Nah, not psychotic

Date: 2010-05-27 05:49 am (UTC)
Just pure unadulterated, conservative anthroposophical philosophy. Its a description of an ideal. Socialization with family is fine, whats being objected to is the "We have to get these very young children out of the house, put in the car and driven across town and involved in activities to get them socialized" which is an artificial way of socialization. Playdates (which is what she was placing the one hour rule on) are also artificial. What shes saying is that family (blood or chosen), the people you live with/nearby/walking distance and see on a nearly daily basis is pretty much all the socialization a 4 year old needs. Make sense?

And yes, I agree with it. But I'm also a LOT more familiar with the philosophy that is behind the article,so I know what she's referring to and more importantly, why.

But I also realize that what she's putting forth is an ideal situation in an ideal world. I don't live there. I live here. And I go to the gym and put the kids in the free childcare. And I signed the girls up for a week Camp this summer, and I take them to the park for playdates so I can socialize with the Moms. So I'm not a perfect anthroposophist, I also used birth control when I considered myself Catholic. But I knew what the ideal was then too, I took what I could and managed the best I could.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

aelfie: (Default)
aelfie

January 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3 45 6 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2025 10:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios