel the breeze!) and start  offering all sorts of comfort and calling around for his Mum. Meanwhile, K is frantically trying to get away from them but they WON'T physically let go of him because, to their eyes, he has just had a horrible fall and certainly can't be alright.

I'm not kidding this has happened several times.

One time, K came running toward me from across the park with THREE mothers following on his heels. He was a bit frantic, I gave him a hug, and he managed to say, "Make Ladies Stop". At this point, the other women had come up on us and one asked me, fairly rudely, if this was my child. I said yes, as K clung tightly to me looking away from them. She then announced that he had fallen. I turned to K and asked if he had fallen, and he nodded yes and described REALLY WELL how he had fallen. I asked if he was alright and he said "Yup" and ran off to play. The other Mothers were APPALLED that I didn't do more.

*sigh*

If my kid isn't upset, then I'm not going to MAKE him upset by making a bigger deal out of a fall than it is!

But, more often, I have to be on guard about the whole sharing thing. Which is ludicrous. This park is filled with toddlers who are being CONSTANTLY yelled at by their parents to share this and that...to give turns...to take turns...to wait for turns. K shares more often than not, but everyone gets so uptight about it that I feel as though I need to have an eye open for ANY and ALL altercations that involve some other parents perception of what constitutes 'good' sharing.

And, lastly, there's the whole thing where everyone treats their child as though they're incapable of fending for themselves. Sometimes K is rough about grabbing toys, or playing in the sand near smaller children. The parents WIG out because god forbid their child get any sand in their hair...

Idk, whenever I talk about this it sounds as though I'm advocating a Lord of the Flies situation, which I'm not, but I strongly believe in first giving children the chance to work through whatever presents itself as a problem. EVEN if one of the children is much younger.

And by that, I mean, before I jump in to smooth out a toy situation where K was the aggressor, I expect the other child to let me know that what was done to him or her was undesirable. Even a baby can speak up for themselves with a cry or a sad face directed towards K.

Because, it's very hard to explain why something was a not so nice thing to do when the other involved child isn't displaying ANY sign of being bothered. Instead, it's their parents who are taking the role of protection a bit too seriously (in my opinion) and speaking for their child because it seemed like a bad thing IN THEIR EYES.

So, in sum, going to the park is not as chill as it really should be. It's a lot of work even when I'm sitting back knitting, and I can't help but attribute it to my uncomfortableness with mainstream parenting.

Legalize It

Today, I noticed a man wearing a black t-shirt with "Legalize It" written in bold white font. (We're talking about Marijuana here.)

To be clear, I personally think there's nothing wrong or dangerous about using pot. It's a weed. It has medical benefits. And, most importantly, I don't really care what others choose to do.

I have smoked it, and I have enjoyed every occasion.

I have known pot dealers, growers, and users. There was nothing extraordinary about any of these people that would have given an indication as to what they did in their free time.

With all that said, I can't get behind the whole "legalize it" movement. Not because I don't support one's right to use marijuana. In fact, it's just the opposite.

When does something even BECOME illegal? When the government declares it punishable by their law...which, in case you missed the memo, not EVERYONE signed up for.

To make something 'Legal' is to regulate something into accordance with the State. Legalizing pot would hardly mean free and ready access to everyone who desired it. Rather, it would mean, thousands of dollars paid annually to the State for the RIGHT to buy and sell. It would mean licensure in accordance with strict regulations. It would mean age limits, quantity limits, and quality specifications.

Right now, there's a threat of force against my person hovering over my head, but I CAN walk next door and buy some quality pot off the guy who's growing in his backyard...for one fee. No questions asked. No papers filed. No paper trail as to what I do with my time.

It's a tiny bit like freedom.

There's a really excellent essay by Emma Goldman that always comes to mind whenever I overhear people ardently in favor of legalizing or regulating something. Emma Goldman is not quite a hero of mine (I think she's a bit of socialist) but this particular essay always struck me as rather important.

Back in her day, women were pushing for the right to vote. They wanted equal rights as their fellow men, and that meant having the right to cast a vote. Emma couldn't quite see eye to eye with her fellow feminists...not that she was AGAINST them having the right to vote, rather, she couldn't understand why they wanted to join up with the people she saw as enslavers to the entire human race! An anarchist by all definitions, Emma thought that women might do better to withhold themselves from the State.

At first it boggles the mind.

It takes some thought.

When women joined to the State through the right to vote, they lost their right to exist outside of the State. We welcomed the State into our lives thinking it preferable to living as the chattel of Man. Instead of a husband or father telling us what we might and might not do, we welcomed a much more demanding master. Government is not something you can lightly shake off...or run away from, or dissuade.

 Nowdays when people talk excitedly about getting something legalized or regulated, it makes me cringe. Isn't something like that going on right now?...Obama's healthcare plan that 'regulates' insurance companies and makes it 'illegal' to go without a healthcare plan...under THREAT OF FORCE.

There are movements all over the country to make homeschooling a 'legal' option for parents. Where it is 'legal' there are massive amounts of paperwork and regulations that infringe upon the very freedom people think they have received.

