Setting down bags...
We're home!
Post your parenting trials and tribulations, joys and questions, here.
2. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 9:49:44 AM
How do you wake up a teenager boy on a Saturday morning when he was up past 1 a.m. last night at a party?
Time-sensitive question.
3. PelleNilsson - 1/27/2001 9:58:34 AM
Trust Rosetta to go for the essential issues right from the start.
4. Shannon - 1/27/2001 10:01:40 AM
Hi Erin!
Personally, I'd love to find a way to make mine sleep later in the mornings. yawn
5. Erin R. - 1/27/2001 10:13:32 AM
Mine is still asleep with dad. Both are night owls who like to sleep in.
Shannon, you might try giving him benadryl before bed. Or even now--it's not too late.
Rosetta, might I suggest a bucket of ice water?
6. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 10:17:47 AM
Mose likes to sleep late on weekends and we let her, since she has to get up so early every weekday, and her dad and I have always been late sleepers. My philosophy on child-rearing and mornings, is teach them to use the remote and open the refrigerator as young as possible.
Is there a reason he needs to be up, Rose, are do you just want to irritate him? (perish the thought!)
7. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 10:23:55 AM
or
8. Shannon - 1/27/2001 10:49:31 AM
Well, mine got up this morning and filled the dog's water bowl with canteloupe and crackers. What were they thinking?
For the most part, they do OK without us in the mornings. But son is an extreme extrovert, and will wake us up just to talk to us. Not as much now that he can talk to his sister more.
9. Erin R. - 1/27/2001 10:56:36 AM
Shannon, my son *eats* the contents of the dog bowl if you allow him access.
10. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 10:58:12 AM
Haha...brings back memories Erin.
11. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 11:00:18 AM
Erin...I teach a College section on Parenting, am one, and have great interest in such. Thanks for hosting and introducing this topic.
12. Erin R. - 1/27/2001 11:01:39 AM
Please tell me he won't be doing this the morning we pack him off for college.
They should make baby food in the form of kibble.
13. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 11:03:12 AM
I have actually tasted dog food and I've had worse.
14. vw - 1/27/2001 11:21:47 AM
How do you wake up a teenager boy on a Saturday morning when he was up past 1 a.m. last night at a party?
My mother was an evil, evil woman. She would keep 7 or 8 big metal ball bearings in the freezer. If you didn’t get out of bed the third time she called you, she would pull back your covers and throw the cold ball bearings in there with you.
15. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 11:38:12 AM
Wow, that beats my mom banging a pot with the pot lid right next to my head...by a long shot. Brrrrrr.
16. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:03:24 PM
Let's make this thread a GUILT FREE ZONE where we can brag or moan w/o inhibition.
17. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:05:58 PM
Or diasagee with eachother.
18. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:06:18 PM
dis.
19. PsychProf - 1/27/2001 12:16:06 PM
Sorry...disagree...I am trying to interview College wannabes and I am jumping here between visits...I guess what I want to say is that hopefully we can disagree with each other on parenting practice w/o taking the difference personally...this is difficult to be sure.
20. CalGal - 1/27/2001 12:20:39 PM
Gosh. Spawn gets his own self up and it's the rare exception when he oversleeps. I am quite cranky when he oversleeps, as he did yesterday.
But I hear that the teen years turn into up all night and sleep all day. However, I plan on instituting a week night bed time for a lot more years.
When he was little, he always got up by himself and played or watched TV without waking me. Still does--I woke up this morning to find him snuggled on the couch, watching The Man Who Would Be King.
Although lately, I've been limiting his TV watching quite a bit. For years, he was able to get his school work done and make his own choices. But as his responsibilities increase (both in school and at home), I've found that I've really cut down on his hours.
21. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 12:27:16 PM
Congratulations on Spawn's SATs and getting into the program, Cal. Tell him congratulations! I know he'll love it.
Mose had a hard time adjusting her sleep, schoolwork, music, socializing, and all the stuff she wanted to do throughout her early teens. Now she has her own system and she's doing better than she ever has. Unless she starts really dragging around or getting sick, I let her set her own schedule, with a limit on weeknights. She's so busy right now I really don't see how she's doing it. I never could have done what I see many top high schoolers doing when I was their age.
The junior high age group a lot of adjustments to make, and the transition period is quite an experience--both good and bad. At least it certainly was for us.
22. Shannon - 1/27/2001 12:28:41 PM
The first time Q ever got up and made his own breakfast, he came running back to tell us. "Mommy and Daddy! I made cereal for me and Maia!"
He'd done fine. She was sitting there eating, his bowl was at the table, there was no mess. But he still had to wake us up. It's a mystery how we produced such an extrovert. He's not nearly as good at playing by himself as his sister, who's 2 years younger.
And here he is, back to talk to me again. He ran out of the room a couple of minutes ago, saying "I'll be back to talk to you some more in a minute."
23. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 12:37:31 PM
That's so sweet!
24. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 12:59:41 PM
Maybe it's important to him to keep in touch with you...trust me, there will come a day when you will look back on this trait fondly. (Not that you don't now...this was just a set-up for my punchline.)
Like when he is 38 and hasn't called in a week. :-)
25. CalGal - 1/27/2001 1:04:07 PM
That is really sweet.
Thanks, Arky! I told Spawn and he said thanks, too.
I wonder if Spawn will find his own activities. He used to, but now that I've put him in the small private school there aren't nearly as many opportunities to just sign up for things--he and I have to hunt them out. Still, he generally does his own reading of newspapers and other material to find things that interest him. Right now he's just switched schools so between school and music lessons, I've decided to hold on that for a month or two to see how things play out.
26. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:11:05 PM
All Mose is signed up for is band and taking piano, but that's very time consuming, because she's in jazz band and concert band. She had to give up choir, where she was doing well, to take jazz band. She's also in the honors program, so all her classes are advanced. She thinks they're easier than last year, but they're not, and I can see that she's studying more and more efficiently. Plus, we have the boyfriend, and they have to allot some time for eachother, and he's in both bands and is a golfer who also works in addition to giving some lessons at the country club, so between the two of them they do quite a bit of time juggling, which is better than other kinds of juggling, imo--I hope they stay this busy until he goes off to college this fall.
And his mom's one of those who has so much energy and is always inviting us over and sending us care packages of leftovers, etc. Makes me look like a slob of a parent in comparison.
27. Shannon - 1/27/2001 1:11:55 PM
Speaking of music lessons, what's a good age for kids to start piano lessons? I've heard it depends somewhat on the size of their hands.
I have no musical ablity. DH plays guitar and comes from a pretty musical family. I'm hoping the kids will inherit the music gene from his side. So far, Maia seems a bit more into music than Quentin. She started Kindermusik again today. DH said she got really into it. In the past, she's been kind of slow to start participating--she's a little reserved with strangers. But there were 3 or 4 kids she knew from previous classes, so I guess she felt more comfortable. And of course she's older now and more familiar with the whole process.
Our first attempt at a team sport starts soon. We've signed Q up for t-ball. I'm not sure how he'll like it--there might be too much standing around for his taste. But he likes the idea of baseball a lot, and he loves to play with his little bat and ball set. So we'll see how it goes. That starts in March.
28. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:22:47 PM
From my own experience it doesn't matter how young they are if they have a good teacher for their age...whenever they show interest and as long as they're progressing. Mine lost interest for a time, though, and we didn't let her quit soon enough, which was a mistake. She had the best teacher at the time I've ever seen, and I knew the young woman wouldn't be available long and was trying to get Mose to stick it out through the year to learn as much as she could from such a phenomenal teacher before she moved on to bigger and better places.
Mose continued to play and was always very involved in music, though, and has begged for the past year to get back in piano lessons, and she's 16 and doing beautifully. Her new teacher is thrilled to have her.
29. Shannon - 1/27/2001 1:28:12 PM
We don't have a piano currently. We'd both like to get one soon. I'm doubtful I could ever really learn to play, but DH could probably pick up a bit and would enjoy having it around.
30. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:36:05 PM
We've got a cool 100 year old upright which Mose thinks she's too good to play, but which sounds good, imo. She has a fairly expensive electric piano that's whatchamacallit-sensitive (some synapse which connects my brain to my vocabulary has sure been misfiring a lot lately), but is starting to prod for an acoustic piano. Ain't gonna happen, though.
If you can get someone to help you who knows what they're doing you can shop around and find a good used one pretty easily. The universities occasionally sell off their pianos and we get invitation cards for the sales in the mail, but those things have been played to death, I imagine. They sure look worn out in the practice studios on campus, anyway.
31. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:42:04 PM
Arky:
I love your upright and Mose plays so well....I was literally blown away that morning when she began to play. Glad she's taking lessons again and doing so well otherwise, too.
And I want to add, you are so lucky in the young man she chose...he is an extremely bright young man and so personable. Not to mention cute! But he should be, to match HER...
Well, I wish Keoni would get back from his appointment so we can leave and I won't have to look at my name in half a dozen threads as last poster....
32. CalGal - 1/27/2001 1:51:17 PM
Spawn signed up for trumpet of his own volition when he was in fourth grade. He has continued with it--even practicing, occasionally--to the point that he was first chair trumpet in a quite respectable school band as a seventh grader. When I pulled him out of public school his music teacher fortunately gave private lessons so we're continuing with him. There are a few marching band organizations around here--as well as one of the drum and bugle corps (the Vanguards). So we'll eventually sign him up for one of those. It's funny--Spawn has always been less than ideally behaved in school and sports--but in band, he was a leader and never got into any trouble.
As far as age goes, I think any age is appropriate to start, particularly if any interest is shown.
It's not that all talent or interest inevitably leads to fame and fortune, and I certainly don't think that kids should be pressured to perform. But it seems to me that children feel complimented if their parents notice a particular interest of theirs and gives them more opportunity to enjoy it. Also, it exposes them to a wider variety of teaching and learning methods.
33. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 1:55:13 PM
Why thank you Judith! I'll pass that along to the two of them!
34. arkymalarky - 1/27/2001 2:00:39 PM
Cal,
I'm just hoping it doesn't lead to wanting to be a band director. I'll bite my tongue, but I won't like it a speck.
"It's funny--Spawn has always been less than ideally behaved in school and sports--but in band, he was a leader and never got into any trouble."
A great director and band program can be one of the most rewarding things for a student to participate in at school. The main thing I don't like about the program where Mose is is that they have a mentality similar to that of athletics--live it and breathe it, and everything else is secondary. And most of the kids agree 100%.
35. Shannon - 1/27/2001 2:02:36 PM
I totally agree that it's very useful and valuable to be exposed to different methods of learning. I don't expect I'd have been very talented if I had received any kind of music lessons. But I think it would have been a worthwhile thing to learn anyway. I think you certainly are a better listener and appreciate music more if you've had some kind of music training.
Well, speaking of music, we've got symphony tickets tonight, and my mom is having the kids stay over. So we're going to go bring them out to her house shortly. Then we'll go floor-shopping before we have to meet our friends for dinner before the concert. Talk to y'all later.
36. mgleason - 1/27/2001 2:14:56 PM
Thanks for your good wishes in the other thread, Arky.
The opportunity to perform as a youngster is one of those things for which I'll always be eternally grateful. I don't play a musical instrument, but I sang in good choirs beginning in grade school, and also acted in many productions, both in school and in community threater. As an adult, those skills aided me tremendously when it came to public speaking and leading training seminars. The self-confidence that comes from knowing how to put something across is invaluable.
37. Uzmakk - 1/27/2001 2:45:37 PM
How does one wake a sleeping teenager who was out at a party past 1:00 last night?
Speak softly and address him as"Mr. teenager, sir."
38. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 2:48:00 PM
Looking forward to grand-parenting!
Son and wife have been married for three years...both professionals...doesn't look good anytime soon.
Daughter getting married in May...both professionals...
Damn! Wanted to be young enough to not just enjoy(spoil)them, but at least have a freakin chance to keep up with them.
39. bubbaette - 1/27/2001 3:16:48 PM
Damn! Wanted to be young enough to not just enjoy(spoil)them, but at least have a freakin chance to keep up with them.
I highly recommend being an aunt for just such reasons.
40. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 3:50:53 PM
I highly recommend being an aunt for just such reasons.
That would be a little tough for me. I don't think they would buy the "Auntie" title the first time I am caught wandering around the yard with no shirt on.
(Besides I look really terrible in a two piece) ;->
41. bubbaette - 1/27/2001 4:06:42 PM
Same principle being an uncle -- wind em up and send em home.
42. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 4:12:58 PM
Heh-heh.
Ya..you know what they say about payback...
I miss that ever since moving here though. (Thought it would be impossible to miss the screaming, destructive forces, but...) It sure is nice to get the snail-mail and email letters from many of them on a steady basis. Just not the same as playing the wise-old, slightly eccentric, uncle in person though.
43. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 9:20:41 AM
Next question: How do you get girls to stop calling your house looking for oldest son? We have three lines and the phones are almost always active.
Like the women of mote, these females are horny, aggressive and say outragious things to attractive boys.
For example: On a speakerphone late one evening when the house was shutting down for the night, mother overheard one 10th-grader female flirting with son (who isn't interested in her, he claims) telling him what she was wearing.
Or, to be exact, what she wasn't wearing.
I blame a lot of this on cable's MTV programming, something that we have now dropped for the school year.
44. Erin R. - 1/28/2001 10:32:35 AM
I have a cute son, too, and as he gets older, I'm sure he'll only get cuter.
So I'll be listening in on this response.
45. CalGal - 1/28/2001 11:09:42 AM
It's odd how the conflicting portrayals teen girls as depressed, mopey, tragic heroines suffering from self-esteem and man-hungry whores regularly pop up in media and parenting books.
If my son were receiving calls from girls and saying, regularly, that he wasn't interested, I would inform him that I disliked liars, and I find it most unlikely that a straight teenage boy would not be interested in girls calling the house. If he truly is uninterested, then I'd tell him I'd expect him to tell the girl so in no uncertain terms and then any time she called the house again he would hang up on her. I would tell him to give me the names of the girl(s) so that I could make sure that he wasn't pestered, poor sweetie, and inform all callers with that name that my son couldn't stand them.
Since I suspect he would not want this and would say so, I would then kick his ass around for giving mixed messages. Most probably, he doesn't like the girl but does like the attention and is using the girl for attention in the same way that he will eventually try and use her for sex.
It is difficult to know how to address this, since I can hardly blame my kid for taking advantage of what is freely offered--even if I loathe the girls (and eventual women) who find this way of achieving status to be acceptable. But I will insist that it be properly presented: he's using them, and he won't be allowed to present himself as just a helpless victims of their "aggression". If he really dislikes it, I'll show him how to stop it. If he is using the girls, then I'll make damn sure he says so--and to the extent possible, I'll do my best to ensure that he learns how to choose for himself, rather than passively accept the attentions of those chicks who decide to pursue him.
46. CalGal - 1/28/2001 11:12:11 AM
Mind you, I find it incredibly improbable that Stone's son suffers from this problem--presumably, Stone copied his post from a Dear Abby.
47. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 11:14:58 AM
Some parenting questions/thoughts I have...
1) How important are we?
2) What are our goals and dreams for our children and how do they relate to how we parent?
3) Do we admit to ourselves what we really care about...our children surely find out no matter what we say.
4) Isn't it interesting that parenting strategies(eg authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and techniques vary so widely, and that so many of us are convinced that we know what we are doing.
5) How does the intellectual component of parenting compare with the emotional.
6) Children have long memories for our mistakes, but seem to forgive easier than we do.
7) Our mistakes can make us better parents if we admit them to ourselves.
8) The talents of our children are right in front of us if we see their world thru eyes other than our own.
9) Do we really want our children to be independent...most parent-child conflict grows out of control issues.
10) Are we consistent about our "buttons", and do we have too few or too many?
110 Do we like our children...even when they are becoming (teens) and have become adults. They know the answer to this question.
48. Erin R. - 1/28/2001 11:18:36 AM
My brother is tall and handsome, and girls have always pursued him. But he has never pursued girls, and now he is with one of the silliest, childish women I have ever met. But then, he was pretty childish for most of his life, and has only started to grow up within the past year.
I hate to say this, but he can do better. I hope he dumps her.
49. Erin R. - 1/28/2001 11:24:26 AM
I want my son to use the gifts he so obviously has. Intelligence, an interest in music are so apparent even though he is only 16 months old. So I'll probably do some pushing.
The rest, I'll have to get back to you later.
50. ycmeehan - 1/28/2001 12:16:24 PM
How important are we?
IMHO, very important since relationship between parent and child is more than likely to promote certain attitudes on his part towards others.
51. joezan - 1/28/2001 12:34:44 PM
PP:
Good questions.
As far as parenting styles, I think the parents need to decide early (of course), and then be very consistent. But the choice cannot be arbitrary. You have to take your cues from your children -not from books, how you were raised, how you see your friends' relationships with their little monsters (or angels), etc.
Our older daughter has been very easy going from the start, and we have had absolutely no problems being permissive with her. She's never - not once - disappointed us. She's only 9, and will, of course, disappoint us in the future. The trick will be not over-reacting when that happens.
You always wonder, of course, if you are doing the right thing - raising them "correctly". Of all her accomplishments, small and large, though, the most affirming event my wife and I have experienced in this regard occurred a few weeks ago, when two kids on her bus failed to go straight home from the bus stop, not showing up till almost an hour later, which started a chain of events that threatened to be blown out of all proportion - newspapers and what-not. Apparently, these two had cooked up a story with several other kids which put the blame solely on the busdriver, a new driver who had unfortunately ditched the bus in a snow storm a week earlier, and so was an easy target.
The next day, the principal of the school called our house asking to speak to our daughter. Why our daughter?, my wife asked before agreeing. Because she is the most honest, sensible kid he knows, he replied, as if that should have been obvious.
52. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 1:01:43 PM
That is such a compliment not only to your daughter, Joezan, but to you and your wife.
I agree that the techniques of raising a child depend on so many variables, one can never know if they are doing it "right" at the time. The things I did in raising my son up to the age of 10 were drastically different than what I did thereafter because things had been changed...he was no longer an only child who was bright and precocious and fun-loving and daring but he was all those things and a kid with cancer.
The discipline problems with a child who is presumed to be dying are quite different from those of a kid who has his entire life ahead of him. Add to this a young mother who is practically insane from having to deal with this when prior to it, the only difficult decisions were shall we let him wear his hair longer and get him a motocross bike for his birthday? But you muddle through and science is kind and he is suddenly a grown man and a wonderfully normal one at that.
Psych Prof, I think your questions were great and gave us all food for thought.
53. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 1:17:39 PM
Judith,
Your posts on your son, especially coming through it all and looking back, offer a great perspective. I'm so glad things worked out the way they did.
We went to the all-region concert yesterday. Mose was in 2nd band and her b/f was in 1st band, and Bob noted how nice it was that both of them had all of their grandparents healthy and in attendance. Kind of nice to see sort of a chain of parenting at work there. Afterward we went to b/f's house and had a great time with both his sets of grandparents, and as always, his mother cooked a great meal then sent us home with a dish of schnitzel and rice.
54. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 1:37:12 PM
Arky:
Thanks...I think I told you about finding my journal from that time recently and how surprizing it was to read through it. I do feel lucky, both for how things turned out for him and that I have retained what amount of sanity I have !
(did you get my e-mail yesterday about the dates?)
55. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:46:57 PM
A very nice thread here. As PP observes, it is very interesting (and thought-provoking) to see the different styles of parenting that people display.
My own child, a daughter whom I may as well refer to as Eve, as she began a new world for me, is now 9, in 4th grade and beginning, under the influence of MTV et al, to take on, with definite intent, what she sees as "teen-age" affectations, most of which involve "looking sexy" (though she is still reluctant to acknowledge sex). This is somewhat distressing, but I keep a light hand on the situation (as I do on most), occasionally remarking on the fraudulent, market-oriented way that the stuff is presented to her. My general intention is to be seen to be on top of the scene but not regulating her behavior unless and until I think I see something dangerous, physically and morally, and then tell her why I think so, and legislating as little as possible (though of course we have school-night bedtimes, and homework before TV regs, etc). I've always done this with more childish matters, like eating habits and crossing streets, etc, and she's always been happy to think and take an intelligent course of action. So far so good, in other words.
56. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:47:11 PM
I respond of course to my own upbringing, which, while not inhumane at all, was badly screwed up, in the weird combination of both spoiling and over-disciplining. The son of two very young parents (for their scene anyway; 24 & 20) who had never lived on their own before marriage, I was to some extent a spoiled-rich-kid type kid, but I was also raised in good part by rigid, formalist forces—namely, frozen in time, all-boy, all-elite-driven schools, and a most unfortunate Victorian-style nanny. Naturally or not (for many of my cohort simply became the bond salesmen they were expected to become), I became a neurotic and unhappy teen, until about the age of 35, when I was finally able to make my own life.
So that informs my essentially permissive parenting style (though the old world reappears in what I think is (ironically) a salubrious way, in a tendency to watch very carefully and worry, perhaps too much). Anyway, the two things I want to do are, 1) let her lead, and 2) in making sure she doesn't walk over any cliffs, try to be persuasive rather than demanding. One thing I hope this policy may lead to is that if my worry-wart old-fart persona takes over at some point, and I flatly refuse something—as I feel certain I'll have to do at some point—in terms more suited to my old world than her new one, that she'll be impressed enough by the display to rethink whatever the issue is, on the grounds that having never denied her about much else, this must be a big deal indeed, etc.
57. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:49:24 PM
Juditha, you indeed deserve congratulations, both on good fortune (the outcome) and, it seems, on your capacity to deal well with bad.
58. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:51:00 PM
Rosetta, I'd be inclined to say that if there's nothing special happening, there's no reason to get the kid up at all. Let him sleep, what do you care?
59. CalGal - 1/28/2001 1:52:17 PM
Judith,
Your story, as always, reminds me how very much of my parenting decisions are premised on the great good fortune I have in having a healthy child. And I then take a moment to thank genes and luck, along with any particular god(s) and the cosmos, for that fortune.
60. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:52:40 PM
Arky, your kids sound great (as does your parenting style, imo). (BTW, does "schnitzel" mean, in definition, "breaded veal cutlets"?)
61. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 1:57:16 PM
Judith...difficult for me to put in words the respect I have for you.
62. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 1:58:27 PM
Cal, I agree with your #59, enthusiastically. My most important piece of parental "preaching"—almost the only one, really—is that ingratitude for our remarkable good fortune, in being a healthy happy family in relatively care-free circumstances—constitutes a potentially disastrous moral error. Disastrous to one's own mental health, I mean, more or less. (And, too, inattention can lose these gifts from the cosmos.)
63. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 1:59:49 PM
I think I would have been a terrible parent of an only child. Having 5 kids, very close in age, made the task of parenting very much easier in some respects. They provided a lot of company and stimulation for each other which I would have found difficult to provide.
My style was largely "hands off". The kids essentially set their own boundaries and I was perhaps fortunate that we were all comfortable with the limits they set for themselves. They're all adults now and I can honestly say that during their childhood and teenage years I never worried for one moment about what they might be doing, since I never expected them to be doing anything that I needed to be worried about, and that turned out to be the case.
64. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 2:01:52 PM
Judith,
You have my great admiration.
65. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 2:10:39 PM
Ah, SnowOwl, the consummation devoutly to be wished...! Congrats.
66. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 2:15:01 PM
SnowOwl
I'm supposed to do a write-up on the connection between economics and the number of children. I won't bore you with the details. Why did you decide to have as many as five kids? How would you describe the underlying cost/benefit analysis (there is always one)?
This is nosey - no problems if you don't answer.
67. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 2:20:42 PM
Thank you all for your nice words...I think you'd all be surprised at what you are able to do when you have no choice but to do it, though.
68. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 2:21:36 PM
69. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 2:43:41 PM
Thanks CM! I only have one, though. The other's her boyfriend. I'm flawed as a parent, no doubt, and there are things about my personality that aren't very conducive to parenting; but Mose has turned out well in spite of me, and I do love her dearly. I, like most parents--including mine, I try to remember--do the best I can. Her dad is great, and that helps a bunch.
As for schnitzel (assuming I'm spelling it right) in this case is pork tenderloin filled with ham, lightly breaded, and cooked in a mushroom gravy, served with rice.
Judith,
I remember you telling me about the journal, and I think it's fascinating how it was gone so long and reappeared like it did. If you had found it ten or fifteen years earlier, would the effect of reading it have been the same, I wonder?
And I did get your email. I'll get back with you on specifics, but the end of Feb looks best for us at the moment, if it's good for y'all.
As far as boundaries, etc, I have one main concern about Mose now that she's a teen besides her general health, accidents, etc, and that's driving. Of all the kids I've taught, that by far has been the most dangerous activity (occasionally combined with drugs and alcohol--I can only think of two instances offhand--but also very often not), and where we live it makes me particularly nervous. The big question is when is she really ready, and I don't feel good about it right now. Her b/f, thank goodness, is an excellent driver.
70. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 2:51:40 PM
Arky:
Remember what Keoni said when Bob asked him what age he thought was good for teenagers to start driving? "Never"
I can understand your concerns quite well after driving those roads for a couple of days. And kids feel so invincible behind the wheel. But Mose is sensible and she has good role models...
71. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 2:53:09 PM
Pelle,
I'm not sure there was any real decision involved. I come from a fairly small family myself. I have 2 sisters, but the youngest is the same age as my oldest son so essentially I grew up with only one sister. My husband is one of 7 and he was not keen on having a large family himself. I saw only advantages in having a lot of kids while he saw only disadvantages. In the end we compromised. I wanted more than we had, he wanted fewer.
Having so many kids has kept us poor. Although none of them has been demanding in terms of wanting material possessions there is a cost in simply raising them. They have all been to University and continued on to higher degrees (apart from one). This means that they've remained at home for longer than they would have done had they simply left school and begun work, or even finished Uni after completing a bachelors degree. While they've been largely self-supporting in terms of paying for their own scholastic costs the fact that they remained at home as young adults has certainly been a drain on our limited family resources.
If we had not had such a big family we wouldn't have remained living where we are. Our area is fairly depressed and there's not much opportunity for young people here. My husband was at sea for much of the kids' growing up and we could have lived anywhere during that period. However, the logistics of moving them all rather put me off, together with the fact that there were educational benefits to remaining where we are. Our city is renowned for its schools and its University. If we'd moved it might have been more difficult for the kids to get the same excellent educational opportunities they had here. Moving elsewhere now would provide my husband with more business opportunities but the cost is prohibitive. What we would get for our house if we sold it would not even pay the deposit on a house in more populated northern centres.
72. cmboyce - 1/28/2001 2:53:32 PM
One of the many benefits of raising a kid in Manhattan is, no teen driving worries.
73. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 2:57:53 PM
Arky,
One of the things which surprised me about my kids was that they never showed any interest in driving. Even now only 2 of them have licences. It's been relatively easy for them here, as we live in a very small city with a reasonable public transport system although mostly they've always walked everywhere.
74. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 2:59:14 PM
"But Mose is sensible and she has good role models..."
Heh heh. You didn't ever ride in a vehicle with me driving while y'all were here, did you?
Seriously, it's the experience. She needs to be driving more with us in the car, but she drives by herself in town all the time. She keeps her car at my parents' house.
75. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:03:19 PM
Snow,
(Very interesting posts, btw)
We live 15 miles from town and currently our daily commute totals about 100 miles per day, so driving for her is a necessity. She's not really interested in it either, and that's a big part of the problem, because she's not practicing enough for me to feel comfortable with her driving alone.
76. CalGal - 1/28/2001 3:03:50 PM
My ex informed me that I was not allowed to teach Spawn to drive. I responded that, unfortunately, I probably already had. Spawn thinks my driving is a hoot.
An interesting dynamic on teen driving--there is little doubt that it is one of the most dangerous activities a teen can do. There are all sorts of restrictions proposed on teen driving these days, at least in California--they can only drive certain hours, to and from work, etc. All almost completely unworkable. These ideas have a fair amount of popular support.
But there is no support for what would seem to be the obvious solution--up the driving age to 18. Why? Parental convenience.
77. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:03:54 PM
That is the commute which involves going the opposite direction from where we work to take her to school and pick her up every day.
78. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:08:31 PM
That is a real problems, arky. I'm not sure how I would have felt if my kids had wanted to drive. I wouldn't have stopped them, obviously, but I would never have been comfortable with it. Even now I detest being a passenger in a car. It's a control issue with me, I hate feeling that I'm at the mercy of somebody else.
Since it is important that your daughter does drive though I guess there's nothing you can do but encourage her to practise so you feel more comfortable about her driving long distances by herself.
79. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:10:11 PM
I agree, Cal, in fact here kids can get a "hardship" license fairly easily as soon as they turn 15. Of course in the towns and in the country a number of kids have been driving since way younger than that.
One of the worst tragedies in my little world involved a 13 year old who had been driving by herself some, left in the car, and head-on collided with a truck with a teen she knew, the report being that one or both vehicles were acting crazy and playing "chicken" in the middle of the afternoon on an isolated road. She had passengers who were thrown from the vehicle, but for her it was instant death. She was an only child, and the devastation her family suffered was very hard to witness, and it was too late and pointlessly cruel to state the obvious.
80. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:12:06 PM
"Even now I detest being a passenger in a car. It's a control issue with me, I hate feeling that I'm at the mercy of somebody else."
You sound exactly like Bob.
81. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:12:49 PM
It was an absolute that my sons drive, drive early, and drive well. Their activites, at 16 and following, made that the case. It was scarie, and I sat up many a night waiting for the lights in the driveway.
82. CalGal - 1/28/2001 3:14:35 PM
PP asked about control. I don't think there is any doubt that many parental/kid conflicts involve control. This has never been one of my particular hot buttons--temper and consistency remain the parental problems that plague me.
I have found that giving my son a great deal of authority and autonomy (which is the flip side of giving up control) has allowed him to use his creativity in ways that I hadn't expected. He also quite often solves unexpected problems independently even when he shouldn't--there are many times when the answer to a particular problem was "Call Mom or Dad" but he will instead solve it himself and put a lot of pressure on himself in the event that his solution has problems. And of course, his independence has resulted in a different set of priorities--he decided that schoolwork wasn't all that important, for example, and got the chain very firmly yanked.
I have never been a lax parent, but I have found that while I could rely on his decision-making priorities as a 9 and 10 year old, I actually have to pull back on the relative scope of his autonomy now that he is a teenager. It's not a matter of control, it's just that there are so many more opportunities, so much more temptation, so much less reward for doing the right thing.
As a result, giving Spawn the same authority over his own life that he'd had at an earlier age produced some real problems that we are now in the process of fixing. He is understanding (as are we) that we have to give him less control until he can prove that he's capable of the far greater responsibility involved in just being a teenager. It has been an interesting lesson, albeit a stressful one.
83. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:19:34 PM
PP,
Yes, that's a big part of it too. When kids are involved in practices, ballgames, etc, it's hard to juggle schedules to get them where they need to be. I used to hate to get home after working all day, then have to turn right around and go to town for something Mose had to be there for, say at 5:00 until 7:00, and have no place in town to roost besides my parents'. I love them, but after working all day I just want to be home, but there's not enough time to go home and relax and then drive back, and we'd always have to eat out.... We could have lived in town, I guess, but we love where we are and we're the third generation here, and it seems crazy to trade a few years of inconvenience for a lifetime of living where you don't want to be.
84. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:24:21 PM
"As a result, giving Spawn the same authority over his own life that he'd had at an earlier age produced some real problems that we are now in the process of fixing. He is understanding (as are we) that we have to give him less control until he can prove that he's capable of the far greater responsibility involved in just being a teenager. It has been an interesting lesson, albeit a stressful one."
And it seems to hit fairly suddenly, catching you off-guard when you've gotten used to things being a certain way. Not enough can be said, imo, about that strange transition period between childhood and teenage.
85. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:25:29 PM
Arky...more than that to me. At 16, no more than two years were available to prepare for the leaving of home. I always knew that once my boys heard the siren of the world, they would be off and running. I saw it as my job to prepare them best I could. We talk everyday on the phone, but they have now left the nest as I knew they would...
86. arkymalarky - 1/28/2001 3:27:56 PM
Very true.
87. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:32:42 PM
Quite so...if they had to return to their bedroom after college, they told me they would die. I see them at least once a month, but it is not enough for me or MsPP. Thank God for the cell phone and liberal corporate policy regarding such...we have a personal sprint number that usetabe outa sight.
88. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:38:36 PM
One(22) lives in Manhatten...maybe he and CMBoyce, with much in common, can share a brew somtime.
89. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 3:39:23 PM
SnowOwl
Thank you very much. Economics is a heartless science. It looks at the decision to have children in two ways. The first is as a form of consumtion. Because having children has a cost the family must cut down on other items of consumption. This was clearly your choice. The second is as investment, when the family needs the children first as labour and then as an old-age insurance. This is moot in the West but still valid in many developing countries.
The time for your trip to Sweden draws near. Are you going to spend any time in Stockholm? What about meeting for a beer or something?
90. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:42:50 PM
One of the things I found interesting about my family was the difference in the length of childhood experienced by my kids, when compared with mine and my husband's.
We were both raised in working-class homes. The expectation amongst our peer groups was that we would all leave school and begin work as soon as we were able. Therefore, when I began high school I knew I was only going to be there for 3 years, until I reached school leaving age. High school for me was just a fill-in until I could start work. Once I was working and earning an adult wage (at 15), I became completely autonomous. I could leave home whenever I wanted to, I was not reliant on my parents for anything.
In contrast, my kids always assumed that they would stay at school and attend University. School for them was preparatory to further education. As as result they remained financially dependent on us for a lot longer than we did on our parents.
This is all a rather garbled way of saying that I think young people today have an extended childhood compared to what some (most??) of us experienced in the past, and this might contribute to the tensions that some families experience, when kids begin to extend their wings in a setting where parents still feel as though they should have total control.
91. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:46:18 PM
Snowowl...that problem can be minimized by not using money as a controling agent...the giving of financial assistance can be a gift with no strings attached.
92. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:50:22 PM
Pelle,
The idea of kids as labour is not quite so moot in the west as you might think. My husband was expected to leave school and begin contributing to the family finances, despite being "tagged" by the school as scholarship material and a person who could go on to do very well at Uni.
I am, of course, hoping that my kids will keep me in my old age. So far I'm not doing very well on that score. I'm still keeping 3 of them, and old age is rapidly advancing towards me.
I'd love to have a beer with you. We're not in Stockholm for long, but I should be able to arrange a meeting at a mutually convenient time. I'll e you and we'll see if we can organise something.
93. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:52:21 PM
Re.90 -
Where could a '15 year old' get an adult wage (meaning non-minimum)? When I was trying to find work during high school, minimum wage was all I could find, unless I wanted to sign up for a union, which I wasn't interested in because I definitely intended to go to college.
94. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:53:43 PM
PP,
I agree, but I don't think that's the case in a lot of families. I know too many who believe that while they control the purse-strings they also control the recipients.
95. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:55:05 PM
Snowowl...the price of such control is very high.
96. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 3:56:18 PM
I'm not an American, concerned. I also suspect I'm a lot older than you. In my country we did not have such a thing as a "youth" wage. Any worker doing a particular job was paid the going rate for that job. Unfortunately, the world has caught up with us and we now do have youth wages and the like. This has led to a host of problems but this is not the thread to discuss them.
97. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 4:08:54 PM
SnowOwl
Excellent. I'm pretty much in control of my working hours from lunchtime onwards so there shouldn't be any difficulties.
98. SnowOwl - 1/28/2001 4:11:02 PM
I can't see your e address anywhere, Pelle. You can reach me at moonbeam@es.co.nz if you like.
99. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 4:16:52 PM
Off topic: Isn't the Internet great? What are the odds that 2 people from opposite ends of the earth can plan to have a drink together after conversing back and forth for a year or so and plan it in a matter of minutes like this?
I'm in awe of how this medium has opened part of the world to me and introduced me to so many interesting people in that world...
100. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 4:18:15 PM
SnowOwl
What, what, what? I'm on the e-mail list available in the Cafe. But to save you the trouble click here.
101. concerned - 1/28/2001 4:18:40 PM
When is everybody going to get broadband, or better yet, fiber to the curb? That's when I'll start being 'impressed'. Off topic, but....
102. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 4:21:58 PM
Concerned:
You're impressed with the technical, I with the personal...takes both kinds. :-)
103. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 4:34:44 PM
Judith
I agree completely.
104. jonesatlaw - 1/28/2001 5:40:25 PM
What a great thread! So much to say but much is already said better than I could.
On driving though, I would offer my mother's example. One of her finest moments as a parent was taking me out when I was 15 on a saturday afternoon to a local school parking lot during the a snow storm. She had me drive in the snow across the huge lot, telling me to get the car up to 25 mph. Then she had me stop as fast as I could. I slid all over hell's half-acre. She then told me to modulate the brake so as not to lock up the front wheels. We repeated the process several times until I could stop in a relatively straight line. She also had me try to accelerate as fast as I could on the snow and ice, and taught me to steer out of a skid. Finally she had me try to drive through around corners in the parking lot without skidding. Mind you I had not been out on the road more than 3 or 4 times on dry pavement before this. It was scary going into that first skid and I always respected road conditions when I was a teen driver thereafter (still do). Finally I should let you know that my mother is one of the worst white knuckle drivers and "co-pilots" in the world. Yet she remained very calm during our lesson. Afterwards she had a bit more confidence in my driving and judgment. I certainly had a lesson that they only talk about in driver's ed. I heartily reccomend this lesson, as the same things you do in snow are what you need to remember in skids on dry pavement and it is in effect a slow motion lesson in emergency manuevering. Mom certainly rose to the occaision. Dad later taught me how to drive on gravel and mud, and bootlegger turns, but much later. Mom still doesn't know about the handbrake turns.
105. jonesatlaw - 1/28/2001 5:42:30 PM
I didn't mention it, but the parking lot was absolutely empty. Important detail.
106. Uzmakk - 1/28/2001 7:51:27 PM
I have just read most of this thread. Very enjoyable. Look forward to putting in my two cents soon.
107. labwabbit - 1/29/2001 1:19:15 PM
When all has been said and done, and when looking back at all the "events" or "non-events" that occurred with respect to driving, education, and parenting...we realize,(evermore so everyday that passes), how extremely fortunate we were. Although it wasn't apparent at all as young parents, we are truly amazed now at how much faith we had in the next day. And as a result did not lose our sanity over how many things could have gone wrong in an instant that could have changed everything.
108. MsIvoryTower - 1/29/2001 2:49:53 PM
This is a good thread to find upon returning to "the fray" a/k/a the mote.
With respect to sleeping issues; my daughter, now 13, is free to sleep as long as she likes on the weekends. I simply cannot get worked up about this issue. Perhaps that's because I'm a single parent, and one of my mottos is to pick and choose my battles very carefully.
However, there has been a fairly noticable change in her over the last year, as she's officially entered the teen years. She's less willing to share all her thoughts, is frequently more pensive, and has noticable mood swings (where she gets angry at friends and then not, etc.).
It should be an interesting next few years.
But when she eventually leaves the nest....
ah, that will be a hard day, I know.
109. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 2:55:04 PM
Well Missie...I am told that all paths lead back to where they started...with planes, trains, and cell phones we will survive...most of the seniors I teach go home after they graduate, in any case. Good to see you here...
110. MsIvoryTower - 1/29/2001 2:57:50 PM
PP
Yes, I expect she'll be back for many years after leaving the nest, but as you said in an earlier post, it isn't the same. Still, raising a child to be independent, confident and capable is the what we aspire to, isn't it.
A child well raised is a painful joy.
111. cmboyce - 1/29/2001 3:04:50 PM
PP, I'd be delighted to meet your son, and, of course, you. Perhaps some time when you're down for a visit...
112. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 3:05:52 PM
CM...good.
113. labwabbit - 1/29/2001 3:06:53 PM
A child well raised is a painful joy
No better proof of the truth in those words, than saying I hear that and really understanding it.
114. cmboyce - 1/29/2001 3:08:28 PM
jonesatlaw, great driving lesson! Great mother! (And is a bootlegger turn the same as a handbrake turn, where one turns 180 degrees, at speed? And how do you do it?)
(Motie parents: Regard this as on topic in the sense that most of us, unlike Jones' father, would not dream of instructing a teenage boy in this matter. (Compare and contrast.))
115. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 3:11:16 PM
cm
Start the turn. Pull the handbrake. Great fun. But to achieve exactly 180 degrees required practice, in particular on ice. Easier on gravel.
116. janjon - 1/29/2001 3:11:48 PM
Too soon to tell, but I think having a child (our oldest, girl now 14) go off to boarding school will help in terms of the ultimate empty nest syndrome. Even though both my wife and I had done it, we saw or remembered the separation from the child's point of view, not the parents'. We thus thought we were able to help prepare our daughter for the beginning homesickness, even possibly the feeling of abandonment (even though our daughter had pushed to go away for school.) We weren't really prepared for our own feelings of loss.
What I find most troublesome is the feeling that we will indeed be missing more than we want of her most complex growing up years and that as a consequence we won't be able to be of as much help etc. So far, none of that seems to be coming true, in part because of the modern boarding school schedules - the kids are home a lot more often and for longer periods.
At any rate, she has adjusted well and loves school. And, our son (five years younger) seems to be thriving due perhaps to the more or less undivided attention he now receives.
117. theDiva - 1/29/2001 3:34:49 PM
jan
I've never known anyone who's sent his child to boarding school...well, wait, Dusty's son goes to one...anyway, do you mind if I ask, what do you see as the advantage to your daughter going away for high school? Did you and your wife decide to do it simply because you'd both been, or was something else driving the decision? IAC, I can imagine that it was very painful to adjust to her absence.
118. CalGal - 1/29/2001 3:42:59 PM
I mean no offense to anyone when I say I would keel over dead before I would send Spawn away to school and stay put. If it was clearly going to do him worlds of good, then I would move closer. Part of it is because I do have so few years left with him as a child before he goes off to be his independent self, and I don't want to lose any of those years. But part of it is also what JanJon mentions--if you aren't around, do you have the same opportunity to share in their life?
Jones,
I already teach Spawn about turning into a skid and not to use the brakes suddenly--something that he has seen me do more than once. I reinforce quite often the fact that braking is rarely the best thing to do and almost never is it the only thing to do. I like the idea of taking him to a parking lot in the rain.
119. janjon - 1/29/2001 3:46:47 PM
Diva - it was a complex number of reasons and I am sure that even trying to articulate or rank them will end up being somewhat distorting. Certainly we would not have done it (even though both my wife and I had ended up enjoying our own experiences) if our daughter hadn't been so emphatic that she wanted to. Part of that certainly stemmed from our decision to move back to the City. She knew that that would mean one of the private day schools here in the City with a whole new set of friends, etc. She also, by osmosis more than our having been emphatic or purposeful about it, had obviously picked up on the fact that her mother and I had enjoyed it. Also, a number of her friends - both where we then lived and through other circles - were going on to boarding school (although none are in fact at hers), so it didn't seem like such an alien thing to her.
We really didn't want to do it, for our own concerns and desires not to miss out on these years. But, just like we each had and continued to have with our own parents, our relationship with our daughter was (and is - subject to the teenage bumps and occasional theatrics) a good one.
Who in hell knows what age 15 and up will bring. Right now, it all looks like it was a good decision by and for all - including, as I said above, for our nine year old son who is finally beginning to snap out of his prolonged "dreamy" phase.
120. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 3:56:22 PM
CalGal
Don't be offended. Have you thought the thought that Spawn may not become independent?
121. CalGal - 1/29/2001 3:59:21 PM
Spawn already is independent. I'm not a clingy mother, and raising a child who is capable of going off into the world and being his own person is, after all, much of the point.
Janjon,
Moves during the teen years are tough.
122. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:01:58 PM
As I said before, most of the seniors I teach in college report to me that they will go home after graduation, try to live in the town or general area they are from, and wish to be close to their parents/home. They indicate their mother will help raise their children...and they are quite sure of this path.
123. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:04:35 PM
PsychProf. That seems like a remarkably parochial attitude those seniors have (especially to the point of already believing that their mothers will help raise their own children). I would have thought the desire to stretch one's wings would be a lot more prevalent.
124. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:06:58 PM
My kid better not expect me to help raise his kids. Give me a break. What a bunch of sexist slobs you've taught, Prof.
125. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:07:18 PM
Jan
Interesting. Basically she's grown up in a home where it's an accepted part of life, so she expects and accepts that it will be so for her. Yes?
Prof
Now that is amazing, especially since so many women of mother's generation (i.e., dames only a bit older than I) work outside the home. Or is this a socio-economic class different than the one in which I live?
126. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:07:37 PM
JanJon...me too. It is even worse than I am saying...last week I asked my Intro students(mostly freshman) how many wished to live and work in the town they "grew up" in....over eighty percent said they did.
127. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:09:13 PM
Deev...these are middle/upper middle class students...75% women.
128. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:11:45 PM
My God. I understand the desire to be near home, now, but at that age I wanted and fully intended to cut the strings and be well and truly out on my own with no help whatsoever from my folks. It was what they expected of us.
129. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:12:02 PM
Diva. Yes, I think that is definitely a large part of it. It certainly wasn't seen by her as any form of "punishment" or rejection. And, although she already was rather independent in many ways (she is a self-starter and if anything obsessed a bit too much about being timely in homework, etc.), we can see that being away has attenuated that. (I am very glad, however, that we have a ritual of talking with her at least every other day. I also am glad that - unlike when I was away - the schools encourage this. I also am glad that her school is now co-ed. I am glad about a lot of things.)
130. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:13:03 PM
So overall it's been positive...that's great. How far away is she?
131. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:14:50 PM
about 5-6 hours, depending.
132. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:15:08 PM
PP:
Are these students implying their mothers will care for their children while they and their spouses work or that they are going to end up single parents whose moms will take over?
133. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:16:18 PM
PsychProf - are these kids who for the most part come from families where the parents didn't go away to college? Are these kids who are going to go on to graduate school?
134. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:19:26 PM
Judith...they all assume only others get divorced. Their mother/parents will care for their child while they and their spouse work. Some say they will be rich and just stay home, while others indicate they will hire a "Nannie" or have a "friend" sit with the kids. Very few say they will do it themseves, make whatever sacrifice is needed, or use Day Care. They are generally pissed at me for even asking.
135. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:20:31 PM
BTW, I ask in the context of the Child Development section of Intro, not at the personal level. They are free to say nothing.
136. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:20:32 PM
Jan
Wow. I have to say, I admire parents who are able to let go in this way. It has always been a struggle for me...perhaps because she has been my only. It drives her crazy, too...I find it hard to send her on a field trip without me as chaperone. Nuts, I know. I have tried to pull back as much as possible, not wanting her to become clingy or dependent, and I think we've done fairly well. She is a fearless and feisty little thing.
137. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:21:41 PM
Prof
Astonishing, the shift in attitudes. I wonder why they don't see themselves as doing their own childrearing. How very odd.
138. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:22:18 PM
JanJon...some are first gen college students, some aren't...since most graduate schools cost bucks, living at home is the option of choice.
139. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:22:31 PM
PP:
Very few say they will do it themseves, make whatever sacrifice is needed, or use Day Care. They are generally pissed at me for even asking.
I don't care if these are college students...they are idiots.
140. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:25:49 PM
Diva - the thought that it would end up being helpful for our son (which so far it has) didn't hurt. Also, peeling the grape a bit more, my wife/their mother has a very demanding career and travels often. In short, the kids are used to having neither of us there from time to time, or one or the other of us gone. Multitasking could have been invented in our household.
141. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:27:04 PM
So your son is away at school as well?
142. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:27:08 PM
Judith...my job is to get them to think about what they say...frankly, they have other events on their mind, and I understand that. But...they can drink and fuck on their own time...my class is for "cogitatin".
143. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:33:17 PM
I have thought for a while now that ages 18-22 are now a hell of a lot younger than used to be, if you know what I mean. My unmarried niece/goddaughter, age 20, had a baby in September and last week gave him up for adoption, saying it was 'too hard' (this despite living with her mother and having that support available to her)...I think of Greg's mom with three in diapers at age 20, my former mother-in-law ditto, my mother at 22 with me, and I just wonder (of course all three were married, but that generation, the fathers basically brought home the $$ and that was it.) I am not condemning Nikki for her decision because quite frankly I think the baby will have a better life now, but I feel so sad....
144. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:33:55 PM
wait, FOUR in diapers at age 21. Lordy, lordy, Rosie.
145. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:34:03 PM
Diva. Oh no. He's only nine. Have no idea whether he will want or be ready to go off to school in, say, four years. It may just be the predictable difference between girls and boys (talking about generalities!) but he is much less mature/more visibly needing of support and care than his sister was at the same age.
At any rate, we deliberately picked a school for him here in the City that goes through 12th grade instead of one that ends at the 8th or 9th.
146. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:35:23 PM
Oh, okay. Isn't it funny, how sibs can be so different from one another?
147. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:38:45 PM
Diva:
I had my son one month shy of my 19th birthday...I agree with you.
148. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:41:30 PM
Thing is, Judith, I even think that applies to my own generation to a certain extent. I had Gracie at 27 and I still had a lot of growing up to do...I know for certain theDiva at 21 would not have been ready for motherhood.
149. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:43:17 PM
Diva:
I know for certain I wasn't ready but I got that way pretty quickly. Luckily, my mom was nearby and helped me tremendously.
150. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 4:43:53 PM
I spoke to a colleague of mine today. His daughter, 16, has been accepted for a scholarship and will go to New Zealand for a year. He was quite happy about it and saw it as a great opportunity for her to develop her independence.
151. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:45:52 PM
Hmmm...that's the thing about parenting. You're never really 100% ready, for what else can prepare you but doing it? I suppose what I mean is there are certain levels of maturity you may achieve which make it less difficult (as opposed to easier). I think as with any significant emotional event, it can make you a better person.
152. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:46:41 PM
Judith. I find more compelling that that means you had to cope with your son/only child having what you feared was terminal cancer when you were only 29.
153. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:46:56 PM
That assumes that going away is the only way to develop independence, which is hardly true. I hope that Spawn is independent without requiring it.
I don't know how I'd feel about a year away, but my feelings about it are different than boarding school.
154. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:47:06 PM
Pelle
gasp
Halfway around the globe. I would die. She's talking about going to UVA, which is in Charlottesville and two hours away, and already I'm hyperventilating.
155. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:48:16 PM
Jan
Yes. My admiration for Judith....I cannot express.
156. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:49:46 PM
Well, I had fun with my teenage sons...we hung out.
157. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:51:03 PM
I had Spawn right before I turned 26, and what is interesting is that I have to go back four generations to find a *-grandmother who had a child at a younger age than me.
My mother, sister, grandmother, and great-grandmother all had their first child at 27 or older.
158. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:51:19 PM
We have concluded that you never can be totally prepared for parenting and that indeed it inevitably takes unexpected turns and lurches.
Anyone else of the same view as we - there are innumerable guides/classes/organized support systems out there to help you HAVE the baby, but damned few of same for what to do thereafter?
159. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:52:31 PM
Prof
ha! Oh yes. Gracie and I were sitting there Friday night watching something or other, kibitzing, laughing and snacking and I thought 'This is really the best ever. This kid is my bud.' Such an indescribably wonderful feeling
160. PsychProf - 1/29/2001 4:52:47 PM
Vodka and coffee...see ya guys.
161. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:54:24 PM
Jan
Oh, definitely less. For how can you quantify and instruct on something that has an infinite number of situations, variables, etc. I think if you're lucky you have a good support system, a strong relationship with your own parents, and some experienced buds with terrific grown kids (nod to PP) who can tell you how they did it.
162. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:55:06 PM
I agree that you don't have to go away to become independent. We would never have done it with our daughter if we hadn't thought that she already had a healthy degree of independence. And, one of the arguments that we used with her to try to get her to change her mind was our own view that in many ways she could be even more independent and learn/experience more by going to day school here in the City.
163. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:55:07 PM
see ya Prof!
Speaking of childbirth, and as an aside, our Lamaze instructor recommended we take Gracie into the L&D room for the birth. Loopy.
164. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 4:55:54 PM
CalGal
I don't want to quarrel with you. This is my experience. When I was 18 I thought I was independent. I had quarrelled a lot with my mother about this (my parents were divorced, I hated my stepfather). She let go of the reins when I was 16. But she was still there when I had problems (even if we quarreled over them). It was not until I did my National Service that I did become truly independent. There I had to tackle my problems alone.
165. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:56:27 PM
Yes, I agree that there is less in the way of support for parents, but I don't see any need for it, either.
I would rather there were a lot clearer laws for parenting, though. More absolutes on safety, for example.
166. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:56:34 PM
That is carrying togetherness a bit far, in my opinion, Diva.
167. theDiva - 1/29/2001 4:57:25 PM
Isn't that insane? How inappropriate. And she was very insistent, too!
168. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 4:57:37 PM
janjon:
I was 29 and had a fairly charmed life of ease...then, I grew up in about 2 weeks time. Looking back, I see it was like a crucible and I came out the other side hardened and changed but it all worked out for the best.
I take nothing for granted today, that's for sure.
169. janjon - 1/29/2001 4:58:59 PM
This may be too personal, but how many years did it take before you could relax even a bit and conclude that your son had made it?
170. CalGal - 1/29/2001 4:59:25 PM
Pelle,
I didn't see you as quarreling. I was just pointing out that there is no one critical experience that ensures kids will be independent. It is a function of parenting and, to some extent, the personality of the kid in question.
Deev,
My stepdaughter not only was in the room when Spawn was born, she cut the cord. She had just turned 11.
171. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 5:00:31 PM
Diva:
Our friends had their baby girl at home a few months ago and their 5 year son was there for it...they are happy with the result.
172. theDiva - 1/29/2001 5:02:53 PM
Cal
You have a stepdaughter?! I had no idea.
I have a friend who had numbers three, four and five of six at home, with the others in attendance...apparently it was a positive experience for all concerned, and I think that's great. Just can't see it working for me and mine, though.
173. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:03:15 PM
In terms of support for parents, I suppose I was focusing on the infancy stage - those feelings of helplessness, anger, guilt over those times when you are being angry at the baby, the first time you want to throw it against the wall, etc.
174. theDiva - 1/29/2001 5:04:55 PM
oh God, and colic....colic.....shudder
I'm hoping this baby will be an easy one to make up for the rough pregnancy I've had.
Anywho, gotta run. Later, y'all.
175. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:05:00 PM
Deev,
My ex has a 24 year old daughter. She lived with us fully half-time for all of our time living together (married or no).
Jan,
I never wanted to throw Spawn against the wall. In any event, though, I think the ones that actually do throw their kids against the wall or hurt them are not those that will be helped by a support group.
176. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:10:28 PM
Not thinking about support groups, per se, although I can see situations where that might be helpful. More about having sources to learn/be reassured that the disillusion and occasional anger that comes with dealing with infancy (usually, at least in our experience, coupled with those moments of frustration or fear over not being able to help a baby who is in obvious distress for reasons that you can't figure out) doesn't mean that you, the parent, are a bad person or that the feelings are unique or not normal.
177. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 5:10:45 PM
janjon:
This may be too personal, but how many years did it take before you could relax even a bit and conclude that your son had made it?
He is 38 and I still become chilled to the bone if he develops even a cough...hence, he doesn't call me much during allergy season. :-)
Seriously, it was not until he was in his early 20s that I relaxed somewhat because when he was hired by the local defense plant, he obtained a doctors certificate that said "cured". But 2 years ago, he had a stroke and we both went bananas for the 4 days he was in ICU...it brought it all back, the hospital experience, etc. (He came out of that unscathed and is fine now.)
I don't think you ever grow "unaware" but you do become less frantic.
178. Shannon - 1/29/2001 5:21:40 PM
Judith,
I can only imagine. My daughter had some complications after birth and was in NICU for a couple of weeks. Nothing potentially fatal, but I think I'd flip if she had to be in the hospital for any reason. My son (older) had tubes as a baby, and I didn't think anything of it. If she'd needed them, I think I'd have been much more nervous, even for something so minor and routine. Luckily, we've been free of hospital visits since her issues cleared up.
179. DanDillon - 1/29/2001 6:45:36 PM
Wonderful thread!
180. Erin R. - 1/29/2001 7:39:59 PM
You know, my sister went to a state-sponsored boarding school. She loved it--I wouldn't rule it out just yet, Cal.
181. Erin R. - 1/29/2001 7:43:38 PM
Cal,
Our stepdaughters are around the same age. I hope yours has her act together better than mine does!
182. MsIvoryTower - 1/29/2001 11:05:16 PM
I considered looking into a girls boarding school for my daughter for the secondary level, but now that the time is nearing I find the thought of her going away unbearable.
I comfort myself with the thought that I always told her she should go away someplace far for college, so perhaps I'll be better prepared by then.
Calgal expressed my feelings somewhere back there: I feel I've only got a few years left before she spreads her wings and makes her own path in the world, and I don't want to miss any of these coming years.
I suppose that's a bit selfish.
Btw, my mother went to an all girls high school and boarded, but she was only a town away from her home, so I think the experience was a bit different. She had a blast during those years, and has classic stories of schoolgirl antics among the nuns.
183. Wombat - 1/30/2001 8:23:54 AM
I was eager to go to boarding school after 9th Grade. My parents and I were headed down a path that would have probably gotten me into some trouble if I had stayed (due mostly to my bad attitude). Boarding school was a nice change of scene, and allowed me to find myself (to some extent) and to get into a good college. It also made the transition to college painless.
If Wombette and Wombino become interested in going to boarding school, I would not get upset (my wife would).
184. PsychProf - 1/30/2001 10:53:53 AM
Our local boarding schools(s) are quite well known and cost $15-20,000 per year...the cost of college for my boys was more than $200,000...some of you guys have big bucks! There is no way I could have afforded private school as well as college. But the truth is much simpler...I wanted them around in their teens.
185. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:08:53 AM
I pay for private school, but not a super pricey private school--mainly because Spawn isn't the sort who could easily get accepted to them. Neither his father or I have any connections and Spawn, like his mother, doesn't play the game of good behavior. Although I did more of this as a child then I do as an adult.
From a discipline perspective, I'd say we spend more time than ever before on trying to get Spawn to understand the game of good behavior, and how to play it. As kids get older, the parameters change and their expanding list of options gives them more opportunities to screw up.
186. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:10:53 AM
Something I have realized lately: Spawn used to have bright and interesting friends. Recently, I've noticed that I really don't like any of his friends. They're not thugs, they're just....boring. Not particularly bright. Not well-read, not even pop culturally up on things. Dull and dullardly. This was not a problem of the few friends he had prior to the age of 11 who were generally like Spawn: quirky, imaginative, bright.
I put this together with his grade descent over the past two years (until we moved him out of public school) and went, hmmm. Without making a huge issue of it or refusing to let him play with these kids completely, my ex and I are working on ways to restrict his time with these kids and also finding other group activities where he can hopefully form friendships with kids who are more interesting, challenging, and focused.
I spoke to a counsellor about it and she said that there are so many kids in their pre- and early teens whose parents just check out on them. They aren't abusive, they just figure "Hell, they don't need daycare or feeding, so my work is done." The kids lose time and attention at the very time they need it most. In other words, these kids may actually have been bright and interesting kids when they were 10 and 11--but they are growing up without parental interest and support.
Very sad.
I don't wish to sound as if I've become a purist on the issue of Spawn's friends, or that they all must pass an IQ test. But when all of them are completely uninterested not only in school, but in brain activity of any sort, unmotivated, and without any incentive to grow and develop, it becomes clear that it's not a good peer environment for Spawn. Is it fixable? I don't know yet. But I've received reassurance from the counsellor that it's actually better that he spend more time by himself than with kids who continually show him what a low standard he can slink by with.
187. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:20:44 AM
Perhaps impossible for you to tell, but is it at least in part a quirk that there really weren't many interesting kids in his particular class? In other words, not a matter of selection as much as no choice? This certainly can happen - especially as kids approach teenage where many formerly alert, bright, what have you kids find those traits to be uncool.
188. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 11:22:01 AM
I went through that with my son and had a very hard time getting him to seek out others...he liked those kids and that was it, as far as he was concerned. We had the added pressure of holding that fine line between saying, "They're bums; drop them" and allowing him to choose people he felt comfortable with because he was "different"...this because most of the kids at his school regarded him as some sort of "case"...the kid who was supposed to die soon. (Kids back then were just as cruel as today.) Even the teachers contributed to this weirdness...
Also, many times, a kid will seek out a group he can feel superior in...I think my son did this to some extent. No competition, in other words...his friends were all in awe of him and he liked that, at the time.
Plus you have to realize, many kiddos resist anything the parents try because it's their way of feeling in control. They are trying to assert their independence in whatever ways they can and going against the parents ideas of which friends they can have is age old story of resistance.
189. PsychProf - 1/30/2001 11:31:50 AM
Parenting is such a high wire act...to intervene or not to intervene, that is the question....
190. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:40:15 AM
Janjon,
I certainly agree that there are going to be relatively few bright kids in any public school. I also think that this particular public school was just a lousy school. Spawn very much wanted to go to a different one in the district, but it had a lottery and he wasn't chosen.
So yes, it is possible that the problems that arose when he moved to junior high had to do with the lack of available kids in his peer group.
In either event, removing him from the environment was a start. Now we have to do a bit more and cut his available time to be around them--without, as Judith says, giving them the "bum's rush".
Also, many times, a kid will seek out a group he can feel superior in...I think my son did this to some extent.
Spawn doesn't do this--quite the contrary, I think he'd be better off if he did exert more leadership among his friends. His own instincts are relatively sound but he just joins in and says "Sure!" to disastrous ideas if they are proposed by friends.
191. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:45:14 AM
Oh, there are many public schools with lots of bright kids. We were blessed with one before moving back to the City. But, even then, some grades (or sections) are "better"/more conducive to interesting mind-stretching activities than others. Given teachers make a difference. As you obviously know, you have to keep on top of it and, I think, approach it all with a very cynical eye.
The trick may very well be to, somehow, "help" your son find an activity (or two) outside school which both interests him and which provides the milleu you want.
Quite a trick, but hopefully doable.
192. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:47:15 AM
Incidentally, by no means do I think that private schools, day or boarding, are a panacea either. Same potential for the same problems, with the one possible difference being that most private schools have a better teacher/support staff to student ratio and, frequently, a wider range of activities to hopefully snag a kid's attention. The better ones also seem to have more of an overall attitude that academics do matter and can be fun, even exciting.
193. PsychProf - 1/30/2001 11:47:57 AM
JanJon...I live in an upscale community, and the HS has a number of bright kids...playing three sports also keeps them tired.
194. SnowOwl - 1/30/2001 2:03:38 PM
We have few private schools here, and the ones we do have are mostly church-affiliated. A number of the public schools have boarding establishments, since we have such a large rural population, spread out over huge distances. In terms of academic achievement the public schools do better than the private establishments.
195. arkymalarky - 1/30/2001 6:09:26 PM
Same here, as I've said many times in the past. In the larger LR districts, If you have a kid who can pass advanced coursework it's like going to a free private school, and students are very well prepared to pass AP tests and get into great universities; and AR School of Math and Sciences is a free public boarding school that admits top students from around the state whose schools may be smaller or poorer, and thus have more limited course offerings, computers, and equipment. Its SAT9 scores are always higher than any of the other schools because they get the cream of the crop, and their scholarship list and list of senior admittance into top national schools is very impressive. Private schools, at least here, do better on the elementary and sometimes middle school level, but they simply don't have the resources to offer what public high schools do.
196. arkymalarky - 1/30/2001 6:11:08 PM
As far as boarding schools, or whatever ed choices parents make, different kids have different needs, and as long as those stay the priority, kids will do well.
197. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:18:15 PM
Well put, Arky. Different strokes for different people and different contexts. As long as the core concern is what is best for the kid.
198. jonesatlaw - 1/31/2001 12:01:07 AM
Speaking of teenagers- I have to share how one of my friends dealt with finding her 16 year old son's stash of Playboy and Penthouse magazines. She was in midst of a divorce, and things were a bit tense in the house. She didn't want a confrontation with this son, as he was generally her most obedient and responsible kid. However, she didn't want the porno pile to grow. She called a friend of hers over, made a pitcher of martini's and got out two black magic markers. The two moms then enjoyed a drink, and colored black panties and bras on every model. They then replaced the stash back in his room, and finished the pitcher in high spirits. The next cleaning forray into his room produced no porno. Nothing further was ever said.
199. cmboyce - 1/31/2001 12:18:41 AM
Hahaha, that's funny, Jones. But a bit weird, on consideration.
Aside from making a much less droll story, I think it would be have been much better to have told the kid how the stuff offended her (though given the pleasure she took in drawing on it, it's hard to be sure it really did), and asked that he please at least keep them where she won't be stumbling on them, though she'd rather he didn't have them at all. Then let him do what he will about it. I'd think it might get the same result. Talking about it keeps communications open, too, I'd think, whereas this coup de main can only offend. I imagine his silence is, to say the least, mortified and defensive. When she wants to talk to him next about some such behavioral thing, he may not feel she's necessarily on his side.
And I can't say I see much of a problem, here, anyway. Kids will and probably should have secrets, and if Playboy and Penthouse are the extent of this boy's hidden life...
AND, whatever it may be, I'm sure it will be better hidden, now.
200. jonesatlaw - 1/31/2001 12:27:07 AM
cmboyce- the story is an old one. Her son is now a father. I agree that some direct communication is probably how I would handle it, but then I'm a dad, and anything too far removed from the direct approach is beyond my repetoire.
201. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:37:28 AM
My mom told our priest about my stash. He confronted me at the earliest opportunity, admonished me a bit, then asked whether I had seen the Barbara Bach issue.
202. CalGal - 1/31/2001 12:48:09 AM
Good lord. I'm sorry, but I have serious reservations about a mom who colors bikinis on Playboy bunnies.
I would treat the discovery of most porn as pretty standard stuff, nothing to be commented on. If I noticed it getting too far down the hardcore path, I'd have a talk with him about it.
203. Erin R. - 1/31/2001 10:20:39 AM
I don't think I'd do anything about a Playboy and Penthouse stash. Hustler would bother me a bit more.
204. janjon - 1/31/2001 10:36:39 AM
studs, cuffs and whips would be a bothersome find.
205. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 10:39:19 AM
Not to mention the Weekly Standard or National Review.
206. janjon - 1/31/2001 10:41:41 AM
lets not get into obscenity, Jade!!!
207. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 10:41:47 AM
Few parents tell their children what to do in terms of sexual behavior...the concentration is almost always on what not to do. Since over 60% of high school students engage in you know what, this turns out to be an important distinction, and indeed, lack of information.
208. theDiva - 1/31/2001 10:51:19 AM
hm. You don't have to deal with porn if you've got a daughter. I hope. I'm not sure what I'd do. I have strong objections to the stuff and I would not want it in my house, but I can't see myself coloring bikinis on all the ladies, either (unless it was Greg's stash, and then we'd have an opera in the house for sure.)
I found, growing up, that my mother was much more forthright than most on the issue of sex. I've taken my cues from her and presented to Gracie what my views and morals are, in addition to the usual mechanics talk. The next few years will tell me whether I've been effective....right now she is at the stage where, though she's in puberty, she is interested in boys in the abstract. I was thinking the other day how nice it would be if she met someone and we had a similar situation to what Arky describes for Mose....nice boy, families socialize together, etc. It sounds so lovely and so healthy.
209. Erin R. - 1/31/2001 11:11:28 AM
I used to have porn stashed under my mattress as a teen. My mother found it, but didn't mention it until 15 years later, as she attended me in labor.
Guess she couldn't hold back any longer.
210. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:14:22 AM
Seems like a very odd thing to bring up at that point in time. Was this part of a general reminiscing about how her little girl was now so grown up, etc.?
211. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:15:45 AM
I wouldn't consider it porn but when I was 13, I was reading DH Lawrence and Thomas Hardy...pretty heady stuff for a neophyte. My mom would've blown a cok had she known...
212. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:16:43 AM
GOOD LORD!!!! a coRk, a cork a cork A CORK!!!! Sorry, mom!
213. Erin R. - 1/31/2001 11:16:48 AM
No, I just commented on the fact that watching a baby emerge is quite a contrast to what is depicted of women's genitalia in Playboy.
214. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:17:43 AM
Ooooooh, Judith. You'd better hope that certain of the gang don't see that one.
215. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:19:11 AM
I doomed....talk about Freudian slips!
216. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:20:11 AM
Well, what with Texas accents and all, maybe no one will get it. As in COKE.
Right.
217. theDiva - 1/31/2001 11:21:03 AM
Judith's followup is funnier than the actual slip.
218. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:24:52 AM
The first nekkid picture I saw was the famous centerfold of Burt Reynolds in Cosmopolitan. I was maybe 10 years old and it made me so embarassed.
219. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:27:01 AM
and fuzzy warm and tingly, perhaps?
220. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:28:50 AM
Janjon,
I felt weird. I knew that I was seeing something I was supposed to see, and Burt was so hairy! It was shocking, mortifying and bewildering. I was more scared than anything else. Of course Marshame seemd to intuitively know that I was looking at something I wasn't supposed to, and so she came in and saw me looking at the picture and I felt even worse!
221. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:29:38 AM
something I WASN'T supposed to see..
Good grief, Judith what have you done to me!;-)
222. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:29:53 AM
Hey, I still have that copy of Cosmo, if you wanna check it out again, Jen!
223. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:31:23 AM
Judith,
Does Burt Reynolds look like my kinda guy?
224. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 11:32:50 AM
That is a very American reaction, Jenerator. I'm sure a child raised in Europe or South America wouldn't feel as you did.
Take a look at Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. It will offer an insight as to why you felt as you did.
225. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:34:13 AM
But seriously, folks...what Janjon asked Jen brings up a point...there's no need for hidden porn these days because kids can see so much blatant sexuality on MTV, ABC, in movies, and in ads from magazines and TV. So just how DO they deal with those weird and tingly feelings that sort of stuff is meant to engender? I think kids are maturing early on because of exposure to and reaction to these sorts of stimuli...amongst other reasons like diet, etc.
226. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:35:45 AM
Jade,
I know why I felt the way I did. Seeing a grown-up man who was hairy (and unattractive IMO)and naked wasn't the normal routine for me. Full frontal male nudity wasn't something I grew up around, and I don't think that my shyness about it was bad or Freudian.
227. Jenerator - 1/31/2001 11:38:14 AM
In England there was a series on The Sexual Anatomy featuring a different body part each week. PRIME TIME showed an investigation into the clitorus...how woman masturbated, what their physiological responses were, the different looks they could have, and what transsexual females looked like. My male roommates loved the show, us females were shocked.
Primetime, right after the Simpsons.
228. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:39:58 AM
no question. One would hope that parents in any event would decide to be open with and talk to their kids about sexuality, etc., starting certainly at puberty. What with all the opportunities for kids to see nudity and have sex (well at least heavy innuendo) thrown at them in tv and ads, the age at which those talks should start has obviously dropped.'
We started talking with our daughter about sexuality generally and then, hopefully as appropriate and with the right touch, at age 11.
Plan on doing the same with the boy.
229. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 11:40:04 AM
Of course it wasn't bad, Jenerator. Shyness or discomfort is a response to repression.
It was, however, quite Freudian.
230. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:42:50 AM
It was, however, quite Freudian.
Well, what isn't ?
231. DanDillon - 1/31/2001 11:44:13 AM
It was what it was.
232. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:45:05 AM
janjon:
I heard the other day that some girls are hitting puberty as early as 8 or 9 in this country. I really do think it has a lot to do with hormone treated beef from fast food joints.
233. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 11:47:56 AM
Right, Judith. What isn't?
Repression, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Freud says that a certain amount is necessary to achieve a safe and secure society. It is when repression is so great that it causes psychological problems that we have to be concerned.
I fear we Americans have not achieved that healthy balance when it comes to human sexuality.
234. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:53:38 AM
Well, I am sure it differs child to child and in some cases depending on the locale. (Although I wouldn't be so sure of that - there is no such thing as a truly sheltered place these days, unless you are talking perhaps about some back hollow where families don't have tvs and home teach, etc. Talk about repression opportunities.)
At any rate, with our daughter we just started out with a few general questions about what she had noticed or heard about or was curious about when it came to men and women or boys and girls and the way they relate to one another. That went pretty easily, perhaps because at the time she really hadn't heard too much or wasn't very curious (at least so she said.) Within a few months, we had reached the stage where we thought it appropriate to mention masturbation and how it is a normal, healthy part of growing up. I would like to think that we helped her start out correctly in understanding and (ultimately, natch) enjoying her sexuality, but at age 14 it is really only just beginning. No doubt there will be bumps in the road.
235. DanDillon - 1/31/2001 11:57:56 AM
You know what they say: the greater the bumps on the chest, the greater the bumps in the road.
236. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 11:58:22 AM
I fear we Americans have not achieved that healthy balance when it comes to human sexuality.
And we never will. This country thrives on repressed feelings and instincts. Thrives badly, in most cases.
We have a strict religious upbringing for the most part and pay for it throughout our lives.
237. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:04:31 PM
The odd thing, Judith, is that religiosity and sexuality are mutually exclusive.
238. janjon - 1/31/2001 12:07:27 PM
Jade - substitute "should be" for "are" in your 237 and, unfortunately, it would be more accurate. Too many religions tread much more heavily than they should when it comes to trying to deal with sexuality. (and, I'm not talking about something as refined as morals or ethics vis-a-vis sexual situations, just plain old sexuality.)
239. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:13:27 PM
That was my point, janjon. I would suggest that it is the interpretation of religions that tread heavily.
In Brazil, for instance, the population is heavily Catholic (with some Macumba thrown in for good measure). Yet, Brazilians have a positive and healthy attitude toward sexuality.
240. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:20:17 PM
Yes...breeding like flies beginning at age 13 so that your kids may grow up to live in the garbage dump is a very healthy attitude toward sex.
Maybe the good ol' USA is on the right track after all, eh Jade?
241. janjon - 1/31/2001 12:22:20 PM
And, look at the Italians. Certainly among the most Catholic of countries. Yet, one of the lowest birth rates going (which does not mean that they aren't engaging in sex) and with there having been various votes (I'm not sure they were on the national level, but certainly on the "state" level) where over 80% voted in favor of abortion rights.
Not exactly about sexuality per se, but it meshes.
242. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:41:22 PM
JZ:
Sexuality is only for the purpose of procreating?
How sad for you and your wife.
243. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 1:53:59 PM
Jade...what I saw in Rio was not healthy...you must be talkin about rich Brazilians.
244. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 3:04:39 PM
PP:
I differentiate between sexuality and reproductive health issues. Certainly, Brazil has many problems with respect to reproductive health issues. This is primarily due to a lack of education and access to adequate healthcare.
245. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:18:41 PM
Jade - The odd thing . . . is that religiosity and sexuality are mutually exclusive.
You never met the Catholic girls I dated in high school.
246. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:25:43 PM
Jade...I understand that you separate the two...unfortunately, the body does not.
247. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 3:44:29 PM
>You never met the Catholic girls I dated in high school.
Thank goodness.
You're not using their faith as an excuse for your celibacy, are you?
248. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:46:50 PM
There have been studies which indicate that diet has a great deal to do with the onset of puberty in girls. Specifically, they found that diets high in animal protein and fat led to earlier maturation. The article I read used Japan as an example. In the 50's when the Japanese diet was mostly rice and vegetables, the onset of menses in girls was generally between 15 and 17. By the 80's when the article was written, the Japanese diet contained much more meat and fat and correspondingly the onset of menses had dropped to 12-14.
249. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:48:46 PM
JJ...I guess that answers Jade's question.
250. CalGal - 1/31/2001 3:50:13 PM
I really wish we could figure out a way to change that. Girls don't need the extra boost in maturity, and women could sure use another 10 years of fertility at the backend (regardless of what individuals may think of it personally).
251. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:50:46 PM
Jade - Celibacy? I lost my virginity to a good Catholic girl at the age of 14. Perhaps you should ask Mel Reynolds about Catholic school girls. I understand he is the expert.
252. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:53:12 PM
That is JJBiener's Immaculate Perception.
253. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 3:58:30 PM
Psych - Reynolds' behavior is not my perception. There are tapes of him setting up a sexual encounter with 15 year-old, Catholic school girl. I believe his words were, "I guess I hit the lotto."
254. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 4:01:33 PM
No No JJ...I meant your own encounter...it was posted with a smile...so easy to miscommunicate here...sorry.
255. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 4:05:51 PM
Psych - Oh, immaculate perception. No, I think you misspelled immaculate. It should be spelled ejac....(g)
256. PelleNilsson - 1/31/2001 4:27:31 PM
I thought it was the artist formerly known as niner who was the connoiseur when it comes to catholic schoolgirls.
257. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 4:28:22 PM
Confabulation and heresay.
258. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 4:32:17 PM
Pelle - I am sure Niner's experience is far more current than my own. I have been married to a good Protestant girl for over 16 years.
259. mizphys - 1/31/2001 4:35:16 PM
Don't all men who went to Catholic schools have a thing about girls in plaid skirts? Last Halloween my husband saw a couple of chicks in skimpy school girl outfits, and he couldn't stop looking. He had to mop the drool off his chin, and he's not usually one to ogle. I think it was all those years watching girls from the back of the classroom.As good girls, they were forbidden fruit, and he was too shy to talk to them back then.
260. theDiva - 1/31/2001 4:36:10 PM
(former Catholic School Girl remains silent)
261. CalGal - 1/31/2001 4:37:27 PM
(but her look speaks volumes)
262. mizphys - 1/31/2001 4:38:10 PM
She remains silent while hiking her plaid skirt and batting her eyelashes fetchingly.
263. theDiva - 1/31/2001 4:38:36 PM
haw!
264. rubberducky - 1/31/2001 4:40:19 PM
Don't all men who went to Catholic schools have a thing about girls in plaid skirts?
um, not all
265. PelleNilsson - 1/31/2001 5:13:54 PM
Young presbyterian Scots in kilts?
266. cmboyce - 1/31/2001 6:11:11 PM
There was a piece in the NYT some time ago, about the lowering age of menarche. Diet was pointed out to be the most pointed-out factor, but a case was made—apparently a newly arisen cause for a number of seemingly highly-regarded researchers—that the general presence of sexuality in the culture (MTV, mags, et al) could have an effect on hormonal production. I think this makes some sense (though it sounds hard to prove). I know that in the pre-industrial world, marriage ages varied a good deal, both between (European & British) regions, and within them in chronological terms, in response to things like war, famine, and prosperity. And with age of marriage, so moved age of menarche (I forget how measured—but there is some way to see it in "the world we have lost" (to cite Peter Laslett)). So the thing is manipulible, even if only unconsciously by the society-at-large. And the thesis is that we are doing it, now, in our culture of (to say no more) great sexual access (which is of course a by-product of birth control).
267. CalGal - 1/31/2001 6:18:35 PM
This subject is probably best for another thread, but I think that early menarche itself isn't so much a problem as it is what it means for women's fertility at the other end of the equation.
Towards that end, I think the argument that monthly menstrual cycles are, in fact, unnatural is a good one. In earlier times, the average woman might have 5-10 periods over a lifetime, or something like that.
We could do the same thing today by taking birth control pills and skipping the 7 day placebo pill, or whatever. But the pill isn't good to women over 35, so it'd be nice if they came up with another method.
268. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 6:21:15 PM
cm - It would be interesting to see a study that compared the onset of puberty between girls who were sexually abused or otherwise sexually active at a young age and those who weren't. That might shed some light. I am not aware of any study that has looked at those factors.
269. Autodaffy - 1/31/2001 10:37:06 PM
Someone wrote:
"Girls don't need the extra boost in maturity, and women could sure
use another 10 years of fertility at the backend (regardless of what individuals may think of it personally)."
Personally, I love the backend, but nobody ever told me that you could be fertile there, except in the sense of keeping the garden green.
270. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 11:12:03 PM
Daffy - Personally, I love the backend, but nobody ever told me that you could be fertile there
Where do you think lawyers come from?
271. Autodaffy - 1/31/2001 11:26:01 PM
JJ:
You have your biology all mixed up. Lawyers are like weeds in the garden. They are no sign of fertility at the backend, a place I consider holy.
272. jonesatlaw - 2/1/2001 8:00:48 PM
An off color lawyer joke kills the thread. Let's play nice.
273. DanDillon - 2/1/2001 8:09:14 PM
Speaking of girls reaching puberty too early, I crossed paths with a student today, and I could have sworn she was in her late 20s (probably a junior or a senior). Her garments of choice certainly, um, boosted her advanced-age appearance.
Hyper-sexualization, folks. It's nuts.
274. CalGal - 2/1/2001 8:10:58 PM
There was an article in Time about that. They're blaming Britney, but the sexualization of girls has gone on far longer than that little twit has been sentient, much less popular. I remember reading articles about it in the early 80s.
275. DanDillon - 2/1/2001 8:14:01 PM
Shit. It's been going on since the dawn of time. Surely, media outlets like Time, etc. have simply publicized (and to a large degree legitimized) it since, say, 1968 or so.
276. ChristinO - 2/1/2001 8:19:54 PM
Is early menarche being noted world-wide or just in the U.S?
277. wabbit - 2/1/2001 8:20:11 PM
278. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 10:23:24 PM
Christin - Is early menarche being noted world-wide or just in the U.S?
I believe it is occurring in most industrialized nations.
279. joezan - 2/1/2001 10:26:00 PM
Christin:
Is early menarche being noted world-wide or just in the U.S?
At the risk of repeating myself (although it was probably a couple of years ago that I posted on this):
A shrink I used to work with, who was born and raised in Puerto Rico, told me 20 years ago that early female development was a HUGE problem there. The, ummm... immediately obvious implications were noticable for quite some time. But, Puerto Ricans being Puerto Ricans, they didn't really mind. It was always pretty common for girls there to be married by age 12 or 13 anyway, so no biggie.
...Until a story broke in the US about an epidemic of pregnancy in PR girls under the age of ten. This guy attributed it to the unregulated use of milk-producing hormones in Puerto Rican dairy cattle.
280. janjon - 2/2/2001 10:46:16 AM
Here is a horrible story that appeared in today's New York Times: How Could She and The Kids Have Traveled Cross-Country On Amtrak Without People Noticing
I understand that calls are going out for people to provide both money and needed services (like top notch plastic surgery) for these poor kids.
281. JudithAtHome - 2/2/2001 10:58:42 AM
That woman is not a mother...she is a monster.
282. janjon - 2/2/2001 11:01:29 AM
She is terribly disturbed. The authorities made a really bad error in judgment when they gave her custody again.
283. JudithAtHome - 2/2/2001 11:09:31 AM
And just imagine: we only hear about the high profile cases like this one. Think how many mothers and fathers (and I use the terms loosely)are torturing their children on a daily basis, either physically or mentally, and getting away with it.
284. janjon - 2/2/2001 11:11:34 AM
Think how many situations there out there which are comparable except for the slashing and other visible signs. The abuse has comparable impact on the kids but so often just goes by without anyone detecting it. Until the kids act out in one way or another in, say, their mid to late teens.
285. Uzmakk - 2/2/2001 5:22:51 PM
Have only read the past several posts but I know of a case where the courts gave two young girls back to a mother who had tried to gas them and herself in a closed car.
286. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 8:04:14 AM
Local story in the paper this morning-- Mother held her two month old baby against a radiator for two minutes. Baby required skin grafts.
287. PsychProf - 2/3/2001 1:50:37 PM
288. JudithAtHome - 2/3/2001 1:53:04 PM
PP:
Nice antidote to the last few stories...thanks!
289. PsychProf - 2/3/2001 1:53:46 PM
Ah Judith...you understand me.
290. JudithAtHome - 2/3/2001 1:55:45 PM
PP:
But I thought it was your job to undestand me ? :-)
291. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 2:37:05 PM
I think I understand you PP -- my life is good.
292. CalGal - 2/3/2001 2:39:26 PM
One of the things I find very irritating about our societal attitude towards parenting is that our primary emphasis seems to be on not having to support the child.
So we will tolerate an inordinate amount of abusive parents because if we remove the child from the environment the society will have to pay for the upkeep of the child--or, if we are already paying for the welfare, we'll have to pay more for social services to find foster parents and so on. (one of the reasons we pay welfare is because it is cheaper than any other solution for the kids.)
When we talk about removing these kids from their parents, there is a huge amount of blather about how careful we have to be in removing a parent's rights before removing them, blah blah blah.
Yet switch to another arena: divorce. Parents, usually fathers, are regularly stripped of their legal rights. If two parents can't come to agreement in divorce court and the judge gets fed up, it's a fairly simple solution to grant legal custody to one parent, depriving the other of any right to contest the decisions made. No fuss about parental rights there.
Why? Because having your legal custody stripped away doesn't interfere with your mandatory right to provide for your child. So your rights can be removed, making the parents less likely to clog the court system and cost money, and the child still has a parent who either provides for or receives money providing for the upkeep.
293. CalGal - 2/3/2001 2:39:47 PM
So it requires an incredible amount of procedure to remove a parents rights in the event of abuse if the child will become a ward of the state. It requires only a judge's whim (or even the parents whim) to remove the rights if the child will still be someone else's responsibility.
We really don't seem to care much about children or their right to live in a non-abusive situation--much less have regular access to both parents, in the event that they've been involved in their lives up to then. All we care about is how cheaply we can get away with making sure they are provided for.
294. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 4:23:13 PM
Cal:
You certainly like to think about the hard stuff.
295. Uzmakk - 2/3/2001 4:25:19 PM
But I sure like PP's suggestion that we simply brag and crow.
296. JudithAtHome - 2/3/2001 7:30:05 PM
So is Erin ever coming back?
297. Autodaffy - 2/3/2001 10:26:19 PM
I have always considered it proof of our disregard for children that parents can regularly murder their children and then get sentences that other people get for shoplifting.
California passed a law some time ago saying that a child not secured in a car by the means specified in law and killed would result in a harsh sentence for the parent who failed to secure him. Then the first instance came along and all you could hear about was how the parents had been punished enough by his loss and should not be brought to justice. It is sickening.
298. arkymalarky - 2/3/2001 11:26:01 PM
Did anyone see that program on PBS about juvenile justice, highlighting several young boys and following them in their process through the system? It was very good and enlightening, I thought.
299. arkymalarky - 2/3/2001 11:33:42 PM
PS--reading the previous posts brought it to mind, since their family lives were so screwed up, for the most part. I've always wished as a teacher that we had the authority to discipline the parents, and it's sad how many kids schools try to help who are often pretty much doomed by the time I see them in high school, many of whom had potential and desire to succeed, but grew tired of fighting against the tide for so long. It can really make you feel helpless, and the available agencies don't seem to do the kids a lot of good. It would be nice if foster care meant caring foster parents like JJ and SuzyQ and a few rl people I know, but it rarely does, at least here.
300. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 10:37:29 AM
Uzmak...not so. Cal brings up point(s) of intense interest("hard stuff") and importance to me. If you read backposts, you will see that I am concerned with far more than brag and crow. So, if you meant the comment as an offhand remark, you are wrong. Here is a repeat of questions/comments I thought might stimulate discussion...
1) How important are we?
2) What are our goals and dreams for our children and how do they relate to how we parent?
3) Do we admit to ourselves what we really care about...our children surely find out no matter what we say.
4) Isn't it interesting that parenting strategies(eg authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and techniques vary so widely, and that so many of us are convinced that we know what we are doing.
5) How does the intellectual component of parenting compare with the emotional.
6) Children have long memories for our mistakes, but seem to forgive easier than we do.
7) Our mistakes can make us better parents if we admit them to ourselves.
8) The talents of our children are right in front of us if we see their world thru eyes other than our own.
9) Do we really want our children to be independent...most parent-child conflict grows out of control issues.
10) Are we consistent about our "buttons", and do we have too few or too many?
110 Do we like our children...even when they are becoming (teens) and have become adults. They know the answer to this question.
301. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 11:30:31 AM
PP:
I would like to make a post or two on this thread and will. All very short. Don't have time to address all of those very worthy questions. A quick question. I have an next door neighbor who is a PP. He mentions three psychological profiles. One where no interests peak, one where a small number of interests or abilities peak, and one where a large number of interests or abilities peak. Generally the people with the small number of peaks are the most successful because they are able to focus and get down to it. Does this sound familiar? Do I understand this correctly? Is it bullshit?
302. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 11:45:47 AM
Ya know Uz...I don't have a clue unless I see the data. See if you can get her/him to give a reference for this. This is such a general statement that opinion is worthless on my part.
303. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:15:18 PM
My 13 year old is in the back yard trying to rig a string to a tree branch so that it can be pulled away as the squirrels jump from tree to tree causing the squirrels to fall to the ground with tails spinning and then to scurry away in embarrasment. Now theres a good lad.
When we ask him what he thinks of certain friends and aquaintences a favorite line is, "He has been corrupted".
304. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:18:58 PM
Uz...ya gotta cut back on the vodka....
305. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:20:34 PM
PP:
?? ??!!
306. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:24:17 PM
Questions PP? The vodka statement seems a nonsequitur from this end.
307. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 1:28:24 PM
Did you know Ronald Reagan used to see to it that the squirrels on the White House grounds were fed? They grew to expect being fed and were non-threatened...they came to trust humans.
When Big George Bush became president, he loosed his dogs on them and told the press "They're history now."
I like squirrels and thought that was an interesting story.
I don't think your squirrels will be around very long, Uz...
308. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:28:35 PM
Well...I was trying to make heads and tails of Message # 303...probably my own confusion.
309. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:29:35 PM
No way Judith...squirrels lose only to truck tires.
310. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 1:31:35 PM
I thought maybe they would grow to distrust the trees...
311. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:49:52 PM
Sorry PP. Tried to get a paragraph into the final sentence. The boy seems a good healthy 13 year old to me. MTV bothers him and he is not impressed by popular culture and many an acquaintence. And there is now a string running from a maple branch to my dining room window. Good day, sir.
312. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 1:52:07 PM
And squirrels were put on this earth for young boys to match wits with.
Feed them, ha.
313. PsychProf - 2/4/2001 1:52:35 PM
Ha...good. You can give that string a yank whenever needed....very cathartic.
314. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 5:10:09 PM
I hate to go on about squirrels but you do recall the running of the squirrels advertisement during the superbowl do you not? "To run with the squirrels you have to think like a squirrel." Screen shows a close-up of the the feverishly active head of a squirrel. Sometimes I think you people are not with it. (God damn big screen barkeep.)
315. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 5:13:09 PM
But Uz, they are so cute! And haven't you ever seen National Velvet ?
316. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 5:18:59 PM
I have never seen NV. About horses, yes? I recall a short Hitchcock piece with a very disturbing squirrel scene in it.
317. Uzmakk - 2/4/2001 5:20:24 PM
squirrel = tree rats
318. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 5:25:30 PM
Liz taylor has a pet squirrel who sat on her shoulder in NV...and I think later she had something to do with a horse but the squirrel was the star....
:-)
319. JudithAtHome - 2/4/2001 5:26:23 PM
...and who can forget the literary opus of Nutkins ?
320. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 10:13:42 AM
Hey, I never went away...I just don't have much to say about the current conversations. I have a 16-month-old boy. My parenting experience is pretty low compared to others here.
321. PsychProf - 2/5/2001 10:26:04 AM
Haha...Erin...I see people that know how to parent and they have no offspring so feel free to fire away...let's see...16 months...heading for the twos...lotsa running with no sense of where they are going...the start of what I call the "swing from the rafters" stage...vocab about to exponentially blossom...liberal use of the word no...sphincters about to kick in, so toilet training is possible...
322. theDiva - 2/5/2001 10:43:03 AM
"I see people that know how to parent and they have no offspring"
hahahahaha
They know more about the subject than those of us in the trenches! I knew so much more about parenting before I had Gracie. All my genius evaporated at delivery.
323. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 10:47:47 AM
He's starting some targeted vocalizing..."diaper" is something like "duh-duh." He can say "mama" and "dada" and is getting the gist of usage. My husband is the at-home parent, and is better at deciphering his language.
He climbs. He runs. He falls out and has a fit when we don't let him crank up the volume on the stereo. He removes his diaper when he's wet or dirty.
324. theDiva - 2/5/2001 10:53:28 AM
aha! Step one towards potty-training! Great!
325. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 10:54:50 AM
Really?
He already mimics my husband standing at the toilet...except he doesn't *do* it at the toilet.
326. theDiva - 2/5/2001 10:57:17 AM
oh, absolutely. It signals that he's aware of the connection between that uncomfortable feeling and what's causing it. It may take months before he does anything else, but that awareness is key. That is so cool.
How does your husband like being the at-home parent? Greg and I are considering a similar arrangement.
327. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 11:03:58 AM
He likes it, but he's getting a bit batty these days. I think it'll get better when the weather's nicer and he can take the toddler to the park. Where he (my husband) will be cooed over by the SAHMs.
328. theDiva - 2/5/2001 11:07:30 AM
ha! I know what you mean about the cooing. Greg works evenings right now, so he picks up Gracie and a couple other kids at school. The parking-lot moms just love him. 'Oh you're so sweet to do this for your wife.' Can you imagine?
I think he'll like being home, once he gets over the initial shock of how hard it is to deal with a baby....we'll be sharing those duties for the first three months. He'll probably work PT and go to school evenings starting in the fall.
329. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 11:15:48 AM
My husband is agitating for another baby. He'd like to have a bunch, I'd be happy with just one or two.
Some days he loves being an at-home parent. Other days, I'll come home and have to peel him off the ceiling.
330. theDiva - 2/5/2001 11:47:36 AM
Yeah, I remember feeling that way when I was a SAHM. It ain't always easy.
331. PsychProf - 2/5/2001 12:48:34 PM
Deev...the free counseling offer I gave was for you. Greg gets Anchor Steam and a personal copy of The Matrix.
332. janjon - 2/5/2001 1:18:54 PM
There was a followup story on those poor boys and the overall family situation over the weekend in the Times.
It of course came as no surprise to learn that disfunction abounds. The mother has fought drug addiction for many years, has been a prostitute, and on and on.
Unfortunately, also not a surprise to learn that much of the close family indeed drew into a protective circle towards her in that they knew or feared that the kids were being abused (one of the reasons she apparently took them out of school and abruptly on to California was that she realized that the school/child welfare people weren't buying into her stories about how the kids had been injured - one had a broken hand, another had razor cuts on his head that she claimed were an accident when she was cutting his hair.) They were reluctant to seek help because of trying to protect the mother and because they feared reactions by others in the family.
The father continues to express his love-forever-for-the-mother-because-she-didn't-mean-to-hurt-the-boys,-she-just-couldn't-help-herself.
Ah my.
333. theDiva - 2/5/2001 1:54:05 PM
Prof
ha! Would you believe, I actually bought him a DVD copy for Christmas? Ah, what love does to us....
334. JudithAtHome - 2/5/2001 1:58:38 PM
janjon:
I hope the two young boys have inherited their relatives abilities to deny what is happening before their very eyes; seems the only way they can survive a living hell like this and come out with any sanity at all.
335. janjon - 2/5/2001 2:01:23 PM
the article I read also indicated that when the father visited the hospital and saw one of his sons he didn't recognize him and asked whether he had been sent to the burn unit. One can only imagine...and cry.
336. Wombat - 2/5/2001 2:39:17 PM
The Wombat family is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel! No more pull-ups for the Wombino! (Extra underpants, sheets, and pajamas, however).
When Wombino turned four last month, we decided that one-and-a-half years of positive reinforcement, bribery, wheedling, propaganda, letting his diapers fester, and letting him do it at his own speed was not acheiving its goal. We started going cold turkey. Unfortunately, Wombino thinks of many things before the status of his bodily functions, so without constant reminders to sit on the potty, it kind of slips his mind.
This manifested itself one day, when, after agreeing to to sit on the potty, he took so long to decide which plastic animal he wanted to hold while sitting, that he wet himself while literally standing over the potty!
We then switched to the Genghis Khan school of toilet training. If he appeared more interested in his toy dinosaurs than in recognizing when he needed to go...no more toy dinosaurs. They now reside on top of a bookcase, to be restored one at a time upon the successful completion of urination or defecation. As my wife put it: "he might complain about how mean his parents were to him when he's in psychoanalysis at the age of 30, but at least he'll be toilet-trained."
337. Shannon - 2/5/2001 2:45:00 PM
Wombat, I think with some kids you just have to do something Genghis-like. My son had no interest. It would never have occurred to him to take his diaper off like Erin's son does. He'd sit happily playing in a dirty diaper. If you offered to change it, he'd say "I'm OK." We didn't have to take any of his toys away, but we bribed him pretty heavily. I don't think we'll have to do that as much with daughter, as she objects to wet/dirty diapers and is happy to "help" with changing.
I have a friend who took away Nintendo to get her kid trained. Worked like a charm in very short order.
338. Erin R. - 2/5/2001 5:02:32 PM
The kid had a Nintendo...what, was he 14?
339. Shannon - 2/5/2001 5:06:51 PM
Funny, Erin. It was officially the parents' Nintendo, but the kid liked to play.
I hate video games myself and will avoid them as much as possible for the kids. They do have games on the PC, however, so...
340. MsIvoryTower - 2/5/2001 7:44:12 PM
Ah, potty training.
I remember being terrified at the prospect of having to be consistent enough to actually get my daughter out of diapers.
What actually happened is that she got the chicken pox, and got sores in some cough cough unmentionable places, hence she couldn't wear diapers for almost a week. During that time, she connected the whole thing and I managed to point her in the direction of the potty enough times to reinforce the experience.
She emerged almost fully trained, and finishing the job didn't tax my parenting skills as I had feared they would.
Hahaha, that was a good story to remember.
My motto for potty training: let them go nekkid.
341. CalGal - 2/5/2001 7:52:00 PM
I didn't have to potty-train Spawn. We'd done some of the sitting at the toilet stuff, but nothing major. He was 2 and a half, which meant it was time to switch him from an infant-toddler center to a pre-school program, and the pre-school said they'd take care of it. Which they did. He regressed slightly when the ex and I split up, about 3 months later, and we put him back in pull ups without comment. He was fine 6 weeks later.
At least, during the daytime. Night-time, no matter what we did, he wet the bed until he was nearly 7. I remember when he was 5 we took him to the pediatrician to make sure there was nothing wrong. The pediatrician recommended waking him up every three hours, which I tried for about four days and decided that I could live without this particular solution and put him back in pullups. We quit even thinking about it and it was no big deal when he was finally dry through the night.
342. mgleason - 2/5/2001 7:58:39 PM
My mother, an ingenious woman eternally squicked by the prospect of dealing with bodily functions, would prop me in the potty chair and say 'Pssssst' while I was, ah, conducting my business, to try and forge a connection between the sound and the action (all before I could speak, natch). Damned if she didn't have me waking her in the night by hissing at her when I had to go, whereupon she'd whisk me onto the chair, and Voila! no diapers to change. We had a few accidents, but she was out of the diaper business PDQ.
343. ycmeehan - 2/5/2001 10:20:58 PM
Would you have done what the young mother did in the following situation?
The boy was five year-old. Every morning from eight to twelve he went to a nursery school. The teachers were happy to have him at first but lately there were concerns. He has asked two little girls to show him as he put it "what they have between their legs". The teachers were told of this request as were his parents. The teachers, the father, the mother, and the older brother tried to explain to the boy some facts of proper behavior and he seemed to understand very well. Then another incident: the boy crawled under the door and surprised a little girl sitting on the toilette. Screams, pandemonium...the parents were faced with the realization that they may have a little pervert at home. A scandal was afoot.
Then the young mother asked him this question: Tell me, why do you want to know what's between little girls' legs? A question no one had asked him before so upset everyone was at the time. The boy answered: I know what I have, what my brother has but I know nothing about girls except they are different than us boys. The mother then went to buy a girl-doll and showed it to the boy. He scornfully looked at her and at the doll which he threw angrily aside. I want to see a real girl, I just want to know how a girl is made. That's all I want, he insisted.
Well, the young mother made up her mind to take care of the situation herself and the incidents soon were forgotten and the boy now grown-up has no memory of it and no pervert is he.
344. JudithAtHome - 2/5/2001 11:22:08 PM
YC:
Had that happened yesterday, the mother would be in jail or at the very least, had her child removed from the home. Sadly, that is seen as the proper way to handle such down to earth situations in this country...
345. joezan - 2/6/2001 12:05:17 AM
Precisely - it's as if common sense has been outlawed.
346. Wombat - 2/6/2001 11:35:33 AM
The Womblings bathe together, so have seen each other's genitals. Since Wombette will be seven on her next birthday, we and/or she might have to consider alternative arrangements.
I remember being very curious about what little girls had down there. Fortunately, I had a friend with a baby sister, so a few glances during diaper changing satisfied my curiosity.
347. PsychProf - 2/6/2001 11:39:09 AM
"Takes a lot to screw a child up"
A Psychologist I admire.
348. Erin R. - 2/6/2001 2:35:33 PM
Quiet in here.
349. labwabbit - 2/6/2001 5:58:45 PM
kids are asleep...
350. Shannon - 2/6/2001 8:20:14 PM
Mine are off at the Y with dad. I should be there too, but I'm just beat. So I'm having a beer and will probably go to bed early.
351. CalGal - 2/6/2001 11:12:37 PM
We have been going to counselling with Spawn. While it is incredibly frustrating, it has also been very enlightening. I realize how well Spawn has learned to play to my blind spots, and how he is not talking about problems he has at school because he's so bent on solving them himself (and where did he get that from, I wonder?).
He is doing extremely well at school since we switched him, but his behavior is spotty--in large part because most of his school day is spent with kids two or three years older than he is and he's trying to mark his territory. And of course he's still trying to get away with not doing homework.
But the counselling is well worth the money. For one thing, it forces Spawn to realize that his parents are completely united in their determination to stop letting him slide. For another, it lets my ex realize that I'm usually right, and that is only partially a joke. Usually he doesn't want to agree with my problem analysis, and resists my solutions. In therapy, I find that the solutions are generally pretty close to what I would suggest, and because it's coming from a third party, he accepts it more readily.
Which is not to say that I'm not learning, too. But I'm learning more about problems that I hadn't been aware of. Once I'm aware of things, I'm pretty good at fixing them.
352. joezan - 2/7/2001 7:38:41 AM
Following a SCAN (Stop Childhood Abuse and Neglect) presentation at my daughter's school last week, she took the school counselor up on her offer to the kids to come and talk about anything that might be bothering them.
My wife gets a call - is incredulous, and pissed - calls me at work, relates her conversation with the counselor. I'm pissed. I fly out the door, make it to the school in 20 minutes, demand to see the counselor. She relates what my daughter told her, and tells me she needs "healing". I beg to differ.
Five minutes later, I'm even more pissed. I tell the counselor to leave my daughter and everyone involved alone, and stop trying to brainwash her.
The incident she "needs healing" from? Two years ago when she was seven, she was playing with the two kids across the street, whose parents are friends of ours. While climbing up the hill covering their root cellar (one of their favorite games at the time) the other two decided to pull down her pants and pinch her butt. They were 5 (girl) and 3 (boy) at the time.
She got mad and embarassed, came home and told my wife, who called the other mom, who took care of it admirably.
I know we haven't heard the last of this, because the last thing the counselor told me was, I hope you're right. But I know from experience that your daughter was traumatized - otherwise, why would she have mentioned it. Believe me - this issue is not resolved, and will pop up again, but worse, when she is 12 or 13.
"Traumatized".
Two more sessions with this wacko, and that would be a virtual certainty.
Ai-yi-yi.
353. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 7:41:25 AM
Joe...excactly. A good counselor NEVER does not this unless it is absolutely needed.
354. joezan - 2/7/2001 7:49:23 AM
PP:
She also signalled - albeit cryptically - that she had "concerns" about the other two kids...didn't I think it a bit unusual for a brother and sister to be behaving that way?
(GULP!)
Geez -where'd my folks go wrong?
When we were kids, there was nothing more delightful than embarassing and torturing one's friends.
355. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 3:38:08 PM
Is TT up? I'm having trouble logging in.
356. Shannon - 2/7/2001 3:40:35 PM
It was very slow for me earlier today, Erin. I haven't tried lately.
357. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 3:43:53 PM
Well, let's talk about our kids here, then!
Lately, my son has been putting different articles of clothing on his head. This past weekend, it was my cotton undies. The past couple of days, he's been trying to get his own pants down over his head.
358. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 3:47:20 PM
Sounds bout right Erin...
359. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 3:48:45 PM
I believe as a youth my favorite was brushed nylon, but who can remember...
360. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 3:57:25 PM
361. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 4:05:44 PM
Hm...what are we to take from that?
362. JudithAtHome - 2/7/2001 4:08:44 PM
That it takes all kinds....?
Just a thought.
363. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 4:12:46 PM
All of the styles have implications for the character and personality development of the child(Baumrind is quite respected, and has spent her life studying parenting)...at least that is what Baumrind(she) sez. I thought perhaps we might want to think about them...and where we fit in.
364. Erin R. - 2/7/2001 4:19:25 PM
I don't know that the page gives enough information to make that determination.
365. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 4:26:47 PM
Well Erin, it's a start...eg..."Their children cope the best, are individuated, mature, resilient,
achievement oriented, self-regulated and responsible, and have the highest scores on tests of cognitive
competence."...for Authoritative
366. joezan - 2/7/2001 4:46:08 PM
Overheard, not two minutes ago in the court lobby:
15 y.o. boy to mother:Ahright..you just shut up and lemme talk. I'm gonna tell 'em...(unintelligible).
Mom: Head cocked to one side, looks at son with a bemused, slightly confused expression.But....
Boy: No -I'm for realz, dog - don't say nuttin!
What parenting style would you say that was?
367. PsychProf - 2/7/2001 4:55:09 PM
The quiet thoughtfull approach...
368. Shannon - 2/7/2001 11:53:37 PM
My son had his first homework today. He was very proud of himself. He announced it as soon as I picked him up from school: "Mommy, guess what I have in my book sack! I have homework!"
369. MsIvoryTower - 2/8/2001 9:35:13 AM
How bittersweet, Shannon.
I'm always amazed at how eager young children are to experience learning, and to become responsible enough to "get" schoolwork. The really awful thing is how we (as parents, as school organizations) take such eagerness and kill it in the majority of children by the time they get out of the 4th grade.
370. PsychProf - 2/8/2001 3:30:53 PM
Sometimes I miss my sons as kids so much that it hurts to the bone...
371. Shannon - 2/8/2001 3:38:20 PM
How old are they now, Prof?
372. labwabbit - 2/8/2001 3:39:50 PM
Aye...
So do I, miss my son/daughter, so much...
Like right now.
373. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 3:45:44 PM
Proximity doesn't guarantee you'll see them any more often. My son lives here in town but works 2 jobs, not because he needs money but because he can't stand being idle...and I see him infrequently. But he calls and tomorrow night is coming for dinner.
He says.... ha!
374. PsychProf - 2/8/2001 3:47:25 PM
Shannon...26(right) and 22.
>
375. Jenerator - 2/8/2001 3:50:46 PM
BABE ALERT!! BABE ALERT!!
376. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 3:52:34 PM
(Jen...I sent you a little e-mail...)
377. OhioSTOPAS - 2/8/2001 3:52:46 PM
And you an engaged bride-to-be . . .
378. PsychProf - 2/8/2001 3:56:14 PM
We talk daily on the phone(one lives in Manhattan and the other in North Carolina...they see eachother often...in a week they are taking a vacation in Myrtle Beach...babes and golf I am told)), make it a point to get together at least once a month, but time moves on and I miss the daliy contact that once was.
379. Jenerator - 2/8/2001 3:57:37 PM
Judi,
Did you send it to my yahoo address?
Ohio,
I can admire objective beauty!
380. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 3:58:33 PM
Jen...yes.
381. Jenerator - 2/8/2001 4:05:34 PM
Judith,
Right back atcha!;-) Oh and can I ask you a question related to parenting? I hope this isn't stupid, but how do mothers lose weight breastfeeding? (This was mentioned in the cafe) I know that once the milk is gone, obviously there's a weight loss, but does the body lose weight too? If so, how?
382. JudithAtHome - 2/8/2001 4:08:53 PM
I have no idea, Jen...I mixed formula.
383. OhioSTOPAS - 2/8/2001 4:30:36 PM
"Ohio,
I can admire objective beauty!"
Really? I'm not allowed to! (says Mrs. Ohio)
384. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 7:41:48 AM
Anyone interested in discussing their experiences with youth and high school sports, and how these relate to Parenting...my family was literally consumed with athletics, as is the town we live in.
385. Shannon - 2/9/2001 8:21:18 AM
We're about to make our first foray into the world of organized sports. Son is signed up for T-ball starting next month. He's the child of 2 pretty non-athletic parents, but I suspect he'll be pretty good at sports. He's very physical, well-coordinated, and fearless. And he's definitely interested in sports.
386. JudithAtHome - 2/9/2001 8:48:18 AM
I have some stuff on that subject but it will have to wait til I return from an estate sale...
387. theDiva - 2/9/2001 10:39:22 AM
Jen
Breastfeeding helps you lose weight because it uses your fat stores quicker than if you bottlefeed. In addition, it stimulates production of a hormone which helps your uterus shrink back to pre-pregnancy size more quickly. Not only that, but kids who are breastfed are healthier in general because they get Momma's immunities, and are less prone to ear infections than bottleged babies. Then there is the bonding factor which cannot be overstated.
I recommend it unreservedly and wholeheartedly.
Prof
I know what you mean about missing them as kids, even though Gracie technically still is one. There was just something about those elementary school years. IAC, I think it's great you are still so close to them.
388. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 10:47:15 AM
Well Deev, yer about to rectify that situation...
389. theDiva - 2/9/2001 10:54:06 AM
ha! What an adventure this will be....they say #2 is usually totally different from #1. Once we got through colic, it was easy and has remained so. I just wonder what we're in for this time.
390. Adrianne - 2/9/2001 10:56:57 AM
Breastfeeding also helps you lose weight because your body is actually working to manufacture milk. Depending on your metabolism and available fat stores, breastmilk production is estimated to burn 200-400 calories per day.
391. theDiva - 2/9/2001 11:28:46 AM
go boobies, go boobies, go 'head, get busy, it's your birthday....
392. Frankster - 2/9/2001 11:30:41 AM
Whose birthday ?
Shannon,
Re: 385
Maybe PP would be a better one to ask on that, since he has two athletically gifted sons. I personally think that nurture, just as in every other aspect of child rearing, plays a HUGE role here. Keep his interests as high as you possibly can without pressing him, and more than likely, he will gravitate toward toward those other physical, well cordinated and fearless athletes.
From personal experience, I think you have to also expose him to great athletes, be it his peers or professionals ( I hope he just doesn't pick up some of their off court/field habits. Hee-hee ) in order to mimic them as much as possible. He must play against the best in order to hone his skills, and also realize what limits he has. There was never a dearth of athletes where I grew up to observe, so picking up moves and, thereby, "game", came somewhat easy.
(sigh) It seemed as if it were only yesterday...
393. Adrianne - 2/9/2001 11:56:18 AM
DIVA!! BWAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
Here's some nice sentimental stuff that makes me gack, yet get misty all at once.
"For the parents:
This is for all the parents who froze their buns off on metal bleachers at football games Friday night instead of watching from cars, so that when their kids asked, "Did you see me?" they could say, "Of course, I wouldn't have missed it for the world," and mean it.
This is for all the parents who have sat up all night with sick toddlers in their arms, wiping up barf laced with Oscar Mayer wieners and cherry Kool-Aid saying, "It's OK honey, I'm here."
This is for the parents who created babies they'll never see, and the parents who took those babies and gave them homes.
For all the parents of the victims of the Colorado shooting, and the parents of the murderers. For the moms and dads of the survivors, and the moms and dads who sat in front of their TVs in horror, hugging their child who just came home from school, safely.
For all the parents who run carpools and make cookies and sew Halloween costumes. And all the parents who DON'T.
What makes a good parent anyway? Is it patience? Compassion? The ability to feed a baby, cook dinner, and sew a button on a shirt, all at the same time? To
Or is it heart?
Is it the ache you feel when you watch your son or daughter disappear down the street, walking to school alone for the very first time?
The jolt that takes you from sleep to dread, from bed to crib at 2A.M. to put your hand on the back of a sleeping baby?
The need to flee from wherever you are and hug your child when you hear news of a school shooting, a fire, a car accident, a baby dying?
So this is for all the parents who sat down with their children and explained all about making babies. And for all the parents who wanted to but just couldn't.
394. Adrianne - 2/9/2001 11:56:28 AM
This is for reading "Goodnight, Moon" twice a night for a year. And reading it again. "Just one more time."
This is for all the moms and dads who mess up. Who yell at their kids in the grocery store and swat them in despair and stomp their feet like a tired 2-year-old who wants ice cream before dinner.
This is for all the parents who taught their daughters to tie their shoelaces before they started school. And for all the parents who opted for Velcro instead.
For all the parents who bite their lips - sometimes until they bleed - when their 14 year olds dye their hair green.
This is for all the parents who show up at work with spit-up in their hair and milk stains on their shirts and diapers in their briefcase.
This is for all the parents who teach their sons to cook and their daughters to sink a jump shot.
This is for all parents whose heads turn automatically when a little voice calls "Mom? Dad?" in a crowd, even though they know their own offspring are at home.
This is for parents who put pinwheels and teddy bears on their children's graves.
This is for parents whose children have gone astray, who can't find the words to reach them.
This is for all the parents who sent their sons to school with stomach-aches, assuring them they'd be just FINE once they got there, only to get calls from the school nurse an hour later, asking them to please pick them up. Right away.
This is for young parents stumbling through diaper changes and sleep deprivation. And mature parents, learning to let go.
For working parents and stay-at-home parents mothers. Single parents married parents. Parents with money, parents without.
This is for you all.
Home is where we land when we fall - and we all fall."
395. theDiva - 2/9/2001 12:04:08 PM
that is one hell of a thing to post in the presence of a hormonal woman.
sniffle
This one got me:
"Is it the ache you feel when you watch your son or daughter disappear down the street, walking to school alone for the very first time?"
I still feel that when I drop her off in the morning...watching her go off fearlessly and with her head high to face the day, knobby knees, ankle socks, and all.
sniffle
396. Frankster - 2/9/2001 12:16:22 PM
Adrianne, Deev:
The big age gap twixt my sister and I has provided me with kind of a peek at what you two are describing. I'm not a parent yet, but...
I remember when we sent her to some kind of camp for a week when she was about nine or ten years old, and seeing her tiny head barely make the edge of the Greyhound bus window as it pulled away. When she came back, I told her we had missed her, and I asked her if she had missed us and did she cry at all during her week away from us. Her response was this:
Nope, I wasn't like the other kids. They cried on the bus and a-a-a-a-l-l-l of the first day at camp ... I didn't cry until the third day...
(snif)
397. theDiva - 2/9/2001 12:19:49 PM
aaaaawwwwwww.......
398. Frankster - 2/9/2001 12:26:19 PM
Deev, Ad:
Let me add that by no means did I mean to imply that I know what it is actually like to be a fleah and blood parent of a son or daughter as you two have been describing, but with lil' sis, and all the neices and nephews here in town, I believe I have some teensy-weensy idea of what you guys might be talking about...I think.
399. Frankster - 2/9/2001 12:27:24 PM
fleah = FLESH
400. labwabbit - 2/9/2001 12:34:02 PM
This is for parents who, despite their best efforts, live in fear that someone(thing) else could undo those efforts it in a heartbeat, and yet still find the courage to teach independence.
401. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 1:16:14 PM
Ad, Deev, Frank et al...what a great group of posts to return to after meeting with a troubled teenager/freshman here at the University. Lab... your post comes strait from the LabWabbit heart...
402. theDiva - 2/9/2001 1:18:57 PM
Frankie
well, I figured as much.
Prof
Thanks. These guys have got me sniffling still.
403. Frankster - 2/9/2001 1:21:06 PM
PP,
I hope you were able to assist that teen ?
404. PsychProf - 2/9/2001 1:24:07 PM
Frank...maybe in the future, but what has happened cannot be changed. Now I will have to deal with anger, guilt, and subsequent emotion on the part of the parents.
405. theDiva - 2/9/2001 1:27:40 PM
that doesn't sound good.
406. Frankster - 2/9/2001 1:28:25 PM
Sounds pretty heavy, PP. I wish you the best in your efforts. I feel for everyone involved.
407. labwabbit - 2/9/2001 1:49:37 PM
Thanks PP.
Difficult to be a good teacher without involvement...yet involvement most always means difficult.
408. PsychProf - 2/11/2001 11:24:04 AM
NEW MEMBER FOR DRUG OF THE MONTH CLUB
409. PsychProf - 2/11/2001 11:29:10 AM
WHAT DO YA THINK MOTEHEADS?
click on image 
410. joezan - 2/11/2001 11:38:04 AM
PP:
Haven't read the entire thing yet (that's a long article), but it seems to me it's something that may be quite refreshing for the 1% of people possessed of both the means and the opportunity to do something like that, and whose children aren't too young.
411. PsychProf - 2/11/2001 11:44:23 AM
Sorry for the length of the file...I was hoping we might discuss the issues, especially in light of parenting effects...
412. joezan - 2/11/2001 11:48:24 AM
..like, perhaps it's a good idea to give our kids a break from us?
413. labwabbit - 2/11/2001 2:37:16 PM
PP
Forwarded that to "someone special" on your behalf. Insightful. Thanks for the link.
414. rubberducky - 2/12/2001 11:31:43 AM
so how are the parents of younger kids thinking (assuming they are) about handling the subject of drugs and/or sex with the young 'uns?
what's the right age?
415. JudithAtHome - 2/12/2001 11:37:36 AM
Judging from some of the stuff I've read lately in the paper, pre-K for both!
416. CalGal - 2/12/2001 11:38:01 AM
Drugs:
Younger--you tell them never ever ever ever to take anything that looks like a pill, even if someone tells you its candy.
Older--I think it depends. There are two schools of thought, generally. One school focuses on the safety of drug use; the other focuses on complete rejection of all drug use.
417. theDiva - 2/12/2001 11:40:30 AM
marriage sabbatical ain't for me. I can't get enough of my family.
sniffle
418. PsychProf - 2/12/2001 12:55:03 PM
Joe and Diva...thanks for responding to my link...it's a heated topic among faculty and students here.
419. theDiva - 2/12/2001 1:02:37 PM
Prof
I want to read it when I have a bit more time because my immediate reaction is not positive or based on having read the entire article. But first impression is what I posted previously. Even with all the aggravation and compromise and stresses of daily life, I wouldn't want to leave my beloveds for any length of time. I miss them when I'm at work, for Godsake. Maybe I'm just a psycho.
420. theDiva - 2/12/2001 1:05:06 PM
speaking of whom, I've got to scoot. Gracie is in a spelling bee at 2.
421. PsychProf - 2/12/2001 1:06:35 PM
Haha...sabbatical that.
422. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 1:48:50 PM
Hurummmph...
423. Shannon - 2/12/2001 1:55:50 PM
I gave the article a quick, not terribly thorough read. I really can't relate to the women featured. Maybe I'm just bitchy (g), but I don't have such a hard time getting things done when I need to. Now, I can't focus on my own stuff all the time. But I can certainly do it often enough that I don't need to get away from my family for 3 months a year.
And I'd have a hard time being away for more than a week or so, I think. I've gone on a couple of solo trips for 4-5 days, which was fine. I could do a week or so with hubby and no kids. But any longer than that, and I think I'd be ready to see the kids again.
424. CalGal - 2/12/2001 2:37:38 PM
Has anyone seen--or heard of--the documentary, Sound and Fury?
It is about two deaf parents who refuse to allow their deaf five year old daughter the opportunity to get cochlear implants because they feel that she is better off deaf. They also disown the father's hearing brother because he and his wife opt for cochlear implants for their young infant (18 months).
Repugnant story, really. "Deaf culture" is a spooky thing. The father was delighted that all three of his children were born deaf--it's better that way.
The health issue: for now, cochlear implants aren't a completely sure thing, but if you install them in young children (the younger the better) they have reading and comprehension skills equal to hearing kids. Whereas the average deaf adult can't read at the fourth grade level. The risk for faillure is relatively low, but the procedure does completely disconnect the existing hearing mechanism completely, so if it doesn't work you won't be able to use hearing aids or anything else that comes along later. On the other hand, once a pre-lingual deaf person gets past childhood, their brain doesn't seem to be able to make sense of sound, so the odds of success are extremely low.
But I'm more interested in the parenting issue: assume, for the moment, that the technology of cochlear implants improves so that a deaf infant will be given a near certain chance of growing up as a hearing person. Should their parents have the right to deny them the surgery?
425. arkymalarky - 2/12/2001 5:48:38 PM
I didn't want to say since I only skimmed it, but that article bugged me. When does her husband get to take his sabbatical?
426. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 5:51:13 PM
arky....
when she takes hers!
heh-heh
427. JudithAtHome - 2/12/2001 5:52:49 PM
I wondered about that, too, Arky...I guess it's assumed they never want or need one.
428. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 5:53:28 PM
probably helps her pack...
429. arkymalarky - 2/12/2001 5:55:16 PM
Message # 426
Hahaha.
430. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:47:41 AM
Well, the kid won the spelling bee, so it's on to the Diocesan competition.
But quite honestly, I have never been so proud of Gracie as I was when she stopped the runner-up from leaving the stage (by gently placing her hand on the girl's arm), extended her hand for a shake, and said 'good job, thanks.'
Sabbatical, schmatical.
431. joezan - 2/13/2001 5:50:53 AM
Congrats to Gracie!
432. Shannon - 2/13/2001 8:21:34 AM
That's great, Diva. She sounds like a good kid.
433. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 9:01:48 AM
434. theDiva - 2/13/2001 9:03:35 AM
thanks, guys. She is a constant source of joy for me.
435. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 10:01:48 AM
That's great, Diva. You must have been so proud.
Cal, if my child was born deaf and there was a surgery that would correct it, I would go for it. I would agree that it's child abuse to not have it corrected, if it can be.
436. CalGal - 2/13/2001 10:15:11 AM
Congrats to Gracie!!!!
Erin,
The separatist "deaf culture" is spooky. This is probably a language issue, but it is interesting how the only disability that has formed a culture is the one that also has a separate form of communication.
437. jonesatlaw - 2/13/2001 10:21:07 AM
Congras Gracie. The handshake for the runner up is as wonderful as the win. She is well named, for winning with Grace is just about the highest aspiration one can have, isn't it?
438. jonesatlaw - 2/13/2001 10:22:45 AM
err, "congrats" to Gracie. Sheesh, compliment a spelling bee winner with a mispelled word!
439. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 10:26:50 AM
I don't know anything about the deaf culture. I don't, however, think it's wrong to develop a method of communication that is different from the spoken word, if the spoken word is not available to you.
440. mgleason - 2/13/2001 10:48:17 AM
In reading the discussion on Sound and Fury, one thing that worried me was the reluctance to explore the father's reasons for deciding against cochlear implants for his daughter. It bothers me that there is such a strong sense of it being Not the Done Thing to criticize his isolationist stance. The idea that the it is OK to refuse the implants on behalf of his child because they foster 'genocide,' the destruction of the deaf culture, is frightening and deeply selfish.
441. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:12:51 AM
MGleason,
Crippling your child deliberately? Well, that's just parental choice--and besides, it's not like being deaf is being disabled. Some people like being deaf. To say otherwise is to admit that you're prejudiced against deafness. Of course, ask those same deaf parents what they would do if their kid were born blind and there were a cure--they wouldn't hesitate.
And I found several deaf sites that refer to the "decimation" of the deaf population by such atrocities as...cures or reduction of childhood illnesses.
Sound and Fury--here's the PBS website.
If cochlear implant's success rate is ever validated, I wonder if mandated reporting of deaf infants will come next.
442. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 11:22:43 AM
I'm home sick today. Baby is sick too, so I can't drop him off at the sitter's and try to get some work done. But I'm having fun slapping around a drinking mama in MWT.
I love parenthood.
443. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:29:18 AM
I read that exchange--if you note, I said right off she was a drunk. (I'd already seen her posts in Women and Alcohol).
444. mgleason - 2/13/2001 11:30:53 AM
I'm looking forward to seeing the film. The Times has a good review, In the World of the Deaf, Hearing Poses Dangers:
"Sound and Fury" is asking some big questions. In a socially aware culture, people profess to believe that no skin color, religion, sexual orientation, political ideology, chronological age or physical attribute is superior to another. They say that differences should be celebrated; thus the corporate buzzword of the moment, diversity.
Are the deaf parents in this film calling the culture's bluff? Or is a physical disadvantage truly something that should be celebrated? Do parents have a right to keep their children at a remove from the hearing world just because, in their opinion and experience, deaf is beautiful? Have we gone so far in our fear of offending anyone that we now advocate disadvantages' being deliberately preserved? Or do the hearing- impaired have a right to rear their children within a somewhat separatist subculture? The Amish have been doing that for quite a while.
445. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 11:33:12 AM
Looks like she's leaving now...at least she says she is.
I hadn't seen the posts in Women and Alcohol before I started posting. It really looks like she's had her eye-opener this morning and decided it might be fun to post in MWT. Kind of an on-line version of drunk dialing.
I've heard of dwarves who feel that prenatal testing will decimate their numbers.
446. JudithAtHome - 2/13/2001 11:34:22 AM
that refer to the "decimation"
But wouldn't that be only reducing it by a tenth?
Sorry, couldn't resist...I know this is a serious discussion; carry on.
447. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 11:35:58 AM
Maria...you not only can look forward to seeing it, but hearing it also.
448. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:36:21 AM
MGleason,
The reviews were astonishingly unanimous--it was an excellent movie, and they all wanted to kill the father.
449. CalGal - 2/13/2001 11:40:07 AM
I've heard of dwarves who feel that prenatal testing will decimate their numbers.
No doubt it would--and given that this involves abortion, I can understand their revulsion. It is hard to realize that your parents would most likely have chosen to abort you, which is quite different from a parent opting to "cure" you.
But you are right that the principle is the same.
I can't imagine finding this sentiment in the blind or wheelchair bound population, can you?
450. mgleason - 2/13/2001 11:42:42 AM
Yes, I can, Prof, but if I were deaf, I wouldn't deny my children the chance to hear just to validate my own condition.
451. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 11:45:14 AM
No, I can't. I would think having all your parts working would be most desirable.
452. CalGal - 2/13/2001 12:23:35 PM
You know, that last statement of yours seems to be the sticking point. The deaf find it offensive--and many of them would apparently resist giving their child "working parts" because it offends them to think that deafness is a disability, ie, something isn't "working".
Where do parental rights end?
453. theDiva - 2/13/2001 12:56:26 PM
Thanks, gang, for your good wishes and congrats to Gracie. I'm so pleased she's riding this wave of accomplishments right now...science fair, honor band, and now spelling bee...her second quarter report card wasn't quite her usual stellar performance because she missed so much school due to illness, and she took it rather hard. The honors are boosting her self confidence and it's reflected in her weekly grades.
454. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 1:02:52 PM
I don't think deaf people in general have any idea what it's like to be hearing, so to them, it may not be a disability. I agree that parents should not be allowed to keep their children from having their disability fixed, if there is a definite way to do it.
455. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:18:26 PM
Perhaps I am ignorant of this issue because I'm not deaf, or I'm just politically incorrect at heart, because I cannot fathom how anyone could think it desirable to leave their child deaf when the option to do otherwise is available. I just don't get it.
456. sakonige - 2/13/2001 1:20:46 PM
Kids are so much more enjoyable when you are not a parent. Even the most annoying kids' and their parents are a lot easier to get along with as someone who doesn't live with children. I just have to be careful to not smile too much.
457. CalGal - 2/13/2001 1:27:30 PM
Deev,
They resent the notion that being deaf is any sort of a disability. (I haven't noticed this resentment extending to a rejection of the ADA, however).
458. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:33:09 PM
Cal
They only think that because they've never heard Ella Fitzgerald sing 'Misty'. Seriously. I cannot imagine life without music or the sound of my beloved's voice or even a thunderstorm. It must be awful, but of course if you haven't had something how can you miss it?
459. CalGal - 2/13/2001 1:36:44 PM
Diva,
But can you imagine a blind person saying they'd rather not see? A crippled person saying they're fine without their legs?
I think it must be deafness and the fact that they have a language that allows some of them to become...well, delusional, for lack of a better word. I mean, when someone says, "It's only your opinion that deafness is a disability, not reality!" you know you're dealing with people with a serious skew.
This is actually a big divide among deaf people themselves. Many of them are "normal", in that they accept it as a disability.
460. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:39:23 PM
Gosh, no! I truly cannot fathom this attitude.
461. theDiva - 2/13/2001 1:41:11 PM
If nothing else, just in terms of physical vulnerability, why would anyone not want their child to be able to hear? Crossing the street...walking down the sidewalk...hearing a fire alarm in a crowded building....shudder
462. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 2:45:56 PM
I think it's fine for people with no other way to communicate to develop a means to communicate. That doesn't bother me. But suggesting that not being able to hear isn't a disability is just plain stupid.
463. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 4:03:20 PM
Erin...who sez that?
464. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:06:30 PM
People who think of themselves as Deaf rather than deaf. Didn't you see my post above? A father who was relieved that his children were born deaf, disowned a brother who chose cochlear implants for his child, and denied his own child cochlear implants because he wanted her to remain deaf.
And this is by no means unusual. "Deaf culture" is very odd.
465. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:07:19 PM
There's a conversation in MWT on Table Talk. Haven't been following it that closely, but from what CalGal is posting, this is what some deaf people are saying.
466. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:15:08 PM
Here are some of the choicer comments--some made by deaf people, some by hearing--keep in mind that I had expressed the POV that deaf parents who deliberately kept their child deaf were abusive and that I hoped eventually legislation would make this illegal.
I feel the same way about fundamentalists raising children, but it doesn't make them evil or sick. I personally don't like it, but that's my opinion. IMO, fundamentalists are also crippling their children, making it difficult for them to live and get along with others in this world, but that doesn't mean they should lose their children. ...Period. Deafness is not like leprosy or cancer; it will not kill the child if it isn't "fixed".
So... this is much like a black man only wanting a black woman to have children with, because he believes that being black is better than being white, even though black people suffer all sorts of racism and problems.
The man is not a monster because he is not rushing to cure his daughter of her deafness. His deafness to him is as natural as your curly hair is to you, it is another feature of his very being.
Not every deaf person views their deafness as disabling, it is a difficult concept for hearing people to grasp but nonetheless it exists. ...And passing on deafness, is no more abusive than passing on sickle cell or any other genetic disorder. It's a part of life.
and my personal favorite:
It is so ethnocentric as to say that hearing is the best.
467. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 4:16:00 PM
I have taught hearing disabled students(not deaf), and there are laws(Federal Disability Act) requiring certain accommodations for the classroom, and for my teaching. Hence my assumption that loss of a sense system implies disability, both legally and in practice.
468. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:20:07 PM
Jaysus.
469. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:20:55 PM
I find it irritating when people want to compare everything to being black. It's stupid.
470. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:20:57 PM
Well, yes. One would think.
What are the current laws on Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists keeping their kids from medical treatment these days?
471. Shannon - 2/13/2001 4:21:15 PM
Well, CalGal. You can guess what I think, since I'm one of your cronies.
472. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:23:52 PM
Sorry, my 470 was in response to PP's post--you all snuck in.
Erin--I think the Times article Maria linked in above points that out. We've gotten to the point of trying to create an "equivalency" for everything. Hence black and deaf become identical in the cry for tolerance.
473. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:23:57 PM
I love this one:
"So... this is much like a black man only wanting a black woman to have children with, because he believes that being black is better than being white, even though black people suffer all sorts of racism and problems."
Let me guess...the author of this particular gem is not a black male.
474. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:25:12 PM
Oops--should have put quotes around "tolerance".
Shannon, yes, I saw you in there. I just found it incredibly abusive. If you read the reviews of the movie, they are all pretty unanimous. One guy said he waanted to throw a brick at the dad.
Another reviewer pointed out that he saw it with deaf people and noticed that they laughed and applauded at entirely different places--suggesting that they were sympathetic with the father.
475. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:25:24 PM
I didn't realize that CalGal had cronies!
476. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:26:40 PM
Diva,
You are correct. She is hearing and probably white. She was much displeased with my "intolerance"--after all, it's not like deafness is a disease!
477. theDiva - 2/13/2001 4:28:06 PM
God save me from 'tolerant' white folks.
478. PsychProf - 2/13/2001 4:30:31 PM
Erin...nonsense. I am one of Calgals favorite cronies.
479. Shannon - 2/13/2001 4:31:44 PM
Erin,
According to some people she does. I guess they think she emails people offline and tells them what to say. Oh, and CalGal, I got an annoying-as-hell comment about my tagline the other day. I think I'm going to keep it forever now. Good way to ward off people who are still mentally in junior high, I've decided.
Oh, and good point about equivilancy in #472. I see lots of annoying claims along those lines.
480. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:34:57 PM
I like to think of myself as a CalGal Pal, not exactly a crony, though.
481. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:35:32 PM
Deev,
What was really frightening about the whole conversation was that it reinforced the dichotomy that the movie was addressing--that deaf people really will, if given the option, choose to disable their children. I'm sure not all of them will, but the ones who feel a part of "deaf culture" will.
I can't remember if I linked in the MSNBC piece on the movie--of 300 children who had cochlear implant surgery at this particular hospital, only two of them had deaf parents. And apparently it isn't all that uncommon for deaf parents to have deaf children.
482. CalGal - 2/13/2001 4:37:06 PM
I love CalGal Pal. Someone else used to use that term--or I came up with it as a joke.
483. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 4:40:07 PM
I am having fun channeling you in the drunken mama thread. And you are quite restrained, I have to say.
484. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:00:53 PM
Well, as a general rule, I take the hardline if no one else is doing it. But if someone else is willing to go for it, I will often stand back and watch. Also, I'm trying hard to not say what I think of the mother of a 13 year old who gobbles Prozac and gulps down three tumblers of wine (with ice) in two hours.
Don't get me wrong--there is a lot of addiction in my family, and I am extremely sympathetic to the problems of addiction. But there is something about being conscious enough to blabber on about it but not willing to do something about it that I just find very upsetting. The self-absorption is complete, and I just feel for the kid.
485. Erin R. - 2/13/2001 5:06:07 PM
I'm also finding it upsetting. I feel for that kid and am glad I don't put my child through that bullshit.
486. janjon - 2/13/2001 5:06:55 PM
I am sure I misread that post the first time. You are saying it is the mother who guzzles the prozac etc., not the 13 year old, right?
487. Shannon - 2/13/2001 5:08:15 PM
Erin, I think you're channeling quite well.
Janjon, it is the mother.
488. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 5:12:24 PM
I'm appalled at the lack of PC here. We all know that people are not deaf but hearing-impaired. Or, if stone-deaf, severely hearing-impaired.
As so many other things in today's social debate the question at hand is based on a garbled and mis-applied understanding of postmodernist thought. It is probably true that being deaf gives you a unique view of the world, a unique "standpoint" in the lingo. One can develop an ideology around that but the wish to have one's children share it by force of denying them treatment is perverse.
489. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:12:56 PM
Ack.
Yes, Jan, it's the mother.
Periodically, at TT, someone will open a thread describing a completely outrageous problem, that reveals far more about a person than you wish to know--and for some reason, they are usually parents. In this case, this woman wanted to know why the cops came down on her so hard. After all, it was a party of 13 year olds that had become incredibly disruptive, and when they wanted to speak to the adult in charge they were not pleased to see that she was drunk.
She wanted to know what other mothers did about their drinking habits. Because, of course, everyone has to choose between getting blotto every night and being a good parent--so how do others handle it?
490. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:14:41 PM
Incidentally, I'm referring to TT conversations because they bring up interesting parenting issues that seem relevant here, not because it's a chance to dish about TT.
Pelle,
I wonder if there is "deaf culture" in Sweden?
491. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 5:37:09 PM
CalGal
Having read this I wonder too, but I doubt it. Not because of Swedes being more rational (although we are) but because of arithmetics. The US is such a large country that even a very small percentage of wackos translates into a significant number of people.
492. CalGal - 2/13/2001 5:46:29 PM
Is it possible to do a web search on "deaf culture" and Sweden in Swedish? It'd be interesting to see.
493. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 5:47:36 PM
I'll do that, but tomorrow.
494. ChristinO - 2/13/2001 8:02:26 PM
No one would take seriously the plaints of a "redneck" who wanted to keep his children illiterate so as not to lose his rural cultural identity. There are laws against it even.
When will people learn that children are not posessions and NO ONE has a "right" to them?
495. joezan - 2/13/2001 9:54:45 PM
Update on The Nosy School Counselor drama:
Yesterday, our daughter came home from school and told us that the counselor had taken her out of her class, to talk more about her traumatic incident of two years ago, wherein her pants were pulled down by the two little kids across the street, who were 5 & 3 at the time.
In my first post on this, I think I mentioned that I told her to leave my daughter alone about this.
So you can imagine how pissed my wife and I were that she had deliberately defied our wishes. We talked, and decided that I would be the one to confront this woman, as I had had prior contact, and because my wife might strangle her. Of course, it was to late to do anything yesterday, and today I was scheduled to attend a conference 30 miles away, all day.
And I didn't want to do this over the phone.
And, the counselor doesn't work tomorrow. So, I'm left to stew on this for 2 more days.
I get to the conference, which is huge - 650 people. After listening to an opening speech, we follow our numbered, lettered nametags to our assigned groups - 20 different groups of around 30 people, to discuss ways to combat racism in our community.
I arrive at my assigned classroom at Hope College, and we split again into two smaller groups, of about 15.
Now, when I registered three weeks ago, I requested the Law and Government group, natch. But no. Someone screwed up, and I get stuck in the Education group.
And, after we break out into our small groups, I look around and see, sitting straight across from me, is the school counselor.
Who says there is no God?
496. PelleNilsson - 2/14/2001 4:27:48 AM
CalGal
The teram "deaf culture" exists in Swedidh but it seems to be used in the traditional manner, that is sign language, theater and so on. One Swedish site has links to American ones. Some are bizarre, e.g. "Deaf Lesbian Resources on Line".
To illustrate my point about numbers: There is a semi-official association for the deaf. It has 700 members, which is probably the vast majority of deaf people in Sweden. If we scale that up to the US level we get some 22,000 people. That's enough for various subcultures to develop supported by the Internet.
497. Laura C - 2/14/2001 9:30:41 AM
"Oh, and CalGal, I got an annoying-as-hell comment about my tagline the other day. I think I'm going to keep it forever now. Good way to ward off people who are still mentally in junior high, I've decided."
Shannon, I saw that and was appalled. The willful oh-no-not-US! obtuseness in that thread is amazing, as is the apparent belief that if you're not posting, you can't see what they're saying.
"No one would take seriously the plaints of a "redneck" who wanted to keep his children illiterate so as not to lose his rural cultural identity. There are laws against it even."
So what's the difference between the redneck and the Amish farmer?
498. PsychProf - 2/14/2001 9:32:07 AM
Pennsylvania.
499. Shannon - 2/14/2001 9:57:41 AM
Amazing obtuseness, indeed, Laura. Oh well, all the more reason to spend more time here.
So what happened with the counselor, joezan? You lived to tell the tale--did she?
500. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:21:35 AM
speaking of incredibly stupid people in other online forums...
this woman on a Stepfamilies board posted a lengthy rant about her husband and his 10 y.o. daughter, how annoyed she was over the fact that he visited with the child 2x a week, that they talk on the phone every day, and the child cries because she misses her father. She thinks they ought to 'get on with their lives'.
So I did something I never do. I bitch slapped her. God, I feel good.
501. CalGal - 2/14/2001 11:28:42 AM
What's horrible is that there are so many men who would be encouraged to do exactly what she wants--by the courts, no less. Just give the mom the money, Dad. All you are is a wallet.
It's tragic that what she complains about is exactly what Ad's husband dreams about.
502. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:40:04 AM
It seems that's exactly what she wants...for him to have as little involvement as possible in this child's life. I lectured her rather strongly on how blessed she was to be married to such a man because it indicated how committed a father he'd be to their own child (she's pregnant.) And would you believe the selfish wench has a 4 y.o. son?
'Get on with her life' indeed.
503. PsychProf - 2/14/2001 11:42:59 AM
Diva and CalGal...you are exactly right...and ya gotta love the Nickname "The Wallet" for any male...
504. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:44:01 AM
Psych 'The Wallet' Prof
505. PsychProf - 2/14/2001 11:47:28 AM
Hahaha....
506. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:55:46 AM
I want to talk more about that marriage sabbatical article. I read it the other night and quite honestly found it very difficult to get all the way through, seeing as how I was continually stopping to yell at my computer screen.
It was almost as if the author was suspended in the same mental/emotional state as she was when she was a college junior...seeking her 'self' and not wanting to have to attend to the needs of her family. What I feel she missed out on was the golden opportunity that marriage (good marriage) and parenting gives one to look outside oneself towards a greater good, and just how rewarding that can be.
Example, as I mentioned earlier when Gracie shook the hand of her opponent in the spelling bee. Nothing I have ever done in my professional life has given me as much satisfaction as my daughter's simple gesture. It showed me that I am doing something right and I am succeeding as a parent. What greater vocation could I possibly have? What more creative endeavor could I possibly undertake? AFAIC, a satisfying, fulfilling life is not about me, me, me...and that seems to be the opposite of what that woman was saying. As I read her whining about playing tennis even though she didn't enjoy it, I thought 'my God, what an upper middle class conundrum. Get some real problems, lady.'
Anyway, just some random thoughts.
507. Erin R. - 2/14/2001 11:56:41 AM
Oh...where is this infamous board? I'm finding lately that I enjoy (watching) a good slapping around.
508. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:58:18 AM
Erin
e-mail me at jazzdeev@yahoo.com and I'll supply the link. I post there under my RL name and I don't want to link in here.
509. theDiva - 2/14/2001 11:59:14 AM
Incidentally, there is very much a 'you go girl' feeling to this board, plus I am generally too nice, so the bitch-slapping there is practically nonexistent and the one I administered was gentle by Mote standards.
510. theDiva - 2/14/2001 12:01:19 PM
Yippee! Hubby is here for our Valentine's day luncheon...later....
511. joezan - 2/14/2001 3:46:10 PM
Shannon - Message # 499:
So what happened with the counselor, joezan?
Oh, she gave me some very weak explanation about being "required" to get "closure" after an initial contact. I am more convinced than ever, though, that her real purpose in all of this was to pump my daughter for info on the other two kids. I listened to her politely, then told her that we have some philosophical differences, and seeing as there was no crime committed, she has no right to talk to my daughter any further in the absence of my permission to do so. I made her agree that she would never approach my daughter again on anything having to do with this incident.
I hope that's the end of it.
512. sakonige - 2/14/2001 6:46:35 PM
In every community, it does happen that some of the most intelligent and innovative youth are alienated from mainstream educational institutions. In a wealthy community, these kids are provided with education tailored to their inclinations, such as homeschooling, private acadamies, or programs for gifted students. In a very poor community, they often just drop out of school. I've noticed that remedial classes in very poor communities may contain both extremes of the most capable and the least capable students.
What a privilege it is to see the light of epiphany shine in a young person's eyes. Nothing I could have done as an engineer could have ever had the impact of pointing out the fundamental concepts of algebra and calculus to a few ragged American Indian kids. Looking into their eyes, I've finally become an adult.
513. arkymalarky - 2/14/2001 7:39:02 PM
Diva, I could only skim that article it bugged me so, but didn't I read right that the idiot had five kids? It would seem that she must be stupid beyond words to be realizing this late in the game that she needs her "space." She needs to take a sabbatica--dumped in the middle of some third world hut, imo.
514. arkymalarky - 2/14/2001 7:43:23 PM
Good for you, Sakonige--and for the kids too. I think people would be amazed at some of the truly intelligent and even brilliant kids who are buried in mediocre surroundings and never really do anything to indicate to the world at large what's there. To see it willfully done while parents stand by, especially to watch kids give up and change attitudes over a period of years from 7th through 12th grades, is one of the most frustrating parts of being a teacher, but seeing kids rise above their circumstances and do well when literally no one at home is rooting for them or helping them is great.
515. wonkers2 - 2/14/2001 9:15:01 PM
sakonige, I don't disagree with you, except to say that even in rich communities a fair number of the kids are alienated, underachievers, cheaters, drug and alcohol users. I'm not sure why that is. Lots of reasons I guess--single parent households, parents who drink too much, parents who put too much pressure for success on their children, parents who ignore their children, parents who are too permissive or too controlling, and high schools that are three times as big as they should be. I have something of a feel for such kids from my own three and from my wife's experience as a math tutor for the past 15 years or so. You wouldn't believe the tales the kids tell her about life in a large and supposedly excellent suburban high school. Of course, I'm not suggesting that conditions are not much better than in most inner city Detroit High Schools. They have all the above problems plus poverty, discrimination, parental drug addiction, etc.
And Arky, sometimes parents just stand by because they are at a loss for what to do. I went to parent-teacher conferences religiously for many years and did everything but beat one of my kids to get him to do his homework--cajolery, threats, rewards, recognition, withholding car privileges, counseling, etc. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do about an underachieving, alienated teenager. One of ours was a National Merit semi-finalist who cut lots of classes during his junior and senior years, got lousy grades and barely got into a not-so-good college. Once he got away from home he did well academically and graduated from a first rate law school. I don't know the answer--it must have had to do with family dynamics/peer influence/the school.
516. arkymalarky - 2/14/2001 9:27:01 PM
I agree, Wonk, and in fact I was that type of student--though not nearly so extreme in either intelligence or slacking--in high school. My daughter, otoh, is very self-motivated and driven, excepting a small and rather typical junior high school slump.
I'm thinking of kids whose parents aren't there for their kids at all--not just wrt what teachers see in their kids' education.
I've posted about her more than once in here, but I always think of one of my top seniors from a few years back whose dad remarried, after being divorced from her mother who left the kids with him, to a lady not much older than his daughter, then telling her she had to find somewhere else to live. She was 18 and really had very few options, but lived with friends, worked her ass off, and put herself through college, all with a great attitude. I've had lots of kids who were pretty much on their own by the time they were juniors at least, but she always stands out to me. I don't know where she is now or what she's doing. I need to try to find out.
517. labwabbit - 2/14/2001 9:30:53 PM
it bugged me so, but didn't I read right that the idiot had five kids? It would seem that she must be stupid beyond words to be realizing this late in the game that she needs her "space."
Arky,
I came up with a different solution than you, but every other sense was basically the same.
Talk about your "victimization/pity" syndrome. Not hard to imagine her being a single mother, no less a bad one.
518. wonkers2 - 2/14/2001 9:36:44 PM
It's a mystery. I know from my children's experience and my own experience that there is a certain amount of luck, good or bad, involved. An outstanding teacher or two or other adult who take an interest in a child can make a tremendous difference. The child I mentioned above simply wasn't very interested in any of his high school classes, except for English--he read whatever he could get his hands on novels, magazines, newspapers. So, he was learning a fair amount, but not from his classes.
519. labwabbit - 2/14/2001 10:15:43 PM
Message # 515
Wonkers
Good piece. There is no magical formulae to get identical results from two different individuals. The description of your child who was a National-Merit semi-finalist rings a the bell of wonder for me in relation to my son and daughter. Both National Honor Society inductees, both lettered and captained in varsity teams, both were registered tutors, both for math and history, both in band and marching band, (son was in State Honors and New England All Honors Program). Son was accepted to 3 great universities...MIT was one; daughter wasn't sure about what direction she wanted. Son after graduation from HS, got hooked up with present day wife (whom he met in State band)...and chose the Air Force!!! ('bout shit myself). Daughter got into a mediocre college (started toward Veterinarian work, changed to EDU, then settled in Biology...but is now a soon to (under)graduate Environmental Biology - minoring in math & philosophy.... and who has so many doors being offered and opened to her for her work, that the sky is the limit. (If asked 4 years ago...my prediction wouldn't have been close...for either.) In fact she is presently on a research project trip to New Mexico as we speak...left Monday.
Ya never know what lurks in the hearts of each person. Even when you think you know them better than they do.
520. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 9:52:35 AM
Coupla thoughts...Lab...MIT! I wonder if people understand what an accomplishment that is. In any case, your son chose what he wanted to do. So did your daughter. So did you...We can't control all that happens to our children. We can provide a parental model(talk about time and commitment!!) for them to see and incorporate... for what we want them to be and be like.
521. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 10:00:28 AM
I put this up at the SportsBar, but I thought it relevant here as well...sorry if it is a spam for you.
"I think what he meant to say was that he didn't know the spelling of her last name," Rudolf said. "When he was at Lamaze class, that came up."
click on photo 
522. CalGal - 2/15/2001 11:39:41 AM
Goes to show again that dads ought to be able to have a "paper abortion".
523. theDiva - 2/15/2001 12:27:31 PM
then there's always
1. use a condom
or
2. keep it in the pants (a shocking concept, I know.)
524. CalGal - 2/15/2001 12:38:06 PM
Diva,
One can say the same thing about the right to an abortion for women. In fact, I recall that was the argument against it. Still is.
Fact is that men and women can behave equally irreponsibly. Only women have the ability to opt out of being a parent.
525. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 12:44:58 PM
My son has something wrong with him. Trying to get through to the doc.
526. CalGal - 2/15/2001 12:46:05 PM
Oh, no. What's the matter?
527. Shannon - 2/15/2001 12:46:39 PM
What's wrong, Erin?
528. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 12:50:13 PM
Re-posted from MWT:
I picked the baby up last night as he lay on the floor sucking a bottle, and transported him to another room. After finishing his bottle, he got up and started walking around with a noticeable limp. All evening. But he doesn't seem to be in any pain. My husband thinks I broke the baby.
Update: He is still limping this morning, has weakness in the leg, and is having trouble staying balanced. And he's really cranky.
God, I hope nothing is wrong!
529. theDiva - 2/15/2001 12:53:57 PM
Erin
Is his leg swollen or red anywhere?
530. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 12:57:16 PM
No. We probed him all night long looking for sore spots. I thought maybe I had dislocated something when I picked him up, but he's not in any pain. There's just a bit of weakness, and he's not really straightening the affected leg.
531. theDiva - 2/15/2001 1:00:00 PM
Hm. That's unusual, but if he's not in any pain then I doubt anything could be broken. Maybe he had a cramp or something in that leg and is now favoring it out of fear of the pain. They will do that sometimes.
532. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:01:39 PM
He's dragging the leg a bit. I'm worried.
533. theDiva - 2/15/2001 1:02:19 PM
Did you get through to the ped? When do they see him?
534. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:04:46 PM
I left a message for my husband to be called at home, or for me to be called at work. About 15 minutes ago.
Time to call and harrass.
535. theDiva - 2/15/2001 1:10:07 PM
pushy is good in these circumstances. Good luck...
536. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:11:40 PM
I wish I had my Mayo clinic baby book with me.
537. CalGal - 2/15/2001 1:32:37 PM
Erin,
Just off the web, obviously.
Leg Pain and Limping:
Toddler's fracture: this is a common cause of limping in younger children and it involves a fracture of one of the bones in the lower part of the leg (tibia) that can occur after a simple fall. Although your child may complain of pain and refuse to walk, there is usually minimal redness or swelling around the fracture, and so it can make this type of fracture difficult to diagnosis, but it should be suspected in children aged 2 - 4 years of age who refuse to walk or who are irritable.
538. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 1:35:36 PM
Not to alarm you, but have a doctor check the baby. Now. Go.
539. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 1:43:34 PM
But he doesn't have any pain. None. I don't want to fly into a panic over nothing--I'm trying to get through to the doctor's office.
540. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 1:57:42 PM
Don't fly into a panic. Act responsibly as you now are by calling the doctor's office, recount what you've seen, and express your concern. You're a mother concerned over her child - that should get you in to see the doc real fast. Insist so.
541. janjon - 2/15/2001 1:59:09 PM
Ditto.
Definitely a time to err on the side of caution.
542. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 2:13:47 PM
Doctor's office has no more appointments--is advising trip to the ER.
543. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:16:57 PM
Take their advice. I sense and can appreciate the reluctance. But, much better to be a bit "embarrassed" (but mostly relieved) if they tell you that there is nothing wrong than run the risk that there is something that needs attention.
544. joezan - 2/15/2001 2:17:50 PM
Ditto. Check for a hernia, too.
545. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 2:19:13 PM
I doubt if anyone at the emergency room will laugh at a mother's concern, nor would they think a mother's concern for her baby misplaced.
546. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:22:01 PM
And, shame on that doctor's office. A regular appointment is one thing, but a baffling situation is another.
547. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 2:28:46 PM
Well, Janjon, since you brought it up... I agree entirely. I'd go to the emergency room, solve that problem, and then find another pediatrician to solve the other problem.
548. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 2:30:27 PM
Diva, easy to say, hard to do.
549. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 2:32:46 PM
Keeping it in one's pants, that is.
550. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:33:30 PM
Loar. Yep.
551. CalGal - 2/15/2001 2:35:00 PM
The one thing that worries me, and I freely admit this is paranoia:
ERs have mandated reporting requirements and if Erin's little guy has a broken leg, no matter how common it is, it may have to get sent to CPS.
Worse yet, I wonder if that is why the ped's office sent her there. Because I agree that it is very odd for them not to tell her to bring him right in.
As I said, it is probably paranoia on my part. But damn CPS anyway for making me wonder about it.
552. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 2:38:55 PM
Take care of it through the ER and then get a new Ped...very unusual behavior on the part of the Ped.
553. Shannon - 2/15/2001 2:43:43 PM
I second getting a new ped. That's very odd.
554. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:45:52 PM
What is CPS? Some California state agency from which I deduce that Erin is in California?
555. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 2:45:57 PM
I didn't talk to the ped, only the nurse. They are not really equipped to deal with kiddie emergencies--only Children's Memorial here in Chicago is. So it's likely that they would send me there anyway.
I'm not worried about DCFS--it's not like he's covered in bruises.
Wrapping things up and rescheduling meetings. Should be out of here in a few minutes.
556. janjon - 2/15/2001 2:47:18 PM
Good for you, Erin.
Remember to take a book (um, or two) and whatever it is that will most easily pacify the kid. ERs can be frustrating.
557. CalGal - 2/15/2001 2:49:22 PM
Absolutely on the books. ERs make me nuts. Hurry up and wait. I've always told Spawn that the only way he and I are going to an ER is if he's sick enough that I know he'll get in first.
I think a leg problem on a toddler would qualify. Poor sweetie. Good luck.
558. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 2:54:26 PM
I'm anxious jest reading here...
559. Erin R. - 2/15/2001 3:00:17 PM
I'm replicating e-mail and taking my laptop. And probably board books and toys for him.
560. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 3:12:04 PM
Flask of Merlot...
561. CalGal - 2/15/2001 3:38:48 PM
I had a problem with Spawn last night. We went to Frys to pick up some new things, had a burger for dinner, just had a wonderful evening. Got home at 7:30, he had a Roman Civ test to study for. The test wasn't until Friday, but I told him he could spend two days prepping for it (part of the new austerity program). He asked if he could go online and I said no, not until he was done studying.
As I'm sure you've guessed, fifteen minutes later I picked up the phone to use it and lo! I got the crackles and whines. Kid disobeyed me. BLATANTLY. Utterly infuriating, especially since this wasn't even a slideby (well, you never said I couldn't go online, Mom!) but a total disregard.
Obviously, he loses the computer--and when he gets it back, it will have all of his programs uninstalled, the parental monitor set to the harshest standard, and so on.
But the problem was that I yelled at him for a good five minutes, purely because I was livid at the disobedience. I'm getting better overall at the yelling, but it remains my parental weakness.
When he was much younger, I instituted timeouts for disobedience or troublemaking. They did very well at cutting down on my yelling. I knew that I had made him miserable, he'd sit quietly, knowing that if he didn't he'd get more, and I didn't have to yell.
I realized last night that I yell because it is in and of itself a punishment, to me, and that if I want to get out of the habit I have to come up with a early teenage equivalent of a timeout. Not a restriction or a grounding--I can do those, but they don't have the instant gratification of knowing I have made the child miserable for daring to disregard She Who Must Be Obeyed.
562. CalGal - 2/15/2001 3:38:53 PM
So I'm trying to think of an immediate consequence that I can just say, "GO! DO!" and walk away, knowing that he's miserably doing the equivalent of a timeout, satisfied that suitable immediate discomfort has been inflicted without my raising my voice or being too hurtful.
I am thinking of the tedium of writing lines. "Disregarding She Who Must Be Obeyed Has Consequences." Maybe 150 times.
Any other ideas?
563. janjon - 2/15/2001 3:44:58 PM
Sounds good to me. The trick is - will that be enough for you to say to yourself that I now don't have the need to yell.
564. Fielding - 2/15/2001 3:45:30 PM
A complicated issue, to be sure.
Yelling isn't a bad thing, if you pick your spots carefully. It has diminishing returns if used more frequently.
If it was me, I probably would have pulled the plug out violently, then left the room. Sometimes silence is louder than yelling. But I can certainly understand why you lost it.
565. mgleason - 2/15/2001 3:47:37 PM
Oh, dear God. LINES!
My mother used to assign them to me, and I used to sneak in stuff like 'I hate you' in code, by randomly adding extra letters to words. All of my lines were perfectly aligned, so she couldn't even tell there was a misspelling unless she read every damned one, let alone break the code.
566. janjon - 2/15/2001 3:48:24 PM
Yes, I also was going to say that yelling isn't the end of the world. It is guilt-inducing but that goes with the parenting turf.
Certainly better than the alternatives/urges to slap etc.
567. CalGal - 2/15/2001 3:57:19 PM
will that be enough for you to say to yourself that I now don't have the need to yell.
That's exactly what I'm looking for, and I believe it is enough. But I'm looking for other satisfactory consequences in case it fails or doesn't do the trick.
I miss timeouts. They stop being effective or meaningful at about 8, and there are plenty of other consequences for behavior--but sometimes you just need something that will be immediately inconvenient enough to work as an inhibitor. After all, if you've already removed TV for a week for one offense, then it actually increases the possibility that they'll shrug at the next--in for a penny, and so on.
Fielding,
No, the sort of yelling I do never diminishes in effectiveness. It is, rather, too effective. Annoying me is a lousy idea. Oddly enough, I am very reasonable on most things parental (as Spawn himself will testify), and I am aware of how ferocious I am when I'm pissed. So as Spawn gets older, it's even more important that I model authority first, anger second.
Pulling the plug would have been a suitable ouch for Spawn. The problem is that it wouldn't have been enough for me, and as Janjon points out, that's what I'm looking for.
568. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:01:06 PM
Oh, I should be clear: I'm not the sort of parent who never raises her voice. I am a yeller. In fact, I go up a few decibels just to warn kids (I have often heard Spawn reassuring his friends--"don't worry, she's just warning, that's not her mad voice.")
I'm talking about yelling that is too close to the abuse level, because I'm furious. On a once in a while basis, it is okay. But throughout my life as a parent, I find there are times when I'm yelling as the default, rather than the exception, and that is always to be avoided when you've got a temper like mine. Particularly with early teens, when I think it's critical to maintain authority and respect.
569. Fielding - 2/15/2001 4:01:29 PM
CalGal:
With all due respect (and I am being sincere here), have you ever gone into therapy? It sounds like yelling satisfies certain short-term needs that are not in your long-term interest.
570. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:02:41 PM
Maria,
Ha! The reason I thought of lines is because Spawn has mild dysgraphia, so it would also be good practice. Don't tell him about your idea, though. I'd hate to have to read every line looking for secret messages.
571. PelleNilsson - 2/15/2001 4:06:13 PM
Let's have Spawn on line.
572. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 4:07:46 PM
Calgal...is your son aware of the fears and/or concerns you have that fuel your rections.
573. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:09:20 PM
Fielding,
I've been to therapy--what I'm dealing with now is the residual, not the real thing. It is precisely because I need coping mechanisms that I focus on it, because I will always have a temper, due to past problems.
Spawn goes to counselling now, too--not because he's "troubled", but because his dad and I want to have a resource when we run into the behavioral issues that are almost inevitable when you have a very bright, intense kid. I'm happy to report that, despite two quite wacky parents, Spawn is generally just fine.
574. labwabbit - 2/15/2001 4:13:09 PM
PP Message # 520
You know, after his disdain and rejection of such opportunities, things were never the same between us. Oh, it's great and all. We're still real close...but it wasn't the same. We worked just as hard, or harder, at getting there because we believed, (and I know he believed) this is what he really wanted. It wasn't an easy ride. But I now realize it has less to do with how he seen it than how I did. Having been active in the JROTC since 7th grade and having a private license to fly at 16...he thought this was the right path. I seen it as throwing away an opportunity too few will ever have and having wasted such committment and hard work in the academia. But happy is where the heart is. I know this. I'm happy for him. I guess what my point here is and the lesson learned through all this, is you can't live your dreams through your children even if you "think" they may be the same... you never can tell.
Now I happy...and anxiously...await grandchildren??? haha.
575. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:14:56 PM
PP,
Yeah, we're pretty open about it.
The problem is that since his problems at public school--when he decided to slack off an entire quarter and lie to me about it (no, I don't have any homework, Mom)--he has been on the hot seat. There is nothing that bothers me more than lying. So since November I've been more reactive than usual. I don't wish to imply that I've been a raving lunatic every second day, but whereas I might not blow up for a serious misdeed more than once a quarter, it's been more like once every other week, for offenses that would normally get a more appropriate reaction.
He knows that, too, and in fact the counsellor told him that he's not getting much sympathy from her about it, given that it is a direct consequence for his abuse of my trust.
But I still want a happier way out of it--one that keeps me in authority and not feeling bad later.
The good news about the bad school performance is that it gave me the ability to override the ex's usual objection to private school. Even he had to agree that a kid who was getting better scores on the SAT than some 18 year olds but Cs and Ds in school needed closer supervision and a hell of a lot more challenges.
576. mgleason - 2/15/2001 4:19:48 PM
According to my mother, I was a holy terror, CG. I got great grades, was involved in tons of extra-curricular activities, didn't drink or do drugs, but I was wildly independent, and this drove my mother bugfuck. On my seventh birthday I told her I was moving out when I was eighteen, and damned if I didn't (by living at school during term-time and spending the summers working in the Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard). She didn't want me to live at school, but I'd applied for all sorts of scholarships and grants, and even had extra money for books and incidentals after factoring in tuition and room and board, so it was out of her hands.
I had great empathy for my mother even as I did my best to thwart her.
577. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 4:20:02 PM
Cal...Good...frankly I have tried to avoid any discussion between us since I angered you last concerning SAT's...my intention was never to hurt your feelings there, and I know how much you love your son.
578. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:31:56 PM
Maria,
Spawn doesn't push for more independence than I want to give him, generally. We seem to have a good balance there. But then, I'm not a mom bent much on control. (I don't mean that your mom was, I'm just saying that it is notably not one of my hot spots.)
The problem is he's recently failed to demonstrate the ability to meet the priorities--for example, school. So he's definitely had a cutback in independence as a result--and to (I think) both our credit, he realizes it as a temporary necessity, until he demonstrates that he accepts the priorities. Interestingly enough, he doesn't disagree with the priority--in other words, he doesn't argue that school doesn't matter, or grades don't matter. He agrees with that priority and, once put in a different school, began working to his capacity, which is considerable.
Another observation I've made recently--he had had few behavior problems during the first quarter of the school year. But his grades were atrocious. In the new school he's working hard and doing generally awesome work--with more flashes of temper. Nothing terrible, but different from the last six months. I realized that the higher performance induces anxiety in him. If he stops caring, then he isn't worried.
That is a function of personality, obviously, and while we are stressing behavior and giving him coping skills, I've also told him that one of the things about being intense is that you're always going to care more. But that this doesn't involve dropping out and giving up to avoid the pressure. He's mulling on that one, because he too had noticed that he's a bit whippier now that he's working harder.
579. mgleason - 2/15/2001 4:43:13 PM
I think you're doing the right things, CG. My mom was very, very controlling, and had I not been such an anal achiever, I probably would have retaliated by being a slacker. Instead, I concentrated on doing everything my way. She was also pretty smart though, and my school work was one thing she never gave me any flak over, because she knew I was a much harsher taskmistress than she could ever be.
One thing I'd try were I in your shoes is to ask Spawn how he would handle the situation if your roles were reversed. It might be an eye-opening experience for you both.
580. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 4:46:32 PM
Cal, Good luck with your son. We had a very similar problem with our oldest and never did solve the problem. It solved itself or he solved it himself after he went away to college. He almost didn't graduate from high school because he cut so many classes his last semester. We weren't aware of it because, as I recall, he was writing his own excuses. Anyway, he managed to graduate because he had a good guidance counselor who intervened because he didn't see what would have been accomplished by keeping him another semester. He finally got interested in school enough to get good grades during his sophomore year in college, and he graduated with honors and got a good job and then into a good law school. He passed the Calif bar last year and is being paid more than I ever was. When he was in high school we were at a loss for what to do about his lack of interest in school work. He seemed to be learning a fair amount (maxed out on the standardized MEAP math and reading tests)and he flew under the radar at the big high school because he was getting a C average composed of some A's and some D's depending whether he liked the teacher and was interested in the subject) and not getting into any serious trouble. There was hardly any concern by anyone at the school over the gap between his ability and his performance, so far as I could tell.
I have been told that my frequent and vocal criticism of him for not doing better in school was not helpful. I think I was unfairly comparing him to myself when I was in high school. I went to a small, nurturing high school where nobody flew under the radar and where I got pretty good grades and participated in a lot of activities and sports. My son was in a big (1400) suburban high school. Anyway, what you are facing is tough to deal with because you obviously care a lot about how your son is doing and naturally want him to perform up to his full potential. I wish I had a good suggestion for you, but I don't.
581. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:47:30 PM
That's an interesting idea. I'll try that tonight.
582. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:50:02 PM
That last was to mgleason.
I am not critical of Spawn getting poor grades. I'm pretty adamant that he learn how to work hard, which is a different thing. Too many bright kids don't ever learn how to extend themselves intellectually, because everything comes too easily.
So the grades are just the symptom. Were he getting all As but didn't seem to be working hard, I'd be equally crabby. Or if he were getting Cs but busting his ass in a particularly tough subject, I would be unconcerned.
583. PsychProf - 2/15/2001 4:51:11 PM
Wonkers...beware of those telling you what was helpful...is it not possible that your continued commitment to him was important...do we always have to agree with and support that with which we don't...can we not have values that are at odds with our children desires...why do so many tell us what they think.
584. CalGal - 2/15/2001 4:55:27 PM
Wonkers,
Thanks for the good wishes.
There was hardly any concern by anyone at the school over the gap between his ability and his performance, so far as I could tell.
This is why I removed Spawn from public school. I was furious that they had allowed a kid with his test scores (which they knew about, given that it qualified him for the CTY Program) to get Cs and lower without even bothering to alert his parents. I wrote them an extremely caustic note about this failure when I pulled him.
As we've discussed in other threads, our public school system fails the brightest children. As a parent, I feel responsible to make up the slack. But a lot of times, as you point out, you just don't know about it.
585. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 8:04:46 PM
Dare I say it? CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.
I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the ostreperous male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around".
586. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 8:51:14 PM
I hope Erin's son is ok.
Lots of familiar-sounding stuff in here today. I'm unfortunately a yeller with a horrible temper, and I always have been, though I don't display it often, and rarely ever to anyone outside my immediate family--I do a good "catty" for the general population; but even when I don't think I'm yelling, Bob and Mose say I am. I think I'm just being emphatic. When I'm in a true rage, though, it's not a pretty sight.
"According to my mother, I was a holy terror, CG. I got great grades, was involved in tons of extra-curricular activities, didn't drink or do drugs, but I was wildly independent, and this drove my mother bugfuck. On my seventh birthday I told her I was moving out when I was eighteen, and damned if I didn't...."
I swear, Maria, you sound just like Mose. That doesn't bother me in her at all, though (even less now, knowing how she might turn out ;-)).
Until fairly recently I've tried not to post much about Mose, but in general I feel very lucky--no paying for my raising so far--despite the fact that she's incredibly independent-minded. But today she told me something interesting, which I'm hesitant to share. Mose is good about doing things, but hates to lie about them after the fact, so she usually ends up confessing and getting herself in trouble.
Well, today she left school with a friend in her car and saw her b/f who's home with the flu. A big nono on many, many levels. She's grounded from driving her car until after spring break, about six weeks from now. I told her if it happened again that I would call the school and it would not be pleasant. She didn't do anything "bad" while she was out, and I did much worse when I was younger than she was during school hours, as did her dad, but I was still appalled, yet grateful that she confessed it all.
587. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 8:51:26 PM
I'm entering an interesting stage that's much easier day-to-day than pre-teenhood, but much scarier in lots of ways.
588. mgleason - 2/15/2001 8:55:27 PM
You're a sweetie, Arky. It says a lot about you that Mose was willing to confess.
589. wonkers2 - 2/15/2001 9:04:02 PM
The real grief will start when he gets his driver's license and takes off in the family car! In our town when the police stopped teenagers for minor offenses, at least, the first thing they did was call the parents and ask them to come and pick up their teenager. I can remember the calls I got almost verbatim, usually after I was in bed:
"Hello, is this Mr.Wonkers?"
"Yes."
"This is the police. Do you have a son named Jim Wonkers?
"Yes."
"Would you please come over to Maple and Evergreen? We stopped your son and some of his friends. They were pulling a sled tied with a rope behind your car in the street." (after big snow storm).
or
"Would you mind coming over to the Pontiac Silverdome and picking up your son. We are holding him and a bunch of his friends in a room next to the office. We picked them up drinking beer in a van in the parking lot after the concert."
Or
"Would you mind coming over to the school parking lot? We are holding your son there after stopping him for doing doughnuts in the snow in the lot."
Or
"Would you mind coming over to the police station and picking up your son? We just gave him a ticket for 60 in a 45 mph zone on Woodward Avenue. He has been drinking beer but is not intoxicated."
or
"Dad. I had a little accident with the new car. The road was slippery and I skidded into the split rail fence beside the road down by the park. The dents are only down one side. And it didn't hurt the fence much. I was able to mostly put it back together."
And, of course, brace yourself for huge increases in your car insurance premiums.
590. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 9:05:34 PM
Thank you much, Maria. I hope she keeps that tendency. A little healthy guilt never hurt anybody, especially a teenager.
I'll tell you the biggest difference between you and her that disappoints me--she's not an avid reader, yet her standardized test scores in reading and language are 99%ile. I failed there some way. I hope she'll eventually get into reading more, but music is her thing and she devotes a great deal of her time to it. She used to write stories and poetry and illustrate them, but she's written a couple of very nice songs, too.
591. mgleason - 2/15/2001 9:09:36 PM
I don't think you failed her, Arky. Some people need to have their reading spark ignited by a specific book. With Ed, it was Peter Straub's Ghost Story, of all things.
592. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 9:17:25 PM
I'll keep trying. I'm not an avid reader, but I think I'm a good reader, if that makes any sense. I'd like to see her at least get to that point. I've been disappointed in what are supposed to be her advanced English classes. They're not reading nearly enough and not enough of the "good stuff." My English class is much better than what her school's "honors" English is, imo.
593. Fielding - 2/15/2001 9:18:31 PM
ScottLoar:
"Dare I say it? CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.
I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the ostreperous male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around"."
You want to give me odds? I'd bet real money that CaGal does a better job setting and enforcing limits than 99% of fathers.
BTW, why are you so ornery today?
594. mgleason - 2/15/2001 9:26:05 PM
I was always very fortunate in my English teachers and librarians, and in my friends, too - most were readers. I had exposure to people with varied interests, and they opened many windows for me.
595. arkymalarky - 2/15/2001 9:30:39 PM
Mose has that in her family, for sure--lots of musicians, a PhD in lit grandfather who spends lots of time with her, etc, and her school is very good--it has achieved national honors, in fact. The English program there, though, is fairly weak for advanced students until the junior and senior years. I guess I should have gone to work there when I had the chance and I wouldn't be able to bitch about it, but it's just not that great, imo. It's not bad, but not nearly the level it could or should be, imo.
596. ScottLoar - 2/15/2001 9:32:27 PM
Fielding, yeah, maybe she's butch to the max. That still doesn't detract from my point.
597. Fielding - 2/15/2001 9:59:52 PM
Your point appeared to be that CalGal was screwed because there was no man around the house. A specious thesis, to be sure, but certaintly not a useful one.
598. CalGal - 2/15/2001 10:50:42 PM
CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.
Hardly. Women have been raising growing young males for centuries with no other men in the house and doing just fine. If I have trouble "controlling" Spawn as he grows into adulthood, it will be because I somehow screwed up as a parent. Not because I'm female.
599. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 5:55:42 AM
Women have not been raising growing young males for centures with no other men in the house and doing just fine. Look at the incidence of single females raising families alone. Look at the results. Ask single mothers (well, other than yourself who takes quick offense at the very thought of it) if raising boys alone is easy, ask the kids themselves - especially the boys in jail - if growing up without a father helped or hurt. Yes, I know impugning a woman's ability to raise children - especially boys - alone is unfashionable.
But, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about your situation. You do as you see fit. I regret entering an opinion; I'll surely avoid further reading about CalGal's household travails.
600. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 6:03:15 AM
And in the background to this that monkey on the end of the female handler's leash just goes ape shit.
601. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 6:50:13 AM
It is good to see some differences of opinion in here...surely parents/people disagree on parenting strategy, parent role, etc...I maintain that we become a better parent, not by what we say we do right, but by judging our mistakes against what our goals are for our children. What kind of adult do we expect our child to be...we must let our child(teen) directly know what this is. BTW...Wonker's post on phone calls is right on. One day we are worried about too much TV, and the next our kid is behind the wheel of Camry with a condom in his pocket, a joint in her purse, more beer than they can drink.
602. joezan - 2/16/2001 7:44:01 AM
Loar's argument is often drowned out with the same sort of rebuttal one encounters when one bemoans, for instance, boys being forced to play Little League with girls.
There are always some examples of girls with an arm like a slingshot or a bat like a whip to point to and say, "There. Now, what were you saying about girls not being able to play at the same level as boys?"
It takes a certain amount of honesty, I guess, to admit that it's much easier to raise a child with two parents than with one - especially when the one doing the admitting is a single parent.
603. wonkers2 - 2/16/2001 8:05:23 AM
ScottBore, You are a nasty guy.
604. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 8:34:32 AM
Wonkers2, you have a simple mind.
605. theDiva - 2/16/2001 9:23:53 AM
#548
wonkers
I know.
And Erin, I agree with the rest of the crew. Time for a new ped.
606. theDiva - 2/16/2001 9:28:39 AM
Finally finished catching up...what has happened with Erin's baby, I wonder.
607. Laura C - 2/16/2001 10:00:51 AM
He's okay, probably just a muscle pull! She just posted in TT.
608. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 10:01:27 AM
He's OK. No fractures or neurological problems. Most likely he pulled a muscle. He was still limping this morning as I dressed him for the sitter's--my husband needed a mental health day.
But I hear that CalGal has been banned from TT. Still trying to figure out what's up with that.
609. Laura C - 2/16/2001 10:09:56 AM
Erin, check mini-MOD, or the Mote Cafe around 36635.
610. theDiva - 2/16/2001 10:12:05 AM
good news, Erin! Glad to hear it.
611. CalGal - 2/16/2001 10:17:05 AM
Women have not been raising growing young males for centures with no other men in the house and doing just fine.
Sure they have. The idyllic "daddy's off at the salt mines and mommy's at home vacuuming" lasted for what, 10 years?
For much of history, men were gone. They were either fighting wars, off in other towns working, or just gone in general. They most certainly weren't coming home at five to a tearful woman handing over a sullen grungy adolescent saying, tearfully, "I just don't know what to do with him!"
. Look at the incidence of single females raising families alone. Look at the results.
I guarantee you that the results for single women raising families with incomes like mine and well executed divorces are extremely good. There just aren't enough of them. And very few of their kids are in jail. Unless it's for white collar crime, of course.
In any event, I am not raising Spawn alone. You somehow managed to miss the regular mentions of his father, who is an active and involved parent.
Joe,
There are always some examples of girls with an arm like a slingshot or a bat like a whip to point to and say, "There. Now, what were you saying about girls not being able to play at the same level as boys?"
That may be true. But given that I'm the equivalent, parentally speaking, of the girl who can play better than most of the boys, what's your point? In this case, we were only talking about me, not all women.
There's also no "bravery" in scoffing at women's ability to raise kids "by themselves". You surely can't think your objections are original?
612. Fielding - 2/16/2001 10:23:36 AM
Joe:
All things being equal, it is indeed easier to raise children with two married parents in the household. So what. CalGal isn't married. Are you saying she should put her kid up for adoption?
When a single parent asks for advice, it doesn't do anybody any good to say "things would be better if you were married".
In anycase, I would guess that 95% of the time, when a single mother is having issues with a child, you'll find a father who isn't pulling his weight.
613. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 10:32:34 AM
Discussing who is a "good" parent, and who isn't is not very productive...so I will repeat myself...what do you want for your child and what parenting techniques/styles/enviornments are you providing to predict success for these goals? After all...if parenting is important at all, everything/anything done can't always be the best just because we did/do it..
614. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 10:34:12 AM
No, CalGal, men weren't "gone" during most of history. Most wars (I again emphasize most) didn't disturb the general run of the civilian populace until the 20th century, general conscription, and the advent of total war; migrant workers were not the rule in agricultural society nor even for most of the general population during the industrial age.
What is unique to our age of advanced industrialized nations is the advent of mass social welfare. You boast "a good income and well-executed divorce" (meaning you get prompt alimony payments?) which is the exception, and in any case it is not poverty alone that frustrates a single parent but the burden of acting as father and mother for the children. Or so I would think. And yet, I should have known, you of course are "the equivalent, parentally speaking, of the girl who can play better than most of the boys".
615. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 10:37:26 AM
The consequence of massive social welfare is independence, the independence of an individual from family, neighborhood, even the restraints of common custom and morality for one's livelihood is no longer dependent on conformity or the support of others, just dependence on welfare payments. Family, kinship, social relations can be answered by a gang of like minds and fuck the consequences.
616. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 10:38:53 AM
Loar is a first-rate pot stirrer.
617. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 10:50:03 AM
Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children. Women bore and reared their children, not always alone, but with the understanding that they were the child's primary parent.
Lots of people have been reared by single parents. Let's talk about realities--pulling a Dr. Laura isn't helping anyone.
618. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 11:07:39 AM
Cal, are you still here? I want to send you a private e-mail, if you don't mind.
619. RickNelson - 2/16/2001 11:18:09 AM
Good direction in post 613 PP. I've purposely avoided much of this thread, but that question will have me lurking for responses.
My two cents is of minimal value. I think expressing love, asking about the childs life showing interest in any little detail, not being overly critical and if finding that overt criticism has been employed on an occasion has adversely affected the child make efforts to reconcile. Criticism during the teen years is proving to be something to use very, very sparingly. However, setting limits, laying down rules, exercising authority and boundries is still very much in the process.
620. Frankster - 2/16/2001 11:22:21 AM
Erin,
Great to hear that about your son!
621. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:41:03 AM
Erin,
Sure, you know my email address, yes?
Scott,
You boast "a good income and well-executed divorce" (meaning you get prompt alimony payments?) which is the exception, and in any case it is not poverty alone that frustrates a single parent but the burden of acting as father and mother for the children.
No, I don't mean alimony payments; I mean that our divorce was intended to cause our son minimal disruption, given the obvious trauma, and that both of us are fully involved parents--both in regards to our son and working together as parents. I don't receive alimony payments and have always been the primary financial supporter of our son.
And yet, I should have known, you of course are "the equivalent, parentally speaking, of the girl who can play better than most of the boys".
Perhaps I misunderstood Joe's analogy. I thought girls=single parents, boys=two parents. Based on all metrics of parenting I can think of, I provide as much or generally more--both financially and time-wise(I work far fewer hours, generally)--than most two parent families.
I don't much disagree with your conclusions about welfare. However, you did address the comment about single mothers to me, and none of your sweeping statements about income and time/resources to parent apply to me. Hence my objection.
622. JudithAtHome - 2/16/2001 11:54:04 AM
Erin:
I'm so glad things worked out okay for your son. I was apprehensive after Cal mentioned CPS yesterday. I have a story about my son that, had it happened today, might well have involved CPS. It happened over 37 years ago, though, and those sorts of things weren't so prevelant.
I was one month into being 19 when my son was born...he walked early and when we moved into our first house (as opposed to apt.) he immediately ran outside to his new backyard and raced around with abandon. The people who sold us the house had 3 German Shepard dogs and they had dug huge holes in the backyard...my son ran right into one of those holes and fell hard onto his side and back. That evening, he started to limp. The next morning, I was the first person in the doctors office and learned my doctor was in surgery so my son was seen by the other doctor...a new man I'd never met.
He stripped my son down to his little socks and took him out into the hallway, told him to walk down the hall and back. My son was scared of this man and began to cry, limping down the hallway. The doctor and I both noticed at the same time a rather large bruise on my sons back about level with his kidneys...this man turned to me and coldly asked me where THAT had come from...then he asked if I'd done it!
I will never forget how I felt at the realization this man thought I'd harmed my son. It made me very wary of stories I hear today about parents being accused of hurting their kids...
623. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:56:14 AM
Erin,
Shoot, I forgot to tell you how relieved I was that nothing was wrong. I'm glad you got it checked out.
624. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 12:07:28 PM
Thanks, Cal.
E-mail sent.
625. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 12:11:53 PM
Message # 617 You're wrong. Read history. Read social history. I give examples, you give attitude.
626. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 12:12:22 PM
I don't even know who the hell Dr. Laura is.
627. labwabbit - 2/16/2001 12:14:28 PM
You don't EVER want to either.
(Know about Dr.Laura that is)
628. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2001 1:06:58 PM
Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children.
That's not true. In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance.
629. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2001 1:08:24 PM
Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children.
That's not true. In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance.
630. labwabbit - 2/16/2001 1:11:04 PM
Seems that for most of human history, men had no idea that they were even the fathers of their children.
That's not true. In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance
...of the women.
631. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 1:11:07 PM
I'm talking about pre-history, before people realized that sex=babies.
And really, we can discuss ideal situations, or we can talk about the situation at hand.
632. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:13:48 PM
Message # 615 seems like just another right-wing myth passed off as great wisdom.
633. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:18:14 PM
Right wing myth passed of as great wisdom? I don't understand. I wasn't aware my thoughts had been accepted as right wing myth. Hell, I just wrote that thought down this morning as a consequence of the post preceding it.
You're looking for an argument. Okay. Go for it.
634. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:24:01 PM
Loar, you didn't just originate that thought this morning. That idea is a cliché which your brain unconsciously registered by osmosis.
635. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:24:17 PM
Erin, recorded history shows most societies are uniformly patrilineal, patrilocal and patriarchal save in some advanced, industrialized Western nations where some parts of the societies are more frequently showing exceptions. Seems that history belies the myth you advance of men not around and not knowing their children (why then, the law of primogeniture?), yet experience of modern society gives you just enough purchase to make such wild generalization.
636. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:25:45 PM
Pseudoerasmus, you're looking for some bad-mouth exercise? Or, do you seriously want to challenge the opinion?
637. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:27:04 PM
Yes, I did promise myself not to enter into any exchange with you but I can suspend my dislike of you for a short while.
638. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 1:27:52 PM
Whatever. I really don't want to argue this point with you, Scott.
Do you have anything else to offer regarding CalGal's predicament?
639. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:30:42 PM
Look to the last paragraph of Message # 599.
640. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:31:59 PM
In most societies the legitimacy of children was an important issuee, not least because of the matter of inheritance.
Well, sure. That's the whole purpose of marriage, originally. Although Erin says she was talking about before it was known that sex=babies, which was much earlier.
But my point was simpler--throughout much of history, marriage was purely for inheritance and legitimacy, not to protect the psyches of the children. Fathers disappeared to fight crusades, to party, to work "at court", away from their estate. They weren't home helping Mom raise their adolescent sons.
641. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:32:33 PM
Yes, I did promise myself not to enter into any exchange with you but I can suspend my dislike of you for a short while.
Forums would quickly die out if this sentiment weren't common.
642. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:33:58 PM
Yes, but I do detest him so sincerely I must plead the exception.
643. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:34:19 PM
Loar, (1) social welfare in Yankistan isn't massive; and (2) in many countries where social welfare is "massive" in comparison with Yankistan, the proportion of children born out of wedlock is actually lower; and more importantly (3) in almost all Western European countries, the percentage of families headed by single parents is lower than in Yankistan. The Swedish rate is something like 3%, versus the American 8%. (This is in the early 1990s.)
644. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:35:24 PM
Some dislikes I can overcome. You, CalGal, I once disliked most heartily, and yet now I can sometimes address you without vinegar.
645. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:39:04 PM
You, CalGal, I once disliked most heartily, and yet now I can sometimes address you without vinegar.
I'm like that. I grow on people.
</Paul Newman in Nobody's Fool>
646. Fielding - 2/16/2001 1:45:12 PM
Like a fungus.
(Howard Stern, Private Parts).
647. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:46:02 PM
Excuse me, that's 18% for the USA.
648. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:48:23 PM
I accept that social welfare in the US is not massive among the general population, yet I suspect it is massive among some parts of the population: urban blacks, native Americans on reservations, those whites in small towns in rural areas, for example.
Where social welfare is larded more evenly throughout the general population the proportion of children born out of wedlock may be sometimes lower, but perhaps those same societies are more monolithic. Still, I understand the illegitimacy rate among French Canadians along the St. Lawrence to be above 40% and social welfare high.
Yes, the percentage of families headed by single parents is lower than in the US as compared to other Western European countries yet, again, those countries have maintained a familial system that accommodates welfare. I suggest the US has not.
Can you accept that what's true for one country may not have the same effect in another?
649. CalGal - 2/16/2001 1:49:01 PM
Fielding,
Dammit, I was gonna add that myself, but my manager showed up to ask a question.
PE,
What are the divorce rates in Europe vs. here, do you know?
650. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:50:33 PM
Odd. I recall that the illegitimacy rate in the UK exceeded that of the US. Can't be sure, but the thought is there. Or, you will not accept that as thought but only myth?
651. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:50:45 PM
.....and 13% for Sweden. I inadvertently dropped the first digit.
At any rate, the USA leads all industrialised countries in the percentage of fatherless families.
This doesn't rule out welfare as a cause, but on first approximation that doesn't seem to be the most important explanation.
652. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:53:43 PM
Does the dole encourage single-parent families? Does welfare toll recipients by discouraging them from finding work, wearing down their self-esteem, and creating hostile attitude toward their more prosperous and successful fellow citizens? I suggest that in the US, yes, it does.
653. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:54:58 PM
Single motherhood in the USA:
"The trend in welfare benefits between 1960 and 1990 does not match the trend in single motherhood. Welfare and single motherhood both increased dramatically during the 1960s and early 1970s. After 1974, however, welfare benefits declined, but single motherhood continued to rise. The real value of the welfare benefit package (cash assistance plus food stamps) for a family of four with no other income fell from $10,133 in 1972 to $8,374 in 1980 and to$7,657 in 1992, a loss of 26 percent between 1972 and 1992 (in 1992 dollars).
Increases in welfare cannot explain why single motherhood grew among more advantaged women. Since 1960, divorce and single parenthood have grown among women with a college education, who are not likely to be motivated by the promise of a welfare check.
Welfare payments cannot explain why single motherhood is more common in the United States than in other industrialized countries. Nearly all the Western European countries have much more generous payments for single mothers than the U.S., yet the prevalence of single motherhood is lower in these countries. One way to compare the "costs" of single motherhood in different countries is to compare the poverty rates of single mothers with those of married mothers. While single mothers have higher poverty rates than married mothers in all industrialized countires, they are worst off in the United States."
654. Erin R. - 2/16/2001 1:56:54 PM
Scott, I don't think that CalGal would disagree with you on that one, but what does this have to do with her situation?
655. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 1:56:55 PM
At any rate, I don't have elaborate opinions on the subject. I just wanted to say the issue is not susceptible of resolution by common sensical arguments.
656. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 1:59:14 PM
Perhaps financial independence, through welfare or through wages, abetted by a society's general acceptance of single motherhood, does account for the incidence of single motherhood. Or, welfare prompted the phenomenon.
657. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:01:05 PM
At any rate, Pseudoerasmus, you accused me of advancing right-wing myth as great wisdom, then accepting cliche as an excuse for thought.
You ready to cry Uncle?
658. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:02:05 PM
Erin, I'm sorry, but what are you talking about now?
659. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 2:02:55 PM
PE...like there is ANYTHING called common sense...
660. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 2:04:14 PM
what on earth for? you've only reiterated the cliché.
661. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 2:06:55 PM
Loar, you take a cliché and restate it as much like a fortune cookie as possible.
662. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:07:40 PM
Because the opinion is expressed to often for your taste? Impossible ass that you are.
663. labwabbit - 2/16/2001 2:10:50 PM
You ready to cry Uncle?
Not till you kick him square in his common sense. Otherwise it doth appears to me that you are being humped rather severely...
664. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:10:57 PM
Pseudoerasmus, I have surely not invited you to read my comments. I don't give a frig if you ever read my comments. In fact, you are the one who makes your statements of ordinary fact or casual observations seem like revelations of a higher intellect. I am not within the imperium some others have granted you.
665. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:13:39 PM
Many persons in Aghanistan and northern Pakistan look European. That's not a frigging trite statement, especially to one who's travelled there?
666. PsychProf - 2/16/2001 2:14:41 PM
But are they single parents on welfare? Hahaha...
667. CalGal - 2/16/2001 2:21:53 PM
PE, thanks for that article.
Scott--I don't think there is any one cause of single parenthood. I think it is obvious that all single parenthood is not created equal. Divorced single parents, poor single parents from birth, well-off single parents from birth, widowed parents, two parents who have a child, raise it together, but never lived with each other--all of these are counted as "single parents" but have entirely different issues.
