Jane's Posts

Feb 29 2004 12:52 pm

but it never occurred to me that multi-colored underwear could be an issue. Do you mind if I ask the reasoning behind that?

Weehaw! We haven't had a good underwear discussion in ages.

I'm intrigued by those thin bandeau things that I see in the stores lately. The ones that are two to three inches wide and look like a stripe across your hips. The look madly cool, but I'm concerned that they might affect the human anatomy differently than they do a mannequin. Bulging above or below could be disastrous.

jane

Feb 29 2004 9:04 pm

It's exactly the same thing, imposing your view of what is right or appropriate on others.
Wendy

Right. And if I lose business because the client is insulted that my representative thinks it's OK to show up at a business meeting in shorts and a tank top, then pretty soon all the people I pay are out of a job.

That's just stupid.

If the client is stupid enough to be insulted that the person I chose to represent me is Black, then maybe his business isn't a huge loss. But if the person I send can't even be arsed to show a little respect for the client and his workplace by dressing appropriately, then I don't see that as defensible. I would expect my representative to dress conservatively, use profanity-free language and not eat with his hands or get drunk at a business lunch. All of these things are within the realm of appropriate behavior, and as an employer, yes, I *am* defining what's right or appropriate **in the people who represent me and my business**. I'm astonished that you don't think that that's reasonable.
Vicki

I don't think it's reasonable because I've been on the screwed side of the "conservative dress" issue all my life. You're even older than I am, so I don't understand why it doesn't bother you too. It pisses me right off that I can't go to some board meetings or into some court rooms without wearing a dress. I'm still angry about walking to school in a skirt even if it was 20 below for 12 years. Even today, when Lee's going to some youth leadership thing, she's supposed to wear a skirt. It really chaps my cheeks - sometimes literally.

jane

Mar 01 2004 3:50 pm

I find myself nodding yes both to Vicki and to you, Jane. The fact is that people will judge you by your appearance. What judgement they make may depend on who your clients are...'frumpy and formal' could be one just as easily as 'way-out weird.' Given that you will in fact be judged, a dress code just simplifies your life. It makes it easy to pick out clothes appropriate to the occasion without thinking about it.

I don't have any problem with people judging me by the way I dress. The way I dress says a lot about me. They might not get what it is, but I expect people to use the tools they have. That's actually part of the reason why it burns my ass to be forced to wear certain clothes. People are judging me on those clothes, and what they're seeing isn't me. It's dishonest to them and denigrating to me.

And almost all my suits are pant-suits, which seems to work out fine in 95% of business situations.

Yabbut don't you resent the 5% of the time you have to spend in drag? There are times I choose to wear dresses. It's sort of exciting and dangerous, all that skin and thighs rubbing together and nothing between your genitals and the ground but some silk. But I'm not looking for the exposed and sexy and vulnerable feeling in a business setting. I want everything tucked in and zipped, just like the guys.

I guess what we need is to push the dress-codes towards being sensible, rather than assuming we can abolish them. It seems to me that abolishing dress codes just sets up another criterion for discrimination -- by how someone dresses.

You know, I don't consider that discrimination. I'm fine with using sartorial choice as a basis for distinguishing among people.

Rational and necessary dress requirements I'm okay with. I don't see limitation of sartorial freedom the ultimate evil of the world. What bugs the crap out of me is the idea that it's no big deal and of course people have no valid claim to the right to wear what they want, after all this is business, where are your priorities? I'm pissed. This subject pisses me right off. I don't know if it's the chapped knees or having to go into business meetings in drag or the inanity of school dress codes or just all of it.

jane

Mar 02 2004 10:03 am

Well, businesses aren't democracies, are they? They're dictatorships.
They're dictatorships that can't deny you an exit visa, but the only thing that stops them from telling you what to do is (a) the law and (b) the risk that you'll leave. That's what all those labor laws and stuff are for.

I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be labor laws against companies dictating clothing unless they can prove it is directly related to job performance. I would support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing individuals the right to be free from pantyhose and polyester.

But I don't agree that it's just laws and quitting. Business responds to societal influences.

Screw it. I do think there should be laws against companies dictating clothing. Why not? Protect individuals' right to freedom of expression. Why should that be secondary to business's right to convey the image they want?

jane

Mar 02 2004 1:04 pm

Because the freedom of expression occurs within the private realm of someone else's business. It's not public.

I'm surprised that you consider a business a private place not a public place. I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted to be public.

Because in addition to the right to express yourself, you also have the right to work elsewhere if the conditions are not acceptable to you. Because the purpose of a business is to be profitable, and a dress code is directly related to image, which is marketing, and the owners/management have the right - no, the responsibility - to make the decisions that will prove to be best for the company in terms of its business plan.

Well, they might have the responsibility, but that doesn't mean they have the right. I can't think of an area of law that doesn't impinge on business's ability to convey the image they want. Zoning laws, civil rights laws, securities law, Truth In Lending, Equal Employment, Fair Trade Acts, Consumer Protection Acts, ADA, censorship laws, sexual harrassment ... that's just off the top of my head. We regulate business behavior just like we do individual behavior. Businesses don't have the same fundamental rights that individuals do, so we really have way more latitude to legislate what is in society's best interest.

Everybody has choices here. Nobody is oppressed.

I don't see what choice or oppression has to do with anything. I have social goals I want to advance: individual freedom of expression, diversity in the work force, and banning discrimination against women. That might interfere somewhat with companies' ability to foster a corporate image, but so what? That's not a goal I'm worried about or that I care about advancing.

jane

Mar 02 2004 8:00 pm

I'm surprised that you consider a business a private place not a public place. I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted to be public.

It's private in that the ownership of the business is that of an individual or entity, not the people at large i.e. government.

I'm not seeing the significance there. Are you coming at this from the perspective that it's not constitutional because there's no state action? Because I'm not making a constitutional argument here, and to be honest I'm less hostile to uniforms in the government sector. I can almost buy the argument that government has an image to project.

I am not seeing how damages are incurred by a standard of dress.

Well, that's been covered well enough for me, but it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. There don't have to be damages or oppression. We can just do it because It's a Good Thing.

I can see how the laws above are designed to protect against specific damages. Zoning laws are designed to protect communites and individual property rights (yes, I know some property owners feel they violate them), securities law, Truth In Lending, Fair Trade Acts, Consumer Protection Acts - designed for financial protection.
Censorship laws are closer, but there are still choices.

I don't see where you're going with this. Choice isn't an issue here. We pass laws that impinge on companies' ability to project corporate image for all kinds of different reasons.

If I own a business, I also own all the financial and legal liability that goes with it. I think I should be empowered to make the best decisions I can to carry out the vision of my business, and to protect myself from the above mentioned liabilities (within the limits of the law).

Talk to me about people being empowered to make the best decisions they can, and I might get a little excited (especially if I'm wearing a skirt). The "right" to corporate image just doesn't get my heart pumping. In fact, there may be nothing I care less about protecting than business's right to project an image. I'm not seeing what financial or legal liability you're either incurring or protecting yourself against with dress codes.

jane

Feb 25 2004 1:13 pm

I wonder how she's going to react when she finds out that Chewy now feels that makeup is inappropriate (rather than simply unnecessary, as he's felt as long as I've known him)
Kitten

Tell him he doesn't have to wear any then.
Wendy

but is going to leave the makeup guidelines to me.
Kitten

You don't have to, either.

What are you going to let her rebel on? What is she allowed to view differently from her parents? How does she get to experiment to find her own identity?

I think you're mean, too.
Wendy

Noooooooooooo.

Okay. I was thinking about the other Wendy talking to her SO about the lunches. I think what I like best about ASSP is that it gives me an outlet for talking about other people's parenting that helps me keep my mouth shut at home. For example, I don't think a single thing crosses his kids' lips that crosses my kid's lips. Tomatoes and peanut butter may be exceptions, and there is some variation among his kids, but he and I couldn't be futher apart on children's diets. The only thing we agree on is what annoyed Wendy, we refuse to argue with them about food.

So I was thinking how to say that to OP Wendy, that ASSP isn't a place that agrees with you or solves your problems, it's a place where you can get out all those things about parenting that your mate just doesn't want to hear. I didn't post any of that because the example I was stuck on was Kitten.

Kitten, are you looking to actually discuss this stuff? I can't imagine anything I'm less willing to do than participate in a "family date" with a male teen in musth. I don't know what your deal with makeup is, but I do know that your kids are at an age when "because that's our family (religion's) rule" is an inadequate response. I don't have anything against home schooling per se, but I'm afraid that you're micromanaging your kids' lives to the point where they can't help but explode. I'd explode now, never mind when I was a teen.

And you're losing it too. How could you get in a pissing match over nail polish? Mean is mean whether or not you were right about something else. You say you want your kids to talk about their feelings instead of acting out, but you get angry, defensive, and (judging by the makeup comment above) vindictive when they do.

jane

Feb 25 2004 1:46 pm

I don't know what your deal with makeup is, but I do know that your kids are at an age when "because that's our family (religion's) rule" is an inadequate response.

Why?

Because it's a nonanswer. It implies that you don't believe it is right. If you did believe it was right for some reason, you'd say, "because the reason for the rule."

jane

Feb 25 2004 1:57 pm

I don't think she'll slam out of the house after being disrespectful to her father again for a long while.

Yeah, I know, how she treats her father is out of my circle. But letting her get away with pissy disrespect toward anybody always backfires on me somehow.
Anne

You know, toots, they have enough trouble communicating without you blocking off what they do have.

jane

Feb 25 2004 2:11 pm

Something about it feels like the wrong approach to me--I can't quite put my finger on it.

How about the humiliating other people to get them to do what you want part?

I can see giving the other parent a "heads up" about what's going on, if you think it's necessary,

I agree, but I really hate doing this. You have to guess what they'll do to decide whether telling them is the right thing to do. If you know they'll beat their kid, you don't tell them. If you know they'll try to resolve it in a sensible way, you do. I wouldn't have said anything in your situation.

OTOH, one of Lee's friends' parents called me a couple of years ago and told me that she read in her daughter's journal that Lee was smoking crack or something. I knew Lee wasn't smoking crack, but I was touched that she screwed herself up to call. Of course I was horrified about her reading her daughter's journal.

I'm rambling. The problem with the heads up is that it's hard to be confident that you're doing right thing, when you have to deal with a parent who already doesn't know what is going on with her kid.

jane

Feb 26 2004 11:45 am

Kitten, are you looking to actually discuss this stuff? I can't imagine anything I'm less willing to do than participate in a "family date" with a male teen in musth.

Right off the top of my head, take care of a baby that they conceived because you left them alone too much

Them being alone does not lead to babies. Them having intercourse might. Of course, the risk of that can be significantly decreased with birth control.

Really, how are these people supposed to explore and come to terms with their sexuality? You may be no more ready than they are for the changes in their bodies, but you've all got to deal with it. Sticking your head in the sand about it does not make it go away until the kid is on his own.

I disagree. I think there are many things where "Are you kidding, my Mom would have a COW!" is a perfectly adequate reason to keep yourself out of trouble.

I don't know what you mean. You're not saying teens won't find sex attractive because their mothers aren't ready for it. What are you saying?

Mothers having cows is a fact of teen life. Everyone knows kids whose mothers have cows. I see a lot of sympathy among teens for chldren of cow-having mothers. In fact, remember what I was just saying to Deb about the head up? It's the cow-having parents that I hesitate to call.

What I'm saying is that if you are a teen making a decision, and your reasoning is "my mother would have a cow," your mother has become another bullshit thing you have to deal with. If the correct decision would lead to cow having, you've either got to do the wrong thing or deal with the cow having in some way.

Okay, I don't think nail polish is one of them, but I'm just saying. I'm not a big fan of micromanaging a teen, but my particular teen has been busy proving there are areas of her life that need micromanagement right now. (Academics being the top one.) I think teens are like toddlers, in that it's all about picking the battles you a) care about and b) think you can win.

Okay. I'll tell you something, though. It bothers me that it is so much about battles. I don't mean to sound like Pollyanna, but why isn't it about working together toward a shared goal? I don't see that Lee and I have radically different goals.

Besides, micromanagement doesn't work.

jane

Feb 26 2004 12:05 pm

I don't think that somebody telling your parents personal private stuff should necessarily be a consequence of every action. But I think the "personal humiliation" part of the original situation pales in comparison to the "I'm not helping you lie to your Mom and this is what happens when you try to manipulate me into doing that" lesson. Of all the things in the world, I hate being manipulated by my SD.

Okay, but that's your problem. Humiliating a child to ease your own psychological unease is a shitty thing for an adult to do.

Do you see what I'm saying? You have a problem with being manipulated. You are the one who has to figure out how to not be manipulated. It's hard. Deb had a hard time. We've all had trouble setting limits.

But what you're trying to say is, "I'm not helping you lie to your Mom, because that behavior on my part would not be acceptable by my standards." The "this is what happens when you try" part is fucked. It's not the wrong thing to do because you are capable of punishing or humiliating the other person. It's wrong because you value your integrity and you don't want to undermine the girl's relationship with her mother.

jane

Feb 26 2004 1:09 pm

But that's you and that's Lee. I know a 16 year old right now whose goals are to make all of her own decisions, at all times, to go where she wants when she wants with whomever she wants, to stay out all night, to be given the money and car to do these things, and to never ever have to communicate with an adult authority again, although living with family wouldn't be so bad if she weren't accountable. She says that she *is* an adult, and that following family rules doesn't make sense because she can take care of herself. The adults in her life should just let go and let her do what she wants.

I don't believe you, and I find your analysis demeaning. Those aren't her goals. I can understand *her* thinking they are, but not you thinking they are.

How do you work towards a shared goal when you don't have one?

Vicki! You're the pro at this. You are the ultimate discoverer of shared goals and developer of routes to achieve them.

My goal is to get her to the point where she can handle that kind of freedom, or at least be responsible for herself when she has it. And it's not now.

Okay, that's a start. You have a lot more. You both want you not to kill her. You both want her to be loved. You both want her to be happy. You both want her to have a vocation and avocation she enjoys. Damn, girl, you've got *skills* here! Pretend you're a client.

jane

Feb 26 2004 1:14 pm

If the kid doesn't believe the reason the parents give, such as the family religion, that "because my parents say so" is always there to fall back on.

What do you mean by "fall back on"?

I mean as a reason to give the ubiquitous peers who presumably will be questioning the kid about it. Blaming parents is always good and other kids usually understand.

Ahh. Middle school. That's not the age I'm talking about. I had no problem with Lee using me as an excuse when she was younger. Now, if she thinks something is wrong, she knows why she thinks it is wrong. We're in the years when "my mother thinks it's wrong" is met with "how do you know your mother is right?"

jane

Feb 26 2004 9:00 pm

But if my kid is sneaking around, lying and evading rules that I thought she was following, the person who brings it to my attention isn't undermining my relationship with my daughter, my daughter is.

