I had some interesting responses and discussion generated by my last post, both on and off the blog. It makes me think and reevaluate, and that is a good thing. Here is some of what I learned from the discussion.
For one thing, I will concede that there are some good reasons behind children entering school when they do, rather than an earlier or later age. Like I mentioned in my last post, this age does correspond with a stage of development in which the child becomes able to focus on and enjoy learning and find satisfaction in the accomplishments it provides. Furthermore, like my friend Kelly pointed out, the research indicates that 90% of the connections in our brain are formed by the time a child is three years old. So, the first three years of life are the most critical for introducing and reinforcing important neural pathways in the brain, including the neural pathways for forming secure attachments with primary caregiver(s), connections which provide a framework for further emotional and social development later. (This is my understanding from the little bit of reading I have done on the subject, anyway. There are many more articles and books I'd like to read.) So, if you have a classroom education in mind, I can see why around age six might seem a good time to begin.
In light of this point, perhaps "attachment" was not the best word for me to use to describe my concern about my children being away from me for the majority of their waking hours. Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak in terms of the priority of family life or the influence of the family in a child's life, as opposed to a primarily peer-influenced, peer-dependent childhood? I am still working some of these ideas out in my head and trying to articulate what it is I really feel or believe about them. I know many of my friends maintain the priority and influence of family in their children's lives even though their children attend all day school. I am not saying home schooling is the only way to do this! It does seem to be a simple way to accomplish it, though, at least at this stage in the life of our family.
I also continue to question the number of hours in a school day for young elementary. I see that children this age may be ripe for learning and ready for the curriculum, but I don't see that spending seven hours a day in this pursuit is either necessary or the best use of the hours in their day at this age. I see how the current strategies work well for a classroom full of children, in order to reach the students at various levels and with their different styles of learning, and how seven hours a day would be required to implement these strategies and methods. Yet, as long as I am able and willing to teach Jacob one-on-one at home, we can cover the material from the school day in much less time. I'm not saying that the children whose parents choose to send them to all day school for whatever reason are experiencing any harm by being in school for as many hours as they are. However, if by teaching him at home, I can free up more hours of my child's day for other pursuits, then that seems like a good thing.
The objection that someone might bring up at this point is that although I can cover the material more efficiently at home, I don't have the training or experience that a certified teacher does. However, I would counter that although I don't have experience teaching a classroom full of children, I do have the advantage of having experience with my particular child and the way he learns best. I do strive to educate myself regarding the best teaching methods and curriculum choices, and I have instructor's guides to help me stay on track and cover the material effectively. I think the fact that I can tailor his education to his particular needs, interests, and pace can outweigh the benefits of receiving instruction from an experienced classroom teacher who is balancing the needs, interest, and pace of twenty or more students.
Although I know many who read my blog already see some of the benefits of home schooling and are not totally opposed to the idea, I know there are a few who read that can't fathom why I would not simply choose the public schools. Many see the public schools as one of the great opportunities given to those of us lucky enough to grow up in America, an opportunity anyone would be crazy to forfeit. After all, we get a better education than most of the rest of the world, and we get it for free! Yet, some of the aspects of public education that might be espoused as virtues or accomplishments by this camp are the very things that concern me. The idea of creating a certain type of citizenry through public education, or encouraging certain state sponsored values, concerns me. This is all well and good as long as they are values I share, but what happens when they aren't? I am thankful we are not required to submit our children to public school teaching if or when it contradicts our values. In addition to this is the concern that our children would be conditioned to merely take in and regurgitate material for a test rather than eagerly exploring a range of material and ideas and learning to examine them logically and critically. This kind of teaching and learning "to the test" can cause students to burn out and become uninterested in learning and eager to be done with it, as opposed to our goal of helping our children to remain eager, life-long learners and to become critical thinkers.
The final concern some of my friends and family have posed is that despite whatever advantages there may be to home schooling for the child, those advantages don't merit whatever it costs me personally. I guess the only way to answer that is that for now, I'm still willing to pay the price personally and for now, at least, the advantages that I perceive we are gaining seem worth whatever it may be costing me. But as you can see, I am not criticizing any one else's choice for the education of their child, and we are keeping our options open should another option become necessary or prudent for our family.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
why?
Disclaimer: I hope I can post this with the disclaimer that the last thing I would want to do is to judge the educational choices any of my dear friends or family have made or are going to make for their children... I am just seeking here to expose the strange workings of my mind regarding this issue and to share some thoughts I have. I hope this post will be taken that way, and that no one will take any offense. Each of you that I know that read this blog, I respect the choices you have made for your children and I believe you've made those choices in good conscience and that you are thus doing what is right for your family. I'm just working these thoughts out of my head as I wrestle with the choices I've made and am making.
I have had a question tumbling around in my head for the last several days, that has tumbled around in my head off and on for a couple of years now. The question is this: Why do we send our children to school?
It is especially important to me to answer this question, since I home school. I need to have a purpose, a philosophy behind why I teach, what I teach, and the way I teach. But I would think it is relevant to every parent, really, as they make the decision to send their child into whatever educational environment as the child comes of age.
I remember as a child trying to get out of going to school, asking why I had to go and hearing the ultimate answer, after all the other answers were worn out - the one answer that I couldn't argue with: "Because it is against the law for you not to go to school." (Lucky for Mom, I didn't know about home schooling then!) I even enjoyed learning and the school environment for the most part, but I just didn't feel like getting out of bed or interacting with other people or whatever other reason a child might have for not wanting to go to school on a particular day. So I imagine children who don't enjoy learning or have other issues with school itself pester their parents with this question even more. In fact, I know several friends whose children beg to be home schooled despite their parents desire or belief that other educational options are best for them. I'm sure I would have been one of those kids if I had known about home schooling back then.
But anyway, back to my nagging question. Why do we send our children to school? To learn, obviously. Yet, as I am assembling documents to keep myself informed on standards for education, re-reading expectations and skills for my child to have mastered by the end of Kindergarten and then by the end of First Grade, I realize that intense formal education is not required to meet these goals. Some instruction is required, of course, and practice as well, in the skills of reading, writing, and mathematics, but not as many hours a day as we require our children to spend in school. In fact, most of the standards listed on these documents, I believe many of us were lucky enough to learn at home rather than in the classroom. We received valuable reinforcement and practice in classroom time, but we first heard them from parents who naturally answered our questions and showed us how.
A related question is this: Why did we decide age five or six was the right age to scoot children out of the nest and make them start "furthering themselves?" The prevailing opinion seems to place a lot of emphasis on the importance of the preschool years, even going so far as to assert that a child is best off at home with a parent during those crucial first five formative years - to the chagrin of many mothers who need to or want to go back to work. If the attachment to a parent - a consistent, responsive, reliable caregiver - is so important for the first five years, why do our priorities shift when the child turns five or six, and we decide it is now most important to have them in a structured, group learning environment for the majority of their waking hours? Why is the influence or presence of the parent no longer the top priority? What is it about school that trumps the importance of the relationship between parent and child? If unstructured play time and learning through play and exploration and life experience are so important and valuable during the preschool years, why not during the grade school years?
I guess some would say it is because a child cannot learn the things we believe they need to learn simply through play or exploration or life experience. Furthermore, the child reaches a point of maturity around age five or six that allows them to focus and tackle the job of learning. They reach a point of development where they enjoy and find satisfaction in engaging in the work of learning.
I would certainly agree with the last two statements, as I have read the child development theories on this and have seen it in my own child. But I don't find that the first statement is true. It is clear to me that children can continue to learn tremendous amounts within the context of their daily lives, even the subjects many think of as bookish and requiring a lot of seat work, with far fewer hours of formal study than school dictates. So I guess that is why it doesn't make sense to me that someone long ago decided school, as we currently know it, was the answer. I see why we choose it now - it is established, proven and convenient. And I guess it has been long enough established that most people don't question it.
There don't seem to be a lot of other people out there that think the same way about this as me. I know I am in the minority, and I get strange looks if I bring these sort of thoughts up for discussion. Everyone else seems to "get it" - it just makes sense that you send your child to school when they are five or six or younger. But it hasn't made sense to me so far. Even now that Jacob has reached a maturity level that allows me to picture how he would make it through the long school day and even benefit from all that it offers, I stumble over all the ideology that made me quit my job in the first place. I want to be the primary influence for my children. I want to be there when they ask life's important questions. I want to be the one experiencing life every day with them. And they seem to want to still be here with me, too. Though with Ethan's outgoing personality, he may be begging to go to school when the time comes, so we'll have to see how that goes! I don't home school primarily because I am worried about the quality of the schools or the dangers of the schools or what might be taught that would threaten our family's faith. I do it for this other reason, the ideology of attachment, I guess. (Maybe I am actually a closet practitioner of "attachment parenting"? They are also known for home schooling...)
It is interesting and often times troubling to me that the same people who would never have told me to "just go back to work!" when I was struggling with the challenges of staying home with my one-year-old or two-year-old will so readily and at times callously tell me to "you just need to send him to school!" when I struggle with challenges of being home with a four-year-old and six-year-old. When the child was one or two, they would encourage me about how worthwhile what I was doing was, how much of a difference it was going to make to the child, how it wouldn't last forever, how this type of behavior or struggle was normal and that a certain idea might help to work it out. Now, I often can't voice the difficulty or challenges of my position because I am instantly under criticism for my choice to home school. I try not to hold it against those who respond to me this way, because I know my choice seems absurd to them and it makes perfect sense to them that I would send my kids to school as soon as they are old enough. But it is still troubling when it occurs.
I guess my problem, since I home school mainly for attachment reasons, is that if I decide it is good to send the older boys to school, then why is it important for me to be home with Samuel? Sure, I love squeezing his squishy legs 100 times a day and kissing his squishy cheeks 200 times a day, and it would be heartbreaking not to be able to do that, but we could sure use the extra money I could make by working. Every second I have not been working, we have really needed the money I could have made by working. But the gut feeling that it was better for our family for me to be home drove us to keep me at home, despite the at times staggering financial effects. So, that is why these questions of "Why school?" and "Why age five?" are important to me - because they seem so inextricably linked, to me, to the question of "Why not daycare?"
The conclusion for me must be that I stay at home, and the kids - all of them - with me, for now. There may be a day when I recant this all, and it suddenly makes sense to send the older children to school for seven hours or more a day. There have definitely been days, even weeks, that I have wished desperately for the break. But my gut feeling, my belief that it is important to be home, and them home with me, has yet prevailed. I know there is a time when they will naturally want to pull away from us in order to form their own identity more clearly, a drive that seems to be most prevalent in adolescence. Maybe that is the time when it makes sense to me that the child would begin spending most of their waking hours apart from a parent, to work through these important issues of self-identity. But for now, I simply know we aren't there yet. And that is enough for now.
I have had a question tumbling around in my head for the last several days, that has tumbled around in my head off and on for a couple of years now. The question is this: Why do we send our children to school?
It is especially important to me to answer this question, since I home school. I need to have a purpose, a philosophy behind why I teach, what I teach, and the way I teach. But I would think it is relevant to every parent, really, as they make the decision to send their child into whatever educational environment as the child comes of age.
I remember as a child trying to get out of going to school, asking why I had to go and hearing the ultimate answer, after all the other answers were worn out - the one answer that I couldn't argue with: "Because it is against the law for you not to go to school." (Lucky for Mom, I didn't know about home schooling then!) I even enjoyed learning and the school environment for the most part, but I just didn't feel like getting out of bed or interacting with other people or whatever other reason a child might have for not wanting to go to school on a particular day. So I imagine children who don't enjoy learning or have other issues with school itself pester their parents with this question even more. In fact, I know several friends whose children beg to be home schooled despite their parents desire or belief that other educational options are best for them. I'm sure I would have been one of those kids if I had known about home schooling back then.
But anyway, back to my nagging question. Why do we send our children to school? To learn, obviously. Yet, as I am assembling documents to keep myself informed on standards for education, re-reading expectations and skills for my child to have mastered by the end of Kindergarten and then by the end of First Grade, I realize that intense formal education is not required to meet these goals. Some instruction is required, of course, and practice as well, in the skills of reading, writing, and mathematics, but not as many hours a day as we require our children to spend in school. In fact, most of the standards listed on these documents, I believe many of us were lucky enough to learn at home rather than in the classroom. We received valuable reinforcement and practice in classroom time, but we first heard them from parents who naturally answered our questions and showed us how.
A related question is this: Why did we decide age five or six was the right age to scoot children out of the nest and make them start "furthering themselves?" The prevailing opinion seems to place a lot of emphasis on the importance of the preschool years, even going so far as to assert that a child is best off at home with a parent during those crucial first five formative years - to the chagrin of many mothers who need to or want to go back to work. If the attachment to a parent - a consistent, responsive, reliable caregiver - is so important for the first five years, why do our priorities shift when the child turns five or six, and we decide it is now most important to have them in a structured, group learning environment for the majority of their waking hours? Why is the influence or presence of the parent no longer the top priority? What is it about school that trumps the importance of the relationship between parent and child? If unstructured play time and learning through play and exploration and life experience are so important and valuable during the preschool years, why not during the grade school years?
I guess some would say it is because a child cannot learn the things we believe they need to learn simply through play or exploration or life experience. Furthermore, the child reaches a point of maturity around age five or six that allows them to focus and tackle the job of learning. They reach a point of development where they enjoy and find satisfaction in engaging in the work of learning.
I would certainly agree with the last two statements, as I have read the child development theories on this and have seen it in my own child. But I don't find that the first statement is true. It is clear to me that children can continue to learn tremendous amounts within the context of their daily lives, even the subjects many think of as bookish and requiring a lot of seat work, with far fewer hours of formal study than school dictates. So I guess that is why it doesn't make sense to me that someone long ago decided school, as we currently know it, was the answer. I see why we choose it now - it is established, proven and convenient. And I guess it has been long enough established that most people don't question it.
There don't seem to be a lot of other people out there that think the same way about this as me. I know I am in the minority, and I get strange looks if I bring these sort of thoughts up for discussion. Everyone else seems to "get it" - it just makes sense that you send your child to school when they are five or six or younger. But it hasn't made sense to me so far. Even now that Jacob has reached a maturity level that allows me to picture how he would make it through the long school day and even benefit from all that it offers, I stumble over all the ideology that made me quit my job in the first place. I want to be the primary influence for my children. I want to be there when they ask life's important questions. I want to be the one experiencing life every day with them. And they seem to want to still be here with me, too. Though with Ethan's outgoing personality, he may be begging to go to school when the time comes, so we'll have to see how that goes! I don't home school primarily because I am worried about the quality of the schools or the dangers of the schools or what might be taught that would threaten our family's faith. I do it for this other reason, the ideology of attachment, I guess. (Maybe I am actually a closet practitioner of "attachment parenting"? They are also known for home schooling...)
It is interesting and often times troubling to me that the same people who would never have told me to "just go back to work!" when I was struggling with the challenges of staying home with my one-year-old or two-year-old will so readily and at times callously tell me to "you just need to send him to school!" when I struggle with challenges of being home with a four-year-old and six-year-old. When the child was one or two, they would encourage me about how worthwhile what I was doing was, how much of a difference it was going to make to the child, how it wouldn't last forever, how this type of behavior or struggle was normal and that a certain idea might help to work it out. Now, I often can't voice the difficulty or challenges of my position because I am instantly under criticism for my choice to home school. I try not to hold it against those who respond to me this way, because I know my choice seems absurd to them and it makes perfect sense to them that I would send my kids to school as soon as they are old enough. But it is still troubling when it occurs.
I guess my problem, since I home school mainly for attachment reasons, is that if I decide it is good to send the older boys to school, then why is it important for me to be home with Samuel? Sure, I love squeezing his squishy legs 100 times a day and kissing his squishy cheeks 200 times a day, and it would be heartbreaking not to be able to do that, but we could sure use the extra money I could make by working. Every second I have not been working, we have really needed the money I could have made by working. But the gut feeling that it was better for our family for me to be home drove us to keep me at home, despite the at times staggering financial effects. So, that is why these questions of "Why school?" and "Why age five?" are important to me - because they seem so inextricably linked, to me, to the question of "Why not daycare?"
The conclusion for me must be that I stay at home, and the kids - all of them - with me, for now. There may be a day when I recant this all, and it suddenly makes sense to send the older children to school for seven hours or more a day. There have definitely been days, even weeks, that I have wished desperately for the break. But my gut feeling, my belief that it is important to be home, and them home with me, has yet prevailed. I know there is a time when they will naturally want to pull away from us in order to form their own identity more clearly, a drive that seems to be most prevalent in adolescence. Maybe that is the time when it makes sense to me that the child would begin spending most of their waking hours apart from a parent, to work through these important issues of self-identity. But for now, I simply know we aren't there yet. And that is enough for now.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
my parents
I was looking through some old photos last night, and particularly enjoyed these photos of my parents when they were young. I also included one of me when I was younger after theirs. I don't think you could have photo shopped their faces together to make me... I do remember asking Mom when I was little if I was adopted since, especially to my young eyes, I looked nothing like them! I didn't have my Dad's chestnut brown hair or chocolate brown eyes, I didn't have my Mom's hazel eyes or auburn hair. I didn't have Dad's dark skin or Mom's creamy freckled skin. I do see resemblances more now. I still can't pin down who I got each of my facial features from, though. Genetics can be pretty strange sometimes!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
good article
I thought this was a good article on "Mommy Burnout." She discusses three areas that can cause it - Doing Too Much, Doing Too Little, and Doing It On Our Own. The second area might offend some people, but I think she has a good point: Sometimes limiting our time with our children perpetuates an attitude that eschews self-sacrifice, and at that point any amount of time spent with or for our children starts to feel burdensome. Not that I think we shouldn't have time away from our children, or that it isn't beneficial. Any of you who know me know that is not true. :-) We can have an attitude that embraces the opportunity for loving service, yet know that we need time out for rest in order to be at our best for that service. The part of the article that I liked the best, though, was the third area. I thought she had some good, encouraging words there.
(I originally posted this around 5 pm but added some more thoughts around 7:30 pm - sorry if you're having to re-read :-)
(I originally posted this around 5 pm but added some more thoughts around 7:30 pm - sorry if you're having to re-read :-)
Friday, July 11, 2008
quote for the day
"Lying is always wrong. Except for spies, or people hiding Jews."
-Heath, to Jacob when Jacob was arguing that he didn't deserve punishment for lying because we didn't warn him it was a punishable offense
-Heath, to Jacob when Jacob was arguing that he didn't deserve punishment for lying because we didn't warn him it was a punishable offense
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Clarification
I received some very kind and helpful comments after my last (somewhat dramatic) post. I acknowledge that others are right in saying that risking hurt is a necessary part of being in relationships and in community. And several of you said very nice things about benefiting from the times that I have been open and vulnerable on here, so that makes me want to not abandon a useful medium just because of the potentially dark side it has for me.
So maybe - as I said in the comments after my last post - maybe I will still post if I feel really compelled or something really worth sharing comes up? I just need to find a way to guard my heart from those who might not appreciate my vulnerability while still sharing it with those who will sympathize and benefit. Sigh.
In light of that, here is a poem I wrote earlier today. I'll chalk it up to the "compelled to share" category.
Today I felt compelled
to stand in the rain.
Like a child, or a fool.
And I asked:
Can you cleanse me with this rain?
Can you wash away the hurt
the anger
the bitterness that's starting to grow?
If I stand here long enough
If I raise my hands for my palms to receive the drops
If I lift my face despite water falling in my eyes...
Then, as I felt the storm increase
And my stained shirt grew soaked
And the hairs on my arms raised with chill
I felt...
Clean.
Better is one day in Your house,
soaked with rain
Than a 1000 in my house
cloaked in sadness.
So maybe - as I said in the comments after my last post - maybe I will still post if I feel really compelled or something really worth sharing comes up? I just need to find a way to guard my heart from those who might not appreciate my vulnerability while still sharing it with those who will sympathize and benefit. Sigh.
In light of that, here is a poem I wrote earlier today. I'll chalk it up to the "compelled to share" category.
Today I felt compelled
to stand in the rain.
Like a child, or a fool.
And I asked:
Can you cleanse me with this rain?
Can you wash away the hurt
the anger
the bitterness that's starting to grow?
If I stand here long enough
If I raise my hands for my palms to receive the drops
If I lift my face despite water falling in my eyes...
Then, as I felt the storm increase
And my stained shirt grew soaked
And the hairs on my arms raised with chill
I felt...
Clean.
Better is one day in Your house,
soaked with rain
Than a 1000 in my house
cloaked in sadness.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
We own the video "You've Got Mail," that wonderful romantic comedy with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks, and we have watched it dozens of times. There is a scene in the bookstore that Meg Ryan's character owns, when they are discussing her character's relationship with a mystery man online. They ask the young male employee of the bookstore, "Are you online?" He replies, "The internet is just one more way of being rejected by women."