I'm divorced. Children of divorce have certain problems that persist even if you factor out income. My ex and I work very hard to ensure that the disruption caused by divorced parents is mitigated. For myself, I make sure that I never have to be dependent on someone else (my ex) for income in order to provide for my son.
Do all divorced parents do this? Hell, no. And that is a good chunk of why the stats are so awful.
But the stats aren't awful because mothers have trouble controlling their teen boys as a matter of course. They may have trouble with their teen boys because they're lousy parents, or because they are resentful of the divorce or because they never planned on being divorced, dammit, and now the ex is off living with that blonde with a breast job that used to be his secretary and mom has to deal with this all herself as well as have less money, less options, and so on.
That, too, isn't a complete reason of why kids of divorce do poorly. But it's a start--and reasons like that seem a hell of a lot more compelling than a blanket assumption that a single parent can't raise a child.
668. pseudoerasmus - 2/16/2001 2:26:47 PM
At any rate, I am not averse to the proposition that welfare payments have an effect on the incidence of single motherhood, but I see no reason or evidence to take it as a primary or major cause; in fact on first approximation the evidence seems to point to some other factor.
Message # 665: Well, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but then you attributed the local racial characteristics to .... descent from Alexander the Great's army! So perhaps at heart you are just another wide-eyed gullible Westerner with silly romantic ideas about the East.
669. CalGal - 2/16/2001 2:30:36 PM
One of the things in that article PE linked in and quoted: why is single motherhood still prevalent even after welfare payments have gone down?
In two populations of never married single moms (inner city and rural) I would speculate that, since many of them were raised in poverty and have no real options that interest them, welfare payments are still a step up.
The other population on welfare (women who had a family status change, usually a divorce) are on welfare because they didn't plan for a divorce--or even for children--not because they enjoy it or find it more attractive than being married. I've read that the major reason for this group leaving the welfare roles is another change in family status (they remarry, usually).
670. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:34:00 PM
You know nothing about me, ass, yet I know you remain a first-class intellect in a third-rate character.
671. ScottLoar - 2/16/2001 2:37:58 PM
CalGal, I'll end my comments to you with the beginning:
Dare I say it? CalGal is a woman with a growing, young male in the house, and it ain't gonna' be easy to control him.
I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the ostreperous male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around".
672. CalGal - 2/16/2001 2:40:23 PM
Scott,
I know that's how it began, and as I said--I don't see how you can seriously assert that women, by definition, are too weak to parent adolescent sons.
673. Frankster - 2/16/2001 2:54:37 PM
Speaking of single parenthood, from this morning's sports gallery :
More than seven years after their divorce in Cuba, the ex-wife of Mets shortstop, Rey Ordonez is asking a Florida court for $8,000 a month in child support. That would be an increase from the $1.50-a-month payments a Cuban court granted her, AP reports.
Ordonez defected during the Pan American games in Buffalo, N.Y. in 1993, four days after his divorce was granted in Cuba. He signed a four year, $19 million deal with the Mets in January 2000.
Geez, I don't know. Do you think he can afford it ? ;-)
( Did this belong in the Sports thread ?)
674. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 10:54:20 PM
No, Frank, it belongs here.
Very appropriate.
675. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:08:36 PM
Frank's blurb reminded me of a rather irritating op ed column I read in the Examiner: Least Valued Job, by Joan Ryan.
Ryan describes a problem I agree is a big one: women who become parents regularly place their income production a distant third or fourth behind parenting, family management, and peace of mind. But then she says:
Mothers should have a right to the benefits that other workers enjoy. They ought to be entitled to half their family's income and assets. A mother's work should be counted for what it is: real labor that benefits the economy by providing the next generation of educated worker-citizens.
But "their family's income and assets" are, in fact, the income and assets of the person she married.
What does this have to do with parenthood? Why gussy up the value of motherhood as something separate and different from fatherhood and something that all of society ought to go down on their knees in gratitude for, and then link it not to some absolute value but the income of the guy she married?
If motherhood is so valuable, give it tax credits. Don't reward women based on whose sperm she happened to use.
Now, in the ballplayer's case, why should this woman luck out because she married a talented guy? Why is her parenting worth anymore? If the purpose of the money is to ensure support of the child, then surely she should have to prove that she is using it for that amount.
Obviously, the Ordonez case is tangential to my beef with the column, but still related. My main beef is with Ryan, though: gushing about motherhood and then demanding that women get half their hubbies money as a payout for being a mother. (There are other arguments for community property that I disagree with, but at least they don't bring up motherhood and applepie.)
676. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 11:19:21 PM
Calgal
You could argue that when a woman in a marriage has a child, her decision includes some notion of foregone income (the income she will have to give up to be a mother), whereas a man rarely evaluates the child decision in those terms.
G Becker would argue that the partner with the lower earning potential should be the one to take on the majority of childrearing functions, so that family welfare can be maximized given the constraints they operate within. By family welfare, Becker is talking not only about family income, but also about maximizing family values and choices as well; sort of a bundle of utilities.
Under these circumstances, I think one can make a good argument for the woman receiving a share of the husband's present and future earnings given that she has irreparably harmed her own income earning potential for some now defunct family maximization.
677. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:35:29 PM
Ms,
But I believe community property applies whether or not the couple have kids. Likewise, a cohabiting couple who has kids but don't marry are not required to split their property evenly if they split up.
However, my gripe is simpler: Ryan isn't talking about what a woman deserves from her husband, but how motherhood ought to be valued by society. She uses community property as the measuring stick, and that's what bothers me. If motherhood has an absolute value, then it ought not to depend on who the woman married.
As a separate issue, I agree that your last paragraph is used as rationale for community property. And it's sounds nice enough, but doesn't pass the smell test, once you move beyond the kneejerk requirement we all have these days to value stay at homing.
The lesser earning partner requires no consent to stay home, is not bound by any performance requirements, and doesn't even have to prove that they have in fact maximized the family's performance by giving up their income. In fact, the working parent could have spent more time with the kids, done more housework, and still have to give up half the assets that only (s)he provided the financial resources for.
678. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:41:35 PM
If the working partner wishes to pay the price for "family maximization", why not make a separate contract? Partner A will quit work, provide X hours of child care and housework a week, will be assessed on performance by Partner B every six months. In the event of a divorce, Partner A receives 50% of assets at time of divorce, monthly payments of Y, and a flat fee of Z for the earnings hit taken for quitting work. Contract can be declared null and void at any time with no cause required, with incremental amounts of X, Y, and Z paid in the event of a divorce for time that both partners agreed to it.
Such objective measurements may seem unpleasant. But community property is a very objective measurement for a very subjective value, and one that does not have to be assessed by the person paying for it at this time. In fact, the marriage contract operates as an equivalent of what I just spelled out. However, the marriage contract and the property rights given to women are based on antiquated notions, even if the rights themselves are recently acquired.
679. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:42:38 PM
I think that community property laws exist for convenience's sake. No one really thinks that a couple wants to get specific about financial matters; lord, no one would get married if they knew each other's financial expectations. And if the expectations and agreements on which they married change over time, well, them's the breaks. It's cheaper to screw the guy financially than let the women take a hit after a divorce, given that they are most likely also going to be responsible for the children (another stupidity, mind you).
So it's a cheap fix to a problem that acts to legally and psychologically enable women to make poor financial decisions and put their kids at risk. I do object on the grounds that it is unfair to men, as a general rule, as the higher income earners. More relevant, I think it sucks as social policy, since it marginalizes women and their poor choices. Hell, it's not even a particularly good protection, or women wouldn't still be so far behind on the asset and income metrics.
680. CalGal - 2/16/2001 11:43:49 PM
I was lazy and said "man" and "woman" at points when I should have said "income earner" and "stay at home parent".
681. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 11:51:42 PM
Calgal
Not every state has community property laws. Nor do I fully understand your interweaving comments regarding women being paid for being mothers with the community property issue.
Of course, I could read the article, I suppose, but I was just commenting on your previous post, not some nuanced difference between valuing women by community property held in a marriage versus the rationale for awarding women support payments based on their (soon to be ex-) husband's present and future earnings.
By the by, I don't think Becker's argument provides a strong rationale for community property, rather, I think that's based on the notion that stay-at-home partners "worked" as hard as the partners in the labor market to build marital wealth and holdings. This is a somewhat different argument than the one Becker makes regarding optimal family decision-making.
I've no problem with women receiving half of the holdings of the marriage, regardless of the presence of children, theoretically. It's when one confronts the "exploiter" anecdotes that theory becomes shaky.
Nor do I have a problem with men receiving half the community property of a marriage, regardless of the presence of children, again, in theory. In both cases, I'm inclined to want a fact specific analysis to determine how the property should be allocated, but my presumption is that it should be shared equally as a starting point.
Where I have problems is when one partner ends up with the children full time, but only half the assets of the marriage; as if the children don't count in the whole analysis, and are cost free.
682. MsIvoryTower - 2/16/2001 11:57:25 PM
Somehow, I think a contractual arrangement with performance evaluations would not promote family and marital unity.
For one thing, a wife and mother (or husband and father) is not an employee, one can't fire them without ending the marriage, or at least harming it. It could also exacerbate an already unfortunate tendancy for one partner in a marriage to be the primary caretaker and the other to opt out.
In short, I think your proposition both unreasonable and unsound when it comes to marital relations.
683. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:06:37 AM
Where I have problems is when one partner ends up with the children full time, but only half the assets of the marriage; as if the children don't count in the whole analysis, and are cost free.
Well, the assets are the property of the individual, not because they had children. The children are supposed to be paid for by child support. This is a joke, though, given that usually the person who ends up with the kids is generally far less financially prepared to care for them and in many cases the kids will suffer, even though the amount of payment is reasonable. At the same time, the custodial parent isn't bound to show what the money is spent on, which is a reasonable requirement. It is completely possible, whether it happens or not, for the custodial parent to spend the support money on their own needs.
The courts are horribly biased towards mothers, obviously, but what is odd is that their favor does most women no good at all. Custody automatically goes to the mother in most cases, and it is up to her if she wants to "share" this with the father.
I think mandatory joint physical custody is the answer, whether both parents want it or not (it certainly doesn't matter whether both parents want things now, so that's no big change). I also think that a parent's lack of financial ability to provide for their kids is a perfectly adequate reason to prohibit custody, rather than requiring a huge income transfer. In the event that the parents agree that the kids should live only with one parent (which I personally think is a dreadful idea), the noncustodial parent could pay expenses directly, rather than giving money to the parent to spend as they like. The ncp would, of course, have the ability to nix the expenditures, too.
There are plenty of fairer ways to provide for children after divorce. They're just not as convenient for the parents, unfortunately.
684. joezan - 2/17/2001 12:13:44 AM
Cal:
One of the things in that article PE linked in and quoted: why is single motherhood still prevalent even after welfare payments have gone down?
Because after 3 generations, it's pretty much part of the culture amongst many societal subsets. I mean, so what if welfare benefits have decreased 23%? Big frickin' deal. What's that mean to a person whose most valuable asset is her third-hand car?
Such is not the case with you - indeed, the mere prospect is (thankfully) entirely unthinkable, because you are the upper-middle class off-spring of, I assume, middle to upper-middle class folks for whom such was equally unthinkable.
I know you still don't agree with my take on the issue, and I know why. But it still seems to me, now, after the fifth time we've discussed the matter, that your point is that anyone can have a splendid divorce, if only they'd be reasonable, unselfish, forgiving and totally dedicated to their children. I really can't argue with that. But it just seems to me that, if they'd owned these qualities to begin with, they probably wouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place -maybe because they wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get married in the first place. Whatever the situation, divorce does not generally bring out these qualities in people
685. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:15:04 AM
Nor do I fully understand your interweaving comments regarding women being paid for being mothers with the community property issue.
Well, that was directly related to the article. Ryan, the author, was wailing that mothers aren't valued in society and that the answer is to institute community property laws in all 50 states. My response is that this solution doesn't reward women for being mothers, but for marrying well.
rather, I think that's based on the notion that stay-at-home partners "worked" as hard as the partners in the labor market to build marital wealth and holdings.
It is based on the presumption that the stay at home partner did. My point is that it is an awfully objective reward (half the assets) for an awfully fuzzy deliverable (the work was as hard, etc.)
Besides, community property is not given only to stay at homes. A partner could work in a low paying job, whereas the other partner might make five times more money, and work less. In that case, it is arguable that the high income earner is contributing more both in income and in time. The other is low performance all the way. The law still applies.
Community property is based on a "notion", but no evidence is required to ensure that the "notion" is actually reality.
686. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:17:31 AM
While I agree that courts tend to be biased toward mothers while also refusing to adequately award child support payments, I don't think a parent should be denied custody simply because of lower earning potential.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that were courts to start consistently awarding custody to the wealthier parent, we'd see a radical drop in the custodial parent's earnings over time. Making lots of money and taking care of children are not exactly complementary activities. To the extent that women have tended to be the custodial parent, the impact on earning potential after divorce and with children has been masked.
In any case, joint custody is very common now, in fact, sole custody is fairly uncommon precisely because courts have supposedly become more "attuned" to father's rights.
687. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:19:38 AM
Somehow, I think a contractual arrangement with performance evaluations would not promote family and marital unity.
Of course not. Instead, you could have a stay at home parent not doing diddly. That will promote family and marital unity? No. You could have a spouse who really resents being the sole income provider and feeling that stress, who has continually asked the stay at home to go back to work, only to have the stay at home tearfully say that she can't bear to leave her children in the hands of strangers. Does this promote family and marital unity? Hardly. And that's just a few of the ways that the lack of agreement on goals can screw things up.
If people actually had to discuss these things and agree to them, at least they'd know what to expect. But that's not going to happen, because even if a contract were needed, it might not be used. And therein lies the glitch.
It's not family and marital unity that would axe a proposal like mine. It is the most likely fact that women would still marry men, who would never agree to a stay at home on the terms that the woman asked for, so she would either lower her price or stay at home with no contract. It would become too expensive for society to continually pay for women's irresponsibility, so they would prefer to have the man pay. Which is what happens now, as well.
688. jonesatlaw - 2/17/2001 12:20:24 AM
Children are not cost free and there is a problem of "free riding" in child support. If you dress your kids at K-Mart and spend the rest on your layabout boyfriend, the law will do nothing. The ballplayer is paying $96K a year to support the kid, do you suppose he could get an au pair and a part-time cook for that, and have the kid live with him? If you put your child support up your nose or in your arm, we're going to have to catch you at it, and even then a good tearful plea and a feint at treament will probably keep the kids with you, unless your ex is Albert Schweitzer.
OTOH I have absolutely no sympathy for the clowns that complain that they can't afford their boat payments, penis-extender sports car, or trips to Vegas and still pay child support either.
689. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:24:10 AM
But it just seems to me that, if they'd owned these qualities to begin with, they probably wouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place - maybe because they wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get married in the first place.
This is a faulty assumption. There are plenty of people who are excellent parents and lousy at intimate relationships. The two abilities don't go hand in hand.
And the fact that they don't want to be civil and wellbehaved at divorce is irrelevant. That parents are encouraged in their ugly behavior is the single biggest failure of the current system. The courts are far more likely to take legal custody away from one parent to avoid hassles. They regularly deny the father access if the mother objects. They put the convenience of the custodial parent over everything, and god help the dad who wants joint physical custody if the mother doesn't.
It's disgusting. And it also promotes divorce. Create some laws where parents have to stay in the same region after a divorce, where the family house has to be kept for the kids, and the parents move in and out of it on their days, where the mother and father will still have to argue like crazy to make decisions about the kids, no matter their marital state, and you might actually have some parents decide that it's easier to gut it out until the kids are grown, in more marginal marriages.
690. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:24:27 AM
Wrt community property:
I'd agree that now the evidence supporting its premise is more shaky than in past eras, but that simply points to it being out of date, not that it didn't have a good premise when it was conceived.
Btw, I believe it became more popular in the late 1950's and early 60's as the divorce rate exploded, and women who'd spent their entire lives in the home were suddenly dumped on the street. The average age of the people in divorce at this time was also considerably older than what we now see, which also had implications for the reforms to elderly social services that were being evaluated at the time.
So, I think community property laws had a solid foundation in policy and were connected to a reality at the time they became popular, but they are somewhat out of whack for the current environment.
691. jonesatlaw - 2/17/2001 12:31:28 AM
I'm tired of the women lose in divorce because of lower income, please spare me. I practiced family law for 7 years and left in disgust. Of course family wealth goes down in a divorce. We hold income constant, and double the living expenses. You'll pardon me if I don't tear up too much over the result for many folk. Lots of folk split their marriages as the result of poor judgement. It comes at a cost to the parties, the kids and the wallet. Now, there are folk who find themselves in the middle of a divorce for reasons which are really not the consequences of their behavior or choices, save perhaps in choice of spouse. Those folk, I do have sympathy for. While income for mothers may go down as an average, I think that in many instances moms come out better than Dad does, especially in the lower middle classes. Where the potential income disparity is greater, the upper middle and upper classes, I don't doubt that the loss of the earning spouses income is a greater burden on the custodial parent. But I think that the overall picture is skewed by the power of the numbers of the upper and upper middle classes.
692. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:32:35 AM
In any case, joint custody is very common now, in fact, sole custody is fairly uncommon precisely because courts have supposedly become more "attuned" to father's rights.
No, joint legal custody is common. Joint physical custody, "with primary physical custody with the mother" translates to dad gets the kids on weekends. That's what is common. True joint physical custody is not common at all, and is never done without the mother's consent.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that were courts to start consistently awarding custody to the wealthier parent, we'd see a radical drop in the custodial parent's earnings over time. Making lots of money and taking care of children are not exactly complementary activities.
I'd bet against you. Granted, I am speaking from my own experience. But I think the reason that women's income drop after having kids is because it can. Because there is a guy there to take care of things. Because it's easier to focus purely on the "soft" side of family management than gut it up and be a provider in all senses of the word. Read any analysis on this subject that includes interviews with women, and that is the overwhelming consensus. It's hard work.
It is extremely difficult to raise a child and build a career. But it is not impossible.
In writing this, I realize that we should acknowledge an income split between parents in white collar jobs and professional careers and bluecollar/working poor parents. My comments address the first group. The second group has different issues, but then, I find it problematic that a couple who would experience a net income loss if they pay for daycare are encouraged to keep one person home. This is a huge risk, and is probably the main reason why so many women in this group go on welfare after a divorce. They would do better to work split shifts and maintain income viability.
693. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:37:51 AM
Ms,
I'm completely on board with Message # 690. My objection is that there is little realization in either feminist thinking (using NOW and gender feminists as a gauge) or social policy that community property might be outdated.
It is also a risky thing to bring up, because right now women in many ways have the best of both worlds. They have equality in the work place and extra rights in the marriage. They aren't going to be willing to give this up, and it would be politically dangerous for anyone to suggest it. Hence the only groups who regularly bitch about it are men's rights groups, and lord knows that these folk are more than a tad rabid. (Also, they generally want "equality" because they think enforcement of equality will push women back towards traditional submission, which is their preference.)
694. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:39:10 AM
Calgal
You only have one child, as well. Increasing the number of children one has to take care of increases stress on income earning.
And there are always exceptions to the norm. I'm speaking generally, statistically, and not about white-collar, high demand workers, who do not make up the majority of the labor force.
And I'll take that bet anyday. While the drop in income may not come immediately, over time, the realized earnings of two like workers initially, will be vastly different if one becomes primary caregiver to children and one is child-free.
695. vw - 2/17/2001 12:44:11 AM
I heard a woman handler of monkeys once remark about the obstreperous (sic) male on the end of the leash words to the effect "He won't behave unless there's a man around".
This just proves that that woman did not know how to handle monkeys. Here’s the drill: male handler introduces new female handler to the troop by standing behind her and facing down the dominant male by grimacing over her shoulder. She also grimaces and displays dominate posturing. Male handler walks away. Female handler continues to face down dominant male primate. Finally the female handler walks over to the dominant primate and mock mounts him. Tricky with gorillas, you might get nipped by chimps but it works every time.
And BTW, your monkey story sucks as a metaphor for raising a human male.
Children are not cost free and there is a problem of "free riding" in child support.
One of the views that always got me pinged as a “Men’s Rights Apologist” on TT was that I strongly advocate mandatory Child Support Spending documentation by the Custodial Parent. And that it should include all monies spent on the child, both the Child Support from the Non-Custodial Parent and money spent on the children by the Custodial Parent.
696. vw - 2/17/2001 12:53:47 AM
And I'll take that bet anyday. While the drop in income may not come immediately, over time, the realized earnings of two like workers initially, will be vastly different if one becomes primary caregiver to children and one is child-free.
Can anybody get in on this bet? I don’t know exactly how I would structure a study to wheedle the numbers out, but my gut sense is that the decline in income would have less to do with being Custodial Parent and a hell of a lot more with general financial instability both before and after the child custody exchange event.
IOWs, they suffer a lower income because they don’t know how to be financially responsible not because they are now CP.
697. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:58:58 AM
vw
The scenario is one set up by Calgal earlier. She suggested that custody in a divorce should go to the parent with the highest income.
Your premise is not sound given the context of my comment.
698. vw - 2/17/2001 1:06:34 AM
Could be Ms. Tower. I never completely discount the possibility that I might be incorrect. Nonetheless ... there are certain actions that many custodial parents make that are nothing more than sheer financial lunacy. Things like attempting to maintain the martial home, allowing divorce proceedings to bury them in debt, divorcing in haste instead of planning carefully and preparing for it, etc.
We divorce dumb. And the price we pay for that is often a financial one.
699. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:19:13 AM
Now that's just downright silly.
Divorce for most people is a painful, emotionally wrenching, experience. Many are initiated by one partner over the protests of the other. To expect financial planning and rational negotiation without the presence of expensive counsel is ludicrous.
In addition, divorce isn't cheap, at least if one wants to protect assets and to provide for adequate child support. Finally, maintaining the marital home is recommended by many family therapists when children are involved precisely because of the horrific consequences divorce brings to these children's lives.
In any case, these are somewhat irrelevant to the point I was discussing with Calgal. Financial stability will be shaken in any divorce situation, however, statistically, non-custodial divorced spouses tend to recover their pre-divorce income levels much faster than custodial spouses. In fact, I think the time line is that recovery for the non-custodial spouse is within 3 years (I can check this later, but this is the timeframe I recall), while the children and custodial parent live in much greater financial insecurity for a much greater period of time (holding all else constant).
Here's the point I was making, however. You take a high income divorcing spouse, who hasn't been the primary caregiver in the marriage, and award them custody of the children. In these circumstances, I'd argue that, on average, their earnings over time will be significantly less than they would be if they remained the non-custodial parent (or compared to a like situated worker).
700. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:20:29 AM
I think that VW's premise was correct, if I understood her. She is saying that the reason that income drops is because of bad financial decisions, not the aggravation of child care. Therefore, it is unlikely that the parent with more income would lose money just because they got custody, since they were making good financial decisions to start with. I think that any woman who opts to stay home and depend on someone else for income, with no ability to provide for herself, is by definition demonstrating a poor grasp for finances. She may beat the odds, but there is no guarantee.
Also, I support mandatory JPC. I only think giving the kid to the parent who makes the most money is appropriate in the event that the other parent can't provide for a home at all. Income transfer just doesn't make sense.
701. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:23:55 AM
We hold income constant, and double the living expenses.
Exactly, Jones.
Also, divorce is done with the convenience of the parents in mind, not the kids.
I too am skeptical of the notion that divorce is always bad for women. I think women take a cut in living standards, but if that is because they married someone who made more money, or stopped earning money because they lived with someone who made more money, why is this a bad thing?
702. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:28:16 AM
The reason incomes drop for most custodial women is because they weren't earning very much to begin with outside the home. Their incomes, from the start, were inadequate to maintain a household.
That their financial status drops is almost a big "Duh". They go from a joint income household to a single income household, and lose the contribution of the higher income earner. This is not rocket science.
Their inability to improve their earnings, however, is intimately tied to their custodial duties. Nor would most non-custodial parents be able to maintain their current earning potential if they did become the custodial parent. The sheer work committment required to generate typically higher earnings strongly works against custodial child care requirements.
The scant evidence we have on fathers earnings after becoming custodial parent suggests my premise is correct. Their earnings are considerably lower than they would have been (predicted earnings path) had they become the non-custodial parent.
703. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:38:41 AM
The reason incomes drop for most custodial women is because they weren't earning very much to begin with outside the home. Their incomes, from the start, were inadequate to maintain a household.
Well, yes. So by definition, these women are irresponsible parents.
Their inability to improve their earnings, however, is intimately tied to their custodial duties.
This again, depends on income. Lower income women, I could buy. Women in white collar jobs and the professions? You'd have to prove it. The income hit, if any, certainly wouldn't be enough to risk their children's wellbeing.
But why is the solution to give men the responsibility for paying for their bad decisions? I could see giving men the children, given that the women are irresponsible (in having children they couldn't afford). I could see massive publicity campaigns, exhorting women not to stay home because it harms their children financially for no upside at all. I could see pushes for lower income couples to work different hours in the event that they couldn't afford daycare, to keep both parents solvent. I could see encouraging them to have far fewer children, and holding off on it.
All of those make sense as solutions to the fundamental problem. Expecting the women's poor financial decisions to be paid for by the father, requiring him to maintain the same income, not quit his job or change jobs, give over money to the woman with no requirement for her to justify it, does not. Especially since this "solution" has still not fixed the problem and the children of these couples post divorce are still suffering for their mother's financial decisions and a court system that favors mothers as custodial parents.
Women are every bit as financially responsible for their children as the fathers are. It's time they started acting that way, and it's time, I think, that society started expecting them to.
704. vw - 2/17/2001 1:42:13 AM
The reason incomes drop for most custodial women is because they weren't earning very much to begin with outside the home. Their incomes, from the start, were inadequate to maintain a household.
Correct, that is the first example of financial irresponsibility. Any parent that is not prepared to support their children alone is in my opinion financially irresponsible.
And yes I am aware of the therapist twaddle about maintaining the primary home … I certainly sat through enough master’s level class listening it to remember it well. But I pointed out then and I’ll point it out again. Which is more “scarring” … moving into a smaller home in the same school district or being a stressed out crazed Custodial Parent that can’t make the mortgage because the Ex didn’t come up with the Child Support check in time?
We do divorce dumb. If people really cared about their kids more than they do about their own desire to be divorced they would divorce smarter. It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they won’t.
705. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:50:52 AM
So by definition, these women are irresponsible parents.
Well, according to your definition. The way I see it is you'd like to make the laws force the culture to change, but that simply doesn't work well.
Culturally, I don't think many would agree with your take on women who stay primarily in the home to raise children. In fact, Republicans have delivered euologies on the glories of motherhood. I can't see them openly inviting legal penalties for such women when they're marriages end.
Women in white collar jobs and the professions? You'd have to prove
it.
There's already tons of data showing that women take a hit on their earnings over time, regardless of SES, however, more highly educated women, in the professions, fair better than any other groups (absent divorce settlements). This doesn't mean that their relative incomes aren't harmed.
I believe my point was regarding relative incomes.
But why is the solution to give men the responsibility for paying for their bad decisions?
Perhaps because they significantly benefited from those decisions? Perhaps because they influenced those decisions? Or even bargained for such arrangements?
I think in this day and age, men are fully capable of stating what they want from a marriage before entering the estate. Why do you insist that these are independent decisions that women make? That they are primarily responsible for such marital arrangements?
Aren't men equally responsible for jointly deciding to have a lower earning spouse, one who is willing to exit the labor market for the sake of family needs? I'm unwilling to see this as a unilateral decision process.
706. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 1:57:03 AM
vw
You may label such advice as twaddle (re: moving children), but several studies on the trauma of divorce suggest that children having to leave their homes is a contributing factor in their inability to cope and adjust to their new circumstances.
If you took masters level courses on the subject, you surely are aware of the research. Of course, you're free to disagree with it, but that doesn't discount the information available.
But I see you and Calgal are compatible in your beliefs, and so I bow out with my contributions in place.
707. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:02:09 AM
I think in this day and age, men are fully capable of stating what they want from a marriage before entering the estate. Why do you insist that these are independent decisions that women make? That they are primarily responsible for such marital arrangements?
Yes, a man is capable of stating what he wants. And, after the marriage ceremony is over, is there anything from stopping the woman from changing her mind about whether or not she agrees with him? Can he complain and use her reneging as reason not to give her community property?
The woman are completely responsible for whether or not they work. The man may prefer that she not, or prefer that she does, or bitch about her hours. But it's her choice. It is also entirely up to her whether or not she has a child, or when. Also not within the guy's province completely.
Culturally, I don't think many would agree with your take on women who stay primarily in the home to raise children.
I'm sure they don't. I mentioned this earlier. It's not only Republicans who would object, it's women across the board. As I said, they have the best of both worlds.
Nonetheless, it is factually and legally true. The laws state that men and women are equally responsible for their child's financial care. Women are not held exempt because of their gender. Therefore a woman who has a child that she can't provide for is, by definition, irresponsible. It is rather amusing that in this age of equality we still count her decision to marry a meal ticket to be sufficient proof of responsibility. But the fact that it satisfies a lot of people on an emotional level doesn't change the fact that they are, by law, responsible.
708. vw - 2/17/2001 2:05:36 AM
I'm very aware of the research and it doesn't hold a candle to the accumulated studies on the long-term negative outcomes on children of financial stability in the childhood home.
The trauma of a move is most likely short-term and could be mitigated by reducing other stressors (like having parents that treat each other with undisguised hatred … something that is very much within parental control). One of my primary objections was that the bulk of that research did not differentiate between short-distance moves (staying within the child’s school district) and long-distance moves. Often it is losing contact with extended family, friends, teachers, and mentors, not mention the Non-Custodial Parent, that does the greatest harm.
709. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:05:43 AM
There's already tons of data showing that women take a hit on their earnings over time, regardless of SES, however, more highly educated women, in the professions, fair better than any other groups (absent divorce settlements).
I think you misunderstand, or I wasn't clear. I am saying that there is no indication that children themselves cause this hit. It's just as likely, if not more so, that white collar and professional women who take a hit do so because of bad decisions and a desire to make life easier for themselves. I was then clarifying that in their cases, even when they make bad decisions their children aren't at risk.
Perhaps because they significantly benefited from those decisions? Perhaps because they influenced those decisions? Or even bargained for such arrangements?
Their bargaining is irrelevant: they are every bit as much allowed to change their mind as the woman is, to the woman's detriment. "Influence"? Please. I have this odd notion that women can make up their own minds.
Did they benefit? I don't see how. If you consider that women take a cut in income by divorcing and men do better by divorcing, the reverse is also true: women benefit by marriage and men suffer (financially speaking). Therefore men don't "benefit" from marriage, per se. I am quite sure there are men who would rather their wives stay home, and would rather be the "provider". But that's not relevant, either, and just because they might have gotten what they want doesn't mean they benefited.
710. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:06:20 AM
Couple of points on this Ryan business. I got a copy of the book, and it's clear that Ryan only read the introduction, since that's where all the material in her colmun came from. There is at least one instance of plagiarism where Ryan quotes without attribution the whole sentence about child support awards and judicial whimsy. It really stands out, because the one area where we know judges go by the book is WRT child support awards. It's been researched that they only deviate from guideline about 5% of the time.
The book is one of the most poorly-researched pieces of crap ever written, completely relying on interviews for authority. So the author talks to one family law attorney who says family law is biased against mothers, and that's the gospel, no need for further research.
There's a chapter called California Child Support Wars or something that's about the Coalition of Parent Support and our efforts to reduce the California Child Support Guideline. It's so inaccurate, it's probably libelous. She claims that the fathers' rights groups are all richly funded, while moms have no representation in Sacramento, but along the way she quotes from about a half-dozen child support booster who are all paid professionals to raise the guideline. All in all, the Rosenberg Foundation of Frisco Town has spent over $10Million to spin child support with the media and to lobby the legislature incessantly.
Ryan's column was so dishonest, and the book even moreso, that I'm seriously considering some legal action. It's a mess.
711. vw - 2/17/2001 2:06:47 AM
on the long-term negative outcomes on children of financial stability in the childhood home.
Sorry, that should read financial instability.
712. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:09:53 AM
I have a problem with the chinese menu approach. I think keeping the family home makes excellent sense, but only if both parents are allowed to occupy it with their kids, paying for it and using it as a base to minimize disruption.
But if this isn't possible, or is considered unworkable, then the parent who wants the house could buy it from the other, and ideally will have to qualify for the mortgage on her own. Preferably without using the support money for more than X percent of documented income.
To say that the custodial parent is entitled to raise the children in a house she can't afford is silliness.
713. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:10:54 AM
I took a look at the Official Poverty Numbers the other day, and what I found was pretty eye-opening. The poverty rate for married couples over 75 is about 5.5%, roughly half of what it is for single men or women in the prime working years of 18-65. If you want to be poor in old age, the best way to pull it off is to be single. Regardless of sex, your risk in the over 75 age group is rougly 9%.
I would expect a lot of women who live on child support and alimony to be poor in old age, since they never really learn how to manage their money. That's really the key to accumlating wealth over time, not spending what you can't afford to spend without compromising your nut.
714. vw - 2/17/2001 2:13:39 AM
then the parent who wants the house could buy it from the other, and ideally will have to qualify for the mortgage on her own.
Exactly. My objection to the “necessity” of maintaining the family home is in light of how often that means being financially unstable or at risk.
715. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:13:40 AM
To say that the custodial parent is entitled to raise the children in a house she can't afford is silliness.
I have found that the same women who argue that mom has to keep the family home in the interests of children's stability also believe that mom should have an unfettered right to pick up and move across the country, with the kids, at whimsy.
716. vw - 2/17/2001 2:15:33 AM
Well, if I was elected Goddess of the Universe one of the first things I would do with my magic wand would be to make it near to impossible to move a minor child out of state and away from the NCP.
717. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:19:47 AM
That would be a good move, so to speak, but not as much fun as banning people from the irritating web site of your choice.
718. CalGal - 2/17/2001 2:20:38 AM
Yep, but I would also say the NCP couldn't move.
It's funny. Everyone focuses on making divorces harder to get, if you have kids. When it makes far more sense to just make raising kids post divorce very onerous for parents who were figuring it'd be easier.
Focus on requirements that forced the parents to coparent after a divorce, make sure that one parent didn't get all the money and all the power, require them to stay in the vicinity and oh, by the way, visitation is required on both sides, in the event there's not joint custody.
As I said earlier, a lot of marginal marriages would stay put, if it got that complicated.
719. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:23:23 AM
In the real world, whenever anybody proposes these things to the legislature, the Domestic Violence Lobby goes nuts, and they have a lot of weight. Tell me a way around them, and the world can be a better place.
720. joezan - 2/17/2001 11:10:59 AM
Cal:
Message # 718 is eminently sensible. Both marriage and divorce are too easy to enter into.
721. ScottLoar - 2/17/2001 11:11:52 AM
Message # 695
Obstreperous is an adjective, it was spelled correctly, the word was appropriate to the context.
Young males are generally obstreperous. Yes, teenage boys are obstreperous.
722. CalGal - 2/17/2001 11:43:13 AM
Joe,
But most efforts (generally Republican) to make divorce harder involve the technicalities--waiting periods, counselling, and so on. For one thing, that's not all that difficult. For another, once they've gone through that, it's the same old bullshit.
Besides, if a marriage doesn't have kids, no one cares if divorce is easy or difficult. So make parenting requirements difficult.
The same is true for marriage. If you make marriage too onerous, fewer people will get married--and they'll have kids anyway. Which is fine by me, provided that they have to follow the same requirements.
We've already decoupled marriage and parenting--kids are entitled to the same rights whether their parents are married or not. So the same requirements ought to be in place whether parents are married or not. The only difference, really, is whether the parents are cohabitating at the time of birth or not. If they aren't, they have to have one set of requirements (time spent with each parent), if they are living together, then their split up is the equivalent of a divorce whether they are married or not.
723. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:15:06 PM
Okay, I'm back after a good night's rest.
The problem with the premise both Calgal and VW begin with, that women who become parents are irresponsible if they cannot maintain their household independent of their partner, regardless of their situation at the time of their decision (to have a child), ignores most economic and game theory principles. Under any decision making model that accurately captures social, cultural and economic conditions, most women do not become poor after divorce because of some initial "irresponsible" behavior.
Game theory tells us that women have several possible outcomes to choose from, they assign probabilities to each, and then choose the outcome most likely to maximize their welfare. At the point most women make the decision to have a child, this is rigged toward Becker's family decision-making model. The outcome will more likely be to optimize family efforts in two different directions: males toward income generation, females toward in-home production.
You can call these females irresponsible, but they are making "rational" decisions given the constraints they face. And if you don't want to argue these decisions are rational, they are, at the very least, joint decisions.
If anything can be criticised as irresponsible then, it is a joint decision by a man and woman that leads to one being the primary income earner and one the primary care giver. But if this is the case, then both are equally irresponsible. Men who divorce don't suddenly become the responsible adult and women the irresponsible adult.
724. PsychProf - 2/17/2001 12:17:33 PM
Interesting discussion of the socio-political-economics of parenting...I won't add any twaddle...what I know from raising two sons is that my effectiveness as a father would have been greatly reduced if my wife was not there to support me and add herself to the interactive mix...her loss would be irreparable, and could not be compensated for by any act of myself.
725. CalGal - 2/17/2001 12:28:34 PM
Ms,
I generally agree that women are making the most efficient decision, based on the rules, but then, that is why I think the system (game) should be changed. One key step is to remove community property, the next is to remove income transfer. Why? Because the system is out of whack with the underlying rules (or laws, whatever they are called in game theory). The system rewards women disproportionately merely for being women, and the system presumes that the mother is the better emotional parent but less productive financially. However, the rules say that both men and women are equal--equal in their ability to parent and equal in their responsibility to provide.
I support putting the system back in alignment with the rules.
If anything can be criticised as irresponsible then, it is a joint decision by a man and woman that leads to one being the primary income earner and one the primary care giver.
This is not true. Only the woman decides to give up or cut income--and there's not even a requirement that she become primary care giver. She can, if she chooses to, watch TV all day--in fact, there are plenty of cases where the woman stays home and the kid goes to daycare. No, this isn't the norm, but can it happen? Absolutely. Why? Because the man has absolutely no say, short of divorce, in the woman's choices to stay home or work, or what income she decides to make. (This is equally true of women's say in what men earn or do.)
So the women who can't support their children are responsible all by their own choice.
726. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:32:38 PM
The laws state that men and women are equally responsible for their child's financial care.
Don't know what you're referring to here. What laws? When? Before or after marriage? Before or after procreation? What state laws require individuals to be equally responsible for their children's financial care? What laws speak to this?
State laws are designed to step in only when parents fail althogether to provide some minimum level of care for their children; and that minimum level is damn low, as any child protection agency worker will tell you.
Second, poverty has never been legislated as a barrier to childbearing. The poor get to procreate just as much as the rich. Indeed, social welfare programs that target families are predicated on the notion that we don't want to punish the children for their parent's inadequacies. So we provide some minimal safety net.
Third, were the government to actually require financial responsibility as a prerequisite to marriage and parenting, there would be a significant constitutional conflict. We'd be regulating private affairs of the home, which are viewed by the courts as one of the areas of natural rights that are still recognized.
(con't)
727. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:33:21 PM
Telling someone who they can marry, when they can marry, when they can have children, under what circumstances, when they can divorce, and under what circumstances, would be viewed as such a massive invasion of our privacy, our basic 1st A rights to assembly and exercise of religion (possibly even an infringement of the establishment clause), that it would never stand the light of day. And any legislature that enacts such laws would be crucified by the voting public, as well as subject to review of constitutional violations.
Both of your recommendations regarding restrictions on parents' mobility also infringes these rights, as well as other freedoms recognized as part of our constitutional protections (the right to contract freely, the right to engage in economic activities, etc). They are not only undesirable, they intrude on a basic right every adult believes is fundamental to their citizenship, the freedom from government intrusion into private family decision making.
Besides which, men would be the real losers of any restrictions on their mobility, since their job mobility is typically tied to higher income generation, unlike women's job mobility. Since men mostly make the laws, and men have a real stake in squashing such restrictions, this would never fly. Never.
Finally, restrictions on worker mobility could seriously affect economic growth and activity in this country. One thing that sets us apart from other advanced economies is our utter lack of restrictions on worker mobility in any form. In fact, we have programs and laws that actually encourage a mobile work force, and I can't see any legislature actually passing restrictions that would interfere with such a fundamental element of US labor markets.
728. joezan - 2/17/2001 12:34:25 PM
Me too, PP.
I'm not a perfect parent, but I know that I have always spent a lot more time with my daughters - quality and otherwise - than any other dad we know. And most moms we know, for that matter. Still, I know that I would not be near the dad I am without my wife.
729. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:42:14 PM
Only the woman decides to give up or cut income--and there's not even a requirement that she become primary care giver.
I don't know where you get this from. What evidence supports this assertion? Certainly most studies on family dynamics, on women and their career choices, suggest these are NOT unilateral decisions.
What may be true is that years after these decisions are made, the partner who remains the primary income earner may regret his/her choice. This isn't the same as saying they were not an integral part of the decision to begin with.
And frankly, your repeated focus on outlier results, that the woman reneges, that she doesn't hold up her end of the deal, is disengenuous. That these decisions don't work sometimes is not news. However, because there may be a few sensational cases where women broke their end of the bargain doesn't make these decisions unilateral in most cases.
Even in your Brave New World there would be a breakdown of the system as intended, and children would be left without adequate care, and men would be screwed, and women would be screwed.
No system is 100% effective, and your vision would be such a funadmental invasion of individual rights, we'd lose more than we'd gain, IMHO.
730. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 12:52:17 PM
Focus on requirements that forced the parents to coparent after a divorce, make sure that one parent didn't get all the money and all the power, require them to stay in the vicinity and oh, by the way, visitation is required on both sides, in the event there's not joint custody.
Believe it or not, this is what courts already attempt to do in family law. With the exception of requiring parents to stay in the vicinity, courts try to fashion divorce settlements such that one parent isn't living in poverty while the other lives in the lap of luxury, maintains parental relationships for the children, and generally provides for joint custody.
Joint physical custody has both it proponents and its detractors, there's evidence on both sides of the coin to suggest mixed results for children. Again, the integrity of the adults will be the determining factor, and here no laws in the world can make people step up to ethical behavior.
Courts can even set minimum restrictions on custodial parent mobility, that is, the parent seeking to move must show the court it is based on economic need, which will be evaluated at the court's discretion.
731. vw - 2/17/2001 12:57:06 PM
Sorry Scott, your original post in message #671 had it spelled “ostreperous” which I then inadvertently corrected in my copy. BTW, I’m not attempting to be obnoxious or snotty by using (sic) … I don’t pretend to be familiar with every word in the English language and pointing out a questioned word or phrase helps with clarification (as you yourself were motivated to do). Occasionally I even learn something.
732. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:13:39 PM
What state laws require individuals to be equally responsible for their children's financial care?
You switched from "men and women" to "individuals", which is different. I am referring to divorce laws. In years past, divorce meant that women and children were maintained by the men, along with the kids (this is in the brief period of time when divorce was acceptable but women weren't yet "equal"). The woman wouldn't remarry, because so long as she didn't remarry she could be kept by the ex.
The divorce laws changed to no-fault divorce, and the basic premises changed. Among the changes was the presumption that both parents are responsible for their children, that alimony was now a temporary payment. Child support is now based on what both parents make; the woman is expected to provide for her children as well. While it's true that occasional perversions in family court make it possible for a custodial parent to stay home and live off the ex, that is normally the exception, not the rule--and the justification for it is not that the woman deserves to stay home or be free of financial responsibility for raising her child.
Then consider welfare reform. Regardless of whether you approved of it or not, there was no question that the intent was to force women to accept financial responsibility for their children--not to find a man, but to get a job. Why? Because they had children, and the expectation is that they are to be financially responsible for those children, whether or not there is a man to do so.
I realize that it is rarely stated this way, but the fact is that women are every bit as financially responsible for their children as men are, and the laws assume that. Women these days don't get child support because they are female, but because they always make less money, and the divorce laws provide for income transfer based on the who makes more money.
733. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:19:42 PM
Both of your recommendations regarding restrictions on parents' mobility also infringes these rights, as well as other freedoms recognized as part of our constitutional protections (the right to contract freely, the right to engage in economic activities, etc).
Divorce laws put all sorts of restrictions on parents that would seem to be unreasonable. Divorce laws mandate how much money one parent must spend on his child (at least through income transfer)--imagine if married parents were told how much they had to spend on their children. Divorce laws make it possible to force a parent to never have a person of the opposite sex over while the child is in their home. Divorce laws mandate that, if a parent moves out of state, one person shall be responsible for all costs of the child visiting. Divorce laws force parents to sell their house even if one of them doesn't want to. Divorce laws make it easy for a court to strip away a parent's legal rights in five minutes, when it takes a year or so to take a kid away from a crack whore living in a cockroach-infested slum. And all of that is just for starters.
So there may be plenty of reasons why my proposals won't work, but the objection that they create undue restrictions on parents won't fly, since this is the case already.
734. CalGal - 2/17/2001 1:26:04 PM
Certainly most studies on family dynamics, on women and their career choices, suggest these are NOT unilateral decisions.
It doesn't matter whether they are or not. What I said is inarguable--they can be, and there's not a thing that the other person can do about it. All decisions about income are unilateral, in the end.
I'm not focusing on "outlier" results--I said from the beginning that it might not be common. It doesn't matter whether it's common or not. The fact that both people agree to it doesn't make it any more a good decision, obviously. And the fact that both people don't have to agree to it makes the whole thing pretty much of a joke.
As I said, community property is an objective deliverable that rewards the woman (usually) primarily on her skill in attracting a man who makes a lot of money, or who will make a lot of money--not on her parenting skills or devotion to her kids. But the "notion" on which it is based is outdated and more than a bit marginalizing in its underestimation of women and their abilities.
735. Jamie R - 2/17/2001 1:33:55 PM
MS, can you clarify, please? My daughter's mom and I have about 65-35 custody split. Suppose she proposes to take my daughter and move across the country to start a job that will provide her with a fabulously increased income (double or better.) Say she has a clear economic incentive to do this by any reasonable measure.
Are you saying that if I sought a court order to block this move I would be seeking to violate her individual rights (and thus acting immorally myself)? Or that the courts should rightly consider the national need for workplace mobility as (at least potentially) trumping my parental rights?
736. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 2:46:01 PM
MsIvoryTower can't make a consistent defense of her desire to give the family home to mom - on the basis of stability for the child - and at the same time allowing unfettered moveaway rights for custodial parents. In the first instance, the argument is the child's need for stabilty, but for some reason that's trumped by mom's lust for cash in the second instance.
There' a real easy solution to both issues that doesn't torture logic or reduce the child to the condition of a suitcase: declare that the child's bests interests are served by his or her remaining in the community following a divorce. It's unreasonable to give mom the marital home when the post-divorce material standard of living has to fall for both mom and dad, but we can try to keep Junior in the same school and connected to the same group of friends and neighbors. Second, if mom wants to move, she can, but she can't take Junior unless she can convince a court that Junior's interests are in some way well-served by the move in their own right. Nobody questions mom's right to move; the question is whether Junior has any interests independent of mom's.
737. CaroBeth - 2/17/2001 3:59:51 PM
When my parents divorced (mid-70's), she got primary custody but part of the agreement was that she couldn't move more than 100 miles away. Dad's job wasn't going to move and he didn't want us too far away. Mom obviously agreed to this.
Not saying this is a solution, just relating personal experience. But you can't have it both ways.
738. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 5:43:35 PM
Calgal,
You said
Nonetheless, it is factually and legally true. The laws state that men and women are equally responsible for their child's financial care. Women are not held exempt because of their gender.
Your Message # 732 doesn't show that laws require equal financial responsibility on the part of both parents. It simply illustrates that women are not exempt from some sort of financial responsibility for their children, which is not what you argued initially.
Women are not expected to be equally responsible for earning outside income if they are the custodial parent. In fact, in most states, women with children under the age of five are not expected to work outside the home when courts are determining the appropriate family payments of the husband when he is not the custodial parent.
Nor are women with young school-age children required by the courts to be working full-time, although, you're correct they expect women to increase their earnings contributions by this point. IOW, the laws do not require equal financial responsibility between custodial and non-custodial parents.
So, it is not the case that state laws already require equal financial responsibility by custodial parents when they exit a marriage.
And, FWIW, in many states, women in long-term marriages, defined typically as over 12 years, will be able to receive alimony indefinitely, regardless of the presence of children until she remarries.
These laws are hardly compatible with the point you've been trying to make.
739. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 5:44:51 PM
Divorce laws put all sorts of restrictions on parents that would seem to be unreasonable.
These take effect after the choice is made to divorce. These laws do not infringe on basic decisions prior to the divorce, which is an important dividing line.
The point I made is illustrated by your own comments regarding what a court can do wrt a parent seeking to leave the state. Courts already have flexibility in this matter, but to move much farther in restricting parent's rights to freely move about would run smack into 1st A constraints.
For example, courts have the discretion to order parents to remain in the state, but they exercise it with caution precisely because it is fraught with potential legal problems for the state. Thus, if a custodial parent can show they have no other job prospects of equivalent character, they will most likely be able to move.
Your point about restricting non-custodial parent mobility to the same extent we already restrict custodial parent mobility, however, is a position that has some possibilities. My guess is that it won't happen because of the political consequences, and whose mobility it would infringe.
So there may be plenty of reasons why my proposals won't work, but the objection that they create undue restrictions on parents won't fly, since this is the case already.
No, this isn't the case for the majority of divorces, and the restrictions allowed will vary by state, since family law is a state responsibility. Courts now have flexibility in mandating solutions on a case by case basis, and include an array of options, but none are mandated, as they would be under your proposal. This is a significant difference, IMO.
740. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:00:54 PM
I'm not focusing on "outlier" results--I said from the beginning that it might not be common. It doesn't matter whether it's common or not. The fact that both people agree to it doesn't make it any more a good decision, obviously. And the fact that both people don't have to agree to it makes the whole thing pretty much of a joke.
No it doesn't. And yes, you are focusing on the possiblility that these decisions can be made unilateral. Furthermore, it certainly does matter whether it's common or not. We don't make radical policy changes that can dramatically restrict, in very rigid ways, parental freedoms on the basis of some remote possibility of an event happening, given the cultural and social constraints of our society.
As I said, community property is an objective deliverable that rewards the woman (usually) primarily on her skill in attracting a man who makes a lot of money, or who will make a lot of money--not on her parenting skills or devotion to her kids.
Jaysus, I must have missed this bizarre premise. Community property is based on the cultural, social and economic constraints that have operated to restrict women's earnings after marriage.
It may have become a tool for some women to escape financial burdens, but there is really very little evidence, outside of Hollywood, that most women are given a "free ride" as a result of community property laws. In fact, they were instituted for precisely the opposite reason, women received no "pay off" to the years they spent helping to build their partner's earning potential and expanding family wealth.
While we may not need community property laws for much longer, with the changes that are occurring in women's labor force patterns, that doesn't reduce them to irrelevancy, or even a tool that "rewards" exploitation.
741. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:11:13 PM
Jamie R asks
Are you saying that if I sought a court order to block this move I would be seeking to violate her individual rights (and thus acting immorally myself)? Or that the courts should rightly consider the national need for workplace mobility as (at least potentially)trumping my parental rights?
This is tricky. The court will grant your order if you can show that there are plenty of economic opportunities for a person with her skills in the same area, and that employers are hiring. However, the court can also order you to pay more support if she doesn't end up getting an equivalent job, or any job at all. (She could even sue you if she can show irreparable economic harm.) They may require you to make up the difference between what she is earning, and what she would have earned.
As to infringing on her individual rights, you don't have the right to force a custodial parent to stay where she cannot reasonably find work, unless you're prepared to fully support the household. However, courts will vary in their application of this principle, and laws themselves will vary by state.
Courts routinely consider national workforce needs in any action that restricts labor, or labor mobility. Strikes are disfavored, collusion by employers is disfavored, contracts that restrict labor are disfavored, etc.
Your parental rights may be important, but you're divorced now, you don't get to capriciously restrict your ex-spouses mobility without some damn good reason. Courts are in the business of balancing the rights involved.
742. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:16:43 PM
MsIvoryTower can't make a consistent defense of her desire to give the family home to mom - on the basis of stability for the child - and at the same time allowing unfettered moveaway rights for custodial parents.
Well I'd be hurt if this had anything to do with what I was debating. Never once mentioned stability for the child, except as a rebuttal to the silly notion that women are irresponsible for bearing children without full financial independence in a marriage, and worse, are dumb divorcers.
Nor did I argue that we must allow unfettered movaway rights for custodial parents. First, this isn't the case now. Second, my point was that we've gone about as far as we can go in restricting custodial parents mobility without running into 1st A concerns. This, of course, has nothing to do with your comments.
743. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:21:46 PM
Second, if mom wants to move, she can, but she can't take Junior unless she can convince a court that Junior's interests are in some way well-served by the move in their own right. Nobody questions mom's right to move; the question is whether Junior has any interests independent of mom's..
Or dad's, I'd add.
But on the whole, this is a very reasonable approach to the problem of custodial parent mobility. Of course, this would require the non-custodial parent to step up to the plate and become the custodial parent, if the child wants to remain in the same area. Then, of course, the child should also be free to leave if he/she finds the new custodial arrangement not in their best interests. That is, if the parent can't provide adequate child care and supervision.
744. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 6:24:46 PM
CaroBeth
Contractual arrangements such as you indicated in your message are honored by the courts, in fact, they welcome them as ways to remove the courts from having to make these decisions.
Many divorcing couples are now negotiating that the custodial parent remain in the same state as the non-custodial parent, in exchange for greater child support/family support payments. This is a reasonable trade-off, IMO, and can work very well.
745. MsIvoryTower - 2/17/2001 7:01:01 PM
Both of your recommendations regarding restrictions on parent's mobility also infringes these rights,...
As a point of clarification, the above comment refers to both Calgal and vw's proposal that the custodial parent be restrained from moving away, as a matter of law. It was not a reference to several of Calgal's proposals, FWIW.
I take this to be a significant departure from the, now discretionary, restrictions on parental mobility courts will sometimes exercise. In addition, as I stated earlier, this can be overcome if there is a good enough reason for the parent wanting to leave the area.
746. labwabbit - 2/17/2001 7:10:09 PM
Gosh Ms.
You're tearing the place up.
Now THIS is a rant if I ever seen one. (heh-heh)
747. JudithAtHome - 2/17/2001 7:45:08 PM
I agree...and a very good one, at that.
748. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 10:37:10 PM
MsIvoryTower claims:
Nor did I argue that we must allow unfettered movaway rights for custodial parents. First, this isn't the case now. Second, my point was that we've gone about as far as we can go in restricting custodial parents mobility without running into 1st A concerns. This, of course, has nothing to do with your comments.
I don't know whether you're completely uninformed in this area or are deliberately lying. The tone of your posts suggest that you consider yourself in possession of some knowledge of family law, as you appear comfortable making pronouncements about what courts and and cannot do, but your claims are nonsense.
The facts about moveaways are emodied in court decisions issued by the California Supreme Court in Marriage of Burgess and similar decisions in New York and other states circa 1995. In Burgess, the case I'm most familiar with since it's the law where I live, the court held that a moveaway by a CP could not be halted unless the NCP could show that it was going to be harmful to the child. They effectively set the bar so high, that no more than 2 or 3 malicious moveways have been held up since the ruling was issued. Your claim about First Amendment concerns is simply ludicrous. Alimony and child support have a lot more to do with First and Fourth Amendment concerns than moveaways, and they're enforced in the Best Interests of the Child.
749. RickyRicardo - 2/17/2001 10:37:44 PM
Community property is based on the cultural, social and economic constraints that have operated to restrict women's earnings after marriage.
Community Property and Alimony were mechanisms to provide for the support of divorced women who couldn't support themselves without placing a burden on the public purse. Historically, states used one of these mechanisms or the other, but not both. The Catholic states where family law came down from France used Community Property, and the other states used Alimony. Of the two, Alimony is more insulting to women since it assumes they lack the judgment and intelligetce to manage their own assets, and therefore have to live off an allowance administered by their former husband acting in the role of father to them. When NOW was formed, they listed the abolition of alimony as a goal they wished to accomplish.
But as the feminist movement has veered away from its prior equality focus toward a maternal supremicist model, alimony has been rehabilitated as a kind of reparations scheme for Maternal-Americans disadvantaged by the Patriarchy, as you said. It's odd that we now have BOTH community property and alimony across the country.
But there's nothing like having it both ways.
750. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:19:13 AM
Dear Ricky
The 1995 Applellate Court decision in In Re Burgess was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 1996. That court rejected the AC's understanding of what "best interest of the child" meant under the California Code, and what test applied to "move aways".
I quote the court:
We conclude that, in an initial judicial custody determination based on the "best interest" of minor children, a parent seeking to relocate does not bear [*29] a burden of establishing that the move is "necessary" as a condition [***3] of custody. Similarly, after a judicial custody order is in place, a custodial parent seeking to relocate bears no burden of establishing that it is "necessary" to do so. Instead, he or she "has the right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." (Fam. Code, § 7501.) Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
I made no claim that the court doesn't consider the best interests of the child, indeed, I made no claim regarding the standard of review used in these cases. I simply said that courts will apply their discretion carefully in cases where the custodial parent seeks to move away, and they do so because to absolutely bar moves would run smack into our 1st A freedoms as interpreted by the Constitution, which include economic freedoms.
751. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:20:43 AM
The court here goes on to say that the custodial parent has a "presumptive right" to relocate with the children:
In addition, in a matter involving immediate or eventual relocation by one or both parents, the trial court must take into account the presumptive right of a custodial parent to change the residence of the minor children, so long as the removal would not be prejudicial to their rights or welfare. (Fam. Code, § 7501 ["A parent entitled to custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child."].)
This presumptive right is based on the 1st A.
Here is a cite to the case, go read it.
In Re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25
752. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:24:47 AM
Dear Ricky
Second,
In California, a community property state, one is entitled to alimony as well as a division of the estate, if one was in a long term marriage.
I also made no claim that all state laws are the same. Your digression on community property versus alimony is interesting, but doesn't refute any point I've made.
753. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 9:56:19 AM
As a qualifier to my argument regarding constitutional considerations in reviewing parental moveaways, I should note that its not clear where the rights may reside, they could be in the 1st A, in the 14th, in the 5th A (privileges and immunities clause), or based in natural rights recognized by the Supreme Court: the right to privacy, the right to travel, the right to autonomy, the right to contract, etc.
Most family law cases don't really argue constitutional principles, they're worded in things like "best interests of the child", "the child's welfare", "changed circumstances", and the like. But I would argue that most states start from a base of "what is constitutional" when designing their family law codes, and that courts are always cognizant of basic constitutional rights when they interpret them.
754. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 10:02:08 AM
And as a final qualifier, to the extent I've only mentioned 1st A concerns in my previous posts, that really is sloppy, since, as I said above, it's not clear where the constitutional rights rest (as per Supreme Court confusion).
755. PsychProf - 2/18/2001 10:54:10 AM
Some fine thinking and presentation Missie...
756. Erin R. - 2/18/2001 1:02:53 PM
I wish I had something to add to the current discussion.
My son is settling down for a nap...thank God.
757. vw - 2/18/2001 1:30:10 PM
the silly notion that women are irresponsible for bearing children without full financial independence in a marriage, and worse, are dumb divorcers.
First, I find it annoying that my posts are being recast in terms of gender. I refer to Custodial Parents and Non-Custodial Parents, not men and women. I don’t see the current divorce law situation through the lens of Gender Feminism, but rather through a lens of legal inequity.
Having said that, I do believe whole heartedly believe that any parent who does not manage their finances in such a way that he or she could continue to support the children in the event of the lose of income of the other parent is indeed financially irresponsible.
Your parental rights may be important, but you're divorced now, you don't get to capriciously restrict your ex-spouses mobility without some damn good reason.
I don’t think wanting your child to stay within range of reasonable and frequent visitation is “capricious”. In fact I think it’s anything but. I think the parent that desires the out of area move should carry the burden of proving that not to move carries overwhelming negative consequences.
And it has nothing to do with “parental rights” it has to do with child rights. The parent chose to be married to their spouse. They choose to bring children into the world within that marriage. They then chose to divorce. None of this negates the right the child has to continue to be raised by both parents that carry the responsibility for bringing them into a world as a two-parent household.
The divorce ends the marital relationship not the parenting relationship. By making the choice to become a parent, we should expect that certain of our personal rights would be restricted for the benefit of the children that we have brought into the world.
(cont.)
758. vw - 2/18/2001 1:30:50 PM
(cont.)
Quite frankly, the damage done by moving a child away from another parent is of several magnitudes greater the retaining the marital home, which you felt was of importance.
It amazes me that we can be so cavalier about removing a parent from a child’s life. That an opportunity to increase ones wages or receive a promotion somehow trumps the emotional well being and future outcomes of a minor child.
759. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 1:36:08 PM
MsIvoryTower says:
I simply said that courts will apply their discretion carefully in cases where the custodial parent seeks to move away, and they do so because to absolutely bar moves would run smack into our 1st A freedoms as interpreted by the Constitution, which include economic freedoms.
and the California Supreme Court says:
the trial court must take into account the presumptive right of a custodial parent to change the residence of the minor children, so long as the removal would not be prejudicial to their rights or welfare.
These two statments are contradictory. Please resolve.
760. CalGal - 2/18/2001 1:38:13 PM
First, I find it annoying that my posts are being recast in terms of gender.
She was addressing my posts, because I did bring up gender. That's because almost all the custody and divorce laws, while technically gender neutral, are clearly designed on the premise that the woman is usually the custodial parent who is also the lesser earner. Ms' rebuttals, which restate the rationale behind the laws, reinforce this.
As you know, I don't see the divorce laws through gender feminism (ick) either. But it seems to me completely appropriate to point out how the laws not only protect women (or seek to) from their very bad financial decisions but are designed to do so, rather than create a gender neutral legal framework.
761. PelleNilsson - 2/18/2001 2:21:30 PM
Suppose the ex cannot or will not pay child support. What happens then?
762. PelleNilsson - 2/18/2001 2:23:22 PM
I mean cannot pay the amount determined by the court or by agreement.
763. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 2:54:28 PM
Dear Ricky
The two statements are not contradictory. I really think you need to read the whole exchange, because, frankly, you're missing important links.
First,
My comment regarding absolute bars refers to both Calgal and vw's argument that custodial parents should lose their right to move, as a matter of law. This is an absolute bar. I don't know of any court that cavalierly pronounces a custodial parent can't move, unless there's a damn good reason.
The damn good reason is if the non-custodial parent can show it's against the child's welfare, and is primarily intended to harass or deprive them of their visitation/joint custody rights.
If you note in that opinion, however, the court was careful to indicate that inconvenience to either of the parents is not going to be considered against the child's welfare.
Second,
Courts do have discretion to restrain the custodial parent from moving with the child(they can move, just not with the child), if the non-custodial parent can show the move is primarily "vindictive". Then the "childs best interests" trump the parent's maliciousness, and the non-custodial parent can gain custody.
764. Jules - 2/18/2001 2:55:50 PM
>>In California, a community property state, one is
entitled to alimony as well as a division of the estate,
if one was in a long term marriage.
In California one is entitled to spousal support regardless of the length of the marriage, if one is the lower earner. The difference between short and long term marriages (long is defined as 10 or more years) is that generally speaking spousal suppor in short term marriages lasts no longer that half the length of the marriage. In long term marriages the court retains jurisdiction indefiniately, and one may be forced to pay spousal support for much, much longer that half the length of the marriage. Till death do us part, indeed.
765. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:00:06 PM
Calgal
The problem with trying to create a legal framework that ignores gender issues is that it can have very nasty unintended effects. I'd argue that laws aren't typically made in some neutral framework, they're always within the context of the social, cultural and economic realities of the times. And even were they to be designed to be neutral, they'll be interpreted by the courts with these factors as the backdrop.
766. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:02:02 PM
Jules,
Aren't courts in California predispositioned to refuse alimony in short-term marriages if there aren't children? Doesn't this also depend on the age of the spouse seeking alimony?
767. Jules - 2/18/2001 3:07:00 PM
>> if the non-custodial parent can show the move is primarily "vindictive". Then the "childs best interests" trump the
parent's maliciousness, and the non-custodial parent can gain
custody.
Problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove that the move is indeed "vindictive". Most people who are doing moves for such reasons are smart enough not to come out and say outright "I'm moving the kids to keep them away from that bastard, that'll teach him for dating that slut!"
As for Burgess being overturned, not really. Ask any lawyer practising family law in California, and they will tell you that it is much, much harder to block a moveaway today than it was pre-Burgess. The old standard was that the moving party had to prove that the move was absolutely necessary, now the burden is on the non-custodial party to prove that it's unnecessary, and vindictive to boot.
I feel the childrens interests were much better served when the burden of proof fell on the person who wanted to make such a radical change in the kids relationship with their other parent.
768. Jules - 2/18/2001 3:10:39 PM
>Aren't courts in California predispositioned to refuse
alimony in short-term marriages if there aren't
children? Doesn't this also depend on the age of the
spouse seeking alimony?
There are 10 factors the courts are supposed to look at. Caring for children is indeed one of the factors, as is the age of the spouse seeking alimony. There are, however, 8 other factors which deal with such things as the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and the ability of the supporting party to pay. So bizarre as it seems, it is indeed possible for a 30 year old childless woman to receive spousal support. I don't have figures that show how often this happens, but it does indeed happen.
769. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:13:50 PM
Quite frankly, the damage done by moving a child away from another parent is of several magnitudes greater the retaining the marital home, which you felt was of importance.
Not to split hairs, but it seems you have a propensity to put words in my mouth. Or to fail to follow the conversation.
Again, you're the one who used the example of retaining the family home as an example of dumb divorcing, ala financial irresponsibility. I merely pointed out that there's lots of research suggesting that retaining the family home isn't either dumb or irresponsible, in fact, it can be an important factor in smoothing over the family dissolution for children.
I neither advocate retaining the family home, nor do I advocate dumping it at filing the divorce papers. Each case is going to be different, and what makes sense in one case won't be the same for another. But to willy nilly condemn all parents who seek to retain the family home as irresponsible and "dumb" is sweeping and, I think, wrongheaded.
Second,
You speak of the much greater harm done by moves. Such as? Under what circumstances?
It seems to me that the impact of moving a child away from one parent will depend on the circumstances as well. Courts have nixed malicious and vindictive moves, and rightly so, but they don't automatically assume a move will have negative effects.
It depends on how far the move is, how much the children saw the non-custodial parent prior to the move, whether other equally satisfactory arrangements can be made to maintain contact, etc.
As I said earlier, courts can't make parents behave ethically, and how a move will affect a child is as much tied up in the parents continuing civility and efforts to respect one another as anything else.
770. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:15:53 PM
Jules
Actually, you reinforce the point I was making wrt the Burgess case. The courts have made it harder for a non-custodial parent to block a move.
771. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 3:17:25 PM
Jules
Are you following the conversation? I didn't say that Burgess was overturned, only that the SP of CA overturned the Appellate Court decision in that case. The Supreme Court ruling is still good law, as far as I know.
772. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 4:05:36 PM
MsIvoryTower, you're dancing.
First you claim that research shows having mom retain the family home post-divorce is good for children on the basis of stability, and then you say being dragged across the country with Mama in her quest for self-fulfillment is no big deal.
Which is it, do children benefit from residential stability, or don't they? Please answer on the basis of children's best interests, rather than on the basis of what you think courts do.
Second, on the effects of Burgess, I suggest you read an article on the Los Angeles Times by Catherine Saillaint where I gave my views on the subject (using my real name, Richard Bennett). The article is available from their archives at http://www.latimes.com/archives/
It was published June 20, 2000 and it's titled "Noncustodial Parents Moved to Action by Court Decision". It'll cost you two bucks.
Prior to Burgess, the standard was that the relocating parent had to show an imperitive reason for moving, such as an employment, educational, or marital opportunity that did not exist in the child's community. Post Burgess, the burden of proof falls on the non-custodial parent to show a vindictive motive. This is about as hard as proving perjury in family court, and as a matter of practical application, it simply doesn't happen.
Parents seeking to block relocation of the child, who doesn't have a first amendment right not to be treated as a piece if luggage, have to rely on footnote 12, which applies in the case where there is a de facto joint custody arrangement:
(see next post)
773. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 4:06:01 PM
A different analysis may be required when parents share joint physical custody of the minor children under an existing order and in fact, and one parent seeks to relocate with the minor children. In such cases, the custody order "may be modified or terminated upon the petition of one or both parents or on the court's own motion if it is shown that the best interest of the child requires modification or termination of the order." (Fam. Code, § 3087.) The trial court must determine de novo what arrangement for primary custody is in the best interest of the minor children.
As a general matter, when the courts are supposed to carefully review all the circumstances of a custody decision, that process is called a de novo review. When the law directs the courts to pay scant attention to the circumstances, it makes a presumption that one thing or the other is generally correct. In the case of moveaways, there is a presumption in place, not a requirement for a de novo review in the general case.
If you'd like to see some family law mandating a careful review of the circumstances, check the Cal. Family Codes regarding custody, which explicity state there is "neither a presumption for or against" one form of custody or another.
I note that you previously made the claim that joint custody is more common that sole custody. This is not the case. The highest number any credible researcher has developed for cases of genuine joint physical custody is 20%, so the facts are directly opposite your claim.
774. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 4:17:50 PM
MsIvoryTower asks a question about alimony in California:
Aren't courts in California predispositioned to refuse alimony in short-term marriages if there aren't children? Doesn't this also depend on the age of the spouse seeking alimony?
The right to alimony in California, as a matter of law, does depend on whether the marriage has produced children. It's pretty hard to justify giving a free ride to a woman or a man simply because they had a free ride in the past. There's no nexus between the production of children and the caretaker role for alimony puposes, however. Women who earn more than deadbeat ex-husbands are paying alimony today even while they have custody of the children, since the primary factor the courts consider is differential incomes when awarding alimony to qualifying ex-spouses. Since women now earn more than their husbands in 30% of marriages, this policy (created in response to Feminist Interest Group pressure) has produced a lot of angry women.
The only impact of long-term vs short term marriges in alimony is on the length of time the alimony has to be paid. For a short term marraige, the time limit is half the length of the marriage; for marriages of ten years or more, it goes forever.
One of the issues in the Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman divorce is the ten-year rule. Cruise tried to file before the ten-year mark, but Kidman argues the marriage was long-term. We'll see what happens, but I'm sure we all hope Nicole isn't cast out in the street like some Beverly Hills bag lady five years from now, with only two or three mansions and a handful of servants to care for her.
775. vw - 2/18/2001 4:30:19 PM
My comment regarding absolute bars refers to both Calgal and vw's argument that custodial parents should lose their right to move, as a matter of law.
No, I did not say that. I said it should be near to impossible for either parent to move.
776. vw - 2/18/2001 5:02:01 PM
But to willy nilly condemn all parents who seek to retain the family home as irresponsible and "dumb" is sweeping and, I think, wrongheaded.
Well, then we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. For I again did not say this. Maintaining the family residence when it is a financial risk was one “dumb” thing divorcing people could do.
You speak of the much greater harm done by moves. Such as? Under what circumstances?
Any move that reduces or denies a child contact with one parent or restricts that parent from having a meaningful relationship with that child can cause any number of emotional and developmental outcomes including depression, alienation from both/either parent, aggression, “acting-out” behavior, difficulty in relating to the opposite gender, self-esteem issues, etc. (see either for citations: Amato, 1986 Family relations, Barber and Eccles, 1992 Psychological Bulletin 111.108-126) This of course assumes that the parent was not abusive to the child.
In fact, except for abuse, there is very little evidence that the “quality” of the parenting relationship before the move has any effect on the severity of loss-related symptoms the child experiences. Even when the parent only saw the child once a month, the child experiences a sense of loss and suffers the related short and long-term effects. Seemingly, even a poor parent is better than no parent at all in the view of minor children.
777. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 5:28:46 PM
Dear Ricky
I'm at a loss to understand your problem with my posts, as you consistently seem to support their points.
First,
Your comments regarding Burgess support my claim that courts aren't in the business of routinely preventing custodial parents from moving with their children unless there's a damn good reason.
Second,
First you claim that research shows having mom retain the family home post-divorce is good for children on the basis of stability, and then you say being dragged across the country with Mama in her quest for self-fulfillment is no big deal.
You're confusing the issues. I did state that there is a fair amount of research trying to identify what causes trauma in divorced children. One of the factors often discussed is what happens to the children when they lose their home. This was in rebuttal to vw's argument, as I've now stated at least twice before, that retaining the family home is evidence of dumb divorcing.
She/he now backpedals from her/his position. I refer you to her/his earlier posts.
That is the end of my point on the issue of retaining the family home. It was a minor point, one made to rebutt a presumption presented by vw.
778. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 5:31:03 PM
Next, I've not once said moving a child isn't a big deal. This is not related to my point, I didn't make such an assertion, and I challenge you to find any place where I did. My discussion wrt parental moveaways is confined soley to refuting Calgal's (and vw's) proposal that they should not be allowed as a matter of law.
In other words, they propose an absolute restriction on parental mobility to be codified in the law. Now, vw may not have proposed an absolute restriction, Calgal did. vw extends her/his sweep, however to include both restrictions on both parents, not just the custodial parent.
My point wrt parental moveaways was simply that to codify this as an absolute ban is very likely to run smack dab into constitutional concerns. Both legislatures and courts are cognizant of the rights people maintain to freely move about and to pursue economic freedoms, to name a few.
So, to make it short and sweet, I'm not arguing about what's in the childs best interests. I'm talking about why courts and legislatures wouldn't go for a proposal like the one Calgal suggested, or vw's for that matter. Rather, the legislature has defined the goals and the standard courts are to use. Courts then have the discretion to apply an array of solutions to meet these goals, which includes, restricting custodial parental moveaways. However, as I argued much earlier, (again and again), they aren't going to restrict parental mobility without a damn good reason.
You know, I feel like I keep repeating myself.
779. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 5:42:17 PM
And Ricky
I note that you previously made the claim that joint custody is more common that sole custody. This is not the case. The highest number any credible researcher has developed for cases of genuine joint physical custody is 20%, so the facts are directly opposite your claim.
This would be a good rebuttal if it spoke to the comment I made. I simply said that joint custody is more prevalent now than sole custody. I didn't distinguish between legal and physical joint custody. And, quite frankly, I can't even remember now what the damn point was in reference to.
Something Calgal said, I believe.
Finally, Ricky
I'm not interested in the effects of Burgess. It's not related to what I was discussing, which was how courts will balance the constitutional protections of individuals with the statutes and principles guiding divorce settlements.
No more, no less.
780. Jamie R - 2/18/2001 5:59:56 PM
Your parental rights may be important, but you're divorced now, you don't get to capriciously restrict your ex-spouses mobility without some damn good reason.
Well, in my case there is/was no marriage to consider, commonlaw or otherwise. My daughter's mom is not an ex-spouse. Is that relevant? (That question is directed to anyone who knows the applicable law.)
781. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 6:26:10 PM
vw
Your own words were
Nonetheless ... there are certain actions that many custodial parents make that are nothing more than sheer financial lunacy. Things like attempting to maintain the martial home, allowing divorce proceedings to bury them in debt, divorcing in haste instead of planning carefully and preparing for it, etc.
We divorce dumb. And the price we pay for that is often a financial one.
You now claim the above comment was in actuallity
Maintaining the family residence when it is a financial risk was one “dumb” thing divorcing people could do.
I must have missed the qualifiers....
782. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 6:27:25 PM
oops,
hit the wrong button, so eliminate one "l" in actuality.
783. vw - 2/18/2001 7:10:42 PM
I'm a she BTW. And if I can ask one silly question ... what is "wrt"?
You are quite correct that was what I originally posted Ms. I believe I qualified the statement in a later post. You'll forgive me for not linking, as I am still trying to get used to the GUI here and am finding it difficult to scan past posts. I should jot down post # so I can go back to them quickly.
I will be more careful in qualifying up front. I am used to posting with folks on TT who are familiar to the point of nausea with my views and opinions.
784. DanDillon - 2/18/2001 7:38:49 PM
[W]hat is "wrt"?
With regard to...
785. vw - 2/18/2001 7:39:40 PM
Thanks
786. MsIvoryTower - 2/18/2001 10:30:35 PM
Hey Dan, thanks.
vw,
No problem, I probably missed your qualifying post. The rebutts were coming fast and furious at one point.
FWIW (for what it's worth), I agree we were frequently talking at cross-purposes.
787. RickyRicardo - 2/18/2001 11:11:49 PM
I'm at a loss to understand your problem with my posts, as you consistently seem to support their points.
It seems to me that the essence of what VW is saying goes in the direction of speculating on some things that might make the world a better place for the children of divorce. It appears that you saying it's not a good idea to speculate on these things because courts do what they do today for their own good reasons.
So in some sense there are at least two different conversations going on here, on advocating for change, and one excusing contemporary practice. As one on the side of change, I've encountered any number of clever rationalizations for the destuctive practices of family courts, and any number of clever excuses for shoddy policy. In my experience, there is very little consistency applied from issue to issue among those the apologists.
If you are not among them, mea culpa. But it appears you are fairly content with the status quo.
788. Autodaffy - 2/18/2001 11:33:06 PM
I think the discussion here by all parties actually contributing to it has been very informative and I thank those involved for it. To the three or so who have showed up here not to contribute but to declare a winner I say nothing that their own actions do not establish.
789. ChristiPeters - 2/19/2001 12:44:53 AM
I have found this discussion to be very interesting. As someone whose divorce experiences (before, during, and after) are very different from what seems to be the assumptions of what is the norm or the common experience, I am very leary of any proposed changes in the law mandating requirements based on those assumptions. I would err on the side of maintaining general guidlines and allowing room within those guidlines to take into account the circumstances of individual families in the divorce process.
For instance, a law mandating that either myself or my ex-spouse not move any great distance from where we happened to be when we divorced, would have left us both either completely unemployed or competing with a large College and Military population for a limited number of minimum-wage jobs.
While I fully realize that we are the exception rather than the rule, that is precisely my point. Room needs to be built in for the exceptions.
790. ChristiPeters - 2/19/2001 12:46:25 AM
Now that I've stuck my belated $0.02 in, I must retire. I'll rejoin the discussion tomorrow if my workload permits.
G'night
791. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 2:17:55 AM
I agree that you have to make room for exceptions to any rule in family law or any other kind of law. The old rule used to be "you can't move without a good reason." The feminists argued, successfully, that it was too hard for good exceptions to be heard when that rule was in place, so in 1996, the rule was changed to "you can always move unless there's a good reason not to." Under this rule, I would argue that the hardships are greater and the exceptions too hard to prove.
So it's horserace, ultimatley, like everthing else touched by politics, and the proof of the pudding is in the research that hasn't been done yet. But intuitively, there's something wrong with the status quo, and that can be established by its inconsistency with the rules in all other areas of family law.
At least, I think they can.
792. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 12:39:56 PM
While I fully realize that we are the exception rather than the rule, that is precisely my point.
No Christi, you are not the exception. We live in an increasingly mobile economy. One that requires greater mobility among labor than at any other time in the post-WWII period. Your situation is precisely the one I was addressing when I expressed my concern over proposals that would reduce the flexibility of courts to fashion reasonable custody arrangements on a case by case basis. And one, I might add, that also takes a flexible approach to changing family circumstances after divorce.
Dear Ricky
Re Message # 787:
This is really very pedestrian.
Challenging changes to law that ignore fundamental conflicts with constitutional protections, or that ignore unintended consequences, does not qualify as either defending the status quo, or being an "apologist".
If you're really proposing the kinds of restrictions that I've been rebutting, then you really must not have thought deeply about the possible problems.
Let's just take one of the proposed solutions in this recent discussion: that parents will not be allowed to move from where they reside (the county or city) once divorce settlements are final. And let's even ignore the constitutional problems with such a law.
What would be the result at the economic level? What could we say about this? What do we know about the labor pool?
We know the following:
-between 60-70% of all full-time adult workers are
793. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 12:50:50 PM
shit - I hit the damn return key- ggrrrr.
I'll continue
First, we know that between 60-70% of the full-time adult labor force is married.
Second, we also know that the divorce rate is somewhere around 50% (give or take a few percentage points at a moment in time)
This would suggest that at any one time, a significant porportion of the adult labor force is potentially at risk of becoming immobile if they become divorced.
What are the consequences of this immobility to the economy? Well, that's a bit hard to predict, but we can speculate about some possible problems.
The first would be increasing geographical rigidity in the labor market.
It would also suggest that local labor market conditions become more important to wage and income growth than they are currently. Some areas would have a harder time recruiting labor, some areas would have a surplus of workers.
Second, price (wages) would not be able to act very effectively as a mechanism to increase supply in areas where there were shortages. Also interestingly, in areas where there were surpluses, artificially supported by laws restricting worker mobility, price (wages) would be quite effective as a mechanism for lowering labor costs, but wouldn't be effective as a mechanism for reducing supply.
You see, a classic economic problem emerges without much effort at all.
794. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 1:01:58 PM
So,
Even if we ignore the fundamental constitutional problems with the proposal to presumptively restrict parental mobility after divorce, other quite significant problems, that affect more than just individual rights, are at stake.
But lets also look closer at the constitutional issues. If you want to argue that the rights of parents should be subsumed to those of the children, which is what such a policy implies to me, then at what point do we draw the line?
This is a classic slippery slope problem. We start out by saying we'll restrict parental rights to move for the sake of their children, but then what about the decision as to when to have a child itself? Does the state, since it now has a clear policy of putting the child's rights before the parents, also then extend those rights to the moment of conception? To the conditions that precede their conception?
Okay, that's a killer question. What about retreating from that quagmire and simply examine what the state could then do to protect children in the marriage. I mean, if children's rights supercede their parents, does that just begin at the moment of divorce, or does that extend to when they're born? When could the state step in, then? How does one draw the line?
I haven't even begun to think of all the possible consequences such a fundamental shift in law could bring and already, my head's spinning.
795. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 1:18:24 PM
et al
I don't mean to imply that trying to develop creative solutions that improve the lives of children post-divorce isn't a good thing. Rather, I simply think that such solutions aren't very helpful if they aren't workable within our economy or within the constitutional principles that protect individual and family liberties.
796. PsychProf - 2/19/2001 1:20:51 PM
FOSTERING RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN
797. christipeters - 2/19/2001 1:21:16 PM
You know, requiring the parents after divorce to both stay in the city in which they resided at the time of the divorce, totally ignores the issue of whether or not they would have stayed there if they had remained married.
I know that my husband and I would not have stayed in that city if we had stayed married.
The "you have to stay there" crowd seems to be assuming that all divorcing parents are living in a place semi-permanently and have a house, etc. As in, they moved there to establish a life and be in a good place to raise their kids. Well, that's true to a great extent for a large number of people of certain socio-economic status and up. It's not true for a minority in those classes or a great number of people in other socio-economic classes.
When I got divorced, the "marital home" was a single wide trailor (btw, he still has it). The town where our daughter was born was where we were living because the Air Force took us there and NOT where we planned to settle permanently. The city where we lived when we divorced was where we moved to to go to college, also not where we intended to settle permanently.
I mean, geez-louise, quit making all your examples middle-class and up! That's not the whole world, you know.
798. christipeters - 2/19/2001 1:22:52 PM
How's about we make Guidlines based on the majority and/or the average, but leave room for everybody in the Law?
799. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 1:28:04 PM
Peep's
Thanks for that link.
I'm familiar with much of that research, and in fact, participated in some of it myself. Schools can be very powerful mediators for children, and the presence of a good teacher in a child's life can be transforming.
800. PsychProf - 2/19/2001 1:37:42 PM
Thought this, which I had previously linked elsewhere, might be of interest...
DIVORCE AND CHILDREN
click on photo 
801. PelleNilsson - 2/19/2001 1:43:24 PM
Dave Barry on some aspects of parenting.
802. LimeGirl - 2/19/2001 2:03:03 PM
What I would really like to see is a study of kids from divorced homes who have done well, and the factors that their situations have in common. When I read the article, it was sort of frustrating to me, because the things that it listed that divorced kids lack, my children don't lack -- they have hot meals, they are involved in activities, they see both parents almost daily. But yet the article seems to also say that no matter what you do as a divorced parent, it's never enough. I'd much rather have do-this-now than you-should-have-done-that, although I can certainly understand the importance of articles like this for couples who are standing in the doorway.
803. CalGal - 2/19/2001 2:08:47 PM
I think divorce harms children, but I loathe Wallerstein's whinging.
What I would really like to see is a study of kids from divorced homes who have done well, and the factors that their situations have in common.
Exactly. I find it very frustrating that no one attempts to study this, when clearly some children do very well with divorced parents. I suppose there is "political" resistance to it--if you demonstrated how to mitigate the impact of divorce, you would then be criticized for "encouraging" divorce.
804. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 2:23:24 PM
MsIvoryTower tells me:
This is really very pedestrian
Had you read my posts more carefully, you would have found that my point of view is actually anti-pedestrian, as I'm against walking away with the booty. The question of limiting moveaways for children doesn't raise any constitutional issues, as it's a question of how we define the child's best interests. If I were advocating restirctions on parental mobility, (which I'm not,) an argument can certainly be made that there is a constitutional basis for said practice, just as it's proper for the law to limit the mobility of persons in specific relationships to the legal system, as we do for parolees.
The rules in place before Burgess allowed child moveaways when the custodial parent had an economic imperative, so your argument about worker rights is off-topic and irrelevant. The question raised by the Burgess rule is whether moveaways for non-economic reasons are good for children. I say no.
Incidentally, the research I've read on worker mobility says we were more mobile a generation ago.
805. Jamie R - 2/19/2001 2:30:35 PM
MS, it seems like the existence of intact marriages should create the exact same economic problem that movement restricted divorces would. It's pretty rare for one partner to remain married and at the same time permanently relocate to get an income boost. Marriage = reduced mobility overall.
So at most a move restriction would eliminate any post-divorce mobility gains the end of the marriage might have created, and return the economy's mobility to its pre-divorce state. (I am assuming that if the divorced parents want to relocate in tandem, there is no obstacle.)
806. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:00:03 PM
Had you read my posts more carefully, you would have found that my point of view is actually anti-pedestrian
Actually, I did read your posts, I'm betting you didn't read all my though, from your comments in them. I hold by my comment.
The question of limiting moveaways for children doesn't raise any constitutional issues, as it's a question of how we define the child's best interests.
Of course it raises constitutional issues, and it's precisely linked to how we define the child's best interests. In fact, the issues raised by a woman's right to an abortion are closely tied to the issues here. At what point do the child's rights and interests supercede the parents? And what violence does that do to individual rights per se?
That you reduce the problem to one of simply redefining what's in a child's best interests is disengenuous, at best.
The question raised by the Burgess rule is whether moveaways for non-economic reasons are good for children.
And who's even debating this? Again, you're raising strawmen in this discussion. Having a per se rule of law that presumptively prohibits parental moveaways is well beyond what you're arguing. In fact, many states already restrict parental moveaways for non-economic reasons.
The question is how to balance parental rights to move with children's rights to access to both parents. I vehemently reject the option of changing the law so that it restricts parental mobility per se. That would cause unintended consequences and, I would argue, would be immediately challengable under the constitution.
807. Rachel - 2/19/2001 3:01:50 PM
I think that married couples are much more likely to be willing/able to coordinate a joint move to another city than divorced couples are. (Certainly, while my parents were married, they did this many times.)
On the subject of that Wallerstein article -- she seems to assume that staying married means that the pragmatic stuff like having family meals and rides to soccer practice. I don't know how it goes in other families, but the circumstances leading up to my parents' divorce (which weren't abusive, so weren't on her list of acceptable reasons) were messing up their ability to do the pragmatic stuff. It took about 2-3 years after the divorce before things were actually better than before the divorce (and the time in between sucked pretty hard), and I don't know if some other approach to the problems would have worked in the same time frame, but sticking to the status quo would not have led to me and my sisters feeling secure in the stability of our lives.
808. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:06:11 PM
"I suppose there is "political" resistance to it--if you demonstrated how to mitigate the impact of divorce, you would then be criticized for "encouraging" divorce."
I don't know that I would agree CalGal. With the rate of divorce in the US, I think there would be GREAT desire to legitimize it in some way. In other words, divorcees could then say, "See, my divorce had no negative impact on my children whatsoever, because . . . " I think such rationalizations would be in great demand.
Simply put, divorce stinks.
809. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 3:19:11 PM
In fact, the issues raised by a woman's right to an abortion are closely tied to the issues here.
Indeed, child moveways are very much like post-natal abortions. The child's life is clearly diminished by loss of contact with peers, supportive adults in the child's community, and the non-relocating parent. And you are also correct that most of the discussion of divorce policy has been driven by an exclusive focus on the rights of the parents, with scant attention to what's actually in the interests of the child.
But it's wrong to say that it's a question that directly pits parental interests against children's rights. We turn to the child only when the rights of the two parents are in conflict; one parent wants to exercise a right to move for a non-economic reason, and the other parent seeks to exercise his constitutional right to care for his child. With two equal rights in opposition, the child's interets are taken into account as a tie-breaker. This strikes me as appropriate.
The error the court made in Burgess was to declare the right to mobility superior to the parental right of the non-custodial (or less-custodial, to be more accurate) parent. This analysis took the child's tie-breaker role off the table, and the results are very clear: children and non-custodial parents are suffering. When children of divorce suffer, they tend to make their suffering known to the rest of us.
Mitchell Johnson, the young boy who shot and killed classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas is a child of divorce whose mother was granted a non-economic moveaway by the courts. Do you want to tell the parents of the children he killed that his mothers's right to mbility is more important than their children's right to life? Apparently.
810. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:19:15 PM
But what's being proposed is not a rationalization, but a study looking at what currently exists. There comes a point when half of marriages end in divorce that it makes good sense to look at what can help children do best under those circumstances. Divorcees with young children could use the data to help them work with their exes to make their children a priority and do what's in their best interest. There's nothing rationalizing about that at all.
811. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:20:09 PM
Sorry, 810 was to Kuligin.
812. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:20:11 PM
Incidentally, the research I've read on worker mobility says we were more mobile a generation ago.
Then your research doesn't reconcile with CPS data. From the 1999 Statistical Abstract;
Mobility Status of the Population by Selected Characteristics, 1980-1998.
Year %Movers
1980-81 ................ 17
1985-86 ................ 18
1990-91................ 16
1995-96 ................ 16
_____________________________
1997-98
Total persons.......... 16
By age
5-9 yrs................ 23
10-14yrs............... 18
20-24yrs .............. 33
25-29yrs.............. 30
30-44yrs .............. 16
The data suggest no meaningful drop in mobility at the aggregate level. In addition, the 1997-98 data by age cohort shows that young adult workers are the most mobile.
Combine this with the mobility data for children under 15, and it suggests that families with younger children are comprised of younger adults, and they would be significantly impacted by restrictions on their mobility.
A recent study by Farber from the BLS suggests that worker mobility is higher among early job holders, those whose time on the job is shorter, and that mobility declines as years of experience with the same employer increase. This suggests that the mobility we see among young adults is, indeed, tied to job seeking activities.
813. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 3:25:02 PM
The data suggest no meaningful drop in mobility at the aggregate level.
The date show an 11% drop in mobility - hardly evidence that we live in an "increasingly mobile society." Feel free to retract at any time.
814. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 3:26:23 PM
That should have been "data."
815. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:26:37 PM
arky,
Any parent worth anything will worry, "What will this divorce do to my kids?" And if that parent can find some rationalization that says, "Hey, it won't affect them at all," then that parent will be perfectly content to divorce. That is all I meant.
Are there ways to help kids in divorce situations? Of course. But that wasn't the point I was making wrt CalGal's comment.
816. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:28:07 PM
arky, you have an uncanny ability to misread virtually everything I post, btw. CalGal's "political resistance" is what caught my eye.
817. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:29:25 PM
Rachel
I tend to agree. Many divorced parents would be willing to relocate together, however this presupposes both can find work, one would surely need to find equivalent work while the other would likely be moving to a better job.
Personally, I prefer contractual agreements fill this gap, or serve this need rather than for the law to develop per se rules that restrict individual's from finding solutions that best meet their personal situations.
Jamie R
Yes, mobility is reduced in marriage, but the decision making structure within a family has different constraints, and goals than one where the family is no longer intact. I refer you to my earlier discussion of Becker's model.
The intact family makes decisions based on optimizing total family well being, which may include one spouse engaging in less labor market activity and the other engaging in it primarily. Mobility for this kind of family then, would frequently include moving for the sake of better overall economic opportunities, but not necessarily equal economic opportunities for each partner. While this is perfectly rational for intact families, it is not for those who are divorced.
818. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 3:33:20 PM
Re Message # 213
No it doesn't. The data is the percentage of the population who are mobile at a point in time. Moving from 17% of the population to 16% in the population is a 1 percentage point decrease. Not going to be statistically significant.
By the way, the total number of movers is greater in each year. More people are moving, but as a percentage of the population, the numbers show relative constancy from the period noted.
819. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:34:51 PM
Any parents who are that flip about divorce don't read, and either way ought to just hand their kids over to somebody else, because they're too stupid to have kids. I certainly wouldn't feel better about their kids if idiots like that stayed married. I'd imagine the kids are sunk no matter just for the bad luck of having that kind of parent.
Fortunately, not all parents who are divorced are looking for justification to make them feel warm and fuzzy about their choices, but they would like and need real information about how best to deal with things regarding their children after the fact.
If your child is already sexually active you have to decide whether you prepare him/her for what comes with that territory or continue to preach abstinence. Once the cow is out of the barn, so to speak, good, rational information is about the best bet if your child's safety and interests predominate. Same holds for divorce and kids, but the good information isn't out there, because no one's studied what works best under what we all agree, I think, are very bad circumstances for everyone in almost every case.
820. Jamie R - 2/19/2001 3:39:23 PM
Okay, but I thought we were discussing national productivity as it impacts all of us, not optimal happiness within a family unit. If two married people are being inefficient and lessening national productivity, surely I have the same gripe with them that I do with two divorced people who have put themselves (by hypothetical law)in the same boat. It doesn't matter to me that the married people are happy about it and the divorced people are bitter about it. I'm still out X guns and Y butter.
821. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:40:25 PM
I don't think I misread it. You thought there would be a great demand for justification/rationalizaton of divorce as a choice, though you say at the end divorce sucks, so you obviously disagree with the majority, and your belief is that a study that shows how kids best live with divorce would encourage more parents to go through with it with less guilt, which implies that that would be the motivation behind conducting and publishing such a study in the first place.
Right?
822. PsychProf - 2/19/2001 3:52:56 PM
Any discussion of divorce should have the couple simultaneously attached to a pissedoff/hate meter that accurately assesses the anger between the husband/wife...then we could better understand the "irrational disputes" that occur over money, visitation, living arrangements etc...power/control interactions that inundate attempts to resolve conflict with legal or seemingly intelligent solutions.
823. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 3:53:40 PM
I believe that there would be ample people that would encourage such a study or studies, namely, to show how divorce does not negatively impact children when certain factors are applied. That is what I meant.
And I didn't mean to imply, if you so took it, that all divorcees seek "rationalizations" for their divorces. But some parents (if you can even call them that) are selfish bastards that couldn't give a hoot for the welfare of their children, and will look for any rationalization necessary to please themselves, no matter how much it may hurt their children. And I venture to say that thousands of these types of "parents" exist.
Are you and I clear now?
824. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 3:57:22 PM
Yep. But I still think conscientious parents who've divorced need good information on how best to raise their kids under those circumstances and to know what has worked best with children of divorce. How idiot parents will make themselves feel better with the info doesn't mean the studies aren't needed. If that doesn't address anything you said, mea culpa. It's still a point I wanted to make.
825. KuligintheHooligan - 2/19/2001 4:05:39 PM
I agree that the studies are necessary. In fact, I find it unbelievable that such studies have not been conducted (they must have somewhere). The need for said information wasn't my point though. And I see two catalysts for driving that need: schmuck parents looking for rationalizations, and good parents who have divorced and still want the best they possibly can give their kids. My initial comments targeted the first group, and you targeted the second, thinking perhaps that I didn't recognize the second group at all.
Have a good evening arky!
826. arkymalarky - 2/19/2001 4:07:36 PM
I gotcha.
You too, Kuli.
827. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 4:35:21 PM
Okay, but I thought we were discussing national productivity as it impacts all of us, not optimal happiness within a family unit.
Well, no we're not really talking directly about productivity. At least, I wasn't. Perhaps you were.
I was talking about the impact of laws that would interfere with labor mobility, and the consequent effects on efficiencies in the labor market.
Personal choices will always be a factor in labor supply, but these can be affected by changes in price. Once you put legal barriers in place that restrict labor mobility, these operate to affect supply regardless of price: an altogether different beast.
Nor was I talking about family "happiness", rather I was discussing family optimizing or maximizing behavior, which isn't the same thing.
828. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 5:06:54 PM
Ricky
You're all over the place.
I've been very clear about my objections to per se rules regarding parental moveaways. I've also stated that there's already flexibility in place to determine when moveaway's should be restricted.
If you want to argue for a per se rule saying that a parent can only move away for economic reasons, and never for non-economic reasons, go ahead. However, that in no way settles the issue because courts will still have to determine what counts as an economic reason and what doesn't. Or they'll have to differentiate between what is a valid economic reason and what isn't. Or whether it's economic necessity or not.
And there'd still be anecdotal horror stories of bad decisions, there'd be conflicting rules from different jurisdictions, and conflicting application of those rules by different courts. In other words, I don't see how the situation would be much different than it is now.
I think the solution will lie elsewhere, perhaps a greater focus on better procedural rules for granting divorces. Perhaps considering tougher divorce laws for marriages involving children, where the children's interests are considered up front, as part of the rationale for the divorce itself. This would certainly be in line with what Wallerstein advocates. What about requiring up front contractual arrangements as part of divorce settlements?
All of these have greater potential of solving some of the problems you want to address than simply proposing per se rules restricting parental moveaways. In addition, some have the added benefit of taking courts out of the position of having to determine who wins or loses, whose freedoms are restrained and whose aren't, and whether, in fact, the court can even arrive at a solution in the child's best interests.
829. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 5:10:52 PM
et al
I'm just about ready to bow out of this conversation. Unfortunately, my time is very limited, and, much as I'd like to continue, I think I've made most of the points I wanted.
I've enjoyed the discussion, and I thank all my fellow contributors. I now retreat to mostly lurking status again.
830. jonesatlaw - 2/19/2001 5:58:26 PM
PP's post regarding resliency in children is worth a second look. The whole theory is exciting to me because of the focus on what we have at ground zero. We can do things to help people avoid divorce, but it will happen. What then do we do for children of divorce? Long ago, there were extended family members around who may have filled in some of the gaps. African-American families especially still have an attitude of group parenting in my experience whenever physical proximity allows it. Teachers I think used to be more capable of filling in when they were more closely tied to the community than they are in your typical suburban/urban school. Even godparents used to fill the role. We need to encourage these folks wherever they exist, and provide mentors and the like in the situtations where they are not.
831. vw - 2/19/2001 6:08:38 PM
In fact, I find it unbelievable that such studies have not been conducted (they must have somewhere),/I>
I’m not aware of any having been done and I read extensively in the area (if anybody knows of any work on this please share).
But give it time … we are just now seeing the results of numerous longitudinal studies (Wallerstein’s being one of the worst of them from a methodology view IMO) on the effects of divorce on children. There is still a bitter fight going on over whether or not there is any harm. Solid research takes small logical steps from one point to the next building and amassing a bulk of supporting work behind it. It will get there.
832. vw - 2/19/2001 6:09:32 PM
Damn, sorry ... I clipped the italics tag.
834. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 8:41:50 PM
I've also stated that there's already flexibility in place to determine when moveaway's should be restricted.
But of course, this isn't really the case, as the Burgess case clearly shows. There are no meaningful restrictions on moveaways at all, and that't the problem. The "feminist" groups who successfully removed the moveaway restrictions (lawyer of record for mom in Burgess was Gloria Allred) are not willing to accept any restictions on moveaways, and we have a more violent society as a result.
But we keep apologizing for bad parenting instead of fixing the problem. Tut tut.
835. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 8:48:53 PM
Damn italics.
836. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 8:50:04 PM
Apologizing for bad parenting, and for bad law, I mean.
837. Autodaffy - 2/19/2001 9:59:35 PM
I flew sitting next to two children of approximately six and eight years of age, a girl and boy respectively. They were despondent. He tried hard not to cry and sometimes succeeded, and she failed miserably at the same effort, for what I remember as a two or three hour flight. One adult had put them on the plane by themselves.
838. MsIvoryTower - 2/19/2001 10:02:48 PM
and we have a more violent society as a result. 839. RickyRicardo - 2/19/2001 10:52:22 PM The case of Mitchell Johnson is real, not ideological pap. The boy was deeply troubled by his parents divorce, according to all objective accounts. His mother was a former prison psychologist who dumped his father after she fell in love with an inmate. When the inmate was transferred to Tennessee, she put in for a transfer and was granted one. She also put in for a moveaway, and was granted one over the objection of his father. When the inmate was transferred a second time, to Arkansas, the prison system declined to transfer her, so she quit the job, and retaining custody of Mitchell, dragged him along. 840. vw - 2/19/2001 11:55:19 PM So what's the story here, a boy disturbed by divorce and arbitrary relocation pushed over the edge, or a young patriarch asserting dominance over women? 841. KuligintheHooligan - 2/20/2001 3:15:12 AM jonesatlaw 842. KuligintheHooligan - 2/20/2001 3:21:53 AM It isn't so much "group parenting" or "communal parenting" here as it is "dump the kid off with the relative willing to take him." I do not exaggerate. There are tons of kids that spend next to no time with their mothers, don't even know who their fathers are, run around with no supervision, no discipline, no one telling them right from wrong (other than older kids, many of whom force the younger ones into theft, etc.). 843. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 3:49:54 AM You don?t know, I don?t know and neither do the good folks who fill the Ranks of Experts. 844. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 3:52:23 AM Children with no supervision tend to get into trouble (a generalization that is fairly accurate). 845. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 9:07:44 AM Ricky 846. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 9:10:11 AM ...and here I said I was quitting the conversation. 847. christipeters - 2/20/2001 10:58:44 AM "MS, it seems like the existence of intact marriages should create the exact same economic problem that movement restricted divorces would. It's pretty rare for one partner to remain married and at the same time permanently relocate to get an income boost. Marriage = reduced mobility overall." 848. Shannon - 2/20/2001 11:25:41 AM Good luck with that meeting thing. I've got one this afternoon. 849. CalGal - 2/20/2001 12:16:09 PM There's a big difference between mobility being limited by a married couples personal decisions and mobility being limited by the Law. 850. CalGal - 2/20/2001 12:18:09 PM I think the story about the kid going wacko because he was separated from his dad is anecdotal crap. 851. Wombat - 2/20/2001 12:21:45 PM More likely he went whacko from his mother dumping his father for a convict. 852. CalGal - 2/20/2001 12:22:44 PM Yes, there always does seem to be a laundry list with some of these kids. Lord, who wouldn't go wacko with a mother like that? 853. christipeters - 2/20/2001 1:26:11 PM "There is a big difference between income spent on a child being determined by a married couple's personal decisions and the income being determined by law. Haven't seen you complain about that, however. Where are your outcries about legally determined child support?" 854. christipeters - 2/20/2001 1:27:32 PM BTW, the reason I asked earlier if this Burgess decision being talked about is a CA state thing is because when I got divorced in NM, the law did say that any move by either parent had to be approved by the other parent or show the courts that it was of economic or other necessity and put into place a plan to continue maximum possible contact with the other parent. I can live with that sort of thing just fine. 855. christipeters - 2/20/2001 1:29:58 PM ooops make that 856. CalGal - 2/20/2001 1:35:41 PM I am the divorced Mom whose ex paid nothing for seven years and now pays a whole $60/month and didn't drag his butt to court over it and never will drag his butt to court over it. 857. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 1:37:29 PM I don't know where you hail from, TT? If so, perhaps such sloppy thinking passes there as "enlightened", but personally, I think it just makes you look....intellectually sloppy. 858. jonesatlaw - 2/20/2001 1:46:14 PM ChrstiP- you have had the advantage of your NM divorce. NM has been ahead of the curve for some time in family law with mandatory mediation and parenting plans etc. Great stuff for the folks who can remain rational about the kids. 859. CalGal - 2/20/2001 1:52:44 PM Shannon, 860. Shannon - 2/20/2001 2:11:50 PM K-5 is the norm here, not K-6. There are some private schools that are K-12 or K-8, but I think even they tend to have a new "level" starting at 6. You switch from elem. to middle or junior high. I went to a small-town public school, which was combined K-8, but in 6th grade you moved to the other building, were in junior high, and switched classrooms. I think most of the private schools do that here. 861. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:12:40 PM "I am saying that I see no reason why divorced people aren't held to the same standard... I see no reason why divorced parents should be given carte blanche to take actions that could seriously hurt their children, merely because they can leave one parent behind." 862. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 2:20:27 PM Burgess was a California case, but as California goes, so goes the nation. Similar rulings have been handed down in New York and some of the Midwestern states, but family law is very much a state-by-state deal. That's why you should always be suspicious of anybody making sweeping generalizations about what courts do and do not allow divorced parents to do. Such people are nearly always lying. 863. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 2:21:48 PM Burgess was a California case, but as California goes, so goes the nation. Similar rulings have been handed down in New York and some of the Midwestern states, but family law is very much a state-by-state deal. That's why you should always be suspicious of anybody making sweeping generalizations about what courts do and do not allow divorced parents to do. Such people are nearly always lying. 864. CalGal - 2/20/2001 2:24:04 PM I thought that you were saying that the law should mandate that divorced parents cannot move, period. 865. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:26:09 PM I've said it before, but I can't remember if it was here or TT, so forgive me if I am repeating myself. 866. CalGal - 2/20/2001 2:30:46 PM Christi, 867. RickyRicardo - 2/20/2001 2:39:58 PM Most of the people I know who pay child support would like to get a little report every so often showing that the money was actually spent on the child, but the law doesn't require it. 868. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:40:25 PM "I believe that the burden should be on the moving parent to a) justify the move, b) provide a travel plan and visitation commitments (legally enforceable by both parents) and c) have the approval of the other parent, whether custodial or not. 869. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:53:31 PM "If you oppose the court setting restrictions--even tough ones--on parental ability to relocate, why don't you oppose courts mandating how much money a parent has to spend on a child?" 870. christipeters - 2/20/2001 2:56:21 PM Thanks to those who answered my question about the Burgess case. I'm not sure that as California goes so goes the nation (y'all sound so egocentric there &:oD). However, you may be right. I haven't done the research. 871. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 3:13:27 PM Better to be sloppy than Chicken Shit, Ms. Tower. Have a nice day. 872. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 3:19:36 PM If you oppose the court setting retrictions--even tough ones--on parental ability to relocate, why don't you oppose courts mandating how much money a parent has to spend on a child? 873. CalGal - 2/20/2001 3:25:01 PM I also take exception to this little dance everyone wants to do around the considerable gender issues tied to both the laws, and whose interests will be served by changing them in the proposed directions. 874. CalGal - 2/20/2001 3:26:06 PM Because the two aren't analogous? Because the two don't raise the same constitutional protections? Because the two have totally different effects on the rights of both the custodial and non-custodial parents? 875. CalGal - 2/20/2001 3:38:40 PM And rather than continue to argue about whether they are analogous or not, consider this: parents lose rights when they get divorced. That is a given--and frankly, many of them seem to me to have constitutional implications. As I mentioned earlier, divorced parents (usually dads) can lose their legal rights far more easily than a crack addict raising her kids on cockroaches. 876. christipeters - 2/20/2001 4:42:13 PM "As I mentioned earlier, divorced parents (usually dads) can lose their legal rights far more easily than a crack addict raising her kids on cockroaches." 877. christipeters - 2/20/2001 4:44:20 PM I know it is very rude to post and run, but I'm leaving now. I hope to get back online later, but I am a Buffy/Angel addict and may not. 878. CalGal - 2/20/2001 4:52:49 PM Christi, 879. Jules - 2/20/2001 7:42:59 PM Joint legal custody is indeed the default, but so what? Reality is that the person who has physical custody most of the time holds the majority of the decisionmaking power. If the custodial parent refuses to consult with the non-custodial about such things as school choice, classes, etc, there's not a whole lot of recourse. Oh, sure you can go back to court (spending thousands of dollars in the process) but, chances are the decision made by the custodial parent is gonna stand. 880. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:26:12 PM The divorce laws should be evenhanded, not allow for gender biases--and also put the well-being of the children over the convenience of either parent or the courts themselves. 881. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:27:10 PM Right now, it's pretty clear that it's easiest for both parents and the courts to give all the control and most of the money to one parent--so that's what the laws support. 882. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:42:29 PM They are entirely analogous, they have similar constitutional protections, and you're talking out of your ass if you don't think shelling out a huge amount of money each month doesn't have significant and quite similar effects on the rights of both parents. 883. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 8:44:34 PM Ask any lawyer: joint legal custody is the default. The default. Implying that a divorce alone can strip a parent of legal rights. 884. ChristiPeters - 2/20/2001 10:26:08 PM "Ask any lawyer: joint legal custody is the default. The default. Implying that a divorce alone can strip a parent of legal rights." 885. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/2001 10:30:52 PM Allright Calgal 886. CalGal - 2/20/2001 11:22:33 PM Ms, Christi: 887. CalGal - 2/20/2001 11:45:46 PM Ms, 888. RickyRicardo - 2/21/2001 1:50:31 AM Community property laws prohibit one spouse walking away with more than 50% of the assets in the marriage unless negotiated differently. By law, this is about as presumptively equivalent as one can get. 889. RickyRicardo - 2/21/2001 1:51:18 AM Certainly in California, the Supreme Court, in Burgess, clearly stated that inconvenience to the parent is not a reason for either granting or denying moveaways. 890. PsychProf - 2/21/2001 6:55:01 AM And of course, then, there are the children... 891. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 8:54:30 AM Wow, this is what I get for being gone a few days. 892. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 8:56:17 AM In brief, they claim that it costs $160,140 for a middle income family (from the low $30K to about $62K). That's 9,420 per year and includes the cost of daycare and shelter, two of the largest determinating factors. 893. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 8:57:19 AM Now, the USDA also assumes that fully 1/3 of the cost of raising a child for those 17 years is housing. 1/3 of that $6,420 yearly payment is $2,140, per year, totalling $36,380 over the years. Assuming home ownership, not unreasonable in this income bracket, that's $36,380 that the CP receives toward home equity - and obviously this is an asset that benefits the CP strictly, not the child who has no claim on the monies paid on a mortgage in their name. 894. theDiva - 2/21/2001 8:59:37 AM 895. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:06:36 AM In other words, the fact that joint legal custody is the default means that there is another option in divorce--an option that strips a parent of rights for no reason at all other than convenience. 896. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:23:44 AM Christi 897. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:24:39 AM A NCP who takes advantage of their 30% "parenting time" is still paying an amount of CS which anticipates that the NCP spends NO time, and NO money on the child while the child is in their care - despite a general requirement that the NCP provide a suitable home (ie, in most cases, a room of their own) for the "parenting time." So that 30% figure that the USDA includes in its cost-of-raising-a-child is born yet again by the NCP - a double dip. 898. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:28:11 AM 899. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:36:29 AM Adrianne 900. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:37:20 AM Would you suggest that both parents then get a tax deduction for the amount they spend equally on the child? 901. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:40:17 AM Ricky Message # 889 902. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:49:42 AM Adrianne 903. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:51:02 AM And by the way, Calgal and others should be happy with the way current CS payments are set up, since the economic incentive is for non-custodial parents to assume more custodial responsibility, not less. 904. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 9:55:44 AM Finally, Adrianne, 905. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:58:24 AM MsIt 906. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:59:24 AM MsIt, the only way to talk about this stuff is to compare like/like, which you are not doing when you use figures like this: 907. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 9:59:39 AM Not that it matters, because I'm trying to speak to legal inequities, not "fairness" - but you might try looking at those statistics a little more critically. For instance, it's estimated that compliance statistics rise to the upper 90th percentile when visitation access isn't an issue. There's all sorts of interesting mitigating facts around those statistics that give one pause -well, if one thinks of a father as being anything other than a wallet, that is. 908. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:01:10 AM Convenience to the Family court system? Yes, by relying on default rules unless the parents can come up with better arrangements. This hardly says that non-custodial parents are powerless to protect their interests or rights. 909. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:03:09 AM Calgal says 910. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:12:44 AM Adrianne 911. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:12:48 AM While the state won't force married parents to spend a certain amount on their children as long as the family remains intact, they will do so when the family is split. 912. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:17:30 AM That there is a legal mechanism in place to ensure the NCP's contribution and that nothing LEGALLY requires the CP to contribute isn't really debateable, as far as I can see. 913. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 10:25:21 AM Adrianne 914. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:56:35 AM Msit, 915. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:57:05 AM He can assume more than the minimum amount of custodial time required to credit against his CS payments. 916. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 10:58:35 AM Weitzman questions the validity of the visitation non-compliance relationship. Her research shows no correlation between compliance and complaints about visitation. She argues that men with no visitation proplesm are just as likely not to pay child support as they are likely to pay. 917. CalGal - 2/21/2001 11:07:12 AM Ms, 918. CalGal - 2/21/2001 11:08:53 AM All: 919. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:22:26 AM Adrianne 920. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:28:21 AM Calgal, Adrianne 921. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:33:22 AM Adrianne 922. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:37:59 AM Calgal 923. MsIvoryTower - 2/21/2001 11:45:34 AM Which proves my point--that parents lose all sorts of rights when they get divorced. This is what you were trying to rebut, if you remember. Thanks for confirming it. And if forcing you to spend a percentage of your income on your children (or, more accurately, on the person who got custody of your children), isn't a violation of rights, just try forcing it on married parents. 924. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:02:38 PM MsIt 925. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:12:57 PM Step by step: 926. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:13:18 PM You say these are not enforceable, but contractual agreements have been enforced, courts have ordered women to adhere to them, or risk losing custody altogether. There may not be criminal laws for violations of these agreements but the court isn't powerless to enforce them. 927. Adrianne - 2/21/2001 12:14:07 PM 928. christipeters - 2/22/2001 5:58:43 PM Adrianne - 929. vw - 2/22/2001 6:20:16 PM Weitzman? Good lord, we aren't citing from The Divorce Revolution are we? 930. mgleason - 2/22/2001 6:37:56 PM Richard Peterson, for one, reanalyzed Weitzman's own data. He found a 27% decline in women's post-divorce standard of living, compared to a 10% increase in that of men. 931. mgleason - 2/22/2001 6:41:15 PM Sorry, I hit 'post' too quickly. 932. mgleason - 2/22/2001 7:17:51 PM Where the figure for the claim that 42% of custodial parents don't receive any child support payments probably arose: 933. CalGal - 2/22/2001 7:27:23 PM MGleason, 934. mgleason - 2/22/2001 7:34:31 PM CalGal, 935. mgleason - 2/22/2001 8:13:50 PM From the Press Release for Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1997: 936. RichardB - 2/22/2001 10:41:16 PM I had a little e-mail exchange with Peterson once upon a time on the subject of Weitzman, where I maintained she was lying and he maintained she just wasn't any good at math. We got to the subject of taxes, and it came out that Weitzman's numbers weren't only "off-the-top-of-the-head" numbers from the women only, but they were pre-tax. After he reanalyzed the data taking taxes into consideration, he realized that the result was a wash. 937. MsIvoryTower - 2/22/2001 11:17:09 PM Maria 938. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 12:21:22 PM In the state of NM, when I got divorced, JLC means that both parents have full access to school records and medical records of the child. 939. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 12:23:16 PM 940. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 12:52:54 PM Adrianne 941. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 1:39:56 PM So are you proposing new and more detailed laws that require both parents to take joint physical custody, and also require consent before relocation by both parties? 942. Adrianne - 2/23/2001 1:40:28 PM Do you think this will solve the problems you note? 943. PsychProf - 2/23/2001 1:54:15 PM Missie and Ad...sorry, but I am unsure of... 944. CalGal - 2/23/2001 7:51:16 PM They disagree about the reality of divorce statistics often used and whether or not the existing laws should be changed. The underlying tension is because the Ms supports what I would call the gender feminist perception of the necessity of divorce laws (but I guarantee you that she would not refer to them as such) and Ad does not. 945. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 9:40:19 PM Actually, I'm not sure where the disagreement is myself PP. 946. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 9:41:51 PM Then, of course, there was the rant about how the NCP can't control the way his/her payments are spent on their children, can't unilaterally nix any expenditures they don't agree with, or play monitor over their ex's spending behavior. 947. CalGal - 2/23/2001 9:56:33 PM It was Calgal and others who argued that the inequities in CS were all on the non-custodial side, and that women (the custodial parent) get a free ride, virtually able to take the non-cp for what their worth. In addition, they mostly spend their money on wine, men and frivolities, leaving their children, for the most part, hungry, lacking medical care, and lacking for the basic necessities of life. 948. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:01:41 PM The underlying tension is because the Ms supports what I would call the gender feminist perception of the necessity of divorce laws (but I guarantee you that she would not refer to them as such) and Ad does not. 949. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:02:27 PM I support allowing reductions in CS payments by non-custodial parents who have their children 30% or more of the calendar year, which is the quite frequent arrangement of alternate weekends and at least one month during vacation times. 950. CalGal - 2/23/2001 10:09:27 PM The questions I put forth are the ones that were asserted by Calgal and others as being at the root cause of the current problems facing children of divorce, and the inequities that emerge. 951. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:10:05 PM Well, Calgal 952. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:13:58 PM Yes, it has focused on the fairness of the divorce laws, which you argue are highly unfair. 953. CalGal - 2/23/2001 10:15:46 PM Women who chose to be the primary caregiver in the marriage, and weren't in the labor market as co-equal earners, are, by definition, irresponsible, and really don't deserve any support whatever from their now-ex-spouse (who should probably also get custody of the children anyway, since they can financially care for them better). 954. CalGal - 2/23/2001 10:18:35 PM Second, you did, in fact, argue that it doesn't matter that only some women do this, the mere fact that they can means that there is no basis for providing any income transfer to them when the marriage ends. 955. MsIvoryTower - 2/23/2001 10:29:38 PM I didn't miss anything Calgal, my earlier comment was simply on the edge of sarcasm, a view from its extreme implications. 956. CalGal - 2/23/2001 11:52:07 PM You're convinced that there can be something fair about divorce for children and the adults involved. 957. CalGal - 2/23/2001 11:53:31 PM More importantly, you're convinced that joint physical custody is the only way to solve the current unfairness. 958. MsIvoryTower - 2/24/2001 8:55:07 AM Calgal 959. MsIvoryTower - 2/24/2001 8:56:56 AM There are plenty of ways to alleviate this unfairness, and many of them involve legally mandating certain behaviors from divorced parents. 960. MsIvoryTower - 2/24/2001 9:17:34 AM The psychological trauma that kids suffer really isn't due to divorce, per se, it is due to the fact that the two most important people in their lives have split apart and it usually means that they lose regular emotional and physical contact with one of them. 961. CalGal - 2/24/2001 2:37:47 PM The unfairness according to you is at several levels, for children, at both the psychological and financial level; for the non-custodial parent, both wrt access to their children (responsibility for their care) and wrt the financial settlements associated with divorce. Your proposals were presented as necessary for the "unfairness" and "inequities" of the current system. 962. CalGal - 2/24/2001 2:44:32 PM What the hell is divorce if it isn't that two people suddenly split apart and stop sharing their lives, including their lives together with their children? 963. CalGal - 2/24/2001 2:56:05 PM You can argue we should "force" divorcing parents into behavior that is for the benefit of their children, but since it's not really divorce that's the at the root of the harms to the children (it's the custody issues) then you can sidestep the logical conclusion of your positions. 964. CalGal - 2/24/2001 3:00:48 PM If we really want to put the welfare of the children first, then we should ban all divorce. That is the "best" solution for children. 965. jonesatlaw - 2/26/2001 12:28:51 AM A plea from a former divorce lawyer. If you have to face the complications of parenting a child with an ex-spouse, please consider the following. 966. jonesatlaw - 2/26/2001 12:29:15 AM 4. Try to find some activity or area of each of your kid's lives that you will share publicly and "make nice" about. If it is going to their sporting events, or music recitals or what have you, share it. If you can stand it, share it with the step-parents as well. It's good practice for the wedding. Don't feel that with every thing the kid does, each of you has to be engaged in equally. You probably didn't break everything down 50-50 when you were together, so why do it now? Try to follow along with the divisions you had while together. If Dad is the hobby nut and Mom is the jock, don't try to invade the other role. 967. wonkers2 - 2/26/2001 6:37:30 AM And when you go to your kid's soccer or hockey match keep your mouth shut. Don't yell at your kid or at the referee. Parents who do that had better stay away. 968. PsychProf - 2/26/2001 6:55:38 AM Jones...interesting and informed advice from a divorce lawyer...Wonkers...strange as it may sound, a few of the best parents I know are at least "sometime" jerks at their childen's athletic contests... 969. theDiva - 2/26/2001 10:41:35 AM Excellent advice, Jones....it ought to be printed up and handed to every divorcing parent with instructions to memorize. 970. Frankster - 2/26/2001 10:45:05 AM I've copied and pasted it. 971. christipeters - 2/27/2001 1:27:34 PM Adrianne - 972. Erin R. - 2/28/2001 10:04:00 AM Well, let's talk about other issues then. 973. PsychProf - 2/28/2001 10:11:32 AM Erin...sphincter control is developed around 18-22 months...you can start now with consistent potty sessions and reinforcement of potty understanding, but it may be a touch early. Boys are usually slower than girls here... 974. Wombat - 2/28/2001 10:12:14 AM A propos of potty training: 975. PsychProf - 2/28/2001 10:14:43 AM Wombat...smart kid...how old? 976. Wombat - 2/28/2001 10:17:13 AM Four. Wombino has been a bit "slow" in the toilet training area, however sharp his wits may be. 977. Erin R. - 2/28/2001 10:18:53 AM Wombat, that's hilarious! 978. PsychProf - 2/28/2001 10:19:18 AM Wombat...not to worry. The transfer of poop strategy is far more predictive of adult prosperity than the ability to defecate by decree. 979. PsychProf - 2/28/2001 10:22:06 AM One of the most closely held world secrets is the absolute thrill for males when they urinate in the great outdoors...all parents should decide how to use this fact of life with profit for malechild potty hassles. 980. Wombat - 2/28/2001 10:27:33 AM Yes...we did that...Ghod! They make little targets that you can put in the toilet for boys to aim at. I was asked to demonstrate, and since it was not the middle of the night and my glasses were on, my aim was true. Wombino then tried, but since he hadn't grasped the idea of holding his "peanuts" (as he calls it) to direct the flow--and I draw the line at holding it for him--it kind of went all over the bathroom. 981. Shannon - 2/28/2001 10:48:13 AM We rented "It's Potty Time" and it was quite excruciating. There were jingles. Very catchy jingles. 982. theDiva - 2/28/2001 10:52:42 AM oy. Potty training. I'd nearly forgotten. 983. Jamie R - 2/28/2001 11:03:39 AM Someone gave my daughter a potty-themed "Bear and the Big Blue House" video. She loves it, I can tolerate it. It's a Henson production, so it's well done. 984. Åse - 2/28/2001 11:10:36 AM Potty-training videos... I have to remember that for - well a couple of years ahead. 985. susanne - 2/28/2001 11:27:58 AM We rented "It's Potty Time" and it was quite excruciating. There were jingles. Very catchy jingles. 986. Shannon - 2/28/2001 11:33:06 AM Wiggles? We've missed out on that. 987. bubbaette - 2/28/2001 11:36:35 AM I'm not a parent, so I guess it would be unseemly to participate in a race for the millennial. 988. bubbaette - 2/28/2001 11:37:43 AM Which is drawing near. 989. susanne - 2/28/2001 11:42:07 AM Wiggles? We've missed out on that. 990. Shannon - 2/28/2001 11:48:15 AM Sounds awful, Susanne. Catchy songs drive me batty. We rented Mighty Machines once. Ugh. Give me There Goes a ___ any day over that. 991. theDiva - 2/28/2001 11:49:12 AM Bubb 992. bubbaette - 2/28/2001 11:50:42 AM Thanks 993. theDiva - 2/28/2001 11:51:36 AM ha! My stepdad says the same thing about me and my brothers. 994. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:54:37 AM That 1000 looks tempting, but I just can't. It's reserved for parents. 995. theDiva - 2/28/2001 11:54:53 AM oh, it is not. 996. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:56:20 AM Yes it is. I've only been here once or twice. I just can't! 997. theDiva - 2/28/2001 11:56:52 AM come on....... 998. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:56:55 AM Hmmmmm, maybe ..? 999. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:57:26 AM Now ! 1000. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:57:51 AM Now !!! 1001. Frankster - 2/28/2001 11:58:25 AM That was too easy ... way too easy. 1002. betsifur - 2/28/2001 6:45:33 PM Hmmm, back to potty training. My 21 month old daughter has been showing some signs of being ready. We dragged the little potty over from our storage shed and she's sat on it a few times, with no results yet. Two days ago, Dad and 4 year old son were both peeing in the toilet. She walked in and lifted up her shirt and tugged at the diaper, as if she wanted to join in. Poor kid, not even two and she has to discover that she didn't come with that handy little attachment. 1003. betsifur - 2/28/2001 6:49:24 PM Anyway, my dilemma is whether to push the potty training thing just now or to wait. I'm expecting another kid in July. It would be wonderful if she was out of diapers, but I've got pretty stringent requirements for that. My older two kids were 3 and almost 4 when they were trained, because it was all or nothing. Either they are completely self sufficient in toilet matters, or I'd rather keep it contained in a diaper for my own convenience. Can a barely two year old really be potty trained, to the point where they go to the bathroom on their own? Or is it one of those deals where you put them on the pot at intervals all day, hoping to catch something? 1004. CalGal - 2/28/2001 6:51:12 PM My gut says that's early, although she is clearly interested. Does she go to daycare? As I think I said earlier, Spawn was trained by the daycare workers, who are far more structured than his mother. 1005. betsifur - 2/28/2001 6:55:32 PM Nope, just pre-school two days a week. My gut says it's too early also, plus she's very likely to regress when the baby gets here anyway. I just dread the two kids in diapers thing. Oh well, this is the last time I'm doing the baby thing, so I'll just have to suck it up. 1006. CalGal - 2/28/2001 6:57:11 PM True, she probably would regress anyway. But you know, she might have a real incentive to train once the baby is around. She'll have two older siblings and chances are good she'll be wanting to differentiate from "the baby". 1007. vw - 2/28/2001 7:15:23 PM Yeah, two is a bit young ... not unheard of but unlikely. Chances are that at this age you won’t get her 100% trained. But it never hurts to leave The Chair around for any impromptu performances. 1008. joezan - 2/28/2001 11:27:51 PM The Wiggles are the bomb. 1009. susanne - 3/1/2001 10:17:06 AM My older two kids were 3 and almost 4 when they were trained, because it was all or nothing. Either they are completely self sufficient in toilet matters, or I'd rather keep it contained in a diaper for my own convenience 1010. Shannon - 3/1/2001 10:29:12 AM I never saw what the big deal was with 2 in diapers, which I had for well over a year. Really, you're going to change roughly the same number of diapers over your lifetime anyway. I'd just as soon get them all over with at once. And 2 in diapers is far preferable to having a newborn and a kid who needs constant potty help. 1011. PsychProf - 3/1/2001 10:42:26 AM 1012. CalGal - 2/28/2001 6:16:14 PM Allen did not "help raise" Soon Ye Previn. Her father was very involved in her life. Allen barely knew she existed until she was 16 or 17, I believe--not much younger, anyway. He didn't live in the same home as Farrow, remember. 1013. JudithAtHome - 2/28/2001 6:21:21 PM Jeez, Cal...she is a mother defending her children against a guy who has shown at the very least wretched judgement in dealing with one of her kids. And you think that is worse than Allens behavior? 1014. CalGal - 2/28/2001 6:23:58 PM She didn't "defend her children", she was enraged at Allen and cooked up a molestation charge--after all, he "molested" an 18 year old girl who wasn't his daughter, so therefore he must have "molested" a 5 year old girl who was. Then she stuck a ton of scissors in a photograph of her family and sent it to Allen. Bleah. 1015. Raskolnikov - 2/28/2001 6:31:40 PM Well Farrow's career ever since the seventies had been revolving around Allen, so it isn't surprising that she paid a heavy price. 1016. CalGal - 2/28/2001 6:33:24 PM hahahahah. Excellent. Yes. 1017. Fielding - 2/28/2001 9:34:41 PM CalGal: 1018. Autodaffy - 2/28/2001 9:44:18 PM My father joined the army when my mother was three years old. Do you think that my mother was prepubescent then? 1019. CalGal - 3/1/2001 12:19:10 AM Fielding, 1020. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:09:45 PM Indy--Movies? I dunno. Seems to me more Current Events--or incurrent events. 1021. Fielding - 3/1/2001 10:57:51 AM CalGal: 1022. Fielding - 3/1/2001 11:21:24 AM Rask: 1023. CalGal - 3/1/2001 12:33:27 PM Fielding, 1024. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:12:06 PM What is the big deal. Allen and the Korean girl are not related, and he was never her adoptive father. So what is the big deal. 1025. Fielding - 3/1/2001 12:46:50 PM CalGal: 1026. CalGal - 3/1/2001 12:59:04 PM She shouldn't express it at the cause, she should take it out on others. 1027. Jenerator - 3/1/2001 1:06:59 PM They were both sick, Woody was clearly worse off. 1028. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:10:10 PM What is the big deal. Allen and the Korean girl are not related, and he was never her adoptive father. So what is the big deal. 1029. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:12:34 PM USA TODAY 1030. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:13:29 PM That's what I said. He was scummy, in that banging your girlfriend's daughter is low-life and bound to get fussed about. But it was only Farrow's deranged rage that turned it into molestation. 1031. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:13:09 PM 1032. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:13:31 PM 1033. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:13:51 PM 1034. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:14:12 PM 1035. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:14:39 PM Pittsburgh divorce attorney Thomas Mulroy, is equally surprised. "There is no justification for keeping the two of them apart. That is just punitive." Even if sexual abuse is confirmed, he added, focus is on "treatment, not punishment." 1036. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:14:51 PM "When she is not working she attends to her children. Her weekends and summers are spent in Connecticut with her children. . . . She is sensitive to the needs of her children, respectful of their opinions, honest with them and 1037. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:17:07 PM Daddy's fucking my adopted sister. Big deal. 1038. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:18:57 PM An adopted sister who is 12 years older--makes quite a difference. 1039. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2001 1:20:05 PM I think that's all of them. 1040. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:21:44 PM Eh. To disinterested sophisticates. Probably not to the adopted siblings. 1041. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:24:16 PM It seems a far more straightforward explanation is likely: the Farrow woman was enraged, shocked and betrayed, so the harridan used her own son, Allen's son, to fabricate child molestation charges against Allen. The thundering outrage should be directed at that woman for having the capacity to exploit her son in order merely to avenge her betrayal. 1042. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:28:22 PM Unlikely. If there was less of an age difference, and if Woody had been a truly involved dad to the Previn kids, sure. 1043. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:28:35 PM pseudo 1044. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:29:03 PM PE, 1045. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:29:40 PM Cal 1046. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:30:49 PM Well, if he's eyeing the daughter and later proves to be snapping nudie shots and giving her the high hard one, that alone should place him above suspicion. 1047. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:32:32 PM Cal 1048. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:33:27 PM PE: 1049. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:33:46 PM A judge tasked to evaluate the case and informed by testimony, evidence and experience differs. 1050. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:34:01 PM Child, not children. 1051. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:34:33 PM Ha ha ha ha ha. 1052. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:35:08 PM My laughter was to Fielding's warning to PE. 1053. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:36:20 PM Francis, 1054. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:36:30 PM The best part is that some of his kids are aunts and uncles of others of his kids. Thanksgiving must be a real blast! 1055. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:37:58 PM Fielding, 1056. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:38:00 PM Adopted kids of similar age that live together usually consider each other siblings. 1057. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:38:06 PM Cal 1058. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:39:30 PM Fielding 1059. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:40:31 PM Fielding, 1060. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:41:19 PM Francis, 1061. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:41:48 PM CalGal: 1062. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:41:57 PM Cal 1063. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:43:33 PM CalGal: 1064. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:44:04 PM Francis, 1065. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:45:20 PM CalGal: 1066. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:46:33 PM This is typical in the US. Half the people here have been wrongfully accused of molestation at some point. 1067. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:46:47 PM So if you adopted a kid, it wouldn't be Spawn's sibling? 1068. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 1:49:49 PM I still don't understand the outrage. The Korean was not only unrelated to Allen, she was also not his adoptive daughter. 1069. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:51:37 PM Cal 1070. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:53:50 PM PE 1071. Francis Urquhart - 3/1/2001 1:55:33 PM On that note, I leave this discussion to my Neanderthal friend. Hit them with the jawbone of an ass, Fielding. Grunt, grunt. 1072. CalGal - 3/1/2001 1:55:56 PM Because I think Spears is hot, I should give Woody Allen more slack to fuck his kin. 1073. Fielding - 3/1/2001 1:57:13 PM FU: 1074. CalGal - 3/1/2001 2:04:34 PM Fielding, 1075. CalGal - 3/1/2001 2:08:30 PM This conversation has migrated from Religion to Movies to Parenting. I think it is a parenting issue. 1076. christipeters - 3/1/2001 2:39:50 PM Yep. I think that Allen is inconsiderate scum and Farrow is just plain weird. 1077. CalGal - 3/1/2001 2:55:55 PM Christi, 1078. Fielding - 3/1/2001 3:15:27 PM CalGal: 1079. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 3:19:09 PM My adopted sister is 23 years younger than I am. 1080. CalGal - 3/1/2001 3:20:39 PM Fielding, 1081. CalGal - 3/1/2001 3:22:56 PM As I understand it, if he dumped Soon-Yi, he could have access to his children? 1082. christipeters - 3/1/2001 3:40:16 PM CalGal - Well, I don't want that one comment re my baby brother to obscure that I agree with you on the incest and pedophilia thang. 1083. CalGal - 3/1/2001 3:42:25 PM Christi, 1084. vw - 3/1/2001 3:47:33 PM Good lord, if a woman came trotting in here telling a story about how her Ex mailed her a photo skewered on a pair of scissors, local members of the Go-Girl Gang (if there are any) would be immediately advocating calling Social Services, Batter Women Hotlines and the Police ASAP. And she would be immediately award a RO by our justice system. 1085. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 3:56:34 PM Even if we're not talking about incest, we are talking about premarital sex with a borderline underage woman who at least nominally is the kid's sister, yes? 1086. CalGal - 3/1/2001 3:59:53 PM Erin, 1087. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 4:01:24 PM Not exactly, but if he or anyone is acting outraged at the court's ruling, they're being childish and blind to the realities of the situation. And I'd say the same if the parent in question were a woman. 1088. PsychProf - 3/1/2001 4:07:20 PM I guess we can debate the cognitive components of Allen's behavior, but imagine how he has affected the emotional ties of all involved. 1089. CalGal - 3/1/2001 4:10:41 PM Erin, 1090. vw - 3/1/2001 4:10:47 PM I don’t know how the judge avoided the temptation to bitch slap both of them for being such self-involved navel-gazers with little or no concern for the consequences of their actions. 1092. PsychProf - 3/1/2001 4:12:46 PM Well Cal, its a tango, no doubt. 1093. CalGal - 3/1/2001 4:12:49 PM The judge avoided it just fine. He thought Farrow was a heroine. Asshole. 1094. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 4:15:59 PM They both damaged the family. The fact that Woody was not a parent to all of the children doesn't mean that he didn't cause damage, if for no other reason than he set in motion an understandable set of actions, repugnant as I personally find those actions. 1095. CalGal - 3/1/2001 4:17:24 PM I agree that Allen caused damage. But he didn't destroy it. That was Farrow. And, as mother to all the children, she bears far more responsibility for the destruction. 1096. PsychProf - 3/1/2001 4:17:41 PM Well, most(many or some) feel more comfortable, in trying to understand a marriage dispute, when we can name the good person and the bad person. 1097. CalGal - 3/1/2001 4:18:37 PM Also, Farrow was the sort who took hostages and prisoners. Who's going to disagree with a monster who skewers family pictures with steak knives? 1098. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 4:23:12 PM I think they're about even in terms of who damaged or destroyed the family. 1099. susanne - 3/1/2001 4:43:00 PM Just jumping in at the end of a discussion, without all the facts and without reading all the comments: 1100. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 4:49:23 PM Maybe understandable isn't the right word. 1101. susanne - 3/1/2001 5:07:20 PM I realize that, but it aggravates me when (and I know your example was hypothetical)people who engage in this type of behavior don't realize they are hurting the child just as much, or maybe even more, than the ex. 1102. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 5:08:53 PM I would say the same thing to both these idiots. 1103. CalGal - 3/1/2001 5:21:41 PM I agree with Susanne. No, I would not call your husband's hypothetical actions "understandable". 1104. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 5:24:34 PM So, that makes it OK for him to fool around with her daughter and expect no fallout? 1105. CalGal - 3/1/2001 5:31:46 PM Expect no fallout? Of course not. But with a sane parent, it would certainly be manageable. 1106. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 5:34:29 PM Well, a sane parent probably wouldn't fool around with his (ex) lover's child. I think they're both pretty childish, self-centered and whacked. 1107. CalGal - 3/1/2001 5:40:49 PM Well, a sane parent probably wouldn't fool around with his (ex) lover's child. 1108. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 5:47:33 PM Let's just agree that Allen is a foolish old man but Farrow was the evil one. 1109. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 5:47:46 PM I think it's all pretty fucked, and I think there's plenty of criticism to go around, although I don't hold Previn as responsible as the two middle-aged adults who really, really should know better. 1110. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 5:49:28 PM I think having sex with your lover's daughter is pretty fucked--not foolish, and borderline evil. 1111. CalGal - 3/1/2001 5:51:10 PM Erin, 1112. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 5:53:09 PM Of all the women in the world to fool around with, a man chooses his (ex)lover's teen daughter. 1113. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 5:56:12 PM Fucked and borderline evil? 1114. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 5:57:10 PM Of all the women in the world to fool around with, a man chooses his (ex)lover's teen daughter. 1115. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 5:58:54 PM Jeeze. Ten years later, and I still don't give a shit about this subject. 1116. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 5:59:05 PM It seems the problem most women have with Woody Allen is that he began sleeping with a girl 35-45 (whatever) years youner. And, for self-interested reasons, most women don't find that an optimal result. 1117. CalGal - 3/1/2001 5:59:35 PM Erin, 1118. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:00:23 PM PE, 1119. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 6:01:05 PM Farrow is evil for exploiting her son for purposes of revenge. 1120. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 6:01:47 PM Yes, but Ace, was the rescue a faith-based solution? 1121. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:02:07 PM Farrow is evil for exploiting her son for purposes of revenge. 1122. mgleason - 3/1/2001 6:02:32 PM Allen was not exactly an unknown quantity when Farrow began playing house with him, dragging her millions of children along for the ride. She must be an even dimmer bulb than she appears if she never understood the subtext in his films. 1123. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:03:15 PM Worse than just exploiting him, she convinced her one daughter that she'd been molested, even when she hadn't. She deprived both children not only of access to their father, but of the knowledge that he loved them. On top of all that, she apparently turned on them if they showed the slightest inclination not to see Allen and Previn as the Anti-Christ with his Lilith. 1124. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:03:33 PM 1125. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:03:43 PM Are you listening to what I'm saying? 1126. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:04:12 PM Allen was not exactly an unknown quantity when Farrow began playing house with him, dragging her millions of children along for the ride. 1127. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:05:44 PM I find it amusing that someone here would think I object to Woody Allen being so much older than Soon-Yi. 1128. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:05:57 PM Devoted parents do not fuck around like this, or at least they shouldn't, without understanding that the fallout can be brutal. 1129. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 6:06:53 PM Ace, I'm just stirring the pot. I don't really care whether Woody Allen is fed to dogs or Mia Farrow is deported to Kabul. 1130. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:08:25 PM No, feed Farrow to the dogs; send Woody to comfort the Iranian chicks. 1131. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 6:08:37 PM Message # 1124 1132. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:09:36 PM "My 50 year old boyfriend might also like to fuck my 12 year old children." 1133. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:10:03 PM Crosspost. 1134. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:10:44 PM I agree with that point. I don't think there's any excuse for what she did. 1135. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:11:39 PM 1136. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:12:26 PM As a parent, the potential of my having an extramarital affair negatively affecting my child's well-being is high. 1137. Fielding - 3/1/2001 6:13:10 PM "Allen was not exactly an unknown quantity when Farrow began playing house with him, dragging her millions of children along for the ride." 1138. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:13:15 PM Erin, 1139. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 6:15:23 PM ErinR, you may have conscious motivations to disapprove of Allen's conduct for reasons unrelated to empathy for the Farrow woman, but I submit that you are unconsciously and willy-nilly motivated in your condemnation by the vicarious fear of being dumped for a 17-year old girl. 1140. Fielding - 3/1/2001 6:15:43 PM "And he wasn't a "devoted parent" to Soon-yi, but to two other kids." 1141. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:16:08 PM Well, many of our gay posters would argue that's not a leap at all, as a "true pedophile" cares not one whit for the sex of his victim. 1142. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:16:58 PM You obviously do not know the first thing about me, if you think I'm worried that my husband wants to dump me and find a younger woman. 1143. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:17:07 PM Erin, 1144. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:17:16 PM 1145. Cellar Door - 3/1/2001 6:20:11 PM What on earth is going on in here? 1146. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:20:31 PM Woody Allen pre-fuss 1147. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:22:29 PM 1148. pseudoerasmus - 3/1/2001 6:24:00 PM ERRATA 1149. Cellar Door - 3/1/2001 6:24:10 PM Neither Woody Allen, nor Mia Farrow should be seen as relating to anything other than themselves. They are no more typical of or relevant to Parenting than the Menendez brothers are to offspring. 1150. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:25:56 PM Good points, Cellar Door. 1151. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:26:39 PM 1152. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:28:29 PM PE--one of them was a girl. 1153. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:29:35 PM Actually, I disagree that it doesn't involve parenting. Mia Farrow's behavior, in particular, was scummy and unfortunately not uncommon at all. 1154. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:34:33 PM Well, about all we can do here is jeer or cheer from the sidelines. 1155. christipeters - 3/1/2001 6:34:44 PM Well, I don't even like Allen's movies. 1156. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:38:12 PM We have the standard outlet covers and such, which do not a thing to stop a determined toddler who wants to climb the sofa to lean up against the living room window glass, looking down from the third floor to the pavement below, going 1157. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:40:11 PM I never babyproofed, and I lived on a boat for a year or so--and then we sailed quite a bit for the next year. Spawn had to wear a life vest while around the boat after our divorce (my ex nearly let him drown by accident). That's the only safety issue I remember us having. He was a very cautious toddler and young child, which isn't all it is cracked up to be. 1158. AceofSpades - 3/1/2001 6:40:57 PM 1159. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 6:43:40 PM Boy-Boy is cautious about some things, reckless about others. If he doesn't get an immediate bump on the head, he doesn't learn. So he has no concept of just how far up we are on the third floor. 1160. CalGal - 3/1/2001 6:44:03 PM Ace--I'm taking your comment back to Movies because I want to respond. 1161. susanne - 3/1/2001 7:09:10 PM It seems the problem most women have with Woody Allen is that he began sleeping with a girl 35-45 (whatever) years youner. 1162. susanne - 3/1/2001 7:11:26 PM Farrow had good reason to be suspicious. Kee-rist, I sure wouldn't trust my children around that scumbag. Would you? 1163. Erin R. - 3/1/2001 7:15:02 PM Yes, she should not bad-mouth him to the kids. 1164. susanne - 3/1/2001 7:21:30 PM Erin, regarding babyproofing, have you considered bolting heavy furniture, such as dressers and shelves to the wall? I've heard that even very small children can climb up and tip them over onto themselves. I've also heard they can pull the stove over and you can purchase a bracket to secure it to the floor. 1165. LimeGirl - 3/1/2001 7:32:32 PM I don't remember doing a lot of babyproofing. My little one would always try to sneak off to the bathroom to play in the water, once she could stand up on the stool and turn it on. We had a couple of floods due to her water obsession. It was a good thing our apartment was a ground floor one! My mom was always buying various babyproofing gadgets, but I don't remember using too many of them. We did do things like make the bottom shelves of bookcases places for their toys. And we had those cabinet latches for the cupboards, not because there was anything dangerous in them, but they would be constantly emptied if the girls had been allowed in them! 1166. Fielding - 3/1/2001 8:45:56 PM CalGal: 1167. CalGal - 3/1/2001 9:01:11 PM Fielding, 1168. Fielding - 3/1/2001 9:29:19 PM Fielding: 1169. CalGal - 3/1/2001 9:38:49 PM I was calling you a hypocrite for making excuses for Woody Allen that you wouldn't make for yourself. 1170. CalGal - 3/1/2001 9:40:27 PM It is not being a "pathetic apologist" to be appalled and outraged at Farrow's behavior, much less the disgusting bias against fathers in family courts. I grant you that Allen is no poster child for daddyhood, but cutting him off from his children was far more despicable than anythine he did--and that the courts permitted Farrow to flout a court order only proves how severe the bias is. 1171. Fielding - 3/1/2001 9:55:57 PM CalGal: 1172. Autodaffy - 3/1/2001 10:05:12 PM None of us KNOWS what happened or if anything happened to Farrow's brood other than SY. Any charges of pedophilia are speculation. 1173. wonkers2 - 3/1/2001 10:12:02 PM Aside from his family problems, Woody made some great movies which he wrote, directed and acted. Perhaps not a modern Chaplin, but close. 1174. CalGal - 3/1/2001 11:01:03 PM Before you called him a "devoted father". 1175. CalGal - 3/1/2001 11:03:04 PM I can't even conceive of not knowing the names of the teachers, friends, pets or doctors of a child of mine. 1176. susanne - 3/2/2001 7:52:51 AM I can't even conceive of not knowing the names of the teachers, friends, pets or doctors of a child of mine. 1177. Fielding - 3/2/2001 11:25:34 AM "I'd like to think that when you grow up" 1178. Fielding - 3/2/2001 11:28:00 AM susanne: 1179. Erin R. - 3/2/2001 11:34:24 AM I know most of those things, but I don't know all the names of my son's daycare pals. 1180. susanne - 3/2/2001 11:38:26 AM We have different standards I guess. I would never allow myself to not know these things. And I wouldn't allow a spouse not to know them either. 1181. Uzmakk - 3/2/2001 11:50:40 AM Snow day today. Am making eggs benedict for the boys. They are delighted. 1182. Fielding - 3/2/2001 11:56:28 AM susanne: 1183. Shannon - 3/2/2001 12:01:14 PM I don't think the issue is what standards you or Susanne or anyone else should aspire to. The issue is what the standard should be for denying a parent access to his/her child. Abusive seems to be quite a reasonable standard for that purpose. 1184. susanne - 3/2/2001 12:19:39 PM Not knowing these things does not make someone abusive. My point was that I personally aspire to a higher standard than "not abusive". 1185. CalGal - 3/2/2001 12:22:38 PM I agree with you that an encyclopedic knowledge of your childs friends, toys, doctors, pets, etc. does not necessarily make a good parent. 1186. Fielding - 3/2/2001 1:18:55 PM CalGal: 1187. CalGal - 3/2/2001 1:24:20 PM I didn't distort your position. I cited what you considered "everything". Several other parents have pointed out that this isn't "everything". It is a few details that aren't relevant of quality of emotion for one's child at all. 1188. CalGal - 3/2/2001 1:26:47 PM And I haven't "lost" the argument. If you are arguing that Allen deserved to lose his children and that Farrow was justified in ignoring court ordered visitation and poisoning her children against their father, then you've not only lost the argument, you've slipped down even further in your ability to assume that moral high ground you treasure without any cause I can see. 1189. Fielding - 3/2/2001 2:49:44 PM Excuse me? I haven't changed the subject at all. I have said from the beginning that the person who behaved horribly and was a bad parent was Mia Farrow--that Woody Allen was not a horrible parent, not an incestuous parent, and was wrongly deprived of his children. 1190. CalGal - 3/2/2001 2:52:45 PM My original post (which is still in Religion) had to do with whether Woody was "sick". 1191. Fielding - 3/2/2001 3:06:28 PM Well, at least I have more insight as to why you are such a rageaholic. 1192. CalGal - 3/2/2001 3:13:19 PM Sez you. I'm not a rageaholic. You remind me again, however, that it is a bad idea to talk about issues online. It is always those who pride themselves on being civil who misuse the information most egregiously. 1193. Fielding - 3/2/2001 3:15:25 PM I'm very civil. You're the one who can't control herself. 1194. CalGal - 3/2/2001 3:18:35 PM You will not be able to find a single post where I have "railed" about divorced mothers. 1195. CalGal - 3/2/2001 3:21:08 PM In any event, try--if you can--not to make things personal. I have not. I have merely pointed out that your notions of parenting are disturbing. You've consistently responded by making some sort of personal assessment of me. You aren't the first to become obsessed with me, although it would be nice if you were the last. 1196. Fielding - 3/2/2001 3:55:00 PM You will not be able to find a single post where I have "railed" about divorced mothers. 1197. alistairconnor - 3/2/2001 4:12:26 PM Speculation about paedophilia... 1198. MsIvoryTower - 3/3/2001 12:33:37 AM Sheesh, 1199. CalGal - 3/3/2001 2:51:18 AM It was somewhere in the 960s. 1200. JudithAtHome - 3/3/2001 10:30:53 AM Just heard a blurb on the local news about some couple having 4 or 5 babies at once, bringing their total number of children to 6 under the age of two. They said they were "counting on the members of their church to help them with the newborns". 1201. vw - 3/3/2001 12:33:51 PM All of your posts about Mia Farrow were rails against divorced mothers. 1202. CalGal - 3/3/2001 12:38:46 PM Well, you know, the only reason to dislike Farrow is that she was....divorced. After all, we know what they're like. 1203. CalGal - 3/3/2001 12:40:33 PM But I wasn't railing against the self-absorbed. I myself am prone to that particular trait--the curse of the introvert. 1204. vw - 3/3/2001 12:43:59 PM I was railing against mothers who use their kids as ammunition and the court system that encourages that sort of behavior. 1205. CalGal - 3/3/2001 12:48:45 PM Oh, I see. You're right, although I would move beyond self-absorbed into narcissistic. 1206. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/4/2001 2:21:24 PM It has been the good doctor's experience that the most subtle error of parenting is making home life too good on one's children. For example, I am currently concerned with a case in which both children, one male, one female, grew up in such a happy home that now everything pales in comparison with their Edenic youth. 1207. wonkers2 - 3/5/2001 12:20:03 PM Is it appropriate to brag about one's children in this thread? Over the weekend my son and daughter won their class in the St Francis Spring Keel regatta on San Francisco Bay. A second son would have been on the boat with them but was out of town. 1208. JudithAtHome - 3/5/2001 12:23:55 PM Congrats, wonkers! You must be very proud. How old are your kids? 1209. Shannon - 3/5/2001 12:24:12 PM I think it's quite appropriate. Congratulations. How old are they? 1210. wonkers2 - 3/5/2001 12:51:21 PM Son 24, daughter 29 and son 30 (the out of town one). 1211. christipeters - 3/5/2001 3:34:40 PM Congrats, wonkers! 1212. LimeGirl - 3/5/2001 6:32:54 PM Well, I have just e-mailed the ex with a change-of-schedule proposal, to switch from him picking them up every night, to a more every other day kind of thing. This would mean he wouldn't see them every day, but he would have them overnight more often. I am hoping he's willing to give it a try -- I'd be really happy to reduce some of the dropoffs/pickups that we have now! 1213. CalGal - 3/5/2001 6:39:45 PM Are you going to do two days on, two days off, or alternate every day? I forget--do you live close together, or no? 1214. LimeGirl - 3/5/2001 7:16:37 PM I want to do every other day. We live about 5-10 minutes apart, so transfers aren't a huge deal, (especially since he does them all!) but I would like to not have to rush through dinner every night because their dad's going to pick them up, and be able to plan with larger blocks of time, rather than having everything all chopped up as it is now. 1215. CalGal - 3/5/2001 7:57:14 PM I think you've got a great reason to change--particularly since kids often seem to get more stressed out at transfer times. And since your kids are already used to regular transfers, the fact that it's every other day might not seem a hassle to them. 1216. Shannon - 3/6/2001 8:48:59 AM I just read a Salon article about a "progressive" preschool closing. 1217. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:15:03 PM Shannon, 1218. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:20:00 PM Now I've finished it and she requires more than slapping. 1219. PsychProf - 3/6/2001 1:21:13 PM 1220. CalGal - 3/6/2001 1:22:51 PM I think it's better that it not be big news, and I'm surprised they've fussed over this one. We're talking about that in Current EVents already. 1221. mgleason - 3/6/2001 1:36:20 PM Jennifer Miller would be wise to take an emergency course in elementary logic before doing any more whining. 1222. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:39:11 PM It boggles the mind. But the real tragedy is how many people probably read that article and agreed with her. 1223. Shannon - 3/6/2001 2:43:08 PM CalGal, I'd expect you to think that the real tragedy is that untold numbers of people read that and think "typical Californian." 1224. CalGal - 3/6/2001 2:53:57 PM No, she is in Berkeley. Were she in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, I would worry about perception problems. But Berkeley folks are fucking wacko. 1225. Shannon - 3/6/2001 3:01:41 PM Heh. You seem assume that the rest of the country makes these subtle distinctions. Don't you know most of them are as geocentric as you, just with different centers? 1226. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:13:43 PM Oh, they're geocentric, but they're insufficiently arrogant, so it really doesn't matter. The only place that has the right note of arrogance are New Yorkers--but they have chosen the wrong place. 1227. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 3:30:02 PM Yes, Berkeley is a world unto itself. My favorite part is that she just ends with "oh, woe is me and the world is so unfair and doesn't value mothers, etc., etc." No solution proposed, no real examination of the fact that three, count them three, times she chose childcare that had no staying power. Faulty decision making on her part. 1228. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:36:14 PM Oh, and her husband is scum for not helping. Never mind that he's apparently paying for her to stay home and get a doctorate. 1229. mgleason - 3/6/2001 3:42:58 PM He's also scum for being so insensitive as to talk about 'child care' as if it were a task. 1230. CalGal - 3/6/2001 3:45:18 PM Yes, it's a mission!!!! 1231. Shannon - 3/6/2001 3:50:42 PM I love this bit of melodrama: "Ultimately there is bone-crunching failure even for someone in my situation..." What situation would that be? Bone crunching failure for airheads who worry more about appearing "progressive" than finding workable solutions? Yeah, it's a cruel world when people like that can't make a go of it. 1232. mgleason - 3/6/2001 3:53:45 PM Did you see what she's studying? Technology and culture. Hard-line Communists still fantasize about what they'll do to people like her come the revolution. 1233. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:00:48 PM I can only guess at the topic of her dissertation. 1234. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:05:21 PM Shannon, 1235. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:06:40 PM Bone crunching failure for airheads who worry more about appearing "progressive" than finding workable solutions? 1236. christipeters - 3/6/2001 4:08:02 PM snerk! 1237. christipeters - 3/6/2001 4:09:37 PM Childcare is NOT a feminist issue, it is a HUMAN issue, dammit! 1238. mgleason - 3/6/2001 4:10:28 PM Still, whiny fellow travelers are not very high on the food chain. She wants progressive? I'll show her some Stalinist progression that'll make her tiny head spin. 1239. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:11:04 PM Christi, 1240. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:13:02 PM Christi, 1241. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:18:55 PM My kids were not in childcare until they were about two, so possibly it was less expensive because they were a bit older. They both went to established preschools with fairly low teacher turnover and relatively diverse populations. I don't believe that I paid more than $500/month and this was only a year ago. I'm paying slightly more than $13K/year now, but that is for TWO children to attend private school. 1242. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:20:21 PM Oh, and I live in California, right across the Bay from Ms. Woe is Me. 1243. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:22:30 PM And we should do lunch some time, Ms Caro. 1244. christipeters - 3/6/2001 4:26:22 PM CalGal - Yep. I totally agree. As long as women insist that childcare, or for that matter household chores, are their problem, men have no incentive to get involved. 1245. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:28:34 PM Nope, I'm in Marin, not exactly a bastion of things low cost or home to bargain hunters. For this coming school year, I'll be paying more, a little over $18K for the two, because my older one will be in first grade and so the cost rises accordingly. They go to a french school that has a campus in the city as well, so I'm sure we're keeping pace with everyone there, although not at the most expenseive end. 1246. christipeters - 3/6/2001 4:29:07 PM Oh, and aftershool care I had LD in as recently as 1998, was $35/week in west TX. The infant care was $110/week. Fulltime summer care for school age was $75/week. I don't know about the cost for between infant and school age as I had no friends with kids that age while I lived there. LD was 7 when we moved to westTX. 1247. christipeters - 3/6/2001 4:31:14 PM Caro - thanks you just confirmed that Miss Woe is Me caused her own problems by being terminally stupid, rather than there being this big societal problem 1248. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:31:55 PM Christi - Amazing, isnt' it, how the possibility of just NOT doing some of these things is the last thing we think of. Custom making shirts goes above and beyond anything I've heard before. I do not possess the skills required for that to even be any type of remote possibility. Not that I would even if I could. 1249. christipeters - 3/6/2001 4:40:32 PM I was laboring under the stupid notion that there was some magic formula of "things I can do to make him happy" that would result in him then deciding to be nice to me. 1250. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:42:43 PM Christi, well, personally I do think there is a big societal problem, just not the one SHE's talking about. We are the only industrialized nation that has no system in place to provide reliable childcare for infants and toddlers. it is all private. Kindergarten is not even mandated, I believe. Our system is based on the needs and structure of an agriaian (sp?) society and is completely outdated. 1251. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:48:13 PM I am uncomfortable at the notion of government funded daycare. I would rather that working class parents be given much more in the way of subsidies to pay for it. 1252. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 4:56:46 PM Why are you against government funded daycare? It could be looked upon as an extension of public schooling. Now I'm not saying that public schooling is a smashing success, but I don't see anyone proposing to get rid of it completely. 1253. CalGal - 3/6/2001 5:04:14 PM Government funded daycare would, I believe, remove private daycare as an option for all but the super-rich, and this is something that would really piss off the middle class and upper middle class. 1254. christipeters - 3/6/2001 5:07:55 PM "If women are going to assume all the responsibility for nurturing and opt out of the financial aspect, then daycare is always going to be relatively rare. And so long as we continue giving lip service to Mom being home as Best for The Child, there will be resistance to increasing the subsidy for daycare--after all, it "insults" those women who stay home." 1255. CaroBeth - 3/6/2001 5:13:08 PM I can see where you're going with gov't funded daycare. Not sure that I completely agree, but I can see the point. 1256. LimeGirl - 3/6/2001 7:39:15 PM My daughter went to kindergarten at a nice school here in Redmond, WA for about $550 a month. It would have been about $100 more a month for afterschool care too, I think. Which is not cheap, but not $13k a year, either. 1257. CalGal - 3/6/2001 7:47:27 PM I don't know that many parents, I suppose, but almost all of the ones I know have jobs. I can think of three women I know who don't have jobs--two of them are married to evangelical Christians, and one of them had breast cancer twice as well as a very lucrative career for a number of years, and when she got pregnant she just said, hey, that's it. I'm quitting and enjoying life without working for as long as we can afford it. Haven't been back in touch with her for a while, but if she needed to she could get a job quite easily. 1258. Uzmakk - 3/10/2001 7:50:22 PM My older son had his girlfriend over for supper this evening. Requested chicken medallions, veloute, canadian bacon, swiss cheese under the broiler, risotto, and corn. I complied. You'd think she was my girlfriend. "The things I do for you." I said. 1259. arkymalarky - 3/10/2001 8:41:09 PM Hahaha. How sweet of you to do that for them. I'm sure she was impressed. 1260. JudithAtHome - 3/11/2001 12:27:43 PM Uz: 1261. Jamie R - 3/12/2001 12:17:20 PM There was a woman on NPR (didn't catch her name, it was the Dianne Rheims show) arguing that SAHMs should be given social security credits. That's a new one for me. Is this an idea with legs? 1262. CalGal - 3/12/2001 12:23:09 PM I've heard people mention it before. Fuck that noise, baby. 1263. Jamie R - 3/12/2001 1:05:39 PM That'd make for some fun kitchen table scenes. "Of course I value your contribution, honey." "Okay, then sign here please..." 1264. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 1:09:29 PM I guess they get enough "payment" by staying home and raising the kids and taking care of the husband, huh? 1265. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:10:29 PM hahahah. But of course, it'd come out of her family income, too. That's probably why most women wouldn't do it even if they could. They just want the tax break. 1266. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:10:55 PM Scratch that second "tax". 1267. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 1:15:33 PM What I find particularly odd is that you can only promote stay at homing as a good thing if you then say that working is a bad thing 1268. Jamie R - 3/12/2001 1:17:35 PM The portion of the program I heard seemed to implicitly favor a SAHM = good parenting = healthy nation thesis. Certainly the callers all did. Much self-congratulatory talk about giving up careers to raise smart healthy kids etc. 1269. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:23:12 PM Can't it a good thing for some and working be a good thing for some, too? 1270. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 1:23:25 PM What is wrong with that, Jamie? You and Cal seem to think it's a stupid thing to do...do you also think it's a stupid thing for young mothers who aren't college educated but feel the need to "work", getting out of the house and making a small salary which doesn't even cover their clothing allowance or their daycare costs to hold down jobs while their kids are overlooked and warehoused in a cheap daycare facility? 1271. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:26:04 PM do you also think it's a stupid thing for young mothers who aren't college educated but feel the need to "work", getting out of the house and making a small salary which doesn't even cover their clothing allowance or their daycare costs to hold down jobs while their kids are overlooked and warehoused in a cheap daycare facility? 1272. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:27:11 PM And certainly she and her child are far better off, given the risks involved. 1273. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 1:29:29 PM Sorry...that sounds nuts to me. I don't expect to score any points in this but I don't see how the parents always being at work and in debt to pay daycare and support the expenses of both parents gas, food, cars, etc. is a better thing for the children. 1274. Erin R. - 3/12/2001 1:31:04 PM I agree with Cal. I think this is especially true of younger women who have not established careers to go back to when their children are school age. 1275. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:36:34 PM I don't expect to score any points in this but I don't see how the parents always being at work and in debt to pay daycare and support the expenses of both parents gas, food, cars, etc. is a better thing for the children. 1276. CalGal - 3/12/2001 1:39:42 PM Stay at home parenting is a luxury for the wealthy, the parents who have careers and can afford the enjoyment of kicking back for a few years. 1277. Jamie R - 3/12/2001 1:51:13 PM while their kids are overlooked and warehoused in a cheap daycare facility? 1278. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 1:55:06 PM I wasn't saying that they were, Jamie. Just as you were saying there are bad parents in both groups, there are instances of bad experiences in daycare facilities AND in homes with SAHMs. 1279. CalGal - 3/12/2001 2:00:19 PM You seemed to be implying that they would be bad parents for putting their kids in daycare that they could barely afford. Why not instead realize that their bad parenting began when they had the kid--and that working their asses off to provide for the child and build their own net worth is the best way to make up for that error? 1280. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 2:14:27 PM That's your assumption...sure, they made a mistake having a kid before they could afford it but I don't see how doing what you say is the only way for them to go. You are almost assuming everyone will advance in their jobs..many don't. You may assume people who haven't the sense to plan a pregnancy will increase their net worth rather than continue to make stupid decisions...I don't agree. You also assume most marriages will end in divorce...many don't. You also say SAHM don't make that much difference in a childs life, that being in daycare is just as good as being at home. I happen to disagree.... 1281. CalGal - 3/12/2001 2:27:22 PM You are almost assuming everyone will advance in their jobs..many don't. 1282. CalGal - 3/12/2001 2:29:34 PM You also say SAHM don't make that much difference in a childs life, that being in daycare is just as good as being at home. I happen to disagree.... 1283. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 4:38:24 PM Cal: 1284. CalGal - 3/12/2001 4:42:37 PM Judith, 1285. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 4:49:47 PM I started out asking questions, Cal. 1286. CalGal - 3/12/2001 5:17:23 PM For instance, when I said it was better for someone who couldn't afford daycare to stay home rather than put their child in an inferior daycare, you took that to mean I was slamming people who used daycare... 1287. JudithAtHome - 3/12/2001 5:29:57 PM Okay, by inferior daycare I mean a place you wouldn't trust to take care of your dog but was all you could afford for your child. I think common sense would say it was better to stay home than leave your child in a BAD place...surely you don't mean it's better to leave them at risk in a bad daycare? 1288. Jamie R - 3/12/2001 6:42:13 PM Well, that's a bit of a separate issue. A mother could believe that the optimal situation is for her to be working, and then view it as a problem that she can't. Given that my daycare options are lousy, what can I do to quickly get to a place where I can work? 1289. LimeGirl - 3/12/2001 8:22:25 PM My ex and I managed for most of the girls preschool years (we split when they were 2 & 3, before that, I didn't work) with few daycare needs. I worked nights, he worked days, for a while, we'd meet at this coffee place near where I worked and transfer the kids. (I still miss that place -- they had the best mochas!) 1290. LimeGirl - 3/13/2001 3:50:54 PM So next week we are beginning a more reasonable custody situation! It will be the every other day one I described earlier. The ex actually seemed quite enthusiastic about it, which surprised me. I thought he would be wanting to stick with the old ways, but either my brilliant analysis of the situation won him over, or he was tired of all the running around too! Or maybe it was the lure of the children spending more overnights there. Who knows! 1291. CalGal - 3/13/2001 3:55:37 PM I think common sense would say it was better to stay home than leave your child in a BAD place 1292. CalGal - 3/13/2001 4:01:51 PM I am very torn on the whole is it better for kids to stay at home in their early years or go to daycare. 1293. CalGal - 3/13/2001 4:03:21 PM That is terrific news about your custody situation. I remember that you were nervous about it and I'm delighted it worked out as you'd hoped. 1294. LimeGirl - 3/13/2001 4:20:23 PM Right -- I said selfish in the sense of doing it because that would be what I would want to do, as in not doing it because I think it would be best for the baby. More and more all the time, I am having fewer problems with being selfish! But I would most certainly secure my finances first. I think that a few years down the road it will be a serious option. 1295. CalGal - 3/13/2001 5:25:49 PM Oh, your mention of linear algebra reminds me: has anyone heard of Stanford's Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) ? 1296. debby - 3/13/2001 5:50:46 PM At about 4am when I couldn't sleep I started stewing about the &%$&^* marriage penalty in taxes we will be paying this year I had a thought. Ok if both partners work tax them at the regular (single?) rate of 15%, 28% etc, whatever is the rate for their income level so I pay the x% on my earnings and the consort pays y% on his earnings, and if you are a couple where only one partner works working partner pays what ever percent on their earnings and non working partner earned no money so pays no taxes. Wouldn't that be more fair than basically subsidizing people who don't work by combining the incomes of a 2 earner household and throwing them into a much higher tax bracket? Am I missing something or should I alert congress to the long sought after solution to the marriage penalty? 1297. Jamie R - 3/13/2001 6:09:55 PM Hey, neat. It's a little curious that so little matrix math is taught in highschool considering that a) it's easy enough for highschoolers of even middling math ability and b) it's omnipresent in applied math these days. 1298. CalGal - 3/13/2001 6:10:26 PM It'd be perfectly fair. Basically, your solution does away with a different tax status for marriage. The spouse with no income would be handled as a dependent, I guess, along with the kids. Two-income marriages could allocate the dependents in whatever way was favorable--until Uncle Sam figured out how to stop it. 1299. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 6:12:21 PM Is it okay to rant about modern angst surrounding child rearing? 1300. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 6:22:47 PM Normal and healthy? 1301. bubbaette - 3/13/2001 6:24:30 PM Anni 1302. bubbaette - 3/13/2001 6:26:04 PM How is that dysfunctional and counterproductive? It certainly established consequences and accountability for behavior. 1303. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 6:29:31 PM In other words, her son handled the situation well. How does that make it 'a good exchange?' And if she continues to behave as she does, Sonny Boy will do exactly what Bubbaette suggests (whatever the hell he wants). 1304. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 6:30:52 PM "counterproductive and dysfunctional" 1305. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 6:32:20 PM Power trippy mothers don't do their sons any favors. Trust me, I know wherof I speak. I've got 2 of them. 1306. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 6:37:19 PM So what would you suggest, Jonathon? And how is Anni a "power trippy" mother? Is she not the adult in the situation? 1307. bubbaette - 3/13/2001 6:37:37 PM Jon 1308. arkymalarky - 3/13/2001 6:37:50 PM I like it a lot. In my profession I see more spineless parents of teens than I care to. Some tell their parents in front of teachers and administrators what they're going to do and what their parents are going to do. 1309. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 6:42:14 PM I'd say something like: 1310. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 6:46:07 PM Yes, you are...and I can see you are also childless. 1311. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 6:49:33 PM spewing here 1312. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 6:54:48 PM Maybe you don't love your kids enough to say those words. I'll love my kids that much. 1313. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 6:57:19 PM Nothing like being lectured by a non-parent. 1314. arkymalarky - 3/13/2001 6:57:59 PM Jon, 1315. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 7:03:01 PM Joe says I can't have an opinion on U.S. politics because I'm Canadian. 1316. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 7:06:05 PM So in most cases the parents get the kids they deserve. 1317. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 7:07:00 PM Anyway, any mother who spews at the thought of telling her son that she loves him and is proud of him is already disqualified from the list for 'Mother of the Year'. 1318. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 7:10:03 PM living where I do my perspective is very likely skewed, 1319. debby - 3/13/2001 7:18:38 PM Two-income marriages could allocate the dependents in whatever way was favorable 1320. arkymalarky - 3/13/2001 7:22:51 PM My rural experience is that around here you'd likely get a "Go Girl" from swatting your kid in the Wal-Mart parking lot. (Kidding, sort of--there are definitely both extremes of the old school and new school) 1321. arkymalarky - 3/13/2001 7:23:26 PM Judith, I don't think Jon said he had kids. He said he had four parents. 1322. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 7:37:07 PM So in most cases the 1323. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 8:15:46 PM Reading Comprehension Test Results 1324. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 8:20:46 PM Rhetorical question comprehension test: 1325. LimeGirl - 3/13/2001 8:24:29 PM Jamie, she's 6, so I was mostly joking. But I have used my homework to explain all kinds of things to the kids that they don't usually hear about for many more years. Like frictional and opposing forces and basic algebra, to name a few. I could probably explain some of the matrix algebra to her though, and at the very least she'd like to see the patterns and the way the matrices are drawn. 1326. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 8:44:36 PM arky: 1327. arkymalarky - 3/13/2001 8:46:49 PM Well, he gave me an A, so I'm keeping quiet! ;-) 1328. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 8:48:56 PM Ha...I guess you understand him more than Anni and I do...being a teacher and all. 1329. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 8:50:58 PM Judith 1330. JudithAtHome - 3/13/2001 8:54:15 PM Thanks for the spelling lesson, Jon...you might consider curbing your smugness once you become a parent. 1331. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 9:07:28 PM Judith 1332. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 9:15:39 PM you're bound to suck as a parent. 1333. Jon Ferguson - 3/13/2001 9:25:13 PM anni 1334. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 9:37:03 PM You are welcome to disagree. 1335. CaroBeth - 3/13/2001 10:27:16 PM Anni, as the mother of two young boys, I think you did just fine. I certainly heard the underlying humor and love in your dialogue, even if it was missed by some. Your son knew it was there, as well. 1336. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 10:43:16 PM Hi Caro... 1337. Autodaffy - 3/13/2001 10:46:45 PM Message # 1329 1338. CaroBeth - 3/13/2001 10:46:58 PM Well, they're only 6 and 4, so they haven't quite gotten to that yet, but I do get tag-teamed re: going to McDonald's, buying toys, etc. It's just so tiring to answer the same questions time after time. "Did you not understand no the first time I said it?" 1339. CalGal - 3/13/2001 10:51:29 PM The notion of Anni needing reassurance from little Jon is pretty funny. History lesson: the guy has already been banned twice because after a while the worklad he represents for the administrators outweighs his nominal value as a poster. We are, after all, a volunteer forum. 1340. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 11:23:52 PM Heh... 1341. CalGal - 3/13/2001 11:28:52 PM I realize I forgot to answer your question. 1342. anni hunter - 3/13/2001 11:37:36 PM Exactly...trite as it sounds, what is best for our kids is our time, attention and oversight, usually when we would rather be doing other things. 1343. RustlerPike - 3/14/2001 3:11:20 AM Sunday morning, the Pike residence, the kids are getting ready to go to school. I am in a particularly difficult financial transition period (i.e., no money coming in, big overdraft). I am tense, trying to be strong. The wife is not supportive. Erez, 8, comforts me. I am reclining on the sofa and he comes over and just lies down on top of me, totally relaxing his body. He used to do that when he was tiny, too: when he hugs me he totally relaxes: that gives me the feeling he totally trusts me, and makes me feel strong. Then Tami, 5, comes over and joins the hug. We lie there like that for a very long five or ten minutes. I emerge relaxed and smiling. 1344. SnowOwl - 3/14/2001 3:26:53 AM That's a nice image, RP. It made me smile and brought back a lot of memories of my own kids when they were a lot younger. 1345. Jon Ferguson - 3/14/2001 7:32:35 AM what is best for our kids is our time, attention and oversight, usually when we would rather be doing other things. 1346. alistairconnor - 3/14/2001 7:37:12 AM Russ, 1347. Wombat - 3/14/2001 8:41:20 AM Wombette (6) really really really wanted some $4.95 trinket from some catalog. We OK'd it, if she used her allowance money to buy it. Crisis: her money was not where she thought she left it (out in the open on the kitchen counter: she was warned by both of us that it was not a good place to leave, but heaven forbid she should pay attention to us). Tears, whining, offering to do stuff around the house that she never ever does, for money--in advance of course. Our line: why should we give you more money if you cannot keep track of what you have? If you want this thing badly enough, stop watching TV and start looking thoroughly. 1348. Åse - 3/14/2001 11:55:29 AM We had the first parenting challenge last night. The little possum started squalling, who knows why. She just seemed to be generally annoyed. Daddy, who does not want his little girl to cry, came rushing into my office to take her off my hands. He is rocking her, cooing to her - she keeps squalling, purple faced, scrunched up and all. He walks around with her, changes her nappy. She briefly stops crying on the changing table. Then, she's at it again. After about 20 minutes he hands her over to me in exasperation saying "you do it", and then runs into his office. I say "i have no idea what to do either". Which I don't. If anything I have less experience since he's been the soothing guy so far (when sticking her on the nipple doesn't help). 1349. CalGal - 3/14/2001 12:05:30 PM 1350. MsIvoryTower - 3/14/2001 12:08:08 PM My daughter had colic, and for three months I didn't sleep more than 3 hours at a time. 1351. Shannon - 3/14/2001 12:11:45 PM I had a friend who had great luck with putting her son's carseat on the washing machine. 1352. Åse - 3/14/2001 12:13:54 PM No, I didn't. I told him that bouncing helps though - for future reference. 1353. MsIvoryTower - 3/14/2001 12:18:10 PM Shannon 1354. bubbaette - 3/14/2001 12:18:44 PM My brother's son had to be bounced to sleep during his whole infancy. Who ever was putting him to bed had to sit on the side of the bed and bounce for 15 minutes to 1/2 hours. 1355. arkymalarky - 3/14/2001 5:50:38 PM Mose had colic for a while--don't remember how long, just the individual instances that were particularly bad. I never thought of the washer and dryer. Bob sounds like Ase's husband, and he did most of the comforting, etc. He held her before I did when she was born and she's been a Daddy's Girl ever since. 1356. Shannon - 3/14/2001 7:03:53 PM Q used to fall asleep if I ran the blow-dryer. 1357. SnowOwl - 3/14/2001 7:13:39 PM We never had problems with colic but we did have problems with one child who did not sleep. He did not cry, he just remained awake. Once he was able to get himself out of his bed he would wander around during the night. 1358. Shannon - 3/14/2001 10:36:54 PM A little parental humor: 1359. Jamie R - 3/15/2001 8:54:09 AM Thanks. :) The bit about educational toy store names absolutely killed me. 1360. Shannon - 3/15/2001 9:05:54 AM Seems some stupid little kid choked on one and so mine got recalled. 1361. Jamie R - 3/15/2001 9:12:39 AM Oh, there's no question that lots of my toys were hideously inappropriate for tiny children. 1362. Wombat - 3/15/2001 9:33:39 AM We replayed the Battle of Britain by putting firecrackers in model airplanes, dousing them with model cement, setting them on fire and throwing them out an 8th storey window (into an empty courtyard. We were idiots, but not insane). 1363. Jamie R - 3/15/2001 9:43:16 AM That is cool. 1364. Wombat - 3/15/2001 9:49:49 AM We blew up the battleship Arizona in a similar fashion, although that took place indoors. We hid on my friend's loft bed, and were unscathed by the blast. 1365. CalGal - 3/15/2001 12:40:27 PM At one of the compounds we lived in on the Red Sea, each apartment had access to the roof, which was an excellent playground. But the roof had a three foot barrier with a four foot ledge outside the barrier. After that, nothing but an 80 foot drop. 1366. anni hunter - 3/15/2001 9:56:50 PM Shannon, thanks for the chuckle...and oh: 1367. wabbit - 3/18/2001 4:59:30 PM Has anyone read this book? 1368. anni hunter - 3/18/2001 7:37:32 PM Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up, Wabbit. 1369. CalGal - 3/18/2001 8:05:26 PM Or the one about the couple who left a friend on a road in the middle of nowhere because their three year old didn't like having someone along in the back seat. Surely that's made up. 1370. anni hunter - 3/18/2001 8:32:06 PM Surely that's made up. 1371. joezan - 3/18/2001 11:46:02 PM You break the clutch on an old clothes dryer so it's stuck on the spin cycle. 1372. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 7:27:16 AM Just returned from a too-short week's visit with my oldest son(27), who lives in North Carolina. The feeling of being a parent seems to never go away, and is experienced most acutely(vs daily cell phone raps) when you are together physically. My son is a fiercely independent sort who enjoys taking a bite out of life's ass. As his career skyrockets, he seems more inclined than ever to reject the traditional get married and raise kids lifestyle...it was a joy discussing issues and life with him(and see him love his mother), and he introduced me to new music(Vertical Horizon), his latest honey, a bunch of young professionals, and the fun of driving on the beach wrapped in a Jeep laden with bells and whistles. As I sat in the small airport of his town yesterday, I briefly questioned my "healthy birds fly from the nest" philosophy that I supported from day one. I miss him now, before, and tomorrow. The act of holding on while letting go is a bittersweet moment of time and action. 1373. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 12:27:46 PM My younger brother is just about to graduate college. We talked this last visit about how much the folks were getting on his nerves. He's making a lot of decisions that make them worry, which translates into a lot of nagging and general disapproval when he visits. 1374. CaroBeth - 3/19/2001 1:46:57 PM Jamie, I have those same thoughts. I so don't want to do anything that will make my children want to get away from me and yet I probably will. At some point they will want to be independent of me to some degree or another and right now that thought breaks my heart. 1375. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 2:39:39 PM The independence I was referring to was not the "I have to get away" type...but rather one which emphasizes what life can have to offer under new and varied circumstances...just having to get away is not a sign of maturity in this case, IMHO. 1376. CalGal - 3/19/2001 2:51:40 PM I enjoy knowing that Spawn will be independent of me some day, although I'll miss him something dreadful. I have always raised him with far more independence than most parents consider appropriate, although I focus hard on not being too lax and always yank back when I realize that he's gone too far. 1377. CaroBeth - 3/19/2001 2:59:55 PM Happy Birthday Spawn! 1378. Erin R. - 3/19/2001 3:00:59 PM Happy birthday, Spawn! 1379. Shannon - 3/19/2001 3:06:06 PM Happy birthday to Spawn. 1380. PsychProf - 3/19/2001 3:08:34 PM May Spawn's teen experience be equal to his mother's love for him...HB to him. 1381. mgleason - 3/19/2001 3:16:20 PM Many happy returns of the day! Congratulations to you both. 1382. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 3:21:55 PM just having to get away is not a sign of maturity in this case, IMHO. 1383. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 3:24:05 PM And happy birthday, Spawn! By coincidence, it is my daughter's birthday today as well. (She's three.) 1384. CalGal - 3/19/2001 3:27:42 PM Really? I remember Spawn's tenth birthday very well, because I celebrated my first decade as a mom. Happy Day to your daughter! 1385. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 3:29:58 PM Thanks! She had a real milestone this morning in the car. She grasped that "star" has to start with Ess because of the ssss sound. She's very excited about the "what's that start with?" game. 1386. mgleason - 3/19/2001 3:33:50 PM How wonderful, Jamie. All good wishes to your little girl. 1387. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 3:38:11 PM Thanks. 1388. arkymalarky - 3/19/2001 11:49:41 PM Happy birthday to Spawn and Jamie's daughter! 1389. Åse - 3/20/2001 12:03:26 AM Vi ar sa glada ha ha 1390. CalGal - 3/20/2001 12:30:51 PM Thank you, Ase! 1391. Åse - 3/20/2001 12:38:09 PM *sigh* (of satisfaction). 1392. PsychProf - 3/20/2001 1:02:56 PM Many parents say "Be happy" when asked what their goal(s) is/are for their children. Yet, unsaid(unadmitted to oneself?) are in fact many implicit "dreams" that direct their parenting behavior. Control issues surround these parenting practices and values...code words such as "under my roof", "discipline", "academics"' etc. cover the real(and for some reason unsaid to the children) issues(what one wants for their child) underlying the parental attitude. 1393. christipeters - 3/20/2001 2:17:57 PM Happy (belated) Birthday! 1394. Stephanie D. - 3/20/2001 2:35:33 PM Happy birthday, Spawn! 1395. CalGal - 3/20/2001 2:38:51 PM Propaganda baby--great term! Spawn was like that at 8 months, and my nephew is too. 1396. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 2:51:47 PM My son was great at that age. But he gets really pissed off now that he can't always get what he wants. 1397. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 3:09:39 PM My daughter has discovered "why not?" 1398. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 3:10:11 PM Say in plaintive voice, repeat as needed. 1399. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 3:11:48 PM Actually, she phrases it a little oddly, come to think of it. It's usually more like "why not can I watch Blue's Clues?" or "why not can I have some potato chips?" 1400. mgleason - 3/20/2001 3:12:33 PM Now, I was imagining a philosophical 'Why not?' 1401. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 3:13:33 PM I still can't understand much of what my kid says. He just falls out dramatically or stiffens and arches his back, if we are so foolish as to try to get him to do something he doesn't want to. 1402. CalGal - 3/20/2001 3:15:12 PM Jamie, 1403. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 3:16:03 PM Well sure. "Why not can I derive ought from is? Why not can the Chinese Room refute AI?" 1404. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 3:16:41 PM Sorry, that was to 1400. 1405. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 3:18:27 PM Last night as I tucked her in she pressed her forhead up against mine and we started pushing back and forth. She happily announced "we are big head fighting. We are doing head noogies." I don't know where she learns this stuff, but it cracks me up. 1406. Åse - 3/20/2001 3:25:12 PM I just pontificated about type 1 errors and power and conservative alphas with the possum. 1407. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 3:26:19 PM Happy Birthday to them chirruns! 1408. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 3:31:20 PM All small children enjoy making and hearing farts. 1409. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 3:37:31 PM Hell, I know adults who still think farts are funny in certain situations. 1410. Åse - 3/20/2001 3:40:06 PM Well, they are very funny when a tiny baby makes them. 1411. Erin R. - 3/20/2001 3:40:09 PM When my son hears a fart, he stops what he's doing and with a very serious expression on his face, imitates the sound with his mouth. 1412. CalGal - 3/20/2001 3:46:42 PM I did this cool thing to Spawn last night. 1413. janjon - 3/20/2001 3:58:46 PM His therapist will thank you too. 1414. Stephanie D. - 3/20/2001 4:09:44 PM Very cool! I think I'd be tempted to say "You have passed the test, young Skywalker." 1415. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 6:22:07 PM Concentrate.....concentrate... 1416. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 6:22:58 PM Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I need a subthread off in Siberia called "Aunting and Dog Ownership" 1417. CalGal - 3/20/2001 6:25:53 PM Oh, lordy. What a cutie. 1418. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 6:42:49 PM He looks so much like my brother as an infant. Both have that perfectly round head and face. 1419. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 6:43:26 PM Very cool birthday stuff for Spawn. He's such a great kid. 1420. msgreer - 3/20/2001 6:45:07 PM CalGal Gee, I guess you missed the pictures of my daughter on Mote Cafe. I mean you posted all around others comments. Oh, I see. You didn't see the pictures. And you didn't have any curiousity to go back and take a look. I made a bet with myself and sad to say I won. 1421. msgreer - 3/20/2001 6:46:40 PM Christino Adorable. When I see pictures like this I want to get right into the baby's sweet smelling neck and kiss kiss kiss. You must be having a good time. Thanks for posting the pics. 1422. CalGal - 3/20/2001 6:54:18 PM Ms, 1423. msgreer - 3/20/2001 6:59:15 PM It's the truth. The fact it is also petty and pathetic is of your own making. It might be off topic in your mind but it's right on target in my book. This is about parenting. I'm a parent and I asked you how could you see the pictures of my daughter and not say anything to me. Mother, daughter issues equal parenting in my book. 1424. CalGal - 3/20/2001 7:01:46 PM MsG, 1425. msgreer - 3/20/2001 7:05:15 PM Yes, when parents post pictures of their children of course they want attention. Why is it okay for others to post and you remark but not when I do? 1426. Stephanie D. - 3/20/2001 7:23:02 PM ChristinO, that is one cute baby. 1427. CalGal - 3/20/2001 7:25:16 PM MsG, 1428. msgreer - 3/20/2001 7:37:33 PM You just comfirmed every impression I've ever had of you. 1429. CalGal - 3/20/2001 7:38:30 PM Marvellous. I trust you can refrain from giving voice to said impressions in the future--or at least do it when it's on topic. 1430. SnowOwl - 3/20/2001 8:12:56 PM A very belated Happy Birthday to Spawn and to any other kids whose birthdays I've missed. 1431. msgreer - 3/20/2001 8:20:29 PM SnowOwl What a difficult time you must be having. I remember you discussing your daughter in Health. Mania is difficult is an understatement. 1432. anni hunter - 3/20/2001 9:00:20 PM My computer crashed (doing that a lot these days, ever since I upgraded Netscape) as I was about to remark on CalGal's b-day story. 1433. arkymalarky - 3/20/2001 9:35:34 PM What an adorable nephew, Christin. He looks very much like mine and Bob's best friend-couple's (does that make sense?) boy, who was just a month older than Mose. 1434. JJBiener - 3/20/2001 9:43:56 PM Cal - You can draw no conclusions save one: I do not believe in formless, meaningless, knee-jerk politeness. 1435. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:08:57 PM Anni, 1436. RosettaStone - 3/20/2001 10:09:37 PM I can tell that CalCal really misses TT's "Mothers Who Insult to Get Attention" 1437. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:11:24 PM Snow, 1438. anni hunter - 3/20/2001 10:36:22 PM No, he sure didn't back then, CalGal...but then, I don't think he remembers his initial disappointment either... 1439. CalGal - 3/20/2001 10:44:53 PM Oh, that's good. 1440. anni hunter - 3/20/2001 11:09:54 PM spewing... 1441. CalGal - 3/20/2001 11:22:38 PM No wonder he's your favorite. 1442. anni hunter - 3/20/2001 11:50:11 PM more spewing... 1443. CalGal - 3/21/2001 12:39:02 AM I can imagine. Last one out, and all that. It's nice that he still checks in, isn't it? I think the courtesy is there because he appreciates the fact that you didn't yank too hard earlier. It's a compliment to your parenting. 1444. mgleason - 3/21/2001 4:34:19 PM Oh, Christin, he's a cutie. I don't blame you for being crazy about him. 1445. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 4:36:13 PM They suck you in with that cutie stuff and then yer cooked for a lifetime. 1446. mgleason - 3/21/2001 4:38:15 PM Kwitcherwhinin, you. 1447. SnowOwl - 3/21/2001 6:35:17 PM Thanks for the good wishes, I passed them on to my daughter who was delighted to receive them. Thankfully the visit home went a lot better than the last one, when she tried to burn the house down. Next step for her is a couple of overnigh leaves, a weekend leave and then discharge. 1448. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 9:34:10 AM A 24 year old mother, and I use the term loosely, "forgot" to take her 5 month old baby to daycare yesterday and instead, left him in her car all day while she worked as a waitress in a mall cafe in Dallas. Temperatures reached high 70s outside and 90s inside the car which had the windows rolled up. 1449. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 10:01:32 AM Judith 1450. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 10:07:23 AM I sincerely hope this Dallas mom is a felon soon. 1451. christipeters - 3/22/2001 12:55:41 PM I not only sincerely hope that Dallas Mom is a felon soon, I fully expect it. I mean, "forget" your own 5 month old baby?? How the hell can anyone forget that?!? The only possible mitigating circumstance that I can think of is if she has severe mental/emotional problems, but even that is stretching it. 1452. Anna K - 3/22/2001 1:30:35 PM I'm new here... I migrated over from Salon. I recognize a lot of names from there. I doubt anyone recognizes me, as I mostly lurked, and this is a different name from the one I use over there. 1453. Fielding - 3/22/2001 1:34:36 PM Anna K: 1454. CalGal - 3/22/2001 2:01:54 PM Hi, Anna! 1455. Anna K - 3/22/2001 2:42:23 PM Hi, CalGal! 1456. Anna K - 3/22/2001 2:43:15 PM Oh, and why, at the bottom of the "preview" window, does it ask me if I have toys to put away? Has the Mote been in my house? 1457. CalGal - 3/22/2001 2:52:31 PM Oh! You're right. That would activate my ack! buttons. 1458. CalGal - 3/22/2001 2:57:45 PM On toys: 1459. Anna K - 3/22/2001 3:19:32 PM Right on. 1460. CalGal - 3/22/2001 3:24:46 PM Yes on the reminder. "Toys" is a Mote term; if I can find the link I'll post the recreation of where the term came from. It's pretty funny. 1461. PsychProf - 3/22/2001 3:31:05 PM 1462. SnowOwl - 3/22/2001 3:33:02 PM I shamefacedly admit I have forgotten a child. I have 5, with just a year between each of the youngest 4. My best friend has 4, the same ages as my 4 youngest. When they were all small we used to bundle them up into my car and take them to various places. So we'd have 9 kids with us, one 10 year old, the others all under 5. 1463. janjon - 3/22/2001 3:36:46 PM forgetting a child, eh. 1464. Shannon - 3/22/2001 3:43:39 PM SnowOwl, I know of a family that has 11 kids. They've forgotten one twice. The same one. 1465. mgleason - 3/22/2001 3:43:53 PM Yes, large numbers of children call for all sorts of desperate measures. There was a family on my block, the O'Briens, whose members included 13 children. Punishment was meted out on a wholesale basis, because, as our parents reasoned, the O'Briens couldn't be bothered to figure out who belonged to them and who didn't. 1466. CalGal - 3/22/2001 3:45:43 PM Snow, 1467. PsychProf - 3/22/2001 3:45:47 PM Haha 1468. christipeters - 3/22/2001 3:47:25 PM In Monday's mail was an invitation for my daughter to take a trip to Wahsington, DC this summer with People to People's Young Achiever's Forum. 1469. PsychProf - 3/22/2001 3:52:36 PM The haha was to Gleason scampering out of the O"Brien household... 1470. SnowOwl - 3/22/2001 3:53:06 PM My son assures me that it was the emotional scarring he suffered as a result of being forgotten that has led to his current occupation as layabout dole-bludger (unemployment benefit recipient). Of course I believe him and I'm overcome with remorse. 1471. mgleason - 3/22/2001 3:57:06 PM Prof, 1472. CalGal - 3/22/2001 4:05:41 PM Christi, 1473. PsychProf - 3/22/2001 4:08:39 PM Christi...check with someone who has participated. 1474. janjon - 3/22/2001 4:09:49 PM Christi - out of curiosity, just how much does this group want for this trip to D.C. (including air fare?) 1475. janjon - 3/22/2001 4:10:23 PM I will parrot PP. 1476. christipeters - 3/22/2001 4:26:54 PM janjon - air fare, hotel, meals, insurance, and 7 days of organized activities and touring, including being there over 4th of July for the national fireworks, = a little over $2K. 1477. CalGal - 3/22/2001 4:34:21 PM Oh, I wasn't even looking at it from that angle. I assumed it was an organization she was already familiar with. I agree that if it was a mailing out of the blue, it should be investigated. 1478. christipeters - 3/22/2001 4:40:22 PM No, it wasn't a mailing out of the blue. It's a program that she became eligible for due to her test scores - like the Duke University Talent Search program. We've been getting mailings on what the latest trip is and the opportunity to register for awhile now. I remeber I posted about it when it first started and Diva said that she got the same/similar mailing for Gracie, but that it was too expensive. 1479. janjon - 3/22/2001 4:40:23 PM My immediate reaction is that that is a ripoff. 1480. SnowOwl - 3/22/2001 4:46:24 PM It does all sound extraordinarily expensive and you would have to consider whether the benefits she received from such a trip are worth that money, or whether for the same money you could provide better experiences for her. 1481. christipeters - 3/22/2001 4:49:04 PM Air fare = $400 - 500 round trip. $60/night!?! In DC!! - I think you're dreaming there. As far as how many adults per kid - there are no parents or other adults going besides the leaders. The only other adults would be the ones local to DC running the tours. 1482. christipeters - 3/22/2001 4:53:15 PM Snow Owl - Well, I'll have to admit that I have been planning a trip to DC for the both of us for next year. I've never been and I would like to go and do the tourist thang. 1483. janjon - 3/22/2001 4:55:08 PM That is indeed a full and diverse schedule and the side trips of course add to the expense. 1484. janjon - 3/22/2001 4:56:07 PM I wouldn't put much weight on resume or college application value. 1485. christipeters - 3/22/2001 4:58:58 PM Janjon - I apologize, I pulled the airfare estimate out of my head from the last time I searched prices on the 'net. I just checked expedia.com and a single coach roundtrip for the specific dates of this trip ranges from $245-$270. I used Dulles as the DC airport although I really don't know what airport they are actually planning to bring the kids in to. I also ran it for an adult. Since she would be an unaccompanied minor, add about $60 more each way. So my airfare estimate was off quite a bit. 1486. christipeters - 3/22/2001 5:00:22 PM Janjon (#1484) - No, I don't really put much weight on that. My emphasis is on the experience. It was just an interesting possible side note. 1487. janjon - 3/22/2001 5:03:57 PM I would think the biggest factor to assess is whether you can put a value on what it will mean in terms of your daughter's development to be away for a week in this context. One on side, it could end up being something that hits at her deeply - good times with interesting kids from all over the place - and inspires curiosity and more interest in matters and things not local in a child whom I gather is already an achiever. On the other, at that age you always run the risk of homesickness and unfamiliarity leading to not having a good time. 1488. christipeters - 3/22/2001 5:07:49 PM janjon - you have stated my dilemma and the issues quite acurately. When we got the info on the first trip, she only wanted to go if her close friend (also invited to participate) also went. This time, she doesn't care. So, even if I say no this time, I am pleased to note her growth in confidence. 1489. Rachel - 3/22/2001 9:08:59 PM By the way, I know a lot of people who've been to CTY (5 to 10 years ago, but there's enough consistency to their accounts that I doubt it's changed much), and they all really enjoyed it. A lot of them who had social problems at school did much better socially at CTY. 1490. CalGal - 3/22/2001 9:29:43 PM Rachel, 1491. elzbieta - 3/23/2001 9:38:10 PM Christi, 1492. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 8:20:14 AM Topic of the Day 1493. JudithAtHome - 3/24/2001 10:17:49 AM We'd call the media because it is a physical impossibility for me to conceive and has been since my late 20s... 1494. anni hunter - 3/24/2001 12:34:06 PM how would you react 1495. PsychProf - 3/24/2001 12:37:59 PM Rose...my partner was there three times and each was pure joy. You see, one does not have to conceive if one does not want to. It was our responsibilty to have children when we wanted them. 1496. PsychProf - 3/24/2001 12:48:39 PM 1497. Åse - 3/24/2001 12:49:14 PM Oh, goodie. We like the first one so much we want a second. 1498. anni hunter - 3/24/2001 1:21:18 PM Go for it Ase...always good to hear that folks who should be spawning...are spawning! ;* 1499. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 10:39:17 PM Rosie 1500. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 10:55:29 PM Now let's hear from JJ (inflatable doll) and Fielding (goat) on the subject. 1501. Cellar Door - 3/24/2001 11:12:25 PM In the April issue of British GQ in a spread called "L.A. Story" you'll find a picture of my friend hamp simmons' son Dominic and his grandson Gabriel. 1502. RosettaStone - 3/25/2001 9:27:44 AM Topic of the Day 1503. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:31:19 AM What has this "topic" to do with parenting, Rosetta? And who appointed you Host Pro Tem? 1504. Erin R. - 3/25/2001 9:36:46 AM Hm...I am the host. That is not a parenting question, RS. 1505. RosettaStone - 3/25/2001 9:39:13 AM Looks like I've struck a chord. 1506. Erin R. - 3/25/2001 9:41:00 AM What do you mean? 1507. CalGal - 3/25/2001 11:47:38 AM I don't think there is an appropriate place for Stone. 1508. CalGal - 3/25/2001 11:47:46 AM I'm very relieved that they were helped. But that skew, already evident in the oldest boy, strikes me as problematic. Already he has a sense of entitlement--the sense that the government should step in to provide what his family so clearly had no interest in doing. 1509. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 12:00:46 PM What sickens me is the fact that if anyone had suggested this mother stop at one child (or better yet, none) they would be attacked as heartless people trying to deny a woman her "right" to bear children. 1510. CalGal - 3/25/2001 2:12:12 PM Yes, they would. 1511. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 2:31:00 PM I guess noone shared my interest in Message # 1496...I can't imagine the pressure the parents were put under, and have had to live with. 1512. CalGal - 3/25/2001 3:38:20 PM You read that story and pity the parents? Please. 1513. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 3:59:58 PM I share your sympathy for the parents, PP. I've seen the story on CBC already. Ignorant, hard-working, rural couple gets fucked over by the medical establishment. Why wouldn't you have sympathy? Obviously the kid deserves the most sympathy, but it can't have been easy for the parents. 1514. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 4:05:51 PM Calgal...perhaps this will help 1515. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 4:08:41 PM Jon...anger was also one of my responses. I followed this case through Money's publications and I was duped. 1516. CalGal - 3/25/2001 4:19:21 PM The mother wanted to let her kid die after one of the suicide attempts, figuring he'd be happier. She reconsidered, but still. The mother also knew that the doctor was apparently molesting both her sons and did nothing. Not only that, they allowed their other son to be emotionally damaged, putting their own preferences above their kids' wellbeing. 1517. CalGal - 3/25/2001 4:21:22 PM To be clear, I would feel bad for any parents put in a nightmare where their child was that damaged. It's just that I can't see how anyone would read that story and think of the parents first. As parents go in that sort of situation, they did very badly. 1518. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 4:23:33 PM Thye got $65,000 for the surgical error, which they then spent on the offices of John Money. Too bad for them they were not wise when it counted. 1519. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 4:24:21 PM The reason I mentioned the parents is that this is the parenting thread. 1520. CalGal - 3/25/2001 4:25:04 PM They weren't wise at all. They also seemed to put their own comfort before the wellbeing of their child. 1521. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 4:26:22 PM Money was and is of tremendous influence. 1522. PsychProf - 3/25/2001 4:29:48 PM 1523. mgleason - 3/25/2001 4:51:12 PM It's very sobering to read that piece in the light of David Reimer's anguished life. I guess he's the nemesis Money's hubris produced. 1524. mgleason - 3/25/2001 6:25:50 PM NYT book review: The Lost Children of Wilder 1525. mgleason - 3/25/2001 6:27:47 PM Above all, ''The Lost Children of Wilder'' tells the story of these abandoned kids. At 14, Shirley Wilder had given birth to a son, Lamont. (She herself would die from AIDS at 39, three weeks before the lawsuit was finally over.) ''It is almost boring to read her case record,'' one of her many caseworkers recalled, ''because you have read it so many times, in so many kids.'' While still in the maternity ward she was talked into signing her baby over to the state: she had no place to live, and she was too young for mother-child placement. She could visit him no more than once a month. 1526. mgleason - 3/25/2001 6:28:28 PM This book makes two things clear. First, it is foolish to separate parents from children with the ease that our current system encourages. Our policies assert that it should be less comfortable to be on welfare than to work, which is sensible. They also assert that a mother who cannot feed and house her child should not raise him, which also is sensible. The consequences are not. Lamont's care cost the city half a million dollars, far more than it would have cost to support his mother, and it repeatedly and traumatically severed him from an enduring human relationship, as crucial to a child's development as food and heat. 1527. joezan - 3/25/2001 6:38:30 PM It's cases such as the Reimers' that make one really question how much of psychogospel is really psychobabble, and some asshole's ambition. 1528. joezan - 3/25/2001 6:40:39 PM He had been completely normal up to age 5. But one day in his kindergarten class he just stopped talking, grew unresponsive, and never spoke another word. 1529. joezan - 3/25/2001 6:41:59 PM They, of course, followed the good doc around like puppies, and I swear the guy would have to stop every few steps to pull one of them out of his butt. But every day my reports said the same thing - no perceptible progress. 1530. PsychProf - 3/26/2001 6:57:16 AM Well Joe, you are right . Quacks and frauds, well meaning sycophants, and poorly trained therapists plague the field of behavioral therapy. One of the signs of competence I look for, both professionally, and indeed, for that matter, personally in life, is the willingness and capacity of a person to be established as incorrect, and their ability to accept, personal error. It is always a danger signal to me when a fellow professional "needs" to be "right" in all that he/she does. John Money apparently does not agree with me. 1531. RosettaStone - 3/26/2001 9:22:59 AM Topic of the Day 1532. PsychProf - 3/26/2001 9:28:41 AM Stone...Two isues. 1) wrong thread 2) why is it that you initiate but seldom respond. 1533. RosettaStone - 3/26/2001 9:36:36 AM 1) What thread should it be in? 1534. JadeGold1 - 3/26/2001 9:40:53 AM A lack of intelligence also seems to play a major contributing factor. 1535. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/26/2001 10:53:05 AM > wrong thread 1536. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 7:21:32 AM Topic of the Day 1537. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 10:12:24 AM Rosetta: 1538. CalGal - 3/27/2001 10:19:48 AM And Erin, if you don't know, now might be a good time to mention that you can delete posts. 1539. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 10:20:52 AM For sure...retroactively, even. 1540. Erin R. - 3/27/2001 12:22:01 PM How do you delete posts? 1541. ChristinO - 3/27/2001 12:24:33 PM Erin, 1542. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:25:35 PM Don't delete or move the posts to Inferno. Just answer them. 1543. Shannon - 3/27/2001 12:39:42 PM How 'bout something actually related to the topic? 1544. christipeters - 3/27/2001 12:40:02 PM What the hell do they have to do with parenting forgodsakes? 1545. PsychProf - 3/27/2001 12:44:14 PM Shannon...children's cognitions are not the same a adults. Hard to say what is going on in his head, but I bet he's sure about what he sez when he sez it. Think of it like the weather...change coming up. 1546. Wombat - 3/27/2001 12:50:47 PM Shannon: 1547. CalGal - 3/27/2001 12:50:49 PM Have you tried making it a question? 1548. Shannon - 3/27/2001 12:55:05 PM Well, yes, with the park thing, I just said I was going to do some work on the computer until he decided to change clothes. Which I did. Ha, work, I hung out here. But anyway... 1549. Shannon - 3/27/2001 12:56:36 PM Hmmm, CalGal. I'll pay more attention to how I phrase things. 1550. CalGal - 3/27/2001 1:00:52 PM I don't want to confuse "giving him a choice" with "do whatever he wants". If it's time to go to the park, go to the park and to hell with kiddie angst. Wombat's method seems fine to me. 1551. PsychProf - 3/27/2001 1:03:52 PM A colleague of mine does research on children's(5-7) understanding of cognitive events...their assumptions about the role/abilities of adults in their lives is far different than you might think. For example, a child is given a cereal box which is filled with "gum". When asked what is in the package, the reply is "cereal"...then when shown that gum is in the box, the child is surprised but accepting. Next, they are asked to go and get their dad, and also asked what he will say is in the package...they invariably say he will say "gum"... 1552. Shannon - 3/27/2001 1:04:41 PM Oh, absolutely, CalGal. Choices within reasaon: It's time to get ready for bed. Do you want to put on PJ's or brush your teeth first? You may not opt to skip the whole process and stay up watching videos all night. And if you don't choose, I'm going to put your PJ's on first, because we're already in your room and they're right here. 1553. PsychProf - 3/27/2001 1:09:19 PM I tended to be more direct...get yer jammies on, brush yer teeth, and get yer butt into bed... 1554. Shannon - 3/27/2001 1:13:24 PM We're getting more like that lately, Prof. Bedtime is a constant challenge with him. For a while, it worked very well to give him the choice of which to do first, and he'd do it pretty agreeably. But now that's changing. Time for a new approach to the bedtime battle. Sigh. We've had to re-evaluate our bedtime approach a number of times. We'll find something that works for a few months, then he thinks of a new troublesome response... 1555. PsychProf - 3/27/2001 1:15:32 PM Shannon...I know what Ms PP would say..."For Chrissakes, they're kids"...kiss em and laugh, I say. 1556. Jadegold1 - 3/27/2001 1:21:32 PM It's an independence thing. 1557. Shannon - 3/27/2001 1:21:52 PM Well, for laughing, we have t-ball now. He had his first game Saturday. That was a hoot. 1558. Shannon - 3/27/2001 1:23:08 PM Stories are crucial in our bedtime too. Too much stalling, no time for a story. Pitch a fit, no story. Run in circles instead of listening to it, story is over. 1559. PsychProf - 3/27/2001 1:25:28 PM Shannon...t-ball was an awesome event in our family...much anticipated and enjoyed. 1560. christipeters - 3/27/2001 1:52:45 PM When LD was younger, I found that working up to bedtime really helped to get her there on time. Like: 1561. christipeters - 3/27/2001 1:54:12 PM (BTW, Erin, my post #1544 was in response to Rosetta Stone's posted questions. You can delete it if you want.) 1562. CalGal - 3/27/2001 1:55:41 PM I rarely read to Spawn, and was pretty lazy about on time bedtimes until he was about 4. At that point I instituted an 8 pm bedtime that stayed in effect until he was 12. 1563. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2001 2:23:13 PM My oldest son occasionally plays stubborness games. Sometimes he wants control, and sometimes he is just being ornery. My usual tactic, when I don't care what his decision is, is to give him a choice, with 5 seconds to make up his mind. If he doesn't choose, then "Daddy will choose", and further protestations fall on deaf ears. 1564. christipeters - 3/27/2001 2:25:35 PM CalGal - Well, by the time LD was 7, it was just "go to bed". I was talking about when she was younger. In fact, I never really had any fuss out of her once she was about 2. However, I don't know if it was keeping to a bedtime routine or if she would have been cooperative anyway. Everything I had read about child developement and all my experience in childcare told me that a routine made going to bed less stressful all around. So that's what I did. 1565. christipeters - 3/27/2001 2:27:45 PM I read to LD a lot. However, I love reading and loved reading to her. As she learned to read, we first started taking turns reading. Then she read to me, but I didn't like listening nearly as much as I liked reading. So, now we just read our own books in companionable silence. 1566. LimeGirl - 3/27/2001 2:29:13 PM I haven't had many problems with the girls and bedtime, either. Not since they were toddler-early preschool age. Then, I did things like, "Do you want to walk to bed or do you want to be carried?" That worked for the older one (I thought I was so smart!), but the younger one would just throw herself on the ground and cry (Then I realized maybe I wasn't so smart). 1567. MsIvoryTower - 3/27/2001 2:30:12 PM I don't even want to talk about bedtimes. 1568. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2001 2:30:33 PM Now bedtime has been a challenge. Not getting him to bed, but getting him to stay there. We had a devil of a time with this, as he would climb out of bed and quietly play with his toys, making him cranky as hell the next morning. My recent solution, which has worked decently, is to provide carrots and sticks. If he stays in bed and lies down, he can have the door open, and gets to use a pet blanket. If he gets out of bed, door gets shut and blanket spends the night elsewhere. 1569. JudithAtHome - 3/27/2001 2:35:16 PM As she learned to read, we first started taking turns reading. Then she read to me... 1570. christipeters - 3/27/2001 2:39:24 PM Judith - lovely! 1571. Shannon - 3/27/2001 4:54:03 PM Some kids are just easier than others. We've done the same thing, pretty much with both of our kids. We have the boy who will never willingly go to bed, and his sister who's out like a light. She's often inspired by his fussing, but never at bedtime. He'll be whining and complaining, and she goes about her business, listens nicely to a story, and is never heard from again once her light is off. 1572. Jon Ferguson - 3/28/2001 5:28:11 PM Think I'll blow my huge wad of Cal's money on some books for a soon-to-be first-time-Mom friend-of-mine. She's at the beginning of her second trimester. 1573. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 5:31:15 PM If she doesn't already have them, What to Expect When You're Expecting and What to Expect the First Year. 1574. wabbit - 3/28/2001 5:33:18 PM Start a library for the child...Pat the Bunny, Beatrix Potter, The Velveteen Rabbit...anything with bunnies is good. 1575. Shannon - 3/28/2001 5:37:58 PM The original Winnie the Pooh books are good. 1576. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 5:42:25 PM I loathed What to Expect When You're Expecting. 1577. Shannon - 3/28/2001 5:47:06 PM I thought the food advice was ridiculous. That was the big thing. And they went on to write the What to Eat book. Oh, the horror. 1578. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 5:52:12 PM Shannon: I just checked the Amazon reviews (290 of them), and they're all over the place. Lots of 5 stars, lots of 1s, lots of in between. 1579. christipeters - 3/28/2001 5:59:29 PM Perhaps the scores are dependent on whether or not the reader likes being preached to. 1580. Shannon - 3/28/2001 8:17:27 PM Well, it's a huge seller. Some people must like it. 1581. HollyW - 3/28/2001 10:59:33 PM I truly despise the What to Expect books. Preachy, smug, not much of a help. If your friend is already in her 2nd trimester, Jon, don't bother getting it--I'm willing to bet that she already has it! 1582. CalGal - 3/28/2001 11:05:38 PM The second trimester is a bit late to get pregnancy books, anyway. The compulsive have already read them and the rest don't really want to. I'm philosophically opposed to Brazelton and his politics, but his parenting book is okay. 1583. HollyW - 3/28/2001 11:07:34 PM Does he have politics? I haven't been paying attention, as usual. 1584. Åse - 3/28/2001 11:14:04 PM What are Brazelton's politics? (book was recommended by pediatrician, I already had books, plus my ill-placed overconfidence I know what I'm doing anyway). 1585. CalGal - 3/28/2001 11:19:06 PM Ase! Hi. 1586. Shannon - 3/28/2001 11:23:26 PM I like his books, but his TV show bugged me. He'd talk about kids as though they couldn't hear him. 1587. Åse - 3/28/2001 11:30:07 PM Hi! 1588. CalGal - 3/28/2001 11:32:42 PM That had to be JR. 1589. Åse - 3/29/2001 12:02:45 AM Clever marketing. Know your audience. Hit their emotional soft-spots. Give them an justification. 1590. Shannon - 3/29/2001 12:07:39 AM Yes, different need not mean bette or worse. On a personal level, it's not at all implausible to me that my kids would be different in some ways if I'd stayed home with them. However, it seems a stretch to say that they'd be better or worse off in any meaningful way. 1591. Shannon - 3/29/2001 12:08:16 AM bette = better. 1592. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 12:38:40 AM Thanks for the advice, all. 1593. CalGal - 3/29/2001 12:39:36 AM A sampler. Nice idea. 1594. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 12:41:28 AM You made it happen, Cal. Thanks again. 1595. Shannon - 3/29/2001 8:09:16 AM Oh, the Boyton books are all very cute, I think. 1596. Wombat - 3/29/2001 8:25:38 AM Wombette (6), who sometimes needs to occupy herself for a while before she goes to sleep, decided that Curious George Goes to the Hospital needed some spicing up. She added some dialog balloons and put new words in George's mouth. On the page where George gets curious about the mysterious package, for instance, the new text reads: "I wonder if there is poop in here?" George also gained some eyeglasses, and on pages where the Man in the Yellow Hat is hatless, he now sports a backwards baseball cap. 1597. Shannon - 3/29/2001 8:41:27 AM That's hysterical, Wombat. 1598. PsychProf - 3/29/2001 9:11:03 AM Shannon...I thought your post was very insightful... 1599. christipeters - 3/29/2001 9:37:14 AM You know, I really hate that (talking about kids as though they can't hear you). It seems to me to be so disrespectful to the kids, as if they aren't really humans. 1600. PsychProf - 3/29/2001 9:53:39 AM Well Christi people differ dramatically and passionately on this point. Indeed, whatever they think about this they assume and argue as correct. Moreoever, children develop under many diverse sets of parenting situations, and the sky doesn't fall. To have not been both Dad and one of two "primary caregivers" for my sons would have devastated me, but I do not present this as critical for all. 1601. christipeters - 3/29/2001 12:26:52 PM "Moreoever, children develop under many diverse sets of parenting situations, and the sky doesn't fall." 1602. christipeters - 3/29/2001 12:27:53 PM Please note the IF in that last sentance. 1603. HollyW - 3/29/2001 9:32:39 PM "We do not recommend full-time day care, 30 or more hours of care [per week] by nonparents, for infants and toddlers if the parents are able to provide high-quality care themselves and if the parents have reasonable options." 1604. CalGal - 3/30/2001 4:44:14 PM Holly, 1605. HollyW - 3/31/2001 12:07:36 PM Does the market want to hear that women should stay at home? Have things changed significantly over the past ten, fifteen years? 1606. PsychProf - 3/31/2001 12:18:49 PM Last year Brazelton gave an address here at my University...a "lecture" that was more a series of pronouncements than a reasoned account of data and implications thereof. One of my students, now in Med School, took exception to the superficial nature of the presentation, and asked a pointed question about "self-esteem"...Brazelton politely said he unaware of the context and research behind the question, and moved on as quickly as possible. Afterwards, our President gave me "he's one of yours" looks(he was NOT happy when he did so), a profoundly proud moment for me. I found Brazelton to be exactly as he presents himself...a nice guy who loves children and tries to please his audience. 1607. CalGal - 3/31/2001 1:50:38 PM It doesn't surprise me he doesn't know any of the research. 1608. Rachel - 4/1/2001 11:56:33 PM Y'know, I'm going to be staying home for a while -- but I'm under no illusions that it's anything but a luxury. (Nor does the idea of putting my baby into day care fill me with angst.) 1609. christipeters - 4/2/2001 11:50:45 AM If anyone's curious, I've decided not to send LD on the DC trip this summer for financial reasons. 1610. CalGal - 4/2/2001 12:07:17 PM Well, that makes sense. I think Disneyworld will be more fun, anyway. 1611. christipeters - 4/2/2001 12:10:30 PM CalGal - I'll admit that I am looking forward to Disney World as much as LD is. 1612. Erin R. - 4/4/2001 7:36:02 PM Bumping this up to the top... 1613. Shannon - 4/4/2001 8:11:07 PM Hi Erin. 1614. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:12:18 PM Ha, that's cute. 1615. Shannon - 4/4/2001 8:14:24 PM Yikes, CalGal. Did he have it locked or anything? 1616. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:16:04 PM No, he did not. If he had it locked, I would be upset with the world. He did not have it locked, therefore I am upset with him. 1617. Shannon - 4/4/2001 8:20:44 PM I figured that's what your upset pattern would be. 1618. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:33:28 PM Thank you. 1619. LimeGirl - 4/4/2001 8:46:33 PM My younger child is driving me to distraction lately. I'm not sure if it's me being extra irritable, or her being extra annoying, or some combination of the two. I would just, for once, like her to focus on a task and finish it, rather than me having to poke her about it until she gets it done. Today, we only have 45 minutes for them to get all their stuff ready for their campout with girl scouts this weekend, so I tell them to hurry and get all their stuff together. 1620. LimeGirl - 4/4/2001 8:49:16 PM And that's such a bummer about Spawn's bike. What a pain, for both of you. I know he was so excited about getting that stuff for his birthday, and that makes it doubly annoying, because you went to all the effort of getting him nice stuff, and then he goes and loses it. 1621. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 8:51:21 PM It just shows what a terrible mother you are. It's all your fault. Spawn should be taken away from you and given to a deserving lesbian couple ASAP. 1622. Erin R. - 4/4/2001 8:55:10 PM Oh, the pain of a stolen bike. Terrible for Spawn, even if it was his fault for not locking it up. And I can understand why you would be pissed. 1623. CalGal - 4/4/2001 8:55:48 PM The reason I'm surprised at Spawn's disorganization is that he is much more like A. than K., in your tale. Of course, everyone looks organized in comparison to me. But he'd almost always be ready to go, have work done, and so on. In looking back, I realize that there have been many times where he really thought he was turning in a whole project and wasn't. 1624. arkymalarky - 4/4/2001 9:08:19 PM "If I notice one kid is being super good and the other is being a hassle, I'll go out of my way to find something to compliment the rambunctious one about. It often causes him to straighten out, or at least be a bit more eager to please." 1625. CalGal - 4/4/2001 9:29:20 PM I just showed Spawn all these posts and, while he is a completely unexpressive teen these days, it is clear that he was very touched. He asked me to say "Thanks" to everyone who offered sympathy, and that he knows he made a mistake. 1626. LimeGirl - 4/5/2001 1:51:14 AM Poor guy. He's a good kid! 1627. christipeters - 4/5/2001 10:23:37 AM Poor Spawn and poor you. My sympathy. 1628. DanDillon - 4/5/2001 10:56:29 AM We issue planners (assignment notebooks) at the high school I work at, and the students largely disregard them. They're good for doodling and obscene drawings, passing the occasional note if a clean page can be found, but rarely if ever actual assignments. Furthermore, they function as a student's hall pass. The student body feels put upon that they're given this tool. And because the hall pass is attached to this otherwise useless thing, they often refer to their school as a penitentiary. 1629. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2001 10:57:47 AM If this story doesn't make you choke up at the end, not much will: 1630. CalGal - 4/5/2001 2:02:01 PM We issue planners (assignment notebooks) at the high school I work at, and the students largely disregard them. 1631. christipeters - 4/5/2001 2:59:13 PM I think students disregarding the planners is why they are checking them and grading them in LD's school. I don't know whether this will end up establishing organized habits that stay with the kids or if they will just chuck them when they aren't being graded on them anymore. We'll see. 1632. mgleason - 4/5/2001 3:02:58 PM We always had planners, from first grade on. I had friends who were completely allergic to using them, but I never saw what the big deal was; they were handy. 1633. arkymalarky - 4/5/2001 5:47:50 PM Like a lot of other things, I love planners in theory, but in practice I always had trouble with them. Even now I'll buy them and then never use them, or fill out as much as I know initially then never open it again. I was the type of kid who'd lose mine in the first week or have it so junked up and messy by the first grading term it would be useless. That sort of thing works better for middle school than high school, though. It's babying high school aged kids to have them do something like that, imo. 1634. Erin R. - 4/5/2001 6:01:20 PM Judith, I loved that story. 1635. CalGal - 4/5/2001 6:48:33 PM I liked it, too. It really captured the son's personality. 1636. JudithAtHome - 4/5/2001 7:08:04 PM Did you get choked at the end? I did, when the mom called that guy an asshole....high time she did. 1637. Erin R. - 4/5/2001 7:11:53 PM Yeah, I thought that was great. Loved the kiddie pictures too. 1638. CalGal - 4/5/2001 7:15:04 PM Really? I thought it would have been better had she just let him hang with "He's got a right to order lunch". But I suppose for her, used to being polite, it was a big deal--even if she cried. 1639. LimeGirl - 4/6/2001 12:43:32 AM So tonight, K. and I were peeling potatoes, and she starts telling me about what kind of man she's going to marry. She said that she wants him to believe the same things she believes, and that she wants to have children, so he has to like children, and that he has to know how to cook, so that he can cook her dinner when she comes home late from work, because she's going to have an all-day job. And that she'll live in a different state, maybe Georgia. She picked Georgia because her teacher moved from Georgia, she says. 1640. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:51:30 AM That's so sweet. Did you ask her about laundry? 1641. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 5:23:20 PM Boy-Boy is not yet old enough to accompany me on biz trips. 1642. LimeGirl - 4/6/2001 5:44:59 PM That's so adorable, Erin! I love that little toddler stage. 1643. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 5:50:05 PM I got a huge container of cookie dough from Costco. Cookies for days. 1644. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 5:54:56 PM Now he's reading one of my parenting books. 1645. LimeGirl - 4/6/2001 7:27:26 PM Heh. The girls have a friend over, and they played outside for a while, but now they are making 'experiments' in the kitchen. And promising me that they're not making a mess. I haven't verified this. The last experiment seemed to consist of fruit roll-up, rice and apple peelings in a bowlful of water, then microwaved. Then they took it outside to put dirt in it. 1646. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 7:29:32 PM I want the Sims. But I already spend too much time on my computer. 1647. LimeGirl - 4/6/2001 7:32:15 PM I get bored with it pretty quickly. It's not the kind of game I can play for hours, it's about 30-45 minutes, and then I'm tired of it. The girls can play it for a long time, though. They love to build the houses, and I showed them the cheat to get more money, so they rack up the cash and then build these huge houses. But they don't really play the game part of it, controlling the people and stuff. 1648. christipeters - 4/9/2001 11:33:50 AM I bought LD The Sims on Saturday. It worked very well at giving her incentive to finish her homework early. She also learned an lesson on the advisability of reading the directions first as she got very frustrated when she tried to just plunge into the game cold as usual. 1649. LimeGirl - 4/9/2001 12:11:19 PM List of Cheats 1650. christipeters - 4/9/2001 12:17:54 PM Thanks for the link. I emailed it to LD and my home account. 1651. PsychProf - 4/9/2001 4:52:52 PM 1652. JudithAtHome - 4/9/2001 5:28:19 PM Interesting take on Ritalin: 1653. PsychProf - 4/10/2001 10:03:19 AM Judith....college students grind up the Ritalin, a "mild" methamphetimine, and snort it for maximum effect...adults use it to enhance focus and stay awake for additional hours...I could not access your link, but around 4-6% of the pre-college aged students get the drug, and over 80% of those diagnosed with ADHD receive it. It is probably over prescribed, but it can make a difference in the lives of students and parents with ADHD, and it is easier to talk about "over diagnosis"' if it's not yer kid with the problem. I know of many cases in which the parent(s) are simply overwhelmed by work and child rearing, and they need to grasp at any solution to deal with the behavior/academic problem. Therapy is time/dollar expensive as compared to the drug fix...and Pediatricians and parents know that the drug solution has its own expense...but like any other problem in life, looking in is not the same as being inside. 1654. Shannon - 4/10/2001 10:15:26 AM OK, hand over that Bad Mommy trophy. 1655. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 10:25:50 AM What is DCP? 1656. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 10:29:13 AM PP: 1657. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 10:30:26 AM Is DCP something to do with car pools? Driver of Car Pool? The suspense is killing me, Shannon... 1658. CalGal - 4/10/2001 10:32:05 AM Day Care Provider. 1659. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 10:33:49 AM Thanks. 1660. CalGal - 4/10/2001 10:34:35 AM Don't you love times like that, Shannon? It's like your disorganization is out there on public display; people look at you with a slight touch of pity. 1661. christipeters - 4/10/2001 10:49:07 AM OK, I want some advice. 1662. PsychProf - 4/10/2001 10:58:51 AM Borrow one...or, does the school have a AV dept that would loan out...find a solution rather than start a confrontation...video projects can be fun and useful. 1663. christipeters - 4/10/2001 11:05:29 AM PP - Yes, I can borrow one. I can make sure that MY child can do the assignment. However, there's a principle here - should the school make assignments that REQUIRE expensive equipment that not all the kids may have access to? 1664. PsychProf - 4/10/2001 11:06:55 AM Well then...decide what is most important to you and act. 1665. JudithAtHome - 4/10/2001 11:09:06 AM Maybe some of the kids without access to cameras could join up with the ones who have cameras and do a joint project? 1666. Wombat - 4/10/2001 11:22:47 AM Write a tactful letter to the Principal expressing your concerns. 1667. christipeters - 4/10/2001 11:27:22 AM hmmmm.... 1668. PsychProf - 4/10/2001 11:34:22 AM Well CP, I don't agree with you or Wombat...why not go directly to the teacher and discuss the issue...making sure your interpretation of the facts and issue are accurate. In one of your posts you said "as far as I know"...well...make sure you know far enough. 1669. CalGal - 4/10/2001 11:34:26 AM Christi, unless they have their own video camera at the school that kids can sign out and use, it's completely out of line. I myself would go down to the school. I wouldn't yell at them, though. 1670. CalGal - 4/10/2001 11:35:57 AM You will need a copy of the homework assignment. For one thing, LD might just really want to make a video presentation and is telling you that--it really does seem odd that they'd require it. 1671. Erin R. - 4/10/2001 11:40:32 AM It's way out of line for the school to require a video presentation, unless it is providing the equipment to complete the assignment. 1672. vw - 4/10/2001 11:43:25 AM I agree. If there is no option for using school video equipment than it is out of line to make a video project mandatory. 1673. christipeters - 4/10/2001 12:20:15 PM I agree that the first step is to verify that the assignment does indeed require a video camera and it is not just a misunderstanding on LD's part. I already know it is not something she just thought of on her own as we had an extensive discussion on that point. 1674. joezan - 4/10/2001 12:45:10 PM I'd send her in with an old 8mm film reel - doesn't matter what's on it, since the school won't have the projection equipment. 1675. Shannon - 4/11/2001 8:58:31 AM Keep us posted, Christi. 1676. CalGal - 4/11/2001 9:52:49 AM Yes, but does she see the kids playing there a lot? She probably thinks of it as a good place for kids. 1677. Shannon - 4/11/2001 10:28:39 AM Oh, I think it's mostly because her brother likes it. 1678. joezan - 4/11/2001 10:37:01 AM D'ja ever have to go retrieve a kid from one of those McD's hamster tunnels? 1679. Shannon - 4/11/2001 10:43:17 AM I had to retrieve daughter from one of those things at a carnival once. I told her brother to help her. Hah--she moved way too slow for him, so he just took off and left her. Probably why she still hates those things, come to think of it. Well, good, she can complain about him to her shrink instead of us :-) 1680. arkymalarky - 4/11/2001 5:00:09 PM Joe, I think your life must have more little unpleasant moments like that in it than just about anybody I know. If it's any consolation, though, I get a lot of laughs out of that fact. 1681. vw - 4/11/2001 6:05:31 PM Did you know that those ball pits have to be hosed down every night because kids pee in them all the time? 1682. Erin R. - 4/11/2001 6:11:32 PM Gross! 1683. CalGal - 4/11/2001 6:12:34 PM Ick. 1684. LimeGirl - 4/11/2001 6:27:15 PM Oh, that's disgusting. 1685. labwabbit - 4/11/2001 7:00:51 PM hahaha... 1686. vw - 4/12/2001 9:10:16 AM I there a prize for writing a post that evokes three consecutive posts of disgust and one bad pun post? (grin) 1687. christipeters - 4/12/2001 9:26:16 AM Minor update on LD's school assignment. 1688. CalGal - 4/12/2001 10:12:18 AM You're handling it beautifully. But I can't believe your school is that moronic. Well. I do believe it. It just makes me cranky, so I don't want to. 1689. CalGal - 4/12/2001 10:13:47 AM vw, 1690. christipeters - 4/12/2001 10:22:21 AM CalGal - Not only is the school that moronic - it is the only school in town. The place is small enough that there is only one middle school (only one high school, too.) 1691. CalGal - 4/12/2001 11:41:04 AM Christi, 1692. christipeters - 4/12/2001 2:53:34 PM Well, the teacher called. 1693. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:03:25 PM I think the reason you found this unsatisfying is that you want her to re-vamp the entire assignment, for reasons that have been posted previously. For example, why videotape a presentation, then show it in class, when it would be simpler and perhaps more beneficial to simply give the presentation in class. 1694. joezan - 4/12/2001 3:12:38 PM arky - Message # 1680: 1695. christipeters - 4/12/2001 3:22:15 PM Well, the assignment is to do more than just videotaping a presentation. She's supposed to integrate video clips from other sources into the film. 1696. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:25:48 PM The fact that I have the exact reasons wrong does not change the fact that the teacher is in the wrong. 1697. MayRose - 4/12/2001 3:30:36 PM How do you know the teacher is at fault. We have heard from one participant only. 1698. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:33:44 PM This is simply a judgment I'm making based on what christi has said. 1699. MayRose - 4/12/2001 3:35:53 PM You emphatically told her what to do not knowing the whole story? 1700. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:38:02 PM I emphatically told her what to do because she seems to be wavering over something that is pretty clear-cut. Attempts to rectify the situation leave her feeling that it really isn't resolved. From what I've heard, christi has no reason to doubt her judgment. 1701. christipeters - 4/12/2001 3:40:47 PM Well, the teacher did confirm to me over the phone today that the assignment does require using a video camera. The school did confirm to me this morning that students are not allowed to use the school's equipment. 1702. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:44:02 PM If you raise an objection, you may give other parents "permission" to voice theirs. 1703. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 3:44:12 PM Speaking as the passive/aggressive in this crowd, I would say that should enter into your decision on whether or not to become more persistent in this situation...kids can be cruel. 1704. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 3:45:44 PM Well, have you talked to the other parents? Felt them out about it? Maybe a unified front would be a good way to approach the teacher again, in person this time. 1705. rubberducky - 4/12/2001 3:45:50 PM kids aren't gonna tease someone cuz s/he (and have the class) doesn't have a video camera! 1706. Laura C - 4/12/2001 3:46:18 PM I agree - school projects that require technology should provide that technology. At the very least there should be an alternative option. 1707. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:46:42 PM And even if they do, so what? 1708. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:48:02 PM That was to #1705. 1709. Laura C - 4/12/2001 3:48:06 PM 1706 was to 1698. 1710. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 3:48:46 PM kids aren't gonna tease someone cuz s/he (and have the class) doesn't have a video camera! 1711. rubberducky - 4/12/2001 3:49:54 PM exactly 1712. rubberducky - 4/12/2001 3:50:58 PM pish 1713. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 3:51:07 PM I don't see this as a big deal. There is an issue of right and wrong here. 1714. rubberducky - 4/12/2001 3:51:52 PM at = a in my 1712 which is in response to J@H's 1710 1715. christipeters - 4/12/2001 3:52:43 PM No kids aren't going to tease her because she doesn't have a video camera. They are going to tease her because she has a crazy pushy Mom who made waves and embarrassed the teacher and made the teacher change their cool assignment. 1716. CalGal - 4/12/2001 3:53:30 PM Christi, 1717. christipeters - 4/12/2001 3:56:17 PM CalGal - 1718. Jenerator - 4/12/2001 3:57:02 PM There is something wrong with a large majority of parents these days. 1719. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 3:58:20 PM ducks: 1720. christipeters - 4/12/2001 4:01:43 PM Jen - Are you sure you have a large enough sample to generalize those statements to "a large majority of parents these days"? What is the majority socio-economic class of your school? Do you have a representative sample of the school population in your classroom, or does your school use tracking? If they track, is your class the average track? the gifted kids? the troubled kids? 1721. christipeters - 4/12/2001 4:02:46 PM Judith - This is a VERY small town - speaking attitude here. It makes a difference. 1722. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 4:04:01 PM Christi: 1723. christipeters - 4/12/2001 4:04:41 PM Well, y'all have a nice weekend. I'm outta here. 1724. Jenerator - 4/12/2001 4:08:23 PM Judith, 1725. Jenerator - 4/12/2001 4:08:45 PM I meant ChristiPeters. 1726. Jenerator - 4/12/2001 4:09:39 PM Sorry for the typos, I'm in a hurry and I'm angry. 1727. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 4:11:45 PM What are you angry about? 1728. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 4:14:38 PM I think it was a continuation of what she started with in 1718. 1729. Jenerator - 4/12/2001 4:16:30 PM Angry that I'm in lockdown mode right now and have to deal with all of this crap that begins in the homes of these students. 1730. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 4:19:07 PM But does it relate to the current conversation, a different one, or is she starting a new one? 1731. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 4:23:28 PM Jen was commenting on parents involvement or lack thereof in her school. She has limited time to post here during the day and I think she was just dropping in, saw us talking about parents and teachers and made her remarks. 1732. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 4:26:58 PM Sure it is, I was just uncertain of the context in which she was posting. Sounds like an entirely different conversation. 1733. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 4:30:25 PM Well, that happens here more than in TT but in this case, since the Christi conversation seems to be over and the Jen one never got started and they both left for the weekend, anything is fair game now, I guess. 1734. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 4:35:10 PM It looks that way. 1735. Ms. No - 4/12/2001 4:56:06 PM He'll prob'ly learn durn fast, though. Owie! 1736. labwabbit - 4/12/2001 5:59:32 PM ..Get the kid a parrot. 1737. Erin R. - 4/12/2001 6:05:04 PM haha 1738. LimeGirl - 4/12/2001 6:50:01 PM My older daughter was just running around shouting, "I figured it out! I figured it out!" She had a hard math problem that involved cups and quarts, and it took a bit of working through it, but she got it, and now she's all excited. I love times like these! 1739. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 8:45:12 PM Joe, 1740. Wombat - 4/13/2001 7:55:30 AM Wombino (4 years old) is still learning that he cannot playfully nuzzle our cat's tummy with his head, as he can with our dog. Some days he looks like something out of a bad horror flick. 1741. Shannon - 4/13/2001 9:46:48 AM My son was doing a color-by-numbers kind of thing the other day, and said "This section is a curvilinear triangle." Wow. 1742. CalGal - 4/13/2001 10:46:55 AM Spawn was very good about displaying everything he'd learned in school until middle school, when he became reticent. Still, when it interests him he'll bring something up and babble away about it. 1743. Wombat - 4/13/2001 11:28:53 AM Last month, I discovered that Wombette (6 years old) can read. We knew that she had been making good progress in school, but were not clear to what extent she had synthesized what she had learned. 1744. CalGal - 4/13/2001 12:41:08 PM How wonderful that you used the same book. Is she reading her own books now, or just using it for street signs and menus? 1745. CalGal - 4/13/2001 12:48:17 PM I'm cross posting this because not all the parents check out Movies. 1746. Wombat - 4/13/2001 12:53:06 PM Cal: 1747. PsychProf - 4/13/2001 12:58:32 PM Wombat...ah, what memories flood when I read your post. My oldest son's first sign of reading came in Spring of 1975, when he was 2 and one -half. My wife and I were driving to the University of Maine , where I was to give a colloquium on my brain research. The drive was an 8 hour marathon, so I avoided telling my son when we entered Maine, since he would immediately assume we were "there". As we entered the state , a sign exclaimed "Maine", which he promptly identified and read aloud, puntuating his satisfaction with laughter. 1748. LimeGirl - 4/16/2001 1:08:05 AM So the girls made out like little Easter bandits today. They started with an egg hunt and a basket of candy at their grandmother on their father's side's house. Then they came here, and got another basket of candy. Then, we went up to my parents to drop them off for the week and have Easter dinner, and yet another egg hunt and basket of Easter candy! 1749. PsychProf - 4/16/2001 6:55:04 AM Lime Girl...I bet your children will model "your" behavior...sometimes the results of good parenting , as you desribe in the last post, appear at a later time. 1750. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:10:52 AM I don't know about that. I don't think that kids model parents' organizational methods, and I don't think that parental efforts to improve a child's organization will have much effect. 1751. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 11:22:25 AM I think organizational skills can be learned and I also think parents can influence the way their children develop these skills. 1752. seadate - 4/16/2001 11:25:13 AM I wish more parents understood the need for silly humor and the medicinal value of a good belly laugh. 1753. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:33:37 AM Judith, 1754. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:34:54 AM if nothing else, it saves time. 1755. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 11:40:59 AM Example: 1756. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 11:45:23 AM Cal, you seem to think I feel being organized is a moral stance...I can assure you, I don't. And I am not suggesting some rigid straight jacket of organization. The idea of wanting to teach your child to be a little organized isn't one of moral superiority nor is trashing people who are less organized...the fact you seem to view it as such is entirely your interpretation. 1757. LimeGirl - 4/16/2001 11:48:15 AM I agree that organization is something you're born with, but I think that it can be learned too. And while I'm not hoping that one day she'll alphabetize the books on her bookshelf in her spare time, I'd like for her to generally be able to take her homework to school and turn it in, be able to prepare for trips, be able to do a list of chores without a million reminders, etc. 1758. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:56:44 AM Cal, you seem to think I feel being organized is a moral stance 1759. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 11:59:34 AM LimeGirl: 1760. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 12:04:59 PM Well, you have said so before 1761. seadate - 4/16/2001 12:06:37 PM But he's sooooo cool. 1762. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 12:07:45 PM Yes, he is...and we have lost at least 2 years of our life together searching for his keys! 1763. seadate - 4/16/2001 12:09:57 PM Better than 2 years in a hypnotic perch in front of the tube. 1764. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 12:15:57 PM Yes, and at least we laughed while looking for them...well, some of the time. That is one thing I did train myself to do...relax when we couldn't fine the keys (or whatever it was we were trying to locate). 1765. seadate - 4/16/2001 12:19:33 PM I spent two marriages searching for lost articles. The concept hadn't occurred to me previously, but I think part of the problem was that I generally didn't know what the freakin' article was! 1766. Adrianne - 4/16/2001 12:20:05 PM 1767. Adrianne - 4/16/2001 12:20:35 PM So I drove home. 40 minutes. With Bob calling from work every 2-3 minutes, asking if he should come home. By the time I was 5 minutes from home, I was all but certain that this wasn’t false ANYTHING, and knew that if I had more than a few more miles to drive then I’d be in big, big trouble. I made it home, called my OB to bump up my afternoon appt., called Bob and told him to come home NOW. 1768. Adrianne - 4/16/2001 12:20:55 PM Got to our room, and was already, in the less than hour it took to get from the dr’s office, 4 cm dilated. I was doing ok, and refused any medication. Argh, bad move. 1769. Adrianne - 4/16/2001 12:21:49 PM Upshot – I had dilated, in about 15 minutes, from 7 to 10 cm, and the baby shot down to be born, which made my blood pressure plummet and her heartrate drop badly. They also lost the monitor on the baby. They gave me a shot to stop contractions so I could stabilize, turned off the epidural, and called for my ob. 1770. Adrianne - 4/16/2001 12:22:17 PM Harper Irene, named after a beautiful writer, Harper Lee, and her great-grandmother, was born at 5:39 on March 9th, 6 lbs 10 oz, apgars at 9, and stunningly beautiful. My husband hugged the OB, who said we were “quite a team”. Bob was in tears, I was in shock. 1771. LimeGirl - 4/16/2001 12:32:05 PM That is so sweet, Adrianne. It makes me all weepy, this morning, when my two little girls are gone until Friday! 1772. Shannon - 4/16/2001 12:38:23 PM while I pushed and my OB suctioned, put ALL HIS BODY WEIGHT ACROSS MY ABDOMEN AND SHOVED THE BABY OUT! 1773. Adrianne - 4/16/2001 12:48:40 PM 1774. Wombat - 4/16/2001 12:48:50 PM A friend of mine who had been in labor for 16 hours finally agreed to a C-section. Somewhere along the way to the operating room, the staff lost track of whether her epidural was still working. They discovered it wasn't as soon as the scalpel penetrated the skin. Now my friend knows what it is like to commit hara-kiri. 1775. Shannon - 4/16/2001 1:14:44 PM Ouch, Wombat. Wouldn't they normally re-check in the OR? Seems like they did with me. 1776. LimeGirl - 4/16/2001 6:15:06 PM I had a VBAC, 1st was 10.5 pounds, and there was no way she was coming out. Second was 8.5, induced a week early, so that she wouldn't be too big to come out, and that went much better. 1777. CalGal - 4/16/2001 6:31:48 PM My sister had twins, born full-term, 6 lbs 4 and 7 lbs 11. That's one hell of a lot of baby, and after laboring they had her in for a csection. Brianna came out with no problems, but she had taken up so much room that Brett was squinched all down in a corner (he was a huddled little lump for several weeks, poor kid). They were almost literally in her up to their elbows, scrabbling around to get him out, and she started screaming because she could feel them tugging at her innards. They stuck the mask on her right about then. 1778. ElliottRW - 4/17/2001 12:18:16 PM Situation: Yesterday I was at the park with my 3 kids; the little one started throwing dirt, so I decided it was time to leave. The oldest one was cooperative, but the 5-year-old threw a tantrum. No sweat. Keeping one eye on the 5-year-old, I strapped the 18-month old into the car seat, then went back and retrieved the whiner. It was actually a good opportunity to teach the 5-year-old a lesson. But...what if they team up? I'm not sure how I'd handle (by myself, that is) both the 5-year-old and the 7-year-old simultaneously throwing fits while I'm also taking care of the toddler. It hasn't happened yet, but there will be ample opportunities now that I'm in charge of them 3 evenings a week. Any suggestions? CalGal, My wife has gone through three vaginal deliveries, two without any anesthesia. Pain of delivery doesn't even make her top ten reasons to not get pregnant. I figure I have about 12 months to get a vasectomy or I'll soon be the proud but incompetent father of four beautiful children. 1779. Jenerator - 4/17/2001 12:35:17 PM Adrianne, 1780. OhioSTOPAS - 4/17/2001 12:35:50 PM Adrianne - Wow. 1781. OhioSTOPAS - 4/17/2001 12:43:31 PM 1782. Erin R. - 4/17/2001 12:47:41 PM Just got this e-mail from my husband, thought I'd share... 1783. CalGal - 4/17/2001 12:49:08 PM Oh, that's wonderful. I know you two have been worried about the "felon kitty owner" label that has been (er) dogging her for all these years. It's wonderful to see how openminded people can be when you just give them the chance. Even college admissions staff. 1784. JudithAtHome - 4/17/2001 12:49:55 PM Congrats to your talented daughter, Ohio! 1785. Erin R. - 4/17/2001 12:52:01 PM Yes, congrats Ohio, and I loved reading your birth story, Adrianne! 1786. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 12:52:06 PM Congrats to Ohios. 1787. OhioSTOPAS - 4/17/2001 12:57:49 PM Cal: The "FAFRA" student aid form asks the student if he or she has any drug convictions. Fortunately, it doesn't ask if there are any known felons in the student's household! 1788. OhioSTOPAS - 4/17/2001 12:58:58 PM (But although the Feline Felon continues to flout our community's cat leash law, it's now been a couple of years since she's been busted.) 1789. OhioSTOPAS - 4/17/2001 1:01:48 PM Thanks for the congratulations, everyone! 1790. Cellar Door - 4/17/2001 1:07:26 PM Congrats, Ohio! 1791. Erin R. - 4/17/2001 1:08:21 PM No comments on my son's pee story? 1792. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 1:11:53 PM Well Erin, it's only just begun...wait until he finds the joy of peeing outside. 1793. LimeGirl - 4/17/2001 1:23:28 PM He sounds like a dangerous boy, now that he's discovered how to do that!! 1794. ElliottRW - 4/17/2001 2:44:18 PM LimeGirl Actually, my 7-year-old doesn't throw fits, as such. But she does have a stubborn streak and it would be well within her to show solidarity with her sister. While the 5-year-old pouts and screams, the 7-year-old would furrow her brow, scold me, and hold a sit down strike. Truthfully, I'm not terribly concerned about it; it just occurred to me that I'm a bit more dependent upon my kids cooperation than I thought I was. One of the things I had considered was getting a second cell phone so that I could call in the calvary (e.g. my wife) in a real crisis. 1795. CalGal - 4/17/2001 3:01:22 PM Elliot, 1796. christipeters - 4/17/2001 3:12:58 PM Well LD found a friend (an 8th grader) whose Dad would let her group use his video camera and they spent the weekend plus last night after school filming. They will finish up today after school. (They'd better, we have to give the camera back) So she's happy now. 1797. ElliottRW - 4/17/2001 3:39:14 PM CalGal, I'm sorry. The experience you describe is indeed gruesome; the fact that women have an amazing capacity for tolerating birthing pains doesn't in any way invalidate your assessment. I'm sorry if I seemed to suggest that it did. 1798. CalGal - 4/17/2001 3:44:37 PM Christi, 1799. ElliottRW - 4/17/2001 4:18:57 PM Christi, Please think twice before sending a letter to the newspaper over this. I would exhaust every opportunity for a peaceful resolution before I started burning bridges. Of course, you need to make your point; just don't lose perspective. It's not like the teacher was running a sweatshop. 1800. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 4:24:51 PM I agree Elliot, but you might want to read some backposts on this to see what others think. 1801. CalGal - 4/17/2001 4:45:03 PM I completely disagree with Elliot. But then, I said nothing of writing a "letter to the newspaper" by which I suppose he means a letter to the editor. I was thinking rather of bringing it to a columnist's attention. 1802. ElliottRW - 4/17/2001 5:05:06 PM Whoa, I completely disagree with CalGal! Who'd a thought that would ever happen. No direspect, CalGal, but you are a power-lovin' conflict-savoring sort of person just itchin' for a fight. I think you overlook many an effective strategy just because you're so good at fighting. 1803. Stephanie D. - 4/17/2001 5:13:29 PM Thank you for posting your birth story, Adrianne. It sounds so frightening! But wonderful, too, with how it all worked out. 1804. CalGal - 4/17/2001 5:13:59 PM I think you overlook many an effective strategy just because you're so good at fighting. 1805. christipeters - 4/17/2001 5:14:32 PM Well, since I am very very conflict avoidant and I am very well aware of the "we've been here for five generations" vs "you outsiders" attitude in this small one-school town, I am NOT going to write a letter to the newspaper. 1806. Shannon - 4/17/2001 5:16:54 PM Powerpoint presentations? Even among my gadget-happy and geeky friends, nobody has Powerpoint at home. 1807. CalGal - 4/17/2001 5:24:15 PM He's done it twice? He'd be lucky to live through our first meeting. 1808. Stephanie D. - 4/17/2001 5:25:48 PM The PowerPoint thing is insane, and really bad teaching. Given a limited amount of time, the students will spend more energy and thought working out the technical details of how to use PowerPoint or the video camera than they will actually researching and learning anything. 1809. christipeters - 4/17/2001 5:42:10 PM hmmmmm..... 1810. christipeters - 4/17/2001 5:43:53 PM On knowing how to use powerpoint - they started teaching it (along with the rest of MS Office) in 5th grade. (typing skills on the computer started in 2nd grade) 1811. christipeters - 4/17/2001 5:51:11 PM anonymous (?) 1812. CalGal - 4/17/2001 6:18:06 PM Christi, 1813. CalGal - 4/17/2001 6:20:53 PM When I was about to start kindergarten, my mother found out the day before school started that in fact the school had no plans to admit me. Was I too young? No. Had I been late to register? No. They just didn't have enough teachers and they randomly picked a group of 30 kids and told them all that they wouldn't be starting school until next year. (Stephanie, don't you live near Ralston Ave? The school was Nesbit, which I think is still there.) 1814. CalGal - 4/17/2001 6:24:22 PM It was by now dinner time on Friday, but she got the guy's secretary who called him at home and he returned her call. 1815. LimeGirl - 4/17/2001 6:28:41 PM That is a really beautiful win! I can't believe the school district thought they were going to get away with that. It's unbelievable. 1816. Stephanie D. - 4/17/2001 6:54:32 PM Great story! And good for your mom. (Hmmm, I don't remember an elementary school on Ralston; I know there's a middle school and a private high school, though.) 1817. CalGal - 4/17/2001 7:12:28 PM No, it's not on Ralston. It's around there. In fact, according to this link, it is the oldest continuously operating school in Belmont. 1818. arkymalarky - 4/17/2001 8:17:28 PM PowerPoint is easy and good for elective-type courses like I'm teaching now. But students use school computers and I have ten in my classroom. I don't do any projects except research papers in English classes, because the time is too valuable. 1819. arkymalarky - 4/17/2001 8:18:25 PM BTW, getting your child in school when she's supposed to go is definitely worth it. In that case I would not take no for an answer. 1820. CalGal - 4/17/2001 9:49:52 PM The moment the principal refused to deal with the problem it ceased to be about a teacher, but about a policy. If Christi decides not to act at all because it's too risky, that's her call. But at this point there is no way that she can be effective that won't also label her as a problem by an unpleasant administrator. So her choice isn't "deal with it nice" or "deal with it tough". "Deal with it nice" went off the list of options the minute the principal shrugged. 1821. CalGal - 4/17/2001 10:05:36 PM Elliot, PP and (I believe) Arky are all operating from the premise that there is a peaceful solution to this problem and advising against taking it to the paper because it will eliminate another, less confrontational, option. 1822. arkymalarky - 4/17/2001 10:28:30 PM "In other words, you'd act if it affected you personally, but not if it was someone else's problem--even if the problem was a violation of the basic premise of public education." 1823. CalGal - 4/17/2001 10:33:47 PM Yes, that option does still exist, at least until the point you run through the chain of command. 1824. HollyW - 4/17/2001 10:40:22 PM Hmm, if my husband the newspaperman were here, I'd ask him what the best thing to do would be. Ethically, I believe giving the columnist a "head's up" on a local issue would fly...I hope she(he?) nibbles, Christi. 1825. HollyW - 4/17/2001 10:43:04 PM I agree, it's safer to make the issue a community one, rather than just Christi's. If a column is written, I doubt Christi would get a mention. There's just no need. 1826. arkymalarky - 4/17/2001 10:43:24 PM I disagree with your take on using the chain. That's what it's for, especially the elected school board. I've used it with success myself, as a matter of fact, and it's especially effective in a small town when a casual word dropped to a board member over the phone can bring results. When you don't get what you want from the principal you keep going up the chain. It's actually very common in schools, and they generally don't take it personally. It's very routine. For one thing, the principal is designed to be a buffer between parents and teachers and he/she doesn't expect not to have parents going higher up. It actually removes the heat from the principal. 1827. arkymalarky - 4/17/2001 10:44:48 PM In a small town, which is the impression I get of Christi's environment, there's no way the whole town won't know who brought the issue to the paper's attention, and most especially the school admin and board. 1828. HollyW - 4/17/2001 10:47:35 PM But the paper wouldn't take the story on if it didn't have some interest beyond Christi's. 1829. HollyW - 4/17/2001 10:51:37 PM And going the chain of command doesn't need to be risky, either. It depends on how you conduct yourself, right? 1830. arkymalarky - 4/17/2001 10:56:33 PM School boards are there to represent the community and often it's not necessary to go before the whole board in a situation like that. Again, though, my experience is with smaller towns and communities (10,000 and less). Still, parents of any schools of any size should use boards to represent their concerns. That's their job. 1831. joezan - 4/17/2001 11:01:26 PM A couple of months ago I posted on a problem we were having with the counselor at my 9 y.o. daughter's school - her inordinate zeal in getting into our daughter's head about an "incident" with two younger kids when she was just 7, and then her (the counselor's) refusal to let the matter drop once we demanded she do so. 1832. HollyW - 4/17/2001 11:01:30 PM Goodnight! 1833. CalGal - 4/17/2001 11:18:19 PM In a small town, which is the impression I get of Christi's environment, there's no way the whole town won't know who brought the issue to the paper's attention, and most especially the school admin and board. 1834. HollyW - 4/17/2001 11:22:48 PM Oh, I meant to say, Ad, what a story. I teared up. 1835. Adrianne - 4/18/2001 8:26:31 AM Thanks for the congrats, ya'll. I'm glad my uterus is intact, too. No way I'd have survived being a pioneer woman and birthin' in a wagon - Hubby would be on wife three by now. 1836. Adrianne - 4/18/2001 8:27:06 AM 1837. Shannon - 4/18/2001 8:39:09 AM I'm sure it wasn't funny at the time, but that Lynda Carter comment made me laugh. 1838. Adrianne - 4/18/2001 8:43:32 AM 1839. PsychProf - 4/18/2001 9:50:57 AM CLASSIC FRONTLINE 1840. JudithAtHome - 4/18/2001 9:55:29 AM I think Christi should go with the chain of command...2 or 3 people have weighed in from small towns and they have the experience to back up their advice. Small towns are a whole 'nother kettle of fish; takes a different approach, it would seem to me. 1841. mean marlene - 4/18/2001 10:37:22 AM Was the problem with a particular teacher (and a personality clash) or the weight the assignment had and all the restrictions on the assignment (or a little of both)? If it was the restrictions on the assignment that involved equipment that not every child in the class could reasonably have access to the school needs to either purchase the equipment and make it available to the students or make the assignment less restrictive. I'd go to a school board meeting and seek out the member that seems most "with it"/zealous and talk to them about it. There may have been previous problems with this teacher and principal of a similar nature. 1842. JudithAtHome - 4/18/2001 10:51:27 AM MM: 1843. elliottrw - 4/18/2001 10:52:24 AM Christi, I've never lived in a small town. I went to school in the great bureaucratic wonder known as the El Paso Independent School District. I had good teachers and bad teachers. The worst teachers were the ones that didn't teach, didn't really try--they just followed the rules and tried not to break a sweat. I worry that a lot of publicity, even though it may increase the liklihood of "success", may have the unintended consequence of demoralizing good teachers. Of course, assignments that compel students to supply their own expensive equipment can demoralize good kids. Which is your point, I think. It's an issue of fairness--assignments of this kind do indeed not only impose a burden on students and their parents but they impose an uneven burden. Fairness is important. But even more important than fairness is good teaching. Will a policy that prohibits assignments of this kind result in better teaching? I'm not entirely sure. I would prefer a policy that ensures that resources are provided to those who need them. I challenge CalGal (who is a very good strategist) to come up with a plan that goes beyond stopping injustice, beyond ensuring fairness, to one that actually leads to more effective teaching. 1844. LimeGirl - 4/18/2001 12:05:49 PM I have a toddler too so there's none of that "sleep when the baby sleeps" crap going on. 1845. christipeters - 4/18/2001 12:14:31 PM "Will a policy that prohibits assignments of this kind result in better teaching?" 1846. CalGal - 4/18/2001 12:14:50 PM I'd go to a school board meeting and seek out the member that seems most "with it"/zealous and talk to them about it. 1847. christipeters - 4/18/2001 12:21:00 PM "Was the problem with a particular teacher (and a personality clash) or the weight the assignment had and all the restrictions on the assignment (or a little of both) 1848. CalGal - 4/18/2001 12:21:45 PM challenge CalGal (who is a very good strategist) to come up with a plan that goes beyond stopping injustice, beyond ensuring fairness, to one that actually leads to more effective teaching. 1849. christipeters - 4/18/2001 12:27:31 PM Also, having caught up, I need to clarify an important point. While I asked if there was a school policy on this and was told there wasn't one, as far as I know, no one has talked to the principal about this issue. The secretary consulted with another teacher in the assistant principal's office which is in the front office of the school. The principal's office is down the hall, and he's probably in the dark that the issue exists. 1850. CalGal - 4/18/2001 12:29:55 PM Ah. Yes. Key plot point. You need to give the principal a chance first. Otherwise it's just blindsiding him and, whether or not he takes it out on anyone, it's just not fair. 1851. christipeters - 4/18/2001 12:39:47 PM Yep. While I am all too aware that life ain't fair, I try to help make things more fair when possible and I definitely try to be fair in my dealings with others. If I'm not fair, it is usually an error in execution, not intent. 1852. christipeters - 4/18/2001 12:40:12 PM Well, lunch is over. 1853. ElliottRW - 4/18/2001 12:51:25 PM CalGal You mischaracterize me. I did not say--or imply--that fairness is a trifle. But howl with laughter if you must. 1854. Erin R. - 4/18/2001 12:55:18 PM Well, I have no problem teaching my child what a cast-iron bitch I am when it comes to what's fair. I'd probably be waaay up in someone's face about this, causing a big stink. 1855. CalGal - 4/18/2001 1:00:21 PM Erin, 1856. Erin R. - 4/18/2001 1:04:12 PM Me too--about the binary thing. 1857. CalGal - 4/18/2001 1:20:47 PM Well, I don't think it's silly. I think it's a legitimate concern, particularly if Christi can't move right away and lives in a place where she has limited choices for LD's schooling. 1858. HollyW - 4/18/2001 1:24:34 PM I talked to my husband, who was not too long ago a small town reporter of a weekly--small towns, we're talking way under 10,000. He said, do NOT take it to the paper first, for many reasons. First of all, the newspaper people don't like it, because oftentimes they find out that the information they've gotten is spotty, and after putting in hours of phone calls and research they have no story. His example--a parent called to say his child was "not being allowed to graduate because she is black!!!!" when in truth she was flunking chemistry. Not that you are doing this, Christi, but that is beside the point. 1859. CalGal - 4/18/2001 1:27:04 PM Eh. If your hubby is right--and that all sounds sensible, about the newspapers being leery--then there really isn't any way to deal with it that meets Christi's criteria of keeping a low profile. 1860. HollyW - 4/18/2001 1:36:44 PM Now, about the kid getting embarassed. 1861. mean marlene - 4/18/2001 1:45:20 PM Christi: I'm sure that if the principal thinks about it for a little bit, he/she'll agree with you. But I'm a big believer in if it is required and costs more than 50 bucks, the school should make alternatives available for those who can't afford it (payment plans, subsidized books etc). 1862. christipeters - 4/18/2001 3:09:43 PM "I think it's a legitimate concern, particularly if Christi can't move right away and lives in a place where she has limited choices for LD's schooling." 1863. ElliottRW - 4/18/2001 3:18:31 PM Christi It sounds like you have a very sensible plan. Also, it sounds like you have a delightful daughter. Good luck. 1864. christipeters - 4/18/2001 3:20:17 PM BTW, I know those details about the private school in town because one of my co-workers is a fundamentalist and sent her kids there precisely because evolution isn't taught, among other reasons. 1865. christipeters - 4/18/2001 3:21:18 PM Thanks ElliottRW. 1866. arkymalarky - 4/18/2001 5:59:13 PM People who posted about what small towns are like know of what they speak. Holly's husband is exactly right and I agree with her entire post in '58. I might also add on the other end that the school would much rather be made aware of the problem and have a chance to address it or dismiss it before being hit with it in the paper. But Joe had the best solution, which I'd entirely forgotten... 1867. mgleason - 4/18/2001 6:14:16 PM The other thing to remember about attempting to make your case in the paper is that you may alienate natural allies by doing so. Small town bureaucratic institutions are usually immune to the effects of investigative journalism (if you can call it that), and any buzz is apt to be about who 'leaked' the story, not about the substance. The powers that be are simply unimpressed by these tactics, and you risk annoying them. 1868. arkymalarky - 4/18/2001 6:39:55 PM Very true, Maria. The benefit of being in a small town is that you have such ready access to the people you need to see and they're usually very accomodating. They have to live in the community too, after all. 1869. CalGal - 4/18/2001 9:56:52 PM See, I just don't buy this. If you are worried about making a fuss, then dealing with anyone in the school board carries that risk. Yes, the newspaper might upset people--but you all act as if there's no cost to doing it the other way. In fact, there's a huge cost associated with doing it the other way if people object to it. If they don't object, there's no problem. But that's true in any event. 1870. HollyW - 4/18/2001 10:41:29 PM People need to keep in mind here that the newspaper is going to show at the school board meeting and write up anything that goes on there, dull or not. 1871. HollyW - 4/18/2001 10:48:54 PM Entirely aside from any topic going on here: 1872. christipeters - 4/19/2001 9:31:45 AM Holly - It could very well be hormones. Not only that, but it could stay that way. 1873. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 12:23:02 PM Advice needed: 1874. mgleason - 4/19/2001 12:45:31 PM When my niece was scouting nursery schools, she researched the various methods of instruction (Montessori, Waldorf, Reggio Emilia, etc.), visited the schools, and talked to parents whose children attended these schools. It was a big undertaking, but she wanted to find a school with a compatible educational philosophy. 1875. JudithAtHome - 4/19/2001 1:03:16 PM Montessori, Waldorf, Reggio Emilia, etc. 1876. mgleason - 4/19/2001 1:15:48 PM That is funny, J. 1877. christipeters - 4/19/2001 1:38:33 PM Erin - What Maria describes is also what I did. 1878. PsychProf - 4/19/2001 2:13:59 PM 1879. CalGal - 4/19/2001 2:14:31 PM Study: Child aggression linked to hours in day care: 1880. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 2:15:58 PM Why would SAHDs be lumped in with daycare providers? 1881. CalGal - 4/19/2001 2:22:04 PM Because it's mom or nothing. The headline says daycare, but according to the interview I just saw, the study actually measured it as "any time away from mom". 1882. CalGal - 4/19/2001 2:23:30 PM The other thing the head of the study mentioned, as if it were nothing, was that kids in daycare were cognitively and linguistically ahead of the sah kids. Although in this case I'm not sure if he also meant sahd kids. 1883. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 2:28:35 PM OK, this is a nice tangent for the parenting thread, but can we have some attention to my parenting challenge??? 1884. PsychProf - 4/19/2001 2:31:11 PM 1885. JudithAtHome - 4/19/2001 2:35:06 PM but can we have some attention to my parenting challenge??? 1886. ElliottRW - 4/19/2001 2:38:21 PM Re: study. I would like to add that stay-at-home kids probably have fewer opportunities for the aggressive behaviors described. Moreover, the method of obtaining data--surveys of caregivers and parents--makes it ripe for bias. For example, often parents don't see their kids' flaws until someone else points them out. (What do you mean my child is hyperactive? He's just energetic and spontaneous.) Parents who keep their kids at home may never get a second opinion on their little angels. This study raises more questions than it answers. 1887. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 2:40:34 PM I'm more interested in methodology for finding resources, and types of programs generally available/appropriate for 2-year-olds. 1888. CalGal - 4/19/2001 2:42:12 PM Elliot, 1889. ElliottRW - 4/19/2001 2:47:20 PM Erin, 1890. mgleason - 4/19/2001 2:47:23 PM Erin, 1891. Wombat - 4/19/2001 3:10:01 PM Erin: 1892. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 3:23:01 PM I don't know if it's too young or not. I feel he has outgrown his home daycare situation, and it's hard for his SAHD to constantly be trying to find stuff to entertain him. I'd like to find him a situation that is more stimulating, fun and interesting for him. 1893. CalGal - 4/19/2001 3:32:45 PM Erin, 1894. LimeGirl - 4/19/2001 3:38:24 PM We sent Katrina to a Montessori school for a year, and it was a really good experience for her. That was kindergarten, though, not toddler/preschool. But from what I saw of the younger kids' programs, they looked really neat. 1895. christipeters - 4/19/2001 4:19:57 PM Ok, Erin, you want advice, I'll give you advice. 1896. christipeters - 4/19/2001 4:25:25 PM Oh, to get more specific about the adult/child ratios, both places LD was at broke down like this: 1897. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 4:53:51 PM Thanks, christi and others for things to look out for. 1898. christipeters - 4/19/2001 5:30:01 PM We started LD out with two mornings a week. After a few months we went to three mornings a week, then 5 mornings a week. She wasn't in full-time daycare until she was 4. It was an Early Childhood Education center and acted as a pre-school for her. 1899. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 5:40:12 PM Oh...hubby just called me from the playground. 1900. Laura C - 4/19/2001 5:43:51 PM You're in the city, aren't you? This school used to have an excellent program, but they're out in the western suburbs. 1901. CalGal - 4/19/2001 5:47:18 PM Erin, 1902. christipeters - 4/19/2001 5:52:02 PM That's right. If there is no other kid making sand castles then he wouldn't be able to engage in such dastardly behavior. 1903. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 5:52:32 PM Maybe not, but *I'd* be pretty disagreeable! 1904. Erin R. - 4/19/2001 5:55:48 PM Pet peeve: school web sites that don't spell out the minimum age for pre-K students! 1905. Webfeet - 4/20/2001 9:21:51 AM thanks for the nursery school guidelines, christi. you raised issues i hadn't thought about. it's a bit early for us as clement is only 14 months, but, like house shopping, it's something you have to prepare for way in advance. 1906. joezan - 4/20/2001 11:47:45 PM We received notice a couple of weeks ago that we must register our younger daughter for pre-school testing. 1907. Wombat - 4/23/2001 12:49:21 PM JoeZ: 1908. CalGal - 4/23/2001 1:44:41 PM Spawn was often the opposite, save one year in first grade when the teacher rated him as N in reading the whole year and was embarrassed beyond measure when he scored higher than anyone else on the standardized tests. 1909. LimeGirl - 4/23/2001 11:03:38 PM Here's MSNBC's take on the daycare study. Different than most of them! 1910. CalGal - 4/24/2001 12:01:34 AM Lime, 1911. Wombat - 4/24/2001 8:20:13 AM Hell, the "aggressiveness" is probably the high end of the assertiveness necessary to get attention in a social setting. Not a bad thing. 1912. Åse - 4/26/2001 3:43:14 PM That article is good. THe discussion is raging on in MWT. I'm too busy worring about other stuff to post, but it is interesting. Some good links. 1913. CalGal - 4/26/2001 3:50:58 PM No, no. You do not want to get involved in a commitment to switch off. A convenience, sure. A non-committal exchange, fine. But this makes me nervous--particularly since you've really been enjoying your work with the kid situation thus far. 1914. Åse - 4/26/2001 3:54:10 PM So M arrives tuesday morning, as I'm talking to Geneva. I have met M all of two times before. When I'm off the phone, Ben is carrying her around - Freja is in her carseat doing fine. 1915. CalGal - 4/26/2001 4:00:05 PM I am hyperventilating on your behalf. 1916. Åse - 4/26/2001 4:02:43 PM Hah, the quick-fingers strikes again. 1917. Shannon - 4/26/2001 4:04:19 PM Aw, CalGal's hyperventilating. That's so sweet--makes me want to give her a big hug :-) 1918. Åse - 4/26/2001 4:05:07 PM Hey, Cal. COuld you analyse why I shouldn't do this? This is a situation where I get entirely blinkered and can't think straight, and I need an outside perspective. 1919. CalGal - 4/26/2001 4:06:24 PM The truth is, Ase, that you seem to be having a wonderful time with your baby. Very little stress, and involved and adoring daddy, and you have a work situation that allows you tons of time with the baby while still working, a situation that I really envy because while I didn't have any guilt about working, I missed Spawn and would have loved little fixes of baby luuuuv throughout the day. 1920. CalGal - 4/26/2001 4:13:14 PM Ase, 1921. Åse - 4/26/2001 4:17:54 PM Well, to continue then. I decide right away that even though I have obligations at the uni the next day, they are not those of the "can't have baby there" kinds, so I don't need immediate reciprocation, but the next day I'll be running subjects, so that could be a good time (although I feel apprehensive because I'll miss her). 1922. Åse - 4/26/2001 4:29:26 PM Tuesday arrives, and I'm actually having a churning stomach at the thought of having two babies to watch. With Freja I can analyse, play on TT, play on the Mote, play computer games, correct stats, inbetween feedings (and even during) and play time. With two babies I can do nothing but watch two babies, unless they both fall asleep at the same time. 1923. Åse - 4/26/2001 4:40:15 PM Oh, and speaking of Freja, Here are my new and improved Freja pages 1924. JudithAtHome - 4/26/2001 5:15:45 PM What an adorable baby! Thanks for sharing your photos, Ase... 1925. Åse - 4/26/2001 10:54:00 PM Last installment. (Before I go back to do work I need to do). I do get the e-mail. After she's looked for me in my lab and tried to call me. Which is longish. 1926. Åse - 4/26/2001 10:54:54 PM Anyway, I feel funny, but I just have to live with it. I don't know why I feel this obligation that I should take it upon myself to come to the rescue of people in trouble (not that I do that a lot, I just feel obligated, so I really stay away from people so they won't ask me for favors I can't fulfill - gah). 1927. CalGal - 4/26/2001 11:29:40 PM I'm so relieved. If you hadn't figured this out, I would have had to write a 25,000 word treatise on the illogic of martyrdom and I had a terrible headache this afternoon. 1928. Jamie R - 4/27/2001 9:48:25 PM Ase, I also had rescuer syndrome, which is very bad when you're a math AI and surrounded by failing math students. 1929. CalGal - 4/28/2001 3:25:12 PM Babies aren't Crawling due to less tummy time 1930. Webfeet - 4/29/2001 1:37:41 PM Ase 1931. Webfeet - 4/29/2001 1:41:44 PM calgal 1932. CalGal - 4/29/2001 1:57:42 PM Spawn was an early walker--10 and a half months comes to mind. He was also able to support himself sitting at a little over 3 months, but didn't use it much until 5 or 6 months, I think. 1933. Webfeet - 4/29/2001 2:07:28 PM Now that you mention it, the falling is totally deliberate and yes, he cruises. He can take several steps but he chickens out. 1934. CalGal - 4/29/2001 2:19:18 PM Do you think this is linked to the fact that Im still breastfeeding? That Im keeping him in some kind of mommy cocoon and it's inhibiting him in someway? 1935. Jamie R - 4/29/2001 2:53:54 PM Whatever. Just don't give him the first foggiest hint that you're worried or really really want him to walk. 1936. Erin R. - 4/29/2001 3:16:18 PM My son rolled over at 3-4 months, and didn't do it again until maybe six months, I think. He started crawling around six months, too. He walked at about 12.5 months. I've known babies that didn't walk until 16 months, so I wouldn't fret. 1937. CalGal - 4/29/2001 3:24:12 PM Jamie, 1938. CalGal - 4/29/2001 3:26:40 PM Erin, 1939. Erin R. - 4/29/2001 3:32:42 PM He goes to daycare a couple times a week. 1940. CalGal - 4/29/2001 3:36:16 PM Is it family daycare or or a center? If the latter, have you talked to them about it yet? 1941. Erin R. - 4/29/2001 3:39:11 PM He's at a family daycare. I haven't really talked to them about it--he's done other eating-related things late. I've mentioned it, and the daycare provider has noticed it too, but hasn't brought it up. My husband thinks he hasn't figured out how to sip from hard plastic and gets too pissed off to keep trying. 1942. CalGal - 4/29/2001 3:45:07 PM That's when toddler centers are very useful, I find. Not only does he notice that other kids his age are drinking out of cups, but they are more likely to give him incentive to change. 1943. christipeters - 4/29/2001 3:47:32 PM walking - LD pretty much didn't take off and walk until after she had fully mastered getting up and down without hanging on to anything. Then it was from first few steps to, literally, off and running in less than 3 days. This has been her modus operendi all along - sit back, watch carefully, figure it all out first, then BAM! off we go. No tentative, stumbling experiments for her. She was like this with grasping, crawling, walking, playground equipment - you name it. 1944. LimeGirl - 4/29/2001 4:11:36 PM As far as cups vs. bottles, you could try only putting juice in cups, if he likes juice, or only putting water in bottles, and getting him to drink other stuff from cups. We moved right when K. was about 12 months, and quite literally did lose all her bottles, and by the time we found them, she'd gotten used to being without them! Pacifiers lasted much longer though. If he doesn't have a pacifier the bottle thing could be his comfort, and may not be worth worrying about, as long as it's just water if he takes the bottle to be with him. 1945. LimeGirl - 4/29/2001 4:12:15 PM That should be... "takes his bottle to BED with him." 1946. Erin R. - 4/29/2001 4:19:09 PM Hm...there are toddlers at the daycare. The peer-pressure approach does not always work! 1947. CalGal - 4/29/2001 4:22:47 PM Oh, it's definitely not a developmental issue, and I wouldn't sweat it. At the same time, it's always useful to figure out a way of handling it that isn't adversarial and also doesn't leave him using a bottle at 3. (g) 1948. Erin R. - 4/29/2001 4:33:52 PM Oh, no, he'll be off the bottle before he's two. Even if we have to move to feeding tubes! 1949. Jamie R - 4/29/2001 7:52:46 PM Calgal, I'm keeping my eyes open. There haven't been any changes in circumstance or routine for her or for either of her parents. She's very positive about her daycare and is otherwise behaving completely normally. 1950. Shannon - 4/29/2001 8:09:21 PM I'm thinking I should ditch the pullups soon for Maia. I have some cloth training pants, and she peed in those once and was very upset. 1951. mgleason - 4/29/2001 8:11:30 PM I'm pretty sure I'd listen to someone named Helga, too. 1952. Shannon - 4/29/2001 8:15:36 PM Helga does have this stern German thing going on, which I can't pull off at all. 1953. mgleason - 4/29/2001 8:19:59 PM Shannon, that's another developmental milestone for him. He's figured out the power of being aloof. 1954. CalGal - 4/29/2001 9:34:53 PM Jamie, 1955. mgleason - 4/29/2001 10:41:44 PM Aloofness is the mechanism with which you drive your younger siblings (or cousins, in my case) crazy via an I'm-too-good-for-this-nonsense attitude. 1956. Wombat - 4/30/2001 8:12:57 AM Pull-ups are like training wheels on bicycles. They make the kid think they are doing a "big kid" thing, but it retards their learning how to actually become aware of their natural functions and what to do, as taining wheels do for learning about balance in order to ride a bicycle. Good for self esteem, not so good for learning. 1957. Wombat - 4/30/2001 8:13:28 AM "training" wheels. 1958. christipeters - 4/30/2001 11:45:29 AM Update on LD's school. 1959. CalGal - 4/30/2001 11:57:00 AM Good news. I'm relieved to hear that schools do have policies like that. 1960. Webfeet - 4/30/2001 1:32:01 PM Clement just had a bloodtest and we discovered he is anemic. 1961. CalGal - 4/30/2001 1:45:38 PM , it turns out that we have been giving him too many dairy products which prevent the absorption of iron into his blood. 1962. Erin R. - 4/30/2001 1:55:20 PM I became severely anemic as a child from drinking whole cow's milk. 1963. JudithAtHome - 4/30/2001 2:18:40 PM I posted an interesting article about healthy food in Heath...well, about going overboard on healthy food. 1964. HollyW - 5/1/2001 1:37:24 AM I'm glad that worked out, Christi. 1965. Webfeet - 5/1/2001 2:30:49 PM calgal--i don't think it's just the breast milk but the cow milk, pasteurized cheese and yogourt combined. we were giving him a lot of cow milk in particular, like at every meal, thinking it was the most nutritious thing in the world for him, and here the poor thing wasn't getting any iron--despite the organic greens he was eating which were blended with beef, chicken, fish,etc. 1966. christipeters - 5/7/2001 11:59:39 AM Well! I finally made it back in to The Mote! 1967. CalGal - 5/7/2001 12:06:27 PM Great! 1968. christipeters - 5/7/2001 12:12:43 PM Nope. She didn't want to go. Seventh grade has been very stressful for her. She has done well, staying on the honor roll all year, but she is showing physical and behavioral signs of over-stress. So, I decided to not push her into the summer session. 1969. CalGal - 5/7/2001 12:21:45 PM The programs are pricey--$2200 for three weeks. I signed Spawn up late and don't expect him to get in. Thus I resolved my conflicted feelings about it. (g) 1970. christipeters - 5/7/2001 12:28:40 PM Hmmmmm.... 1971. CalGal - 5/7/2001 12:39:24 PM Only do it if you're prepared to pay and send her. You can't cancel easily. The deadline for this program was March 30th, but it's Johns Hopkins, not Duke (different states, different universities running it). 1972. Wombat - 5/7/2001 12:48:54 PM Those programs strike me as a way for universities to relieve proud parents of their money before their kids are old enough to go to college. Have there been any studies--other than anecdotal--that show evidence of academic improvement? 1973. CalGal - 5/7/2001 1:01:54 PM The cost isn't actually that out of line--it's just the three week commitment that makes me gulp. Spawn's computer camp is about $900 for 6 days, in comparison. It's the three weeks for that price that make me gulp. 1974. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 1:15:11 PM This may sound stupid but what would you do if your kid decided not to go to college? You, as in the editorial sense...addressed to any parent here. 1975. Wombat - 5/7/2001 1:19:52 PM You mean take a year or two off before going? Maybe. Do something artistic that they have shown real talent at? (Gulp) yes. Don't really feel like it and would prefer to live at home and work at some dead-end semiskilled job? No. They can do that, but they cannot live at home rent-free. 1976. CalGal - 5/7/2001 1:24:53 PM Unless he were working as a programmer in the computer industry, or running his own successful business, I can't see myself being too happy about it. If he was just getting by working as a barrista at Starbucks or a waiter at Max's Cafe and thinking that was enough, I'd wonder where I went wrong. 1977. Erin R. - 5/7/2001 1:27:05 PM I wouldn't have a problem with my son taking some time off before college to pursue other interests. But I wouldn't support him to sit around the house watching TV all day. 1978. Shannon - 5/7/2001 1:32:40 PM I went to a program like this when I was a kid. Don't know that it really helped me academically, but I got a lot out of it. 1979. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 2:01:23 PM The reason I asked is, my son went to college for almost a year and then decided to take off "for a while" but never went back. He worked two jobs and had his own place, then went to work in tool design at General Dynamics and began making huge amounts of money. In between then and now, he was married, bought a house, and divorced...she left him with all the bills and the house, all of which he was able to pay off. 1980. janjon - 5/7/2001 2:04:37 PM The Duke/Johns Hopkins type programs can be of considerable value to many kids - especially if they come from schools where it isn't easy being bright or when, perhaps, they aren't quite as motivated as their brightness would suggest they should be. If, at the end, they come away with a more acute awareness of themselves and, perhaps, an ambition to do well in school as a means to an end (if not just for the fun of it) and, perhaps, a sense of knowing that there are lots of other kids out there who also are smart and who also may have similar problems with peers who aren't so smart. 1981. Wombat - 5/7/2001 2:05:36 PM Judith: 1982. CalGal - 5/7/2001 2:08:04 PM Unlikely. But I sure wouldn't want to count on my kid being lucky enough to fall into the right blue collar occupation. I'd also consider it a waste of a good brain, frankly. But if he was happy and self-supporting, I wouldn't ban him forever. 1983. CalGal - 5/7/2001 2:08:38 PM The "Unlikely" was to Judith's post. 1984. PsychProf - 5/7/2001 2:09:40 PM Lat week I gave an in-house seminar(about 80 attended) at a local library on College Choice and the high school process and interaction of teen-parent relationships in light thereof...the program is fundamentally designed for the parents of HS freshman/eighth grade. Most parents indicate that they want the "best ' for their child, and are usually convinced that the way they do "things' is the best way. I guess they come to my presentation for validation, if not information, of some sort. In any case, the usual silence happened when I asked them "What are the goals you have for your child"...finally, one feisty parent stood up, she looked around, and succinctly said "we want our own children to recognized as better than someone else's".. This caused great laughter, and we finally absorbed ourselves in the crucial question of what the parent wants, what the child wants, and what one needs to do to satisfy those desires. 1985. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 2:11:09 PM Wombat: 1986. Erin R. - 5/7/2001 2:11:54 PM I would try not to be disappointed, simply because I hope I can avoid the "I'm so disappointed" trap with my son. However, I do plan to plan my son to succeed in college. 1987. janjon - 5/7/2001 2:12:13 PM Many colleges now urge kids to consider taking a year off after admission/before entering. 1988. CalGal - 5/7/2001 2:13:05 PM But, certainly having an eye on the rat race that their kids are facing is one reason why these programs are as popular as they are. 1989. CalGal - 5/7/2001 2:19:01 PM Many colleges now urge kids to consider taking a year off after admission/before entering. 1990. Erin R. - 5/7/2001 2:30:22 PM I think if a kid has a specific project of some sort s/he wants to pursue for a year, that would be fine with me. 1991. janjon - 5/7/2001 4:05:55 PM I agree that taking time off which then becomes quitting, for whatever the reason, isn't good. If that isn't a concern, however, then I don't think that there has to necessarily be a "good" reason to do so. Gaining a year or more of extra maturity while still in school can't hurt. 1992. Wombat - 5/7/2001 4:09:20 PM Parents are now holding back their kids from Kindergarten until they are a year older so that their kids are more "mature." I suspect that the immaturity is more in the minds of the parents than the kids. 1993. CalGal - 5/7/2001 4:15:55 PM Jan, 1994. janjon - 5/7/2001 4:17:21 PM Not necessarily, wombat. I went the other way - my parents started me in school when I was borderline age at best. I coped well throughout because as luck would have it I was quite bright, but certainly physically it took me until being out of high school to catch up with my peers. 1995. Wombat - 5/7/2001 4:18:16 PM Not in my neck of the woods. They want their kids to be the biggest and most mature in their class. Of course if everybody does it...then they'll be in the same situation as before except a year older. 1996. PsychProf - 5/7/2001 4:21:36 PM Parent-teen conflicts during the HS-to-after-HS time can be quite difficult. Eighteen year olds develop a sense of their own mind, and parents are faced with the child becoming an adult. This is why I consider it so crucial for the teen to understand what the parent goals, covert and overt, are right from the start of adolescence, if not before...... 1997. CalGal - 5/7/2001 4:26:39 PM The problem is, we can't think of any program that will serve this end without making him feel he is being "held back." 1998. PsychProf - 5/7/2001 4:28:09 PM Wombat...and that year older, when the kids are seniors in the old home town(which they own and "rule"), at the age of 18 or 19.. can be a social catastrophe... 1999. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 4:30:01 PM One of my posts was lost to the ozone... 2000. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 4:30:59 PM So, janjon...I think I'd just risk harming his psyche rather than sending him all the way to England. 2001. PsychProf - 5/7/2001 4:39:23 PM JanJon...you know what I think of free advice...so...why not tell him, in a manner that is acceptable to you, and to him(as you see it), what you are telling us, people that know neither him or you. 2002. JudithAtHome - 5/7/2001 4:45:59 PM I agree with PP...I just keep getting this vision of some little kid getting on the boat with his school books, teddy bear, and ticket to England, looking back with big sad eyes but bravely smiling and waving goodbye to his parents on the pier; whispering in a barely contained sob, "See you at Christmas..." 2003. Wombat - 5/8/2001 8:35:41 AM If the kid has a teddy bear when he is 13-14, he is going to have problems at any school he goes to. 2004. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 9:01:02 AM I am not convinced that the classes will have a good share of iconoclastic bright kids--particularly given that I think the program is used as resume fodder. 2005. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 9:01:53 AM I believe I've not given my daughter the option of not attending college. 2006. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 9:07:38 AM Parents are now holding back their kids from Kindergarten until they are a year older so that their kids are more "mature." I suspect that the immaturity is more in the minds of the parents than the kids. 2007. JudithAtHome - 5/8/2001 9:14:58 AM If the kid has a teddy bear when he is 13-14, he is going to have problems at any school he goes to. 2008. Shannon - 5/8/2001 9:25:11 AM I think the rule here is that kids have to be 5 before September 30. When I was a kid, it was December 31. 2009. christipeters - 5/8/2001 10:39:29 AM Hmmmm 2010. CalGal - 5/8/2001 10:46:31 AM I didn't see a lot of difference about the Talent programs, actually. Wombat asked whether they were effective. 2011. CalGal - 5/8/2001 10:48:19 AM I work with someone who told me her son's K teacher told her he'd need to repeat K--2 weeks into the school year. 2012. Wombat - 5/8/2001 10:59:56 AM JAH: 2013. ElliottRW - 5/8/2001 11:01:00 AM MsIvoryTower I went through something called the Duke Talent Identification Program when I was in seventh grade. I spent a saturday morning taking the SAT and got a scholarship to take courses at the local university (UTEP). I was the youngest person in the program and was treated as a freak by teachers and with resentment by students. Other than that, it was pretty cool. 2014. CalGal - 5/8/2001 11:09:21 AM Good lord, Christi, until Elliot mentioned MsIvorytower I had completely missed her posts! So I see now why you were saying there were differences. 2015. janjon - 5/8/2001 11:13:39 AM wombat - did you go to a boarding school? I did. Wonderful experience. Daughter, now 15, is in her first year away. Doing extraordinarily well and happy as can be. 2016. Wombat - 5/8/2001 11:20:07 AM Janjon: 2017. janjon - 5/8/2001 11:26:07 AM Well, yes, mothers can do funny things when their children - especially their sons I suspect - go away to school. I was always quite careful to open my "care" packages from home in private, just to insure that there wasn't anything that would prove embarrassing inside. 2018. CalGal - 5/8/2001 11:30:14 AM Ms, 2019. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 11:33:30 AM Well JanJon, parent philosophies vary indeed. My sons are off on their own now, and I value every minute I spent with them during local High School. Just out of interest...what is the value of sending them away to school somewhere else, from your perspective? 2020. Laura C - 5/8/2001 11:43:53 AM CG, I'm surprised that they're all expensive. The ones I remember (back in the Stone Age) were cheap, or I couldn't have afforded to go. One was a two-week statistics day class at a national lab (free, I think) and one was a two-week math camp at the state university (maybe $200 including room and board). 2021. CalGal - 5/8/2001 11:59:01 AM One was a two-week statistics day class at a national lab (free, I think) and one was a two-week math camp at the state university (maybe $200 including room and board). 2022. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:03:23 PM ElliotRW - 2023. CalGal - 5/8/2001 12:08:54 PM Yes, Spawn too. I don't remember if they had a separate room or a separate table. 2024. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:10:08 PM CalGal - 2025. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:11:20 PM Calgal 2026. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:15:01 PM ElliotRW - One thing - no scholarship. Otherwise, I may have considered making LD go this summer anyway and just send her to the second session so she has time to decompress irst. 2027. janjon - 5/8/2001 12:15:53 PM PsychProf - starting with the generalized assessments first, if a child is good/lucky enough to get into one of the top tier boarding schools, you can almost be assured that the educational opportunities are going to be unmatchable. And, in this day and age, that your child will be interacting with kids from all sorts of divergent ethnic, social and economic backgrounds whose common denominator is that they are all very bright and talented. There is a socialization process which can/should be a plus. The experience can/should give a child a firmer sense of self-worth, independence and self-confidence earlier than if at home all the time. 2028. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:16:39 PM I really don't know about other programs that may be available elsewhere. I do know that UT runs a gifted program for young teens in the summer, but I've never investigated it much. 2029. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:17:59 PM MsIT - I haven't seen any of that kind of ugly behavior in LD or her friends, but it may be because of tracking. All the kids in all of her classes are close to the same level. It may also be because I wouldn't tolerate it and LD has internalized my values enough that she wouldn't tolerate it either. So she doesn't count as friends kids that pull that kind of crap. 2030. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:19:38 PM Christi 2031. ElliottRW - 5/8/2001 12:20:30 PM Christi -- Congrats to LD. I think the program must be different now than when I was in it. When I was in it, there weren't any 3-week programs filled just with bright youngsters; it was college courses. I remember being dropped off at open registration by my mother one day. It was very bewildering. I was too short to find my way through the crowds. I didn't know my social security number. Sounds like things have improved. As for elitism, I think these things can work both ways. One of the valuable lessons I learned in the TIP program was that really smart kids can be really incredible assholes. Smart doesn't mean nice. 2032. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:21:22 PM Christi 2033. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:25:30 PM Just the other day she was telling me about calling some of the girls in her class on a different sort of snobbery. They were going on and on an on about how they would !never! shop at WalMart or KMart and how all their clothes came from (dept and specialty stores). LD asked, "Do you like what I'm wearing?" and got effusive compliments on her stylish clothes. Then LD said, "yep, all bought at WalMart, glad you like it." 2034. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:29:01 PM Christi 2035. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:30:17 PM (too much cross-posting) 2036. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:31:39 PM MsIt - Yep, LD is pretty blase now about tests. She said the TAAS this year was so easy it was boring. 2037. LimeGirl - 5/8/2001 12:33:12 PM Then LD said, "yep, all bought at WalMart, glad you like it." 2038. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 12:33:15 PM JanJon...thanks for your thoughts. 2039. CalGal - 5/8/2001 12:33:15 PM , I call it elitist, to me they aren't very different. 2040. christipeters - 5/8/2001 12:35:08 PM TTFN y'all! 2041. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:39:07 PM As it is, the smart girls of that age group are generally treated like shit by the "popular" girls engaged in segregating. 2042. LimeGirl - 5/8/2001 12:43:40 PM Yeah, from what I've read, girls who develop early and boys who develop late are the ones who tend to have the most social trouble, so it makes sense that it'd be better for girls to start a bit early, and for boys to start a bit late, to decrease the chances of those things happening. 2043. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 12:44:55 PM From Missie..."And what's worse, is that this all feels so familiar for me, 2044. CalGal - 5/8/2001 12:45:32 PM There's really something wrong with girls, though, and their need to be snotty, ruthless and elitist. 2045. Wombat - 5/8/2001 12:48:42 PM Psych: 2046. CalGal - 5/8/2001 12:51:48 PM I would have loved to go to boarding school. On the other hand, I can't see sending my son to one. Nor would he be interested, at least at this point. He openly requires emotional input and support from both parents--while still figuring out his path to independence. If he ever wanted it and I could see a rationale for it, I might..might consider it. But lordy, I'd be miserable. 2047. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 12:55:10 PM A boarding school is one of the few private school experiences I'd like to be able to provide for my daughter. 2048. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 12:55:18 PM Wombat and JanJon...you present the case for boarding school well... 2049. CalGal - 5/8/2001 1:03:17 PM And according to Gillian, girls who attend single sex middle schools have a very high probability of avoiding the dreaded performance plunge that plagues many young women when they hit their teens. 2050. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 1:11:51 PM Missie..."The Performance Plunge", in both male and female teens, is a problem I deal with quite frequently. Many parents are very sure as to what the future holds for their pre-teen child, and the onset of adolescence is a real shocker. Previous assertions of control not only do not work, but are met with teenage anger and hostility....indeed, academic work disintegrates and social behavior changes dramatically. Past concerns for clean rooms and late bedtimes are replaced by new alarms/anxieties over smoking, sex, drugs, academic indifference, and the appearance of a total stranger that lives upstairs. 2051. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 1:24:26 PM PP's 2052. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 1:33:34 PM Missie...I believe that is a reasonable response. It is difficult to be a teenager today, and forewarned and prepared parenting can be of great help. 2053. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 1:39:28 PM Frankly, I continue to be amazed at the confidence, indeed arrogance, that parents have regarding their child rearing philosophies, despite the fact they need/volunteer to see me for counseling, a situation which is at least partially the result of such philosophies. 2054. CalGal - 5/8/2001 1:41:00 PM the Catholic high school system, both integrated and single sex campuses, has been shown to have very strong positive results for all sorts of minority groups wrt academic achievement, and includes girls as well. 2055. ElliottRW - 5/8/2001 1:41:03 PM PsychProf, 2056. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 1:58:47 PM Elliott...interactions between parent and teen are multivariable and complex...different parenting styles are appropriate for different teens. Pick up a few general texts on Adolescence and Parenting, and choose the ideas you feel most comfortable with. A few thoughts...don't always think/indicate you are "right"...limit control techniques to pre-selected hot button issues...spice each day with love and affection...be a parent not a buddy...substitute patience for anger when you can...let your child know what your hopes, goals, and fears are for them...know where they are, and be the last one to bed...have your life consist of what you expect their life to...be authoritative rather than authoritarian...find out what the problems are in the school your child attends, so you know what they/you are up against... 2057. christipeters - 5/8/2001 2:10:12 PM I haven't had to deal with the competition for boys thing yet. While LD is smart and is more mature than most of her friends in some ways, she is about a year behind as far as the opposite sex is concerned. 2058. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 2:11:13 PM 2059. CalGal - 5/8/2001 2:26:50 PM Christi, 2060. Wombat - 5/8/2001 2:33:52 PM Psych: 2061. PsychProf - 5/8/2001 2:37:15 PM Wombat...exactly. What they do is provide an avenue for us to think of how we might improve, as well as validation for what we are doing well. 2062. janjon - 5/8/2001 2:40:39 PM different strokes for different people (read - kids) at different times. 2063. christipeters - 5/8/2001 2:48:28 PM CalGal - 2064. ElliottRW - 5/8/2001 2:57:53 PM Thanks, PP. 2065. CalGal - 5/8/2001 3:01:56 PM Christi, 2066. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 3:18:47 PM Calgal 2067. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 3:23:16 PM Is it not incredibly depressing that this is still where girls see their future? (and "lies" is what that is.) 2068. CalGal - 5/8/2001 4:00:42 PM I have been amazed by the persistence of these old cultural norms, even 30 years after the feminist wave hit the mainstream. 2069. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 4:06:58 PM Feminism is basically another set of "shoulds" for women. 2070. Ronski - 5/8/2001 4:17:47 PM Lesbian Wins Case in Tennessee 2071. CalGal - 5/8/2001 4:30:04 PM Feminism is basically another set of "shoulds" for women. 2072. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 4:36:02 PM I find a lot of things about women depressing these days. The attitude that working married women--whether part-time or full-time--consider their income "extra money" irritates me to no end. 2073. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 4:36:58 PM Still, I think men have changed far more than women in the past 30 years. 2074. CalGal - 5/8/2001 4:38:21 PM Were it not for the fact that I think women, as a gender, have become incredibly narcissistic over the last two decades, I'd completely agree with it. 2075. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 4:39:24 PM I see women being driven by cultural expectations, rather than anything approaching truly self-centered motivations. 2076. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 4:43:03 PM Well, I don't. I think women have taken the feminist efforts of the 70's and merged it with the older cultural cues such that they now demand everything: a career that they don't have to work hard at, access to any and every educational and employment opportunity they choose, a "good catch" for a mate, and the luxury of staying at home when they choose to raise children, all without any income penalties. 2077. CalGal - 5/8/2001 4:45:42 PM I see women being driven by cultural expectations, rather than anything approaching truly self-centered motivations. 2078. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 4:47:58 PM Most of the women of my culture (African-American), seemed constrained by a long list of obligations. In short, there shouldn't be any trade-offs, and this is the way it's always been. 2079. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 4:51:53 PM There is a thread in MWT about being a tomboy. I posted my opinion about it there. Basically, I don't know that I need the navel-gazing affirmation of having climbed trees as a young girl, to hold myself up as some kind of spirited career woman. And once you get into discussions about tomboys, then you also get into discussions about girly-girls, and what's the point? 2080. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 5:03:31 PM i No. I see this as the copout that they use. Over and over again (you see this in MWT) they whine about how they feel "pressured" to do this, to do that. I mean, fucking please. Is anyone taking away their kids if they don't breastfeed, or do breastfeed? Is anyone giving them less money if they are working with children? No? Then shut off the damn "inner voices" and just fucking deal. 2081. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 5:04:08 PM Hm...forgot the brackets around the italics... 2082. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 5:16:43 PM Erin 2083. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 5:27:04 PM So, you are speaking primarily of white women? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to clarify. 2084. CalGal - 5/8/2001 5:34:23 PM Erin, 2085. Erin R. - 5/8/2001 5:50:12 PM Cal, I meant the complaint you were paraphrasing. 2086. arkymalarky - 5/8/2001 7:46:18 PM Interesting conversation today. I always miss them. 2087. arkymalarky - 5/8/2001 7:46:40 PM Most of the parents in here are either two or three years before or already beyond where I am. From that pov and as a jr high and hs teacher, I think that PP and Cal are right, and you can't really begin to see where things are going until your kids hit 16 or 17. I've had enough students who I had high hopes for in jr high who gave all their dreams up as jrs or srs in high school (especially girls, but boys as well). 2088. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 9:28:30 PM I've had enough students who I had high hopes for in jr high who gave all their dreams up as jrs or srs in high school (especially girls, but boys as well). 2089. MsIvoryTower - 5/8/2001 9:31:12 PM So, you are speaking primarily of white women? 2090. grannypatsy - 5/9/2001 9:35:34 PM Ms.Tower did you get the package? 2091. CalGal - 5/10/2001 7:04:55 PM This post is in response to a conversation in the Mote Cafe about a conversation in TT. But it is about parenting, so I thought I'd post it here. 2092. CalGal - 5/10/2001 7:06:19 PM And just to keep everyone in synch, here's the post that caused MC to respond like that: 2093. CalGal - 5/10/2001 7:11:37 PM Oh, here's the other: 2094. Stephanie D. - 5/10/2001 7:27:08 PM CG, I hear what you're saying, but: 2095. Stephanie D. - 5/10/2001 7:28:16 PM Or it could be that for some reason she just really, really gets under my skin. Like the way she lets her daughter talk to her, all the while nattering at us about honoring your parents. 2096. CalGal - 5/10/2001 7:41:49 PM Like the way she lets her daughter talk to her, all the while nattering at us about honoring your parents. 2097. CalGal - 5/10/2001 7:46:12 PM Now, was this a nice thing to say? Probably not. But it is a forum, after all. And the posts were far too whiny. Let's face it, in the end Dogstar is a woman who doesn't have to work, has time to obsess over housework, take walks to the park on weekdays and still write stories in her spare time. 2098. JudithAtHome - 5/10/2001 7:48:19 PM so completely have I introjected the angry, rejecting parents that I had (mostly Mom, but Dad too at times). 2099. JudithAtHome - 5/10/2001 7:49:13 PM Never mind...I looked it up. 2100. Stephanie D. - 5/11/2001 10:56:57 AM Okay, I see what you mean, CalGal. And I didn't agree with those who said "if you can't say anything nice..." especially since there we were, saying not-so-nice things about MC. 2101. CalGal - 5/11/2001 11:31:35 AM Lots of people don't find it difficult. Now, toddlers can be difficult, of course. There are always times when you're going Arggggghhhhh. But if you aren't finding any fun in it at all, then why do it? The frustration to enjoyment ratio is probably at the highmark of the first five years, but toddlers are a joy in so many ways. They're figuring out so much for the first time--and it's also when they are becoming truly aware, starting to develop their own memories. It's a hoot, and I think any parent who can't enjoy it because they're too stressed or feel out of control can make their kid's life a lot easier by making new daycare arrangements. 2102. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 11:46:41 AM Reading her posts made me feel like she really ought to put the kid in daycare, like you say, and get some advice on maybe going into therapy to see why she's feeling that way. 2103. christipeters - 5/11/2001 12:47:39 PM I didn't find dealing with toddler LD especially difficult. However, I fully recognise that every person is different and has varying difficulty with different situations. In addition, some kids are more difficult than others and even the same kid can be more difficult at some times than others. 2104. Stephanie D. - 5/11/2001 12:48:15 PM My mother told my sister that having toddlers was like being surrounded by Viet Cong. Like it was normal to feel that way all the time. 2105. christipeters - 5/11/2001 12:51:59 PM I agree that MC seems to be completely in denial on disfunctional families. 2106. LimeGirl - 5/11/2001 4:10:42 PM I finally finished reading the thread, and it seems to me that dogstar's problems may lie more in trouble with her husband's expectations of what she do while he's gone than anything else. She says she tries to spend all this time cleaning, etc. when she gets a chance because he got irritated last time when he came home and the house wasn't clean. I think that if she just decided that she wasn't going to worry about that, (she's only on week 2 of 9, for pete's sake, she can do a major cleaning at the end of week 9 if she really feels she must have things in reasonable order when he gets home) she'd be much better. 2107. CalGal - 5/11/2001 7:20:56 PM Lime, 2108. CalGal - 5/11/2001 7:27:50 PM Christi, 2109. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 7:27:56 PM I still say this lady belongs in therapy. 2110. CalGal - 5/11/2001 7:31:58 PM Judith, 2111. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 7:34:48 PM So, has this person had other problems that she's brought to MWT? I mean, other instances where she's used this method of discussion? 2112. CalGal - 5/11/2001 7:39:44 PM Judith, 2113. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 7:45:22 PM WEll, I actually meant the harrassed mom but that's okay. 2114. CalGal - 5/11/2001 7:53:08 PM Oh, that sort of confessional stuff is entirely normal for MWT. 2115. JudithAtHome - 5/11/2001 7:57:18 PM That sort of stuff makes me queasy...if it's gone that far, that they expect to find proof, they already know. 2116. Jamie R - 5/11/2001 10:44:31 PM So my daughter (just turned 3) calls me into her bedroom and I'm rather irked and preparing to gruffly tell her to go to bed and stop bugging me. She holds up her little magnadoodle and has written "MOM" in near perfect capital letters. It is AFAIK her first written word other than her name. 2117. CalGal - 5/11/2001 10:47:53 PM Awwwww. 2118. Jamie R - 5/11/2001 10:51:28 PM It's a plastic gizmo that you draw on by manipulating iron fillings with a little magnet wand. Kind of like an etch-a-sketch. Then you wipe it clean. So sadly, the word could not be immortalized (didn't have the presence of mind to take a picture) before she erased it. 2119. Jamie R - 5/11/2001 10:55:14 PM I have now been to Graceland, btw, so I can check that off my list of things to see before I die. But I'll take that topic to the cafe. 2120. CalGal - 5/11/2001 10:56:28 PM Oh, lord, that would be perfect. 2121. Jamie R - 5/11/2001 11:10:17 PM Thanks, that's a very good idea. And she does respond well to that sort of thing. 2122. Jamie R - 5/11/2001 11:16:09 PM After a long shopping trip at a Walmart or some such I always stop in the parking lot and note that she was very good in the store (assuming she was, which is 95%) and thank her for it. She gets this very small happy little smile in the corner of her mouth that is totally genuine. It is one of my favorite things in the world to see. 2123. CalGal - 5/11/2001 11:21:34 PM The ex and I are doing our damnedest to be on Spawn's ass all the time about behavior, school work, and so on. But the other night I heard him practicing his trumpet--and sounding very good--all on his own. His music is something he requires no nudging or nagging to do. He actively enjoys playing trumpet or guitar, and plays them both regularly, working on segments that he finds tough. When he came out later I remembered to say, "You know, you really sound great and I love hearing you practice." 2124. Jamie R - 5/11/2001 11:37:41 PM That's nice to know. He really does sound like a great kid, btw. 2125. CalGal - 5/12/2001 12:02:44 AM God, don't even type the word electric guitar where I'll read it and then Spawn might see it in my brain. 2126. CalGal - 5/12/2001 12:03:33 AM 2127. arkymalarky - 5/12/2001 12:57:09 AM I have now been to Graceland, btw, so I can check that off my list of things to see before I die. 2128. joezan - 5/12/2001 1:29:01 AM Hey Jamie - what a coinkydink! 2129. arkymalarky - 5/12/2001 1:34:14 AM What a dollface, Joe! Beautiful picture, too! 2130. joezan - 5/12/2001 1:48:48 AM 2131. Åse - 5/12/2001 2:10:54 AM Awwwwww 2132. CalGal - 5/12/2001 10:21:31 AM Ase! How are things? Did you ever hear about the interview? How's the little one? And what happened with the other mom and you saying NO? 2133. LimeGirl - 5/12/2001 11:32:42 AM Aww.. those pictures are adorable! I must now zip off to take my two little munchkins ice skating. On the way other side of town... we really need an ice rink closer to home!! 2134. CalGal - 5/12/2001 11:38:44 AM Shoot, I forgot to say the same. They are adorable, Joe. 2135. JJBiener - 5/12/2001 11:42:10 AM Joe - You are lucky. We missed those years with our daughter. She was already 11 when she came to us as a foster child. 2136. joezan - 5/12/2001 12:15:52 PM Thanks, guys. 2137. Åse - 5/12/2001 12:40:29 PM Cal, I've survived end of the semester craziness. Now, I just have to finish off a few things before leaving for Sweden next week to introduce the little Possum to her Swedish family. She's doing great. The baby-sitting thing basically ended as I was posting, and the other mother doesn't hate me for backing out (or, she's great at hiding it -heh). 2138. CalGal - 5/12/2001 1:01:43 PM Congrats on still being in the running, that's great! 2139. Åse - 5/12/2001 1:23:57 PM I was planning on plugging her in for the takeoffs and landings (three of them - gak. We bought tickets late). She's a good nurser, but I'll take a bottle too. 2140. CalGal - 5/12/2001 1:38:00 PM Oh, I'm still mildly phobic about flying, but for years it was horrible. I used to be able to get onto planes doing the Klingon routine ("Today is a good day to die") and on that first trip to Florida with Spawn when I started to say it I realized that I couldn't use that anymore! Then I got panicky, too. 2141. arkymalarky - 5/12/2001 3:41:54 PM When I flew with Mose it was very different and unpleasant. I didn't feel like I could chuck down a couple of glasses of wine since she couldn't (she was 13, though, and very aware of her first flying), and I had the same feeling Ase describes if something happened. I don't know how I'd feel flying alone or just with Bob. 2142. LimeGirl - 5/12/2001 3:44:56 PM My biggest flying freak-out was when the girls' dad took them to Disneyland last winter. When I'm on the plane with them, if it goes down, we all go down. But they were flying Alaska, the same flight, I believe, that went down a while back, and I wasn't with them. I skipped class to come home and make sure their plane had landed okay!! 2143. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 5:23:47 PM I have similar feelings every time our children are flying somewhere. It must be almost universal. 2144. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 5:45:34 PM Fears about teen drivers are more rational than about commercial flyers. 2145. christipeters - 5/12/2001 7:14:15 PM Since when are a parent's fears about/for their children rational! 2146. christipeters - 5/12/2001 7:23:15 PM CalGal - 2147. LimeGirl - 5/13/2001 12:27:24 AM My little girl had a not-so-good day today. She was invited to a b'day party, and her sister wasn't. I was feeling kind of bad for K., who didn't get invited, since they're both in brownies with the birthday girl. So we planned on taking her to see a movie and go have dinner while A. was partying it up. She liked the movie, liked dinner, seemed fine about not getting to go the party. 2148. stostosto - 5/14/2001 8:44:30 AM Børn trives ude og hjemme 2149. stostosto - 5/14/2001 9:21:22 AM It should probably be noted that that result is very convenient in a Danish context. Virtually all Danish kids over 1 year old are in municipal day care. And many from the age of six months as well. 2150. CalGal - 5/14/2001 9:25:31 AM Was it mentioned in the debate that Belsky's co-researchers criticized him for misstating the conclusions considerably? 2151. christipeters - 5/14/2001 10:26:24 AM LD's Dad sent her a PC-DVD for her computer. Nothing wrong with that, BUT (you knew there was a but, right?).... 2152. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 12:16:39 PM christipeters -- I mess up like that sometimes. For instance, a couple of weeks ago I bought a baker's rack as a surprise for my wife. At home I discovered that the one I bought was the wrong color. I had assumed that the rack was the same color as the display model. I think she still loves me. 2153. christipeters - 5/14/2001 12:27:54 PM Yeah, his heart was kinda in the right place, he just messed up in execution. Problem is, he almost always messes up in execution. He also keeps getting her stuff that could or does cause me time, trouble, and expense, but never consults me about it beforehand. 2154. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 12:37:32 PM christi -- understood. Just out of curiosity, what annoys you the most: LD's disappointment, the extra work for you, or the lack of consultation? 2155. christipeters - 5/14/2001 1:36:55 PM LD's disappointment. 2156. mean marlene - 5/14/2001 1:49:04 PM Seeing a dad dissapoint a child is never easy. My neice has had a lot of these incidents in her life. I think the worst one was during Fair week (a big deal out in our rural area) her dad told her he would take her to the Fair (she was about 6 or 7) a couple of weeks before it started. Neice was spending the week at my inlaws and on Wed of that week, my hubby and I asked her if she wanted to go with us- "No Daddy is going to take me". Friday roles around and no daddy- but she still wanted to wait to see if he would come out and take her (but was much less confident than she was Wed about it). He never showed. (We took her to the Circus a couple of weeks later-but aunt and uncle and Circus could never measure up to Daddy and fair). It's really hard to watch a kid lose faith in their father (she's to the point that she knows how good his promises are- a hard lesson to learn by age 13). 2157. PsychProf - 5/14/2001 2:16:43 PM I have been disappointed in myself as a parent on more than one occasion. 2158. PsychProf - 5/14/2001 2:20:21 PM Bizarro Banks(Seinfeld) has been around lately extolling the virtues of other than Yankees.. 2159. PsychProf - 5/14/2001 2:21:29 PM Sorry for that last post...it belongs elswhere. 2160. wonkers2 - 5/14/2001 2:43:57 PM Heard a woman on NPR today talking about the role of pets in the life of children. Apparently there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on it, but from what she has discovered pets can be very important to child development (and to the psychological health of adults, too). In the research she did, many children attach higher importance to pets in their life than to friends. And pets are considered family members but who are completely non-judgmental and appreciative. They can exert a positive and calming influence on child development. Unfortunately I can't remember the woman's name or the name of her book. 2161. mean marlene - 5/14/2001 3:11:17 PM wonkers2- Did you know that some nursing homes have resident pets for similar reasons. 2162. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 5:04:07 PM Christipeters -- I see what you mean. Broken promises, especially, are disappointing. I tend to disappoint my kids for other reasons. That link is meant to be humorous, btw. Good luck to you, LD, and dad. PsychProf -- It's nice to know that even successful parents like you make mistakes, too. 2163. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 5:06:26 PM Uh-oh. I have, evidently confused mean marlene's post with christipeter's. My apologies. 2164. PsychProf - 5/14/2001 5:25:12 PM Elliott...thanks, but I have been greatly aided by my wife, my parents/in laws and their work ethic and love, and some luck now and then. Frankly, I am not impressed by my person/self. Since that is the case, it makes it awkward to bash others. 2165. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 5:39:56 PM PP -- it's awkward for me, too, but I don't let that stop me (g). BTW, I've been "substitut(ing) patience for anger when" I can. Powerful suggestion. Trying to make it habitual. I'm also trying to work on being "authoritative rather than authoritarian" with less immediate success. Also, I am enrolled in "general psychology I" at my local U this summer; I'm hoping it will make other psychology texts accessible enough for me to do self-study on parenting. 2166. PsychProf - 5/14/2001 5:43:20 PM Parenting is such an incredibly humbling experience, doncha think. Good luck in the Psych course... 2167. LimeGirl - 5/14/2001 7:19:29 PM Okay, here is my dilemma of the day. 2168. CalGal - 5/14/2001 9:27:44 PM Based only on your description, I advise suck it up and take them. I'm assuming he's asking it as a favor, not quid pro quo knowing that you hate it. (not that it would make much difference in my advice). 2169. LimeGirl - 5/14/2001 10:45:31 PM Yep, it's just a favor. I don't like to discuss my religious feelings with him, because he freaks out. We both used to be quite religious, and then I quit. 2170. stostosto - 5/15/2001 4:54:42 AM CalGal Message # 2150 2171. wonkers2 - 5/15/2001 7:19:21 AM MeanMarlene, Actually, the woman on PBS mentioned that elderly people in nursing homes respond well to pets, usually dogs. I believe she said they have a calming effect. 2172. Stephanie D. - 5/15/2001 6:15:26 PM I worked briefly in a nursing home and I was there when some people from the animal shelter brought in puppies one afternoon. It was amazing. People who had been totally unresponsive, almost catatonic, lit up and smiled when they saw the puppies, even played with them some. 2173. CalGal - 5/15/2001 6:36:38 PM I can't wait until I'm an old crabby old lady in a nursing home and some well-meaning, sweet, do-gooder decides to bring me a puppy to cheer me up. 2174. Webfeet - 5/15/2001 6:38:51 PM As I've lost all fashion sense upon having a baby and must now drag myself around in comfy wash-n-ear outfits from Land's End and assorted nerdy prepster catalogs, I would like to recommend one catalog I've discovered for mothers that isn't quite so dorky and unflattering. 2175. Adrianne - 5/16/2001 11:21:27 AM 2176. Jenerator - 5/16/2001 11:25:35 AM Adrianne, 2177. Adrianne - 5/16/2001 11:30:12 AM 2178. Jenerator - 5/16/2001 11:36:54 AM Those sound scary to me. Good luck, I'm sure it'll be fine. 2179. Webfeet - 5/16/2001 11:40:35 AM Adrianne--I did congratulate you! I guess you didn't see my post back in The Mote Cafe a few weeks ago! 2180. theDiva - 5/16/2001 11:43:52 AM Webs! 2181. Webfeet - 5/16/2001 11:52:19 AM The Hannahs aren't nursing friendly, Diva. How long do you plan on nursing little Skeetie? 2182. theDiva - 5/16/2001 11:57:29 AM As long as possible, considering I have to return to FT in late June. I'm renting a Lactina Plus and trying to build up a supply in the freezer. 2183. Adrianne - 5/16/2001 2:20:02 PM 2184. Jenerator - 5/16/2001 4:29:28 PM Adrianne, 2185. Stephanie D. - 5/16/2001 5:50:09 PM Still laughing at the picture of geriatric CalGal violently spurning the offer of puppies... 2186. Shannon - 5/16/2001 9:57:33 PM Yeah, it's enough to make me want to be in the same nursing home she's in. Of course, I'm so youthful, that probably won't happen :-) 2187. arkymalarky - 5/16/2001 10:03:12 PM I shed a tear thinking of yet another crabby old lady held in restraints and wigged out on tranquilizers in a nursing home. (sick humor, I know) 2188. CalGal - 5/16/2001 10:06:53 PM Oh, that's so wonderful. I remember when she died, and how hard that was on you and Mose--and indeed your whole community. 2189. wonkers2 - 5/16/2001 10:07:41 PM Arky, Congratulations to mother and daughter! I remember when our daughter went away to Blue Lake Music Camp near Muskegon, Michigan. She really enjoyed blowing her head off on the trumpet, but the pictures she painted of Louie Armstrong were better than her trumpet solos. She majored in art and now is an architect. 2190. arkymalarky - 5/16/2001 10:16:57 PM Thank you, Cal! I burst into tears and Bob almost did. The girl's parents were there, and their oldest daughter is graduating this year. The parents and the other two daughters are musicians, too. I can't imagine their loss, but it must surely be invaluable to them to see what an influence their daughter has continued to have on the community and the people who were fortunate to know her. 2191. Shannon - 5/16/2001 10:36:30 PM That's wonderful, Arky. 2192. HollyW - 5/16/2001 10:53:04 PM A lot of interesting conversation this past week. 2193. CalGal - 5/16/2001 10:58:23 PM Man, two happy stories in a row. What a night! 2194. arkymalarky - 5/16/2001 11:05:40 PM Thanks, Shannon! 2195. stostosto - 5/17/2001 4:15:35 AM Arky, 2196. Wombat - 5/17/2001 8:15:17 AM I'll bring the family cat to Cal's nursing home. After presenting her with a fresh-killed vole, he'll hiss at her and bat her glasses off with his paws. 2197. arkymalarky - 5/17/2001 11:55:41 AM Thanks, Sto! 2198. mean marlene - 5/17/2001 1:20:04 PM No, let me bring my cat for Cal- she's drop a still living mouse in her bed and then smack Cal when she doesn't play with it appropriately. And when she is sitting in her wheel chair, Taffy will run by and randomly swat her arm or reach up under the foot rest and smack her leg (Taffy already does this to my husband when he is in the recliner). 2199. christipeters - 5/17/2001 1:51:25 PM arky - Wow! My congratulations also to Mose! 2200. arkymalarky - 5/17/2001 2:15:13 PM Thanks Christi! 2201. PsychProf - 5/17/2001 2:21:56 PM FOR ARKY AND MOSE... 2202. arkymalarky - 5/17/2001 2:39:05 PM Haha! I'll have to show that to her when she gets home. 2203. arkymalarky - 5/17/2001 2:39:40 PM PS--she hates the fact that I call her Mose here, since it was her "baby" name. 2204. CalGal - 5/17/2001 3:19:29 PM I'm allergic to cats, so I'd sneeze a lot. 2205. HollyW - 5/17/2001 10:08:51 PM Jane Swift, governor of Massachusetts, gives birth to twins last Tuesday night. 2206. CalGal - 5/17/2001 10:43:23 PM It is absurd to think she can't be governor while on maternity leave. Don't governors ever get sick? 2207. HollyW - 5/17/2001 10:49:01 PM Well, I hear Daddy will be doing the SAHD thing, and then there's a nanny. No excuse to drag the kids to work with her. 2208. CalGal - 5/17/2001 10:51:17 PM That was true the last time, too, I thought. 2209. Shannon - 5/17/2001 10:56:38 PM I didn't remember her having a nanny before. But yes, he was a SAHD. He supposedly needed to jog or some such. 2210. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:00:45 PM hehehehe. 2211. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:06:45 PM Oh, he's been SAHD all along? I should be embarassed I don't know this, this being the humble Commonwealth I myself live in. Ha ha. 2212. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:07:23 PM Jane Swift is Republican, don't remind me. 2213. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:11:11 PM I supported one batch job that would occasionally fail badly enough that I had to come into the Schwab office (pre dialin) at 2:00 am Monday morning. After I split up, that meant Spawn came in with me. It only happened a few times, but he thought it was pretty cool. 2214. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:22:47 PM Oh, I guess I missed your reference. 2215. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:23:14 PM I have no idea what happened to my grammar, sorry. 2216. Shannon - 5/17/2001 11:23:55 PM Wow, Q would love going to work at 2am with me. 2217. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:26:00 PM Yes, he would. Only big people are up, then! 2218. mean marlene - 5/18/2001 9:04:44 AM I worked with a woman whose son was getting tossed out of daycare situations on a regular basis. She'd bring him in for a couple of days, but it was always a disaster (she finally had to take a leave for a few month until he finally started school). Bringing a kid in at 2 am for an hour or so is one thing- but regularly bringing in a disruptive kid for a day is just wrong. 2219. christipeters - 5/18/2001 9:45:27 AM mean marlene - I think the key word there is "disruptive" 2220. DanDillon - 5/18/2001 11:31:39 AM Brain, Child 2221. theDiva - 5/18/2001 11:41:09 AM Looks interesting, but this really bugs me (emphasis mine): 2222. DanDillon - 5/18/2001 11:44:30 AM Don't be so damn sensitive, Deev. It's an idiomatic expression, like "the thinking man's murder mystery." No implication, just language in use. 2223. theDiva - 5/18/2001 11:50:52 AM Sensitive? Moi? 2224. theDiva - 5/18/2001 11:53:38 AM maybe I'm just cranky with disappointment....I saw your handle in the thread title and thought, "OOH! Does he have an announcement for us?" 2225. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 11:55:03 AM Diva: I've always thought that about TT's "Mothers Who Think" folder, too, and complained to the management but got nowhere with it. 2226. theDiva - 5/18/2001 11:56:43 AM I'd forgotten about the TT folder. Interesting that they won't change it. 2227. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 11:57:49 AM It's a TT institution. When I complained I was new there and didn't know any better. 2228. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 12:00:09 PM Crap like that pisses me off. The only parenting issues that are solely the mother's are birth and breast feeding. It's blatantly sexist. 2229. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 12:00:38 PM How about "Fathers who care"? 2230. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 12:31:15 PM How about "Fathers who care"? -- Are you taunting me, Indy? I'm sorry, but have too much bitterness to properly discuss this. 2231. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 12:35:54 PM I heard today that only 2% of households are single fathers with children...but I'm sure they all think! 2232. Shannon - 5/18/2001 12:37:28 PM The Salon magazine section is now "Life" though. And it includes thoughtful things like fashion news. They say the TT folder won't change. 2233. Erin R. - 5/18/2001 12:40:01 PM I heard that 95 percent of fathers work outside of the home. 2234. CalGal - 5/18/2001 1:17:09 PM The only parenting issues that are solely the mother's are birth and breast feeding. 2235. JudithAtHome - 5/18/2001 1:28:41 PM I messed up...it's 3% of households, not 2%. 2236. Åse - 5/19/2001 1:27:45 AM Yeah, sorry to say, that magazine got me grumpy. The thinking mothers bit (which probably stopped me from going into MWT until I got pregnant) etc. Plus the little abstracts for the articles looked like it was just warmed over spoutings again of some bland unthinking liberal position (and I'm a fan of thinking liberal) that was novel maybe 15 years ago. 2237. CalGal - 5/19/2001 1:35:49 AM 2238. Åse - 5/19/2001 2:20:30 AM Heh. It's tough being privileged innit? (princess and the pea comes to mind). I did read that exchange. It gets very annoying. 2239. CalGal - 5/19/2001 2:45:05 AM Oh, I feel guilty all the time. And I'm dreadfully self-absorbed, to boot. But damned if I'm going to let the social norms of strangers make me miserable. 2240. CalGal - 5/19/2001 3:51:02 AM Divorce, Japanese Style 2241. ElliottRW - 5/19/2001 3:10:31 PM Request for Advice: 2242. alistairconnor - 5/19/2001 4:06:28 PM 4. If you lie a lot, people won't trust you. 2243. ElliottRW - 5/19/2001 4:13:04 PM alistairconner -- Duh! How could I overlook that one? Thanks. 2244. ElliottRW - 5/19/2001 4:20:07 PM Alistair, 2245. CalGal - 5/19/2001 4:40:52 PM Alistair, 2246. CalGal - 5/19/2001 4:44:18 PM Elliot, 2247. Indiana Jones - 5/19/2001 4:51:42 PM Elliott: Ask her if her father told her he was going to take her somewhere or do something with her that she really wanted to do and then didn't, how would she feel? What would she think about her father? Then ask her if she wants other people to think and feel that way about her. 2248. ElliottRW - 5/19/2001 5:19:59 PM CalGal, 2249. PsychProf - 5/21/2001 3:07:23 PM Elliot...perhaps you might find the following link of some use. A principle difference between an act of lying for a five year old and a teen is seen in the comparison of consequences(how a 5 yr old views control of his/her behavior) vs intentions(how a teen does). Here is the link which characterizes differences in the development of morality for children of advancing ages. 2250. ElliottRW - 5/21/2001 5:29:34 PM PsychProf -- Enlightening link. 2251. Wombat - 5/22/2001 9:22:03 AM Elliot: 2252. CalGal - 5/22/2001 10:28:53 AM I dunno, BWCW is more about the practical reason not to lie. It doesn't have the moral oomph. 2253. Wombat - 5/22/2001 10:33:23 AM Cal: 2254. JudithAtHome - 5/22/2001 10:36:04 AM I think Wombat is correct...a 5 year old won't be grasping morality easily and needs more practical applications. Aesop is an excellent start and eases into morality just fine with later tales. 2255. christipeters - 5/22/2001 10:42:52 AM Well, I almost went down to the school to ream a couple of PE coaches new asses. Here's what happened. 2256. christipeters - 5/22/2001 10:50:21 AM Now here is why I didn't go down to the school and read the riot act to the coaches. 2257. Wombat - 5/22/2001 11:07:27 AM Wombette (6) made us proud last week. At recess, a special ed kid was swinging on the monkey bars, conked herself in the mouth, and was lying on the ground bleeding from the nose and mouth. Wombette ran over to see if she was all right, sent one of her buddies to get a teacher, and stayed with her until a teacher came. Her name and good deed were read out over the intercom by the Principal. 2258. christipeters - 5/22/2001 11:25:30 AM Bravo for Wombette! 2259. JudithAtHome - 5/22/2001 11:29:28 AM The Book of Aesop obviously works! Congrats, Wombat.... 2260. Stephanie D. - 5/22/2001 1:45:28 PM That's definitely something to be proud of. Great kid, Wombat. 2261. arkymalarky - 5/22/2001 7:31:59 PM Wow, that's really nice--not just to take an active concern for the injured child, but to know exactly what to do. 2262. Wombat - 5/23/2001 8:48:18 AM "Preen, Blush." 2263. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:40:12 AM Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son? 2264. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:40:20 AM Oh, who did you meet, my blue-eyed son? 2265. ChristiPeters - 5/30/2001 2:22:14 PM My parental heart swells with pride. Over four days of being dragged around from one eldely relative to another, LD's behavior was perfect. She is now reaping the reward as I rented her some videos last night and she is laying around the house in her PJs today relaxing, watching movies, playing computer games, and chatting on the phone with her friends. 2266. MsIvoryTower - 5/30/2001 10:39:28 PM I dyed my daughter's hair today: 2267. joezan - 5/30/2001 11:59:44 PM My mother took our 3 y.o. daughter to the ballet last night. Mom said she was absolutely awe-struck - sat there on the edge of her seat, mouth open, almost the entire time. 2268. Wombat - 5/31/2001 10:53:17 AM We took Wombette to see The Nutcracker (ballet) when she was three. She loved the dancing, but freaked during the battle between the mice and the wooden soldiers, and burst into tears. We were able to comfort her quickly, and when we explained what had happened to the concerned old ladies sitting around us, they were transformed into melting jello by her "sensitivity." This was when she still had blond curls to go with her huge blue eyes. 2269. christipeters - 5/31/2001 11:02:00 AM My ex called our daughter last night to tell her that he will be in a city only 94 miles from us for some yet-to-be-determined number of weeks this summer for his job. 2270. ChristiPeters - 5/31/2001 5:36:12 PM (Christi peeks around, listening to the echoes of her footsteps in the empty room, an anxious expression on her face) 2271. LimeGirl - 5/31/2001 5:38:40 PM It's been awfully slow in here lately! 2272. ChristiPeters - 5/31/2001 5:59:56 PM There have been years with no physical contact. The most LD has ever visited her Dad is about 6 weekends one year. About 4 visits a year was more typical. She hasn't seen him since sometime in 2000, but he does call her at least once a week. 2273. CalGal - 5/31/2001 6:16:24 PM Does anyone find it astonishing that courts refuse to mandate compliance with visitation? 2274. LimeGirl - 5/31/2001 6:57:48 PM I find it very weird that a parent will maintain phone contact regularly, but not want to do any visitation. It seems like it would be a both or neither kind of thing. 2275. LimeGirl - 5/31/2001 6:57:57 PM 2276. CalGal - 5/31/2001 7:02:52 PM How old is A again? 2277. christipeters - 6/1/2001 12:11:04 AM "I find it very weird that a parent will maintain phone contact regularly, but not want to do any visitation. It seems like it would be a both or neither kind of thing." 2278. christipeters - 6/1/2001 12:17:59 AM "Does anyone find it astonishing that courts refuse to mandate compliance with visitation?" 2279. joezan - 6/1/2001 12:19:05 AM I'll say. 2280. joezan - 6/1/2001 12:19:47 AM 2279 was to 2277. 2281. christipeters - 6/1/2001 12:25:35 AM "....no matter how incompetent, dysfunctional, or even disinterested a parent is, children, bless them, never see it" 2282. CalGal - 6/1/2001 12:53:36 AM Just as some non-custodial parents get out of paying child support by simply becoming unemployed, I'm sure non-custodial parents could find ways to not have their kids visit with them. 2283. christipeters - 6/1/2001 9:34:35 AM Why? 2284. ElliottRW - 6/1/2001 9:48:35 AM I think parents who are unwilling to see their children shouldn't be forced to see them. But when that's the case, they ought to compensate the primary care giver. 2285. CalGal - 6/1/2001 10:20:59 AM I think parents who are unwilling to see their children shouldn't be forced to see them. 2286. Erin R. - 6/1/2001 10:27:17 AM What do you see as the benefit of forcing a parent who doesn't want to see a child into visitation? 2287. ElliottRW - 6/1/2001 10:29:12 AM CalGal, I was thinking that some parents might not want to visit their children because they know they are incompentent or feel that their visit will somehow do more harm than good. I think these people should have an out. But I also think they should pay for that out in some way, since the primary care giver must pick up the slack. 2288. christipeters - 6/1/2001 10:43:06 AM ElliottRW - I think visitation and child support should always be considered completely separate issues. 2289. christipeters - 6/1/2001 10:51:31 AM CalGal - 2290. christipeters - 6/1/2001 10:53:30 AM "Many kids in married families are quite sure their mom or dad doesn't much care about their existence--and much of the time, they are right. Would you say they would be better off not seeing that parent?" 2291. CalGal - 6/1/2001 11:49:40 AM I was thinking that some parents might not want to visit their children because they know they are incompentent or feel that their visit will somehow do more harm than good. 2292. CalGal - 6/1/2001 11:52:00 AM The courts do not force each parent to spend time in sole charge of the kids when they are married? 2293. Shannon - 6/4/2001 12:27:46 AM My son has become concerned about fashion. He just told us he wants cool clothes. "And I don't mean cool like when you need to wear long sleeves because it's windy. I mean the word cool." 2294. PsychProf - 6/6/2001 2:45:55 PM 2295. Shannon - 6/6/2001 10:28:43 PM One thing about the article that jumped out at me--right at the start, they talked about how much more protection kids "need" these days, and said stranger danger is on the rise. Is that actually true? I thought that for the last few decades it was pretty stable or even on the decline. 2296. JudithAtHome - 6/6/2001 10:51:35 PM I think it IS true...at least in my city. The page in the paper devoted to child molesters on parole is enormous. They must be doing something to get stuck with that label. 2297. Shannon - 6/6/2001 10:59:02 PM But couldn't there have been just as many 20 years ago, and they just weren't in the paper? That never used to be published. 2298. joezan - 6/6/2001 11:31:26 PM Our 9 y.o. daughter has been giving hints lately that she is thinking she may be a "goodie-goodie" - asks us why she never gets grounded or punished in other ways, etc. These are fairly frequent events for her small group of neighborhood friends, so it's not a mystery where this is coming from. Anyway, we just tell her that we have never had reason enough to punish her, at least not since she was 3 or 4. She will usually then tell us about something one of her friends has done and been punished for, and my wife and I always laugh about it later, because it is usually something we would consider pretty trivial if our daughter did it - like swearing, or leaving a coat on the bus or something like that -but to her, it's always a very big deal. We thank God that all her friends have strict parents. It's something you never give much thought to, I think, unless your kid's parents are abusive or too permissive. But it has definitely made our job easier. 2299. joezan - 6/6/2001 11:31:56 PM In the house, I tell her that she is grounded for the rest of the night and all of tomorrow. She goes into her room and closes the door. About an hour later, I realize I haven't heard a sound from her room - not even her TV. So I go in to check, and she's reading Goosebumps. I sit down to explain that I am not punishing her for arguing with her friends, but for throwing the ball. She says she knows, and apologizes. 2300. joezan - 6/6/2001 11:35:04 PM Correction: 2301. LimeGirl - 6/7/2001 11:45:57 AM That's cute, joezan! The girls have, a couple of times, asked me: "if I did this thing, would I get grounded?" I haven't had a need yet. 2302. joezan - 6/7/2001 11:40:00 PM Lime: 2303. Adrianne - 6/8/2001 11:10:04 AM Good for the CRC! 2304. CalGal - 6/8/2001 12:32:43 PM Hey, that's awesome!!! 2305. Adrianne - 6/8/2001 12:34:00 PM 2306. CalGal - 6/8/2001 12:35:54 PM Has there been any other coverage of it? I haven't seen any articles on it yet. 2307. Adrianne - 6/8/2001 12:41:02 PM 2308. debby - 6/8/2001 12:41:45 PM Adrianne, Calgal come on over to careers and talk me down off the ledge pleeeease. Oh, and is eastern time GMT +5 or +7? Isn't GMT the time London is on? 2309. CalGal - 6/8/2001 12:57:12 PM Hey, Debby--I left you an answer. I think eastern is -5. PDT is -8. 2310. CalGal - 6/8/2001 1:12:51 PM So it turns out my client would like me to stay and work the weekend in KC. It is not my weekend with Spawn, but we were originally planning on hanging out for a bit since he was with his dad on "my" days (Wednesday and Thursday) due to my being out of town. 2311. CalGal - 6/8/2001 1:14:42 PM I call Spawn, who is a bit cranky at my not being home, but mainly because he wanted to hang out at the apartment. I told him he still could, if he wanted to, with regular check ins. No problem. Then I mentioned that I was planning on bringing him out the next time I came here. 2312. debby - 6/8/2001 1:21:26 PM So what are the chances of ex changing his mind again in the next five minutes? 2313. labwabbit - 6/8/2001 1:31:23 PM I think lots of parents today are far too protective, and it never seems to occur to them that there's possible harm in doing so... 2314. CalGal - 6/8/2001 1:38:50 PM Debby, 2315. Jamie R - 6/8/2001 1:46:07 PM Does he really say "what kind of a mother are you?" I didn't know people really talked like that. 2316. debby - 6/8/2001 2:01:06 PM the consort is getting a bit too damn complacent about me picking up the slack while he's gone, but it does all come back to money, it is his job, it does pay stupendously, he is working from home most of the time. This particular trip timing is a bitch - its the last 2 weeks of school, the little guy is dangling by a thread with his english grade and the consort being gone means all effective homework threatening and cajoling does not get started til after 9 pm. He's with my sister and her 5 kids until I pick him up at 9 and there is only so much homework enforecement she can do. 2317. CalGal - 6/8/2001 2:09:37 PM Jamie, 2318. CalGal - 6/8/2001 2:11:44 PM Debby, 2319. Shannon - 6/8/2001 2:22:53 PM Labwabbit, I never said it was easy. But you know, life has risks. And frankly, most of the risks that parents worry about are miniscule. I've never once heard a parent say, for example, that they're going to avoid having their kids in cars because it's worth anything to minimize the possibility of their kid being in an accident. But I've heard plenty of people say they won't let their kids do certain things alone--walk to friends' houses or to school, things like that--because it's worth anything to prevent them being kidnapped. More often, I hear people say that there's no possible reason NOT to hover over their kids. But kids need independence. It's rarely appropriate to give them as much as they want, but they need some. And fear does have a price. Now, sometimes, the price is worth it. But it's something that should be considered. 2320. debby - 6/8/2001 2:29:09 PM Well, we met with the school last semester, started emailing the teachers regularly, were able to track the homework very effectively, and he pulled his grades waaay up - went from an F to a B+ in science. Then everyone, us, the teachers, him got a bit lax this semester and I just found out last week that he is almost flunking English and school ends in 2 weeks so he doesn't have much time to pull his grades up. A friend of his is doing the Sylvan thing here and I'm monitoring his progress from afar to see if its worth it, so far the little guys grades are still a lot better than the expensively tutored friends', I think this semester will tell us if we should go that route or not. 2321. CalGal - 6/8/2001 3:08:08 PM I get so furious when teachers can't take the time to say, "BTW, your kid is getting a D in English." 2322. labwabbit - 6/8/2001 9:45:15 PM PP Message # 2249 2323. ycmeehan - 6/10/2001 1:51:16 PM In my last school the teacher does not have to take the time to say, "BTW, your kid is getting a D in English", anymore. It takes too long to call the parent who might not be at home or at work but no time at all to E-mail a progress report or even a grade spreadsheet report weekly. If no answer and parent help are available quickly, the teacher is required to engage school help: guidance counsellors, principal and assistants, and other teachers. 2324. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 6:21:01 PM So many tales to tell and so little time. 2325. joezan - 6/10/2001 11:52:45 PM Just a funny story: 2328. labwabbit - 6/12/2001 12:07:21 PM - 2329. PsychProf - 6/12/2001 12:08:59 PM I guess he had to dash somwhere. 2330. labwabbit - 6/12/2001 1:14:57 PM Ha! 2331. joezan - 6/12/2001 10:54:18 PM 2332. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 10:56:25 PM If that is your parents backyard, joezan, it's beautiful...kids are cute, too! 2333. joezan - 6/12/2001 10:59:10 PM Yes, it is, and thank you, Judith. 2334. joezan - 6/12/2001 11:10:16 PM 2335. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 11:14:45 PM jozan: 2336. joezan - 6/12/2001 11:37:32 PM 2337. HollyW - 6/12/2001 11:41:31 PM I love that kiss photo, Joe. You've got a beautiful child. 2338. joezan - 6/12/2001 11:43:36 PM Thanks, Holly. 2339. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2001 11:45:10 PM Okay, joe...one melted heart here. If you wanna send her to Texas for awhile, she's got a home. 2340. joezan - 6/12/2001 11:48:56 PM Hmmmmnnnn....(rubbing chin) 2341. HollyW - 6/12/2001 11:56:25 PM I've been thinking about posting pics, since my progeny is so heart-stoppingly beautiful too, but none exist on the web. I'd have to get that all set up, and as I've said elsewhere, since my computer knowledge is summed up with "I can turn it on and off" it seems like a daunting task. 2342. Shannon - 6/12/2001 11:59:36 PM I need to scan some pics. I have a webpage, but it hasn't been updated in a while. 2343. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 12:01:01 AM Where is your web page, Shannon? Don't mean to pry.... 2344. Frankster - 6/13/2001 12:02:11 AM Holly!!! Swo-o-o-o-o-o-o-on 2345. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 12:03:04 AM Franque: 2346. joezan - 6/13/2001 12:08:25 AM Holly: 2347. joezan - 6/13/2001 12:09:08 AM Ooops... 2348. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:22:40 AM Joe, it's defnitely on our toy wish list. 2349. JudithAtHome - 6/13/2001 12:28:15 AM Shannon...great shots! Keoni agreed with me: terrific kids and great looking family you guys make! 2350. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:31:52 AM Thanks Judith and Keoni. 2351. joezan - 6/13/2001 12:32:52 AM Beautiful family, Shannon! 2352. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:36:09 AM I may very well get hubby one for his birthday, which is in September. He's mentioned a few times that he'd like on. I take most of the pictures now, but a digital would probably get him taking more. The geek factor and all that. 2353. CalGal - 6/13/2001 12:38:01 AM Great pics. Your husband and you both look much like I expected. The kids, of course, are adorable. 2354. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:43:46 AM Thanks. I guess I'm not mysterious like Holly, then. Oh well. 2355. CalGal - 6/13/2001 12:46:49 AM True. Also, if you get something that you really enjoy, you can take it over once he decides that, by golly, he needs something geekier. 2356. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:50:07 AM Yep. I've been joking for years about the selfish gifts he's given me. Started with the birthday TV. Then a bed one Christmas. The ultimate was the new phone, which I felt no need for, and truthfully, I liked the old one better--that was Christmas, and he also gave jewelry, so it was OK. 2357. joezan - 6/13/2001 12:51:03 AM Definitely - it's the tinkering that got me. 2358. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:53:37 AM Hmmm, and if the kid takes a dozen pictures when you turn your back, no big deal. 2359. CalGal - 6/13/2001 12:54:15 AM That's funny. My ex and I never did that to each other, happily. I always got terrific gifts, as did he. We spent far too much money, of course. 2360. Shannon - 6/13/2001 12:57:43 AM Dracula and chess? Sounds intriguing. 2361. arkymalarky - 6/13/2001 12:01:40 PM Love the pictures! Nice website, Shannon. 2362. Jennifer A. - 6/13/2001 3:29:08 PM Hmmm...we have digital pictures, taken by other people with their digital cameras and a website (which I've never actually looked at) without baby pictures on it and a scanner that's still in storage after the last rushed bit of remodeling before the baby came. We do have two film camera and have taken all of one roll of pictures of him in the three months since the baby was born. Bad parents! 2363. CalGal - 6/13/2001 3:31:51 PM Scanners are cool for documents and old pictures, but digital is wonderful. Spawn takes little movie pictures with it--like 16 seconds or so. 2365. joezan - 6/13/2001 11:30:13 PM Test 2366. joezan - 6/13/2001 11:32:49 PM Well, this is certainly weird. 2367. Shannon - 6/13/2001 11:35:26 PM That was very weird. 2368. joezan - 6/13/2001 11:37:09 PM You saw it, right? 2369. joezan - 6/13/2001 11:39:18 PM ...this, of course, immediately after I posted in Tech that I was not having any of the problems that've been reported. 2370. Shannon - 6/13/2001 11:40:22 PM No, it definitely said JenniferA. And I had the #2363 of 2364 thing too. Didn't notice the # on the front page, but I imagine it was 2364. 2371. Jennifer A. - 6/13/2001 11:43:54 PM I did it. I didn't mean to. I somehow hit "Post" instead of "Home", I think. Something like that, anyway. I was going to post an apology, but since there wasn't an actual blank post, I didn't. Sorry. 2372. Shannon - 6/13/2001 11:46:21 PM Oh, OK. No need to apologize. I'm just glad that little mystery is solved. 2373. CalGal - 6/13/2001 11:54:50 PM Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't allow a blank post. But in a perfect world my son's tennis teacher would be giving me a foot rub right now and instead that particularly perfect specimen is probably studying for his last final. 2374. Jennifer A. - 6/14/2001 12:01:09 AM Well, at the other place you get an error message if you accidently try to post a blank post. 2375. CalGal - 6/14/2001 12:12:15 AM Well, I only considered it in passing. I was just taken aback. Really, really gorgeous men always distract me--I always start to wonder if maybe this one will be the exception to the rule and have a personality. 2376. Jennifer A. - 6/14/2001 12:14:15 AM Summer is the season for distraction. 2377. elzbieta - 6/14/2001 10:14:08 AM Cal, 2378. christipeters - 6/14/2001 10:20:50 AM Well, my daughter is undoubtedly spending an uncomfortable day today. I let her go out swimming with a friend yesterday afternoon. 2379. elzbieta - 6/14/2001 10:28:33 AM CG - never mind, found it. Email sent. 2380. CalGal - 6/14/2001 10:32:15 AM Elz--I just sent you an email; if you get it, can you resend to that address? I am doing five things at once and may forget to check yahoo. 2381. christipeters - 6/14/2001 10:59:33 AM I've tried the hat, but not the t-shirt. She usually loses the hats. She is at the point of being fashion conscious, so maybe a swimsuit cover-up rather than a t-shirt would help. 2382. christipeters - 6/14/2001 11:00:03 AM goota run 2383. CalGal - 6/14/2001 11:02:36 AM Oh, I mean the teeshirt in the water, too. As for fashion, a swim coverup is good, but sometimes just a nice loose teeshirt with a logo she approves of does the job. 2384. iiibbb - 6/14/2001 11:04:50 AM I lifeguarded for 7 years. Bullfrog sunblock is the most waterproof stuff I know of (short of zinc oxide). Usually sunblock doesn't fair well in water, even when it says it won't wash off. 2385. elzbieta - 6/14/2001 5:31:05 PM Cal - 2386. Shannon - 6/15/2001 12:38:48 PM On Tuesday, when I picked my son up at day camp, they told me that they'd had some problems with him not listening and such. Also said he'd always been very well-behaved before; no problems until that day. Wednesday he was apparently not allowed to swim because of misbehavior. Yesterday was better, he says. And he did swim. Then last night as I'm tucking him in he said "I was good, so I got to swim." I said yes, and I was glad. Then he said "I didn't do anything bad and they didn't catch me." 2387. debby - 6/15/2001 12:39:49 PM cal re: the tennis coach. My old therapist ended up marrying her son's tennis coach, he was roughly half her age, she was one the most content therapists I have ever met. 2388. PsychProf - 6/15/2001 1:07:53 PM Shannon...""I didn't do anything bad 2389. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 1:32:54 PM Any of you ever read uncle shelby's ABZ book... remember the entry about Pinnochio? 2390. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 1:36:41 PM There's a book in print a little different from this reprint from playboy, but just as devious 2391. LimeGirl - 6/15/2001 1:38:18 PM "I didn't do anything bad and they didn't catch me." 2392. CalGal - 6/15/2001 1:50:17 PM That is adorable, Shannon. Do you think he really is misbehaving more, or have they just started to notice? 2393. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 2:27:50 PM found it 'N' is for nose 2394. Shannon - 6/15/2001 2:34:20 PM I don't know if he's misbehaving more. It's possible--he's in his 3rd week there, so he may have been a little subdued at first being in a new place and not having friends to conspire with. OTOH, the counselors may very well be a little more lax at the beginning too, figuring the kids need time to settle in or whatever. 2395. christipeters - 6/15/2001 2:39:48 PM When LD was in 1st grade, I graduated and we moved for me to take my present job in the middle of the school year. The move was very hard on LD. The first day her teacher told me that LD had been misbehaving in class (talking too much), I grinned and said "thank god!" Then I had to explain to the startled teacher that LD's modus operendi when upset is to be very very quiet and very very good. So this meant that she had adjusted to the move. 2396. Shannon - 6/15/2001 11:48:47 PM I don't know if he's behaving or getting really good at not getting caught, but he got Camper of the Day today. 2397. jexster - 6/16/2001 3:18:44 PM Kids of Gays More Empathetic 2398. CalGal - 6/16/2001 4:10:36 PM Um, Jex? I don't think you read that article very closely. 2399. wabbit - 6/17/2001 9:19:41 AM Happy Father's Day! 2400. jexster - 6/18/2001 9:17:16 PM I read every word Cal. The study's finding that kids with gay parents are more gender tolerant i.e. less likely to engage in felony or misdemeanor bitch beating or to descriminate against women is consistent with a long line of similar findings as the article reports. 2401. CalGal - 6/18/2001 9:34:41 PM Well, you might not care, but there will be plenty of people who decide this means they were right. So politically, it sucks. 2402. CalGal - 6/18/2001 9:35:25 PM Don't get me wrong, mind you--I realize that the people who decide this are those who think you can be "made" gay. They're morons. But unfortunately, there are a lot of them. 2403. CalGal - 6/20/2001 4:19:14 PM 2404. Jenerator - 6/20/2001 7:19:06 PM I'm not marginalizing the woman and I think she's a complete psychopath. 2405. arkymalarky - 6/20/2001 7:59:59 PM Where have I heard that's what happens to pedophiles and child murderers in the pen? 2406. CalGal - 6/21/2001 11:38:00 AM Yes, that is what happens to pedophiles and child murderers. Yet I haven't ever heard someone console themselves with that--yeah, he molested and killed five kids, but it's okay. He'll have a rough time in prison. 2407. racehorse - 6/21/2001 12:08:47 PM I just think it's terribly sad. I'm in favor of harsh penalties for this woman, but the most awful thing about this is, the harsh penalties are not likely to stop other women from doing this sort of thing. 2408. christipeters - 6/21/2001 12:12:53 PM I understand she did try to kill herself. At first, when they said she had had post-partum depression for 2 years, my reaction was 'WTF?! Who has post-partum depression for TWO YEARS?!' Then I heard the 5 kids were 6 months to 7 years. Shit! the woman has practically been pregnant and/or post-partum for 7 years! 2409. CalGal - 6/21/2001 12:16:55 PM In the first place, I don't know that this is true. Sick fucks like this are usually narcissists and sympathy whores, and if society responded to news like this with calls to stone the bitch into a pulp, it might make them come up with a different means of getting attention. 2410. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 12:33:13 PM CalGal, 2411. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 12:35:19 PM I have no idea what it would be like to lose all of my children and my spouse in the blink of an eye, so I can only speculate what the husband of the Houston woman is going through. 2412. racehorse - 6/21/2001 12:46:41 PM I agree that this woman belongs off the street as long as possible, or at least as long as she is fertile. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be better interventions for women who suffer from this type of depression. 2413. christipeters - 6/21/2001 12:50:26 PM Jen - Even if the husband wasn't physically a part of the actual murders, he certainly played some part in her having 5 kids in 7 years. He certainly played a part in not providing help for her - both in leaving a woman he knew was mentally ill home alone with 5 kids and in not being more aggressive about her health care. Being aggressive with a doctor about whether or not meds are working is not something a severely depressed person is capable of doing. If the doctor is dropping the ball, family or friends need to step in, because the patient can't. 2414. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 1:03:46 PM Christi, 2415. CalGal - 6/21/2001 1:32:03 PM I agree with Christi about that being a possibility about the dad, which would better explain his "love and support" for his wife--fear that she might turn on him and pulls him down with her. If she ever once said she wanted to kill the kids to him, he's in trouble. 2416. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 1:33:00 PM Anything's possible. 2417. CalGal - 6/21/2001 1:33:35 PM I agree that this woman belongs off the street as long as possible, or at least as long as she is fertile. 2418. CalGal - 6/21/2001 1:34:00 PM it's nearly as deserving of punishment 2419. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 1:35:04 PM I say equal punishment. I'm in support of the death penalty as you know... 2420. racehorse - 6/21/2001 1:36:38 PM Please don't put words in my mouth: I certainly do this this terrible crime is deserving of punishment. 2421. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 1:46:31 PM I wouldn't bat an eye if they executed her tomorrow, myself. 2422. CalGal - 6/21/2001 1:48:09 PM I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm disgusted at the coverage in general, not you per se, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. 2423. CalGal - 6/21/2001 1:50:45 PM That story is just sad. Why weren't the cops called the first time she tried to kill him, and why wasn't she put in jail for that? 2424. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 1:54:29 PM Regarding mental illness, it is a crime and a tragedy that people are so fearful of it that they don't seek more aggressive help for mentally ill loved ones. There comes a point when some mentally ill people are completely psychotic and cannot act rationally, and it would be better for them, their families, and society for them to be openly and aggressively dealt with and their psychosis or severe illness acknowledged. 2425. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 2:01:06 PM "That story is just sad. Why weren't the cops called the first time she tried to kill him, and why wasn't she put in jail for that?" 2426. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 2:01:44 PM I blame the husband for letting her get pregnant again while on meds for post partum depression...what does this guy need? You don't solve a depression with more of what is causing it. 2427. christipeters - 6/21/2001 2:02:34 PM "....the father's discussion of his "two tragedies" and the news media's sympathy for him just made me want to vomit." 2428. PsychProf - 6/21/2001 2:08:16 PM A link between PostP Depression and the calculated and orderly murder of five children is unestablished at any level. 2429. christipeters - 6/21/2001 2:23:51 PM PP - This is true. While the media has mentioned in every report (that I've seen) that she was suffering from post-partum depression and on medication for same, that does not in any way establish that as the (or a) causal factor in this case. 2430. PsychProf - 6/21/2001 2:34:20 PM Mental Illness as "spin". 2431. CalGal - 6/21/2001 2:34:35 PM I blame the husband for letting her get pregnant again while on meds for post partum depression. 2432. CalGal - 6/21/2001 2:35:54 PM Incidentally, the kid wasn't the boyfriend's. Not that it makes any difference, mind you--even if he was deserting his kid it'd be a whole lot better than killing him. But just to make the blame even more bizarre. 2433. CalGal - 6/21/2001 2:37:19 PM It makes me about as angry that he was allowed to suffer his mother's inexplicable hatred and abuse of him for four years as the murder itself. 2434. iiibbb - 6/21/2001 3:21:38 PM Blame the husband? 2435. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 3:32:10 PM I never said I didn't blame her for murdering her 5 children; however, had he not, with her, created a fifth, at least that one infant would've been spared what I am sure was an agonizing death. Surely you know people who think a "baby" is the answer to everything... 2436. Frankster - 6/21/2001 3:42:05 PM I say make her suffer. Allowing the state to put her to death makes for a nice tidy wrap up of the whole thing. Place her in a cell with pictures of her children, and a looping video of her children hitting a pinata 24 hours a day. 2437. PsychProf - 6/21/2001 4:15:22 PM 2438. CalGal - 6/21/2001 4:56:42 PM Judith, 2439. CalGal - 6/21/2001 4:57:27 PM And the notion that he bears any responsibility for "getting her" pregnant is just silly. 2440. ilyavinarsky - 6/21/2001 4:58:14 PM This story makes me angry. 2441. christipeters - 6/21/2001 5:08:43 PM "And the notion that he bears any responsibility for "getting her" pregnant is just silly" 2442. CalGal - 6/21/2001 5:11:32 PM Judith is holding him responsible for the sin of "should have known better". That's what I am dismissing. Obviously they both participated in the pregnancy--although the decision to have the child is always ultimately the mother's. 2443. CalGal - 6/21/2001 5:12:40 PM However, the real problem with Judith's whole argument is that it's fucking ludicrous to think that this can all be boiled down to "Well, if she'd just stopped at four none of this would have happened." 2444. ElliottRW - 6/21/2001 5:13:22 PM Interesting link, PP This case shows the awful things that people can do. The question naturally turns to what society should do to prevent these sorts of things. Our society's consistent moral position is to let people make mistakes and face the consequences according to the law. Not that we don't try prevention, it's just that we are extremely reluctant to use measures that curtail freedom. We use punishment because it keeps us free. So I ask the question: is there any way to prevent this sort of tragedy without an unacceptable loss of liberty? If not, then we have to punish this woman, insane or not. If we are going to rely on consequences, then we have to make the consequences as effective as possible. That said, I think making other people suffer just because it makes us feel good is a bad idea. 2445. CalGal - 6/21/2001 5:18:34 PM That said, I think making other people suffer just because it makes us feel good is a bad idea. 2446. ElliottRW - 6/21/2001 5:23:55 PM CalGal -- I'm consistent in this regard. I ducked out the McVeigh discussion. 2447. PsychProf - 6/21/2001 5:25:57 PM She was prescribed ZOLOFT(ANTIDEPRESSANT) and HALDOL(ANTIPSYCHOTIC) 2448. CalGal - 6/21/2001 5:27:49 PM Well, you're not consistent at all then, since you aren't ducking out of this one. Would you have popped into a conversation about McVeigh and said it was wrong to make him suffer just to make us feel good? If not, the very fact that you feel comfortable in saying it about this woman suggests exactly the sort of skew that makes me snarl. 2449. ElliottRW - 6/21/2001 5:33:07 PM You're overreacting, CalGal. I ducked out of the McVeigh conversation because I was late for it and thought I had nothing to add. 2450. CalGal - 6/21/2001 5:39:20 PM No, I'm not overreacting. I'm not snapping at you, I'm pointing out that you aren't as consistent as you claim. 2451. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 6:04:19 PM McVeigh was executed, he deserved it. 2452. ElliottRW - 6/21/2001 6:07:49 PM Do you announce that it's wrong to make McVeigh suffer just to make us feel better? When I say "consistent" I mean my mind hasn't changed. Moreover, since I am an honest person, it means that I don't say anything that contradicts my belief. Your idea of "consistent" means something else, something about always speaking up. In that regard, yes, I am quite selective of the circumstances under which I divulge this particular belief. I'm not always itching for a fight, particularly if I think it's fruitless or redundant. 2453. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 6:09:47 PM No, I'm not overreacting 2454. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 6:12:13 PM From an initial glance, it looks as though the husband was an enabler. If she was clearly becoming a threat to herself and her children, his silence is damning. 2455. CalGal - 6/21/2001 6:13:19 PM So you do believe that is wrong to make McVeigh suffer just to make people feel better? 2456. CalGal - 6/21/2001 6:16:10 PM I said at least one infant would've been spared. 2457. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 6:21:41 PM I would bet that more people have an opinion regarding McVeigh than they do this woman. I agree with Elliot in that there are times and places to express ones self. 2458. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 6:22:07 PM Cal, get a grip...and don't go chasing down any posts on McVeigh if you are going to interpret them as goofily as you are doing with this issue. 2459. ElliottRW - 6/21/2001 6:22:15 PM Hmm, CalGal, then you really are overreacting. My inconsistency has nothing to do with the gender of the offenders, but rather the thread in which they were discussed. I feel "safe" (as you put it) in Parenting. I have been consistently ignored in Politics so I only post there under special circumstances. If McVeigh had been discussed in, say the Slow Thread, I might very well have spoken up. 2460. CalGal - 6/21/2001 6:22:39 PM I would bet that more people have an opinion regarding McVeigh than they do this woman. 2461. Jenerator - 6/21/2001 6:27:26 PM So, Cal, sometimes social etiquette calls for keeping one's mouth shut on hot topics. I completely understand Elliot's rationale for not being as vocal on some subjects versus others. Duh! 2462. CalGal - 6/21/2001 6:34:07 PM Elliot, 2463. CalGal - 6/21/2001 6:34:51 PM Jenerator, 2464. Ms. No - 6/21/2001 6:43:10 PM CG, 2465. CalGal - 6/21/2001 7:04:20 PM It is not that I hold the father blameless; I've said as much. Any father whose day 2 reaction on losing five kids is "I still support my wife" is a scum. 2466. CalGal - 6/21/2001 7:30:54 PM Time interview with a psychiatrist: 2467. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 7:32:22 PM Cal, there's really no need to waste sarcasm on me...I do understand you perfectly and don't take what you've said personally. I realize you respond the way you do for a specific reason and I'm fine with it. 2468. CalGal - 6/21/2001 7:34:04 PM Waste sarcasm? I wouldn't think of it. It is a precious resource, never to be squandered. 2469. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 7:35:39 PM I trust you to mete it out in thrifty portions, then... 2470. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 8:49:10 PM A terrible incident occurred in AR where the father of a two-year-old, with no sense of anger and evidently completely unaware of his surroundings, took the child and beat it, took it outside, holding it by its feet and bashed its head on the sidewalk and was slinging it around. By that point, of course, the baby was already dead. People in the neighborhood rushed to stop him as soon as they saw what was happening, and the police when interviewed were visibly shaken discussing their entry on the scene, trying to take the dead baby, etc. 2471. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 8:49:31 PM On another side note, I'd like PP's input on this, but my personal feeling, partly due to a tragic suicide I'm personally familiar with, is that too many GPs are treating people for depression and anxiety that have reached serious levels rather than sending them on to people trained to treat them and adjust their medication. 2472. PsychProf - 6/21/2001 9:10:29 PM Seems to be the case, Arky. Quick and easy, that's what 2473. PsychProf - 6/21/2001 9:16:16 PM Arky...HALCION? 2474. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 9:21:06 PM PP, 2475. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 9:30:44 PM Yeah, that's it, PP. 2476. CalGal - 6/21/2001 9:55:53 PM Actually, most insurance plans don't even allow more than a minimal amount of therapy these days, and most people won't pay for it themselves. 2477. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 10:12:41 PM But if she was only depressed and potentially suicidal? I don't think it is denial or irresponsibility to not anticipate murder. 2478. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 10:14:16 PM Incredulity--that's the word I want. 2479. CalGal - 6/21/2001 10:19:31 PM His reaction disturbs me, too. Well, a stronger word is more appropriate for a fucker who whines about how much support his wife needs and gives barely a passing thought to his kids. Maybe he'll snap out of it. 2480. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 10:44:55 PM If "experts" just take for granted this was a case of severe mental illness, it still doesn't resolve anything about prevention. The man who bashed his baby's brains on the sidewalk in front of the whole neighborhood was disturbed and he's got to be put away, but why did it go that far first? 2481. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 10:46:35 PM It's true that the mentally ill, including schizophrenics, and even paranoid schizophrenics, rarely commit violent acts, but when they do it's generally in the context of their delusions. It seems that people who know of their conditions ought to have more power to deal with them before people get hurt. Same goes for any type of severe mental illness, including depression, if it becomes accompanied by delusions. 2482. CalGal - 6/21/2001 11:14:56 PM I still think that there are far too many people who bring up the "why" for a mother when they wouldn't care in any other case. 2483. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 11:19:09 PM Cal, I regret EVER using the words "I blame the husband" because you've latched onto those words and might think I actually blame the husband for the childrens deaths which I do not. I blamed him for the fifth pregnancy...and yes, I know she was complicit and equally to blame in that...but I blame NO ONE but the mother in the deaths of the five children. 2484. JudithAtHome - 6/21/2001 11:20:55 PM And I have stated more times than seems healthy that I hope she gets the death penalty and, if I believed in a hell, I would surely hope she went straight there. 2485. Frankster - 6/21/2001 11:31:46 PM Hell would be spending the rest of her life in a small cell lined with large glossy pictures of each of her children. That, and leaving her unsupervised during recreation breaks. The other women prisoners with her will just "love" to hear her side of the story. 2486. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 11:35:18 PM "I still think that there are far too many people who bring up the "why" for a mother when they wouldn't care in any other case." 2487. CalGal - 6/21/2001 11:40:46 PM Judith, in the first place, I was aiming that comment at anyone who brings up the father, not just you. It's not like the "gosh, couldn't he have used a condom?" line is unique, particularly in your set. Hell, go to MWT in TT and find the legions blaming the dad. 2488. joezan - 6/21/2001 11:47:08 PM It's because women are the gentler sex, Cal. Deal with it. 2489. CalGal - 6/21/2001 11:50:12 PM The caring, just as in any situation (kids shooting up a school, serial killers, the Unabomber, on and on), comes from the question of whether the children could have been saved had others around the woman acted differently. 2490. CalGal - 6/21/2001 11:51:32 PM Right, Joe. A gentler sex that is more likely to kill their kids. Right. 2491. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 11:56:14 PM I don't understand why, though the mother is responsible for her actions to the point that she should bear the extent of the punishment--even death, especially considering it's Texas, the dad isn't seen as at least worthy of some degree of suspicion. It's not all one way or another here. 2492. arkymalarky - 6/21/2001 11:57:57 PM You don't read or hear of people thinking that a pedophile or a serial killer should be "helped". 2493. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 12:01:36 AM My '92 is before reading the last of your post, Cal, but it's a general statement, too. The whole point of any introspection on this is why don't people do what they can to stop this shit before it happens. No one should pity this woman now, aside from the fact that she's a human and some pity the human condition in and of itself. I don't know that it's possible with a McVeigh, since he revealed himself to so few, but at least one got the pen for it, and as he should have, imo. 2494. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 12:03:06 AM I don't think I need to read whatever's being posted in TT. It'd probably just get my blood pressure up. 2495. joezan - 6/22/2001 12:05:13 AM Well Cal, then enlighten us poor bastards. 2496. HollyW - 6/22/2001 12:14:59 AM Ever since I heard about this, last night at work, I've felt sick about it. Stories like this are sickening anyway, but ever since I had my own kid, I have zero tolerance for them, they tear me up. 2497. Frankster - 6/22/2001 12:23:16 AM Holly, 2498. joezan - 6/22/2001 12:25:42 AM Holly: 2499. HollyW - 6/22/2001 12:31:46 AM My husband, who is in newspapers, gets to read the AP wire all the time, and told me that he read today something to the effect that she had been having problems since the FIRST child was born, about six years ago, and that she had been hearing voices. (Well, she was on Haldol, and that is an antipsychotic.) 2500. HollyW - 6/22/2001 12:32:17 AM Joe, 2501. CalGal - 6/22/2001 12:41:29 AM Who's talking about help besides you? 2502. joezan - 6/22/2001 12:41:59 AM Speaking of AP, I was just at their site using their search feature to look up a story I read yesterday. The article is right in front of me, and deals with a Detroit woman who, after giving birth to her 13th child (never married, nine kids taken away, 4, including the last [which died], found with traces of cocaine at birth, etc, etc..) was approached by this group called CRACK, which offered her a free tubal ligation and $500 cash. 2503. CalGal - 6/22/2001 12:45:57 AM Frank, 2504. CalGal - 6/22/2001 12:53:23 AM Oh, the ACLU and a host of other organizations get upset at the idea of tying the tubes of crack moms. NOW and others simultaneously wail in protest at any hint that many mothers on welfare are incompetent to care for their kids while complaining that it's unfair to tempt these women into decisions they are suddenly not competent to make. 2505. Åse - 6/22/2001 12:56:36 AM So... You see this? 2506. CalGal - 6/22/2001 1:00:18 AM What, I'm not cranky enough about this already you have to compound it? 2507. Åse - 6/22/2001 1:03:24 AM Heh. 2508. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 1:05:07 AM "I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I'm speaking generally of the coverage of this and other murders like it, as well as the reactions of a lot more people than the folks in this discussion." 2509. joezan - 6/22/2001 1:06:04 AM But where does the ACLU get off thinking they have a nickel in this quarter? 2510. CalGal - 6/22/2001 1:11:13 AM I'm following it so I can rant at the TV. If everyone was screaming "Burn the bitch" I could turn it off in peace, knowing that all was right with the world. 2511. CalGal - 6/22/2001 1:13:58 AM There are any number of groups which offer assistance to women who want abortions - whether they're on their 13th kid or their 1st pregnancy. 2512. Frankster - 6/22/2001 1:26:52 AM Cal, 2513. HollyW - 6/22/2001 2:09:02 AM I am glad I am not the only one haunted by this. I generally refuse to follow such stories, for the same reasons that I avoid the talk shows, but this one has seriously gotten to me. 2514. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:32:56 AM Yes, you were scathing by the HollyW yardstick, but it is at times like this that I regret having been banned, because heaven knows there were people in that thread who badly need beating. 2515. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:36:31 AM Frank, 2516. HollyW - 6/22/2001 2:48:30 AM The willingness of some women to claim kinship with her is just one more thing to be appalled about. 2517. joezan - 6/22/2001 6:44:35 AM Hardly relevant, since abortions and sterilization aren't the same thing. 2518. ElliottRW - 6/22/2001 9:18:33 AM Yet [Dahmer, etc.] were just as deserving of pity or help as this monster is. I basically agree with this statement. This particular murderer (What's her name?) is no more deserving of our pity than any other murderer. I also agree that the media tends to give more attention to female and child murderers; people find that sort of thing interesting. Where I differ with, golly, probably everyone here, is that I think these murderers really do deserve our pity, and that they don't deserve to be treated cruelly. Lest I seem inconsistent, I will note that pitying someone is different from excusing their behavior, or letting them "off the hook." I believe in trying to rehabilitate people, but I recognize that there may be no treatment for some, and for some the proper treatment may be punishment. 2519. pogie - 6/22/2001 9:27:13 AM I don't believe in the death penalty, but on occasion I wish there could be exceptions to that cruel and unusual punishment provision. 2520. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 9:31:58 AM It's not like the "gosh, couldn't he have used a condom?" line is unique, particularly in your set. 2521. Wombat - 6/22/2001 10:01:54 AM I must admit to being a little dismayed by the attitudes here. It is not like the woman cold-bloodedly killed her children for insurance money, or because her boyfriend/husband was going to leave her if she didn't "do something" about them. She didn't even kill them and then attempt to lie about it as in another famous case. 2522. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:05:01 AM Wombat 2523. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:12:01 AM Moreover, the rush to hash over her plight and thus recast her as a victim, along with the father's impromptu press conference after losing 5 children at her hands, is kind of gross. I don't pretend to know how to respond after such a tragedy, so I cut the father a great deal of slack, but the full-fledged media sensation and the opining of the professional excusers (see Salon today) can bring the pot to boil. 2524. Wombat - 6/22/2001 10:13:26 AM FU: 2525. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:18:39 AM Where I differ with, golly, probably everyone here, is that I think these murderers really do deserve our pity, and that they don't deserve to be treated cruelly. 2526. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:20:58 AM Wombat 2527. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2001 10:22:19 AM Along with the father's impromptu press conference after losing 5 children at her hands, is kind of gross. I don't pretend to know how to respond after such a tragedy, so I cut the father a great deal of slack... 2528. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:23:32 AM Wombat, 2529. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:25:01 AM Indy 2530. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2001 10:28:22 AM FU: I agree. My own reaction went through all the stages you're describing. The media should just stay out of people's faces when crap like this happens. No matter how many times they're ripped for it, though, they still do it. 2531. Wombat - 6/22/2001 10:29:08 AM I don't think any of us could conceive of circumstances in which we would deliberately kill our children. Barring evidence of premeditation, killing your own children is almost by definition an insane act. 2532. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:29:28 AM Indiana 2533. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2001 10:32:13 AM Hah. If Stone turns out to be right about that, he'll have more bragging rights than any problems he's caused TT. 2534. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:34:31 AM I would be amazed--by the way--if this case makes it to a jury trial. 2535. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:35:44 AM Wombat 2536. ElliottRW - 6/22/2001 10:36:36 AM But that's not the point, Elliot. 2537. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 10:37:57 AM This woman chased her seven year old around the house for some time. He knew what had happened and was trying to escape. 2538. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:38:17 AM The father had no mandate to placate the media. It was his choice to stand out in front of them, clutching a picture of his family and explain how he's bummed about his kids, but by golly he still supports his wife. He hadn't even gone and formally identified his children's bodies, but by god, he had time for that press conference. 2539. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:38:49 AM Juditha 2540. Wombat - 6/22/2001 10:38:56 AM CalGal: 2541. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:39:47 AM Cal 2542. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 10:40:05 AM Oh, sorry...I'm not keeping up with it, evidently. 2543. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:40:46 AM I think the lkening of this woman to McVeigh is inapt and clouds Cal's point. 2544. Laura C - 6/22/2001 10:44:20 AM Judith, here's a link. 2545. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:45:21 AM What great, similar barbarity is not, by definition, "insane"? 2546. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:47:31 AM Francis, 2547. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:49:30 AM Cal 2548. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:50:33 AM Dahmer and Gacy work very well. 2549. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:53:36 AM Though Mcveigh works for my pint. 2550. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:55:15 AM I also cannot say that someone who kills her kids for no discernable reason must be a monster and should be put down like a rabid dog. You have no problem with that. 2551. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:57:09 AM Barbarous, unthinkable, what "sane" person would do this? 2552. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 10:58:03 AM pssssst . . . the insanity defense is a shell game. 2553. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:59:09 AM It goes without saying that Wombat wouldn't fuss if the father had killed his family 2554. CalGal - 6/22/2001 11:00:16 AM Francis, 2555. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 11:05:04 AM I think you've stated your position well. 2556. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 11:05:58 AM For a girl. 2557. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 11:08:09 AM Cal said to Wombat, 2558. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 11:08:26 AM I do understand that she was likely in a deep depression and overwhelmed. What I think now, after the fact, is that it's essentially irrelevant what happens to her. Her life is over in every sense but the breathing, and the death penalty for her would probably be a mercy killing. FWIW, I think Jeffrey Dahmer was deranged, McVeigh was not. The end result for them both is not one I personally have a problem with, since both had become threats to society and had taken innocent lives. 2559. Ronski - 6/22/2001 11:15:44 AM On the radio today I heard a call from a woman who 54 years ago suffered from post-partum depresssion, only then they did not have a term for it, and she described in some detail the overwhelming feelings she had and the fantasies she went through about how to kill her baby. Eventually, after about six months, it lifted. It was a chilling account. 2560. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2001 11:20:29 AM arky: That kind solution (institutionalize more people) assumes a certain reasonability the way you explain it, but how practical is it really? 2561. Indiana Jones - 6/22/2001 11:21:14 AM "That kind of solution" 2562. Zojak Quafeth - 6/22/2001 11:36:21 AM pssssst . . . the insanity defense is a shell game 2563. janjon - 6/22/2001 12:06:56 PM oh lord. Fakery. A topic about which frankie has intimate familiarity. 2564. janjon - 6/22/2001 12:12:40 PM I don't intend to sound as dispassionate about all of this as it will sound, when I say that I find this situation to be fascinating. Obviously there is much much more to be learned (maybe some of it is coming out - I haven't been keeping up to the minute), in particular as to how many manifestations were there of the mother's being deeping depressed and disturbed, what types of professional assessments and/or treatments had she undergone. 2565. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 12:14:11 PM "arky: That kind solution (institutionalize more people) assumes a certain reasonability the way you explain it, but how practical is it really?" 2566. glendajean - 6/22/2001 12:20:07 PM The idea of a mother drowning her babies is so bizarre, and so far removed from our image of a mother, that I think people are trying to find some explanation. 2567. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 12:21:30 PM I don't think the Smith woman was insane either. Insanity that would impact a person's responsibility (whether for murder or hanging naked from the flagpole) involves acting in a way that the same individual as a rational adult would not consider. I think Smith would have eliminated her kids at any point without much interest in them if she felt they were in the way. There's plenty of that type of thing that doesn't get publicity, and generally those parents are tried and put in the pen without much attention, at least in AR. 2568. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 12:24:22 PM Please read the above as my subjective, non-expert opinion on what defines insanity, assuming you all haven't already. ;-) 2569. Wombat - 6/22/2001 12:24:49 PM CalGal: 2570. Francis Urquhart - 6/22/2001 12:30:46 PM Wombat 2571. Toenails - 6/22/2001 12:53:01 PM A woman who drowns five children is so patently insane (forget the generally close-minded legal definitions thereof) that it ought to be clear that she needs, TODAY, to be sent to a padded room and left there indefinitely. 2572. janjon - 6/22/2001 12:54:37 PM if the latter turns out to be the case, toenails, you can rest assured that we will be told that this was somehow the "will of God". 2573. janjon - 6/22/2001 12:58:35 PM The insanity defense is a double edged sword, or course. If successful, one is then almost always incarcerated but in a mental institution, not a prison. If a bit of calculation was involved in invoking the defense, one can then hope/plan on being able to show, in due course, that one is cured and therefore safe to release back into society. This sometimes works. This frequently does not. And, it is not at all uncommon to find some insane-but-not-therefore-guilty souls still incarcerated long after they would have been released from a regular prison. 2574. wabbit - 6/22/2001 1:18:47 PM fwiw, from law.com: 2575. Shannon - 6/22/2001 1:47:08 PM A man who knocks up a woman who is suffering from severe depression about already having four children ought to himself be punished for insensitivity in the first degree. 2576. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 1:47:11 PM 2577. CalGal - 6/22/2001 1:56:53 PM Again this notion of blaming the husband for "getting" his wife pregnant. I wish I could say it was bizarre, but it's too common a skew for that. 2578. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 2:02:20 PM Maybe that's because a woman rarely gets pregnant by herself. 2579. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:02:40 PM Wombat, 2580. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:04:26 PM Judith, 2581. Jenerator - 6/22/2001 2:05:38 PM I've enjoyed the investigations into what separates the psychopath from the sociopath. Dahmer being the latter. 2582. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:07:18 PM A psychopath and a sociopath are the same thing, I believe--namely, "outdated" descriptions of what shrinks now refer to as Antisocial Personality Disorder. 2583. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:08:10 PM Bundy is a better example of a pure socio/psychopath, anyway. 2584. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 2:22:11 PM You don't know that. She's a fucking monster. Maybe she'd have killed a stranger's kids. So to blame it all on the fact the she had kids is just perverse. 2585. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:30:15 PM Well, YOU don't know that she would've snapped had she NOT had children...none of us does. 2586. janjon - 6/22/2001 2:32:44 PM mother killing five kids, without any known "rational" reasons (like for money or to please a boy friend who doesn't like kids) = monster is a bit simplistic. In my opinion. 2587. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:34:16 PM You think killing kids for money or to please a boyfriend is rational? Are you insane? That's as far removed from reality as a woman who kills them for no reason at all. 2588. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 2:38:01 PM I don't want to get into what is bizarre and what isn't here...I think your reactions are rather overdone, frankly. Sure, she can be classified as a monster but I don't think she sprang into this world as a full blown monster...things contributed to making her such. 2589. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:38:33 PM My question about your sanity was rhetorical, btw. 2590. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 2:41:30 PM This woman killed her kids because she saw that as a solution to a problem every bit as pressing to her as Susan Smith's "I'll kill the kids so my rich boyfriend will come back" problem was. 2591. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:41:44 PM Sure, she can be classified as a monster but I don't think she sprang into this world as a full blown monster.. 2592. CalGal - 6/22/2001 2:45:38 PM How do you know she didn't have a psychotic break and hear the angel Hugo telling her to do it or seeing them as alien beings who were about to suck her brains out? 2593. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 2:46:28 PM Oh, you mean I'm yoyo because I see a situation where a woman might not be master of her own fate or strong enough to stand up to her husband and say "Hell no I won't have this kid!" and abort it herself? I'm yoyo because I realize not all women are strong and independent? I'm yoyo because I can see a situation where the woman is so worn down by being unable to do anything to help herself except go ahead and let the husband impregnate her and then passively have the kid which he wants? 2594. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 2:48:12 PM I'm sure the District Attorneys office in Houston could use your help, Cal. You seem to have it all figured out... 2595. janjon - 6/22/2001 2:49:16 PM nuance is difficult in "conversations" that are in print. 2596. christipeters - 6/22/2001 3:21:31 PM "It is not like the woman cold-bloodedly killed her children" 2597. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:31:46 PM Judith, 2598. janjon - 6/22/2001 3:33:52 PM Well, I for one think that the only suitable retribution is to reinstitute public stonings. 2599. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 3:35:40 PM It is difficult for me to hold in my mind the images of her actions. 2600. janjon - 6/22/2001 3:37:36 PM yes, they are horrible and they are beyond the plausible/rational. They could only be acts committed by someone terribly ill. 2601. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:40:48 PM try rational as in at least explicable. 2602. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:42:03 PM That at the very least makes her a monster distinguishable from your run of the mill murderer. 2603. janjon - 6/22/2001 3:46:07 PM I don't detect any sexist double standards being expressed here. I know that, for one, my feelings and reactions would be the same had it been the father who had done the killings. 2604. CalGal - 6/22/2001 3:54:23 PM I don't detect any sexist double standards being expressed here. 2605. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 3:57:45 PM I agree with the thoughts in the last post(2604). 2606. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:12:19 PM of course the majority of people will never kill their kids, no matter now depressed etc. 2607. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 4:18:58 PM You don't think Judith's "oh, the father's partly to blame because women aren't always strong enough to say no" isn't a tad sexist? 2608. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:19:03 PM Well JanJon...the act is hers and the explanation is yours. 2609. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:19:07 PM pp - does your agreement mean that you believe that mental incapacity is never sufficient to explain a crime? or is it only the ones that are so heinous that can't be so explained, perhaps because to do so would be to allow an explanation for what should not be explicible, only soundly condemned. 2610. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:20:09 PM Judith...I honestly believe that if a man had done this, nobody would give a fuck about depression. 2611. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:20:57 PM the act is hers and the explanation is mine? What in hell is that little bon mot supposed to mean? 2612. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 4:22:30 PM As a matter of fact, we had a father recently kill his two children in Dallas...he did it while his ex was on the phone so she could hear it. Lots of discussion about depression involved on the local news....but of course, that was only one instance. And it was only 2 kids. 2613. don s. - 6/22/2001 4:24:01 PM Either woman has "kill the kid" on her list of acceptable actions to take and in either case, that is inexplicable. 2614. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:24:42 PM JanJon...since Psychology has such a poor record in predicting this sort of crime, we should equally question Psychological explanation for it. Is it not possible that she simply chose murder over motherhood...it would not be the first time someone has done this. Why is it assumed that self interest is governed by pathology. 2615. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:24:55 PM if a man had done this, I think many people would be even MORE perplexed as to what type of depressive/mental incapacity thing was going on - because the crime would be even MORE inexplicible. If only because there is at least some recognition that conditions like ppdepression can be extremely severe, prolonged, etc. 2616. CalGal - 6/22/2001 4:26:46 PM , why this particular murder becomes inexplicable in any terms other than being done by a mentally ill person. 2617. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:27:08 PM JanJon...it was meant to characterize what has happened. She murdered her children, and you are talking about depression. What amazes me is how quickly she became a victim. 2618. don s. - 6/22/2001 4:31:12 PM Since Psychology has such a poor record in predicting this sort of crime, we should equally question Psychological explanation for it. 2619. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:31:29 PM JanJon...surely you jest. Do you really want to open History Books and determine who was depressed? 2620. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:31:35 PM well, psych prof, I can readily agree with your sentiments that one must tread warily when trying to determine the psychological underpinings (if any, I guess) to the committing of heinous murders. What surprised me was your ready agreement to assertions that go 180 degrees the other way - the mother is a monster, it is her ability to do the act that counts/condemns, nothing else, and that efforts to assess other whys constitute nothing more than efforts to engender sympathy. 2621. don s. - 6/22/2001 4:32:48 PM But that is just as true of a creature who rapes and kills little children. But I never hear of people pinning it on depression run amok … 2622. CalGal - 6/22/2001 4:33:23 PM if a man had done this, I think many people would be even MORE perplexed as to what type of depressive/mental incapacity thing was going on - because the crime would be even MORE inexplicible. 2623. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 4:34:24 PM CalGal: 2624. don s. - 6/22/2001 4:34:33 PM Oddly enough, no one has any trouble with how black and white it is if a stranger does it. It's only when Mommy kills her kids that people start finding shades of grey. 2625. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:36:23 PM JanJon...if scientists cannot predict, they in fact, cannot explain...fundamental empirical technique and logical positivism. This ain't the weather we're talking about here. And....I an not claiming any special professional consideration here...I'm just another Motehead posting his/her opine. 2626. CalGal - 6/22/2001 4:36:51 PM Janjon, 2627. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:37:44 PM who said she's become a victim? Looking for rationales to explain what is inexplicable to most people is not the same thing as saying the perpetrator is a victim. What amazes me is how glibly one can simply equate this particular murderer=monster. 2628. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 4:38:14 PM the reaction of pitying and trying to help this poor, poor woman. 2629. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:39:55 PM no one is trying to drum up pity for this woman. 2630. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:40:03 PM Well, then JanJon, your best case is she was a depressed monster, for surely one has to accurately characterize what she did. 2631. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:41:37 PM Your talk about stones is just plain stupid. 2632. CalGal - 6/22/2001 4:42:08 PM Judith, 2633. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:44:36 PM the fundamental premise that a father committing a crime like this wouldn't have engendered the same kind of how-in-hell-can-this-be-explained reactions is daft. 2634. Åse - 6/22/2001 4:45:46 PM You read the threads in TT you see an awful lot of posters pitying her, grasping for strawlike explanations (oh, fundies, no BC, oppressed by hub, posioned by meds) that there really is no evidence for at this point. And, blaming of the husband. 2635. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:48:16 PM again, the limitations of having conversations like this in print. 2636. glendajean - 6/22/2001 4:48:59 PM This is the kind of discussion we used to see in the Fray. I don't think I've ever peeked in the Parenting thread before today. 2637. janjon - 6/22/2001 4:50:08 PM no, the stones are not stupid (at least not any more so than your pat little conclusory comments.) if the mother=monster, then public retribution suitable for a monster is the logical consequence. What can be more simplistically barbaric these days than a good stoning. 2638. PsychProf - 6/22/2001 4:50:19 PM Here's a Knobber for ya GJ....I'm off the celebrate life. See ya... 2639. Jennifer A. - 6/22/2001 4:50:42 PM You tend to hear that fathers who do these kinds of things are "controlling" rather than "depressed", I think. 2640. Jean B. - 6/22/2001 4:51:01 PM Indiana said something a ways back: " No one can even imagine what it's like to have your spouse kill all your kids like that. I can't." I think it bears repeating. 2641. CalGal - 6/22/2001 4:55:03 PM Janjon, 2642. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 4:57:02 PM I'm not really sure how many times I have to say that I'm not basing my opinion on the reaction here. 2643. CalGal - 6/22/2001 4:58:52 PM Judith, 2644. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:00:52 PM Not that I'm a terribly serious debater, of course. 2645. janjon - 6/22/2001 5:01:19 PM it has been you who has been equating this woman with any and all multiple murderers. Stones for Dahmer would have been apt under that reasoning. 2646. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:01:49 PM I think society has a special horror of a mother killing her own children -- it is a far worse act than those of killings by strangers, acquaintances, other family members, even fathers. 2647. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 5:02:39 PM Look, Cal, you seem to think every woman in the world is just like you....surprise, they are not and many don't even want to be. 2648. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:03:18 PM it has been you who has been equating this woman with any and all multiple murderers. 2649. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:04:25 PM if I have to be some tower of burning rage against the world in general because I was born a woman, then I don't care to be taken seriously in any debate. 2650. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 5:07:18 PM It doesn't matter to me why you dismiss my posts...I'm working toward the day when you will completely ignore them altogether. :-) 2651. janjon - 6/22/2001 5:09:18 PM I just got my laugh of the day. CalGal, among other things, you really shouldn't be dismissing others here as not being up to serious debate. That really is tacky. Plus, blind to your own frailities. It is just as easy to conclude that your persistently stated conclusion that reactions would be vastly different had it been the father not the mother is as rigid and disqualifying distortion as what you accuse Judith of. 2652. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:09:33 PM Well, if it doesn't matter, then don't give a reason and all will be well. 2653. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:18:25 PM I just got my laugh of the day. CalGal, among other things, you really shouldn't be dismissing others here as not being up to serious debate. 2654. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 5:24:40 PM It doesn't matter what murderers you try to compare this woman to. It's all completely damned irrelevant now. Burn her, shoot her, draw and quarter her, or use Jan's preferred method and stone her. 2655. janjon - 6/22/2001 5:27:14 PM well, no, Judith's posts on this topic are far from ludicrous. 2656. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:29:32 PM Arky, 2657. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 5:38:05 PM My point is that she can be held responsible all anyone likes, but unless the situation is examined in hopes that something may be done to reduce such occurrences, there's really no point in comparing this to any other mass murder, gender-wise or otherwise. If all you want to say is that men don't receive the same attitude from the media and public for similar actions, you really need to use an example of a father who murdered his children. Others like Dahmer aren't comparable. 2658. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 5:42:26 PM how it's just so much tougher for women to say no and the man bears more responsibility. 2659. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:42:40 PM I submit some random ramblings from TT's MWT thread. 2660. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 5:43:59 PM Cal, you really need to get a grip. 2661. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:48:01 PM Judith, you really need to stop twittering on about what you perceive is my emotional state. In the first place, you are--and have been consistently--incorrect in your description of it. Not that this is unusual, of course, since you are consistently incorrect in specifics. In the second, it is inconsistent with your stated desire to have me ignore you when you keep yapping like one of those asinine toy French poodles that you or your ilk are prone to own. 2662. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 5:48:32 PM They're not all as extreme as I figured they would be. There are a few there that go even to the point of trying to justify her actions, but none were as far out as Salon's front page article title on the incident (didn't read the article) someone referred to earlier. 2663. Jennifer A. - 6/22/2001 5:49:46 PM They are, indeed, likely to broaden the definition of ppd to encompass any and all difficulties in the first year or so over there on MWT. 2664. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:50:59 PM I think those are fairly extreme, but I agree that none of them approach the level of the Salon piece. I was just demonstrating the sort of thing I was talking about, since Janjon didn't seem to know. Or maybe he does know, and this sort of chatter is fine with him. 2665. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 5:51:32 PM Cal, you started way back with the bashing of Judith's statements in particular and making them personal...what was the term? "Your type" or something like that. And in this post it's "your ilk." 2666. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 5:53:41 PM If JanJon's like me he doesn't spend any time reading it. It's like I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh for reasons I explained in Politics the other day. There are plenty of idiots I have to listen to without choosing to give my time to them just to irritate myself. 2667. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 5:54:16 PM Oh, don't forget "your set". I asked her earlier what she meant by that but she failed to answer. Were I her, I'd have made several sarcastic remarks by now about her avoiding the question... 2668. CalGal - 6/22/2001 5:54:22 PM I should say, while I'm zapping MWT's individual posts, the overall discussion is fine. I would have no patience for it, but quite a few people are raising the same issues I've been discussing over here. So it's not like it's a one-sided pity fest. 2669. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 5:58:16 PM I noticed that one particularly, and the second and third one I thought pretty extreme. 2670. CalGal - 6/22/2001 6:01:22 PM Arky, 2671. CalGal - 6/22/2001 6:02:58 PM Although I don't see what's so odd about it. You are saying it's uncommon to see someone in forums say "you lawyers" or "you Republicans" or "you technocrats" or "you feminists"? 2672. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 6:03:44 PM Take that shit to the Inferno, Cal. 2673. CalGal - 6/22/2001 6:06:01 PM Cal, you started way back with the bashing of Judith's statements in particular and making them personal 2674. bubbaette - 6/22/2001 6:07:32 PM As one of five children born within seven years of each other, I have to say that I don't recognize this woman. Sure, my mom had it rough but I don't think she considered drowning us. Or maybe she just never told us. 2675. CalGal - 6/22/2001 6:07:32 PM Take that shit to the Inferno, Cal. 2676. CalGal - 6/22/2001 6:10:51 PM Sure, my mom had it rough but I don't think she considered drowning us. Or maybe she just never told us. 2677. Toenails - 6/22/2001 6:14:52 PM 2678. CalGal - 6/22/2001 6:17:52 PM You do realize that by commenting on what you perceive to be a feud contributes to the distraction you are righteously complaining about? Or is your offtopic post somehow different from Judith's? 2679. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 6:19:08 PM "You asked and spent several posts complaining I didn't answer, and then say take it to the Inferno?" 2680. bubbaette - 6/22/2001 6:20:21 PM But even thinking about it is a whole huge galaxy away from doing it. 2681. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 6:22:05 PM I agree, Bubba. It's really unfathomable, which is part of why people search for "causes." 2682. Jean B. - 6/22/2001 6:31:30 PM bubba, your 2680 is so descriptive of what I've been picturing -- one by one the children fighting her, struggling to breathe, and losing the battle each time, and then her going after the next one. It is incomprehensible! 2683. bubbaette - 6/22/2001 6:31:47 PM Maybe I should call Mom to ask if she can relate. But if the answer is "yes" I don't wanna know. 2684. Jenerator - 6/22/2001 7:00:07 PM Bubba, 2685. bubbaette - 6/22/2001 7:04:52 PM I recall some time ago a discussion about men who kill their families -- that there's some sort of feeling that they're the super-provider and that if he (the dad) can't cope then the kids can't possibly continue in the world without him. But in those cases, doesn't the dad typically off himself too? 2686. Jenerator - 6/22/2001 7:07:49 PM Seems that way. I've heard about many dads freaking out about divorce and custody proceedings, kiling the children and then themselves. 2687. bubbaette - 6/22/2001 7:15:48 PM Or dads freaking out over financial difficulties and killing the family and then themselves. 2688. bubbaette - 6/22/2001 7:18:19 PM Anyhow, it's past time for me to rustle up some grub for my poor hunny bunny who has to work tomorrow. 2689. arkymalarky - 6/22/2001 7:19:28 PM We had a case of a woman like that in AR who killed her kids and tried to kill herself with drugs (it seems she was some kind of nurse--scary thought), but her dosage only rendered her unconscious. She also requested the death penalty but I don't know where all that stands right now. 2690. CalGal - 6/22/2001 7:22:21 PM Mothers quite often kill their kids while they're killing themselves--as do dads. In both cases, regardless of the thinking behind it, it seems to be narcissism (in the shrink sense of the word). In the case of any parent who killed their child(ren) deliberately, I'd say it's a safe assumption. 2691. Jenerator - 6/22/2001 7:23:45 PM Severe depression is beyond regular narcissism. 2692. CalGal - 6/22/2001 7:25:21 PM Depression isn't narcissism, and given that I said "in the shrink sense", it ought to be clear I'm not talking about "regular" narcissism. 2693. JudithAtHome - 6/22/2001 7:34:26 PM You know, this lady was a nurse at MD Anderson but quit to stay home with the kids...anyone know if she was homeschooling them? 2694. Jennifer A. - 6/22/2001 7:37:35 PM I've heard yes, but it's hearsay. 2695. CalGal - 6/22/2001 7:45:14 PM I thought the dad mentioned it in the press conference. 2696. CalGal - 6/22/2001 7:59:11 PM Marie Noe, serial killer 8 times out 2697. Jenerator - 6/22/2001 8:24:12 PM I think that depression has an element of narcissism, but when severe, is way beyond it. 2698. Laura C - 6/22/2001 8:49:26 PM She was homeschooling them. They visited the local homeschooling bookstore every week or so, and she'd just joined a homeschooling support group. 2699. CalGal - 6/22/2001 10:34:51 PM Wombat says that McVeigh and this woman are different, because: McVeigh carefully planned his action, expressed no regret, and was rational and lucid throughout. 2700. iiibbb - 6/22/2001 10:56:05 PM There is a problem with trying to 'qualify' murder. There should be no distiction between a hate crime murder, a mass murder, a crime of passion, or killing someone for their wallet. The second we start making these qualifications we instantly get ourselves in trouble. 2701. Jean B. - 6/22/2001 11:55:33 PM Cal, as I said, I don't think it's fair that women are held to a higher standard. However, women are held to that higher standard in our society. Hiding our heads in the sand, pretending the "double standard" doesn't exist, doesn't make the situation go away. It just keeps us from seeing our world as it is. 2702. iiibbb - 6/23/2001 12:02:53 AM There is a problem with trying to 'qualify' murder. There should be no distiction between a hate crime murder, a mass murder, a crime of passion, or killing someone for their wallet. The second we start making these qualifications we instantly get ourselves in trouble. 2703. CalGal - 6/23/2001 12:09:36 AM Jean, 2704. Erinys - 6/23/2001 12:45:36 AM Francis, who are Bin Laden and Gacy? 2705. joezan - 6/23/2001 12:51:01 AM The media are not "marginalizing women" in their reporting of this case. 2706. CalGal - 6/23/2001 12:51:30 AM I think somehwere in her brain, that nutjob knew this would be a big to-do, and she's enjoying it. 2707. CalGal - 6/23/2001 12:58:42 AM Susan Smith was raked over the coals as thoroughly as any man would be, for a crime which was arguably much less gruesome in its execution than this one. 2708. CalGal - 6/23/2001 1:00:57 AM So, please - enough already with the women-will-not-be-truly-equal-till-they-are -treated-just-as-badly-as-men-are crap. 2709. CalGal - 6/23/2001 1:01:00 AM So, please - enough already with the women-will-not-be-truly-equal-till-they-are -treated-just-as-badly-as-men-are crap. 2710. CalGal - 6/23/2001 1:01:24 AM Sorry for the double. 2711. Erinys - 6/23/2001 1:11:47 AM I'm feeling very cynical tonight, yet I hadn't even thought of the starfucker angle on putting the stuffed blobs on the lawn. Yeah, fat lot of good they're going to do for 5 dead kids. 2712. joezan - 6/23/2001 1:16:37 AM Thin argument, Cal. 2713. CalGal - 6/23/2001 1:32:07 AM . All sympathy for Smith dissipated when it was found out she had done the deed. 2714. joezan - 6/23/2001 1:43:28 AM There was plenty of sympathy and wailing about her. In fact, it was her case that began my disgust with the pass that women murderers receive. Plenty was made of her sexual abuse history, or we wouldn't be so cognizant of it some seven years later... 2715. CalGal - 6/23/2001 1:50:26 AM Proof again that you're a tad limited in your perspective. Plenty of other explanations exist. "Sympathy" only when comparing one heinous act to the other; I am not saying you are sympathetic to her in any absolute sense. 2716. Shannon - 6/23/2001 1:57:52 AM 2717. joezan - 6/23/2001 1:59:30 AM "WHY???" was the operative issue throughout her coverage... 2718. don s. - 6/23/2001 2:05:00 AM I still think most mothers who murder their children deliberately are sympathy junkies. Fathers who kill are also completely narcissistic, but not greedy for sympathy per se. 2719. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:15:00 AM There is no such plot running in the background here. 2720. Shannon - 6/23/2001 2:17:00 AM Now, CalGal, you know your words are not welcome there. They told me so. 2721. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:19:03 AM Oh, if I paid $30 I'm sure they'd publish my letter. I'll stop short of threatening to help her find the path to enlightenment. 2722. pogie - 6/23/2001 2:19:55 AM Most of those letters make me want to smack someone. That chick should be either killed or locked away for life (those being the two main options texas offers.) I honestly don't think enough is understood about the mind to justify studying her, though. Just toss her in a six by six and melt the key. Sympathy's wasted on someone who methodically drowned her kids and then ran down the last one in order to drown him. 2723. Erinys - 6/23/2001 3:27:38 AM 2724. joezan - 6/23/2001 9:08:58 AM ...I have yet to hear anyone say "Oh, Smith killed her kids because she wanted to be with her boyfriend" (although I'm sure you know more yutzes than I do). 2725. JudithAtHome - 6/23/2001 10:13:29 AM Is South Carolina a death penalty state? 2726. JudithAtHome - 6/23/2001 10:15:08 AM And that would be talismans... 2727. joezan - 6/23/2001 10:30:47 AM Well, right - they are meeting their own needs. Nothing wrong with that, usually. I just happen to think hogging up space in the middle of someone else's tragedy is an icky, tacky way of meeting one's needs. 2728. JudithAtHome - 6/23/2001 10:40:49 AM Seriously, I think this is much more productive. They probably do it their way, though, because they don't have to hear or read others calling them names because of the way they handle tragedy. 2729. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 1:39:48 PM Generally those stuffed animals are later donated, I believe. All this was done at the OKC bombing site, too, as with most any scene of a tragedy. Just look at Graceland, for example. 2730. joezan - 6/23/2001 1:43:30 PM She cut a deal - I don't remember what, exactly, the deal involved. 2731. CalGal - 6/23/2001 1:59:36 PM Smith didn't cut a deal. She had a jury trial and the jury chose life with parole, specifically rejecting the death penalty. 2732. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:04:43 PM In general, female murderers--particularly those who kill their children--are treated as troubled and ill, not monsters. 2733. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:06:39 PM Erinys, 2734. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 2:07:57 PM Well, sure, they would be confused, but I don't think that isn't shared in common with most mass killer, especially Dahmer, who's been so often brought up. And I never hear Ronald Gene Simmons mentioned when people discuss multiple murders, either, and he killed about twelve people, most of them his own kids. 2735. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:17:25 PM It didn't get all that much coverage, whereas Smith's did. But Simmons, who arguably did indeed go completely fucking bonkers, got the death penalty (as he should have). Smith, who lied and planned her murders, didn't. 2736. robertjayb - 6/23/2001 2:18:12 PM Within the past month a largish extremely white family hereabouts lost its youngest when dad brought the throng home and left the baby in a closed car for about two hours in the late afternoon. When mom came home and asked about the little girl they found her dead, dead, dead. 2737. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:22:25 PM BobbyJ, 2738. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 2:23:29 PM Simmons requested the DP. 2739. JudithAtHome - 6/23/2001 2:24:12 PM It already has, Robert...in Dallas a single mom left her child in the car for 6 hours while she worked her shift as a waitress because she "forgot" to take him to daycare. He died and she has been charged by the police with something like abuse of a child and neglect of a child...anyhow, they handcuffed her and took her away. 2740. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 2:26:20 PM In addition, he had been an abusive father/husband and was known as a fairly disgusting human before he did what he did. He didn't go bonkers. He was rational throughout and afterward had nothing to say except an emotionless request for the DP. 2741. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 2:27:56 PM When I say he didn't go bonkers, obviously he went on a killing spree, but no one knows what he thought before that and it wasn't out of the blue in an otherwise normal person. And the killings themselves involved a good bit of driving and going person to person, etc. He didn't just go on an uncontrolled murder rampage. 2742. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:28:59 PM Well, good on the cops, with that waitress. And while I think the father in the other case should have been arrested too, there's a big difference between 6 hours and 2 hours and "forgetting" to take your kid to daycare. 2743. CalGal - 6/23/2001 2:35:00 PM Arky, 2744. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 2:57:12 PM Cal, 2745. arkymalarky - 6/23/2001 2:57:34 PM I agree with what you say about families. Even when our minds reason that the likelihood of being victimized by a Dahmer or Klebold is slim to none, the vulnerability kicks in, and goes beyond the incidents themselves to the fear of being a victim selected from out of nowhere and for no reason by lurking strangers. It's not rational, but it's natural human self-interest. 2746. CalGal - 6/23/2001 3:17:46 PM I absolutely agree about the amount of attention given being driven by the details. But the nature of the coverage and the reaction of those who are aware of it is what I see biased strongly based on gender. The Yates case will undoubtedly fade--unlike Smith's, for example--but the fact that it will probably receive less attention doesn't change what the reaction was (namely, sympathy and pity for the mother, attempts to explain it, etc.). Hopefully, maybe that will change now that it turns out she planned it for months and had just one hour of opportunity to execute in. 2747. HollyW - 6/23/2001 4:04:18 PM I really appreciated Susan Kushner Resnick's article on Andrea Yates' postpartum psychosis. I am still struggling to find ground after my bout of postpartum depression. My heart went out to Andrea and her supportive husband as the newscasters report the disaster with horrified tones. I can only hope that this story can help demystify postpartum depression and help the mothers who struggle to survive. 2748. HollyW - 6/23/2001 4:09:44 PM It does seem that we can separate the two in the case of men murdering--sure, they are sick, but they are also not worthy of forgiveness, because we lower ourselves by doing so. With women it gets so soft focus, so emotionally laden. Why can't we realize that women, even mothers, are not fucking special. 2749. don s. - 6/23/2001 4:24:55 PM Horror and rage should come first, wondering "why?" should trail far behind them somewhere. 2750. HollyW - 6/23/2001 4:42:43 PM Who's talking criminal justice system, I'm referring to the man-on-the-street reaction. In other words, you and me. 2751. HollyW - 6/23/2001 4:45:32 PM Cause I'm not getting into an "insanity plea" debate. It's meaningless. 2752. don s. - 6/23/2001 5:11:05 PM OK, as long as we're just venting, have at it! 2753. HollyW - 6/23/2001 5:30:32 PM Well, this IS the Parenting thread. Although it's certainly got me thinking of some topics for Social Issues. 2754. Wombat - 6/23/2001 9:51:22 PM In light of the new information coming out about how long she was feeling the way she was, and that she had been thinking about killing her children well before she actually did so, I now suspect that Yates will stand trial, and that she will have a hard time convincing a judge or jury that she was insane. 2755. CalGal - 6/23/2001 9:58:46 PM She didn't have a lawyer when she told the cops that, did she? 2756. HollyW - 6/24/2001 12:29:12 AM I want to go back to the MWT thread about it, I haven't been there since Thursday night, but frankly, I'm scared of what my blood pressure may do. 2757. Åse - 6/24/2001 12:35:05 AM Makes me depressed. 2758. HollyW - 6/24/2001 12:45:59 AM Oh no, that may be worse. 2759. CalGal - 6/24/2001 1:28:42 AM I just checked the thread; it's still going on. 2760. HollyW - 6/24/2001 2:03:50 AM I think I'm at the point where I am going to back off from it. I usually don't hang so long to things like this, but this incident REALLY got to me. 2761. Åse - 6/24/2001 2:06:13 AM Since time began, yes. Blaffer Hrdy's Mother Nature does look at it from a socio-biological angle. It is very interesting, but rather upsetting. This woman does not fit the socio-biological profile though. 2762. HollyW - 6/24/2001 2:11:23 AM This woman does not fit the socio-biological profile though. 2763. Åse - 6/24/2001 2:12:18 AM Ok, I'm posting this to cheer me up from that depressing topic. (Please work). 2764. HollyW - 6/24/2001 2:17:35 AM Thank you, Ase! She is just so beautiful. 2765. Åse - 6/24/2001 2:23:33 AM Thanks Holly. She charmed everybody at that christening. She goes with me to school, and people flock around me to look and talk to her. She just smiles and coos at everybody. It's great. It would be great if that is sustained. I would love it if she turns out to be really social, even if I'm not. I think that may make life much easier (provided one have a radar for creeps). 2766. HollyW - 6/24/2001 2:29:51 AM My husband is a bit of a prankster, and I hope she gets that from him and skips over the tendencies toward melancholic angst that dog her mom. 2767. msgreer - 6/24/2001 10:19:09 AM Ase Your daughter is beautiful. Thanks for the picture. 2768. Shannon - 6/24/2001 10:59:42 AM Ase, she's adorabe. Those cheeks! 2769. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 11:47:14 AM Ase, I'm no baby-person, but your kid's cheeks demand to be nibbled! She is amazingly gorgeous. 2770. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 11:49:18 AM But, Ase - your bubby looks hungy! It would seem, in the photo, that an epic battle is being waged to prevent her from eating that book (Bible?). 2771. Åse - 6/24/2001 11:55:22 AM Thanks. 2772. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 12:05:24 PM Ase, I knnow this sounds silly, but your sister has the loveliest nose! Her eyes are very soulful too. 2773. JudithAtHome - 6/24/2001 12:05:41 PM Just so it's not Maos Little Red Book....she might be hungry 10 minutes later. 2774. Jennifer A. - 6/24/2001 1:03:06 PM I find it stressful at times to have a baby who's more social than I am. Sometimes he fusses and fusses because he's sick of being home with me, but I'm not up to going out and finding a crowd for him to charm. Although he makes up for it by having his father's easy-going disposition rather than MY tendency toward melancholic angst. Seems to, at least, I suppose he's really too young to know for sure. 2775. ElliottRW - 6/24/2001 1:15:07 PM Melancholic angst tendencies? 2776. JudithAtHome - 6/24/2001 1:28:01 PM Or eat a Krispy Kreme donut...your entire outlook on life will become instantly modified. 2777. CalGal - 6/24/2001 1:38:31 PM Nonsense. Who the hell do you cheery people think you are? There's nothing at all wrong with tendencies towards melancholic angst, and a cookie cutter world with a bunch of relentless donut and orange juice inhaling yahoos would be a lesser place. 2778. ElliottRW - 6/24/2001 2:00:36 PM CalGal, 2779. CalGal - 6/24/2001 2:04:30 PM Newsweek has already diagnosed the situation. 2780. CalGal - 6/24/2001 2:05:45 PM Melancholy is like booze; a drink every now and then doesn't hurt, but a martini every half-hour is likely to be crippling. 2781. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 2:17:27 PM My husband is pro-death penalty, but way more so than I am. 2782. CalGal - 6/24/2001 2:20:50 PM But, it may influence marginally unstable people if there's a message that if you're overwhelmed and mentally unstable, you may be pitied rather than reviled if you kill your kid. 2783. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 2:23:58 PM Jen, that is one of the most intelligent posts I have read on the issue, and perhaps on the entire Mote for a while. 2784. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 2:27:58 PM Oh shit! I'm a phuckin' moron! 2785. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 2:35:53 PM Yes, this is what I wonder, too. If somewhere, for some creatures on the margin, the notion that she'll be treated as an object to be deeply pitied doesn't play into their decision. 2786. LimeGirl - 6/24/2001 2:45:13 PM Most mass killers are sociopaths, utterly alienated from other human beings. They are callous or sadistic. Andrea was the opposite 2787. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 2:48:18 PM I wasn't impressed with the speculative nature and tone of the whole piece. And here we are, all posting our unprofessional psychological musings and analysis for free--and doing a much better job of it. 2788. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 2:55:00 PM But Arkoosh, that's the thing! Kids aren't removed from nice, double story, middle-class houses, where ma is ma and dad is the bread-winner! Nooo. It only happens to trailer-park types. 2789. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 2:56:31 PM *Merf!* 2790. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 3:06:06 PM Unfortunately, where I come from, honour and shame still have way too much weight. 2791. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 3:08:21 PM On the piece above, my comment was on the pop-analysis parts of it, btw. The information presented was the most detailed I'd read. 2792. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 3:24:00 PM Arkoosh, yeah - I figured you were talking about the pop-analysis. 2793. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 3:34:49 PM My darlingest uncle (instrumental in my upbringing )has five children. The woman he married - my aunty - had a moral(?)/cultural problem with abortion. 2794. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 3:38:38 PM I don't put any burden of this incident on home-schooling, aside from the fact that the idea of letting such an unstable parent school and care for five small children at home is beyond idiotic, but I do think the social isolation and insulation that comes from h/s in most cases, no matter how parents attempt to ameliorate it, is a huge problem, no matter how well h/s children may do academically. 2795. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 3:48:06 PM Arkie, I know. It's weird. 2796. CalGal - 6/24/2001 3:52:48 PM I don't understand anyone can see this as something that could be alleviated by more support. As it was, her mother in law was there constantly--and in fact she clearly timed the murders for the hour between when her husband left for work and the mother in law showed up. 2797. CalGal - 6/24/2001 3:56:12 PM The one potentially amusing thing that will come out of all this is that someone, somewhere, will try and make it against the law to have and keep a baby subsequent to a diagnosis of postpartum depression. The agenda whores out baying in full force now will change their tune on a dime and whine in agonized tones about gender oppression. 2798. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 3:56:24 PM Khavaval...perhaps her motives are different from what you hypothesize. She may want to live as many days as possible w/o being seen as an ill person. There are, in fact, two worlds...sick and healthy. She may not be ready to exit. I have worked with many ill individuals and the best way to assess their motives is to have them directly tell you. 2799. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:01:19 PM Er, Cal - don't misunderstand me. 2800. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:08:01 PM 2798. PsychProf - 6/25/01 5:56:24 AM 2801. CalGal - 6/24/2001 4:09:22 PM I wasn't addressing you, particularly. If anyone, Arky's post about the family. But in general, if I don't single out a post I'm not rebutting anything in particular. 2802. CalGal - 6/24/2001 4:11:10 PM But more on point: 2803. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 4:14:42 PM Sorry Khaval...your appeal to your own wisdom and authority do not sway me...not everyone is a slave to a culture, and we as humans share feelings across cultures...indeed, within cultures not all goose step to the same tune. Anywez, I may or may not be correct...you also. Your Aunt knows. In any case, if I am clueless I am willing to learn. 2804. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 4:19:07 PM BTW...what the hell difference does it make if I am an "American" Jew? If I'm not, am I still entitled to think? 2805. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 4:19:58 PM I'm also not a woman, but I have been posting about one. 2806. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:20:22 PM Maybe, Cal. Obviously, Ican't pretend to know whether she planned to pop out exactly five so that at that date she could drown them all. 2807. JudithAtHome - 6/24/2001 4:23:17 PM Maybe she wanted to have children, purely in order to kill them. Maybe she's been fantasizing about this for years. 2808. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:27:59 PM 2804. PsychProf - 6/25/01 6:19:07 AM 2809. CalGal - 6/24/2001 4:29:40 PM But I'd wager it's highly unlikely that she would have snapped thusly without all those kids. The oldest kid made it to 7, no? 2810. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:30:07 PM 2805. PsychProf - 6/25/01 6:19:58 AM 2811. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 4:32:59 PM "Sorry Khaval...your appeal to your own wisdom and authority do 2812. CalGal - 6/24/2001 4:33:19 PM This sounds less like a possibility and more like a B-grade movie plot. 2813. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:37:31 PM Cal, before you post your ignorance about Israeli murder stats in public, maybe you should do just a leetle research. A lot of this stuff is common knowledge. 2814. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 4:41:17 PM hahahaha..."I know plenty about children"...ah, Khaval. you are a breathe of fresh air for the Mote, clearly a Legend in your own Mind. Welcome again... 2815. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:43:54 PM Prof, shouldn't you be off sharing shame or something? 2816. CalGal - 6/24/2001 4:46:27 PM I gotta go with Psychprof on that last one. 2817. khaval alazman - 6/24/2001 4:47:35 PM OK, folks. It's nearly 7:00am now, and it's time for me to get at least two hours sleep. 2818. PsychProf - 6/24/2001 4:47:38 PM A dose of wisdom to minimize hypothesis myopia and a Fenway Hot Dog...see ya. 2819. JudithAtHome - 6/24/2001 4:48:32 PM Cal, am I to not make any comments on this thread that you don't come in and mischaracterize everything I've said on the matter? Funny, I don't see your name listed as host here.... 2820. JudithAtHome - 6/24/2001 4:52:17 PM In short, you have no fucking idea what is a possibility and what isn't. 2821. CalGal - 6/24/2001 4:53:12 PM See the inferno. 2822. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 5:03:06 PM One factual clarification of my post--I said nothing about family support. I never referred to more than adult intervention for someone in charge of children who is showing signs of being dangerously unstable.. 2823. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 5:05:09 PM If her doctor thought she should be institutionalized, it hasn't been mentioned, which means she hid her nuttiness or that it wasn't obvious to see. There is never a case to be made for coldblooded murder being preventable by more care, but in this case it is particularly inapt. She had plenty of support. Plenty of medical care. Her husband's plan had insurance that they used to get her the best care possible. 2824. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 5:08:42 PM Let me also say, once again, that my observations about the surroundings are in the interest of possible increased awareness with the hope that some prevention in such cases can occur. It is not at all to blame anyone else or abrogate the woman of her own responsibility, even for pursuing her own mental health, since she obviously was aware she was having serious problems. 2825. CalGal - 6/24/2001 5:38:18 PM You have no idea as to the quality or aggressiveness of her care. 2826. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 5:52:25 PM Who cares? She was getting treatment. I swear, it's like that theory where the arrow never hits the target. "She wasn't supported!" 2827. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 5:53:07 PM And all of the above would apply to a father, or any adult in charge of children, displaying the same problems. 2828. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 6:02:55 PM More likely, though, people want to believe that this can happen to any woman, because otherwise they have to let go of their cherished notions about women, and wrap their minds around the fact that some women, just like some men, are monsters. That this can't "happen" to a woman, but that a woman, either because of evil or insanity or an innate ability to do terrible things, can actively choose to murder five children because she saw it in her interest to do so. 2829. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 6:05:29 PM Why is she supposed to be considered any more "curable" than a pedophile, or her actions any more preventable? Why is it viewed as a tragedy that could have been stopped, that she's a mother who loved her children but was "driven" to this? There's no evidence to support one possibility over another. 2830. CalGal - 6/24/2001 6:09:22 PM Oh, yeah, she did this because she was depressed. Right. 2831. CalGal - 6/24/2001 6:10:08 PM To say nothing of the fact that she was on medication. So clearly it was something more than depression. 2832. CalGal - 6/24/2001 6:17:25 PM Maybe some think it's ok for someone with psychotic symptoms to be left alone with five small children. 2833. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 6:20:35 PM the capability to kill is not something brought on by depression. 2834. CalGal - 6/24/2001 6:25:06 PM This might come as a shock to you, but killing yourself and murdering someone else are entirely different things. 2835. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 6:34:27 PM CalGal, 2836. JudithAtHome - 6/24/2001 6:38:34 PM In fact, did he even know that she was on an anti-psychotic drug, as opposed to an anti-depressant? 2837. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 6:39:56 PM Haldol was recommended for granny for her depression last week. It's a tranquilizer that is supposed to be effective in treating agitation and depression. 2838. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 6:41:34 PM So have you checked your school? Is there a law against teaching if you are on this drug? A law against being a childcare worker? Are you allowed to get pregnant if you've ever been on this drug in the past? 2839. CalGal - 6/24/2001 6:44:46 PM Most people who commit suicide do so because they're depressed and make the poor decision to end their lives. 2840. CalGal - 6/24/2001 6:52:40 PM Still, it would be nice if someone who recognized similar conditions in any adult was aware and able to do whatever they could to get small children out of his or her unsupervised care, with support of doctors and the law. 2841. Jenerator - 6/24/2001 6:59:31 PM CalGal, 2842. CalGal - 6/24/2001 7:05:49 PM On the suicide hotline, so what? For one thing, self-reporting has little to do with whether or not someone is actually depressed (to say nothing of the fact that x percentage of suicide hotline callers are probably another form of sympathy junkies). 2843. CalGal - 6/24/2001 7:07:36 PM Severe depression and the medications she was on didn't make her one to be prone to clear thinking. 2844. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 7:18:41 PM Apart from getting her diagnosed and institutionalized, I'm not sure what could be done. What bothers me about your posts on this, mainly, is that it is brought up at all. In other words, I don't particularly disagree that it might be a good idea for people to wonder whether or not psychos should be watching children, but I just don't see this being raised in the early days in a situation where she hadn't killed her own kids. 2845. joezan - 6/24/2001 11:17:27 PM Would somebody please wake me up when this stupid "discussion" is over? Man! Here I was, intending to come in here and solve the mystery of why the Yates woman offed her kids, and Cal's still in here screaming out her dumb theory on the sociological implications of everyone's not wanting to rip the woman apart limb-from-limb. 2846. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:36:32 PM Arky, you have good points, and I certainly agree that looking for reasons why could be a useful exercise, and I mean COULD, there could maybe be an element of the Yates tragedy that could be applied to people beyond her...it could unearth some clue about something...but, beside the fact that the more I hear about it the more I doubt that will be the case, I think the initial reaction that many people had--"Oh, the poor woman! The horror of unchecked mental illness, and the things it drives one to do!"--was disgusting. The initial reaction should be, "That fucking monster, that she could do such a vile thing to helpless little children makes me sick." 2847. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:37:37 PM Cross-post with Joe's silliness. 2848. joezan - 6/24/2001 11:40:31 PM Only semi-silliness, Holly. 2849. CalGal - 6/24/2001 11:43:53 PM Only to support my point, I'm sure. Since she's certainly an example of the same bias. 2850. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:45:18 PM Do tell. (I think.) 2851. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:45:42 PM Cross-post. 2852. joezan - 6/24/2001 11:47:11 PM Same bias? 2853. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:49:20 PM Cal's still in here screaming out her dumb theory on the sociological implications of everyone's not wanting to rip the woman apart limb-from-limb. 2854. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 11:52:05 PM We've heard about her zombielike behavior since the last child was born, right? That could, in truth, be the only symptom she displayed that made the doctor want to try it. She could not have said one wacked-out thing to anyone at any time. 2855. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:52:20 PM Joe, you really have blinders on. How can you not see that there was an immediate, noticable outpouring of sympathy for this woman, before people even knew the details of what she'd done? 2856. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 11:52:31 PM Garden-variety depressed behavior, yes, but even suicide attempts aren't always something to get all worked up about. I don't see, so far, how the hell anyone should've known. 2857. joezan - 6/24/2001 11:53:37 PM Oh! 2858. arkymalarky - 6/24/2001 11:53:51 PM And Holly, I agree that the initial reaction of people who felt sympathy for her was pathetic. It's an extension of their own self-absorption which I also find repulsive. 2859. HollyW - 6/24/2001 11:59:46 PM ...your statement above is nothing but baseless speculation and has no value in determining how to recognize this potential before it's reality. 2860. Åse - 6/25/2001 12:03:02 AM Well, if we substitute ripping limb from limb with just lock up somewhere until death, yeah. 2861. joezan - 6/25/2001 12:05:18 AM And Cal isn't the only one. Ase and I seem to agree with her. 2862. HollyW - 6/25/2001 12:06:36 AM ... but that they should have known in advance that she was not mentally competent to be left alone with them, based on information known so far. 2863. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 12:10:22 AM Once more, simply because I don't like to be misquoted, I did not say anyone should have known she would kill her kids. 2864. Åse - 6/25/2001 12:12:05 AM Oh, I agree that with this PPD and PPP has "arrived" (although it was "in the air" earlier, with some accounts of women throwing themselves in front of trains with their babies). Now that Multiple Personality disorder and recovered memory is out. 2865. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 12:13:46 AM It's out? I was just certain I had MPD. 2866. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 12:14:29 AM From the first webpage I glanced at about suicide. 2867. joezan - 6/25/2001 12:16:10 AM Jenn: 2868. CalGal - 6/25/2001 12:18:08 AM But just like the other possibilities that have been thrown around with no evidence to substantiate them--she bred them to kill them, her act was the natural extension of post-partum psychosis, she snapped, she was depressed over her father, and on and on ad nauseum, 2869. CalGal - 6/25/2001 12:20:07 AM I am nearly sure your link will be screwed up, Jen, although I didn't bother to click on it. 2870. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 12:20:13 AM Joe, 2871. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 12:21:02 AM I listed P-P psychosis. I agree about the PPD. 2872. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 12:22:23 AM NIMH: 2873. CalGal - 6/25/2001 12:23:03 AM Ase, 2874. LimeGirl - 6/25/2001 12:23:14 AM No, I don't think she has. Now we have this. More teachers, more 14-year-old boys. 2875. joezan - 6/25/2001 12:23:53 AM Oh - sorry Jenn. I just read back. 2876. joezan - 6/25/2001 12:25:41 AM LimeGirl: 2877. CalGal - 6/25/2001 12:26:15 AM Jeez, Lime. Is it in the water? 2878. LimeGirl - 6/25/2001 12:26:22 AM She referring to Mary Kay -- I thought I was at the end of the discussion when I wasn't! 2879. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 12:32:55 AM There have been several instances of that in AR, including one locally--all men except for one lesbian. 2880. Åse - 6/25/2001 12:34:39 AM From the NIMH site: 2881. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 12:37:16 AM Ase, 2882. Åse - 6/25/2001 12:38:09 AM There's plenty of problems in blaming depression/mental illness, since suffering from either these are not a reliable predictor for murder. Yes, there are insane people who kill, but most of them do not. 2883. CalGal - 6/25/2001 12:38:18 AM Thanks, Ase. 2884. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 12:42:05 AM Oh yeah. I couldn't fit anything to the letters. 2885. Åse - 6/25/2001 12:43:28 AM "linked to" depression is very vague and just means that there is some kind of relationship - we don't know. Perhaps people that get in their heads to off themselves become depressed also. 2886. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 12:45:30 AM I'll start from the beginning. 2887. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 12:47:19 AM I totally agree with Ase's 2882. Even among paranoid schizophrenics murder is rare. 2888. joezan - 6/25/2001 12:50:36 AM I worked with a woman for years (who is actually in private practice now but with whom I still have frequent business) whom I'd thought for some time probably had MBP. 2889. Åse - 6/25/2001 12:54:27 AM I don't know where I got it that there may be something fundamentally different between people with suicidal ideation that never do it, and those that actually act on it - I suspect my psych intro class from way back when, where the teacher presented possible different theories and their tests (brain chemicals, etc), and made it clear how difficult this is to research. 2890. CalGal - 6/25/2001 12:55:14 AM There's a difference between the controlling mommy who sees every in her little precious's every sneeze and one who actively makes little precious ill. For one thing, MBP's spend a lot more time at the hospital--and I imagine they usually don't/can't work, because of the need to "take care" of their kid. 2891. joezan - 6/25/2001 1:01:58 AM Oh, I'm aware of the difference between the two. But I had no way of knowing whether or not she was responsible for her kid's "illnesses". 2892. CalGal - 6/25/2001 1:03:41 AM No, I knew you knew the difference. But if she wasn't at the hospital all the time, it's likely the former. Besides, the kid won't live to dating age if she has MBP. 2893. CalGal - 6/25/2001 1:06:50 AM Ase, 2894. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 1:37:17 AM I'm going to log off, but I want to try to state clearly what my focus was in previous posts, so there's no misunderstanding that I'm suggesting any mental illness or emotional problem is a red flag for children's safety (not that anyone thinks that, but still). My main point is to be aware of whatever characteristics an individual displays of severe inability to cope and mental incompetence that might require serious and intense responses, looking at things such as--Is this person unable to accomplish the simplest of tasks that are required to function, particularly as a parent? Is this person seeing things, hearing voices, or having other evidence of hallucinations? Is this person showing signs of severe withdrawing from family? Is this person showing significant signs of detachment, being unable to show care and concern for his or her children? Is this person suicidal? Is there any other characteristic present which would indicate that this person may be unable to provide the minimal safe care for a child alone? 2895. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 1:39:18 AM BTW, that was mainly prompted by Holly's posts above, but isn't a response to them. 2896. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 12:27:30 PM Hindsight is always 20/20. 2897. PsychProf - 6/25/2001 12:47:00 PM Well, PPP was not a sufficient detriment to chasing and murdering, planning such, and announcing to relevant people that a serious act has happened...eventually some we are going to have to confront what she did w/o justificatory rhetoric... "the devil (i.e. PPP) made her do it" is not applicable to all and any forms of misbehavior...here's a thought...are individuals, who have complex motivations that cause their acts, personally and solely responsible for their response and behavior? If not, what act cannot be swept away with song and dance? Who speaks for the slaughtered children if not us? 2898. christipeters - 6/25/2001 1:35:25 PM PP - In my admittedly harsh opion, she responsible for her actions. I don't care if it turns out that she had voices dinning in her head day and night telling her to kill the kids (not saying she did, just an example). She could have told the voices "NO". She could have told someone about the voices. She could have volutarily institutionalized herself. It took an act of will to hold those children under the water until they were dead. It was HER will and HER hands that did the deed. SHE is responsible. 2899. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 2:25:27 PM Jen, 2900. christipeters - 6/25/2001 3:20:30 PM arky - I tend to agree with you there. (re legal responsibility) 2901. Jennifer A. - 6/25/2001 3:48:33 PM Legally, the only time a mental health professional is obligated to break patient/doctor confidentiality is if they know the patient is going to harm him/herself or another; they are obligated to inform the police...not a family member of the patient, only the police. Ethically, of course, they should not break that confidentiality any time they are not obligated to, so the only information about the treatement that the husband or the mother in law were getting was likely from the patient. 2902. CalGal - 6/25/2001 3:51:30 PM Yes, that's true. 2903. PsychProf - 6/25/2001 3:52:58 PM Since she was on Zoloft and Haldol, and had tried to commit suicide, that seems like an informative source. 2904. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 4:01:24 PM I would imagine he would have met family resistance at the least, if he'd tried to do remove his kids or have her committed, not because of the drugs she was on but because of the symptoms she was having. People who are on that type of medication can have far less problems than she appeared to be having, if reports are accurate--and PP is right, there's a lot of information on her condition now, but I don't know where from, whether it's just the family or what. 2905. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 4:05:19 PM Ase's pictures were a great lift from the depressing tone (it's been a great discussion, but it sticks with you after you log off, for sure), and if you don't mind me posting something lighter from a parent-of-teen perspective, I must say Mose's going to work has been really great. 2906. christipeters - 6/25/2001 4:24:37 PM Arky - Good for Mose! 2907. robertjayb - 6/25/2001 5:02:15 PM No indictment in baby death... 2908. CalGal - 6/25/2001 5:04:10 PM I swear, if the kid had a relative around screaming for blood, would she have gotten off that light? 2909. christipeters - 6/25/2001 5:05:00 PM You know, robertjayb, that seriously stinks. How the hell can anyone "forget" to drop their baby off at daycare?!?! I think she should have been charged with murder or at least negligent homicide. 2910. Jenerator - 6/25/2001 5:09:07 PM Robert, 2911. Jennifer A. - 6/25/2001 5:11:22 PM PsychProf, surely you don't consider somone who's mentally ill a reliable reporter of her own condition? 2912. robertjayb - 6/25/2001 5:12:59 PM I can't help but wonder if the news out of Houston didn't influence the grand jurors. 2913. PsychProf - 6/25/2001 5:16:07 PM Jennifer...suicide attempts and prescibed drugs are not self reports as such, but are quite informative, no?... 2914. PsychProf - 6/25/2001 5:19:54 PM Jennifer...ah...I see how you read my confusing post...I meant her behavior told anyone a lot if they were willing to listen. 2915. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 5:25:08 PM I misread it too. I thought you were talking about the media knowing what specific medications she was on and some of her psychiatric history. 2916. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 5:29:55 PM Leaving a kid in the car is unbelievable, and no indictment is amazing. The description of those two kids who died in their fathers' car that I mentioned earlier pops in my head whenever I hear of another incident and it makes me sick. 2917. janjon - 6/25/2001 5:39:30 PM indictments should issue in cases like this. just as they should in instances where kids find loaded guns in houses and kill others or themselves while just having an innocent game of cops and robbers. 2918. PsychProf - 6/25/2001 5:40:06 PM My point is that she was struggling with life all along...to hear the comments of the family you would think an epiphany will happen soon. What I fear is that she will become an instant victim, not responsible or understood in any sense of the word, yet affected w/o warning or logic by some visited "mental illness', just not herself, and make many feel good by assigning blame to some obtuse stereotype or convenient label that only requires cereal box sympathy and empty actions and words. Perhaps our fear is that we do understand her...some of have seen some of the dim light of her existence. If she is individually responsible for her behavior, then we are to for ours. Well, just thinking aloud... 2919. ElliottRW - 6/25/2001 5:43:02 PM Forgetting to take your child to daycare is more common than you might think. People get absorbed in their thoughts and drive by habit. It's one reason daycare centers are supposed to call the parent when the kid doesn't show up. 2920. JudithAtHome - 6/25/2001 5:50:47 PM I saw this chick on the news when it happened; she didin't look all that bright. 2921. arkymalarky - 6/25/2001 5:55:46 PM Thank you for elucidating PP. I think I understand what you're saying now. 2922. PsychProf - 6/25/2001 5:57:21 PM Good Arky...thanks also to Jennifer for poking me into cognition. 2923. CalGal - 6/25/2001 6:31:04 PM indictments should issue in cases like this. just as they should in instances where kids find loaded guns in houses and kill others or themselves while just having an innocent game of cops and robbers. 2924. joezan - 6/25/2001 9:48:00 PM Well, there was that guy a couple of years ago who, while loading his 3 or 4 kids into the car and getting them strapped in and what-not, forgot one. 2925. pogie - 6/25/2001 10:32:09 PM There was a lot of press some years ago about a foreign chick who left her kid outside a restaurant while she went in to have a spot of coffee and she was surprised at the hubbub because in whichever part of europe she was from (i think it was germany, but memory's hazy), that was perfectly standard. 2926. joezan - 6/25/2001 10:58:42 PM Yeah...I think it was in a big city, wasn't it - somewhere, anyway, where you'd be dumb to leave your bicycle unchained on the sidewalk. 2927. robertjayb - 6/26/2001 1:57:09 AM Here, according to the Dallas Morning News, is Texas law on unattended children: 2928. Toenails - 6/26/2001 8:25:58 AM The kid went rolling off the top of the car, strapped in his car seat, when the guy started picking up speed on the highway, and was narrowly missed by at least one car. 2929. Wombat - 6/26/2001 9:25:42 AM She was from Denmark, the city was New York, and she and her husband were having a coffee either outside at a sidewalk cafe, or just inside with the stroller in full view. Apparently this is done in Copenhagen. After a huge fuss, common sense prevailed, and the child was restored to her. 2930. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 9:37:23 AM Prosecutors are invested with discretion for a reason. They have at their disposal the facts and circumstances, which is more than most people can glean from reading a blurb in the paper. In cases of parental negligence, they have to make a call and whether someone has suffered enough seems a reasonable consideration when you are evaluating lack of intent or recklessness. 2931. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 9:39:08 AM But it does make you wonder about the mother in Texas. If she successfully relies on the insanity defense, ostensibly, in 18 months, she could be deemed "sane" and shortly thereafter, she could be pregnant again. 2932. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 9:40:57 AM Correction to 2930 2933. christipeters - 6/26/2001 11:00:04 AM " But I'd be loathe to charge a mother or father with a crime after they've lost a child in a car accident because the child was not secured in a seat belt and/or the parents were exceeding the speed limit." 2934. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 11:05:43 AM christi 2935. christipeters - 6/26/2001 11:17:48 AM I believe I heard about that on The Early Show this morning. Isn't it specifically saying dialing the cell phone or holding a cell phone in to your ear in your hand while driving that is being forbidden? 2936. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 11:24:53 AM And your eyes on the road. 2937. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 11:28:37 AM And no radios. 2938. ycmeehan - 6/26/2001 11:31:33 AM Hello, Judith, and everyone else. 2939. ycmeehan - 6/26/2001 11:34:23 AM Erin, I am sorry. I thought that I was in the Cafe. Shows you what pitiful state I am still in. Would it be too much trouble to move that post, please? 2940. CalGal - 6/26/2001 11:39:14 AM In cases of parental negligence, they have to make a call and whether someone has suffered enough seems a reasonable consideration when you are evaluating lack of intent or recklessness. 2941. CalGal - 6/26/2001 11:41:07 AM The cellphone law is just another way for states to increase their revenue. I note there is no law against putting on makeup while speeding. 2942. christipeters - 6/26/2001 11:41:50 AM FU - Now, there you are going too far! 2943. christipeters - 6/26/2001 11:43:32 AM "An unwillingness to prosecute a parent in any circumstance where a non-parent would be prosecuted is, again, a statement that children's lives are only valuable to their owner. If the owner kills them (or lets them die through neglect), the notion that "they've suffered enough" is really a cover for "hey, at least they offed their own."" 2944. christipeters - 6/26/2001 11:45:19 AM "I note there is no law against putting on makeup while speeding." 2945. CalGal - 6/26/2001 11:49:59 AM Bingo. 2946. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 11:51:26 AM Cal 2947. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 11:52:20 AM Even if their judgment, to your mind, "by definition devalues the child." 2948. christipeters - 6/26/2001 11:55:51 AM FU - imo, American society in general devalues children and treats them more as the property of their family than as human beings. 2949. CalGal - 6/26/2001 12:00:54 PM I'm more comfortable with the folks on the ground using their judgment. 2950. Francis Urquhart - 6/26/2001 12:19:05 PM Cal 2951. CalGal - 6/26/2001 12:29:39 PM Francis, 2952. Jenerator - 6/26/2001 12:49:29 PM christi, 2953. christipeters - 6/26/2001 1:55:21 PM "....when we have the attitude that daddies aren't important...." 2954. bubbaette - 6/26/2001 1:56:37 PM I think we devalue children when we buy high and sell low. 2955. christipeters - 6/26/2001 1:57:23 PM I always buy low and sell high, myself. 2956. PsychProf - 6/26/2001 2:01:47 PM Don't most/some parents think of "their" child as "their" property that responds to parental edict? I certainly talk about "my" children... 2957. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 2:05:49 PM Yes, when MY son does something stellar, he's all mine but if he does something really dumb (not likely) he's his dads. 2958. CalGal - 6/26/2001 2:07:02 PM But you probably also speak of "your" wife who speaks of "her" husband. I don't think that is about ownership, but relationship. 2959. PsychProf - 6/26/2001 2:13:25 PM Judith...I have not been called kiddo for a long time... 2960. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 2:47:05 PM PP: 2961. Jennifer A. - 6/26/2001 3:14:34 PM christi, about this both hands on the wheel thing...I drive a stick. You want to outlaw them, too? 2962. PsychProf - 6/26/2001 3:19:36 PM haha...how the hell can we outlaw hands and spect people to drive. 2963. CalGal - 6/26/2001 3:26:45 PM Not until they pry that stick out of my cold dead hand. My car goes 80 when I tell it to, not some asshole automatic transmission. 2964. christipeters - 6/26/2001 3:29:58 PM "Hence the actual outcome is close to a property relationship, even if the laws don't state it." 2965. janjon - 6/26/2001 3:35:34 PM driving with a stick shift is not at all analogous to attempting to punch in a telephone number on a cell phone and then continuously using one hand to gab while driving. There is an analogy of sorts that can be made with the common situation when someone is trying to change tapes or cds or even change a radio station when driving, but in terms of degrees of dangerousness, the cell phone wins hands down. 2966. CalGal - 6/26/2001 3:39:24 PM I knew you were saying that, Christi, I was clarifying for PP. 2967. CalGal - 6/26/2001 3:40:31 PM The money argument is for the birds. 2968. PsychProf - 6/26/2001 3:47:02 PM Surely one can see this is humor..."haha...how the hell can we outlaw hands and spect people to 2969. christipeters - 6/26/2001 3:48:26 PM "You do realize that changing radio stations causes some 12 fold more accidents than using a cellphone?" 2970. ElliottRW - 6/26/2001 3:50:28 PM The problem with cell phone use while driving is not the hands--it's the mind. I have no doubt that carrying on a conversation with a passenger in the same car is just as dangerous as driving while talking on a cell phone. Maybe even more dangerous; I'm never tempted to look at a cell phone. Which just says that the law is marginally beneficial at best, at worst it's a plot to sell "handsfree" car phones. Part of my reasoning rests on a study of teenage drivers which found that teens were substantially more likely to get in an accident when another teenager was in the car. I'm looking for a link. 2971. PsychProf - 6/26/2001 3:53:06 PM Cars themselves are pretty dangerous...perhaps...and we know what teens are doing with that free hand... 2972. janjon - 6/26/2001 3:54:48 PM oh lets compare apples and oranges here a bit. Of course there are speed traps and of course there are quotas. And, I suppose that it isn't too far of a stretch to say that some wiseacre town is going to tell its cops to be on the lookout for cellphone violations. 2973. PsychProf - 6/26/2001 4:20:36 PM 2974. CalGal - 6/26/2001 4:28:55 PM Well, with any luck her insanity plea just got tougher. 2975. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 4:29:17 PM Why is the headline of that article "She is pregnant" when the first paragraph says they don't know if she is or not? 2976. Laura C - 6/26/2001 4:29:57 PM If she is pregnant, will they have to take her off the antipsychotic medications? 2977. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 4:31:51 PM I think she was taken off the Haldol a few days before the incident...what would those things do to a fetus, one wonders... 2978. CalGal - 6/26/2001 4:31:55 PM Doesn't it have something to do with half life of the meds? 2979. Laura C - 6/26/2001 4:36:11 PM She was taken off the Haldol, but she's said to be in a deep psychotic state and heavily medicated now. As I understand it, without the meds she can't communicate with her attorney. 2980. CalGal - 6/26/2001 4:37:00 PM Well, that's what they are saying, anyway. I don't know that I buy it. 2981. Laura C - 6/26/2001 4:37:24 PM Which is to say, if she is pregnant and a pregnant woman can't take those meds without endangering the fetus, it will delay proceedings considerably. 2982. CalGal - 6/26/2001 4:38:59 PM Oh. Well, given the resultant kid's outlook if she gets off, why not abort? 2983. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 4:58:47 PM Here are some more sicko parents. 2984. Jenerator - 6/26/2001 5:58:23 PM Judith, 2985. JudithAtHome - 6/26/2001 6:19:17 PM Oh, I know...we had one over here where the parents kept a 12 year old boy chained within 2 feet of a fully stocked fridge; he died and the parents went to prison. Strange how the mother of this little girl and both parents of the boy who died were grossly obese and each set said the child "ate too much". 2986. Jenerator - 6/26/2001 6:23:43 PM Judith, 2987. joezan - 6/27/2001 12:09:11 AM 2988. Åse - 6/27/2001 12:16:22 AM That made me smile. 2989. Frankster - 6/27/2001 12:17:57 AM Joe, 2990. joezan - 6/27/2001 12:20:52 AM Ase: 2991. joezan - 6/27/2001 12:27:41 AM Frank: 2992. theDiva - 6/27/2001 7:20:30 AM Joe 2993. robertjayb - 6/27/2001 1:14:00 PM The Houston Chronicle reports today that Andrea Yates is not pregnant, as speculated. 2994. PsychProf - 6/27/2001 1:38:39 PM Speculation is not News...lousy paper. 2995. Wombat - 6/27/2001 2:49:56 PM Last night Wombette, who when she is not perfect is quite the wise-ass, began answering requests and questions pertaining to her bed-time status with the question "why?" After a number of minutes of this useless dialog, we left her to her own devices. 40 minutes later--and 20 minutes after her bedtime, she comes waltzing into our room, and proclaims that it is now time for her bedtime story. Care to guess what we said? "WHY?" 2996. theDiva - 6/27/2001 2:51:40 PM heh heh. 2997. racehorse - 6/27/2001 3:59:18 PM Doctor's appointment this morning. Simon has to get off the bottle--he is 21 months old. Doctor suggests/advises/insists that we throw away all bottles and offer only sippy cups, and even then, only 16 oz./day. 2998. racehorse - 6/27/2001 3:59:40 PM we=be 2999. CalGal - 6/27/2001 4:26:01 PM Does Simon use a pacifier? 3000. CalGal - 6/27/2001 4:26:32 PM Hey, I was up until 3, and I got the 3K millennial. 3001. racehorse - 6/27/2001 4:30:29 PM Simon dislikes pacifiers. He sucks his thumb. 3002. CalGal - 6/27/2001 5:01:29 PM I was just wondering if there was a correlation. Spawn was off of bottles early, never sucked his thumb, but if you pulled his pacifier out of his mouth when he was sound asleep he was awake in three minutes--definitely linked to his REM or beta or whatever. Getting him off of that was a bitch, and he still clenched his teeth for years. 3003. racehorse - 6/27/2001 5:10:26 PM Well, he's sleeping off the vaccinations now. We'll see how it goes--should be an interesting couple of weeks. 3004. christipeters - 6/27/2001 6:41:52 PM racehorse - that's what we ended up doing with LD. We had introduced sippy cups and even graduated to using regular cups and she still not only hadn't voluntarily given up on the bottle, she hadn't even slowed down. Not only that she stubbornly refused to drink milk in anything but a bottle and other beverages in anything other than a cup. 3005. joezan - 6/27/2001 11:47:21 PM My wife and I have been somewhat concerned lately that our 9 y.o. daughter may have an early onset of puberty. Nothing physiological so far, except that we've noticed some b.o. after her softball games a couple of times, and two zits. But my wife and her 4 sisters were all early, as were my sisters. Joe, 3007. joezan - 6/27/2001 11:58:07 PM Jen: 3008. theDiva - 6/28/2001 7:41:51 AM Joe 3009. Wombat - 6/28/2001 8:25:23 AM Ummm...that other cultures place far more significance on puberty than ours? 3010. theDiva - 6/28/2001 8:45:51 AM beats the hell outta me. 3011. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 8:55:05 AM She's flat as a pancake and weighs 78 pounds at 5 feet tall. 3012. theDiva - 6/28/2001 9:00:42 AM Indy 3013. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2001 9:05:40 AM Howdy, Deev. Sounds skinny to me, but I guess at that age they're lucky and active and can burn it all off. 3014. theDiva - 6/28/2001 9:19:11 AM hahaha! Yeah, I wish my metabolism were still that good. 3015. tiggeriffic - 6/28/2001 9:59:58 AM just thought I would share a funny story that happened to me the other day while shopping... My 7 yr old daughter and I were shopping and somehow the subject of ancestry came up... and I told her that in my family we were all English and Irish.... and that in her dads family there was English Scottish and African, .....and she thought that was cool... and just then an Indian lady and her two kids walked by... and she asked.. " so I could be related to them? ".... and I said " nd I said yes..... you never know who you might be related too... thats why it doesn't matter about where you are from.... 3016. CalGal - 6/28/2001 10:14:39 AM Ha! That's cute. 3017. arkymalarky - 6/28/2001 10:48:24 AM Mose is very small and she lost weight for a few weeks but has since gained it back plus some. I didn't weigh over 100 lbs until I was out of college and she and I are about the same height. 3018. racehorse - 6/28/2001 11:28:03 AM My son is at the 50th percentile for weight, 75th percentile for height. Long and lean, this boy is. 3019. Shannon - 6/28/2001 1:31:40 PM My son's had been at those percentiles since he was about 9 months old. 3020. Shannon - 6/28/2001 1:36:28 PM My son's had been at those percentiles since he was about 9 months old. 3021. Shannon - 6/28/2001 1:37:18 PM Oops, sorry about the double. 3022. racehorse - 6/28/2001 2:00:07 PM I thought perhaps you had a couple of sons. 3023. Jenerator - 6/28/2001 4:46:16 PM Joe, 3024. PsychProf - 6/28/2001 7:54:09 PM Parenting...my youngest son(23) and his beloved Grammie(91)... 3025. Jennifer A. - 6/28/2001 8:39:17 PM Ours was 90th in height and 50th in weight at his two month check up...and looking at his dad, his maternal uncle, his paternal grandfather AND one of his maternal great-grandfathers, there's no reason to expect it to change. 3026. LimeGirl - 6/28/2001 8:53:33 PM Great picture, PP! 3027. bubbaette - 6/28/2001 9:05:39 PM The following came from an anonymous mother in Austin, Texas. 3028. bubbaette - 6/28/2001 9:06:05 PM 19. Always look in the oven before you turn it on. Plastic toys do not like ovens. 3029. christipeters - 6/28/2001 10:35:45 PM LOL! 3030. joezan - 6/28/2001 11:02:11 PM PP: 3031. Jennifer A. - 6/28/2001 11:13:49 PM Oops. Sorry, that's 75th for height on my boy. 3032. joezan - 6/29/2001 12:05:59 AM A neat little thing my daughter and I discovered together: 3033. joezan - 6/29/2001 12:06:27 AM But every time, just as things would turn their darkest, the skies would open again and they'd have their full acre or so of pond back. 3034. tiggeriffic - 6/29/2001 6:21:45 AM Bubbaette: I can relate to that poor woman as I live with a four year old myself..in the last six months he has 3035. Jenerator - 6/29/2001 8:58:13 AM PP, 3036. theDiva - 6/29/2001 9:06:28 AM You know, I really like this thread today. 3037. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 9:29:37 AM Diva 3038. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 9:30:24 AM (the dog probably needed a second coat) 3039. IrvingSnodgrass - 6/29/2001 9:48:18 AM Tiggs: 3040. vw - 6/29/2001 10:00:22 AM Well, if he had primered the dog first he wouldn't have needed that 2nd coat. 3041. theDiva - 6/29/2001 10:02:40 AM Maybe he couldn't sand the dog down to prep him for the primer. Them hounds can be awful skittish, ya know. 3042. vw - 6/29/2001 10:19:43 AM I never had any instance pet painting. But with two girls in the house, we had a few cases of Kitty Hair-Do Salon. 3043. vw - 6/29/2001 10:20:14 AM I never had any instances OF pet painting, I mean. 3044. Laura C - 6/29/2001 10:23:13 AM When I got into college, my little brother painted the black rabbit's white streak orange. Those were the school colors and he wanted to celebrate. 3045. theDiva - 6/29/2001 10:30:29 AM shaved the CAT? How did she get the beast to hold still? 3046. JudithAtHome - 6/29/2001 10:35:36 AM My son never painted the dog but his friend poured a gallon of enamel paint over my son so I guess you could say someone painted my son. The only bare spot on his body was where his shorts were. The paint was white...he looked like Edgar Winter. 3047. PsychProf - 6/29/2001 10:38:19 AM Joe...Six feet Five Inches... 3048. theDiva - 6/29/2001 10:40:37 AM Before Gracie was born, her dad and I babysat one day for his 7 y.o. nephew. He was outside playing with a friend, and after a while we decided to go out into the yard to check on them. 3049. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 10:41:56 AM I told this story on the Fray, so forgive me if you've heard it before. My mother had five children in seven years and was sometimes at wits end with what to do with us -- particularly when we were very young. 3050. PsychProf - 6/29/2001 10:43:52 AM I have always been a bigtime nonsense guy, but sticky floors was never a favorite. 3051. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 10:45:28 AM It wasn't may fault -- Miriam started it. 3052. theDiva - 6/29/2001 10:48:55 AM hahahahahaha 3053. PsychProf - 6/29/2001 10:50:32 AM Hard to stay off the stuff. 3054. theDiva - 6/29/2001 10:51:44 AM You ain't kiddin. Vincent can't be without a jar in his house. 3055. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 10:52:35 AM it has a multitude of uses. 3056. theDiva - 6/29/2001 10:54:18 AM spackle, tub grout, marital aid.... 3057. PsychProf - 6/29/2001 11:41:28 AM Makes for a lasting wax... 3058. theDiva - 6/29/2001 11:44:56 AM And a quick one.... 3059. Wombat - 6/29/2001 12:07:34 PM My kids are very very dull (so far). I like to think that the spectacle of their dad in a towering rage is something they know to avoid. 3060. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 12:25:41 PM When my nephews were just little guys -- 3 or 4 -- they both got tonka dump trucks for their birthday. They were playing with them in the back yard but there was no loose dirt or sand for them to cart around, so they both took dumps in their dump trucks. 3061. Wombat - 6/29/2001 12:32:38 PM That's why they call them "dump" trucks. 3062. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 12:33:23 PM Resourceful little folk, aren't they? 3063. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 12:34:25 PM BTW, I think that parents should archive these types of stories for when their offspring start dating. 3064. LimeGirl - 6/29/2001 12:41:50 PM Great frog story, joezan! 3065. arkymalarky - 6/29/2001 12:43:20 PM Wombat, 3066. arkymalarky - 6/29/2001 12:44:13 PM Ooooh, Bubba! I bet your sister dumped a brick! 3067. Wombat - 6/29/2001 12:45:13 PM If my kids tried any of the aformentioned pet stunts with our cat, they would be sporting new orifices courtesy of same. 3068. Åse - 6/29/2001 12:49:37 PM I had to stop reading for a while. Possum was falling asleep in my arms, and would startle awake everytime I began chuckling. 3069. bubbaette - 6/29/2001 12:53:08 PM Arky 3070. joezan - 6/29/2001 9:37:36 PM Our worst baby shenanigans tale: 3071. Erinys - 6/30/2001 10:31:39 AM Ugh. 3072. khaval alazman - 6/30/2001 11:15:15 AM Man! These stories are hilarious! I could read this stuff forever! 3073. robertjayb - 6/30/2001 2:23:55 PM Devil made her do it...(Dallas Morning News) 3074. CalGal - 6/30/2001 4:31:57 PM The Made to Order Savior: Producing a Perfect Baby Sibling 3075. joezan - 7/1/2001 12:41:52 AM Erinys: 3076. Erinys - 7/1/2001 1:20:20 AM Ah, there's nothing like watching a little kid run around the backyard, jumping frantically at the sky, squealing with delight at catching fireflies, then giggling with delight as they crawl up up his arm to take off from his shoulder. Sometimes he takes them and puts them gently on the top of the trellis so they'll have a better launch pad. 3077. joezan - 7/1/2001 2:01:40 AM Yeah, I'm excited. We never get out early enough to catch any bass, and those and perch are the only kind I actually keep and eat. 3078. PsychProf - 7/1/2001 1:37:59 PM A no brainer...Message # 2918... 3079. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2001 1:50:32 PM joezan: 3080. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2001 1:56:29 PM Legal experts and attorneys say Yates probably will not face the death penalty. A professor and death penalty expert at the University of Texas Law School says few people who kill their kids have the kind of extensive criminal histories as those normally on death row. 3081. Jenerator - 7/1/2001 2:04:10 PM I'm in favor of the death penalty for Yates. Am I the only one? 3082. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2001 2:09:14 PM I favor it, too, but I doubt she gets it. The way has been paved too well for an insanity plea and sympathy for the "devil". 3083. Jean B. - 7/1/2001 2:16:30 PM One way of looking at the Yates situation is that in order to drown her own five children, she must be crazy, unbalanced. No one in her right mind would do such a horrible thing. 3084. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2001 2:24:19 PM I think a person who kills his/her children is by definition insane. 3085. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2001 2:31:06 PM Yes, and I suppose people think she will mourn the death of those kids every day and "live with what she did" so to speak. I don't think so. She will be in her own little world and drugged into oblivion...she won't suffer at all. 3086. Jean B. - 7/1/2001 2:44:14 PM I agree, Judith. She'll have it far easier than she had it at home. 3087. Jenerator - 7/1/2001 2:48:38 PM According to an interesting article in the DMN, the insanity defense is rarely used because it is rarely works. 3088. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2001 2:51:57 PM Well, Jen, you're about to see one of those rare occassions because rarely has the media given a criminal such a tailor-made excuse...they've laid it all out for her and the attorney. 3089. Jenerator - 7/1/2001 2:56:45 PM I *have* read cases about hormonal imbalances causing psychotic behavior, though. 3090. JudithAtHome - 7/1/2001 3:01:02 PM Keoni would make an excellent jury consultant; he can read a person within five minutes of meeting. He used to be an investigator for loss prevention and he was very good at what he did. 3091. Jenerator - 7/1/2001 3:02:07 PM Jean and Judith, 3092. Jenerator - 7/1/2001 3:03:40 PM judith, 3093. arkymalarky - 7/1/2001 3:12:50 PM The only pity I feel for the Yates woman is for her insanity if she's insane, in which case if I were her I think it would be better never to get well, and if I did death would be what I'd want, asap. 3094. Uzmakk - 7/1/2001 9:36:41 PM My son is in 11th grade next year. We have the theatre crowd over -- the cast of Guys and Dolls. The party is going strong. 3095. LimeGirl - 7/1/2001 9:59:51 PM I am enjoying some quiet time at home today. The girls have just finished their first full week out of school, and them being home all day has been a bit much to get used to! They're up in the mountains with their dad until Tuesday now, so a couple of days of quiet! And enough time for me to miss them and want them home again. 3096. theDiva - 7/2/2001 7:44:39 AM My baby started high school today. I am awash in a sore-hearted sadness at the thought she will be leaving me in four short years. How can she possibly be big enough to live on her own at university? 3097. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2001 7:50:51 AM Are you back on full time now, Diva? 3098. theDiva - 7/2/2001 8:01:56 AM Yes, another thing which makes me feel a bit sad. I sure miss my Skeetie during the workday. 3099. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2001 9:22:17 AM But we benefit because we hope to see more of you here. 3100. arkymalarky - 7/2/2001 9:33:03 AM My son is in 11th grade next year. We have the theatre crowd over -- the cast of Guys and Dolls. The party is going strong. 3101. theDiva - 7/2/2001 9:36:52 AM Thanks, Pelle! 3102. arkymalarky - 7/2/2001 9:42:59 AM Mose's h/s didn't start until 10th grade, which I liked a whole lot better, but next year they'll have 9th graders for the first time. I think it was stupid to change. When she went to school with me in 7th grade she was with seniors, but it was a much smaller school and I was there. 3103. theDiva - 7/2/2001 9:52:58 AM The way they do it here in the public schools, it's k-5, 6-8, and 9-12. 3104. arkymalarky - 7/2/2001 10:02:31 AM Hers was k-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12. I loved it. Glad she got through before they changed the high school. She went to school where I teach from 4-7. 3105. theDiva - 7/2/2001 10:08:00 AM I'll bet that was nice. 3106. arkymalarky - 7/2/2001 10:12:15 AM Yes and no. She never really wanted to be there and loved going back to her regular school, but at the time it was about the only option because of where her dad and I worked and bus problems. She did get a nice taste of small town life and a small school and made some lasting friendships. 3107. joezan - 7/2/2001 10:13:46 AM Deev: 3108. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 10:17:18 AM Arky: 3109. theDiva - 7/2/2001 10:34:24 AM She is an amazing girl, Irv. 3110. arkymalarky - 7/2/2001 10:35:10 AM Especially since she was chosen to give the Valedictory Speech, which she did in two languages (with no notes). 3111. joezan - 7/2/2001 10:35:46 AM 3103. theDiva - 7/2/01 9:52:58 AM 3112. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 10:42:39 AM Here is my daughter, giving her graduation speech, a bit overcome by emotion: 3113. Jenerator - 7/2/2001 10:45:39 AM She has her daddy's cheekbones. 3114. theDiva - 7/2/2001 10:49:42 AM Joe 3115. theDiva - 7/2/2001 10:50:08 AM Oiv 3116. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 10:51:02 AM Thanks, Jen... but does she have my earlobes? 3117. joezan - 7/2/2001 10:51:12 AM Beautiful kid, Irv. And what an accomplishment! 3118. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 10:51:44 AM Deev: 3119. Jenerator - 7/2/2001 10:55:38 AM I can't see her earlobes. Unlike her father, she's not wearing a ponytail!;-) 3120. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:02:28 AM Joe: 3121. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:03:46 AM Whoops. Let me try that basketball pic again: 3122. joezan - 7/2/2001 11:04:00 AM Diva: 3123. theDiva - 7/2/2001 11:05:13 AM Irv 3124. joezan - 7/2/2001 11:07:22 AM Irv: 3125. theDiva - 7/2/2001 11:08:17 AM Joe 3126. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:15:59 AM Pretty cool, Joe. I know I'll never have to worry about money when I get old... she'll be running a business empire or something. 3127. marjoribanks - 7/2/2001 11:19:12 AM NIce photos, Irva. 3128. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:21:23 AM Here's an earlobe shot (and that's not all you can see...): 3129. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:22:47 AM Marj: 3130. marjoribanks - 7/2/2001 11:23:04 AM Very cute daughter, Irva. I like the sassy attitude that comes across in your very nice photographs. 3131. joezan - 7/2/2001 11:24:41 AM So's his boy, Marj. 3132. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:26:02 AM Joe: 3133. joezan - 7/2/2001 11:26:08 AM Oh - wait. 3134. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:28:24 AM Actually... he did have a ponytail, but cut it off in favor of two-toned spiked hair. 3135. joezan - 7/2/2001 11:29:30 AM Irv: 3136. ycmeehan - 7/2/2001 11:30:44 AM Long legs, beautiful proportioned face features, a beauty, Irv. How tall is she? 3137. theDiva - 7/2/2001 11:31:12 AM Beautiful pics...you all ready to start cleaning your shotgun and keeping the local boys at bay? 3138. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:32:49 AM YC: 3139. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:34:25 AM Deev: 3140. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 11:36:03 AM 3141. Wombat - 7/2/2001 11:37:37 AM And the drawing and quartering of the lad...one hopes. 3142. theDiva - 7/2/2001 11:38:36 AM Yipes! Two YEARS?! 3143. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 11:51:33 AM Snod...really neat pics...the wind is clearly at their back. 3144. tiggeriffic - 7/2/2001 12:10:54 PM nice pics irv... 3145. theDiva - 7/2/2001 12:19:53 PM that little cherub? amazing..... 3146. arkymalarky - 7/2/2001 12:20:23 PM Lovely daughter, Irv. If she's only 12, you'd better brace yourself. I'm not showing Mose the picture of your son. ;-) 3147. marjoribanks - 7/2/2001 12:36:50 PM Oh, great photos Tigger. The first one is really lovely. 3148. theDiva - 7/2/2001 12:38:34 PM look at those choppers! He just gets cuter, banks. 3149. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 12:40:32 PM Nice pics, Tiggs. I can see the scheming underway in the Dark Angel's eyes. 3150. marjoribanks - 7/2/2001 12:41:11 PM Thanks, Diva, he cut his sixth yesterday. 3151. marjoribanks - 7/2/2001 12:42:31 PM Heh, yes Snod, though I have taken to framing little pictures of myself next to photos of him to remind people that he does actually resemble my own infant self greatly and also that I used to be cute. 3152. theDiva - 7/2/2001 12:43:11 PM oh, you still are. 3153. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 12:43:57 PM Sounds like he's all set for life in NYC, Marj -- I've seen more than a few people dragging gym bags and wearing swimming goggles on the streets of the city. 3154. theDiva - 7/2/2001 12:46:26 PM yeah, but they're usually on lithium... 3155. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 1:34:27 PM Tigg...NF? 3156. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2001 1:56:04 PM Talking about cute kids ... 3157. bubbaette - 7/2/2001 2:01:28 PM Nice family photo album today. Who woulda thunk that the Motiers woulda begat such photogenic offspring? 3158. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 2:12:50 PM I am told I was one ugly kid. 3159. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 2:18:19 PM Apparently, I looked like a stoned Mongolian goatherder. 3160. ycmeehan - 7/2/2001 2:19:40 PM Pelle, 3161. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 2:19:53 PM We shouldn't breed. 3162. theDiva - 7/2/2001 2:20:00 PM oh, do be more precise, khaval. 3163. theDiva - 7/2/2001 2:20:24 PM Nonsense, Prof, your offspring are just swell. 3164. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 2:25:13 PM No Deev...I meant Kavetch and myself should not breed together...hahahahaha 3165. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 2:27:02 PM The mention of stoned goatherders prompted me to again post this photo of Wabbit, Snod and one other... 3166. theDiva - 7/2/2001 2:27:19 PM hahahahaha 3167. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2001 2:39:57 PM yc 3168. theDiva - 7/2/2001 2:40:42 PM The nose is a dead giveaway. 3169. PelleNilsson - 7/2/2001 2:44:36 PM I have my mother's nose. Otherwise my bodybuild is almost a copy of my father's. 3170. theDiva - 7/2/2001 2:47:39 PM I have my mother's nose. 3171. Åse - 7/2/2001 2:55:21 PM What beautiful children. 3172. theDiva - 7/2/2001 3:16:10 PM Two of my favorite mother and child photos, apologies to those who have seen them already... 3173. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 3:17:25 PM They are beautiful Deev... 3174. theDiva - 7/2/2001 3:18:30 PM thanks, sweetie, I rather like them. 3175. bubbaette - 7/2/2001 3:21:11 PM What a chubby-cheeked infant you were, Deev -- you and Gracie both. 3176. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 3:22:48 PM My turn, my sons... 3177. theDiva - 7/2/2001 3:27:07 PM Bubb 3178. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 3:34:45 PM Naturally Deev... 3179. theDiva - 7/2/2001 3:35:32 PM I love that. 3180. PsychProf - 7/2/2001 4:06:26 PM MsGreer and daughter.. 3181. Jenerator - 7/2/2001 5:35:46 PM Finally I get to see msgreer! What a beauty and Jennifer is a little pixie. 3182. JudithAtHome - 7/2/2001 5:41:16 PM Nice cheekbones, too! 3183. msgreer - 7/2/2001 5:58:09 PM Judith and Jenerator I call it my father's genes. Thank you, I think Jennifer is a knockout. 3184. Jenerator - 7/2/2001 5:59:44 PM msgreer, 3185. msgreer - 7/2/2001 6:01:34 PM No, I am not busy. Do you want to meet over email or the phone?" 3186. msgreer - 7/2/2001 6:02:18 PM or here? 3187. Jenerator - 7/2/2001 6:02:39 PM I'll call you in three minutes.;-) 3188. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 8:27:36 PM These family pics are great... let's have more! 3189. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 8:43:39 PM Ammi and me 3190. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 8:44:27 PM Hmmm... didn't work. 3191. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 8:51:59 PM Khaval: 3192. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 8:53:59 PM Thankyou Irv :) 3193. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 8:56:19 PM hmmmm.... that's odd... the shutterfly link isn't working. 3194. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:00:55 PM I'll try again: 3195. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:01:43 PM Fuckshitfuckshit! 3196. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 9:07:20 PM Khaval: 3197. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:13:58 PM Ammi and K. 3198. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:14:38 PM *phew* 3199. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:15:43 PM Again, thanks Irv. :) 3200. labwabbit - 7/2/2001 9:18:25 PM Whassup with the gazillion cookies? 3201. CalGal - 7/2/2001 9:18:31 PM Too lazy to switch to a site that allows image links, but here are my favorite Spawn pix 3202. CalGal - 7/2/2001 9:18:34 PM Too lazy to switch to a site that allows image links, but here are my favorite Spawn pix 3203. CalGal - 7/2/2001 9:18:57 PM Whoops. Don't know how that double occurred. 3204. Jennifer A. - 7/2/2001 9:26:47 PM Who's the baby? 3205. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 9:33:22 PM Great pics, Khaval! My wife is Indonesian (from West Java). 3207. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:47:27 PM Thanks Irv. 3208. CalGal - 7/2/2001 9:48:59 PM Oh, that's my nephew, Jeff. He's bigger now. So here are all my nieces and nevvies. Starting from the right: 3209. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 9:57:24 PM Oh Cal! What beautiful children! 3210. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/2/2001 9:58:35 PM 3211. CalGal - 7/2/2001 10:02:14 PM Khav, 3212. Jennifer A. - 7/2/2001 10:03:46 PM Yes, Spawn looks particularly sweet in the pic with Jeff. 3213. CalGal - 7/2/2001 10:04:50 PM Of course, maybe it's Spawn you see as the hellraiser. (g) In any event, only one of the three oldest kids in the next generation is problematic, and he's not in the pictures. Sadly, his psycho mother took him to the Dominican Republic. My brother didn't have to let her, and I still wish he hadn't. Myles did far better when he lived with his dad. 3214. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 10:06:46 PM Irv *LOL*! You don't look too happy there. But you were sooo sweet! 3215. Shannon - 7/2/2001 10:07:14 PM Great pics, everyone. 3216. CalGal - 7/2/2001 10:07:56 PM Thanks, Jennifer. Where are your pics? I haven't seen your little one yet. Have you linked it in over at TT? 3217. khaval alazman - 7/2/2001 10:09:29 PM Cal, that's very sad! 3218. theDiva - 7/3/2001 7:45:41 AM thanks, Khaval...yours are really nice, too. 3219. msgreer - 7/3/2001 7:56:05 AM Hi Diva You and Gracie are cuties too. Weren't we the young ones! 3220. theDiva - 7/3/2001 8:21:10 AM THERE you are. 3221. msgreer - 7/3/2001 8:29:18 AM sniffle indeed sweet girl. wait until gracie is jennifer's age and come talk to me! But I know how you feel. I look at Jennifer and say when did she get to be so grown up? 3222. msgreer - 7/3/2001 8:35:16 AM and deev, she's doing really well. i am thrilled. 3223. theDiva - 7/3/2001 8:47:42 AM That was my next question. She's feeling better? 3224. msgreer - 7/3/2001 8:49:42 AM Yes, she is. She started her rehab a few weeks ago and her doctors are very encouraged. This is not to say she doesn't have work to do, she does. But she sounds great and is happy. Thanks for asking, sweetie. 3225. theDiva - 7/3/2001 8:56:19 AM Good stuff. I am glad to hear it. 3226. msgreer - 7/3/2001 8:59:50 AM Diva I envy you. A little one to fill your home. 3227. theDiva - 7/3/2001 9:06:38 AM Good God, woman, three weeks? I'm sorry. 3228. msgreer - 7/3/2001 9:09:15 AM Diva I have lost my hearing in my right ear. Now 3229. theDiva - 7/3/2001 9:14:09 AM I KISS YOU BACK! 3230. theDiva - 7/3/2001 10:24:44 AM 3231. theDiva - 7/3/2001 10:25:11 AM heck 3232. racehorse - 7/3/2001 10:26:22 AM Funny pic. 3233. theDiva - 7/3/2001 10:31:10 AM believe it or not, that was posted on one of those touchyfeely mothering support forums. After I peeled myself off the floor, I had to post it here. 3234. bubbaette - 7/3/2001 10:49:10 AM Hmmmm. It will be salsa-making season here in about 2 weeks. Maybe I should be branching out. 3235. theDiva - 7/3/2001 10:56:31 AM hahahaha 3236. msgreer - 7/3/2001 11:25:23 AM Diva Check your email. 3237. theDiva - 7/3/2001 11:27:42 AM yes'm. 3238. Åse - 7/3/2001 12:21:04 PM Diva, PP, Khaval, MsGreer, CalGal (ummmm, did I miss anybody), lovely pictures. 3239. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 12:29:45 PM In another age I looked like this... 3240. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:34:07 PM omg, what a doll. 3241. JJBiener - 7/3/2001 12:34:47 PM Diva - What am I? Chopped liver? Don't I get any pictures of Skeeter? 3242. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 12:36:29 PM re 3239: 3243. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 12:36:48 PM Hahahaha...I love it when the chopped liver card is played... 3244. khaval alazman - 7/3/2001 12:38:53 PM Ase: "baby-lust" is just a gorgeous term. 3245. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:40:21 PM my God. 3246. khaval alazman - 7/3/2001 12:40:23 PM Psych, that's a very cute photo! You look identical to your older(?) son. 3247. JJBiener - 7/3/2001 12:42:28 PM PP - Well, it just doesn't sound right to say: What am I? Pâté? 3248. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 12:42:34 PM Um, why is this definition of baby-lust restricted to women? 3249. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:43:33 PM rut-ro, here comes the Mote's uber-doting papa.... 3250. khaval alazman - 7/3/2001 12:43:42 PM Marji - you're cute when you're petulant! 3251. JJBiener - 7/3/2001 12:43:45 PM Diva - Yahoo will be fine. 3252. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:44:04 PM coming up.... 3253. JJBiener - 7/3/2001 12:44:42 PM Thank you dear. 3254. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2001 12:46:12 PM PP: 3255. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 12:46:17 PM I like all babies, if truth be told. I restrain myself from indiscriminately pinching cheeks and distributing sloppy kisses in the US (and most of Europe) but I do have to work at it. 3256. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:47:13 PM JJ 3257. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2001 12:48:08 PM I'll say it....Deev, what am I? Paté? 3258. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:50:23 PM my God, did I forget you, too? 3259. khaval alazman - 7/3/2001 12:52:49 PM Marji, baby-mad boys are both terrifying and gorgeous. 3260. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2001 12:53:04 PM The one listed in the Cafe worked fine last time....thanks! I want to compare the two; Keoni loved the other one, by the way, as did I...thought I wrote you about it but maybe not. 3261. bubbaette - 7/3/2001 12:54:41 PM While I dote on babies, I am recoverning from baby-lust and gaining a growing appreciation for the benefits of being childfree. 3262. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 12:55:50 PM Well, I was quite happy to love babies without wanting my own. Having been a repeat godfather, and doting cousin, and babysitter-of-choice, for years - I was and am well aware that I prefer to handle the kids when they're washed, changed and fed properly. Then, it's all gravy. 3263. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:56:57 PM Judith 3264. khaval alazman - 7/3/2001 12:58:55 PM Marji, it's an Anglo thing, and it's sad and fucked up. It's a vile distortion of maleness. 3265. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2001 12:59:03 PM Diva...sorry 'bout that! I read you were playing with a digital camera and assumed you'd taken some new shots of the little one. 3266. theDiva - 7/3/2001 12:59:42 PM oh, I am an idiot...I just sdent one? The baptismal? 3267. Wombat - 7/3/2001 1:00:17 PM The Wombats bought a digital camera a few weeks ago. If I get my act together, perhaps I'll send in pictures of the Womblings. One attaches a jpg file and sends it where? 3268. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2001 1:00:41 PM I got one, with a little bonnet thingy on... 3269. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 1:06:22 PM Wombat, 3270. theDiva - 7/3/2001 1:07:50 PM Judith 3271. theDiva - 7/3/2001 1:08:17 PM oh no! How sweet! 3272. JJBiener - 7/3/2001 1:12:31 PM Banks - Great picture. I know how you feel about kids. Before I had my own, I would visit my nieces and nephews periodically to get a kid fix. Now that my daughter is almost grown, I can relate to Bubbaette's feeling about looking forward to be childless again. 3273. JudithAtHome - 7/3/2001 1:17:40 PM Banks...tell your kid when he's old enough that those goggles come in handy when he's cutting onions; I'm assuming he'll inherit your talent in the kitchen, of course. 3274. bubbaette - 7/3/2001 1:19:12 PM Marj 3275. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 1:20:40 PM Thanks y'all. 3276. christipeters - 7/3/2001 1:24:31 PM Great pictures everyone! If I get a chance I'll scan some pictures this weekend to share with y'all. 3277. theDiva - 7/3/2001 1:30:37 PM Have a great time and a safe trip, Christi! 3278. msgreer - 7/3/2001 2:46:21 PM marj Great picture. 3279. Jennifer A. - 7/3/2001 3:44:43 PM We have a few digital pics, not many. We have web space through our dsl, but we haven't put anything there. The scanner is currently swapped out until the next phase of the decorate/remodel thing happens. 3280. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 4:01:57 PM Somebody elses kid... 3281. LimeGirl - 7/3/2001 4:09:53 PM I read that in the paper PP, and then I immediately started searching Amazon for good history books for my children to read!! I think I have found a good series, but it's kinda spendy, so I'll acquire it slowly. I did get them a book about the Revolutionary War today, figured it would make good 4th of July reading. 3282. CalGal - 7/3/2001 4:33:02 PM Lime, 3283. LimeGirl - 7/3/2001 5:20:49 PM That's the series I want to get! I looked through a few of the volumes at the bookstore today, and it looked good. I figured I'd read some to them, and it didn't look too far off of Abby's reading level. I think maybe I'll start with it once school starts again. We're doing math and science this summer, but they don't get much history in school so it'd be a good companion to the school year. 3284. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 5:31:13 PM Sometimes I think I should have spent more time on academics with my boys(eg summertime), but they were never particularly interested...baseball and baketball,...anytime...neither is naturally inclined to reading, and we goofed off a lot. 3285. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 5:33:20 PM Sorry...Lime...that was in response to your 3283. 3286. LimeGirl - 7/3/2001 5:43:40 PM The girls seem to like doing school stuff in the summertime. I give them a little list each day of what they're supposed to do, and they hop right to it. They get especially excited about the science stuff we're doing. It's dinosaurs right now, and Thursday we're going with my dad to hunt for fossils. I think they like having some structure in the day, inside work in the morning, then in the afternoon we try to go somewhere fun. I definitely like the structure, and it sure cuts back on the 'I'm bored's' that make me crazy! 3287. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 5:49:38 PM Sounds as if you have a good handle on parenting...I loved it, and still do. Got better as they got older... 3288. marjoribanks - 7/3/2001 6:11:18 PM Eh, my kid's been a big reader from the beginning......... 3289. PsychProf - 7/3/2001 6:12:56 PM Good one Banks... 3290. racehorse - 7/3/2001 6:57:58 PM I caught my son doing that a couple of days ago. He had climbed up a bar stool and had the paper and my cigs spread out in front of him, like a 40-year-old man on a Sunday morning. I guess it's time I quit smoking. 3291. Jennifer A. - 7/3/2001 7:16:33 PM Yep. 3292. LimeGirl - 7/5/2001 9:25:04 PM Yesterday, we went up to my parents for dinner, fireworks, and then a trip to look for fossils today. The girls had packed their own bags -- they're quite used to packing for overnight, so I didn't bother to check and make sure they'd packed appropriately. 3293. CalGal - 7/6/2001 12:33:50 AM Lime, 3294. HollyW - 7/8/2001 12:45:14 AM My child has suddenly turned into a toddler. It happened a week ago Thursday, as a matter of fact. She now says "No NO NO NO NO!", whines, puts herself on the floor and cries, and digs in her heels and shrieks when she isn't finished picking up rocks from the driveway and does not want to go into the house. And so on and so forth. 3295. ElliottRW - 7/8/2001 10:34:10 AM So I'm dreading this. 3296. Erinys - 7/8/2001 12:50:34 PM My advice is to suck it up and ask for more help, HollyW. You'll live through it either way, but it will be more pleasant with help, won't it? Any nearby teen you could hire for an hour or two? It's always a good idea to have plan B for babysitters. 3297. CalGal - 7/8/2001 12:50:43 PM Holly, 3298. CalGal - 7/8/2001 1:28:08 PM So what I think works is to provide clear limits--but also provide lots of choices. After all, that's what this development phase is about. She's growing up. She's not a baby. She is a big girl. She wants a sense of control over her destiny. (don't we all?) 3299. CalGal - 7/8/2001 1:28:58 PM Part of this is also your own mindset. I was lucky--Spawn's transition was pretty mild, so I didn't have the sense of mourning that some parents have when they are faced with a toddler. (Where did my sweet adorable amiable baby go?) So I just thought this opinionated little kid was pretty fun. If you are feeling that sense of mourning, or a sense of loss, it's harder to be excited about this time and that can affect your mood, your pride in this next development phase (far more important, really, than walking), and your ability to handle her without feeling exhausted. 3300. Jean B. - 7/8/2001 1:39:18 PM Great posts, CalGal! And I totally agree with your approach. 3301. LimeGirl - 7/8/2001 1:43:39 PM The choices thing worked stunningly with Abby. I'd ask her if she wanted to be carried to bed or if she wanted to walk, and she'd lift up her arms to be carried, and would go to bed like a little angel. Katrina was not quite so easily taken by the choices. I'd ask her the same question, and she'd throw herself on the floor screaming. It took me much longer to figure out how to deal with her. (The solution, as it turned out, was to make sure she knew I was firmly in charge, and then she behaved beautifully. I let her screaming control things for too long.) 3302. LimeGirl - 7/8/2001 1:47:26 PM One more thing -- with toddlers, it helps a great deal if you focus on what you're going to do next, not what you're not going to do anymore. It doesn't always work, but it helps! 3303. Erinys - 7/8/2001 9:49:49 PM My child is a imaginative dream child. You know how we teach our babies to blow kisses? 3304. Erinys - 7/8/2001 9:50:56 PM It was really cute. 3305. Erinys - 7/8/2001 9:52:06 PM What kind of cameras do the little video clip things? Can they be posted here? I would like to show off like everyone else. 3306. Jennifer A. - 7/8/2001 11:54:07 PM It's better when I take her out, either with others or just us, but sometimes Mommy doesn't feel like hitting the town. 3307. Åse - 7/9/2001 5:15:37 PM Freja's getting her first tooth. 3308. CalGal - 7/9/2001 5:40:54 PM Jean, 3309. Åse - 7/9/2001 5:54:44 PM Cal, it is just showing up. I happened to look at her gum, and there's this opening in it with the first bit of white barely poking out. No fussiness, but then she's almost never fussy. 3310. CalGal - 7/9/2001 5:58:51 PM Oh, so it just seems like she was born yesterday. 3311. racehorse - 7/9/2001 6:04:34 PM Simon had no teeth at all until he was, maybe 10 or 11 months. Then they started coming in something fierce. 3312. Erinys - 7/10/2001 7:04:12 PM ScienceBoy has been running experiments all afternoon on making slushies. Does Sprite freeze faster than Coke? How about Magic Twist Koolaid? His latest is putting a metal spoon in the cup and timing that. 3313. LimeGirl - 7/10/2001 7:42:39 PM That is cute, Erinys! How old is he again? 3314. arkymalarky - 7/10/2001 7:46:53 PM Mine's doing a full shift at Sonic right now. Think I'll go get a slush. 3315. Shannon - 7/10/2001 10:48:20 PM Are those slushes good? I love slushes. I keep meaning to stop at Sonic and try one. 3316. arkymalarky - 7/10/2001 11:44:22 PM I love them, especially the fresh fruit ones. I got a lemon one, which they make with fresh lemons and they put a lemon wedge in the bottom. 3317. HollyW - 7/11/2001 12:32:22 AM I've never heard of Sonic. 3318. Erinys - 7/11/2001 2:52:36 AM But maybe it has to be there because it has to be there 3319. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 4:21:16 AM I may have just been lucky, but I never really had any trouble with my kids when they were small (or even now, when they are teenagers). I had a simple method: I treated them like real people from the time they were small, and they were receptive to it. I doubt this is an approved method, but I asked my kids to reason things out and tell me the reason they couldn't do something, whenever possible, rather than just saying no. 3320. Erinys - 7/11/2001 5:12:38 AM I treated them like real people 3321. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/11/2001 5:21:16 AM I guess I meant as opposed to treating them like children. If you treat kids like children, they'll act like children. I'm not saying I found some great way to raise kids, but it worked for me. My kids have always felt they could talk to me, and they still do, about their feelings, wants, hopes, etc. 3322. khaval alazman - 7/11/2001 6:46:21 AM I have to leave the house now, so I apologise very much if this is garbelled. 3323. khaval alazman - 7/11/2001 6:47:04 AM ...cont. 3324. christipeters - 7/11/2001 1:56:27 PM Holly - Sometimes she seems like she doesn't want choices, she doesn't know WHAT she wants.... 3325. arkymalarky - 7/11/2001 2:09:45 PM Mose was so funny when she was a toddler, because she had an adult attitude about what she wanted. She'd frown and say "cookienanabutteronit" like she was talking in a controlled angry tone to a clerk behind a customer service desk. The hardest part about dealing with her was not cracking up when we really needed to be firm. She'd use whatever she thought would get her what she wanted. In fact, she's still that way. She has this concept about what she does and doesn't deserve to get to do, such that her approach has a Patrick Henry feel to it. 3326. robertjayb - 7/11/2001 11:21:24 PM Mind your kids and pets... 3327. LimeGirl - 7/12/2001 1:43:44 PM christi, your gel-pen tattoo idea provided me with a good 20 minutes of entertainment yesterday, as I decorated my arm while on hold with the cable company. And when I went to work, everyone admired my purple and green "tattoo". 3328. christipeters - 7/12/2001 1:55:03 PM Lime Girl - 3329. Erinys - 7/12/2001 3:14:40 PM We played with blow-pen tattoos yesterday. My colleagues thought I was bruised this AM. 3330. LimeGirl - 7/12/2001 3:20:36 PM Blow-pens scare me! It seems like there is such a large disaster potential with anything where you spray ink through the air!! 3331. Wombat - 7/12/2001 4:14:18 PM Last year Wombette (7 yrs. old) asked me if she could have a tattoo. I managed bite back my immediate response, which would have added a few obscene modifiers to her vocabulary, and asked her what she meant by a "tattoo." She explained to me about rub-on tattoos. My relief was palpable, and my permission unforced. 3332. CalGal - 7/12/2001 4:16:37 PM I can't understand these teens who get "cute" little tattoos. I mean yeah, they are kind of cute. But tattoo parlors ought to be required by law to show them what it will look like in 30 years. 3333. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 4:19:31 PM That's the problem...kids don't think they will age 30 years, much less their tattoos. 3334. ElliottRW - 7/12/2001 4:30:18 PM re: inconsolable toddler Our boy is joy except for 1) when he's tired (in which case he's understandably cranky and sometimes a bit manic) and 2) right after he wakes up from a nap. He wakes up from overnight sleep fresh as a daisy but from naps (not always, but often) he wakes up like he's possessed. Usually lasts no more than 15 minutes (I have taken to timing these episodes as a way of intellectualizing them). The frequency (but not the duration) of these episodes seems to have peaked. 3335. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 4:35:23 PM Maybe he's like me and has nightmares during naps. I seldom have then during the night but almost everytime I take a nap, I do. 3336. christipeters - 7/12/2001 4:44:31 PM CalGal - I've talked to LD about tatoos. 3337. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 4:52:02 PM One has to decide if tattos and other body adornments are important to control...I think parental influence is like a bucket of liquid, with a set amount you get to choose the use of. 3338. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:02:38 PM Very true, PP. We have close friends whose son has changed his look and tastes drastically just from 16 to 17, complete with multi-dyed mohawk. Don't know about tattoos or piercings. 3339. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:04:28 PM Arky...did your friends dip from the bucket, or accept the changes. 3340. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:05:11 PM Christi, 3341. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:06:42 PM They accepted them with reservations. They're more laid back about that sort of thing than we are. Eyebrows are just beginning to raise a bit in that household, but he's a senior now. 3342. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:07:43 PM Ha...have you guys seen college students!!!! 3343. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:09:00 PM I will say this, too, some of the brightest and most interesting students I've had were "unique" in their tastes. I've had some slugs that were too, though, so it's not an indicator of anything, I don't guess, except that it's not necessarily a cause for panic if there aren't other warning signs there. 3344. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:10:20 PM College girls here are adding holes to their ears and piercing navels--nothing drastic--but Mose has campaigned for a navel-piercing lately, so far to no avail. 3345. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:10:36 PM Arky...yes...the reason I seldom give parenting advice about specifics(unless I am paid to) is that behavior must be viewed from a total context, and also because the one looking for advice usually tells the story in such a manner as to maximize the probability of solicited agreeement. 3346. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:15:35 PM Lots of mouth and tongue jewelry here...Lord knows what is hidden from view. I enjoy predicting hair color on any given day. 3347. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:15:50 PM Hahaha. I can't imagine. That's what the kids do with their parents too, isn't it? You wouldn't believe all the reasonable arguments I've heard in favor of belly button piercing. Almost makes me think I need one myself. 3348. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:17:01 PM Hmmm...hahahaha... 3349. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 5:18:02 PM Yeah, the kids are doing tongues around here. Noses seem to be out for the moment, but maybe it's because kids in Arkansas are too prone to allergies. 3350. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:21:55 PM I am told that the pole in the tongue makes for better forms of particular sexual practices...it is amazing what I am told, actually. This morning whem I arrived at my office a female student was sleeping on the floor, at/infrontof my door. I took this as a cue that she wanted to talk. 3351. christipeters - 7/12/2001 5:41:07 PM I haven't forbidden LD from ever getting a tatoo, just laid out the facts. If she decides, when she's older that she wants one, it wouldn't freak me out. I do, however, want to make sure she knows enough to make sure she goes to a good place that sterilizes their needles and that she understands what can go wrong as well as right. 3352. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:45:09 PM DD's Godmother seems to have a firm grasp on what to say to teens...compare her statement with "Yer not gonna do it"...good for her. 3353. PsychProf - 7/12/2001 5:46:00 PM Sorry... "LD's"...it has been a hectic day. 3354. LimeGirl - 7/12/2001 6:38:17 PM I figure that my philosophy on hair and piercings will be fairly lenient --they can do what they want, with their money, and live with the concequences. Although I think I'll require research first, and tattoos would be a more serious discussion, because they're more permanent. (I assume piercings will grow over in time?) 3355. Erinys - 7/12/2001 6:58:07 PM My son was asking about tongue piercings the other day - why did people do it? I said I really didn't know, that people were piercing lots more body parts than when I was a kid. 3356. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 7:08:41 PM Something that would have made me furious happened to a student in my daughter's school. He got his tongue pierced on a school trip to Mexico. 3357. mgleason - 7/12/2001 7:19:48 PM I am so squeamish, that had my ears not been pierced as an infant, I doubt I'd sport earrings today. I did try for two more holes, one on each ear, a few years ago, but had to let them close over because taking care of them freaked me out. The thought of subjecting any other body parts to piercing makes me light-headed. Ditto tattoos. Ick. 3358. JudithAtHome - 7/12/2001 7:22:09 PM If you are pierced by a needle containing nickle you are set for life with a nickle allergy and you'd be amazed how much jewelry contains nickle. 3359. CalGal - 7/12/2001 10:42:34 PM I don't wear earrings and my piercings never grew over. I was done long before the little guns, and I bled for what seemed like an hour. I never wanted to pierce again. 3360. Shannon - 7/12/2001 10:59:15 PM I doubt I'll care much about hair. I'd let either of my kids peirce ears, although metal sensitivities run in my family--my mom and I are easily bothered by jewelry, as are a couple of her sisters. So I'd try to stall piercing for that reason. 3361. CalGal - 7/12/2001 11:35:31 PM I think it's important to let kids be as stylish as your budget can manage, but I also like to make sure that Spawn's just not doing something because it's cool. I think he should actually like it, too. Thus far, I've thought he's made good choices. But the tough years are still ahead. 3362. Shannon - 7/12/2001 11:42:10 PM Well, we've had practice for that with the haircut--Q said he wanted long hair like Daddy. Daddy told him when he was a grownup he could have hair as long as he wanted. Seriously, I wouldn't make him get his hair cut if he were a teenager or a pre-teen. But at this age, it's ours to deal with, and he's not what you'd call a cooperative child, so... 3363. CalGal - 7/12/2001 11:45:25 PM Oh, that's adorable. 3364. arkymalarky - 7/12/2001 11:49:50 PM I don't care about anything that isn't permanent, but Mose is a conservative kid, fashion-wise. A fifty year old pal of ours got his first tattoo for his fiftieth birthday. Bob is not doing that for his. I hope. 3365. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/13/2001 1:47:14 AM My daughter is planning to get her belly-button pierced on her current trip to the USA (she may have done it already). She is considering other piercings, but I think I've talked her out of them for now. 3366. Erinys - 7/13/2001 2:22:02 AM That's hilarious about Mr. Cates' haircut, arkymalarky. 3367. LimeGirl - 7/13/2001 2:23:03 AM I don't care about anything that isn't permanent 3368. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 10:46:36 AM Yeah, Mose knows she's got to pay for her own hair, even perms, etc. I don't mind her having them, but she's got money if it's what she wants to spend it on. So far it hasn't been. I imagine she'll get her navel pierced, but she'll bring it up, I'll say wait, and she drops it. That's my gauge for how badly she wants another hole in her body, and I'd rather her show more interest before saying go ahead. We've been down that road before--want something bad one day, wish you didn't have it the next. 3369. theDiva - 7/13/2001 10:56:42 AM Gracie's hatred of needles practically ensures there are no tattoos or piercings in her immediate future. She shudders at the notion, and doesn't even have her ears pierced. I told her years ago that she could pretty much do whatever she wants with her hair as long as she behaves and keeps her grades up. 3370. theDiva - 7/13/2001 10:57:27 AM As for me, I had my ears pierced at 21 and nearly passed out from nervousness. 3371. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 11:01:19 AM My mother was the neurotic sort who made me get mine pierced at the doctor's office, where they used the advanced technique of an ice cube and a needle. 3372. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 11:09:27 AM I pierced my own one night after copious amounts of vodka. Unfortunately, the needle I used had nickle in it and I developed an allergy to it so now have to wear white gold only. No problem there...:-) 3373. mgleason - 7/13/2001 11:11:40 AM Why white gold, Judith? What's the connection between yellow gold and nickel? 3374. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 11:13:26 AM Oh, nothing wrong with gold...I just don't like it. Should have explained that, I guess. 3375. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 11:13:42 AM Judith...I never heard of large amounts of vodka applied to the ear. 3376. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 11:17:55 AM The problem for me comes with silver, which I prefer...lots of inferior silver contains nickle. I ordered a silver posey ring (with inscription inside) from MOMA catalogue and it cost enough to be more pure but wore it 2 days and had to stop because it had branded my finger all the way around. 3377. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 11:19:41 AM PP: 3378. mgleason - 7/13/2001 11:26:23 AM You know, you're going to have Prof attempting to pour entire bottles of beer into his ear. 3379. theDiva - 7/13/2001 11:36:15 AM just as long as it ain't the Moosehead.... 3380. christipeters - 7/13/2001 3:28:27 PM When LD was born her Dad and I talked about whether to have her ears pierced. I said there were only two ways to do it (imo), when they are tiny babies and it's easy to take care of them for the baby, and when they were old enough to decide for themselves they want it AND take care of their ears themselves. 3381. ElliottRW - 7/13/2001 3:39:23 PM Judith -- Maybe he's like me and has nightmares during naps. 3382. bubbaette - 7/13/2001 3:43:55 PM My mother pierced my ears when I was in Jr. High. She put a bar of soap behind my ear and used an embroidery needle. All of this was over my Dad's objections. He thought it was barbaric to puncture holes in oneself to hang ornaments from, and suggested that I also install a plate in my lower lip, some rings around my neck, and have my feet bound. 3383. christipeters - 7/13/2001 3:45:33 PM LOL! 3384. Erinys - 7/13/2001 3:47:16 PM Naps are weird. I can need one, and if I get at least a short amount, it's great. But too long a nap, and I'm grumpy as hell. 3385. vw - 7/13/2001 3:47:32 PM My dad's comment about ear peircing was brief and to the point, "Yeah, like you need another hole in your head." 3386. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 3:48:15 PM Good lord, my dad said that to my sister after I pierced her ears....too funny! 3387. Erinys - 7/13/2001 3:49:30 PM woops, missed your post, bubbaette. A bar of soap? Never heard of that - only ice cubes. 3388. theDiva - 7/13/2001 3:49:36 PM Bubb 3389. bubbaette - 7/13/2001 3:51:35 PM Erinys 3390. vw - 7/13/2001 3:52:07 PM My personal favorite Dadism delivered while yelling at my brother and I for being ungrateful, inconsiderate teens, 3391. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 3:53:23 PM The dispassionate discussion of body piercing here belies the experience I have had with fellow parents and the families of college students...many students have rifts over this issue with their parents that actually cut off meaningful communications. I have often wondered why parents find this an acceptable condition of interaction. 3392. bubbaette - 7/13/2001 3:54:10 PM HaHaHa 3393. CalGal - 7/13/2001 3:54:35 PM It represents control to them, something they feel they are losing during the teen years. 3394. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 3:57:18 PM They may as well feel it; they are losing it. 3395. theDiva - 7/13/2001 3:58:31 PM VW 3396. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 3:59:50 PM Yes Judith, but that was not the point I was trying to make(sorry if I confused you)...I was wondering why the response of "We're not talking cuz we're angry with eachother" is allowed to stand as policy by parents. 3397. Erinys - 7/13/2001 4:01:18 PM PsychProf, maybe it's because most people here are pierced themselves? 3398. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 4:02:05 PM Diva and Bubba...Dadisms...my sons put on a show during holidays, non-stop quotes and physical mannerisms, of you know who. Very funny. 3399. theDiva - 7/13/2001 4:02:34 PM Shoot, I'd pay money to see that. 3400. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 4:03:29 PM Erinys...possibly, but teens have a way of pushing envelopes, no? 3401. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 4:05:33 PM I caught my students doing that with me twice when I had stepped out of the room into the hall for a minute. Both times one (not the same classes or students) was at the front of the room doing the impersonation and the rest were howling. When I popped my head in I had to dig a confession out of them. That was the funny part for me. 3402. CalGal - 7/13/2001 4:06:46 PM Spawn does a spookily accurate version of my "Goddammit"--the one that expresses mid-level aggravation. ("It's the one you use when you miss a green light but you're not in a real hurry, Mom.") 3403. christipeters - 7/13/2001 4:09:36 PM Cute "Mom" story: 3404. CalGal - 7/13/2001 4:11:35 PM Oh, lord. That is extremely cute. 3405. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 4:26:48 PM I was wondering why the response of "We're not talking cuz we're angry with eachother" is allowed to stand as policy by parents. 3406. labwabbit - 7/13/2001 4:33:42 PM One Thanksgiving day at my folks house, the family had gathered for the feast. The adults were all seated around the main dining table and the youngsters around another table adjacent to ours. I noticed my daughter, (4 yo), notorious for resisting green vegetables, had formed an island of her veggies that grew steadily more isolated. I said to her, "if you don't eat your vegetables you will not be excused to go play with the others". Well, she finished everything in her plate, except of course, the island. I was determined to hold my course, even as she sat there sad faced in her challenge. After a few minutes, my mom, (as grandmothers are notorious for), said to me, "Aww c'mon dad, it's a holiday, maybe she shouldn't have to eat her veggies. After a few seconds went by, my stern stubborness subsided as she gazed at me with big round, brown eyes and I said, "This time, but that's it", and I turned to face my plate. I turned back toward her, (to this day I can't remember why), and caught her with her tongue sticking out with that Nyeah-nyeah expression... 3407. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 4:37:01 PM Judith...I would suggest they continue to discuss the issue. 3408. JudithAtHome - 7/13/2001 4:45:46 PM PP: 3409. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 4:52:28 PM Judith...a little more detail...when I conduct Family Groups, one of the most difficult tasks I have is to get parents and teens to discuss anything without anger. The simple act of relating has been a signal for anger, which then makes for a convenient position of interpersonal exclusion. I have found that when parents and teens just talk with each other, without violent/angry exchange, it is of value even when they continue to disagree. Most negative exchanges between parent and teen that lead to loss of communication were desired by both parties so the issue(s) at hand do not need to discussed. Like the Fram oil filter, you pay now or you pay later, but you pay. 3410. janjon - 7/13/2001 4:54:31 PM some parents like the control they have when their kids are small too much to give it up, let alone in a more-or-less orderly progression as the kids get older. 3411. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 4:58:33 PM JanJon...of course there are control issues, we all know that. The problem is solution and understanding, conditions that require parent/teen change over time that goes beyond simple "control" platitudes. 3412. janjon - 7/13/2001 5:01:49 PM mentioning platitudes, what does "The problem is solution and understanding" mean? I sometimes feel your cryptic style really isn't a style, but just a reflection of a extremely linear way of thinking. Or, at least expressing. 3413. PsychProf - 7/13/2001 5:04:40 PM Ah, well you could be right. I never said I was either right or smart. I just post here. 3414. CalGal - 7/13/2001 5:09:52 PM You began by wondering why parent took a certain approach. You were told that it had to do with control. Your answer is "of course there are control issues", but the problem is "solution and understanding". 3415. janjon - 7/13/2001 5:12:14 PM funny. That post is when you usually say you are leaving for the evening to enjoy the good life or whatever. 3416. vw - 7/13/2001 5:18:40 PM Sometimes I end the conversation just because we have discussed everything, I have made an “executive” decision and I do not want to spend the next 2 hours hearing about how wrong I am for not letting her go to Peru alone with a girlfriend and no parents. 3417. CalGal - 7/13/2001 5:22:53 PM I don't wish to imply for a moment that the teen years aren't tough, or that all parents who have trouble are overcontrolling. One of my first responses pointed out that far too many parents cede all control during those years, which has caused a great deal of problems. 3418. CalGal - 7/13/2001 5:26:27 PM I was assuming something much different from "No, that's the last word. Enough." If that's all PP means, I'm not sure what the problem is. 3419. janjon - 7/13/2001 5:31:21 PM no question that complex is far too simple a word to describe what happens when kids get to the stage of being "teenagers", be that at 11 or 15. And, if anything, one would really worry in most instances if a kid WASN'T being a teenager by, say, 16 or possibly 17 at the outside. 3420. vw - 7/13/2001 5:34:19 PM Nah, I probably have it wrong Cal. I missed the originating post. 3421. christipeters - 7/13/2001 5:52:17 PM "when I conduct Family Groups, one of the most difficult tasks I have is to get parents and teens to discuss anything without anger." 3422. Erinys - 7/13/2001 5:56:39 PM PsychProf, sure, teens push envelopes. My piercing conversation was mild because I'm pierced. Talk to me about drugging and I won't be mild, I'll be one of those control freaks. Anyway, I was typing my comment while you were expanding on yours to Judith, and didn't see it right away. Silent treatments aren't producutive in general, was that what you meant? 3423. vw - 7/13/2001 5:58:32 PM Okay, nope I did understand the original question. 3424. christipeters - 7/13/2001 6:17:52 PM vw - I don't think what you describe is "not talking because we're angry at each other". I think what you are describing is the setting of limits and holding them. Good parenting, imo. I think the key part of "not talking because we're angry at each other" is each other. 3425. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 6:27:41 PM Christi, 3426. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 7:39:09 PM Mose just left on a date. My biggest concern will always be when she's on the road anywhere, I think. Letting her get in a car as a passenger or behind the wheel makes letting go in other ways easy in comparison, at least for me. 3427. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 7:39:53 PM I wonder if it would be too controlling to require every boy she dates to drive a Hummer. 3428. christipeters - 7/13/2001 7:45:58 PM arkymalarky - I'm sure you're right re PsychProf. I guess I'm just being nit-picky or something. It just hit one of my nerves. 3429. christipeters - 7/13/2001 7:47:21 PM jeeez... 3430. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 8:09:39 PM Lots of teenagers do those things. Lots of good teens still have issues, too. I could point you to plenty of exemplary teens according to what the world sees who have problems serious enough to require outside help, and I'm not just talking about drugs and sex. Even the best teens may often have important issues that require more and more sensitive communication. 3431. mgleason - 7/13/2001 8:18:39 PM Arky said 'hummer!' 3432. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 8:24:28 PM Hey, the car! 3433. Absensia - 7/13/2001 8:40:58 PM Arky, 3434. Shannon - 7/13/2001 8:45:08 PM Hey Arky, I got a Sonic slush today and I thought of Mose. 3435. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 8:48:41 PM Was it good? 3436. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 8:51:15 PM Thanks Absensia. If I had a quarter for every concerned teen parent (not just of problem teens, by any means) I'd talked to in my career I'd have a tidy sum, but if I didn't love that age group I wouldn't teach them for a living. 3437. Shannon - 7/13/2001 8:55:10 PM It was very tasty. Lemon berry. 3438. LimeGirl - 7/13/2001 9:04:08 PM Yum. I need a wider variety of slurpee flavors. We don't have Sonic here. 3439. Absensia - 7/13/2001 9:06:17 PM Arky, 3440. arkymalarky - 7/13/2001 9:58:52 PM Thanks. I've posted it here before, but I tell my students I can deal with thirty of them at school better than I can handle one at home. They know I'm kidding, though, because they know Mose. 3441. joezan - 7/14/2001 1:44:11 AM christi: 3442. arkymalarky - 7/14/2001 10:51:06 AM The most frustrating teen parents I've dealt with, other than those who don't care at all, are the ones who are oblivious to their kids' doings. Denial can be a real problem with parents of teens and it makes it almost impossible to deal with their problems, and a lot of times I take it (maybe wrongly) as an ego trip on the part of the parents rather than naivete or misplaced faith in the child--like admitting a problem in their "product" is admitting they've failed somewhere, which may or may not be true. 3443. JudithAtHome - 7/14/2001 11:18:50 AM Arky: 3444. arkymalarky - 7/14/2001 11:46:18 AM No, but maybe (hopefully? ;-)) her interest in marching band will grow less. She's always been really into music and band, and it's one of the main reasons she didn't like going to school where I work. 3445. CalGal - 7/14/2001 12:34:31 PM There was a time when your child reached a certain point with no major catastrophies, and you could pretty much coast through the rest of their adolescence. 3446. labwabbit - 7/14/2001 2:02:00 PM re Message # 3432 3447. tiggeriffic - 7/14/2001 6:15:56 PM ok its 6:00 and I have survived the day, My seven year old daughter had a "cool pool" party which was totally cool for her and her friends and a nonstop marathon of snacks drinks and music on my end. Ordinarily not that big a deal but I forgot when I said that she could have this party that I was having surgery on my ankle and would be running around on crutches for the day. Our day began at 4:30 this morning when she stuck her head in the door and informed me it was time to get ready for the party. I opened one eye and threatened her enough to send her scurrying to her computer to moan to Irv, and yes I am referring to Irv Snodgrass, who is her personal confidante... He kept her occupied for the next two hours till I dragged myself and my heavily bandaged leg out of bed... after that it was PARTY PARTY PARTY!!!! We started off with a guided tour of the estate... ( LOL @ estate ) and then tossed them all into the pool for the next two hours... then onto lunch and thats where we lost them.. for desert we presented them with icecream floats.... Kids today have no idea what to do with ice cream floats.... They kinda poked at the ice cream with the fancy swirl straws we had bought for the occaison and basically dared each other to try a sip.. it was a dud.... fortunatly the ponies saved the day and they soon forgot the disgusting drinks we tried to force on them... Finally it was time to take the little princesses home so we loaded into the truck and with a side trip thru the local dollar store for a five minute shopping spree... ( OMG can seven year olds stuff a basket ) and then drop them off one by one at there respective castles. I have to admit that by the time I got home "I" needed a nap. But the important thing is that my daughter had a great day, and I received the ultimate reward that all parents strive for.... on the way home she laid her hand on my knee and said.. " Im sure lucky to have a mom like you".... 3448. arkymalarky - 7/14/2001 6:41:06 PM That's sweet, Tigger. I enjoyed doing birthday parties, but they are tiring. I guess I gave my last one last year for Mose's 16th birthday, and by that age it's pretty much all the kids' job to entertain themselves--not much to do except feed them. 3449. ycmeehan - 7/14/2001 7:08:21 PM The reward about reading such posts as #3447 and 3448 and others above is that they remind me of my sons' teenage years and the funny things that happened then to us. Armed with these memories, later I call-conference with my kids and we have a fine time the three of us remembering all the hilarious and not so funny incidents of some years ago. Sometimes I am rather discomfited that what I though was, in fact was not. We just couldn't tell you then all of it, they say now . Dad said we would needlessly sadden you and it was not a big deal anyway. You understand? 3450. PsychProf - 7/14/2001 7:50:33 PM This thought by Arky..."The teen years are also often a point at which parents' hopes and dreams for their kids clash with reality" is very insightful. 3451. ycmeehan - 7/14/2001 9:13:17 PM Yes, PP, it is rather inspired. 3452. joezan - 7/15/2001 12:14:29 AM 3453. IrvingSnodgrass - 7/15/2001 12:47:12 AM Great stories, Tiggs and Arky! 3454. joezan - 7/15/2001 9:20:28 AM Thanks, Irv! 3455. PsychProf - 7/15/2001 11:56:22 AM Joe...great pics...baseball fever. The look on the face of the woman in pic#1 makes my day. 3456. PsychProf - 7/15/2001 12:16:59 PM Joe's baseball pics fired me up...my oldest is in pic#1, and my youngest in the next three. 3457. Erinys - 7/15/2001 9:28:06 PM PsychProf, great pictures of your sons. Nice noses on both of 'em. 3458. Erinys - 7/15/2001 9:31:06 PM A a neighbor kid got arrested for shooting off fireworks (I forget the exact wording of the charge) and that was not a crime for me, when I was a teen. 3459. CalGal - 7/15/2001 9:50:41 PM Joe, 3460. Shannon - 7/15/2001 9:59:25 PM OK, I think I now have the perfect story to tell future dates to embarrass my son: 3461. CalGal - 7/15/2001 10:00:44 PM In other words, Joe, I think that if you compare like to like--middle class parents of 40 years ago and middle class parents of today--you would find that parents back then pretty much figured that they could relax once the kids hit the teen years. 3462. Absensia - 7/15/2001 10:15:00 PM Shannon, 3463. arkymalarky - 7/15/2001 10:29:12 PM Oh my, Shannon! 3464. arkymalarky - 7/15/2001 10:31:56 PM I'd like to see the stats for the "massive increase" of children born into poverty. 3465. mgleason - 7/15/2001 10:37:02 PM Well, at least Q took his hostility out on the cookware. My husband came back a bit under the weather from a Rolling Stones concert, got up in the night, took a leak on his father, and ambled back. He did wake up to a bucket and mop at the foot of his bed, however. 3466. CalGal - 7/15/2001 10:49:39 PM Arky, 3467. arkymalarky - 7/15/2001 11:10:56 PM I don't know that it's a safe bet at all, so I was interested in seeing some numbers to support it. 3468. arkymalarky - 7/15/2001 11:16:39 PM And I mean children in poverty. 3469. mgleason - 7/15/2001 11:40:21 PM Here's some data on juveniles living in poverty from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 3470. joezan - 7/15/2001 11:57:42 PM PP: 3471. mgleason - 7/16/2001 12:01:14 AM This page from the Children's Defense Fund has links to government agencies and reports. 3472. arkymalarky - 7/16/2001 12:07:20 AM Thanks MG. 3473. joezan - 7/16/2001 12:24:41 AM Cal: 3474. mgleason - 7/16/2001 12:24:52 AM You're welcome, Arky. Here's another useful site: Child Welfare League of America. 3475. arkymalarky - 7/16/2001 12:48:42 AM Those are good sites for this thread, and useful in general. I hope to look at them more later. I had thought I read the rate of children in poverty was declining, which it did from early to late '90s. 3476. arkymalarky - 7/16/2001 1:24:19 AM Here's what I was wanting: 3477. CalGal - 7/16/2001 1:55:38 AM Arky, 3478. CalGal - 7/16/2001 2:05:14 AM One stat I do remember off the top of my head, though, is that the number of kids not living in poverty who are involved in violent crime and criminal sexual conduct has increased over 60% over the past 20 years or so. 3479. joezan - 7/16/2001 7:00:36 AM "Juvenile crime in 1998 was 400% higher than in 1960..." 3480. vw - 7/16/2001 9:38:26 AM Well, of course it's apples and oranges...you can say that about most stats not taken from the same study. 3481. vw - 7/16/2001 9:39:34 AM Anyway, I think Cal was saying the the second stat was more beleivable than the first one, just due to the magnitude of change involved. 3482. CalGal - 7/16/2001 11:48:09 AM Just to recap, Joe said: 3483. arkymalarky - 7/16/2001 11:48:12 AM I didn't misread and I didn't rebut anything. I asked for and received stats on a statement I questioned. 3484. CalGal - 7/16/2001 11:49:12 AM So assuming that parents in these classes now believe it's much harder to raise a teen, and assuming the risk really isn't that much greater, why do they think it's much harder? 3485. CalGal - 7/16/2001 11:59:50 AM So assuming that parents in these classes now believe it's much harder to raise a teen, and assuming the risk really isn't that much greater, why do they think it's much harder? 3486. CalGal - 7/16/2001 12:01:22 PM Arky, 3487. PsychProf - 7/16/2001 3:44:10 PM Maria...Message # 3465...very funny indeed...say hello to the pisser hisself for me. 3488. PsychProf - 7/16/2001 3:45:18 PM Erinys...they have been told many things, but the nose comment is a new one. I shall pass it on. 3489. labwabbit - 7/16/2001 3:47:46 PM ...maybe has something to do with the "large-feet" connection. 3490. PsychProf - 7/16/2001 3:50:17 PM Lab...fwiw...Freud considered the nose to be a external measure of ones sexuality. No one nose if he is correct or knot. 3491. arkymalarky - 7/16/2001 5:41:48 PM Don't you mean if he's correct or he'snot? 3492. joezan - 7/16/2001 11:47:45 PM vw: 3493. CalGal - 7/17/2001 12:05:44 AM Cal attempts to extrapolate from that some kind of skew 3494. joezan - 7/17/2001 12:27:20 AM The fact that a much, much greater percentage of the juvenile population is involved in crime (although juvenile crime rates have dropped in the past 4 years) is not even disputed. It is frequently excused - but never disputed. 3495. CalGal - 7/17/2001 12:38:50 AM The fact that a much, much greater percentage of the juvenile population is involved in crime (although juvenile crime rates have dropped in the past 4 years) is not even disputed. 3496. joezan - 7/17/2001 12:39:36 AM Finally, figures citing a percentage increase/decrease are notoriously difficult for most people without a statistics background to really put into place…that’s why they are the stat of choice for most advocacy groups... 3497. CalGal - 7/17/2001 12:46:36 AM No, that's wrong. As child advocacy groups, the OJJDP and the CDF will do everything they can to insure that they present the risk as universal, applying to all teens, rather than a small percentage of them. The minute taxpaying parents realize that it's not their kids who are at risk, they will get even tougher on law and order than they already are, and put even less funding into juvenile justice and other assistance programs. 3498. CalGal - 7/17/2001 12:53:19 AM Total delinquency cases in 1996: 1,757,600 3499. joezan - 7/17/2001 12:55:53 AM If a kid is picked up for robbery and he has several vials of crack, you better believe the drug charge will trump any robbery charge. 3500. joezan - 7/17/2001 1:04:16 AM As child advocacy groups, the OJJDP and the CDF will do everything they can to insure that they present the risk as universal, applying to all teens, rather than a small percentage of them. 3501. CalGal - 7/17/2001 1:05:17 AM Not if it was a violent offense--armed robbery. And according to your links, robbery and drug trafficking are crimes of the same magnitude. So unless he had enough crack on him to sustain a dealing charge, drug possession would be outranked by robbery (according to your link). I don't know which is counted higher of trafficking or robbery, but at the very least drug possessions are getting masked. 3502. CalGal - 7/17/2001 1:14:04 AM Blacks are arrested at a much higher rate than Whites. 3503. joezan - 7/17/2001 1:16:37 AM The vast majority of those 54% and 73% - probably over 90% - represent status offenders...those who have run away from home, gotten caught drinking, smoking cigarettes, have broken curfew, etc. 3504. CalGal - 7/17/2001 1:19:26 AM The vast majority of those 54% and 73% - probably over 90% - represent status offenders...those who have run away from home, gotten caught drinking, smoking cigarettes, have broken curfew, etc. 3505. theDiva - 7/17/2001 7:47:41 AM Youse are not going to believe this. 3506. vw - 7/17/2001 10:04:52 AM How exciting Diva! Of course you do realize she's taken the first step towards, "Mom can I have the car keys?" (grin) 3507. CalGal - 7/17/2001 10:06:45 AM Wow, that's neat. And early! 3508. theDiva - 7/17/2001 10:12:21 AM vw 3509. Adrianne - 7/17/2001 10:25:29 AM 3510. theDiva - 7/17/2001 10:29:33 AM Thanks, Ad! 3511. christipeters - 7/17/2001 10:31:16 AM Diva! Yaaa! on the red-letter day of Skeetie's first MaMa! I'm sure you marked it on the calendar and/or in your baby book. 3512. PsychProf - 7/17/2001 10:52:21 AM Deev...sounds like Skeets is gonna be a Mariners fan. 3513. theDiva - 7/17/2001 10:55:53 AM Christi 3514. CalGal - 7/17/2001 11:01:34 AM Spawn looked like his dad was soaked in water for three days and tossed in a dryer for 6 hours. I felt like an oven. 3515. Åse - 7/17/2001 12:38:21 PM Possum is NOT at the "saying something meaningful" stage yet. She has, however, started practicing her fricatives and plosives (if my linguistics memory is right). She keeps saying "Fooff" and "pfff" and "bvff" which is quite fun. 3516. PsychProf - 7/17/2001 12:54:30 PM 3517. PsychProf - 7/17/2001 1:25:47 PM One of my favorite pics has my sons with their first love... 3518. theDiva - 7/17/2001 1:34:54 PM aaawwwwwww...... 3519. labwabbit - 7/17/2001 1:37:40 PM One of my favorite pics has my sons with their first love... 3520. PsychProf - 7/17/2001 1:40:48 PM hahahaha...slow day...the truth is, when I first saw my wife, I was hit by the "lightening bolt"...she was of another mind in regard to me. 3521. joezan - 7/17/2001 11:22:45 PM Cal: 3522. arkymalarky - 7/17/2001 11:57:42 PM Great Skeeter! That's amazing, Diva! 3523. joezan - 7/18/2001 12:04:55 AM ...I should also add that status offenses - including run away, liquor law violations, etc, within the category of Public Order offenses, accounted for only 3% of the total cases. 3524. CalGal - 7/18/2001 12:06:31 AM 3525. CalGal - 7/18/2001 12:07:39 AM And I repeat, you have offered nothing to substantiate your claim that life is significantly more risky for middle and upper class teens, within the parameters I described earlier. 3526. joezan - 7/18/2001 12:24:39 AM I didn't specify middle and upper-class teens in my original post. 3527. CalGal - 7/18/2001 1:11:17 AM I didn't specify middle and upper-class teens in my original post. 3528. CalGal - 7/18/2001 1:12:21 AM I can assure you that kids from all income brackets are significantly more likely to be involved in crime now than they were a generation ago. 3529. theDiva - 7/18/2001 7:30:40 AM Arky 3530. mgleason - 7/18/2001 7:49:57 AM Diva, that's so exciting! 3531. racehorse - 7/18/2001 9:05:45 AM Would it be possible to take the social issues conversation over to Social Issues? 3532. CalGal - 7/18/2001 11:31:11 AM It kind of morphed into that--sorry. You can move the posts if you like, do you know how? 3533. racehorse - 7/18/2001 11:45:24 AM Yes, I know. But I'm kind of a hands-off host. I'll move the posts if the participants in the conversation agree to the move. 3534. racehorse - 7/18/2001 2:37:28 PM A cute moment: my son is sleeping in his playpen, after having divested himself of all clothing, including diaper. 3535. theDiva - 7/18/2001 2:42:42 PM that is cute. I love to watch my kids sleep. 3536. Erinys - 7/18/2001 2:42:48 PM Awww. Babes always look so sweet, sleeping. 3537. racehorse - 7/18/2001 2:58:30 PM Well, did it work? 3538. joezan - 7/18/2001 7:26:24 PM My original post on this subject: 3539. vw - 7/18/2001 10:26:58 PM Speaking as the SI host, feel free to move the whole kit & kaboodle if there are no other objects. 3540. vw - 7/18/2001 10:27:24 PM (sigh) I need some sleep 3541. racehorse - 7/19/2001 9:46:51 AM Are there any objections? I'm content to move the discussion, or the discussants can move themselves. 3542. khaval alazman - 7/20/2001 12:39:39 PM Have been going through a massive stack of old photos lately. Here are 4 that made me giggle: 3543. khaval alazman - 7/20/2001 12:42:48 PM Next, is of me and baby bro. We mostly slept in the same bed until he was about 4: 3544. JudithAtHome - 7/20/2001 12:43:20 PM Sonny & Cher...the early years! 3545. khaval alazman - 7/20/2001 12:45:23 PM And finally, here is a shot of bro during one of his spaceship fantasies. Of course, aside from the protective goggles, it was imperative for him to fly to other planets stark naked. Nudity runs in the family, I guess. So does interplanetary travel. 3546. khaval alazman - 7/20/2001 12:46:19 PM Judith, LOL!!!!!! Oh boy! That's it in one! Sooooo funky! 3547. ElliottRW - 7/20/2001 1:41:33 PM Cute pics, Khaval. 3548. PsychProf - 7/20/2001 1:43:44 PM Very nice, Khaval. 3549. labwabbit - 7/20/2001 2:45:28 PM Great pics Khav... 3550. khaval alazman - 7/20/2001 2:57:54 PM Lab, LOL! 3551. marjoribanks - 7/20/2001 4:36:08 PM Cool shots, Khaval. 3552. PsychProf - 7/20/2001 4:36:50 PM How could you. 3553. Erinys - 7/20/2001 9:49:34 PM from aways back - yes, racehorse, it did work for us to put our heads together! Son was quite satisfied with my rendition of airplane wings. 3554. Erinys - 7/20/2001 9:50:13 PM aaack, don't cut the pictures, they're priceless. 3555. joezan - 7/20/2001 11:39:11 PM Khaval: 3556. joezan - 7/20/2001 11:46:53 PM Marj: 3557. arkymalarky - 7/21/2001 9:35:16 AM Isn't he a doll? 3558. Erinys - 7/25/2001 6:40:44 AM What? Haven't the offspring been cute these past few days? 3559. arkymalarky - 7/25/2001 11:23:09 AM Nice how quickly those stages flit by at that age, isn't it? 3560. CalGal - 7/25/2001 11:37:18 AM Another kid left to cook in the car. It seems statistically near impossible that all these parents began blanking on the same issue at the same time. I wonder if any of them are actually murders? 3561. bubbaette - 7/25/2001 11:51:50 AM I suspect that. I don't recall hearing about this type of thing except in recent years and now there's a real spate of them. 3562. CalGal - 7/25/2001 12:29:28 PM Exactly. Cry a few tears and people will figure you've been punished enough. 3563. MizPhys - 7/25/2001 2:16:43 PM Here's one difference between the US and the UK: In the US the parents would be suing; in the UK they're facing manslaughter charges. 3564. Erinys - 7/29/2001 2:58:07 PM Do any of you have any special back-to-school rituals for your kids? 3565. PsychProf - 7/30/2001 2:10:01 PM 3566. CalGal - 7/30/2001 2:30:05 PM I think short visits are a good idea. Something I also used to do with Spawn was review what would happen. "Okay, you go to school and you need to listen to the teacher. You'll have lunch at x time; here's your lunch (or go to the cafeteria). You will have to stand in line a lot, and you will go to recess to play. Play nice, and always listen to the teacher." 3567. racehorse - 7/30/2001 2:52:32 PM I've been arguing with childfree people who believe that the AY episode is Nature's Way of ridding the gene pool of bad parenting genes. But of course, it was a tragedy for the children. 3568. CalGal - 7/31/2001 1:38:14 AM Ex Crack Addict Mother Tries Raising Nine Kids 3569. joezan - 7/31/2001 6:14:19 AM Erinys: 3570. Wombat - 7/31/2001 12:51:50 PM On the first day of school, I take my daughter out for a pancake breakfast, and then to school. Usually her mother drops her at school every day. 3571. PsychProf - 7/31/2001 1:18:51 PM 3572. MizPhys - 7/31/2001 1:46:11 PM PP-- Good advice in there. Much the same as what was caught in a parenting course I took recently. 3573. MizPhys - 7/31/2001 1:49:15 PM caught = taught (Freudian?) 3574. CalGal - 7/31/2001 1:58:29 PM How could the train driver not be able to see the children? I don't buy that. 3575. CalGal - 7/31/2001 1:59:47 PM What if the parents weren't there at all? What if the kids were out on their own, goofing off and playing, and were on the bridge? Would the parents still be on the hook for murder? 3576. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 2:20:34 PM Should they flat out not have allowed the kids to play on the bridge, no matter what 3577. PsychProf - 7/31/2001 2:25:37 PM “EXCERPT: THE GOOD ENOUGH CHILD" 3578. PsychProf - 7/31/2001 2:33:46 PM Sorry if I am interrupting any conversations with links... 3579. PsychProf - 7/31/2001 2:46:24 PM “Adults would lose their 3580. CalGal - 7/31/2001 2:54:12 PM Judith, 3581. Shannon - 7/31/2001 2:56:49 PM I think it is illegal to be on train tracks in many places. 3582. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:02:58 PM I think it is illegal to be on train tracks in many places. 3583. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:07:59 PM That Time Self-test is asinine. 3584. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 3:11:47 PM You are saying that if a 7 year old kid was playing in the street and the parent was in the house and the kid got hit by a car the parent should be charged with murder? 3585. PsychProf - 7/31/2001 3:13:09 PM I know that if my 7 yr old was hit by a train on a bridge I would personally consider myself guilty of neglect, regardless of anyone else's definition of it or who else was sposetabe in charge...this because I knew beforehand that trains on bridges are not playground friendly, and that 7 yr olds are not aware in the same way...short of kidnapping, I should where a 7 yr old is at any one time. 3586. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:17:20 PM Judith, 3587. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:19:51 PM This is the same sort of discussion that occurs when a kid is killed using a loaded gun that the parent kept in a drawer, btw. Is playing on a railway bridge equivalent to playing with a loaded gun? Then make it against the law, block off pedestrian access to bridges, etc. 3588. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 3:20:56 PM Oh well, sorry then...I hadn't realized, since you proposed all these different places and situations in which a child might be harmed, that any response I made had to be limited to that one statement. 3589. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:26:23 PM No need to apologize. I might have confused an actual question as a consistency challenge. It happens. I thought your first question "Would you be saying the same thing if...." was such. 3590. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 3:29:34 PM Maybe they are charging parents more these days because of so many cases where parents just seem to forget they have kids or they don't value them enough. I know that's not really the case but it seems so many are forgetting them in cars or letting them wander off...it's like kids are an afterthought lately. 3591. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:48:37 PM I just don't think murder charges should be whimsical, and I certainly don't think it should be restricted to bad results. If a kid gets killed while being on a bridge and the parents are convicted of murder, then a parent who lets their kid play on a bridge should be tried and convicted of attempted murder. Make laws and fines against it. Don't say, "Well, you should have known better" if a cop would have driven by 20 minutes before it happened and not even blinked. 3592. CalGal - 7/31/2001 3:51:57 PM As for the parents who leave their kids in the car, there is usually a legitimate case for neglect that makes murder (or manslaughter) charges realistic. If you've gone 2 hours without thinking about or checking on an infant, then I don't see how that can't be considered neglect. 3593. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 3:59:45 PM It's completely without basis to say that "kids are an afterthought lately". Kids are more supervised now than at any point in history. 3594. christipeters - 7/31/2001 4:09:43 PM Should they flat out not have allowed the kids to play on the bridge, no matter what? 3595. christipeters - 7/31/2001 4:13:25 PM I haven't checked out the Time quiz, but I read the article. So - Kids have too much power? They only have the power their parents give them. I thought the examples in the article were extreme. I'm sure there are kids with affluent parents who are indulged that much, but there are a lot of other kids who aren't and some of them are just as affluent. 3596. CalGal - 7/31/2001 4:24:00 PM Christi, 3597. Shannon - 7/31/2001 4:31:03 PM But I do expect train engineers to look where they are going and if the train just expected the kids to move, then that is a problem. (none of that information is given in the article). 3598. christipeters - 7/31/2001 4:36:38 PM "Again, it's not all that abnormal for parents to let their kids go on a bridge and play." 3599. CalGal - 7/31/2001 4:39:51 PM You don't think the kids are visible from more than half a mile away? Eh. 3600. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 4:41:14 PM Again, it's not all that abnormal for parents to let their kids go on a bridge and play. 3601. CalGal - 7/31/2001 4:41:59 PM Well, I totally disagree with this statement. I do not know any parents who would allow their 7 yr old kids to play on a railway bridge. 3602. christipeters - 7/31/2001 4:42:54 PM "You don't think the kids are visible from more than half a mile away?" 3603. christipeters - 7/31/2001 4:44:48 PM Well, CalGal, I agree that a murder charge is over the top. 3604. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 4:45:10 PM You don't think the kids are visible from more than half a mile away? Eh. 3605. Absensia - 7/31/2001 4:45:23 PM We've had a few child deaths here, when there were holes in the fences and weren't repaired. In one case the RR enginer saw the hole in the fence, but the RR co was found not liable since it wasn't the duty of the enginer to report that sort of thing to the RR co. Go figure. 3606. CalGal - 7/31/2001 4:46:56 PM Judith, 3607. JudithAtHome - 7/31/2001 4:52:06 PM Call me rural, then...I just don't agree it's normal to have kids playing where machines with horsepower sufficient for driving through houses can hit them. I don't care about the frequency of cars or trains showing up or the alertness of the drivers, I don't want kids playing in the streets or on railroad tracks or RR crossings or bridges. 3608. CalGal - 7/31/2001 4:54:36 PM I dunno, we have a fair amount of discussion about trains in this area because of the fatalities, and from everything I've read and seen train engineers can see a long way off. But maybe country trains are different. 3609. christipeters - 7/31/2001 4:59:33 PM CalGal - 3610. LimeGirl - 7/31/2001 5:00:16 PM My kids have been playing in the street a lot lately. So do the kids across the street, and the guy across the street seems to like to practice his golf shots there too. 3611. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:03:43 PM I grew up in the suburbs of a city of about 300,000 in the 50s and 60s. It was NOT normal or common to let your young children play in the streets. You didn't see kids younger than about 12 in the streets and even the older kids got bawled out for it. 3612. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:05:00 PM LimeGirl - Sheesh! Like, God forbid we should actually talk to our kids, huh. 3613. CalGal - 7/31/2001 5:05:44 PM Christi, 3614. CalGal - 7/31/2001 5:08:54 PM I have never let Spawn play in the street, either--although he is now allowed to do stunts on his bike in the parking lot speedbumps. The limit there is that I don't want him to get in the way of cars, not safety--the speedbumps are such that cars can't even start to move fast, even if he couldn't easily see them. 3615. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:09:34 PM CalGal - While I have been quibbling about what is normal parenting safety practices, I get your general point (I think). We shouldn't "....start going down that path you get to hold parents responsible for murder any time their children die in an accident if they aren't around when it happens." 3616. LimeGirl - 7/31/2001 5:10:24 PM We now live at the end of a cul-de-sac, and there really isn't any traffic, so Abby can go out and ride her bike around and around in circles and I don't have to worry about her. The kids can play in the front yard with no problems. And it's nice and flat, so I don't have to worry about her accidentally careening down a hill. 3617. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:16:22 PM I would have had conniptions, too. 3618. CalGal - 7/31/2001 5:16:49 PM However, you should hold parents responsible if their kids die in an accident that wouldn't have happened if they were giving their kids reasonable supervision. 3619. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:17:16 PM (#3617 was in response to #3614) 3620. LimeGirl - 7/31/2001 5:19:25 PM Apartment complex parking lots make me nervous. Especially since a kid was snatched from one here a couple of months ago. Also because they're just so busy, cars always going in and out. I'd think drivers would be more preoccupied with watching for other cars, than watching for kids running around. 3621. CalGal - 7/31/2001 5:22:53 PM I can't ever see letting a small kid play in a parking lot without supervision--in fact, I know that is why the complex I live in doesn't allow unsupervised kids at all (even in their lovely parks in the middle of the complex). But my brother's complex was particularly busy and the cars moved fast, which made it even more inexplicable. 3622. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:24:14 PM Well, CalGal, we don't live in a perfect world, do we. To take a stab at it -maybe because there's a chance that if you are in the front room you could hear junior holler from 3 houses down, but there's no chance if you are off at the store? 3623. christipeters - 7/31/2001 5:25:41 PM (I still type too slow) 3624. CalGal - 7/31/2001 9:34:55 PM Welfare Reform's Unexpected Difficulties--Study Finds Problems Among Adolescents 3625. Shannon - 7/31/2001 11:46:40 PM Some pictures of my kids from vacation: 3626. Shannon - 7/31/2001 11:49:17 PM 3627. Shannon - 7/31/2001 11:51:17 PM 3628. Shannon - 8/1/2001 12:03:22 AM I posted a few more scenic pics in Travel. 3629. vw - 8/1/2001 8:42:39 AM I'm not surprised at all that teens have worse outcomes when their Mom make the welfare-workfare-work transition. 3630. Adrianne - 8/1/2001 8:50:26 AM 3631. Erinys - 8/1/2001 9:04:53 AM Shannon, your daughter has an impish smile and your son looks...rather wild, at least in that photo. Cute kids! 3632. vw - 8/1/2001 9:08:12 AM Geocities will no longer allow you to directly link to an image from their servers. You have to link to a page that shows the image. 3633. Adrianne - 8/1/2001 9:12:59 AM 3634. tiggeriffic - 8/1/2001 9:17:33 AM Shannon, your kids are adorable!!, but what really impressed me was how CLEAN your van is!!... mine looked like that once.... I believe it was five mins before we brought it home from the show room :-P... one quick trip thru the mc donalds drive thru solved that problem, and its never been the same since... and this is after a vacation???? ... my hats off to you .. 3635. Adrianne - 8/1/2001 9:27:11 AM 3636. Adrianne - 8/1/2001 9:37:41 AM will this work, I wonder? 3637. christipeters - 8/1/2001 9:39:53 AM vw - I agree about how much attention teens need. My best friend stopped working and stayed home starting when her oldest was 13. She went back to work whrn the youngest finished high school. I wish I had that option, but I do know now (LD is 13) is not the time to relax or get careless. It's a tricky balance -letting them spread their wings and have incresing independance while unobtrusively keeping track of all their activities and friends and invisibly following along with the safety net held out. 3638. Adrianne - 8/1/2001 10:27:45 AM here it is, dammit! 3639. Shannon - 8/1/2001 11:59:41 AM She's adorable, dammit :-) 3640. CalGal - 8/1/2001 12:00:16 PM Adorable pics, everyone! 3641. Åse - 8/2/2001 3:11:14 PM Great pictures. 3642. vw - 8/2/2001 3:33:14 PM It is the communication that is the key--they feel connected, and are reminded of boundaries that are still very important in those early teen years. 3643. CalGal - 8/2/2001 4:46:02 PM Oh, I know. And babies most of all--most polls show that a majority of people want moms home with babies the first year at least. But when it gets right down to it I wonder how much of that is just primary maternal preoccupation--old evolutionary shit just kicking in. 3644. LimeGirl - 8/2/2001 4:55:07 PM I think my cousins could speak loud and clear on the downsides of overattachment. They are 17 and 19 now... the 17-year-old was complaining to me about how her curfew was 10pm for the entire summer, and none of her friends had curfews even close to that. The older one moved out partway through her senior year. And they are both good kids -- not little hooligans who need to be constantly watched. The older one won a 4-year scholarship. 3645. CalGal - 8/2/2001 5:02:14 PM Ten seems incredibly early for the summer at that age. 3646. LimeGirl - 8/2/2001 5:23:39 PM I think it'd be reasonable to set up some system where they have a few nights a week where they can be out later than other nights. Staying out until midnight every night seems a bit excessive, but never ever getting to stay out late seems extreme too. 3647. vw - 8/2/2001 7:09:05 PM We have an earlier curfew during the workweek simply because I don't go to bed until Daughter #2 is in for the night. 3648. theDiva - 8/3/2001 1:32:27 PM hm, curfew. 3649. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:09:11 PM We have had two serious accidents in my hometown as a result of kids driving at top speed to make curfew, so curfews have at least one downside. Whatever time my boys came home, I was up. They were reasonable, and we had no curfews as such after their soph year in HS. I tried, during the later high school years, to prepare them for college by making curfew conditions resemble college choices...I did not want to send them off chomping at the bit for new found freedom at the expense of responsibilies they would have. 3650. theDiva - 8/3/2001 2:12:02 PM oh God. I just remembered. Car dates. I am 3651. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:15:08 PM OTOH...the usual get a room-drink-and fuck activities that constituted post-prom parties was trumped by my adament refusal to approve such, so I was more interested in what went on than what time it happened. 3652. CalGal - 8/3/2001 2:16:34 PM Spawn having a phone helps a lot; I would just expect him to call me if he was running late. As for "no curfews because the kids will speed and get into accidents"--kids will speed and get into accidents anyway. It's the leading cause of death among teens, I think. 3653. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:19:29 PM The reason that we know these accidents were curfew related is that in both cases the driver and the parents admitted such, as a way of influencing others. 3654. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:25:01 PM BTW...in both these cases, the driver is accussed of criminal action and civil suits will be brought by passengers...sweetbird of youth and friendship. 3655. Wombat - 8/3/2001 2:25:30 PM Diva: 3656. Wombat - 8/3/2001 2:28:14 PM I'm glad they didn't have cell phones when I was a teenager. I might have had to use it every five minutes after 10:00 PM until my parents begged me to stop. 3657. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:30:33 PM Wombat...Nickel and dime them to death...hahaha 3658. CalGal - 8/3/2001 2:33:29 PM Lord, spare me dogooder parents with civil service messages: "Don't use curfews, they cause speeding! Look what I made my son do!" Riiiight. I get so tired of people confusing the context with the actual problem. The kid was speeding. The reason is irrelevant. But it's a nice distraction from a civil suit, Iguess. 3659. theDiva - 8/3/2001 2:35:22 PM Wombat 3660. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:40:45 PM Diva...exactly. We should respond to the given situation and time. Both my sons have been in the rear seat of a speeding car riven by a teen friend, and no curfew or lack of such can protect against that. I was always happy to have them driving. 3661. theDiva - 8/3/2001 2:49:01 PM The thing is, my immediate response, my gut response is inevitably based on 'that's my little baby'...and so I get a mental picture of this teeny little girl out and about. I have to remind myself to have the mental picture of that elegant, mature person. 3662. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 2:55:36 PM My father in law useta call these situations traps(the 18 yr old)..."Watchim for traps, boy" he advised me in broken English but wise thought. I watched the best I could. 3663. theDiva - 8/3/2001 3:02:30 PM Well, so far he's not asked for her phone number...they struck up the acquaintance on the bus both take to summer school. She and I had a preliminary chat on why dating an 18 y.o. senior is not in the cards for her at present, at the outset of which she said 'MOM. He hasn't even ASKED yet.' 3664. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 3:03:12 PM One of the advantages of year round sports participation is that the body gets tired on a daily basis...my sons seemed to be in a consistent state of sleep deprivation...keep em tired, I have heard it said. 3665. theDiva - 8/3/2001 3:05:11 PM One thing is for sure, I no longer have to remind her not to stay up too late. They've got nearly five solid hours of PE! Daily! She's heading to bed at 9, bone weary. I hope she decides to take up track or something when school starts. 3666. CalGal - 8/3/2001 3:07:27 PM Deev, 3667. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 3:09:38 PM Deev...that would be great...as you know, I am a great supporter of High School activities, sports or othrerwise. 3668. theDiva - 8/3/2001 3:12:05 PM Cal 3669. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 3:22:21 PM Life is such a crap shoot...I look at my posts here today and wonder why I think at any one time I have wisdom...I love/loved my boys, we had great fun during their teens, and they are my best friends today. I was wrong sometimes, lucky other times, and thankfully shut up once in awhile... 3670. Absensia - 8/3/2001 3:25:44 PM Diva, 3671. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 3:28:05 PM Abs...yes. That sport requires a lot of discipline and energy. 3672. theDiva - 8/3/2001 3:28:30 PM Prof 3673. PsychProf - 8/3/2001 3:33:05 PM Smoking was a hot button for me...just wasn't gonna happen on my watch. Now we smoke Cubans together and get sick...have yet to convince Ms PP to join us. 3674. theDiva - 8/3/2001 3:36:22 PM hahahahaha 3675. Shannon - 8/3/2001 3:39:50 PM Abs, my son's quite fond of swimming, so I'll try to remember that as he gets older. Yesterday, he jumped off the diving board for the first time and was quite pleased with himself. I think he'll be fairly athletic in general, though I can't imagine where he gets it. 3676. LimeGirl - 8/3/2001 3:56:49 PM The girls have a friend over today, and they are being quiet as mice. Every once in a while, they go in single file from Abby's bedroom to the family room, then a little bit later they file back to her bedroom. Very strange, but I'm not going to investigate, because I cherish the silence way too much! 3677. CalGal - 8/3/2001 4:07:10 PM I wanted Spawn to get into swimming; it was my sport growing up. But the only club around here is the Santa Clara Swim Club; the rest were just summer programs. I've always thought swimming should be year-round. SCSC requires tryouts just to join up, and it is quite expensive. Spawn has always been into other sports so I never got around to it. 3678. Absensia - 8/3/2001 4:11:02 PM My kid worked as a life guard during his teens. He got income and some adoration...hahaha. 3679. concerned - 8/3/2001 6:13:20 PM Notice to female Motiers: August 1-7 is International Breat Feeding Week. Time to get your kid off the bottle... 3680. concerned - 8/3/2001 6:14:16 PM Erratum: I meant 'Breast Feeding Week', not 'Brat Feeding Week'. 3681. LimeGirl - 8/3/2001 6:26:00 PM LOL! I feel like I am doing brat-feeding this afternoon. Sigh. I have finally plopped them all down in front of a movie so that I could stop dealing with "she's leaving me out, she's ignoring me, she's being mean to me." Had a talk with Abby about leaving Katrina out, then Abby and friend were asking K. to play with them, but absolutely nothing was good enough for K. -- she didn't want to do anything they suggested, and wouldn't give suggestions of her own. 3682. concerned - 8/3/2001 6:28:26 PM Movies can sometimes help a lot. It's really amazing how much my nephews and nieces quiet down when they see one they like. 3683. Erinys - 8/3/2001 7:45:40 PM ...keep em tired, I have heard it said. 3684. CalGal - 8/3/2001 7:49:58 PM Erinys, 3685. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/3/2001 8:09:12 PM My son lives on his cellphone... he reports he gets about 15 SMS messages during the schoolday from his girlfriend. He responds to them between classes and on breaks. 3686. concerned - 8/3/2001 8:10:34 PM Re. 3683 - 3687. christipeters - 8/3/2001 10:03:35 PM Lots of great posts here today! 3688. arkymalarky - 8/3/2001 10:21:50 PM With Mose, driving is the thing for me. I can hardly stand it. I'm not a normal person about it. She has a cell phone, but I wouldn't be surprised if she chunked it out the car window in frustration one day. She forgot to call when she got to town the other day and the friend whose house she was going to didn't answer. I made Bob go to town and there sat her car. They'd run to get ice cream and she'd just forgotten to call. She and Bob were both mad at me. Did I care? 3689. CalGal - 8/3/2001 10:26:07 PM Christi, 3690. CalGal - 8/3/2001 10:27:58 PM Arky, 3691. Shannon - 8/3/2001 10:35:23 PM Shannon, your boy jumped off the diving board? He looks about 7-8 in the Clean Van picture. Good for him! 3692. arkymalarky - 8/3/2001 10:36:45 PM She usually leaves it off (I can't imagine why), and I often forget to remind her to keep it on; and once she's at someone's house or wherever she's going, she usually turns it off and puts it up. 3693. Absensia - 8/3/2001 10:42:27 PM Ark, 3694. arkymalarky - 8/3/2001 10:44:45 PM Abs, 3695. Absensia - 8/3/2001 10:50:11 PM True, Arky, 3696. CalGal - 8/3/2001 11:23:12 PM That's a good rule. I'd go further. Remember to call her every time she has the car, and if the phone is off she loses it for a day. 3697. CalGal - 8/3/2001 11:24:28 PM She loses the car, not the phone. In case it wasn't clear. 3698. Absensia - 8/3/2001 11:50:45 PM Cal, 3699. SnowOwl - 8/4/2001 12:48:53 AM I'm not clear why people think that the teenage years are necessarily tough. I never expected that they would be and in the case of my children they weren't. 3700. Absensia - 8/4/2001 1:22:59 AM Ah, but Snow, you have several kids. I have only one...I need him around to take care of me when I am old. I often tell him, "Son, a boy's best friend is his mother." He says, "Yes Mother Bates." 3701. vw - 8/4/2001 8:34:41 AM I never thought for a minute that they'd be doing anything they shouldn't be doing and I was right. 3702. RustlerPike - 8/4/2001 9:49:27 AM There's something strangely clean-cut, quiet and wholesome about this thread. Maybe I should stay out and leave it this way. Is the world really as nice and healthy as a lurk here would suggest? 3703. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/4/2001 9:53:40 AM vw: 3704. ycmeehan - 8/4/2001 1:12:44 PM Rustler, 3705. RustlerPike - 8/4/2001 3:53:53 PM ycm: 3706. ycmeehan - 8/4/2001 5:08:29 PM Rustler, 3707. vw - 8/5/2001 1:10:04 AM And they went and told my kids. 3708. RustlerPike - 8/5/2001 2:11:35 AM ycm: 3709. ycmeehan - 8/5/2001 9:16:03 AM Rustler, 3710. RustlerPike - 8/5/2001 10:34:48 AM ycm: 3711. ycmeehan - 8/5/2001 12:30:38 PM Rustler, 3712. arkymalarky - 8/5/2001 8:19:26 PM The most stressful thing about raising a teen so far for me, personally, is the driving, but it's different at any given stage with any given kid and parent. I woke up from a nap after a very busy few days to find that Mose had cleaned up the kitchen and dining room for me. She's a big help and has more independence which makes things easier in a lot of ways. 3713. JudithAtHome - 8/5/2001 10:10:08 PM seadate here, 3714. arkymalarky - 8/5/2001 11:16:07 PM Hey! It's those bad Arkansas country roads. I wondered where those nail imprints on the backs of the front seats came from. 3715. christipeters - 8/5/2001 11:28:50 PM Well, Friday night LD and I picked up a few things for her for school. Tuesday is orientation and school starts on Thursday. 8th grade, and she signed up for 3 high school classes, including Latin. 3716. vw - 8/6/2001 7:11:40 AM The most stressful thing about raising a teen so far for me, personally, is the driving 3717. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/6/2001 7:14:38 AM OK... I know I live in a third-world country and all... but my son has been driving since he was 13, and he is an outstanding driver... a good example to all the morons on the road here. 3718. theDiva - 8/6/2001 7:41:34 AM The 18 y.o. has a TATTOO. On his forearm. 3719. theDiva - 8/6/2001 7:46:00 AM 3720. arkymalarky - 8/6/2001 12:01:53 PM Mose is a good driver, but these are bad roads out here and there are a lot of bad drivers on them and deer and empty spaces with no houses and steep shoulders, and on and on. Then you have the bigger "cities" which she has hardly any experience in. She's relatively inexperienced in general, just like most teens, which is my main concern. She first drove a car when she was about ten--we taught her in case there was ever an emergency need to--but she'd never driven much before getting her license. She didn't practice nearly enough when she had her permit. 3721. theDiva - 8/6/2001 12:14:52 PM Wow, at ten? I guess that makes sense, though, seeing as how you live way out in the country, no? 3722. arkymalarky - 8/6/2001 12:37:50 PM Right. We taught her and had her practice the basics. We actually intended to have her driving and practicing a lot more than we did when she was younger, but at least she knew how to get at least up the road if she had to. 3723. christipeters - 8/6/2001 12:39:36 PM LD's Dad has a friend with a field with dirt roads cut through it for him and all his dirt-bike riding friends. When LD was 10, he started taking her over there and teaching her to drive when she was visiting him. Now she thinks she knows all about driving. 3724. arkymalarky - 8/6/2001 12:46:12 PM Those are both good, but nothing makes up for lots of supervised practice. Mose had driver's ed which included some defensive driving, and I had DD, so I taught her a lot. Bob has had years of experience on these roads that he's added to her knowledge. We've got to get her more supervised city driving practice, but that requires us going to the city, which we rarely do unless we're kicked and beaten into it. 3725. christipeters - 8/6/2001 12:50:08 PM arky - Oh, absolutely. I'm simply going to require those first before the supervised practice. No way it will go - driver's ed, defensive driving, license, and off you go! 3726. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/6/2001 12:53:50 PM My son learned slowly, which is the best way... for two years, all his driving was supervised. I asked him if he'd driven when he was in the USA this summer, and he said "No, I don't know how to drive an automatic." 3727. PsychProf - 8/6/2001 1:36:34 PM Coupla thoughts: 3728. arkymalarky - 8/6/2001 1:39:12 PM Yep, I agree with Irv and PP and Christi--I will not be able to not worry, I just have to learn not to let it control things; and PP, I have thought particularly about #3 and talked to Mose about that. 3729. PsychProf - 8/6/2001 1:42:08 PM Ms PP and I have perfected worry to an art form...the trick is to worry w/o undue exertion of control, a tightrope for us all. 3730. Erinys - 8/6/2001 1:53:58 PM I think you're right about the dangerous time, PsychProf. That same phenomena is found with newly-licensed aircraft pilots. Enough hours under the belt to think they know it all, and not yet to the point where they see there's yet more to learn. 3731. PsychProf - 8/6/2001 1:58:13 PM JFK JR 3732. RustlerPike - 8/6/2001 2:23:40 PM I have a solution for road accidents. 3733. CalGal - 8/6/2001 2:31:48 PM Does anyone remember that study saying that a huge amount of teens who died in accidents did so because they weren't wearing seatbelts? I keep on wondering if I misread it, or if the insurance companies squelched any comment on it because it would stop them from being able to charge a fortune for teen insurance. 3734. mgleason - 8/6/2001 2:38:45 PM I remember the stupid crap I did when I was a teenager, and shudder. And I was a good kid! I'd be out of my mind if I had kids because it's all so vivid to me. 3735. CalGal - 8/6/2001 2:47:01 PM Here it is 3736. CalGal - 8/6/2001 2:47:33 PM I didn't do anything dumb as a teenager. This makes me impossibly difficult as a parent. 3737. mgleason - 8/6/2001 2:57:04 PM Ah, but not nearly as difficult as the reformed BTDT type. It's the worst of both worlds: self-righteous priggery coupled with experience. That's a parent to dread. 3738. RustlerPike - 8/6/2001 2:59:31 PM I didn't do anything dumb as a teenager. 3739. CalGal - 8/6/2001 3:53:20 PM I never really began, alas. I'd say the only legitimately dangerous behavior I engage in is driving far too fast, and that began when I got my license (22). 3740. JudithAtHome - 8/6/2001 6:10:15 PM That's interesting because how do you know they are lying to their kids? Unless one was there, I mean.... 3741. CalGal - 8/6/2001 6:12:44 PM I know because some parents openly say that they lie to their kids. They don't seem to think anything is wrong with the notion. 3742. Absensia - 8/6/2001 6:14:56 PM Well, I know people who joke about how they lie to their kids about their younger years, so their kids will not think they can be like they were. 3743. racehorse - 8/6/2001 6:23:11 PM I was a pretty boring teen, too. But, I made up for it in college! 3744. mgleason - 8/6/2001 6:36:57 PM Kids aren't stupid; most times they've got a pretty good sense of when their parents are lying. 3745. christipeters - 8/6/2001 6:50:47 PM Alas, I was a boring teen, boring in college, and am still pretty boring as an adult. I think I'll cut loose once I've launched LD off on her own. Then she can be scandalized by her crazy grey-haired Mom. 3746. mgleason - 8/6/2001 7:01:10 PM Well, my innate sloth and eagle-eyed vigilance on the part of my mother combined to take the edge off much of my 'wildness,' but even still, there were many, many opportunities. Hence, my belief that anyone who wants to get into trouble, will. 3747. JudithAtHome - 8/6/2001 7:27:07 PM anyone who wants to get into trouble, will. 3748. PsychProf - 8/7/2001 1:10:07 PM It's no use lying for me, as I am not good at it...and I have always felt as if all women and kids can read my soul and past. I was not a criminal as a teen, but I did what I could to have fun at every chance. College was a free for all. Study hard , party hard. No regrets, many smiles, some good luck. 3749. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 1:47:26 PM I don't lie when asked, but I'm not one of those who thinks every page of my history is anybody's business, including my child's, or that it's good for one's children to spill your guts in the name of full disclosure. 3750. theDiva - 8/7/2001 1:47:54 PM All I can say is, I hope to GOD Gracie never asks me whether I took drugs or had premarital sex. I am the world's worst liar, and in any case wouldn't try. I just can't imagine how I'd answer without her becoming completely scandalized. 3751. theDiva - 8/7/2001 1:48:28 PM interesting cp, Arky. Thanks. 3752. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 1:52:56 PM I don't know what my dad--a high school dropout and a Marine medic who spend nine months in Korea and about ten years in college, who worked in institutions for the mentally ill and severely retarded--might have done that was "dumb" in all that history. I don't want to know. He's a fine man with a fascinating and long list of accomplishments and that's all I need. There is plenty of "stupidity" that isn't labeled as such which goes through from childhood to high school to college to parenting and on to death, and is a lot more damaging to one's children than youthful experimentation that hasn't been shared with them. 3753. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 1:58:39 PM Exactly...just as it's unwise to bare your past completely and totally to someone you are seriously interested in beofre they are ready to hear it all or before you know if they even want to know, there is no need to burden your children with all the gorey details of your past mistakes. 3754. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:03:19 PM While I'm here, an observation that the above stats on seatbelt use say nothing about whether or not lack of experience was a contributing factor in the accidents themselves. They also don't reveal what the accidents would have resulted in were seatbelts in use. Stats clearly show they increase the chances of survival, but mere stats on what percent did not use seatbelts say nothing about what survival rates would be with them, or the extent of injuries, since the accidents would still have occurred under the same conditions with seatbelts in use. 3755. PsychProf - 8/7/2001 2:05:51 PM We don't neeed to know everything about ourselves, or even others, and our kids do not need to either. Having said that, I sometimes wish I had more to hide.... 3756. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:06:24 PM Or the confidence of the oncoming driver... 3757. Erinys - 8/7/2001 2:08:00 PM That's what I'm more worried about! The other lunatics on the road! 3758. PsychProf - 8/7/2001 2:09:12 PM Judith and Arky...I sure as hell wish I coulda been to that party...it is such fun to see The Mote positively influence so many lives... 3759. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:09:55 PM PP: 3760. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:11:04 PM PP: 3761. mgleason - 8/7/2001 2:11:30 PM If you feel a need to confess, you should seek out a priest and leave your kids alone, but parents who lie about their own experiences when directly asked are begging for a karmic bite on the butt. 3762. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:12:35 PM Okay...there is a ghost in this machine...I hit post ONE time and went to the kitchen to refill my water glass. When I returned, it had posted twice. 3763. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:15:28 PM Absolutely what Judith said twice, PP. Talk about karmic. And I agree wrt to confessions. Kids don't ask what they aren't ready to know, at least after a certain age. 3764. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:16:13 PM parents who lie about their own experiences when directly asked are begging for a karmic bite on the butt. 3765. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:16:16 PM That was to PP and Maria, which I hope was obvious. 3766. CalGal - 8/7/2001 2:16:35 PM Astonishing how anyone could ever confuse the difference between telling the truth and spilling one's guts. Since there does appear to be some confusion, however, let me spell it out: a parent is under no obligation to tell their child anything about their past, should they not wish to. But deliberately lying about their past in order to make parenting easier or misrepresent themselves to their children is disgusting. 3767. CalGal - 8/7/2001 2:17:28 PM I hadn't seen Maria's post, but what she said. 3768. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:18:04 PM Astonishing how anyone could ever confuse the difference between telling the truth and spilling one's guts. 3769. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:19:32 PM No one confused anything. The distinction was outlined in the posts. 3770. mgleason - 8/7/2001 2:21:31 PM I know you weren't advocating anything, Judith. I was thinking out loud because this issue is very much alive with neighbors WRT the little matter of drug use. Talk about ambiloquence: they practically strip search the kids, and they still get high themselves, which we found out when an unmistakable aroma wafted over when the kids were away for the weekend! 3771. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:22:39 PM That kind of hyporcrisy really chaps me. 3772. theDiva - 8/7/2001 2:23:43 PM a need-to-know basis....and arky, I think you're right, kids don't ask what they don't what they don't want to know. I don't think I'd ever ask either of my parents about such things...but of course they are both spotless paragons completely beyond reproach. (g) 3773. CalGal - 8/7/2001 2:24:42 PM But it isn't irrelevant to the fatality statistics. Inexperience may--or may not--cause accidents. Given the stats, however, it is not reasonable to claim that inexperience is what causes the deaths. 3774. CalGal - 8/7/2001 2:26:17 PM Last post was to Arky. 3775. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:30:06 PM I don't think I'd ever ask either of my parents about such things...but of course they are both spotless paragons completely beyond reproach. (g) 3776. mgleason - 8/7/2001 2:30:35 PM Arky, 3777. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:31:33 PM MG... 3778. theDiva - 8/7/2001 2:32:23 PM Arky 3779. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:36:05 PM I agree, Cal, but still the fact that over 60% weren't wearing seatbelts doesn't tell you how many would have died were they wearing them or how many would suffer permanent injury. That's a technicality for me, though. I'm a strong advocate of seatbelts, though I've personally known of one teen who died because of hers--drowned upside down in 3 feet of water because she and the driver couldn't get the seatbelt unhooked and he didn't have a knife (he'd fallen asleep and rolled into a water-filled ditch)--and one whose seatbelt was on, but who was a victim of drag racers going the other way who would have killed her and her date no matter what, as fast as they were going. My personal experience has a lot to do with my attitudes about teen driving apart from the stats. It's the hardest thing, bar none, that I let my child do. 3780. PsychProf - 8/7/2001 2:40:48 PM I have just erased 4 posts in a row. Each was different in tone and content. I have no idea what I'm thinking, so I will just lurk. 3781. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:43:35 PM Oh, don't do that PP. Repost all four! ;-) 3782. PsychProf - 8/7/2001 2:45:12 PM Arkly...I'm losing it...first Legally Blond, now hesitant fingers... 3783. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:45:16 PM Or at least let us know what the four "tones" were....maybe we can guess the song title! 3784. CalGal - 8/7/2001 2:45:34 PM I agree, Cal, but still the fact that over 60% weren't wearing seatbelts doesn't tell you how many would have died were they wearing them or how many would suffer permanent injury. 3785. PsychProf - 8/7/2001 2:46:05 PM I need Cher in Moonstruck..."Snap out of it PP"... 3786. mgleason - 8/7/2001 2:46:21 PM I have no idea what I'm thinking 3787. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 2:50:19 PM Why can't the insurance companies charge the old folks out the wahzoo? Is it the law or something? I though they could charge anyone anything they damned well chose to... 3788. CalGal - 8/7/2001 2:51:45 PM Oh, I forgot to mention--the few times when people die because they can't get out of their seatbelt gives me the willies, too, even if I know that it is ridiculously rare. I think seatbelts should have a second quick release somewhere, even though I know the cost (and related problems that would occur) surely isn't worth it. 3789. arkymalarky - 8/7/2001 2:58:41 PM I agree about the quick release on seatbelts--it's like the trunk release. You should be able to get out of anything you get yourself into easily. 3790. CalGal - 8/7/2001 3:03:32 PM Why can't the insurance companies charge the old folks out the wahzoo? 3791. CalGal - 8/7/2001 3:05:41 PM I guess she would be an adult stat, though she was 15. I don't know how those are figured. 3792. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 3:07:44 PM You may one day be happy of that fact, Cal! :-) 3793. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 3:08:32 PM 3792 was to the "geezers are powerful" statement. 3794. CalGal - 8/7/2001 3:11:51 PM Hardly, Judith. The skew in our political priorities caused by old farts and their threats is tiresome and extremely damaging--particularly to children. I will not be contributing to it, no matter how ancient I become. 3795. bubbaette - 8/7/2001 3:16:55 PM One difference between dangerous geezers and dangerous teens is that dangerous geezers tend to drive well below the speed limit and dangerous teens drive above. My guess is that pay-outs are lower for the low speed crack ups. 3796. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 3:17:23 PM Oh, hell...it was only a joke. 3797. CalGal - 8/7/2001 3:29:53 PM Bubba, 3798. RustlerPike - 8/7/2001 10:04:41 PM Pike's Highway Autopilot Plan 3799. JudithAtHome - 8/7/2001 10:07:41 PM Don't know if you are joking or not but smart highways are already being readied in this country...I saw a piece 2 years ago on PBS about them and much of the public money for new highway infrastructure is going toward these very things. 3800. RustlerPike - 8/8/2001 4:26:48 AM JAH: 3801. RustlerPike - 8/8/2001 4:29:18 AM ycm: 3802. Uzmakk - 8/8/2001 10:55:42 AM My boys are a couple of pansie-asses, 14 and 16. They are moving 18 ton of stone on my driveway today. Sho is hot here in the Northeast. Not only do they have to move the stone, but they must come up with a "stone shoveling song" by the end of the day. 3803. Uzmakk - 8/8/2001 10:57:15 AM This way both the pansie-assed side of the brain and the normal side get exercised. 3804. PsychProf - 8/8/2001 11:01:52 AM Uz...drop me a line at ozzienelson@hotmail.com if you care to. 3805. Absensia - 8/8/2001 11:07:31 AM Good idea, Uzmakk....very good. My son called to say he'd be in town this weekend and wanted to borrow money because it's his guuurlfriend's bday. I told him there was no need to "borrow" it...I'd give it to him. He was happy until I mentioned that the deal was he had to shampoo all the rugs in the house. I've learned that when he wants to 3806. PsychProf - 8/8/2001 11:14:25 AM Here is what I think, Uz and Abs...helping out should be done because people(you) need help and they want to do it...and, clearly, under separate cover, money should be given freely and w/o strings or conditions. Mixing the two makes you a boss or a banker, not a parent. I think it can be questionable to mix the roles. What is yer opine? 3807. Absensia - 8/8/2001 11:21:21 AM Oh, I agree, and often it happens that way. But life is not perfect. There are some reasons why the roles have been blurred over time. He works full time but has problems saving money, so this was an offer of a one time part time job. He had the right to refuse. Usually he asks to borrow and I say, "no, no need to return it." And usually he will gladly help me out. 3808. PsychProf - 8/8/2001 11:24:47 AM Abs...sure...I was thinking more along the lines of a chore annd pay system that many parents use...certainly it works for many. 3809. CalGal - 8/8/2001 11:29:40 AM I think Absensia's response is exactly right, given that her son is older. When kids are teens, I think it is important that they have both chores and money, without them being linked. 3810. Absensia - 8/8/2001 11:37:00 AM CG 3811. PsychProf - 8/8/2001 11:41:29 AM I am a big spoiler in many ways...I give my sons as much money as I can....Ms PP is is the same. 3812. mgleason - 8/8/2001 11:46:06 AM That's what my family was like, and it had a strange effect on me: I was actually reluctant to ask for things because they were so generous. 3813. Absensia - 8/8/2001 11:48:07 AM I love it!!!! 3814. Uzmakk - 8/8/2001 11:56:10 AM I don't know if this will answer your question, PP, but I think it may help to paint a clearer picture. I said to them both, "Gentlemen, a task has been set before us and we must do it." In both cases I woke them from bed and was able to open their window shades and let them gaze upon the task at hand." 3815. theDiva - 8/8/2001 12:01:59 PM For some reason, this just cracks me up. 3816. Uzmakk - 8/8/2001 12:08:39 PM I ordered it and the trucker was nice enough to spread it pretty well on the dump. Still, it is a massive job for these two boys. It is driveway surface, composite red stone. It is going over the gray and will match the odd bits of brickwork that are about. 3817. theDiva - 8/8/2001 12:12:27 PM 18 tons and whatta you get 3818. Uzmakk - 8/8/2001 12:15:15 PM Hey Diva! Nice visiting with yall. Back to work. 3819. arkymalarky - 8/8/2001 12:15:30 PM That'll be nice, Uz. 3820. arkymalarky - 8/8/2001 12:18:55 PM I just imagine Uz's boys squinting at the raised blinds and the view of vast amounts of stone and driveway and crack up, too. It's enough to make a kid ready for school to start back. Bob worked on many a fencerow and hauled many a bale of hay around here in the summers at that age. 3821. theDiva - 8/8/2001 12:28:34 PM uz 3822. Wombat - 8/8/2001 12:38:16 PM Uz should get out a whip, stroll down to the driveway, do his best rendition of Paul Robeson singing "Go Down Moses," and snap the whip a few times. 3823. PsychProf - 8/8/2001 12:50:21 PM Uz...fair enuff. I did not mean to suggest psychological analysis...I was just talking about parenting. 3824. ycmeehan - 8/8/2001 1:13:47 PM Message # 3801 3825. CalGal - 8/8/2001 4:14:09 PM It involved for me not to take my children anymore to spend the summer abroad because there was the risk that we would never come back here. 3826. arkymalarky - 8/8/2001 5:09:51 PM Bob's nephew's wife is Malaysian and they're giving her problems about her citizenship, even though she graduated from a university here and they legally married here and they already have a year old son; so she can't go to see her parents until everything is resolved because the US may not let her back in. 3827. ycmeehan - 8/8/2001 7:53:33 PM I don't think I would ever have kids with someone who wasn't American for just that reason. Not unless they were willing to renounce their citizenship. 3828. robertjayb - 8/9/2001 1:42:36 AM Touchy, these home schoolers... 3829. Absensia - 8/9/2001 1:58:41 AM Was that a single or double wide? Hahahahaha. 3830. RustlerPike - 8/9/2001 10:11:24 AM I would never have done that either. Especially to a Frenchman (naturalized or not) who could register the children born of the marriage at the French Embassy. 3831. RustlerPike - 8/9/2001 10:13:24 AM ycm: 3832. ycmeehan - 8/10/2001 12:42:18 PM Rustler, 3833. robertjayb - 8/10/2001 4:02:20 PM Where were the posts on children being left in cars and forgotten? Here? 3834. CalGal - 8/10/2001 4:06:08 PM Snarl. 3835. arkymalarky - 8/10/2001 4:13:26 PM We had one get 10 years on manslaughter here in AR just yesterday. It was one of the most upsetting cases I've ever seen, in which a father came out the door swinging his nineteen month old son by the feet and bashing the head of the already dead boy all over the yard, sidewalks, and even swinging his body at the police who'd been called and were trying to stop him. He said he'd taken some kind of pain pill after a dentist trip, iirc, and didn't remember any of it. 3836. tiggeriffic - 8/10/2001 6:55:32 PM OMG that is horrifying... just recently we had an incident near our home involving a couple arguing while driving down the 401 highway, one of the busiest in Canada.... and the mother.... and I use that term very liberally in this case, held the baby out the window for sometime while screaming at the father.. cars chased them for miles while police were called and the couple were arrested, Charges have been laid against the Mother, but dad was given custody of the child, something I dont' agree with, dad may not have been the one hanging the kid out the window..... but he didn't pull over immediatly to diffuse the situation either..... 3837. HollyW - 8/10/2001 10:11:40 PM ENOUGH OF THESE STORIES 3838. CalGal - 8/11/2001 1:11:17 PM Okay, per Holly's request: 3839. CalGal - 8/11/2001 1:21:47 PM We've all discussed this before, of course. 3840. Absensia - 8/11/2001 1:31:01 PM Sure, divorce is hard on all kids, regardless of age. I do think that if the kids are just hit with a divorce from out of the blue, it will affect them big time, since "all seemed well." 3841. CalGal - 8/11/2001 1:47:41 PM I do think that if the kids are just hit with a divorce from out of the blue, it will affect them big time, since "all seemed well." 3842. Absensia - 8/11/2001 2:02:46 PM Seems to me that if parents let the kids know there are some problems, and gradually let them know the problems may not be able to be fixed, they are doing the kids a bigger favor than staying together "for the sake of the children." 3843. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 11:02:17 AM Cat Stevens captures a parent's wish to be physically close to their child... 3844. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 11:43:14 AM I always loved that song...even hearing it in an ad for "Greatest Hits" chokes me up. 3845. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 11:54:55 AM I know I have said this before, but it rings so clearly for me...I encouraged my sons to be independent, kick life's ass, and don't look back....and now that they do that, they are gone. Seeing them once a month does not change that. We will meet in NC over Labor Day weekend...I shall hold back time then if I can. 3846. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 12:13:09 PM It's hard to let go but just think back to when you yourself were eager to be on your own...I worry about my son a lot even though he's healthy now and have to restrain myself from calling him every day...but then I think back to when my mom did that to me and even though she meant well, it sometimes irritated me that she wouldn't let go. 3847. janjon - 8/13/2001 12:24:08 PM My immediate reaction is that I find that a bit discouraging, Judith. This perhaps is because, with daughter now 15 and son 10, we are in the midst of what I call "active" parenting with kids who are old enough to be able to react rationally (mostly) to our decisions. A give and a take, in other words. And that can be very exhausting. Fun, mostly rewarding, but exhausting. 3848. CalGal - 8/13/2001 12:27:26 PM I would at least like to hope that the stage will come when they really don't want us to be heavily involved in their decisions. 3849. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 12:33:13 PM Or maybe not even interfere, but just be there on a regular basis--check on them and know they're all right and see and talk to them often. I can really see myself fighting this already, and it's something my own mother did and does way too much of. I can't imagine my house without Mose in it or even the real possibility of eventually only seeing her a few times a year, like my parents did with their parents. Bob's bro just went through that with his son and first grandbaby, who moved several states away, and it's hard, though he's not the type you'd think would be as much affected as some by such a thing. 3850. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 12:45:16 PM Arky...you are of course correct. I just miss the physical nature of living close. I knew someone like you would understand that. 3851. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 12:57:30 PM Most of us understand that, PP. 3852. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 1:02:15 PM Good...I was trying to figure out what words I had written to indicate that I was an interfering type parent. 3853. CalGal - 8/13/2001 1:04:04 PM Man, this is ugly. 3854. Wombat - 8/13/2001 1:06:19 PM Was the surrogate proposing to charge them double? 3855. CalGal - 8/13/2001 1:10:55 PM No, as I understand it, the contract involved a commitment to abort the pregnancy if it involved multiples. But they didn't notify her that they wanted to abort until after 12 weeks. She's saying that even though the contract didn't specify, after 12 weeks is unreasonable. I thought you could only abort after 12 weeks if it was risk to mother's life or health? 3856. Absensia - 8/13/2001 2:15:18 PM I think it evens out...Kids, at least mine, have a way of letting you know when they want your advice and help and when they don't. "It's okay, Mom, I've got it handled." Yes, the distance widens in some things, but the love is still there and the relationship takes on another focus. 3857. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 2:18:59 PM Abs... 3858. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 2:22:06 PM The issue was never about interfering, it's simply about missing your kids when they leave home and not calling and visiting as often as you'd like (but still maybe more than they like in some cases, and wondering where the line is), and also the worrying when you don't keep up with them day-to-day any more. 3859. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 2:26:55 PM Abs..."hanging out time" is what I was talking about...so we hang out on the cell phone, but it isn't the same. One of my boys(23) lives in Manhatttan, and the other(27) in North Carolina, hence I miss them... 3860. Absensia - 8/13/2001 2:26:59 PM I know...and I wasn't disagreeing with either of you. I missed my kid at first...and too much. I was talking about letting go a bit. My kid's always been a good kid, knock on wood, and oddly enough, I was more worried when he was living with me, than when he moved out. We still kept in touch, but when he was home and an adult, worried if he was "okay" late at night, etc. Strange, I know...but so am I. I don't want to bug my kid, but I am a parent. By "interferring" I meant in his eyes, not mine! 3861. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 2:30:09 PM I think it must be different...and it is different if you're a mother or a father, I'd imagine. 3862. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 2:30:13 PM Like PP said, the decreased interaction was his emphasis. Judith mentioned worry too, and I also know that will be a part of it for me. As for the difference between girls and boys, I really don't know. Mom always worries about Bro more than me, but then she always loved him best. ;-) 3863. Absensia - 8/13/2001 2:34:08 PM Hanging out time is more father and son at that age, I think, Prof...not always, but I think there's a difference. We had some great hanging out time this last weekend and it was rare and I'd missed it, but I know he's got a lot going on in his life. And yes..the carpets are clean...then we hung out. I gave him some money, more than he expected, in fact he didn't expect any, and said so. A great weekend. We talk about movies, cds, music, books, politics, philosophy, and "stuff" and laugh a lot. 3864. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 2:34:17 PM Well, mine's home from band practice, so I'm outta here. Y'all have a good one. 3865. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 2:37:27 PM Abs...I didn't think for a minute you were disagreeing with anything. 3866. Absensia - 8/13/2001 2:40:42 PM Judith, 3867. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 2:42:09 PM I talk with my sons almost every day...we just share life. Although both Ms PP and I have careers, we decided early on that family trumps all...it has just turned out to be a "bit" of a shock when we first experienced physical separation that is permanent. We have adjusted nicely, but a part of us remains lonely for our boys, and I do not see that changing. They, OTOH, are living large, as it should be. 3868. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 2:45:21 PM Abs...perhaps Judith will share her history of parenting with her son...she has great respect here at The Mote for this. 3869. janjon - 8/13/2001 2:47:03 PM are either of them married, PsychProf? If not, I suspect that the separation you already feel will be heightened. 3870. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 2:49:35 PM Abs: 3871. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 2:53:44 PM They are stidently single JanJon, but clearly marriage will introduce complexity. I plan to listen more than talk, and be the one called more than the one doing the calling. And I promise to add to their lives, not detract. I will spoil them with money, and will celebrate holildays on any convenient date. No regrets, no strings, no guilt. I hope they chose to continue to share their lives with me. 3872. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 2:55:10 PM PP... 3873. Absensia - 8/13/2001 3:05:34 PM Judith, 3874. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 3:12:51 PM Abs... 3875. Absensia - 8/13/2001 3:23:45 PM I understand, Judith and I would do the same...and do. 3876. PsychProf - 8/13/2001 3:30:18 PM I once asked my Mother-in-Law what she would do if she had nothing to worry about...she smiled and said, in her peculiar brand of English..."No worry...I find em"... 3877. janjon - 8/13/2001 3:33:31 PM mothers do tend to worry, do they not. my wife is about as rational and cool and collected as one can imagine in almost every aspect of her life, except when it comes to letting her imagination run wild over real or perceived dangers/problems for either of our progeny. not a doubt in my mind that she would be of the same long-term mindset as judith were we ever to face such a serious health issue with either of our kids. 3878. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 4:07:44 PM I hope they do, because I sometimes feel like a freak with my worrying. Of course, like I posted a while back, it's not my worrying but how I control my actions over it that can be a problem. 3879. Absensia - 8/13/2001 6:07:24 PM Over worry? I think not...not when there can be kidnappers,people who go postal, strange virual strains, mad cow disease, chainsaw murders, 3880. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 6:12:50 PM Omigosh! Lightning! You forgot lightning! I've warned Mose repeatedly to never stick her arm out the window of the car during a thunderstorm. Or take a bath. Or talk on the phone. Or stand near a window. 3881. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 6:13:29 PM Or touch the television or any major electrical appliance. 3882. Absensia - 8/13/2001 6:17:23 PM OMG, you are right. How could I have forgotten that. Well, it's only 3:15 here and the day is young...oh...I forgot rabid animals too. 3883. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 6:19:09 PM Oh yes, that's a favorite of mine, especially this time of year. 3884. janjon - 8/13/2001 6:20:56 PM I'll bet Henny Penny made a big impression on you two once upon a time. 3885. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 6:23:14 PM Let's just say I don't walk out the door without looking up. 3886. janjon - 8/13/2001 6:25:53 PM after my pigeon episode, neither do I. 3887. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 6:33:19 PM Arky: 3888. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 6:36:23 PM Great, Judith! We'll be on the lookout for it. Mose really appreciates you doing that. She and her friends will get a lot out of it. She did a split shift of band practice today, which I don't really like. I'm glad school starts next week. 3889. JudithAtHome - 8/13/2001 6:38:11 PM The quality of the filming was bad enough but I taped it at too slow a speed and so they may not get that much out of it. But I'm sure they'll gt a good laugh out of a girl named Stacy who is the host...heh heh. 3890. Åse - 8/13/2001 11:57:19 PM Just came across this on one of my e-mail groups. 3891. Åse - 8/13/2001 11:58:48 PM The two scientists suggest that stereotypical teenage behaviors, such as rebelliousness and risk-taking, could be caused by the rapid changes altering the teenage brain. 3892. Åse - 8/14/2001 12:00:13 AM "I think people have a set of teenage behaviors that they don't like--take video games--and say if you do that while your frontal lobes are developing you'll be damaged forever, but if you play chess, you'll be a genius," Bruer said. "We really have to be careful in looking for purported biological explanations for very local social and cultural phenomena we may not like." 3893. Åse - 8/14/2001 12:00:28 AM "That's why the juvenile court system makes decisions differently than the adult court system," Barkley said. "It's founded on the idea that juveniles do not have the power that adults have, to foresee the consequences of their actions." 3894. CalGal - 8/14/2001 12:11:16 AM I think people have a set of teenage behaviors that they don't like--take video games--and say if you do that while your frontal lobes are developing you'll be damaged forever, but if you play chess, you'll be a genius 3895. Åse - 8/14/2001 12:24:40 AM Well - If they really think things are "done" by 30, lots of adults are still developing. 3896. Åse - 8/14/2001 12:30:10 AM Some of the things that bothered me in the later quotes were the types of "adolescents just don't see things like we do" - which to me seems like saying "they are these weird alien beings and we simply can't relate to them" which is odd, given that anybody that is adult actually has been an adolescent at a time. (And, hell, I put off things to the last minute, and I'm 42 - but then I do have a peculiar brain). 3897. CalGal - 8/14/2001 1:16:50 AM Yes, we've discussed it before--in fact, if you page back a bit you'll see my link to an article saying that adolescents of mothers on welfare did worse when their parents went back to work. Younger children did better, for the most part. It seems likely that adolescents already in a high risk population would do worse without a mother (even a fairly weak one) doing some herding. 3898. Wombat - 8/14/2001 7:56:59 AM Cal: 3899. Adrianne - 8/14/2001 12:38:52 PM 3900. PsychProf - 8/14/2001 12:42:41 PM Ad...do you think that this is an inappropriate activity? How does this fit within the context of value system(s) that you already use to parent him? 3901. Adrianne - 8/14/2001 12:54:15 PM 3902. bubbaette - 8/14/2001 1:00:42 PM Here's another quandry -- saw nephew this weekend who was smoking ciggs -- to bust or not to bust? 3903. Shannon - 8/14/2001 1:01:42 PM I wouldn't bust. 3904. Adrianne - 8/14/2001 1:02:38 PM 3905. Absensia - 8/14/2001 1:09:18 PM I wouldn't bust in either situation. In the first, why teach him about the history and cache feature? It's always good for a surprise later if need be. Hahahah. 3906. CalGal - 8/14/2001 1:12:06 PM 18? Don't bust. It's not even an issue. Just tell him that you're pleased to see that he's doing his bit to reduce government costs by dying early and saving us all the cost of his Social Security. 3907. Webfeet - 8/14/2001 3:06:14 PM I don't know if anyone is familiar with the baby product catalog, One Step Ahead, but I made the mistake of ordering something from there, a quick and easy basket to hold toys in the bathtub and it was, instead, a do-it-yourself kit for a nervous breakdown. 3908. RustlerPike - 8/14/2001 9:12:29 PM Well, my 17 year old beat me up and I still haven't come to terms with it. Other than to stop talking to him, stop living with him, and stop looking at him. 3909. RustlerPike - 8/14/2001 9:27:46 PM One thing I can say: he will regret the day he raised his hands on me when he gets in trouble, and I don't think that day is very far off. He certainly has the right genes for getting in trouble, with his rapist father and lying character, and he is getting the right education for it from his mother. 3910. RustlerPike - 8/14/2001 9:44:28 PM arky, janjon: 3911. Jenerator - 8/14/2001 9:50:11 PM Rustler, 3912. RustlerPike - 8/14/2001 10:18:45 PM Not only was it a traumatic experience involving family, but it was physically painfully. 3913. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 10:24:52 PM I hope you and your other children are able to move past it, and it seems from your pictures you have a very good relationship with them. 3914. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 10:25:57 PM And thanks for the bird poop art link. I'll have much more appreciation for having to park my car under a tree in the future. 3915. RustlerPike - 8/15/2001 6:25:00 AM Well, as far as my custody war is concerned: it seems to be going my way at the moment (though it's not over yet). The judge said Anna couldn't move from Katzir with the kids until there was a custody decision, and I got the femmie social worker who had been working the case replaced with another who seems to be much less of a femmie and more fair-minded. In any case, the kids will start the school year in Katzir. 3916. RustlerPike - 8/15/2001 6:27:04 AM The social worker said the apartment block Anna was planning to move to with the kids, in nearby Karkur, had an active drug scene going. 3917. RustlerPike - 8/15/2001 6:30:07 AM Anna protested that, had she been an Israeli woman, she would have been free to move anywhere she wanted to with the children, even before a custody ruling. And the amazing thing is, she's right: the social worker confirmed this to me. I don't understand, then: what are custody rulings for? 3918. RustlerPike - 8/15/2001 6:41:28 AM I hope you and your other children are able to move past it, and it seems from your pictures you have a very good relationship with them. I wish the best for you and your family, RP. 3919. RustlerPike - 8/15/2001 6:44:13 AM Of the two of us, I am by far the more responsible, giving and nurturing parent, and the kids see it that way, too. Plus, I know what the solar system is, and I can do 20% of 200. These things must also count for something? 3920. Jenerator - 8/15/2001 10:06:09 AM Rustler, 3921. CalGal - 8/15/2001 10:47:21 PM Lord, Katie Couric put up a "Save Andrea Yates" logo to encourage people to contribute to her defense fund. Bleah. 3922. Shannon - 8/15/2001 11:03:36 PM Ugh. Is that on the webpage? 3923. Absensia - 8/15/2001 11:09:36 PM I'm thinking Andrea will do some hard time. Here, there once was a case where both the defense and prosecution psychiatrists said the mom was crazy when she drowned her baby. Prosecutor didn't go for the death penalty, and the jury covicted her of first degree murder without blinking. 3924. CalGal - 8/15/2001 11:28:54 PM Hard time? As long as the death penalty is around, fry her. But we talked about that earlier; I see two biases. One: the public is less concerned about adults killing their own kids. Two: They feel bad for the poor little woman who had so many children she didn't know what to do. Except drown them. 3925. Absensia - 8/15/2001 11:36:48 PM I don't believe in the death penalty at all. But, what I meant was I thought she'd get convicted of murder one, not "not guilty by reason of insanity." And you are right...from what I've seen, women more often get the death penalty when they kill some other adult. 3926. Jenerator - 8/15/2001 11:40:42 PM I read that Rosie O'Donnell is sympathetic to Yates as well. 3927. Absensia - 8/15/2001 11:43:31 PM Jen, it is disgusting. People are very scary these days. 3928. Jenerator - 8/15/2001 11:44:43 PM I'm great Absensia, thank you for asking. Unfortunately he's gone on business until Friday, but life is good for us. 3929. Jenerator - 8/15/2001 11:45:54 PM I'm great Absensia, thank you for asking. Unfortunately he's gone on business until Friday, but life is good for us. 3930. Absensia - 8/15/2001 11:55:19 PM Glad to hear, Jen...that's great. I'm fine, thanks!! 3931. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 1:59:28 AM I'm glad to see you two girls are getting a long. 3932. Absensia - 8/16/2001 2:03:53 AM Thwwwaaaack!!!!!! 3933. Absensia - 8/16/2001 2:11:15 AM and that was said in the most loving way! :P 3934. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 2:17:57 AM 3935. Absensia - 8/16/2001 2:20:51 AM I know that...I have a son...and it was, the thwack, to give you a smile. No malice intended. 3936. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 2:21:30 AM 3937. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/16/2001 3:04:42 AM Ad Message # 3899: 3938. Erinys - 8/16/2001 5:38:45 AM That's an interesting turnabout, Irving. Why do they? 3939. Jenerator - 8/16/2001 5:59:48 AM erin, 3940. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 6:55:35 AM I thought she was talking about my penis enlarger!!!! 3941. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 7:00:24 AM erinys: 3942. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 7:17:10 AM Well, the fact that nobody is attacking me here yet gives me the courage to post this link. I would really rather not take it to Social Issues so if you don't want it here, just tell me. 3943. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 7:18:54 AM (from the Sydney Morning Herald, following the suicide of an Aussie MP). 3944. alistairconnor - 8/16/2001 7:29:12 AM Message # 3908 Rustler, I'm just thinking about the fact that your stepson was 7 years old when you came into his life. 3945. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/16/2001 7:50:04 AM Erinys: 3946. vw - 8/16/2001 11:17:03 AM I would really rather not take it to Social Issues so if you don't want it here, just tell me 3947. vw - 8/16/2001 11:20:28 AM Note: teenage male suicides seem to be on a slow increase in the US. 3948. vw - 8/16/2001 11:22:54 AM From the extensive research [of] the last five years ... it becomes apparent men kill themselves due to an inability to cope with life events such as relationship break-ups of the kind [I] myself have suffered," said Wilton, whose first marriage had ended in divorce. - emphasis mine. 3949. Erinys - 8/16/2001 1:48:13 PM Anger management would be about it for the US men, and those are more of a court-ordered thing, aren't they? 3950. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 2:16:58 PM What is grout? 3951. Jenerator - 8/16/2001 2:33:44 PM It's that thick stuff used as adhesive between tiles (looks like cement). 3952. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 3:52:59 PM Well, yeah, counseling and anger management are nice, but they don't have anything to do with preventing the heartbreak and righting the injustice, do they? 3953. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 3:54:23 PM 3954. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 3:55:57 PM Toy. 3955. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 3:59:50 PM How can anger management begin to solve this problem? These parents feel a grief akin to that felt by parents whose children have died. 3956. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 4:59:16 PM marj: 3957. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 5:12:52 PM Irving: 3958. CalGal - 8/16/2001 5:14:24 PM No, the Western model towards men is far more humane, in that the inequities aren't enforced by existing laws. Rather, our family courts are out of control. At least in the US. 3959. RustlerPike - 8/16/2001 6:10:28 PM No, the Western model towards men is far more humane, in that the inequities aren't enforced by existing laws. Rather, our family courts are out of control. At least in the US. 3960. vw - 8/16/2001 6:35:04 PM You start with the inequities built into the legal system. I have spent the last five years working with a group of lawyers, psychologist, and social workers attempting to change family law in NYS to mitigate the built in gender inequities. You start there and eventually social policies follw after the legal corrections. 3961. CalGal - 8/16/2001 7:04:25 PM RP, 3962. IrvingSnodgrass - 8/16/2001 11:58:36 PM Rustler Message # 3957: 3963. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 1:09:37 AM vw: 3964. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 11:22:10 AM CG: 3965. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 11:29:31 AM >>> 3966. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 11:35:47 AM It would also help if there were a distinct separation between acceptable and normal behavior in the courtship years - say, 18 to 28 or so - and in the later stages of life. I don't think 40 year olds should behave like 20 year olds. I think people should be proud of their age and what comes with it, and not keep trying to stay young and wrinkle-free and get laid and run to tell the guys or gals all about it. 3967. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 11:39:11 AM It is appalling that a judge can casually deny a parent (usually a father) legal custody, or decide that bickering divorced parents are bad for kids--so take them away from one parent altogether. 3968. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 11:40:42 AM I think people should be proud of their age and what comes with it, and not keep trying to stay young and wrinkle-free and get laid and run to tell the guys or gals all about it. 3969. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 11:58:39 AM Message # 3965 3970. CalGal - 8/17/2001 12:04:55 PM 3971. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 12:15:46 PM There are some women who don't ask for anything when a divorce happens...I know I didn't. I could've demanded my ex sell the house and boat and cars and a lot more but I didn't because, even though my son was 18 at the time, he was going to live with his dad for a year or so and I didn't feel like uprooting them both just so I could have money. 3972. Erinys - 8/17/2001 12:26:49 PM CalGal, I don't agree that a spouse staying home to care for the kids is failing to contribute to family finances. Your ideas about the risk in doing so are interesting, though. 3973. christipeters - 8/17/2001 12:32:33 PM "As for a woman getting a "pension"--keep in mind that in this country, anyway, both partners get half the marriage assets whether or not they have children" 3974. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 12:34:58 PM Russ, I agree with the general thrust of your Message # 3964 etc. (And I'm a bit surprised at myself for agreeing.) 3975. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 12:56:51 PM ac: 3976. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 12:59:00 PM Btw: when I said President/Vice President I was thinking 'of a company' rather than 'of the USA'. I should have made that clear. 3977. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:00:48 PM I had a second part to my response to Rustler, but I was getting disconnected all the time and had to reboot. Coming up next... 3978. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 1:03:27 PM (keeping in mind that any stay at home mother does less than the working mother--or parent, for that matter) 3979. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:03:28 PM Your suggestion is distinctly that of a career woman: it says - 'if you didn't make damn sure to put your career first, woman, pay the price'. 3980. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 1:05:31 PM CG: 3981. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:09:24 PM Christi, 3982. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 1:13:41 PM CG: 3983. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:19:39 PM It'll definitely reduce the rate of wife-initiated divorce. But it will also definitely increase husband-initiated divorce. 3984. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 1:24:44 PM Also, I think that by making this a stay-at-home vs. career woman debate we are misrepresenting reality. Most women, in Israel at least, work. I'm not even sure most women didn't work in 19th or 18th or 17th century Europe. Women have always worked. Most of them always will, at some point or another in their lives. 3985. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 1:27:38 PM I think that staying at home is just as much of a job as going to an office. They're diiferent, but they're both jobs. Both have positives and both have negatives. 3986. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:30:58 PM RP, 3987. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 1:32:52 PM It seems to me that what Rustler is saying is that staying at home to raise children should be given at least equal weight in importance to chasing a career. 3988. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:37:10 PM To me, the questions are more like what kind of work, how demanding, what hours... does she take months off for having babies... is it a more 'feminine' profession like a kindergarten teacher or a secretary or is it about beating the men at being men. 3989. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 1:38:57 PM I could be tired, but I don't understand much of what you're saying, CG. 3990. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 1:42:38 PM OK, I'm understanding you a bit better after #3986, CG. Let me phrase an answer. 3991. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 1:43:15 PM Thank you Rustler! 3992. Adrianne - 8/17/2001 1:44:08 PM Ouch, my head hurts after posting a gajillion sites proving some stupid point about how CS rates are computed. (whine) and I come here to find ya'll talking about CS tooooooo!!!!!!! 3993. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:44:45 PM Jenerator, 3994. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 1:48:21 PM CalGal, 3995. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:52:27 PM Rustler, 3996. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:54:58 PM I didn't mention divorce at all. If you have been reading my posts with that factor in mind, I can see why were not connecting at all. 3997. Wombat - 8/17/2001 1:57:08 PM I prefer co-presidents, with each deferring to the other's strengths. 3998. CalGal - 8/17/2001 1:59:29 PM Only if the "strengths" are equally objective--or if the one with the objective "strength" is willing to pony up the cost in the event of a divorce. The real cost, that is. 3999. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:01:02 PM calGal, 4000. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:01:17 PM CG: 4001. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:01:18 PM yes? 4002. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:02:07 PM I was referring back to "President/Vice President" or "President/Prime Minister" analogies, which I found disturbing. 4003. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:03:29 PM Hah! 4004. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:04:21 PM Wombat: 4005. PsychProf - 8/17/2001 2:06:09 PM FWIW(a lot), Thoughtful said this at the Sports Bar yesterday... 4006. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:07:20 PM A family is not a country (although perhaps your resembles Israel and Palestine). 4007. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 2:07:38 PM Show me a country or company that has co-Presidents, please. 4008. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:07:40 PM Here's how I see it. 4009. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:09:02 PM Jenerator: 4010. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:09:20 PM But staying at home with the children instead of dumping them off in a daycare center with a stranger is way more desirable! 4011. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 2:09:33 PM The problem in yours and Cals discussion, Jen, is the comparison of emotional wealth and just wealth, period. Money versus emotion... 4012. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 2:11:13 PM Show me a country or company that has co-Presidents, please. 4013. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:11:34 PM Secondly, I see nothing easy with staying at home, ESPECIALLY with a newborn or toddler. 4014. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:12:05 PM Jennifer - 4015. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:12:19 PM I think one finds that it not the quantity of time that one spends at home with the children, but the quality of the time. 4016. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:13:00 PM My sister had a very succesful career at USC-Medical when she got pregnant. Her and her husband are very ambitious and when she was pregnant, she was a little resentful of the damper it put on her career. 4017. PsychProf - 8/17/2001 2:14:45 PM Wombat...quality time that happens at 2 PM on saturday? What about the myriad of problems that happen on a daily basis and must be dealt with by someone? 4018. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:15:57 PM christipeters, 4019. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:16:17 PM "But staying at home with the children instead of dumping them off in a daycare center with a stranger is way more desirable" 4020. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:18:40 PM A good daycare center or babysitter can offer a helluva lot more than someone staying at home doing the laundry, cleaning house or trying to write the Great American Novel. I--for one--would have been much happier had my mother been out of the house more rather than less. She wasn't abusive or anything, but she had emotional issues, and I was very independent-minded. My brother was the opposite. 4021. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:19:36 PM Christi, 4022. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:21:16 PM Jenerator - Yes, accidents happen all the time. That's why it's a damn good idea to provide yourself with some way to deal with them. 4023. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 2:21:36 PM Actually, Wombat, I wasn't really serious about the president/prime minister stuff. Though I suppose it suits my temperament to be a powerless figurehead. 4024. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:21:47 PM Judith - It IS possible to provide BOTH financial AND emotional security for your child. 4025. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:22:08 PM When I stay at home with my daughter, I am with her. 4026. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:23:55 PM Jenerator - Huh? 4027. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:24:16 PM Cal: 4028. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 2:24:43 PM Christi: 4029. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:24:45 PM Well, Christi has taken care of Jenerator's posts (and Judith's as well) so I won't duplicate them. What she said. 4030. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:25:47 PM >>> 4031. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:26:33 PM Psych: 4032. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 2:27:29 PM There was nothing to be taken care of in my post, Cal... 4033. PsychProf - 8/17/2001 2:29:26 PM Wombat...well...I will believe you if you say it. Then in your case the babysitter seems like a sound choice. 4034. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 2:31:01 PM [rambles on...] In a hunter-gatherer society, or subsistence agriculture, there is no objective reason for men to have higher status, because women are doing at least their share of food provision, as well as child rearing (and men are more likely to be around to participate in that). 4035. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:31:06 PM Judith - I love you dearly, but doesn't that statement (post#4028) require certain unsubstantiated assumptions about the people posting? 4036. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:31:19 PM Wombat: 4037. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:36:42 PM RP, 4038. Wombat - 8/17/2001 2:37:47 PM Rustler: 4039. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:38:00 PM The real irony of your position is that any world that declares women as Keeper of Womb and Hearth will almost certainly give men less acknowledgement as father. After all, that's the flip of your position. If a man is to be provider and woman leaves that to him, then a woman is to be nurturer and man can just stay the hell out of that--what is he trying to do, grow tits? 4040. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 2:39:41 PM Christi: 4041. Jenerator - 8/17/2001 2:39:46 PM Calgal, 4042. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:42:03 PM OK, Judith, I misread you and I apologize. 4043. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 2:42:36 PM [rambles on and on] 4044. PsychProf - 8/17/2001 2:43:33 PM The pants stuff is a big deal. 4045. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:44:13 PM CG: 4046. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:46:54 PM I simply think roles should be re-redefined, and women should be encouraged to find a role for Woman in society that fits what they really are, deep down inside, and that can flow in harmony besides the role of Man. 4047. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:49:01 PM Alistair, 4048. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 2:49:13 PM But Rustler, Cal has covered that already...a woman can't depend on a rich husband always being there. And she certainly can't depend on him being nice and paying off in the case of a divorce. 4049. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:51:57 PM Jenerator, 4050. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:52:26 PM If a man is to be provider and woman leaves that to him, then a woman is to be nurturer and man can just stay the hell out of that--what is he trying to do, grow tits? 4051. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:53:13 PM Jenerator - 4052. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:53:54 PM Rustler, 4053. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 2:56:12 PM CG: 4054. christipeters - 8/17/2001 2:57:33 PM Having a stay at home Mom. Having a stay at home Dad. Having a well-trained professional Nanny. Having parents that work split shifts and share being home with the kids. Both parents working and placing the kids in a good daycare. Having Aunt Susan stay with the kids while both parents work. Having Grandma take care of the kids. 4055. CalGal - 8/17/2001 2:57:57 PM Back in Biblical days, men were providers and protectors and women were nurturers. Yet there was no greater anguish for a man than losing his children: see Job, see Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac. 4056. christipeters - 8/17/2001 3:00:04 PM Jenerator - 4057. PsychProf - 8/17/2001 3:00:48 PM Christi...I don't know if they are all equally valid, but one should be aware of the price of each and choose the one they favor, if possible. The problem is life and its course of events that get in the way of what we want. 4058. CalGal - 8/17/2001 3:01:37 PM It's not 'childcare'. It's parenting. 4059. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 3:02:08 PM [continues rambling monologue] 4060. christipeters - 8/17/2001 3:03:58 PM PP - If the end result is children who grow up to be responsible, independant, psychologically healthy adults, then they household situation they were raised in is "valid". Yes, some situations are harder than others, but unless you are saying the the end result I stated above is impossible in a certain family situation, then I would say that it is "valid". 4061. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 3:09:31 PM One point that my wife raised, that I hadn't thought of, was that when I took the kids to school looking unkempt (the kids, not me. Well OK, me too), it's not me who gets judged negatively, by the mothers and the teachers, but her. 4062. PsychProf - 8/17/2001 3:09:46 PM Chrisi...good point. The end result is a good objective measuring stick, and as such it is clear that no one parenting method holds truth. For my part, I loved the extensive time I spent with my boys, but do not assume it was/is right or appropriate for others. Actually, we had children so we could spend time with them...we felt the choice and the responsibility was ours. 4063. CalGal - 8/17/2001 3:09:57 PM Alistair, 4064. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 3:14:01 PM The only way to ensure that you would get your world without risk and with less likelihood that fathers would lose access to their children is to remove the responsibility of women to provide for themselves--and the rights that go along with it. Reinstitute the professional stigma that occurs if a man divorces his wife. Then you'll have a world where a man's right and proper duty is to marry a nester for life, and the nester will suffer discrimination if she ever needs to feather things on her own. 4065. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 3:17:00 PM general most women would not be supportive of their husband quitting or cutting back just because he wanted more time with the laundry or the children. 4066. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 3:20:53 PM Are you saying that a father who works is less of a parent? 4067. christipeters - 8/17/2001 3:22:04 PM PP - I also chose to have a child so I could spend time with her. I wish God had blessed me with the three children her father and I planned, even though that would have made my post-divorce life much more difficult. I loved the extensive time I spent with my daughter when she was smaller. I am very grateful that I was able to arrange my schedule as a student when she was a baby such that I spent 95% of her waking hours with her. I still spend a great deal of time with my daughter (and my house shows it! &:oD) and love it a tremendously. When making decisions about my career, or where I live, or what I want to do in my life, my daughter's needs are my primary concern. 4068. CalGal - 8/17/2001 3:26:34 PM In general, you're probably right but what is so wrong with someone wanting a cleaner house? 4069. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 3:31:44 PM And in a world of equality, why should she be able to cut her income and increase your burden just because she wants a cleaner house? 4070. christipeters - 8/17/2001 3:33:45 PM Rustler Pike - it is not only the possibilty of divorce that needs to be considered. It is the possiblity of death, disability, or just plain joblessness. 4071. christipeters - 8/17/2001 3:35:54 PM I AM a Mother. I wanted to be a Mother. I am happy and proud to be Mother and work damn hard to be the best Mother I can. However, I am not ONLY a Mother. 4072. janjon - 8/17/2001 3:39:16 PM In some contexts, the male/female, father/mother conundra have already changed, esp. when the husband and wife are on the same educational and "career" path. My wife and I see it not only in our own choices, but in those of friends. I think I am being honest with myself in saying "should someone stay at home and if so whom" wasn't a major factor. 4073. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 3:54:02 PM And in a world of equality, why should she be able to cut her income and increase your burden just because she wants a cleaner house? 4074. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 3:57:48 PM janjon: 4075. rubberducky - 8/17/2001 4:00:18 PM thanks for alerting all the damn cyber-squatters, Pike! 4076. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 4:00:53 PM I made about $15,000 last year, I think. 4077. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 4:02:26 PM However, the idea of luck that janjon raises is an interesting one. 4078. CalGal - 8/17/2001 4:05:15 PM Alistair, 4079. janjon - 8/17/2001 4:08:35 PM at least you apparently can see what pike concocted. That link doesn't work for me. 4080. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 4:20:43 PM One last contribution before I really hop off to bed: 4081. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 4:21:18 PM But when women's risks all involve money, as well as the financial wellbeing of herself and her children, it seems to me that something is out of balance. 4082. janjon - 8/17/2001 4:22:32 PM ohhhhh my. 4083. janjon - 8/17/2001 4:24:40 PM 4082 referred to pike's ramble through the park in his one driver buggy, of course. 4084. rubberducky - 8/17/2001 4:25:03 PM Let's look at marriage as... a carriage! One guy drives the horse, and the other takes care of the kids in the back. 4085. christipeters - 8/17/2001 4:29:06 PM RP - Oh, pshaw! It has nothing to do with thinking men are weak. It has to do with seeing what happens when Life kicks us in the teeth. Shit happens and the smart person tries to be prepared. You can't be prepared for everything, but you can do something, which is better that sticking your chin out and just waiting for the blow. 4086. CalGal - 8/17/2001 4:29:28 PM Rustler 4087. christipeters - 8/17/2001 4:30:34 PM Having one driver is ok for short carriage drives. For the long haul, a carriage has two competent drivers who spell each other. 4088. CalGal - 8/17/2001 4:37:44 PM Alistair, 4089. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 5:02:59 PM CG (posted as I sleep): 4090. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 5:03:55 PM >>> 4091. christipeters - 8/17/2001 5:06:42 PM You know, CalGal, a lot of your posts read as if a wife staying home is solely the wife's decision. While I know it can be - she can just decide unilaterally to up and quit, but then so can he - in most couples it is a joint decision. 4092. Åse - 8/17/2001 5:10:18 PM Aaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhh 4093. Laura C - 8/17/2001 5:16:07 PM Ase screams for me as well. 4094. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 5:17:58 PM Ase: 4095. CalGal - 8/17/2001 5:21:12 PM Christi, 4096. RustlerPike - 8/17/2001 5:22:05 PM Laura C and Ase - if you were Israeli women, would you agree to be drafted for three years of combat military service, and 30 more years of reserve service, and run the risk of getting shot up, maimed or burned in war? Something tells me you wouldn't be screaming for equality in the line for Boot Camp. 4097. CalGal - 8/17/2001 5:22:28 PM I have been nobly avoiding sarcasm for hours in the interest of keeping Rustler peaceful and unoffended. I can't begin to tell you all the strain it has been. (sob) 4098. Åse - 8/17/2001 5:23:58 PM You know, I know women that probably would be fine with that. Fine, let them go and find the RustlerPikes of the world and be happy. 4099. Åse - 8/17/2001 5:26:02 PM >Laura C and Ase - if you were Israeli women, would you agree to be drafted for three years of combat military service, and 30 more years of reserve service, and run the risk of getting shot up, maimed or burned in war? 4100. Laura C - 8/17/2001 5:27:57 PM Yes, fair's fair. 4101. Laura C - 8/17/2001 5:29:26 PM I can't begin to tell you all the strain it has been. (sob) 4102. Åse - 8/17/2001 5:31:25 PM I'm hyper-ventilating for you. 4103. CalGal - 8/17/2001 5:33:05 PM Rustler, 4104. CalGal - 8/17/2001 5:38:43 PM One way of achieving this is to stop teaching women (and men) that men are nothing more than a bunch of potential rapists and murderers. 4105. CalGal - 8/17/2001 5:39:22 PM Ha, ha. 4106. debby - 8/17/2001 5:53:59 PM WTF - are these people for real? 4107. CalGal - 8/17/2001 5:56:10 PM FYI, Rustler lives in Israel, where I suppose $15K is more money. 4108. debby - 8/17/2001 5:58:12 PM A Particularly Idiotic Rehashing of the Same Old Shit? 4109. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:00:05 PM hahahaha. Actually, I don't think it is idiotic at all. Paring away some of the (to my view) misogynistic trappings, I think RP is stating what many men and women believe. 4110. debby - 8/17/2001 6:05:08 PM No its not so much that I hate this particular debate, I hate how stupid people show themselves to be while having it. And this RP fellow is not showing himself to be someone in whose hands I'd willingly put my health wealth and happiness, And Jenerator's relative who found God on the maternity ward doesn't prove anything in particular to me either. 4111. mgleason - 8/17/2001 6:05:28 PM I Want a Girl Just Like the Girl Divorced by Dear Old Dad. 4112. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:07:21 PM hahahahahaha! God, that's beautiful. Okay, let me find the first post. 4113. Åse - 8/17/2001 6:09:57 PM I think RP is stating what many men and women believe. 4114. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:10:12 PM Oh, that was to Maria, in case it isn't clear. 4115. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:15:43 PM whereas I think women are being sold a bill of goods with the "hard most important job" whatever. 4116. christipeters - 8/17/2001 6:28:32 PM "Another is to teach girls that being happily married and raising kids and playing a support role to hubby is a good thing." 4117. christipeters - 8/17/2001 6:31:14 PM "I also think that there are serious people making serious arguments that it would be better for society as a whole if we reverted to old social standards--while fully acknowledging that some women would suffer if abandoned or divorced, and others would be miserable because they aren't naturally cut out for that sort of life. Classic "needs of the many" approach." 4118. mgleason - 8/17/2001 6:34:16 PM It is a bill of goods. I grew up in what was basically a family cooperative - mother, two uncles, grandmother - and it taught me that there is nothing carved in stone WRT so-called 'traditional' roles. No one has to be 'in charge;' in fact, spreading out responsibilities/duties/decison making is a much safer bet, because the accidental loss of one of the main players won't devastate the rest. 4119. christipeters - 8/17/2001 6:40:10 PM My mother worked. Both my grandmothers worked. All four of my great-grandmothers worked, etc etc. I don't think any of my ancestors were wealthy enough for Mom to just stay home and take care of the kiddies. Since they are all British, Danish, or Irish, I expect if you go back for enough you'll find some of my female ancestors weaving or sewing or taking in laundry at home with some of the kids at their feet. Far enough back, you'd probably see some of them out in the fields or helping to haul the fishnets in, too. I don't think you'll see any of them with only childcare and housecleaning to do, though. 4120. christipeters - 8/17/2001 6:41:50 PM Well, I'm outta here. Y'all have fun now! 4121. Absensia - 8/17/2001 6:43:38 PM Yes, same here, MG, and though my mother wasn't employed, and I had a father, that was the philosophy. 4122. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:43:43 PM Alistair, 4123. Absensia - 8/17/2001 6:45:09 PM Have a good weekend, Christi 4124. Absensia - 8/17/2001 6:49:08 PM er..."been showing" and "is remarkable" 4125. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 6:51:30 PM Message # 4115 Reverting to old social standards? That's certainly not my idea. On the other hand, I don't believe that everything's sweetness and light right now, or that there is anything inevitable or permanent about the current state of affairs. Systematically denigrating women who don't work, whether by choice or not, is not a complete substitute for reflection and analysis. 4126. Shannon - 8/17/2001 6:52:46 PM Well, I missed all kinds of fun. 4127. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 6:55:02 PM Systematically denigrating women who don't work, whether by choice or not, is not a complete substitute for reflection and analysis. 4128. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:57:09 PM I don't think anyone here has been "systematically denigrating" women who don't work. (Also, I wasn't saying that reverting to old social standards was your idea--I was responding to Rustler, I thought) 4129. stostosto - 8/17/2001 6:57:29 PM I have just read the whole discussion through, and I have exactly the same time warp feeling Absensia mentions. 4130. CalGal - 8/17/2001 6:58:01 PM Shannon, 4131. mgleason - 8/17/2001 7:03:17 PM It's hardly denigration to argue, as has been done here, that choosing not to work, whether the parent in question be male or female, can be an extremely risky proposition, unless certain safeguards are in place. What I find objectionable is the assumption that women who work, whether by choice or not, are throwing their children to the wolves, and spurning their proper role in life. 4132. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:06:12 PM Sto, You got that right. 4133. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:10:31 PM I also think Cal is right that we still live with something very close to Rustler's model - or at least with mindsets resembling it. 4134. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:12:09 PM MG and Shannon, 4135. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 7:12:25 PM Thank you Cal for Message # 4122 - after considerable restraint, I was just about to issue a blistering cross-post to your condescending and offensive Message # 4088 4136. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:13:36 PM That's rare, though Sto. Seems to me, these days, men and women are on a more equal footing, at least here in the US. 4137. mgleason - 8/17/2001 7:15:15 PM Young women marry up; old women marry down, the law of diminishing returns in action. 4138. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:16:04 PM As far as RP's views being time warpish--I agree, obviously, but regardless of how he states them there's little question in my mind that his basic feeling that mothers who stay at home are doing what is best for their children is reflected by the society at large. 4139. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:16:10 PM Abs 4140. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:16:58 PM But it doesn't seem as common as it used to be...and I don't know anyone married to a pool boy. 4141. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:18:49 PM Sto....I know of quite a few...maybe not a huge difference but a significant one...especially if the wife is in one of the professions...medicine, law, etc., and the husband is not. 4142. Khabees Khargosh - 8/17/2001 7:19:20 PM Hi all!!! 4143. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:22:25 PM Hi Khabees!!! 4144. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:26:15 PM Alistair, 4145. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:27:04 PM I didn't know RP before the divorce et al came up, so I don't know if his views are more intense because of that or not. In my experience, people's views regarding divorce, child care, support, etc. become much harsher during the divorce proceeding. 4146. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 7:27:26 PM [continued from 4135] 4147. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:28:21 PM For example, I won't be able to party around and swim in young girls' bosoms at the same time as being a responsible husband and father of my kids. 4148. Khabees Khargosh - 8/17/2001 7:29:07 PM Hi stostosto !! 4149. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:29:57 PM Abs, are you sure about that? That you know "quite a few" couples where wife earns more than husband? 4150. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:32:05 PM Abs, 4151. Åse - 8/17/2001 7:32:18 PM lowly paid schoolteacher 4152. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:32:39 PM Cal, 4153. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:34:31 PM True, Stos..but what I meant was lawyer wife makes more than husband college or university professor, or doctor wife makes more than husband human resources director. 4154. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:36:55 PM It's really irritating, because it tells men that what counts with women is primarily their earning ability, and it tells women that what counts with men is primarily their looks and youth. 4155. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 7:38:36 PM sto: 4156. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:38:58 PM Ase, 4157. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:39:30 PM Rustler's "women in the military" sloganeering always struck me as conveniently overlooking the fact that if it weren't for all them real manly men who were really manlily bent on protecting their real womanly women and real childish children and real familishly families, willing to shoot and kill and blow up themselves and what not, there wouldn't be all that need for a military at all, now would there? 4158. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:40:44 PM Sto, 4159. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:44:17 PM Sto, Excellent point! 4160. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 7:45:11 PM Message # 4144 would a man with a family to support be a lowly paid schoolteacher, or would he at least wonder if maybe he shouldn't find a better job out that pays better and has more income growth? 4161. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:47:32 PM Alistair, 4162. CalGal - 8/17/2001 7:49:33 PM To say nothing of the fact that anyone who chooses to be a teacher is hardly deciding to kick back and enjoy life. You work far less and get paid far more in practically any other profession there is. It is in fact quite practical to prioritize financial security, since it comes nearest to guaranteeing that life won't swat you in the face. Deciding to make less money and do without provides no such guarantees and relies almost entirely on luck. 4163. Khabees Khargosh - 8/17/2001 7:50:27 PM Thanks Cal!!! 4164. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 7:52:38 PM (4160 cross posted with 4156) 4165. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 7:54:38 PM Hey since we're patting people on the back for their restraint (and I agree that Cal is uncharacteristically mellow), how about a pat for Rustler? 4166. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:56:27 PM Well Alistar, it is shocking, and we try to prevent it, but these damn equal rights laws seem to allow men to do so. 4167. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:58:06 PM 4165. alistairconnor - 8/17/01 4:54:38 PM 4168. Absensia - 8/17/2001 7:59:16 PM KK, do women in Pakistan continue to work out of choice or economic need? 4169. stostosto - 8/17/2001 7:59:58 PM Judith, 4170. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 8:01:52 PM Sto: 4171. stostosto - 8/17/2001 8:03:36 PM True, Judith! I am totally undermining my own point. 4172. stostosto - 8/17/2001 8:04:41 PM So with your couple and the one I know, that's two in Denmark! 4173. Åse - 8/17/2001 8:05:41 PM Just anecdotally, I know two doctor/social psychologist couples. One is the professor/established dermatologist one and she wildly outearns him. THe other the grad/student just baked doctor one, and since he wants to be a professor, I suspect the same thing will be true there. 4174. stostosto - 8/17/2001 8:06:40 PM *Giggle* 4175. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2001 8:10:01 PM Sto: 4176. Khabees Khargosh - 8/17/2001 8:10:14 PM Abs!!! 4177. stostosto - 8/17/2001 8:13:19 PM Khabees 4178. alistairconnor - 8/17/2001 8:19:35 PM Come come. Rustler is a very sensitive and feeling person. I bet he loves flowers and butterflies. As well as bombs and bazookas. 4179. Khabees Khargosh - 8/17/2001 8:22:57 PM Sto!!! 4180. Absensia - 8/17/2001 8:32:37 PM 4181. Erinys - 8/17/2001 8:38:17 PM some women would suffer if abandoned or divorced 4182. Erinys - 8/17/2001 8:39:06 PM Woops. I missed a bunch of posts. I'll go back. 4183. Erinys - 8/17/2001 9:07:06 PM it is never really a joint decision (for women to stay home) 4184. Erinys - 8/17/2001 9:16:48 PM it is never really a joint decision (for women to stay home) 4185. CalGal - 8/17/2001 9:46:28 PM Arggh, I just lost a post. 4186. arkymalarky - 8/17/2001 10:19:23 PM Alistair, 4187. Erinys - 8/17/2001 10:36:53 PM Sure, divorce is a risk of staying home if a husband doesn't want you to 4188. CalGal - 8/17/2001 10:56:04 PM I think I have, but I'll restate: a woman who stays at home despite her husband's wishes is not significantly increasing the odds that she'll be divorced. She is, howevever, significantly increasing her odds of taking a living standard hit in the event that she does divorce. 4189. arkymalarky - 8/18/2001 12:19:48 AM You work far less and get paid far more in practically any other profession there is. 4190. Absensia - 8/18/2001 12:24:58 AM Divorce happens. In this state, Washington, the court usually divides the propery acquired after marriages, 50-50...unless one spouse has lots of separate property and the other has special needs. 4191. HollyW - 8/18/2001 12:26:44 AM "In my view, the definition of a good couple are two people who become better people by being together than they would be apart," 4192. Erinys - 8/18/2001 12:40:26 AM Holly....sigh.... 4193. HollyW - 8/18/2001 1:12:29 AM This conversation has been round and round at TT, and I'm always grateful for it. I get to thinking about stuff I've overlooked. At TT it always got ugly, though--this has been refreshing. 4194. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 2:25:25 AM Laura C and Ase: 4195. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 2:27:08 AM >>> 4196. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 2:36:11 AM CG: 4197. CalGal - 8/18/2001 2:41:34 AM 4198. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 2:45:25 AM 4199. Åse - 8/18/2001 2:46:23 AM I'm 42 years old, so the issue of being drafted is moot for me anyway. I also have pacifict leanings (though mellowed with maturity), and wouldn't join the military voluntarily. 4200. CalGal - 8/18/2001 2:49:21 AM They are going to have the same amount of grandchildren whether they provide for their children or not. Of course, their children's ability to provide for those grandchildren may depend on whether or not the she has ensured their own financial security--whether by paying for college or whatever other requirements may come along. 4201. CalGal - 8/18/2001 2:53:44 AM I believe even NOW supports women being drafted, don't they? It runs in my mind it is one of the few positions of theirs I agree with. I'd be delighted to find out I was wrong, though, because I'm very used to NOW infuriating me. 4202. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 2:55:22 AM Rustler's "women in the military" sloganeering always struck me as conveniently overlooking the fact that if it weren't for all them real manly men who were really manlily bent on protecting their real womanly women and real childish children and real familishly families, willing to shoot and kill and blow up themselves and what not, there wouldn't be all that need for a military at all, now would there? 4203. CalGal - 8/18/2001 2:58:04 AM No, actually, no one has to admit that. What on earth makes you think so? 4204. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 3:05:09 AM Erinys: 4205. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 3:11:03 AM As I said, Rustler, your dream scenario is already here! 4206. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:18:56 AM RP, 4207. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:22:55 AM For all your nonsense, you've yet to establish why it is that a woman would be sensible in taking that risk. Fortunately for you, lots of them are willing to be exactly that dumb. And yet you still aren't satisfied. No, you want all the advantages of gender equality while still keeping the lubricated little woman at home, just like in the Old Testament days. 4208. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 3:25:24 AM No, actually, no one has to admit that. What on earth makes you think so? 4209. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:26:26 AM RP, 4210. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 3:29:31 AM Life is short. Sex is good. Especially with a chick hotter, younger, and hungry for a proven provider who can give her the life to which she'd like to become accustomed--after he dumps the older model. 4211. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 3:30:50 AM Cite what? 4212. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 3:36:33 AM Just so you understand (and I have to do some cleaning now - the house has become... well, sticky, in the course of the last two weeks. And the piles of papers, toys and videocasettes make it hard to know which room you're in sometimes. I guess it's easier if you're a woman: you recognize the room by its ceiling): I am going to Jerusalem tomorrow with the Deputy Council Head, to meet with the Aide to the Minister of Interior. I will to my damndest to get the Deputy to put some soldiers in the schools and get the Aide to promise to whack the Head on the head if he tries to interfere with this. If I fail, I'm telling you - we'll have 40 dead kids here by November. 4213. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:42:03 AM Or he can dump her but he has to pay an arm and a leg. 4214. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:43:59 AM Naturally, I don't expect you to be aware of the fact that "femmies" aren't "women", they are just a group of women with a particular political view. But for now, I just want to see the analysis about how the femmies are endangering the children of Israel. That ought to be interesting. 4215. racehorse - 8/18/2001 10:23:15 AM I feel as though I'm in the Twilight Zone here. 4216. Laura C - 8/18/2001 10:42:39 AM I believe even NOW supports women being drafted, don't they? 4217. Jamie R - 8/18/2001 12:55:54 PM Interesting discussion. I agree it's been remarkably civil. 4218. Jamie R - 8/18/2001 1:03:19 PM recieving = receiving (unless it means something even more appropriate in German.) 4219. Jamie R - 8/18/2001 1:16:08 PM And now a more mundane parenting question. My 3 year old daughter had been reliably potty trained for at least 8 months (I no longer remember when I last dealt with diapers.) Barring the occasional accident, she does fine. She's never wet the bed, tells you she needs to go when you're out shopping, and can hold it till she gets home if we're in the car. 4220. Jamie R - 8/18/2001 1:18:15 PM (I'll be leaving for the day in just a bit, so thanks in advance for any replies. I'm not ignoring you.) 4221. Khabees Khargosh - 8/18/2001 2:35:15 PM Hi Jamie, 4222. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:26:57 PM Jamie, 4223. CalGal - 8/18/2001 3:29:19 PM I agree, too, that the "leave your kid with strangers" argument ignores the fact that daddy goes off to work and leaves his kid with someone whose skills with children aren't tested and certified. 4224. racehorse - 8/18/2001 3:47:52 PM My son will be two next month, and has been with the same daycare provider since he was six months old. I don't think *he* would consider her a stranger! 4225. Absensia - 8/18/2001 4:06:44 PM Jamie, 4226. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 4:39:17 PM Khabees: 4227. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 4:58:51 PM CalGal: 4228. CalGal - 8/18/2001 5:25:11 PM Rustler, 4229. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 5:26:23 PM Laura C: 4230. CalGal - 8/18/2001 5:28:13 PM To wrap this up: 4231. CalGal - 8/18/2001 5:28:37 PM Oh, and I don't see a cite for your "femmies are putting my community in danger". I've been waiting to read it. Please provide it, or how will we be able to affirm that you, and only you, know how the dangerous the femmies are? 4232. CalGal - 8/18/2001 5:29:36 PM Gosh. Nothing like seeing a rabid Jew propose euthanasia. 4233. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 5:38:04 PM fault divorce won't reduce risk, and it won't give women any more protection than they have now. 4234. Absensia - 8/18/2001 5:39:44 PM CG, 4235. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 5:41:36 PM I don't see how my being a Jew enters into this, I don't like the coupling of 'rabid' with 'Jew', and I was obviously being facetious when I 'suggested' euthanasia. 4236. RustlerPike - 8/18/2001 5:43:02 PM Ah, well, if this discussion is devolving into meltdown, maybe we'd better end it. 4237. CalGal - 8/18/2001 5:56:11 PM Rustler,
Oh Jaysus, I can't let this stand.