I meant that dropping them off around the corner would be undermining.

She should be embarrassed not because she's been outed as a liar and a sneak, but because she was lying and sneaking. I see it as natural consequence.

No, no. She might be ashamed by the lying and sneaking, but the outing and embarassment are your introduction.

If my relationship with my daughter is based on lies and ignorance of what's really happening, *that's* what's fucked.

Right, but it's not, right?

jane

Feb 26 2004 9:35 pm

See, I'm remembering when I was a teenager and I can tell you that what *I* would have gotten out of this, if I were your son, isn't that it's not ok to disregard his GF's mother's wishes, it would have been that it's okay to disregard his GF's mother's wishes and sneak around behind her back as long as you don't have to actively participate in it.

I don't disagree. I'm okay with it, though. One aspect of supporting each other through the minefield that is the teens is dealing with parents. I'd lie to a parent about her kid in the right circumstances, and I very rarely bother to lie. So I figure Lee would too.

I'm not sure I would tell Deb's son that it was wrong for him to sneak around with his GF behind his mother's back. It might not be wise, if he plans a long term relationship. But GF's level of honesty with her mother is between them. It's not his business. At the point where he becomes complicit in the deception and hustles Deb for a ride it is, of course.

How is she supposed to parent her daughter if she doesn't know what's going on? What if the shoe is on the other foot? You see, for some reason, I kinda expect that when my child is at a friend's house and their parents *know* that I wouldn't approve of something my child is doing, they let me know about it. Even if they don't think it's a big deal. Even if they don't share the same beliefs. And, yeah, to a certain extent, I even expect them to actively enforce my beliefs and not passively ignore them being ignored.

I don't do that. At my house my rules apply. I know Lee's friends' parents probably want them to not swear, keep kosher, etc., but at this point, I don't even tell my own kid what to eat or how to talk. I'm certainly not going to get involved in other people's wranglings.

I have a two-pronged approach to this. First, I make sure that I basically know what's going on in my kid's life. And really I think you have to work pretty hard not to know. Second, I check out the other parents. If they have guns, Lee can't go there. If they allow teen drinking, or they leave their kids home when they go out of town, or I see them leering at teen girls, I factor it into my decision.

jane

Feb 26 2004 9:57 pm

Oh, Deb, come on! You hear her out, then

I wouldn't. Well, I probably would if she kept it under 25 words.

She brought your kid home,

This is the part that bugs me. She doesn't get to tell my kid when to come home. That's between me and my kid.
I hope I wouldn't let my anger at her presumption distract me from the matter at hand. I wouldn't want Lee to think being dragged home by Ms. Doe was a get out of trouble free card. At a minimum I wouldn't be inclined to attach much importance to the perspective of someone who would drag my kid up to my door like that. At worst "who the fuck do you think you are to..." would pop out before I could drag my kid inside and close the door.

jane

Feb 26 2004 10:34 pm

If she's humiliated in the process, I'm not sitting there going, "Oh goody, and SD was embarassed in front of all her friends too! Whoopie! I love it when I get a chance to embarass her!"

You know, I almost said that I didn't see what your mall story had to do with Kitten's proposition. But you were associating them, so I figured you must know.

If you're saying that the "what will happen" is that manipulative behavior won't have the desired effect, that's fine. I'm okay with unavoidable attendant embarassment, too. But if humiliating your kid is the goal, and that's what's going to happen whenever they do what you don't like, that's fucked.

To let her get away with this kind of thing is unacceptable by *my* standards and is harmful to *our* relationship. She's perfectly capable of understanding that, and cares about it. If the natural consequences of her actions are that she's embarassed, well, lesson learned. The "this is what happens when you try" part is the *point*. Actions have consequences, these are the consequences of yours. If you didn't like it, don't repeat the actions.

Okay, think about this. What action of yours was her lying a consequence of? What action do you have to not repeat in order for her to not lie?

I mean your argument is that if she does X, a negative consequence will ensue, and eventually she will learn not to do X. She will think "wow, this negative consequence was caused by my action, therefore I better not do that again." But when she lied to you, you didn't think "wow, this lie was caused by my action, therefore I better not do that again."

Some bad stuff we bring on ourselves, some just happens, some is fallout from other people's problems. It is not my experience that teens are adept at distinguishing among those. In fact, I don't know a single person of any age, intellence, or maturity level who can distinguish among the three impeccably. In this situation there was a combination of all three: She lied; you happened to talk to Chuck before pick up time; and manipulation is a hot button for you. I think that's pretty much how it always is.

jane

Feb 26 2004 10:48 pm

It would be "If you are planning on sleeping with your boyfriend, which is a really bad idea at your age, that we highly disapprove of for list of of reasons, then we will either take you to start on Depo shots, or get you a Norplant. We will get you condoms to prevent disease and you will use them. You will not be sleeping with your boyfriend in my house. Those things will happen if you want to continue to live here."

Did you ever see "Raising Victor Vargas"? It was a grandmother raising her three orphaned grandteens. When sex reared her head, GM told one that he was out of there, and marched him down to DYS. When the social worker told her she couldn't get rid of him, the poor woman looked so crushed.