The same is true of homebirthing. There are still states where it is illegal, and midwives operate under threat of fines and imprisonment. They hope for legalization and state regulation. This all means paying hard-earned money INTO the very State that has been punishing your actions for the RIGHT to NOW do those actions legally.

WITH more restrictions than when you were just going ahead and doing the damn thing illegally.

?????!!!!

This happens ALL the time.

I just can't support it.

It's sort of like nursing-ins. I admire the women who go do these shows of force about breastfeeding, but I will probably never join one. If I want to breastfeed my child, I will. I will not wait for the State to approve my action. It might make a larger statement if everyone just did what they wanted to do anyway...without aiming for any sort of 'approval' or state sanction.

*sigh* Do you know that at the most recent nursing in, the woman running the thing actually went down the city office to file for AND receive a PERMIT for her protest.

Getting a STATE PERMIT to protest AGAINST  the State????!!!!

That's another blog post ;-)

I have no idea what the law will be in whatever state we happen to be in when K reaches 'school age', but it just won't matter. He will be home with us no matter the law because it's absolutely within my right as a parent to require the best education possible for my child.

The next baby will be born at home. I don't care if it's illegal. It's my body, it's my child, it's not something anyone else can tell me is legal or illegal.

So, in conclusion, I DO wish that pot were legal...meaning, I wish there was no THREAT OF FORCE preventing me from buying some off of that guy down the street, but I can't get behind the "legalize it" movement...or any such moment really. I don't support the State...nor do I look to the State for support or permission to go about my life as I see fit.

Unschooling the TV

Life is going along as usual. A bit of poker here and there, a bit of playing at the park, a bit of cooking, and more Dora the Explorer than seems sane. Not that I exactly dislike Dora...it's more that we've been overhearing the same episode long enough for K to now know all the words to the entire episode and repeat them along with Dora. What's worse, is that N and I aren't too far behind!

We started giving K unlimited access to shows back in Hawaii when he would have been around 18 months old. At first, it bothered me; He developed an infatuation with Caillou (an animated show about a little 4 year old boy and his family), to the point that he would refuse to leave the house in favor of watching Caillou. Once this show began interfering with his daily life and activities that I KNEW he enjoyed, I started to feel that there needed to be limits surrounding his show exposure.

It was right about this time that I stumbled upon 'radical unschooling', which basically suggests that children be given the same freedoms as adults and that our role as parents is to foster their autonomy as much as possible. As with all parenting movements, not everyone who calls themselves radical unschoolers  fits one mold. Some families will limit tv exposure but allow full freedom in all other areas of life...others will keep a few boundary rules and expect their children to respect them. But, what's pertinent to this blog post is that a majority of radical unschoolers feel that their is no need for limits to shows/tv.

It's a radical idea. Yes, lots of children zone in front of the tv to an unhealthy extent, but if you take a closer look, you'll find that most of these children attend structured schools. They spend 8+ hours a day in a structured environment that, at times, can be very stressful. When they come home, they look to the tv as a form of relaxation. Unless we go out of our way to avoid this interaction, we all are guilty of having done this at some point in our lives. We treat movies, videos, tv, as a visual form of relaxation...a de-stressor from our lives. And children who are growing and developing in rigid, authoritative environments have the same need for relaxation. It just so happens that they center around the tv.

To contrast, most unschooling families find that their children (even the very young) merely go through phases of interest in the tv or computer...wherever they are able to watch shows. Given the freedom to do whatever they would like (within doable reason!) whenever they like, these children often have no NEED for tv. Instead, they are attracted to it merely as a viable form of entertainment. They will fall in and out of love with shows and videos purely for their entertainment value. So, when K was obsessed with Caillou, he found it more interesting and entertaining than the park, than the beach, than shopping for groceries. It was wrong of me to assume that the park was still the more entertaining alternative!

Sure enough, once he had had his fill of Caillou, the computer became lonely in its corner as K found life around him to, once more, be more entertaining and fulfilling. We would occasionally introduce him to new shows we happened upon and thought he might like, and of course, he was welcome to request anything, but it wasn't until we found shows of Kipper the Dog that he really retained an interest in sitting for a show.

That phase lasted for a month or two, and then K (once again) abandoned his computer. It's actually been a while since he's gone through any similar phase. He prefers to play with his train track, or paint, or be read to than sit for a show. But, yesterday he watched one particular episode of Dora (which he requested rather out of the blue) over and over. He's still watching the same episode with the same amount of fervor, but he's already beginning to bounce around the house again, or bring toys into his tent to play with as he watches.

It's just fascinating to see such a clear example of how giving your child the maximum amount of freedom and autonomy over himself can lead him to make the very choices you, as a parent, might prefer. (after all, you are hoping your child makes the choices in life that will give him the maximum happiness and BEST quality of life, right?)