Well, I find myself in that position sometimes. Not that I find the internet to be a source of rejection by the opposite sex per se, but rather that it is one more avenue to encounter people and all the misunderstanding and hurt that comes with interacting with people, whether online or in real life.
The other night I got onto my Facebook account, which had been basically dormant for months, and added every single person I could find that I knew - whether from high school, college, our 5 years in GC or the 3 years that we have lived here. I told Heath what I was doing and speculated on how many friends I would have on there when it was done. He said, wisely but also tongue-in-cheek, "You know, it won't make you feel any better." Ah, he knows me too well. And in case you're wondering... he was right.
Sometimes I still feel like I'm in junior high, with the constant paranoia that someone doesn't like me or is offended by me but won't talk to me about it or is talking about me behind my back. I had gotten over this as an adult, for the most part, but have experienced it's resurgence again lately as I've observed some adult relationships that actually function this way.
My reaction to this sort of thing is to just shut off. Like, I can't handle the emotional tension, so if it can't be resolved I'll just give up on caring instead of continuing trying to make the relationships work. (Exhibit A: A video of my life, Ages 14-16, with intermittent scenes from ages 16-30.) I tend to just get really angry and destructive. I really don't know how to not be that way. This blog entry itself is that way. I mean, I should just be fine, right? Maybe you don't like me, maybe you have been offended by me or are talking behind my back, but I can still love you and forgive you and be secure in my life. And then I wouldn't be writing this. But I am.
So, I just haven't had very many close friends in my life. I hope I'm moving out of that era, but there are days that I wonder if it'll ever happen, really. Whenever I start to really be honest and grow close to people, for some reason it gets broken down. Several times, it has just been circumstances, not any fault in the relationship itself. I guess that is why we get married, so we can take our best friend with us everywhere and live with that person. Thank you, God, for Heath. He is the only one who really knows me besides You.
Heath and I had been talking about how to simplify our lives, anyway, and about how blogging takes up quite a bit of time - not just writing our own posts but participating in the community, reading others blogs and commenting. Add to that now the fact that participating in the community part is "just another way of being rejected by [people]" and it seems crazy to keep doing this.
And that's all I have to say about that for now.
Well, I find myself in that position sometimes. Not that I find the internet to be a source of rejection by the opposite sex per se, but rather that it is one more avenue to encounter people and all the misunderstanding and hurt that comes with interacting with people, whether online or in real life.
The other night I got onto my Facebook account, which had been basically dormant for months, and added every single person I could find that I knew - whether from high school, college, our 5 years in GC or the 3 years that we have lived here. I told Heath what I was doing and speculated on how many friends I would have on there when it was done. He said, wisely but also tongue-in-cheek, "You know, it won't make you feel any better." Ah, he knows me too well. And in case you're wondering... he was right.
Sometimes I still feel like I'm in junior high, with the constant paranoia that someone doesn't like me or is offended by me but won't talk to me about it or is talking about me behind my back. I had gotten over this as an adult, for the most part, but have experienced it's resurgence again lately as I've observed some adult relationships that actually function this way.
My reaction to this sort of thing is to just shut off. Like, I can't handle the emotional tension, so if it can't be resolved I'll just give up on caring instead of continuing trying to make the relationships work. (Exhibit A: A video of my life, Ages 14-16, with intermittent scenes from ages 16-30.) I tend to just get really angry and destructive. I really don't know how to not be that way. This blog entry itself is that way. I mean, I should just be fine, right? Maybe you don't like me, maybe you have been offended by me or are talking behind my back, but I can still love you and forgive you and be secure in my life. And then I wouldn't be writing this. But I am.
So, I just haven't had very many close friends in my life. I hope I'm moving out of that era, but there are days that I wonder if it'll ever happen, really. Whenever I start to really be honest and grow close to people, for some reason it gets broken down. Several times, it has just been circumstances, not any fault in the relationship itself. I guess that is why we get married, so we can take our best friend with us everywhere and live with that person. Thank you, God, for Heath. He is the only one who really knows me besides You.
Heath and I had been talking about how to simplify our lives, anyway, and about how blogging takes up quite a bit of time - not just writing our own posts but participating in the community, reading others blogs and commenting. Add to that now the fact that participating in the community part is "just another way of being rejected by [people]" and it seems crazy to keep doing this.
And that's all I have to say about that for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)