I mean, what are you going to do if she boinks him on your sofa without BC? Spend $6K a month for boarding school? Let BM finally win?

jane

Feb 26 2004 10:58 pm

"It doesn't matter if I ever want to use the car (or insert any other privilege) again."

Lee doesn't like to hurt me. She does, of course, when it's necessary, but she avoids it when possible. That's how I treat her.

I'm being realistic here. I cannot keep her from walking out the front door anymore. If she doesn't take her car, one of her friends will pull up in 10 minutes. I could refuse to buy her tofu and organic eggs, but I want her to care about health and nutrition. She could flunk her classes to piss me off, but she wants to go to a good college. We work well as a team, and neither of us wants to lose that.

jane

Feb 26 2004 11:03 pm

Actually, I wasn't going there, but yeah, I bet a lot of this stuff is easier if you're dealing with an emotionally healthy teen with no deeply self-destructive needs. If you can watch your kid go out the door and not really worry about what's going to happen, a lot of these cans of worms never get opened.

Now wait just one second. Have we all forgotten how I came to this group? Is my SD no longer legendary?

jane

Feb 26 2004 11:19 pm

You and Jane were rebels.

Were? WTF?

They trusted me to follow their reasonable (to me) rules, and I did, and the thought of their disappointment if I did something against those rules was enough to keep me in line. ..... They weren't threats or mind games, though, to me.

Right, but Vicki, you're talking about disappointment. Melissa was responding to Geri's comments about public humiliation:

the knowledge that they could/would be more than willing to embarrass me in front of my friends and their families if I broke the right rules probably helped keep me in line. Just the possibility of public humiliation is an excellent tool -

jane

Feb 27 2004 11:50 am

Oops.

Vicki: She brought your kid home,
Jane: This is the part that bugs me. She doesn't get to tell my kid when to come home. That's between me and my kid.
Vicki: Except that your kid asked her for a ride home, knowing all the time she wasn't even supposed to be there.

That's not what happened. Her son asked his mother for a ride for my kid. BTW, I have no problem with her dropping my kid off at the front door.

I hope I wouldn't let my anger at her presumption distract me from the matter at hand.

Presumption. Giving your kid the ride home (that she asked for)

except that she didn't

from the place that you'd told the kid she wasn't supposed to be.

which is none of her business.

I don't see that as presumption. I see that as letting me know that my kid lied to me.

Well, Vicki, I already know my kid lies to me. Mostly, she doesn't mention things I would like to know. Trust is a delicate balance between people. Lee is careful to be honest enough to maintain my trust. I am too. But there are things that both of us choose to keep private, for the same reasons people do in any relationship.

And "Who the fuck are you to.." would be enough to make sure that if I saw Lee smoking crack and selling quickies on a corner, I wouldn't call you.

This is the part I don't get. How could Lee could be smoking crack and selling quickies on a corner without me knowing?

Lee and I talked about this a little last night. Asked what percent of Lee's life I know about, we both said 80%. Independently.

So figure I'm parenting 20% in the dark. That 20% takes work. I have to figure out everything that could be there and do my best to help her to cope with it. But I also look at the 80% I do know and extrapolate. I wouldn't drop dead from shock if Lee smoked a cigarette or drank a beer at a party. I might if she smoked cocaine or drove home drunk. Could she have sex? Yes. Could she be selling quickies on a corner? No.

But I don't understand why you'd want to be kept in the dark if your kid is deliberately disobeying a rule.

Remember, I'm okay with a phoned in heads up over something that seems serious. A little parent-to-parent support is fine. Call me, send a note, ask me to do lunch. Don't stage a little drama with me in a role I don't want to prove a point to your kid and mine, because I don't buy the moral of that story.

jane

Feb 27 2004 12:18 pm

I think the terms we're using here are lending a sense of hostility or overbearingness to teh situation though. Who's talking about dragging a kid to the door? Who's talking about marching?

I'm working from Kitten's:

I'd help them, alright. Right up to the girl's front door and into the house for a talk with her mom. Both kids would be involved in a discussion about respect and courtesy.

I'm not seeing an interpretation without overbearingness there. The hostility is mine.

I just can't picture a situation in which the other parent would say, "You should have dropped her off at the corner, mind your own business." Because if it was a big enough deal to make the rule in the first place, then I would assume the other parent cares about the situation.

Thank doesn't mean that she wants you to get involved or that she would handle it with a group confrontation. And you can trust me that no one is "helping" her kid into my house for a discussion about courtesy and respect.
Exploring the parameters of this, I don't think a call from her cell in the car or even her coming to the door to say that she was dropping my kid off would bother me.

jane

Feb 27 2004 2:04 pm

I'm getting the sense here that you think that the threat of losing a car or public embarrassment is the only way that we're proposing to keep kids in line. Where are you getting that?

I'm not. Not even with Geri.

All of the things you say there apply, I'm guessing pretty much with Geri's young SD and Anne's and my older kids. Of course, there's a lot of teamwork. My kids don't want to hurt me, I don't want to hurt them, how in the world could you think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise.

