Thursday, February 27, 2014

Plagiarism 2 Q&A with suspicious answers

Some of the phrases look very familiar.

I have a site search for my site, and one at the bottom of this page that adds Joyce Fetteroll's site and Pam Laricchia's. I'm thinking some of those things are from Joyce's site (and maybe some phrases from mine).


  1. p188, the answer to "Do mums really have to do all the housework?" derives from this
    by Joyce Fetteroll and includes fully lifted sentences, as well as somewhat altered ones:-

    Eg. the titles are very similar. Joyce's is "Should everything be left to the mom?"

    Directly lifted sentences:-

    If we accept that everything is ours then all the responsibilities belong to us. We chose our house. We chose our standards.

    Altered wording, same sentiment as:-

    We made the choices that resulted in children. The kids didn't have a choice in being here or in the particular life we lead.

    Directly lifted again:-

    The life we give them is our gift to them.

  2. p189 "Q. But I don't want to be their slave." The answer above derives from and includes direct lifts from the writing by Deb Lewis here:-

    The heading is similar: "unschooling doesn't mean that you are a slave to your children."

    Almost direct lift:-

    "One thing I've seen really help people move in the direction of [unschooling] is a deliberate [and thoughtful] change in the way they think about and talk about their child[ren]."
    (the plagiarist has changed 'unschooling' to 'more progressive mothering', and deleted 'and thoughtful')

    The rest of the Answer to the 'slave' question is somewhat altered but clearly plagiarised from Deb Lewis' writing:-

    I think we very often repeat things we've heard without fully considering them. They might seem to make sense on some level (usually the level of our wounded-in-childhood selves) so we hold onto them and reuse them but haven't really thought about them. I think the phrase "slave to your children" is one of those things.

    Somewhere along the way some people come to feel they have no choices. How did that happen? It happens to some people who are told "we all have to do things we don't want to" by parents who want to dismiss the worries, hurts and complaints of their kids. But we do have a choice. Having kids was a choice and knowing that kids create a lot more work for us we made that choice anyway. Looking after and helping other people is a choice. How we think about helping others is a choice.

    And if someone is a "slave" to their children are the children then the overlords? How did they get that way? I mean, who treated them so unkindly, created such an example for them that they grew, in a few short years, into heartless beings who would happily enslave their own mothers?

    There was as study about altruism and the researcher found that little babies are good for the sake of goodness. Little babies. Who turns them into slave owners? Moms who feel like slaves to their children have more going on than a messy house and I think very little of that, if any, has to do with the kids or the mess.

    If we're doing it right our kids lives are full of fun and possibility. Kids don't see messes, they see fun. They are not "leaving messes" for their mom they are doing what children do. They are playing and being and growing and learning. Children don't think "I'm going to make a mess and I'm going to leave it for my mom because I want her to feel like my slave." They play. That joy and imagination is just so cool. If we think that we might become enslaved by the work of looking after a home and kids we're turning their innocent joy into something sinister. If a mom is determined to feel abused by her family she's going to look around at her happy kids and think they're happy because they have a slave. She's going to see their inventions and creations, not as evidence they were having fun but as "messes left for mom to clean up." It is a really unkind way to think of our kids.

  3. p190 Answer to question about "bad behaviour" and "consequences" and "punishments" derives from this from Joyce Fetteroll writing here:-

    Similar titles again. This is Joyce's:-

    Are you saying that you never provide consequences or 'punishments' for inappropriate behaviors?

    Another direct lift:-

    "To me the primary concern should be why a child is behaving as she is, not what she's doing. If a child is lying or stealing or hitting, there's [always] a reason behind it. Stopping the behavior doesn't stop what's causing it."

    The plagiarist added the "always".
    In the next sentence the plagiarist has altered the words but kept the meaning of Joyce's next words:

    "It just forces the cause into a new channel." The plagiarist changed it to "and they will most likely find another outlet anyway".

    Joyce's next sentence is somewhat altered by the plagiarist but clearly lifted. This is what Joyce wrote "If we see kids as inherently bad who need to be taught to be good, then punishment makes sense, I suppose."

  4. p191 Answer to question about violent games derives from writing by Joyce Fetteroll again. Here:-

    Similar titles again. This is Joyce's: "I do not endorse violence so how can I let them play act violence?"

    Almost word for word lift of Joyce's writing here: "I think the best way to pass on our values is by living them, not by making someone else live them."

    Very similar to Joyce's writing here: "Let him be who he is and talk about why you make the choices you do for yourself when he asks why you're doing something a certain way and not doing something in a more hurtful but easier manner."

  5. p191 Answer to question about an evening meal includes at least one word-for-word sentence by Joyce Fetteroll, from this page here:-

    This is Joyce's sentence which the plagiarist has used: "For people to be happy, being at the table needs to be a choice."

  6. The "author" of that book wrote an acknowledgement of plagiarism and an apology to Joyce Fetteroll. Thank you for the help.

    She wrote one to me, too—and from the name of the "person" who put up the wikipedia page for the author. She has an alternate persona to praise and support herself, and probably should not have used that one to write the apologies which she didn't want to have made public.

    A private apology for an international offense seems insufficient to me.

    The books are all out of print / unavailable as far as I know.