Do you have any evidence,
Really, ideological pap such as this doesn't aid in finding workable solutions to serious problems. Perhaps you should take a step back and try for some objectivity. And barring that, perhaps some decent research would do.
Spare me the Wallerstein stuff though.
I bring up this case partly because feminists in the domestic violence advocacy business tried to protray the boy's crimes as "gender-motivated hate." A former family law judge in San Jose, California wrote an editorial taking just that angle. But friends in Minneosta, the boy's home, reported that he had talked about doing a similar shoot-out there, and was talked out of it by friends.
So what's the story here, a boy disturbed by divorce and arbitrary relocation pushed over the edge, or a young patriarch asserting dominance over women?
And just who is going to fund a research study on the effects of random moveaways on troubled young people?
Please … why is it so impossible for people to walk the middle line between Nature and Nurture? He maybe had a higher tendency to be aggressive because he was a young human male. He may have also had an increase in that violent tendency due to the turmoil of his family life. He also might have been an antisocial little fuck for some reason we can’t explain yet except they pop up so often in the human population.
You don’t know, I don’t know and neither do the good folks who fill the Ranks of Experts.
"African-American families especially still have an attitude of group parenting in my experience whenever physical proximity allows it."
Before I came to Africa, I was told time and time again how family oriented and relational Africans were as compared to Westerners (particularly Americans). My experience at least in Namibia, though, has shown me how wrong that is in a certain sense.
9 out of every 10 babies born in Namibia are born out of wedlock, a 90% illegitimacy rate. Now of course, marriage isn't deemed as necessary here as in other parts of the world, but what happens time and time again is a teenaged girl gets pregnant and drops the baby off with her mom, somewhere on the farm, to raise while she remains in school. The daddy rarely if ever sees the kid, and the mommy gets very used to not having to do the day-to-day chores associated with having a baby. In short, she becomes a horribly lazy mother.
And this continues on even after she has completed her schooling. The child (or most likely at that point children) are constantly left with the grandparents, and are constantly unattended.
There is a major compaign in Namibia to get fathers involved in the lives of their children. It won't work. The society has for far too long allowed men (and in many instances mothers as well) to entirely ignore their parental obligations. They produce children and go on as if their lives have not been affected whatsoever.
jones, I know you said "African-American"but still I thought this comment about one African society important to note.
Then Namibia wonders why their is so much alcoholism and promiscuity and poor grades in school in their society. Children with no supervision tend to get into trouble (a generalization that is fairly accurate).
I've got a pretty good idea that young Mitchell's actions had something to do with his circumstances, and so does everybody else who's familiar with his story. You're thowing up a smokescreen, Vikki, and I ain't buying it.
Intersting post, Kuligin. I thought that stuff about "group parenting" was a little romantic, too. In my epxerience, if everybody is respsonsible for some person or some thing, then nobody is responsible since everybody figures somebody else is taking care of bidness.
Please
Hyperbole, anecdotal horror stories.
Shall we conclude that because I can name some homeless kids who were validictorians at their high school graduation and when on to Harvard and Stanford that homelessness has no negative effects on children and learning?
Yes, let's do that.
And while we're at it, let's also formulate state and national policies on such "evidence".
I don't know where you hail from, TT? If so, perhaps such sloppy thinking passes there as "enlightened", but personally, I think it just makes you look....intellectually sloppy.
Mea Culpa. I'm trying, I'm trying.
There's a big difference between mobility being limited by a married couples personal decisions and mobility being limited by the Law.
"The child's life is clearly diminished by loss of contact with peers, supportive adults in the child's community, and the non-relocating parent."
This, of course, assumes that all of these things are present in the child's life pre-divorce. Something that isn't necessarily so.
"The error the court made in Burgess was to declare the right to mobility superior to the parental right of the non-custodial (or less-custodial, to be more accurate) parent."
This was a California State decision, right?
"Mitchell Johnson, the young boy who shot and killed classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas is a child of divorce whose mother was granted a non-economic moveaway by the courts. Do you want to tell the parents of the children he killed that his mothers's right to mbility is more important than their children's right to life? Apparently."
Are you honestly saying that the sole or even primary reason for this child's actions is the fact that his mother moved??!?!? Do you know any other circumstances and/or reasons that just may have had something to do with it?
You seem to focus a lot on non-economic reasons as being insufficient. Can you not think of any non-economic reasons why a custodial parent may choose to move that would be justified?
(ooops, gotta go -meeeeetiiinng! help)
Hey, I just got some good news about the kid's school. He's in a public Montessori magnet, which we've been quite happy with. It goes through third grade. Hubby just went to a meeting at school, and they announced that they're expanding it to 5th. Whoopee! This means he can stay there all the way through elementary. It also means that he and his sister will have more years at the same school--I hate getting kids to 2 different places in the AM.
I was also a bit leery of switching schools in 4th grade. Not so much for him, but I think that's a hard time socially for girls. And daughter is a bit on the shy side. Son is very socially adept, so I doubt I'll worry about his social adjustment much. He'll cause me other worries :-)
There is a big difference between income spent on a child being determined by a married couple's personal decisions and the income being determined by law. Haven't seen you complain about that, however. Where are your outcries about legally determined child support?
If one of a married couple gets a job offer, he is unlikely to just up and leave without taking the needs of the family into account--usually by deciding whether or not it is appropriate to move the kids, and what impact it will have on the career of the other parent.
If the parents are divorced, the first is every bit as much an issue. And I see no reason why divorce--which was from the other parent, not the kids, should make this decision process easier.
However, I think the fairly cavalier attitude shown here for the impact of kids losing access to one parent demonstrates no recognition of the kid's wellbeing, and every interest in the custodial parent's convenience.
Sorry, CalGal, you've got the wrong divorcee here. I haven't made any such outcries. I am the divorced Mom whose ex paid nothing for seven years and now pays a whole $60/month and didn't drag his butt to court over it and never will drag his butt to court over it. (although I did consider it) I used to track my spending on LD. Not counting food, shelter, or Rx (don't separate those out) I spend an average of $7,000/year on LD in 1996 and 1997. I'm sure I spend more now. I think it's safe to say that my ex-husband's contribution of $600/year isn't being blown on parties or luxuries for myself.
"If one of a married couple gets a job offer, he is unlikely to just up and leave without taking the needs of the family into account--usually by deciding whether or not it is appropriate to move the kids, and what impact it will have on the career of the other parent."
Riiiight. By definition, a married person who wants to uproot his/her family to pursue a better job/career only does so after taking into account the impact on the kids and the other parent.
BUT, by definition, a divorced person who wants to uproot his/her family to pursue a better job/career never looks at those things and is a totally selfish person out to screw the non-custodial parent.
You betcha.
I object, however, to any proposals that say that neither parent can ever move post-divorce while they have minor children. I think that is unreasonable and ridiculous as it supposes that wherever you happen to be when you get divorced, the kids are best off staying there, regardless of individual circumstances.
For instance, neither my husband nor myself had any desire or intention to have our daughter educated in the abysmal NM educational system. Even if we had stayed married, she would have been 'uprooted away from her peer group, etc, etc... (or however that's been stated above).
There are a hell of a lot of kids moved away from their peer group by intact families all over America. It's hard on them and the responsible parents do what they can to minimize the "trauma", but they survive and don't all turn into criminals, psychos, or otherwise non-contributing members of society.
... my ex-husband's contribution of $720/year...
But that's besides the point. I wasn't accusing you of accepting child support. I was asking you if you opposed it. If you don't oppose the right of the court to mandate how much income a parent must spend on his (or her) child, then why would you oppose other restrictions imposed on divorced folks that aren't imposed on their married counterparts?
BUT, by definition, a divorced person who wants to uproot his/her family to pursue a better job/career never looks at those things and is a totally selfish person out to screw the non-custodial parent.
Another misreading. I have made no characterization of either situation. There are, in fact, plenty of married parents (usually husbands) who would accept relocations as a matter of course, without consulting their spouse. But in general, relocations are done with the interests of the other partner and the kids in mind--and it is not at all unusual for parents to turn down better jobs and relocations based on the needs of their children.
I am saying that I see no reason why divorced people aren't held to the same standard. It is almost never in the best interests in the child to be removed from one parent. I see no reason why divorced parents should be given carte blanche to take actions that could seriously hurt their children, merely because they can leave one parent behind.
846. MsIvoryTower - 2/20/01 2:10:11 PM
...and here I said I was quitting the conversation.
Mea Culpa. I'm trying, I'm trying.
Better to be sloppy than Chicken Shit, Ms. Tower. Have a nice day.
Re-group parenting: yes it is a bit of a romantic notion, but seems to be true here in the midwest. It is more than dump the kid on the willing relative, often it is a group huddle with Grandma presiding and deciding who will care for the kid. Most often its grandma. Since Grandma raised Mom it's sometimes a risky proposition. OTOH Grandma could be the Mother of the Year with a kid with bad genes/evil ways/addictions/ what have you.
I was also a bit leery of switching schools in 4th grade.
I have recently come to the tentative conclusion that many of Spawn's education problems came because his previous school (at which he was very happy) ended at 5th grade. Now, I grant you, his new school was extremely unimpressive. But I also think that 5th grade is just an unnatural place to switch kids. I think the more usual K-6, 7-8, 9-12 is still preferable.
So I'm glad your kiddos won't have to switch at 3rd grade--but be on the lookout for conversion issues at fifth.
Well, in that case, I agree with you, although I am not sure what you mean by "same standard". I thought that you were saying that the law should mandate that divorced parents cannot move, period.
Like I said, I am perfectly happy with the proposition that the child's interests and the interests of both custodial and non-custodial parents be taken into account and mediated if the parent's cannot come up with an agreement on their own.
I do NOT favor any "one-size-fits-all" solutions.
(Is anyone going to answer me on this "Burgess decision" thing - was this just applicable to CA, or what?)
The one exception to the state-by-state rule is child support enforcement, which is governed by federal mandates imposed on states as a condition for receiving welfare money. But even here, child support levels are a matter of state law, and they vary 300% across the country.
The one exception to the state-by-state rule is child support enforcement, which is governed by federal mandates imposed on states as a condition for receiving welfare money. But even here, child support levels are a matter of state law, and they vary 300% across the country.
Incidentally, the reason most people counsel more resttictions on moveaways by divorced parents than on married parents is the assumption that children of divorce have additional stresses in their lives that make stability more of a priority for them.
I believe that the burden should be on the moving parent to a) justify the move, b) provide a travel plan and visitation commitments (legally enforceable by both parents) and c) have the approval of the other parent, whether custodial or not.
I believe that moving ought to be considered entirely reasonable grounds in and of itself for a custody switch, as well.
If both parents agree to the move and have a detailed visitation and communication plan in place, it is feasible. However, there ought to be no doubt that it is potentially harmful to the child, and the burden of justification ought to be quite high.
Keep in mind that I moved to North Carolina for a year. I had all the things in place that I specify--however, I moved for entirely different reasons and would have been happier not to move. I felt things much improved when I came back, even though Spawn talked to his father daily and visited him several weeks throughout the year.
On the issue of child support...
In NM, they have a chart that presumes that if a couple's combined income is X, then Y proportion of that income will be spent on the kid/kids. It assumes this would have been the case if you had remained married - if your income went up, the amount you spent on your kids would go up proportionately.
So to calculate child support, first you add up both parent's income and look at the chart to see how much "should" be going to the kid/s. Then you look up what proportion of the combined income is made by each parent. The parents are then each responsible for that proportion of the 'Y' figure. So, if the non-custodial parent makes 60% of the combined income, then child support is set at 60% of 'Y'. If the non-custodial parent makes 20% of the combined income, then child support is set at 20% of 'Y'.
This is used to determine child support when the two parents cannot come up with an agreement on their own. The parents are perfectly free to set up child support any way they both agree on and the court only steps in if no agreement is reached.
My lawyer was very clear that pretty much anything my ex and I both agreed on was fine with the courts, which is why I was able to give him 2/3 of the marital estate. The court only steps in when the two don't/won't/can't agree.
Anyway, back to child support. I think the above is an equitable system. It can't stop one parent from deciding to take a low paying job in order to pay less child support, but I don't think there's any system that can stop someone from being spiteful. Since that also reduces the amount of money the person has to spend on themselves -shrug.
All that just proves the point: courts mandate income spent on a child. Also, it is not quite true that the parents can agree among themselves. For example, if the custodial parent were on welfare, the other parent would be hit up for money no matter what their agreement was--and he would be hit up for the legal amount, not whatever they agreed to.
If you oppose the court setting restrictions--even tough ones--on parental ability to relocate, why don't you oppose courts mandating how much money a parent has to spend on a child?
Isn't it odd that one parent has to fork over major bucks on penalty of jail, while the other gets a free ride?
I believe that moving ought to be considered entirely reasonable grounds in and of itself for a custody switch, as well."
Well, that's how it was setup in NM when I got divorced. My lawyer warned me that if I didn't have all that, that physical custody would automatically go to him if I chose to move anyway. (assuming he went to court and filed a complaint, of course. a lot of stuff that's in the law doesn't happen because no one takes the necessary steps to make it happen.)
In my particular case, my first choice would have been to stay in NM if I could have found a good job in an area of NM that had a good private school since we think NM public school system sucks). As it was, of the several job offers I was given, I took the one that was geographically the closest to where he was living. The fact that he didn't visit/write/call LD had nothing to do with the move and everything to do with his mental state at that time.
I still miss NM and would move back there in heartbeat IF LD was done with school or I could find a good private school near a good job (we still think NM schools suck. while TX schools aren't much better in general, the specific one she's in is good - at least for G/T kids). In fact, I fully intend to look for a job in NM as soon as LD is out of school. (I may stay here a bit longer if she chooses a TX University)
Well, since I don't oppose the restrictions you listed in post #864, I guess that answers that question.
"Isn't it odd that one parent has to fork over major bucks on penalty of jail, while the other gets a free ride?"
I know that this does happen, but I don't think it is at all common. Unless you have a very large income, I don't see child support being set much higher than the actual cost of providing for a child. I don't think there are really a lot of custodial parents using the child support to go aout partying while the kids go barefoot.
For instance, if I were to take my ex to court and ask for child support based on the NM chart, I would get (at last year's calculation, I don't know about what real figure it would be today) $323/month or $3,876/year. I estimate that now that she's a teen, I'll spend over $10K on LD this year. Since I make more than her Dad, I think that's a reasonable child support amount.
I won't take him to court, though, because, if I did, he would exact an emotional toll from her for every penny. Since I have simple needs and make enough money to take care of her without his contribution, I think the money is not worth that emotional cost. I don't think LD should have to pay because I picked an immature irresponsible man to have a child with. I made the mistake, I'll pay the consequences.
(the $60/month he sends now goes into her college account)
Oh brave man.
Side-step the issues all you want, it doesn't matter to me, but I think you've made my case rather stronger.
You consistently mouth platitudes without support, you attack "feminists" for being behind the current laws without an analysis of why. In short, you appear to have a political agenda, I don't know what it is, don't much care, but it clouds your argumentation.
Calgal
Cavalier attitude toward the well being of children? You're beginning to sound like Ricky.
I also take exception to this little dance everyone wants to do around the considerable gender issues tied to both the laws, and whose interests will be served by changing them in the proposed directions.
One caveat to my earlier discussion regarding parental moveaways:
When the custodial parent re-marries, and then seeks to relocate based on the new spouse's economic (or non-economic) interests, I believe this is a whole different kettle of fish.
Under these circumstances, I believe the non-custodial parent's interests must take precedence, as do the children's interests, over the interests of the newly formed marital couple. However, the solution would seem to be an automatic re-opening of custody under these circumstances, so that the non-custodial parent can seek to become the custodial parent should they so desire. In addition, re-negotiated visitation and transportation arrangements (and who bears those costs) should also be automatic. Both would require only minor changes to laws already in place.
My earlier arguments and comments generally had in mind the situation of custodial parents who were not remarried.
Because the two aren't analogous? Because the two don't raise the same constitutional protections? Because the two have totally different effects on the rights of both the custodial and non-custodial parents?
Because this is a strawman.
There's no gender dance. I think they are clearly geared to favor women on the assumption that they have selflessly given up their job to care for the family, and I think that thinking is wrongheaded and should be removed. If it "benefits" men by making the laws more equal, so be it.
Cavalier attitude toward the well being of children?
I have yet to see any argument in favor of keeping gender based preferences in the divorce laws that doesn't fundamentally put the interests of the woman ahead of the interests of the children.
This is not to imply that men aren't quite readily relinquishing control of their kids. They are--even when they would rather not--and the reasons have a lot to do with their convenience, too.
The divorce laws should be evenhanded, not allow for gender biases--and also put the well-being of the children over the convenience of either parent or the courts themselves. Right now, it's pretty clear that it's easiest for both parents and the courts to give all the control and most of the money to one parent--so that's what the laws support.
They are entirely analogous, they have similar constitutional protections, and you're talking out of your ass if you don't think shelling out a huge amount of money each month doesn't have significant and quite similar effects on the rights of both parents.
Therefore I don't see how one can protest another divorce requirement solely on the grounds that it unfairly deprives a parent of a "right". That is routine in divorce.
That's an interesting statement. What rights, specifically, are you referring to?
I ask because the last time I looked into this, my lawyer said it was all but impossible (in TX and NM) to strip a father of his rights. The lawyer cited the case the lawyer had just finished of a divorced Mom, dying of cancer, whose ex-husband was a crack addict and a drug dealer, in prison at the time, who also had been convicted of assault and sexual assault. The Mom wanted to set it up so that he would not be given custody of the children when she died. It took three years, several appeals, a lot of money, and encountered a great deal of resistance from the courts. (she died two months later)
There has been quite a bit of publicity, also, about several cases where men have murdered their wives, in front of the children, and still retained custody of their children and/or forced visitation while they were in prison against the wishes of both the children and the other relatives of the children.
TTFN
Ask any lawyer: joint legal custody is the default. The default. Implying that a divorce alone can strip a parent of legal rights. It is also by no means unusual for a parent to apply for sole legal custody, and it isn't unknown for judges to get annoyed at a non-custodial parent for making life difficult for the custodial parent and wham! give sole legal custody to the other parent.
Many states do put the children's interests above the convenience of the parents. Certainly in California, the Supreme Court, in Burgess, clearly stated that inconvenience to the parent is not a reason for either granting or denying moveaways. What supposedly guides them is their impact on the child's access to both parents, economic considerations, and whether some equivalent solution to the access issue can be worked out.
But the larger gender bias I see in your "solutions" is that it places equal burdens for income generation and child care provisions on divorcing spouses under any circumstances, regardless of whether they were co-equal financially in the marriage. It penalizes women for family decisions that were rational within the context of the "marriage" and rewards men for their more intense connection to the labor market through out it.
Nor do they recognize that not all parents are equal, in their skill, their ability to parent, or their interest in their children. You want to force people to live your solution, because you've decided it's the best way.
So what's different about your position than any other that seeks to impose a one size fits all solution onto everyone else?
Most of the money to one parent? And that would be how? Community property laws prohibit one spouse walking away with more than 50% of the assets in the marriage unless negotiated differently. By law, this is about as presumptively equivalent as one can get. And are you arguing that the majority of custodial parents (who are women, lets be clear about that) are given windfall payments through excessively high child support payments?
If so, lets get some numbers on the table to see if that's the case.
Getting mad?
They aren't analogous. They don't have similar constitutional protections. The state can tax you anytime they want because you're a member of the community, and benefit from its protections and services. The state can also require a family unit to be financially responsible for the basic economic needs of your children.
On the other hand, the state can't take away your constitutionally protected freedoms without due process. The mobility restrictions affect individual rights as defined under the constitution.
However, the constitution doesn't protect parents who, as a unit, ignore their financial responsibilities to provide basic food and shelter to their offspring. The constitution doesn't protect parents who physically harm their children to the point of being life-threatening. Parents who do these things are subject to the state's intervention and can lose their parental rights for being negligent, regardless of marital status. And the state does have a right to protect its interest in children who are at risk of death from parental neglect and abuse.
A non-custodial parent doesn't get to remove access to his/her financial resources from his/her children when a divorce occurs. This is based on the basic state right to force parents to be responsible for their children's basic needs.
These are, IMO, different rationales for the two state actions.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. The fact that joint legal custody is the default implies that divorce will protect the rights of parents equally unless other agreements are made.
Um...
I thought you were good at logic CalGal. Joint legal custody isn't stripping either parent of their legal rights. It is ensuring that both parents have joint rights over their children.
(Yes, I know MsIT just said this, but I thought it needed repeating)
I found some information that should make you happy.
Although the parental duty to support their offspring stems from old common law, most state statutes now phrase this duty as a joint duty and each are charged with their care, nurture, welfare and education.
Mississippi state courts have interpreted parents joint duty as an equal one, and thus in divorce situations, males and females cannot be treated differently for child-support purposes consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (of the US).
So at least one state court has defined the equal treatment requirement wrt child support payments as constitutionally sourced.
The point has apparently gone right over your head. I'll try and make it clearer: it is possible for a couple to divorce and for one parent to lose his or her legal rights to their child. Merely because they divorced. Not because they beat the child to a pulp every day of their life (although this often isn't enough if the kid's mother is on welfare). Not because they abandoned their child for weeks at a time.
Nope. All they have to do is get divorced.
In other words, the fact that joint legal custody is the default means that there is another option in divorce--an option that strips a parent of rights for no reason at all other than convenience. A middle class divorced father probably has a higher risk of losing legal rights to his child than the aforementioned welfare mom.
This isn't an anti-male bias, however. It's a convenience bias. No one wants to strip poor women of their children because it's cheaper to pay welfare than have yet another kid in "the system"--so the barrier is high. But it's easy enough to strip one parent of their legal rights if they have means to foot the bill for the child either way.
No, I'm not mad. I just think your denial is so absurd that it could only have come from the source I named.
The state can tax you anytime they want because you're a member of the community, and benefit from its protections and services.
It is not a "tax". It is direct income transfer from one parent to another, and it removes the ability of one parent to determine how much money will be spent on their child.
The state can also require a family unit to be financially responsible for the basic economic needs of your children.
Amusing, given how strongly you object to the notion that a mother who opts to stay home and clean house is financially irresponsible.
We're talking about the state determining how much will be paid, not a failure to pay. You shall pay X dollars a month to the custodial parent because the state says you will. They strip parents of their right to determine how much money will be spent on their child. The lower income parent is limited to the amount the state says, unless they can earn more on their own. The higher income parent is forced to spend what the state says, even if they don't approve of the spending decisions, wish to allocate less, and so on. (never mind the fact that the person who receives the money doesn't have to spend it on the child at all.) This amount isn't the bare minimum required to support the child, either--and if you're going to argue that the state has the right to enforce this, the right stops there, not based on how much money the parents make. Hell, a divorced parent can be forced to provide a child insurance--and you surely aren't going to argue that the state considers this a basic need, are you?
The state requires all sorts of behavior of divorced parents that it doesn't require of married parents. There's no reason why they can't make an extremely high barrier for relocations as well.
Do the income transfers stop with division of the community property? Hardly, it's only the beginning. Add on to the tangible property an assessment of the "goodwill" value of the higher-earner's business or profession, and an assessment for alimony, and an assessment for child support averaging 37.5% of net in California, and an assessment for half the costs of the daycare, half the costs of the medical, and half of any educational expenses.
We're way past "equity" by the time all the math is done, and stratospherically beyond the "basic needs of children." Married parents are required to put clothes on their children; divorced fathers are reqyuired to pay enough for designer clothes, which mom can buy, or not, at her whim.
"Equity" in family law? Somebody's smoking some major-league ganja.
That's a total misreading of Burgess.
MsIt
You've implied (mostly as an occasional aside) that CS isn't high enough.
Anecdotes aside, let's look at the real figures.
CS as currently determined by formula in family court - in every state in the union, to the best of my knowledge - IS enough to raise a child, even without the custodial parent's contribution which, btw, is not legally mandated. A custodial parent has absolutely NO legal obligation to support their child financially -their income and support 'burden' is only taken into account to determine the $ that the NC must contribute under threat of jail, among other things. If the CP chooses to lower their standard of living to a level that precludes them from any real financial contribution to their child's welfare, they are completely free to do so without threat of legal repercussion. Not so, of course, the NCP, who must maintain the determined level of CS at the time of calculation despite setbacks or job changes - there are rules, enforceable by CPS, the IRS, and FC, against "voluntary underearning."
To get a clear view, you need to examine like/like. A good way to do this is to use, instead of anecdotes (which are tempting!) only govt. figures:
An example - The USDA releases estimates on the cost of raising a child from birth to age 17, adjusted for parental income. The latest figures are from 1999, and can be found here. For the purposes of this post, let's just take their middle income numbers - it's important to compare like/like, as I said.
If a divorced couple each makes 30K per year, putting them in the middle income bracket, and a standard custody determination is made (the ncp getting less than 35% custodial time, so no financial credit) then with a $100 per week (low balling it, do you notice?) childcare inclusion (childcare is included in the USDA report, but insidiously not in the state CS calculations for basic support, it is added on as an ADDITIONAL expense) the ncp pays: $535 per month, or $6,420 per year. Which is, of course, over 2/3 of the "cost of raising a child" despite exactly equitable incomes.
But wait, that's not all!
After the income transfer which is tax-free to the cp and fully taxable to the ncp, the income isn't equitable after all. The taxes on that $6,420 comes to about $1700 - or more - which is paid for by the ncp. So that increases the real dollar payment FROM the ncp to - well, almost the entire estimated cost of raising the child, isn't it? And adds a nice little chunk to the cp's income, conveniently tax free, or to them, anyway.
Now let's add in the tax advantages of claiming the dependent deduction, the childcare deduction and a likely head-of-household deduction - all of which are available only to the cp unless he/she chooses to be benevolent to the ex - and we easily surpass the entire cost estimate....for two parents who are, theoretically, equally capable of financially supporting their child.
Here is a general calculator for CS - it's not state specific, but it's a good general tool. Don't take my word for it, really - check it out. And the USDA site, too.
As mentioned above, the USDA also includes childcare expenses in that estimate - the state CS calculators (or those with which I am familiar) don't include that in their general support calculation, but add it onto the end. In fact, as you can see by the calculator offered in the link above, other normal expenses such as medical care and travel expenses are also not included in the general determination, but are added on to the top of the initial figure.
Of course, many CP don't get these sorts of payments, because they make private arrangements between themselves (as it should be, really) or because, as Christi has outlined, she has private reasons for not availing herself of her legal options to enforce CS. But, basically, if a cp is getting screwed on child support - it's because they're not demanding it, or because they procreated with someone with really, really low earning potential.
This is an absurd argument.
First, default means that it is given as a matter of law unless there is a petition for other arrangements. These days, many states won't agree to sole custody unless the non-custodial parent fully agrees.
Second, convenience? Says who? Sole custody is only at the parents request, for a father to lose his rights, he has to not care enough to simply say no. And to say that middle class divorced fathers are the most at risk flys in the face of logic.
I could buy your argument if you confined it to the lower socio-economic classes, where access to legal services is problematic and can be a determining factor in fathers being denied their rights for lack of timely action. But this isn't the case for the higher socio-economic classes, and any failure to exercise rights can't be related to lack of resources for adequate legal counsel.
So, perhaps by convenience you mean lack of interest by fathers? Lack of diligence? Or just a victimization mentality....
You are also confused, I believe, about what exactly Joint Legal Custody (as opposed to JPC or sole custody) actually is.
Joint Legal Custody means....well, it means whatever the CP wants it to mean. Like most language in FC law, it's interpretable in all but the most egregious cases, and in many of those as well, by the parent with primary physical custody.
For instance, having jlc doesn't mean that the ncp has any say in what sort of, or if any, child care must be used. Or medical treatment. In most school districts, a NCP with JLC must still receive permission from the parent with physical custody to visit the child's school and don't have free access to their children's school files (only basic records, such as grades - not disciplinary files or even health care notes, etc.)
JLC makes it incumbent upon a CP to include the NCP in major decisions that effect a child's life - but exactly what those decisions are, and the weight of the opinion of the NCP, are left completely to the discretion of the CP. Further, although JLC changes the language of the custody agreement in most cases from "visitation" to "parenting time", it is entirely up to the CP what percentage of time is "reasonable" for the NCP to "parent". Only in disputed cases where bad faith is demonstrated, suspected or anticipated is a specific amount of time granted the NCP, and that amount of time is virtually NEVER more than the 30% that means alternate weekends and holidays - anything more than 35% and the court would have to consider the NCPs financial contribution at their OWN home in the CS calculation, something they are loathe to do.
Which brings up another point.
Last, in case anyone doubts that all of this is calculated "in the best interest of the child" - no decrease in CS is forthcoming if the NCP has another child - UNLESS HE IS ALSO PAYING CHILD SUPPORT FOR THAT CHILD. Iow, ANYTHING to keep those kids off the state rolls. If the NCP is living with/married to the mother of his subsequent children, then their cost is not calculated. Yet, if the CP has more children, those subsequent children CAN and often DO increase the percentage amount that the NCP is obligated to pay.
Got that?
It's not about the children, even when it's about money. It's not about deadbeat Dads and "Daddies Matter.
It's about bucks, and the state's interest in paying as little as they can.
MsIt
So, perhaps by convenience you mean lack of interest by fathers? Lack of diligence? Or just a victimization mentality....
Biting my tongue.
OK.
No, what she means by "convenience" is "convenience" to the FC system, which is overwhelmed, over-sued, and badly in need of an overhaul.
You've implied (mostly as an occasional aside) that CS isn't high enough.
No, I didn't. I questioned this statement of Calgal's.
Right now, it's pretty clear that it's easiest for both parents and the courts to give all the control and most of the money to one parent--so that's what the laws support.
It was the "most of the money" clause that I think needs clarification. And even your example doesn't support this, although I understand why you'd want to pick this particular scenario to illustrate.
I understand how CS is calculated. There are significant differences by state, however. And most states allow this figure to be reduced if the the non-custodial parent takes the children 35% or more of the time, which also varies by state.
I also understand it's tax free to the custodial parent. I'm cognizant of the rationale for the tax-free status of these payments, but I agree this could to be changed. In addition, I agree that the effect of rent payments portion that goes to women who can also support home ownership is unequal. However, a woman who owns her home can't do so without also earning wages as well. These women aren't failing to contribute their share to the child's lifestyle, as you imply by your example. And, by the way, their wages are also taxed, even if they go to support the child.
I don't even begin to question there aren't inequities in many cases, but 42% of custodial parents don't receive any child support payments, and of those that do, almost two-thirds have collection problems.
I don't think so.
Convenience to the Family court system? Yes, by relying on default rules unless the parents can come up with better arrangements. This hardly says that non-custodial parents are powerless to protect their interests or rights.
Many of the comments you raise will be dependent on specific state laws and procedures, for instance this statement
Yet, if the CP has more children, those subsequent children CAN and often DO increase the percentage amount that the NCP is obligated to pay
is highly dependent on specific state approaches.
I agree, however, that the majority of states tend to disfavor CS modifications from the non-custodial parent that are downward adjustments. Interestingly, some states also disfavor upward adjustments based soley increases in the payor's earnings as well.
No, that wasn't the statement I was referring to. I'll go back and find them.
For now, though -
And most states allow this figure to be reduced if the the non-custodial parent takes the children 35% or more of the time, which also varies by state.
Yes, so? Anything other than 35% of the time is joint physical custody, which is only granted at the request of BOTH parties (iow, Mom can nix that unilaterally) and is, not coincidentally, the rarest of all the custody equations. Sole custody is much more common, even.
However, a woman who owns her home can't do so without also earning wages as well.
Not in the example I gave, that's probably true. But a woman whose ex earns significantly higher amount -therefore increasing his CS payment considerably - most certainly could, if she chose to allocate the CS to that purpose.
These women aren't failing to contribute their share to the child's lifestyle, as you imply by your example.
I don't know what you're talking about here. I am only making the point that CP CAN, LEGALLY, fail to contribute to the child's lifestyle. It's their choice. I'd agree that most CP DO, indeed, contribute to the support of their children - frequently more so than the NCP, but that's neither here nor there. That there is a legal mechanism in place to ensure the NCP's contribution and that nothing LEGALLY requires the CP to contribute isn't really debateable, as far as I can see.
42% of custodial parents don't receive any child support payments
Well, actually that's not true, but even if it was, you are lumping in the many instances where both parents are disfunctional, unperforming members of society. Frankly, I'm not shocked that the drug dealer on the corner isn't ponying up with his $50 per week to the mother of his 5th child, are you? And do you really think it's fair to use his nonpayment as an excuse to legally disenfranchise NCP?
That figure also does not take into account private arrangements for support, but does include men who are in jail and incapable of support, and women who are receiving welfare payments - the state has garnished the NCP's wages and is collecting CS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE - and then cutting (a usually larger) welfare check to the mother.
And of those that do, almost two-thirds have collection problems.
As self-reported by the CP, btw. Yes, terribly reliable, that. That figure isn't borne out statistically - but that, too, is neither here nor there.
Factually, the NCP has the full force of the federal, state, and local govts and law enforcement agencies, including the DMV, the IRS, the US military services, etc. to assist him/her in collection of CS. It is in the interest of the state to do so, and they do - increasingly, since the welfare reform act of 1996 (? is that right?)
What specifically can a NCP do to protect their interests or rights?
Seriously, I'm asking.
They strip parents of their right to determine how much money will be spent on their child. The lower income parent is limited to the amount the state says, unless they can earn more on their own. The higher income parent is forced to spend what the state says, even if they don't approve of the spending decisions, wish to allocate less, and so on.
This is correct. The higher income parent, whom I'm assuming you're saying is the non-custodial parent, doesn't get to choose to spend less than the state determines is a minimum amount to be paid given their earning capacity. While the state won't force married parents to spend a certain amount on their children as long as the family remains intact, they will do so when the family is split.
As I said earlier, and as Adrianne stated, this is to avoid the state having to pay for the children individuals choose to bring into the world. On this level, it's purely for the benefit of the larger community.
What specifically can a NCP do to protect their interests or rights?
Just to name a few:
He can negotiate different settlements at the time of divorce, which include contractual agreements for greater involvement in decision making. Courts uphold these quite readily.
He can assume more than the minimum amount of custodial time required to credit against his CS payments.
He can go back to court when there's a failure to meet those agreements.
No, they will force the NCP to spend a certain amount on their children. The other member of the "family" has no such requirement.
Again, this depends by state. Mississippi actually legally requires equal contributions according to one source I read last night.
But that's neither here nor there. I actually made this point myself earlier to one of Calgal's arguments, so I don't really disagree with it.
For instance, it's estimated that compliance statistics rise to the upper 90th percentile when visitation access isn't an issue.
Weitzman questions the validity of the visitation non-compliance relationship. Her research shows no correlation between compliance and complaints about visitation. She argues that men with no visitation proplesm are just as likely not to pay child support as they are likely to pay.
Love you, but it is to laugh.
He can negotiate different settlements at the time of divorce, which include contractual agreements for greater involvement in decision making.
Umm, negotiate with what? - taking into account that a S2BX with a lawyer that isn't mentally unbalanced will know that 1) she will receive at LEAST primary physical custody of the children 2) she will receive the full CS amount 3) she will receive the marital home if she wants it (for the chirrun, of course)....
What, exactly, should a man (presumably) use as a "negotiating" chip, I wonder? Negotiations only come into play when both parents wish to work out an equitable agreement - if the presumed custodial chooses not to, there is NOTHING that a NCP can do about it.
Courts uphold these quite readily.
No, they don't. Well, maybe technically they might - they'll "find" against the CP in a contempt action, but since there is no consequence attached to a civil contempt finding, and since very few FC judges are willing to put a custodial parent in jail, it's a paper tiger. Any anyone who's willing to violate an agreement knows it.
Additionally, a "significant change in circumstance" brought to the court - and what defines such is left to the plaintiff and court's discretion, I've seen it be "the child is growing older" -is nullify any prior agreement.
No, he can't - unless the CP allows it. Really, you aren't getting this and it's kind of....weird. The court, IF it specifies parenting time, only specifies a minimum of time that the CP must make the child available to the NCP (and there are no real avenues for recourse if these are not fulfilled, btw) and only "encourages" the CP to make the child available for "reasonable" excess time. "Reasonable" being left solely to the discretion of the CP. Instances where a court will order a more than 35% time share (and therefore reduce CS) against the wishes of the CP are statistically miniscule.
He can go back to court when there's a failure to meet those agreements.
(Patiently)
Yes, and then what? There is NO mechanism in place to enforce the agreements, unlike CS. The only recourse is contempt findings, and as surely you know, civil contempt findings are toothless. Much like civil perjury findings.
There is NOTHING that a NCP can do to protect their interests or rights against a determined CP.
The law as it pertains to child custody is inequitable, and does nothing to protect children or their "best interests."
Believe me, I'd love it if you could come up with some sort of law or precedent that would even force compliance with court-ordered custody decisions. But you can't - they don't exist.
No doubt. The census bureau disagrees with her, though, as do many other researchers.
Ad has made almost all of the points I would have said. The last set of numbers (about 42% of women not getting child support) is particularly egregious. Your inquiry about "why doesn't the father just sue?" is either disingenuous or unbelievably ignorant.
The higher income parent, whom I'm assuming you're saying is the non-custodial parent, doesn't get to choose to spend less than the state determines is a minimum amount to be paid given their earning capacity.
Which proves my point--that parents lose all sorts of rights when they get divorced. This is what you were trying to rebut, if you remember. Thanks for confirming it. And if forcing you to spend a percentage of your income on your children (or, more accurately, on the person who got custody of your children), isn't a violation of rights, just try forcing it on married parents.
As I said earlier, and as Adrianne stated, this is to avoid the state having to pay for the children individuals choose to bring into the world. On this level, it's purely for the benefit of the larger community.
Well, actually, I said it long before both of you. As I said, it's more convenient for society to treat a father like a wallet than treat a mother like a full-fledged and responsible member of that society.
I am pretty sure that Erin planned on this being a more general parenting thread, and we've been talking about a Social Issues thread for a while. I'm going to ask Pelle, Wabbit, and Christin if we can create the thread--I'll host it in the short term, but I hope someone will take it over. (Ms? Don't take much. Ad, I'd ask you but I hear you have a sinus infection.g)
We can then move these posts over.
No, he can't - unless the CP allows it.
This is the second time you've made that statement. I want some data to back that up, since it's not supported by what I can find in the statutes on this.
If this is specific to DC, then that too, is without legal basis, since the statutory regulation I found for DC specifically said that a joint custody decree (which includes joint physical custody) cannot be denied on the basis of one parent objecting, unless it can be shown to be against "the child's best interests"
So, where does this come from?
If you question the 42% figure, please feel free to present your own. This is the number I found quoted in several articles. You got a problem with it? Then tell me something else.
Where's the Census data that refutes the Weitzman argument (and I might say, Canadian research on the exact same issue). And what other researchers?
I didn't say "why doesn't the father just sue?" I said that the courts are one legal redress for him. This isn't quite as flippant as you'd suggest.
Not only this, the legal analyses I've read on this indicate that the courts are becoming increasingly predisposed to support father's rights to access, to joint physical custody, and to upholding the contractual agreements both have signed.
Adrianne,
You say these are not enforceable, but contractual agreements have been enforced, courts have ordered women to adhere to them, or risk losing custody altogether. There may not be criminal laws for violations of these agreements but the court isn't powerless to enforce them.
Actually, the state could force married parents to spend a minimum amount on their children, they don't, however, because of the equally powerful custom of non-interference with family by the state.
However, when a couple divorces, the state can legally step in to force the parents to care for their children in ways they are disinclined to do when the family is intact.
For the state to restrict parental mobility, however, it begins to trample on constitutionally protected rights. The federal courts have always recognized that the the state has a right to force parents to care for their children, they haven't always had the right to restrict individual mobility and economic freedoms.
I'm at a loss. Where do I begin? As you know, each state has different wording re custody/support, so if you're looking for something specific, it's best to, again, compare like/like. I guess we could do that, if you wish. I, personally, am only familiar with the child custody guidelines in MD, TX, FL, VA, NY, CA and OR, there may be, I suppose, states that will impose joint physical custoday against the wishes of one of the parents. But none of those states will - in fact, in those states it is the responsibility of the parents to PROVE TO THE COURT that jpc is in the child's best interest, as opposed to a jlc/ppc arrangement. It's absurd to think that a contested child custody case would end up with a court decision demanding that the parents co-parent equally against their wishes. Surely you don't believe that that happens on any sort of regular basis?
You make a statement like "the NCP can assume more than the minimum amount of custodial time" - HOW, exactly, can he "assume" any such thing? If the court awards the NCP 30% "parenting time" -which is standard across the board nationwide for a contested custody arrangement, HOW can the NCP "assume" more time without being charged with parental kidnapping - barring agreement from the CP?
Let us assume that parenting time/custody is in contention. We wouldn't be discussing this otherwise - in situations where it isn't an issue, the courts don't get involved at all, correct? (Except to rubberstamp the parenting agreement, of course.)
After a hearing, primary physical custody is awarded to one parent (unlike King S., modern courts don't physically split the child in half).
JLC is adapted as part of the final custody decree. You ARE aware that JLC does not speak to custodial time, right? Only legal status?
Primary physical custody is awarded to one parent.
The NCP wishes to "assume" more parenting time, either to reduce their CS obligation or - could it be?!? - to increase involvement with a beloved child.
For the billionth time - what can the NCP do to "assume" more parenting time w/out the agreement of the CP?
Of course they're not powerless, I addressed that. They can find the CP in contempt, and jail and/or fine them. They do, actually, find them in contempt fairly often. They almost never exact a penalty - I know that you know the rate at which civil contempt is actually punished.
They COULD reassign custody, but they won't - almost never. Why? Because supposedly the best interest of the child was served by staying with the parent initially granted physical custody. Using the child's custody situation as "punishment" for a badly acting parent (ie, one who isn't complying with the visitation order) is considered punitive to the child. Bear in mind that in the initial determination for custody, the child's family home (continuity in neighborhood, home, and school is a primary factor in awarding custody or both the kid and the marital home) was granted to the CP. That hasn't changed simply because the CP decided not to play by the contractual rules. It doesn't make sense to the court to discount what was a prior determining factor for stability of the child in order to punish the errant parent. So they aren't likely to yank the child from their home, school, primary physical guardian in order to punish the Mom.
Crapzilla, I have a headache. I have to go in any case - I'll argue with you more tomorrow, MsIt, if you're around.
(Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you from here on out)
One small point. I am not confused about what JLC is/means. I know exactly what JLC means in the state of NM and only in the state of NM. I have not made a general study of divorce law. In the state of NM, when I got divorced, JLC means that both parents have full access to school records and medical records of the child. It means that the CP cannot move with the child without the NCP's permission. NCP parental permission is also required to change schools, churches, doctors, dentists, or optometrist. I'm sorry if this isn't the case everywhere and it causes you heartburn. I have no problem with both parents being fully involved in all aspects of a child's life.
I found those tables to be interesting. Apparently, I am spending on my child what is the average amount for someone in my income bracket.
Too bad for me, I guess, that my ex thinks the $67/month in CS I was awarded is too much and chooses to only send $60/month.
I thought the stats in that had been soundly trashed more than once?
Weitzman had reported a 73% drop for women and a 42% increase for men. I bring this up to show how off her statistics were.
US Census Bureau: Child Support and Alimony 1989
Check Table B: Award and Recipiency Status of Women--Child Support Payments for All Women. According to this table, 42.3% of women were not awarded CS.
The Text Highlights section states that
[o]f the 4.2 (+0.3) million women who were never awarded child support payments, 64 (+2.2) percent wanted an award but did not obtain it for various reasons, 14 (+3.1) percent had final agreement pending or had made other arrangements, and the remaining 22 (+2.6) percent did not want a child support award.
As I recall, that was self-reported by the women?
Also, I believe that includes women on welfare who have been on welfare from the moment they had children. The laws were changed so that they had to identify fathers in order to qualify for support?
The Text Highlights page states that
[t]he Bureau of the Census, under joint sponsorship with the Department of Health and Human Services, first conducted a survey specifically designed to obtain data on child support in the spring of 1979. The survey, with minor modifications, was subsequently conducted in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990 by the Bureau of the Census and sponsored, in part, by the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services.
- As of spring 1998, an estimated 14.0 million parents had custody of 22.9 million children under 21 years of age whose other parent lived elsewhere; 85 percent of these parents were mothers.
- Payment of full or partial child support was most likely when the noncustodial parent had arrangements for joint child custody and visitation. About 83 percent of custodial parents with these arrangements received full or partial support payments, as opposed to 36 percent for those without either shared custody or visitation.
- The 7.0 million custodial parents with agreements or current child support awards received an aggregate of $17.1 billion, or 59 percent, of the $29.1 billion in child support due. Custodial mothers received a greater proportion of the total they were due than did custodial fathers (60 percent versus 48 percent).
- About 7.9 million custodial parents (56 percent) had some type of support agreement or award for their children in 1998. This group comprised 59 percent of custodial mothers and 38 percent of custodial fathers.
- The reason most often cited for not having a legal child support agreement by the 6.6 million custodial parents without them was that they did not feel the need to go to court and make it legal (32 percent).
- More than half (56 percent) of all custodial parents received some type of noncash support (gifts, clothes, food, etc.) from noncustodial parents for their children.
And those data were collected 20 years ago, before the big jackup in child support levels. Do a fair study today, and I guarantee you California's divorced mothers are doing better than the fathers.
Your source for the 42% sounds about right as far as the date goes. The reviews I examined were in the mid-90's so that's what they'd use, I'm sure.
Adrianne
I have to take care of other commitments before I can get to deeply into this again. However, I'll note that you're arguing about things that weren't necessarily on the table between Calgal and myself. So perhaps you'd like to go back and read the entire exchange. (I know, this is a burden!)
And wrt the laws which is what I referred to, in DC at least, there is no statutory rule that allows women to unilaterally nix joint physical custody at will. In fact, it is as I quoted above, the objections of a parent are not to be the deciding factor in determining the custody split unless it can be shown to be against the child's best interests.
In the states that had joint custody as the default rule none that I saw required both parties to agree to joint physical custody. Although a few did have this in place initially, they were amended to eliminate it.
There are several states, though, that don't have joint custody as the default rule, so its quite possible that one spouse can unilaterally nix increased physical contact with the non-custodial parent.
So, the original proposition was that the NCP doesn't have legal protections that work to help him (her) increase their commitment to their children if they so desire, even over the wishes of the custodial parent, and while I'm sure there are stories of abuse, the laws don't show any particular bias against NCP's in states where joint custody is the default (and several of these jurisdictions define this to be joint physical custody as well as joint legal custody).
But the school may very well - and probably does -have policies against allowing the NCP contact or access without CP agreement.
the CP cannot move with the child without the NCP's permission.
Possible - I haven't looked at New Mexico. In most states that must be worded into the custodial agreement, though.
NCP parental permission is also required to change schools, churches, doctors, dentists, or optometrist.
Yes, yes (impatiently) this is supposed to be the case in most states. However, look at divorce and custody resources in NM - even divorcelawinfo.com - you're SUPPOSED to be in agreeement, but no one - not even mother's rights sites - pretends that ANYTHING will happen to you if you choose not to abide by that agreement.
I'm sorry if this isn't the case everywhere and it causes you heartburn.
I'll take that sympathy with all the charming genuineness with which it was offered.
I have no problem with both parents being fully involved in all aspects of a child's life.
Bully.
burn. I have no problem with both parents being fully involved in all aspects of a child's life.
MsIt
Your understanding of the reality of custody and family court is either incredibly naive or you are deliberately being obtuse.
Don't bother going further with the discussion - I'm sick to death of it. All that "heartburn", you know.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse. My involvement in this discussion started because new laws redefining custody and its consequent requirements on both parents were proposed.
So are you proposing new and more detailed laws that require both parents to take joint physical custody, and also require consent before relocation by both parties?
Do you propose that custodial parents be accountable for the child support they receive by submitting quarterly accounting reports wrt where the monies are spent to the NCP? Do you think that the NCP, by law, must have the authority to approve all expenditures his/her support pays for, and have unilateral rights of refusal?
Do you think this will solve the problems you note?
How about we remove all flexibility for courts (really judges) to decide these matters and simply leave it up to the legislature to create per se rules that must apply to everyone?
Do you think this will solve the problems you note?
Are you arguing that the majority of divorces end up with one parent having all the control and most of the money (I can only assume this means of the family assets during marriage and then the majority of the NCP's income after divorce, since this expression remains undefined)?
Are you arguing that the current laws result in the custodial parent getting a free ride in the majority of cases and the NCP being impoverished?
Are you arguing that the NCP has no legal recourse in any state to any potential abuses? Regardless of the state's default custody and child support rules and guidelines?
If so, then it seems you're the one who is naive wrt the legal basis for your arguments.
Yes.
Do you propose that custodial parents be accountable for the child support they receive by submitting quarterly accounting reports wrt where the monies are spent to the NCP?
Sure. Why not.
whisper -- (actually could give a shit about CS - I just don't like to hear people complaining that the state-mandated current amounts aren't enough. They are. I don't even care that they're unfair, actually. I would like to see as much attention paid to ACCESS as BUCKS. Fat chance.)
Do you think that the NCP, by law, must have the authority to approve all expenditures his/her support pays for, and have unilateral rights of refusal?
No.
Do you think this will solve the problems you note?
No, because as I said just above, my REAL problem is with ACCESS and enforcement of same, not with CS. My secondary problem is with twisted statistics and garbled whinging about poor single moms being raped monetarily by the CS system. It isn't accurate, and it's pathetic.
How about we remove all flexibility for courts (really judges) to decide these matters and simply leave it up to the legislature to create per se rules that must apply to everyone?
That would be better than what we have now, yes.
Nothing will solve the real problem - that children are used and abused by the system and their parents. But it would sure be alot more 'Mercan to stabilize and equalize the rules and laws so that they pertain to everybody, yes.
Are you arguing that the current laws result in the custodial parent getting a free ride in the majority of cases and the NCP being impoverished?
Nope, I'm arguing that the CP has carte blanche in re granting access and all real parenting imput. Period. Again, I think 35% of after tax income is a lot of money to take from the NCP, but no biggie - just don't whine about it or present me with the plucky single mom going it alone scenario.
Are you arguing that the NCP has no legal recourse in any state to any potential abuses? Regardless of the state's default custody and child support rules and guidelines?
I won't argue "any state" because I don't know about ALL fifty of them. But in most? You bet. They have virtually no legal recourse that can or will result in any real results. Yes, regardless of the state's custody rules and guidelines, which you, as yet, haven't shown that you understand on anything other than a theoretical basis. I suppose it's possible that you really believe that joint physical custody is by far the rarest custody arrangement because those horrible men just don't WANT to see their kids, but I'm hoping, as I said, that it's naivte.
1) your precise disagreement
2) what underlying theme is causing the tension in your disagreement
Any chance you could characterize or summarize for me.
I agree with Ad's posts, except I would do away with income transfer entirely.
Adrianne, have you read the frickin' exchange in its entirety? Because if you did, frankly, I'm at a loss to figure out what you're attributing to me.
My secondary problem is with twisted statistics and garbled whinging about poor single moms being raped monetarily by the CS system. It isn't accurate, and it's pathetic.
Twisted statistics? Such as? The 42% figure? Which was reduced to a meager 40% by census figures graciously provided by Maria? And what whining about poor single moms? Is that what this wrathful interjection was about? You perceived I was whining about such drivel? Again, I think you'd better go back and read before you jump in with both feet into a fight that never was.
It was Calgal and others who argued that the inequities in CS were all on the non-custodial side, and that women (the custodial parent) get a free ride, virtually able to take the non-cp for what their worth. In addition, they mostly spend their money on wine, men and frivolities, leaving their children, for the most part, hungry, lacking medical care, and lacking for the basic necessities of life.
I take it you agree.
The questions I put forth are the ones that were asserted by Calgal and others as being at the root cause of the current problems facing children of divorce, and the inequities that emerge. They argued that current laws simply are against the childs best interests, and that joint physical custody should be mandatory in all cases except where abuse can be shown.
In addition, they argue that both parents should be restricted from relocating anywhere without the consent of the opposite parent. I argued this was most likely a serious infringement of constitutionally protected rights.
Finally, all here seem to want to remove the discretion from courts and judges so that we have very bright rules that apply in all circumstances, that don't take account of individual differences and that don't allow deviation from this "solution" which is, of course, assumed to be in the child's best interests in all cases (with the exception of abuse, apparently abusive parents aren't to be given any rights at all).
Oh, and I forgot. Women who chose to be the primary caregiver in the marriage, and weren't in the labor market as co-equal earners, are, by definition, irresponsible, and really don't deserve any support whatever from their now-ex-spouse (who should probably also get custody of the children anyway, since they can financially care for them better).
I think that about covers it.
This isn't what I said at all and is almost willful incomprehension. I pointed out that there was nothing in existing law that prevented this from occurring, and that your presumption that it did not ever occur (or rarely occurred) was inaccurate. I specifically agreed with you that I was pointing out cases that might not be the norm--although they certainly weren't always outliers.
You are also combining two discussions--one on custodial laws and one on divorce laws. They are entirely different.
Actually, what I support is discretion in the laws for individual solutions to be tailored to individual divorce circumstances. What needs to be provided courts and judges is a set of guidelines that suggest results given various fact patterns that are not rules, but more like model results that have as their goal neutrality. I also agree that effective access to redress of abuses for non-custodial parents needs to be strengthened. These can be done by putting teeth to enforcement of agreements, and willingness of courts to be more balanced in their review of complaints.
What I support is revision of tax laws that don't penalize the non-custodial parent for contributing 50% or more of the child's yearly estimated upkeep even though they don't have equal physical custody.
Currently, the IRS code gives the child's dependent deduction automatically to the custodial parent regardless of how much the NCP contributes to their financial upkeep. This is something that can and should be changed to provide incentives for NCP's to pay their CS and to compensate them for the fact that they pay taxes on the transferred income while the custodial parent does not.
I support allowing reductions in CS payments when there are genuine changed circumstances in the non-custodial parents earning capacity, other than temporary changes (of less than a chosen period, could be 6 months, 1 year, or whatever arbitrary figure can be rationalized).
I support re-opening custody decisions with changed circumstances in the custodial parent's living arrangements; upon remarriage that leads to relocation; upon the addition of a live-in lover, etc; where the non-custodial parent can show a commitment to remaining in the area, or a less unstable lifestyle.
There are many things I support to ease some of the current inequities, however, to simply create per se rules that tilt the bias in the other direction will only create a similar set of problems with just a different set of victims.
You are, again, confused. There are two types of problems experienced by children of divorce: financial and psychological. However, this discussion has not focused primarily on the problems experienced by children after divorce, but rather on the fairness of the support and custody laws--regardless of the problems experienced by children of divorce. (note: Richard may decide they are exactly correlated, but I quite often disagree with him).
I'm combining them because the conversation is now quite merged.
Second, you did, in fact, argue that it doesn't matter that only some women do this, the mere fact that they can means that there is no basis for providing any income transfer to them when the marriage ends. You argued that the current community property laws, and divorce custody/support laws positively "reward" women for engaging in such behavior.
That there may be some inequities I agree, but that your proposals would do anything to redress inequities (unfairness) is what I dispute. They would simply redistribute the inequities.
Now that, definitely, is almost what I've said. Phew. I was worried you had missed everything.
It doesn't matter whether they are "co-equal" or not. If they can support their children without an income transfer, then they haven't been irresponsible. They can pay for the life they can afford for their children--and the other parent can do the same.
There is no "deserve" about it. Marriage doesn't entitle anyone to payments after the marriage is over. I see no reason why someone should increase their standard of living just because they married someone. If they had children they can't support, then they'll have to lose custody (but not visitation) until they can.
As long as the current situation exists, I agree with you about the IRS deductions.
Not quite. There is no basis for income transfer, period, in my book. I was rebutting your justifications by pointing out that there was no legal requirement for the situation that you base the justification on.
And this is a great conversation but I got stuck at work late and have got to get home now, so I'm leaving things unfinished and probably unclear. Back in a bit.
You simply don't want to look at the real consequences of your proposals because you're busy rooting out the horrors of the present system. You're convinced that there can be something fair about divorce for children and the adults involved. (And it appears Adrianne is on a similar quest.)
More importantly, you're convinced that joint physical custody is the only way to solve the current unfairness. Oh yes, and eliminating all income transfer as well as any settlement of property onto the spouse who never worked (or who didn't work equally), and thus was irresponsible.
In other words, you've got a solution that you think is for everyone, and by god, you want it imposed on everyone.
Not for the children. I think the focus on children is irrelevant in divorce. Divorce is about marriage, not about children. Custody and divorce are now almost entirely separate. A parent doesn't have to be married to the other parent to have whatever rights they have. A couple doesn't have to have kids in order for the woman (or the lesser earner) to qualify for whatever benefits come to them from divorce.
The financial trauma that children suffer after divorce is not really caused by divorce--it is caused by the fact that women don't generally accept their financial responsibilities for their children and yet are still given primary responsibility for their well-being after a divorce. Children with parents who are capable of providing for them separately are simply not going to have much in the way of financial problems.
So the unfairness financially only occurs when one parent (usually the woman) didn't live up to the appropriate financial responsibilities. This unfairness may end up hurting the kids (in the case where the income transfer from the other parent is insufficient or poorly used) or the ex (who has to provide the irresponsible parent with a ton of money in order to protect the kids).
Divorce doesn't cause the unfairness--it just reveals the irresponsibility and the injured party.
The psychological trauma that kids suffer really isn't due to divorce, per se, it is due to the fact that the two most important people in their lives have split apart and it usually means that they lose regular emotional and physical contact with one of them. That would be true whether or not the parents were married, and it will always be painful and "unfair". There are plenty of ways to alleviate this unfairness, and many of them involve legally mandating certain behaviors from divorced parents.
Joint physical custody does nothing to resolve the financial unfairness. Mixing and matching again, unfortunately.
JPC is about alleviating the emotional damage caused by divorce, as well as ensuring that parents are equally allocated the responsibility of raising their children.
You're reinventing the conversation again.
The unfairness according to you is at several levels, for children, at both the psychological and financial level; for the non-custodial parent, both wrt access to their children (responsibility for their care) and wrt the financial settlements associated with divorce. Your proposals were presented as necessary for the "unfairness" and "inequities" of the current system.
The prior discussion hasn't distinguished with much deliberation between the issues. If you want to begin doing so now, fine with me, but lets be clear about how the discussion has proceeded up to this point.
This is funny.
Oh please, you want to quibble about the choice of words used? This is disengenuous. What the hell is divorce if it isn't that two people suddenly split apart and stop sharing their lives, including their lives together with their children?
You think joint physical custody is going to repair the "psychological" trauma inflicted by divorce of the inherent breakdown of their parental unit? Regardless of the arrangements after the family split, their lives are forever changed. There's not any set of custody laws that can compensate for this.
By trying to separate the issues it's a neat way for you to compartmentalize your commitments. You can argue we should "force" divorcing parents into behavior that is for the benefit of their children, but since it's not really divorce that's the at the root of the harms to the children (it's the custody issues) then you can sidestep the logical conclusion of your positions. If we really want to put the welfare of the children first, then we should ban all divorce. That is the "best" solution for children.
Oh, except in cases of abuse, that's a repeated escape clause for you.
You are lumping many things together. Again, financial settlements regarding divorce have nothing to do with children. They hold true regardless of whether the marriage had children or not.
I have made many recommendations in regards to child custody. The financial ones involve equity, the custody ones involve the well-being of the child. Do not mix and match.
The presentation as "necessary" and "equitable" were all in regards to women being treated as less than able to care for themselves or their children--all involving the financial laws of divorce and child support. Which means do not go anywhere near JPC or relocation when talking "equity", please. That's in the "well-being" category.
Also, I have never implied that this will "fix" the system. Systems all have flaws. But a system that treats men and women as equally responsible for their children, rather than one as a wallet and one as a babysitter, is going to reveal the real problem, which is that women aren't living up to the responsibilities that they demanded when they insisted (properly) on equal rights.
Also, the system I propose reflects a world in which men and women are treated equally, rather than one in which women get the best of both worlds. Even if it is tougher for women to deal with and means they'll have fewer children and a tougher time after divorce, I see no reason why they shouldn't have to live with the downside of equality.
You misunderstand. The parents might not be married. The impact is the same. It is not divorce that causes the impact, it is the cohabitation of the parents. This may sound like a silly delineator, but in the context it is important. Divorce laws involve marriage, not children. You don't need to be married to have the same laws about child support and custody apply to you. A couple that isn't married but lives together from the time the child is born splits up. It will be devastating to the child, will involve child support and custody orders (assuming both parents want the latter)--but it won't involve divorce. If the father owned the house outright, the mother won't get any of it (assuming they weren't living together long enough for common law).
This is important primarily because, while right now divorce is the main way that children get devastated by parents splitting up, it may not be in the future--particularly if we make marriage more difficult in the assumption that this will make people stay together more. It won't--it will just make it less likely that they'll marry, and then the laws won't apply.
That's why I make the distinction.
You think joint physical custody is going to repair the "psychological" trauma inflicted by divorce of the inherent breakdown of their parental unit?
No. Divorce "trauma" will always exist. Will it mitigate it and alleviate it--which is what I said, instead of "repair", if you note? Yes.
I'm not trying to sidestep anything. I am pointing out that having children together is an act that is already legally considered as separate from marriage. There are no legal advantages to being a child of married parents. Therefore the requirements you put on parents are because they are parents, something that is irrelevant to whether or not they are married. The fact that they are divorcing ought to be irrelevant.
The only real issue in parenting is whether or not the parents live together. If they don't live together, there ought to be a set of laws that apply to their behavior for the well-being of the child. We already have some of these laws. I think some of them should change (both parents ought to be equally financially responsible for themselves and their children and, if they are not cohabitating, provide for the child as they are able) and some more should be added or enforced (relocation restrictions, mandatory JPC).
Hardly. All this will do is increase the number of people that don't marry. If you want to go further and say that parents who are cohabitating at the time of their children's birth are forced to stay together for 18 years, you'll just increase the number of people who don't live together at the time their children are born, and then move in. Of course, banning divorce will also increase the number of "unofficial" divorces in which people just don't divorce but move in with others.
So banning divorce will do nothing to increase the well-being of children. It didn't in the past, either. What ensured marriages stayed together longer in earlier in this century is most likely the fact that women had fewer options and there was a fair amount of social censure for men who abandoned their families. That's gone.
We have systematically removed any legal advantage of children whose parents were married. That has effectively made divorce and child support/custody quite separate issues. As a practical matter, they are usually lumped together. But that is largely because we've stripped away most of the inconveniences of divorce and there are still tax advantages to being married. Women still have a strong financial incentive to insist on marriage, and men don't have much of an incentive to object to it. Both men and women never really think about the downside--but then, since there's nothing they could do to prevent it, there's really no reason to avoid marriage, either. Just do it and hope for the best.
Make divorce onerous and that won't accomplish anything for children.
1. Don't bad mouth the ex and don't make excuses for him or her. If your ex is the rotten person that you feel they are [and odds are at some point, you'll feel they are pretty rotten] let the kids figure it out for themselves. The older the kids get, the franker you can be. It is much better to have your 14 year old tell you that "Dad isn't very responsible" and to reply "You may be right, honey" than to attempt to prove the point to them earlier. It is a fine line to skate, but it is better to respond honestly to their observations than it is to convince them of yours.
2. Get a support system going that doesn't include the kids. If the ex is driving you crazy, have someone to vent to other than the kids. No matter how right you may be, the kids are always in the middle, and naturally feel either a need to defend the ex, or somehow fix things they can't change.
3. Check out your ex's new husband/wife/live-in with the same thoroughness you'd check out a daycare or babby sitter. [yes, dammit, you should check them out too!] This isn't an invitation to critique them, or to interfere with the relationship. It is recognition that do not have a parental connection with your children, and pose an unknown risk to their safety. Don't panic, though, your ex once had the taste to be interested in you!
5. Don't referee or take a position on every fight between ex and kids. Don't take every disappointment by the kids, or every mistake in parenting as a crisis. Remember that parents who are together often have conflicts over how to deal with problems in parenting, and every kid with both parents is pissed at one or both at some time.
As always in parenting, your mileage may vary, but it's something to think about.
I just like being prepared on issues like that, you know. ;-)
"I'm sorry if this isn't the case everywhere and it causes you heartburn. (what I said)
I'll take that sympathy with all the charming genuineness with which it was offered."
Well, since it was offered with full genuine sympathy - you're welcome.
(If you ever read sarcasm into any of my posts, read again. I don't do sarcasm)
My secondary problem is with twisted statistics and garbled whinging about poor single moms being raped monetarily by the CS system. It isn't accurate, and it's pathetic.
In this discussion (at least while I was reading) most of the whining was about poor Dads being ripped off by rapacious greedy custodial Moms who blow the CS money on themselves. That's why I posted about my own situation in rebuttal and about the NM CS laws which are not a straight percentage of the non-custodial parent's income but rather a percentage of parents combined income, divided proportionally.
As far as access, one thing guaranteed to make me livid with anger is some custodial parent saying that they are withholding visitation because the non-custodial parent hasn't paid child support. As if the two are or should be related in any way whatsoever. As if the non-custodial parent has to pay to see his/her own child. This is wrong wrong wrong! Visitation should be encouraged and supported, as a real relationship with both parents is what is best for the child (unless there is abuse, of course).
Now, since I haven't made a general study of divorce laws around the country, and I am unwilling to spend time doing that, and I don't have any proposals for changes in the laws that will make everything better or fairer for everyone, I am bowing out of what little participation I have had in this conversation.
I'll see y'all when you are talking about parenting issues other than divorce.
What about potty training? My son removes his diaper when it's wet or dirty. He's 17 months old. What can we do to encourage potty training at this point? Or is it too early to start?
The Genghis Khan method is working! Wombino is now using the potty--and sometimes the toilet--on his own volition for both pee and poop! He is getting his beloved plastic dinosaurs and sea creatures back one by one; and we have told him that if he can go a week without an accident, he will get them all back.
He's not quite there: he oversleeps most weekends and wets himself. Several times he has called us to admire poops in the pot, but upon further examination, we determined that he transferred them by hand from his underpants to the potty (devious little spanker!).
I read somewhere that it's a good idea for your kids to see you pottying in preparation of their own training, so this is what we do. Boy-Boy even imitated Daddy's pee stance...on the bedroom carpet.
They make videos for kids (gender specific) on potty training. They are excruciating for adults, but the Womblings enjoyed them.
With Gracie it wasn't too tough, actually. Every summer when she was little, my ex's niece, ten years older than Gracie, came to stay with us. Luckily one year, Gracie showed all the signs of being ready to potty train. I bought both girls the same type of undies and told Gracie if she used the toilet she could wear 'big girl pants' just like her beloved Anita, and within a week, voila!
DH was a bit concerned that we're looking at a few years of nappy changing. I'm not sure what he will think of training videos.
I'm sorry, but you don't know excruciating until some well-meaning soul gives your small child a Wiggles video. We're on our third viewing of the day. And it's 10:28 am.
It's the Aussie's revenge for our Barney export. Four grown men who dance very prettily. Perkily. Catchy songs. Not Zesty as they say on the Taco Bell commercials.
sure you can, you've got Ms. Vole!
She's a good kid and I didn't even have to go through potty training.
Fruit salad [bah-dah-bump],
Yummy, yummy...
(although that Jeff guy's a little creepy).
This is me exactly. Jordan just turned three but she can't be trusted to not play in the toilet water and she can't wash her hands all by herself. And I really don't relish the thought of pulling out the potty chair and having another thing to clean. She hasn't shown *much* interest, so I'm not pushing it. Oldest, Claudia, was three when Jordan was born and they were both in diapers for a while and it was really no big deal.
BOYS AND GIRLS
click on photo 
She is 12 or 13 years older than the oldest of Allen's two kids? Somewhere in that range. They were never raised as brother and sister. If Mia Farrow is going to have a complicated family in which she plays Earth Mom to a million adopted kids, then it's reasonable to accept the fact that they aren't "siblings" in the same way that two kids a year apart living with Mom and Dad are.
Allen's sin was banging his girlfriend's daughter. Tacky and stupid, not pedophilia and incest.
By far the most troubling behavior in the entire episode was Farrow's--from her willingness to deny Allen access to his kids with the molestation charges to her chilling use of scissors in a family photograph. It is comforting to me that her career took the bigger hit.
Allen was run of the mill guy scum. It happens. Nothing that causes me to squick out. Farrow's a sick pup.
I hated her as an actress. Her voice instinctively wants me to make her go into a "time out" for whining.
Farrow didn't really have much of a career once you got past Rosemary's Baby and the men she married.
"Allen did not "help raise" Soon Ye Previn. Her father was very involved in her life. Allen barely knew she existed until she was 16 or 17, I believe--not much younger, anyway. He didn't live in the same home as Farrow, remember."
Hmmmm. Lets see now. Woody became Mia's boyfriend in 1980. If she were 17 then, well that would make her 38 today. She sure looks great for 38! Maybe it was from her attending college 2 years ago!
Fact: Soon-Yi Previn was pre-pubescent when Woody came into her life.
CalGal: I'm not surprised that you would make something up to support your dubious position. I am surprised that you are stupid enough to lie about something that is easily disproven with a few clicks of a mouse.
It is obvious to all that you are extremely judgmental of other divorced women. I find it sad that you haven't worked this one out yet, given your other fine qualities.
There is nothing in your post that contradicts what I said. Allen barely knew she existed. Farrow had a god awful amount of kids. He and Farrow lived in different houses, and Allen had very little to do with any of her kids. Soon Ye's father was Andre Previn, who was heavily involved in raising all of his kids. He did not notice her existence until she was 17 or so.
He didn't raise her, wasn't her father, didn't put her to bed, go out to dinner with her, act as Daddy in any sense.
You need to stop your dimestore psychoanalysis until you get better at it. I'm not hostile to Farrow because she's divorced, and the idea is laughable. I'm hostile to her because she was willing to bring false molestation charges against Allen, deny him access to his kids (his kids, not the ones that are only hers), and behaved as if she had the lead in Fatal Attraction.
More lies.
"He did not notice her existence until she was 17 or so."
How do you explain the pictures of the whole family travelling all over the world with Woody Allen? Also, the court papers said the affair started when she was 15.
"He didn't raise her, wasn't her father, didn't put her to bed, go out to dinner with her, act as Daddy in any sense."
What do you base this on? It is wrong.
"I'm hostile to her because she was willing to bring false molestation charges against Allen, deny him access to his kids (his kids, not the ones that are only hers), and behaved as if she had the lead in Fatal Attraction."
The State of Connecticut believed the molestation charges. You weren't there, so you don't know for sure. The evidence is inconclusive, but some experts thought Allen was guilty. You are happy to assume that Farrow is the heavy because she doesn't measure up to your high standards. I guess she would have been better off keeping it all bottled up until she turned into rageaholic who couldn't control her temper.
"Well Farrow's career ever since the seventies had been revolving around Allen, so it isn't surprising that she paid a heavy price.
I hated her as an actress. Her voice instinctively wants me to make her go into a "time out" for whining."
Farrow was kind of a Denise Richards of the 1960s. (Maybe Patsy Kensit is a better analogy). By the time Woody came along, nobody took her seriously anymore as an actress.
She was usually the weakest actor among the principals in Woody's movies, but she does give pretty good performances in Hannah And Her Sisters and The Purple Rose of Cairo.
The thing is, although being with Mia led Woody to cast a weak actress as the lead in his films, Woody Allen's career went down the tubes after he left Mia Farrow.
As to your cheap psychoanalysis: yawn. But I would point out that Farrow doesn't handle rage very well, or she wouldn't have sent that nifty little picture.
The rest of your "rebuttal" is inaccurate. Allen was not a parent to Soon Ye. She had a father. He lived in a separate residence from Farrow. Farrow collected kids as a hobby and he wanted no part of that.
It's just seems like an excuse to get exercised about nothing.
"As to your cheap psychoanalysis: yawn. But I would point out that Farrow doesn't handle rage very well, or she wouldn't have sent that nifty little picture."
You're right. She shouldn't express it at the cause, she should take it out on others.
"The rest of your "rebuttal" is inaccurate. Allen was not a parent to Soon Ye. She had a father. He lived in a separate residence from Farrow."
Source please. Andre Previn lives in London most of the year, Woody had dinner at Soon-Yi's house several times a week.
"Farrow collected kids as a hobby and he wanted no part of that."
Right, those kids would have been better off without her. Soon-Yi was discovered in a bedless Korean orphanage suffering from malnutrition. Nobody knew her real date of birth, and she wasn't speaking. That Mia Farrow was the worst thing that ever happenned to her.
She should refrain from sending pictures with scissors stabbed through them. She should refrain from using her anger to poison Allen's children against him. For starters.
Source please. Andre Previn lives in London most of the year, Woody had dinner at Soon-Yi's house several times a week.
Andre Previn himself has said so on more than one occasion. This should not be confused with support for Allen.
The fact that Allen ate dinner at their house is hardly relevant. He wasn't their "daddy" in any sense of the word. They had fathers.
Right, those kids would have been better off without her.
Don't be an ass. I made no such assertion. But the fact that the kids were better off because of her money in no way means that she was a good parent. She had a very skewed vision of herself as "earth mom" and Allen was not interested in that at all. He was not involved in that part of her life, and viewed the hordes of kids around as her hobby. He was, however, very interested in his kids, and was from all accounts a devoted dad--until Farrow used her rage to deprive him of access and, additionally, poisoned the kids against him. All because he was "unfaithful" to her (keeping in mind that they had been estranged unofficially for a couple of years) and with a girl that was her daughter, but not his.
Oh, and to a prior point: you surely aren't planning on using the fact that the State of Connecticut tried Allen as "proof" of his guilt, are you?
June 8, 1993
Mia Farrow got the kids.
Woody Allen got the bill.
Their harrowing and highly public child- custody case came to a close Monday when a New York judge awarded Farrow the three children, severely limited Allen's visitation and ordered the actor-writer-director to pay legal costs.
Allen, he ruled, "demonstrated no parenting skills." Farrow, he said, wasn't faultless, but "she loves her children and has devoted a significant portion of her emotional and material wealth to their upbringing." The ruling comes a month after the vicious trial ended May 4. Its seven weeks of testimony delved into the non-traditional family's lifestyle, which included
psychotherapy for everyone: 30 years worth of weekly visits for him; 15 years for her; sessions for the children. Even the dog had a therapist.
His side said she was an out-of-control, scorned woman who once beat a daughter with a hairbrush and screamed at the children hysterically. She favored her four biological children over the seven adopted, his side argued. Her side testified he was taking pornographic pictures of one of her daughters, sexually abused another, and was uninterested in his children's
everyday lives.
There was the daggered valentine sent from Farrow to Allen, and charges that on one occasion Allen twisted his son's leg, pushing the tiny face into a plate of spaghetti. Nannies, lawyers, experts, psychologists all took the stand.
The testimony led Judge Elliott Wilk to rule that "Mr. Allen's resort to the typical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult," and that
his deficiencies as a parent "are magnified by his affair" with Farrow's 22-year-old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn.
A very-pleased Farrow called the ordeal a "nightmare. . . . My children were ripped apart emotionally. But I'm just so proud of the way they stood by each other and by me."
A subdued Allen was "delighted" the bitter feud was over, but felt it was "unfortunate" he wasn't awarded custody. "I'm committed to them," he said. "I could have walked away from this unscathed months ago."
Instead, Allen must shoulder the entire financial burden of his "frivolous" custody case, Wilk said. Allen's lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, said he might appeal that part of the ruling.
Wilk's decision boosts Farrow's bargaining power in Surrogate Court Wednesday, where she'll try to overturn Allen's adoption of two of the
children. If she's successful, Allen could lose his parental rights - including the right to see them.
Though Wilk ordered an increase in Allen's two-hour visits with the couple's biological son, Satchel, 5 - from twice weekly to three times - he
barred the director from contacting adopted daughter Dylan, 7 - whom Allen was
accused of sexually molesting - for six months.
Son Moses, 15, who has said he doesn't want to see Allen, was given the power to make his own decision on visitation.
Awarding custody to Farrow, said Sam Margulies, divorce mediator and author of Getting Divorced Without Ruining Your Life, shows that today's reality still sides with the mother. "Even without the allegations of sexual abuse, it is
unlikely a father would win a custody contest."
On Wednesday, Farrow will argue that when Allen adopted Moses and Dylan, he already was involved, without Farrow's knowledge, with Soon-Yi. Farrow claims she was defrauded.
Farrow and Allen's 12-year relationship came to an abrupt halt on Jan. 13, 1992, after Farrow found nude pictures of Soon-Yi on the mantel in Allen's Fifth Avenue apartment.
From that point, accusations, name-calling and finger-pointing snowballed. Then, in August, the clincher: charges that Allen engaged in sexual misconduct with young Dylan at Farrow's Bridgewater, Conn., home.
Though much attention focused on the nine-month investigation, and the course of any legal action seemed to hang on that judgment, the Yale-New Haven investigative team did not believe Dylan had been molested.
Allen's team argued Farrow put Dylan up to the accusation, but, Abramowitz said, the judge did not agree. "If he had found in our favor in that
regard, he would have had to find in our favor overall, and I don't think he wanted to."
But many argue the 57-year-old director's relationship with Soon-Yi - not the molestation charges - was the punch that killed Allen's chance at custody. His relationship with the Korean-born Soon-Yi - who was 9 when Farrow adopted her shortly before the Allen-Farrow relationship started - was fact. Allen spoke publicly of their "love."
Wilk said Allen still doesn't understand what he did wrong and the judge did not view the "affair" as a "a benign relationship between two consenting
adults," as the director argued.
Rather, Allen's plans to continue the relationship, he said, impedes the family's healing process, warranting "a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children."
Experts agree.
"Woody just didn't seem to get it -that he violated the moral universe as we understand it. . . . The minute you cross that boundary and become the sexual partner of one of the children, you are dealing a horrible blow," said Maggie
Scarf, author of Intimate Partners, Patterns in Love and Marriage.
But severing his tie with Dylan may be detrimental. "The bond is broken and the child feels abandoned," said Shirley Glass, Baltimore psychologist and marital therapist. "I have no idea why they wouldn't allow supervised
visitation."
The best solution in divorce is co-parenting, with regular contact with a father, added Glass. Neither will happen here, "and it is going to be
destructive for the children."
"There is never a winner in these fights. They have all lost a lot. . . . They will never put it all back together," said Margulies. "For them, it is a total tragedy."
JUDGES COMMENTS From the ruling by state Justice Elliott Wilk:
ON WOODY ALLEN: "His financial contributions to the children's support, his willingness to read to them . . . to buy them presents, and to oversee their breakfasts, do not compensate for his absence as a meaningful source of guidance
and caring in their lives. . . .
"He did not bathe his children. He did not dress them, except from time to time, and then only to help them put on their socks and jackets. He knows little of Moses' history, except that he has cerebral palsy; he does not know if he has
a doctor. He does not know the names of Dylan and Satchel's pediatrician. He does not know the names of Moses' teachers or about his academic performance. He does not know the names of the children's dentist. He does not know the names of
his children's friends. He does not know the names of any of their many pets. . . . He attended parent-teacher conferences only when asked to do so by Ms. Farrow. "
ON MIA FARROW: "Few relationships and fewer families can easily bear the microscopic examination to which Ms. Farrow and her children have been subjected. . . .
quick to address their problems. . . .
"I do not view the Valentine's Day card, the note affixed to the bathroom door in Connecticut, or the destruction of photographs as anything more than expressions of Ms. Farrow's understandable anger and her ability to communicate her distress by word and symbol rather than action. . . . "Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical 'woman scorned' defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult. . . . In a
society where children are too often betrayed by adults who ignore or disbelieve their complaints of abuse, Ms. Farrow's determination to protect Dylan is commendable. . . .
"Ironically, Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen."
I don't think this is movies. In fact, it seems to me it is parenting. But I'll let Indy move them all before I move it again.
The story also confirmed my prejudice about Yankistan as a land of molestation witch hunts
Also, you seem to be thinking that the kids thought of each other as "sibs" in the same way that you or I do. But while siblings with more than ten year differences can be close, it is equally possible for them to be fairly uninterested in each other--particularly at the time frame in question.
That said, if they were close (which it appears they were not), it still doesn't make it molestation. The reaction of siblings is not a determining factor. What matters is whether or not Allen was a father or father figure to Previn, and he was not, from all accounts.
I make a differentiation between shitty behavior and pedophilia/incest.
Well, if he's eyeing the daughter and later proves to be snapping nudie shots and giving her the high hard one, that alone should place him above suspicion.
The thundering outrage should be directed at that woman for having the capacity to exploit her son in order merely to avenge her betrayal.
I have been thundering for some posts now. I completely agree.
I thought the Wilks' decision was disgusting, too.
A judge tasked to evaluate the case and informed by testimony, evidence and experience differs.
Bullshit. Previn was in her late teens.
Using that logic I can assume that your regular hardons for Brittany Spears equates to a desire to fuck a five year old. I'll alert the schools in your district.
He was eyeing the adopted sister of his children, he was snapping nudie shots of her, and he later was giving her the high hard one.
Do you dispute these facts?
"The story also confirmed my prejudice about Yankistan as a land of molestation witch hunts."
Yup. This is typical in the US. Half the people here have been wrongfully accused of molestation at some point. Better stay away.
The judge ignored the testimony of an evaluation team and the kid's own therapist--and, for that matter, ignored the fact that there were insufficient grounds to try Allen for molestation. And the bias against fathers in general in this country makes judge's decisions largely worthless.
The judge also ordered that Allen's access to his biological children be increased--something that Farrow completely ignored. Allen tried regularly to enforce the visitation and was rebuffed. Family courts are rarely kind to fathers.
I do not dispute--save the fact that "adopted sister" is a legal term, not a familial one. If you wish to argue that leads to pedophilia, incest, or molestation then do let me know what school districts I should inform about your obsession with the Spears creature.
He doesn't even see his other children because Farrow ignored court orders and refused to let him see even his own son.
While I respect your scholarship and your strong feelings on gender imbalance with regard to custody, the judge has more information, experience, and scholarship by which to make an evaluation. Plus, he has the simple fact that Woody Allen was nailing the sister of his children, and skulking around while doing it.
Screw the kids. After all, the estimation of disinterested outsiders certainly trumps the common sense concept that when Daddy fucks your sister, it is a world of shit.
They weren't "similar age". The oldest of Allen's kids was 11-12 years younger--less than half the age of Previn.
Frank,
The "simple fact" has nothing to do with it. And, as I said, if we are to respect the judge then you have to respect the fact that the judge ordered that Allen's visitations be increased for two of his children and that the one questionable case (Dylan) be re-evaluated in six months precisely because he wasn't sure whether molestation occurred.
All the judge did was deny Allen sole custody--something that fathers rarely get anyway.
Farrow then ignored everything the judge ordered.
Again. They did not consider her "a sister". It's not like they were a year apart, and your continual denial of this inconvenient little reality is dishonest.
"He doesn't even see his other children because Farrow ignored court orders and refused to let him see even his own son."
If Woody really cared about that, and he was indeed legally aggrieved, he would seek redress. He doesn't care. He's a pig. Why do you care if he doesn't?
Its too bad I missed you defending Clinton the last eight years. It would have been amusing.
Moreover, if you find it necessary to criticize my infatuation with Ms. Spears, feel free. I will not respond in kind with personal attacks.
Moreover, Britney understands, and she has advised me to say to you . . "Hit me baby. One more time."
"They weren't "similar age". The oldest of Allen's kids was 11-12 years younger--less than half the age of Previn."
So if you adopted a kid, it wouldn't be Spawn's sibling?
I'm not criticizing your infatuation with her (although I do question your taste). I am pointing out that men quite often find girls in their late teens extremely attractive. It is not proof of pedophilia. You seem willing to grant yourself some slack that you aren't giving to Allen.
Fielding,
If Woody really cared about that, and he was indeed legally aggrieved, he would seek redress.
He did. Regularly. For many years until he gave up. He got court orders, they were ignored.
"They did not consider her "a sister". It's not like they were a year apart, and your continual denial of this inconvenient little reality is dishonest."
Source please. Moses Amadeus Farrow went on television to talk about his sister.
Sure seems that way, Fielding. Andonly has commented at length on the child molestation hysteria of the 1980s.
To put it in terms that equate: if I adopted an infant and in five years Spawn decided to get involved with the infant's mother--who, for the sake of argument, was known as the infant's mother--it would not be incest on Spawn's part, pedophilia on the mother's part.
I would probably not be happy, but that would be because I would not approve of Spawn becoming involved with some low-rent chick who gives her kids away.
Yes. dead on. Because I think Spears is hot, I should give Woody Allen more slack to fuck his kin.
"But they weren't blood related!!!!!!! Blah, blah blah."
Got it.
Now, could you imagine if your husband, who is not the natural father of your son, took up romantically with your son? And you found out about it by finding naked pictures of your boy on the mantle? Right after your son reached the age of majority?
Hunky dorey, I doubt.
Heed Fielding's advice. Your misunderstanding is perfectly logical. This is a barbarous land, and Fielding and I are demonstrating to you the madness of our native tongue and our bizarre rituals.
1) Rule #1 -It thunder, gods angry.
2) Rule #2 - Woman bleed, gods angry.
3) Rule #3 - prohibition on fucking the adopted sister of your children.
I go to play golf.
She wasn't his kin.
Now, could you imagine if your husband, who is not the natural father of your son, took up romantically with your son?
My son has a father. There is literally no way that anyone I marry will ever be a father to my son. Now, if he had raised him and been an authority figure to him from a young age, I would consider it to be borderline incestuous. But if he were someone who wasn't around my kid much and was not a father figure? And Spawn was older than 17? I'd be furious and betrayed--but I wouldn't be claiming molestation and pedophilia, much less incest.
You left out ritualistic witchhunts for falsely accused child molesters. Very important.
Moses Farrow has cerebral palsy and was adopted relatively late--I believe he was originally adopted only by Farrow and Allen signed on later (but I'm not sure). I was only thinking of the younger two, since they were the only ones that the charges of molestation were used to keep Allen away.
However, I would take anything Moses says with a grain of salt. Farrow did her best to poison all of the kids after it was over--and she was not above threatening to cut the kids loose if they didn't do what she said.
It is quite possible to think that Allen is an inconsiderate scum without deciding he is an incestuous pedophile.
I find older men who take up with women young enough to be their children (or grandchildren in some cases) to be just plain icky. That doesn't make what Allen did incest or pedophilia.
If there really was no molestation of the younger kids, then that points out to the outraged rejected woman and outraged Mom scenario for Farrow.
Frankly, if LD was in her late teens/early 20s and a man that much older than LD was having an affair with her, whether or not he'd been my boyfriend, I'd be pretty damned outraged, too. Of course, I wouldn't make false accusations against the man. My actions would be much more direct.
OTOH, I would like to point out that my brother is 11 years younger than I am and I definitely DO feel like his sister. Of course he is my biological brother....
I wasn't trying to deny that kids with large age differences can't feel like siblings. Only that it's not the same as two kids a year apart raised by a guy who acts like their father and then decides to get involved with one of them. Quite different.
But I don't want something I said earlier to get lost in the shuffle: even if two of the kids were upset by someone they thought of as a sister getting involved with someone that they thought of as a father, it has nothing to do with whether or not the father and the sister committed incest.
What matters is their relationship to each other. Allen was heavily involved with the raising of the two young children (Satchel and Dylan). He was not involved in the raising of Previn's kids.
"However, I would take anything Moses says with a grain of salt."
You don't agree with the judge who has reviewed all of the evidence, and you don't want to listen to one of the kids who is most affected by this whole thing. You just want everyone to agree with you because you have the most passionate beliefs. I can't really argue with that.
Woody Allen is a scumbag, but he's not an incestuous pedophile. As I understand it, if he dumped Soon-Yi, he could have access to his children?
So what's stopping him?
I don't agree with the judge because he decided to deny Allen custody. The judge didn't decide that Allen had molested his kids--and, in fact, did not deny Allen custody because he believed that Allen molested his kids.
As I keep pointing out, the judge increased Allen's visitation.
Moses is not the kid most affected by the whole thing. Allen's younger kids are, because they are the ones who were not only denied access to their father, but were then poisoned against him--and they were far too young to have any ability to fight against it.
You also ignored the fact that Farrow threatened to oust kids who didn't side with her.
Even assuming that were true--and it's not--why should he have to?
But the truth is that the courts ordered visitation that Farrow continually refused to comply with. She also filled the kids heads with horror stories and then, after Allen continuously tried to get access to his children for a year or more, the children were terrified of him. At that point Allen lost complete access to Dylan--never mind the fact that Farrow's behavior was egregious--but was still given access to his son. Which Farrow again refused to comply with.
I think Woddy Allen's relationship with Soon Yi is icky, but not incest or pedophilia.
I don't think Mia Farrow comes out smelling too good either. Say, to give her a lot of benefit of the doubt, she really does believe that Woody molested his child. Why shouldn't he be allowed supervised visitation? To cut him off totally from his own kid is wrong.
Oh, I just looked back and realized I completely forgot to say that I agreed with your post, by and large. Sorry--yes, I think we are clearly in agreement.
Mia Farrow came out looking like the monster she is. Her kid's therapist testified about her behavior--she cut up pictures of Woody and Soon-yi in front of her kids, went into beserker rages--and then there was the pictures with the scissors, which still creeps me out.
But a woman doing that is deemed to be just righteous expressing her outrage by a judge in a court of law.
Bah.
Surely there is a better match for Woody. He needs to focus on his relationship with his kids, not his relationship with his johnson.
He's self-absorbed scum. But that's been true of him for years. Are you recommending that people be denied access to their kids based on their choice of life partners?
The court's ruling increased his court ordered visitation. Farrow refused to comply.
PP,
Hardly. The damage to the family was done by Farrow. This is not to say that Allen didn't behave like a jerk, and that some of the kids might never have forgiven him for dumping their mother for her daughter. But Allen's son becomes traumatized at the mention of his name--and you can't tell me that happened because of Allen. It was Farrow that destroyed the family.
That's what was needed, though. Someone to look at Allen and say, "Grow the fuck up, you little nerd" and then tell Farrow that she was denied access to her kids until she could act responsibly.
For example, if I left my husband to carry on a lesbian affair with my stepdaughter, my husband wouldn't be *justified* in cutting up my photo in front of my child, but I do think his actions would be *understandable.*
For example, if I left my husband to carry on a lesbian affair with my stepdaughter, my husband wouldn't be *justified* in cutting up my photo in front of my child, but I do think his actions would be *understandable.*
No, it would be understandable for him to be hurt and angry, it's not understandable (to me, at least) for him to try to turn your child against you, to hurt your child in that way. Because doing that wouldn't just hurt you, it would certainly hurt your child.
I'm saying that you can't do damage to other people and expect there to be no fallout. People are complex, and don't act as they should.
In that case, you would have left the marriage, not the child. This is not to put a smiley-face on divorce (I think you know my views on that) but the fact is that ending a marriage is about the relationship between the two that are married. The breakup itself will hurt the children. Any action that either parent takes above and beyond the divorce itself that hurts the children is their responsibility alone.
Also, this notion of "fault" in a breakup is silly. Sure, there is quite often someone who decides to leave--whether for another or purely due to unhappiness. But that decision to leave in no way mitigates or excuses any behavior of the partner who feels abandoned.
In the case of Allen and Farrow, they apparently hadn't been "together" as a couple since the birth of Satchel.
This is real life, not Lifetime, Television for Women...
I imagine it happens more than people think. It was unorthodox and inconsiderate, sure. If you consider that Previn was an adult, though, the real disrespect is shown by her--and she is generally held exempt from any criticism. Mind you, I don't blame her much because I think Farrow's behavior indicates some serious mental problems. While the kids are better off than where they started out, it's only because an abusive and disturbed parent is better than poverty.
It still astonishes me that so many people excuse Farrow's behavior, which was chilling as well as disgusting. (I'm not talking about you, just generally).
I disagree--I think PE's take is reasonably correct. It certainly wasn't borderline evil. He didn't live with the kids, didn't raise them (except the two younger ones, to whom he was quite devoted) and he was selfish and thoughtless.
Why, if not to inflict pain and harm?
That judgement is either (1) evidence of the encrustation of the superfluous Judaeo-Christianisation in the culture, whereby unrelated persons become magically blood-related by Heaven-sent union; or more likely (2) a woman's empathy with Mia Farrow, for fear of being dumped by your husband for his stepdaughter!
Perhaps love could not be helped.
Woody Allen is a disgusting pseudopedophile. Mia Farrow is relatively blameless. Unless it is blameworthy to rescue children from abject poverty and severe malnutrition.
I don't care that you've still got a Hero-Worship thing going with this sad, pathetic clown. He's disgusting.
Woody Allen is supremely self-absorbed, which makes it extremely unlikely that he chose his ex's daughter in order to cause harm. I thought his testimony at the custody hearing was most telling, when he was asked if he even thought of the fact that he was getting involved with his children's "sister" (keeping in mind their big difference in ages). He answered that no, he hadn't.
Actually, most of the people objecting to him have been men (Erin's is mild in comparison). I suspect they are jealous of his accomplishment.
Farrow had good reason to be suspicious. Kee-rist, I sure wouldn't trust my children around that scumbag.
Would you?
Mia's great sin is leaping from
"My 50 year old boyfriend is fucking my 16 year old daughter"
to
"My 50 year old boyfriend might also like to fuck my 12 year old children."
Maybe she was wrong. But it sure doesn't seem like a big leap in logic to me.
I am not empathetic to Mia Farrow. I'm not suggesting that what she did is right. I'm saying that her reaction is not at all unpredictable--it didn't come out left field.
I find the idea that Woody is being treated as a befuddled old fart with little control over his waning hormones is repugnant. Also the fact that he didn't live with his (ex)lover's daughter, gives him an out is repugnant.
Devoted parents do not fuck around like this, or at least they shouldn't, without understanding that the fallout can be brutal.
True. Likewise, Allen should have known that Farrow is a fucking wacko and not been quite so surprised when she went all Glenn Close on him at the news.
Devoted parents and fucking around are actually mutually exclusive--or at least they can be. And he wasn't a "devoted parent" to Soon-yi, but to two other kids.
The Farrow woman lept from a heterosexual liaison with a pubescent girl to a homosexual paederastic interest. Yes, I would say that's quite a leap.
No, one girl was 7 and the boy was 5. Huge leap and entirely unwarranted.
Also, Previn was 19 when it began, I believe.
Nor do I think there's any excuse for what he did.
"The Farrow woman lept from a heterosexual liaison with a pubescent girl to a homosexual paederastic interest. Yes, I would say that's quite a leap."
Well, many of our gay posters would argue that's not a leap at all, as a "true pedophile" cares not one whit for the sex of his victim.
"True. Likewise, Allen should have known that Farrow is a fucking wacko and not been quite so surprised when she went all Glenn Close on him at the news."
I agree with both of these statements.
What I have always found most surprising about this whole sordid affair is that an unhinged bimbo of modest talent such as Mia Farrow should become the Alma Mahler of her generation. After all, Woody Allen was the least talented of her major relationships (the others are Frank Sinatra, Andre Previn, and supposedly, Philip Roth).
Just because neither of them have any excuse doesn't make them equivalent actions. In one case, an excuse isn't needed. Ronski said it best, earlier: some things are legal but still really ought not be done. Allen's behavior falls squarely into that category. In other cases, an excuse is impossible: Farrow's behavior would, in a perfect world, be criminal.
In what way was he a devoted parent?
Not quite an accurate restatement, but for purposes of this discussion irrelevant. Attraction to someone who is sexually mature (19) is completely different from attraction to someone who is prepubescent (5 and 7).
Why not simply stick to the subject?
You know how people think of me at MWT? Well, there's a suspicion that PE really is like that. (g)
Fielding,
You are denying that he was a devoted parent to his two kids?
"In what way was he a devoted parent?"
Eh, you know. He jerked the little boy off.
Father-type stuff.
His relationship with Farrow's other kids was non-existent:
For the first few years after their friendly dates turned into serious ones, Allen would get up in the morning, give Farrow a call, and then work while she attended to the children, of whom there are now nine. She and Previn had three sons (Matthew, Sascha and Fletcher); then they adopted three orphan girls -- two Vietnamese (Lark and Daisy) and one Korean (Soon Yi). After their divorce, she adopted a Korean infant (Moses Amadeus Farrow), who has cerebral palsy. ...Around 7 P.M., Allen would pick up Farrow for dinner or the opera or a show or a movie, then take her home. Very often on the weekend, she would bring a few kids and stay at Allen's. Now and then he would go to Farrow's country house in Connecticut -- but only for very limited periods.
As contrasted with his relationship with his own two kids:
They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does. He is there before they wake up in the morning, he sees them during the day and he helps put them to bed at night.
Cal,
Gee willikers! Allen told a reporter that he was a doting parent!
Why didn't you say so before?
This contrasts with all other Hollywood types, who are quite honest and upfront with reporters in revealing the fact that they're not good parents and that they put their career & romantic dalliances well before their children.
The Farrow woman inferred from Allen's heterosexual liaison with an unrelated post-pubescent girl aged 19, a homosexual paederastic incestuous interest in boys 5 and 7 years old.
Yes, I would say that's quite a leap.
She's evil. Throw her into a Taliban dungeon.
Let's talk about babyproofing!
There's a certain kind of person who indulges in Celebrity Hero Worship; there's a certain kind of person who indulges in such Hero Worship particularly in the case of Woody Allen, who was wrongly imagined to be some sort of "intellectual" by impressionable, sheltered young suburban minds.
Woody Allen diddled a 16 or 17 year old girl who was his common-law wife's daughter.
He may have touched his natural children inappropriately.
He's a scumbag, and every bit the pervert his films suggested he was. Had we known the truth, we wouldn't have been laughing.
Ace--Self-absorbed people can also be devoted to their children.
I agree that this is at least an interesting issue, but we do seem to be veering into a topic of two obnoxious people who probably should not have had children, and happen to have them. Instead of sticking to the topic of parenting per se.
Now about that babyproofing....
"Wheee!!!"
Well, I don't even like Allen's movies.
With the exception of some early films (though many are now a bit dated), Allen's movies suck, and have always sucked. Badly.
Several of his movies are among the worst films ever made. Deconstructing Harry has its own special place in hell, for example.
Basically, Allen began sucking very hard around the time of Manhattan. He sucked very hard indeed for the next several films, though he would get lucky on occasion with a Hannah and Her Sisters or a Manhattan Murder Mystery.
Awful, awful, awful.
And we cannot watch him every single minute. So we're going to have to get some kind of barriers for the windows.
I think most people have a knee-jerk reaction to the situation before they ever hear all the facts. The biggest problem I have with Allen is that he was sleeping with an under-18 girl.
Well, I would at least allow supervised visits. And I certainly wouldn't bad-mouth him to the children. He's a loser and I'm sure they will manage to realize this all on their own.
I think I'll have a great deal more trouble if we have more kids, because now the older ones have zillions of toys with tiny parts. The house would be one huge choking hazard.
"You are denying that he was a devoted parent to his two kids?"
From Jack's post above:
"ON WOODY ALLEN: "His financial contributions to the children's support, his willingness to read to them . . . to buy them presents, and to oversee their breakfasts, do not compensate for his absence as a meaningful source of guidance
and caring in their lives. . . .
"He did not bathe his children. He did not dress them, except from time to time, and then only to help them put on their socks and jackets. He knows little of Moses' history, except that he has cerebral palsy; he does not know if he has
a doctor. He does not know the names of Dylan and Satchel's pediatrician. He does not know the names of Moses' teachers or about his academic performance. He does not know the names of the children's dentist. He does not know the names of
his children's friends. He does not know the names of any of their many pets. . . . He attended parent-teacher conferences only when asked to do so by Ms. Farrow.""
I consider this to be overwhelming evidence that Woody Allen was not only not a devoted parent, but actually a failure as a parent. Because you read these same words a few hours ago, I also consider this to be overwhelming evidence that I have higher standards for parenting than you do.
If you consider this "overwhelming evidence" then I'm amazed you're a Clinton defender. You know nothing about me and really, it becomes tiresome this need you have to attack my parenting. I suggest you grow up.
This may come as a surprise to you but intense familiarity with the nitty gritty details of a kid's life is not proof of devotion, nor is ignorance of it indication that someone doesn't give a damn about their kids.
I see no value in comparing parenting. By Allen's standards, it is quite clear he adored his kids and paid them a great deal of attention. It is not necessary that he knows his pediatrician's names.
"If you consider this "overwhelming evidence" then I'm amazed you're a Clinton defender."
Calling me a Clinton defender is like saying that you don't have a temper. In other words, it is Bullshit.
"You know nothing about me and really, it becomes tiresome this need you have to attack my parenting. I suggest you grow up."
I didn't attack your parenting. You sound like a great parent. I was calling you a hypocrite for making excuses for Woody Allen that you wouldn't make for yourself.
"This may come as a surprise to you but intense familiarity with the nitty gritty details of a kid's life is not proof of devotion, nor is ignorance of it indication that someone doesn't give a damn about their kids."
Nice switcheroo on the standards. Nobody said anything about "intense familiarity". When questioned in Court, Woody Allen didn't know anything about his kids.
Changing the standards in mid-sentence is intellectually dishonest.
"I see no value in comparing parenting. By Allen's standards, it is quite clear he adored his kids and paid them a great deal of attention. It is not necessary that he knows his pediatrician's names."
Bullshit. Those things are important.
Woody has no interest in his kids' lives. He has no interest in understanding their interests. He is a pathetic incompetent, and you are a pathetic apologist for a pathetic incompetent.
I wasn't making excuses--or if I was, I'm as "undevoted" as Woody is. I don't deal with pediatricians as a general rule, and my ex makes all the dentist appointments and, until recently, haircuts. Teacher problems always go through him, too, and I didn't know the names of most of Spawn's teachers at his last school. He's much more logistically on top of things than I am. It's quite common--although far more so for the father, as a general rule, than the mother.
When questioned in Court, Woody Allen didn't know anything about his kids.
No, he didn't know the names of the pediatricians or school teachers. Incidentally, Moses was Mia's adoption--Allen stepped in later. I suspect the reason he filed for Moses as well is because he didn't want to be singling out two kids over the others. But there's no reason why he would have known much about Moses. I've said before that my points concern the two youngest children.
Woody has no interest in his kids' lives.
At the time, he had a lot of interest in his kids lives--given that he's a self-absorbed neurotic, of course. He filed for custody--not to protect himself, keep in mind. He'd been long cleared of molestation charges. He also accepted the judge's decision but then only asked that the visitation be kept. He continued to go to court asking that Farrow be forced to comply and Farrow continually refused and, in the meantime, poisoned two small children to the point that they are traumatized still when they hear his name.
You do recall what we're debating, right? The issue was that Allen was not a parent to the Previn kids but was a parent to his own kids in clear contrast.
"I wasn't making excuses--or if I was, I'm as "undevoted" as Woody is. I don't deal with pediatricians as a general rule, and my ex makes all the dentist appointments and, until recently, haircuts. Teacher problems always go through him, too, and I didn't know the names of most of Spawn's teachers at his last school. He's much more logistically on top of things than I am. It's quite common--although far more so for the father, as a general rule, than the mother."
I can't even conceive of not knowing the names of the teachers, friends, pets or doctors of a child of mine. Maybe we do have different standards.
"Incidentally, Moses was Mia's adoption--Allen stepped in later. I suspect the reason he filed for Moses as well is because he didn't want to be singling out two kids over the others. But there's no reason why he would have known much about Moses. I've said before that my points concern the two youngest children."
Adoption is forever. Under the laws of every state and under the law of morality, an adopted child is to be loved and respected as if he were the biological offspring of the parent. I don't know why you are dismissive of the emotion pain this child suffered at the hands of his father.
"I grant you that Allen is no poster child for daddyhood"
Before you called him a "devoted father".
Charges of pedophilia are not unheard of from spurned spouses as a way of punishing the person who has rejected them.
Circumspection on the part of critical speculators could save them some of their own integrity.
Actually, I said he was devoted to his children. Erin switched it to "devoted father". But in either event, one can be a devoted father and still not be a poster child for daddyhood. I think Bill Clinton is, from all reports, a damn good parent--far better than many far more faithful husbands, and far better at it than Allen and he wouldn't get that poster either. One can love one's kids and be the best parent possible without being the best parent going.
I don't know why you are dismissive of the emotion pain this child suffered at the hands of his father.
I'm not dismissive of it at all--I just don't think that it's real. Allen was not his father. Farrow adopted him shortly after her divorce from Previn and raised him for several years with the Previn brood before Allen adopted him. I suspect that Farrow demanded he adopt him at the same time they adopted Dylan because it would make Moses feel bad (he was the only one who didn't have a dad). I'm not excusing Allen, but at the same time I think it's quite likely that he agreed to it because it would make the kid feel less left out. But Moses had his own life as part of Previn's brood and was not incorporated into Allen's life. Dylan, who was a new child, was.
So the fact that Allen wasn't bonded to Moses has nothing to do with the fact that he was bonded to the other two kids. I also think it is to Allen's mild credit that he didn't allow his lack of feeling for Moses to make the kid feel left out--even though it ultimately weakened his case.
I don't think that Moses thought of Allen as his "daddy" any more than Allen thought of him as his son.
When you actually grow up, you'll realize that there are many things that you can't conceive of that still occur and also don't mean what you so confidently assume they mean. (Mia Farrow had a zillion pets, btw.)
There are plenty of ways to love and cherish one's children, and there are many ways that people can be loving and devoted parents in their own way. It doesn't make them marvellous parents. But if you wish to seriously argue that not knowing the name of your child's teacher is grounds to lose all access to the child, then you're the pathetic incompetent.
I'd like to think that when you grow up you'll also realize that Farrow was by far the more damaging of the two--but given your frenetic need to fuss I fear you're more likely to emulate her style than not. Still, I shall remain optimistic.
I'm assuming you don't have the resources that Allen, and most celebrities have. Hell, I know a lot of non-celebrity dads who don't know names of teachers/pediatricians and couldn't go buy their kid new shoes/socks/underwear/clothing/diapers because they wouldn't know what size to get without asking mom first. That doesn't (necessarily) mean they are a bad parent, just a parent that hasn't handled those responsibilities.
Sounds like you have a Captain Hook complex. Reading self-help books are we?
"Hell, I know a lot of non-celebrity dads who don't know names of teachers/pediatricians and couldn't go buy their kid new shoes/socks/underwear/clothing/diapers because they wouldn't know what size to get without asking mom first. That doesn't (necessarily) mean they are a bad parent, just a parent that hasn't handled those responsibilities."
We have different standards I guess. I would never allow myself to not know these things. And I wouldn't allow a spouse not to know them either.
My point is that not knowing these things, especially if the other parent does, doesn't make one an abusive parent. And by the same token, knowing all these things doesn't necessarily make one a good parent, either.
"My point is that not knowing these things, especially if the other parent does, doesn't make one an abusive parent. And by the same token, knowing all these things doesn't necessarily make one a good parent, either."
Not knowing these things does not make someone abusive. My point was that I personally aspire to a higher standard than "not abusive".
I agree with you that an encyclopedic knowledge of your childs friends, toys, doctors, pets, etc. does not necessarily make a good parent. Indeed, knowing too much may be an indication of obsessiveness, which is a bad thing. I know people in this category too.
But aren't your standards irrelevant to this discussion?
And yet you used the lack of knowledge as "proof" of the opposite. Presumably the parents who have trounced all over the "proof" has demonstrated you really don't know what you are talking about.
This country takes away father's legal rights as if they were nothing, and then agonize for years over whether or not a crack whore should lose their kid. Pathetic, really.
There is no evidence other than Farrow's ravings that Allen molested his kid and, despite your claim to the contrary, no "experts" who have said there was anything approaching evidence. While Allen probably had no right to sole custody, he certainly had a right to joint custody--whether or not he knew his children's teacher's names. He loved his kids and there was no reason at all to take them away from them.
The judge, despite his harsh rhetoric, increased his visitation, which Farrow refused to comply with, and she continued to poison her children's minds by telling them horrible things about Allen and threatening to oust them if they didn't agree with her.
Try to educate yourself, Fielding: poisoning your kids minds and refusing them access to their father is the act of a bad parent. Not knowing your kids' teachers' names is a sign of a parent who doesn't have dealings with the school and says absolutely nothing about the quality of a parent.
"And yet you used the lack of knowledge as "proof" of the opposite. Presumably the parents who have trounced all over the "proof" has demonstrated you really don't know what you are talking about."
As usual, when you are losing an argument, you start to distort the other person's position.
The problem I had with Woody was that he didn't know anything about his kids' lives. The judge who heard all of the evidence had the same reaction. Not knowing anything about your kids is a problem.
Try to educate yourself, Fielding: poisoning your kids minds and refusing them access to their father is the act of a bad parent. Not knowing your kids' teachers' names is a sign of a parent who doesn't have dealings with the school and says absolutely nothing about the quality of a parent.
Try educating yourself CalGal: Changing the subject is a sign of your being wrong. Again.
Changing the subject is a sign of your being wrong.
Excuse me? I haven't changed the subject at all. I have said from the beginning that the person who behaved horribly and was a bad parent was Mia Farrow--that Woody Allen was not a horrible parent, not an incestuous parent, and was wrongly deprived of his children.
You have done nothing but try to prove that he raised Soon ye (wrong) and was a horrible father to his own children, using absurd "proof".
I have pointed out the inaccuracies in your assertion and returned to my primary point: the horrible parent was Farrow. Your ignorance in this matter is relevant because you have never acknowledged that Farrow's parental behavior was far more disgusting and abusive than anything Allen did.
Remember, Allen didn't lose his kids because he was a child molester. He lost his kids because the judge thought it was important that he didn't know the names of his kids' teachers.
Wrong again, CalGal.
My original post (which is still in Religion) had to do with whether Woody was "sick". I did not accuse him of incest. I did not even mention Mia Farrow.
I'm not going to parse every sentence of the past 48 hours with you. I've already refuted each of your claims, and life is too short to do it twice.
He is not sick. He is not a bad parent. He certainly didn't do anything to justify losing access to his kids. And my response to you, which I well remember, said that the sick person in that relationship was Farrow.
You have refuted none of my statements and, given your notion of what a "good" parent is, it's pretty clear that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Still, it was fun smacking you about.
And the more you rail about divorced mothers, the more I know why.
Either find one or admit the fact that you quite occasionally lie.
And you pride yourself on being civil, but I have yet to see much evidence that you aren't as rude as anyone else when you feel the situation warrants it. Which makes you no different from anyone else.
Take all further comments to the Inferno, but in any event I won't respond unless you manage to be interesting.
All of your posts about Mia Farrow were rails against divorced mothers.
Either find one or admit the fact that you quite occasionally lie.
Please. You make up shit all the time, like saying that Woody didn't know who Soon-Yi was until she was 17.
And you pride yourself on being civil, but I have yet to see much evidence that you aren't as rude as anyone else when you feel the situation warrants it. Which makes you no different from anyone else.
The key phrase is "when you feel the situation warrants it."
I am civil. I only say nasty things in retaliation.
In any event, try--if you can--not to make things personal. I have not. I have merely pointed out that your notions of parenting are disturbing.
"I never do it -- except now." Bwahahaha!
You've consistently responded by making some sort of personal assessment of me. You aren't the first to become obsessed with me, although it would be nice if you were the last.
(giggle)
Take all further comments to the Inferno, but in any event I won't respond unless you manage to be interesting.
Last one for me as well.
When the Soon Yi business first came out, I remembered a sequence from I don't remember which film, where Diane Keaton (or was it Farrow) makes a scene because she claims that Woody has been coming on to his pre-adolescent cousin. He claims that she is delusional.
Condemned out of his own mouth ... I rest my case.
I can't even find where I left off.
Woody Allen is so very boring these days. He can't even put together any good movies.
What ever happened to the concept of having children and being prepared to take care of them yourself? How about being satisfied with having one or two you can manage before you run that number up to six who you need shiftworkers to help raise?
As a divorced Mom, I would like to cordially say, “piss off”. Farrow’s life, choices and idiocies are no more representative of the average Divorced Mom than Allen’s were of the average Step-Dad.
If Cals’ posts were rails they were rails against the insanely self-absorbed not Divorced Moms.
I was railing against mothers who use their kids as ammunition and the court system that encourages that sort of behavior. Farrow is just an egregious example.
There’s self-absorbed and than there’s insanely self-absorbed.
I think you have to be insanely self-absorbed to use children as weapons in a divorce or custody dispute. By it’s very nature, you are sacrificing the needs and well being of the children to achieve your own goals and desires.
The thing is that both Allen and Farrow are self-absorbed and narcissistic, so everyone either tends to view them as much the same monster, or focus on Allen's excessively poor taste in girlfriends. But the sins just aren't in the same league. Allen was a jerk. Farrow is a monster.
It is really a sad case, I must say. Wise parents should learn from this example and have certitude that whilst all dwell in the comforts of the nest they are preparing their little sparrows for their eventual flight to stormswept skies.
I'm feeling like he's going to be resistant to it, because it will mean he won't see them every evening, but he will have more school mornings, and I proposed an every-other Friday evening plan, so he'd have more chances to make plans then. It's not really changing that much stuff around, but I think it'll be a good change.
My only quibble is that over time, switching every night might become tiresome. The ex and I are now at two weeknights each, with alternating weekends. It does get to be long for me going from Friday morning to Wednesday night, but I think it gives Spawn a bit more of a settled feeling.
Given that your kids are now used to seeing both parents daily, such a switch might be too much for them right now. Still, if you find them feeling very disrupted, very "where is my [homework, project, favorite pair of shoes]" it's something to keep in mind.
Dragonfly's Demise
I had a hard time with the leap from "my kids hippy-dippy preschool closed" to "Neither women nor children are valued." Is it just me?
I haven't finished the article yet, but that bitch needs some serious slapping.
Why is it that Salon writers are so terminally stupid?
They hired the wrong person, had high rent and a lot of people who couldn't pay the bills on time, were tragically inept at managing the daycare--and it's proof that society doesn't value women or children?
THIS USETA BE NEWS
click on NEW KID ON THE CELL BLOCK 
I am sooooo tired of childcare being considered a "woman's issue"--worse, a feminist issue.
I was really hoping she'd attempt some explanation of what a "progressive" daycare is. But I knew that was probably wishful thinking.
In any event, "Berkeley" is not a subtle distinction, and any nimrod who came back with "So? All you Californians are like that" would indeed be ignorant. Berkeley is not the equivalent of Menlo Park or Palo Alto. Most people know about it, even in those far off lands like the other LA.
But if it's a mission, why is she getting a doctorate?
Nothing more annoying than an upper middle class woman who whines and can't cope. Find me that woman anon, I'll give her something to whine about. I'll tailate her in her SUV and scare her so bad her leather seats will have peestains.
Oh, and to most people in this LA, the rest of the US consists of "up north" and California. That is all.
You think so, but I guarantee you I could give any of your LA-ians five city names--Berkeley, San Francisco, Watts, Beverly Hills, and Malibu--and most would be able to identify not only whether they are northern or southern California, but a solid identifying characteristic for each one. And for Berkeley, it'd be, "those fucking communist wackos". (To which any Northern California would say, "excuse me, that's fucking communist lesbian wackos, thanks." As a clarifyier, you understand, to balance out what they would have said about San Francisco.)
Maria,
I suspect that anyone in Berkeley who is studying technology and culture is doing so with the permission of the hard-line communists. Begin the breakdown from within.
Undoubtedly. Couldn't we visit her and give her some genuine familiarity with bone crunching? It seems only reasonable.
Seriously--why is it that so many women still demand that feminism take on the cause of child care? Don't they see how counterproductive that is?
Poor iddle oman!
And yet somehow I managed to find daycare that was well-run, nurturing, educational, clean, and so popular with my girl that I had a hard time convincing her to come home with me when I went to pick her up.
This place had been around when my best friend's kids, who are now in their 20s, were little and it was there with the same director and management when LD, now 13, was 4. In the two years I took LD there, only one caregiver left and was replaced. LD had the same person for her group the whole two years. The place was clean and safe and loving and taught her more than most preschools. All the caregivers had to get a minimum of 40 hours of early childhood education each year as well as keep up their Red Cross First Aid and CPR certifications.
I don't know what it costs now (yes, it's still there and still open), but in 1992 - 1994, it was $220 a month, or a mere $2640/year. A far cry from the articles $13K/year. Of course, that was in Las Cruces, NM where the cost of living is pennies compared to California, but still....
Daycare is very expensive. I don't think it's $1000/year even in California, although my experience with it is as out of date as yours is. I paid $650/month for Spawn from 88-94, and that was high but not the highest--at the time, 800-900/month was the chi-chi price.
Yes, but first and foremost it is a parenting issue. As long as women co-opt it as their issue, why the hell should men get fussed? So long as a woman's response to "I can't find affordable daycare" is "so I'll quit my job", what motivation is there for men to worry about it?
"We can't find affordable daycare so I'll be working swing, honey. You'll need to get home by 3--if not, find a babysitter. See you later."
And that really is exceptionally inexpensive. Are you in the City? There might be more competition there.
At one point in my long struggle to "fix" my marriage, I complained to a counselor about how much more of the work I was doing. I not only worked full-time (as did he at that point), but I did all of the cooking and all of the housework, and all of the care of the livestock (horses, dairy goats, chickens, and meat rabbits). I was even custom making all of his shirts for him because he had trouble (he said) finding the "right fit" off the rack. He worked and took care of the maintenance on the vehicles.
The counselor said, "So, don't."
"Huh"
"Don't do all that. Just stop. As long as you are doing all that, why should he change? He's got life made now. This is not a problem for him."
DUH!
Epiphany time.
And I fudged a bit. "Slightly more than $13K" is actually a bit over $15K for this year.
And I love lunch and would be happy have some with you one of these days.
It didn't work.
Nothing - not doing everything he wanted, not refusing to do everything he wanted, not talking to him, not crying at him, not begging him, not yelling at him, not trying to "get him to understand", not even two years of counseling - Nothing I did got him to be nice to me.
Hence my now single state.
However, in a more normal marriage, assuming that both partners want the basic stuff of housework, meal preparation, and child care done, one will take up the slack the other one leaves. Or else they might even talk to each other and negotiate a compromise where there is conflict.
My personal opinion is the person who cares the most about a particular chore and how it is done is the person who should do it. If that's you, then do it, and quitcherbitchin'. In the case of the chores that everyone hates, take turns.
But in all the whining in that article, she brought up none of that. Her daycare was supposed to pay below market rent just because that would be "supporting women and children" and all that other bullshit. She thought she was seeing the big picture by being so PC as to send her kids to daycare with kids of other socio-economic classes and races, but in the end it was all about MEEEEEE.
I also think it is complicated. We have a lot of laws and protections in place that increase the cost of daycare and make it unlikely that all but the most dedicated will enter. Do we want to change that? No, not for the most part.
So the way to increase the availability of daycare is to increase demand--and that's not going to happen as long as women are willing to stay home if they can't find it. They need to do more inconveniencing of the menfolk--or not have children until they can afford the daycare of their choice.
I'm not saying that this must happen; I'm just pointing out that the current situation is largely predictable. If women are going to assume all the responsibility for nurturing and opt out of the financial aspect, then daycare is always going to be relatively rare. And so long as we continue giving lip service to Mom being home as Best for The Child, there will be resistance to increasing the subsidy for daycare--after all, it "insults" those women who stay home.
The attitude I see around here quite often is not that women are not working because they can't find good daycare - it's because they just don't want to. I only work part-time, while my kids are in school and some of the women I know still look at me like I'm from space because I "went back to work".
I completely agree with you about women not working because they don't want to--even given that you live in the rather rarefied air of Marin.
Yep, that's what I see as the problem.
Moms can (and most do) take very good care of their children. Guess what? So can Dads. So can Uncles, Aunts, Grandparents, Daycare workers, Nannies, ....
There is nothing about carrying a child in a uterus and giving birth and nursing a child that makes a person inherently the best caregiver for said child.
Ah, yes, Marin - where one woman on the playground once exclaimed to her friend about me "and she has two kids -- without ANY help!!" There is my husband, of course, but they don't count for much up here. Not expected to do much beyond bringing home the supersize paycheck.
There are a lot of SAH moms here, and they are all amazed that I go to school full-time. In fact, I can't think of any of the girls' friends moms' who works even part-time. I can't say that I don't know how they afford it, because we are basically a one-income family too, but it does surprise me that so many of them are amazed that I can manage it. It's more flexible, in many ways, than working.
I believe the stats are that 67% of all women with preschoolers work. Figure that a good percentage of them are either on welfare or married to someone in the "working poor" category, and that in the upscale populations women quite often take off because they can afford to. So who is working? It must be all the middle income folks, whose combined income is between 75-100? That's a guess.
What's your risotto recipe? Answer in H&G...I have a great one for butternut squash risotto.
However, I see nothing wrong with allowing her Social Security payments to be deducted from her husband's paycheck.
It's only if/when divorce sets in that they start realizing all the things they can't count on any more.
What I find particularly odd is that you can only promote stay at homing as a good thing if you then say that working is a bad thing. Yet you won't find anyone proposing a "working mothers tax" tax to subsidize the SocSec of the sahms.
I don't see why this is true. Can't it a good thing for some and working be a good thing for some, too?
When you're giving tax breaks for it? I think not. Encouraging women to stay home rather than work is clearly a statement that one is better for the children than the other.
Now, I realize that anyone would rapidly disavow any suggestion that working mothers hurt their children. But that is the implication. At issue is only whether you need to hurt your children or whether you just do it to be selfish.
Of course, two working parents is always better for the children, unless one parent is staying home as a luxury that they can truly afford.
Certainly the callers all did. Much self-congratulatory talk about giving up careers to raise smart healthy kids etc.
Oh, I know. Very irritating.
It is incredibly stupid for a young mother who can't afford daycare to stay at home. Over time, the family is far better off if she works, even if it means that the two parents have to split shifts or work odd hours.
Besides, it is irresponsible for a woman to have a child that she can't provide for. My lord, it's disgusting to think that in this day and age we consider her act of marrying to be sufficient provision.
That's because you're not really thinking about it. Two incomes is always more protection than one. Incomes increase over time. Work history increases over time.
To say nothing of the fact that a family who can't afford daycare really ought to have waited longer to have a child, or ensured that they had schedules that meant they didn't need it. Then they can vote for politicians who support bigger daycare subsidies.
And you think of "for the children" as one given point in time. Take that same family, and divorce it--and then tell me how the mom did what was best for her kids.
There is nothing inherently valuable about staying at home. The kids don't do better, the family is at financial risk, and divorce puts the mother on welfare in most cases. To say nothing of the fact that the mother will always have fewer assets, and even if the marriage stays together until the kids are older, what money will she have for retirement? Oh, but it's okay. The kids can assume the burden of caring for her. Yet another way she did well by her kids.
And suppose dad loses his job? Then they'll be one of those stories on TV--the tragic family, living out of a car, three kids, no home. The mom was a stay at home and couldn't get a job when one was needed so they lose their house and everything else. Lookie that, another way to do well by your kids!
There's no emotional advantage to the kids, and huge financial risks. The only thing stay at home moms do is make things easier for themselves and sometimes for their husbands. But they sure as hell do it with a lot of risk for no benefit to their kids.
It can be an option for the middle class, but only if they consider it a priority and work hard to build up a cushion for several years while one parent stays at home. Even then, the stay at home parent (usually the woman) is at a severe disadvantage. And as it is, most of them play the odds and a good number end up divorced. Even if their kids don't end up on welfare, they end up far worse off than they would have been had both parents behaved responsibly.
It should be strongly discouraged in the poor. My lord, the words "we couldn't afford daycare" ought to be enough to mandate a tax penalty.
I was not actually criticizing their decisions to SAHM. I was criticizing their attitude about it. As far as the quote above, I think you will find bad parents among both groups. I don't think most people who use daycare can be accused of thoughtlessly warehousing their kids.
I have to leave now to go to the doctor...back later.
Advancement isn't relevant. Work at K-mart, you still get raises. You are still building a work history. You still have references.
You may assume people who haven't the sense to plan a pregnancy will increase their net worth rather than continue to make stupid decisions
No, I'm sure they will still make stupid decisions. One of the stupid decisions is staying home.
You also assume most marriages will end in divorce
I never said that "most" marriages end in divorce. Many do. Around 30%, give or take.
None of this is anything even remotely approaching a rebuttal, Judith. Women who can't afford daycare are irresponsible if they have children, and they compound that irresponsibility if they continue to stay home.
You're wrong on that one. There is no difference. Study after study demonstrates this--for every study revealing that kids in daycare get colds more often, there's one that points out that kids at home are more likely to have asthma (no doubt from parents who smoke). And so on. There has most assuredly not been anything approaching a knockout punch for stay at home parenting--in fact, kids that stay at home until kindergarten are now at a decided disadvantage.
You can also look at 30 years of the results. Is there any adult behavior--negative or positive--that correlates to whether or not their parents worked?
Now, look at all the social ills caused by irresponsible women who don't assume financial responsibility for their kids. At the top of the list is welfare, obviously--whether the women didn't have a husband to start with or not. But there are plenty others. The fact that children take a socioeconomic hit after divorce is due almost exclusively to the fact that their mothers didn't bother to live up to their end of financial responsibility--but still got custody anyway.
Of course, the really amusing thing is that this discusison began when you contradicted my post pointing out how illogical it was to praise women who stayed home without penalizing those who worked. You said, ". Can't it a good thing for some and working be a good thing for some, too?"
Now you are saying that daycare is worse than being at home, which is a tad contradictory.
It hardly matters what I say...you can win at any argument because you have such a passion for debate. I don't.
And yet this dislike for debate didn't stop you from making rather strong statements in disagreement, disapproving of other opinions stated.
And much of the disapproving and disagreement were things I didn't necessarily mean the way you took them.
For instance, when I said it was better for someone who couldn't afford daycare to stay home rather than put their child in an inferior daycare, you took that to mean I was slamming people who used daycare...
You seem to be ever ready to jump on people and believe it or not, it rattles some of them once in awhile. I guess the best way to avoid that, in my case, would be for me to keep quiet when I don't have facts and studies at my fingertips and when my opinion isn't sought.
No, I didn't take it that way at all. I took issue with you describing it as "better"--and you also seemed to think that it was obviously better. If you're going to make comparisons as assertions, you might want to back them up.
But that's not the dilemna that drives the debate at the national level. Most vocal SAHM's are lauding their own decision to leave the marketplace, not decrying their inability to enter it. Certainly the woman I heard on the radio was not arguing for better daycare so moms can work. She was arguing for better subsidies so moms can SAH.
I think that a day or two a week I had to go into work early, and so we had a babysitter for those times. But the overall cost was quite small. I think that if women who couldn't afford full-time daycare really wanted to work, they could find a way to arrange things so that they could, find an evening job, let dad be the one to take care of the kids during that time.
I am very torn on the whole is it better for kids to stay at home in their early years or go to daycare. My plan is, if I have another child, to work part-time, for at least the first year or two. But I think that's mostly selfishness on my part, because I feel like things were so chaotic when the girls were tiny, I'd really like to be able to treasure that time if I get the chance to have it again, and now I know that they grow up so fast! I have also learned that staying home full-time with nothing else to do makes me insane. I can't be all baby all the time, no matter how charming the idea sounds.
I also used to think that daycare was bad for kids, but the school K went to kindergarten at was just great, and a toddler would have had a blast there. And if daycare really was worse for kids, studies that have been done would be much more conclusive than they are. I think that all any studies have shown is that there may be different advantages and disadvantages to the two options.
We start next week. I'm very excited. I have all these old fond memories of my dad sitting down with us after dinner and doing stuff, and now I shall actually have a few nights a week when I can spend after dinner time with the girls!
No, not really. For one thing, I think the next option should be working a separate shift from the father, so that each parent can provide care for their child if daycare is too expensive.
But the worst daycare really isn't bad enough to justify a mother saying that it's better for her to stay at home. It sounds dramatic to say that you wouldn't leave a dog in that kind of condition, but they don't really exist. Besides, most women who can't afford anything but the very worst daycares probably aren't providing superlative care themselves. So they're better off working and hopefully getting to the point where they can pay for daycare that might actually do their kids some good despite their disadvantage in parents.
As Jamie points out, the push for more subsidies isn't supported by poor women (who probably haven't even heard of it), but the middle class who want tax breaks as one more lauding of their irresponsible behavior.
I think your own post answers this: it is a great deal easier (in the non-pejorative sense) on the mother.
That's not a bad thing at all, but it is a great deal different from saying that women should stay home and be supported in doing so with tax breaks--even though the stats on stay at homes over all, as well as women's income overall, suggest that this is an extremely bad idea.
As for your desire to stay home being "selfish"--what's wrong with doing something purely because you want to? The thing to make sure of is your financial viability. If you have that secured by something more reliable than a marriage license, then what's the harm in having fun with your kids while they're little?
I only object when it is presented as a duty and a moral obligation as the best thing for on'es kids, rather than a luxury.
I think that all any studies have shown is that there may be different advantages and disadvantages to the two options.
Exactly. I find this incredibly frustrating. By now, you'd think that someone would be looking for other correlations--say, maybe, parental behavior? But no, every one is still looking for the silver bullet answer.
Of course, they're just going to want to watch TV after dinner. But at least you can do it with them! (g)
And I so agree that women need to think of how they could earn money. I wasted a great deal of time in my first marriage watching my husband go through school (and doing half his homework) and not seriously thinking about any career goals that I could have. Of course, then I saw things like sending children to daycare much differently than I do now. It took me a while to break away from that oh-so-conservative background!
We will see what they want to do after dinner! They don't watch much tv here, and it seems like if I do homework at the table they love to come sit with me out there and work on their own projects. Which I think is very cute. Maybe I can teach K. some linear algebra next quarter, I think her math at school isn't challenging enough for her.
(I guess I'm assuming you meant mostly matrix math and not the heavy theory stuff. How old is your daughter?)
There's just one problem--the people who now benefit from the marriage tax status will be pissed off as hell. And since I think the majority of marriages have either just one income or the situation where one spouse makes a lot more than the other, that might not go over well.
But you got my vote.
I get so tired of the deadly serious discussion about "communication" and "space" and teenagers. I've never had any problem pulling parental rank, setting limits, and insisting on standards of behavior. I have done this calmly and coolly, and also at the top of my lungs. By contemporary standards, this makes me a "bad" parent. Now, this wouldn't be a big deal, if I weren't constantly
seeing guilt ridden parents being thugged around by their own offspring.
Conversations with our adolescent cherubs often ran along these lines:
Son: Why can't I go_____________ (fill in the blank)
Me: Because I said "no." Yer last stunt convinces me that you are not yet ready to handle the responsibility of unsupervised
__________ (fill in the blank).
Son: This is bullshit...that wasn't my fault!
Me: Think carefully. What is it about walking away, dialing a phone, and calling your parents to come pick you up, that you don't grasp?
Son: (muttering under his breath... he thinks) What are you gonna do if I just go...?
Me: I heard that. And just so you know, I will hunt you down, humiliate you in front of your friends, and commit the rest of my born days to making your life miserable.
Son: You already do that.
Me: I can do it better.
Now I consider this type of exchange basically normal, even healthy...the negotiations continue, tempers cool, and more often than not, compromise is achieved. Standing one's ground with one's teen aged offspring is NOT abusive. Yet I'm seeing parents today wringing their hands over potential damage to the fragile adolescent psyche because of one little word: "No." Sad.
I wouldn't call it abusive, just unbelievably dysfunctional and counterproductive.
I would consider it a good exchange in many respects because son asked permission. I think in a worse situation son makes plans and alibi and does what he wants to without consultation. (At least, that's what I did as a teen.)
It makes her a lucky (if not particularly capable) Mom, is all.
Disclaimer: I don't know anni (never even heard of her before today, in fact) and I'm sure she's a perfectly good mother in many respects. But this 'scenario' sure ain't one of them.
Yeah, that's what I hear, Jon...of course, wouldn't know it by meeting the young men we've raised...but hey...whatever you say.
There ya go Bub...what everyone misses when I describe these kinds of encounters is both the underlying humor, and the tacit acknowledging that it is all going to work out, basically to everyone's satisfaction. I learned early that the art of negotiation when dealing with teenagers is not about expecting "adult" responses from your kids.
Boys will be boys. Showing disrespect to your children and abusing your parental authority just leads to hostility, rebellion and another generation of bad parenting.
Suggest the dialog that you think would have been better.
I don't think that my actions as a teen were admirable. They certainly put me in some potentially dangerous situations that would have best been avoided. My actions arose from too little parental oversight, not too much.
Living where I do my perspective is very likely skewed, but there's actually a lot more parental control of teens than people seem to think. Most of the teens I know like that who rule the roost have parents who really don't care what they do anyway, or are too lazy or intimidated to raise their teens.
My problem with Mose is the opposite. She's very responsible and mature in some ways, and she tries to get onto me sometimes for stuff I do, which bugs the crap out of me. I keep having to remind her who gave birth to whom.
Son, first of all, let me tell you how much I love you and how proud you make me to be your Mom. I don't want anything bad to happen to you, ever.
Now, the last time that you did such and such, you exposed yourself to certain risks that are unacceptable. I lost lots of sleep worrying about you and you might have gotten yourself killed. (or locked up, or your girlfriend pregnant, or whatever) To show me that you are willing to be responsible, what steps are you willing to take to help reassure me that this sort of thing doesn't happen again?
Damn I'm good.
Jon, I rest my case.
Positive reinforcement of good behavior is infinitely more effective than punishment of bad behavior.
Most parents are too lazy. It's a lot easier to cop out and power trip. Doesn't make you a bad person, but it sure as hell doesn't make you a parental role model.
It's good as a monologue. I'd have to hear the other side of the conversation and the response before I knew if your system was better. And when your son takes your kind concern and tells you to shove it up your ass, Dad, you do what?
Judith says I can't have an opinion on parenting because I'm not one (even though I have 4 of them and my best friend is the best Mom in the universe).
How lovely.
Arky
The scenario involved a good kid, not a wild and crazy, crack smoking, date-raping, 7-11 robbing, delinquent. But 99.9% of kids turn out the way they're raised to turn out. So in most cases the parents get the kids they deserve.
I'll agree with that...and I must deserve the best because that's what I have.
I'm sorry, Jon, I didn't realize you had children. Congratulations.
Love your kids. Respect them. Nourish their minds. Communicate with them. Give them responsibility while setting reasonable limits. Watch them blossom.
And with that, I bid you all adieu.
TTFN
Mine is too, arky...and I'll get my mea culpas out of the way early. Out here in podunk, parents are more likely to know what their kids are doing, unless said parents are blind, stupid, uninvolved, or simply not parent material.
Lifestyles are a factor here, and before I get hammered on thinking that our rural experiences constitute the norm...please know I don't believe any such thing.
It's not that I don't sympathize with parents today...but fer cryin' out loud...get a spine.
That was the beauty of a love unsanctioned by Church or State, we did the math both ways and which ever ended up most favorable was how we filed. This is my first April dealing with the marriage penalty and I am fucking pissed.
parents get the kids they deserve.
Cool...then we've done some fine work.
Lemme put it to you this way, Jon. The type of lovely monologue you put forth only inspired the comedian in the three we raised.
Ever had your kid check your forehead, wondering about a possible fever? :*
And I'm with arky...but don't tell me...let me guess...
Your offspring responded to your heartfelt sincerity with the maturity and commitment that goes with genuine adulthood.
What can I say...you are godlike.
Arky A
anni F
Judith F
No bambini just yet. Waiting a couple of years until the technology is available so that I can clone myself (I mean, if you're going to be a parent, why not ensure that your children will be perfect in every way?)
Jon F
Let us know how it all works out fer ya, guy...
anni, I think it sounds like a great exchange. I don't see anything disrespectful about it, and kid knows exactly why he doesn't get to do what he wants, and what will happen if he does. And even if tempers are high, there's still the underlying humor of it. And not every time is a time for serious, you know I love you son, exchanges.
For my entertaining (to me, at least) child story of the day, I drew up a little chart of how our new arrangement with the girls will work, showed it to them, thinking they might be concerned or worried about having things changed around. K's only concern was that the color I'd used to color in my time with them was too dark, and she couldn't read the words underneath very well.
I'm sure it would take 4 parents to raise such an exemplary speciman.
You've already failed the reading test, don't flunk the spelling test too, Sweetie. It's specimen.
Now, I know what you're thinking, men is plural and man is singular. But trust me, honey, in this case they've made an exception.
And only 2 of them raised me. The other 2 were for breeding purposes only.
And just to cover my ass, wherof way back when should have been whereof.
Or you could become a doctor....
A surprise, joy, and honor to see that you didn't invoke the old 'typo' excuse. Kudos on your honesty.
And truth be told, although my spelling kicks ass, my punctuation sucks.
As far as curbing my smugness goes, I thought that's exactly what I was admonishing anni to do (belatedly so, in that it seems that her kids are all grown up now.)
If you approach parenthood whilst under the impression that you are omniscient and omnipotent and your children are essentially chattel (which is the impression that anni's scenario conveyed, at least, to me), you're bound to suck as a parent.
And you would know, Jon...
Lessee, wasn't there a horror movie along the lines of Jon's parenting approach...The Stepford Kids?
Get over yerself, Guy...your smarmy Brady Bunch one-sided dialogue works only in your imagination...unless of course, you actually plan on raising Stepford Kids.
Nobody likes criticism, but it is particularly irritating/bothersome to have one's parenting skills criticized. So I understand why your rhetoric is a little out there.
All I'm saying is that I'd take a mother who empowers, supports, encourages and actively loves her children any day over a mother who is domineering, controlling, and rules with the attitude 'My way or the highway.' You are welcome to disagree.
Yes, this is what I am doing.
But could you humor me, Jon, and supply the other side of that "imaginary" conversation? Tell me how you hear your hypothetical offspring responding to your "loving guidance."
Hey, are your boys at the age where they are tag-teaming you? Wait until puberty...when you find yourself having precisely the same conversation every Friday and Saturday night...if not with one, then the other, and usually with both. ;)
"You've already failed the reading test, don't flunk the spelling test too, Sweetie."
In most writing courses a comma splice counts as a worse error than a misspelled word.
Of course, I think he does serve a useful purpose in this conversation. Definitely an example of how parents can fuck up egregiously.
My crew is in Tahoe right now...annual father-spawn ski trip. There's no one here to practice my dysfunctional and counterproductive parenting style on...
But this last weekend in the company of an SIL and her progeny makes me real glad my "parenting" work is essentially done. On the plus side, my nephews are now scared of me...and so we muddled through pretty well. ;*
Memorial
I think it's odd that the angst-ridden parents who fuss about saying "no" to their kids without sympathy or sorrow are often the same ones that will ignore what's best for their kids in a heartbeat if it interferes with what's best for them.
All that guilt is just another form of self-indulgence.
Well put, anni. I'd also throw in a mother and father who love each other and relate well to each other.
Incidentally, Cal's little obsessive, off-topic rant is more than a little misleading. But I don't want to start a flame war in here, so I'll do my best to ignore her.
If it ever becomes possible, it would be nice if my Louise (7) and Keri (4) could meet Erez and Tami...
But BEFORE adolescence, please!!
An our or so later of searching, she comes to us and tells us that the thing wasn't that important to her after all. We compliment her pragmatism, priorities, and good sense.
So, first I turn her on her stomach - still squalling. Then I remember my little brother - and his tale of his colicky daughter and how he'd take her in the baby carriage and run down the most rooty bouncy paths in the forest to soothe her. The bouncier the better. So I start bouncing Freja, singing a silly bouncy song. And that does it. She just stops. Looks around. And, within a couple of minutes conks out.
Did you smack him once calm had been restored? Explain to him the difference between "you do it" and "your turn, dear, and I'll spell you in 20".
I had one of those electic swings that worked sometimes.
I had a sheepskin rug that worked sometimes.
Car drives worked sometimes.
Putting her car seat on top of the dryer (with it on full tilt) worked sometimes (of course, I had to be there to be sure the damn thing didn't vibrate right off the top of it).
Rocking, walking, bouncing, singing, crying, etc.
All worked sometimes, but never all the time.
I met a woman on a plane when my daughter was about 6 months old (and over her colic), who had a 14 month old son still in the throws of it. She looked a wreck, and was on the verge of a divorce because the husband couldn't take it anymore.
I felt nothing but pity, and was grateful my daughter's bout with it was short and fairly managable.
Actually, most of the time I hand her to him when she gets fussy and I'm at a loss. Which usually works great. This was the first time she was out and out screaming for a long time. (Well, comparatively).
Washing machine, drying machine, pretty much the same action for the baby. Someone needs to invent seat belts for them, though, otherwise, you still have to stand or sit there in total exhaustion.
I've heard that running the vacume helps for colicky babies.
Nothing we ever tried to keep him in his bed worked, until finally in despair we simply removed everything with which he could hurt himself from the room and left him to it at nights. He's now an adult and still doesn't sleep. I've come to the conclusion he's probably a vampire.
The Onion's Toy Buying Tips
One of my fondest memories as a child is the Christmas my parents bought us these 18" plastic Shogun Warrior dolls (ahem, action figures) that fired projectiles from every conceivable orifice. 6 year old heaven.
Conversely, when I was about 9 I saved up all my proof-of-purchase symbols and ordered a rocket firing Boba Fett doll (this was before Empire Strikes Back had even hit the theaters! How cool was I?!) I waited and waited and waited for the damn thing and when it finally came it didn't fire anything.
Seems some stupid little kid choked on one and so mine got recalled. Shortly thereafter, as a wave of total madness swept the country, all of the cool rocket firing toys disappeared from the shelves, and the golden days of my childhood ended.
Fortunately adolescence was right around the corner and I was able to find solace in a long series of Piers Anthony naked unicorn books.
Heh. Have you read the "Toy Recalled Because of Three Stupid Dead Kids" article in the Onion? It ran a few months back.
These newfangled Little People just seem wrong. And don't get me started on Weebles. That said, I did recently see a child put the head of an old-fashioned Little Person in her mouth.
My Korean friends had even cooler toys that their folks brought back from overseas, and these things would shoot little metal pieces. And I used to play with lawn darts. It's a miracle I'm alive today.
My childhood also saw the end of reckless carefree for-all-you-know-some-madman-put-acid-in-there food packaging.
I confess that more than a few of my Star Wars figures left this mortal coil in a blaze of lighter fluid and fireworks.
Needless to say, we had races round the barrier. Each start at the same point and go round in different directions. My mother said that we couldn't run, we had to walk. So we walked really, really fast.
Does it produce welts, cuts, or bruises?
Well no, not by design. But if my crew couldn't figure out a way to produce the above-mentioned welts, cuts, or bruises, then the toy was no good.
Paranoid Parenting
An exerpt:
I was reading Paranoid Parenting in a train station cafe. The woman at the next table was ringing each of her four children on their mobile phones in Weston-super-Mare, trying to persuade one of them to put the dinner on. Three were watching television and wouldn't budge; she manoeuvred the fourth into the kitchen and impressively talked him through cooking sausages while rolling her eyes to the ceiling.
I can't imagine. Heads would roll when the sons pulled this kind of crap on us. However, the first casualty was always the television. :*
Gotta be...
It is funny though...sick minds could run with that one.
Then, you duct tape the little rugrat to the top of the machine, and turn it on till the kid's asleep.
Any further advice, I charge a substantial fee for.
He's not so interested in their approval, but the tone of it all suggests to him that they don't have a very high opinion of his judgment.
My advice was, you're 22, take off, get the fuck away, stop visiting except for holidays. Once you have your feet under you and you're independent, it won't be an issue at all. And then you'll find visiting genuinely enjoyable.
At the same time, it makes me sad to think there might (probably will) come a day when my daughter can't wait to get far away from me, even if just for a while. Bittersweet indeed.
I think I can accept that he will look forward to his "freedom", and I hope that he'll never feel he has to renounce me in order to have it.
Today is Spawn's 13th birthday.
My particular fear has always been the teen years. I've always hoped that if I focused on asserting authority appropriately while respecting his need for autonomy, that we could make it through these years with the usual tussles that come with parenting, but nothing more. I couldn't bear it if Spawn began to treat me like the title of that book, "Get Out of My Life, but First Could You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall?" or if he began treating me with the contemptuous scorn that I sometimes see in teens towards their parents. Likewise, I couldn't bear it if I began talking about Spawn with that "shrugged shoulder" voice I hear in others. I know it's not inevitable and I know that it's also not the end of the world if it does happen. But I'd really rather not; it would be such a loss to me.