BUT, actions have consequences. Embarrassment is one of them, losing car privileges is another.

This I don't agree with. Well, I do, but not all the time. Blood stains on your jeans because you forgot to change your tampon is embarassment as a natural consequence. So is puking in public from excessive consumption of alcohol.

We embarass other people, including our children, from time to time. The truth is, I embarass my kid all the time, sometimes with glee. I showed the cashier at Whole Foods her report card, for example. I do not embarass or humiliate as a form of discipline or punishment, though.

What I really cannot stand, though, is being used as the tool of humiliation. When a husband makes his wife look stupid to control her that's bad, bad, bad. When he uses me as the audience for that humiliation, I get in trouble. I have the same problem with parents and children. More even, because the power differential is greater and also because I think that's how husbands grow up to think I'm going to sit through dinner with them humiliating their wives in front of everyone.

(OK, so her friend can come get her. That's a very different thing from having your own wheels.) I don't get your point, I guess. You can't be saying that older kids should never be discomfited when they break the rules, or that they shouldn't have rules. I know Lee has rules.

Yeah, no, yeah, no. I'm feeling that she's out of here in a heartbeat and we really have to move away from My Rules From Above. She OTOH still wants those bright lines, and she still finds not being allowed to do things useful.

This is really hard to explain. If Lee is facing a decision she doesn't feel competent to make, she shifts it to me. Say, for example, Lee's friend is having a sleepover at her house while her parents are out of town with their permission. Lee wants to go, but she has concerns. Maybe she thinks a bunch of kids with a keg will show up. Either she consults me on it as a hypothetical, or I get "clues."

Some of them must chafe at times, that's the nature of being a teen.

Last night I asked her in what area I could improve as a parent. She said in letting her do more things. I laughed. Because I am working with incomplete information, I always have a little insecurity that I'm giving her too free a rein.

If she breaks a rule, what happens?

Okay, this I know. We butt heads over using babelfish for foreign language homework. She thinks it's fine; I don't. I'm the holder of the internet. If I catch her using it inappropriately, she doesn't get to use it without supervision.

Last week, she didn't call me when she got to her friend's house (driving in the rain at night) and I told her that I didn't think I'd be comfortable letting her use the car for a week.

jane

Feb 27 2004 4:04 pm

However, if I went to the mall and found Laura with a bunch of her friends with a cigarette in her hand, do you think I'd wait until she got home to address it? I'll answer that. No, I wouldn't. She'd put it out right there and then and hear about why.

I hate dragging other people into conflict. I am the queen of "can I talk to you outside/in the other room/ in the kitchen/ over there?" With pretty much everyone, NTITOI.

Would she find that embarrassing? Likely. Is that *my* problem? No. She knows the rules about smoking.

Yeah, but bringing all your kids friends into your conflict with your kid about rules and smoking is a separate issue. Think about it. If I said I'd go up to Lee and shoot her or slap her or call her an idiot slut, you wouldn't be thinking "well, she knew the rules about smoking." You're responsible for the consequences you choose.

jane

Feb 27 2004 4:28 pm

I'm not seeing an interpretation without overbearingness there. The hostility is mine.

But why *are* you getting so hostile? I just don't get the big deal.
Anne

Oh, it's just wrong on so many levels. I resent the other parent's dragging me into her problems with her son. I'm annoyed by her butting into my relationship with my kid. I'm horrified that she'd think I'd agree to handle things with a group discussion in the living room. I don't like her demonstrating to my kid that you can't turn to adults for help. And I don't like her being mean to my kid.

You know, parenting is hard. Telling a parent something bad about her kid is a very delicate procedure. I know this, because I screw it up every time. IMVE, most parents do not welcome other people telling them what to do with their kids and they really, really don't want to hear that they are doing something wrong. So you have to deliver the information as factually as possible without judgment or drama or criticism of anyone. Because she does not want to hear you criticize her and she does not want to hear you criticize her kid.

jane

Feb 28 2004 6:07 am

Come on, Jane. Like anyone here is in the shoot, slap or 'idiot slut' camp.

My point is that what *you* do, whether it be embarassing her or humiliating her or denigrating her or treating her with the respect you would afford another, is not a consequence of *her* action.

jane

Feb 28 2004 10:16 am

My point is that what *you* do, whether it be embarassing her or humiliating her or denigrating her or treating her with the respect you would afford another, is not a consequence of *her* action.

But, just to bring me up to speed, if *your* words or actions hurt somebody's feelings or make them angry or whatever, that's on them and they should have known better. You don't take responsibility for that or change your behavior.

I am so lost. At least one of us is sleep-deprived here. You mean me you, right? Not one you?
Never mind. Let me start over. You know when you asked about the hostility? I'm very hostile to the suggestion that one person's behavior is the consequence of another's actions.

Causality is is a matter of philosphy. There is no answer to what something is the consequence, the result, of. Everything is interrelated. You said A because I said B because you said C at night because the computers at your job went down, and the cat died. The truth is none of us really know what's going to happen next, no matter what we do.