I like that K likes his shows. (Mostly, I like anything he likes, because I like to see him happy.) But, at the same time, I am older, I know that sitting all day in front of a screen does not present the best quality of life. I want K to gain enjoyment from the outdoors, from reading, from exploring physical manipulations, ect... and by allowing him free and unlimited access to the tv/computer, I DO get a child who does all those other thing I prefer. WithOUT the tears, or conflicts, or punishments, or boundaries, or rules, that might otherwise seem necessary.

Waiting For the Train

 Lately, K has become obsessed with trains. I blame our near exclusive usage of the BART, but whatever the cause, trains have become the most interesting thing since the ABC's to visit our home. So, we expanded K's train set quite a bit, rummaged through some knock-off stores for a few of those ever-popular Thomas trains, and showed K the Amtrack rails that pass right behind our home.

He's fascinated each and every time we ride the BART, and keeps pestering us to ride the Amtrack. It's super cute to watch, and I'm thankful that he's so calm about all the waiting that goes along with public transportation, but I wish there was a better way to expose him to a more future-oriented technology...like spaceships...or robots...or something that might actually still BE around when he's an adult. I mean, trains seem a bit...old-fashioned.

In any case, I'm hoping this all goes away very soon. I'm not into trains...they're awesome when they get me from place to place, but beyond relying on them as a means of transportation, I really have no interest. It's sort of boring. I'm happy to facilitate K's obsession, but I do hope we move on to something more entertaining (FOR ME) soon.

Obedient Children

So, there's a pretty awesome article up on Attachment Parenting.org that seems to have everyone in a tizzy. Titled, I Am Not Raising Obedient Children, it articulates my own thoughts on the subject perfectly.

I do not want a passively obedient child. I want a child who thinks for himself and chooses his actions out of preference rather than my say-so. That might mean that he learns socially appropriate behaviors by FIRST acting (as others would call it) disobediently. So, like the author of this excellent article, I would indeed prefer my child act disobediently and question my authority.

The comments accompanying this post are, to me, somewhat alarming. It seems that everyone has the same belief; given half a chance, every toddler in the known world will instantly run into the street and die. Avoiding this future is then the primary reason most parents discipline their children and practice a punishment and reward system of behavior modification. Seriously?

The street?

Why is it always the street. Parents seem deathly afraid of the street, and I really can't figure it out. I've mentioned we're car-less? Yes, well, my two year old doesn't seem very keen on playing in the street, and he's never once been punished or disciplined regarding proper roadside behaviors. Yes, when he was younger, he liked to dart into the street. Mostly because he didn't understand the differentiation between a sidewalk and a road. I was mindful of this fact, and kept a close eye on him as we walked to and fro our differing destinations. Sometimes, I had to chase him down. Sometimes, we just talked about the road and cars, and the danger I saw. Sometimes, we noticed dead animals along the side of the road and they served as excellent natural examples of why I 'preferred' K walk only on the sidewalk.

It took time. Months in fact, but today, he walks the sidewalk without holding my hand. He stops of his on volition at every cross street and carefully waits for me before continuing across. He notices the cross-walk signals, and even juts his hand out in a stop motion if he feels that a car is edging too much while we cross. He's not quite two and half.

So, the road people? Really...that's the best excuse for why one should utilize punishments and rewards. It seems a bit weak to me.

The other comment I saw often mentioned was that our children must learn to respect authority because there are certain instances where the parent or caretaker can foresee a dangerous reaction BEFORE the child. Or, they can understand the harm being done by the child's action better than the child...or maybe they just have a better grasp upon compassion than said child. For example, the undesirable behaviors of hitting, biting, or other physical actions that might cause harm to themselves.

So, I don't punish these behaviors, and, so far, we've yet to really experience anything like these. And, honestly, if my kid wanted to hit other children, or otherwise physically harm them, I'd be too alarmed at the emotional state of my child WHO WANTS TO HURT PEOPLE to even consider punishing him. So...I'm not sure what else there is to say about that, but before punishing your child for harming another, maybe the parent's role should be to first understand WHY their child WANTS to hurt said child?

As for climbing too high, or running into the street, or some other action K might undertake that I might foresee has a dangerous consequence, I TELL HIM  what I see. I explain how his chosen action might end, and present other choices of behavior or action that might be safer. If he still prefers the dangerous activity, then I either stand by until needed (if he's climbing something high, ect..) or physically remove him from the danger (like a moving car on the road). And, frankly, there's not much trouble with this type of behavior. NOR, do I consider this sort of exploratory, testing-limits, style of behavior to be bad. I think it's good and healthy and simply requires a mindful physical presence on my part. Not too hard really.

And finally, folks seem to think that it's best that we get children used to listening and obeying an authority figure early on because that's just how life works. We don't get to do whatever it is we want to do when we grow up, so why on earth would we teach that this is true to our children?

Well, if you are an anarchist like me, then you DO actually want your child to grow up and see the difference between a free state and a regulated adulthood. And, if you're not an anarchist, then doesn't it at least bother you a teeny tiny bit that you're squashing some part of your child's innate personality and human construct just because. Just because that's...how things are done? hmmm...it's certainly worth some thought.