So this morning I woke him up, but not too early, and made much of him. He was pleased, and gave me a big hug and asked if I could remember when he was born, and I told him all the stories. Then I gave him a list of chores (he's home from school today) and he grumbled and bitched. I said tough and that he'd better have them all done or I'd be cranky. When I was leaving, he said "thanks for waking me up to my birthday; it was great!"
So far, so good.
PP, I understand what you meant and I actually meant something like that myself, I just didn't express myself very well.
No, I didn't mean it quite that way. It's more like a sign of changing priorities.
My parents are perfectly fine people, and perfectly fine parents. But people in close relationships do things that drive each other crazy. They drive me crazy too, sometimes. And he is at that awkward stage where you and your parents are not quite equal adults yet.
So my point was not- run away, avoid your problems. My point was, this is not a problem. Your relationship with your parents isn't a real priority right now. If they're bugging you and you're not enjoying their company, then find other company.
Another option, of course, is to heart to heart it out, but in his case I don't see the point. Why have all those boring "I'm an adult now" conversations when you can just go be an adult?
Thanks, everyone, that is very sweet. Spawn knows all about the Mote and I'll show him your good wishes.
Incidentally, Psychprof, you're right that my brother has some growing left to do. I think he still sees himself a lot in comparison to me and our oldest brother. All the more reason to get away from family for a while IMO.
Mose stayed home today for spring break and cleaned house. It was a very pleasant surprise, and much needed.
Att du ar fodd just idag
Att du ar fodd just idag
Precis idag
A Swedish birthday song for Spawn and Jamies daugther.
From swede # 2
Spawn was very touched when I told him about all your happy birthdays. I imagine he'll cajole me into letting him post a response at some point.
I saw my little niece and nephew last night (2 and 8 months). Lord, they're adorable.
They're wonderful. All those people that ominously say "life will never be the same" held out on the secret - it is better with kids!
(Well, at least so far - I've only been a parent for 7 weeks).
to Spawn!
and to Jamie's daughter!
Happy birthday, Jamie's daughter!
This weekend we visited some friends and their 8-month-old daughter. What a propaganda baby--she was all dimples and smiles and good cheer. She also seemed very smart to me. They put out some Cheerios for her (she was lying on a square of cloth on the floor) and instead of crawling towards them--she doesn't crawl yet--she just grabbed the cloth and pulled it towards her until she could reach the cereal.
Of course, I read somewhere that babies are at their maximum level of pure amiability between 5-9 months. They can communicate with others, but they haven't figured out how much they want yet--and how much of it they can't have.
Spawn used to say, "I need that, Mom" when he was 3. I couldn't figure out for the longest time, until I realized that when he asked for something I would often say, "No, sweetie, you don't need that right now." So he was just circumventing a step. Cracked me up.
She always brings that shit up at bedtime, too.
she seems interested.
She is also very fascinated by the computer screen and by books.
Jamie,
That's hysterical. I can't wait until my nephew starts making words. He's the happiest kid on earth so far. Even when he was really sick last week he'd giggle and smile a lot. Of course then he'd hack and cough, but he thinks his body sounds are the funniest thing on the planet. He's constantly cracking himself up laughing at what we have no idea. He gets that from his dad.
Particularly the laughing about burps and farts.
He had told me the week before, on his way to trumpet lessons, that I could get him one thing and he would be purely and perfectly happy for his birthday: three piece cranks. (pedals for his BMX)
I dropped him off and, because I am prone to forget things, headed right to the Off Ramp (his bike store) and got him a killer set of cranks, apparently. I also bought him a gift certificate for $25, so that he could get some other knickknack.
Threw it in the trunk of the car, way in back. The next day, he was getting his bike rack out of the car and said, "What'd you get from the Off Ramp?" I was totally pissed at him for noticing and said, airily, "Oh, a gift certificate. Don't be snoopy." I figured he wasn't fooled, but in case he had been I regularly referred to his gift certificate--when I cleaned out the car to get it detailed I mentioned to him that I'd left the certificate at the shop and had to go back for it! and stuff like that.
So last night, he was opening all his presents at the family party. His little cousin, Sierra, was taking them all to him and I started with the gift certificate. He opened it up and stared at it.
Clearly, he was incredibly disappointed at the small amount (less than 20% of the cranks price). Did his damnedest to cover it up, and smiled and said, "Thanks, Mom! And thanks for this great party, too."
Hey. The cover story had worked! He thought this was all he was getting! I must take advantage of this situation!
So I held back the cranks, had Sierra toddle over with all the other gifts first. He maintained enthusiasm throughout the cash and CDs from other family members.
Only then did I haul out the big wrapped box and told him it was a little extra from me. He said, "Oh, it's going to be socks. No, it's too heavy for socks. A book?"
You should have seen his face. Classic.
(just kidding.) 
"Woo-hoo! That's drafty....do it again and make that scrunchy face, Ma." 
"Betcha I can do it again before you get rid of that last one." 
Stephanie,
Damn. You ruined all my enjoyment. What a perfect punchline, and I missed it completely.
Take your petty, pathetic, and completely off-topic whining elsewhere.
No, it's not about parenting. It is about whining and a need for attention. It's also off-topic. Take it to the appropriate thread if you feel the need to rant about how mean I am.
You are not mean. I never got that feeling about you. But that subject, should I want to post on it, will most certainly be in another thread.
I comment on pictures when I feel moved to. When I don't comment on pictures, it could mean many things. It could mean that I am uninterested. It could mean that I am unimpressed. It could mean that I in fact think the pictures unattractive. It could mean that I think there have been sufficient "ooh ahhs" and I figure it's time to go on to the next thing. It could mean that I didn't see them. It could mean that I chose not to see them.
You can draw no conclusions save one: I do not believe in formless, meaningless, knee-jerk politeness.
If someone receives a compliment from me, they can be assured that I mean it. It is quite unlikely that you will ever, ever receive a compliment from me. But that does not mean that you can ever assume that the reason you haven't is because I spend any time at all thinking of ways to insult you. I consider your existence on this earth rarely, and only when your importunate bleatings briefly impel me to the activity. The notion that you would draw attention to my failure to waste a post on some undoubtedly unappealing picture of you as "proof" of my desire to do so is alien and laughable.
When I wish to insult people, I do so directly, like this: MsGreer, you are a very nearly perfect specimen of drooling, bathetic cretinism. The only thing that mars the perfection is the repellant notion of using such a word on someone such as yourself.
Rest assured that I will never choose inaction as an insult.
Now. I trust you can find something else to occupy your time. Perhaps you can master another macrame knot.
It's our oldest daughter's birthday today. Unfortunately she's in hospital but she is well enough to get leave to come home for dinner and to spend the evening with us. I hope it goes well - at present she's manic and in that state can be very difficult to deal with.
I hope your girl comes for dinner. I will be thinking of you and your family.
Loving that one, CalGal. In my story, we had to wait for our kudos.
By the time the #3 son's 13th b-day rolled around, he pretty much knew he would be getting the same thing as his big brother got (football camp come summer), but he was nevertheless happy and excited about the prospect...
...until he learned he would not be joining #2 son at the same camp. His disappointment was so apparent...though he put on as mature a face as he could, we could tell he was crushed.
We wondered if we'd made the right decision. At the time, we felt that it would be best for #3 son to be involved in something important to him sans siblings. He lived in the shadow of his bigger, pretty succesful brothers for so long, and it seemed to us the "competition" was intensifying with the onset of adolescence. Given our elder sons' age advantage and faster physical development, #3 was always in a position of being "third best"... in his own eyes.
We felt a different camp would give him a better sense of himself, a place where he wasn't just the "star's" little brother.
So come late June, #3 went off, and came home brimming, confident, committed, and thanking us in so many ways. Point being, if yer spawn ain't grateful now, wait a while. You'll eventually hear it. ;)
PP,
Regarding your earlier post, my unabashedly selfish wish regarding Mose's future is please don't be a band director. She loves music, and I'm afraid she'll consider that the most convenient option for majoring in it in college, rather than taking the courses and lessons and majoring in something else. Of course she'll do whatever she wants with my blessing, but she knows I'll be disappointed. Right now she has no interest in band directing, but to do anything else with music she'd have to go to a very high-dollar out-of-state school.
Really? Gee, color me surprised.
Oh, lord. That must have been tough, waiting it out. How sweet that it played out the way you wanted it to. Did he consciously realize how good it was for him to get out from the shadow, or was that just an extra bonus for you?
Your computer has been crashing a lot lately--what's up with that?
A happy day to your daughter. I know I've said it before, but posts from you and Judith remind me how often I take good health for granted. I hope she recovers soon and her plans for life move forward.
Ummm, Snow, we haven't really met...but very best wishes to you and yours.
It's funny, reading your posts on your youngest. As an oldest child, and as the mother of a singlet, I only have my baby brother's experiences to go on, and my opinion is unbending: The youngest are always spoiled rotten.
Reality won't change that fixation much, I fear. But it's sweet to read your stories of the downside.
Not only was I the youngest, CalGal...my Dad had retired from full-time work by my arrival (oooops) ten years after my folks thought they were done...
I had both my folks at a time when they were financially comfortable, ridiculously indulgent big sisters and brothers, fond grandparents I knew too briefly, and the interest of the remarkable aunt I'm named after...
Spoiled? Moi? Nonsense...
Ah c'mon CalGal...I got the randy EE out boinking the Northern hemisphere, the Lanky One who is sooo totally his father's son...and Sir Galahad, who combines the best and worst of us both...
I adore them all...it's just that #3 is out the door now too. Not physically, not yet...but he doesn't "ask" anymore. He merely "informs." He checks in, just to let us know he's already made the decision...and we appreciate the courtesy. The "baby" is all grown up, CalGal, and yeah, I'm thinkin' about him a lot.
This is a very big step for her as she will go directly to the house she now jointly owns with her boyfriend. In fact it was almost certainly the stress of buying a house and preparing for the move that triggered her current episode, so I'm hoping like hell that it all goes well.
A passerby just happened to notice the carseat in the back of the locked car...with the dead baby in it.
She "forgot"....just a minor detail in her busy life.
In Canada, they'd make her a hero.
Some stupid twit up here claims that her one year old got out of bed and went for a walk in the snow. Fell down and froze, heart and breathing stopped. Lay there for a couple of hours.
Kid was frozen, they warmed her up, her heart restarted, aside from some frostbite, she's fine. Now the Mom's a fucking celebrity.
Retch.
Gotta run to work....
The Dallas woman "forgetting" and leaving her child in the car puts my heebie-jeebies in perspective. On the days when my daughter's father is due to pick her up from daycare, I inevitably have an irrational moment when I think that he's going to forget her there. Not that he would, he never has, but I get into the mother trap of thinking that if you aren't doing it, it isn't getting done. Yeesh. They never put this stuff in the "So You're Having A Baby!" brochure.
You should head over to thread now referred to as Von Kreedon. There are lots of folks there dying to meet you. Most are admirers, but a few wonder why you never win a singles title.
You worry about your husband forgetting? That's funny, when Spawn was a baby I always had the 20 second attack on my way to work after dropping him off--I'd left him on a bus! At home! on the street!
My ex never forgets anything task oriented, so I was always secure that any fuckup of that nature would be mine.
I think worry is too grand a term. He's always been very reliable as far as she goes (other things, well...) but your characterization of it as an "attack" is pretty accurate. It's a moment of panic, and then a few moments of talking myself down. We aren't married, and we don't live together, so it's not like there can be a comical "I thought YOU were picking her up!" exchange.
He knows I'm a freak, though, and will call me to keep me from flipping out entirely.
Fielding-- Wrong Anna. But thanks for your concern.
Did you ever hear the expression "klong"? A sudden rush of shit to the heart.
Now, a real klong is when you are halfway through an evening with friends when you suddenly remember that you'd agreed to pick up your grandmother and take her to the doctor's office--that afternoon. Totally gone. Past the point of no return. No redemption possible. You know that there are fifty voicemails of escalating concern, worry, anxiety, irritation, and resignation awaiting you at home.
Worse, you remember well past the point when you can do anything about it but the disastrously timed recollection has ruined the evening for you as well. You feel awful, doubly awful because really, couldn't your psyche have waited a few more hours before it fucked with you by reminding you of an act that was beyond the point of salvation?
A real klong is a terrible thing, even though it rarely involves anything truly terrible. Just sad, embarrassing, or neglectful. But the feeling is so awful that my psyche uses the memory of it to scare me so that I never forget really important things--like Spawn at daycare. It fakes me out with it, you know? Gives me mini-klongs over nothing, just so the sheer horror of even thinking I've left him somewhere is so awful I'll never actually be able to do it.
If you leave tags open, the "Did you put your toys away" text will be in the wrong font, size, or color.
"Toys" is how we refer to HTML tags. It's not like TT; we don't pick up after you. I had a fix for that and I took it out because it was yielding, er, unpredictable results.
Klong. I like that. Sometimes, I get an anticipatory one; it will come when I'm poised to forget something, tho' I actually haven't "passed the point of no return".
Sometimes I sit in my apartment, after the Babe has been bathed and bedded down, and I think: 'I'm doing this! Holy shit, I'm actually raising a child and being relatively responsible!' Acrobats probably think something similar-- 'I totally cannot BELIEVE that I just caught someone who was flying through the air toward me! That's amazing!' But then what's the big deal? People do it every day. Except when they leave helpless babies in their cars.
So klongs are a force for good.
HTML tags are those things with the brackets that change the formatting, right? Is the toys thing a reminder to close them? (Not a techie.)
The mom in the Dallas case didn't "forget". She didn't care. That's a whole different thing. 
One day, after arriving at a theatre, we were cheerfully ushering them all into their seats when we realised the head count didn't match the seat count. After a few minutes panic and a quick search of the theatre and the outside area I jumped into the car and headed back home. Sure enough, there was #2 son sitting on the grass verge patiently waiting.
Sounds like the start of a movie plot. Sequels, too.
My mom was one of 9 growing up. I don't think any of them were ever forgotten. Then again, they didn't go many places :-)
Oh, I don't put forgetting a pre-schooler in the same rank. All big familes have at least one story like that to tell. Ever notice that those stories never end up leaving a kid somewhere dangerous?
Leaving a baby in a car for hours on end is in an entirely different league.
I'll admit that my first thought was "My baby! Go to DC with a bunch of strangers! I think NOT!!"
My first instincts are always over the top protective paranoid.
Of course then I carefully looked into it. It is a mature (40 years) established reputable program and would be very educational as well as fun. I also reminded myself that she is 13 fergodsakes and flies all by herself out to see her Dad all the time.
So, I got over it.
She wants to go. If I don't let her go, it will be the cost that stops me, not my paranoia.
Of course, if she goes, I will be a nervous wreck for the whole week, but no doubt it will be good practice for me. I do try to keep my arms open and the safety nets I throw at her feet unobtrusive, as I know my job is to raise her to be independant.
Christi,
It sounds like a great opportunity for your daughter, if you can afford to send her.
The O'Briens lived in a huge Victorian house with lots of neat places to play. Dr O'Brien, the father, would round up anyone who happened to be there for any trips to the beach or the ice cream store. It was great!
Sounds like a great opportunity, even if you'll be nervous.
I have checked with people who have participated in People to People tours, although not someone who has gone to the DC one. My mother is familiar with the program as an educator. The children of two of her friends at church participated in overseas tours. I know two families here in town whose kids went on overseas tours as well (as teens). (Mom's in MI, I'm in TX, it's a national program)
There will be only 30-40 kids total, all either entering or just finishing 7th grade, and no more than 10 kids per leader. The leaders are all educators and they have to pass a national background check.
$2K is a lot of money for me to come up with. I have it saved for our Disney trip this Fall, so if we give that up I could swing it. However, first I am going to contact her Dad to see if he will contribute. I would have contacted him anyway for his approval. I don't send her on anything like this unless it is a joint decision. In addition, I may ask her grandmothers if they want to pitch in.
I have to have the deposit down by April 15th and they accept the kids on a first-come basis, so I want to make a final decision by Monday.
On a related subject, Spawn's SAT scores in Verbal qualified him for CTY programs. I am astonished and saddened at how expensive they are--three week programs for $2200. They offer financial aid, but only to those making less than $40,000 a year, and the average aid given was to family households making $25K.
This effectively rules out these programs for the middle class--and indeed much of the upper middle class as well, since there are a lot of programs closer to home that won't swallow up the entire summer program budget. Which means that the program is most likely extensively used by the wealthy to get their children resume fodder. Not that this is a bad thing--after all, that's why I'm interested in it for Spawn.
But surely the programs could be made shorter, or have different length programs available? Why set up a program for smart kids that practically guarantees that it will only be used by the smart and the rich?
I'm not complaining for myself. I can afford it if I want to--although the cost is high enough that I will probably look for other programs for the academically gifted that won't kill the budget for a week of computer camp and so on.
But it just seems a shame.
CalGal - Yep. The Duke University Talent Search programs over the summer are similarly expensive. The week of educational opportunities at SMU (closest one to us) was about $1200.
But, then other questions arise, such as:
(a) how much of that is air fare? how does that compare to coach roundtrip for that time of the year.
(b) there are hotels and then there are hotels. No doubt this small group will be in one of the modest ones and the kids will be at least doubling. Nothing wrong with any of that, but that means that the cost per kid per day for hotel is probably about $60 max.
(c) Food - for kids? Count on their spending, say, another $40 a day per kid. (And, that is probably high.)
(d) most of the organized activities, tours, fireworks, will be free.
So, add it all up, and there is a lot of premium in there for teachers, etc.
Which leads to one of the biggest questions of all- in addition to "leaders", how many adults per kid?
All in all, this no doubt puts you in a difficult position. Of course your kid wants to go. It sounds very exciting. And, there is a lot to be said to going on a trip like that at that age.
But....
The schedule is -
Day one: Welcome and Keynote presentation, Duck Tour of Washington, Icebreaker activities.
Day two: Visits to Jamestown and Wiliamsburg.
Day three: Ford's Theatre/Lincoln Museum, Lincoln Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, National Archives
Day Four: Capitol Hill, US Capitol, Supreme Court, Newseum, FDR Memorial, FBI Headquarters
Day Five: Activities on Chesapeake Bay, National Zoo
Day six: Mt. Vernon/Alexandria, C&O Barge ride, Washington Monument, Smithsonian, fireworks.
Day seven: Air and Space Museum, Challenger Space Center, Closing Event (whatever that is)
Day eight: Program evaluations and departure.
However, this may make pretty good resume or college application fodder.
Janjon - it doesn't put me in any more difficult position than normal. I say no to really neat treats all the time. She saw the pricetag too, and will be more surprised if I say yes than if I say no. I've already turned down two People to People trips.
As for $60 for hotel rooms, I am assuming 2 kids per room. There are any number of hotels in D.C. - perfectly reputable, clean, nicely located, etc. - where you can get rooms, especially at group rates, for $120 a night.
Tough one. Especially since it cuts across some of your own future plans.
On that note, I'm outta here.
TTFN
That is very good to know. Thanks.
It looks like it is difficult to get in to any given session, too. They accept purely on scores, and then in order of whether you've been before. So it's tough to get in the first time.
So this year, depending on whether he qualifies in math, I'll give a few of the Santa Cruz sessions a shot. Figure he probably won't get in, but if he does, I'll take it as a sign he should go. (g)
It'd surprise me if they went to Dulles. National is closer to the city and Metro-accessible, which may be good depending on how they plan to transport the kids. And BWI is usually cheaper. In my experience, people only use Dulles for international flights or if they live by it.
And that schedule sounds too full to appreciate everything to me, but I don't really know the context.
If tomorrow you found out that you and your partner had just conceived a child, how would you react? How do you think it might change your relationship?
It would be a nightmare. I can't even go there.
MONEY FOR NOTHING
click on victim of psychobabble 
If tomorrow you found out that you and your partner had just conceived a child, how would you react?
That depends, would my hand be pregnant, or would I? (g)
How do you think it might change your relationship?
I guess I'd have to use the other hand.
Cool baby. Cool Daddy. (And an even cooler Grandpa.)
At the beginning of a relationship, do you trust your new partner unless there is something specific to make you do otherwise, or do you withhold your trust until he or she has earned it?
Why not post your question somewhere more appropriate?
Did anyone read that article in the NY Times on homeless shelters and their impact on children? It followed one particular family's experience.
The family had five kids, the mother and father were useless and had lost their kids because of drug use and crimes. The kids were in foster care, one of them was "reportedly" beaten. The grandmother moved from South Carolina to retrieve all five kids from foster care. She didn't qualify for New York or South Carolina welfare because she worked, but she didn't have enough money to care for them. Then she got ill, and eventually lost her apartment and they were on the street. The kids, who had been doing well in school, were now sleeping in horrible shelters, eating very little, and obviously their grades and attendance plummeted.
The path through qualification for housing assistance is Byzantine, and happily, the story ends with them in an apartment. The oldest kid is quoted, at the end, as saying, "They must not want us to do well in school, because sleeping in shelters makes it impossible."
That struck me as terribly sad. The kid is only 11, but at no point in his processing is the possibility that no, the state does want him to do well in school, that this is why they removed him from his monstrous parents and put him in foster care, for his safety. It was his completely grandmother who interfered with this plan, took the kids away even though she had not the slightest ability to provide for them, and put them all on the streets.
Now the kid is mad because the government won't protect the kids from the outright abuse of his parents and well-meaning and loving incompetence of his grandmother and figures it's all their fault.
Does it do any good to tell that boy that no, his parents are the problem? That his parents don't care about him and that it is a parent's job to provide for him? That his grandmother had no business taking him away from foster care unless she could provide, and that the state had tried to protect him?
I realize this would be hurtful information, but at the same time I see no value him being raised thinking that a cold and cruel government doesn't care about him. In fact, the government does care and does have programs to help. But it is overburdened not because of parents who are out of work or disabled, but because of parents' grotesque neglect. His mother had five children who she had no interest in caring for. That's a large part of the problem.
It sickens me to see the distortion in his thinking start so early.
I just wonder how you can stop that sort of skew from happening. And if you would be able to, given how many people would complain about this kid being told the truth.
Cases like this make me hanker for 'an eye for an eye'. I'd flip the switch to fry that doctor's nads.
Main Entry: 1pity
Function: noun
1 a : sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed,
or unhappy b : capacity to feel pity
2 : something to be regretted
synonyms PITY, COMPASSION, COMMISERATION,
CONDOLENCE, SYMPATHY mean the act or capacity for
sharing the painful feelings of another. PITY implies
tender or sometimes slightly contemptuous sorrow for
one in misery or distress
Main Entry: em·pa·thy
Function: noun
1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into
an object so that the object appears to be infused
with it
2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being
sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings,
thoughts, and experience of another of either the past
or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and
experience fully communicated in an objectively
explicit manner
Why didn't the parents sue the doctor who damaged their son, was that mentioned?
I do think it is too bad that the thinking on gender behavior was so skewed that it permitted so many "experts" to turn baby boys into girls as if it wouldn't make any difference. But parents are responsible for their kids, and they had known early on that it didn't work. In the end, they were the ones most responsible.
Interesting that the guy's first response was to blame the doctor who castrated him. He kind of got swept by in the mess by everyone else.
Was this really the one case that caused all those other boys to be "converted" to girls?
Since the 19th century, New York's foster care system had handled its needy children by contracting with private agencies to care for the children at public expense. Many, perhaps most, of the agencies were Jewish and Roman Catholic charities. The law allowed them to give preference to children of their own faith. In 1972, 90 percent of all foster beds were in the hands of these agencies, which could pick and choose among the children the city tried to place. Black children, of course, were mostly Protestant.
That was the year Shirley Wilder entered the foster care system. She was 13. Her mother had died when she was 4, her grandmother when she was 11; when she turned to her father, whose name she did not bear, he threw her out. Over the next 10 months, every religiously sponsored foster agency the court approached turned her down. But her lawyer really liked her, and didn't want to send her to the Dickensian reformatory at Hudson, N.Y., for children convicted of criminal offenses, then the last resort for children rejected by foster care. The lawyer came back to the court 12 times, as Shirley shuttled among relatives, shelters and jail-like detention centers, to find some alternative. None were available.
(Cont'd.)
Lamont was lucky at first. He was placed with a Hispanic family in the Bronx for his first five years. The father sexually fondled him, but the mother loved him -- and then they were divorced, around the time that Shirley's parental rights were officially terminated, and, encouraged by caseworkers, his foster mother gave him back to the state. He was placed in a white family in another state, the only black child he knew. He didn't adjust. They gave him up within a year. Another white family took him on, but his behavior was worse. Transferred to a home for disturbed kids, he tried to make friends with various volunteers. They were kind for a while, and then moved on. He was classified as psychotic; he could have been going through normal but frustrated mourning for his losses. He entered the real world in his late teens without a high school diploma and with few skills.
(Cont'd.)
Second, the problem is poverty. This is perhaps not a novel insight, but this history makes it sickeningly clear that the state cannot solve the problem of needy children without doing something about the conditions that produce them. There are so many children, so few resources -- in this stunningly prosperous age -- and, repeatedly, solutions born of crisis and good intention create disasters of their own. Children who enter the system tend to exit it as poor and unskilled as the parents who bore them, and the cycle grinds painfully on.
Indeed: on Jan. 22, 1999, the day Wilder finally ended, in the same courthouse a judge was deliberating over a class-action lawsuit brought by the Legal Aid Society, charging that new tough welfare practices endangered needy children. Unbeknown even to the Legal Aid lawyers, the child who stood at the center of the lawsuit was Shirley Wilder's grandson, Lamont's little boy.
I mean, so much of what's accepted now as truth is based on the "findings" of a coke addict who plied his trade over 100 years ago, under much less stringent controls and with not nearly the hype and scrutiny that attends major psychological studies and findings these days.
As a young man working at a children's psych center in NY while attending school, I was intrigued enough by a study taking place at my job that I volunteered to take part, devoting at least 16 hours a week over a 4-month period. (The study actually lasted a year).
The facility where I worked was for kids up to the age of 18 with psychological problems. At one time, before the NYS Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities was split, the facility housed, in two of its eight units, mentally retarded kids. When the split happened in the mid-70s, those two units were shipped off to a new facility which specialized in the care of the mentally retarded. However, there was one kid (17 by the time I arrived there) who had been in those two units ever since he was 5, and was allowed to stay under a technicality - his condition was not "organic".
He was diagnosed with Autism, sudden on-set, and promptly institutionalized. He, to all appearances, couldn't have cared less - because he had totally left this world. He would eat, sleep, bathe and dress himself, and go where led. But he would never acknowledge anyone - he'd know you were there, but would never look at you. And he would beat the hell out of himself, daily. He beat the sides of his head till he was deaf in one ear and blind in one eye. Bit chunks of skin out of his arms and legs. Etc.
By the time I met him, he'd been tied up, ala the Frankenstein monster, for most of the preceding year, after very nearly ripping his penis off with his hand.
But now, with a $500,000 grant to spend on this one patient, we had a famous shrink in our midst, who would prove that with the right diet and 12 hours a day of behavioral therapy, this once-normal subject could be brought back to at least a modicum of human-ness.
In the 4 months that I worked with the boy, my job was to sit knee-to-knee with him and, by very calmly repeating his name over and over, using different voice inflections, elicit 5 seconds of eye-contact. Anytime he did anything but rock for more than a few seconds (other than hit himself), I was to say Gooood, "Bobby"!, and give him an M&M - the only treat he was allowed.
Well, I was very diligent the entire 4 months, but never managed even a second of eye contact with him. But the two other suckers who'd volunteered swore up and down that they did. The boy was, according to their daily progress reports, progressing very nicely - even laughing with them and stroking their faces on occasion.
So, the good doc decided I just "wasn't right" for the task, and gave me my walking papers. I was relieved, more than anything else.
Well, the year came and went, and with it the good doc. But a few months later PBS broadcast a show dealing with new therapies and treatments for psych conditions. And, lo and behold, there was the good doc, talking about how he had proven that changes in diet "and a little bit of one-on-one behavior modification" could have dramatic results, using his experience with "Bobby" as proof. Had video footage and everything. There was "Bobby", sitting on the couch laughing (at something going on in his alternate universe - but you couldn't tell that from the video), which the good doc described as "something he'd never done before" (pure bullshit -"Bobby" was always laughing at his imaginings).
I worked at that facility for 6 years after that. Nothing changed for "Bobby" - for better or worse - until he got severe pneumonia, which his infection-wracked body could not fight off and he almost died, while everyone who knew him prayed that he'd be taken from his misery.
When was the last time you made love so spontaneously you couldn't have predicted it 20 minutes before? What attitudes lead to such surprises and what attitudes prevent them from happening?
2) Family and work responsibilities are distractions to my mote posting.
A perfect question for the good doctor, by the by.
> When was the last time you made love so spontaneously you couldn't
have predicted it 20 minutes before?
Clarify "made love."
If your lover kept a private journal that was easily accessible, under what circumstances might you read it without permission? For example, what if your relationship were on the rocks and you were confused about your partner's feelings?
It is obvious to everyone here that you crave attention but with these questions about relationships in such an inapproriate place, we are seeing an unfolding of your personal life that might be best kept between you and your analyst.
Go into the admin screen, go to Maintain threads, select the Parenting thread and then click on the "delete or move posts" button.
My son, who's almost 5, is doing this weird thing lately, at least it seems weird to me. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but it's a pattern of not wanting to take responsibility/make choices. He'll not do something, and then get upset and say he wanted to. Example: He likes to help me check the mail. He sees me walking toward the mailbox and says he wants to come. I stop and say "Come on, then," and he just stands there. When I go on and do it without him, he has a fit. It's often a case of "I want to do this," then when I say "OK do it," he says "But I DON'T want to." Repeat several times, and parental units will soon be insane.
Sometimes he does this as a stall tactic, like at bedtime, and he's always done that to some extent. But lately he's been doing it even for things he likes to do. Last Friday I was going to take him to the park, and I told him we'd go home, he could change out of his school clothes, and we could to to the park. He had a fit and kept saying "I want to go to the park" then "I don't want to go to the park," for a good half hour before he went into his room and changed clothes.
I thought he'd long outgrown this sort of thing. Silly me.
Wombino is a little younger than yours, he does the same thing. It tends to get him ignored and in the case of the latter example, dragged to places the parent was going to go originally.
For example, he sees you walking towards the mailbox and says, "I want to come." You can say, "Oops! I forgot to invite you! Do you want to walk out to the mailbox with me?"
It might be that he's upset at not being given a choice, and in the two examples you provide you never have given him a choice. You are assuming he's choosing, but he might be processing your "Okay, do it" as just as much of a lack of options as leaving for the mailbox without him.
I do often tell him something like "You can do A or B, whichever you want. But if you don't decide now, you're going to do whatever is easiest for me."
Is there some new level of awareness that's making him freak out about making decisions? Seems that way to me.
I'm thinking more of situations where, to you, it really is a choice and you don't much care either way. He might need the information presented differently.
In general, I do think kids become increasingly aware that they have options and that they want to exercise them. They aren't always sure what option they want, but they're damn sure they want to be consulted.
In any case, the freaking out over bedtime choices isn't a big concern. I think that's just a stall tactic. And it fits his lifelong pattern WRT bedtime. It's the other stuff that's throwing me off.
Little Jade's favorite game is saying "no" and seeing how many hoops the parents and grandparents can jump through.
Bedtime strategy is easy; good behavior earns stories.
"It's 45 minutes until bedtime, you need to finish up what you are doing."
It's 30 minutes until bedtime, you have to stop and put your things away now."
"It's 15 minutes until bedtime, go brush your teeth now."
"It's 10 minutes until bedtime, put on your jammies and pick out your storybook."
I kept the routine the same for a long time. Any changes in the routine as she got older were introduced with "You're (insert age) now, so now (insert added freedom and responsibility)"
At 13, pretty much she is on her own as far as preparing for bed. She is expected to have her stuff put up and herself ready and in bed on time on school nights. Anything not put away, disappears for a week. If she doesn't make it to bed on time, her bedtime is 30 minutes earlier the next night.
She (finally!) gets herself up now. So, probably next year I'll institute what my Mother did for me at that age. No bedtime. She'll be in charge of when she gets to bed. I'll only enforce that she gets up in time for school. (or weekend activities) She's already self-regulated enough (going to bed early when she's particularly tired) that it should work. If not, I'll reinstitute a bedtime set by me.
I never had any problems with bedtime, though. Just "go to bed".
I remember that when LD was 7, and had a bedtime of 7:30, bedtimes came up in a lunch conversation at work. When I said what LD's bedtime was, I got amazed looks from everyone at the table - "How do you get her to bed so early!?" To which I was amazed - "I tell her 'go to bed'. She's 7. I'm in charge."
LD had an early bedtime for two reasons - 1.She's always needed a lot of sleep and gets cranky if she didn't get it. 2.I need my alone time and get cranky if I don't get it. Sending her to bed early gave me that time every evening.
I like the asking him, and if he doesn't answer, doing whatever you want. I think that after he gets it in his head that by not answering, he may not get what he wants, he'll answer when it matters to him.
I now go to bed earlier than my daughter. I've given the whole thing up.
One of my fondest memories is of one afternoon when I was very sick, my son read three chapters of Four Horseman of the Apocalypse for me; he was 9 years old.
I see my daughter now fussing over me when I'm sick in the same ways I fussed over her. She's upset with me at the moment because my knee has been bothering me since I twisted it last November.
I keep saying I'll go get it checked out and then not making an appointment. So sometime last night she plastered the house with sticky notes reminding me to call and make an appointment.
That could be damned annoying - her trying to parent me, but the truth is I am very absent-minded and procratinate a lot. So, this time, I chose to be amused.
Any suggestions?
I loathed What to Expect When You're Expecting. I liked the AAP baby/child care book, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child : Birth to Age 5.
Shannon: Why? You're the first woman I've come across who didn't like it.
There were other things that irked me too, but I can't remember them all now.
Of those complaining, a common factor appears to be they felt the book preached at them too much.
But a lot of women say they love it as well.
Nah! must be something else.
To be fair, the book is quite comprehensive. Somebody clearly did their research. But yeah, the authors are abnormally obsessed with diet--they must have stock in whole wheat flour or something.
The AAP book is excellent. So is Brazelton's book Touchpoints. As for picture books: somebody got me a book called On the Day You Were Born, by Debra Fraiser. It's colorful, and your friend will likely cry hormonally-induced buckets as she reads it to her oblivious newborn. (New moms sometimes like to do that sort of thing. I know I did.) Plus, it comes as a gift set with a soft rattle that says "Welcome".
Maybe that sounds cheesy, but it's actually quite tasteful.
My favorite parenting books don't kick in until later--How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Growing Up Again are good.
Oh, I don't mean those sort of politics. Sorry. No, he just recently announced--with no new studies, no evidence, just his own change of opinion--that kids are better off if moms don't work and "we really have to evaluate families, stressors" blah blah blah with it all coming down to "how can we get more moms staying at home?"
It happened just in the past few months, didn't it? Anyway, his change in position got a lot of play; the fact that nothing much has changed in the way of evidence did not.
But overall I really don't mind his parenting books. He just pissed me off.
I'm here, just mostly with only one hand free.
Oh, the mom staying home thing again... Actually saw an ad in New Republic about that a couple of weeks ago. Not Brazleton, just some people that started with a banner that "we don't know what happens to kids in daycare" yadda yadda, scaring people, implying that parent -erm - mom stay home is sort of historical and that something terrible will happen.
That was just about the same time as some woman on MWT posted all over how there was a bias in the literature agains the benefits of SAHM and no critique of daycare (and no magazines were mainstream or serious enough for her).
Not that I buy it.
Review of The Irreducible Needs of Children
At the end of this chapter, in the "recommendations" section, Greenspan and Brazelton stake out a courageous and controversial position. First, they acknowledge that non-parental care may be highly desirable or absolutely necessary in some circumstances. Still, they insist, "In the first three years, every child needs one or two primary caregivers who remain in a steady, intimate relationship with that child." The doctors specify further that children under three spend at least two-thirds of their waking time involved in "two types of activities: [1] those in which the caregiver facilitates interactions with the environment, and [2] direct interaction, such as cuddling, holding, shared pretend play, and funny face games." For school-age children, we recommend that of the available time two-thirds be spent with the caregiver being available for facilitating or directly interacting.... Parents should be available enough so they or the children don't have to be measuring each moment of time and the guidelines out-lined above can be taken for granted."
On daycare the doctors say, "We do not recommend full-time day care, 30 or more hours of care [per week] by nonparents, for infants and toddlers if the parents are able to provide high-quality care themselves and if the parents have reasonable options."
Was this the result of a study? Apparently not. It was just their opinion. But it's cited as if it is some sea change in available knowledge, rather than a clever author who wants to sell books and knows his target audience is suburban moms feeling guilty about having cut back on work--or wanting justification to do it.
I'll go back to Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy then, who says that all mothers are working moms (as in, thru most of time, a mother had to be responsible for getting the calories she needed). And, employ allo parents.
IF I recall right (this would be Fox and Davidson - developmental brain research), kids who are born more fussy and withdrawn or more "negatively activated" (there are signature eeg's for this in the frontal lobes) can actually have their personality changed to a more positive one thru judicious exposure to other people in type day-care situations. (The brain-patterns change, and persist. Rather intriguing data to see).
Given that success in the US is probably to the more gregarious and social (or at least to people that aren't painfully shy), it may be a real benefit to put kids in daycare.
And, even if you can find differences between kids in daycare and kids raised at home, the difference may just be - that it is different. Not that one is better or worse.
I settled on the what to expect book and the AAP book. And threw in a couple of Boynton books for the little brat once he arrives. One's called Snoozers, or something. The other's called The Going to Bed Book. How'd I do?
Good assortment.
My wife discovered these additions when reading it to Wombino, and was barely able to keep a straight face.
"I like his books, but his TV show bugged me. He'd talk about kids as though they couldn't hear him."...
You could take Brazelton's opinion "In the first three years, every child needs one or two primary caregivers who remain in a steady, intimate relationship with that child." as impetus to simply choose a home daycare situation rather than a large commercial daycare. The mother of one of LD's friends has a daycare in her home. She takes care care of about 4 kids, from age 18 mos to 4. For those children, she is a "primary caregiver" in a "steady intimate relationship" with the children. After all, the "primary caregiver" doesn't have to be a parent.
Just a thought.
Exactly.
Please note that I said the home daycare provider was A primary caregiver. The children still have a parent or parents, too.
The studies that I have read which are critical of daycare all indicate that the problem is not necessarily that an adult other than one of the parents is providing care for part of the child's day, but that it is different adults. As in who is reading Johnny a story or wiping Jane's nose changes too often. In the early years, stability is important. So the stated "problems" are not seen in daycares with a stable workforce and a policy of keeping the same kids with the same caregivers from day to day.
This is a factor that I considered when finding care for my daughter. While I did not have any choice about getting her care, not having the option to stay home, I DID have options about what kind of care I got for her. So until the age of 4, she went to a Mom in the neighborhood who was staying home and whose parenting style, discipline style, and home atmosphere very closely matched my own. Was it easy to find that Mom/home caregiver? Well, no. I started looking for a caregiver as soon as I was past my first trimester.
Was I still a "primary caregiver" for my daughter. Damn straight, I was. So was her Dad.
Is the way I did it the only "good" or "best for your child" way to do things. No Way.
My original post was simply to point out that even if you believed that everything said by Brazelton and Greenspan about the needs of a child under 3 is the truth the absolute truth and nothing but the truth, that doesn't mean that the only way to provide for those needs is for one parent to stay home.
That is pretty low of Brazelton to be saying that, considering he wrote Working and Caring in the '80's after doing some observation of babies and toddlers in daycare. I read it when I was pregnant and it helped clear up some fears I had about going back to work. In that book, he says that at about four months babies can bond with a third caregiver. He was noncommittal about whether or not it would be outright damaging to put a baby in daycare before that.
Changing horses midstream without a study to back it up is at the very least bad science on his part. What is he thinking?
But that's what pisses me off--he's just changing the tune to meet what he knows his market wants to hear.
It wouldn't be so bad if his pronouncements didn't get covered as if he had data to support them.
I ask as a new mom of a 15 month old; in the late eighties I was going to clubs every night. I had no inkling what the childcare stance was then. And I don't read the childcare mags; most of them make me want to scream.
Holly,
Think of all the people at MWT, angsting over whether they should go back to work or not. KimN, Darci, JenniferA, and so on. And then there are all the women who do stay home. The angst is a middle and upper class luxury, of course--and who do you think Brazelton is selling to?
But yeah, there are lots of parenting issues, SAHMing being one of them, that are attached to big heavy social pendulums.
There will be other opportunities for her. If not through programs like this, then maybe we can just go there as a family.
How are the 'rents this eve?
My son will never divulge what goes on at school. Lunch and recess are all that goes on, to hear him talk. However, it is apparent that he is learning things. The other day, I said something about how the sun was setting. He said "No, Mom, the sun doesn't set. The earth moves."
My son left his bike outside a music store. His BMX bike. With brand new cranks. And it was stolen.
But I'm much better now. It actually happened on Sunday, but it was that long before I could talk about it.
I did tell a few friends, all of whom said, "Oh, that happened to me, too, when I was 13." and I'm like, "Shut up and let me be mad."
So rather than "Don't people suck?" I guess I should say "Aren't teenagers irresponsible little twits?"
:-)
In all fairness, it kills him, too. He loved that bike; it was a huge part of his life. He read about BMX, went regularly to a stunt track, went on 5-10 mile bike rides, and used it as a major source of transportation. So it's not like he's just blown it off. I just hate having things lost or stolen.
And then we have to figure out how, eventually, to replace it. In the short term he'll fix up my mountain bike, which he can use for transportation--it will make our lives easier, as well.
Something interesting I have learned this week about Spawn and school: he is in fact extremely disorganized. A lot of time he isn't so much blowing off homework as he "forgot" about it--in quotes because it's something between really completely spacing it and knowing about it but not doing it. So we've started the regime of him writing down his homework and having both teachers sign off on it. Giving him lots of folders to put school work in, and so on.
He's doing well in school overall, but in large part because it's a smaller school that cuts him slack on homework. The teachers email me regularly, and that's been very useful in identifying problems early.
But I wouldn't have thought that he was that disorganized. He doesn't strike me as particularly scatterbrained. It's probably just a flaky period.
A. manages to do so. K. somehow decides that this would be a good time to put glitter all over her face. Then, she spends at least 20 minutes looking for pjs, which she says she can't find. I ask her if that is the last thing she needs, and she tells me that it is.
Then their father arrives, and they are supposed to be done by this point. He, of course, only serves to distract them, and isn't helpful in any way at all, and his presence is annoying the heck out of me, so I get rid of him by telling him I'll bring the girls to his place when they're done.
And I have found K's pajamas, so I go down the rest of her checklist to make sure she has everything. Does she have everything? No, she has nothing. No jeans, no t-shirts, no socks. She has not gotten everything that she was supposed to get.
A. has, at this point, packed her backpack with everything, and is getting her stuff ready for school tomorrow. This also annoys me, because A. is so good at being good when K. is not being good. Sigh. At least they are at their father's now, with all the crap that they need for one overnight this weekend. It also annoys me that they have to have everything ready on Wednesday, when the trip isn't until Saturday. I think tonight's a good night to eat bad food and go to bed early. Maybe I'll feel cheerier about the whole thing tomorrow. I feel bad because I was so irritated with K., but she makes me so crazy sometimes.
I am so convinced that I will be doing the whole write down homework, get it signed by your teachers thing with K. I am not completely organized, but I do have a good memory and rarely forget stuff. She is taking it all to a whole new level, I think. She's smart, but in her own little world.
I think the dynamic you describe with your kids is pretty common; the thing I've read that you want to avoid is assigning the organized one "good" status. It completely upsets the balance of power, or something. (g) So as frustrating as it is, make sure you look for things at other times that K does well.
I find this even works when I'm babysitting kids. If I notice one kid is being super good and the other is being a hassle, I'll go out of my way to find something to compliment the rambunctious one about. It often causes him to straighten out, or at least be a bit more eager to please. If nothing else, it stops me from being unhappy with both kids when the other one starts getting all snotty and smug cause he or she is the "good" one.
I know he was so excited about getting that stuff for his birthday, and that makes it doubly annoying, because you went to all the effort of getting him nice stuff, and then he goes and loses it.
(sniff, sob, wail)
I wish that sort of thing worked with thirty in a room.
That is sad about Spawn's bike. I feel bad for both of you.
I was horribly disorganized and daydreamy as a kid, and am not much better as an adult. Mose, otoh, is pretty responsible, but I get so irritated when she does forget something, because where we live it's very inconvenient. "Mom, could you drive 20 miles to bring me a shirt?" She's also learned, though, that forgetting probably means just doing without. All the moms who invited her to bunkin' parties when she was younger probably thought it was so sad that she was the only one there without a toothbrush or change of underwear, but too bad. (kidding, sort of)
The girls don't do the good girl/bad girl thing very often. Mostly there's not a big difference between their behavior, but I am going to try the compliment thing next time and see how it works.
In general, too, I need to be more vigilant about making them follow through on things quickly, even when it's not as big of a deal. Because then they don't know how to work quickly when they need to! And as my husband said, we need to work on that more than most families, because it all gets unenforced at their father's house. For the longest time K. was acting out much more than usual when she'd spent long periods of time with him, but now that she's in school and stuff, she's more used to behaving well in general.
LD's school started requiring all the kids to keep a planner (issued by the school) and write down all their assignments and test days, etc in the planner. The planner is regularly checked by the teachers and they are graded on it, too. Of course, the main reason for this is that this year (7th grade) is when they go to block scheduling for the first time. So many kids had trouble keeping track of the A day/B day thing and what they had to do when, that the school implemented this policy. While I absolutely hate the A/B day schedule, at least she's learning to be organized (I hope). Lord knows she'd never learn organization from me.
We got the TIP summer schedule and I emailed LD's Dad and asked if he would be able to contribute half the cost for one session. We'll see what he says. LD is refusing to look at the catalog until I know if it's a financial possibility. She says she got all excited about the DC trip and then I said "no". She says she doesn't want to find a class she really wants to take, get all excited, and then be disappointed again if I can't afford to send her. She has a point.
Faith In The Baby
They told me he was fine. I don't know that I ever believed them.
Yeah, I would probably disregard them, too. It wasn't until I could point to clear cases where he either didn't understand or willfully misunderstood the assignment that he started writing them down, and he just does it in his notebook.
When Spawn was five, he had to draw a picture with family members doing his favorite activities. Spawn couldn't write yet, so he dictated the caption.
"I like going on business trips with Mommy, I like it when Daddy cooks hotdogs, and I like playing pirate swordfights with Grandma."
Just wanted to share reason #560 I like being a mom--my toddler is walking around with pot lid, holding it up to his ear, saying "Herow? Herow?" and holding babbling conversations with same. When he thinks about it, he comes to me for a bite of just-baked chocolate-chip cookies.
I love this little man.
I have decided to blame my crankiness and general irritability this week on daylight savings time. It seems as good of a scapegoat as anything else, and gives me hope that next week my body will be better adjusted to the time change, and I shall return to being my constantly sunny self. Although I think fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies would also do much to improve my mood!!
I hate daylight savings time, coming or going.
At least they're not making a mess of their room, and it's got to be more mind-expanding than playing 'The Sims' some more. Which is about all I've accomplished this afternoon.
I haven't tried it yet, but I probably will check it out over the long weekend. After all, we had to put it on my computer because her's didn't have enough RAM.
So, what's the cheat to get more money?
I am promising myself that I will *not* play until my homework is done, and the girls Easter dresses are finished. I somehow got it in my head that it would be fun to make dresses for them, and now the dresses are half-done, and I have a big project due Thursday, so Thursday night is going to be all-sewing, all-night.
I used to make fancy dresses for LD. Of course, except for the year I made matching dresses for her and her cousin, that's only making one dress.
Now, she hates wearing dresses. She let me buy her one skirt which she wears to church with casual tops. She went from wanting very frilly (the more lace and trim, the better) to preferring very plain jeans and shirts.
Good Drug/Bad Drug?
Between 4 million and 5 million children now take stimulant drugs, primarily Ritalin, to help control their behavior and attention problems, but the debate over such drugs is louder than ever.
With two to three kids in every classroom across America on some kind of behavior-modifying drug, parents, doctors, teachers, legislators and the children themselves are questioning whether these medications are really necessary -- and safe. Should we be drugging our children to get them to sit still in class?
Yesterday was Monday. For several months now, on Mondays I've had to pick up daughter a little early, because DCP's daughter has dance lessons. I completely spaced on that yesterday. Went to get son first, which hubby ususally does on Monday. Arrived at DCP's house. Knocked. No answer. No sounds from backyard. Then it hit me. Paged hubby to see if she'd called him. I notice the gate to the backyard is open, so I go back there. I was figuring at this point that she'd taken daughter with them. Maybe note is on the back door, I think. There's daughter, sitting there with DCP's hubby, watching him paint the house. Hubby returns my call to tell me that he just left son's school, where he'd gone to pick him up, of course.
I realize Ritalin is the savior of many a parent and teachers sanity; the article was leaning more toward advising people to tune in to 2 programs about the pros and cons of Ritalin that ran last night.
LD's history teacher has assigned a project which requires a video camera. I am pissed. I don't have a video camera and I don't think a teacher should make an assignment which requires expensive equipment. How can he assume that every kid in the class has access to a video camera?
There is only one middle school in this town, so it serve the whole economic spectrum of this town. This town which has seen 4 plant closings since I moved here and where major lay-offs at two others have been announced in the last week.
I want to go to the school and protest. However, this is a small town and she is in 7th grade (the sensitive seventh). My going in may embarrass her or have unforeseen consequences.
What do y'all think? Am I over-reacting? (I'll admit that I haven't liked this teacher since he gave them handouts to read from The South Was Right)
There have been previous assignments by other teachers in other years where using a video camera was one option of many for doing the project. I don't object to that. However, in this case, making a video is a requirement for all the students. I don't think that's right, given that as far as I know there is no AV dept at all, let alone one with loaners.
Maybe I'm off-base here, but it just doesn't seem right.
It sounds my outrage on behalf of the less-affluent children in LD's school is not striking a chord with anyone here. Perhaps it is misplaced.
I think I will take Wombat's suggestion and express my concerns to the Principal of the school and then drop it.
I would let it go something like this:
Go down to the school and find someone of reasonable authority--usually the school admin person who runs the office will do.
"I'm here to see what the schedule is for the school-rental video camera; we don't have our own. When is it first available? That way I can schedule LD's work around it."
"Oh, we don't have one."
You'll look astonished. "You don't have one? That's odd. The video camera work was required as part of the homework assignment. There wasn't an option for other media presentations."
She will either say, "Oh, it can never be required." in which case you say, "Hmm, I'm sure it was--here's the assignment". And it is cleared up.
Or she will say, "Oh, it's pretty easy to get a rental."
and you look at her in polite astonishment. "Oh, but you can't be serious. I have to buy or rent a video camers for my child to do her homework?"
It doesn't really matter what she says in response, unless it's "Oh, my lord, you're right we have to fix that." Otherwise, don't get distracted.
No matter what she says, respond with, "Would you make this response to a parent who just got laid off, or only makes $20,000/year, or has had a medical catastrophe? You'd tell them they have the additional burden of a video camera?"
I suspect some backing down will occur. If it doesn't, rather than escalating within the school, I would call or email someone at your local paper.
None of this should embarrass LD, whereas going down fuming about it might.
A letter to the principal would work, too. For all my enjoyment of writing scenarios, I am the master of the scathing letter.
Plus, I find video projects to be less than useful. My experience when my girls have had to do them is that the kids spend a hell of a lot more time worrying about “setting” and “costumes” than they do the educational content.
And here’s the other thing that gets me about them. They always end up watching all the videos during class time. If they are going to do that, why not just have the kids do the presentation in class. Uses the same amount of class time and doesn’t carry the burden of parents having to support a frickin’ AV department out of the home.
I think I will start with her teacher to verify the assignment. Then I like CalGal's idea on how to handle it.
Thanks y'all.
When the teacher gripes that there is no way to judge its content for lack of equipment...
In a blatant attempt to atone for my Bad Mommy moment, I spent the whole day with daughter yesterday. Took her to the zoo, which she seemed to enjoy a lot. And to McD's for lunch, as she requested. It's downright spooky how much kids like that place. She doesn't realize that the meals come w/toys, and she's scared to go on the playground, so I'm not sure what the appeal is.
She was really cute. She said she wanted to go to the slide after she ate. I said "It's not too big?" and she said no. She's a pretty cautious child, and has never entered one of those McD's play structures that I'm aware of. So she eats her lunch, we go outside. She looks up at the slide, all wide-eyed and overwhelmed, and says "It too big. I want to go to the zoo."
Looked smaller from a distance, I guess :-)
Our daughter used to love to go in there, but sometimes, for some inexplicable reason, she'd freeze, start wailing, and refuse to move.
Both times I retrieved her (actually, one of the times was at Chuck-E-Cheese), there was some kid crawling around in there with a crappy diaper.
Crawling through there was like being flushed down the toilet.
Hubby had to rescue son from a ball pit when he was about 18 months old. He was just stuck there, waving his little arms.
I never put my girls in one again after talking to a kid that worked at Chucky Cheese and had the job of hosing the pee puddles off the pit floor and washing the balls.
a ball-pee-n'-ham-per...
I decided to let her throw it in the teacher's lap first. None of the kids in her team have access to video cameras and all the parents reacted pretty much like I did. So we told them to go to the teacher and tell him they couldn't get a video camera and ask him if they could borrow his (he had mentioned his in class, they said.) He told them no, they couldn't use his camera. So they asked him what they should do and (LD says) he just shrugged.
So, this morning I when I took LD to school, I went into the office and asked to see the schedule to check out a video camera from the school. The office person sent me down to the library as that's where the equipment is kept. The librarian said, no, they don't let kids check out the cameras. So I went back to the office with a carefully crafted puzzled expression on my face, "my daughter has a homework assignment that requires the use of a video camera. We don't have one and the school doesn't let kids check them out. What do I do?" They said talk to her teacher.
So I waited while she called the teacher. He wasn't in. So I left a message for the teacher to call me. Then I asked if the school had any general policy concerning homework assignments and the use of expensive electronic equipment. No. I should talk to the teacher.
I'll let you know what happens.
What is the paper in your area? Also, who is the superintendant of schools? Have that information ready now, so that if you start getting annoyed at the teacher you can calm yourself by remembering that you have next step data ready to hand.
There is a prize, but I'm not sure it's one you want to put on your desk. It smells awful.
You know, on the one hand, I really like my work environment and my co-workers (the majority of whom were moved here when I was) and LD has a bunch of friends here. OTOH, I dislike almost everything else about this town.
I think I need to start updating my resume.
Start looking now, then. It's going to be a tight job market for a while, but I wouldn't decide to wait it out.
Me: "I had a question about this latest homework assignment of LD's."
Him: "Oh the video assignment...."
Me: "Yes. We don't have a video camera."
Him: "Well, I'm sure someone in her group does."
Me: "Actually, no. No one in her group has a video camera. She spoke to you about this yesterday...."
Him: "Oh. Well, I don't remember.... uh... with so many students...."
Me: "Well, what do you propose to do about this?"
Him: "Well, I'll just rearrange the groups so that every group has someone in it with a video camera."
Me: "Oh, so you're sure that there are not only enough families with video cameras, but also enough that would be willing to trust 12 and 13 yr olds with them?"
Him: "Well, most people do have them now, although I didn't have one until someone gave it to me."
Me: "Well, I don't have one."
silence
Me: "So, you assign homework requiring expensive electronic equipment without taking into consideration the range of socio-economic status in your student population?"
Him: "Ummm.... yes. It's always worked out in the past. I even brought my camera to school and showed them some of the things that can be done with one, to, uh, make it an interesting assignment. And sometimes the parents help the kids out, of course."
Me: "So, you're going to take care of this?"
Him: "Yes."
End of conversation. I am left feeling unsatisfied, but unsure of what else to do.
Grump grump.
Come right out and say it. Why add video taping to the exercise, and expend considerable personal resources and classroom time chasing down and attempting to share a few video cameras? Why not make the video taping optional?
Come out and say what you mean. Don't be passive-aggressive about it. Complain to the papers, the school administrators, etc. Do it loudly.
Don't teach your daughter passive-aggressive tactics. Today's embarrassment (hers) will be tempered by a lesson that can last a lifetime.
Oh, I dunno.
I think I just notice these things more.
See, I believe everyone could find a whole lot more to gripe about, if only they would stop and sniff the, uh...hamster cage.
To tell the truth, it does sound like an interesting assignment and a chance to be creative while researching and sharing history. This is the gifted-talented class and I'm sure the teacher is trying to find ways to challenge the kids.
But why can't the kids use the Audio-Visual equipment at the school? Why can't they do this at school? I also resent the teacher blithe assumption that "most people" have video cameras. For all I know, he's right, but he didn't check, he didn't ask or inform the parents first, he just made the assignment based on his assumptions.
It triggers my "That's not RIGHT" nerves.
The teacher is not catching your hints. Be straight and forthright about your objections.
It seems wrong to assign a job to kids that requires expensive equipment to complete, without giving access to the tools needed.
You may not agree, however, that it is wrong to give 7th graders homework assignments that require that they use video cameras without making sure all the students do in fact have access to that equipment.
I think it is wrong and Erin has a point that I am not pushing my objections very hard because I do not want to risk my daughter spending 8th - 12 grade being teased and/or ostracized.
This may or may not be reasonable on my part.
In any event, I tend to think you're better off being too involved in your child's school affairs than you think is necessary.
geez-louise
How are the kids supposed to integrate the other video clips? Or does "everybody" have computers with video editing software installed?
That wasn't the point...kids most certainly will tease a kid whose parent gets into it with a teacher.
my mom has slapped my teacher around a school before (in private, yes) and no one (a) cared (b) knew
(and 1711 is to 1709)
You don't have to have a computer to integrate video clips. You just hook up the video camera to the TV or VCR and hit "record". So, do all the kids have TVs and VCRs? I dunno. I have a coworker here who doesn't allow TVs into her house, but her kids go to the tiny Right-wing Religious Fundamentalist private school in town.
I have talked to the Mom of one of the kids in LD's group. She was upset too, but was totally fixed on how to scrounge up a camera for the kids, not on getting the teacher to change the assignment or getting the school to pony up time on the school equipment.
Actually, I think the teacher got your point and is doing his best to ignore it because he's hoping you won't call him on it.
What I would do at this point is call the principal. Good humored, a bit hesitant (faked), not fussy. Say that you're confused. It surely can't be that the teacher would assign a project with complicated technology without even ensuring that equipment was available. And yet here your daughter is on a team where no one has a video camera. This has you concerned about her grade.
And (you say this part as if it just occurred to you) come to think of it, it surely can't be right to require a project to have a video camera, can it? Unless, of course, the school provides it? After all, many of these kids have parents who couldn't afford such equipment--and I'm sure the teacher wouldn't assign groups based on who has cameras?
I think at that point he'll say he needs to check it out. See what happens then.
"Actually, I think the teacher got your point and is doing his best to ignore it because he's hoping you won't call him on it."
I think that's exactly right. There were a couple of pointed silences during the phone call as well as a bit of whine about how this has always worked out before.
Respect, ambition, and discipline are rare qualities here in the classroom. I know that the problems start at home. These poor kids are treated like crap by the families and then come to school with the same bad attitdues. In the past 2 days I have had to boot out 3 students for talking back to me inappropriately. The consequences...office referral, etc. don't deter them. THEY DON'T CARE!
They're brought up these days to go to school -- if they want to, pass -- if they want to, and to respect adults -- if they feel like it.
I seriously, seriously doubt that their parents are at home showing them by example or with discipline how to behave properly.
In fact, of the 55 students I have called at home, only 6 have parents who cared enough to call me back. Those 55 are the worst I have. That's not counting the remaining 100.
I've also seen parents go to a school and get into crap with a teacher in front of the class and the kid is mortified and teased about it later...I don't think Christi would do that but it does happen.
We're also talking about a small town here...but hey, you guys have kids in school and I don't so you probably know better. I just know I've seen kids who cringe when their parents do things that embarrass them.
....
(ok, so I just hate generalizations)
(generally speaking &:oD)
I know...
I have a very representative sample of the "regular" kids here at this school. Of my 155 students, the majority of them are Hispanic, then Black, then White. The remaining few are Asian, Brazilian, or Pakistani.
I have a wide range in socio-demographics ranging from homeless to extremely wealthy.
99% are at risk (meaning from a broken home, low incme and/or failed at least one yar)
30% are "special needs" meaning that they need modification because of learning dsiabilities or behavioral problems.
3% are gifted.
The problems I encounter do not take place in Honors, AP or IB. It's the regular kids, you know, the normal ones.
Are you commenting on the current thread, or another one?
I don't think she was expecting to overtake the current conversation or start a new one...she was speaking as a teacher who sees the lack of parenting skills result in rude and disinterested students...is that not something for this thread?
Let's talk about toddler antics. My son does not understand that cats will not patiently sit and take a child's abuse the way dogs will.
"See, I believe everyone could find a whole lot more to gripe about, if only they would stop and sniff the, uh...hamster cage."
To think what I've missed before. I'm going to make a point to notice.
Actually, lots of stuff bugs the crap out of me as a rule, but it's just so much funnier and more enjoyable to read about your experiences.
Regarding students, assignments, etc. Middle school has more of that kind of stuff than high shcool as a rule, but when I assigned presentations/projects I usually tried to give a variety of options to choose from. Kids have written skits and performed them, done computer projects in the library, etc.
I must say, I feel kind of guilty reading Jen's situation, because I'm really enjoying my students right now. Well, guilty isn't the right word, but I'm having a good time. It's spring and students are usually really antsy this time of year, but we're on poetry in English and they're getting into it much more than I expected for a "regular" English class.
Little things like this reassure me that he is, in fact, learning something in school. Like most kids, if he's asked about school, he gives answers that involve recess and lunch.
He is doing a report right now on chemosynthesis. That's science, which is right below math on the "Does Cal know a damn thing about it" list.
So I just learned right along with him--enough to be able to ensure he is doing high quality work and not taking the easy way out.
He'll do that a lot--two paragraphs of quality work and then a paragraph of utterly obvious statements that are clearly just there to be filler. I'm trying to figure out how to show him the difference and how easy it is to spot.
One night, instead of a bedtime story, she asked if we could do a lesson from a "learn to read book" that my dad had sent down last year (it was the same book he had used to teach me how to read when I was 5, many, many, many years ago). Wombette and I had been trying it out sporadically over the last year. I opened it to where we had last left off, and she blew right through the lesson. I then selected a lesson at the end of the book, where one reads a page of actual text, and she blew through that as well. I then told her: "Congratulations! You can now read!"
Spy Kids
Every bit as good as its buzz. Excellent for teens and pre-teens alike--and adults don't need a kid as an excuse to go. The kids aren't ultra cute, the adults aren't stupid, the gadgets and gimmicks are all funny and clever for all ages. While the villains aren't particularly interesting, they aren't fatally dull--but the faceless (ha!) henchmen are a gem. The plot is goofy but it follows through. The visuals are glorious, particularly Antonio.
There has been a trend in kids movies of split-level humor--the movie works on one level for kids, another level for adults. I approve of this, generally, but the SpyKids script rejects that option. The laughs are sent along a single bandwidth, for all ages, and it works extremely well.
Additional detail is unnecessary. Go, go, have fun. Take the kids.
Don't check the IMDB cast list before you go; it will ruin a nice little in-joke at the end. Although the best injoke may be that ultra-violent director Richard Rodriguez is responsible for the best family film in years.
She has plenty of age appropriate books that she can read with little or no help; she has attempted parts of whatever "Chronicle of Narnia" book we are reading (only two more to go!) and "The Little Prince." She needs more help with those, particularly the former, as the English syntax sometimes throws her.
Most enchantingly, she reads responsively when we welcome the Sabbath on Friday; and she delighted her grandparents by reading the Four Questions at Passover.
With my ongoing struggle with K.'s organization, today was not a success. I'd told them what to pack, 5 pants, 5 shirts, 5 pairs of underwear, 5 pairs of socks, and given them a duffle bag. A. had all the stuff I told her to put in there neatly rolled up and placed on one side. K. had put in, 4 pairs of shorts (this is not a warm climate right now!) a pair of pants, 3 shirts and a dress. There was also a pair of socks somewhat near the bag, but not in it. And she had told me she'd packed everything that she was supposed to.
I am going to spend this week trying to think of something that will motivate her to follow through on what she's supposed to do, without a lot of reminders. So far my best idea is to start with a list of things she needs to do when she gets home from school (hang up backpack, etc.) and give her a star for every day she does them, without reminders, by 3:30. They get home about 3:15.
She does get motivated by charts and stuff, so I'm hoping that this, or whatever other inspirations, might help. I am feeling more and more like something really needs to be done, and quickly, so that she can spend lots of time building good habits from here on.
I think organization is very much a matter of personality. Extremely organized people, of course, think that it is not. But that's because they think organization is a moral issue. They're wrong, of course, but it never stops them from yapping about it. (g)
Lime, if it's any consolation, there's no advantage to organization. I remember you saying that you weren't sure if it was a phase of K's or not. If it's not a phase, I would try to work within her own parameters to find a way of keeping track of things. For example, if she packs correctly, she gets $1. If she packs incorrectly, she loses 10 cents for each thing she misses, or something.
Chores are different from organization, and you can consider them more a matter of discipline than personality building.
I certainly don't think it's a moral issue but it does help to be somewhat organized...if nothing else, it saves time.
I think forcing a person is is naturally externally disorganized into some sort of mental straitjacket can hurt them--especially if it is presented as being morally superior, or even preferable, to living life a bit more haphazardly.
We've discussed this before, right? I don't know that it saves all that much time. It just means that the time is allocated elsewhere--and relatively little of it is allocated to looking for things, in the long run.
You have a place to drop your keys each time you walk in the door. Instead, you put your keys in a different place each time, sometimes in places no one would normally put their keys. It's time to leave and you can't find your keys. You spend time looking for them...if you'd dropped them in the same place inside the door, you'd know where they are and not waste time looking for them.
And yes, we've discussed this before so let's save time and never discuss it again. In fact, let's always discuss fresh things we've never discussed before and never repeat ourselves at all.
And I think that we can get to that point, but to do so, I need to be a lot more organized about it all! I am thinking that it's not just a phase, just that it's appearing more now as she is given more responsibility for things. So she just needs practice being responsible, and an incentive to follow through on her responsibilities.
Well, you have said so before, but I wasn't directing that at you, but more generally. Certainly there are people who think messiness is immoral.
The idea of wanting to teach your child to be a little organized isn't one of moral superiority nor is trashing people who are less organized.
Well, it certainly is the first. If messiness and disorganization were morally neutral to most people, no one would ever suggesting "teaching children organization". I don't recall anyone suggesting that we should teach our kids to be messy.
It is inherently the second as well, but I agree that no one is trying to suggest it deliberately.
Lime,
I'd like for her to generally be able to take her homework to school and turn it in, be able to prepare for trips, be able to do a list of chores without a million reminders, etc.
Speaking as someone who is terminally disorganized (externally), you may never be able to achieve that as a matter of child development. However, you can address it as a matter of discipline.
So rather than worry about getting her more organized, consider treating it as a matter of making your life easier and her job as a kid to follow your orders. Don't worry about methodology--consider it as much about obedience as it is for her to listen to you generally.
That's exactly right...some of the things you wish she'd pick up will come easier with practice. It's sort of like learning to spell; you spell a word over and over and soon you know it.
I don't think learning a few tricks of organization will stifle any creativity or free spiritedness...as you say, you're not looking for her to become a libraian or file clerk in her spare time.
I thought your idea of the stars and chart was a good one...with a reward at the end of the week, maybe.
I would argue strongly against this statement because I really don't think I ever said that but I have a slipping memory so maybe I said something you could've interpreted that way...I can state with 100% accuracy that I do not feel that way because if I did, I wouldn't be married to Keoni, the least organized person alive.
A birth story.
I was due, according the the OB, on March 18. I was due, according to ME, March 11.
March 9 was a Friday, and I suspected it would be my last day in the office for a while – I fully expected to be giving birth Sunday or Monday, although I was wary …. Rory had been two days “early” and if that pattern held, today was the day.
I’d been having labour pains for over 10 days, coming and going and of varying strengths. A visit to the OB a week earlier had confirmed that I was 2 cm dilated, and over 80% effaced.
The night before I had a decent sleep for the first time in a while, and had no “false” labour pains. I got up, as usual, before 5:00 am, got ready for work, and drove the 40 minutes into my office, arriving a little before 6:00 am. I was, as usual, the only person in the office at that time. My boss usually arrives at 7:30ish, but wasn’t due in that day,.
At 6:05, I noticed some pain radiating from my back to the front of my belly, but thought little of it…I’d been having these “false” labour pains for over a week By 7:00 am, I was casually timing the pains, which were frequent but not at all regular. Intervals were 3 minutes, 8 minutes, 4 minutes, 7 minutes, etc. By 8:00, I suspected that this might really be “it” and when Bob called to say good morning, I told him of my suspicion. We debated whether he should go into work, I should come home, and finally, about 9:30, I decided that if this wasn’t “real” labour, it was uncomfortable enough for me to go home.
He arrived, pretty darned fast, and we packed up an “in case” bag for Rory – if we were sent to the hospital and couldn’t pick her up before nightfall, we wanted to be sure she had her lovies with her. Dropped her off at the babysitter, went to the dr’s office and after check in were set to wait in the reception area with about 10 other women who were ahead of me. Bob was having none of that, so he (unbeknownst to me) told the nurse at reception that I thought I was in labour and was panicking and hyperventilating. They took me right away.
Sure enough, I was 3 cm dilated, and they sent me to the hospital.
On the way,we decided that it would be a good idea to stop for coffee and bagels – who knew when we’d get to eat again? In the few minutes it took Bob to get the food, labour kicked in pretty strong, and we sped to the hospital. The intake clerk decided that I was, indeed, in labour (gee, thanks, lady) and took us ahead of several other women who only SAID they were in labour, according to her expert, hah, opinion.
The dr on call from my practice was the LEAST favorite of the three that could have delivered – she had made it clear all along that I shouldn’t try to VBAC. She checked my dilation, and casually remarked that I was at 6 cm and they’d break my water to “speed things up”. SPEED THINGS UP?!?! Things were going damned fast as it was. I objected, and she said that because of my prior c-section, they wanted to insert an internal monitor, which they couldn’t do until the water broke. I didn’t believe her, because she said “speed things up” first, but was afraid to say no because I was worried about the baby and wanted the internal monitor if that was safer for her.
Broke my water, and immediately went into hard labour. Called for the feel-good guy, and he took almost an hour before showing up to do my epidural. At that point, I was 7 cm and in a lot of pain but handling it. Epidural, yea.
Except, 15 minutes after the epidural, before it had even totally kicked in, I looked at Bob (we were alone) and said “something’s wrong” – he looked at my face, turned pale, and yelled for a dr.
As best as I can remember, there was a metallic taste in my mouth, and I was seeing stars and having tunnel vision. I couldn’t communicate. Emergency personel filled the room, and they began tossing me around like a doll.
An hour later, things were stabilized, and it was time to push. The contractions were back, and starting to become horribly painful. I pushed for over an hour with the baby ALMOST crowning (they could see her, but she couldn’t make it under my pubic arch) . After almost two hours of pushing, I was lost, completely lost, in pain. I imagine it’s similar to being electrocuted – every fiber of my being was engulfed in outrageous pain, with no cessation between contractions. They called the anaesthesiologist, and he restarted the epidural on half dose, to give me rest time between contractions. It still was more painful than anything I ever imagined, but it was….human pain, endurable, unlike what I felt when I was completely exhausted from the pushing unmedicated.
An hour passed, and the OB (who, despite her disapproval of VBAC, did everything she could to make it work, and was very kind during the labour) told me gently:
“We’re going to try one more thing – and then we’re going to have to face the writing on the wall. This baby can’t make it past your pubic arch, and we’re going to have to c-section if this last push doesn’t work.” Then they called in another dr – who stood on a chair next to my head, so that his body was positioned above me, laid his forearm across my abdomen, and while I pushed and my OB suctioned, put ALL HIS BODY WEIGHT ACROSS MY ABDOMEN AND SHOVED THE BABY OUT!
I wish I could experience it through Bob’s eyes – although I know how it was for me, I can’t imagine what it must have been like for him to see me go through that forest of pain. He was so strong and calm (although he almost fainted when it was over, and I think he threw up!)
My Rory girl met her sister a couple of hours later, and held her, fasincated. So began a lifelong journey for the two of them – well, for all of us, of course.
My girls. God has blessed me way out if proportion to my worth.
Ouch. Makes my 2nd c-section seem not so bad ;-)
Just remember how sweet they are together now when they're screaming at each other about nothing. Easier said than done...
Limegirl, thanks.
Shannon, you cynical girl!
I'm glad I VBACd because it totally erased any lingering sadness or guilt over my csection with the older girl. The first one was 2 lbs bigger, and I now know that I wasn't meant to have babies of 6 lbs vaginally, let alone 8 1/2 suckers! Frankly, though - if I'd a known what I know now, I'd have scheduled a section. Apparently, the maneuvre they used to push the baby out could have ruptured my uterus and possibly killed both me and the baby. They're not supposed to do it with prior sections, and the pusher-outer-doctor was incensed when he found out I was a prior c-section mother.
I can see where that pushing thing wouldn't be the best idea for a VBAC.
I had a rupture with my second, so I'd obviously have scheduled a section if I'd known. Maybe if I'd ever had a 6-pounder I'd have had better luck. But my first was 7.5, and #2 was almost 9.
They kept checking to make sure I was numb before the section, though, and I kept telling them I could feel it, even if it was just the tiniest bit that I could feel, because I didn't want to feel ANYTHING when they were doing it!
She had a VBAC, too. Amazing, since I'm not sure I would have gotten pregnant again after that.
You are a terrific story-teller! Thank you for sharing about the birth of your second child. Although I am now officially terrified to go through labor, your story was very touching.
Your daughters have a strong, dedicated mother!
I have news about my older daughter (The Princess of Ohio): She's been accepted as a Theater major at Marymount Manhattan College in NYC. Mrs. Ohio and I are very proud of her (although I admit we're daunted by the prospect of her living in big, bad New York City!).
The mystery over exactly who peed on the bathroom floor is concluded. No, it was not Nigel (the dog). When I took my eyes off our naked, pre-bath Son this morning, he proceeded into the bathroom, spread his legs, grabbed his wandopleasure and urinated into and on the tub. Very pleased, he was . .
Congrats, Princess!
I wanted to fill this thread with pictures of the Princess in various theatrical roles, but unfortunately her school theater department's website is down. Soon, though. (And I'll try not to bust the margins this time!)
Elliot, does your 7-year-old throw fits a lot? I think that at that age they're old enough to have agreed-upon concequences about what's going to happen if they don't behave when it's time to go.
Here's the entire phone conversation with my daughter from yesterday. She's at my parents' house this week.
Me: "What did you do today?"
Katrina: "We went ice skating and went to the library, and Grandma got this new computer game that's really fun and you build a machine in it, and it's my turn on the computer, so do you want to talk to Abby now?"
Then she hands the phone off, I don't think she even said goodbye! I need to call today when it's *not* her turn on the computer. Abby had a lot more to say, I guess because it wasn't her turn on the computer!
I've done a Pitocin delivery with no pain med of any sort--90 second labor pains every 3 minutes. And I'd happily have another kid, too. Also with no drugs, including Pitocin if I were so lucky.
But full-term twins ending in a bunch of doctors scrabbling around one's innards just seemed like a bit more trauma than even Pit.
Turns out it is for a "double mastery grade" and she was very stressed out over the whole thing. Now a "mastery grade" is weighted as if it was 4 grades when calculating the report card grade. So, I assume that a "double mastery grade" is weighted 8x.
I am still pissed about the whole thing, especially considering how much weight is being put on this project. I have decided to content myself with a formal letter to the principal expressing my displeasure. I will tell him that I would not be this displeased if:
The teacher had consulted the parents first.
or
The project had included several different methods of making the presentation.
or
The project had been set up so the students could use the school equipment to make the videos.
I will, of course, send a copy of the letter to the teacher as well.
Comments?
Advice?
I'd copy that letter to the school district and even one organizational level beyond, too. I'd write a separate letter to whatever local columnist you have for the paper.
Elliot,
I didn't think you were invalidating it. I was just one-upping your wife. (g)
Frankly, the teacher has far more right to run a sweatshop than to assign homework that requires the use of video cameras. You would be amazed at how much more attention bad policy gets than bad teaching.
PsychProf,
Are there any particular posts you would like to draw my attention to? I'm a bit surprised by your comment since I thought I had read the great bulk of the relevant posts.
Actually, I'm an excellent strategist. But you are correct that I could probably get equal results without fighting. I just don't see the point.
However, in this case, the only "result" that I think Christi cares about is getting them to change the policy. The fact that the principal didn't react instantly with dismay at what I believe is a very questionable policy suggests that embarrassment is the only way that they'll ever change. Further efforts on Christi's part will only annoy them and, given Christi's desire to avoid embarrassing LD, will be counterproductive.
If she writes a columnist (assuming that there is such a person), she can ask the columnist to check it out and request that he not use her name directly--maybe give him or her some other parents names to call to confirm the assignment. The school might think it was Christi who brought it up, but they won't know.
I'm always amused by people who think that blatant problems like this should be handled tactfully. Are you saying that it is ever acceptable for a school to require expensive equipment to complete an assignment?
I have found out that last year this same teacher required the kids to create powerpoint presentation AND required the kids to do so outside of class - no, they were not allowed to use the classroom computers or the computers in the tech center. Then he kicked and made the kids do their projects over again when the "home" versions of powerpoint used were incompatible with the classroom computers.
There is NO overall school policy on this and I think there should be. THAT is what I am going to push for at this point. (Now that LD's immediate problem is solved).
I'll start with the principal and go from there as needed.
Christi, the reason I suggest the paper is because it is conflict avoidant as well as very embarrassing. It pulls you out of the picture completely and puts it out in the public. Alternately, the newspaper will ignore it and no harm done.
The other alternative is to continue up the chain of the school board and that is actually far more confrontational, as well as causing you to be marked as a troublemaker.
I, of course, have Powerpoint at home. Although I never use it. Visio is far superior.
If the school wants to teach an AV course, they should, and reserve class/homework time for something that actually relates to the subject.
The wheels in Christi's head are turning and you can see the smoke pouring out her ears....
I just remembered that one of my co-workers has a relative who writes a column for the local paper. Perhaps I should ask her if this is something the paper would pick up on and who to approach. I know she would honor my request to be anonomous.
I'll let y'all know what, if anything happens.
I think that's an excellent idea. You can get a good idea of where to go and whether or not the paper would be interested. I really do think ultimately the paper would be a better route (heh).
My mother was appalled. I had a calendar in my room marking off the days until school started. I was ready for school, and my mom knew I would be devastated if I were told I couldn't go. To say nothing of the fact that this just seemed incredibly wrong.
So she went down to the principal's office and asked if room couldn't be made in one of the classes. The principal literally sneered at her (at least in my mother's retelling) and told her that there was nothing she could do and that really, it wasn't that big a deal.
Remember, it's Friday afternoon. She looked up the school union district office and called their office. The secretary was rude to her because everyone had gone home by then. She went down there directly and insisted that the secretary give her the name of someone to call. She finally got in touch with a mid-level minion who was furious at her for wasting his time and lectured her on being a doting mother who spoiled her little darling daughter. (Really. The mind reels.)
She was determined and finally got to speak to the superintendent, who blew her off as well, although more dismissively than rudely.
In despair, she told an older friend of hers who had several kids in public school. The friend was furious and called a high school teacher who happened to be a friend of hers. High school teacher didn't think that sounded right and gave my mother the name and number of whatever honcho runs all the districts in the area.
My mother thanked him profusely and explained her problem.
He listened carefully and then said that actually, my mother had no problem at all. The principal and superintendant had a big problem, though. Namely, how the hell were they going to manage to hire a kindergarten teacher by Monday? Because otherwise, the principal would be teaching the class.
He told my mom not to worry and to bring me to school on Monday and that the school would be working over the weekend to call all the other parents who'd had their kids kicked out in error. And that's exactly what happened. Although they did find a kindergarten teacher--they pulled her out of retirement, as I recall.
The principal was never very happy with my mother for the next year and a half. (we then left for Saudi Arabia).
Like I give a shit. Man, that's just such a fucking great win.
I do think that teaching typing, MS Office, and similar subjects should be a separate course rather than taking up Valuable Classtime. But then, I went to school ages before typing skills (no keyboards yet) were thought to be necessary for anyone but secretaries.
As far as action to take regarding a teacher, do what's needed to get the job done, but don't kill flies with a cannon. In a small town, if you're planning to stay there, the subtle consequences of becoming labeled a troublemaker by being more angry and aggressive than effective, and the sometimes not-so-subtle ramifications for your child the rest of his or her education, may not be worth it.
The choice is "fix it" or "shrug it off and call it someone else's problem". "Fix it" will, by necessity, be "deal with it tough".
But if she chooses to deal with it at all, getting the paper involved to embarrass everyone without her name being used is much, much safer than anything that involves her directly--because at this point the principal can't change his mind without losing face, period. The only issue is whether it will be because the school was busted publicly or because Christi herself took action.
BTW, getting your child in school when she's supposed to go is definitely worth it. In that case I would not take no for an answer.
In other words, you'd act if it affected you personally, but not if it was someone else's problem--even if the problem was a violation of the basic premise of public education.
The possible penalty will be the same in either case.
That option does not exist. I don't believe any of you are giving sufficient weight to the principal's dismissal of the problem, when in fact it is the only relevant factor at this point. It is a yes/no decision in a flowchart, and a "no" answer ends the possibility of a peaceful solution.
So there's no two ways about it, really. At this point Christi either acts on principle to make that little corner of the world a better place by trying her best to get rid of a really rather disgusting policy, or she swallows her distaste because the ramifications to her and her child are too great.
Christi has made it clear from the beginning that this is about principle to her, and I think she's also been completely clear that she's only willing to act to the extent that it won't hurt her daughter. That makes a great deal of sense.
But let's not pretend that there's some other fix that will save the principal's pride and eliminate the risk. 'Tain't no such thing.
It would depend on the issue. You weigh potential penalties against potential benefits, as with any decision. And of course there are a lot of steps in between mentioning it to a principal and taking it to the paper, even to a columnist.
"That option does not exist. I don't believe any of you are giving sufficient weight to the principal's dismissal of the problem, when in fact it is the only relevant factor at this point."
Yes, that option does still exist, at least until the point you run through the chain of command. The principal is not the only relevant factor within the system, as he is not at the top of the chain, and it's always wise to go through that first. In fact, often much can be accomplished by discussing an issue with select board members and issues such as this one are commonly addressed at school board meetings. I said do what it takes to get the job done.
"I think she's also been completely clear that she's only willing to act to the extent that it won't hurt her daughter."
I believe that's what I said, specifying small communities.
But Arky, that's far more confrontational and far riskier to Christi. The moment she refuses to accept the principal's dismissal, she's in "deal with it tough" mode. Ain't no dealing with it nice if you are taking action in disagreement with a principal.
That's what I said earlier--at this point, the safest option is to do her best to make sure the principal and the school district is embarrassed into taking action without linking her name to it directly. The only way to do that is to get the paper involved.
If the paper doesn't think it's a big deal, I would probably call whatever educational organizations--or minority rights groups--in the area, with the same goal. Let them make a fuss about it.
Any action that involves the school board is far more confrontational and personal and carries far more risk to Christi.
I went to visit a newborn today. I can't believe that I, once a disdainer of babies, can get so enthralled by them now. It was a real fear of mine that I would have my own and feel nothing. Fortunately for me, I fell immediately in love, and overall, really enjoyed caring for her when she was that little and demanding. (And still do.) I think it had to be that way for me, otherwise I would've fallen apart, I suspect.
Lordy, I'm remembering those days, and they weren't so long ago...and this mom has had NO BREAK in the almost four weeks since she had the baby. That is just not right. She looked frayed. I offered my services so she could be off the hook for an hour or so sometime soon. It seems utterly crucial to me that she get some time away...I'd better e-mail her while I'm thinking of it.
(I mean, her husband does a lot of the childcare while he is at home, but she's always been within shouting distance of the baby thus far.)
I don't think it's an approach that should absolutely be avoided.
But going the chain of command is worth a shot.
But I suppose you could end up with a "troublemaker" label regardless. At least a newspaper story, even if everyone knows where it came from, puts an issue into the community's hands. It deflects some attention from the individual with the gripe.
I have not dealt with school boards yet. But I know more about newspapers than I ever thought I'd need to.
Not leaving the conversation if it continues, just heading for bed.
g'nite all.
As with cp's situation, a lot of small town factors came into play - what would normally (in a bigger town) be simply a matter of going up to the school and yelling at someone, in this case demanded a much more diplomatic approach.
Having secured assurances from the counselor that she would no longer approach our daughter regarding the matter, we were still uncomfortable with a couple of minor things involving the lady after we'd talked to her.
After discussing it, my wife and I decided drastic measures were called for.
...So, we went to the top - called the school's secretary.
Case closed.
But they won't know for sure. And if the paper chooses to make an issue of it, as Holly says, their very interest lends a validity to the complaint that isn't there if she just makes an issue at the school board level. I mean, people. This is a small town. You can't seriously think that the school board isn't a bubbling pot of near incestuous backscratching and angling.
Besides, the school board of a small town is either going to dismiss the problem or be reluctant to make an issue of it. If they think it's a problem, they'd be grateful if the paper came into the act first, so that they could say, "Gosh! We didn't know about this!" and save face while still getting the problem fixed.
And I am heartily glad your uterus is intact, as well.
I insisted on a VBAC because I was bone-deep certain that I could have delivered Fang! vaginally if only the doctor would have let me labour longer, if only I had tried harder, if only blah blah blah. Led to a significant bout of postpartum depression, actually. Well, now I know without a shadow of a doubt that I could never have delivered Fang! any other way than by section, and frankly, I wish I had listened to the drs and had one with the Boob Barnacle.
Lesson learned - sometimes drs do know best. Snerk.
On the medication vs no medication thing - just a note. I am, among those who know me, famous for my pain tolerance and for being rather stoic in dangerous or painful situations. Too, I went through labour with Fang!, most of it unmedicated, including 3 hours of unmedicated pushing (pitocin induced, too). The pain that I felt during this last delivery was of a different class than any other pain I've ever experienced, including my prior childbirth. Don't know why, exactly, but clearly something wasn't "right" about the birth from the start. Don't be too scared, Jen. Childbirth hurts, but what happened to me was not normal.
Anywho, Holly, I read your comments about the newborn and mother with interest since, oincidentally,Monday night) I had a meltdown about that very issue. The baby nurses constantly, it seems, and I haven't been away from her for a moment since her birth 5 1/2 weeks ago. She also isn't sleeping well at night, and I have a toddler too so there's none of that "sleep when the baby sleeps" crap going on. Hub has a major interview on Thursday that's required a lot of research (away from home) and to top it off, SS and his psycho mother are in fine mettle...I blew. Just blew. One fine a moment in my tantrum, I remember yelling "I'm just a human being for God's sake! You didn't marry Lynda Carter, didja notice?"
He took a day off yesterday, let me lay in bed all morning and kept both girls and SS away from me except to nurse.
Whew, made all the difference. Sleep deprivation is a powerful thing.
Newborn + toddler is quite difficult. Mine are almost exactly 2 years apart, which is pretty much what I wanted--I always said 2-3 years. That first year was very tiring. Once the baby could walk fairly reliably, it got easier. She'd just tag along after her brother, and he usually let her.
I just reread my post, and it reads as if (ahem) Hub only allowed SS near me to nurse.
!!!!
click on image 
I live in a small town and there was an ag teacher who wasn't considered a good teacher (okay- he'd sleep in class and let the kids chew tobacco in class and play cards and have them work on his farm for class credit). It wasn't until a parent reported him to the school board for bringing in a dead lamb from his farm for the students to do something with (in violations of all kinds of health/safety rules and codes) before they could do something about it and get rid of him.
That's basically what some of us were suggesting, that Christi seek help from within. Others were more for her contacting the newspaper or a reporter friend and going more public with her problems re: the teacher and the assignment.
Oh, I remember those days, just barely, though. I think that most of the memories have been lost due to lack of sleep at the time. A. was 16 months old when K. was born, and K. would barely sleep without me for the first 3 months.
The good thing is, it ends eventually, and I'm so glad to have two girls that are close together. They're such good friends now! Makes those months of no sleep worth it.
No, it won't and that's not the sort of change I would like to see.
The school does have video cameras. So the teacher could have set up the assignment to allow the kids to use the school video cameras. Since the school doesn't want the kids to take the cameras home (and I don't blame them), the kids could be allowed class time to make the videos or arrange to come in on a Saturday.
To be perfectly honest, LD has done projects before where her group made a video. However, in each of these cases, making a video was one of several media options the students could pick from to accomplish the objective of the assignment. If this teacher had set this assignment up this way, I would have had no objections.
If a policy is put in place, and I do think a coherent policy is needed, I think it should be on the order of requiring that options be available OR use of school equipment be allowed OR parental approval needed if neither of the first two strategies is used.
I don't think that is unduly restrictive on the teachers.
What do y'all think?
I would do that if I felt strongly about it and the newspaper didn't act on the information. But remember, Christi's goal was tempered by her reluctance to make things difficult for her daughter. Any move within channels will, by definition, cause that risk. Going to the "zealot" will upset the principal for sure, and quite possibly the school board and the smug center of the active school community as well--and they'll know exactly who to blame.
The newspaper is simultaneously safer and more effective, if they choose to take interest.
The problem was with a particular teacher, but had nothing to do with a personality clash. It had everything to do with the restrictions on the assignment. I got angry with the way this assignment was set up before I knew about the weight being put on it.
BTW, LD didn't have any problem with it - she was just totally focussed on how to get access to a video camera so she could do the "neat" assignment. I was the one who thought about how many other people would find this a burden in this community with multiple plants closing and/or laying off workers.
At the very least, the teacher should have given the parents an advance heads up and a chance to object. To give him credit, I don't think he meant to impose a burden. I think he's clueless enough that he really believed what he told me in our phone conversation - "well, everybody has video cameras nowadays"
Stopping injustice and ensuring fairness--piffle. A trifle. Totally besides the point. You'd sacrifice all that if you could only guarantee that the kids get effective teaching.
Right.
I shall refrain from howling with laughter at that statement, but only barely.
"Effective teaching" is entirely orthogonal to the issue at hand, which is all about access and fairness. A teacher can be excellent or lousy and still be unfair in their assignment methods.
You can't build a system that ensures effective teaching, Elliot. You fix the problems you can. And the problem, in this case, has nothing to do with teaching. It has to do with school policy.
SO, I am going to make an appointment to discuss it with him cooly and calmly - something I am much more able to do now that LD's immediate problem is taken care of and a little time has passed for me to calm down. I will approach the principal from the standpoint of "hey, it worked out ok, for my kid, this time, but a coherent policy is needed...."
IF the principal blows me off, then I'll see what else I am willing to do.
I know my original posts made it clear that I was blown off when I first went to the office about this, but didn't make it clear about who exactly blew me off.
TTFN
Yeah, I'm the same way. Spawn would just learn the up and downside of having a mom like me--and in Spawn's case, the upside of having me stick up for him and for principles, regardless of the downside, has generally worked out for the best. But I know that all kids aren't like Spawn, and all situations aren't the same.
Besides, my patience with public schools is so limited that in both situations--Christi's and my mother's dilemma with me--I would have just yanked my kid out and put him in private school. But then, I'm a tad....binary.
I grew up with a woman who was a strong matriarch and pulled my ass out of public school for a few years when I was being beaten up and the school couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it.
I think this whole "my child will be embarrassed" thing is just so stupid.
There, I said it.
But push comes to shove, I always punt on comfort. That's a personality thing.
Anyway, the newspaper, if it is a halfway decent one, will show up at school board meetings anyway. The best thing to do, if you get no response from the principal, is to call SEVERAL school board members at home with your concern. You will without a doubt get at least one member who doesn't like to make waves, and will say, "Don't worry, I'll take care of this for you." You will also get a SBM who will say, "Please attend our next meeting," and will appreciate the head's up. Or, you can write them a letter. At any rate, the paper will be at the meeting, and the issue will be made public.
My dad was on the school board when I was in my early teens, and he achieved great notoriety because he insisted that because funds were drying up and programs were being cut, that the town close the jr. high building and move the kids to the high school. You would've thought he was proposing that kindergarten kids should ride the bus with the pot-smoking seventeen year olds. He got annonymous threatening phone calls, rumors that he was being adulterous to my mom (!?!) were circulated, it was insane. Even the teachers hated him for it, curious seeing as he was trying to save their jobs, but whatever.
I was in the same class as two other board-member kids, as well. And while I was at school, I never heard a thing about it. Not from a student, and not from a teacher. My class was not tiny, but it wasn't so very big, about 250 kids.
So probably, Christi, even if people get mad at you, your kid will remain untouched. Most people could give a crap about school politics. It's just that the ones who do often have big, strident mouths. But they will point them in your direction.
Your issue is so minor, and so sensible, I seriously doubt anyone will get very upset about it. You won't catch the vitriol my dad got.
And by the way, they didn't close the school. And by the time I graduated, all music programs had been cut including our award-winning band, all art, anything extra you can think of except of course sports. It was sad. We had study hall a lot.
Well there is that. I can't move right away and the only private school in town is a very small very fundamentalist Christian school (evolution is not taught and all teachers have to swear that they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible as a condition of employment).
No doubt my own childhood colors my opinions on this and LD would be fine. My school days went from being tormented to being invisible - both very uncomfortable in different ways. I have stood up for LD in the past and she stands up for herself very well. I have been very proud of her standing up against peer pressure and she is very social - very unlike me.
So perhaps I am unduly concerned about my making waves having repercussions on her. However, I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to my daughter.
Hopefully, mean marlene is right and now that I have calmed down and am ready to be reasonable, the principal will take my criticism and suggestions well and do something constructive.
Also the mother of one of LD's best friends applied for a teaching position there and showed me the statement they were required to sign as a condition of employment. They also had to swear they were practicing Christians.
Now there's nothing wrong with that, imo. It's a private school and the families who pay to send their kids there are looking for exactly that kind of environment.
Well, back to applying my nose to the grindstone.
"So, we went to the top - called the school's secretary."
Also, a lot depends on how happy you and LD are with the school as a whole, Christi. If this is your main concern take it where you feel you need to, but I haven't seen a school yet that didn't have at least one incompetent teacher, much less one that was unfair or inconsiderate of individual circumstances in assigning work. They have trouble enough getting warm bodies right now, and being in a relatively small town in the Bible Belt, private school almost always equals fundamentalist religious school.
Ad,
I read about your birthing experience, and I really feel for you. I hope you're getting some rest now. Sounds like you had an innovative team at the hospital.
I was in labor 25 hours and had a lot of back labor. I didn't take any pain medicine until about the last 5 hours, and it actually was worse because the drug made me sleep (don't remember what it was) between 1 minute contractions, which it seemed like I had forever, and the pain would jerk me awake. It was very unpleasant. I finally got an epidural and had Mose about an hour later. Had I not been so numb and tired I'd have kicked myself in the ass for putting up with all that pain for so long. I absolutely cannot imagine how I would have endured what you describe at the point of pushing. I'm glad you all got through it safely.
If Christi goes to her columnist friend and says, "There may be a story here," her friend is more likely than not to say, "Um, I dunno..." because it is soooo much easier for them to just go to the school board meeting and get the real scoop there. For all they know, Christi doesn't have her facts right, and it is a huge drag for them to sort it out.
In short, there is no way out of this without being noticed. The best thing to do is to follow the chain of command until Christi gets the results she wants, i.e. a change in school policy.
The joy in agitating for positive change is that chances are somebody somewhere is going to hate you for it.
Growing up, I had curly-wavy hair. Then puberty hit, and my hair became somewhat frizzed out, coarser, and much more curly, so it corkscrews when allowed to be long enough.
Since I had the kid 16 months ago, I've kept it pretty short, but am currently letting it get some length--it hasn't been cut since October (and that was really damn short).
I don't know if it's the dye job or the fabulous conditioner I am currently using, but I think we may be back to curly-wavy. Hormones, you think?
I can't say that I'm sorry, either, that other mess was a bitch to control.
Before I had LD, I was on the blonder side of ash blond with platinum streaks. While I was pregnant, my hair came in that nasty dark no-color kinda color that is the darkest end of the ash spectrum. The roots were so much darker that it looked like I had been dying my hair previously, when I had never dyed it in my life. It stayed that color too.
The funniest part is that because I hated that color, I started dying my hair auburn. After I dyed it, all sorts of people I knew started telling me how much nicer I looked with my hair it's "natural" color and that the blond had never looked natural on me. !snerk!
Now I am letting my hair go back to it's natural color and letting it grow. It was getting too damaged because I was perming and coloring it. I had been keeping it in a short short curly cut.
Boy-Boy will be 2 in September, and we would like to find him a nursery school.
How did the parents in here find a good nursery school.
These sound like Italian cheeses or salads....of course, I do know they are schools but the names just struck me funny.
SOME WILL NOT BE HAPPY WITH BELSKY
Principal researcher Jay Belsky of Birkbeck College in London was presenting the findings in more detail Thursday in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at a meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development.
"There is a constant dose-response relationship between time in care and problem behavior, especially those involving aggression and behavior," Belsky told reporters Wednesday.
Belsky, a research psychologist who worked at Penn State University until two years ago, added that children who spend more than 30 hours a week in child care "scored higher on items like `gets in lots of fights,' `cruelty,' `explosive behavior,' as well as `talking too much,' `argues a lot,' and `demands a lot of attention.'
"If more time in all sorts of (child care) arrangements is predicting disconcerting outcomes, then if you want to reduce the probability of those outcomes, you reduce the time in care," said Belsky. "Extend parental leave and part-time work."
The first thing that comes to mind is that they are lumping a lot of things together and calling them all negative. Cruelty and explosive behavior, maybe. Talking and arguing are bad? Sez who?
Kids who have spent a long time in daycare have been dealing with a lot more conflict. It's not just them and mommy and carefully selected playgroups. So they're going to be a lot readier to argue or fight for what is theirs or what they think is right. They're going to know what to do in a conflict situation, whereas a kid who has had a placid time for five years with mom may not.
Also, the study lumped stay at home dads in with daycare. It was Mommy or nothing. Agenda, anyone?
JAY BELSKY
click on photo 
What can we say? I doubt we could know what options are in your area...what can you do except go to the potential schools, get referrals from them, and weigh the differences? I'd want to definitely talk to other parents with children the same age as yours and see what they are doing...get recommendations.
Oh, that's right. It was a survey, not something they did by direct observation. And of course, kindergarten teachers are notoriously biased in what they define as "well-behaved".
Erin,
I think modified Montessori is a good idea. But in general, go to the schools and see if you like what you see. My guess is that you won't really have a whole lot of options, and many of them will have waiting periods. So the important thing is to get started.
The internet contains a ton of information about the various methods of instruction. That should be your point of departure. The larger movements like Montessori and Waldorf generally have national organizations that can direct you to schools in your area, and nothing beats spending time in the schools you're checking out.
Two years old is kind of young for nursery school, isn't it? Wombino and Wombette didn't start until they were 3. They were in small group situations at a baby sitter before. The baby sitters had learning materials available, but the activities were informal.
You know, I didn't pick up on the fact that he wasn't 2 yet. How about an infant toddler center? Spawn went to one from 16 months to 2.5 years (he started nursery school then) and loved it. Lots of play, some structured activity, gets them ready for nursery school.
I think that the best thing, though, is to go in and take a look around at places. Has he been to any of the classes city parks & recreation offer, to see how he gets along in a group environment? How outgoing is he? Does he love to play with other kids, or does he get burnt out on that quickly? Depending on his personality, you might want to start out with something that's just a couple of hours, a couple days a week, and see how it goes. Two does seem a little young for most of the programs I've seen, but there's probably something out there that will work for all of you.
Look for a daycare that either specializes in the under 4 set and/or segregates by age. Look for credentials in early childhood education and child development and infant and child First Aid and CPR. Look for small adult child ratio - at 3 LD was in a daycare with 1 adult/5 kids (for the 3 and unders, they were segregated by year - ie all 2 yr-olds in one area, all 3 yr olds in another) You should be able to drop in at any time unannounced to visit with your boy. If they want you to give them notice, even just a phone call, first or say you would disrupt the kiddo's day if you drop in - avoid the place like the plague. Look for cleanliness. If there's a LOT of crayon on the walls, food or dirt in the back of kids' hair, they seem to repaint a lot - those can be warning signs that there is inadequate supervision. There shouldn't be anyplace on the playground for adults to sit down - the caregivers should be on their feet alertly watching the kids, not sitting and/or chatting. When the kids are outside, there should be a minimum of two adults watching them and they should be in separate areas, not standing together. Check credentials, licensing, BBB, references.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. LD is 13, it's been awhile. She was in two daycares from the ages of 3-10, because we moved just as she was turning 7. The first one was around when my best friend's daughters (who are now in their mid-20s) were little and is still in business with the same management. The second one had been in business for more than 10 years when LD started there and is still in business, but has changed management (manager moved, not fired).
As with all free advice, this is probably worth what you are paying for it. As with all advice I give, ignore all or part as you please - won't bother me.
Well, you did ask....
infants and 1 yr olds: 3 kids/adult (cost the most, about $110/week, 1991 prices)
2 yr olds and 3 yr olds: 5 kids/adult
4 yr olds, pre-K: 7-8 kids/adult
school age K through 3rd grade: 10 kids/adult
4th-6th grade: 12-13 kids/adult
Both of these places had 12 as an upper age limit.
LD was only there after school up through 4th grade. In 5th and 6th grade, she went to Girl's Inc. Now that she's in 7th grade she spends time at a friend's house after school a couple days a week and is home alone the other three.
He's pretty outgoing with people he's used to--a little standoffish with strangers. He really seems to enjoy playing most with children slightly older than he is.
My only problem with her daycares was that she liked them so much I had a hard time getting her to go home.
Apparently my angel baby enjoys kicking over other children's sand castles and hates leaving the park!
See, if you stayed at home he wouldn't be so disagreeable. (g)
Wait!
That means it is all the other kid's fault!
I'm sure a study could be devised to "prove" that, too.
We are getting friggin' obsessed with testing in this country.
Well, your president is a big fan. Take it up with him.
On a related subject, Wombette got her third report card last week. Since she's in first grade, she does not get letter grades, just "(O)utstanding," "(S)atisfactory," or "(N)eeds Improvement." She's a bright kid, with well-educated, high-acheiving parents. Her grades are mostly mostly Satisfactory, with Outstandings in Music, Art, and Handwriting.
My wife (who is the higher academic acheiver in the Wombat family) always gets pissed off that Wombette is not getting more Outstandings. I tell her: 1) It's first grade, fer crissakes, her medical school application will not be affected; 2) the report card indicates that Wombette is doing well across-the-board, and very well in several areas where we know she has talent; and 3) that the term-by-term trend in getting Outstandings is rising, as Wombette gets more comfortable in class. Note that my wife does not get down on Wombette, rather on her teachers for what she must perceive as an inability to recognize our daughter's transcendant brilliance.
I also point out to her that in the social, behavioral, and citizenship sections (as opposed to academic acheivement section, Wombette gets Outstandings. I then suggest to my wife that we grade her for these areas at home. She laughs and we agree that they would be mostly "Needs Improvement."
But generally he would get Os and S+s in grades and Ns in social, behavioral, and citizenship sections.
I'd like to say I thought this was a bad thing. But I didn't. I figured that if he was doing well enough in school for the teacher to be forced to give him good grades even if he drove her nuts, it was worth celebrating. And his citizenship did slowly improve, over the years, although it will never be anything wonderful. Can't think where he gets it from.
Back to the study: I was pleased to see that a lot of the coverage questioned exactly how "negative" the findings were on kids who were in daycare.
Good article. It also mentions that the head researcher has a clear agenda, and has been chastised by his co-workers for jumping to conclusions.
What's really ironic is that the "bad" conclusion isn't all that terrible, given that the so called 'aggressive" behavior is well within normal range. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that kids in daycare are ahead socially and cognitively. Did that get the headlines?
And, now, the babysitting solution that sounded great in theory but turned out to be not so great in practice, and now I'm feeling very weird because I'm not supposed to say "No" (Åse's neurosis perking up its ugly little head).
Another woman in my department had her little girl about two weeks before me. And, we're about at the same place dissertation wise and jobsearch wise - data collected, must now analyse and write.
So, we both had this brilliant idea that perhaps we could trade off babysitting the two little critters, so we can have some time to work. Which sounded great (I have a feeling I envisioned it as sort of hanging out together with the lap-tops and trade off on the small stuff - I don't know now).
So, last Monday we have this meeting to talk about it - except that it wasn't really a meeting to talk about it, but general chatting about a lot of other baby things, and things that are troubling her, like her hub is going off to another state this summer for an internship and she's bummed (he's been SAHD since birth). And, that she needs to not have the kid there in order to work. Conveying to me that she really needs this.
Which may be entirely wrong, because I have skewed perceptions when it comes to this.
But, anyway, there's not enough time to set up much, but we decide that the day after they'll bring M down to my house for the day. M is supposedly also an easy baby (no reason to doubt it), and rearing philosophies are similar.
I'm sounding more dogmatic than I mean to, but I strongly suggest you clear it up.
As soon as Ben tries to feed M, she starts to cry. A rather high-pitched unhappy cry. And, she's fairly unconsolable.
This continues throughout the day. She gets into crying fits and have to be carried around and be consoled. Freja is mostly fine, having a good time with the toy M's parents brought - but there are times she gets upset too, where I get really conflicted, and then Ben comes rushing in to help. (He didn't sign up for this, btw, and now he can't work either). I mean, it is not much you can do with an unhappy 3 month old than to carry her around and trying to figure out what is wrong. She can't help it, but I find it much harder when it is not my baby (mommy-bias rearing its other ugly head).
So, for 6 hours or so I'm doing nothing but watching babies (and the majority of the time, it isn't mine), and a good 3 hours of those, Ben is also doing nothing but watching babies.
I just couldn't wait to get both of them in the car and deliver M home and go off to school (with Freja).
I almost feel shell-shocked, and I feel a bit bad because I don't like M that much for no good reason except that she's crying and she's not my baby.
I also decide that having Freja around most of the time isn't interfering enough with my work to make it worth having to deal with two babies very often in order to have some reciprocal no-baby time (beyond no-baby time when Ben cares for her).
Thanks.
I've whined about this in MOD already. It hits the core of my insanity where I don't feel I have a right to say "I'm not going to do it because I don't want to", especially if the person is conveying "help, I need to be rescued". And, then I just freak out and go insane.
And, I end up having no perspective whatsoever. On the one hand I have my "I don't want to" physical reactions. On the other I expect to be guilted into doing whatever.
I end up considering a mental institution.
Luckily, I broached this with Ben, and he thought it was just as bad an Idea as I thought, and he is just as possum biased as I am.
Well - I won't continue my whiny story. I did e-mail her and tell her that I feel very apprehensive about this, and can't do any long periods at all. Ad hoc two hours perhaps, to cover a class or a movie.
But, Ase, there's no reason you should feel obligated to do this. Particularly if you don't need the non-baby time to get things done yourself.
So don't add stress to your life at this time by taking on someone else's baby. But feel free to continue your story. It's not whiny.
Remember that "I don't want to" is an excellent reason not to do something.
Shannon and I have already pointed out that you don't need a reason not to do this.
But I will also say this again, more clearly: you have a lovely, wonderful balance. Read the many threads in MWT of women wailing about the baby crying, missing work or not wanting to go back to work, hubbies who do nothing, etc. That is what lack of balance looks like--whether by their own doing or happenstance, no matter. Or look at the woman you're talking about.
Consider this lovely time as sacrosanct, not to be tampered with. If you need babyfree time, hire a babysitter. Or find someone to exchange time with who is as unstressed and generally content with things as you are. Trying to accomodate someone under stress and pressure will automatically add the same to your life--whether you like the baby or not.
We e-mail a bit about this. T (the other woman) wonders if I could take M friday - her hub needs to study for a big exam that monday (and, additional things about how he needs time). But, I have a friend coming and say so. And, I can't do monday because I have committments. And, I also tell her that perhaps we should go very easy on this in the beginning, since having two upset babies to take care of is not a good thing - no need to overwhelm ourselves (I still haven't gotten it clear in my head that this is not something I can do). This is before she has done any two baby thing anyway. She wants to have a schedule so we know when.
It is also an inconvenience. It would have been much easier for us both to go up to school when hub goes to Indy. (Now, the car broke down, so that was a moot point). I actually miss their call when they're announcing coming down with her. So, I never took care of her, and I was immensely relieved. I actually got things done.
And, when I have these strong physiological "no" reactions, I need to heed them (well, I actually cannot go against them, they're that strong). But, I end up feeling very conflicted - and this is old garbage that I have a hard time sorting out, feeling I have no right to do what is good for me.
I am doing really fine with me and Ben and Freja, and the last few weeks I have gotten a lot more done workwise - probably because I have now recovered from birth enough to work, and it feels great.
And, I probably would have felt better if this idea had been with someone who (like me) could take it or leave it, and it was just a matter of occasional covering. The "help, we need this" attitude makes me resentful (like, hey, that exam date wasn't a mystery now, was it, so why will the non-studying become my problem?)
But, it is good for me to hear that others don't consider me a selfish ogre to feel like this.
And for what it's worth, you are not an ogre at all nor are you selfish.
In my last exchange, I stated that I really need to do this for very short periods of time only, and I might be able to do some Friday... Among letting her know I felt very apprehensive about having to take care of two babies for any long period of time. So, that was wishy washy of me.
She seems to really need this, or want this anyway. Perhaps M was cranky because she was hungry. Well, probably, since she wouldn't take the bottle from us most of the time, possibly because she was freaked over being left with strangers. And, T didn't have that hard of a time once Freja would take the bottle and calm down. But, that only means that T is different from me when it comes to taking care of kids, and I'm just more limited in my capacity - as is Ben.
So, she asks if I can take M a couple of hours while she meets with her adviser. And, makes suggestions for the future.
So, now that I have it clear in my head, I had to write back and say, no. For one, I have obligations until the semester is over, and taking care of M will make me feel even more cramped (and she reciprocating by taking care of Freja really won't help). And, I didn't even do any offer for future exchanges. Since, well, I have no idea if I'm up to it, and I don't want to be someone that is counted on for babysitting (I may very well be up for it, if I don't feel like I'm someone that is relied on for baby-care whenever).
Besides, I take Freja with me to my meetings (since she's quiet girl). It isn't ideal, but it works fine so far (eventually that will have to stop, but not just yet). So, I told her I do that.
I get annoyed with myself that I have such a hard time with this. I need assertiveness training.
Anyway, thanks. I needed reality checks. And, now I need to correct homework.
I realize this is a Salon article, but a lot of the researchers will willing to go on the record about Belsky and the fact that he had no basis to go on TV and make the claims he did. In the first place, there is literally nothing conclusive about the study. In the second, he is not the principal researcher, but a lead researcher--one of 13.
The most interesting aspect of the article is the possible reason for the other researchers' silence--namely, this incredibly expensive Early Child Care Study is proving nothing but the intuitively obvious.
I have no idea why it took me so long to understand that because I don't want to is an acceptable reason for a decision. But my oh my what a liberating change that was.
The campaign to get parents to put babies on their backs for sleeping has had two results, apparently: a 40% decrease in SIDS and a whole bunch of babies not rolling over and crawling on time. Turns out that the roll over and crawl milestones aren't reliable development markers, either--kids who don't roll over and crawl are still walking and developing on time in all the other ways.
Spawn rolled over, crawled, and walked within the same 6 week period, and never really crawled much at all. I can't remember if he slept on his back or his tummy--it was before the campaign, but I've known about SIDS and tummy sleeping for a while. But I seem to recall I mixed it up. In our case, it was probably because we lived on a boat and he had a lot more opportunity to sit up first and then cruise than he had to crawl. He was always in the walker at the babysitters.
Did anyone else have a kid who crawled or rolled over "late"?
I think you're exceptionally considerate and sensitive to want to help your friend out, but she has to work it out herself, or pay someone to help her.
You are probably in a tight spot because there is a certain comraderie there between you both, and you don't want to be unsupportive, but what you describe is intolerable. I would go out of my mind--just hearing about it is stressful.
I think you need to cut it swiftly and mercifully. She is oviously refusing to pick up on your hints.
my baby crawled very late -- maybe started between ten to eleven months. He rarely slept on his tummy which may support the findings in that study.
He is also walking late -- at fourteen months he gets up, takes a few steps and then gets back down on his tiny rump and bounces to me. 'They' say that about big babies, that they are slow to start to walk, but I don't know, maybe heneeds a walker.
But he loved the walker. It was his cousin's (7 months older) and somewhere I have a picture of 4th of July 1988, when he first started using it, at not quite four months. He was rarely out of it until he figured out how to "cruise", at about nine months.
He was relatively big at birth (8 lbs 14) and has been big ever since. He just turned 13 and is 5'8".
It sounds like he can walk. Is he falling when he "gets back down" or is it deliberate? I think 14 months is a bit big for a walker, because they have all the skills needed to do it on their own. Spawn only used crawling regularly after he learned to walk but before he mastered getting up without assistance. Before that, cruising was his favorite method of transportation. Does he cruise?
From what you say, it has nothing to do with his size. It must be...psychological then...
Do you think this is linked to the fact that Im still breastfeeding? That Im keeping him in some kind of mommy cocoon and it's inhibiting him in someway?
I should be reading books on this, perhaps, but i really hate to be so studied in my approach to motherhood.
No. But thank you for providing a superb example of the internal voices mothers use to drive themselves bugfuck with no assistance whatsoever. Relax. It's not that. If you want to breastfeed, do. If you don't, don't.
The fact that he can walk means it's not size and that it's not developmental. He is probably interested in the control aspects. Look! I can walk! Look! I can decide not to walk and fall down go boom!
If you can find fun ways to get him to walk, do so. I bet you can walk five steps to this cookie! I bet you can walk from the bottom of the slide to the ladder! Whatever. Just don't give him the first foggiest hint that you're worried or really really want him to walk.
Otherwise, don't stress it. If he's still not walking regularly the next time you're at the pediatrician, give it a mention.
You can read books without getting too structured. You can also avoid books altogether. It really depends on your preference. I liked reading books because they would often describe patterns or milestones that I could then see in Spawn and I got a kick out of that. But I only did so for the first year or so.
We're dealing with some of that now. Daughter took exceptionally well to potty training , has been in underwear without any problems for a couple of months, and has suddenly started wetting herself regularly (for about a week now, some days worse than others.) It was such a surprise it took a couple of days for her mom and I to rally ourselves around "we're not going to make any kind of deal out of this at all." Happily she doesn't wet the bed ever, so clean up isn't much of a hassle.
My mommy fret: at 19 months, he is still going strong with a bottle, refusing all sippy cups.
This is not to worry you in the slightest, but regression in toilet training is often a sign that something is upsetting the kid. If it is something obvious and you know about it, fine. But if you don't know of anything, it's worth investigating a bit--check with her mom, daycare, and so on.
For example, Spawn had been out of diapers for a couple months when his dad and I split up. With no outward sign of upset, he started wetting his pants again. We didn't mention it, just put him back in pull ups and he was fine in about six weeks. In other words, pretty much what you did.
So the "cure" is no different, but it might be useful to know if something is fussing her.
Wow, that is late. (Don't you love it? Oh, there's nothing wrong with x or Y, but your kid, man, that's a problem!)
Is he in daycare or is hub with him all the time?
I have to say I'm a bit embarrassed by his preference, but I do a secret dance when I see an obviously older toddler sucking on a bottle.
Have you asked her to try the sippy cups? I'm assuming you're talking about the ones that have a lid, yes?
I don't know if it made any difference but most of her walking was done not hanging onto furniture, but rather hanging onto a very patient German Shepherd.
bottles - The first complication with transferring LD from a bottle to a cup was when for some unknown reason she decided that water came in cups, but milk came in bottles. So she refused to drink water from a bottle and refused to drink milk from a sippy cup. Finally, when her skills with a cup were well developed, I just "lost" all her bottles. She fussed for a few days, then settled down.
Regression - At 4, LD had given up her blankie and thumb-sucking when I separated from her Dad. She pulled it out her blankie again and clutched it with thumb firmly in mouth once again. I knew why and just let her be. She gave it up again when she was ready.
Webfeet, as long as he can do the walking stuff, I wouldn't worry at all. He'll do it when he's darn good and ready, and not doing it because he doesn't want to is completely separate from not doing it because he can't. One day he'll decide that it really is easier to walk than bounce, and he'll be running all over the place!
I think he's just lazy. He's just now getting into solids that aren't completely pureed.
My guess is that this is a little bit about control and a little bit about being absent minded. I can tell when she needs to go, because she starts grabbing at herself. But if I ask her she'll deny it. Then at the last moment she'll look surprised and say "I have to go!" and then start peeing right then and there.
I'm hoping not to have to put her back in pullups because that'll be a big deal to her and because she was never very successful with pullups. She mostly treated them as diapers and didn't make real progress until we moved her to underwear.
The mother of all concerns (since she's also a toewalker) is that this is neurological. But I don't have any real reason to think that just yet, esp. since she never wets the bed.
Mainly I've just been lazy. She almost never wets her pullup at daycare, but I'm sure Helga reminds her more often than I do and/or gets better response. About half the time when I ask or remind her to go, she gets all 2-ish and says no.
At the risk of jinxing it, I'd like to mention that my son's weird indecisive whininess is much improved. For a while there, he was having some kind of meltdown at least once a day--2 or 3 times a day most days.
And today, his sister got in the car first, said "I got in first!" and he said "That's OK, I don't mind." Wow. They've been competing about everything lately and it drives me nuts. I'm an only child--this stuff is all new to me.
I'm an only child, too, so lots of this stuff is very weird to watch in our nieces and nephews.
Yes, it does sound more like an attention and control issue than anything else.
Spawn loved pullups, but that was because they made him feel like a big boy. Apart from the one brief setback he never had accidents during the day. He was very late to dry nights--I believe it didn't happen until he was well over 6. We tried everything and I finally gave up working on it because it was stressing us both out.
If it was neurological I don't think she'd ever have been able to train, so I'm sure you're right that this isn't the problem.
I'm the oldest of four but I never learned this whole aloof thing.
Shannon,
Helga? Good lord. There's a name that's going to figure heavily in your children's future therapy sessions.
The official policy of the school system is to make sure all assignments are "inclusive" and do not put "undue burden" on anyone. Teachers are to provide alternatives and school resources when necessary. The techer has been "spoken to". I didn't have to go any further than the principal.
I am relieved and reassured.
I'm still updating my resume and looking around because, hey, it couldn't hurt. However, the "I gotta get us outta here!" urgency is relieved.
This comes as quite a shock because we thought we were giving him the best, most nutritious diet we could--my husband buys all organic food and spends every weekend preparing several meals for him--yet, it turns out that we have been giving him too many dairy products which prevent the absorption of iron into his blood.
It's something we were never aware of, just thought I'd pass it on.
Yes. That's usually a problem with older kids; I didn't know it was a risk with infants and toddlers. You breastfeed, yes? What was the dairy product he was getting too much of? Was the doctor just speculating or had he specifically said "don't give him X"?
The pediatrician just asked me what I gave him, and recommended that he snack on cheerios or apple jax, instead of the cheese frenchcat loves gorging himn with.
He was also having one yogourt a day, which I've limited now to once every two days.
Does anyone else give their babies Yo Baby! yogourt by Stonyfield Farms? It's the closest yogourt to the French ones I've tasted--very creamy and wholesome, almost like a dessert.
The wafting odor of poo poo floats by...it is time for a diaper change.
(Thanks for the help, CalGal)
LD was in Sunday's paper. They did an article about the Duke Talent Search Scholars. Naturally, I am getting copies to send to all the relatives. LD was unimpressed.
Did you sign her up for any of their summer sessions?
I assume she will be able to go next year, but I'll admit I didn't double-check that. I will have to check it, even though it is too late now to do anything about it if turning down this summer kills her chances for future programs. I really don't think it does, though.
It doesn't kill your chances to not sign up. From what I understand, the hard part is actually getting into a program. Another thing I didn't like about the program was their prioritization. Preference goes to those who have gone before, those who have applied before, and then test scores. So if you haven't gone before, you're at a pretty significant disadvantage. One of the reasons I decided to apply, even if late, was because I figured he wouldn't get in but it would give him an advantage for next year, if I wanted him to go.
Well, my deadline was April 30th. I wonder if I should send in a late app for the reasons you did.
Also, it may be that Spawn will get in easily, that the programs aren't completely filled. Maybe only certain ones are. You can never tell with these things. I'm prepared to send him to the session if he gets in (Spawn is anything but overstressed), so it made no difference. Also, my ex felt we should at least try and was prepared to pony up half the amount.
Did you get a catalog from them? Read up on what it tells you--maybe it's different for the Duke program.
As far as academic improvement, I'm not sure that's the point. The programs are extremely challenging and are only open to 12-14 year old kids who have scored above 430 on their Verbal or Math SAT sections. So provided that the programs actually do work on the curriculum in their catalog, then the kids are getting three weeks of academic instruction with a group of actual peers, and teachers who will expect a great deal of them.
Now, if they don't deliver on that, I'll be annoyed. But I've talked to several parents with kids in the program and they've all had the same positive reviews.
I'm a bit disappointed in the program's approach. It seems pretty clear, based on the prices, that it is primarily used as resume fodder for upper income kids. I was more interested in a program that had regular interaction, rather than just summer programs. Still, if they deliver on the summer programs then Spawn can certainly benefit from some resume fodder.
I can't remember the cost, but it was several hundred dollars, I think. And this was in the early 80's.
He was laid off for 2 1/2 years from GD (which became Lockheed) and started his own construction company and just a few months ago, was called back to Lockheed where he is making more money than before in tool design, all with no college and owning not only his own home but other property he bought along the way. So maybe his life would have improved with a college education and maybe not.
I don't think that the resume building is worth a lot in the rat race that kids now have to run in terms of getting into college. (Unless the kid is also a mixed ethnic, one-legged track star).
But, certainly having an eye on the rat race that their kids are facing is one reason why these programs are as popular as they are. Everyone sees it necessary to get as many chips as possible.
Good for him! He clearly has what it takes to manage without. I notice that he was highly motivated and willing to work hard. I'd still be disappointed; I just wouldn't let it show.
If you are asking as a general rule, though, there is no question that it is better to have a college degree than not, and far more people regret not having done it while they were young than either succeeded without it or were perfectly happy to have gone back for it later (not that there aren't reps of both those camps as well).
Everyone thinks their kid is special and I'm no exception...the fact my child beat cancer at a very young age made him more determined to not be seen as weak; he is very macho and motivated to do whatever he sets his mind to do...keep in mind my "kid" is 39 years old.
He has always been a hard worker and was better suited to physical labor than to class room pursuits. I'm not disappointed in him one whit; I think he's a wonderful son and a wonderfully well-adjusted and successful man and I'm very proud of him.
Mostly on the theory (correct, in my opinion) that another year or so of maturing cannot but help in terms of getting as much out of college as possible.
Similarly, schools now expect many kids to take a break of a year or more while in college. This concept is still alien to most parents, I am told, but they are getting used to it.
Sounds good to me.
Yes, that's a good way of putting it. I agree with your post generally, as well.
I'm not sure, though, if the programs will be good for the kids (like mine) who don't always play well with others. I am not convinced that the classes will have a good share of iconoclastic bright kids--particularly given that I think the program is used as resume fodder. There are a lot of well-behaved, freshly scrubbed, ambitious kids out there these days, and that could skew the program to be just as constrictive as an average school, with none of the upside of understanding. Still, given that they are all going to be very bright it won't be a complete loss.
I suspect you are referring to the more elite private schools. But the vast majority of kids aren't going to those schools, they are going to a state school of some sort. They are also probably working a job while in school, or in the summer, and the temptation to drop out of school and focus on the relative ease of making money is considerable. I don't know what the stats are on drop outs and returns, but I doubt they are all that good, taken as a whole. The majority of those kids would be better off having the degree than not.
If my kid had a specific reason for taking a year off, I would assess. But in general, I would tell him that he will never regret finishing, whereas there were all sorts of ways he could end up ruing his decision if he quit.
But how do you know whether or not it is a concern? If my kid had an opportunity to go to Europe or Africa, for example, and it wouldn't be available after he graduated (for whatever reason) then sure, I'd be all for it. But most kids don't "take a year off" for anything other than working--and I just don't see that as a good reason to do it. Work is far more rewarding than education, for most kids (it certainly was for me) and it's too tempting to quit once you get paid for your time.
Wombat,
I've never understood that. I thought it was the schools who were pressuring parents to keep their kids back a year.
I think boys in particular can benefit from having a bit more age on them throughout school. Certainly from an empirical point of view, that is our strong view regarding our daughter and younger son. He doesn't know it yet, but he's a definite candidate for some sort of program that will add a year to his secondary schooling (and this isn't because he's doing badly in school, he isn't. He's just...immature.)
The problem is, we can't think of any program that will serve this end without making him feel he is being "held back."
The answer may well be to move to England and use that as a guise to have his new school place him a year behind where he normally would be.
The problem is that if we don't do this relatively soon we'll be faced with the fact that he'll just want to stay here and go off to boarding school anyway. And, while I could easily move off for a few years, it isn't such a simple matter for my wife.
Ultimate solution? We stay here and send him off to boarding school in England.
Maybe.
I can't either. But why would you want to, anyway? Do you think he won't do well in highschool?
My mother was put in kindergarten early--she had just turned four when she started, and not quite seventeen when she graduated. She hated it too, and as a result refused to let me be put a grade ahead. Pissed me off something fierce, then and now. I would have been much happier ahead a year.
With Spawn, it turns out the best solution is to let him work in a small group at his own speed. He's not immature at all, but he's certainly a challenge, and if I were to try and move him ahead a grade officially, any behavior problems would be attributed to age anyway.
Besides the cost, which I'm unable to assume at this point because of law school expenses, this was one of the reasons I didn't pursue the talent programs for my daughter.
Someone mentioned a 430 score on the SAT's, all the program information they sent me required at least a 470 on the V or M portions. The offspring was actually interested in the physics and astronomy programs, which required a 520 on one of them, but again, cost was an issue for me.
I must also admit that my popularist roots somewhat recoil at the whole notion of these programs, and lack of enthusiasm for the "elitist" nature of them didn't spur me to find alternative means of financing her participation either.
Does that make me a bad parent?
Well, not completely. It's been recommended by educational researchers for at least the last decade that children not start kindergarten before they turn 5, particularly for boys. The research on young boys supposedly shows that they are at a considerable disadvantage when they start young. So the new wisdom is actually more designed to allow boys to compete with young girls better in the early elementary grades.
Several states have adopted this wisdom and now require a child to be 5 before the first day of school to be able to enroll in a public school kindergarten program.
Hey, I have a teddy bear still and I'm an old lady! (Same teddy my dad bought me when my mom found out she was preggers)
I remember a couple of years ago, I got into a discussion about school online, and several people said something about my son, who's born in May, being one of the younger kids in school. I thought it odd--I figured, well about 1/3 of the kids should be younger, right? Nope. So many people hold kids back that he is, in fact, one of the younger kids in his class. Granted, this is a small sample, but out of 11 pre-K kids, I believe 2 are younger than him.
I think being much younger can be a problem, but like many things, people worry too much about it now. I mean, SOMEONE has to be the youngest kid, and it's not going to automatically doom a child. It's one thing to say that most/all kids should be 5; it's quite another to assume that the youngest of the 5YO's will have problems.
I work with someone who told me her son's K teacher told her he'd need to repeat K--2 weeks into the school year.
There seems to be a bit of variation on the Talent Program thing. The one LD is in required at least 510 on either the Verbal or Math portions.
I'm not going to send her this summer. She is stressed out and needs the rest.
She has been in schools that track explicitly since 5th grade. Before that the school she was in didn't officially track, but effectively did. So she's been with other bright kids all her life. She works well in both large and small groups.
She is socially successful. She is a perfectionist and is so motivated to get good grades that I spend more time making sure she has a life outside of school and homework than pushing her to get her homework done.
The only problem she had was putting off working on projects when the teacher gave them a couple of weeks to do it. She finally got it into her head last year that there is a good reason the teacher gives the kids that much time. This year there haven't been any of the marathon frantic oh-my-god-I-have-to-get-it-done sessions we saw in 5th and 6th grades.
As far as college is concerned, LD is very well aware that I went back to college specifically so I could provide well for us. She remembers the days when there wasn't enough food. She remembers when all her clothes came from hand-me-downs, garage sales, second hand stores, and the church charity box.
She sees college as a way to make sure that she can have the stuff she wants and can provide for her family. She also knows that she will need to get scholarships and work in order to go to college.
As for your daughter's dedication to college, it may hold out. But lots of things change when they hit 18.
I remember Spawn telling me that he wished his sister would quit smoking (he was about 7 at the time, she was 18). He said, fervently, that he would never smoke. I told him, truthfully, that his sister had said the same thing--not only at his age, but for many years beyond. Right up until she started smoking.
Kids even in their early teens do things because they want to please their parents, and then by default. If it doesn't cut over into them wanting it for themselves, then some (but not all) will opt out once they realize that there are other things in life.
Kindergarten teachers are far too powerful for their own good. Given my regular travails with public schools, I am grateful beyond measure that Spawn went to a private school that year.
Boy; 13-14; Teddy Bear; Boarding School= Lots of time walking around with underpants stretched over his head (or worse).
Don't know where the teddy bear image came in, but not my son. A large poster of Derek Jeter, yes. (yeah - he's a Yankee fan - what can one do.)
At any rate, we're two/three years away from the event. A lot can happen in the intervening period. Hopefully, his emotional acuity will catch up with his mental and we'll decide that the extra/staying in place year isn't needed. Then, as things now stand, he'll just go off to school and be 200-300 miles away instead of several thousand.
I did go to boarding school for high school, and it was a very good experience for me. It was not a British one, however: no "fagging," peculiar attire, or homosexual experimentation (that I was aware of!)
The teddy bear was in reference to a facetious comment made earlier.
My mother did send along a can of Helena Rubinstein beauty granules for me to use on my acne. I "ditched" that as soon as they left.
I don't object to the "elitist" nature of the programs, any more than I object to football teams having tryouts. But the fact that the programs are all prohibitively expensive, very long, and almost by definition going to be restricted to the upper middle class and above really did bother me.
I can afford it, and if there's one goal I had in income earning it was the ability to afford programs that were traditionally only open to the well-off, due to the expense. Then I could decide if they just a sop to the rich to make them feel exclusive--or excellent programs that were just very expensive. So if he makes it in, I'll be able to see which it is.
But it's not at all what I hoped it would be. I would have preferred regular activities and shorter programs. I will be investigating the tutorials to see if they have any merit.
Test scores: Hopkins has two tiers--one for the top 2%(430 in V and M) and one for the top .5% (510 V, 530 M). Spawn just missed the top .5% in verbal and just missed the top 2% in math. Do you all only have programs for the top.5%? Maybe that's a different mandate from Hopkins. I'll have to dig up the literature, but I thought that they were geared towards the top 2% nationally.
I also remember a longer program at West Point, which my mother vetoed on the grounds that I had never been able to successfully complete a pushup. On reflection, she was probably right.
Are you getting these from a website, or are they mailing you catalogs? Is it possible the cheaper programs can't afford to promote themselves as heavily?
That'd be great, and was what I had hoped it would be. That's not what this is--and the Duke program is much the same, I believe.
Maybe there are programs that are only for bright kids that don't promote themselves. But this one did come through the public school, and I believe you can only take the SAT as a 12 year old through these programs. Ms, Christi, have you heard of any others?
Yep, that's the same program. LD was part of a group of 7th graders taking the SAT one Saturday morning. They were taking it in the same place and time as the high school/colleg kids, but they did keep all the 7th graders in the same room. So she wasn't the only younger kid there.
Come to think of it, it may be the same or close to it in the Duke TIP. I'll have to look at it the booklet again. I think LD made the top tier in Verbal(515) and not at all in Math(380). Considering that she didn't study at all, I'm not displeased. It's been clear for years now that LD's future is NOT in Engineering.
My Dad was a writer and both my parents had/have artistic skills. I was offered art scholarships when I was graduating high school. It looks like LD got more of that in the genetic roll of the dice than the Math-is-fun stuff. Her interests are definitely art, reading, writing (in that order).
Well, you call it a sop to the upper classes, I call it elitist, to me they aren't very different.
But I am philosophically opposed to fostering elitism among young kids. If there's one thing I've noticed among young kids in their early teens, it's that many, if not all, want to separate themselves out as "better", "smarter", "whatever-is-superior" to those they see around them.
I really don't want to do anything to encourage this in my daughter because I find it an ugly behavior. Although this could be confined to young girls, who, I've noticed, can be particularly snotty and ruthless in segregating each other.
I'm thankful that my daughter wasn't particularly hepped up to participate in any of the Duke summer programs, and I didn't push it.
I''m pretty sure that all the information on programs I got had a baseline cut off of 470 for M and V to get in, and I think I received information from John Hopkins, Duke, and one other university.
CalGal - LD and her friends were in the same room as the older kids, but all grouped together in the same section of the room. She said some of the older ones made some cracks about the 7th graders before they were shushed by the Monitor. Nothing mean, just "Woa! you guys little geniuses, or what?" kind of thing.
LD and the other kids who made the program are supposed to go with their parents to the school board meeting tonight for "recognition".
It also is a myth that a child away means that the parents can't have a very active role in their overall and day to day existence. Certainly when I was away, I talked or saw my parents frequently. And, school schedules are even more abbreviated these days. And, parents are encouraged much more than even when I was away to visit etc. We see our daughter what I would call frequently and talk to her virtually every day. Her school breaks are frequent and long. She will spend her first two or three summers with us, not away at camps or special programs.
At core, it seems to me that the trick is to remain an active, involved parent and that your child perceives it that way. Lack of involvement can happen of course - whether the child is away or not.
In our case, our daughter's milleu has always included a large number of friends whose older siblings went away and it was just expected that they would too when the time came. In our case, we moved just at the breaking point, and our daughter clearly preferred going away instead of starting anew at one of the smallish Manhattan day schools.
I suppose I'm just not very prone to push my daughter in this way. She has always had a rich intellectual life in our home and I don't see the benefits of such programs otherwise. I'd rather develop her social and/or physical skills at this point, which are not as easy for me to supplement at home.
We received some invitation to go Texas A&M this month for some statewide recognition ceremony for those students making the cut into the DTP. I asked my daugher if she wanted to go and, much to my appreciation, said no.
Well, she said NOT!
Well, I haven't seen it in my daughter and some of her friends, partly because the child has good taste in a few of her friends, and partly because I strongly discourage it.
I see it in others, however, at her school. And she's in a magnet program, so I can't say it's not present there either.
I pick programs for LD based on whether or not I think she will get anything good out of them, not whether they are or are not elitist, upper class, lower class or what-have-you. I thought that being exposed to the SAT would be a good thing. I think it was. I think that some of the classes offered to LD this summer would be interesting and enriching for her, but this year she needs a break more.
When we shop for clothes we look for affordable, durable clothes that look good on her and I don't care if the store is considered in or out or blue-collar, or upper-class, or poor-white-trash.
I think people really worry too much about status crap.
I agree that taking the SAT was a good experience for my daughter, and that's why I let her do it. The more familiar she becomes with various achievement tests, the better she'll be at performing to her real level on them when it counts.
One of the few positives from all the excessive testing my daughter has gone through in Texas schools is that she feels fairly comfortable taking various kinds of tests. I credit this with her strong early performance on the SAT's.
MsIT - I don't think LD and I would be interesting in any state-wide recognition program either. This is a small town. The thing tonight is the regular school board meeting, held at the one and only high school, and there's only 12 kids total being recognised.
Frankly, I hate doing anything in the evenings after work. I just want to go home, have supper, do the minimum household chores and collapse. However, LD does want to go to this thing tonight. So I set the VCR to record my favorite programs and we'll stop at Subway for supper on the way home after her clarinet lesson.
I love this!!
My younger daughter was born in October, and started kindergarten just before she turned 5. She's in first grade this year, and I can't imagine how completely bored she would be if she was in kindergarten this year. She's bright, and also bigger than many of the other kids in 1st grade. Not huge, but there are some really tiny little girls in there!! We had her in a private all-day kindergarten, then switched her to the public school for 1st grade, so that she could start kindergarten early. I think it definitely turned out for the best.
Oh, okay. A program that only allows people in based on their SAT scores is often called "elitist". You've said before that you object to programs that exclude based on test scores--as you know, I don't.
As for eligibility, here are the Hopkins criteria.
Although this could be confined to young girls, who, I've noticed, can be particularly snotty and ruthless in segregating each other.
The majority of girls are ruthless and snotty and exclusionary as a matter of course. They rarely are ruthless, etc., over who is smarter than who because girls don't generally see any value to it. Given that girls are going to be ruthless and snotty in any event, I'd just as soon they be rotten over brains. That'd certainly be a step up.
As it is, the smart girls of that age group are generally treated like shit by the "popular" girls engaged in segregating.
Well, yeah, that's sort of what my daughter is experiencing. It's why I'd rather build her social and physical skills at this point, so that she can feel comfortable in her skin regardless of what other girls think of her.
There's really something wrong with girls, though, and their need to be snotty, ruthless and elitist.
And what's worse, is that this all feels so familiar for me, being on the outside for most of my youth, and I have a hard time separating out my old feelings from what my daughter may be experiencing that could be completely different.
I swear to God, being a parent brings new twists and turns at every corner my child takes.
Lime Girl
As I said above, the research on the negative effects of early school attendance are primarly focused on boys, the data on girls suggests they cope just fine.
I am always just a bit amazed when I remember that Katrina really should be in kindergarten this year, according to her birthday!
being on the outside for most of my youth, and I have a hard
time separating out my old feelings from what my daughter
may be experiencing that could be completely different."....very insightful.
Girls (and women) generally compete covertly, and attain status by exclusion and affiliation. In middle school, lacking any real reason to exclude, the popular crew basically decides who or what shall be "out"--which increases their value exponentially, being "in"--and then gives them a ruler to measure everyone else by.
Disgusting. And extremely traumatic for the girls who were pushed down to the end of "out"--usually, but not always, smart girls who didn't much value cooperation and consensus.
It's why I'd rather build her social and physical skills at this point, so that she can feel comfortable in her skin regardless of what other girls think of her.
It doesn't have to be a program like this--particularly if it does turn out to be an association of rich kids. The mind boggles at what the girls might be like, in that case. But I know I would have loved to have met more girls like me when I was that age.
I actually wanted to go away to school. My parents and I got along fine (what they didn't know, couldn't hurt them), but my way of responding to their lectures on the benefits of doing well in school was often to do the opposite. If I had stayed in the NY City private high school milieu, as many of my friends did, I could see myself getting caught up in a far heavier drug, booze, and other forms of decadence scene than I did in boarding school. Also, by having my parents far enough away to avoid daily interactions, I was better able to deal with the lectures when they came.
There's a wealth of research indicating that women who attended all girls schools in middle and/or high school tend to be very high achieving adults professionally and intellectually. And according to Gillian, girls who attend single sex middle schools have a very high probability of avoiding the dreaded performance plunge that plagues many young women when they hit their teens.
I think the performance plunge is just a way that girls try to compete for guys. And removing girls from boys is not, to me, the way to get them over this nonsense.
I also think that the all girl school results have a lot to do with selection bias.
You're scaring me.
Calgal
Selection bias isn't a big issue here, it's been controlled for in most of the studies, and since many of the single sex schools for girls are Catholic, these tend to be more socioeconomically diverse than most other types of private schools.
One should give credit where credit is due, and the Catholic high school system, both integrated and single sex campuses, has been shown to have very strong positive results for all sorts of minority groups wrt academic achievement, and includes girls as well.
My own hypothesis about why girl's academic performance, self-confidence, and intellectual security dwindles starting around 8th grade and continuing to rapidly plunge during high school is closer to what Calgal said. Social and cultural clues are all about getting men, and girls suddenly become aware that this is where their future lies. Pair bonding becomes the be all and end all of their desires and those who are considered the "most popular" are those who are the most skilled at attracting the opposite sex.
For those left behind, or disinterested, this can be a debilitating experience.
Agreed, but isn't this selection bias as well? Motivated parents are better parents and they are the ones most likely to put their kids in Catholic schools? I'd sure love to take a Catholic high school organization and send them into an inner city school as is to find out. If they did succeed, wonderful.
these tend to be more socioeconomically diverse than most other types of private schools.
I wasn't thinking of economics in this case, but rather the individual drive of the girls involved--regardless of class, race, or income.
Social and cultural clues are all about getting men, and girls suddenly become aware that this is where their future lies.
Is it not incredibly depressing that this is still where girls see their future? (and "lies" is what that is.)
I think that girls realize their chances for mates are better if they are subordinate to a greater amount of boys. The "dumber" they are, the more boys there are who will find them acceptable. So by dropping their performance, they are in essence competing for boys. (I don't think this is entirely conscious, but certainly "boys don't like smart girls" is a truism, it's so common.)
The solution, to me, is not to change girls. We've tried that, to no avail. I think we should spend more time convincing boys that there is a real and material advantage to smart girls, all things being equal.
My parents weren't shocked when I entered adolescence; they were too busy with their careers. I was quiet and cooperative, so they ignored me. They weren't shocked until I dropped out of college and started working nights at a supermarket. Then they freaked.
Still, I'm with you on what you say. I'm determined to prepare my kids for reality as best I can. Can you point me to any self-help along these lines?
The pattern I saw her friends going through was first the admiration of "distant" boys - members of bands, actors, etc. Then noticing whether actual boys they come into contact with in school are "cute" or "cool". Then having or wanting to have "boyfriends". At the moment, having a boyfriend consists of sitting with the boy at lunch and lots of phone calls as none of her friends' parents allow dating yet. (Neither do I, but it's moot so far.) For her friends, this pretty much played out starting in 6th grade, so that by the middle of 7th grade, most of them had a particular boy they "liked" even if they weren't actually "boyfriend and girlfriend" - yet.
Well, LD has just now reached the point where she is assessing whether the boys she knows are "cute" or "nice". Frankly, that's fine by me. Since she is pretty much following what looks to me to be the "normal" pattern, just a bit late, I'm not worried. I don't mind putting off those worries a bit longer.
We've talked about sex, and relationships, and dating, and peer pressure. I've told her that I will not allow her to go on boy-girl group outings until she is 14 and will not allow a one-on-one actual date until she is 16. She has used this to avoid being made uncomfortable by her friends by blaming me for why she doesn't have a "boyfriend"- with my blessing, btw. In fact, she has carte blanche to use me as the mean strict ogre who would just kill her if she did _____, to get out of any uncomfortable social situation. I only ask that she tell me if I'll need to back her up on it.
I'm actually willing to adjust the 14/16 rules depending on her maturity when it comes up, but I'm not telling her that.
If she has found it necessary to explain or rationalize her "lack" of a boyfriend to friends, I'd be a bit concerned.
Is it really possible to categorize parenting styles as starkly as some do? Isn't parenting style somewhat of an amalgam of several styles? In one of the matrixes linked to, I detected elements of democratic, authoritarian, acheiver, competitive, babying, and inconsistant styles chez Wombat.
No question that our parenting for our daughter is and will be different than for our son. We may be more or less the same people vis-a-vis them, but they certainly are different souls.
I am.
It's the normal nasty catty stuff that has been brought up in the previous posts. It hasn't come from her friends as much as other girls when everyone is in a group at school stabbing each other verbally.
LD is not concerned at all about her lack of a boyfriend and just wants to not be bugged about it. She isn't coming to me with tales of woe and upset, but more on how cool she was handling situation x. She's good both at defending herself from criticism and standing up for others if she perceives they are being picked on or treated unfairly.
So my concern, right now, is 1. making sure I listen and keep the lines of communication going, and 2. role playing with her as many alternative ways to handle teasing and peer pressure as we can come up with.
LD and I talk a lot. We talk to each other a lot about our days (well, ok, my days bore her, so mostly I listen to her day), we talk about the news, we talk about issues, we talk about stuff on TV shows and in movies. I'm doing my best to make sure this continues as long as possible.
I am also holding on to her as lightly as possible and practical as sometimes I am afraid that we are so close she will feel the need to do something drastic to separate herself from me as she goes through the teen years. So I try to respect her space and our differences, while still being the parent who is in authority and who knows what's going on in her life.
That is almost exactly the reaction I would have, so it sounds like we're a lot alike on this.
Controlling for selection bias means controlling not only for SES, but also for parental motivation and support. Studies try to have a separate control for the second because there is an additional influence on student performance based on parental involvement (what they call home support).
However, no study can completely control for this kind of selection bias, so there will be some residual effect in most models. Results that are very robust tend to outweigh the error associated with this problem, and should be a method of determining which studies are "better" than others.
As I said, the selection bias has been addressed, and even so, these statistically significant differences in student achievement for minorities (and girls in single-sex institutions) remain. And most catholic schools do a pretty good job of providing one of the few alternatives for minority parents in urban school systems, in fact, the schools first started in those urban settings and remain a presence there even now.
I don't mean to belabor the point, but the higher success rates of catholic schools with minority students, their more equitable achievement rates, suggests public schools can learn a thing or two from them.
Yes, it is. I think one of the most sobering aspects of the feminist movement of the 70's is the fact that it hardly made a dent in young girls aspirations and behaviors.
I used to believe that future generations of young women wouldn't experience what I did in high school, that there'd be more room for girls to excell intellectually and for that to be more appreciated in the culture. This has hardly happened, however, and even among college women, the attitudes toward lifelong work and careers is still predominately based on the model of marriage and kids, then possibly work, when they want to.
I have been amazed by the persistence of these old cultural norms, even 30 years after the feminist wave hit the mainstream.
I have come to the conclusion that it is because it is far easier for them to do so. Feminism went as far as it did and no farther because all women needed, for the most part, was to be treated equally in the workplace. So women have the option to work, but not the mandate that men do. And for the most part, they like it that way, whether they say so or not.
Obviously, far too many women suffer from the results of decisions made that looked attractive and turned out not to be when hubby left or died. But it's hard to get them to look beyond that--just as it's difficult to get men to look beyond their own stupidity. (or lord knows, all men would wear condoms)
That's why I think that the way to change women is by working to change men--not to be more understanding and do more housework, but to see significant advantage to a woman who is materially independent from him. I don't know how that is to be achieved, unfortunately. Still, I think men have changed far more than women in the past 30 years.
I think women should spend less time worrying about what they "should" do, and try to figure out what they "want" to do.
Provided that the results of women making choices with less than optimal outcomes aren't used as "evidence" of needed change, that's fine by me.
That said, I still find it depressing that so many women and girls consider marriage the means by which they provide for their children.
I almost agree with this. Were it not for the fact that I think women, as a gender, have become incredibly narcissistic over the last two decades, I'd completely agree with it.
We now make men look good.
I think women should spend less time worrying about what they "should" do, and try to figure out what they "want" to do
And I think this is all women have been doing, to the exclusion of any real assumption of responsibility for their actions, for the last three decades.
TOTALLY agree.
F**k this, it's damn embarassing to be a woman these days.
No. I see this as the copout that they use. Over and over again (you see this in MWT) they whine about how they feel "pressured" to do this, to do that. I mean, fucking please. Is anyone taking away their kids if they don't breastfeed, or do breastfeed? Is anyone giving them less money if they are working with children? No? Then shut off the damn "inner voices" and just fucking deal.
They use the voices as an excuse. Why? Because women are always uncomfortable with saying, "Because I want to". So they find an excuse instead.
That doesn't change the fact that they are narcissists. Who the hell ever said it was easy, being completely responsible for yourself?
As blacks have become more and more middle-class, the women of this community are burdened with more expectations. They don't know how to put themselves first.
I always struggle with this type of discussion, so please bear with me.
I really don't understand these types of complaints that white feminists have. And forgive me, I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but just really don't get it. Maybe it's just because I see the women I grew up with having some real constraints, and surviving and even thriving within them, that they didn't have time to wonder if their daughters were tomboys, or if they would be able to balance work/family, and so on.
I think race is a legitimate dividing line for women's experiences. I've no doubt your own experiences are different then mine, then most middle class white women.
I really don't understand these types of complaints that white feminists have.
Are you talking about the complaints I was paraphrasing, or the complaint I was making?
I agree that race is probably a major dividing line for middle and upper middle class women. It may be that the sort of whining that the Ms and I are bitching about is incredibly rare among black middle class women. Living in Silicon Valley, I don't run into a large number of professional black women (or even black women in general), but the ones I've run into have not seemed to be particularly angst-ridden.
As blacks have become more and more middle-class, the women of this community are burdened with more expectations. They don't know how to put themselves first.
I'm really glad you brought that up. Feminism so often gets lost because there is so little common ground among women. If it must fall apart because of different philosophy, fine. But it really shouldn't fall apart because of race. There should be some common ground despite that, shouldn't there?
But then, that is why I see the complaints of so many women as "whining". Because the fact is that if you even have the option of staying home, or working a part-time job (to supplement the "family" income), then you have luxuries that are just not possible for so many women.
And the thing is that all women with children might come to a point in their lives when staying home or working a part-time job is a luxury they don't have. So why on earth don't more of them treat it as a luxury, instead of demand it as a mandate?
I think black women in the middle class are more aware of this, as a group, than white women.
Agreed that staying home to be a housewife (or househusband) is a luxury. Not that it's not a good thing to do--but honestly, I think it's a thing women should do only if they can make the case that they are putting themselves first. IOW, staying home because they want to and maybe in the long run, their careers aren't all that important to them.
Why feel guilty for making a living and putting food on the table? Why gnash your teeth because you don't want to work 80 hours a week away from your child in order to get ahead?
Regarding school, AR law cuts k attendance at a Sept 30 birthday. Mose started reading before she was three and began piano at three and could probably have done well in 3rd grade by the time she reached kindergarten. Her enrichment program allowed her to write poetry and she read to the second graders, so I was happy with her primary school experience, especially since she's so physically small. I was too, and my parents were advised that I should skip second grade but they discussed it with my teacher and decided against it because I was so tiny. I don't know if it made a difference with either one of us.
Mose went through a streak of "academic independence," I'll call it, in jr high, but she's independent and self-motivated and knows what she wants and is a great student in the honors program. My main concern is that her first love is music and she's not musically developed enough at this point for me to feel comfortable with her going into a career in it. She was selected to be in jazz band and it's already affecting her course choices in hs.
Regarding testing, the SAT isn't looked at here until the P-SAT in 11th grade. Her pre-ACT test was excellent, and she's always scored very high across the board on SAT-9s. I just don't really know what to do with it before she heads for college.
Now that she's a bona fide teen and has her own sense of direction, I'm not really worrying about it. I also think she has her head on very straight regarding boys, friends, personal choices, etc. I've done and am doing everything I can to keep up with what goes on and we talk a lot--Bob and I both. All I'm really worried about right now is her driving.
Yes, I've set one of my parenting success yardsticks at successfully getting my daughter through high school without 1) getting pregnant; 2) getting engaged; 3) at worst only mildly flirting with alcohol and drugs; and 4) managing to remain academically strong and prepared for college.
No mean feat I've set for myself, I think.
I'm terrified of these next years, but I'm determined to do my best to be there for her.
Yes, I believe I am. My understanding of black women comes mostly from my knowledge about their participation in the labor market over the last century or so, and certainly, that experience alone suggests a different perspective than that for white women.
Stephanie,
You're going to hate me. I just read the thread and have two responses:
1) MC is utterly clueless and gormless and exponentially less tactful than, say, me. Which is saying a lot. But she isn't uniformly judgmental. She is pretty consistently so in one key area--family dysfunction-and that was what I saw her judging on in this conversation, too. Other than that, she's just utterly tone deaf and quite often she's just flat out wrong. Keep in mind she's wielded that idiocy my way, too, and I've been ruthless. But compared to Tricia and Aleta, she's not in the same league.
2) I pretty much agree with her down the line on Dogstar, which was a different topic than family anger, and one where I didn't see her as being judgmental much at all. She was just responding to the problem presented, and Dogstar was quite right to point out the similarities to me--except I would have been a lot tougher. My first impulse in reading Dogstar's posts was to tell her to get the fuck away from her two year old and turn her over to a daycare where she'll be safe and happy. So I thought the people who were telling her "there, there" had it far more wrong than MC. MC could have acknowledged the depression, but quite apart from that being in her judgmental area, I doubt it would make any difference. But her response was "Hey, not everyone's good at certain parenting tasks. If it's this much work right now turn it over to someone else." It's a perfectly valid point, and I didn't see anyone respond to it.
I also thought she was right about the reaction to the thrown food--not the consequence, but the clenched teeth, and so on.
I'm dealing with severe depression right now. I think many of these posters are at different stages of dealing with the loss of what was supposed to be a 'good-enough' parent.
It does no good to make blanket statements about anger as it affects different people differently. I will sometimes vent my anger only to find out that there are tears of grief underneath it. People are simply at where they're at.
My husband is out of town for 9 whole weeks (this is week 2) and he only comes home for the weekends. I am stuck, yes stuck (that's how I feel at the moment) raising a 2-year-old by myself. I think she feels his absence because she sometimes hits me and the last time she came home, she ran from him and CLUNG to me. This, despite the fact that she has seen Mama break down into tears at various points in the day.
I feel weak and despicable and all those horrible things BOTH my parents said I was. It's not that I care what either of my parents think of me anymore - it's that I can't even think well of myself anymore, so completely have I introjected the angry, rejecting parents that I had (mostly Mom, but Dad too at times).
I think the THIS (the introjected parent -Alice Miller talks about his) is what is sooooo hard to overcome and what may fuel a lot of the anger towards one's parents. And I still have the feeling that my cruel parent-introject is getting in the way of ME being a good parent. I fear that I am screwing up my daughter as I was screwed up - but in my own unique way, of course.
I do have my daughter in preschool two days a week to socialize her. What I do, unfortunately, is housework - cleaning up the kitchen, organizing things, laundry and occasionally type in WordPerfect a short story I've been meaning to save on the hard drive. Which means, I'm exhausted when I drive through rush hour traffic in DC to pick her up. (BTW, rush hour traffic here can resemble that car chase scene in The French Connection with Gene Hackman!)
I did try to take a lovely nature hike in Rock Creek Park the other day when she was at daycare. I was restored by the quiet and just the sounds of leaves crunching and birds chirping. That wonderful mood was destroyed by the time I picked her up and she was screaming for juice. Then, when I got her back home, I had to immediately turn around and take her to a park for an hour and a half.
Then, when I fixed apples, peas and fish sticks for her, she proceeded to throw almost all of it on the ground for the dog to pick up! ARGH! I lost it and told her (through clenched teeth) that if she didn't stop throwing the food, I would remove the plate. So I did. Too bad -no dinner for you! I'm not proud of my behavior when I act like this.
I try to keep everything together in the house because when DH came home last time, he complained that the upstairs bathroom smelled like a latrine because I forgot to flush that morning's coffee which had passed through my stressed-out system. Thanks, hon.
I've heard you say that you never found the tasks of caring for a small child to be especially difficult. I don't think everyone is like this. I hear a lot of people say that their toddlers drive them to the bugfuck, clenched-teeth stage. And since her husband was out of town for nine weeks, she didn't have anyone to turn the kid over to.
Anyway, it's not the advice (which someone else had already posted in a much better way) to just say "Oh, guess you're not hungry," which is good advice, it's her tone that gets me. Baffled at how anyone could possibly find something difficult that she finds easy.
Oh, there she drives me bugfuck. But I think that's all of a piece with her utter disavowal of family dysfunction issues. In short, I think it's a real blind spot due to some major league denial.
She's also extremely irritating when she says "Gosh, I won't say what I think of..." Chick speak. Makes me nuts.
I've heard you say that you never found the tasks of caring for a small child to be especially difficult. I don't think everyone is like this.
Oh, I know (although I wasn't home all day, so it's not the same). But as I read it, that was MC's point--that it is more difficult for other people, and if you are one of those sort, then do yourself and the kid a favor and put her in daycare.
I think some people are just hardwired to perform better at different stages of life. The deal on family is that you're supposed to be assisting each other through these stages.
I'm sorry that caregiver-to-a-toddler isn't your strongest suit, dogstar. Are you doing this full-time-all-the-time, or do you go off to the office during the day?
and
I know this is like criticizing/evaluating/judging apple pie and motherhood, but I did the same eyeroll on the flip-out over food on the floor that I would if someone were gritting their teeth over how damn difficult it is to peel all those apples for pie. Hey - there's techniques. Hey - that kid is only a toddler for such a short period of time and some people are fortunate enough to be able to spend that time with their kids.
I realize that you're never supposed to question people's religious beliefs nor their child-raising techniques. It's not polite. BUT REALLY - haven't you noticed that some people are much better at the job -that it goes a lot smoother for some folks?
Depression is serious. If she really is depressed, then get help and get away from the kiddo. If she's just stressed out, then put the kid in daycare or not, but get a sense of proportion. Not everyone is good at all aspects of parenting. I, like MC, am pretty convinced that the teens are going to be my weak spot, since I have no idea what it's like to be a normal teenager.
What is this? I mean, what is "introjected"?
I guess it shows how little I know about child-raising in that it is a new idea for me, that some people don't find dealing with toddlers to be especially difficult!
I do think that sometimes well-meaning people do mothers a disservice by encouraging her in this sort of discomfort. Like "hang in there, girl!" because what she's up to is the right thing, the achivement that she'll get brownie points for when it's all over.
But when someone is that completely without joy in parenting, I'm not sure that's the right response. At the very least, I think MC's reaction could be used to give Dogstar a reality check. If her first reaction is "Oh, it's not that bad", then fine, she's just venting, and the reaction gave her the ability to realize that despite her hyperbole, things are okay. If her reaction is "But I must stay home even if I hate it!" then she can decide what she wants to do with that information.
But she's missing all that because everyone is acting as if feeling this way all the time, every day, not getting better after a long break, much less a small one, is normal. Except MC.
That said, Dogstar really does sound like she needs some help. She needs help for her depression. Also if she someone who doesn't deal well with a toddler, what the heck's wrong with getting some help - like putting the kiddo in daycare more -and taking care of herself, without feeling guilty about it?
OTOH, I think what bugged a lot of people about MC is her chastising both Dogstar for being an awful parent - based on the fact that her toddler tossing food made her grit her teeth, right after pooh-pooh others that their parents weren't all that bad after they had posted much worse parental behavior.
OTOH, again, while some of the posters sounded like their parents were neglectful or verbally cruel (or both) almost to the point of abusiveness (some well past that point) others really were whiny.
(caveat, I haven't quite caught up on the thread yet, but I did get up to yesterday's posts)
Interesting analysis, CalGal--thanks. Too bad MWT can't see it!
Just like Jen was appalled that I might prefer to spend my Memorial Day weekend at home relaxing over flying 1500 miles to spend 3 days with my Mom.
Oh, I'm going. She is my Mom and she's 73 and I want to make sure I have nothing to regret in the future. However, not all Mom's are loving and apple pie. Not all Mom's should have been parents. If I heard someone say they didn't really want to spend time with their Mom, I wouldn't automatically react with a "you're so awful! How could you feel that way!" type of comment.
Also, I think she needs to put less emotional meaning into her toddler's behavior. It seemed like she was feeling like her little girl throwing food off of the high chair was an affront to all the time she spent putting together the meal for her, and that the screaming in the car was more purposeful than just being a toddler. And if the drive to daycare is so stressful, maybe it'd be easier to skip it. And no, you don't *have* to take the child to the park. You're the adult, you're in charge.
I think the hub comes home every weekend, so that's a no go. In any event, though, either the husband is on board with the fact that she's staying home to be with the kid, or he doesn't. If the deal was that she has to keep the house clean, too, then I suggest they rethink expectations.
I completely agree about her personalizing her daughter's behavior. Apart from the examples you mention, she also said, "I think she feels his absence because she sometimes hits me and the last time she came home, she ran from him and CLUNG to me. This, despite the fact that she has seen Mama break down into tears at various points in the day."
In the first sentence, I'm skeptical of the connection between her daughter hitting her (something that should stop, btw) and then running away from Daddy when he shows up. Running away and hiding from a parent who has "disappeared" for a while is totally normal, and I don't see any connection with the hitting. But the next sentence is just weird. First off, if she's crying that often around her kid, it's yet another reason to put her in childcare. Second, that she would think the kid would connect crying with anything is giving a two year old far too much credit. I wonder what other behaviors she's attributing to her daughter, and if the spin is any worse.
See, I didn't perceive MC's comments as critical of Dogstar for being harsh, but for overwhelmed. Basically, she's saying "Look, if you get that freaked by spilled food, go find something better to do with your kid."
A toddler who deliberately spills food might be taken upstairs and put on time out without any accusation of harshness from me (depending on the circumstance). A mother who regularly bursts into tears, or clenches her teeth, or feels like she's going to lose it, is going to get far more grief because I think that does a toddler far more harm. It's extremely important for all kids, but particularly younger ones, to feel like Mom and Dad have a grip on things. The occasional flip out happens, and that's scary but bearable for them. But do it regularly, and there's a big risk the child will either take responsibility for Mommy's bad moods or try to bring them on in order to get what she wants, or just to watch it happen. In either case, it gives the kid way too much power.
Steph,
I really think toddlers get a bad rap, and then the jokes start. Truly, they're not that terrible.
And if she's taking care of the kid but putting her in daycare twice a week and it's only her and the kid there all week, I don't really see it as an unrealistic expectation that the house be clean. Unless she's immobilized by depression and staying in bed half the time.
Oh, I think she does, too. Unless she's a drama queen who just likes sympathy. But then, that could get shrinked out, too. (g)
As for the house being clean: I personally think that any husband who lets his wife stay home (and that's what it really is, since she only does it with his money) should make it clear that he expects the house clean and the kids watched. But in general, the agreement is that she's staying home to be with the kids and that this is "job" enough. Then the wife feels unjustly maligned when he's miffed at the messy house. That's what I meant about expectations.
Oh, and Christi, I meant to say that you're right about the exchange between you and Jen being quite similar.
I don't read stuff in there as a rule because the few times I did, I thought too many people were taking the "there, there" route.
Dogstar, or MC? I don't know Dogstar, but MC I know pretty well and my impression of her is in that first post. This discussion began, actually, because Stephanie was growling at her for being judgmental. But by MWT standards, I don't think she's all that bad at all (save for the way she gets about family dysfunction, and I said why I thought that was).
MWT's "there there" and "You go, girl!" norm has been, er, discussed before. I call it ChickSpeak.
I went on a thread once called "Ladies, I need help; I think my husband is having an affair". This girl was reading her husbands e-mail and posting it and the e-mail of the other woman in the thread for all of us to read and I asked her if he knew she was doing that because I thought that was almost as bad as him cheating on her. Man, I got blasted forty ways from Sunday for being mean to the girl and not supporting her...about 3 people agreed with me but I thought "This chick doesn't want real advice; she wants everyone to feel sorry for her".
Totally agree with you about email privacy and I, too, was fairly ruthless to a guy who mentioned it expecting to get a "there there".
But the resulting conversation was surprising, in that there are quite a few people who would break into email to see if their spouses were cheating onthem.
I'm off to make spaghetti with clam sauce! have a good evening...
And then ten minutes letter I am yelling at her because she's being such a prick about going to bed tonight. Sigh.
What is a magnadoodle? Do you still have the MOM word available?
But maybe tomorrow I can help her make a Mother's Day card for her mom.
Anyway, you might want to mention the MOM thing right when she wakes up, or first thing in the morning. Talk about how much you liked it and that you would love to see it again.
I find doing that wipes out my feelings of guilt over spoiled perfect moments, anyway. (g) And the times I did it when Spawn was that age he instantly responded, too, as if he wanted to remember how good he'd done.
They can still get those happy little smiles, even at 13.
And speaking of guitars, I bought an electric guitar the other day. I've been wanting one for years. I found a $99 model that I could buy without having to think about it one way or the other (I pretty much across the board hate to shop, even for my own toys. Especially for expensive items.) I figure I'll upgrade later if it's appropriate.
My daughter thinks it's very cool. I'm thinking when she gets old enough we can jam.
Whoops.
Once more, with the right effect:
God, don't even type the word electric guitar where I'll read it and then Spawn might see it in my brain.
That's on my Next Life to-do list.
Better an electric guitar than drums.
My little one (3 y.o.) made her first "real" picture on her Magnadoodle the other day.
Here's the artist at work...
...and here's the masterpiece.
It's her younger cousin, playing at the beach, "wid a wainbow".
You can see that, right?
My wife wanted to save it and buy her a new Magnadoodle, but I managed to talk her into just letting me take a photo.
Thank you, arky!
(That was for the sweet stories about kids, and the picture.)
(Feeling very mushy)
I'm too lazy to move my pictures over to a place where you can link them in and see them.
JJ:
Hey - about now, I'd gladly let you experience some of the joys of toddlerhood - free!
But really, it is a wonderful thing you've done - not many people would do the same.
I got a letter from Geneva telling me that they have decided to postpone hiring until beginning of next year so the candidates all could have their PhD's before. Was I still interested, and could I please send my thesis when done?
Absconded advisor says it is common over there to do this. I also was at the outer edge of acceptable for my projected defense date on getting the job for the original date.
So, I'm still in the running (the letter was in french - I really have to study up on it). But, I'll be here at least another semester.
What happened with your job? Will you be out this way?
How long are you in Sweden? I hate to think we'll miss each other. I start the gig on Monday and presumably will start travelling that week or the next--unless that, too, has changed. The contract is supposed to go on for 6 months, assuming I stay that long. (I have another job offer).
Taking the wee one home to see family will be wonderful. Make sure you have bottles of water to hand during takeoff and landing--she does take bottles, yes? I took Spawn on a plane at 5 weeks and he did great. Although no one I know can top my mother, who carted my brother from Beirut to Jedda when he was 3 days old. By herself.
Are you going to Sweden solo, or is the hubster coming?
We're both going, and we'll be gone only for a couple of weeks. We both have too much to do here. I'm determined to defend in November, and Ben's business needs his attention. If I get the Geneva thing he needs to have things going well enough so he can do the business from another country.
Flying with a 3-day old? Boy, at 3 days I had just come home, and was not in shape for any longer treks (though I did get into school at 6 days old - for an hour).
I've developed this annoying apprehension about flying. Well, it's been there before, but usually goes away when I fly a lot, and it never was that bad. It is all centered around how horrid it would be if she died and how bad I would feel (yeah, like I'd have time to feel bad if somethign happened).
So I keep reminding myself about the risk-assessment literature. Think of everybody that have flown with their kids and are still alive because the airplane landed. And, the fact that both my FIL and my BIL are pilots and really good ones, and still alive (FIL is retired).
I think I'll order alcohol.
I'd bring water, too, because it means that either you or the hub can handle it, and it's the one time when it is a lot easier to use a bottle than breast. You just have it in your hand and slip it in the moment she starts to fuss about her ears. Mid flight, if she's fussy, it's probably not her ears, so breastfeeding will be fine--and much easier. But I can't stress the value of a bottle of water (or juice) sufficiently for take off and landing.
Also, consider that she's much safer in her seat for takeoff and landing, and that you'd have to take her out to breastfeed her.
She'll probably go to Europe next spring and I won't be going, so that'll be an interesting experience. I really hope she comes to enjoy flying or at least that it doesn't ever bother her.
When they were young drivers I had the same feelings when they were out at night with the family car.
I know I have all sorts of irrational parental fears. Of course, I try to distinguish between the rational and irrational ones and squash the fears down as needed.
FWIW, I thought that in the case of Dogstar, MC's advice was pretty sound. Dogstar does sound like she is depressed, overwhelmed, and doesn't understand much about child developement.
However, it was hard for anyone to hear what MC was saying after she pooh-poohed some people's pain with what really were crappy parents.
OTOH, some people were complaining about stuff which (if I'd been reading the thread at the time the stuff was posted) would have prompted me to say - "give me a break! you are being just a bit too unrealistic and pouty there - parents are people, too. You're a grown-up now, try for some understanding and forgiveness."
Of course, just because some of the stories made me nod my head and think "God! what an awful thing your parent did!" and others "huh? that wouldn't bother me" that doesn't mean that my assesment is the "correct" one. We all have things the hurt us, but might not bother someone else.
Then we go to pick up A., and it turned out she'd gotten sick at the party, thrown up, had a headache, the whole works. Not exactly a fun party for her, poor little thing. We brought her home and gave her a bath, and she seemed to feel much better.
I, of course, blame her father for not getting her to bed at a reasonable hour last night. :)
Day care kids and stay at home kids thrive equally well.
A major Danish study released today concludes that there is no difference whatsoever in the level of well-being between kids who are cared for at home and kids in day care.
More than 5,000 children born in 1995 were followed from the age of five months through three years. Their parents were also interviewed.
Says one of the researchers, developmental psychologist Dion Sommer:
"We have looked at the children's temperament and noted whether they e.g. have difficulties waiting for their turn, whether they are inattentive and have trouble concentrating, and whether they are restless. We have compared children who are cared for between 2 and 43 hours a week, and we simply cannot detect any difference whatsoever".
"With a sample as large as this, it would show if day care was somehow hurting children", he adds.
What matters is whether the parents are well-funcioning.
(Yours truly is one of those maltreated kids. My mother worked full time during all of my childhood. Now I am visiting the exact same cruel fate on my own children).
It's also noteworthy that the Belsky study has caused considerable debate here. The newspaper I link to above runs a child care discussion centered around Belsky and a recent Danish book along the same lines.
aside from the fact that he sent something requires work on my part without consulting me, it requires 64M RAM and 350MHZ processor. He built her PC. You'd think he would know that it has 32M RAM and 200 MHz processor.
OK. Actually, he DID know, because I called him and he said the max the motherboard will take is a 233MHz processor. What he didn't do is read the @#$@&%#@ outside of the box before he bought this thing and sent it to her.
I hate it when she gets disappointed like this.
She's taking it ok. Unfortunately, she's used to this sort of thing happening.
sigh
Of course, he never consults me about anything.
It's no big deal, just an annoyance I felt like whining about.
I sent an e-mail to the girls' dad about soccer camp for K., since she wants to play in the fall, I wanted to make sure she liked it before she signs up for an entire season. So he writes back, and says that that's all okay. AND, then he wants to know if I'll take the girls to vacation bible school at his church for a week in the summer. I really don't want to. I think they get enough religious exposure as it is, and I don't particularly want to expend effort for even more of it.
What to do? Take them and suck it up? Try to figure out some way to tell him no?
If you don't like the religion, treat it as a separate issue. Do the girls like it?
I'm sure the girls would have fun, and he'll psyche them up so that they'll really want to go. My biggest concern is that they heavily stress evangelism at these things, and I don't want them to be trying to convert all their friends, especially since A's best friend is Islam. But I can deal with that by talking to them about how different people believe different things, and we all need to respect each other.
Was it mentioned in the debate that Belsky's co-researchers criticized him for misstating the conclusions considerably?
Yes, you bet it was mentioned.
Aiiie!
This debate on child care gives me the willies. It's like there is a gigantic industry out there intent on inducing parental guilt. Something which, needless to say, affects mums infinitely more than dads.
Since I became a dad eleven years ago (on Sunday), I have been subjected to a never-ceasing torrent of experts bewailing the inattention of modern parents to their kids. Yet when I look around me, I see nothing but extremely concerned and responsible parents who take their kids much more seriously than what the parents of my own generation did.
And the big hypocrisy in the Danish context, and what really makes me mad, is that sundry child experts bask in an aura of progressiveness, casting themselves as courageous no-nonsense lambasters of modern society by denouncing the appalling egotistic parents of today.
All the while they do not even have the honesty and integrity to explicitly draw the obvious conclusion from their preachings: That kids would be better off with stay at home mothers, like in the good old days.
Why not? Well, that would not sit well with their carefully honed and ever-so cherished progressive image. And so many parents are willingly and flagellantly submitting themselves to being thus lectured. Ick!
The experts will never advise pets without caveats again.
Hanna Andersson is a Swedish company that produces clothes for the whole family, but provides mothers in particular with some flattering easy-to care-for, dare I say feminine outfits.
They also have great clothes for babies and toddlers. And, the colors don't fade in the wash.
I know I sound like a walking advertisement, but I've been so dispirited ever since I had to donate my Paris frocks to my titless sister, that these outfits kind of make me feel slightly girly again. And I can't help but feel that perhaps I am not alone.
www.hannaAndersson.com
Webfeet darling!
First, hello. Did you know I birthed again? Groucho is almost nine weeks old!
Hannah Anderson is nice (a bit too South Hampton for me personally, but still) and the clothes are extremely well made. Pricey for kids clothes - $60 cotton frocks that will be worn for 3 months are a bit much, I think. But the adult stuff can be worn forever.
How do I ask this the right way? Did you and your hubby go through with the "procedure"? If so, I hope everything went well.
hahahah!
No, we didn't.
Or rather, he didn't.
I'm getting an IUD installed.
I saw photos of your second little beauty and one of a weary but pretty you sitting at a table. Well done! How are you holding up? Many mothers I've spoken to love the idea of having two babies around the same time and then getting it over with. I can barely feel on top of things with one. Are you organized? Still working?
Hannah is a little pricey for toddlers, but their t-shirts and dresses are shapely and flattering. I know vanity has no place in motherhood--unwashed hair, covered in mess 24/7 but I got tired of looking like a fashionless bug.
Yes, and there is the nursing factor, i.e., can the top be pulled up/back for easy access?
For Skeetie's baptism, though, I threw caution to the winds and bought this lovely sleeveless blue silk sheath and a paler blue silk jacket. Absolutely fabulous ensemble and I looked like a million bucks if I do say so myself.
Of course, the next day it was back into Mommywear but what the hell.
Hannahs sort of appeal to the Ideal You, the perfect, relaxed mother wearing pretty petal-colored clothing and watching your kids frolick on a sandy beach.
In other words, it's a total expensive lie and I fell prey again.
But you need those moments of glamour (I will take any glamour I can, even vicariously fromn catalogs!)... and you have to find a way to wear the sheath again soon.
(BTW, check your e-mail, I sent you something.)
Hanna's stuff is pretty, and does wear like iron...probably good for people who have lots of kids spaced close together.
And as for the sheath, I plan to wear it out to dinner on my birthday, three months hence. Ah well.
Web,
I may have seen your post and forgotten - I've lost a large portion of my brain and almost all my memory skills with the placenta.
I'm well, thanks for asking. Getting better as the days go by.
I've had an IUD before, they're fab if you're lucky enough to not have more painful menstrual periods with them - I am. And they have a great reliability score. Since we are absolutely positively not having any more children, that's important.
Diva, I didn't get an email from you -resend, please?
Work addy is fine.
I didn't get to see your pics. Will you post them again in here? Please!
We had the parent's meeting for Q's day camp tonight. Looks like it'll be fun. They've got a pretty good lineup of field trips.
I still can't believe he's only got a week of school left.
I've had an interesting past few days on the parent front, but especially at last night's band banquet, which lasted almost four hours.
Mose and her boyfriend are both in jazz band, which has been excellent. I don't like to speak in superlatives, but the jazz band in her school is one many university music programs would envy. They've won top honors, as has the marching band and concert band, state and region wide. The jazz band director makes no bones about how highly they compare to others he's directed.
Mose's boyfriend is a senior, and a very impressive young man. If you don't believe me, ask Judith and Keoni. He's won numerous academic and music scholarships, and has a good shot at winning another for golf. It's sad to see him graduate and to see such a good year for him and Mose, as a couple and individually, coming to a close.
The highlight of the evening for me, though, was the special honor Mose won. Only a couple of people here know about the death of her friend almost two years ago. This young lady shared my daughter's first name, and was one of the most amazing young people I've ever seen. She was a 4.0 student, a great athlete, but most of all a fine musician and seemingly flawless person. She played with the high school band two years before she would have gone to high school. Mose's school offers a band camp scholarship, which pays full cost to the music camp of the student's choice, in this young woman's memory, and my Mose won it last night. The jazz band director presented the award, and he couldn't hold back tears. No one can who knew this amazing girl, even two years after her death. I hope Mose wins many awards, and she already has quite a few under her belt, but this one was about the most special I can imagine her getting. We're still glowing.
Congratulations, Mose!!!
Wonk,
Thanks! Actually, Mose has talked about architecture, and if she doesn't go to an out of state school I'm not thrilled about her majoring in music. I won't feel like I know what she wants until she's about ready to graduate. Music is certainly her first love.
I must add--at the nursing home I worked at, there was a sweet little demented lady, a tiny slip of a thing, who smiled all the time and would grab your hand and pat it and say things like, "Aren't you so pretty, dear!"
One day they had the dogs and cats and such in for a visit, and one of the dogs came up to this woman's feet to give her a sniff and generally say hello. She looked down at it, and before we knew it, gave the dog a good hard kick.
What a truly wonderful thing for Mose - and parents!
What instrument does she play?
Mose plays saxophone in band and jazz band. She's first chair in high school concert band. Her first and best instrument, though, is piano. She's been playing since she was three and after a break is back into lessons after begging us for about six months. I told her if she quit (8th grade) she wouldn't be able to start again unless she paid for them. Turns out a two year break did her a lot of good. She never stopped playing daily, just lessons.
Some nursing homes have resident pets. The one my mil is in has a resident dog named Sadie. Sadie is a mutt, but one of the friendliest dogs I have ever seen. Very gentle with the residents. And one of the biggest beggers- The only thing I have seen her refuse is a candy coated chocolate covered cherry (she didn't really refuse it, just took it and dropped it up the hall).
But the cat that brought me something live would soon be dead, bagged, and batted around the lawn in the senior wheelchair polo games.
On the other hand, this is the same idiot who made her aides babysit, so she's hardly a poster child for effective working mothers.
But don't governors get ill occasionally? What happens if they are in the hospital? Do they have to step down?
Well, around here, they go to prison occasionally, and that never seems too much of a hindrance :-) But I guess that's a topic for another thread.
But I'm serious. (she whines)
I can't figure this out. And my lord, that Democrats would do this? Have they lost their fucking mind?
At my last job, at the nursing home, there was a nurse who sometimes would bring her two kids in for the entire 3-11 shift while she worked. She was recently separated. I can't believe the administration allowed that, and I can't believe she had no choice but to subject her kids to that.
I know that she is Republican. I find it incomprehensible that Democrats would try to kick a woman out of office (prematurely) for something like this.
I think that the belief that lactating women can't handle important matters was a bipartisan belief.
Holly,
From what I've read, it seems to be purely political. In fact, one woman who plans to oppose her has a father on the Council. She wisely disavowed his actions.
"A magazine/community for and by mothers who like to think about what raising kids does for (and to) the mind and soul." It's been called "The New Yorker for cheeky mothers" and "a literary time-out for moms." Well worth your perusal.
Welcome to the web site for Brain, Child: The Magazine for Thinking Mothers."
The implication being what...thinking is an unusual activity for mothers? Geez.
I don't know, Dan. Anyway, I didn't mean that you were making the implication, and I do like the look of the publication. That particular phrase just bugged me.
And abortion. I agree. I get very cranky when feminists start pushing affordable daycare as a woman's issue. It's a parenting issue and an income issue--not a woman's issue.
I would maybe believe that 95% of all married men who also have children work at home. 95% of all fathers would mean we didn't have much need for welfare.
Diva,
I read an article in the Post about that magazine and did my spitting about it then. We can snarl together.
Got especially annoyed by the little "hypocrisy" thing of the mother who whined that she's sending a message to her daughter that beauty matters - as if that was a bad thing.
It does matter.
Sorry to say, but it does. And what is wrong with caring about how one looks?
I get mighty annoyed over those kinds of pseudo-whines.
Sometimes the over-examined life is not worth living.
The Ms and I were talking in this or another thread about the fact that middle and upper middle class women (particularly white women) are ridiculously narcissistic. Whine, bitch, moan, and complain--it's not enough that they can have it all, if they work hard. No, they want it all, they want it easy, and they want to bask in the world's approval. So one negative comment about breastfeeding is "women have to overcome such criticism to feed their child properly". and so on.
Along with the guilt thing (I'm getting unusually cranky here).
Yeah, some assholes can spend time trying to make you feel guilty over stupid shit. But, somewhere, you are complicit in this thing by letting yourself get guilted when there's no reason to (guilt in itself can be quite useful - sometimes there are good reasons to feel guilty, like, when you've done something wrong).
But all this horrid mommy-guilt over things that really are trivial (and none of anybody else's business) just gets insufferable in the end.
Not that I don't ever feel guilty over stupid shit - but that is my problem.
I got family for that shit.
The importance of a male heir to continue the family name and the fact that joint custody is not legal here means that fathers once got the children most of the time. Mothers now get custody in 80 percent of divorces as more have entered the workforce and can support their children, and as men have become less attached to the old family name system.
But what makes the custody decision a difficult one is the widespread practice of not visiting or allowing visits with the other parent. The fact that Koizumi has not met his youngest son, even though he lives only an hour's train ride away, is not unusual in Japan.
...
Ninety percent of divorces in Japan proceed by mutual agreement with a simple form filed at the local government office. One line has a space to specify which children are going with the father and which with the mother. Visitation is arranged informally by the parents, but there is no contact with the noncustodial parent in nearly 40 percent of divorces and hardly any contact in another 18 percent, according to a 1997 survey in the Women's Data Book, put out by a Japanese publisher of legal reference books.
Lawyers say establishing joint custody in Japan is unlikely because little progress has been made on other seemingly less serious issues. The family register law, which mandates that one name be used per household, prohibits joint bank accounts and requires a husband and wife to take the same last name, usually the husband's.
This morning, my 5-year-old daughter asks me, "Daddy, why is lying bad?" and I find that I don't have a pat answer.
Eventually I come up with these reasons:
My daughter adds, "and it's rude."
Now, is there anything else that a 5-year-old needs to know? To avoid confusion, I decided not to bring up scenarios where lying is important (e.g. to save someone's life, etc.).
I've got a question of my own. What to tell a 7 year old daughter about sexual assault?
A week ago, three girls (two are daughters of our tenants, who live in the house adjoining ours, and the third is the daughter of close friends) were sexually assaulted on their way home from school. They are 11 and 12. Usually, when they get off the school bus, which is about a mile from here, there are up to six kids who walk home together, including two boys. It's a little country road, through woods and fields, with only 3 or 4 houses on it. The guy must have been watching them for a while, he chose his day. He had a knife, he made them undress, he fingered them and he masturbated. He threatened to kill them if they told anyone.
What to tell a 7 year old daughter about sexual assault?
I dunno. That's a tough one, I suppose. Do you see a compelling need to broach the subject now? Can you just stick with "don't talk to strangers"?
I've thought a bit more. Since the victims are so close to your family, your daughter probably needs to know more, maybe a lot more. If I were in your shoes, I would look for professional advice.
That's my advice: don't take my advice.
Good luck; you have my prayers for a quick and bloodless apprehension of the culprit.
Have you already had the talk about how no one other than a doctor touches kids in certain places (and then with mom or dad around)? If so, you can then tell her that a bad person did that to her friends. You can then reinforce the notion of running away, telling an adult, never being alone with strangers, and so on.
I rarely said "lying" until Spawn was older. I alwawys said tell the truth, and then explained that saying things that weren't true was almost always wrong. Oddly enough, he never asked "why".
At five, I think she's old enough to know about the different kind of lies. Spawn knew that the worst kind of lie was the "save your ass" lie.
Alistair: IMO seven is still too young to have a graphic talk because you'll only make her fearful of things she probably won't understand. Isn't it sufficient to use vague words like the man "hurt" the girls?
I think that's a generally good idea, wording things positively.
Indy,
That is an example of a broken promise, which may or may not be a failure to tell the truth. I suppose if I portray it as a lie it could be quite effective. ("How would you feel if I told you I was going to take you to the park but really took you to the dentist?")
Thanks, both of you.
KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
I fall back on Aesop, particularly "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." He gives an entertaining and understandable description of the effects of lying.
That may be, but to a five-year old, it gives an understandable example of cause-and-effect. Anyway, it beats trying to explain the morality of lying, and then having to explain that lies that avoid hurting people's feelings (after Junior calls Aunt Eulalia a big fat pig), are sometimes a good thing.
LD signed up for girl's athletics this year. This isn't regular PE, but the classes they pull the school teams from. The year is split into 3 sections for the girls. Volleyball, basketball, and track/tennis. The girls are required to participate in teams for at least two of the three sections. Participating in a team means coming in at 7:30am on A days and staying until 5pm on B days for practices in addition to the regular stuff in their gym class time. When not participating, the girls just have the regular class (1hr 20min) of exercise/practice.
OK, LD was on a volleyball team and a basketball team, but not the "A" teams. So while she came in early and late for all the practices, her teams were each just scheduled to play in one game (out of town competition with other schools). The day her basketball team played, she was ill.
So, EIGHT DAYS before the last day of school, in spite of the fact that they have given her 100s on her report card for every single marking period up until now, the coaches told her that since she didn't make that game, she was getting a 50 as her final grade. I wouldn't be hacked if they had said that at the end of the basketball section. Then she could have just played tennis during the last section (something she considered and then rejected). No, they wait until EIGHT DAYS before the end of the year, when it's TOO DAMN LATE to do anything about this to tell her this. In addition, at the end of the basketball section, she specifically ASKED them if missing that game was a problem and they SAID NO.
(Can you just SEE the smoke steam pouring out of my ears?)
continued....
I asked LD what happened when the coaches told her this. "Did you tell them that you made all the practices and you were sick that day?"
LD, "yes"
Me, "Did you ask them if they got my note that you were sick?"
LD, "yes"
Me, "Did you point out that you had asked them about this at the end of basketball?"
LD, "no. They asked me if I had done everything I possibly could to get into another game"
Me, "and you said?"
LD, "I said no"
Me, "Do you think this is fair?"
LD, "I guess so."
OK. Time to learn about consequences. So she wrote a three page paper on the history of basketball. They said that will pull her grade up to a 70, and LD is content with that. I'm not too happy about it, but have decided this is one battle I will not fight for her.
Lest you all think Wombette is perfect, she has a great deal of difficulty accepting sincere praise from her parents (she actively solicits insincere praise). When we compliment her on a good deed or a mature act, she retorts that it was not a good deed, and that she is really a bad--and/or stupid--person. This really distresses her mom, and annoys me. I usually resort to teasing humor at this point, agreeing with her "badness" and creating a scenario whereby she and her friends stood around laughing at the bleeding girl...etc. Eventually, she either accepts our praise, or if the humor goes too far, gets annoyed with me.
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
I've stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I've been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.
Oh, what did you see, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what did you see, my darling young one?
I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin',
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin',
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.
And what did you hear, my blue-eyed son?
And what did you hear, my darling young one?
I heard the sound of a thunder, it roared out a warnin',
Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world,
Heard one hundred drummers whose hands were a-blazin',
Heard ten thousand whisperin' and nobody listenin',
Heard one person starve, I heard many people laughin',
Heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter,
Heard the sound of a clown who cried in the alley,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.
Who did you meet, my darling young one?
I met a young child beside a dead pony,
I met a white man who walked a black dog,
I met a young woman whose body was burning,
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow,
I met one man who was wounded in love,
I met another man who was wounded with hatred,
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.
Oh, what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what'll you do now, my darling young one?
I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin',
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin',
But I'll know my song well before I start singin',
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.
bright orange and purple....
I have to admit, it looks pretty cool.
Course, since I'm a parent, does my thinking it looks cool make it totally uncool?
Poor Kid.
When my mom dropped her off, she ran in and breathlessly informed us that "all da peopoo was dancing nakit!"
I am delighted. Maybe now she will get to spend more time with him as he has rarely used his visitation. I'm hoping this will give them a chance to know each other better and give me a day off every now and then.
OTOH, I'm not letting my hopes get too high, in light of his past record.
Gee, I didn't mean to kill the thread.
Honest!
That would be great if your daughter gets to spend more time with her dad this summer! And breaks are so good. The girls are with their dad every Sunday, and it is so nice to be able to go out and do whatever we feel like, and not have to worry about it.
I have more minor troubles, but I am seriously considering finding a counselor for A. Her father seems to have an abnormal amount of pull over her, where she'll change her mind about things that I know she really wants to do because he doesn't want her to do them, and where she'll beg me to go visit a friend, when she calls him to ask him, the conversations seem to go, "Hi Dad, so-and-so wants me to go visit them on this day, but I don't need to if you don't think it's a good idea or if you want to spend time with me."
Hearing that kind of makes me cringe, because I feel like a kid should not care quite so much about what their parent watns. The most recent example --their skating rink is doing a summer camp, where they have skating lessons twice a week for six weeks, then they get to do a show at the end of it. She has been wanting to do a show and get a costume for forever, and was totally excited to see the flyer about it when we went to skating lessons last week.
The only problem is, it would conflict with 2 days of a 5-day church thing he wants them to go to. So she comes home today, and doesn't want to do the skating camp at all, and gives me a whole spiel about how the church thing is a once in a lifetime opportunity, etc.
I really feel, (and of course her father completely disagrees with me) that she takes a lot of responsibility for how he feels about things, and his welfare. She has been in the past extremely worried about missing him when we've been planning vacations, and then when I talked to her about it, it came out that she was worried that he'd miss her, not that she'd miss him. (continued)
Is this normal? Her sister doesn't seem to care about how he feels much, and I feel like this is a more healthy attitude for a 7-year-old than the way A. is so much more concerned about making him happy.