So I'm conceding right off that on some philosophical level I could say something that could "cause" someone to slap me. I don't care about that. What I'm interested in is who takes responsibility for the slap.
IME, attaching responsibility for the slap to the speaker instead of slapper is the hallmark of abuse. Because I'm sensitive to this issue, I have tried to make this distinction clear to my kid. I do not want to be telling her that, no, her husband does not beat her because she keeps messing up, he beats her because he's violent. So when she was young, I told her that no, she didn't hit Brandon because he called her "stupid," she hit him because she lost her temper. More recently, I've told her, "no, Mr. Doe, didn't call Debbie fat just because she ate one cookie, he called her fat because he's an asshole."

I'm not calling you an asshole. I'm not even saying that you were wrong to drag her from the mall. I'm just saying, SD owns the lie, you own the dragging from the mall, and you both should be very clear on that. See, it used to drive you crazy when BM made "I wouldn't slap you if you didn't..." remarks. I'm hearing, "I wouldn't embarrass you if you didn't..." now. IME that reasoning pattern makes her vulnerable to "I wouldn't beat/rape/humiliate you if you didn't..." in other relationships in her life. That's my experience, that that's how it works. You - you you not one you - want to avoid that.

jane

Feb 28 2004 10:29 am

It can be as simple as, "Sure I'll give you a ride." Then you drive up to the house and walk up to the front door. You explain to the other mom how you came to have her child in your car, apologize (in front of your child) for your child showing such disrespect to their household rules, then ask how the two of you can communicate better to keep it from happening in the future.

Kitten

I don't want you to do that to my kid. If you want to help her, help her. Talk about it, lend her a book, offer to talk to me. If she has decided that this is not the time to deal with me on this, do not compel or trick or deceive her to do things your way.

I don't want to communicate with you to keep this from happening in the future. I don't want her not seeing your son because she can't get away with it. I want her on board.

jane

Feb 28 2004 10:35 am

Jane, even in your example of asking Lee to leave the group and go somewhere else for a chat - that's embarrassment.

Right. Sometimes you can't avoid it. Just, you know, own it.

jane

Feb 28 2004 10:50 am

How about "You wouldn't be embarrassed if you didn't..."

It's just not in the facts. Lying did not embarrass her.

Embarrassment comes from inside the kid, it's not imposed, like a slap, from the outside. Shouldn't the kid be responsible for her own embarrassment, just like I should be responsibile for my own hurt feelings if you say something that I find hurtful?

Yeah, but no. It's all the kids' to deal with and work out in therapy later. What I'm saying is that humiliation functions like a slap within the dynamic of abuse.

jane

Feb 28 2004 2:22 pm

My son says his conscience makes him feel sick to his stomach. I'm happy about that.

Sheila

That gives me the creeps.

jane

Feb 28 2004 2:33 pm

My job, as I see it, is to prepare our children for living in the 'real world' and breaking the rules (or participating when someone else is breaking *their* rules) is not generally met with a 'Well, I don't believe you should do that and here's why. So, go ahead and keep doing it, but if someone else catches you, you're in trouble.'

Wait a second, I missed something. In the "real world" no one cares about Deb's son's GF's mother's rules. No one's going to mention him breaking them, and the most they would say is what you've written above.

How did the GF's mother end up setting rules for Deb's son in this? We're not talking about laws that we all accept as binding on our conduct as members of our society. We're talking about some beleaguered mother of a teen Worcester. She's not a maker of rules that I have to follow. I'm certainly not responsible for enforcing them. I don't see why my kid would be, either.

jane

Feb 28 2004 3:25 pm

who owns it then? is it the parent's fault for humiliating the kid, or does the kid own the embarassement then?

The parent is responsible for the verbal assault. The feelings are the kid's. That doesn't mean that she's responsible for them being there. She's responsible for what she does with them there, though.

and let's change the players slightly-it's husband and wife, and it's one of them screaming the same at the other...same questions...:)

Well, I've been wondering about this, too. I wonder whether people think it's more okay to humiliate children than it is to humiliate adults. Or do people just think it's okay to humiliate people as long as they're not the people. Or are they just okay with it all around.

I've seen people publicly berate their children, mates, friends, employees, etc. I'm wondering whether they're all the same people. If your employee comes back from lunch late *again*, do you call her into your office to talk about it, or take it up in front of everyone? If your DH forgets to drive your daughter to dance, do bring it up in front of his softball team, or after the game? If I blow you off for a movie and you run into me at the mall with a bunch of other people, do you tell me off in front of everyone or talk to me about it later?

jane

Feb 28 2004 3:29 pm

jane's asking about deliberate humiliation, and it came from somewhere that the kid got to own the humiliation no matter what...that's what i'm questioning...

Your feeling are your own. We all feel differently because we are different people. Only we can manage our feelings.

Regardless of what I actually feel, if you say something in order to cause me pain so that I will do what you want me to, then you are being abusive.

jane

Feb 28 2004 3:37 pm

The kid has a CONSCIENCE. Personally, I'm very proud of that...