"Hi Dad, so-and-so wants me to go visit them on this day, but I don't need to if you don't think it's a good idea or if you want to spend time with me."
This is definitely thinking that the dad should intervene in. "It's not your job to worry about whether or not I think it's a good idea, or whether we spend enough time together. You worry about what you want to do and what I tell you to do."
I would start with the ex and you seeing a counsellor, where you describe that behavior. The counsellor will almost certainly agree that it's inappropriate, and give the ex ways to respond. If he's willing to change his behavior, I think your daughter will figure things out on her own.
He has never seemed to be able to function past what he considers obstacles. He couldn't find a job from the ads in the local paper, ergo there were "no jobs to be had", ergo he was unemployed from 1990-1996 except for short term minimum wage jobs.
He doesn't know how to find a sitter or daycare, ergo he "can't" have her visit unless it is the weekend or he takes off work.
He doesn't know how to go about finding a place to live that complies with the parenting agreement he signed, ergo he "can't" have her visit him and not only that but it's all my fault for holding him to the agreement. Coming to see her here or making alternative living arrangements seems to be beyond him.
I don't think he is being stubborn or deliberately obtuse. I think he really doesn't know how to cope. When we were married, I took care of all of that.
It's kind of sad, really.
Do you mean the courts making a non-custodial parent actually use all the visitation they are entitled to by the parenting plan? Because I'm pretty sure the courts already force the custodial parent to comply.
I don't know how that would work. Just as some non-custodial parents get out of paying child support by simply becoming unemployed, I'm sure non-custodial parents could find ways to not have their kids visit with them. Should the courts force a non-custodial parent who is homeless have the kids at the homeless shelter for the weekend? (to use an extreme example)
Is it best for the kids to force a parent to have them for regular visitation when that parent isn't interested? (not referring to my ex here, talking in general)
Isn't it amazing, though, that no matter how incompetent, dysfunctional, or even disinterested a parent is, children, bless them, never see it?
A wonderful woman I know has an ex very similar to yours -except this guy knows how to make money - he just has a problem sharing it with his kids.
The more he avoids the kids (he lives 45 minutes away and has gone months at a time without visiting them), the longer he goes without paying support, the more they want to see him - the happier they are with the crumbs he tosses them.
He can do no wrong.
Sometimes, as the kids get older, this ceases to be the case. I have seen this with the children of divorced friends whose kids are older than LD.
Sorry to post and run, but it's way past my bedtime. Catch y'all some other time.
Sure. But right now, parents who don't pay child support do get the courts after them. Parents that don't meet their visitation do not.
Is it best for the kids to force a parent to have them for regular visitation when that parent isn't interested?
Barring a parent who is actively abusing the kids, yes.
Why is forcing a disinterested parent (who is not actively abusive) to have charge of their children on a regular basis best for the kids?
What benefit to the children is there in having their noses rubbed in the fact that their parent wouldn't be bothered with them if the courts didn't force it?
What benefit to the children is there in spending time with a parent who will ignore them?
Do you think that parents who are unwilling to pay for their kids shouldn't be forced to pay for them?
Christi, that question goes to you, too. All kids whose parents have to go/be taken to court to get money for them "have their noses rubbed in the fact" that their parent wouldn't be bothered with them if the courts didn't force it.
Consider: how many parents in married households ignore their kids, even if they live there? Kid comes home from school, plays, watches tv, whatever. Many kids in married families are quite sure their mom or dad doesn't much care about their existence--and much of the time, they are right. Would you say they would be better off not seeing that parent?
The fact is, most parents who don't bother with their visitation won't be abusive, won't be nasty--and they won't even flat out ignore their kids. At least some of that time, they even love their kids. It's just easier to not have them around, and the parents are jerks. So I see no reason why parents shouldn't be forced to meet their visitation requirements, and I can't come up with any reason for it that doesn't also qualify for failure to pay and/or apply equally to married parents.
How would visitation be enforced?
A parent is responsible for providing for the financial need of their children whether or not they spend time with the children.
A parent has the right to see their children whether or not they are providing for their financial needs.
I'd turn that around. The courts do not force each parent to spend time in sole charge of the kids when they are married? So why should it be different just because the parents are divorced? Why can't each family decide for itself how they want to do this?
The court doesn't force child support when it hasn't been awarded.
IMO, it should be that each couple, when divorcing, hammers out through mediation, lawyers, and the courts how they want to handle being divorced parents. Once the agreement is made, the courts can be used to enforce it just like any other contract. As situations change, the contract can be amended just as other contracts are.
My parenting agreement with my ex states things he and I MUST do, such as maintain certain minimum living conditions. It states that he has the right to see his child a minimum of X number of days at Y intervals. It doesn't say he MUST see her that minimum days/times and it doesn't say he can't see her more.
I think the courts have enough to do.
I repeat : The courts do not force each parent to spend time in sole charge of the kids when they are married? So why should it be different just because the parents are divorced?
Yes, maybe not better off, but certainly not worse off.
They had that luxury before they had a kid, not after. The courts don't take away parental rights of married parents, usually, without extreme abuse. So who cares if they think they are incompetent or that their time with their kid will do more harm than good? A married parent with those same feelings will still be around their kid. Why make things easier for a divorced parent?
What's really idiotic is that the other parent is not given that same luxury. If you and your wife divorced, and you skipped out of town, never seeing your child, nothing would happen, provided you forked out money. No court orders that you provide your half of child parenting. Your wife decides she's had it and skips town, leaving the kid alone. She's arrested for all sorts of nasty things.
But why aren't you arrested for the same thing? After all, she has done no less than you have.
I suspect it is because the entire premise of failing to enforce is based on the court's convenience. If the courts had to enforce visitation, it would be much more work for them. This way there are even fewer squabbles, and less time and money needed to enforce orders. And provided there is a parent responsible for the child, who cares, really, about what is best for the child?
Child custody laws really do seem to be based almost exclusively on what's less hassle for the court.
The courts don't force parents to spend a particular amount of money on their kids when they are married, either, but they certainly do after the parents are divorced.
Parents lose lots of rights when they divorce, because their parenting is now subject to legal scrutiny. There is no issue about this with money, so why is time--something that everyone considers essential to kids--given such short shrift?
I think lots of parents today are far too protective, and it never seems to occur to them that there's possible harm in doing so. Or even just that, hell, it's FUN to get some independence when you're a kid. I loved being able to stay home alone when I was allowed to do so. I loved walking to school by myself.
I've looked up the sex offender records online--seems most of the ones in my area are for prostitution or "crime against nature" (sodomy). I really wish there was more differentiation or more clear info on what exactly the crime was.
Well, this evening after dinner, while my wife was out our daughter was playing in the yard with a couple of her friends. I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd hear them bickering, because they have this 3-way, who's-whose-best-friend-today rivalry going on. And sure enough, one of them comes in the house to tell me my daughter has taken the ball, and won't let them play on the swing set.
So I go outside to see what's up, and there she is, sitting on the middle swing with the playground ball in her lap and her arms wound through the chains of the other 2 swings. She is pouting, and tells me, "It's always Let's do this, and let's do that - I never get to do what *I* wanna do, and this is MY house...blah, blah, blah..."
So, I tell her 2 friends to leave, and order my daughter into the house. She is livid, and throws the ball into one of the other girls' chest as she storms in.
Then, I ask why she isn't watching TV. She tilts her head, looks askance, and says, I'm grounded, and you're letting me watch TV? You're not supposed to be allowed to watch TV when you're grounded, dad. Are you gonna let me have my snack, too?
I was just about to say, Well, you can in this house. But then it hit me. If I let her watch TV and give her a snack, it'll ruin her first grounding experience, and she'll have nothing to complain to her friends about.
So, I just said, "Oh. Okay. No TV, no snack. Two days."
This made her very happy.
...your kid's parents... = ...your kid's friends' parents...
Mine too (the 9 y.o., anyway - the other one's only 3).
BTW - I caved in, because my wife really needed a break from the kids tonight. They were both about sick of each other by a couple of hours before I got home from work, and the wife had that maniacal glazed-eyed look.
So I took them out to the playground and then for ice cream.
And, of course, my daughter noodged me about 10 times, "Uh, dad? This is supposed to be grounding???"
Finally, I was inspired, and told her that her punishment was that she had to be with her sister the whole time.
She bought it.
"On Friday, May 4, David Levy, President of Children's Rights Council announced that sometime this summer, the CRC would file a class action suit either in federal court or selected state courts on behalf of the 25 million American children who have been deprived of a relationship with one of their parents as a result of unconstitutional laws for determining custody of minor children. CRC believes that there is a constitutional right to shared custody by parents and that the denial of that right harms millions of children throughout the country."
No kidding, I'm just tickled pink today.
Not that I know of. I imagine there will be when they file, ahem.
While in general Spawn is flexible, he gets a bit worried if business travel is excessive (past history) so I thought that I would assuage him with the knowledge that he could come with me on my next trip out (which should be in two weeks). Overland Park in Kansas is a teen's dream--it's one big monster mall, with a 30 theater complex and two amusement parks within 15 minutes or so. Plus his grandfather only half an hour away. So I figure he'd be okay.
But I call the ex first.
"Hey, this is your weekend, right? They want me to work here over the weekend and while I was hoping to hang out with Spawn I think I can fix that by taking him out with me next time."
"What? You were supposed to be back here! Spawn was planning on seeing you. He'll be very upset. You are so goddamned disorganized. Plus, I had plans this weekend--yes, yes, it's my weekend but I thought you were going to be here and I wouldn't have to keep him occupied all the time. You really need to become a better mother. Christ, I'm sick of you not meeting your commitments. I have to get back to work."
Click.
"But how come I just can't come out this weekend? Isn't Southwest cheap?"
Well, cheap is relative, but it occurs to me that this will get the ex off my back. So I tell him I'll see what I can do, and I call Southwest. For $576, Spawn can come hang out the weekend in Kansas, see his grandpa, have breakfast and dinner with me, and the ex will not be able to say I'm a bad mother. Seems like a good deal.
SoI make the tentative arrangements, and call the ex back.
"Hey, I can get Spawn out here for the weekend. Then he can see my dad, hang out--it's a great place, and the hotel suite is huge--, goof around, and we'll be back on Monday."
"What??? No, you can't have Spawn over the weekend. I have plans for him. What the hell do you think you're doing? You can't just lug him around because you miss him. What kind of mother are you? You'll see him soon enough, why do you have to overreact? This is my weekend--and btw, next weekend is Father's Day, so I want him then, too. I have to get back to work."
Click.
Sigh.
We are having business travel vs kid problems at home too, but at least we aren't bickering amongst ourselves (yet).
You mean adoption of a "safety-in-numbers" philosophy where statistical odds are good enough to rely on chance?
99.999% chance that your child will make it to adulthood is good enough odds even for parents who understand statistics?
Better if viewed through the lens of someone else's child...not so easy as a parent who hears about shit happening to someone else's kid's everyday.
He won't. My ex just freaks when certain types of plans change--concrete is as flexible as a slinky in comparison to this guy.
So what I try to do is take away everything he could object to--usually by spending large chunks of money. This sets up some sort of counterstimulus and shocks him back to center. He'll be fine now, I think. The important thing was that I offered, and through all his fuss and fury, that's what will sink in.
The weird thing is, he can be incredibly flexible with a reasonable amount of notice, or with many real emergency logistical issues. I can never figure out what will trigger the episode. But at least I'm getting better at recognizing it and not allowing it to ruin my day.
I think business travel issues are much easier when the parents aren't living together, in a way. I think it can be worse if it is the mom travelling. I don't mean that your husband (or any guy) is automatically sexist, but there's still a kind of "hey, that's a guy thing" that can come up.
The flip is that moms are often expected to beatifically accept all absences related to business travel because "it's a job and that's how I support this family!"
I'm speaking dynamics, and often unconscious ones, and I have no idea if that's the sort of thing you're talking about. But for all my ex is an involved dad, he would still get martyrlike if I expected him to stay home with Spawn if he was sick, or cover when I was out of town. And I'm talking about when we were married.
I never gave in, and always won (and no, that's not why we divorced) but given that the guy really isn't sexist in the slightest and actively encouraged my career, I wonder if it is just the fact that the overwhelming majority of moms cover all this stuff automatically that it makes it tough for the few of us who refuse to.
Oh, divorced parents can get quite nasty to each other. This is mild, for him.
I often bite back the urge to say, "The kind of mother who foots the bill for your kid, paying for all costs and all extras, leaving you little to do but enjoy your son and quit your fucking bitching when the money making temporarily disturbs your peace."
But I don't. Not because I'm that nice, but because it would only prolong the situation, and now that I realize he's just venting, it's easier to just get it overwith quick.
I always look to remove the requirement. I'm assuming you can't get home earlier. Have you looked into getting him homework tutoring?
I told Spawn that I resent having to spend so much time tracking his work, and that any time I am forced to spend more time doing what should be his job, I'll get very cranky. (but then, I'm always cranky.)
Can you call your son regularly at your sisters?
I've read references to Kohlberg's work during inter-university project studies several years ago in which I focused for a good part of a year studying theories of behaviorial development...with particular interest in the works of Eric Berne. Transactional analysis was a key support ref in a few of my papers. I found one of his publications, (the first I read), What Do You Say After You Say Hello? to be very intriguing. Although I enjoyed his Games People Play, most of his priciples cited there were too LR Hubbard-ish in my view then.
Anyway...the point I am getting at is when holding Kohlberg's model of moral development in consideration, apply the present dilemma of T McVeigh, and his belief in a societal sense that he is truly right into that model.
Did he have a moral obligation with historical relevance in mind to societal development?
The teacher can evaluate the student's performance and behavior in other classes and in previous quarters or semesters on her computer screen and decide what course is best to follow as to resolve the common student problem of not meeting deadlines for homework, quizzes, and tests.
In that school the principal does not take kindly to teachers who are remiss in these matters.
We all gathered today at my parents' house for the weekly Sunday barbecue.
My nephew's 1&1/2 y.o. boy was there with his mom.
A bunch of us were in the backyard, and my daughter finds a big, fully intact bee hive, which had blown out of a tree. No live bees in it, but plenty of nearly-mature younguns in the cells, dead. She brings it down from the terrace and lays it on the ground, and soon all the kids are oohing and ahhhing at it.
My nephew's wife was also very intrigued, and gazed at the thing for quite a long time, squatting as she did so. After a few minutes she stands up, and her boy goes over to her and gives her a world class goose. I mean, he digs right in and squeezes, as if removing a wedgie.
As she hops away, startled, he asks: "You got poopies?"
(He was, apparently, checking her diaper)
Brain cramp I would guess.
Here's the little gooser, making the moves on my daughter.
(I'm gonna hafta keep an eye on that boy).
(I know, I know - I'm shameless with these photos)
...but,
Here's an even cuter one.
(This was about 10 minutes before the kiss, and about an hour before the goose. Here, I think, you can tell the wheels were already spinning...)
My husband just looked at the pictures and he flipped over your daughter...he said to tell you she's beautiful...and she definitely IS!
BTW - this would be the perfect thread for more of us to share such pics.
(hint)
Plus it makes me all that more mysterious, hhaha.
The Frankster does a pirouette on his hardwood livvingroom floor as his heart goes a flutter
Check out the Café...
Skip the scanner, and go directly to digital camera.
Lots easier, faster, better pics, etc, etc, etc...
Above should be to Shannon.
My webpage
I even just quick added 2 new pictures to the "new pictures" page. The others on the page are about a year old.
You know, you can get a digital cam for around $80. I think Polaroid makes it. Nothing fancy - it's basically for emailing. But I've received emails taken with one from a friend, and most of them are pretty dang close to the quality of my $500 camera.
Check it out, if you're serious about it.
If you get him a camera, it will probably have to be a decent one. Being he's a geek and all.
About the camera, yes. Geeks are so hard to shop for. The thing is, even if I get the precise geek toy he'd want, it's not as good. Because the whole geek shopping experience is such a pleasure. Going to the geek store, bonding with the other geeks, basking in the ambience.
But I think a digitial camera, being a user-friendly item, doesn't have the same shopping thrill. It's not like depriving him of the chance to go buy a motherboard, or some kind of obscure piece of cable.
I evened the score somewhat by giving him a recliner. He uses it far more than I do, but in so doing he frees up the entire couch for me.
That, and the fact that you can take as many pics as you want without worrying about it.
Makes it hard to take a bad one.
Plus, you can entertain your kids with dumb stuff like this:
Says she who has paid to develop pictures of, say, the inside of the car, more than one should.
Spawn just sent me his essay on Dracula and chess. It was terrific. Just when you think all that hard work and snarling and "do your best job, dammit!" is for nothing...
Joe, I may look into that idea, having never gotten a scanner. I could use the ones at work if I wanted to, I guess (scanners or digital cameras, for that matter), but I never think of it.
When I got this computer Bob got what I call his MacDaddy recliner. It's huge and it's in his "study." I say that with quotes around it because it doesn't even have a desk in it.
We're not big on gifts. We get what we want when we can and when we want.
The front page said Post #2364 by JenniferA.
I clicked the thread, and the last post shown is 2363 - but it says Messages 2340-2363 out of 2364.
I hit the forward button, and get a blank page.
Now, I see #2364 is missing.
I mean, I didn't imagine the front page saying #2364 by JenniferA?
What the hell was I thinking?
Cradle robbing's a nice pastime, if you can swing it, if that's what you meant by the studying comment.
Not that he'd need one for what I was thinking of, mind you. Which was also distracting.
Anyway. Spawn's coach was, until last week, the head coach at Santa Clara U. But she doesn't teach during the summer, and thought Spawn and this guy would get along. I'll have to thank her.
What's your email? I have something to say about a certain very dead horse at Worldcrossing.
I reminded her to use sunblock, but I did not emphasize that even with sunblock there is a limited amount of time she can spend in the Texas sun. She remembered her sunblock. She even got teased by her friend for re-applying the sunblock several times. Unfortunately, LD has VERY fair sensitive skin. It doesn't matter how much SPF50 she puts on, she cannot stay out in the sun for 4 hours without serious consequences.
So, my dear daughter is lobster red on her face, ears, hair part, shoulders, arms, the tops of her thighs, and the tops of her feet. She is also shiny - lathered over with aloe-vera gel.
I feel bad as she is a responsible kid and I dropped the ball. If I had reminded her that her limit is two hours, period, or made a point to emphasize this to the friend's parents, this wouldn't have happened. The friend and her parents have dark olive-toned skin and don't burn as easily as us seriously pale folks.
sigh
Christi,
What I do with Spawn--who doesn't burn very easily, but will never remember an additional application of sunblock--is send him out with a teeshirt and a hat. I started him on this regime when he was little, and while he doesn't always remember to put the teeshirt and hat on in a few hours, he has a decent shot at it. Certainly once he's going out regularly he'll get into the routine. Don't know if this will help for LD, but have you tried it?
I don't think it would have done much good yesterday as the girls apparently spent the whole 4 hours actually in the pool, tossing a ball back and forth, gossiping, and having water fights. This is, no doubt, why her legs didn't burn - just a thin area about 2" deep at the top of her thighs just below the suit-line burned.
We found out the hard way when we first moved to Texas that LD burns VERY easily. We followed the well-advertised guidelines for the area that recommended SPF 30 the first time I let her go out swimming with friends (in TX) in 1995. They were gone a total of 2 1/2 hours. LD didn't just burn, she blistered. Since then, we've used SPF 45 or 50 and limited her time in the sun to 2 hours at a time and she's gotten a bit pink a few times, but not a bad burn like this one.
Unfortunately, she hasn't gone swimming or to any extended outdoor activities for a couple of years. So, she forgot our previous conversations about not being in the sun for more than 2 hours and I forgot how long 2 years is to a kid and didn't remind her.
I have a feeling I won't need to remind her for awhile - her current misery will take care of that. However, I WILL remind her, and the parents of any friend she is out with, just the same.
(I still feel like a bad parent over yesterday)
TTFN
She's really going to have to learn to moderate her exposure. An hour out=30 minutes in, or something like that.
if it was sent to my Juno address, I have no idea when I'll get it (my email, too, is temporarily down for maintenance. Really.) But it was nothing special, just bitching about TG and the level of self-delusion involved in how some people descrivbe the whole incident.
Sigh.
and they didn't catch me." "...what a neat thought by your son. Story of all our lives, huh?
Pinnochio is a puppet who's nose would grow whenever he told a lie. Do you think your nose would grow? No? Go ahead, tell a lie. Did you nose grow? No?
Isn't it fun not being a puppet?
My mom accidentally got the book for my little brother for xmas when he was 4. I guess becuase it has such a colorful front and the bookstore may have accidentally put it in/near the children's section. It was before it had the warning lable.
I was the first to read it and I about died... It is the funniest thing I know of in print; I usually give it as a baby shower gift :)
This is adorable! I have a feeling he and my youngest would cause so much trouble if they ever got together!
The girls have to do a 'success sheet' every Thursday for homework, and Abby wrote on hers that it was a good week because she didn't get in any fights. I asked her if she usually got in fights, and she said that sometimes she and her friends got in arguments about who was going to play with who during recess. Her two best friends can't stand each other, which can be really troublesome.
Debby,
Hmmmmmmm.
He's not what you'd call a compliant child, so it's no big surprise.
Naturally!
Like I really care that the wingnuts have pounced on the fact that the study also found greater tolerance of homoerotic behavior! They've been singing that tune forever and will not rest until we all go back into closets of furtive encounters, repressed sex, guilt, self-loathing, suicide, drugs and alcohol.
Well I will not become the misshapened social leper they want me to become and I don't give a shit nor fear them singing the same song over and over.
Mother Reportedly Kills Five Children
She drowned them one by one.
But because she made her own victims and there aren't a bunch of aggrieved relatives--and because people are so anxious to marginalize women that they'll tell themselves "well, any woman who kills her kids must be insane so she's not responsible"--not only won't she get the death penalty, but the chances of her getting life imprisonment are slim.
If we're going to have the death penalty, I wish we could use it to get rid of creatures like this.
I think she'll be found responsible and sent to prison. Lord knows there will be a whole lot of women there who will have a problem with what she did. She'll be tortured.
Yet right now the husband is on TV saying "Hey, I'll support her. Sure, I feel bad that she killed my five kids, but she was depressed."
And that, folks, is why women get off so easy when they kill their kids--because there aren't dozens of grieving relatives pounding down the DA's door for vengeance. There's something to be said for offing all the people who might complain.
Listening to her husband, I wish she'd killed herself and him instead. I mean hey, if you need to kill someone, why not take off a few of the useless ones?
I shake my head at the idiocy of it.
It doesn't make it understandable to me, however, and it doesn't excuse her behavior.
If she is seriously mentally ill - and from what I've read about severe post-partum depression, it can be a chemical imbalance severe enough to make someone very delusional and insane - where the hell was her doctor that she attempted suicide while on medication and her meds weren't changed and she wasn't institutionalized?
Where was the family that she was left in sole care of the kids? Why wasn't someone keeping an eye on her and them?
Personally, I am against "innocent by reason of insanity". I'm in favor of "guilty, but insane". So if someone has committed murder while legally insane, then they can go to a secure mental institution until they are legally sane and then finish out their sentance in prison.
In the second, who the hell cares if it will act as a deterrent? I don't recall anyone saying that we had to kill McVeigh because it will act as a deterrent to other people who want to bomb large federal government buildings (in fact, given his martyr standing, it probably makes it more likely). No, justice demands it. Well, justice can just fucking well demand that we kill people who off their children in cold blood.
It's not that I support the death penalty, but christ, am I tired of seeing women marginalized, and even more tired of seeing gruesome monsters viewed through fuzzy pity lenses.
I certainly never said that what she did was "okay" because she'll get beaten up in prison. What I'm saying is that whether or not she gets the death penalty, she will be tortured.
Secondly, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Darlie Routier case, but the woman has been given no sympathy except by the liberal and anti-death penalty media for killing her two small children. I know the prosecutor from the case personally and the woman was guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt and most people recognize that and that she's a sick, sick woman.
I imagine that once the shock wears off, he'll see things differently. Then again, who knows, maybe he played a part in the murders.
I didn't support the McVeigh execution. I'm against the death penalty, especially in cases where it won't be a detterant.
(yes, I am aware that I am making a shitload of assumptions there. maybe a lot more was being done than has been mentioned by the media. also, note again, that I don't think ANY of that excuses what she did - but this shit doesn't happen out of the blue very often. trying to understand why it happens doesn't mean making excuses for the murderer, but it can mean finding ways to prevent the next murder)
On a surface level, I agree with you. However, it is reasonable to assume that a person living with another with disorders has problems seeing them objectively. He could have been depressed too.
Some people, when dealing with grief, find it easier to support their loved ones no matter what they do. I saw this in the c.m. trial I had to testify in a few years ago. The mother of the perpetrator stuck by him (her son) and claimed his innocence even in the face of his admission of guilt and overwhelming DNA evidence. We all saw the crime scene photos, but she only saw her son, facing the death penalty, as the real victim.
I personaly cannot relate to this type of thinking, but it happens quite frequently.
I don't know, I don't buy this "pragmatic" approach to punishment. She killed five people. Five. And yet the entire tenor of your approach--and many others--is that because they were her kids, then it's nearly as deserving of punishment as if she'd gone up and blown away five kids at a school.
So kids are entitled to less justice if their parents off them?
Add a "not" before the "nearly".
If a life sentence is available, then I believe that's what she should serve.
In this community there was a woman who killed her little boy and she got life in prison without parole. The thing about it was that she had almost grown children, a husband, a social life with several good friends, and many of them knew her feelings for this child of hers. She'd tried to kill him several times before and a friend had actually taken the boy (informally, without anything legal drawn up, I believe), but he went back to live with the woman. He was four when she strangled him and drove him to a place out in the country to hide him.
I have no problem with her sentence, but why wasn't anyone who knew that she'd had tried to harm and kill the boy, including her husband and her "friends" responsible for failing to secure his safety? Her husband, in addition to knowing about her and not getting the boy as far away as possible, actually let her be alone with him. I just can't fathom it.
I don't know what the stats are on mothers who kill their kids, but I have a feeling they aren't pretty.
Maybe it's not as hopeless as events like this make me feel. But the father's discussion of his "two tragedies" and the news media's sympathy for him just made me want to vomit.
I don't know the case regarding this woman in Houston, but I'm speaking generally here.
Exactly. I don't know, and I don't want to speak more than I know of the details, but I do know people who were associated with her, and my mother knew her a little bit through a mutual friend. But she was middle class in a small community with a respectable family and friends, etc, and this was an aberration from what they knew of her. She'd apparently been a good mother to her older (upper teen or young adult, IIR) children, but from her pregnancy she didn't want or bond with this child. I don't know if all that played into how the first incidents were handled, but I assume it did.
It is terrible, and in the pictures I've seen he was a little doll. It makes me about as angry that he was allowed to suffer his mother's inexplicable hatred and abuse of him for four years as the murder itself. I can't help but feel disgust at the others who knew.
me too
I think the discussion has simply been in anticipation of that being used as a defense in this case. This can be a valuable and interesting discussion, even if it turns out to be irrelevant to the news that sparked it.
See, this is the sort of comment that drives me fucking nuts. There is no "letting her" get pregnant. She's an adult. There is no act or inaction of the husband's that mitigates her act. He either kept his children safe or he didn't. If he didn't--if she was making comments about hurting her kids and he did nothing, then lock him up. But otherwise, he bears no responsibility and it drives me batshit to hear anyone (not just you, Judith) look for people to blame--and if not people, then an illness. There must be something. Lord knows, we can't look at her and hold her responsible.
It reminds me of a time when PsychProf linked in a story about a woman who first attempted to poison her child but when he didn't stop breathing she drowned him. Why? Because her boyfriend had told her he was leaving, that he didn't want to have the hassle of raising kids.
People read that story here and their first reaction was, "Stupid asshole boyfriend. What a jerk." and I went beserk.
Yes, me too. And he still ran back to her, because he didn't know any better.
PP--ah, but there's always Post Partum Psychosis to bring up.
I've know a few men who get involved with women I believe are neurotic psychobitches. It's like they get desensitized and no longer realize what a normal relationship is like. So this husband was married to this nutjob for 5-7 years, and if he hadn't clued in by then, I don't think he was going to any time soon.
She bears the primary responsibility. He bears secondary responsibility for being clueless.
I hope she gets the death penalty, myself. I wasn't making excuses FOR her; I think she deserves whatever she gets. I was just saying he had things to answer for, too.
I don't think he has anything to answer for even morally unless her behavior was far more than he's described. The worst sin he has committed thus far is in failing to blow her brains out when he found out what happened--or at least telling her she could rot in hell before a single cent of his money was used for her defense.
He bears exactly the same amount of responsibility for the pregnancy as she does - no more and no less.
Provided we're consistent about it, fine. But I find it astonishing that this sort of thing is never brought up when the discussion is executing McVeigh or a serial killer. There might be some pious comments about how retribution isn't a civilized concept, but there wouldn't be any nonsense about "making McVeigh suffer".
.
So you're in a bar and people are talking about McVeigh. Do you announce that it's wrong to make McVeigh suffer just to make us feel better?
This woman might be executed, she deserves it.
The death penalty makes both of these murderers pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crimes. Their lives serve as restitution for their acts and they will be deterred from comitting any further murders in or outside prison.
I beg to differ.
that it's fucking ludicrous to think that this can all be boiled down to "Well, if she'd just stopped at four none of this would have happened."
I didn't say this...I said at least one infant would've been spared. You may not be over-reacting but you aren't playing fair by inferring I even suggested this.
Then again, the fact that he might not have seen the problem objectively shows just how enmeshed he was in her thinking and in their life together.
In that regard, yes, I am quite selective of the circumstances under which I divulge this particular belief.
So you feel safe in expressing it about a woman who murders her five children, but not with McVeigh. And it is precisely that disparity I find quite nauseating. If you feel the same in both cases, and really don't think McVeigh should suffer, and feel just as bad for McVeigh as you do for this woman, then you get the pass on consistency. But the fact that you felt safe in expressing it in one but not the other is still the issue at hand.
It is marginalizing of women and it is profoundly abusive to children.
Hardly. The infant wouldn't have been alive in either case, so there's no "sparing" involved. There would have just been one kid less to kill.
So as I understand it, you see all these dead kids and go, "Man, this is all the father's fault. I blame him. If he hadn't fucked his wife, there'd be one less kid to have been born and died."
And no, I'm not overreacting. Shall I go find all the posts you made on McVeigh, if we wish to compare behavior on issues we feel strongly about? I'm just being sarcastic.
I usually don't go around announcing that I'm pro-death penalty because it's such a heated issue. Here, you already know what my stance is. In real life, I'm more reserved with my opinions, and justifiably so.
I have stated the MOTHER is at fault...I have stated SHE should DIE for what she did. How much more clearly do I have to say this?
Sorry if my remarks about the father upset you so much...jeez, stop with this "underreacting", will you?
Well, duh. That's the point.
So which is it--you don't want to get into a fight (your first reason), or you don't speak up because you're ignored (the one you're giving now)?
In any case, all I am saying is that if you feel more comfortable in one case than the other, it is because the reactions of others (not you, Elliot, but others) are different in the two situations. It is that difference I am referring to.
Judith,
Try, if you can, to understand this: your responses are not upsetting. I found them in some way to warrant a response. If you don't like the tone of my response, there's really nothing much to be done. But for starters, you might attempt to not take it personally.
Elliot's rationale is not the point. The point is why it's safe sometimes and not others.
If the situation were reversed and it was the father who killed the children would you be holding the mother as blameless as this father?
As a parent his first duty is to his children. If he allowed them to live in an unsafe environment with an unstable parent then he is guilty of neglect. In this case it might even be criminal neglect since the children are now dead and the father did nothing to protect or remove them from the company of his obviously depressed and unbalanced wife.
That said, he has said nothing that indicated his wife was "obviously unbalanced"--which as you know is quite different from being "obviously depressed". If she was indeed unbalanced and acting that way, then I agree that he failed to keep his children safe and I hold him just as responsible for that failure as I would the mother, were the situations reversed.
But the father is not responsible for the mother's actions. Therefore it is bizarre beyond belief to say "I blame the father". No, you blame the mother. The attempts to explain or mitigate are revolting.
Reverse the genders and believe me, only you and me and a couple others would be saying even so much as "I hold the mother responsible for not keeping her children safe." Oh, the horror. Blame the mom, why doncha? God forbid saying "I blame the mother" without the qualification.
When McVeigh killed 168 people, or when a serial murderer racks up the victims, no one runs around looking for something else to blame.
As I said, it's primarily about gender, coupled with a nasty sense of "I got mine, Jack"--it's not like a woman who kills her own kids is going to be dangerous to any of ours.
We do know that it’s an incredibly desperate act to kill your own children. And this is speculation, of course, but an act like that probably means Yates felt absolutely helpless and hopeless, and didn’t feel she could get help.
Tell me that this would be said about a man. Yes, you kill your kids because you're desperate.
In psychiatric terms, Yates definitely would have been psychotic when she killed her own children.
I can't believe she would say this about a guy who murders women after he rapes them.
On the plus side, the Time forum is very much "Burn the bitch!" so I feel a bit better.
This appeared to happen out of nowhere, but surely not. I can't believe that no one in the family, no one who knew them, didn't notice something going terribly wrong with this man before he did what he did. I don't know who was living in the household, or many other details, because it was something in the state TV news coverage and I didn't read any newspaper articles about it.
But anytime someone lives in a household with someone, knows their depression is serious enough that they're on two kinds of medication, knows they have five children to care for, must know enough to have at least some culpability in preventing the family member, man or woman, from being alone with the children.
In AR there's an element in certain parts of the state and depressed communities that fairly often (several times a year, I would guess) has an incident of the boyfriend killing a baby, often not his, and the girlfriend covering up abuse before then. Both are generally charged, of course.
On another note entirely, I haven't read PP's link, but hasn't Haldol been known to have some disturbing mental side effects in some cases, or am I thinking of another drug? Maybe that was Halcyon.
pharmacological intervention is. Therapy is time and money
intensive, and in some ways has a stigma attached to it that
taking prescription meds does not. For most of us changing our
life is formidable compared to taking a pill. As for the
GP(Internist) as a conduit to more detailed attention, I am insure
of the stats and general physician approach here...probably
varies with individual Dr's...clearly most patients/clients avoid
psychiatric/psychological treatment.
I'm veering off topic, but I have a response that I'll post in the health thread.
It sounds pretty simple: sure, the dad just doesn't allow the kids to be alone with the mom. Suppose the mom objects? What does he do then? Go to the cops? If she hasn't threatened the kids in any way, they won't be able to do anything. So should he leave her and take the kids? She gets a lawyer and gets custody--possibly denying him any visitation at all, since he is the dad.
Mind you, I still think he should have done all this if she was dangerously deranged and behaving irrationally. Then if the courts or laws didn't back him up, they'd have shit all over them when she killed the kids.
But if she was only depressed and potentially suicidal? I don't think it is denial or irresponsibility to not anticipate murder. I think it is quite unreasonable to point to him and say, "You should have done something." If he had taken the kids away based only on the fear that a depressed woman would kill them, I suspect a whole bunch of people would squawk that he was overreacting.
I totally agree. My post above was just a skepticism that he wouldn't have known the potential was there considering the length of her treatment and the fact that she'd had another child and was still having serious problems. My observation has no basis to make him culpable from the facts as stated, it just reflects an amazement that they could live together with five children, her being treated for depression for two years, and him not ever, in that two years and especially after the last child was born, be aware of some of her tendencies and potential to do harm. I readily admit that may be true and he lived in blissful ignorance of her threat and only aware of her depression and had no clue that she was capable of such an act, but what I'm reading of his reaction disturbs me, though as someone pointed out, it may well be shock.
I just watched an MSNBC segment on it and it was more of the same: sympathy for this poor, troubled woman and how was it that no one could help her.
I find it particularly amusing, in a grim sort of way, that the "experts" try on one hand to explain how easily something like this could happen and then snap back to quickly reassure all women that no, no, this only happens to a fraction of all women.
So she's not responsible, it could happen to anyone, but you know, it really is incredibly rare so don't worry it can't happen to you.
To me the Unabomber story was tragic in a way, because this guy was obviously disturbed and when he wrote that 10,000 word screed his brother knew what he had to do and reported his suspicions, gaining assurance his brother wouldn't be executed. This case truly bothered me because I know that people exist who leave reality and act according to the "reality" their delusions have created. But why did they let him live in a shack and not try to get him the attention he needed? Why can't these people be forced into treatment by family members?
I understand mental illness and I completely accept that some mentally ill people do not comprehend their actions in our reality--but why aren't they dealt with before they do something that will cause them permanent punishment and innocent people irreparable harm? I don't any more believe the Unabomber understands what he's done wrong than the man in the moon. He should be put away for others' safety, but he could have been helped before if his family was aware of his condition, which evidently his brother was, since he recognized his writing style.
Bob had an acquaintance who called him out of the blue not long after we were married. He was living in LR and wanted desperately for Bob to come see him. The guy was psychotic--clearly a paranoid schizophrenic whose delusions centered on his mother, and he described to Bob in detail how he wanted to murder her. Bob told the family about it, but they knew well. Still, he lives alone, no one sees that he takes his medicine, and if he ever acts on his delusions his mother will die a horrible death.
She killed five people in cold blood.
Yet the media and far too many people see fit to explain and excuse her behavior in ways that simply wouldn't be tolerated if some other parent was screaming in grief at the loss of their child, and speak of "treatment" and "help"--if they do reluctantly admit that really, she shouldn't have children anymore.
She was soaking wet when she answered the door. The seven year old, who was the last one killed, must have fought hard to save his life.
The notion that anyone can know that and have a reaction that includes "I blame the husband" or "Poor women, why didn't anyone help her?" is something I can't understand.
I watched the husband being interviewed today on three different networks, and could not for the life of me figure out his reaction. You'd think this guy just lost his garage to a tornado...Someone want to tell him he has just lost his five beautiful children to the hands of the mother of those children. Sheesh!
The caring, just as in any situation (kids shooting up a school, serial killers, the Unabomber, on and on), comes from the question of whether the children could have been saved had others around the woman acted differently. For me, anyway, it has nothing to do with what happens to her now or whether she should be pitied. I said in my first post how I felt about that--and that's irrespective of whether she's completely psychotic or mentally incapacitated beyond the ability to apply reason to her actions, which hasn't been asserted.
In the second, I said "have a reaction that includes" blaming the dad. You get no brownie points for wanting to kill the mom, so far as my disgust at that line of thought goes, so kindly stop hammering on it. I understood it the first time.
So if you don't really blame the dad, by all means, remember not to make that sort of comment again. Far be it from me to discourage you.
But more generally, see if you can focus on the actual point for a bit. Do you or do you not agree that the media and far too much of the general population seeks to excuse or explain a mother's murder of her children, in ways that simply aren't conceivable if it was a stranger--or even a father?
You don't read or hear of people thinking that a pedophile or a serial killer should be "helped". Did most people think "Oh, poor Jeffrey Dahmer, he needs help. We need to make sure he doesn't eat his lovers anymore, but the real issue is to make sure he gets treatment." What about the two black kids who were recently convicted of first and second degree murder? Or Tim McVeigh?
Yet they all were just as deserving of pity or help as this monster is.
There is a skew, and it's pretty atrocious to see.
Mothers are responsible for something like 55% of children's deaths, or something like that--it's the one category where we outnumber men. So why isn't there any talk of deterrence, or tough sentencing to discourage this trend?
They almost always seem to cut deals to avoid getting the worst sentence, although that's just my impression. A mother here in Daly City killed her three kids by smothering them with duct tape--and somehow she didn't manage to kill herself, too. She got 25 years to life, but cut a deal to avoid getting life without parole. Why was this allowed, for a three time child murderer?
For me, anyway, it has nothing to do with what happens to her now or whether she should be pitied.
I wasn't aiming that at you--in fact, the only three people I saw making any comments like that were Judith, Racehorse, and Elliot. And they were extremely mild compared to what I just read at TT. As I just said to Judith, I'm speaking more generally--particularly of the media coverage.
Women aren't gentler; that's just more nonsense.
I as a teacher have a legal obligation to report suspicions of a child in danger. Why on God's Green Earth wouldn't at least that much be expected of a father living in the home? If not, then what is the father's degree of responsibility in this? None at all? That may usually be the case, whether man or woman, but is that right? In the case of the man who bashed his child to death no one else was even considered for blame, but was that right? Was there anything that warranted reporting to social services? If so, there's a degree of culpability in those who knew something and didn't report it.
I don't think anyone here has asserted that the mother isn't responsible for her actions and doesn't deserve the full extent of punishment. But that won't bring the kids back, whereas a clear understanding of the legal and moral obligations of people privy to the situation might be of some help to future victims of a mother's (or anyone else's) violence--obviously providing there is something to report.
Who's talking about help besides you? Get the kids away from her. Put them in foster care. Do whatever you have to do, but that requires reporting BEFORE THE FACT. It's too late when they're DEAD.
Instead of telling everyone that they are wrong, tell us what it is you actually think, so we can criticize something besides your snottiness.
Like, why is it that "the media" are displaying this willingness to (according to you) mitigate this woman's acts, when they would never (according to you) extend the same objectiveness to others (even though, God knows, I and about 10,000,000 others have been screaming for years about the media's willingness to indulge every whacko who crawls out of his trailer to kill, rape, mutilate, etc.)
I could not believe the father's reaction on the news tonight. He must be in some serious shock. I know my mind can't wrap around the idea of five children dying like that, how the hell could his...
But then I remember, he ain't me, obviously, so who the hell knows.
And Joe, that "gentler sex" comment--please tell me you were joking.
My thinking on the father is that it really hasn't hit him yet. It couldn't have. Today at the news conference for instance, he made some passing comment to the fact that he had just played basketball with his oldest yesterday(?), and he didn't even flinch.
My mom, upon hearing of stories such as this one, would always react with the following: Why didn't she bring them to me ? I would have no trouble raising them given the conditions or the threat they were living under...
Yes, I was joking.
There is no telling how distorted his thinking has become over the years, in dealing with her. Obviously he was not willing to face a fact or two, and probably he is not willing now...ha...
Whew.
You mean, apart from every talking head on TV today? I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I'm speaking generally of the coverage of this and other murders like it, as well as the reactions of a lot more people than the folks in this discussion.
Holly,
The thing that spooks me is that I can maybe buy off on the father being in shock. But his mother?
She accepted.
Now, of course, the ACLU is up in arms.
Anyway, I couldn't find the article, despite entering the woman's name - Rochelle Pennex - and any number of other search conditions.
You'd think the AP'd be more user-friendly.
My mom, upon hearing of stories such as this one, would always react with the following:
Yeah, I know, a lot of people say that. But in reality, do you think that anyone (I'm not picking on your mom, here) would really be sympathetic to a mother who said "here, take my kids, otherwise I'll kill them."
If a mom came to me with that request I'd take the kids and then call the cops.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/24/andrea_yates/index.html
Aaaackkk
She killed her kids, but we must forgive her
Someone got paid to write that tripe.
I knew that would get you.
This whole thing has me depressed.
So why am I following it?
Once is plenty if I don't have to wade to find it. As I said in my following post ,I got that in the last part of your message after I posted mine in response to your first part.
I mean, this is not some judge ordering the woman to have herself fixed. It's a private group, giving private money to a private citizen. There are any number of groups which offer assistance to women who want abortions -whether they're on their 13th kid or their 1st pregnancy.
Does the ACLU bother them?
Well, I'd still be stuck with the memory of that monster murdering her kids in cold blood, but at least I'd only want to kill her, rather than all the looneytoons like that idiot in your article.
Hardly relevant, since abortions and sterilization aren't the same thing.
If a mom came to me with that request I'd take the kids and then call the cops.
So would I!
I don't know what my mom would really do under such a situation, or whether sympathy for the mother would be the primary issue in her eyes, but as she has opened up to us in her later years, one thing that is certain is that she was terribly abused by her father as a child. She's finally coming around to opening up about it more as she enters her 70s.
Many in her family blame my now deceased uncle's brain damage ( her brother) on the degree of the beatings my grandfather would administer on him frequently. As a teen, my mom once told us of the time her father gave her a good beating for wishing out loud for a doll. Not some fancy doll, but just a doll to play with. They were dirt poor if that isn't apparent already.
One thing that leads me to believe her on these matters is the memory I have of her dropping all the housework she was immersed in every hour of her waking day to lean against the fence (wall) to the neighbor's house as the kids next door were being punished with a belt for something they did that day ... It appeared almost as if those whips were hitting her, and she would almost always later invite them over to make sure they were alright.
She just has this thing about children which comes across as very genuine. Heck, she still wonders about a certain kid she babysat some 25 years ago named Chuey. This kid was involved in some custody battle, and you can guess the rest.
My father's side ? That's another story, but I'll tell you this much. Both sets of grandparents should have been imprisoned for the shit they did to their children. Other than my grandmother on my mother's side, I feel no void having not known them. What incredible psychos!
I checked out the thread on TT, and it nearly made me vomit. (I'm such a masochist.) At least I posted something scathing (well, scathing by the HollyW yardstick, not hardly anybody else's I'm sure).
The willingness of some women to claim kinship with her is just one more thing to be appalled about. "Oh, I wanted to kill my kid at first! Oooo, oooo, pick me next! Let me tell next, teacher!"
I don't know how long bathos has been in fashion, but I'm really getting weary of it.
Some children are abused as kids and become abusive adults; others get this empathy for children in those situations that never leave. It's sad your mother suffered so, but I think it says a great deal about her fundamental goodness that she took the path she did.
Ah, Lord. What the fuck is up with that.
I wasn't talking about degrees here. It was a rhetorical question, and the operative word is "private".
This is another swipe you'll have to explain, my dear...since I can't seem to grasp what "set" you mean.
She was clearly not in her right mind, and the almost gleeful desire among some posters to see her fry is distressing. Fortunately for these people, she lives in Texas, so that is a likely outcome.
I agree that she retains a status of pitiful as well as heinous, but I am not dismayed by the attitudes displayed here. The abomination of the act explains the anger, and I consider that anger healthy.
Many people suffer from various mental maladies and manage to go a whole lifetime without committing mass murder.
And very rarely one does not. It seems clear to me that she belongs in a mental institution, not in the death chamber.
The anger seems more self-righteous than anything else.
But that's not the point, Elliot.
Self-righteousness is only inappropriate when hypocritical. Self-righteousness gets a bad rap. If your neighbor is screwing his Schnauzer, or killing her children, self-righteous though it may be, it seems appropriate to condemn the act and look forward to punishment.
As for her mental state, your presumption seems every bit as off-putting and premature in the early stages of this drama as the bloodlust you decry in others.
While it may seem "clear" to you, this is why we have juries.
Bafflement and gross were my reactions to the above as well. And the footage of him kneeling by the flowers, plus looking pretty unfazed physically.
Same here, though, about cutting him slack. Maybe it's just shock working itself out strangely. The day of the worst tragedy so far in my life, I went into work despite being up all night previously and was sitting at my desk working until my supervisor (who had seen the news reports) asked me, "Don't you think you'd better go home?"
I hadn't come in as some great gesture or anything. It's just my brain was on autopilot and it never occurred to me to act anyway differently than every other day. I think I literally didn't "wake up" until after the funeral.
No one can even imagine what it's like to have your spouse kill all your kids like that. I can't.
So do you think a man who rapes and murders children should be given extra consideration? After all, it's not like he did it for profit.
What about McVeigh? Where were you, protesting that it wasn't that bad, what he did? After all, it's not like he had a policy on the building, or any of the victims.
I'm not comfortable judging anyone who has just undergone such a blow with regard to their behavior. In fact, I'm not thrilled with my own visceral response to his talking to the press. What do I know?
And we still watch.
I would be amazed--by the way--if this case makes it to a jury trial.
Speak for yourself.
I'm too busy watching the Chandra Levey coverage.
I suspect that prosecutors often cut deals to lock the creatures up for a long time. After all, they have to worry about people in juries who will think, "Oh, the poor dear."
This woman chased her seven year old around the house for some time. He knew what had happened and was trying to escape.
Clearly, the poor soul needs our pity and sympathy. After all, she made her children's last moments a nightmare so we must be gentle with her.
Given the latent sympathy and your presumption that she must be "insane" because who would do such a thing (this, of course, makes Bin Laden and Gacy "insane" and cries for their institutionalization instead of punishment), I expect she may roll the dice and try to curry favor with a jury.
If it can work for the Menendezes (those poor boys!), why not a disturbed zombie who, were she in her right mind, would never harm her children.
Well, it's not your point. The rest of my post addressed your point.
I didn't realize there were witnesses to the crime...where did you hear this? I mean, he could've been asleep while all the rest were being drowned.
I still can't see it being shock, although anything is possible. But his mother? Why would she support that line of thinking?
I note, though, that she doesn't have a lawyer yet, despite the daddy's desire to get her one. I wonder if he just hadn't heard about his 7 year old yet.
I believe the accused gave this rendition.
Don't be an idiot. McVeigh carefully planned his action, expressed no regret, and was rational and lucid throughout.
I cannot speak of what goes through the minds of those who rape and murder.
I also cannot say that someone who kills her kids for no discernable reason must be a monster and should be put down like a rabid dog. You have no problem with that.
As I said, the enormity of the crime takes me out of the judgment game with regard to the reaction of the family.
The cleaner version is the father as killer.
Yates described the methodical killing of four of her children before she chased the last one, a 7-year-old son, through the house, according to an account in the Houston Chronicle. She drowned him in the bathtub next to the body of his 6-month-old sister. Noah entered the bathroom while Yates was drowning his baby sister, Mary, the report said. “What’s wrong with Mary?” a police officer quoted Noah as asking.
I use McVeigh because he was killed so recently and there were many who took evident delight in it that are now wailing about how gruesome it is that people think this person should receive similar punishment. I realize that McVeigh racked up more numbers, but I think five is sufficiently multiple to consider them like to like. McVeigh killed all of his in a single act. So why didn't anyone say "Gosh, he is obviously insane?"
Still, if you dislike McVeigh because you need him to be sane, I offered up Dahmer or Gacy for comparison.
It goes without saying that Wombat wouldn't fuss if the father had killed his family and yes, that is sufficient bias to piss me off.
McVeigh is inapt for the reasons Wombat stated and his introduction, in my view, muddles your point. I only suggest the father-to-children analysis because it is cleaner and makes much more sense for purposes of your argument of yesterday and today.
Barbarous, unthinkable, what "sane" person would do this?
(pssssst . . . insanity defenses are a shell game)
No, I've said I oppose the death penalty. My disgust lies in its application. If we are to have this barbarity around, then this monster is the ideal candidate--just as Gacy was.
My ire is at the thinking of those who seek to excuse her act with the sort of circular reasoning you use. "She killed her children because she's insane since only an insane woman would kill her children."
Using that template: only an insane person would rape and eat his victims, only an insane person would blow up a building and kill 168 people and cackle in glee, only an insane person would kill little boys and bury them in his basement--or, for that matter, only an insane person would kill his children.
But no, it is only mothers who get a pass and tender concern for her well-being.
Another thing--although it is fairly mild here, the need to blame the father is gruesome, and another indication of gender bias. A woman in similar conditions would not be held responsible for "getting pregnant" so that her husband had more victims.
Well, that was my point. If we are to say that any act "clearly indicates" insanity, I am confused as to why offing 168 people doesn't work as a pretty clean line in the sand.
Add "at the rage and disgust" after fuss.
I'll take your word for it. It is not something I care about one way or the other--I just get annoyed at the barriers thrown up just because this woman created her own victims.
"Where were you, protesting that it wasn't that bad, what he did? After all, it's not like he had a policy on the building, or any of the victims."
No one has suggested any of these heinous acts aren't bad. The idea that someone has to weigh in on every discussion about crime and punishment involving the death penalty to have a valid position is silly. The question that's much more interesting here, instead of trying to objectively create a ruler of not so bad to horrendous, is what happens when someone who is mentally unbalanced has done something horrible. The culpability cannot begin and end with that person.
I used the Unabomber above as an example, but to be plainer about it, in other circumstances the man would have been institutionalized, but now the mere suggestion that people who show evidence of extreme mental instability, even psychosis, be placed in an institution, even merely in an attempt to use various means to stabilize them, is completely dismissed.
That goes back to the father and the rest of the family, and it makes no more sense to dismiss his responsibility for some knowledge of that situation as an adult member of the household than it does to claim this woman is not responsible for what she did because she was emotionally unstable.
It's the people around those mentally ill who've exhibited an inability to cope in their environment any more, whether they've shown violent tendencies or not, who have a responsibility to them and to those around them to deal aggressively with the situation. I don't understand why that's not hammered into people's heads. Don't just get a therapist, don't just get drugs from your GP--get help to the point of institutionalization under the care of a competent psychiatrist. And remove defenseless children from the situation, at least not leaving them unsupervised.
In this instance you have a middle-class man with five children and a wife who had problems. Could he really have done that?
Suppose you make it society's job. How do we judge who needs institutionalizing before they run amok? If a computer model were developed--a battery of questions that could be used to predict likely outcomes based on passing the subject inocuous questions like a Rorshach test--would you support institutionalizing all people who failed it?
That is, a test that asks the subject 200 or so nebulous questions and uses pattern matching to determine those likely to commit violent acts.
What do you mean?
I don't think that the comparisons that have been made above are apt - especially to McVeigh, who as was mentioned was cool, rational and dedicated to his purpose. Even to Dahlmer etc., since the sexual obsessions were clearly beyond our concepts of rational.
The Smith (if I recall) episode (the mother who drowned her two kids) comes closest to the ones I have any familiarity with. But, in that instance there was the motive of being free of the kids to have more fun.....Right.
The father's reactions, priorities and demeanor do indeed stretch the definition of being in deep shock to its limits.
Very in extreme situations, and unless things have changed he certainly could have. It would not be easy, but you do what you have to, not what's convenient, when a family member is seriously ill. I know about the Rorshach test, but it's irrelevant. When mental illness has become severe enough, violent tendencies or not, institutionalization can and does help if aggressive treatment by competent doctors is part of it. Without going into more of my family history than I have already, I know a responsible adult in a household can and must act to effectively deal with a severely mentally ill member of the family, for the sake of all its other members. One extremely important thing it can accomplish is to monitor the impact of medications and get the type and balance that most effectively works.
The fact that this doesn't seem to be done any more is inexcusable. I could go into my opinions of why this is so, but PP knows much more than I and I would defer to his comments on it. And even if institutionalization (which is generally temporary while aggressive treatments are applied and should only occur in extreme cases) is not seen as an option, there are other, much more aggressive means of dealing with severe mental illness than a prescription and a weekly trip to a therapist.
Katie Couric on the Today Show has interviewed people about it the last couple of days. Today it was Marie Osmond (who, btw, thinks it must be temporary insantity). Osmond left her many children one day in the care of a babysitter, and has written a book about her personal experiences with depression and childbirth.
One returns to the bottom line. She killed five young children. I think one can support the idea that depression after child-birth is serious and should be better diagnosed and treated and yet still see this as a horrendous crime.
I don't know about Dahmer. He seemed embedded in his own alternate reality from what little I know about him.
I don't know why you would assume that I would not have a problem with applying the death penalty to fathers in that situation. One would have to accept the fact that males cannot suffer from "post-partum psychosis," and that anecdotal incidents of fathers killing their children seem to end with the fathers killing themselves afterwards, but if a father "inexplicably" killed his own children, I would not rush to judgement on his state of mind.
Gacy and Dahmer are also red herrings. They obviously devoted a great deal of thought to planning and concealing their deeds, neither had previous diagnosed incidences of mental disease, nor did they call the authorities afterwards.
Are you suggesting that an insane person is incapable of planning or concealing his deeds, and that if you are not "previously diagnosed", you cannot be insane?
The distinctions you make don't really hold up.
After all, a man with an undiagnosed mental illness who puts human heads in a freezer cannot be sane, can he?
What sane man would do such a thing?
It seems you want it both ways.
Zojack
So little is known about mental illness and crime and, as evidenced by this discussion, the line between being able to appreciate the rightness and wrongness of one's acts (or being able to resist the urge to commit same), that the insanity defense is a hopeless morass of guesswork and posturing. This is why many states have abandoned it.
A man who knocks up a woman who is suffering from severe depression about already having four children ought to himself be punished for insensitivity in the first degree.
...And if it turns out that these two compulsive babymakers were compelled by their religious beliefs to keep on churning out kids every nine months, then we ought to seek out the shaman who provided them with that lifeplan and punish THAT s.o.b. as well.
frankie's points about the continuing murkiness of defining the lines between mental impairments and crime are apt.
Insanity
Diminished Capacity
She did not have "depression about having four children." She had postpartum depression after her fourth child. According to him, it went away, and they conceived another child. I know women who have had postpartum depression and gone on to have more kids. None of their husbands strike me as particularly insensitive, and I don't think any of them need to be punished. And none of the women I know have drowned any of their kids.
DETAILS
click on photo 
You have not been complaining about the rush to judge state of mind--in fact, you are most assuredly rushing, yourself.
What you've been objecting to is the rush to judge this woman, since she is "obviously" insane.
I question whether you would object as strenuously if a man had killed all his kids. But in any case, I don't really care if she's insane or not (with all the caveats about the fuzzy edges of insanity). I only hope that she is treated just like any other multiple murderer.
It is entirely up to her whether or not she has the child.
That said, what I find bizarre is that you or anyone else would look at this monster and say, "Well, if she just hadn't had children everything would be okay."
You don't know that. She's a fucking monster. Maybe she'd have killed a stranger's kids. So to blame it all on the fact the she had kids is just perverse.
Well, YOU don't know that she would've snapped had she NOT had children...none of us does. So for you to get into such a lather with every single person who has a different opinion is just silly.
I've never asserted otherwise. To me, it's irrelevant. You kill five kids, you're a monster.
You are saying that a) she only killed the kids because she had them and b) it was the fifth kid that did it, or at least if she hadn't had it she'd only have killed four and c) that the husband should have known all this and d) it's his fault for "getting" her pregnant anyway.
I'm not in a lather. I just think your reasoning is bizarre. Actually, bizarre is a kind word.
People are just kicking around ideas and positing situations and you suddenly come in labeling us "bizarre"....no more bizarre than "she is a monster, period."
You are the same lady who was telling me it was foolish to see the victims of McVeigh as any different from other victims who have died violently. This was just last week. So now I'm supposed to think the killer is more of a monster, period, than any other perp of a violent murder?
This woman killed her kids because she saw that as a solution to a problem every bit as pressing to her as Susan Smith's "I'll kill the kids so my rich boyfriend will come back" problem was.
How do you know that? How do you know she didn't have a psychotic break and hear the angel Hugo telling her to do it or seeing them as alien beings who were about to suck her brains out?
You don't know that. But then, the same is true of any other monster--McVeigh, Dahmer, Gacy, take your pick.
You are the same lady who was telling me it was foolish to see the victims of McVeigh as any different from other victims who have died violently.
Close enough--what I did say is that any loved one who would rather have their victim die at the hands of Gacy than McVeigh wasn't thinking straight.
So now I'm supposed to think the killer is more of a monster, period, than any other perp of a violent murder?
No. Just an equivalent one. What I object to is the attempts to excuse her, find someone to co-blame, and that it is all to be put at the hands of depression. Like anyone could do this on a bad day, as opposed to a "real" monster.
And no, I'm not talking about you on this particular issue--your comments about the pregnancies are just utterly yoyo. I note you didn't respond on point.
Um, Judith? If she killed them for that reason, she'd be killing them as a solution to a problem, too.
What you mean is that in the situation you describe, she would be completely out of touch with reality. That's a different issue, but I would point out her behavior before and after the killing is clearly not someone who is permanently wacko.
try rational as in at least explicable. NOT justifiable, but for a reason that one can at least relate to as being plausible. Based on what we know about the facts at hand to date, it seems to me the best you can get to, without getting into deeper mental stability issues, is that she was "overwhelmed".
I don't detect that anyone here is trying to excuse her or find someone to co-blame. (Depression taken to a more profound level - yes).
What I do detect is that many are saying this is a crime that defies explanation other than in the realm of mental incapacity. That at the very least makes her a monster distinguishable from your run of the mill murderer.
HUH?!
She held a child under the water until he stopped struggling and was dead, picked up his cold, wet lifeless body, moved him, went and got another of her children, held him under the water until he stopped struggling and was dead, picked up his cold wet lifeless body, moved him, did it four times, chased down her terrified 7 year old until she caught him, dragged him to the bathroom, shoved him into the bathtub next to the lifeless body of his sister, held him down while he struggled and fought to live unitl HE was as cold wet and dead as the other four.
HOW THE HELL IS THAT NOT COLD_BLOODED!!!!!!
Ah. Finally, it comes down to the truth: It's not her fault, it's the patriarchy!!!
In all the cases you describe, I hold the woman completely and absolutely responsible. The man in that case is never anything more than a jerk at most--and in most cases, far less.
I knew what you meant the first time. If you are going to say that killing your child is an obviously insane act, then it doesn't matter what the reason was. A woman who kills her child because her boyfriend will dump her otherwise is every single bit as irrational as a woman who does it because she's just having a really bad day.
Either woman has "kill the kid" on her list of acceptable actions to take and in either case, that is inexplicable.
I don't detect that anyone here is trying to excuse her or find someone to co-blame.
I disagree, but my point is that the tone of the conversation and the attempt to explain her are far more strenuous than they would be if it wasn't a mother, but a father--or any other multiple murderer for that matter. There is sympathy and shock and gosh, the poor woman. I find it offensive for more than one reason--in the first place, it is profoundly sexist. In the second place, and more importantly, it demonstrates that length to which people go when viewing through a skew--the victims are secondary. It's not that I don't think there is shock and horror at the children's deaths, but it's not as purely focused. The impetus is to explain the mother, blame the father, tsk tsk at the tragedy of depression.
None of these would take center stage if the children involved had been killed by a stranger who was arrested and shown to be having a rilly rilly bad day.
I also think "depression taken to a profound level" is just nonsense. The only thing depression can be legitimately used to explain is suicide.
But this makes her no different from Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy--and, to my mind, McVeigh.
Depression can cause much more than suicide.
You don't think Judith's "oh, the father's partly to blame because women aren't always strong enough to say no" isn't a tad sexist?
But I am speaking more generally, and of far more than this forum. The fact that her gender is never mentioned is irrelevant to whether or not the entire take on the matter is sexist.
Depression does not ever cause you to kill your kids.
There are a whole host of social ills that far too many people treat as universal--something that could happen to anyone, given the right circumstances. This is politically convenient, when you're trying to drum up sympathy, but I find it pretty ludicrous. The majority of people will never, ever, ever kill their kids, no matter how depressed they are. The people who do have something that the rest of us don't--the capacity to take such an action. Blame their ability, not the depression.
which is, again, why this particular murder becomes inexplicable in any terms other than being done by a mentally ill person. (I did say depression taken to a profound level).
it really isn't an effort to drum up sympathy either.
but, this really isn't as black and white as saying heinous multiple murders=monster.
It's true, nonetheless. Some women aren't that strong. So it's sexist...so shoot me. It is still true.
The notion of a list of acceptable actions suggests rationality.
… my point is that the tone of the conversation and the attempt to explain her are far more strenuous than they would be if it wasn't a mother …
No, your point is quite clear: you want/have to think of this woman as a "creature," a "monster" — an unfeeling, cold-blooded, rational, subhuman murderer. Why the visceral anger? Visceral horror, I can understand; I felt it myself. But such "focused" (your term) anger at this woman as if she were Hitler calmly perusing gas chamber layouts seems misplaced to me.
The only thing depression can be legitimately used to explain is suicide.
Well, this entire debate makes one thing clear: psychiatry is not one of your many areas of expertise.
These diatribes perhaps say more about you. Perhaps you have some deeply buried guilt about your own parenting that is manifesting itself as rage at what you perceive as extremely bad mothering.
Of course, I'm not a psychiatrist either.
But, I see that my proposal that we reinstitute public stonings might indeed make sense. Got to make sure that no other wiseacre mother out there sees that she can get by with murdering her kids through feigning mental illness. Deterrence - what a sanitary concept.
But that is just as true of a creature who rapes and kills little children. But I never hear of people pinning it on depression run amok. Poor guy, he was just depressed. He needs help, or he wouldn't have raped and sodomized little Johnny and then shot him in the head.
It most assuredly is a ploy to drum up sympathy. I don't accuse you of perpetrating the ploy, only of falling for it. (g)
but, this really isn't as black and white as saying heinous multiple murders=monster.
Oddly enough, no one has any trouble with how black and white it is if a stranger does it. It's only when Mommy kills her kids that people start finding shades of grey.
Judith,
Yes, it's a tough life for us women and it's really amazing more of us don't off our kids after chasing them down and struggling to hold them under water.
With all due respect to your expertise, PP, this makes no sense to me. Why should diagnostic predictability make any difference to an after-the-fact diagnosis? It just means that the science hasn't progressed to a certain point.
The progress with determining genetic predisposition to certain diseases makes me think that further studies of genetics, brain chemistry, etc., may yet yield the predictability you seek. But dismissing psychological explanations until then seems … um, crazy.
That might be because you restrict your listening to web boards populated by laypeople.
The issue isn't perplexity, but responsibility. No one would be blaming the wife for not having known about it, and the touchy feely expressions of pity for him would be considerably muted.
Will you please stop twisting my words to mean what you wish them to mean...I am not saying what you are implying I am saying.
Again. The fault may lie in the inputs that you've availed yourself of.
Again, the issue is not that there might not be an examination of the whys involved in any murder. You skated right by the point because you apparently don't see anything all that unusual about the reaction of pitying and trying to help this poor, poor woman.
But if you compare like to like and compare this reaction to other multiple murderers, you'll see that even Susan Smith--who was treated more harshly than most--was treated with far more concern than condemnation than any multiple murderer who happened to be male.
And, scratch the word depression. Its become a convenient red herring. I said depression carried to profound levels. Inartful, for sure, but intended to equate with "mental incapacitation".
Now, to what address should I have the stones delivered?
This is what you see us doing...it's not what we're doing.
trivialization of that type is just a cheap tactic.
With the exception of your idiotic "I blame the father" bullshit, I am not addressing anyone here. I have said so more times than I consider necessary.
no one is trying to drum up pity for this woman.
You are either joking, obtuse, or haven't been reading much of the coverage. I refer you to the link Ase posted, or just check out Time magazine's interview with a shrink.
Perhaps we've become inured to crimes like rape/killing a little kid. But, a murder by a mother (or a father) of not just one but five of their own children does, fortunately, still stop us in our tracks. This is getting repetitious, but it is because it does that the kneejerk reaction that the perp has to be an evil cold-hearted bitch/bastard just is too facile.
Not all, but enough to make me feel sick.
my comments about no one trying to engender pity were directed to what is being typed here.
As for the other sources you allude to - it can be a fine line between pity and exploration of reasons.
I think society has a special horror of a mother killing her own children -- it is a far worse act than those of killings by strangers, acquaintances, other family members, even fathers.
There are no answers to this situation, no reasons, no explanation really. Just the revulsion.
I've said any number of times that I'm talking about media coverage, national reaction, and the like. I'm not really sure how many times I have to say that I'm not basing my opinion on the reaction here.
if the mother=monster, then public retribution suitable for a monster is the logical consequence.
Would you say the same thing if someone called Jeffrey Dahmer a monster?
Jennifer,
Yes, I agree that fathers are more likely to be called "controlling" rather than depressed.
Although I suspect the mother in this case will turn out to be a controller. That's a speculation, not an assertion.
Evidently the same number of times I have to say that my "I blame the father" remark was not meant to cut the mother slack or voice pity for her or give her an excuse.
It doesn't matter what you feel about the mother, given your desire to blame the father. In any event, your blame the patriarchy post and the "realities" of how tough it is for us pooooor wimmenfolk pretty much excuses you from serious debate.
JanJon,
I think it begins with your inability to see the skew in the reaction. If you saw that, then you could either justify it or not--but at least we'd be on the same page. So long as you don't see anything unusual about the many people seeking to explain or excuse her, then you're not going to understand that I'm not saying she deservs more punishment--just equal condemnation.
(btw - I hasten to add - I'm not into pity, but, surprise of surprises, I'm not into executions by any mode either.)
But isn't this just sexism? I don't mean that in the simple sense, but so long as people hold women to a different standard, it's a bar to actual equality.
You can have the frigging debate point, sister...if I have to be some tower of burning rage against the world in general because I was born a woman, then I don't care to be taken seriously in any debate. Thanks all the same.
Precisely. It is an entirely apt comparison.
And I'm against the death penalty, too.
Oh, don't be a twit. Your mistranslation is too tiresome to correct, but rest assured I didn't dismiss your posts because you aren't mad about being a woman.
And, call it my inability or whatever, but nope, I dont' find there to be a skew in the reaction that isn't absolutely predictable and healthy. I am glad that people apparently are searching their souls, so to speak, to try to understand this situation a lot more than they would a Dahmer (who while absolutely reprehensible committed acts are almost like alien acts. Freakish acts perpetrated by a freak, and rather easily put into a nice closed box because of that. Not so easy to dismiss a mother who kills five. Lots of people know mothers of five, including those who have suffered ppdepression, etc etc etc. It behooves us to try to understand as much as we can the whys.
It was a joke, if you note my follow up to it. I was merely pointing out that Judith's posts on this subject are too ludicrous to tolerate.
And, call it my inability or whatever, but nope, I dont' find there to be a skew in the reaction that isn't absolutely predictable and healthy.
Precisely. You don't notice that the "healthy" reaction only occurs when a mother has coldbloodedly offed her own children.
Your attempt to draw some sort of line between someone like her and someone like Dahmer or Gacy is where I have trouble. She killed five kids in cold blood. I see no need to make some clear distinction between them--and frankly, given that she is their parent, I can't see why any distinction wouldn't judge her the more severely.
The idea is how to prevent such events with similar circumstances. And Judith, btw, is not the only one who's said that the father bears some responsibility. I have numerous times said any adult in that household, especially the husband, should have been more aware of the extent of her mental condition, unless she was a sociopath, and there hasn't been any indication that's the case at all.
The idea that the mother can't be completely responsible, be the one strapped to the electric chair, be the one on the gurney with death injected into her veins, and yet no one else who knew her and let her continue to tend those kids alone should bear a hint of guilt is the concept that's idiotic. No need for anyone to be alert to family members' mental states or feel any responsibility for intervention, and anyone who tries to examine what happened and dare to speculate on a "why" will be castigated for victimizing the monster. And we will continue to see these things played out and wring our hands afterward and scream for justice and punishment. But don't pretend to care about children's lives and working on something--anything--that might prevent future little victims while you're doing it.
and, I don't agree that the reactions had it been the father wouldn't be comparable (and therefore, "healthy", in the context now being used.
There are countless distinctions that can be made between this mother and Dahmer, etc. We've been through all of this above, so I won't reiterate.
In addition to not trying to engender or acting from pity, I also am not, incidentally, saying that the type of analysis that should go into trying to understand this situation equates to seeing this lady "get off" as being nothing more than an uncommon and uncommonly crazed individual.
It may very well be that in the end rational people, including a judge and jury, will conclude that she indeed was "insane" when these acts were committed (assuming that Texas has the insanity defense). If so, there will still be ample punishment and it will fit the crime, so to speak.
Sigh. I was referring to Judith's posts on the patriarchy and how it's just so much tougher for women to say no and the man bears more responsibility.
The other view I disagree with as being any sort of factor at all, but I don't consider ludicrous. But feel free to personalize it if you feel strongly about it.
The only incident I recall offhand besides the lunatic I described earlier who came out his front door bashing his two-year-old's head on the concrete, etc, holding the dead boy by his feet, is Ronald Gene Simmons who killed his whole family years ago in AR and wanted and received the death penalty, never offering a word or any insights to his acts at all.
I'm surprised anyone will debate with you at all at this point...this isn't what I said; it is what YOU saw.
God, what an incredible tragedy. This woman belongs in a psychiatric institution, not a prison.
In her depressed state, she apparently felt there was no alternative. She couldn't think of leaving.
It seems that in our society, mothers aren't allowed to run away from their families. Fathers are, and they do.
And frankly, that's why I have a hard time mustering sympathy for her. I know that's wrong but I can't help it.
Why did she have another baby if she had serious postnatal depression 2 years ago? What the fuck was the father thinking?
That poor woman had no business having yet another babe when she was still depressed from the previous one, the one who was about 2 when she killed him. Her husband couldn't put one of those things on? Or just simply damn abstain from a depressed and overwhelmed wife with four little kids?
Well, [throwing her in jail is] a thought, Erin, but it doesn't do much for any other women out there who are teetering on the brink of topping themselves or their kids.
I veer towards the sympathetic with postnatal depression, I must admit, because I've had it and it's bloody awful. But drowning five little kids in the bath stretches even my liberal sensibilities, I must say.
In any event, I am not particularly fussed. I just dislike unequal treatment and will continue to express my belief that we as a society marginalize women--and that this marginalization results in them getting off lightly for the most horrendous acts.
The reason I posted this comment: And frankly, that's why I have a hard time mustering sympathy for her. I know that's wrong but I can't help it.
is because I found it odd that someone would have to timidly express the notion that she wasn't really sorry for the woman. But at the time, given the condemnations of Daddy and the tragic "oh, the agony she must have suffered!", an apology must have seemed apt.
Oh, the purchased housewife sort, the kind who lives a life through some other income source other than her own, but complains about how tough life is for women.
I don't really care if she has an ilk, really, but ever since her squawking about marriage it seems apt. It's just a way of saying "you and yours".
If JanJon's like me he doesn't spend any time reading it.
That's fine, but he also declared that he hadn't seen any such discussion and seemed to question that it actually existed. But it's on the airwaves constantly, and I have yet to see someone in the media say, "This woman is a monster and there is no excuse for it."
I hope it happens, of course. But in the meantime, the slant towards pity is pretty dramatic.
We must be hanging out in different threads.
No, I didn't. I don't feel like this becoming some sort of whining session about me again, but I said back then several times that it wasn't personal. Judith made any number of statements I thought were stupid, and I disagreed with them. As I've said any number of times, she's hardly the only person who has blamed the father, and I've corrected her on that several times.
In any event, if you must talk about me some more, why not run off to your private email sessions? Or take it to the Inferno. In any case, try and keep this one on topic.
As for it's being partially the dad's fault -- I don't know how we, with the little bit of information we have, can begin to make that call. Some people WANT large families -- my folks made the concious decision to have five children in close succession because they wanted five children close in age. The better to get the PTA meetings over with.
???
You asked and spent several posts complaining I didn't answer, and then say take it to the Inferno?
I'm the only one whose been posting completely on topic. Ballsy of you, I must say.
Even if she had thought of it, had that notion flash through her mind, it's completely different from actually doing it. I never even considered killing my son, and even reading about someone who has done that makes me ill. But even thinking about it is a whole huge galaxy away from doing it.
But people talk about the difference between thought and action as if it is negligible.
I think to most of us, the frequent substantive contributions to The Mote made by Judith and CalGal are considered valuable and interesting.
I guess that's why their continuing petty feud, capable of breaking out at any time, here or on most any other thread, is such a royal pain in the ass.
Back on topic: I find it really odd that the Times hasn't even seemed to mention this story.
Huh? I didn't ask or complain about anything. And please, the last thing I want this thread to descend to is a discussion of you.
So,
Moving right along to the media perception, there is that as a discussion and there is what's within the thread, and I don't think comments have been clearly directed to one or the other.
The part I have the hardest part wrapping my head around is the execution. Imagine the time required to commit that act -- taking the children one-by-one and holding them underwater til dead. And the struggle -- not once but four times (I don't know how much of a fight a 6 month old could put up)to kill each of the children. How could someone with an ounce of feeling toward the children do that not just once, but repeatedly. I don't have any children but I just can't comprehend it.
Frankly, I don't feel a compulsion to judge the woman beyond saying that I don't understand it -- it's certainly not within my range of experience or emotion so I can't feel real empathy.
Cal, commenting on something you said a while back: most people DO hold women to a different standard, particularly with regard to children. Fair? Perhaps not. But nonetheless it is a factor.
i was also thinking about that. How terrible it must have been for any of the children (especially the older ones) who knew or might have figured out what mom was doing.
I cannot imagine what it was like for the 7 year old.
Adios
Jean,
But that's precisely why I find it so revolting. Certainly anyone who considers themself a feminist should realize the danger of this sort of thinking. Instead, many of them encourage it.
When they finally were able to prove that she had murdered her kids, she was 70. Was she put in jail? Of course not. She had a husband to care for, after all. Besides, is society served by spending millions of dollars to keep her in jail? No, Marie Noe would "benefit" from treatment.
Maybe we should try that approach on these 30 year old Klan murders, or the bombings in Birmingham. After all, they must have been sick, too.
"In the shrink sense" isn't that clear
Houston Chronicle article (scroll down to the bottom>
CNN
Another newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, quoted someone close to the investigation who said Yates told investigators she had been thinking of killing her children for months.
And I didn't notice any regret, either.
Of course, Susan Smith expressed gallons of regret, but anyone who believed it would make an excellent prospect for bridge salesmen.
Personally I am not a proponent of the death penalty... but definitely not out of concern for McVeigh or this nutjob woman... my reluctance toward the death penalty stems from the uncertainty with all these faceless inmates who get aquitted on a regular basis, but never make it on the news.
Anyhow... anyone who tries to make the point that this woman deserves some pity, or what she did is somehow 'different' from McVeigh... you've lost me.
There are no answers as to why and how this woman was able to do what she did.
Personally I am not a proponent of the death penalty... but definitely not out of concern for McVeigh or this nutjob woman... my reluctance toward the death penalty stems from the uncertainty with all these faceless inmates who get aquitted on a regular basis, but never make it on the news.
Anyhow... anyone who tries to make the point that this woman deserves some pity, or what she did is somehow 'different' from McVeigh... you've lost me.
I'm not hiding from the double standard; I'm pissed off by it. But have you seen a news report, editorial, or think piece that says so in so many words? Of course not.
Also, I don't think women are held to a higher standard vis a vis violent crimes, but a lower one.
And I am so sad that there were no shell games in Times Square last I was there. I loved watching people run them. Performance art like no other.
Well, there has been some good discussion here for which I am a day late and a dollar short. When I first read of this woman drowning her kids, I recalled the scene in Joy Luck Club where the mom drowned her infant baby. Now repeat, again and again, with older children who can thrash harder.
So many posts on the subject of this Yates woman in the parenting thread: very incongruous.
The husband and MIL will eventually get their act together and start charging for their appearances, if they haven't already. Let's all hire a bus and go down and put more stuffed animals in their yard. Better yet, let's steal some that are already there and auction them off on ebay.
None of you deserve that. I'm just really disgusted at myself for paying attention to it. I think somehwere in her brain, that nutjob knew this would be a big to-do, and she's enjoying it.
The media have simply latched on to something - as they always must -and in this case it happens to be her PPD.
Susan Smith was raked over the coals as thoroughly as any man would be, for a crime which was arguably much less gruesome in its execution than this one. Why?
Because there was no diagnosis for anyone to pin her actions on. The issue is not and hasn't been her gender - except for you. It has been, just as it always is when someone with a "history" does something horrible - whether or not mental illness mitigates the act.
So, please - enough already with the women-will-not-be-truly-equal-till-they-are -treated-just-as-badly-as-men-are crap.
Yep. I still think most mothers who murder their children deliberately are sympathy junkies. Fathers who kill are also completely narcissistic, but not greedy for sympathy per se.
John Wayne Gacy is one of the most horrible serial killers in US history; he killed young boys and men and buried them in his basement. I think his total was 35 or so. He was executed; his death is one of the few capital punishment cases that fits my criteria (assuming we're going to have capital punishment, which I'd rather not). Horrible man. I'm assuming you've heard of Dahmer.
You don't know who Bin Laden is? Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire terrorist?
Let's all hire a bus and go down and put more stuffed animals in their yard.
God, that pukes me out. The need some people have to feel like they're part of the commotion. Give the stuffed animal to a kid who's actually alive--better yet, donate the money it would have cost to a homeless shelter, or give it to the political party of your choice. But no, if I go down there and drop off a teddy bear maybe I'll see it on TV later.
Your memory fails you. She wasn't raked over the coals much, particularly considering the disgusting scam she tried to pull; there was a huge amount of sympathy for her. After she confessed--and it was only then, when people knew she wasn't a "good mom", that she was suddenly suicidal--everyone felt bad for her. Oh, the poor woman. Overcome with grief at her actions--just as she should be. But how could she do such a thing, the poor dear? I would have watched those sweet little babies for her, she didn't have to kill them?
To say nothing of the fact that she didn't get the death penalty.
Also, there was a fair case to be made that Smith was MBP and it was discussed, as was her "history" of sexual abuse.
I'm also not sure how it is that you think letting two toddlers scream in terror in a car that is slowly filling up with water is "less gruesome" than holding their heads under directly. She didn't do her own dirty work, so it's less gruesome?
I have said nothing of the media per se marginalizing women; it is the entire process, the inability to treat men and women as equals, that disgusts me. Women who kill gruesomely must have some problem, some terrible condition that must be fixed, besides, someone else should have been looking out for them! Men receive no such consideration.
Inaccurate restatement. But in any event, it's not crap.
Inaccurate restatement. But in any event, it's not crap.
The need some people have to feel like they're part of the commotion.
The way we do it here, rack up 100s of posts?
Actually, I came here to ask about appropriate clothing for teenage girls who wish to dress as J-Lo, and what might possibly get through their skulls, and got distracted.
1. Smith had no diagnosis.
2. All sympathy for Smith dissipated when it was found out she had done the deed. Not much was made of her history of sexual abuse. And we can speculate all we want about whether she suffered from bipolar disorder - there was no such diagnosis.
3. This woman hasn't received the death penalty either. But it is Texas, after all - and you can bet your life Smith's odds of receiving the DP would be the same as this monster's had her murders been committed in Texas.
4. Locking one's kids in the car and rolling it down the hill into a lake is pretty gruesome. But it pales in comparison with drowning your 5 kids in the bath tub one-by-one. This monster watched her 5 children die, inches away, by her own hand, forpetesake.
But, she's got a "condition".
That's the story.
Really. Do tell how it is that she didn't get the death penalty, then. You're wrong. There was plenty of sympathy and wailing about her. In fact, it was her case that began my disgust with the pass that women murderers receive. Plenty was made of her sexual abuse history, or we wouldn't be so cognizant of it some seven years later. Shd did the deed in the humane and liberal state of South Carolina--and she stood trial, which most of these women don't, apparently.
This woman doesn't have a "diagnosis". She might have had post partum depression, but you're bonkers if you think that's an adequate diagnosis for what she did.
I'm not going to compare gruesomeness, since I think they could both die horribly and still not atone for what they did. But your sympathy for Smith seems to be that because she was cowardly enough to kill her kids in a way that caused them maximum agony but was out of her sight, she's somehow more humane. That's horseshit. They're both monsters, they both put their kids through a nightmare of terror and agony before their deaths. One doesn't get brownie points by standing by and feeling sad as her kids scream their way to their doom.
I do hope this creature gets the death penalty and will celebrate it as a sign of progress. That said, it won't change the fact that the dialog about her and other women who kill their children is skewed by some weird desire to avoid thinking of them as the monsters they are.
No, you're wrong.
The coverage of her sexual abuse centered on the fact that she had put it behind her - that it had never been an issue. And the reason *I* remember it so well is that I thought it very unusual that more wasn't made of it.
But your sympathy for Smith...
You're high. There's just no other explanation.
I find the whole notion of saying well, Susan Smith's murders were "arguably much less gruesome" than this woman's to be just...weird, frankly. They are both monsters.
But you are wrong about the coverage of Susan Smith. "WHY???" was the operative issue throughout her coverage, and she has never been reviled to the degree that she should (in my perfect world).
Erinyes,
If you make it too much of an issue, you'll lose. There are always clothes that work as a compromise, aren't there? How old is your daughter?
Right - just as it was with Klebold - and Gacey - and Hinkley - and OJ -and Dahmer.
But, if you remember, we got an answer in the Susan Smith case.
...because her boyfriend didn't want her kids.
Go ahead - stop anyone on the street and ask them: Why did Susan Smith kill her 2 kids.
I'll bet you anything that anyone who knows what you're talking about will answer, Because her boyfriend didn't want them.
See? There is no such plot running in the background here. PPD is all we've got.
What sexist nonsense.
Nonsense. She killed her kids because she was convinced she'd fucked them up and wanted a do-over. That's just as much a "reason" as Smith's--and I have yet to hear anyone say "Oh, Smith killed her kids because she wanted to be with her boyfriend" (although I'm sure you know more yutzes than I do).
No, most people think of both acts as equally incomprehensible. Your entire take on it--that it's only this case that is getting a bunch of attention--is simply not aligned with reality. There are far too many women who kill their kids, and the same bullshit breastbeating goes on in every case.
Shannon,
Jesus. A few sensible letters. But for the most part, bleah. I have a suggestion for the woman who says she feels she is directly responsible but doesn't know what to do about it. Do you think Salon would publish my response?
joezan, yes, I think you've got it. It's an easy answer, distillable into a short soundbite. 'Her boyfriend objected.' I know that's what my mind instantly brings up when I think about Smith.
Don S, why do you say that? sexist nonesense
In this age of video, no one is immune of wanting to be an instant star...I guess I don't see the distinction between sympathy junkies and narcissists.
CalGal, really, an issue should be made of it. She is 13 and not ready for the lurid comments. She's not my daughter, she's the babysitter 2 doors down.
I tried talking with her today about it. She was walking home from 8th grade graduation, all dressed up in a slinky number that I'm sure she thought was celebratory when she looked in the mirror at 7am, but was fending off comments from a group of rude young mean (freudian slip there) at 3pm. She is not comfortable enough in her body for the attention. She wants to be seen as attractive, though.
You're right - I most likely do know more yutzes than you do. In fact, I probably know many more people of every stripe than you do, as the vast majority of my life is spent off-line.
Be that as it may - "because her boyfriend didn't want them" is the universally accepted reason for Smith's offing her kids, whether you agree or not. And I'm not even arguing that she wasn't just as sick as this whacko - of course she was. But, again - mental illness was not the prevailing theme there. Her sexual abuse was mentioned, then tossed - as if no one wanted to bestow the coveted status of VICTIM on Ms. Smith.
Once her initial tale unravelled, it was all over - the pity party ended. From that point on she was universally reviled.
The teddy bear fetishists went directly from the lake to the courthouse to spew venom (and get their faces on the 6:00 news, of course).
No, most people think of both acts as equally incomprehensible. Your entire take on it--that it's only this case that is getting a bunch of attention--is simply not aligned with reality.
Here you go again with the shuck-n-jive.
Please show me where I have said anything of the sort. Anything even remotely approaching that.
It isn't only yutzes who said Smith wanted to get rid of her kids because her boyfriend didn't want them; it was all over the media. 60 Minutes did a profile and I'm sure others did, too.
I'm not a person who feels the need to drop off talismen at murder sites but many people do this sort of thing as a gesture of sympathy and possibly to feel less helpless...yes, it might help them think they have done "something" to ease their feelings of helplessness in the face of total incomprehension.
Of course, it's much easier to think people only do this to get a vicarious thrill by seeing their "gift" on the 6 o'clock news...which I am sure some do but I think there are more things at work here in the public psyche than the simple craving of 15 seconds of fame.
Why can't they do it the civilized way - yammering about it on the Internet - like us?
It is a tacky way to meet ones needs but as we all know, tackiness never stops anyone...
Sorry.
Really, it's a harmless act and will hardly get an individual notice, much less the requisite 15 minutes of fame.
And Joe's right about Smith after she was found to be guilty. I don't recall any sympathy, and far fewer attempts to analyze it. I'm trying to recall why she didn't get the death penalty. I remember the coverage of it, but not the specifics.
Maybe that she wouldn't try an insanity defense?
Her defense lawyer deliberately chose not to move venues because he was sure that a jury from that location wouldn't be harsh on her. He was correct.
You are right that some people did boo and hiss her when they heard, but overwhelmingly there was confusion as to why she'd do it, and she certainly isn't mentioned when people speak of multiple murderers.
Of course, it's much easier to think people only do this to get a vicarious thrill by seeing their "gift" on the 6 o'clock news...which I am sure some do but I think there are more things at work here in the public psyche than the simple craving of 15 seconds of fame.
I said nothing of craving for fame. But association with it? Absolutely. Not all of them. But the teddybear bullshit and all the other nonsense is just playing to the media--or playing because of them. Consciously? Of course not.
Is she dressing differently from other girls her age, or no?
As a separate issue (from gender), there is usually far less coverage when a parent kills his or her own kids. After all, there's nothing for the neighborhood to worry about. Smith's story was all the rage when it looked like a bad guy (and a black man!) had taken her kids--gosh, none of the kids are safe! I doubt it would have gotten as extensive coverage--more like Yates--had she just killed the kids and been caught.
Usually these events bring about talk of neglect, and abuse and the possibility of criminal charges. Not a peep in this case. The family did a lot of very public grieving surrounded by neighbors and fellow religionists. This, it seems, was a sort of public service announcement on the danger of closed cars, particularly in this climate.
Was this a cynical ploy to thwart criticism or a sincere effort to derive something positive from a tragedy? I don't know. But I will be interested in community reaction when a similar event strikes a less prominent and less media-savvy family.
That's awful. Incidentally, I think the "possibility" of criminal charges is far too remote in a lot of cases. The thinking being, "oh, the parents have suffered enough". An honest accident, fine. But a parent not noticing a baby for two hours? There are plenty of unintentional acts that put people in jail; I see no reason why this couldnt' be one of them.
I remember that event you spoke of...the church people were united in their defense of the parents. It was a child who had Down Syndrome and had to be carried everywhere, could do nothing for itself.
I knew what you meant, and I certainly wasn't sticking up for him. As for being abusive before hand, I'm not sure that matters as far as whether or not one goes bonkers.
In any event, the reason I think it is signficant that Smith isn't mentioned more often is because of the massive national coverage and the fact that she lied--and that, I think, is in part because she's female and still isn't viewed as quite "responsible". After all, the poor dear just wanted a husband--who could blame her?
But there are any number of horrendous family murderers, Simmons among them, who aren't known as part of "lore", and I think that goes beyond gender because society just doesn't care as much if they offed their own family. Part of the thrill people get in reading about multiple murderers is the fear--oooh, it could happen to anyone. Family murderers don't have that appeal.
And maybe that's why with Smith--but she's got name recognition, whereas most family murderers (including Yates, I suspect) fade from memory.
It just was the extremity of his own character, imo, and that was my point in bringing up his past.
that, I think, is in part because she's female and still isn't viewed as quite "responsible". After all, the poor dear just wanted a husband--who could blame her?
Your take on Smith just doesn't ring true from the media coverage I recall. You'd have to show some examples of that type of article, because I don't recall seeing them at all. As for it being the reason she got less coverage, my point is RGS got even less than that, by far, and your suggestion for the reasoning is speculation that I haven't seen you provide any evidence for regarding the Smith case in particular.
My personal take is that the media reacts to similar stories in different ways all the time and there's not necessarily a definable reason some heinous acts get more attention than others, outside the fact that something in the acts themselves--Dahmer making frozen dinners out of his victims, the inconceivability of a woman methodically holding five little heads under water one at a time, an act designed to terrorize in a school or public building--which must be looked at and analyzed to be fully absorbed so we can get it out of our heads, because it goes beyond what we can conceive.
The media selection of the stories to emphasize has a lot to do with it. The two little kids who burned up in a car from heat while their dads hunted mushrooms got less attention than the more recent incidents of people claiming to forget their children while at work or home. In another type of incident altogether, the Kennedy Jr. plane crash received a ridiculous amount of television time, as did the OJ trial.
As for Smith, I'm not arguing she gets less attention--she got a great deal of attention. But what she did was truly horrible in every sense of the word, and yet she's never mentioned as a multiple murderer or assessed in that light--even though she is very well known (unlike Simmons).
I don't think there's any question she would have gotten the death penalty, were she a man. I also think the coverage on her is still more about an attempt to find something else to blame for her acts, in a way that you never see in assessment of a male murderer (including Simmons).
In fact, the reaction to female murderers is more akin to the reaction to murderers who are also children--another group who isn't considered to be responsible for their actions.
It's not rational, but it's natural human self-interest.
Yes, but given that much of our jury and justice system has a bias towards the attention and concern of a community, this lack of interest results in a cheapening of children's lives. Killed by your mom? Well, your dad feels bad for her, so we'll go easy on her. Killed by a stranger down the street? Burn the motherfucker.
Just thought I'd cut and paste one of the more horrifying letters to Salon.
I think it is certainly of interest to look at people like Yates, or Smith, or Dahmer, or McVeigh and wonder why they did what they did and why they think what they think. In a disinterested, clinical sort of way. PP says that Psychology is not very good at predicting who will act like these people have (well, he was referring to Yates in particular). I know that Psychology continues to research into human behavior, and new theories and treatments emerge all the time.
However, the human feeling person in me reacts to this incident with horror and rage that any person on this earth would do what she did. I believe that that is the most appropriate (for lack of a better word) reaction. I get this nasty feeling, reading letters such as this one and hearing other people's reactions, that some people have this bizarre idea that horror and rage are NOT the most appropriate responses, that the best thing to do is to stretch out caring hands to this woman, that somehow by doing that we can...what? Do what? Seriously.
I'm against the death penalty, on priciple. I understand that people who act violently toward other people are often deeply damaged in some way. But I don't want a world where we pass out warm understanding fuzzies in the direction of people who do what this woman did. Like she was just "crying out for help"--Good God!
It makes me sick. Horror and rage should come first, wondering "why?" should trail far behind them somewhere.
I think it's the same knee-jerk thinking that makes people not stomach the idea of women fighting and dying in combat, no matter how physically capable the women may be. Women are something more than men.
Hahahahahaha...
This is a fine rule for you and me. Not so much for the criminal justice system.
Though the thought of her ever getting rehabed and hitting the streets again angers me. How anyone can get rehabed after doing such a thing is, well, incomprehensible.
;-)
But my nap-defying toddler is taking up 99% of my energy and time today. See you.
Holly,
Can you imagine that someone actually put her name to that spew?
Ase, good to see you. I like how my favorite MWT people have ended up here after the Great CalGal Purge.
One thing I try to remind myself is that this sort of thing has been going on since time began, and it's unlikely that any change in our reaction to it will reduce or eliminate parents killing their children in cold blood.
I just wish so many people wouldn't confuse it with an episode of Oprah.
All the chitchat over there makes me sick. I was going to post something else scathing but I've utterly lost heart. Ah well.
But, I'm not sure about whether reactions will influence incidences. They won't be eliminated. And people bent on offing their kids will find "sneaky" ways, just like anybody wanting to off their kids.
But, it may influence marginally unstable people if there's a message that if you're overwhelmed and mentally unstable, you may be pitied rather than reviled if you kill your kid.
I don't know. I probably could find out with some work, considering that there are times, cultures and places where infanticide (either straight out, or thinly disguised) has been acceptable, unlike present western culture where it is not acceptable (except by these poor disturbed mothers that could be just anybody of us if we were put under a little bit more stress by our unfeeling husbands that is).
And, I don't know why anybody would clamor to have a massmurderer as the poster-child for post-partum depression or mental illness.
I am interested in this.
But, it may influence marginally unstable people if there's a message that if you're overwhelmed and mentally unstable, you may be pitied rather than reviled if you kill your kid.
That's what I keep thinking. We seem to put more culpability on drunk drivers for vehicular homicide than this woman. (Well, some of us.) What is wrong with that picture?
I've been wanting to say that I loved the picture of you and your pregnant belly. And I'm not nearly earthy enough to generally oooo over such things.
My, she's growing up. She looks like she doesn't miss a thing.
She plays with her dolls all the time. She takes them for walks in anything she can put them in and push, she gives them drinks from sippy cups, she pretends to brush their teeth, and of course she talks to them endlessly. We did play with blocks today and built some towers, but dolls are really her thing.
And I've been trying to analyze that one to death, of course.
And the lady holding her is very pretty too.
Heh. Like all her age peers, her mouth is her primary investigative organ (after a bit of eyeing and grasping). She particularly likes books.
The woman holding her is my little sister, who is very beautiful.
I remember when my baby brother was at that oral stage. I particularly remember spending the first two years of his life, covered in a mixture of his dribble, soggy rusks, and gum/tooth marks on my hands and arms, which he used to use while he was teething.
He was a great big fatso, and seriously believed that everything that was not attatched to him existed only for him to eat. Actually, that's not true. He loved munching on his feet, also.
One day, Ammi and I were taking him for a walk in his pusher (stroller?), and after a bit, we noticed that his feet were bare. We couldn't understand it!
So we walked around to the front of the pusher, and saw the little fatso with a pair of his socks dangling from his mouth.
We figured that in a frenzy of attempting to nibble his own toed, he must have taken off and thrown away his shoes, but somehow become distracted by his socks.
He was a very strange baby! But awful cute.
Really adorable little sweetie there.
Just a tip: nip it in the bud. As soon as you feel the slightest twinge of M.A., challenge it's cause, and then do some exercise.
I'm feeling a bit blue this morning. I think its because I've never experienced true love.
Or maybe it's low blood sugar. Have a glass of orange juice and then go for a brisk walk.
That said, Jennifer, daycare is a great way to give him more outlet for interaction and let you pick and choose your moments.
Melancholy is like booze; a drink every now and then doesn't hurt, but a martini every half-hour is likely to be crippling.
But your idea about daycare is a good one.
Motherhood and Murder
What possessed Andrea Yates? What terrible place had she gone to in her own mind? It may be months, if ever, before we really know. But late last week NEWSWEEK was able to put together a portrait of Yates that at least hints at why she felt driven beyond all hope to self-hatred and murder. Most mass killers are sociopaths, utterly alienated from other human beings. They are callous or sadistic. Andrea was the op-posite; if anything, she apparently cared too much. She may have felt she could never do enough for her demanding husband. In a horribly twisted way, she may have tried to be too good a mother.
Yes, poor Andrea just wanted to be a good mommy, and it drove her mad.
But then, they slip in this: There have been small and vague hints from family members that Andrea showed some signs of mental distress before she began having children, although her mother denied it to NEWSWEEK.
So if she's mentally ill already, or that's a possibility, why be so sure that it's PPD?
Well, she did only say tendency, not a continual wallow. So what's to be cured?
Everytime he hears about Andrea Yates, his reaction is the same. He thinks that she deserves to be executed (he would like for it to be in a much more barbaric way than simple lethal injection), and he also believes that her sanity is irrelevant and that her deeds are what warrant her execution.
His pov is that the insane, when guilty of committing murder, should definitely be executed.
Yes, this is what I wonder, too. If somewhere, for some creatures on the margin, the notion that she'll be treated as an object to be deeply pitied doesn't play into their decision.
I also wonder about this with those teen cretins who get pregnant but don't have an abortion because they don't see themselves as that sort of person--then argue that they strangled or abandoned the newborn out of "desperation", because they had no other options.
Is abortion too ordinarily "wrong"--something that will earn them (in their mind) disapproval, but not pity?
Clearly, it's a warped and narcissistic mind that thinks like this, but it makes a perverse sort of sense. Yates wouldn't take a job or quit homeschooling her kids, because people might disapprove. But if she kills her kids, then everyone will know she was really desperate. Smith could have told her husband to take custody of her kids, but then everyone would think of her as a "bad mom".
So for the marginal cases, it seems like it might be a step up for them to know that they'll be treated as monsters with no room for pity--it might make a few of them desert their families, rather than kill their kids.
That was simply an excellent elucidation.
Sorry... the post which made me go "wow" was Cal's.
Er... heh heh *scuttles off shame-facedly and hopes that mentioning that it is 4:30am here will gain sympathy from my peers and distract from my unmentionable crime*
If an individual is unstable with that tendency there's no way to know what specific thought or idea, from within or without, from family or media, will be the spark to ignite an incident. There may be no spark at all, and instead, as apparently with this woman, be a carefully laid out plan.
The coverage ought to send a message to their families, though, that if the parent, child, whoever, is "overwhelmed or mentally unstable" someone had better aggressively intervene and not worry about the possible stigma attached to having a diagnosed, even institutionalized mentally ill family member. And if it's embarrassing for an upwardly-mobile, middle class suburban family to have the kids removed from the home, even if temporarily, they will survive the shame.
It seems like a great deal of the time when they arrest someone for something horrible, all the neighbors say that they'd never have guessed, that he seemed like a nice guy, he waved to them at the mailbox, etc. I think they're stretching it here.
At least that is how I believe the thinking goes. Now, I'll admit to being out of my depth on this one, never having had kids, and not being American or even an Anglo (with attendant media penetration).
But it strikes me that some things do seem less horrendous to the frazzled, middle-class mind than shame.
My favourite book in the world is by Salman Rushdie, and it is called, "Shame". In this book, he tells of a Muslim father who kills his daughter for having defiled the family's honour -having brought shame upon them - because he suspected her of flirtation with a boy.
Rushdie ponders how such a thing could be possible - how monumental such shame must be to induce the killing of flesh and blood.
We all do many stupid things in our lives in order to preserve our honour. It is only a matter of degree whether girls develop anorexia (to avoid the shame of being unfashionable and fat), or kill our children because we feel great shame that we are shit mothers who cannot cope with home-schooling (what American idiocy that is) and motherhood in general.
To kill is not only so beyond the paradigm that the act itself abrogates shame, but it exonorates the actor from rational condemnation vbecause a mother who kills her child must be "mad".
What Cal said was simply so profound. It turned my head! I have been following the story in this thread from its inception and had not uderstood it till now. It was so AMerican and beyond any point of reference.
But the moment Cal linked honour and shame in this equation with sympathy and moral exonoration, I began to understand.
Unfortunately, where I come from, honour and shame still have way too much weight
Arky, my last post was in response to your #2785
They definitely do here, Khaval, but the weight is on such a superficial idea as how something will look to the neighbors.
I also happened to agree with you about the unacceptable nature of family's and community's abdication of responsibility.
It is a very very sick society (not just US, but also in much of the developed world) where there is such diffusion that the nuclear family becomes the only, supposedly, dependable unit.
I will not have children because I know I will not live in the countries in which I have family - that I could never live in one country in which all of my family would be - and that it is unacceptable to me that my children should be brought up only by the mother and the father. It is a recipie for depression and sick children.
Of course, there are those who do well in these situations - but I would not. I was brought up in a MASSIVE extended family in two countries, and always cossetted from life's vicissitudes by the comforting buffer they provided.
Now, this case involves a woman who not only seemed divorced from an extended family, but also seemed somewhat alienated (in that she could not share her sadness) from her husband. To add to this imjpossible situation with 5 children, she takes on the impossible burden of educating them herself, thus isolating herself and her children from the one support network (school and scholl mothers/teachers) who might have made her life easier.
I fucking HATE those martyr women who "have" to do it all, yet complain about how they can't cope. It would be too much of a SHAME (in the literal sense) to admit an inability to cope.
more coming....
They clearly could not afford the numkber of children they were having.
They have always lived hand to mouth and in tiny flats. But apart from their five children, they also played foster parents to whomsoever should come along. They have always been my surrogate parents in Israel - my brother's too -and they take care of any young person (and there are millions) in the family who could not stand their parents.
So how did my auntie survive? particularly, how did she survive when she had a severe illness that they thought (but wasn't thanks to God) multiple sclerosis?
Frankly, they would have been on the street had it not been for our massive, occasionally dysfunctional, but always loyal family. It is just a given amongst Eastern Jews (and Arabs too) that family goes beyond the nuclear and includes anyone who may have even the vaguest relation to you.
When you cook, you cook for 5 families so that some of the women can have a break. If you see a cousin/sister/aunty etc. tired, you take her children from her for the weekend, or you come to her house and clean it for her (you will never do a good enough job, but never mind), you will buy more food than you need and bring the extras to any family that is struggling a little. If you are wealthy, you take your sister/favourite cousin/aunty on a holiday to Turkey.
Also, all your friends become friends of everyone in the family. The network of friendship is beyond comprehension in its size.
Now what I have described above can also be suffocating. It is hard to have secrets or privacy in such environments. But no one EVER kills their own children. Pathology in Israel is actually quite rare. Neurosis, however, is quite common :)
What I read sounded like she had an extended family, but precious little communication took place.
I alluded to my mother earlier, and I think I should be more specific. She had severe OCD. She was never depressed or showed signs of violence, suicide, etc, but sometimes she became so compulsive she couldn't function. As treatment and medications improved, so did she, and finally the right medication with minimal side effects was found, and she hasn't suffered from OCD in years. When I was growing up she at times couldn't even read a book, and went through severe stages where intervention became necessary because she couldn't do the simplest, most necessary and basic tasks.
Nowhere did it ever occur to anyone, neither her parents nor my dad nor my brother and me, that this was something to hide or do anything but treat as effectively as possible. I guess because of that, I don't understand what seems to me to be a more recent attitude that it's ok to be "emotionally disturbed," be bipolar, be depressed, have any number of emotional conditions, but cross the line to being labeled "mentally ill" or as being unable to cope without anything more than a prescription and a therapist, and it's a failure and a family shame.
I don't get it.
Another thing about Rushdoie's Shame that I so loved was how brilliantly he illustrated the profound illogic inherent in whatever constitutes shame at any particular time, in any particular place.
Like, why is depression treatable with drugs fine, but anything else now not fine? WHy are there "cool" mental illnesses and uncool ones? It's all illogical. Fashion - so closely linked to if not the product of an avoidence of shame - tells us that this illness is fine now when it wasn't fine before - like AIDS.
Now... wrap your head around this one, Arky: an aunty of mine in Melbourne has cancer. It is a big secret, even though she only has months to live. No one in the family (oustide her husband and children) can know. Why? Because it is a shameful thing to happen. It means she is a bad mother and selfish. It means she is weak - too weak to be the matriarch of her family when the time comes. Too week ever to be a grandmother.
Ask me how I even know that she is sick:
I only know because my best girlfriend is going out with my AUnty's son. He tried to swear my friend to secrecy, but she told me anyway. She is a Tamil from Sri Lanka, and could not understand why there was such shame around this diseaase that secrecy had to be maintained.
Shame never has rhyme or reason, apoart from that which attributed after the fact.
This woman had a therapist. She was on meds. If her doctor thought she should be institutionalized, it hasn't been mentioned, which means she hid her nuttiness or that it wasn't obvious to see. There is never a case to be made for coldblooded murder being preventable by more care, but in this case it is particularly inapt. She had plenty of support. Plenty of medical care. Her husband's plan had insurance that they used to get her the best care possible.
She's a monster. Why is it so necessary to blame the family? Where's the blame when a kid is killed by a stranger?
I am talking about a much broader cultural problem. Apart from the stuff you wrote that had me in the spin about the sympathy aspects of this sort of act, I think your country has a serious structural and cultural problem that produces women like her.
I do not for a moment want to absolve her from responsibility for what she did - unless she was psychotic. In fact I am uninterested in whether she is "responsible".
Like Arky, I am more interested in the broader patterns and the possibilities for prevention thorough looking at causation.
We will chase our tails if we argue about her responsibility or lack thereof. You know, I read your post, and I harumphed in chagrin - you enumerated the woman's support network. Med's thrapists and a possibly revolting mother-in-law just don't cut it. They nothing when you look at how the rest of the world organises its families.
What I was saying was that shit like this just doesn't happen in Israel. The entire culture is totally geared towards family and support. That woman was probably a little odd already, and was totally tipped by her idiotic and avoidable situation.
Saying this in no way exonerates her.
I think she is a fuckwit for not having had a few abortions, for homescholling, and for making her own life as impossible as it could be.
But abortion is a great shame for your "moral" types, and home-schooling is all the rage and admission that she might be unable to homeschool might have been a "shame".
Yeah she was a fucking idiot who committed an evil act, but don't for a moment forget that she came from a culture which isolates and moralises to the point that Shame is inescapable.
Khavaval...perhaps her motives are different from what you hypothesize. She may want to live as many days as possible w/o being seen as an ill person. There are, in fact, two worlds...sick and healthy. She may not be ready to exit. I have worked with many ill individuals and the best way to assess their motives is to have them directly tell you.
Psych, exactly how many non-urban, non-assimilated Jewish women do you know? I would wager that you know nothing about our culture, even if you are an AMerican Jew.
Australian Jews ANYWAY are toatlly different, and my family is highly unusual ethnically in Melbourne. I can pretty much guarantee you that you are unaware of what is going on here.
I was not taking a literary flight of fancy when I was describing this aunty's shame! I was NOT indulging in masturbatory conjecture!!!!!!!!!
My own mother had cancer (though she lived), and I have seen ghis phenomenon with my own euyes. My own mother is anyway far more self-aware and educated than women from similar backgrounds. So when we have talked about her illness, she has given me an insight into what I had already witnessed going on here.
It's fone here for the men to get sick, but the BIGGEST shame for a woman to get sick.
This is a CULTURAL thing, Doc, and while I appreciate your trying to elucidate things for me, I gotta tell you, you don't have a clue about the women in this community.
It is reason #289749 that I am out of here as soon as I graduate.
As for what you see as larger cultural differences, what you present as desirable, I see as hell on earth. I am quite sure that they have their own dysfunctions that are just as evil. It is incredibly unlikely to me that America produces more wackos than Israel--or anywhere else, for that matter. Far more probable is that the "nirvana" you describe drives any number of women and children mad with a bunch of interfering and obnoxious bitches overseeing their every move. No doubt they emigrate to sane, civilized America before they go beserkers and gun the whole skag of biddies down and try to blame it on an outbreak of Palestinian violence.
I think she is a fuckwit for not having had a few abortions, for homescholling, and for making her own life as impossible as it could be.
You are acting as if having the babies is what caused this problem. But you have no knowledge that this is true. Maybe she wanted to have children, purely in order to kill them. Maybe she's been fantasizing about this for years.
But I'd wager it's highly unlikely that she would have snapped thusly without all those kids. The oldest kid made it to 7, no?
To me, a multitude of kids is a form of madness in itself. Some women can cope well, most can just cope, and a few go berserk.
She killed the children. She didn't go shoot up a McDonalds. You can't discount the effect that 5 children has on a relatively isolated women.
And Cal, not for a moment have I EVER presented the Eastern Jewish (Ashkenazi Jews are less so) family structure.
You are right! ANd I have stated that can be gossippy and bitchy and asfixiating. Ialso said that I cannot live like that and intend not to have children.
And Israel produces crazies, sure. But not of the callibre of mother-killers who drown babies. I'll tell you right now: it does not happen.
Also, the most extreme form of the family structure I have described exists on the kibbutz. ANd you want an interesting factoid? Kibbutzim produce people with mental illness in exactly the same numbers as the rest of Israel with one glaring exception: there almost no incidence of schizophrenia on Kibbutzim. WHy? APparently it has something to do with the structure of the places (I hate them because they are suffocating).
Also, there are almost no murders EVER on kibbutzim. It may be suffocating, and neuroses may be rampant, but the uglier pathologies are far below almost any other place on earth.
This sounds less like a possibility and more like a B-grade movie plot.
BTW...what the hell difference does it make if I am an "American" Jew? If I'm not, am I still entitled to think?
Ho hum, PsychProf... honestly! Don't get your bolo tie in a knot! I was merely trying to second guess you in case you were an American Jew and tried to tell me that you had vaaaast experience of Jewish cultural mores. Really - I have a lot of time for the uncircumcised masses.
And I was also expecting you to whip out that old chestnut about how yoomans are yoomans an' it don't matter a fig about culture.
See, I'd say, when we're talking about shame, that culture is everything and accusations of "slavery" are folly.
Let me give you an extreme example. If I have a clitoris, I am not ashamed on my wedding night. If Fatima from Sudan has a clitoris, she will be very ashamed on her wedding night.
Less extreme? If I don't bleed on my sheets on my wedding night, I won't be ashamed. Fatima, however, might feel differently.
Even less extreme? If I burn the soup I am cooking for my husband, I might be pissed off, but I am not ashamed. Fatima would feel differently.
So don't give me that shit about the brotherhood of man and the universality of shame across cultures. Yeahhhh... we *all* feel shame - but big deal! It's what *causes* the shame that I'm talking about and to discount culture is pure folly.
Highly unlikely? That's absurd. Millions of women have large families and somehow manage to avoid drowning them in cold blood--or "snapping", as you call it.
Suppose she had "snapped" by gunning down the neighbor's children. Would we all be having this conversation about how having all these kids had caused it?
Nonsense. You have no idea what caused it, what went on in her mind. Who is to say that she always hadn't been this way?
To me, a multitude of kids is a form of madness in itself. Some women can cope well, most can just cope, and a few go berserk.
Well, it might be that way "to you", but that's due to what is apparently a profound ignorance. I shall leave your monumentally stupid comments on this alone, because it's not worth the bother.
But not of the callibre of mother-killers who drown babies. I'll tell you right now: it does not happen.
You are almost certainly wrong. Mothers have been killing their children forever, and in every western European country--all with the gooey family care structure you praise--they have special laws letting mothers who kill their babies off easy. I doubt that Israel is any different. But if you have proof that Israel, alone in the world, has no instances of mothers killing their children, by all means, spew.
I'm also not a woman, but I have been posting about one.
I am sure there is deep meaning that I am unable to divine in this post. I am sure someone will relieve me of the burden of my incomprehension.
not sway me...not everyone is a slave to a culture, and we as
humans share feelings across cultures...indeed, within cultures
not all goose step to the same tune. Anywez, I may or may not
be correct...you also. Your Aunt knows. In any case, if I am
clueless I am willing to learn."
Please reread my post and show me where I said to discount culture...do not make suff up to meet your needs. I am off the share some shame with friends.
So did Jeffrey Dahmer. So did Timothy McVeigh. So did Gacy. So did Susan Smith.
In short, you have no fucking idea what is a possibility and what isn't. It's no more likely that five kids "drove" her to kill them in cold blood than it is she's always fantasized about doing it. Both are the sign of a sick fuck. But one attracts morons standing ready to blame her husband, so it's probably the better line of defense.
The rest of your post is an almost total misinterpretation of what I wrote.
Firstly, I make no claims to know what went on in that woman's head. Indeed, I couldn't even understand it until I read that post of yours above.
Of course we wouldnb't be having this discussion if she'd killed someone ele's kids. The fact that she killed her own is what has spurred this whole discussion.
And stop being so ridiculous. Make no assumptions about my experience with children. I am the first-born of my generation in both countries, so I have grown up with babies - lots and lots of babies - all my life. I have changed more nappies tyhan you have written offensive posts.
I also looked after many todlers to whom I wasn't related on kibbutz, and lead very young children for years at a youth movement.
I know plenty about children.
I of course don't kno what it's like to be a single mother of an only child, but I'll just say that we should agree to respect each other's experiences and not denigrate what we don't understand.
BTW, I did just like you said, Doc. I reread your post, and ya know... I didn't see anything different this time around.
Must be delusional, Doc.
What do you prescribe?
As for the Israel stats, I said it seriously. Cite on their low mother murder rate and I'll believe you. I won't agree with the solution, though, because any comparison between the US and Israel puts America ahead on any scale that I value, but I'll certainly grant you the stats if you cite them.
I think there's a basic disconnect in your thinking. You are clearly acting as if anyone, with the right motivation, can go temporarily nuts and off their children. I suppose you can think that, but I think it's idiotic.
More likely, though, people want to believe that this can happen to any woman, because otherwise they have to let go of their cherished notions about women, and wrap their minds around the fact that some women, just like some men, are monsters. That this can't "happen" to a woman, but that a woman, either because of evil or insanity or an innate ability to do terrible things, can actively choose to murder five children because she saw it in her interest to do so.
Much as I'd love to continue to talk about baby-killers, I must be judicious.
I was stating an opinion about something someone wrote...you ought to recognize it; you do it ALL the time.
And neither do any of us so stop acting as though you and you alone have some inordinate insight into this situation or the womans mind.
Pure speculation. You have no idea as to the quality or aggressiveness of her care. She was on an anti-psychotic, so that certainly isn't a good sign about the severity of her condition.
Who cares? She was getting treatment. I swear, it's like that theory where the arrow never hits the target. "She wasn't supported!" Well, yes, she was. "She needed medical care!" Well, she had a great deal of medical care, for a long time. "Well, maybe it wasn't aggressive enough!" Or maybe it was.
I have seen no mention that being on an anti-psychotic means automatic institutionalization. Barring that, it means there are at least a few people out there on this drug whose loved ones aren't tasked with keeping them away from children or any other situation at all costs. But I'm sure if they ever did act, a whole bunch of people would suddenly start moralizing about what their family should have done.
I understand that you aren't trying to blame anyone else, but the entire notion that this was somehow preventable is like whistling in a cemetery. Why is she supposed to be considered any more "curable" than a pedophile, or her actions any more preventable? Why is it viewed as a tragedy that could have been stopped, that she's a mother who loved her children but was "driven" to this? There's no evidence to support one possibility over another.
Given the number of female serial killers who kill their own infants over and over again, it seems at least possible that women with an urge to kill will turn first to their children--they're easy to make, easy to kill. So why not assume these mothers who murder their children are more like pedophiles, rather than pretend that it's just a chick having a spell of worse than usual depression?
You are looking at something different. I'm looking at the disinclination to aggressively treat severe conditions and removing children from a parent until and unless improvement is shown. I'm not referring to family support of this woman. Support and intervention are not the same thing.
Being on an anti-psychotic drug means she displayed indications of psychosis. This means suspensions of reality...delusions. Maybe some think it's ok for someone with psychotic symptoms to be left alone with five small children. I personally don't.
My view is that the tragedy was preventable by not allowing a woman trying to control severe mental illness and showing "65% improvement?" (I don't know what her husband meant by that) to deal with five small children without supervision.
It is the very same as the case I related earlier about the mother who'd tried to kill her son, except this woman had not shown direct violence toward her children, as far as we know. She was still showing serious signs of being incompetent to have unsupervised responsibility for them.
As far as your pedophile comment, it may very well be true, in which case, if anyone sees significant signs of abuse or neglect it should be reported and aggressively pursued. In the case of a strong family with daily contact, like this one appeared to be, as long as this woman showed signs of severe mental problems and an inability to cope, she should not have been left alone with those kids--just as the mother I mentioned before should never have been left alone with her little boy--if it means she never gets full control of them again.
CalGal,
I would be just as disgusted if their father had committed this crime. I think that people are having a hard time understanding how anyone could have done this to 5 children, let alone the woman who carried them in her womb. Her relationship to the children (being their mother, not just a cousin or a neighbor) is what makes it so much worse and so much harder to fathom.
She is indeed very sick and I do not see that any mental illness absolves her from responsibility.
Depression is usually treatable whereas pedophilia is seen more as a lasting and incurable illness. Plus, depression isn't illegal. Most people on mediactions for depression are able to lead normal lives, most pedophiles do not.
Again, the capability to kill is not something brought on by depression.
So have you checked your school? Is there a law against teaching if you are on this drug? A law against being a childcare worker? Are you allowed to get pregnant if you've ever been on this drug in the past?
If not, then why bring it up? How are people supposed to act? How could he have prevented his wife from being around their kids, even if he'd wanted to--even if he'd known it was serious? In fact, did he even know that she was on an anti-psychotic drug, as opposed to an anti-depressant?
It's pretty easy to say "Well, it makes 'good sense' to do X, Y, Z". But either he was legally culpable to keep his children safe in the face of certain knowledge of risk, or he had no ability to take any of the actions you bring up, because they wouldn't have been legal if his wife had objected. Also, there's no evidence that the doctor told him that his kids--or even his wife--were in any danger.
So I don't see why the family should be supposed to do something about this, or even have any knowledge that something should be done. Either she was clearly a danger to herself and the kids, in which case both the husband and the doctor are criminally liable, or she wasn't--and in that case, any action he tried to take had at least as much chance of getting him in trouble as not. Had he tried to get the kids away and she objected and a case like that had become public, I don't think he'd have gotten a lot of sympathy.
But he's just supposed to know all this, and act, because hey--that's how you prevent things like this. But you don't seem to consider the possibility that maybe it wasn't preventable, that maybe his mistake was having children with a monster.
Killing ones self usually results from depression, so...
Also, even in the case of suicide, there's nothing to suggest that anyone will kill themselves if they are depressed enough. Some people live with depression for a lifetime, others kill themselves when they suffer a huge loss. So there again, it's certainly possible that it's a capability and there's no real indication that it's brought on by depression.
Most people who commit suicide do so because they're depressed and make the poor decision to end their lives. This might shock you that depression, being an illness, can lead to unhealthy thinking and action, but it does in fact happen.
Secondly, if depression, especially severe depression, can make someone start dwelling on killing themself, it doesn't seem too far off that s/he could dwell on killing what and who s/he might consider as their cause for their depression.
I think he said in an interview he did; he seemed to know the Haldol had been recently stopped by the doctor, anyhow.
So what if there is or isn't? It's still an indication of severe problems that bear close monitoring. I actually agree with most of your post, especially
Either she was clearly a danger to herself and the kids, in which case both the husband and the doctor are criminally liable, or she wasn't--and in that case, any action he tried to take had at least as much chance of getting him in trouble as not. Had he tried to get the kids away and she objected and a case like that had become public, I don't think he'd have gotten a lot of sympathy,
except for the part about criminal liability. That would be almost impossible to prove. But again, even so, I don't hold anyone responsible but her. Still, it would be nice if someone who recognized similar conditions in any adult was aware and able to do whatever they could to get small children out of his or her unsupervised care, with support of doctors and the law.
No, people who kill themselves do so because they decided to kill themselves. Lots of people who are depressed don't kill themselves--with or without medication. Some people kill themselves with no depression at all--they lose their job and blammo. So there's something else involved.
Secondly, if depression, especially severe depression, can make someone start dwelling on killing themself, it doesn't seem too far off that s/he could dwell on killing what and who s/he might consider as their cause for their depression.
This is nonsense. Oh, I'm depressed. Why? My kids. Okay, let's kill them.
Right.
Apart from getting her diagnosed and institutionalized, I'm not sure what could be done. What bothers me about your posts on this, mainly, is that it is brought up at all. In other words, I don't particularly disagree that it might be a good idea for people to wonder whether or not psychos should be watching children, but I just don't see this being raised in the early days in a situation where she hadn't killed her own kids.
I mean, what if her family had been vigilant in protecting her kids from her, and the need to act got so strong that she went out and offed the neighbor's kids? Would anyone thank them for their vigilance?
I just think too much emphasis is put on the notion that this could be prevented.
Severe depression and the medications she was on didn't make her one to be prone to clear thinking.
I seriously doubt she just said, "Oh, I'm depressed. Why? My kids. Okay, let's kill them." And I know that you know that.
Research a suicide hotline, tell me how many of the callers aren't depressed.
For another, there's no evidence that there is any correlation between severity of depression and suiciding--and there are plenty of cases where someone can commit suicide because of one hard blow (loss of job, loss of kid) but not actual depression.
Yes, people are depressed. Yes, some of them commit suicide. But a huge amount don't kill themselves, even if they are far more depressed than someone who does off themselves. So clearly there is something more than just depression.
Please. You cheapen the horror of her act by implying it was just due to fuzzy thinking or a really bad day.
I agree with your first sentence. The reason it's brought up is just like analyzing any other tragedy, looking at what happened and whether the same conditions might be recognized in time in any future situation. The horror of how those kids died at the hands of their mother and the fact that nothing that happens to her now can truly satisfy justice for them is inescapable. She's an irredeemable monster--we fully agree on that. Whether she's executed tomorrow or dies a natural death in prison, though, is irrelevant to her or her children. Just like McVeigh's death was, though some victims may have thought not. The act is done. What's done with the monster afterward is not as important as learning to recognize the monsters. And maybe we can't, but looking at characteristics and for patterns is what people do to try.
I mean, perseverance - and even occasional temerity - I dig in chicks. I really do.
But Cal has become a regular Doña Quixote on this topic, and her one-woman crusade is giving me a head ache.
Let's move on. Hasn't Mary-Kay Lettornoue (sp?) raped any little boys lately?
I really don't think we, as a society, are going to learn much from this beyond the fact that some people seem to have the capability to do horrible things to other people. Yes, she was on Haldol, so she probably was either evidencing some delusional thinking, or had a catatonic affect. We've heard about her zombielike behavior since the last child was born, right? That could, in truth, be the only symptom she displayed that made the doctor want to try it. She could not have said one wacked-out thing to anyone at any time.
So far, she has not been noted to have had bizarre behavior in the past. Garden-variety depressed behavior, yes, but even suicide attempts aren't always something to get all worked up about. I don't see, so far, how the hell anyone should've known.
I mentioned Mary-Kay L. for a reason.
I've said nothing of "sociobiological implications", you dolt. But I imagine it was the biggest word you could find in the dictionary.
Was this in the same dream in which Susan Smith was not vilified?
That's pretty lame, Joe.
And Cal isn't the only one. Ase and I seem to agree with her.
If that was the case, her doctor was an idiot. But just like the other possibilities that have been thrown around with no evidence to substantiate them--she bred them to kill them, her act was the natural extension of post-partum psychosis, she snapped, she was depressed over her father, and on and on ad nauseum, your statement above is nothing but baseless speculation and has no value in determining how to recognize this potential before it's reality. At least looking at evidence of behavioral problems before the murders took place and how they were handled might result in some constructive information that could help future children.
There's been a lot of oversimplification, a lot of pop-psychoanalysis, on both sides of the equation. I'm frankly not interested in any of that. The woman did a monstrous thing, she's solely responsible, period.
To try to say that it is pointless to identify the monsters strikes me as completely ridiculous in light of the fact that everybody's discussing reams about her and what she did. If the only point to any of this is morbid fascination at the monster and her act, this discussion is completely pointless. That can be summed up in a sentence.
Does that happen when men kill? No. There is no immediate outstretching of hands, desire to understand.
Stop and think a minute.
Yes they are something to get all worked up about in a mother with five small children. And no one has ever said anyone should have known in advance she was going to kill her kids, but that they should have known in advance that she was not mentally competent to be left alone with them, based on information known so far.
Now I remember.
You must be referring to that group of French women (or were they Canuks?) who were crusading to free MKL because, after all, it was amor, who were promptly laughed of the face of the earth.
Of course it's nothing but speculation. What I'm saying is, there could be NO value in this to help anybody, in the future, be able to identify when people may "snap". I have never said it is useless to even look there. But I have said that I strongly suspect that the Yates case will not shed light on anything for anybody.
Based on what has unfolded thus far. And my statement about the possible reasons for using Haldol are to bring up some of the indications for using the drug--that haldol does not automatically equal "psychotic, handle with care".
One of the articles I read (bad idea, I began bawling when I saw a picture of the little girl), there rate of mothers murdering their kids is about 200/year. (No idea how accurate that is, and if it speculates about "accidents" or not). But, even if that is 200 too much, that is a very small number and it may be difficult to find any pattern other than "some people are weird nuts". About 1% of the population suffers from schizophrenia (in the US, that would be some 2,500,000 assuming 250 million people), I'm not sure what the bipolar rate or inherited endogenous depression rate is or other depressive states. Post partum blues is relatively common (I had it), depression somewhat common. Still, theres a lot of people out there suffering from various mental problems. A fair chunk of them would be mothers that do not get in their head to kill their kids, or, at the very least, if they get it in their heads won't act on it.
There is a big line between thinking and acting. How big that is, I don't know. And, it may be (like Cal suggested) that there's a capacity that is either there or not (I suspect that when it comes to suicide for example, though basically my evidence is hearsay/anecdotal).
Yeah, sure, it is interesting to try to find out what makes monsters monsters (I am interested in it, but I don't think I could stomach actually pursuing it). But, it is hard enough to try to figure out things about more common mental problems as it is, and that may be more fruitful.
Really?
You agree that this "syndrome" or whatever was apparent in the Susan Smith case?
I mean, people debate like this all the time: Throw up an earlier example to support your claim, and carry that football till you're out of breath. You get tackled 2, 3 times? Hell! - you're playing by your rules now, so you just get up and keep on running.
Look -nobody's saying that this woman isn't getting sympathy for what "happened to her". She is.
Just don't try and make this into some sort of evidence of gender bias based on nonexistent prior history.
IMO, the only trend this case is indicative of is the Mental-Illness Du-Jour syndrome.
We have not yet explored the darkest side of PPD on Oprah and 60 Minutes, and this puts it on the map.
Hang on to your seat.
Honestly, she doesn't seem more incompetent than a lot of women who are depressed and overwhelmed. And it looks as if the family was making efforts to help her with that. I don't see how anybody could have known that this would have happened. Not something like this.
(Off to bed--G'nite, all.)
Good night.
(Getting cynical here).
Taken from the home page of the
National Institute of Mental Health
Suicide Facts
Suicide is a complex behavior usually caused by a combination of factors. Research shows that almost all people who kill themselves have a diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder or both, and that the majority have depressive illness. Studies indicate that the most promising way to prevent suicide and suicidal behavior is through the early recognition and treatment of depression and other psychiatric illnesses.
Uh....
Well DUH!
But Arky, of course they were baseless speculation. They were offered as alternatives to other equally baseless speculations. Do remember that it is speculation to say she did this because of PPD.
It's an extension of their own self-absorption which I also find repulsive.
Hear, hear.
You are missing my point. Read Ase's post; she's got it.
CalGal didn't seem to think so. She said "No, people deciding to kill themselves is the cause."
I see this Yates woman as a very emotionally disturbed and mentally unhealthy person who decided to kill her children for whatever reasons and that these thoughts and thought patterns that she had were caused mostly from her severe depression and mental illness.
I still think that she is responsible and should be held liable.
here.
I'm on a MAC folks, sorry.
But you wait--the same people that are whoring the PPD agenda will shriek in fury when someone proposes that women be prevented from having more kids once they get a diagnosis.
I await the day that MBP becomes all the rage.
Yup - it's a trend, alright.
Jen,
Unless the NIMH wishes to assert that there is a correlation between severity of depression and suicide (not) and that only people who are diagnosed (or would be diagnosed) as depressed commit suicide (not), then your link says nothing worth debating. I doubt that anyone at NIMH would disagree with what I said.
What's MBP?
Most people who are depressed do not kill themselves. Suicide is considered a possible complication of depressive illness in combination with other risk factors because suicidal thoughts and behavior can be symptoms of moderate to severe depression. These symptoms typically respond to proper treatment, and usually can be avoided with early intervention for depressive illness. Any concerns about suicidal risk should always be taken seriously and evaluated by a qualified professional immediately.
Suicide Risk Factors
It is important to note that many people experience one or more risk factors and are not suicidal.
One or more diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder
Impulsivity
Adverse life events
Family history of mental or substance abuse disorder
Family history of suicide
Family violence, including physical or sexual abuse
Prior suicide attempt
Firearm in the home
Incarceration
Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others, including family, peers, or in the news or fiction stories
I'm not arguing with that; however, if you looked at the FIRST paragraph which I provided from the NIMH webpage, it says that suicide is linked to depression. Period.
Arky,
Munchausen by Proxy. There's actually some suggestion that Susan Smith had this, based on the apparently frequent illnesses of her kids, but I don't know how accurate that report is--I read it several years ago now.
I'm not arguing against that there is not a link. But, without that part that I posted from NIMH (with all the riskfactors) knowing that suicide and depression is linked is basically meaningless. Too broad. And, that depression and suicide is linked doesn't say very much about why a mother - who has previously attempted suicide, and suffers from some kind of post-partum madness goes and offs her kids.
In response to CalGal who said "the capability to kill is not something brought on by depression. "
I said in Message # 2833
Killing ones self usually results from depression, so...
CalGal said in Message # 2834
Also, even in the case of suicide...there's no real indication that it's brought on by depression.
Then I said in Message # 2835
Most people who commit suicide do so because they're depressed and make the poor decision to end their lives. This might shock you that depression, being an illness, can lead to unhealthy thinking and action, but it does in fact happen.
And in Message # 2839 she said:
No, people who kill themselves do so because they decided to kill themselves.
And so that is why I posted the introductory paragraph from the National Institute of Mental Health which claims:
Research shows that almost all people who kill themselves have a diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder or both, and that the majority have depressive illness. Studies indicate that the most promising way to prevent suicide and suicidal behavior is through the early recognition and treatment of depression and other psychiatric illnesses.
I knew her when her only child was born 10 years ago, and the boy always seemed to be very healthy and normal.
But there was hardly a week that went by that this woman did not have some near-tragic asthma/rheumatism/ unexplained bone problem etc, etc. story about her son.
Then I got the chance to see her and the boy (and the dad, who gave it all away with his reactions) interact, and I knew immediately that it was all a very sick device to control the kid.
I can see her a few years from now telling the poor kid he can't go out on a date, because lord knows what kind of illnesses he'll catch from some girl.
"There, there...mommy knows what's best for you..."
It would be great to have some measure that tells when someone with suicidal ideation will actually act on it, and when they will not, but I don't think there is.
My "ring true" to this idea that there may be something extra that is needed was from a roommate I had for a couple of months. In that time she managed to end up in the hospital not breathing from overdoses twice - once accidental, once on purpose (she had attempted suicide before).
Meanwhile, the house was full of other people in therapy (including me) that certainly had had their fair share of suicidal ideations but had never gotten close either on purpose or by accident.
As evidence, that is anecdotal and flimsy, but paired with research suggesting it (or finding that suicidal ideation has very little predictive power) seemed quite suggestive.
And, the copy-cat thing here is robust from research I've read (extends to "accidents" actually). Which also makes me worry about copy-cats of murder after a story like this.
I still don't understand why there isn't more consideration of the possibility that some sick fucks out there use motherhood as a way of feeding their particular jones for murder or violence. Consider that most men who have a need to hurt people have to do it all in one instance per victim. But MBPs can extend their kicks for years until they finally kill their victim--and they can make more.
And, really, when I realized what it was all about it made such perfect sense, since in her work life the woman was such a classic control-freak.
Control isn't the dominant characteristic of MBP, from what I've read. They are pity junkies, narcissists.
I've read that more than once, about suicides. There are certain patterns to it that suggest far more than depression is necessary. I can't remember where I read up on this, or I'd link it in (or look it up).
The Yates woman may have shown some of the above, but none of these questions are identifiers of potential child-murdering parents or caregivers; however, I think their answers provide enough evidence regarding whether aggressive intervention is needed for the sake of everyone in the family.
As the data Ase posted showed, murders of one's own children are rare, and violence among the mentally ill in general is rare, not to mention that parents who've shown no signs of mental illness at all sometimes kill their kids; but that doesn't mean people who have gone so far in their illnesses to have "yes" responses to the above questions shouldn't be more intensely treated and monitored than the vast majority of people with virtually any mental or emotional condition.
If she's insane, then put her in an mental institution until she's sane, then move her to a prison to finish her sentance. If she is never sane, keep her locked up forever.
Do the other people around her bear some responsibility like accessories to murder or maybe negligence contributing to murder? Maybe. I don't know enough to say that, but the woman whose hands did the deed is the murderess.
One person's hindsight might become other people's foresight. Maybe not, but you never know.
Christi,
I don't think under any circumstances except failing to report observed abuse or observed evidence of it should anyone be legally responsible for what someone else in the family (or anywhere else) does.
I also am quite sure that, had the husband tried to remove the kids from his wife due to the fact that she was on this drug, there would have been any number of outraged voices on her behalf. And at least a few of them would have said, "It's not like PPD is dangerous, for heaven's sake! The condition is being used to discriminate against women!"
But anyway, to have someone committed to an institution or intervene to keep them from being alone with their children would take a tremendously united family front, I would think. It wouldn't be impossible otherwise, but close.
I don't think kids' jobs should entail too many hours while school's on, but she's getting exercise, looking healthier (she's very small), and learning a lot about the ins and outs of working. She gets her first check tomorrow, and she's made about $80 in tips so far.
LD, like most kids, is in a hurry to grow up. Her latest thing is to wish she was old enough to have a job so she could make all that money and buy all the stuff I won't get for her.
I fully intend to let her work in the summers once she is 16. I will require her to put 1/2 the money aside for college, but she will be free to blow the rest however she wants on "stuff".
I will not let her work during the school year unless her homework load or homework efficiency changes drastically. She's going to need to earn academic scholarships.
BTW, her Dad has come three Saturdays in a row to spend time with her. I offered to meet him halfway between where he is and where I am, but have heard no answer. In fact he is still doing the ring-the-doorbell-and-turn-away bit and not speaking a single word to me.
I don't care. LD's spending time with him and it sure doesn't break my heart that he hasn't taken me up on my offer. I think this coming weekend is his last in the area. Hard to know what the plans are with a man that refuses to speak to you.
DALLAS (AP) - A Dallas County grand jury decided Monday not to indict a North Texas woman over the heat-related death of her 5-month-old son.
Carisa Beth Fletcher, 25, of Plano was arrested May 31 and charged with second-degree injury to a child after her son died when he was left inside a car for nearly six hours while she worked in a nearby building.
An autopsy showed Ethan Fletcher died of hyperthermia March 21 after temperatures inside the car neared 100. Temperatures outside that day reached the 70s.
Carisa Fletcher told police she believed she had dropped the boy off at day care before going to work at a shopping center across from NorthPark Center in North Dallas.
I was surprised when I heard the news. I thought she'd be made an example of for sure.
I don't remember ever hearing of anything like this before a few years ago.
But I still think in a state that just made abusing animals a felony, they could've managed an indictment. You bet she's guilty of that kids death and she ought to have to pay in some way for it. Criminal forgetfulness...I could live with that...
And it's a safe bet she will soon be preggers again...
Totally agree. Nothing irks me more than hearing "Well, the family has suffered enough. What good would be accomplished?"
For one thing, that's not a question that occurs in other crimes, so why should it matter here? For another, punishment is supposed to be about sending messages, is it not? I can think of no better message to send than "If a child gets hurt with your gun, you will be liable."
The kid went rolling off the top of the car, strapped in his car seat, when the guy started picking up speed on the highway, and was narrowly missed by at least one car.
...and not a scratch did he suffer.
This, imo, is at least as negligent as leaving your kid to bake in the car, despite the fact that the kid was okay.
But the guy was not charged with any crime.
...they musta just figured, Gosh! - Men have enough to worry about without being expected to remember every single one of their kids.
A mom would never get away with such a thing.
In Texas, leaving a child younger than 7 years old in a car unattended or in the care of a child under 14 for more than five minutes is a misdemeanor. If the unattended child is injured, the charge can become child endangerment, a state-jail felony. If the child dies, and charges are upgraded to a second-degree felony, authorities must rule whether the death was the result of an accident or a reckless act.
The outdoor temperature reached 73 degrees on the day of Ethan's death, but the temperature inside the car could have risen to 100 degrees within a few minutes, according to weather officials.
OK, so what was the brand name of that car seat?
This is hardly an exact science. But I'd be loathe to charge a mother or father with a crime after they've lost a child in a car accident because the child was not secured in a seat belt and/or the parents were exceeding the speed limit.
Hence, my disfavor of the insanity defense.
"and whether someone has suffered enough seems a reasonable consideration when you are evaluating lack of intent or recklessness"
SHOULD READ
"and whether someone has suffered enough seems a reasonable consideration if you have determined lack of intent or recklessness"
I wouldn't. Not having your child secured in a car seat or seat belt is a crime. So is speeding. Parents who go zooming down the highway with their child a loose object in the vehicle are being criminally negligent. Hell, I don't even treat my dogs that way.
Soon, you can add cell phone use in New York.
Since there are quite a few hands-free cell phone systems you can put in your car, I'm all for it. (assuming I have my facts right). I rarely use my cell phone in the car. However, I have a hands-free attachment for it. It won't dial hands-free, but I can talk hands-free and then hang up. If I have LD in the car with me, I have her dial the number and push 'send'. If I am alone, I pull over and stop if I need to use my cell phone.
I think it IS unsafe to try and dial a phone and drive. I think you SHOULD have two hands on the wheel while you are driving.
I am barely emerging from a horrendous ten days and I am trying to regain my usual buoyancy. I am taking tentative steps around the property. It is really wet out there, the mosquitoes are murderous but I am swatted in gauze and I look like a ghost. I caught a woman in the distance with spy-glasses in my direction. We knew she did that, spying on her neighbors, but never had the proof. So I walked up to her and started an amiable conversation which, I am certain, she did not enjoy much.
How are you this morning?
But this by definition devalues the child, since I can't believe that they would make the same call if the parent killed someone else's child, under the same circumstances.
So basically, the child becomes a possession, and the punishment is based on whether or not the possession was destroyed by its owner or by some outsider and the owner demands justice.
But I'd be loathe to charge a mother or father with a crime after they've lost a child in a car accident because the child was not secured in a seat belt and/or the parents were exceeding the speed limit.
Not secured in a seatbelt or car seat is unquestionably a crime--I think a parent who gets busted for that (without an accident) should be reported to CPS. That would fix that problem in a hurry. Exceeding the speed limit--if it qualified as "reckless driving" (twice the speed limit), absolutely. That's equivalent to driving drunk, and I have a feeling you wouldn't hesitate to prosecute in that regard.
An unwillingness to prosecute a parent in any circumstance where a non-parent would be prosecuted is, again, a statement that children's lives are only valuable to their owner. If the owner kills them (or lets them die through neglect), the notion that "they've suffered enough" is really a cover for "hey, at least they offed their own."
&:o)
Actually, since people have been listening to radios while driving and have been carrying on conversations with passengers while driving for many years without it being identified as a contributing factor in accidents (although no doubt there are times when it has been) I see no reason to take measures to restrict those activities.
Heck, I don't think talking on a cell phone is any more of a problem than talking to a passenger in the car IF you have a hands-free cell phone. Then you are not taking your eyes off the road to dial and you can keep both hands on the wheel.
I totally agree.
I suppose it could be argued that this could be covered by "reckless driving" laws.
But then, by that logic, I guess reckless driving could also cover driving while using a cell phone.
hmmmmmm.....
I'm more comfortable with the folks on the ground using their judgment.
It pisses me off.
So you'd be comfortable with a prosecutor, "on the ground", not prosecuting a lynching because, after all, they know what's right. After all, they're right there on the scene.
Even if their judgment, to your mind, "by definition devalues the child."
The notion that a parent who kills their child of has "suffered enough" could be used to justify Andrea Yates as well as the mother who leaves her kids in the car to roast. I imagine this means that you would be fine with the prosecutor deciding poor Andrea had "suffered enough".
If you can provide evidence that a prosecutor doesn't react differently if his decision not to prosecute will outrage the victim's family, do let me know.
I note that the prosecutor in Susan Smith's case did not seek the death penalty until he got permission from her ex-husband.
Yes. Exactly. I'd be comfortable with a prosecutor, "on the ground", not prosecuting a lynching because, after all, they know what's right. After all, they're right there on the scene.
You've encapsulated my sentiment so well that it seems a waste of time to continue the discussion.
I appear to have offended you. Perhaps I should have spelled out the question, rather than assume you could ferret it out. Silly me.
What is the difference between a parent killing their child and a lynching? I chose an extreme one precisely so that you would draw the line of demarcation.
I think that we devalue children when we have the attitude that daddies aren't important, when we encourage children to grow up too quickly, and when we use the tv or the computer as their babysitter.
I think that would be devaluing Daddies. Also a bad thing.
However, I was referring to laws that seem to treat children more as property than as people and citizens.
(and that is just a joke, kiddo!)
I don't know that the laws per se treat children as property--it's just the prosecutorial discretion that Francis speaks of tends to value the people who scream loudest. Children who are murdered by their parents don't have any close relatives screaming for blood. And no one is worried about their kids being killed by this murderer. Hence the actual outcome is close to a property relationship, even if the laws don't state it.
I figured...feels good, huh?
I watched an entire Burden of Proof today on the cellphone law and they had the safety dudes and the Cato dudes, and no one ever mentioned the money. Very irritating. One would think Cato would have thought of it.
Yes, I was referring to the implications of how the law is applied, not any explicit statements in the law or laws.
"christi, about this both hands on the wheel thing...I drive a stick. You want to outlaw them, too?"
Oh, c'mon! Surely you can see the difference between reaching down briefly to shift (or change the radio station or whatever) and driving 50 miles with one hand plastering a cell phone to your ear the whole time.
Besides, I already conceded that accidents where cell phone use could be considered a contributing factor could be covered under 'reckless driving'. (post#2944).
The money argument is for the birds.
Oh, c'mon! Surely you can see the difference between reaching down briefly to shift (or change the radio station or whatever) and driving 50 miles with one hand plastering a cell phone to your ear the whole time.
You do realize that changing radio stations causes some 12 fold more accidents than using a cellphone?
You jest. I don't know what percentage of revenue "traffic violations" provides, but it is no small chunk. Why do you suppose cops have unofficial quotas?
drive."
Are you sure about that?
"The money argument is for the birds."
Riiiigghht. No doubt the much heard advice not to speed through small towns (especially with out-of-state plates) is also a lot of hoooey. Nope, no revenue to the city/county/state from traffic violations, none at all.
So what.
Fact remains that there is overwhelming empirical evidence that cellphone usage while driving creates a very high level of danger - to the driver and to occupants of other cars.
There will be an easy solution - within a couple of years, all cars will be setup for hands free cellphone usage. And, the dialing will be either voice driven or there will be the equivalent of a telephone dial on the steering wheel - just as there are already systems in place on steering wheels for changing radio stations and volumes, or switching to cds or tapes or whatever.
People who feel they have a God given right to speed are selfish and deserve to be soaked. As well as lose their driver's license after a few violations.
PLOT AND WAIST THICKEN
click on photo 
"I wanted a do over, your honor, and since I was preggers again it seemed a perfect time to start."
And I'm sorry but that husband needs his head examined if she is....
The 8-year-old girl who was found locked in a closet and severely malnourished was kept in a confined space for four years, a district attorney testified during her custody hearing Tuesday.
Assistant District Attorney Michael Munden said Lauren Calhoun was kept in a ``closet, attic or small room'' since 1997. And he said Lauren's five siblings were told to lie about her existence.
Is Texas crazed or what?
Unfortunately confinement and malnutrition are very, very common forms of abuse.
Am I glad that attention is being brought to the Calhouns? Yes. Do I think that her case is the worst? No.
I remember that case and I did notice that both mothers were obese.
One of the most shocking cases I read about (several years ago) involved a woman who was angry at her child for getting wet and coming into the house, so she thought she'd teach her kid a lesson and put him in the oven to "dry off". Needless to say, he didn't make it.
She looks like she is about to devour that bird. By the way, how's the surf up your neck of the woods ? ;-)
Shit. Time to get ready for work. G'night y'all.
... Great Dodger/Giant game going on at the moment, and the Padres are destroying the Rockies in Denver, but as we all have learned from watching baseball in Colorado, no lead is really safe in Colorado.
You should've seen my daughter when we saw the photo. I had no idea that seagull was there - probably 30 feet in the background - until I downloaded it.
My daughter actually asked me, "Did I swallow that bird?"
Out-of-staters never believe me when I tell them people surf Lake Michigan all the time. When there's a storm out on the lake, the waves get anywhere from 6 to 20 feet. If it's just real windy from the west, they get to 8 feet or so.
But yesterday when I took that photo it was actually calm -maybe 2 feet.
Thank you for posting that picture of your sweet daughter. A nice antidote to all the bad news.
sigh
She was not amused, and went to bed sadder and hopefully wiser.
Good move, Wombat. I like it.
Should we fun.
But if he sucks his thumb, maybe he'll just up that activity for a while in the cutover.
We've tossed all nipples and bottles, so there's no turning back now.
So, one day all the bottle just "got lost".
It took her a few days to adjust and then she was fine.
Anyway, the county health dept. has this pretty nifty pamphlet, Incredible Puberty Facts!, aimed at elementary and middle school students, and I picked one up today from one of the P.O.s.
It's a double-trifold (six folds on each side), and I read most of one whole side on the way home from work. Pretty straightforward stuff about hair, zits, breasts, etc, as well as some stuff about self-esteem.
So, I get home and show it to my wife, who gives it the seal of approval and gives it to our daughter.
She was obviously fascinated, and was reading it intently in the livingroom for about 5 minutes when she came in and asked, Mom - what's a clitoris?
Turns out one of the Incredible Puberty Facts concerned the "removal of the female external sex organs in some cultures."
Now.....why?
What the hell purpose does that serve in the context of this pamphlet?
My 10 year old step daughter is convinced that she has "knots" in her breasts and will be getting her period in three months.
She's flat as a pancake and weighs 78 pounds at 5 feet tall.
Hey, I had one of those - just one.
And you couldn't see it, but it was sore as heck all the time. And unfortunately, it was at a time -6th grade - when boys are very taken with punching one another in the chest. I grinned and beared it for about a month, then had my mom take me to the doctor, as I was convinced I had cancer.
He checked me out, asked if I was "getting any hair down there", and pronounced it "part of growing up."
In fact, one thing I read in that pamphlet that I did not know before was 40% of boys develop "buttons" in their nipples during puberty, which go away by themselves within a few months...
And here I've been these 30 years thinking I was weird.
Gracie had breast buds at nine and didn't get her period until she turned 14. It does take a while for some girls, even after the first signs.
You know, 'm sure she'll be THRILLED that I shared this information.
"What the hell purpose does that serve in the context of this pamphlet?"
Ummmmm.....cultural inclusion? Geez.
Jen: That sounds too skinny to me. I would think she's too young for an eating disorder, but if those figures are accurate, when was her last physical?
Naaahhh...Gracie is about that size (4'11, 82 lbs) and she's healthy as an ox. Eats like one, too.
Of course even at just 4 pounds, Gracie is about 5 percent heavier. I just looked up Jen's stepdaughter's figures on a height/weight chart and she (roughly) looks like about 90 percentile on height and 50 percentile on weight. Dunno if that's troublesome or not.
Dammit Jim, I'm a Motier not a dietitian.
But anyway, itt's probably not, troublesome, especially since she's only 10. We (or rather, my ex) had the same worries about Gracie's size. The docs ran a bunch of tests -bone age, hormonal, etc. - and concluded that she's simply small constitutionally. Heck, her dad is 5'6, his sister and mother barely reach 5', and I'm 5'3, so it kind of makes sense.
".... and she said. " so EVERYONE is my relative???".... and I said "yep, we are all related at some point"... and she smacked her head and said......"oh man... I hope I don't have to buy them all gifts at christmas .....
Kids are truly amazing.....
Spawn is 5'10, 180, and his voice hasn't even changed yet--fortunately, it's fairly low to start with. I was an early developer; I don't know all the milestones of male puberty, but I assume he's started.
Brittani takes after her dad physically. Her mom is only 5'4" and has a squatty build, but her dad is 6'6" and weighs 245. He, Britt and myself are all legs.
The kid can and does eat anything! 
THINGS I'VE LEARNED FROM MY CHILDREN...(HONEST AND NO KIDDING):
1. A king size waterbed holds enough water to fill a 2000 sq. foot house 4 inches deep.
2. If you spray hair spray on dust bunnies and run over them with rollerblades, they can ignite.
3. A 3 year olds voice is louder than 200 adults in a crowded restaurant.
4. If you hook a dog leash over a ceiling fan, the motor is not strong enough to rotate a 42 pound boy wearing Batman underwear and a superman cape. It is strong enough, however, if tied to a
paint can, to spread paint on all four walls of a 20 by 20 foot room.
5. You should not throw baseballs up when the ceiling fan is on. When using the ceiling fan as a bat, you have to throw the ball up a few times before you get a hit. A ceiling fan can hit a baseball a long way.
6. The glass in windows (even double pane) doesn't stop a baseball hit by a ceiling fan.
7. When you hear the toilet flush and the words "Uh-oh," it's already too late.
8. Brake fluid mixed with Clorox makes smoke, and lots of it.
9. A six year old can start a fire with a flint rock even though a 36-year old man says they can only do it in the movies. A magnifying glass can start a fire even on an overcast day.
10. Certain LEGOs will pass through the digestive tract of a four year old.
11. Play Dough and Microwave should never be used in the same sentence.
12. Super glue is forever.
13. No matter how much Jell-O you put in a swimming pool you still can't walk on water.
14. Pool filters do not like Jell-O.
15. VCR's do not eject PB&J sandwiches even though TV commercials show they do.
16. Garbage bags do not make good parachutes.
17. Marbles in gas tanks make lots of noise when driving.
(Cont.)
20. The fire department in Austin, TX has a 5 minute response time.
21. The spin cycle on the washing machine does not make earth worms dizzy.
22. It will however make cats dizzy.
23. Cats throw up twice their body weight when dizzy. >>
Great looking family you've got. How tall is your boy?
My 9 y.o. shares my love of creepy-crawly things. So, a few weeks ago when we were having some hellacious rains, she and I would make a daily trek (breaks in the weather permitting) to a nearby low-lying woods which was turned into a maple swamp. There, we would catch all sorts of turtles, frogs, and snakes (and promptly release them, of course).
We noticed after a couple of weeks that this temporary pond was just chock-full of polliwogs, and we started keeping track of their growth. Now, these "pollies" were in a very precarious situation: At best, this pond would be about a foot deep at its deepest point - we easily waded through it with our pant legs rolled up to our knees. And after two days of no rain, it would drain off to maybe one tenth its swollen size. Not only did this put the poor pollies in danger of baking on the soon-to-be nothing but mud pond bed, but with millions of the little buggers crowded into a 50' x 50' space, they became easy pickings for the heron and other birds.
But finally, the rains ended - just a couple of days after the pollies started sprouting legs. Our last time wading through, the pond was maybe 20' x 20', and my daughter was distraught. So, she went and got a bucket, and scooped up about 100 of them to raise in her sister's little plastic play pool.
That was on a Thursday. We made a terrarium out of the pool, complete with rocks, sand, dirt and grass. And on the following Tuesday we went to check on the polliwog pond in the woods. It was completely dried up. But when we turned to go back home, my daughter suddenly stopped and, with a look of shock on her face, yelled at me to STOP! - You're squashing them!!!
Sure enough, there on the ground where the pond used to be, were thousands and thousands of tiny frogs. So, we tiptoed out of there after playing with some for a little while, and headed back home to our polliwogs - which still had not even sprouted front legs yet!
My daughter immediately figured it out - knowing that the pond was about to dry up, God had speeded up these polliwogs' development to allow them to survive.
And it wasn't until 10 days later that our homegrown pollies even lost their tails.
painted the dog pink,
driven the van out into the middle of the field causing not one but TWO tractors to get stuck in an effort to get it back out,
broke the window on my school bus with a screwdriver,
unhooked the intake hose for the pool causing it to empty all over the back yard,
from experiance I can tell you.... Toads are no easier to remove from a vcr than BP&J sandwhiches,'
locked the cat in the toolbox, and then pushed it down the stairs,
pulled apart two pairs of surgical tweezers just because they were there....
phoned australia,
phoned the police on me for making him go to bed,........oops no that was the seven year old,
bungi corded the cat to the back of the van
put indelible marker all over my sideboard, table and floor, ( I bought the set in november )
locked the cat in the attic, ( the cat is in therapy now)
picked the heads off of all my flowers the day after they bloomed,
cut his own hair,
thrown a tonka truck thru his bedroom window, .... ok that one was kind of funny actually.........boy was he scared...... I came running in the room and he took one look at my face covered his butt and said..... "no yelling we are in the house"
broke the ugly cd holder that my mother gave us for christmas, that was kinda funny too..... I said look at this its all broken!!!!... he picked up one piece and said.... " not this one mommy"
and finally did I mention that he painted the dog???
well he did it TWICE!!!!!!!!!
Your sons are babes, that's all there is to it.
Grammie is so sweet and photogenic, she does *not* look 91!
The good genes definitely run in your family.
(painted the dog twice?)
These stories are like written birth control.
I remember when he did almost every one of those things... from hearing about it (and sometimes your screams) all the way on this side of the world. I'll have to admit, I don't think I've ever come across quite as... innovative... a kid. You might add that he got the idea for driving the van from watching the kid drive in the Indiana Jones movie, and when he stalled out in the field, he thought it was because the van was out of gas. I also think it was very conscientious of him to tell you the cat was in the attic (although he neglected to mention it had been there for three days).
By contrast, my kids were boring at that age. They didn't even paint the dog once.
I think my favorite was when D #2 attempted to shave the cat's name on the side of the cat. I was kind of cool, except she spelled it wrong.
He used a Magic Marker.
The wildest thing Gracie ever did was when she decided to put her father's hair in barrettes, using every single teeny plastic barrette in the house. Seeing as how his hair was pretty short at the time, he was quite the sight. I wish I'd taken a picture.
The friend, two years older, went running past us really fast.
Hmmm...we thought.
Around the corner came Tommy. Covered head to toe, including his special $200 prescription eyeglasses, in black spray paint.
That was the day we learned that when the kids are too quiet, something is up.
One time she wanted to hang out some laundry and gave the five of us (aged infant through 6) a bowl of jello to keep us busy. We got to slinging the jello across the tongue and groove floors by the spoonful to watch it slide. When the floor got too sticky for the jello to slide, we covered the floor in baby powder. Mom wasn't happy, but she didn't drown us.
Great story, bubb. We have one in our family....when I was 4 and Vincent was 2, our family lived upstairs en suite from my mother's maiden Aunt Adelaide (a formidable woman who was her own parade and a novel begging to be written.)
Anyway, Mom was downstairs talking to Aunt Ad while Vincent and I napped. We woke up, unbeknownst to Mom, and decided it was time to feed our stuffed animals.
Out came the marshmallow Fluff and a couple of really big spoons. Now, since stuffed animals aren't known to actually EAT, we got a bit frustrated and began flinging the animals and the Fluff around the room, jumping on the beds (a couple of antique four-posters) all the while.
Mom came upstairs to discover our lips crusted with the sugary goo, and animals stuck to Fluff-covered walls.
She didn't buy Fluff again until 1998.
Wombino has occasionally practiced his art work on the interior walls, and has locked the cat in a closet a couple of times (to protect the dog), and dropped toothbrush down the toilet ($90.00 for RotoRooter).
Wombette dailed 911 from a weekend rental in Ocean City when she was four. My wife had to assure the operator that there was no emergency.
She also tried hanging from the towel rack in the powder room of our house (which promptly came out of the wall, bringing a bit of the wall with it). Her wails that she had broken the house had us racing to her rescue, assuring her that the house would not fall down, chastising her for hanging on the towel rack, and then retiring to our room for a good laugh.
When my brother was figuring out toilet training, he crapped in one of my dad's shoes and somehow forgot to tell him about it. Ecch.
Wombino has on occasion manually transferred poop from his underpants to the toilet, and then claimed he had pooped in the toilet.
I'm still amazed at all of tigger's offsprings tricks. Bungee cording the cat to the car? OMG.
The challenging thing is to get behind a door before you break out in howls. It was always hard for me to get onto Mose when she was little and did something that was hilarious, but that she really didn't need to be doing.
Funniest "playing beauty parlor" story I heard was a principal I used to work with who said that when his sisters were little they played beauty parlor and rolled eachother's hair in cuckleburrs.
She was pretty mortified.
One late night when our older daughter was about 1 y.o., my wife and I were awakened simultaneously by a strange noise from the nursery: our daughter was doing that high-pitched laughy-screamy-gurgly thing that babies sometimes do when they're playing.
We're both lying there staring at the ceiling, waiting for her to stop and go back to sleep, but she keeps it up for a good 10 minutes.
Now, it's a battle of wills to see which of us is gonna get up and check on her.
I win.
The wife gets up and goes into the nursery. I hear her run out, gagging. So I get up, run into the nursery, and immediately start heaving.
There's our daughter standing in her crib naked, painted with poop. It's in her hair. It's in her teeth, and she's laughing at me. And her diaper's gone, except for the plastic part. Everything else, she had picked apart and thrown everywhere.
Really enjoyed your frog story, joezan. I didn't know that about frogs, either. I thought it was a set amount of days, no matter the conditions, before they grew legs.
My son is currently in a chemical reaction exploration stage. He is all about baking soda and vinegar experiments, and cornstarch and water goo.
Joezan, I seriously got paralytic with laughter at your baby-shit story.
Apparently, I was a really strange baby. And I was obsessed with bizarre stuff.
Sure, there was the usual (captured on tape for posterity): Me wearing dad's USA flag underpants on my head (I loved them), wearing another pair of his undies over my diaper, and holding one of ammi's handbags, running around, and saying "hi" compulsively. I reckon most kids do that.
But I used to love it when dad was taking a nap on the couch. He'd lie on his back and look so peaceful. He also has one of the world's largest noses. Of course, the only logical course of action for a little girl is to sneak up... very very quietly, climb up the side of the couch, and BITE his nose, really really hard. As far as I was concerned, this was hilarious. Dad begged to differ.
Baby bro was also a strange child. Everyone was worried that he had sub-normal intelligence until he got tested and we discovered he was a genius.
He used to spend A LOT of time flushing stuff down the toilet, laughing maniacally all the while.
Andrea Pia Yates, the Houston mother accused of drowning her five children, told her relatives from jail that she believed she "has the devil in her," her brother Andrew Kennedy said Friday.
The 36-year-old mother has been largely unresponsive during brief family visits since her arrest at her Clear Lake home last week but asked visiting siblings on Wednesday whether her children had been buried and told them during a Sunday visit that she feared she was possessed, he said.
Grueling piece about parents who, not content with producing as many babies as possible to find a good donor for their sick children, have their IVF embryos tested and only implant the perfect donors.
I am deeply grateful my son is healthy. But quite apart from the ethical issues involved in this sort of testing, I am uncomfortable with the notion of the mothers involved acting as brood mares, spending years on hormones and waiting for pregnancy results.
Easy enough tradeoff if it works--you've got the rest of the child's life to make up for lost time. But if no donor results, or you never get pregnant, that time becomes a whole lot more precious--and does it help to know that you missed all that time with your dying child, given that you didn't succeed after all?
I dunno. I do think that this sort of experimentation should be put aside until IVF itself has a much higher success rate.
I didn't know that about frogs, either. I thought it was a set amount of days, no matter the conditions, before they grew legs.
Weird, huh? I've been playing with these things ever since I could walk, and it's nice to learn something new about them at the ripe old age of 40-something. BTW - there are still 7 out of the original 100 or so which have not even grown front legs yet - they just keep getting plumper while their back legs get longer. They are now at least 3 times the size of the fully-formed frogs in the pool. I'm guessing they must be bullfrog tadpoles.
Today my wife and I took our 3 y.o. fishing at a park in the next town. She promptly hooked up with a couple of little boys in the playground though, and after a little while she was begging a hotdog off their gramma. We got to talking when she came over to ask if it was okay to give our daughter a hotdog, and she invited us to bring our daughter over to her house next week to play and fish with her twin grandsons, Ben and Jerry (I swear), who live with her. She lives just a couple miles from here, and has a 2-acre pond, stocked with small-mouth bass - some over 20 inches!
I've learned so much from that kid. Not just facts about how things work, but how little I know about so many subjects he asks about. We have a good time researching subjects he's interested in. He asked about fireflies and we found something that said they flash different signal patterns to attract mates.
He solemnly told me the other night that his friend's dad takes fireflies and squishes them between his fingers and wipes the glow juice on his arms. He was very upset. I expect he'll rip some wings off himself some day, but right now he's at a more tender age. A little piece of his heart got broken, and it's stuff like that where I most feel my ineptness at parenting.
Last year was the Summer of Fish, here. One aunt and one uncle each live on a lake. He and his little cousin would spend hours digging for worms. Don't know why we haven't taken it up again this year. Excited about it, are you, joezan? Hope your daughter catches a big one!
Fireflies:
There are areas around here, mostly on farm roads, where the fireflies swarm so thick you can literally see the glow over a mile away. One night I happened to be driving by as a swarm crossed the road, and my windshield was plastered with them. I turned on the wipers, and swoosh - the cab of the pickup was lit up with the smeared glow juice.
So amazed was I, I turned around to drive home and show my wife and daughter, who was around 5 at the time. When I got home and got out of the truck a few minutes later, I saw that the nose of the truck - the grill, lights - everything, was plastered solid with them - like it had been painted with fluorescent paint - stayed that way for a good half hour, too.
On an even ickier note: during a night softball game, the field got swarmed with them. One of my teammates grabbed a bat and swung wildly through the swarm, turning his bat every few swings so it would get solidly plastered. It glowed like a light saber. A few minutes later he batted with it, and even the ball he hit retained a dime-sized circle of glow juice for a couple of minutes after he hit it.
"DEVIL" DID IT
click on photo
My dog goes nuts barking after the fireflies in our backyard at night...
No, she's just a serial killer who did all her victims at once.
Kennedy said his family had been increasingly worried about his sister's mental health over the last six months, and one of her longtime friends was concerned enough that she kept a detailed diary of her severe emotional decline.
But not concerned enough to call authorities and voice the concern she might be incapable of caring for her children...
Again, I have to question the insanity defense. Whether or not a person is insane doesn't excuse them from the crime.
Does this mean she should get off on grounds of insanity, however? I don't think so!
First of all, she waited until the one hour of the day when she was alone with the children: after her husband left for work, and before her mother-in-law arrived. Then she had to chase the oldest child around the house in order to drown him -- oh, God, that poor little guy!
Throw the book at her, put her away for life.
Instead, she will be taken care of much better by the state than she took care of her own children; she'll be clothed and fed and housed in relative comfort...she won't be pounding rocks or doing hard labor. She'll be sitting in a cell with time to read romance novels if she wants or watch soap operas.
People think the other women will ostracize her but there will be plenty there who mirror those over in the infamous MWT who will offer sympathy and understanding (!). Putting her away for life will be a blessing for her...no more of "lifes little concerns" to bother her. She will have it easy.
I don't understand the waves of sympathy for this monster woman. She killed her own children, drowned them, five of them, which took a lot of thought and a lot of strength.
Chances are, the case will be moved out of Texas and the jury will be highly screened. The defense attorney will strive to seat white women tending to be sympathetic and the prosecutor will want women and men that appear to be non-sympathetic.
It's cases like these that make jury consultants so rich.
Prison is not easier than home for baby-killers and pedophiles. It's a brutal place. Asuming she gets maximum security because of the nature of her crime, you can rest assured that she will be pursued by the other inmates, until she's forced into solitary confinement for security purposes. then she really will go crazy.
I don't doubt that about Keoni at all. Jury selection is a creative and lucrative business, and from what I've read, it pays extremely well.
sigh
sniffle
So is my daughter. Hmmm. Did your son have a starring role in the play?
It's interesting having a house full of teens, isn't it?
Diva,
I've cried at every stage of Mose's academic development, from the end of preschool to the end of junior high and I know I'll be a puddle when she graduates, but the hardest adjustment for me by far up to this point is her having a car.
arky
I can't stand it. I turned the car around after I dropped her off and parked where I could watch her until she got on the bus. She pretended she didn't see me...just like 30 other kids who were pretending they couldn't see their moms parked next to me....and I just cried....she looks so little next to all those behemoth seniors....
When does the school year end by you - April?
...Or do your kids only get a month off?
The system here is 1-6, 7-9, and 10-12, and that's what I experienced wherever I lived in the States when I was younger. I prefer it too.
And I know what you and Deev mean about watching your child grow up: I was pretty emotional when my daughter graduated from Elementary School last week. Especially since she was chosen to give the Valedictory Speech, which she did in two languages (with no notes). I'll see if I have a photo...
My, she's something.
The way they do it here in the public schools, it's k-5, 6-8, and 9-12.
They just started that in our district last year, except we go 5th-8th. Several parents expressed their extreme displeasure with this decision (including us). The original plan called for the old HS (a new one was just built) to be made into a MS, grades 5-8...same schedule, same buses, same administration, etc.
Originally, we demanded that the 5th graders be kept in the two elementary schools, but after a lot of negotiating the board approved a plan for physically dividing the old HS: separate entrances for 5th-6th and 7th-8th, different class schedule, different bus schedule, different administration, etc.
So, basically, it's an intermediate school attached to a jrhs. Parents I know whose kids are in 5th or 6th at the school say it's worked out great.
What a beauty!
Whether lower and upper grades together works really depends on the size of the school. Gracie's Catholic school was, like most of them, K-8 and it worked beautifully...two classes of 30 kids per grade. They put the big kids in charge of the little ones at mass, send 8th and 7th graders to work in the K and 1 classrooms (this is a community service elective), etc.
But I can see where putting 5th with 8th graders in a huge school would cause concern, too, especially if it was a change from the norm.
She's lovely....got a recent picture of your son?
And thanks, Arky and Deev, for the kind words above.
Is she the basketball player?
I'll see if I can find one...
Yes (see below)... and thanks once again for recommending Shutterfly.
Deev:
Here you go, from a recent visit to McDonalds (yuuuck)... I looked, and I simply don't have a pic where he isn't wearing the backwards baseball cap:
Jen:
Well, not in that pic. Usually, she's stealing my scrunchies.
Catholic School is a whole 'nother story - there is much more control over the kids, etc.
What really got the school board worried were the charter schools - we have 3 excellent charter schools within reasonable travel distance - 5 miles or so - and the school board knew they would lose most of their 5th & 6th grade students if they went ahead with their original plan.
And they lost some anyway - what happened was a truly beautiful thing.
See, in MI school funding is determined based on the infamous Fourth-Friday Count - which is held twice a year. The schools offer all kinds of goodies to entice every kid to attend on these occasions, and they're always the most well-attended days - natch.
Well, on the first 4th Friday Count Day last year, one of the Charter schools - the West Michigan Academy of Arts and Academics (one of the best charters in the country) scheduled an open house for new students, and over 1/3 of the 2nd-5th graders were absent from our 2 elementaries.
Talk about motivation! - the board moved the next scheduled meeting up two weeks (unheard of), and the deal was done.
Anyway - you never answered my first question: What's with heading back to school when summer's barely begun.
Gosh, they're both so cute! Hey, and I know what you mean about the ball cap, Gracie up until recently nearly always had the damned thing jammed on her head.
So, what's it like having Supergirl for a daughter?
Oops, I'm sorry, I missed your question.
She's taking Health and PE 9 this summer to get it out of the way. It will enable her to take a second elective. Originally she was going to take Marching Band and Art, but she's switching from Band to Drama. She's also taking five pre-IB courses and they will be very rigorous. Anything which will give her a mental health break during the course of the day, I am all for.
Never get a proud papa started bragging about his kids, especially when he has a digital camera. More pics coming...
What is the local consensus on looks? Having met you (and seen a photo or two of their mom) I'd say your girl has more of your facial features.
And a full-length pic:
Very defintely... she has the Snodgrass look, very strongly. My son is more of a mix of both parents.
(although the boy has much better hair, imo - no ponytail)
And what makes you think he has no ponytail?
...he might, at that.
I definitely prefer the ponytail.
Dang!
I was hoping you wouldn't see that in your advanced age...
She's 165 cm, at age 12, which puts her above all her classmates (even the boys). And thanks.
You kidding? I've been doing it for two years. She has about 6 guys calling every week, vying for the position of being the first to take her out on a date. Fortunately, she still agrees with me and her mother that it's several years too early.
A young half-American lad managed to be the first to kiss her last year (in a car, during a game of "truth or dare")... and led to closer supervision of all her outings.
Time to dig the moat....
you've inspired me to post some pics of my kids too...
this first one is the dark angel... the one who drove a van into the field at age 4, painted the dog (TWICE!) and gave the cat a joy ride down the stairs in a toolbox... the pic was taken when he was two:
here is the dark angel as he currently disguises himself, along with his older sister (best known for calling the police and complaining that I was making her go to bed). This pic was taken at a local tourist attraction some of you might recognise...:
and thank you, irv, for helping me post these...
Tigger--what a sweet looking pair! Are those halos or rainbows over the falls? ;-) Who'd guess they'd be so creative in keeping you on your toes?
Anyway, I take this opportunity gleefully to post one of my own tyke.
Wow, great pic, Marj! It would appear the young lad takes after his mother in the looks department.
Later, perhaps, I'll upload a photo of him in his most favored recent "look". He's taken to dragging my gym bag behind him around the house, while proudly sporting my swimming goggles. 
Who is the little boy? 
It's me, ca 1947.
well, give it back!
(rim shot)
My mother and her firstborn... 
My firstborn and I... 
Fatcheeks of both types run in the family....
Prof
I like that one...you still got the one of them as kids? The one where they're throttling one another? 
msgreer,
I want your nose!
Are you busy today? I'm off and on the computer, today's been a little crazy. Plus, I'm going on 2 hours of sleep.
****
Stoner baby
****
4-year old Khaval and terrified-looking cousin
You need to use "img src"... like this for your first photo:
***
Ammi and Alex
***
Stoner baby
***
Khaval (age 4) and terrified cousin
Pleasepleaseplease
****
BTW, you guys have incredibly beautiful kids.
Diva and MsGreer, you are particularly beautiful.
Irv, what nationality is your wife?
Did you make sure that you don't have to be signed in to view the shutterfly page?
Stoner baby
K. at 4 and shit-scared cousin
Nice pics. Ahhh, family...it seems by the time the pics are developed in our minds it was yesterday... years ago... ever so quickly.
Actually, I must be 6 in that last photo. I am wearing one of those pink dresses from Bali that I refused to take off ever.
Also, my baby cousin looks about two and we have a four year age difference.
He and I grew up as brother and sister. Yeeeears of therapy for that boy! :)
Seriously, though - he is the sweetest person. He is always smiling and happy, and he is a very talented musician.
He has three siblings - all equally sweet.
First pic is Spawn with virtual nephew Brad--also niece Sierra, but she gets her own pic later. Then Brenden (7), Brett (5), and Brianna (7). Then Jeff scamming an egg at Easter (just short of a year), and finally a more recent picture of Sierra at 2+.
Jeff and Sierra are bro and sis, as are the three Bs.
Your boy has a particularly sweet and kind face.
It's weird: in that first pic, he and his boy-cousin look so alike, yet there is an evil glint in the cousin's eye, while Spawn looks very kind and serene. I bet the cousin is a serious troublemaker :)
Again -glorious photos.
Here is my own childhood pic, from 1960, hanging out with friends...
Why, thanks. You can see the whole Spawn gallery a few posts above--the second link is my nieces and nephews. Actually, Brad is a placid and goodnatured kid; I quite like him. The much older half brother of Jeff and Sierra is a hellion and a half. Your pics are cute, too.
Irv,
No ponytail?
Cal, thanks. :) I already took a look at the other gallery. He looks like a really good kid.
***
When I get home, I'm going to scan some pics of baby bro, aka Jabba-the-Hut as an infant. he was one hell of a porker, and the silliest toddler you ever saw.
Now (age 18), he is very tough and a reeeal ladies' man. Gotta hide my giggles from him.
And I love me them Msssess Greers....
gosh, what a pack of cuties!
sigh
Thank you, dear. And yes, we were....now my Gracie is so grown!
sniffle
You absolutely would not believe Skeetie. We had her to the doc last week - she weighed in at 17-14, and 25" long. The child is gaining an ounce a day! Tomorrow, her four-month birthday, she begins solid food.
Here at the office we have a brand-new digital camera...and naturally, being the in-house IT goddess, I must learn to use it...so I will be taking tons of picture of my babes and mailing them out to The Inner Cabal (Decoder Rings Optional™)
Could it be she is four months old? How's daddy doing? If I disappear it's called worked. My first day back after close to three weeks off due to a sinus-ear condition. And Diva, bring those pictures on. I want to see that little beauty of yours.
Daddy is fine, enjoying his days with his princess. I will send you some pictures...check your mailbox in a few.
I have to go. Will check my email when I get home.
KISSES. 
We need to get more pics of Siborg up on the net, so that I impress you all with his beauty.
I'm feeling all silly now - in a good way.
I just love that picture of Spawn with his baby nephew.
Oh, and I'm having MAJOR baby-lust. I just so love my little baby so much I want another one.
(I'm missing her too - she's at home because Im proctoring an exam). 
thanks, ase. I know what you mean, I am in dire need of a Skeetie snuggle right about now.
Cal, I love those pics of Spawn...hadn't seen the jazz one.
Wow. I didn't know they had cameras back then.
I don't know what it feels like personally, but the phrase is sooo evocative.
In the right sort of woman (ie. over the age of 16, and not one of those nutty smooshy types), it's kinda lovely.
My mother only just stopped with her baby-lust. She used to be totally indiscriminate in finding ALL babies delicious and kissable.
It was strange: it should have been the sort of thing that would make me want to barf - but *watching* baby-lust in someone whom I love and respect made me gooey.
Hmmm... that is very weird and I have never thought of it before.
JJ, did I forget you? oh shit, I'm sorry. The only thing worse would be forgetting Riv.
Send to Yahoo?
If you still had that shirt today, it would bring a tidy sum...
my pleasure
Geeeeezzzzz......I'm sorry.
send them where?
Usually, they are best to have as friends.
It's just so terrifying to go out with someone who could poke a needle in the condom at any moment.
I actually went out with a baby-mad guy in '99. It was lovely to watch him with his nieces and nephews... but then he'd look at me, and get this look in his eye. And later, he'd want talk deeply about kids and... well... deep shit.
Freaky!!!
Needless to say, he had to go.
It was easier to be open about loving babies in India (and certain other countries). In the USA, a young man who wants to cuddle your baby is looked at with, shall we say, the deepest of suspicion.
oh, then you've seen the most current! I hope to have more Thursday. I have a digital camera to test.
I'm eagerly awaiting some new shots, though...
Use shutterfly. It's great and easy, and they often have deals on for free prints. When I joined they had a deal for 50 free prints. I, of course, signed on under six different names and got 300. That's nothing to sneeze at as print costs can multiply if you have lots of relatives to send the photos too - as I do.
Plus, it works fast and easily. In the time between posts here, I've uploaded the photograph below of my son in his current favorite "look".
He's mad about those goggles (they're mine) and has been ever since he started swimming lessons two weeks ago.
oh, okay. Two more coming up.
Wombat
You have to upload them to a web server someplace. Try homestead.com or shutterfly.com. Once you have it uploaded, you bookmark the URL, then paste it into the posting window with the following code (spaces removed before and after the brackets):
< img src = "http:\\www.homestead.com\wombatskids.jpg" width = "350" >
That's adorable.
I'm heading out in about a half hour. I've got to take care of some stuff at home, get the dogs in to the Vet's for boarding, take LD to the airport and see her off to her godparents place, and then it's off to Judith's place.
Yipeee!
So Long y'all!
"A nationwide telephone survey found that one in
five U.S. teens doesn't know from which country
America declared its independence. Twenty-two
percent of those who responded to the survey
commissioned by the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation did not know the answer was England. Fourteen percent thought
it was France.
The majority surveyed knew that Washington, D.C., is the U.S. capital and
that George W. Bush is president.
However:
—One in 10 did not know George Washington was the first president.
—17 percent did not know there were 13 original colonies.
—15 percent did not know the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration
of Independence on July 4, 1776.
—Nearly one in four did not know who fought in the Civil War; 13 percent
thought it was the United States and England. "
Have you checked out Joy Hakim's A History of US? It's a great series. This is the price for the whole set of 11, but I picked them up in the bookstore for $10 each a few years ago, and you can buy them in pieces.
They're a bit ambitious for your kids to read at their age, but I used to read them aloud to Spawn and he loved it. It's got lots of pictures, and sidebars that bring up fun discussions.
It is also does more than nod to minorities and women--while never ignoring the white guys or having that icky "PC" feel to it.
We got home from the fireworks last night, and send the girls off to get ready for bed, and a minute later, Katrina comes out and tells us that there are no clothes in her bag. I go check, and sure enough, all that's in her bag is a book on how to tell time. She remembers picking out her clothes to take, but evidently they never made it into her bag.
She slept in a t-shirt of my mom's, and then wore her clothes from yesterday again today. I think the worst part for her was the teasing! It really cracked me up that all she had in there was a book. She was prepared if she ran across an analog clock, but forget it if she fell in a huge mud puddle!
The fossil hunt was fun. We found some neat leaf and grass fossils, then went down by the river. The girls found a huge stick and spent a great deal of time digging a hole and then securing the stick so that it stood straight up.
That is too funny. The book on telling time in an empty suitcase.
(She also has a keener sense of humor than she did--it is very easy for me to get her busting a gut laughing, and she acts like a silly imp a lot of the time. So there is a balance.)
This coming Friday my husband is going off on his yearly AF Reserve tour of duty, and will be gone for 16 days. He was gone for more than that last year, but it was a piece of cake taking care of the kid alone, she was a laid-back and happy baby. I don't know about this year, though. He's off on his AF weekend right now (even when they do their two weeks, they still have to do their weekend) and today was a trial. It's better when I take her out, either with others or just us, but sometimes Mommy doesn't feel like hitting the town.
So I'm dreading this. Plus I'm working as many shifts as I have been, four a week, and my babysitter's still out of town, so I've recruited every family member I can think of for babysitting. I feel like it would be too much to ask them to watch her so I can cut a break, but in truth, it probably wouldn't be.
How single parents do it, I can't imagine.
Maybe in another week I'll be more used to the new, highly taxing her. I hope so.
Any advice would be welcome, by the way.
I'm sorry to hear that.
The only advice I have to offer is to go to bed early and get up early. When you do have some time to yourself, spend some of it thinking about what's really important to you; then, do the most important things and don't worry about what doesn't get done.
It sounds to me like your child's behavior, while perhaps a bit aggravating, is perfectly normal.
One thing that did help with my son was giving him the 2-minute warning when the fun was going to end soon, and it really cut down on the shrieking during transitions.
LimeGirl, the fossil hunt sounds like a success, properly clothed on not. Your mention of the Stick Project - they raised a flag on the site of their expedition, huh?
Great pictures, everyone. Starry-eyed children, past and present.
Separate the two issues: your fear about doing this all by yourself for a while, and her changing behavior.
On the second: I have noticed that some toddlers who go apeshit about No No No! do so in part because it has worked in the past. Parents with amiable kids can often unconsciously use their reactions to guide their willingness to be stern about it.
Like at the park: "Let's go home, honey." A mild "I don't want to go home" (in infant talk) results in "Yes, but it's time" whereas a "No!" with a point to the swing results in an "Okay, one more time." Not because they were scared of a fuss, but because the resistance was a sign that they really did want to stay for one more time, and hey, it's good to let her know that speaking up will get results.
So a parent who is just using the infant and early toddler's responses as a gauge ends up inadvertently rewarding the more adamant response--information that the toddler processes and uses when they really start to care about whethr or not they go home without one more time on the swing. What they know is that Mommy or Daddy is more likely to change their mind if they make a fuss. (even though M&D weren't doing it for the usual reasons)
The problem is, of course, that Mommy and Daddy did that precisely because the kiddo was amiable and didn't make a fuss very often, so M&D are now utterly blown away at their kid's use of the one tactic that they had previously used as a guideline.
Now, I want to be clear that I am not diagnosing from afar--it may not be relevant in your daughter's case. I just offer it up because it happens a fair amount, and if it fits, it can help to explain why she may have changed dramatically. (If in fact this is a dramatic change).
"Time to go in." "No!" "Do you want to pick up one more rock, or have some apple juice when you come inside?" "One more rock!" "Okay." and she picks up the one more rock and then you go inside. (she can still have apple juice. g)
If she drops and starts fussing right away, it's "Do you want Mommy to pick you up and take you in, or do you want to pick up one more rock?"
There is always a way to provide a choice. I have, in a grocery store, said, "Do you want to go home right now or do you want to pick out the fish for dinner?" and had Spawn start to behave just to pick out salmon. (Did he like salmon? Not particularly.)
So that's the choice part. Then you have the boundary part. Never, ever, ever reward her for throwing a fit. Never ever ever let her see you stress. Always give her a way out if you can, but when it's past that point, you are The Enforcer. This is particularly important to remember in public.
I think you'll see the regular tantrums diminish and fade away if you show her that you're on her side. You're there to help her process the world into choices that she can have, show her what's okay and not okay, and let her see that you know she's a big girl. But that you're still the mom.
So take whatever support you need. But if you feel like this is a time to be survived, rather than enjoyed, think about what it would take to change that feeling--and if that's more support, more babysitting, then take it. If it's just an adjustment in that psychobabbly thing called attitude, then hey! that's all the easier.
Holly, you've been given some very good advice. Best of luck with Little One.
Holly, maybe you can think of this time as a fun time to do the things you don't normally do. Fix dinners that your husband doesn't like, snuggle into bed together and read or watch tv, have a picnic breakfast on the living room floor. And as kids enter toddlerhood, there are so many new things they can do. Maybe a book on activities with toddlers could give you some fun ideas. I always loved reading those kind of books. So many possibilities!
Distractions are always good for toddlers too. So instead of saying, "Time to go inside now," you say, "Do you want a piggyback/airplane/etc. ride?" And they say yes, and hop on and you run into the house while they're all excited and giggly.
Yesterday, my son blew me a hug.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Carl puts me through this already, at the tender young age of 3 1/2 months. My BIL was in town this past week (hence my scarcity) and we went everywhere. This weekend I ended up exhausted and at the absolute end of my patience while Carl was bored and cranky. We are a very, very bad match at times like this!
Sounds like the four of us should be able to have a grand time that week, though.
Thanks!
Lime,
Excellent point about focusing on what to do next, not what can't be done anymore. And you're right--sometimes you get a kid who sees through the choices "scam". (g) But I think in those cases, once the parents had been consistently firm for a while, they'd resign themselves to behaving and start taking the best option they had.
Ase,
Lordy, already? Is she fussy, or did it just show up?
There's a couple of kids on TT her age who got them a month ago or so. She's 5 1/2 so it is just a little before average I think.
Spawn cracked two teeth at about that time, then had no more until he was 9 or 10 months old. At that point he cracked six in six weeks and was more than usually miserable.
He's driving me nuts staring into the freezer every 5 minutes, but at least he's cute while doing it.
I have been harassing my children all afternoon to MOVE IT! We are in the middle of moving, and I swear, I could not take that long to unpack a box if I TRIED! And it is hot, which certainly doesn't improve my mood at all.
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I have reminded myself of the reasons behind her behavior. I feel better when I remember she is being typical for her age.
The exhausting part is when she is acting like she is uncomfortable in her own skin. Sometimes she seems like she doesn't want choices, she doesn't know WHAT she wants, so I pick her up or put her down or get this book she seems to be asking for or another glass of juice, but NO THAT'S NOT IT, so I generally then cuddle her with her blanket for a bit until things calm down. Then I get up to do something, and it starts again. If I really have to do something, like make dinner, I tell her and am firm, but the whining or crying persists for a while.
I think it'll just take a while, for the both of us. Me, at seeing where the limits are and need to be, and her, to realize that Mommy is setting limits and means it. Right now I think it is the "Oh, okay, one more swing," thing, because I am not always sure that the limit has to be there. But maybe it has to be there because it has to be there. Maybe, in truth, we can stay at the park for one more swing because it doesn't matter if dinner is at 6pm or 610pm, but "it's time to go" means, at this phase, something other than that.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, and it could be what's needed. Judging by her turmoil, I think firmer limits by me would be a welcome relief to her, actually. Although I know it doesn't mean the behavior will stop altogether, but I'm not looking for that, I just want to not be so derailed by it. I also want to be doing what's best for her, of course.
I do love watching her grow up. I am delighted by seeing her self come out. I think we just hit a road bump, is all.
I think you're saying what all the old-timer parents have been telling me, that consistency is key.
You know, brats are the kind of kids that never let up, always push for the next, because last time when parent was tired, it worked; parent let it go, and they got what they wanted.
It is so hard to be consistent.
HollyW, have faith in yourself. You know the score. Easier said than done; I fall down on that job a bit, but I'm learning.
As opposed to what, pets? What are you saying?
Holly, I really wanted to respond to your #3317. I don't know why, but your whole situation really touches me. I wish you well.
Your post, though reminded me of what I used to do as a toddler (I have an abnormal long term memory, FWIW - short term, different story).
Anyway, every so often (when I would wake up after a nap, most usually), I would just go berserk and scream and cry. I didn't actually want anything. But I was very very pissed off. NOthing could placate me.
My parents tried everything - giving me what they thought I wanted, or my father's shaking me - which would just make me scream harder.
Eventually I grew out of it. But I remember EXACTLY what I was feeling at that time when I would go crazy. It was a sense of frustration - a gross inability to communicate, a disorietation of sorts. But the frustration was key - a deep and extreme frustration the likes of which I have never felt since. It was like a roaring fire of anger welling up in me with no outlet other than to scream. It was PROFOUNDLY impossible to articulate this anger/frustration - other than to scream.
So asking me what I wanted or what was wrong only made me scream more loudly. It was almost an insult - it was certainly an aggrevation.
Cont....
The only thing to do when I would get like that, was to leave the fire to burn itself out.
I cannot imagine how horrible and difficult it must be for a mother to have to go about her activities with a screaming child in the background. But that sort of behaviour should not be rewarded with attention or with vain attempts to discern the problem.
For me, when having to deal with the million-odd babies that have passed through my life (though I've not been a mother, so I cannot understand fully), I have found that silicon ear-plugs can block out the noise of an impossible-to-placate tantrum.
But there is a whole other aspect to the toddler-fury that just occurs to me: I was just embarking on language acquisition when I would go berserk like this. I've posted elsewhere in the forum on the linguistic insanity into which I was born, and I wonder if the discovery (by a toddler) of an absence of words might be partly behind this behaviour. I just so vividly remember how there were no words to express how very very angry I was (I began inventing words as quickly as I acquired them for a while and only stopped at around age 6 - my parents also went through a process of language acquisition, poor darlings - when I finally had enough words to deal with whatever was going on).
Toddlerhood is an internal as well as an internal hell, there is so much input to process and so little means of expressing this input coherently. My parents remember me as a generally happy toddler, but I remember it very differently.
Good God! Sorry for this monster post....
When LD would get like that, I would first try just holding her, cuddled on my lap. If that didn't work, I put her in her crib, closed the door, and walked away.
For LD, she only seemed to get to that point when she was tired. So that worked. It may be completely different from child to child.
Great advice upthread, that I only have one thing to add to.
Whining - from the first time LD said something in a whiny tone of voice (yep, it was around 2) the rule I told her and held to was "I can't understand you when you talk in that tone of voice" and "anything asked for in that tone of voice, the answer is NO, even if it was something I was already going to get for you". It worked (at least for LD). Year by year, the incidents of whining got more infrequent until, by the time she was 5, she only needed a reminder a couple of times a year.
I got tickled the other day when she wanted to do something with some of her friends and I said no and she huffed out the door, so when she came back with a modified request the answer was still no, because of the huff. She was on the phone with a friend at the time, who was apparently attempting to provide her with counsel during the negotions, and she told me later that when she said she was in trouble he said, "Well, did you apologize?" She said, "Yeah, but it didn't work."
I about died.
PLANO, Texas (AP) - A 3-year-old boy died Wednesday in a hot sport utility vehicle where he apparently had been playing with other children at his family's Plano home, police said.
Temperatures in the Dallas suburb were near 100 degrees at the time he was found. The temperature inside a closed vehicle in such heat could reach 150 degrees, the National Weather Service said.
Police said Cory Clark was unconscious when paramedics arrived. They believe he was in the vehicle for about 20 minutes before he was found. Family members were inside the house.
LD is fond of giving herself gel pen 'bracelets' and 'anklets', putting her characters (she has a whole portfolio of cartoon characters she has invented) on the backs of her hands, smiley faces on her fingers, and butterflies and flowers on random places.
I've let her decorate my ankles with twining vines and flowers on days we are going out to the mall or someplace casual like that in sandals.
She has fun, sometimes I get compliments from strangers, and in any case, it wipes off easily with a kleenix or damp cloth.
LD's tattoos sound so neat, Christi. The cartoon character thing is really cool.
Her younger brother sports so many of them on his arms that from a distance, he looks like a pint-sized sailor.
We've discussed what actually happens to get a tatoo - "yes, dear, needles injecting special ink/dye. yes, everyone I know has said it hurts, but it's temporary. Remember when you got your ears pierced?" (She has a low pain threshold and after getting her ears pierced has sworn that nothing !NOTHING! on her body ever gets pierced again! &:oD)
We've discussed the dangers of infection. We've talked about how the picture fades over time and what happens if where you had it done changes - like gaining weight, growing, body building, etc.
Actually, most of LD's friends are pretty well-educated about tatoos, too. I think that's why they prefer the sparkly stick-ons, rhinestones, temporary tatoos, and drawing on their own designs with easily removed ink like in gel pens.
We had a pair of...how shall I put it...well-below-working class brothers where I taught, one of whom somehow got hold of a tattoo machine. They were giving eachother tattoos that they'd have to explain to anyone who asked what they were, because there was no way you could make an identifiable shape out of them. If they don't have hepatitis, then someone ought to look into the natural immunity of kids like that.
They think like that because they're 13 and 14. That's a very junior high tendency for girls with parents who give a rip. Keep your fingers crossed that they continue so until they're out of college.
Same thing with piercings. LD was paying attention when her godparents went through that with their girls (both in their 20s now). LD was visiting when the younger girl talked about getting piercing and LD's Godmother discussed with her the various candidate body parts. "honey, you do understand that the nose is basically a germ filter, right? Are you sure you want to poke a hole in something that is designed to collect germs?" etc.
To tell the truth, I think that LD's low pain threshold will probably eliminate piercings and tatoos from her 'ways to show my rebellion'" list. I wouldn't be surprised to see green or purple hair someday, though.
But, if he ever wanted anything pierced, he had to be careful. A smaller version of your talk, christipeters. And a little mention that he had to be careful of what metal was used, because some bodies react differently.
My pierced ears certainly haven't grown over, LimeGirl. Does it depend on whether it's cartilage, or not?
I let Spawn color his hair blonde and wear whatever clothes he likes. Thus far he hasn't asked for piercing. My take is he can pierce his ear, but eyebrows and noses looks stupid with holes in them. I'm hoping we can negotiate several holes in his ears as a midpoint. I'd buy off on navel but it's not a guy thing.
Tattoos are out, but Spawn, a worrier, is very cognizant what happens to your body in old age, so pictures of old people with tattoos should be very convincing.
Hubby has 6 ear peircings, which are probably mostly closed now, and 3 tattoos. He will stress that he was an adult when he did all of this. He also researched his tattoos extensively, and hates stupid, poorly thought out ones. Cartoon tattoos really irk him.
Your husband thinks that getting 6 ear pierces and 3 tattoos as an adult is something to stress? "No, it wasn't a product of my carefree youth, man, I did this as a grownup."
Funny comment from Q tonight. He was talking about some kid at daycamp and said "He likes girls." So I asked "Do you like girls." Well, he went for the kiss-up factor by saying that he liked me and his sister, and added "and my girlfriends." I asked who his girlfriends were. "Um, I don't know until I meet them."
When he was little, my brother used to want a haircut like Mr. Cates, our landlord. The guy was bald.
A friend's daughter told me of the pain and hassle she went through when she got her tongue pierced, but she has since gone out and gotten other piercings... and even performed some herself at home.
All of this makes me shiver... it took long enough for me to get over the pain and hassle of having one ear pierced a couple of months ago. Why look for more of the same?
CalGal - what does Spawn think of these? 
This is pretty much my philosophy. But if the girls get to that age, and want to do wild things with their hair, I think they'll get to pay for it, as well as for any clean-up costs that will need to be done. Not like my aunt, who shelled out to fix my 19-year-old cousin's bad dye job.
WRT Skeetie, it's pretty standard practice in both African-American and Italian-American communities (except for my maternal grandmother, who said ladies didn't pierce their ears, and for that reason to this day my 64 year old mother wears clip-ons) that an infant girl's ears be pierced, but we're not doing it. I figure, as with Gracie and as with my mom did with me, she can decide for herself when or if she wants it done. My MIL didn't do it with her daughters because she figured they could decide for themselves...his sister, Sgt. Doris, got keloids from her piercings and let them close, but his sisters Anne and Sgt. Reen had them done in adulthood with no ill effects.
And none of these ladies are tattooed, I hasten to add.
I had my second set done at Wal-Mart (not an option for the first set), but had to repierce them myself because the lady didn't get the hole straight. Mose was really excited about getting hers pierced until the first ear, then she had to endure the second. It was kind of funny and kind of sad to witness.
With earrings I can usually tell within minutes because my ears start to tingle. Bracelets, necklaces, and rings take a day or two.
You should try it; screws up your equilibrium like crazy!
We opted for the latter. LD has one hole in each ear and found the whole process so painful and traumatic that she says she'll never ever get anything pierced again. Like I said before, she has a very low pain tolerance.
I was in my 30s before I got my ears pierced. When I was a kid my Dad was one of those "If God wanted you to have holes there, you would've been born with them" sorts. Then when I was first on my own, I had other things I'd rather spend my limited resources with. Then I was in the AF and they weren't allowed. I got them pierced about 6 months after the AF changed it's policy and allowed pierced ears (gold, silver, or pearl ball earrings only).
I wasn't sensitive for years and could wear the cheap stuff. Then I had to go to only stainless steel or 'hypo-allergenic'. Now I am in the gold or good silver only category.
Maybe! I hadn't considered that.
#3382
well, now we know where you get your sense of humor from.
The bar of soap was to keep my mom from jamming the needle into her thumb after it went through my ear.
Both my brother and I were wise enough to avoid answering that question.
Gee, thanks Dad.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Talk about Dadisms....here's one.
One late Saturday night my brother Vince and I returned home from dates at around the same time. Our younger brother, Marc, was asleep on the living room couch as Vince and I chatted nearby. At one point got to laughing about something and couldn't stop. Marc continued to snooze, but then Dad came down and shouted
HEY, KEEP IT DOWN YOU TWO! YOU'LL WAKE UP MARC!
well, you can guess the rest. Wisely, neither Vince nor I said a word and trotted up to our rooms, stifling laughter all the way, until we heard Mom snickering in their room...then all bets were off....
Oh, the Dadisms are great.
PP,
It is control. Control is probably the single biggest nut to crack as a parent. Far too many parents relinquish too much control in the teen years, the other major group tries to hold on to too much.
Mom gets help
What do you suggest they do, then? Maybe they aren't allowing it to stand so much as just plodding along trying to do the best they can...if parents and teens could relate to one another perfectly, that would be wonderful but they don't.
The tables went silent, and for a moment, I was lost for reaction, but as my indignation won my face over, those big eyes had a stunned look of "oh no" that challenged my every nerve not to break my position. As I said, "you'll be eating those veggies, if I have to keep you there until you have grandchildren", I noticed one at a time people were silently leaving the table...then two at a time...until all were outside on the deck, bathroom, sunporch able to no longer restrain their laughter. I struggled, but maintained resolve, as she, hastily devoured her serving all the while hearing the muffled guffaws, and giggles eminating from various regions of the house.
It became a hundred future laughs in the years ahead between us.
I think so, too...but some parents refuse to remember what they were like as teens and act as though their kids trying to be a little independent is a crime against nature.
Oh, it may be couched in terms like looking out for what's best for their still immature kids, and that is a relevant concern for many of course, but for some, it really is more a matter of continuing to fill the needs of the parents.
No, the problem is control. Even once you get past your twisted syntax and say "the solution is understanding the problem" or something to that effect (I'm just guessing), you will not be answering your question, but a different one. The answer to your question is that parents who have real problems with communicatin with their teenagers often have an inordinate need to control them.
meanwhile, obviously the teen years frequently give rise to situations with parents in which the conflicts are a lot more complex than involving some needy parent trying to hold on. Kids do grasp for more (with certainty, yearning and righteousness) than their reach. Parents do continue to have legitimate concerns in establishing (or rearranging) boundaries. This gets compounded when it the mix includes impinging on the parents' needs as well.
(I will admit I start with a bias - I've always thought that overly controlling parenting usually involves parents who themselves are socially or culturally maladjusted.)
So I suppose I’m guilty of shutting down the communication lines, but quite frankly some communications from your 16 year old just aren’t worth listening to. Especially with daughter #1 who is the Queen of Wheedling. She still has not learned after 19 years of trying that wheedling may work with her father but it never works with Mom. (grin)
Plenty of overcontrolling parents are outwardly normal, with no social or cultural maladjustments. I'd go for control freaks, myself. (I am speaking here of PP's presentation of parents and teens that don't talk at all.)
But it's also true that some teens are just more work--usually because of problems that started long before their teen years, and sometimes just because they're a real pain in the ass.
May I gently point out that there are a lot of parents who don't have trouble communicating with their teens, who don't have problems with either over-control or over-permissiveness. Naturally, you won't see any of these as they don't have any need for counseling or Family Groups.
BTW, no, I am not basing this on my family as LD is just barely into her teens, but on my observations of friends and family. Since I was 34 when LD was born, most of my peers have kids already in college. I have had the benefit of watching their struggles.
IMO, it is good for parents to 1. Understand that separating from your parents to be your own individual is the basic "job" of kids as they grow, and 2. Giving your kids the tools to do this and become productive happy members of society is the basic "job" of parents.
It is easier to not get upset at your kid's attempts at individualism if you don't take it as a personal slam at you.
labwabbit! What a funny family story.
I was wondering why the response of "We're not talking cuz we're angry with each other" is allowed to stand as policy by parents.
I think in some situations this is what you are left with as a resolution. There were some things I just was not going to allow while people lived in my home under my care. Tongue piercing was one of those things (due to the risk of ending up with a severe speech impediment due to nerve damage) and motorcycle riding (due to the astronomical insurance costs).
It got to a point with the tongue piercing issue that my daughter was just going to be angry with me. She was taking the stance that it was her body and she could do with it as she pleased. I was taking that stance that as long I was responsible for her medical care and general health that she was not 100% autonomous in this area and if she still wanted to pierce it when she had taken on the responsibility of her own medical care then she could do it at that time.
I finally ended all the arguing by saying that I did not want to hear another word about it, I explained the consequences if she disobeyed me and that I was sorry she disagreed with me but there was nothing more I was going to do about it and she would just have to be angry with me.
It wasn’t a standing parental policy for me to end conversations when people were still upset, but for that one long summer this is where I often ended up with this daughter. We talked until no further productive discussion was occurring, I listened to her wishes and her rationales for wanting them and then made a decision. Further discussion on her part was not oriented to finding a solution or compromise; it was simple nagging and harassing to get her own way.
If you've "....talked until no further productive discussion was occurring, I listened to her wishes and her rationales for wanting them and then made a decision.", then you were talking.
Being so angry, as a parent, that you won't do that much, is what I would call "not talking because we are angry at each other".
I'm certain PP is aware of that, since he's referring specifically to families in therapy in that quote and seems to do beautifully in communicating with his own sons.
I think my approach is similar to VW's regarding specific requests. It's not lacking communication, it's closing a particular issue. That's very different from a situation in which kids and parents have gotten to such an impasse in general that they can't talk at all without it escalating, so they just don't.
I've seen parents avoid issues with their teens that they really have bad feelings about because confronting them would be unpleasant and somewhere communication failed, not always due to something specific on the part of the parent or the child.
I keep hearing broad generalizations made, (I'm not talking about just here) and it just annoys me no end. Teenagers do this.... teenagers do that.... Spoiled kids..... Careless parents..... Over-indulged..... blah blah blah
No doubt there is someone out there giving rise to the stereotypes, but in the last 4 places I lived, I didn't see any of "those" parents and kids in the vast majority of people I know. Maybe it's not as bad as the Media makes out. After all, "most people are doing pretty much ok" doesn't sell, does it?
Maybe I'm just blind.
Maybe my opinion is formed from too selective a sample.
Your approach and vw's approach sound exactly like my approach, and like the parenting approaches of the vast majority of my friends. Friends whose kids rebelled, sure, but nothing dangerous or illegal, or outrageous - mostly picking hair-styles and clothes that thoroughly annoyed their parents. Parents who knew this was small stuff and rolled their eyes at John's spikey hair just as much as John did at Mom's refusal to go out of the house without full make-up. But for the big stuff, Mom and Dad set limits, the kids tested them now and then, but stayed pretty much inside them and are now grown up and doing fine.
I mean, of course your teen is going to go off in a huff and be mad and sulk in their room for days when the limit is being firmly held. That's normal. If they are going to school, getting good grades, have friends, talk to you (even if it is with rolling eyes), no one's breaking any laws, no one's being picked up by the cops, and no one's pregnant....
Oh, never mind. I'm rambling and probably not making any sense. Besides, it's time to go home and grill burgers for my teen and her friends spending the night.
TTFN
That post barely made sense before I cut bunches of stuff out because I'd exceeded the # of words limit.
Never mind. Just ignore #3428 please.
Bye now.
I'm not getting things from the conversation about teens that you seem to be getting. It's simply the most trying time of parenting, as I've seen in twenty years of teaching and working with teens and their parents. It's when the most advice is needed, even for parents of spectacular teens, and I think the most important stage of development in determining the long-term parent/child relationship. I know lots of good people whose relationships with their parents were permanently damaged in the teen years. I could have been in that category myself, not because I didn't have great parents, though I was a somewhat difficult teen, but because some of the problems we did have established communication patterns that were very difficult for both them and me to get beyond when I grew up.
There will never be a point for any loving parent when it's ok with them what their children do, but the teen years establish the point when they realize they can't exert any real power any more and have to move toward interacting with adults. In some cases that point is one in which parents must weigh the importance of the relationship against their disapproval of their adult children's life choices. Sometimes, as in the case of drug addiction, they may choose the disapproval, because the alternative is simply too emotionally draining.
I don't think the importance of the teen years can be overstressed, and discussing common problems in parenting teens is not a slam to that age group.
Re: 3430....Very well put!
Q was camper of the day again. He was so excited.
Good for Q! I love reading your posts about him.
Your concern shows....I don't know how you do it. That's a hard age group, in many ways. Sometimes I'm not sure, but my son and I survived it, and have even more love and respect for one another.
No doubt there is someone out there giving rise to the stereotypes, but in the last 4 places I lived, I didn't see any of "those" parents and kids in the vast majority of people I know. Maybe it's not as bad as the Media makes out. After all, "most people are doing pretty much ok" doesn't sell, does it?
True - most people are doing ok with their kids. But it is much harder to raise kids now than it was even a generation ago, so there are many more families in crisis now.
In a nutshell, parents' parenting skills are being tested more.
There was a time when your child reached a certain point with no major catastrophies, and you could pretty much coast through the rest of their adolescence.
No more.
A lot of parents are finding out during their first major battles with their kids that it wasn't wonderful parenting skills that accounted for the lack of problems they'd experienced up to that point - they just hadn't made any major mistakes.
They aren't prepared for the storm - and who really is?
Probably the best you can do is expect it, and decide in advance how to handle it.
The teen years are also often a point at which parents' hopes and dreams for their kids clash with reality and what their kids want. I'm trying to handle that well myself wrt Mose's college and career interests, and it's hard. I always saw her as being a wonderful musician, but never thought about her making a career in music as anything other than a maestro. ;-) I still hope she doesn't choose to focus on music for anything less than performance and that she sets her sights on a good school for that purpose, but I don't know what she'll end up doing. Her aptitudes and interests are actually very broad, but music is definitely her strongest talent. Whenever she mentions architecture I'm enthusiastic.
Do you think her interest in music was more intense by the involvement with the boyfriend? I know she is very talented and serious about music but maybe she'll be less so now...just a thought.
I don't think this was ever true, although it's certainly the case that people perceived the teen years that way.
My take on the other issue is the same as Christi's--if all we're talking about is "No, we're not discussing this anymore", then that's not anger getting in the way, that's standard parenting. The assumption is that the subject has actually been discussed many times, that the parent has explained the situation to the extent that he or she believes is necessary.
If that's all PP was talking about, then as I said in my last post, I don't see what the problem is. No family is in counselling because the parent didn't allow the kids tattoos, piercing, or the like.
Thanks Erinys.
I love my kids
Mose was invited to a bunkin' (slumber) party when she was five and at the time Bob was in college and we were limping along with a car that was in pretty bad shape. At the time the particular problem with it was that it would die every time it stopped and it had a loud exhaust problem. Mose was so excited when we drove her up to the little girl's house, she said "I'm going to a BUMPKIN party!" As we made our noisy way up the driveway, restarting the car a couple of times, we had to agree with her term. Luckily she was too little to be as embarrassed as her dad and I were.
Well...I do...sort of...
I meant to say in in 3449: ...what I thought...instead of: ...what I though...
Not that it matters to anyone but to me.
Tiggs:
I happened to copy part of that conversation you mentioned. You might enjoy this:
tiggers_tot: THEY'RE SLEEPING
irv: I know... don't wake them up
irv: your parents need their sleep... they are tired
tiggers_tot: THEY WONT WAKE UP INTIL 1:00
irv: that's ok
irv: let them sleep
tiggers_tot: IN THE AFTERNOON
irv: let them sleep in... they are tired
Great pics, Joe!
The best thing in this thread is seeing proud parents.
I don't think this was ever true, although it's certainly the case that people perceived the teen years that way.
Well....yes. It is true, although people's perceptions of others' perceptions certainly holds a lot of weight with those who are dealing with these kids every day.
Of course, the Catastrophe Index is a very difficult thing to quantify, but I think it's fair to say that, aside from the "normal" teenage problems, most people's perception of a parental catastrophe would include criminal involvement, drug use, and serious emotional/mental problems.
In fact, they'd probably top the list.
Now, I'll speak to the crime aspect, since that is my field. Between the years 1987 and 1996, juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased 49%.
...juvenile homicides increased 74%.
...juvenile drug violations increased 144%.
...juvenile violent crime, overall, increased 104%.
Juvenile crime in 1998 was 400% higher than in 1960.
Juvenile involvement in crime (number of juveniles committing crimes) increased over 200% over the same period.
Check out these stats from OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), pages 4 & 5 in particular.
Of course, such things may not be perceived as "problems" by some. I suppose acne, or having no cable, may be perceived by some as major catastrophes.
But there's no accounting for people's perceptions, eh?
joezan, you're absolutely right, acne is catastrophe to teens. I know that wasn't your point, but.
Juvenile crime in 1998 was 400% higher than in 1960
Isn't it recorded differently too, though? I think it's the same amount of angst taking different forms.
If that 400% increase showed up in the middle or upper class population, I will be much surprised. Instead, I imagine that the crime rate among the children of long-term welfare mothers accounts for a significant chunk of that.
Teens of the middle class and beyond are really the only population under discussion when the subject is "parenting". Tragic, but there you have it.
Now, if you have cites showing an appalling increase in crime among the children of that population, do tell.
This afternoon, Q fell asleep on the couch watching a movie. He rolled off onto the floor, then went into the kitchen. DH shortly got
up to see what he was doing, and found him standing in front of the cabinet where we keep the pots, both doors open, pants around his ankles, peeing on the cookware.
I suspect that there was a fair amount of tragedy that could have been averted or at least anticipated had parents not had that attitude. But then kids of that era weren't going to college nearly so often, didn't have careers that could be ruined by a slip in high school, and we hadn't criminalized nearly as much behavior. More people were marrying in their teens and were completely off their parents' radar--or they were off working at whatever job they'd found, with "good prospects".
Still, the teen years were tough back then, too. There is probably at least some increase in the classic "teen angst" behavior--drug use, suicide, violence. But how much of that is due to more reporting of it, more awareness of it, more media coverage of it?
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that some kids back then would have been better off if their parents hadn't written off the teen years as no-brainers. I'm not faulting them for doing otherwise, but I don't think teens have changed that much.
But the crime increase is largely (but not exclusively) caused by a massive increase of children born into poverty with mothers that really couldn't give a damn from birth, much less the teen years, and who would have trouble spelling "parenting", much less discussing it.
Hahahahahahah. A wonderful story. And sorry, I can't come by for dinner after all. ;- )
Yeah Absensia, I bet Shannon's family's going to be dining out.
"Born into poverty with mothers", etc. Although I was being sarcastic about them not giving a damn, I'm sure some of them do. It's a safe bet that the population of kids living with welfare moms increased in that time period.
There are additional citations at the foot of the linked page.
The look on the face of the woman in pic#1 makes my day.
Yep...that's the coach of the West All Stars (my daughter's side), who beat the East 13-3. She coaches one of the other teams in my daughter's division (The Lugnuts!) who are 6-0 so far.
You must be very proud of your sons, Prof. Coupla studs you got there, my man.
FWIW, neither the OJJDP nor the CDF, to my knowledge, track juvenile crime based on income - probably because the stats would not serve their purposes.
I have seen some stats that do, though, and will try to find them. I know that they are not as dramatically weighted towards the "poor" as you seem to think.
One stat I do remember off the top of my head, though, is that the number of kids not living in poverty who are involved in violent crime and criminal sexual conduct has increased over 60% over the past 20 years or so.
% of child population in poverty from 1959-1999
Well, you might mean "children in poverty", but you persistently misread. My first statement was "by a massive increase of children born into poverty with mothers that really couldn't give a damn from birth" and, when you responded by saying "born in poverty" I corrected you, reminding you I was saying "born in poverty to mothers" etc. (clarifying the sarcasm). I said, ". It's a safe bet that the population of kids living with welfare moms increased in that time period."
You said that you didn't know if it was a safe bet at all. But since you meant poverty, your stats aren't a rebuttal to anything I said.
I'm quite sure you know perfectly well it's a safe bet about the increase of mothers on AFDC.
Which is a whole hell of a lot less than 400% and much more believable.
One of the links on Maria's site points out that while some crimes show an increase in arrests without an actual increase in activity (drug use, domestic violence, curfew violations), others, like murder, show an actual increase in the activity. So saying that crime has increased isn't necessarily meaningful, when you consider how crime has been redefined over the year.
In any event, black juveniles commit a disproportionate number of crimes in many of the hot button categories, according to Maria's link. I suspect the percentages would even be more disparate if the white numbers didn't include Hispanic juvenile crimes.
Anyone want to argue seriously that middle class black kids are disproportionately responsible for the black crime stats?
I thought not.
FWIW, neither the OJJDP nor the CDF, to my knowledge, track juvenile crime based on income - probably because the stats would not serve their purposes.
I'm sure it doesn't. There is a longitudinal study on teens that we discussed in this thread, I think, demonstrating that it's not parental income, marital status, or religious practices that correlate to problem activities, but poor grades. But that study isn't complete yet, and the way they describe "problem activity" was pretty odd.
I also think it's fairly likely that there is at least some correlation between income and grades, and since the stats demonstrate a disproportionate amount of black kids are getting arrested, it's unlikely that this study is going to show that rich kids are more likely to get arrested than the urban poor kids.
"...the number of kids not living in poverty who are involved in violent crime and criminal sexual conduct has increased over 60% over the past 20 years or so..."
Which is a whole hell of a lot less than 400% and much more believable.
Apples and oranges.
Nonetheless, Cal's points are worth noting. Pretty much the same things came to my mind when reading a “400% increase”.
The first thing that came to mind was that since 1960 how dramatically drug laws have changed which could account for the majority of that increase.
The second thing that came to mind is the alarming number of “tried as adult” policies we have enacted since 1960; another trend that would have “unmasked” crime increases during that timeframe.
Finally, figures citing a percentage increase/decrease are notoriously difficult for most people without a statistics background to really put into place…that’s why they are the stat of choice for most advocacy groups. It is easy to make them look like a huge dramatic change has occurred when in reality the numbers moved in a more normal and less dramatic trend.
There was a time when your child reached a certain point with no major catastrophies, and you could pretty much coast through the rest of their adolescence.
I responded:
I don't think this was ever true, although it's certainly the case that people perceived the teen years that way.
Joe came back with stats about juvenile crime increases to prove that things have changed.
But in fact, much of the increase in crime was caused by a major increase in a population that had no "time" when things were easier, and also by a difference in the way crime was measured and defined. So those stats are meaningless in terms of my disagreement--namely, that the teen years have always held similar risks for the kids of middle and upper income parents.
Part of it is what we've discussed since--that there are far more "crimes" available to charge kids with now than in the past (and we haven't even started on curfew laws). Part of it is that there are fewer good jobs available for people with a high school degree--much less a high school degree with a criminal record. Kids in these classes are far more likely to need to go to college, and getting accepted to college is much harder with a criminal record.
So the cost of being charged with a crime has gone up significantly, making parents more aware of risks that always existed.
Another potential change in perception is with teen pregnancies (speaking again of middle and upper income classes). Back in the "easier times", marriage was a given. These days, early marriage and college are largely incompatible, and the existence of legal abortion makes the whole pregnancy issue much more difficult to navigate (more choices don't always make things easier). Hence more books and analysis of the downside of teen pregnancies, making parents more conscious of the risk.
This is probably true of teen suicides as well. While there probably has been an increase, it is also true that the suicides are more extensively reported, as well as the linkage between teens and suicide. Thus, even if the actual risk hasn't increased that much, parents are more aware of it.
Part of it is what we've discussed since--that there are far more "crimes" available to charge kids with now than in the past (and we haven't even started on curfew laws). Part of it is that there are fewer good jobs available for people with a high school degree--much less a high school degree with a criminal record. Kids in these classes are far more likely to need to go to college, and getting accepted to college is much harder with a criminal record.
So the cost of being charged with a crime has gone up significantly, making parents more aware of risks that always existed.
Another potential change in perception is with teen pregnancies (speaking again of middle and upper income classes). Back in the "easier times", marriage was a given. These days, early marriage and college are largely incompatible, and the existence of legal abortion makes the whole pregnancy issue much more difficult to navigate (more choices don't always make things easier). Hence more books and analysis of the downside of teen pregnancies, making parents more conscious of the risk.
This is probably true of teen suicides as well. While there probably has been an increase, it is also true that the suicides are more extensively reported, as well as the linkage between teens and suicide. Thus, even if the actual risk hasn't increased that much, parents are more aware of it.
No one made the statement that you questioned.
Sorry.
Well, of course it's apples and oranges...you can say that about most stats not taken from the same study.
Nonetheless, Cal's points are worth noting. Pretty much the same things came to my mind when reading a “400% increase”.
When one compares apples to oranges, one's point is never made.
I posted a stat regarding the increase in only two specific types of violent crime, narrowed to those committed by juveniles who were not living in poverty, over a 20-year period. These two specific types of crimes, together, accounted for no more than 20% of all juvenile crime during that period.
Cal attempts to extrapolate from that some kind of skew, based on the stat showing that all juvenile crime, across all socio-economic classes, increased 400% over a 40 year period.
You simply cannot use either of those stats as a basis for comparison at any level with the other.
I suggest you read the stats I linked, vw.
I made no such "attempt". Are you saying that in each and every socio-economic class, juvenile crime increased 400%? You can't be, since you said they don't track crime by income. So what "skew" are you talking about?
Look, it's simple. You cite a stat saying delinquency among teens had increased by 400% in 40 years, and that this was proof that raising teens was much harder and much riskier, etc.
I responded by pointing out that I suspect much of that increase came from one population--a population that really didn't even exist 40 years ago--and that much of it did (per the report) come from new definitions of "crime" that also didn't exist 40 years ago.
You also cited an increase in violent crimes committed by kids who did not live in poverty. It is most assuredly apples and oranges and I never said otherwise. All I said was that this number was far more believable. Why? Because it compared populations that existed in similar numbers over the past 40 years, and because it only involved specific violent crimes--not some vague definition of "delinquency", meaning any new crime society decides to yank out of its ass.
Of course, saying that violent criminal offenses have increased 60% among kids not living in poverty doesn't have nearly the "wow" value of your first cite--and means nothing at all, really. It certainly doesn't contradict my original point, which is that teens of middle and upper income parents aren't at greater risk now than they were 40 years ago.
The following stats prove this - and they are only for the 10 years ending 1996:
Juvenile court caseloads increased 49% between 1987 and 1996. The juvenile population increased only 11% in that time....During the same period, Violent Crime Index arrests rose 8%, and drug arrests rose 133%.
The first thing that came to mind was that since 1960 how dramatically drug laws have changed which could account for the majority of that increase.
Total delinquency cases in 1996: 1,757,600
Total drug law violations in 1996: 176,300
Drop in the bucket, in the overall picture. Violent crime rose even more dramatically during the same period.
In 1996, juvenile courts handled 61.8 delinquency cases for every 1,000 juveniles....The 1996 delinquency case rate was 34% greater than the 1987 rate.
Now, remember - the juvenile population only increased 11% during the same period.
Finally, this:
The second thing that came to mind is the alarming number of “tried as adult” policies we have enacted since 1960; another trend that would have “unmasked” crime increases during that timeframe.
...is indicative of nothing, in the framework of this discussion. Whether or not the kid is tried as an adult has no bearing on anything, and this argument actually works against you, as those waived to the adult system are not counted as juvenile offenders in these stats.
Well, lots of people don't dispute things when they should, at least to clarify.
The fact that a much greater percentage of the juvenile population is involved in crime doesn't mean much unless you compare like to like. Other chapters in that report you cite mention the different definition of "crime" over the years. Another chapter points out that all the stats track is number of arrests, not number of kids arrested--and the reports only track the most serious offense in an arrest for multiple offenses--which suggests another reason for the heavier representation of whites in the "lesser" crimes. Yet another report linked in mentioned that the majority of juvenile crime is committed in cities--2/3rds of the states have a juvenile crime rate below the national average.
So if people aren't disputing this data when applied in a blanket to all teens, it can only be because they haven't thought about it very much. Or maybe it's better for funding to scare the middle class into thinking their kids are in terrible danger.
Exactly, vw.
As child advocacy groups, both the OJJDP and the CDF put the best (read: in the children's interest) possible face on their stats, and they still can't excuse away the dramatic increase in juvenile crime.
Hence they don't track by income, as we all agree. But in not tracking by income, they eliminate any ability to claim that it's more dangerous for parents to "coast" through their kid's teen years--since the only parents who worry about such things are the parents whose kids aren't really at any more risk. Not because they aren't at any risk, but because they were actually at more risk 40 years ago than was generally acknowledged.
Total drug law violations in 1996: 176,300
But again, total drug violations might be masked. If a kid is picked up for robbery and he has several vials of crack, the stats only count the greater charge. I suspect a lot of drug arrests aren't counted.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I deal with OJJDP all the time. Their agenda is nothing like what you want to believe. In fact, if you read further (and read their seminal report on minority over-representation in the juvenile justice system), you would know that they are forever presenting stats that show that Blacks are arrested at a much higher rate than Whites. If anything could quell the fears of the middle-class, certainly it would be that.
Your links also point out that 54% of all male and 73% of all female offenders never go through the system again. That suggests that a shitload of those stats are being generated by repeat offenders--the majority of whom live in cities.
Well, duh. I've only referred to that several times by now. But they present that as reason why the justice system should change, not as reassurance. If they wanted to reassure the middle class, they would track by income and explitly spell out what everyone knows: the majority of violent and serious juvenile crime is committed by black males who are multiple repeat offenders, commit most of their crimes on other black males and urban poor, and are raised by incompetent parents.
They would then have a section called, "Middle Class Teen Crime" and address those issues entirely separately--if at all, since apart from drug use and vandalism there's not all that much to worry about. High on the chapter list would be "How to Ensure Your Kid Doesn't Ruin His College Chances with a Criminal Record". Hardly a pressing concern of your average urban child.
But return to our original dispute, you have provided no indication that middle and upper income teens are at any more risk for ruining their lives now than they were 40 years ago. I just think parents are more cognizant of the risk.
Their impact on the stats is nothing more than a distraction.
But I have to go to bed - gotta be to work in 7 hours.
And are overwhelmingly white and middle class, no doubt. Doing the same things they did 40 years ago.
Skeetie has been making the mmmmmm sound for about a week, and every time she does, either Greg or I will come close to her and say very slowly and distinctly 'ma-ma, ma-ma'. Well, yesterday when I got home from work and was holding her in the kitchen, she began to babble and said 'MA-MA!' Greg, Gracie and I just about jumped through the ceiling! She repeated it a few more times, grinning at me. Of course she is still too young to fully realize what she is doing, but still...what a thrill.
You simply cannot use either of those stats as a basis for comparison at any level with the other.
Uhmm … did you not note where I said I didn’t think Cal was comparing them? That I thought she was judging one to be more “believable” than the other irrespective of their comparability?
Did you also note that I pointed out (without comparing the two sets of data) that I found the 400% number suspect as to its implications due to the reasons I listed? Feel free to dispute the logic of my observations, but don’t attempt to tease out any further meaning than what I stated. I respect refutation of my comments. I hate people layering implied meaning to what I've stated matter-of-factly.
Thanks! And oh yeah. Gracie's already asking, so by the time Skeetie asks, I'll have 'over my cold, naked corpse' down to a science.
Cal
Thanks...I was a bit shocked, because I've always thought they make the 'D' sound first.
Wow! Go Skeetie!
They usually do make the D sound first, Diva. Fang!s first word, though, was "kitty", followed by Daddy and something like 20 more words before she said Mumma.
Little jerk.
yeah, Gracie said Dada before she said Mama. Ingrate. At least she had the courtesy to look like me.
I'm sorry to admit that LD's first word was "bye-bye", followed by "kitty", and "da-da". She didn't say "mama" til much later. However, I have an ego-soothing explanation for that. She didn't need to say "mama" because MaMa was there during all her waking hours (I took night classes). She started demanding "MaMa" with a vengence when I took her to visit my family and there were all these darned strangers around trying to pick her up when she wanted her Mom!
thanks...haven't yet (no time), but I will.
Prof
bite your tongue.
I think he said "car" first, demonstrating an excellent sense of priorities. 
Yer first love too...right SlowDay?
(Especially if she asks...heh)
ME: The vast majority of those 54% and 73% - probably over 90% -represent status offenders...those who have run away from home, gotten caught drinking, smoking cigarettes, have broken curfew, etc.
And are overwhelmingly white and middle class, no doubt. Doing the same things they did 40 years ago.
Either you're playing dumb, or you simply have no concept of statistical data:
I know you had to have seen these stats from the OJJDP report I linked:
TOTAL...............WHITE....BLACK....OTHER
Delinquency cases........66%.......30%......4%
Person........................59........38.......4
Property......................70........26.......4
Drugs........................65........33.......3
Public Order.................64........32.......4
(Excuse the table - I didn't want to screw anything up too bad).
"Person" crimes include all violent crimes.
"Public Order" includes all status offenses.
Do you still want to argue that that this is a Black problem?
The first thing Mose did at 5 mos was whistle. I was home alone with her the first time I heard it and about hit the ceiling before I figured out what it was. It was well before she learned to talk. Funny, she lost the ability to whistle later.
Do you still want to argue that that this is a Black problem?
"This"? Let's look at what I said:
If they wanted to reassure the middle class, they would track by income and explitly spell out what everyone knows: the majority of violent and serious juvenile crime is committed by black males who are multiple repeat offenders, commit most of their crimes on other black males and urban poor, and are raised by incompetent parents.
Yes, I stand by that. Your stats only demonstrate why.
Where do you get off "specifying parameters"?
Because CalGal has decided to write off those children born into less-advantaged homes?
the majority of violent and serious juvenile crime is committed by black males who are multiple repeat offenders...
Now, you are talking straight out of your ass. The numbers are definitely disproportionate, but are still nowhere near a reverse majority.
But that nonsense aside, yes - although the stats do not account for income, I can assure you that kids from all income brackets are significantly more likely to be involved in crime now than they were a generation ago. Whether or not this is due to new definitions of crime, or whatever other excuse you'd like to foist on this discussion, counts for diddly squat.
Sure you did. I've pointed it out before. You just didn't realize it.
Here is your original statement: There was a time when your child reached a certain point with no major catastrophies, and you could pretty much coast through the rest of their adolescence.
This time never existed for any other group than the middle and upper classes.
So the "your" in your post is only those people who could afford such luxuries.
My response was that the risks for the parents you were addressing were about the same. We're just more cognizant of it now.
The "parameters" I described weren't ones that I invented, but obvious ones.
Because CalGal has decided to write off those children born into less-advantaged homes?
Thus far the only thing I've written off is your analysis of life risks for middle and upper class teens. I've made no policy statements one way or another about less advantaged kids.
The numbers are definitely disproportionate, but are still nowhere near a reverse majority.
They are for homicide. And when you figure that almost all arrests of black kids for serious crimes are masking some of their stats for other crimes, you can't know for sure what other majorities they've attained. Also, keep in mind that the white population holds the (I believe) disproportionately low income Hispanic, too.
But if you wish me to restate it slightly, I will: the majority of violent and serious juvenile criminal offenses are committed by low income urban teens who are disproportionately black and Hispanic.
You cited a sixty percent number for violent crimes (murder, rape) committed by kids not living in poverty. But that's not particularly dramatic over the time period, and it is far less compelling than your original 400 percent number.
I've also pointed out that crime, despite your introduction of it, is just not very high on the horizon of worries for upper and middle class parents. At least as far as their kids committing it.
Drugs, sure, but not in the criminal sense so much as the health sense. Suicide and early pregnancy are the other two contenders. Those stats are up over time, too.
Crime is just not a particularly big issue for the teens of the upper and middle class. To the extent that it is an issue, it is because it can screw up their future more than it could forty years ago.
Whistle?!?! Man, I have got to meet this Mighty Mose.
And thanks.
Prof
thanks for the language development link.
The first word I ever said was the name of the Dennis-the-menace type next door, whose mother was always calling him, and next was mamá. My father, who'd been trying desperately to get me to say papá, redoubled his efforts, but I began to call him by a diminutive form of his surname, because I couldn't say it all. This only spurred him to greater efforts, but I had his number, and would refer to the cats, the refrigerator, the TV, my pillow, etc. as papá, but when he'd ask me his name, I'd use the dim, and laugh. When my mother assured him I was teasing, he almost burst a blood vessel.
My son wanted me to draw some airplane wings on a pice of cardboard, because he wasn't satisfied with hiw own efforts, and thought I could do better. I told him I had no idea what to draw, becasue I couldn't see the airplane he was imagining in his mind.
So he said, "Let's put our heads together." He came over and pressed his temple up against mine, stepped back after about 30 seconds, and said "OK. Now draw it."
Ah, faith.
True - most people are doing ok with their kids. But it is much harder to raise kids now than it was even a generation ago, so there are many more families in crisis now.
In a nutshell, parents' parenting skills are being tested more.
To which CalGal responded, ad nauseum, with responses which consist mostly of bungled interpretations of crime statistics which prove that what I said was absolutely true. When she could no longer deny that juvenile crime is up significantly over the last 20 and 40 years, she resorts to her old standby: "Well, it's the riff-raff - the Blacks and Hispanics, and Whites who live in trailer parks. The people who count have nothing to fear".
This she argues because no stats on income levels have been presented - not based on any knowledge she has - against someone who has worked in the field for over 20 years.
If I found some and posted the income stats, she would eventually, of course, parse them until she could make a reasonable (to her) assumption that the children of upper-income techies living in Silicone Valley are absolutely immune to these dangers.
And this would, of course, be proof to her that there is nothing to worry about.
objects = objections
The two lovebirds before they married and gave birth to me and baby bro:
Here baby bro and I are dancing to Judy Collins. Mostly, he is just standing around, while I do very expressive and deep faux-ballet.
...I never cared about the dangers of radiation either.
Thanks guys! That was fun.
This one of the World's Smallest Yankee Chasing His Own Shadow goes with a slew of related shots I've put into the Travel thread.
Cut pictures, khaval. Your parents were very mod back then, weren't they?
Cute, very cute.
Very nice photos. And I swear, as I was scrolling down and your first photo appeared, I thought: Now who's posting pics of Sonny & Cher?
Then I wondered, Was Khavals dad a pimp? (g)
That is one cute kid.
Lifts my spirits, seeing homegrown Yankee pride.
You can imagine the humiliation I've been enduring the past couple of days, out here in Tiger country.
Great pics, Khaval, here and in the other threads!
Mine hasn't. He's gotten a summer headcold.
Lately, I'd say for about the past 2 months, perhaps every 4 days he gets weepy and tells me he doesn't want the people around him to die. I don't really know what to say to him. I hug him and spout platitudes.
Then today, he said he was glad he wouldn't have to buy a cell phone later, because he'd get ours when we died.
BBC Wales
I'm thinking about a picture on the front steps, and we can see each year how much he's grown.
I'm also a little nervous about my son starting full days. It's a switch to a new, much bigger school. I think we'll go for a short visit a few times before the term actually starts, so he can get a feel for the building.
MizPhyz,
I dunno, we have more than a few kids who get killed by trains around here--usually because they thought they could scoot across the tracks in front of the train. I don't know that the parents should be able to sue, but I also think that a train should be able to come to a complete stop with kids who didn't just run in front of the train but were in clear view for quite some time. If the train just honked and didn't stop, I put that on the train.
Also, why was the bridge open to public access? Is that normal?
Now, I do think the parents were negligent in that whenever I hear a train I still check for Spawn to make sure I have him in sight. But I'm not sure that failing to do so is a clearly criminal act. I don't find it in the same league as some of the other stuff we've discussed.
It kinda sorta has a happy ending, in that most of the kids will be safe. But the real question is how do you stop women like this from having nine children, most of whom are incredibly damaged by her abusive neglect and will probably end up dead before 20, in jail, or crack addicted and popping out more babies? Why spend time and money after the fact chasing elusive solutions that haven't a chance of succeeding anyway?
And what's really tragic is that self-centered, spoiled woman is actually one of the more hopeful cases.
We take 1st-day pics at the bus stop.
Cal--The couple was found guilty of homicide by gross negligence. Aparently the children played up there for a half-hour or more with the parents' full knowledge. The sentencing hasn't taken place yet, but according to the prosecutor, the conviction was largely symbolic, to make people aware of rail track safety. I don't think it's practical to block access to every inch of rail in the world. Doing so would make train travel prohibitively expensive (It's already far more expensive in the UK than in the rest of Europe). Parents must teach their children the danger of going on to tracks. In this situation the girls were lying on the track dropping things into the water below. The train driver certainly couldn't be expected to see the children. Their parents, however, KNEW they were there. That's negligence if ever there was such.
Erinys: I think that one of the best rituals is a growth mark on a doorjamb. We don't tie it into starting school, but you could.
It's not necessary to block access everywhere, but bridges seem pretty easy.
Also, was there something wrong with the children? Why didn't the kids move?
I dunno. If I knew my kids were playing near the tracks and I heard a train whistle, I'd be up and about checking on them immediately. But it would be a reflex response, not because I really believed there was danger (assuming 7 year olds). I would expect both the kids to have moved and certainly I would expect the train driver to have at least attempted to stop.
Besides, if the train driver was blowing the horn constantly, brakes shrieking, and still the kids didn't move and the train couldn't stop, what were the parents expected to do to stop it? Should they flat out not have allowed the kids to play on the bridge, no matter what?
Would you be asking this question if the kids were in the street?
PARENTS, KIDS, AND CONTROL
click on photo 
minds if they knew what was really going on.”
You are saying that if a 7 year old kid was playing in the street and the parent was in the house and the kid got hit by a car the parent should be charged with murder?
Is it against the law to play in the street? Not that I'm aware of. Is it illegal to play on train tracks? Again, not that I'm aware of--I see parents with little children standing on tracks looking for train lights all the time.
So says my kids' There Goes a Train video, anyway. How's that for a reliable source? I recall reading it somewhere else, though.
I was thinking more of a blanket statement. Yes, I agree that in a lot of places you aren't allowed on train tracks--for example, I'm pretty sure most rail bridges in the US don't allow pedestrians of any sort.
I was just thinking about the street example: playing on the street is normal, but there is an implicit definition of what sort of streets are okay. Namely, ones without too much traffic. But from a legal standpoint, I think they are all considered the same. The only issue is whether or not pedestrians of any sort are allowed, right?
So if a kid gets killed on a street, the parental responsibility is decided based on whether or not their behavior could be considered neglectful, not a blanket "they were playing on the street, charge the parent" but "the parent watched a two year old wander off onto major thoroughfare and didn't do anything".
I just am not sure that parents knowing that a 7 year old was playing on a railway bridge is by definition neglect--given that the bridge was open to pedestrians.
You and your family are enjoying dinner at a restaurant. Your daughter, however, has a milk moustache and chews with her mouth open. You:
A. Can't bear even looking at this Neanderthal, so you send her to her room.
B. Explain that she needs to work on her manners or you will never take her out to dinner again.
C. Don't think manners mean that much. If she wants to look that way when she eats, that's her problem.
No, I am not saying that at all...but most parents warn their children not to play in the street. I would think commom sense would tell parents to let their children know it is very dangerous to lay down in the street or to do so on train croassings, also.
I said nothing about parents being charged with murder at all; I was merely asking if you would have said this Should they flat out not have allowed the kids to play on the bridge, no matter whathad the place in question been the street. Because I happen to believe kids should be encouraged NOT to play in the street or on train tracks, period.
I said nothing about parents being charged with murder at all;
You didn't have to, Judith. That's what the discussion was about.
We're not talking about shoulds. I've already said as much. Feel free to judge them personally in any way you like. The issue is whether or not they should be charged with murder for what isn't even a solid case of neglect.
All this goes to PP as well.
I dislike this coming in after the fact in one isolated case of a parent not paying attention and making it a legal issue. We give parents a wide scope--too wide, imo. Tighten the rules, and then charge the parents if they are broken.
You and I don't "discuss" things in the same manner...see, I wanted to talk about a few more things before I decided one way or another but evidently, that's not what you'd prefer. So I guess I'll just skip this one.
So, to answer your question straight: "Would I be saying the same thing if the kids had been playing in the street?" Yes.
It's completely without basis to say that "kids are an afterthought lately". Kids are more supervised now than at any point in history.
But I suspect some of these people are actually murdering their kids--there's just been too many of them lately.
You ought to watch the local news around here then...hardly a day goes by without some story about a child found wandering around a 4 lane higway or two flights down in a retail mall from the parent...there have been several "forgotten" kids roasting in cars around here and stories of a parent or boyfriend of a mother attempting to sell a baby for drug money. I think my statement has a basis in my part of the country.
I'm speaking of some rather low life people but they are parents, nonetheless, and they indeed do seem to neglect and "forget" they have kids.
Yes. They should flat out not have allowed the kids to play on the railway bridge. Ever. Period.
No, children should not be allowed to play in the street either.
Should the parents be charged with murder? Not in my opinion. However, child neglect seems like a reasonable charge.
As far as the train engineer being able to stop in time, look up some physics. Trains take a long time to stop because of their weight and speed.
Should the bridges be blocked to keep pedestrians off? Absolutely.
On the question from the quiz that CalGal posted - none of the answers were the what I would do in that situation. (which was probably her point) I would have quietly told my child "honey, wipe your mouth."
DUH!
In the case of the train, it depends on how long they had to stop. I said that earlier. If it just came round a corner onto the bridge, then sure. But I do expect train engineers to look where they are going and if the train just expected the kids to move, then that is a problem. (none of that information is given in the article).
But if the train did just appear out of nowhere, then it is just as difficult for the parents to react quickly. Again, it's not all that abnormal for parents to let their kids go on a bridge and play. Which is why I think that if it is a blanket situation that will end up with a charge of murder just for having let the kids play there, then block the bridge off completely.
I just feel it is dangerous to punish results while letting the same behavior go unquestioned if nothing bad happened. I think roads and traintracks are very iffy environments to be using as test cases for charging parents with murder.
Well, regarless of what they expect, I don't know what they possibly could do. Even on a straight track, I don't know that you could see a kid, particularly one lying down, soon enough to stop. I'd expect not. A guy I worked with had a roommate who was hit by a train. It stopped, but not for at least 1/4 mile after it hit him. I think it was closer to 1/2 mile.
Well, I totally disagree with this statement. I do not know any parents who would allow their 7 yr old kids to play on a railway bridge.
"Which is why I think that if it is a blanket situation that will end up with a charge of murder just for having let the kids play there, then lock the bridge off completely. "
However, I agree with this opinion. I will add, though that I did not get that from the article - that it was a blanket situation that would end up with a charge of murder. It sounded to me like the authorities did take into account the particular actions of these particular parents in this particular case. I still disagree with what they charged them with - I think they should have been charged with neglect or criminal neglect if there is such a thing.
Having said all that - I agree that locking off ralway bridges that have no way to escape the train if you are on the bridge when a train comes seems like an elementary precaution. Even better is to build railway bridges with a safe area off to the side, but I realize that re-doing all the existing railway bridges could get too expensive to be practical.
In any event, I am really not looking to blame the drivers or the kids--because why it is that they didn't move is puzzling. Not inexplicable, just puzzling.
I just don't think it's legit to try parents for murder. If a child's death occurs because of a parent's failure to be vigilant, then there really ought to be more laws that enforce this expectation. As it is, the law comes slamming down only when something bad happens.
As I said, I don't think much of any parent who doesn't become instantly alert at the sound of a train whistle and make damn sure they know where all the kids are. But I'm not sure that the parents who fail to do so are murderers.
Pardon me while I disagree...I know of no parents who would knowingly say to their kid, "Oh sure, you can go play on that train trestle, no problem." Where I come from, train tracks and bridges trains went over were verboten, no matter what. You just don't mess around with trains. Like Shannon and Christi have pointed out, they don't stop on a dime and never have.
I don't even think it's something that can be done in the US, is it? Are there open railway bridges anywhere? That's why I said "bridge", because I can only assume that in England there's not a big distinction between the two.
A 7 yr old? LYING DOWN? From the angle of a train engineer? Nope. I don't think a prone 7 yr old on a train bridge is visible from 1/2 mile away.
Cal, I'm hoping you're saying this to be provocative...half a mile away, seven year olds laying down on tracks ?? Are you kidding? What CAN you see half a mile away? Not to mention if the sun was glinting off the tracks, as it does at many points during the day....
I dunno. There are plenty of rural folk who think it is odd to let kids play in the street, but it's entirely normal in the suburbs and cities. If it is a quiet country area and the train only comes by sporadically and the bridge is open to the public, how do you know it might not be normal? Now, if the last isn't true and the parents ignored signs not allowing pedestrians, fine.
I'm just funny that way. (I'm not crazy about them playing in the horse corral, either.)
And as I said--if they don't have enough time to stop, how come it is a given that the parents would have enough time to react?
If the parents ignored signs and allowed their kids to trespass on the bridge even though pedestrians weren't allowed, then absolutely they could be tried for manslaughter, at least.
But if this was a country bridge and it wasn't at all abnormal to hang out on bridges of this sort (which is definitely what I got from the article) then the issue isn't that they shouldn't have let their kids on the bridge--it is common behavior. The issue is whether or not they should have let their kids play on the bridge without being in the immediate vicinity--and that's a much tougher line to draw, because the moment you start going down that path you get to hold parents responsible for murder any time their children die in an accident if they aren't around when it happens. If we are to go down that road, fine--but then it ought to be against the law to ever let your child be alone, and parents should be arrested and tried for that constantly. Just punishing them when a bad result occurs is off-kilter.
I didn't get the same things from the article that you did. However, if your take is correct - that it is 'normal' or common in that area to let kids that age to play on bridges without parents in the immediate vicinity -then the murder charge does sound even more off-kilter.
Christi, all the questions on that quiz were the same -- none of them had the choice I'd make. Like when the teenager comes in 30 minutes past curfew, I'd ask him what's up before making any kind of decision, not ground him immediately or yell at him. Or the drunk daughter coming home --it seemed like my chosen method, asking what's going on before making any kind of decision, was never represented on the answers!
LD and I have been in towns of 30K, 60K, 90K, and no 40K. From the time she was age 4 to almost 7, we were in a universities family student housing with restricted access, speed bumps, and frequent security patrols. No way would I allow her in the front yard unsupervised, let alone the street!
I was not the odd parent out in any of our neighborhoods, either.
If they ignored posted signs then surely the article would have mentioned it? I may have to go read it again.
Lime,
Yeah, what I did in all those cases was take the "lenient" answer, because of all the available responses it was the closest. If Spawn was supposed to be home by midnight and Letterman was still on, he wasn't all that late. So I'd say hey, be on time, but if you get held up call--if "hey, if you're late again without calling with a damn good reason, I'm pushing your curfew up an hour" isn't on the options list.
On the other hand my brother regularly let his 4 year old kid play in the very busy parking lot of his apartment complex. I had conniptions.
However, you should hold parents responsible if their kids die in an accident that wouldn't have happened if they were giving their kids reasonable supervision. I don't think you should charge them with murder, though. I think you should charge them with neglect. (have I said that way way too many times now &:oD)
About a month after LD and I moved for my first job after getting my BSEE, a kid was killed playing in the apartment complex parking area. The kid came zooming out on his skate board between two cars. The poor 19 yr old driving the pizza van never had a chance to avoid him. Dead 6 yr old. 19 yr old with a nervous breakdown. Two sets of devastated parents.
Of course that is the kind of thing that can happen even if Mom is ot there watching and yelling "Junior! Stay out of the parking lot! Get back here!"
I think the investigation showed that the kid might have been ok if he'd been wearing a helmut though.
Yes. But there's that word "reasonable" again to make things problematic. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think that the law tries to have it both ways. No one wants to legislate parents, but if society is annoyed enough they want to punish them when something goes wrong (particularly if someone else's kid is involved).
For example, if you run out to the store and leave your five year old at home alone and the five year old wanders outside and gets hit by a truck, you're in trouble. But if you are at home and your five year old goes outside and gets hit by a truck, you're not.
So why isn't there a law? Seven years and younger (to pick an age) can never be unsupervised for any reason. Being in the house when the kid is outside counts as unsupervised.
Try making that a law and watch how many parents get pissed off. No, they want Johnny to be able to ride a bike to his friend's house. Well, fine. Then why are Mom and Dad in trouble if they run to the store?
shrug
I dunno. When LD was 5, she didn't go to her friend's house down the block unless I went with her. I went to get her when it was time to come home, too. I allowed her in the fenced and locked back yard, with the dog on guard and only the screen door closed, while I was in the house, but never the front yard.
I NEVER left LD unsupervised under the age of 7. Hell, I never left her unsupervised under the age of 12. That's how old she was when I first let her have an occaisional 1 1/2 hours home alone after school.
So maybe I'm the wrong person to ask.
The difference isn't huge, but adolescents with mothers who went from welfare to work had slightly more negative results across the board than those with mothers who stayed on welfare. Younger children, in contrast, do better when their mothers work.
I suspect that this will be used by the traditionalists to demonstrate that mommies should stay home, but I believe other studies haven't found this difference in families up the income scale. The difference isn't huge, anyway. But it suggests to me that adolescents need more support and care (as all of us here have been saying), particularly those who are starting out with an awful peer group, no money, and mothers who weren't all that terrific to start with and now aren't around to herd them. 
Breakfast on the balcony. That's peanut butter on her face 
Q on the beach. 
We managed to exhaust them. Success!
I've always thought that our teens need us more than our toddlers do. Oh there's great gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over leaving a toddler at day care, but I think most of that is it upsets us to leave them. Toddlers are cute. They are funny. They are easy to teach and are so very desirous of pleasing us.
Compared to you average toddler your average teen is a nightmare of attitude, sassy mouth, bad smells, huge appetites of all kinds and a generally surly demeanor. So there’s not a lot of hand wringing about leaving the teens home alone after school. Teens are tough to parent, the costs are high and so is what is at risk.
But that’s why it’s so important for us to be around to guide, watch, restrict and love them.
If there is only one time in your child’s life that you arrange to be home (either working from home or SAHP) I would advise making it between the ages of 12 and 16. This age group is desperate for parental care and concern. By the time they are 16, you are not likely to have any kind of major impact on their lives any longer.
Beautiful kids, Shannon.
Here's my favorite pic of me and Fang! 
Adrianne, your picture doesn't work.
It's a value-added benefit (g).
Well crap.
I see them.
Ummm, that also occurred to me. The cleanliness of the van, that is.
(memo to self: clean filthy van) 
We've managed to severely restrict eating in the van. And my husbund is very neat, so he gets most of the credit for the clean van.
If it makes y'all feel better, there was a pile of crushed up Reese's pieces on the floor right under my daughter's seat. It's still there, AFAIK.
If you can't stay home with a teen, there are other ways of keeping in touch throughout the day. Spawn loves his cellphone, and plans can be quite affordable. It's a great way to check in and make sure they've remembered their various responsibilities so that you're not coming home to squawk at them.
But if not cellphones, parents can still find some way of staying in constant touch throughout the afternoon. It is the communication that is the key--they feel connected, and are reminded of boundaries that are still very important in those early teen years.
Spawn likes talking to me on email, too. Although that teen jargon spelling is atrocious. (mind, I never seem to object to "luv u, mom").
Absolutely … I didn’t mean to imply that staying home was the only way to ensure a safe, healthy teen.
But I am bemused with all the energy we (culturally) expend trying to stay home with our six yos as opposed to out 13 yos.
Isn't there some study that "proved" moms were more attached to their kids because of the way they responded when the kids were babies? Are there any studies that test attachment at other times in a child's life? And I wonder if there have ever been tests on the downside of overattachment so that no one thinks "she who is the most attached wins".
Random thought spew ended.
It just makes them both want to run far and fast as soon as they can, and then once they feel free, they will be able to take the time to think about what exactly they want to do. But so much of their energy has been taken up with just wanting to get away.
If you set a curfew, would you set it by number of days per week? I've been thinking about that as Spawn gets older. As it is, I usually expect him to be home around six (calling in frequently) and then if he's playing with his friends and wants to stay out late (7:30-8 in the summer) and all his chores are done, I usually say okay. But once he's staying out real late, in his mid-teens, I'm not sure if I'd want it every single day in the summer, if only because I'd like to see him occasionally!
Since I don't have the luxury of sleeping until 11:30 AM like SOME 16 year old daughters do (grin), she has to be in the house by 11 PM. She can stay up if she wants, but boys get sent home, doors get locked and the Bass Booster on the CD player is turned off.
Weekends her regular curfew is midnight with extensions when warranted.
It hasn't been an issue yet, but of course it will be eventually. So far, all Gracie's evening socializing has been under parental/adult supervision and transport, so we've been very flexible as to when she is due home....usually after the end of the activity.
I'll probably use the same curfews my parents used for me. At 16, it was 11 PM, at 17 11:30, and once I turned 18 and went off to college (both of which happened within a few weeks), I could come and go as I pleased. She will turn 18 during her senior year, so I think we will stipulate she must be home by midnight until she goes off to college.
My folks made exceptions for prom night (curfew was moved to 2 am junior prom, and 4 am senior), and friends' parents' had social activities planned for us pre-and-post prom, so we were all accounted for at every moment.
Around here the high schools put on huge post-prom parties at the local rec centers, and they are well attended. Very good idea, too.
NOT ready for this.
But I just read recently that many of those deaths may have been caused by the kids not wearing seatbelts. Odd to think that even today that would happen--but it has become less odd since I notice Spawn neglecting his bike helmet (which caused him to lose bike privileges for a day) and putting on his seatbelt.....late. Like we'd be moving before he did it, whereas before it was automatic. There really is a mindset change that happens with teens, separate from pre-adolescents.
How about the "wild weekend" in Ocean City tradition after HS graduation?
Wombat,
Heh. Maybe that's why Spawn calls me all the time.
oh SHIT.
sigh I am NOT ready for this.
Prof
Yeah, this get-a-room trend is disturbing. Why, in my day, the parties were hosted at home under the watchful eyes of parents.
You know, I think Gracie is responsible enough to have some flexibility regarding curfew, and as she gets older I may rethink my position based on how she is handling herself, friends she has chosen, etc. Right now, though, the thought of her out until all hours just blows me away.
I am severely freaked this week, anyway, because I found out the other day that the boy she's been talking to all summer is a senior. 18 years old!
sigh.
It's the "yet" that gets ya, huh? I'm still a couple years away from these sorts of worries.
yet, she says. YET. And this is one of two senior boys showing an interest in her.
Prof
Wouldn't it? She's already planning heavy participation in Drama after school, and wants to take Martial Arts, too.
Swimming is a great sport...long season during the school year and the kids can swim for little money off season...clubs, local pools, etc.
In high school they often do two'a'days...getting up at 5 a.m. and swimming before school and then swim after school.
The result? Most are excellent students, and after doing homework, are too tired to even want to go out. Swim meets are often on Friday night...you will be there smiling and the child is wiped out...Yep..been there : ) fine sport indeed.
"I love/loved my boys, we had great fun during their teens, and they are my best friends today."
My dear friend, this says it all. That you can say that makes you wise, in my book.
Abs
ha! I love it! Now, if only Gracie could actually swim....can't get the child to put toe in the water.
Now I think I'd like to see you three geeks a'puffin' away....
As a fairly lame swimmer, I always envied kids who had lifeguard jobs. As teen jobs go, that seems like a pretty good one--pays better than most, or did back in my day anyway. I had cousins who made good money teaching swimming lessons in HS/college as well.
I think that the girls would like doing the swim team thing in a few years. They swim all the time with their dad, although I'd like to get them into some formal lessons one of these days.
Tennis is his current fascination; that and biking. He's finishing up week two of a Nike tennis camp and got a lot of kudos from what I understand.
Shannon--I was a swimmer and always wanted to be a lifeguard. It seemed very cool to me. But I was convinced there was a cuteness requirement and never applied.
Shannon and Lime
Encourage it....sign them up for lessons when you can.
Div...I told mine at about 5 that he had to learn because of all the water around here and the sailing, etc., we did. He wasn't too thrilled but did it. I told him that I did not want him on swim team...no, never, too much work...it was for older kids...heheheheheh...so of course, it had to be swim team.
Then I had a talk with her about how if she wanted to play, she'd better put forth some effort in the getting-along department. Then A. was evidently feeling left out about something, and stomped into the house to play the piano. So then I decided that they were going to watch a movie before I lost my mind.
This works well for 6-yr-olds, also. My son's sacked out on the sofa from swimming. I'll have to remember that 10 years down the line, PsychProf.
Shannon, your boy jumped off the diving board? He looks about 7-8 in the Clean Van picture. Good for him!
I was a swim/dive team kid, so I hope FuryBoy goes this way - I already know all the terms. If he leans towards soccer, which seems to be all the rage now, I've got some homework to do. My efforts at explaining foul lines for baseball haven't been stellar, either. Golf would be a cinch. Football, oh, let's not even start. The thought of his knees getting ruined in 8th grade scares the crap out of me. I'll try Absensia's devious tactic of 'swim team is for older kids'.
CalGal, does your son call you from school? Can he take calls? Cell phones and pagers are pretty much contraband during school hours around here.
LimeGirl, one of FuryBoy's best friends has an older sister - 3rd grade. They do that silent column thing, too, and it's purely foreign to me, not to get up and follow them. Because boys doing that is usually bad news.
concerned - ho ho! And what is National Breast Feeding week supposed to accomplish? I can't tell from your message if it's a pro or con thing. I'm guessing pro, and your comment about getting kids off the bottle is ...well, I don't know what you meant.
And from waaay back, since I couldn't get into this site for a few days - Wombat, the ritual pancake breakfast sounds PERFECT. Just what I was looking for! No bus stops around here, joezan, we're walking distance to school. Thanks for the idears.
Spawn goes to a tiny private school, so it's not an issue. I would take it amiss if any public school disallowed cellphones, although I would certainly expect they not be used during school hours.
Erinys -
'The bottle' sometimes refers to liquor -I was stretching to associate it with baby formula in an attempt to be very 'punny'.
Heh.
On curfews - in my teen years, my folks started out with no curfews for any of us, just the rule that we had to be up and off to school on time. After a few times dragging through school exhausted, I got in and to bed at a reasonable hour. My older brother didn't, so he got a curfew. Like others have already said, you adjust for the kid and for what's going on.
LD used to live and breathe Dance. In a dance company from the age of 3 until 10, when we moved here. She pitched a fit at moving away from her dance company and declared she'd never dance again and she hasn't. She tried soccer and didn't like it. She tried volleyball and basketball and liked them. So she signed up for girls athletics in the 7th grade. The classes were over-crowded and poorly coached and they pretty much killed any joy she had in the sports. PE is not required from 8th grade on here, so she isn't taking it this year. She is interested in Tae Bo and asked me for a video. I got it for her and she's been working out to it. I was hoping she would be into something that was time-consuming and exhausting by her high school years. So far, since she gave up dance, nothing has fit the bill.
CalGal - my daughter wants a cell phone, but they are banned at her school. Kids cannot have either cell phones or beepers at school, the justification being that drug dealers use them.
I know I'm going to eventually have to be satisfied with less frequent check-ins, but it may take aggressive therapy for me to achieve it.
Her curfew is earlier with her driving than when she's with someone, and I don't care how long her friends stay over as long as they leave when I go to bed, unless it's girlfriends spending the night. If I feel like going to bed at 8 pm, they're out.
You know, I think that ban is up for a challenge. This whole line of conversation began because of the recent study showing that adolescents of working moms just off welfare did worse than those still at home. There is a growing consensus that teens need far more supervision and boundaries than has been thought necessary in the past. So what better way for a parent to ensure that they always have access to their teen--and vice versa--than for them to have a cell phone?
In the current environment, the "but they might be drug dealers" rebuttal will come off pretty damn cheap.
Can't you call her? Or is her phone not on?
Erinys, he's five. The boy knows no fear.
A few weeks ago, I took him swimming and he asked to be able to jump off. I said no, because I didn't have my suit and I wasn't going to let him do it w/o me in the water to catch him. Yesterday I was swimming with him, so he said he wanted to do it. I let him try. I caught him the first time, but he didn't seem to really need me to. So I got a bit farther out, and told him I'd grab him if he needed it. He didn't--jumped right in, swam to the side all on his own. So I sat on the ladder and watched him after that. I think I was at least 10 before I tried such a thing. I was a wimpy kid.
The funny thing is, he holds his nose when he jumps, but lets go before he hits the water.
I had a simple rule...leave the cell phone on or you won't be able to drive. At first he loved having his own cell phone. Then he figured out it was an electronic leash and that's when the rule was created.
Shannon,
Your son is da man!!!
I've got to remember to do that. She will if I ask, but if I don't she won't.
It was just a matter of getting into the routine.
Spawn thus far calls me all the time, but I've got a few years until the teens really turn tough.
That was the rule with us. If the phone wasn't on, then forget the car.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but I never worried much about my kids at all. I never thought for a minute that they'd be doing anything they shouldn't be doing and I was right. In fact, my only worry was that I raised such law-abiding well behaved kids. I've often thought that young people should, at times, do things that their parents wouldn't approve of - to me, that's part of the growing up process. My kids never did, which seemed odd to me.
Besides, you live on that small, isolated island. hahahahahaha.
Uhmm, there are any number of heart-stoppingly stupid and dangerous things I did as a teen that my parents had no clue about whatsoever. I don't see any point in telling them now... obviously I lived through it.
Uhmm, there are any number of heart-stoppingly stupid and dangerous things I did as a teen that my parents had no clue about whatsoever. I don't see any point in telling them now... obviously I lived through it.
I made the mistake of telling my parents, years later. And they went and told my kids.
This thread may be healthy but, unfortunately, it is not representative of the population at large.
Oh. Is there another thread for dysfunctional parenting?
I should have realized that you were kidding.
I'll bite again, though...
The dysfunctional parents are talked about in this thread (each time they make current news) by young and older parents who, (as you would know if you were lurking often), being Motiers, are terrific parents. Are you one of us?
(grin) Another good reason to stay quite about the whole nasty past!
I'm a great daddy and my kids seem to think so too.
Everyone who has read your posts for a long time knows that fact.
I apologize for baiting you to the point that you felt you had to affirm to me your skills as a great daddy. However, I am not the only one to be humorless about certain remarks. Who started this inane exchange between us? :-)
I started it. Truth is I wanted to share some recent parenting and custody-related experiences but I know CalGal and some other manhaters will come flying in and I'm not sure I'm up to that.
You can handle it. Go to it.
Arky, if Mose is learning about driving from her sweet mother, BE AFRAID!
The time is going way way too fast.
No kidding and the worst part of that is taking them driver training! Daughter #2 just passed her permit test last Tuesday...so we've been driving around back roads at 10 MPH making over-ciorrected turns all weekend (grin).
I'm trying to be calm about this. I really am.
I'm going to make her take driver's ed AND defensive driving as soon as she's old enough anyway. No way I'll let her drive otherwise.
Nope. It will be driver's ed, defensive driving, license, supervised driving, off on your own for short distances/times locally, gradually increasing independance, and off you go!
And then I'll still worry, but that's just because I'm a worrier and she's my baby.
1) if yer kid drives, at least ya know who is behind the wheel,and you can reasonably predict their "condition"
2) they need to experience(ideally with supervsion) the conditions they will drive in. Do not protect them from what they will encounter.
3) they will probably be very careful for a honeymoon period after they begin to drive w/o supervision. I think the(a) dangerous time is 4-6 mo after they start, when confidence outstrips experience and reason.
I'm not really worrying about my son driving yet. It still seems so far away.
But dinner is ready.
21% of teen drivers in fatal crashes had been drinking. Over 60% of teens killed in crashes didn't have their seatbelts on.
Absurd. All the new restrictions on teen driving use their inexperience as the selling point, when in fact if a teen isn't drinking and wears his seatbelt, his odds of dying drop dramatically.
I hate it when scare tactics are used to scare the whole, when it's just a small group at risk.
Really? When did you start then?
Of course, I make up for all that clean living by annoying and enraging almost everyone who knows me. But I had that behavior nailed down long before puberty.
Maria,
Or the people who lie to their kids about how they behaved. That really fries me.
Bugs me.
&:oD
First rule of the teenagers code...
This is different from deliberately lying to them, by the way.
The stats on drinking, speeding, and lack of seatbelt use say a great deal about the over-confidence factor PP pointed out that many of us share (not just teens) which may contribute to our lack of safety on the road.
We wish you'd been there, too....
We wish you'd been there, too....
And Klaus hadn't moved off the couch so...
That's true...and I agree. I wasn't advocating lying to your kids, just saying you don't have to volunteer things they'd probably rather not know anyhow.
They also don't reveal what the accidents would have resulted in were seatbelts in use.
I believe I have read the stats on people who died while wearing seatbelts but I can't remember for sure. In any event, as long as the drinking and seatbelt stats on teen driving fatalities are what they are, it is unrealistic to claim inexperience is the main problem.
Who was doing this??
And again, seatbelt use is irrelevant to the cause of accidents.
In the hierarchy of sins, I would put babbling about one's past below lying in terms of severity. One is a boundary issue, the other is an ethical one.
Haha! As are mine, except in the mistakes they made in overprotecting and limiting me as a teen!
The husband made a snarky remark to me once about my Bob Marley t-shirt being a bad example for kids. I now wear it a couple of times a week in the hopes that he repeats it, so that I can point out that the only aroma coming from it is my eau de lavande.
Sometimes I make a statement like "not advocating....etc" in case I've been unclear in my posts, as I've been told before I frequently am.
Our friend, years ago, continued to smoke pot and I told him he would be sorry when he kids got older and faced him with it. He said they didn't know he was doing it. I asked him where he hid his stash and he said in his sock drawer...I asked him how often he had snuck through his parents drawers as a teenager when they weren't home.
People often seem to forget their own past experiences as teens when their kids get that age. This guy finally quit with the pot but I really think he believed his kids didn't snoop like he had done years ago. (I knew he did because he'd told us an hilarious story about finding condoms in his dads room and asking what they were, thus busting himself as a snoop.)
but of course!
Agreed; all I'm saying is that I think the burden of proof is the other way round and I find it surprising that the public discourse focuses on inexperience, rather than safety. (that's not directed at you personally; I'm speaking generally).
I really do wonder how much of it has to do with money. There is a strong vested interest in both insurance companies and the state to keep teen insurance rates high, so it doesn't do to reassure parents that really, if their kids keep their seatbelts on and don't drink they really probably are reasonably safe. If parents knew that, they'd then want to know why the hell they're paying a fortune in insurance and the answer would be "Why, to protect us from getting skunked by the old folks who we can't charge up the wazoo, of course."
The teen who died by being hit by drag racers--if that was on public streets, doesn't it make her statistically equivalent to an adult? Or was it at a drag race? I always have to remind myself that some teens do die in normal, non-teen related car crashes.
Nothing the matter with that; it happens to me all the time.
WRT the drag racing, it was on public streets. They had no idea what was happening--never knew what hit them; but it's likely not on the books as a drag race, though it is as a drunk driving incident. I know what happened from the one survivor. I guess she would be an adult stat, though she was 15. I don't know how those are figured.
Then there's the Chicken incident. The ultimate in teen stupidity, and I'll never know who initiated that one. The girl--14 and seatbeltless--died instantly. Two of her passengers were flung out the window and now suffer lifelong scars and the "friend" going the other way spent weeks in the hospital and many surgeries.
And then there's the Corvette going 120 when it hit the tree in the curve, and the kid running away from home who stole gas and left the exit ramp and hit the concrete embankment at over 100 mph. I know several others up close and personal. When you know a lot of kids and accidents, it skews your perspective, I must say.
Well, for one thing, old folks are way the fuck more powerful than teenagers. It is also politically unpopular. And no, insurance companies can't just charge whatever they want. They have to demonstrate risk, and it has to be within certain parameters. Dusty would know way more about this than I do.
As it is, the elderly are second only to teens in fatalities per mile driven and they get a discount from most insurance companies. I don't see this changing as boomers age.
That's why insurance companies have so many other ways to compensate to ensure profit--like using tickets as a correlator with risk. There is much more support for a morality-based approach to insurance rates--they break the law, so stick them with the bill! Gives people the illusion of control. Alas, it isn't really all that effective a correlator--particularly with old people, who get into all sorts of accidents but don't get tickets. But it means that insurance companies have to make their money off of people like me (lots of tickets, few or no claims) and teenagers, who as a group suffer from high fatalities and high ticket rate (the second due to inexperience), but since the effect is limited to certain pools, it means that they are probably collecting huge premiums from a majority of teen drivers that rarely file claims.
Hardly fair, of course. But then, geezers are powerful.
No, I'm sure she counted as a teen stat. My point was only that some percentage of teens (drivers or passengers) do die in accidents that could just as easily happen to adults--either they aren't at fault, or it was something that could have happened to anyone.
The insurance industry in my state is under the jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission. Insurance rates are supposed to be set by acutarials -- the risk represented by others in your group. That group considers your age, gender, the kind of car you drive, where you live, how many miles you typically drive and the like.
Risk and insurance rates rise for elderly drivers
The Insurance Services Office (ISO), a statistical-gathering group for the insurance industry, suggested eliminating the insurance premium discount for motorists over the age of 75 back in 1997 due to their declining driving records. Dave Dasgupta, a spokesperson for the ISO, says its research shows drivers over age 75 experienced more losses — property damage and bodily injuries — relative to other drivers, so the ISO recommended eliminating the 20 percent discount, which effectively would be a rate increase.
You see, there should be these transmitters along the lanes of the highways and various main roads, and cars should be built with these internal devices that make it possible for the car to be driven by signals transmitted from these transmitters.
Before entering a highway you would 'tell' a terminal in your car where you wanted to go. This data would be transmitted to the highway control computer and you'd get a green light to enter the highway. From that point on you'd be on autopilot, for most intents and purposes (though you could still take over control of the car if you felt you had to).
Once you were on a lane, your car would go at 90 kph or whatever speed was deemed right for that lane on that road. Sensing devices along the highway lanes would monitor your car and make sure it was always on lane, sounding an alarm of sorts if the car veered off track or slowed down / sped up. Essentially, you'd be driving along a rail, more like a toy electric car or train than anything else.
Other transmitters and receivers on the cars' bumpers (or wherever) would make sure the cars were always a safe distance apart from each other. Should a car break down or stop for whatever reason, an emergency signal would make sure all the other cars behind it also braked, and alarms would go off in the cars to waken the drivers (who could be asleep, because their car was on autopilot once it was on the highway).
Once you exited the highway at your predetermined exit point, you'd be back in full control of your car.
I thank you.
Really? I didn't know that. Is there anywhere else where I can read about this? Are they just smart or do they actually take over your car?
I am waiting for the right moment but I do intend to write about my parenting and parenting related experiences. Thanks...
In the meantime - Tami says WHAMMO! 
borrow" anything, but especially money, the return date is some time in infinity.
And now, I'll suggest he create a "rug shampoo blues" tune and play it for me on his guitar.
Maybe "Oh, I wanna see my baby...but first gotta do some work, gotta clean these carpets, yeah, or I can't be with my baby....I got the rug shampooing bluuuuues, oh yeah.
I do want to hear the tune, though. He's very good at creating tunes and lyrics.
I'm bad on chores, since they require structure. Spawn probably gets off light--except times like now when he's been irresponsible and I am Queen Bitch on Wheels.
Sounds like me when my son was younger. Now he's almost 24 and lives in another city. I try to be reasonable....after all, the days are rapidly approaching when it might be Quivering Pines for me. :- )
My mother once said that she realized just how spoiled I was when we walked through F.A.O. Schwartz without my asking for a thing, secure in the knowledge that I didn't have to. ;-)
If I may -- I don't have time to worry about the psychology of this. 18 ton of stone appeared in my driveway this morning. I have two able bodied sons and they will move 18 tons of stone. There are no other options.
HTH did 18 tons of stone appear in your driveway, Uz?
another day older and deeper in debt....
The air conditioned workshop? or, 18 ton of stone?
Mose has certain things she's just required to do around here, and she also helped me a lot in prepping and cleaning up after our party without me asking. If it's maintaining our home, as a member of the family I expect her to do her part, but for a party I was having I didn't expect her to do anything except have her room and bathroom nice and clean. I paid her $10 to do a list of things I needed the day before like peeling potatoes, going to the store (in her car), etc, and she did a lot apart from that and on Sunday afternoon did a lot of cleaning in the kitchen and dining room without even telling anyone while Bob and I were resting.
nice to see you, too. You never fail to crack me up.
arky
can't you just? Those poor boys!
Rustler,
Thanks for your son's picture. Handsome boy, very cute nose!
I was once involved in a custody-related battle. It involved for me not to take my children anymore to spend the summer abroad because there was the risk that we would never come back here. I had more trouble with the American grand-parents than I did with my sons' dad: they had more money and he was a dutiful son. My ex-husband and I finally resolved the issue in sending our boys to spend a summer school vacation with the grand-parents. The year after, the grand-parents were invited by my family to take the boys along with them and meet everyone. My sons complained the whole summer how much they missed their friends at home and how everything 'sucked' there. Meanwhile, I visited the west coast one summer, the east coast the second one, and the third I stayed home happily. Nowadays, my sons are too busy with their own lives to bother with going abroad, besides, their foreign relatives visit them now.
Yeah, true nuff. It's a legitimate risk, too. I don't think I would ever have kids with someone who wasn't American for just that reason. Not unless they were willing to renounce their citizenship.
I would never have done that either. Especially to a Frenchman (naturalized or not) who could register the children born of the marriage at the French Embassy. This act would have given the option to our children to choose to be French at 18 were they inclined to do so.
I felt that I was American, married to an American, and having American children who did not need at 18 to have such option as a French naturalized father might have wanted to provide them.
I always believed that my children could choose to be French once they knew what it meant to be an American adults.
DALLAS (AP) -- T-shirts emblazoned with a decrepit mobile home and the words ``Home Skooled'' were pulled from J.C. Penney stores Wednesday because of customer complaints.
Please see Al Bundy's Nine Commandments (Message # 273 in thread 113). I refer to Commandment No. 2, of course.
That's my daughter, but yes, her nose is quite cute... ;-)
I couldn't agree with you more since it's been a bane for me more than once in this country. You get tired to hear "Your compatriots did it again to us".
About your daughter, sorry about being mistaken. I thought you had a boy. The tresses had me puzzled at first but then I thought, those Israelis are peculiar...right?
Anyway, I posted somewhere about a too-many-kids family leaving its youngest to die in the driveway and then doing a lot, a whole lot, of very public grieving.
Well, yesterday a grand jury no-billed the dad after considering a charge of criminally negligent homicide.
"We are coping fine, we have a strong faith and believe that ____ is very busy where she is," (dad)___ said.
I'M WELL AWARE OF HOW SICK THE WORLD IS
...but if you insist, I'll just go away for a while. Bye.
Low Conflict Divorce May Be Harder on Kids
"Being stuck in a household where there is a lot of discord puts children at greater risk for depression, problems in their own marriage when they do marry, problems in friendships and a tendency not to go on to college," Amato said. "Divorce benefits these children because it removes them from an aversive, conflict-ridden, hostile home." Perhaps most important, Amato said, divorce excises a negative role model of love from the home.
"If you ask what is wrong with the marriage, these couples just go on and on," Amato said. "These are what you would call terrible marriages--marriages that fit our preconception of divorcing couples."
But children whose divorced parents had low-conflict marriages (that is, they rarely fought and reported being pretty happy during the marriage, then continued to socialize and said they still loved each other after divorce), fared worse in adult romantic relationships. "When kids grow up in families with parents who had these 'good enough' marriages that end in divorce, they do badly," Amato said. "They are more likely to see their own marriages end in divorce and have problems in general forming intimate relationships."
But here's the thing I suddenly realized, in reading this piece--for all the definitions provided, Amato and others seem to be saying that the outcome of the divorce on the kids has something to do with whether or not the kids were aware of the problems. But nothing I can see in this article (and other articles I've read on the study) mentions what happens if severe conflict occurs without any demonstration in front of the kids.
So if a spouse screws around incessantly and the other spouse bears up without comment and the kids don't know about it, the kids are in a "low conflict" marriage--and postdivorce the one spouse may say they were happy and loved each other. Same marriage and the other spouse fights about it constantly, it's high conflict. But then, so is a marriage where they just fight all the time--no violence, just lots of shouting and ill will and nasty comments--the kids are in a high conflict marriage.
As VW has said before, a marriage that is lousy for the parents isn't necessarily lousy for the kids. But it seems that a major determinant of low and high conflict is whether or not the kids can see it--not the behavior itself.
This again goes back more to the personality of the parents than to the actual behavior involved--one could argue this is true even in the ultimate high conflict marriage (violence) if it occurred where the kids didn't know about it.
I do wonder if the "martyred" spouse can remain pleasant and seemingly happy in front of the children while the other spouse screws around all the time. Wouldn't the veneer crack at times when the "happy family" is all together?
Agreed. That's what is interesting to me--that this, more than the actual degree of conflict in the marriage, is what is operative. Kids can't always tell that their parents are faking it (although I'm sure a number of them can). So if parents are the sort who don't show their animosity in front of the kids, the kids are better off if the parents stay married and worse off if they divorce. And vice versa.
But that suggests that parents should give serious consideration to their ability to hide their unhappiness from the kids, in thinking about whether or not to get divorced--rather than what the actual problems are.
Most parents don't want their kids hurt, but they are entitled to happiness too and not locked into a miserable marriage.
Perhaps the worse cased senario is the parent who comes home one day, and says with no warning, "honey, I'm in love and want a divorce."
Father and Son
Father
It's not time to make a change,
Just relax, take it easy.
You're still young, that's your fault,
There's so much you have to know.
Find a girl, settle down,
If you want you can marry.
Look at me, I am old, but I'm happy.
I was once like you are now, and I know that it's not easy,
To be calm when you've found something going on.
But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.
Son
How can I try to explain, when I do he turns away again.
It's always been the same, same old story.
From the moment I could talk I was ordered to listen.
Now there's a way and I know that I have to go away.
I know I have to go.
Father
It's not time to make a change,
Just sit down, take it slowly.
You're still young, that's your fault,
There's so much you have to go through.
Find a girl, settle down,
if you want you can marry.
Look at me, I am old, but I'm happy.
(Son-- Away Away Away, I know I have to
Make this decision alone - no)
Son
All the times that I cried, keeping all the things I knew inside,
It's hard, but it's harder to ignore it.
If they were right, I'd agree, but it's them you know not me.
Now there's a way and I know that I have to go away.
I know I have to go.
(Father-- Stay Stay Stay, Why must you go and
make this decision alone?)
Being a parent of grown children is not easy. You think once they reach that age, you've done your job...but you never retire from being a parent.
Thus, part of me looks to the day when they are "on their own". Further thus, to hear that parenting never ends seems, from my current perspective, to mean somewhat of an unending burden. Oh, I know without knowing that one never stops worrying about one's kids even when they are mature adults, but I would at least like to hope that the stage will come when they really don't want us to be heavily involved in their decisions.
On the other (and last) hand, I certainly recall having sought the advice of my parents as to what were major decisions in my 20s and early 30s (such as whether to clerk for an additional year, changing professions, etc.), so maybe I am just being a myopic son when I "worry" too much about what my kids will expect of me after they become adults.
Oh, of course they will. I assumed that Judith and PP were referring to their desire to interfere even when it wasn't wanted. Given you don't foresee that possibility, I wouldn't worry too much.
A couple paid another woman to be a surrogate mother, and cancelled out when the results were twins. They wanted the mother to abort one of them after the twelfth week.
Ick.
So now the parents are saying breach, but that they found another couple who wants twins and is willing to take over the parenting. This is news to the surrogate, who just wants her parental rights back in order to ensure an adoption--in California, if you enter into a surrogacy contract, you surrender all parental rights to the paying couple.
So I'm not clear why the surrogate mother is suing if the parents are willing to pay her costs and find parents to adopt. But if they are claiming breach and refusing to pay her, I think she has a case.
I, and for many I know, it isn't easy not to let go (interfer) and know where there line is...it's just part of the learning process. Sigh
I agree. I was speaking mainly of just not wanting to "bug" my kid too much. I don't interfere in his life unless you call inviting him to dinner now and then interfering. He doesn't turn me down that often so I don't guess he thinks so, either.
One thing I wonder, is it different if your kid is a girl and or boy?
I hope I'll be less inclined to worry when Mose is on her own.
I wasn't disagreeing with any of you...and I do know about wondering where "the line" is, and I know about missing him and the times we had before.
I think I will never feel secure that my son is healthy; that is one of the things that causes me to worry.
I don't know the situation with your son, but if mine were not healthy, or had a chronic health issue, I would worry all the time.
Look at it all this way - you've obviously done a terrific job in raising them in that they really are independent and "living large" as you say, yet obviously still with love and affection for you and your wife and a desire to stay close.
My son had Hodgkins when he was 10 and 2 years ago, he had a mild stoke or something like one which left him weakened on one side but from which he has recovered nicely. He is still vague on some of his memories, though.
He is a very physical man today...39 years old, 6'1', 195lbs or so...and was considered something of a miracle child when he survived the chemo at 10...his particular treatment was considered experimental at the time.
Rest assured, they will.
Thank you for telling me. Oh, what you and your son have gone through. My heart goes out to you.
What do the docs say now about all this?
This reminds me how fortunate indeed I am. The biggest problems my son had were chronic sinus infections and allerges.
PP, I admire how well you and your wife have done.
My son was pronounced cured, not just in remission but cured, when he was 22. And trhe strokelike episode was attributed to his blood pressure. He's now on meds for that so he's fine.
We went through a lot but I consider myself lucky; of all his pediatric oncologists patients at that time, he is the only survivor. All the parents I knew from that experience celebrate their childrens birthdays alone while I can still bake mine a cake.
But I still get antsy if he gets a cold or cough...this year, he got bronchitis and I worried myself silly over it but he took care of it himself.
police with guns, anyone with guns, cars whose axels fall apart while the car is being driven, volcanic eruptions (hey, it happened here,) tornedos, hurricanes, earthquakes, road rage drivers and contaminated food??? This is not over worry...and these are just my worries so far today!!
Arky's right..it's how you control your feelings are the probglem.
I'm mailing the tape tomorrow.
Some scientists believe that kids simply aren't wired to care
By Meghan Mutchler Deerin Special to the Tribune Published August 12, 2001
When an otherwise reasonable adolescent takes the car out for a predawn spin, doesn't crack a book until the night before the exam or guzzles beer until she gets sick on the driveway, parents typically blame raging hormones, but now scientists have hit upon a new theory.
While studying brain images of normal teenagers, neuroscientist Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health and neurologist Paul Thompson of the University of California at Los Angeles recently made a surprising discovery.
They found that adolescents undergo dramatic changes in the frontal lobe, or prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain critical to judgment, reason, self-control and planning.
"The surprise is how late very, very drastic brain growth is taking place," said Thompson, who directs UCLA's Laboratory of Neuro Imaging. "In late teens, the prefrontal cortex is the area that's changing the fastest, and we know that prefrontal cortex is really known to be responsible for inhibitions, suppressing risky behavior and controlling impulses."
"Teens often change in personality through those years, from being very emotional risk-takers to being very self-controlled by the mid-20s," Thompson said. "At the same time, the prefrontal cortex, which suppresses risky impulses and is involved in self-control, is growing the fastest. Wouldn't it be an intriguing thing if the brain changes mirror to some degree the change in behavior?"
If their theory proves true, it might point to a greater need for parental involvement during the teen years, Thompson said.
"It really enforces the need for good family support," Thompson said. "You need a lot of guidance through those years."
Giedd has gone a step further, suggesting that the types of activities teenagers engage in, from playing video games to watching MTV, could negatively affect their brain development. More constructive activities, such as playing sports or a musical instrument, could have positive repercussions for the brain.
Those inferences have drawn the ire of other experts in the field.
"Anything neuroscientists have to say about how the maturity of the frontal lobe relates to behavior is just speculation," said John Bruer, president of the James S. McDonnell Foundation in St. Louis, which funds research in cognitive neuroscience. "For every kid who's supposed to have unplugged frontal lobes, I can show you one who's playing the Mozart concerto."
Bruer, who is the author of "The Myth of the First Three Years" (Free Press, $25), which criticized the fervor about early brain growth, lambasted this latest theory as the next installment in pop psychology.
Mounting evidence
Meanwhile, other brain-development experts are hailing the newest theory as another drop in a deepening pool of evidence that indicates the frontal lobes may take two or more decades to fully develop.
"I think it's dead on," said Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.
Author of several books on attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, Barkley has studied brain development in children and adolescents. He and many of his colleagues theorize that most people don't become fully self-aware until their early 30s.
"What we tend to do is look at teens as if they see things the same way we do and, of course, they don't," Barkley said. "This is why all kids save their summer reading until Labor Day."
Giedd and Thompson's observations help to explain why teenagers have a time horizon of one to three days, compared with the average 35-year-old, who has the capacity to plan 8 to 12 weeks ahead, Barkley said.
"It's that ability to plan ahead that is the essence of the frontal lobe," Barkley said. "What [Giedd and Thompson] have shown is that, of course, the frontal lobe, is not mature yet."
As a result, Barkley said, kids don't always think things through. Typically, they don't fully anticipate the consequences of an act before they commit it.
Experimentation common
Fortunately, run-ins with the law are not common for most teens, but experimentation is, said Glen Ellyn psychologist Thomas Phelan, author of "Surviving Your Adolescents: How to Manage and Let Go of Your 13- to 18-year-olds" (Child Management, $12.95).
"Most 15-year-olds are not going around shooting each other, but you have to accept the fact that most teens are going to experiment," Phelan said. "You want to minimize the more dangerous forms of experimentation and not have a cow or a fit when you run across your teen doing something you don't like."
Full text:
See:
McCrone, J. (2000) Rebels with a cause. New Scientist. 165: 22-27.
Giedd, J.N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N.O., Castellanos, F.X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T., Evans, A.C., & Rapoport, J.L. (1999) Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience. 2: 861-863.
Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M., Holmes, C.J., Jernigan, T.L., & Toga, A.W. (1999) In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience. 2: 859-861.
I tend to agree with this--I don't buy the inferences. But the brain development discovery is fascinating. Until recently, adolescents were considered adults. I wonder how they coped in previous centuries, being adults while still developing?
But, I don't think it is necessary that one must be "done" with all growth/development to be functioning. There are species that never stop growing (literally), like fish. THey have an upper limit, but they die before they reach it.
In a non-modern world, perhaps being like that was to some advantage. What caught my eye was the "perhaps teenagers need more parenting", something I know that vw has brought up (and, now that I'm on a zillion boards along with all of you, I have no Idea if it was here or on any of the other ones).
So the video-game critique is a good one.
(Do people really blank on their adolescence? I have a hard time fathoming that adults would not be able to relate. Rather, I think, as an adult, I have gained perspective, and value things differently, but I have not forgotten).
In the past, by the time most kids were adolescent, they were probably working, and didn't have time for all the angst that our more leisured times permit.
So...it appears that 13 y/o SS is downloading (softcore) porn on our home computer. Heh - he doesn't know about histories and caches, evidently.
Opinions? Do we bust him out?
Actually, PP, we're kinda tickled. It's reassuring to us that he's doing something so completey...age appropriate and normal.
My husband is tempted to bust him (but won't) because of an incident that happened recently. IF jokingly asked SS if he and his cousin, who were at the cousin's house alone with satelite TV, had tried to access the porno channels. SS made a HUGE show of being offended, and told his mother that IF wanted to force him into watching pornographic movies, which of course meant she called the GAL in yet another attempt to get SS's parental rights nullified. Of course, the GAL knows she's psycho (SS doesn't look at boob shots or masturbate because he's not A PERVERT) so no problem, but IF was justifiably pissed at the sanctimonious little twit.
Who is now downloading GIRLS GONE WILD!! and other silly crap while we sleep.
Heh.
My inclination is not to bust -- he's 18 and leaves for college in two weeks, my sister would go apoplectic and probably react all out of proportion, and it would definately be traced back to yours truly as the buster.
No bust. But make sure he knows you did him a solid.
In the second, if your nephew is 18 he's legal to smoke, right? You are right busting will cause a huge hassle a big hassle right before he leaves. And he'll to to college and probably smoke more and more. If he doesn't stop, his mom will learn quickly, anyway.
Ad,
I won't even check Spawn's cache on his laptop because it feels like sneaking--not that you were sneaking, just that you can easily end up with info you'd rather not have. Given the many issues, I wouldn't scare the kid by letting him think you were checking up on him. Rather, I would casually have a conversation with the hub in front of him about how you carefully cleaned up the temporary internet files so he wouldn't be able to track down what you got him for his birthday, or something like that.
Then if the hub hasn't had an updated version of The Talk lately, it'd be a good thing to do, along with a casual mention of how he used pornography when he was SS's age, and so on.
I can't really say I know how to do this because while I'm perfectly willing to talk to Spawn about sex, he has a heart attack whenever I introduce it. He swears he will ask me any questions he might have, provided that I never talk about it again lest he die of humiliation. And since he does ask carefully guarded questions, I go along with this rule.
Totally defective, psycho, and, the suction cup things that are supposed to stick to the tiles never stick, and the whole thing comes crashing down. I thought I was the model of efficiency until i realized the joke was on me.
I think someone who does that to his adoptive father is a cur. But society permits that kind of violence because it is directed at the father, and fathers are scum in today's world. The guy got off with a meeting or two at the social worker's, and now he thinks he's real cool. And he's showing his muscles off to my younger son and buying himself a bike with money he ripped off from me and going to the gym and drinking raw eggs like Rocky.
The bastard was conceived when my wife's schoolteacher raped her, in Kenya. He was a 7 year old cowherd when I came into his life. He let me raise him and send him to good schools and buy him stuff and hug him and kiss him and take him to soccer practice and pay for his CDs and his gym and then when he was tall and strong he said 'thankyouverymuch', and didn't even forget to kick me when I was down.
Go ahead CalGal, or any of you other sorry fucks, have another go at me. Tell me something to add insult to injury like you did last time I brought it up.
He will regret it when he discovers that all his brawn gets him nowhere socio-economically, and his friends have good jobs while he is working as a mechanic and falling quite neatly into society's stereotypes of what people from Africa are like.
I don't know what he'll do in the army but I do know that if he wants to enter a unit where security clearance or some kind of parental okay is needed and they come to talk to me - I'll tell them he's a dirtbag. In any case, he's a lazy fuck and a coward and something tells me he won't be going to a particularly good unit anyways.
As for me - I stand a good chance of getting custody of my children, thanks in no small degree to the fact that I was the victim in this violent episode (which led to his leaving the house, and then to his mother following him out).
I'll get over the trauma and the anger. And I am more motivated to finally get in shape. I've started swimming again and I do hope this time I won't stop till I get a decent-sized body.
Hey - maybe when I'm 40 or 41 I'll beat him up back.
Something tells me you may connect with this ornithological dejecta site.
OF COURSE you're not over what happened to you. Not only was it a traumatic experience involving family, but it was physically painfully. And besides, it was recent!
I bet that in the future, he will regret what he did to you. Whether or not he ever tries to make amends to you, I don't know, but I bet he'll regret what he did.
You know, it's not the physical pain, really. It's extremely traumatic but it's not the pain. There's something about getting beaten up that totally demolishes you. Especially when there is no punishment, the person who did it is still there and can do it again.
I wish the best for you and your family, RP.
I just have to avoid any kind of confrontation with Anna or her spawn.
Thx ark. I am very close to the small ones. It's not just that, though: Anna's background and present-day attitude means that, if the kids move out with her, they'll wind up living in a slum, having to adjust to a new place and a new school where they will likely be regarded as kushim - the term used for Africans out here in racist Israel (pssst - don't tell the people in the I&P thread I said that about Israel!). She herself is hardly in a position to help them fit in socially in a new environment.
Most likely, if custody is not made contingent on Anna's remaining in the Katzir-Karkur area, they will wind up in the Central Bus Station area of Tel Aviv, where the foreign workers live and most of Anna's friends reside.
Whereas in Katzir - they are simply Erez and Tami. When we came here they were 3 and 6 months old, respectively. Tami is the class queen, more or less, and Erez is a well-liked and well-adjusted guy.
Had the jerk just verbally abused you, it wouldn't hurt so bad and on so many levels. I think that being able to see what he did to you has to be bad. Sure the black eye heals, but looking at yourself in the mirror and seeing it is terrible.That he beat you up has got to be traumatic emotionally and physically. I feel for you friend.
I'm sending hugs and cyber icepacks your way.
I just saw it on Greenfield At Large, Shannon. She didn't have a guest on at the time, which is what made it particularly awful. At least that's what they said, and what the clip implied. I didn't see anything more; apologies in advance if I misstated something. I'll see if I can find the transcript.
What's wrong with everyone?
There have been so many atrocious crimes commited against children these days it's disgusting. I literally wept when I read about the sick bastard who killed his two infant daughters with a shotgun, then shot is pregnant wife in the belly before shooting her in the head and then killing himself; which happened in Texas.
I cannot watch the news hardly at all.
Hey, how are you and spouse? Haven't had time to even say "hi" lately.
You?
You?
Waiter? Some more orange juice, please.
Early morning hug from Erez makes your thwacking meaningless anyways, Abs. 
Does earlobe-biting count as domestic violence?
So...it appears that 13 y/o SS is downloading (softcore) porn on our home computer. Heh - he doesn't know about histories and caches, evidently.
My kids regularly check my history and cache... not that there's ever anything to find...
Hey, RustlerPike, you must have given a large part of your heart to your stepson for it to hurt so much. I had a friend, real tough biker guy, break down in tears one night telling me about how his son called him stupid & they got in a fight. It was years since it'd happened and he was still hurt. You'll get over the anger and the hurt will get a lot less in time. Lotsa hugging going on in those pictures, keep focused on that.
avian dejecta? splays? I'm horrified to admit I found Peregrine Falcon, 45 mph, actually sort of interesting. "....a series of long sploodish threads." I must have missed the original reference, but it sounds like some people here have gotten hit by dejecta freshola. Hope it wasn't on the head.
From back aways, Webfeet, try moistening the suction cups before you place them and don't put them on a grout line. Put it down low so the edge of the tub can take some of the stress/weight. Uh, I think I bought a similar thingy.
Åse, I enjoyed the article you posted about teens. I didn't get the feeling from the later quotes that anyone thought teens were aliens, though - just inexperienced people who don't have a history of prior situations to draw from.
At first I thought you were talking about a breast pump with webfeet, then I realized you're talking about her bath toy!;-)
(Scratches head).
Whoops.
Thanks. I'll think about that.
It kills me that there is no punishment though. Punishment is very important when something like that happens, and you're living in the same vicinity with the perp. I think I will try to pull some of my newly-formed strings to have the guy visit regularly with the social worker for talks, once a week for a year.
A 17 year old behaves violently and nobody punishes (or 'treats') him - that's bad for everybody, especially him. Each year in Australia, more than 1,000 men aged between 25 and 44 take their own lives. The rate of suicide among these adult males is over twice the teen (15-19) suicide rate. While the male teen suicide rate has been stable for the past decade, the rate for these adult males has been rising since the 1970s. Most of them, like Wilton, are likely casualties of family breakdown.
(...)
[Researcher] Cantor strongly argues that the risk will remain until men are treated more fairly by the Family Court and supported in their role as parents. The final report from the Family Law Pathways Advisory Group - established by the Attorney-General last year - is soon to be considered by Cabinet. It recommends the family law system pay more attention to the needs of fathers and spells out flaws in the current system which increase distress for these men.
I suspect a lot of bad shit happened to him before then. With a ten-year relationship as father-figure, you can't wipe that off.
I know that it must hurt terribly to have had him beat you up (no, I don't really know how much it hurts, it hasn't happened to me), but can you walk away from that ten-year relationship? There is a lot of you in him, and you are the only father he will ever have.
Bad stuff happens in families, but we have to live with it. He's still in your family, he's the brother of your children.
That's an interesting turnabout, Irving. Why do they?
Two reasons: because they can, and because kids love to snoop. I don't hide anything on my hard disk, and they have checked it all out. They know where I go on the internet, and that's fine with me, because I have nothing to hide.
Rustler:
You should move to an Islamic country. Fathers' rights are the rule, and dads usually get custody. Of course, women are treated like crap, and there is no such thing as feminism, but I can't imagine that would bother you too much.
I don't disagree with anything in the passage you quoted, btw. I think the needs of both parents should be taken into account in Family Court.
RP, feel free to take it to SI. Just post it as you did here without calling anyone names.
I have been very concerned about what seems to be a stead slow increase in teenage male suicides. I also think there is a direct connection between the undiagnosed or unsuccessfully treated depression that causes suicide and the ocassional high profile boy who guns down school mates and teachers ... IOWs I think we are looking at the same dynamic in both cases.
Another aspect beyond the inequities found in most Family Law concerning divorce and custody is that men are rarely the target of public mental health campaigns that focus on domestic issues.
IMO, that is the crux of the issue. In the US we spend inordinate amounts of money supporting programs meant to assist women in navigating domestic violence and divorce issues with their lives intact but I am unaware of any program offerings for men.
Jenerator, breast pump + grout = OW! You're so funny it hurts. From his previous research, Cantor suspects that loss of meaningful contact with children will emerge as a major risk factor for suicide. His research shows women with children are less likely to commit suicide than similarly aged women without children. "It seems highly likely that most of the suicide problems associated with separated men may relate to child access problems. The research suggests that some non-custodial mothers may be in the same boat."
Overseas, other researchers are reaching similar conclusions. Augustine Kposowa, associate professor of sociology at the University of California at Riverside, analysed data from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study and found the risk ratio for divorced men is 8.6 times the rate for divorced women. He, too, is convinced the key factor is men's loss of their children.
"Even with visitation rights, a man may not get to see his children. He's experienced loss of love through the break-up of the relationship and then he faces the loss of his children. This drives some men, especially in the early stages of separation, to come to the conclusion that life is not worth living," says Kposowa, who is researching the role of the court system and loss of custody in the heightened suicide risk for divorced men.
>>>
Am I the only one who finds this incredibly sad reading?
Edward Kruk, social work professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada, has conducted research in both Britain and Canada on the impact of divorce on fathers. He found that after losing daily contact with their offspring the fathers passed through a grieving process similar to that of parents whose child has died. Sixty-one per cent described mental health difficulties not experienced before the divorce, including suicidal tendencies.
can you walk away from that ten-year relationship?
I think so. What happened certainly makes that easier.
Bad stuff happens in families, but we have to live with it. He's still in your family, he's the brother of your children.
That you're right about.
You should move to an Islamic country. Fathers' rights are the rule, and dads usually get custody. Of course, women are treated like crap, and there is no such thing as feminism, but I can't imagine that would bother you too much.
You're the Muslim, not me. I'm not for women being treated like shit, but I'm not for men being driven to suicide either. The Western model is every bit as cruel to men as the Muslim one is towards women, and perhaps moreso: at least the traditional model gives the Mother tremendous respect, in her traditional role. The Western model sees the Father as a piece of shit, period.
I beg to disagree. First of all, what matters is the cruelty itself, and whether or not it written in the law or not is secondary. There was no law that enforced lynching of African Americans in the 1950s, and many of the iniquities suffered by women in the pre-fem years were not written in law either: that didn't make the suffering any easier to bear. There was no law that said 'women are sex objects' or 'it is OK to rape women' or 'it is OK to beat wives'. Quite the contrary. Rape and wifebeating were always considered offenses.
In a sense it is much worse this way: a man in a divorce situation is likely to feel that the entire system is rigged against him. His wife, the police, the social workers, the court, the judicial norms, the cultural climate - all of these seem to be in harmony with each other, and all seem bent on depriving him of his children, no matter how good a father he is and how strong the bonds. He is likely to feel that he has nowhere and no one to turn to, no way to get justice or even a semi-fair hearing.
The fact that none of this is written anywhere only contributes to the sense of helplessness. Laws can be changed with a vote in Congress. But something which is written nowhere yet seems to be everywhere - that's something you can't fight. Where do you start?
Oh, wait I forgot ... I can't possibly be doing those things ... I'm a feminazi! (grin)
I am not denying the serious problems that exist; I've spent far more time ranting about them than most. All I'm saying is that the American system, for all its many many faults, does not have laws that explicitly give preference to the mother, based on biology, psychology, or religious mandate. That's all. It's impossible to compare it to Islam for that reason.
I think the most important element of change is to completely remove the court's discretion from most family matters. It is appalling that a judge can casually deny a parent (usually a father) legal custody, or decide that bickering divorced parents are bad for kids--so take them away from one parent altogether. Of course what they really mean is that their problems are clogging the courts--what is best for the kids is irrelevant.
I think two major changes would wipe out a lot of women's power.
1. Mandatory joint physical custody.
2. No income redistribution.
Did you read the rest of my post? I agree that father's rights are important. The point I was trying to make is that the needs of both parents need to be considered, not just the mother's (as in practice in western countries) or the father's (as in Islamic countries).
I have spent the last five years working with a group of lawyers, psychologist, and social workers attempting to change family law in NYS to mitigate the built in gender inequities.
Within what framework are you doing this and what is your position there, roughly? Is this a private or official group, or in between? What headway have you made? What suggestions did you guys put together? Is there opposition?
I think two major changes would wipe out a lot of women's power.
1. Mandatory joint physical custody.
2. No income redistribution.
I think the idea should be to cause divorce to be a less beckoning option - something done only when there is absolutely no other way to avoid disaster (if there are kids in the picture. If there aren't - it's not really a divorce in my book). Divorce should cease being a norm, and society should cease prescribing it as an over-the-counter solution to mild marital headaches, the way it does now.
However, I don't think what you suggest will necessarily be good enough to deal with the problem: it's very harsh and dictatorial, and I'm not sure it's just. In other words, it does seem fair to me that a wife who didn't work - or didn't work much - outside the house for 20 or 30 years, and raised 2 or 3 kids, and helped her husband through thick and thin etc., would get a good 'pension' for that. It could be half or a third of what he makes, or it could go up to a certain limit or it could depend on how many years they were together or why they were divorcing, but throwing her out into the street would not be fair.
>>>
Your suggestion is distinctly that of a career woman: it says - 'if you didn't make damn sure to put your career first, woman, pay the price'. But I don't think that's fair towards most women. And my preferred model - though not the only one of course - is one where the wife doesn't pursue her career in exactly the same way the man does. I do think women should be redirected towards a more family-oriented role (though the role will be a modified one, and in any case not mandatory. If a woman insists on becoming a neurosurgeon or a Police Chief, no one will stop her). I don't want the system to punish women for raising the kids, taking care of the laundry and letting their husbands pay the bills. I'd even like to encourage that model.
I see the preferred domestic model as one where the husband is the President of the family and the woman is the Vice President.
I also think part of the solution should involve the community. Part of the problem is that people live in cities, move around a lot, and are not really a part of a community. There are no longer spiritual authorities like the neighborhood pastor to try and set things straight and make peace between people. One idea I have been toying with in recent years is the creation of a network of non-religious 'rabbis', or community 'wise men'.
I definitely agree with that. Apalling is the word.
Well, yes, but you can't force maturity on someone.
My thoughts and feelings exactly.
I wish more men thought this way.
You don't think the spectre of no income redistribution and mandatory joint physical custody will reduce divorce? I do. The way to reduce divorce isn't to make it harder to end a marriage, but to mandate contact with the spouse and the kids, no matter what--and have to work together without just ceding control to one parent.
As for a woman getting a "pension"--keep in mind that in this country, anyway, both partners get half the marriage assets whether or not they have children. I don't think they should, but that's how it works. I am talking about child support payments.
A woman who has children and can't support them is irresponsible--in this country, anyway. We have equal rights, we have equal responsibilities. If a woman gets to take several years off and not work, then she took a risk--knowing full well that divorce was a possibility. But she considered the luxury of not working worth the risk. Oh, well. Risk didn't pay off. But if a woman is given equal rights, and has the choice to take time off and kick back (keeping in mind that any stay at home mother does less than the working mother--or parent, for that matter) then oh, well. The risk didn't pay off, but at least she got several years off paid for. That's more than she would have had otherwise. Why is she entitled to anything more, given her total failure to contribute to family finances?
I know, I know, it has nothing to do with child support, income distrubution, or joint custody. But it does speak to the fact that not all stay at home moms are leeches out to get what they can without working for it.
1. That's not the law in every state. CA is not the entire US
2. Even in states with community property, that only happens if the partners can't agree on a division and the court orders how the property is split.
But I disagree about the president/vice-president analogy for husband and wife. In my view, it should be more like president/prime minister.
Which reminds me of the joke about the Irishman who was asked for the secret of his conjugal bliss.
-Division of labour. I make the major decisions, and I leave all the details to the wife.
- So what sort of stuff do you decide?
- Oh you know, the really important things. How to solve global warming; peace in the Middle East. That sort of stuff.
I laughed at that joke (and I'm a bit surprised at myself for laughing.)
The VP of the USA has less authority than the First Dog, not to mention the First Lady.
I completely disagree with you. Staying at home and providing constant, 24 hour care for children is just as hard if not harder than a paying job. In fact, what makes it even harder is that it is a NON paying job and at times an entirely thankless job. Running the household in addition to childcare isn't a "luxury" in the sense that you describe it.
Also, a stay at home mother eliminates daycare fees, so I guess she's not a complete financial "failure" in that sense, now is she?
No. My suggestion is distinctly that of a mother: If you didn't make damn sure to put your children first, then pay the price. A woman has the same responsibilities as a man does and that includes the responsibility to provide for her family--and not by using a man for a wallet. It is irresponsible not to provide for one's children. I see no reason why she should be rewarded for that by letting her continue to live off the man after the divorce.
As for your "preferred domestic model": so long as divorce is an option that doesn't carry significant and long-term financial burden and social stigma for both parties, you can't have your dream scenario. In fact, one of the major issues pushing women back into the workplace back in the 70s was that divorce laws no longer granted alimony, but instead expected the woman to work. It is reasonable enough--if women wanted equal rights, why should they not be expected to provide for themselves?
So if you don't want women to be punished for staying at home, you can't let them be Chief of Police, too. The only way to return to your preferred world (again, in America) is to return women to second class citizens. Quotas, job discrimination, and the like.
This has two problems: one, it means that women who really do "have" to support themselves (ie, no man to look after them) will operate at a severe disadvantage--for obvious reasons. And of course, it's a tad unfair for the many women who are quite capable of having relationships, having children, having careers, and providing for their kids. But I know that many people support this concept, in that the effect on the community offsets the negative impact on the few. I am not of that view, of course--and I actually think it is worse for children.
You don't think the spectre of no income redistribution and mandatory joint physical custody will reduce divorce? I do.
It'll definitely reduce the rate of wife-initiated divorce. But it will also definitely increase husband-initiated divorce. So what have you accomplished? Basically, you're forcing all women to put their career before the kids. Which is an anti-family attitude in my book. I think kids should come first. I don't think a kid is something you have because, well, you're at that age and you may as well make one.
Fair enough. But I don't believe that any state lets the man keep everything that was his. I think that when community property isn't the norm, the marriage is usually assessed for "fault"? I'm asking that, not asserting.
Staying at home and providing constant, 24 hour care for children is just as hard if not harder than a paying job.
You forget that working parents are providing constant care for all of but 8-10 of those hours. They have a paying job and provide constant care for a child--and putting a child in daycare is no more turning over responsibility than it is to put a child in school.
So all a stay at home parent does is provide 8-10 hours of daycare. And they get far more than most daycare providers when it comes to pay, so they are suitably recompensed.
They also have no boss, no job requirements--and in fact, will get the same pay whether they do a good job or a lousy job (namely, they live off the spouse).
A working parent has the same responsibilities as the stay at home parent, but has a job as well. They do far more.
Also, a stay at home mother eliminates daycare fees, so I guess she's not a complete financial "failure" in that sense, now is she?
Given that the cost of not working far exceeds the cost of daycare, no. The fact that she eliminates daycare fees doesn't mean that she's not failing to provide. To say nothing of the fact that stay at home parents have no responsibility to not use daycare--and they certainly do use schools, for the most part. So it's not a given that stay at homes are doing away with any expenses. (I agree that it is likely, though).
I reread #3979 three times and I still don't understand it. Can you explain a bit more what you're saying?
Thx.
Ah, but then there is the "mandated joint physical custody" bit. If you want to assume that a man is just going to dump his wife because there is no cost, figure he's going to think twice if he has to have the kids half the time.
Basically, you're forcing all women to put their career before the kids.
Um, no. I am saying that women need to put their families before their desire to stay home and have life a little easier. Again, it is far easier to stay at home and be a parent than it is to work and be a parent. "Career" is a loaded term. All it means to me is that a woman has the ability to provide for her family.
Also, you are assuming that motherhood has a value in and of itself, that the value of being at home with a child offsets a woman's responsibility to provide for the child in any other way. Assume for the moment that this is true (which of course I would dispute). If it is true, shouldn't the value of motherhood be a constant? Shouldn't it have an absolute dollar value, equal for each child and each woman?
But it doesn't. The "value" of motherhood, using your equation, is based solely on the size of the wallet of the man she marries. So a woman who marries a man who becomes crippled and can't work will receive no compensation for being a mother, whereas a woman who marries a rich man will not only get a nanny, a maid, and all sorts of other extras, but she will receive far more material worth as compensation for being a mother.
To me, the questions are more like what kind of work, how demanding, what hours... does she take months off for having babies... is it a more 'feminine' profession like a kindergarten teacher or a secretary or is it about beating the men at being men.
I know I'll get bashed on the head for that, and I admit it's not a very clearly focused argument I'm presenting here, but maybe someone will understand what I'm saying...
That you categorize stay at home moms as those women who are financial burdens and failures and who luxuriously do not work while providing an insignificant service that someone outside of the home could do, is very telling. If I could stay at home with my child and have my husband support us, even if it meant "giving up" a career or being on a tight budget, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I can think of nothing more healthy or desirable than raising a child in the family.
I'll try again.
You are basing your dream scenario on a world in which women are equal, and have equal rights, except when they want to stay home and not be equal and be cared for by a man--and have all the protections of inequality in the event of a divorce.
In truth, this is kinda sorta what happens in America--and I suspect in Israel as well. I don't approve of this, but it's a reasonable reflection of reality. But you want more protection for the women who stay home, and more protection for the men who want to be fathers.
I am saying that you won't be able to achieve the former unless society reverts to a world where women have secondary status.
I don't see how you can really achieve the latter unless you do the opposite, and start to treat men and women as full equals--which would mean something closer to my view, rather than yours.
So your dream world is definitely contradictory, and requires a step backwards for one part and a step forward for the other.
Let me restate to see if I have it accurately.
It's okay for women to work, but they should work at the "feminine" jobs. They don't pay as well, but that's okay--the money will "supplement" the "family" income (ie the man's), give her contact outside the home, but not put her in a "real" job, competing with men who generally have to provide for a whole family, including wives that just work for pin money.
This way the woman will always be able to provide for herself and give the illusion of independence--but of course, she won't really be able to have the same standard of living without a man around. Her job won't really be important, and that's okay because she has a "real" job--providing for children.
No sarcasm intended in any of that; I honestly think that is what you are saying. Do I have that right?
And in fact, I agree with you about it not really being a contest between stay at homes and "working" moms, but rather whether or not the mother can provide for the children that she has.
In other words, a woman who was a stockbroker for ten years and has several million dollars in assets is not being irresponsible if she decides to take some time off and hang out with the kids. A woman who has three children on a kindergarten teacher's salary because hubby is a lawyer is irresponsible--although not as irresponsible as the mother who has never held much of a job in her life and doesn't work because the family "can't afford" daycare.
As for taking care of the kids being somehow easy:
a) it's not just taking care of the kids: it's cleaning and cooking and washing, too. And it is more than that: it is Woman as Nurturer, as Someone To Come Home To, as Keeper of the Nest. It is Woman as Wife and Mother. It is Woman as Goddess of the Hearth and Womb. It gives meaning to being a woman, it gives Woman a role. Right now, women are just men with tits. This is a very large part of the sickness that pervades modern society, in my mind.
You can say what you want about Muslim or Orthodox Jewish society, but I disagree that women are treated like shit there. They are treated like shit sometimes - but they are treated a hell of a lot better than they are in Western society in other respects. They have a role and a function, and they are held in the highest esteem and reverence in those roles.
There is nothing more sacred than the Mother in the traditional religious societies that I can think of.
b) during three weeks of my recent, not-yet-over custody struggle, the kids were mostly with me (this was their way of saying 'hell-no-we-won't-go anywhere without Dad'. My wife claims I was inciting them, of course). Let me tell you, it's not easy. I almost broke down at the end of that period. Of course, there were other hardships involved here too, not just being with the kids. And it is the summer break. Otoh, they aren't tiny tots: if they were 3 and 6 rather than 6 and 9 I would have been dead by now.
It has nothing to do with whether or not income is tight. If you stay home, not only aren't you providing for your child, but you are putting your family at greater risk. Besides, you can't guarantee that you won't get divorced--which is a 30% risk in and of itself. (and before you mention your religion, look up the stats for Bible Belt divorces).
I believe the majority of women who go on welfare do so because of divorce (or they broke up with their boyfriend). I suspect you will find that they also were stay at home moms. So staying at home increases the chance that a mother will need welfare.
But assume that the mother can go back and get a job to support herself and her kids, and assume that the ex hubby pays all the child support due. The mother, in the meantime, has a much lower paying job, can barely make ends meet, and the kids and her have a much lower standard of living. Retirement? Ha. So kids have a tougher time, and mom is broke in her old age.
Ask the kids in that scenario if they would rather mom had been able to provide for them.
Staying home is a risk. It is also a luxury. Anyone who takes advantage of it should be aware of it and able to afford it. The majority of women who stay at home are both unaware and unable to afford it.
All of this is true in part of women who work to supplement the "family" income (nod to Rustler).
I didn't mention divorce at all. If you have been reading my posts with that factor in mind, I can see why were not connecting at all.
I had a problem with you claiming that staying at home isn't work and I had a problem with you suggesting that stay at home moms are financial failures.
It gives meaning to being a woman, it gives Woman a role.
Again, how is it you plan on this wonderful world where Women are Keeper of Hearth and Home and still allow divorce? And if women are to be less than equal, and can't be like men, how is it they are to be considered equal and have equal rights? How can you let someone who is supposed to be a keeper of the womb be a lawyer?
I know you didn't. But the moment you mention staying at home, it has to be brought up as a consideration. Because any "value" to staying at home has to be considered in light of whether or not the stay at home is neglecting their primary responsibility to their children.
I had a problem with you claiming that staying at home isn't work
It is less work than working. A working parent has all the responsibilities of a stay at home parent except the single limited task of being responsible for the children for 8-10 hours a day. Not the housework, not the errands, not anything else. Just daycare. And given that the parent who stays at home has no "job" to speak of, it is much easier.
See, that's what stay at homes should do--get a contract that guarantees them an income of 25K/year in the event of divorce.
But staying at home with the children instead of dumping them off in a daycare center with a stranger is way more desirable! Do you not see that the mother raising her child is way more valuable than working (if one has the option of staying at home)?
Secondly, I see nothing easy with staying at home, ESPECIALLY with a newborn or toddler. if anything the woman is responsible for the child 24 hours a day while the hubby sleeps and works and she does all of the housework, too. Going to an office would be relief. Having a nanny around would provide an opportunity to catch up on sleep. You get neither of these when you stay at home.
Your characterisation of what I'm saying, in #3988, is not far off the mark, but misses the essential meaning of my thoughts nonetheless.
I'm surprised and gratified that we're communicating civilly, but we do still seem to have some basic problems understanding each other. Part of the problem is similar to my problem with Andonly in the I&P Thread (ach, the problems I have with you women!). Basically, I am a romantic. You're not. I'll expound on that in a bit. But first:
If you stay home, not only aren't you providing for your child, but you are putting your family at greater risk.
You see, you're wrong.
When I stay at home with my daughter, I am with her. I hug her a lot, for no reason other than the fact that she's there and I'm there and I love her and she loves me. Sometimes I tell her 'look, I have to work now, if I don't work I won't be able to buy you stuff', and she either accepts that or she doesn't, but she's always first and that includes being with her, physically.
Now - she's 6 now. Part of the reason I think my kids grew up very strong, emotionally stable and loving is they always had their Mother with them when they were small. There was a period when I was in Israel for weeks on end and they were in Kenya. It was extremely hard for me and it was hard for Erez when I went away each time but at least I knew they were with their mother and they were OK.
This is on the level of gut instinct, so it may not sound very rational and ordered, but it is not any less true for that.
>>>
Show me a country or company that has co-Presidents, please.
Other than Ben and Jerry's.
"In my view, the definition of a good couple are two people who become better people by being together than they would be apart,"
This one...they just call one of them Cheney.
There is real value in staying with one's children and raising them.
No stranger can offer what a parent can. No daycare center is more valuable than time spent with children. There is no job that should come before a child.
When given the *option* of being able to stay with a child, I don't understand any woman who opts to plunk em down in a daycare center.
For those women who have to work (usually single mothers), that is a situation that is sad. I wish that they could stay at home with their children, but understand completely why they can't.
Do you have children?
hahahahahaha.
Actually, no it isn't. But in any event, the two parents could continue to work and just schedule their jobs so that one of them is always home.
Do you not see that the mother raising her child is way more valuable than working (if one has the option of staying at home)?
Quite apart from literally answering the question, are you saying that a father isn't raising his child unless he doesn't work?
Well, Andorra has co-princes. The president of France and the bishop of Godnozhuair in Spain.
It is worth mentioning that of the two of us, I'm the one who has actually done this. I'm not one to bring up the "experience" card (in fact, I loathe it) and I certainly wouldn't deny that many women who are parents agree with you. Nonetheless, I am a parent who has raised a newborn and a toddler and yet I have a different opinion. It happens.
In the Real World, there is the possibility that a husband will leave his wife. There is the possibility that a husband will lose his job. There is the possibility that a husband will get injured and not be able to work. There is the possibility that a husband will get killed in an accident or a crime. Then the wife will need to support the kids and/or husband and kids.
If a couple chooses a lifestyle where the wife stays home and takes care of the house and kids WITHOUT taking the above real risks of life into account, then they are being financially irresponsible. (BTW, I put it on BOTH the members of the couple, not just the wife)
This does NOT mean that a couple with the wife staying home is by definition being financially irresponsible. There are ways to cover the risk - insurance, investments, the wife keeping up her job skills and contacts, etc.
Conversely, all of the above listed disasters in the first paragraph can happen to a wife, leaving a husband to pay for the housekeeping and childcare services the wife was providing. So a financially responsible couple should plan for that too.
In addition, you can switch the words wife and husband in all of the above as it isn't always Mom who stays home to take care of the house and the kids.
Then my beautiful nephew was born and it changed everything. She decided in the hospital that she was going to be a stay at home mother. There was no way she was going to leave her child. When she's craving adult stimulation, she goes to work for a half day and her child (now children, she's had another since then) goes to Grandma's.
Had she stayed with her job, she'd be making over $100K a year, but being there for her children is more valuable to her.
Her hubby has to pull the financial weight while she pulls the domestic weight.
Accidents happen all of the time, so unless everyone prepares for them ahead of time in that "perfect world" you mention, there's no need in having children at all until everything is perfect and taken care of completely. Very unrealistic.
Frankly, Jen, that depends on the person staying home. I can think of a lot of kids that would have been WAY better off in daycare than with their Mom.
Just because a person has a uterus, doesn't mean they are a great (or even good) caretaker for kids.
You always present extenuating details that fragment the discussion.
For God sakes! it doesn't mean "there's no need in having children at all until everything is perfect"! It means you put aside/invest some money. It means you have insurance at a level that takes it into account. It means you do what you can within your means to cover what you can.
There is something between staying at home with NO plan and waiting until everything is perfect.
The problem is, all the people I know, including myself, who really bought into the equality/equivalence thing, seem to end up making a lot of compromises with reality.
The fact is, women are the child-bearers, and that is an enormous difference. It's hardly surprising, in evolutionary terms, that men and women tend to have different temperaments and aptitudes, and I no longer believe that they can be educated out of us.
I believe that the inferior economic and social status of women, in the "western world" over the last couple of centuries, is the inevitable product of industrialization, and the ensuing alienation between salaried work and the rest of life.
Rustler, perhaps we are not communicating. I am talking about a woman who is not assuming her responsibility to provide for her child(ren). This can happen whether she stays at home without sufficient resources or works for "pin money". When you "stay at home" with your daughter, you are still providing for her.
Sometimes I tell her 'look, I have to work now, if I don't work I won't be able to buy you stuff', and she either accepts that or she doesn't, but she's always first and that includes being with her, physically.
Sure. That's true of a mother, too. It doesn't make her any less of a mother to say the same thing.
Part of the reason I think my kids grew up very strong, emotionally stable and loving is they always had their Mother with them when they were small.
I could point out that statistics don't bear you out, but that wouldn't get very far. What I will say is that if you value that feeling of having one parent at home, there are many ways to achieve it that don't involve one parent giving up their ability to provide for their family. But instead, most people go about assuaging this need the "easy" way--which involves a substantial risk to the wellbeing of the children. And the parent, for that matter. In fact, taking divorce out of the equation it is obvious that any family is better off with two income streams (or an asset base to substitute) than one.
What extenuating details?
Again, how is it you plan on this wonderful world where Women are Keeper of Hearth and Home and still allow divorce?
I allow it. I don't encourage it. I discourage it. I don't ban it. How can I prevent a husband from divorcing a wife he found in bed with his neighbor? Or a wife divorcing a husband she found in bed with their daughter?
And if women are to be less than equal, and can't be like men, how is it they are to be considered equal and have equal rights?
They are not to be less than equal. They are to be different. Maybe the Pres./VP analogy is bad. Let's try Hunter / Keeper of the Home. Pilot / Bombardier?
You see, I have this romantic view of the Healthy Tribe. This may have been part of what drew me to Africa, way back when. In my vision, I see the men going off to hunt, fight, etc. I see the women hanging around the forest clearing with the children, doing whatever needs to be done and whatever they connect to, but being, basically, women. And the men being, basically, men. And I have this feeling the sex can be great when the men come home at night. Because women are attracted to powerful men, and they love the smell of sweat, and uniforms, and war paint (so I'm told). While men are usually turned off by muscular women, and women richer than them, and Annie Oakleys. And sweat isn't such a turn-on either.
>>>
I never said it wasn't. I was speaking to the fact that both people in this discussion might be talking at cross purposes because they are talking about different things, that's all.
How can you let someone who is supposed to be a keeper of the womb be a lawyer?
Again - I don't believe that women should be prevented from doing anything just because they're women. That would be negating the essence of what feminism has achieved, and I think that would be a boo-boo. I simply think roles should be re-redefined, and women should be encouraged to find a role for Woman in society that fits what they really are, deep down inside, and that can flow in harmony besides the role of Man.
What we have right now is fundamental discord between the sexes. In Israel, at least, this involves a marked increase in physical violence by men against women, and of course - women are socking it to men in other ways. So I don't see that this is leading us anywhere good.
Oh come on! Our youngest's baby sitter is perfectly capable of dealing with most problems that come up when we are at work (probably better than us in some cases: my wife being queasy around blood, and me having little patience with whining).
The alienation between work and life which comes from industrialised society, makes childbearing very economically penalising. Partly because of collusion by men to shut women out of high-status occupations (and it's not over yet), but partly because it's just intrinsically difficult to hold down a job while raising children; and because the changing social model made it increasingly difficult for families to rely on elders or relatives.
I don't believe CalGal has said that women (or men) should NEVER stay home with their kids. What she has said (over and over and over) is that there IS a financial risk to setting up a family that way. It is a financial risk that CAN be planned for and covered, but a lot of families don't do that. Even if you assume that every single woman who gives birth is magically gifted by just that act with the power to be the absolute best caregiver her child could ever have, that does nothing to mitigate the financial risk of her staying home with the kids.
#4006 was low, and unappreciated.
How can I prevent a husband from divorcing a wife he found in bed with his neighbor? Or a wife divorcing a husband she found in bed with their daughter?
But it was barred, back in the wonderful world when Woman Was Goddess of Hearth and Home. Or if not banned, it was only allowed for men and carried a major stigma--for both men and women, in this country.
Divorce is inevitable, once you provide equality of income--and the means to attain it. And once you allow divorce, then you place a monstrous risk on staying at home and being Womb and Hearth--not only for the parent, but for the children.
So you are saying that you want a woman to be your everything--but that you will have the right to divorce her, and she'll have the right to divorce you. Any woman in her right mind will realize that being Everything is a lousy risk compared to having a paycheck. Fortunately for you, lots of women out there seem to like lousy risks--and in fact the payout is about 60%, I suppose.
They are not to be less than equal. They are to be different.
But unless you protect that difference legally, they are equal under the law, which means they have the responsibilities of men--and that men have the responsibilities of women.
If you want to protect that difference legally, I suspect you won't get very far before someone points out that different rights for men and women is by definition saying they aren't equal.
I thought #4006 was rather witty given what you have had to say about your family's difficulties. If it offended, I apologize.
Yet you are enraged at a legal system that denies a father his right to love and nurture his children.
You really can't have it both ways. My way says that man and woman are both equally responsible for the financial and emotional well-being of the children.
You seem to want a world where a father can be a mother (emotional spectrum), but a mother shouldn't take on the job of a father (financial spectrum).
Where did I say anything remotely like what you just stated? I said that Jen is talking about EMOTIONAL things in this disussion and Cal is talking about MONETARY things in this discussion and that might be why they are not connecting here. Nowhere did I say anything about Cal being wrong or right nor did I say Jen was wrong or right.
And I am not making assumptions on blind readings of their personalities but am basing this on things that have been said by both of them, over and over.
Christi hasn't taken care of anything, rather, as usual, it's the list of extenuating circumstances.
The bottom line, before I bow out of this discussion, is that I see a tremendous benefit to staying at home with children; in fact, I think it is downright desirable and healthy. You do not. I see it as ultimately preferable and you do not.
You see stay at home moms as those women who opt out of working for a "luxury" that consists of nothing more than leeching off the husband. I see that as a travesty to the notion of family and completely ridiculous.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that women are fundamentally handicapped by our social and economic model; or rather, that families are, and it's very hard for them to avoid being dysfunctional.
My personal experience tells me that only a small minority of couples will manage to share child-rearing in an equal manner; in practice, the burden falls disproportionately on the woman. Over the past year, I've been theoretically running the household while working from home, while my wife goes out to work. I thought I was doing OK; the kids had good and regular food, got to bed at regular hours, and got both quantity and quality time with both parents. Sure, the house didn't get vacuumed often, and the kids sometimes went to school with snotty noses and their pants on backwards, but that's not a big deal, is it?
You're totally ignoring the fact that the traditional way most women have always made damn sure their kids were provided for was by marrying a rich man or one with potential for riches, and then giving him the behind-the-scenes support he needed to make good on his potential. Let's say Jennifer marries a rich lawyer - how is she being irresponsible?
And hey - if he has an accident, there's this thing called insurance.
But unless you remove the risk, you are basically saying that Woman in society should be a nurturer and give up all financial responsibility for themselves in return for no guarantee that the husband won't dump them at any point and expect her to provide for herself.
I don't understand why you don't see that this is exactly what is happening. Why do women make 75 cents of the guy's dollar? It's not discrimination, it's choice. They deliberately take lower paying jobs because they want to stay home with the kids, or have more "flexibility" to take time off, and so on. Or they go to professional school with every intention of marrying and then taking time off to have kids--and going back to work if they feel like it at some time.
So the world you want is in fact the world you have. It isn't very pretty--precisely because the inconsistent definitions end up discriminating against men in terms of custody access and harming women because they refuse to realize how likely divorce is and how their financial future--and that of their children--is harmed by their poor decisions.
The only way to ensure that you would get your world without risk and with less likelihood that fathers would lose access to their children is to remove the responsibility of women to provide for themselves--and the rights that go along with it. Reinstitute the professional stigma that occurs if a man divorces his wife. Then you'll have a world where a man's right and proper duty is to marry a nester for life, and the nester will suffer discrimination if she ever needs to feather things on her own.
You were doing okay, I'm sure. I find it bizarre how many women seem to think that they are still ultimate arbiters of child care and household standards. Nonsense. If they want men to accomodate to them in the workplace, they can accomodate to men in the household. A woman's definition of adequate is by no means binding or ultimate.
There are two different issues. If you see a tremendous benefit to staying home with the child, then you are welcome to do so. All I am saying is that in making that choice, a mother is quite often putting herself and her children at significant risk.
The second is the value to staying at home. It is a subjective value, not an absolute value. If you feel it's necessary, by all means. But in any objective measurement, the only thing provided by a stay at home parent is childcare. Everything else and income is provided by working parents.
The "job" of stay at home is much romanticized in our world, and there is no mention of the risk.
Back in Biblical days, men were providers and protectors and women were nurturers. Yet there was no greater anguish for a man than losing his children: see Job, see Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac.
We won't be able to communicate, I think. I agree with Judith on that. Plus, CG, you have this imperious manner of making statements that are The Total Truth which makes it hard to engage in debate with you.
FWIW, I think that it IS a tremendous benefit to children, especially pre-school age children, to have a single caregiver. Certainly, I thought I was the best person to do that in the case of MY child.
However, you are reading CalGal differently than I am. So lets ignore what she has said. Please listen to my points and tell me what you think.
1. In order to have one parent stay home with the kids, the couple is assuming a financial risk vs having two wage-earners. So if the couple decides to do that, they should set up their finances and insurance to account for that risk. (BTW, the same applies to a two wage-earner family that depends on both spouses' income to cover their expenses and doesn't set up their finances to account for the risk of one or both of them no longer being wage-earners)
2. A mother is NOT the only person capable of being a good caregiver to her kids. a)A good daycare is staffed by professionals with training in childcare and early childhood developement and early childhood education. b)A father can also stay at home and be a great full-time house-spouse and child nurturer. c)Some parents enter parenthood with no clue about how to nurture and care for their children. d)Some parents are actively bad for their kids and nont necessarily on purpose.
So, a person who is planning to have children should a)learn something about child developement physiologically, psychologically, and educationally. Plus, a person planning to have children should get their financial house in order as far as preparing the financial burden of raising a child and putting plans in place to guard against disasters that can happen to anyone.
Women still marry up--as I've said before, the most significant financial investment most women make is their marriage. They fully expect to be provided for by a man (speaking generally).
But the reality is that all of the protection of the investment has been removed. Yes, you can insure against death. That's why I didn't mention it as a risk.
There isn't such a thing as divorce insurance--except the obvious, which is insuring that you can provide for yourselves and your children without any need for assistance.
It's not 'childcare'. It's parenting.
These are all valid ways to run a family that provide love and nurturing to the kids. There are a lot of other choices that are equally valid. There are a lot of people whose choices are limited by their financial and/or educational status or by physical problems who still manage to raise decent kids.
But back in the Biblical days, I'm guessing that a woman who dumped her husband got killed.
I think we actually are communicating; you just don't like what you hear.
Do you agree or disagree that divorce is possible? I think you agree.
Do you agree or disagree that in a divorce, a woman will usually be expected to provide for herself and for a portion of her children's upkeep? I haven't heard a response on that.
Do you agree or disagree that given this expectation, a married woman who stops working or who works at a low-income job while having children that she can't support on her own income is going to be harmed in some way if her marriage ends? Haven't heard a response to that.
So if you could respond to those points, we could determine if there is a disconnect or not.
I still don't understand what you mean by I am just bringing up "extenuating detail". Honest, I don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying that a father who works is less of a parent?
We are talking about what value the stay at home parent provides for those additional 8-10 hours a day. They provide childcare. That's all. That is not to say that they don't get the fun of being parents for an extra 8-10 hours a day--but then, as both Christi and Wombat has pointed out, that's not always a blessing. Many people aren't suited to be home all day every day with the kids.
But in any event, the only value they are providing, in an objective sense, is the value of daycare. They aren't any more or less a parent than the one who works.
But it turns out the experience was a nightmare, for my wife. She has different, and higher, standards about certain things than I do; and I was wrong not to put more effort into meeting those standards (though I tried). She was stressed out by a very demanding job (and not well paid for it), and found my version of home life even more stressful.
The outcome is that she will work part time next year, and run the household. I think that's a good outcome for everyone (easy for me to say); but she is rather bitter about it. She resents the loss of economic independance (not only having her own money, but contributing substantially to the household), and she resents our failure to break the mold.
Unfair, but that's society.
But it sounds as if you didn't fail. And in a world of equality, why should she be able to cut her income and increase your burden just because she wants a cleaner house?
This is the sort of thing that I really think should be taken out of women's list of options. I realize there is no way to do so, but I don't see why women should be supported in being so unreasonable.
I mean no offense to you or your wife, Alistair, I am speaking philosophically. It's wonderful that you have the kind of relationship where divorce is unlikely and that you make enough money that there really isn't any risk. But speaking in any absolute sense, why should she have the right to unilaterally cut the family income?
I don't know about your wife specifically, but I am quite sure that in general most women would not be supportive of their husband quitting or cutting back just because he wanted more time with the laundry or the children.
No, I think things can be achieved by encouraging certain models, without banning the others.
I agree that the basic divorce model should give joint custody to the parents and that it is a crime to take custody from dads just because they are men. But there are other ways of discouraging nonchalant divorce, besides what you suggest. There is the whole idea of fault, for instance. If divorce is based on fault, a woman who wants to divorce her hubby for no reason other than that she's tired of him will be denied the divorce or denied any serious money.
For example.
Like I said in one of my original posts way back when, you could also factor in how long the couple has been married.
I mean, the idea should be to encourage a good model. A good model, in my mind, involves a long, happy marriage, with children and grandchildren. What some of you are saying is: in order to be prepared for the possibility that the marriage will end in divorce and the husband won't pay, we'll base the marriage on an unstable foundation.
We'll get into the plane but we won't be Pilot and Weapons Systems Officer. We'll both be Pilot, and we'll both be WSO, and we'll take turns at the controls, just in case we don't get along and the Pilot decides to chuck the WSO overboard in midflight.
Not a very efficient model. You won't win any wars like that.
In general, you're probably right but what is so wrong with someone wanting a cleaner house? I mean, what is unreasonable about it? I know lots of men who expect their standards of housekeeping to be met; why not a womans?
No. He's making sure the children have a mother who takes care of the mothering. This is part of being a father.
But it sounds as if you didn't fail. And in a world of equality, why should she be able to cut her income and increase your burden just because she wants a cleaner house?
OK, I can't deal with your kind of computerized, de-uterized thinking anymore, CG. I'm outta here for the night.
Thanks for a fun, interesting evening, all!
OTOH, I know families where this is not the case.
Put it more accurately: what is wrong with someone putting their need for a cleaner house ahead of the financial health of the family?
Why not? He was willing to do it to her. I mean, stay home and let her work, increasing her burden.
This does not mean that a family cannot be set up so that Dad works and Mom stays home with the children. It does mean that Mom and Dad need to prepare for the crap that life sometimes throws at people. So they get big insurance policies, do some investing, and Mom maintains or even improves her employability while she stays home with the kids.
Now, specific to the risk of divorce, the responsible Mom puts some money aside in an account of her own as well as maintaining and/or improving her employability. If he doesn't dump her for that 20 year old when he's going through his midlife crisis, no harm done. It's just that much more money they can both enjoy after they retire.
You are also ignoring the fact that people live a long time now. Say Mom gets married at 23. Have 3 kids, 2 years apart, first one born when Mom is 25. OK, when the youngest one is 18, Mom is 47. She's probably going to live into her 90s. If her whole identity and life is ONLY about being the great Mother-Nurturer as you describe, what the hell is she going to do with the next 43 years!
No, I don't think a world in which women are encouraged to think that their only or even their most important role in life is that of being a mother is one which is psychologically healthy for women.
And I haven't even mentioned the years when she will be alone because she will probably outlive her beloved husband!
Briefly, we have parallel educational backgrounds. Same professional training, each followed by clerkships, then both into the same profession. She opted to stay and has been a partner at her firm for a number of years. I opted to leave after three years and mostly by luck found myself making immense amounts of money in my new "profession" through which I ended up having investments that have done extremely well. I contentedly pulled out a few years ago and now happily "run" (with professional staff) our own and some other private charitable funds. I now earn virtually no income while my wife's has become very high.
Where do our kids fit in? Of course there have been times, many times, when either one or both of us was extremely busy/away on "business". Yet, and I don't think I'm very biased and myopic here, I doubt you would find two kids who could feel more loved by their parents or that their parents weren't fully involved in their lives. We are a family.
How? Easy enough for us because we could afford it, but we have had full time staff (was three at one time, now down to 1 1/2, with another part time), since four weeks after our daughter was born. The key employee was/is our housekeeper/nanny. We went through five before finding the perfect adjunct to our family. And, paying well (over $100,000 a year now, plus generous perks) certainly gave us a lot more options in terms of choice.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of ways out there in which the marriage/jobs/children cat is skinned.
Cal, you've got it completely backwards. I had to talk her into this option (not because I wanted a cleaner house or cleaner noses, but because I think her job is killing her).
But logically, I should be paying her. I wonder if she would accept that?
We have a special Mote for rich people at www.richpeoplesmote.com. Your nanny/housekeeper is quite welcome to post here, though.
But I will be famous and save the world one day.
And I assume I will start making money soon. I have to.
I'm good at luck.
Well, good for her--and in a sense, what the hell were you thinking? (g)
I understand that it's fairly unlikely that you two would divorce or that your finances would ever be problematic. But speaking generally, think of how rotten it would be if, after encouraging her to work part-time and give up a lot of career growth, you then decided that you wanted a divorce. Think of all the assets and life style that she wouldn't have because you encouraged her to stay home. And then, consider that you and she might differ on what needs the kids have--and as the one with the money, you will get more say. That's a big sacrifice.
Now I understand fully that marriage and relationships involve risk--and frankly, men take more risks that they have no control over, unlike women. But when women's risks all involve money, as well as the financial wellbeing of herself and her children, it seems to me that something is out of balance.
Janjon,
Even though I'm not married, your presentation of your life as someone who has a career and is a parent is fairly close to my own. Except I don't have enough money for www.richepeoplesmote.com. (sniff)
Connor. Sidebar question. Are you sure you didn't encourage your wife to stop working full time because you found working/childcaring to be more than you had anticipated?
Let's look at marriage as... a carriage! One guy drives the horse, and the other takes care of the kids in the back.
Now, what you gals are basically saying is - we would love to think that hubby in the driver's seat is guiding us well and taking care of us, but we can't trust him blindly. He could ditch us, or die, or get drunk... the possibilities are quite many. So we'll take turns driving, and sometimes he'll be with the kids, etc.
I think this leads to a lot of discord, and it means no one really has a role he is proud of, and the whole thing becomes much less romantic and powerful. You have two carriage drivers cum sitters-in-the-back-with-the-kids, and neither is really special. There is something cold about that kind of relationship which I can't stand. I want to be The Driver. I can't stand sharing that title with anyone. It takes away all of my motivation for being a good driver.
But I understand where this need for climbing into the driver's seat comes from: it comes from a sense that women have, which is right, that men are weak and indeed cannot be trusted to guide.
We are indeed weak. But we are not inherently weak. We are temporarily weak, and have been since the industrial revolution, etc., and the upheavals society has been going through in the past century and a half. But we will get our strength back, and we will then proceed to nudge you ladies gently but quite forcefully back to your place in the back of the carriage (a new and improved carriage, of course, with a microwave oven and CD changer!).
You'll put up a fight, but we'll push you back. And you'll love it, in the end.
Dead right, which was the point of my rambling monologue. I think we need to do some serious social engineering to bring about a better world in which to bring up our children. And I'm a romantic, like Russ, and though I would not put the emphasis he does on earth-mothers and warrior-fathers, that is definitely a world in which women and men are valued for something else than their mere financial weight. And in which it is possible to live decently, and bring up kids decently, without shitloads of money.
(Though staff would be nice.)
well, i'll be.
i didn't know you supported gay marriage, Pike.
BTW, did you read any of my post #4070, which was addressed to you?
You can't speak for everyone--or indeed, anyone but yourself--when speaking of pride in one's role.
As for the discord, I think it is quite arguably due to the fact that women get the best of the deal legally, but end up with the short end in reality. I also think you would be hard pressed to prove that there was less discord back in the good old days.
I will ignore the rest of the "just let us menfolks drive" spiel for the moment, and come back to the basic issues that you have continually neglected to address:
1. You posit a world in which women can work if they want to, and can pursue a career, but are encouraged to just stay home and let the guy do it if that's what she wants. I submit that this is exactly the world we have now, at least in this country. You have not answered this.
2. You want a world in which women return to home and hearth, but divorce is still possible. When divorce happens, you want men to be treated as loving fathers who nurture and are just as important as mothers. This is contradictory. How can women go back to the old ways and give up moneymaking, but fathers get to have it all?
3. Again, you don't wish there to be any limits on the right to divorce. But you don't suggest any ways in which a woman can be compensated fully for the loss she takes when she gets divorced. Yet without this, you are basically requiring that women give up everything for nothing guaranteed--not even the wellbeing of their children. How do you plan to address this? If you meet a woman who you want to stay home and have your children, how will you address her concerns about giving up her means of supporting her child, no matter what happens?
When you speak of social engineering, I would say that a simpler, more basic step is needed: men could start ensuring that the mothers of their children are equally capable of providing for them, even if they weren't around. In other words, maybe dealing with your wife and her crankiness would be better, in the long run, then letting her go back to producing less income. Better not in that you could buy more stuff, but in shoring up a neglected aspect of your family finances (this assumes your wife's income wouldn't be able to support the family).
Regardless of whether or not you divorce, there are various risks that come throughout life--and lord knows that retirement is something most women don't plan for, married or not.
If you have all those covered already, fine. But when you look at this decision carried out in total throughout the Western world, I can't help but find it odd that the solution always involves the woman staying home or working less.
Also, I don't think we ever acknowledge the significant stress this puts on men. Whether or not they care, or whether or not they are prepared to admit it, when one person in the family drops out to provide non-financial support, it puts a huge burden on the other. I don't see any reason why this should be supported without question.
I await (without too much suspense) the day that a husband files for divorce the day his wife quits work to stay home with the baby. "Your honor, it was the only way I could ensure that my child wasn't put at financial risk."
1. You posit a world in which women can work if they want to, and can pursue a career, but are encouraged to just stay home and let the guy do it if that's what she wants. I submit that this is exactly the world we have now, at least in this country. You have not answered this.
No, we have a world in which women are encouraged not to stay at home, but rather to develop a 'career', build their bodies and become Army Generals and astronauts. At least that's what I see.
2. You want a world in which women return to home and hearth, but divorce is still possible. When divorce happens, you want men to be treated as loving fathers who nurture and are just as important as mothers. This is contradictory. How can women go back to the old ways and give up moneymaking, but fathers get to have it all?
Divorce has to be possible, yes, but not in all cases, and it should be heavily discouraged and rare. And I didn't say women should give up moneymaking - just that they should content themselves, mostly, with making less money and being in a support role. You are taking my statements to extremes and absolutes which totally distort their meaning.
3. Again, you don't wish there to be any limits on the right to divorce.
No - I said several times that divorce could be limited by the fault factor. That way you'd have to prove your husband was doing something exceedingly bad in order to divorce him and get his money. If he wasn't, maybe you could divorce him but you wouldn't get his money and you couldn't get custody over his kids without his consent.
>>>
But you don't suggest any ways in which a woman can be compensated fully for the loss she takes when she gets divorced. Yet without this, you are basically requiring that women give up everything for nothing guaranteed--not even the wellbeing of their children. How do you plan to address this?
Again - I want divorce to be much less common. One way of achieving this is to stop teaching women (and men) that men are nothing more than a bunch of potential rapists and murderers. Another is to teach girls that being happily married and raising kids and playing a support role to hubby is a good thing.
A husband who wants to dump his wife when he is 45 and she is 40 because he feels like it could either be denied that right, or made to pay her money, lots of money, because there is no fault involved here. So she does have a safety net and I don't see what you are asking. I don't know about being compensated fully but there would certainly be a deterrent to hubby just dumping her.
Otoh, if he caught her in bed with the Mineral Water man, she would stand the risk of being dumped and having very little to show for it, financially. That should make her think twice before letting the Mineral Water man in.
Sorry. BUt the "contented with being support role to some guy" is something I've resented since I was 6, and never consented to.
Carry on. I just had to scream.
I just had to scream.
Scream on. I like the screamers.
cp:
Having one driver is ok for short carriage drives. For the long haul, a carriage has two competent drivers who spell each other.
I don't mind being spelled as long as I am The Driver and you are just The Speller. Also, I definitely get to drive in the rough patches, and you sort of let out these gasping screams once in a while when we hit a major pothole. Needless to say you admire my driving skills.
I'm trying to think how to put this: it is never really a joint decision. It is always the woman's choice. The man may or may not agree with the choice--if he does agree, then it is referred to as a "joint decision". (g)
But I certainly agree that wife quitting and resentful hubby shouldering the burden of sole financial responsibility is not the only way it could be--in fact, it isn't the norm.
However, it isn't surprising that most husbands wouldn't object, since most of them aren't looking at it the way I presented it to Alistair. They are as unconscious of the risk as women are, and in most cases have no intention of divorcing at the time the decision is made.
But then, that's what makes it so low risk for them. They aren't the ones giving up income, so even if a divorce happens, they aren't at risk financially. (in most cases, obviously.)
There's also a substantial amount of women who are more like me who never could be the little woman/vice president to some dude no matter how successful and charming and wonderful and all that, because it seems to me like being sold a bill of goods.
I couldn't be with a guy like that. I find it incredibly unattractive actually. And, also, I really don't know any man who is in anyway better than me at figuring out what to next. I really don't think that any man has what it takes to truly be given that kind of power or responsibility over my life and my own ambitions and my own security.
Probably the reason why I like Lady McBeth.
Yes, I would. In the nme of equality. (Never mind that I would think it sucked. Equality means accepting the shitty stuff too)
{{{calgal}}}
There, there, dearie.
(Por hub. I've been reading this discussion inbetween dissertation work and possum-feeding. He wandered into my office, and I obviously had a killer look on my face and accidentally directed it at him. He went "what? What?" and I just told him I was reading this thing that is pushing every hot-button I have.)
No, we have a world in which women are encouraged not to stay at home, but rather to develop a 'career'
This is untrue. From my perspective, the bias against working mothers is still considerable, and it gets more than a tad offensive at times. While conservatives are prone to bitching that the opposite is true, I find that they are always pointing to extremists as examples. Whereas I can point to implicit assumptions everywhere.
Now even given the possibility that I see bias where none exists (no!), it is certainly untrue that women are encouraged to work instead of stay at home. "Choice" is bandied about unforgivably, in my opinion, since most women have no business thinking they have a choice.
Divorce has to be possible, yes, but not in all cases, and it should be heavily discouraged and rare.
Doesn't matter whether it is rare or not. If it can happen, the woman is at risk. Suppose she does work at some little job in a "support" role, and her husband beats her. So she files for divorce, it being his "fault" and gets more of the property. But not enough to support all of her children. The husband has remarried and had another child right away, and pays the bare minimum in child support because after all, she has a college degree even if she has no work history--so she should be able to get a job. He then moves out of the vicinity so that she has the kids all the time and has trouble making more money because the kids take so much time.
Doesn't matter whether this happens rarely or often--it is still a risk, and still something that will prevent a woman from providing for her children. How do you propose to eliminate this risk?
This is purely nonsense. Even in the interest of keeping you peaceful, I can't go along with this. Not even at the height of NOW nonsense was this more than a radical feminist's wet dream.
Another is to teach girls that being happily married and raising kids and playing a support role to hubby is a good thing.
You apparently haven't checked out the statistics in this country, and I can only assume they are equivalent (or "better" in yours). Why do you suppose women as a group make so much less money and have fewer assets than men, when comparing like to like demonstrates that women make as much money as men do? The answer is simple: because most women choose the pin money jobs or stay at home entirely, letting the man keep her just as you envision. No re-education camps needed, Rustler. We're in your dream world, for the most part.
Let's see, RP - who makes 15k wants women to sit back and nurture whil he supports them? On what? My God, I doubt my dog could make ends meet on the amount.
I was going to put a link to this discussion, but I can't figure out what to call it.
But it just now occurs to me that you hate this particular debate; I'd forgotten.
Possibly, and it baffles me (since those are the attitudes that make me homicidal.)
And, I wonder if it is a personality variable. I'm reminded of my US intellectual history class, where at some point we touch on early american feminist thought. On the one hand we have the Grimke sisters who basically are "are we not also human? Don't we have brains?" etc. And, on the other hand the sister of Harriet Beecher-Stowe who is big into the "separate but equal" thing with women being the domestic rulers.
And, you sort of see that with feminism (at one hand, the equality people who are prepared to sign up for the military to show their committment to equality, on the other hand the female mystic special way of knowing people).
I would be massively unhappy doing domestic stuff and playing second fiddle to anybody. Actually, I don't want to be first fiddle either. I like being independent.
But, apparently there's plenty people who are just fine with this, whereas I think women are being sold a bill of goods with the "hard most important job" whatever.
Debby, I figure that behind the absolutists on the "it's best for the kids and women should be good little girls" there are zillions of less absolute "sure it's okay for women to work and have careers if they have to, but if they don't have to it's really best to stay at home"--and those are the ones that I direct my arguments to. Even if they probably aren't reading. (g)
I totally agree with this. My god, if it were really important, men would never let women do it.
I also think that it's easier for everyone involved. Women still have the psychological expectation that they can stay home or cut back and offer lord knows what in exchange. (sex not being required anymore.) It is also easier for men because they can let women gatekeep.
I also think that there are serious people making serious arguments that it would be better for society as a whole if we reverted to old social standards--while fully acknowledging that some women would suffer if abandoned or divorced, and others would be miserable because they aren't naturally cut out for that sort of life. Classic "needs of the many" approach.
You know, that's exactly what they WERE teaching girls while I was growing up and it pissed me off, no end.
"would you agree to be drafted for three years of combat military service, and 30 more years of reserve service, and run the risk of getting shot up, maimed or burned in war?"
I proudly served my country on active duty for 9 years in the USAF. I would have stayed in for the full 20 if I hadn't become disabled.
CalGal - I think I have about bit my tongue in half already and I admire your restraint.
RP - No thank you, I don't want a man to take care of me. Neither do I want to take care of a man. I would adore to meet and marry a man who was my equal partner in life.
You are probably right, but those idiots have apparently never studied history. Except for certain upper social classes, women have always worked. It is not an "old social standard" they want "to get back to", but an idealized pipe dream they find attractive. It never existed - at least not for the vast majority.
I must say that the restraint you have all be showing in remarkable, incredible, in fact, all things considered. When I began reading this last night, I thought I had stepped into a time warp and was seeing a rerun of an Ozzie and Harriet episode.
I just reread your posts. In the first place, apologies for misreading them the first time--it's clear that your wife did indeed want to be independent and comment about how she just didn't want the harder work was totally off base. While I wasn't trying to malign her in the first place, I was certainly selling her short.
Second, I think I agree with Janjon's comment--given that she so strongly values financial independence, and given that you felt you were doing a decent job with the kids, could you not have been equally, if not more, supportive by encouraging her to let go of a lot of her standards? That maybe her standards, not a dual income household, were the problem?
A major semantic peeve of mine must be mentioned, however. My kids are not cared for by strangers while I work, thankyouverymuch. Good lord, that makes it sound like I just grab someone off the nearest street corner on my way into the office. "Oh, no you won't do. We used you twice last week--you're not a stranger anymore."
Amen.
I do challenge the notion that running a house is a full-time "job". Working parents get everything done and provide for their families, so by definition the parent who is not providing is doing less. This isn't a denigration, it's a fact. Also, I can't think of a society that wouldn't look askance (without much reassurance) if a father didn't work, even if his wife did, so why should women not be subjected to the same scrutiny?
The other thing I have been saying about women who don't work--as well as those who work but whose income doesn't support their lifestyle--is that they are putting themselves and their families at significant risk, unless they have an asset base to protect their interests (and only their interests, not their spouse's).
As for "sweetness and light"--I was not asserting that the current situation is wonderful. Quite the contrary, I think the current situation has two serious problems: it is extremely unfair to men, and it permits women to be irresponsible in ways that clearly result in negative outcomes for their children.
I can only make sense of Rustler by ascribing his statements completely to his frequently invoked 'romanticism'.
A romantic fantasy of what a Man and a Woman and a Family should be like -- and how Right and Natural it all was in the Old Days.
Indeed, even invoking the Old Testament, no less.
I think we are all considerably better off today than we have been at any time in history. That goes for Israelis too (they had it extra-special-rough in them old days, remember?)
And that goes for men and women and children. And never will it be perfect. (For example, I won't be able to party around and swim in young girls' bosoms at the same time as being a responsible husband and father of my kids. Tough shit, but there you have it).
Life is a bitch. A sexy bitch. But not romantic.
You didn't see my hahahahahaha?
But then, you know us working moms--always dependent on the kindness of strangers.
I don't think women who work outside the home should be, or necessarily are denigraded for staying home. That might have been true in the early 70s, but not now. If there is sufficient money for one spouse, of either gender, not to work outside the home, cool, but if the income is necessary, then it is needed.
Women should have the choice to work and to earn degrees, et al, so they can be paid high wages.
I remember a low income client, once saying, "if I have a husband and stay home with my children, I am a good wife and mother. If I am on welfare, and single, then I am a welfare slut."
It annoys me that women always marry up, for instance. Or is it men who marry down?
Always.
That Anna-Nicole-Smith-marries-90-year-old-Texan-billionaire syndrom is surprisingly alive and well.
I went through that, especially by my former m-i-l. No strangers...and no "stranger" saw my kid take his first step, or read his first book.
For not every womn, for not every couple, it's not a finacial choice. And, for many women, it's not a mental and intellectual choice. The only other option may be insanity.
I took the risk of exposing my personal circumstances; the whole point of doing so is that every case is unique, and needs to be looked at on its merits, and it's surprising how few actually fit well with the stereotypes. I'd like to re-establish some things that you have misconstrued to suit your arguments.
Our retirement is adequately provided for : we have always lived frugally, and we own our house.
No, the amount of income she is dropping is not significant. That's a problem in itself : historically we have earned comparable amounts of money, but in recent years my income has increased a lot more than hers. Things move slowly when you're teaching primary school. Hence her frustration about financial independance : our respective incomes are now pretty skewed.
What's more, she is not losing any significant career prospects by working part time (since the career prospects are simply more of the same). Her best chance of earning some decent money is to work for herself, and she has much better prospects of starting up something if she's not working full time.
The amount of income she's dropping will be more than compensated, most likely, by an increase in my earnings, because I'll have more working time available, and I'll be more productive with a serene home environment.
Americans are bifocaled, I think. Ask them if they think women should have equal rights and opportunities, they say yes without hesitation. Ask them if a mother is best off staying home with her child they say yes, without hesitation and without the slightest notion that this might be contradictory. Ask them if women and men have equal responsibilities to their children and I suspect the answer would be "no" for a majority. Ask them if the world is better off with fathers working and mothers at home? I think most would say yes.
Thus the practical application of RP's view wouldn't be all that far off from what most Americans think is appropriate. It seems the norm for middle class and upper middle class women these days is to work, build a career, and then reluctantly abandon it because it's hard to raise a child and have a career--and it never occurs to them that "hard" is better than "poor" or "short a lot of money at retirement".
What bothers me is that the major "feminist" groups encourage the notion of a woman having a "choice". It is so unpopular to say that staying at home is a luxury that they have abandoned it entirely (if indeed they ever took that position) and are pushing for things like Social Security deductions for stay at homes, further protection for stay at homes. Thus they can pretend to be all things to all people.
Thus there is no serious challenge to the inequity. Instead, the current push is to find utterly inadequate ways of protecting women from the results of their choices.
This is why I find it odd that so many people think the bias is towards pushing women out of their homes into the workplace.
More equal than Anna and millionaire, sure. What I mean is simply you'll be hard pressed to find a single couple where the wife earns more than the husband.
Well!!! I have been reading your posts and I thought I should add something to it...my views.
As far as I can understand most of you belong to the so called western soceity and my views ..being a Pakistani and a muslim might be of some interest to you, since both of these are synonyms for conservatism.
In a nutshell i would say times are changing.There was a time when it was rare for women to work, but now its quite common contrary to the popular belief. Most men are comfortable with the idea of their mothers, wives and sisters working.I can give you an example... back in my professional college 2 years ago, I was a part of a class which had 130 women out of a total of 250.
Encouraging ?? I think it's more than that, it depicts the changing standards towards the idea of women as only childbearers or whatever you want to call it. And this is an example of a society that is believed to be very conservative .
Nice to meet you - we have way too few Pakistanis here.
And I find your post very, very encouraging.
I hope you stick around.
(I am Danish, btw).
I'm commenting on the analysis, not you and your wife. The decisions you went through in this are repeated all the time, so I'm going through the thought processes involved, not judging you and yours--even in the first post, where I was far tougher on your wife because that whole notion of housework being more important than finances is a real hot button for me.
The amount of income she's dropping will be more than compensated, most likely, by an increase in my earnings, because I'll have more working time available, and I'll be more productive with a serene home environment.
Again with the understanding that I am commenting on the collective Alistairs and their collective Wives, the benefit does not accrue to both of you equally. It's nice that you've got a serene home environment to be more productive in, but it was purchased at the cost of your wife's long-term financial viability (if it were in America, Social Security at least).
Also, the whole issue of her being a school teacher (again keeping collective in mind)--would a man with a family to support be a lowly paid schoolteacher, or would he at least wonder if maybe he shouldn't find a better job out that pays better and has more income growth? I'm assuming she went into teaching because she loved it, but would she have done so if you weren't paid as much? If she is worried or upset about sacrificing financial independence, why wouldn't one of her options be to get a much better paying job, so she could save up some money and "purchase" the ability to be a teacher without worrying about it?
Reference first paragraph about analysis not personal judgments.
On the other hand, if I drop dead or bugger off, she can go back full time and keep the family comfortably with no hardship.
Sorry Janjon, I missed your Message # 4079
Are you sure you didn't encourage your wife to stop working full time because you found working/childcaring to be more than you had anticipated?
Well I knew it would be an adventure, and I enjoyed it, but it turns out that I'm not all that good at it. I thought I was doing OK, but that's because I'm a sloven. Objectively I can see that there were problems with it. Probably a housekeeper would be a good idea, if we could find a good one.
Sure you can. Run for Congress.
Same here. I am glad that I am here and I'll try to bring some nice Pakistanis here :)
Even in the professions it's well documented here (in highly gender egalitarian pansy Denmark) that husband is nearly always top earner.
Doctor-husband earns more than doctor-wife. Lawyer-husband earns more then lawyer-wife. Etc.
Some of it is doubtlessly a function of husband being often older than wife. But then, why is that?
It's really irritating, because it tells men that what counts with women is primarily their earning ability, and it tells women that what counts with men is primarily their looks and youth.
No, RP has always held these views, to the best of my knowledge. The bit about women serving in the military--and his conviction that we'd all refuse--is a big deal with him. He once wrote a skit about how various Fraygrants would be killed in battle that caused a lot of fuss.
Heh. My parents were school teachers all their lives (equivalent of junior high and highschool). The didn't bother with careers so they could hang out with the family mote (mixed blessing, but that's another story). They also invested well, so they are now very well off -on top of all the wellfare etc.
All their kids have, or will be teaching.
Of course, when they went into teaching, it was a respected profession, and you lived well on it.
run for Congress? Can Danes do that?
If both are professionals then you are absolutely right.
If neither are "professionals" then often their incomes are "even." Hmmm, I'm thinking of people I know. I will have to stop being lazy and look up the statistics.
But this is entirely true. I don't think it will change until men see a real advantage to marrying a true peer. As it is, look at every marriage you can think of and, without kindly condescension, assess whether they are true peers. I don't mean "my wife does really important work at home" or "my wife is really just as smart as me but I can't do the dishes" but an honest assessment of whether or not the woman is a peer at whatever the man truly values about his abilities.
In general, men marry down not only in income, but in abilities that they value.
Please do not apply this observation to yourselves, people, as we are all fabulous folk without peer. But if you're honest about all your acquaintances and families, you'll see what I mean.
I think it was Anni Hunter at TT who quoted the stat that in two thirds of all American marriages the man makes more than the woman. She's usually reliable on stats, but I haven't ever run it down to know if it's true. I also suspect that the delta between men outearning their wives and women outearning their husbands is considerably different.
I know a couple in your neck of the woods that fit the "wife makes more than husband"...they live in Copenhagen, in fact.
But if they both make that choice, that's one they are happy with. It's possible I misunderstood Alistair but I thought he was saying that his wife's income hadn't grown as his did, and this bothered her.
Also, schoolteacher salaries vary widely. I know some two-teacher families that live in comfortable middle class, others that are continually broke. So in terms of my post, substitute "any position that doesn't pay very well". (g)
Hey, I'm an ignorant American. Whatever you Danes call Congress.
And welcome to Khabees! Question: do women who go to college continue in a career, or if they marry are they expected to quit their jobs?
Well shit, many of my best friends are schoolteachers. And some of them, horrors, are men! with families! Irresponsible scoundrels.
Mark Twain be damned, you Americans really are obsessed with money. Maybe over there, schoolteachers all live on Skid Row and are looked down on by Mcdonalds employees, but over here you can raise a family and deprive your kids of nothing important, on a teacher's salary (or more commonly, two teachers' salaries).
Maybe if you had a universal social security and retirement system, you could all relax a little bit and enjoy life more.
It doesn't matter how much you make, or how much you decide to live on. What I am addressing is the gender bias in decisions.
Well!! most do. Specially those with professional education...like doctors, lawyers etc. A decade or so ago some men expected their wives to quit the jobs but the scenario is much better now. I can safley say that 80% of those with prefessional education do continue.
Message # 4153 Absinthia, or doctor wife makes more than husband human resources director.
They let men do that sort of work? What's the world coming to?
Hell, a Group Hug.
"Hey since we're patting people on the back for their restraint (and I
agree that Cal is uncharacteristically mellow), how about a pat for Rustler?
Hell, a Group Hug."
Nooooooo...you kiwis are all alike...all touchy feely.
Are there child care problems when they are employed?
that's funny. I really don't think I know of any couple where that's the case. OK, maybe one. A female colleague of mine - who is younger, and earns more than me - also earns more than her husband, I think. He's a doctor, and they don't make that much in the beginning of their careers. I think he hates this situation, though. And their relationship is really, really, really, stressful.
But I wonder if there might be a compensating factor at work if the position the man holds is generally one associated with status like doctor, or lawyer, or, well, writer or something, that that might sort of compensate for a lower actual earning...
I do think Cal hits the nail on the head in her Message # 4154.
So with your couple and the one I know, that's two in Denmark!
Can I be in the Group Hug anyway?
Unless it's the same couple, of course.
I outearned hubster on a stipend and student-loan for a long time. FOr the past 3 years that has reversed, and probably will remain reversed even after I land a job since he is in business for himself and I want to be a professor. I wildly outrank him in level of education though.
So, these pairings exist, (and the unions are happy), but that doesn't make me disagree with that the norm is the other way around.
I think inviting Rustler, the neanderthal warrior, into a Group Hug is really a brilliant proposition!
Not the same...she's an architect and he's a teacher.
I cant say if more women do it out of choice or
financial need...but more women are working out of choice everyday. Women are persuing careers of their choice instead of just doing any job.
As far as the child care is concerned, it's easier in a society where combined family system is still working in a lot of families.
where in Pakistan are you based?
I am from Lahore.The capital of Punjab(one of the four provinces)
Discussion regarding women who work and why
Let's not forget those who choose never to marry or bear children. What do we do about them? Oh wait, that's not reality, we're on Planet Pike. All women want offspring. All men want to drive the buggy.
others would be miserable because they aren't naturally cut out for that sort of life. Classic "needs of the many" approach.
This goes both ways. I know guys who are unhappy with the ways things are set up now: they're looked down upon if they do not earn as much as their wife (suitable comment to debby about her dog's values and earning power inserted here), they would love to stay home and be househusband, but instead go to jobs that bore them so they can support their family by earning a salary.
It can't go back to the old social standards. There's too many people who have tasted the other side and won't/can't go back.
Bullshit. This does not go on for years and years, during infanthood, toddlerhood, school years, if it is not a joint decision.
If it is a sty on the marriage's ass, this 'decision' of solely the woman's to stay home, it gets popped by divorce.
Bullshit. This does not go on for years and years, during infanthood, toddlerhood, school years, if it is not a joint decision.
If it is a sty on the marriage's ass, this 'decision' of solely the woman's to stay home, it gets popped by divorce.
RustlerPike, I'm angry at you. This faucet doesn't work. The roof is leaking. The car blew a gasket. Lawn needs cut, too bad your back hurts. You have bigger muscles, fix it! Chop chop, right now, dammit, I have to get to my duties of being nurturing, and that requires water and a warm roof over my head, and a nicely mown lawn for the kids to play on. I don't care if you've either the know-how or inclination to repair plumbing or roofing, but you better unstop this stinky toilet if you want some sex, bud.
long noisy scream into the abyss with Åse
Erinys,
Sure, divorce is a risk of staying home if a husband doesn't want you to. Balance that against the man's love of his kids, since a pissed off ex-wife can really restrict access. And then there's the fact that even though divorce generally hurts a woman's standard of living, it also requires him giving a chunk of money to the ex every month.
All balanced against a society that would look in horror at a man who complained that his wife wasn't pulling her financial share.
So it's a pretty good risk--especially when you keep in mind that going back to work is no guarantee that he won't divorce you. See, that's the thing. There's no behavior that guarantees divorce won't happen.
Abs,
Hey, thanks for the links. I do think that more middle class women have been opting to stay home in the last decade of prosperity, and suspect (without proof) that they'll be trotting back to work in the near future. That might explain why the growth rate has slowed. But I'm astonished they don't realize that a wife's income is a good separate and distinct from the husband's, and how that would fuck whith their assumptions.
Maybe over there, schoolteachers all live on Skid Row and are looked down on by Mcdonalds employees, but over here you can raise a family and deprive your kids of nothing important, on a teacher's salary (or more commonly, two teachers' salaries).
Ironically, considering AR is one of the lower paying states, it's true here. Bob and I live very well, in addition to having a lot of job security and mobility and good retirement. I make several thousand more than he does, btw.
I've enjoyed reading the discussion.
And it's a risk if SHE doesn't. You've not gotten my point.
Actually, that isn't true.
If one spouse is not employed at the time of the trial, the judge will look at earning records from the past. If one spouse has not worked for some time and doesn't have skills, the court might award maintenance, but only for two years or so, while that spouse gets training or skills. If she is old or disabled she usually gets permanet maintenance. There will be child support and sometimes creative division of it, to include some additonal payments by the non custodial spouse for daycare, etc. Usually the non working spouse is the woman.
Even with child support and maintenance, and divison of the property, she usually does take a big financial hit. In additon, she won't have medical insurance any more unless she pays up and that is pricey. Things like insurance for the house and maintenace upkeep for it(assuming she gets the house) and the car really add up. The life style to which she has become accustom is usually history. Sure, men take a hit, but for some reason, they seem to do better, especially if they are professionals.
Goodness, PP, what a wonderful quote.
Now to read the rest of this fascinating conversation...
I can't begin to tell you all the strain it has been. (sob)
(Por hub....killer look on my face and accidentally directed it at him.)
I Want a Girl Just Like the Girl Divorced by Dear Old Dad. -mgleason
alistairconnor - ramblings...Systematically denigrating women who don't work, whether by choice or not, is not a complete substitute for reflection and analysis.
Alistair, It doesn't matter how much you make -CalGal
HAR!
Oh, you people have been at your finest in this discussion, and I missed the group hug!
Heartfelt thanks, it's what I come here for, the discussion. There's enough slap-downs in real life, you know? Everyone has been so kind today. I don't know a lot of the terminolgy
sPREAD JoY.
It's 1 a.m. here, I've been up since six after 5 hours of sleep last night, so I won't contribute anything, as it would be incoherent...
I don't doubt you mean what you say about agreeing to be drafted for combat roles if you were Israeli, but reality makes me doubt you really would, if put to the test.
Israel's feminists are as rabid as any, yet there has never been a campaign by any of them for equal duties. Israel's women have always been notorious for evading the draft (at least 25% do, by falsely declaring they are religious) and in any case, 99% of them serve in non-combat roles. The women serve for 2 years (the men three) and do no reserve duty (the men do 30 to 90 days a year until they are 50).
There have been very loud campaigns on the following issues though:
Whoop tee doo.
But like I said - no calls for equal duties in service.
>>>
Much as I hate to say it - were you Israelis, I have a feeling this would be you: 
Girl 1 to Girl 2: Can I have my copy of 'Feminine Mystique' back?
It seems the norm for middle class and upper middle class women these days is to work, build a career, and then reluctantly abandon it because it's hard to raise a child and have a career--and it never occurs to them that "hard" is better than "poor" or "short a lot of money at retirement".
Maybe they think being short on money is better than being short on grandchildren?
toy test. A couple more points:
However, I'm also Swedish, where they have mandatory military service for all men (unless deemed unfit), usually making them start their service the week before graduating high-school.
It pissed me off that guys were in the military and women were not when I was 4. It was partially because it took my daddy away from me for a whole month, but partially also because it pissed me off that there were things only guys were allowed to do. I think that was my first encounter with not being allowed somewhere simply because I was a girl.
Later, my thoughts about women doing mandatory military service was in the name of equality (this is still in Sweden, where there hasn't been a war in a very long time). Both my brother and my father are captains. It wasn't so much that I wanted to be in the military -it really was that it is patently unfair to require one gender to do one thing and not the other gender.
You want equality, you take the shit too. I am not fond of the brand of feminism that tries to weasel out of that part of the equation. (I'm also not fond of the part of feminism that lowers standards in order to reach a 50-50 of something).
There are many men in Sweden that resent having to do military service - and by now they have cut things down so that not every male has to serve, due to budgetary restraints. They find that the fact that women don't have to face this is grossly unfair - and I agree.
Still, it is all academic for me at this point.
And of course, she can play the odds, not get divorced, be married to someone who shares her values and wants to pay for the same things she would, or get divorced but have children who can put themselves through school, etc.
My point is only that I think women owe it to their children to do something other than rely on someone else to provide for them--even their father.
BTW, one of Abs' links provides the following info:
In 1993, only 35.9% of all married mothers worked full time the entire year.
As I said, Rustler, your dream scenario is already here!
wonder what you gals have to say about that.
I already answered it. Given a choice between a man's peace of mind and a woman's ability to provide for her children and herself, there's no contest. Besides, any mother or father who wants the peace of mind of a smooth running household can get a housekeeper.
I can't believe you're saying that, sto. I'm devastated!!! This is exactly the femmie line here. Matter of fact, I wrote about it in the last issue of my wildly popular local pamphlet (Ha'erani, distributed free. Circulation: 1,000).
The theory is nice, but when the Arabs come to kill our children, what do we do? Flash old copies of 'Ms.' magazine at them? Fact is, when things start exploding around you, women get hysterical. Even the toughest do. Men have the instinct, ability and proclivity to fight back and fight back hard.
And you have to admit that of all of you, I am best situated to know whether that is true or not.
Also, I didn't see anyone but Abs agree with Sto. I didn't see the post until you quoted it, but I disagree with him. Create a world of all women and they'd be just as brutal as men are.
RustlerPike, I'm angry at you. This faucet doesn't work. The roof is leaking. The car blew a gasket. Lawn needs cut, too bad your back hurts. You have bigger muscles, fix it! Chop chop, right now, dammit, I have to get to my duties of being nurturing, and that requires water and a warm roof over my head, and a nicely mown lawn for the kids to play on. I don't care if you've either the know-how or inclination to repair plumbing or roofing, but you better unstop this stinky toilet if you want some sex, bud.
OK, but the sex comes first. You take care of my faucet, I'll take care of yours.
Yeah, but what happens is - ac's wife will go work from home, but she'll be bitching and carping about it. Eventually, ac will get fed up with this, and then she'll find a way to ruin their marriage, take the kids etc., just to vent her frustration for not being able to be more of a man than her man is. And ac will wind up committing suicide like all those other Aussie men.
My main question to you is - why can't she just say OK.
Life is short. Sex is good. Live, love, procreate, be happy. Stay lubricated.
But it's just as likely that she stays at home, is a loyal little hausfrau, patiently cooks and puts out on demand, and Alistair still dumps her for the younger, hotter, career-oriented Java analyst.
Life is short. Sex is good. Especially with a chick hotter, younger, and hungry for a proven provider who can give her the life to which she'd like to become accustomed--after he dumps the older model.
Fortunately for her, she's got plenty of lubrication. Wild Turkey, Jim Beam, Gordon's, and Bacardi's.
You don't have to in the sense that you will be jailed for not agreeing, no. You're right about that, CG.
However, there is a war going on and Katzir, where I live, is at risk. And one reason that we are unprotected is that the weak and corrupt Council Head is surrounded and controlled by a bunch of femmies, who are refusing to beef up security here as a matter of principle. They would rather see all of us slaughtered, it seems, than have the menfolk start patrolling and guarding the gates and fences (and getting all cocky and arrogant, and feeling needed and essential - God forbid!).
I'm totally serious, btw. Our children's lives are at very real risk because of the femmies. Katzir is located in the heart of Arab territory, just inside the Green Line (i.e., bordering on the West Bank). There are already intelligence reports that a terror attack against us is being readied. Yet we have an incomplete perimeter fence and a gate that is not connected to the electrical supply, and only one guard at the school, who is around 60 years old and keeps the gate open all day.
And one reason I am making 15K and not more is that I have been spending the best part of my time, money and energies trying to get this changed, since last October.
Cite, please.
But I've already told you three times: he can't dump her if the divorce is based on fault. Or he can dump her but he has to pay an arm and a leg. In my world, we'll take care of the good women.
You keep ignoring that. I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it.
Read my lips: NO DUMPING OF GOOD WIVES.
No, he'll just lose most of the community property. Also, I don't think that consent-based divorce alone will do it. Alimony will still be very limited. Unless you plan on reinstituting discrimination, a divorced woman will never be able to insist on not working, nor will she ever have the same standard of living as she did before.
Divorce is cheap for most men, in comparison with the impact on the woman. There are exceptions, but they all have to do with child support--and even there, the man might be paying a fortune but the woman still isn't as well off as she was married.
It is even cheaper if the woman he's leaving his wife for is younger and has a good income--it will be a few years before she wants to pop out babies and stay home and by that time alimony should be over--if the woman got it at all, which is by no means a given these days.
Also, keep in mind that none of this matters much if the guy doesn't make all that much money.
Consent-based divorce solves none of your problems--it just guarantees the woman gets a certain percentage of community property.
Cite--I am asking you to provide independent analysis of your claim that "femmies" are endangering your community. It may be true; I'd just like to see the word "femmies" in a respected journal.
BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.
RP:
In my world, we'll take care of the good women.
In your world, are the women who choose not to marry good, or not? What about the women who cannot or choose not to bear children? How would you "take care" of them?
It occurred to me when the business of "dumping your child off with strangers" came up, that a father who leaves his first newborn at home with the mother while he goes off to work is doing exactly the same thing.
He has no idea what kind of a mother she is. He is no better positioned to discover the truth about the quality of childcare the kid is recieving than is the guy whose kids are in daycare (in some ways worse, since SAHM doesn't have to fill out accident reports, provide meal plans for review and so on.) I know my daycare has scheduled outside playground time every day. Does work dad know that SAHM is making sure her kid gets outside every day?
And when I wasn't happy with the daycare we (the mom and I) found another one. Can you see this conversation: "honey, I've been thinking. I know you love staying home with little Timmy, but I really don't think you're very good at caring for our son..."
Problem is she's been pretty consistently peeing in her pants at daycare, but only in the afternoon. This has been happening a few times a week for the last several weeks. According to the daycare people, she does use the toilet and will ask to go the bathroom. She doesn't have this problen except in the afternoon.
Our working theory is that the afternoon the kids play outside and she gets so into playing she just forgets. Aside from some mild admonitions to stop what she's doing as soon as she feels the need, and that I'd like her to do better, we've been low key about this. There haven't been any punishments (although her mom may be more likely to show anger about it.) Neither of us want to give her a complex.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Is this normal, a phase? Is she punishing her mom for abbrogating her natural role as parent? (And can I convince her that since men are supposed to go off to work, she doesn't need to wet herself on days when I pick her up?)
In my opinion it's perfectly normal and there is absolutely no need to punish. Talk!!! yes you can talk to her but don't make her feel guilty about it. Children her age or even older, who are toilet trianed sometimes show this kind of behaviour but it subsides with time.
An incentive system is the key. If she is dry when you pick her up, she gets a gold star and a lollipop (or some small treat). Five gold stars in a row (on the calendar) and she gets a bigger treat!
Obviously, most of them do just fine. But then, kids in daycare do just fine. And you have more control over daycare than you do a parent. Just ask the Yates father.
I think it's normal, too. I wouldn't worry about any psychological reasons why she's doing it. You might ask the day care staff to call her in to use the bathroom during play time. I also agree with Cal's approach. And, I would avoid all anger or
indication of disappointment...then it does become an issue.
Give those Pakistani women their rights, I say. You won't be sorry!
Heh heh.
I didn't say divorce by consent, I said divorce where fault has to play a part. If a man wants to dump his wife without a good reason - he can't. Or, if we decide that he can, we'll make sure he has to pay a lot, both in property and in monthly 'pension' payments (not child support).
For instance, we could do this: if she was with him for 5 years he'll pay her for the next 2 1/2 years, and if she was with him for 30 years he'll have to pay her for (say) 15 years. Or 20. If he can't pay, let the state pay. If the state can't pay - the women being divorced may have a slight problem. What can I say? That way there's an incentive for women not to give their hubbies incentives for divorcing them. No solution is perfect and life is not an insurance company, as my shrink used to say.
Another good thing I can offer the femsters is very harsh, Talibanesque punishment for rapists (I'm talking about rape in its traditional, pre-1980 definition).
But in any case, it's not like I really think women will accept any of these Pikean reforms of their own volition. I can picture them demonstrating, burning and castrating me in effigy and calling me really bad names. But I will deal with those femmo demos in my typically creative ways.
Divorce by consent is fault divorce. Basically, you can't get a divorce unless both parties consent--unless fault exists. No-fault means no consent and no fault necessary. At least that is my understanding.
Alimony was, until recently, half the period of the marriage. In fact for longer marriages it still is. So you aren't proposing anything new. What you fail to understand is that alimony isn't anything approaching protection.
You also seem to forget that a woman who wants to tolerate adultery won't be allowed to. So a husband can deliberately fuck around on his wife after she's stayed home for four or five years, provide grounds for his freedom, and only have two years of alimony (at his lower salary, too).
As for "no solution is perfect"--you seem to forget that any solution that hurts the mother will hurt the children. After all, in your traditionalist world where women look after kids, you don't think daddy's going to get them, do you? Nonsense. What does he want to do, grow a set of tits?
So daddy can fuck around, dump his homebody, fuck on demand, wife of a few years for another model and pay a minimal amount of money as well as give the wife the house. The wife will have her little pink collar job and be financially behind for the rest of her life. The kids spend their entire middle life paying for their mother's health bills, forcing their own children to suffer.
My, it's such an attractive picture you paint! I can see why so many women deny reality and stay at home for a life of ease to take care of a man as God intended.
So unless you can provide stats, you'll have to deal with reality--namely, fault divorce won't reduce risk, and it won't give women any more protection than they have now. Particularly so long as they also have equality. The way to fix things your way is to remove equality and turn women back into second class citizens.
In your world, are the women who choose not to marry good, or not?
They are neither good nor bad. They made their choice, that's all. I would try to encourage people to marry. I'd even try to sponsor all sorts of events to help people meet people, with the ultimate aim of having them fuck each other and fall in love and get married and have kids. I see nothing wrong with the State being a bit of a matchmaker. God knows it's better than it being a match breaker, the way it is now. I walked into the social worker's office the other day and I see a page on the corkboard that lists the ways in which men are like cell phones (take a long time to recharge, etc.).
What about the women who cannot or choose not to bear children? How would you "take care" of them?
Besides euthanasia you mean?
Why would I have a special solution for them? If they choose not to have children, that's their problem.
Another thought I had was to have these 'shelter towns'. These existed in biblical days (btw, sto: what makes you think biblical times were bad for the Jews? Certainly you don't mean the time of David and Solomon? What were you referring to?), as places where thieves could escape to, I think. In my plan, these would be purely female towns. They would have these feminazi guards at the gates and no men would ever be allowed in (not even to deliver pizza!)...
This would be a great place to escape to for women who'd had enough of men. When they got over their traumas, they could come back into the land of chest hairs and musculature. Or they could just stay where they were and do a doctorate on dildos.
One thing I would not allow, I think, is for women to take their children into these female-only towns. That would be a problem.
Your "dream scenario", from what I can determine, is the following: women should reject "real" careers, take pink collar jobs, let the man do all the providing, have babies and stay at home with them, and realize that this is their proper place.
In fact, this is largely reality in the United States--and I suspect Israel as well. Only 35% of married women work full time in any given year, they are disproportionately in low-paying jobs, they quit their careers for a long time when they have babies, and most of them marry men who make more money than they do. Hell, I'm pretty sure that some states still have fault (consent) divorce. So I'm really not sure what you are fussed about.
The irony is that while you scream and rail about the desirability of the Old Testament ways, you want to be a SNAG dad--but deny that the only way this will be accomplished is by eliminating gender discrimination (ie, my dream world--which really is a long way away).
Given your dissatisfaction with the current situation, which is your dream, you might want to the distortion that allows you to deny reality and realize that it is your sort of thinking that causes the mess we currently have.
I never said my goals were to reduce risk or to give women more protection than they have now. I am not trying to sell you an insurance package. I said my goals were to reduce incentive for divorce, reduce the rate of divorce, and make the system fairer. But really, you just repeat the same lines over and over again like some kind of robot and hijack the entire discussion like that. Try finding new stuff to say.
You are hell-bent on proving that the only good solution for all of women's woes is for them to take care of their careers. You think only in terms of money, CalGal. No argument you have put forward deals with any other subject besides money. Money money money money. Even mothering, in your world is 'daycare', and has a dollar-and-cents pricetag attached.
I humbly submit there is something pathetic in such gross materialism.
And I remind you that families consist of other things besides women. Men, for instance. And children.
That was a nice touch...the euthanasia. And I had so hoped to see his definition of a "good man."
But I think I can also call you a couple of really gross names if you want to play that game, Cal.
Shame, we were being so adult and civil for a while there.
Ah, a suggestion that women who don't want children be euthanized and prevented from being around children was a joke. I see. Well, I suggest you do what you demand others do when they say something humorous that you don't think is all that funny. Namely, apologize.
As for me, I meant "rabid" in the sense of your political views.