Sure, I have a conscience, too. It doesn't make me sick to my stomach.
jane

Feb 28 2004 3:55 pm

Sure, I have a conscience, too. It doesn't make me sick to my stomach.

Mine does. I worry about the fact that I did something wrong. I feel the need to come clean and make amends. I get excess gastric juices due to all of this.

Jeez Louise! What the hell did you do? And if you thought it was wrong, why did you do it in the first place? My conscience doesn't keep me up at night, it keeps me from doing things that would keep me up at night.

Perfectly normal response, IMO.

We'll just agree to disagree on that, then.

jane

Feb 28 2004 8:35 pm

who owns it then? is it the parent's fault for humiliating the kid, or does the kid own the embarassement then?

The parent is responsible for the verbal assault. The feelings are the kid's. That doesn't mean that she's responsible for them being there. She's responsible for what she does with them there, though.

The *Verbal Assault?!* What in the ever-loving hell are you even *talking* about?!

I'm drawing a line here. If you want to know what I'm talking about, you can go back and read the post I replied to. It's hard for me, but I can see I have to be firm.

Well, let's see. If DH walked into the mall and saw me with my tongue down a biker's throat, I expect there would be some words right then and there. And come to think of it, if he saw me smoking, he might say something to me too, since it's something we've agreed I won't do.

And I'm trying to get to the place where it's all his fault if I'm humiliated because he caught me with a biker and had the nerve to say something about it, but I'm just not seeing it.

Okay, but I'm trying to narrow this down. What happens if you're with a bunch of friends? And instead of the biker, there are 20 bags of baby clothes even though you promised him you wouldn't blow your paycheck at the mall?

You're trying to compare the SM-SD relationship to a friend of spouse relationship there, and the parallel really doesn't hold up. If you're my kid, I get to make rules for you. If you break them, I get to be pissed.

I'm not really taking about being pissed. I'm talking about how you treat the other person when you're pissed.

jane

Feb 28 2004 8:50 pm

Well, since I try to avoid that feeling, neither do I. I'll experience it in smaller doses (like when I have a snippy tone with the kids, or when I curse at my DH in the midst of an argument), which consists of a hollowness in my stomach, and butterflies.

See, I don't think that's your conscience, but I don't want to get into a dictionary fight over it. Whatever you call it, it's a problem. It's not a good thing you want your kid to have. You don't want stuff eating your kid's guts out. You want him to figure out what the right thing to do is and do it. You want him to refuse to take the kids without seat belts.

If he makes a mistake, you want him to learn from it, atone, and be confident that he's a stronger person because of it. You want him to apologize for losing his temper and make note of what led up to it and watch for it in the future.

Stomach aches are not required for any of this. They're not part of the process.

jane

Feb 29 2004 1:27 pm

Okay, but if you're trying to narrow it down, compare comparable transgressions of rules/agreements. If SD spent all her money on clothes, I could care less. I would't expect my DH, who's not working at the moment, to say a word if I blow some money on something I want once in a while. There are like five things my SD could do to get me mad enough that I would feel the need to confront her right away. *That's* the kind of thing I'm trying to compare.

And this is just the kind of thing I'm saying you have to be careful about. Your SD could come away from these sentences with the idea that you think that how angry a person affects what behavior is acceptable towards her. Really.

For her, and for many teen girls, you've to lay out and reinforce that while anger may influence what you or she or her boyfriend *actually* does, it does not in any way change the acceptabilty of that behavior. If hitting, shouting, insulting, ridiculing, lying, etc are not okay, they are not okay when you are angry. No matter who you are or what the situation is. Teen boys probably even more NTITOI.

This has been a complicated thread with a lot of different issues and hypotheticals, and I've been a little sleep-deprived. But I'm not getting the clarity from you here that I think she needs to hear there. Like: I hate it when you lie and I am left in the position of having to choose between either allowing you to benefit from a lie or ruining your afternoon and embarrassing you and all your friends in the process.

I keep thinking about what Kathy said, and I agree. A single incident with the parent being pissed and the kid being embarrassed does constitute an abusive dynamic. OTOH, that is irrelevant when you're dealing with a kid who *has* grown up with the idea that it's okay to hurt people because you're angry. With that kid you're always choosing between reinforcing or undermining the idea that abuse is okay.

jane

Mar 01 2004 4:08 pm

Oh, yeah??? When I was that age, my parents knew all of the parents of my friends and would have had no compunction about calling them if they felt it warranted. I will undoubtedly be the same way.

I have some doubts. I only know about half Lee's parents friends. The rest I've never met or spoken to.
When Lee was younger, I came into contact with her friends' parents in one way or another. Drop her off or carpooling or making arrangements. So the parents I know I've known for a long time.

More recently there hasn't been the need for any of that. The parents aren't sitting around hoping you'll call, either. If you hunt them down and catch them when they're not at work or working out or shopping or grooming, they're usually busy cooking dinner or on the phone to a friend or something. When you get them, IME they're polite, but quick to resolve whatever you've called about and get back to their busy lives.

jane

Mar 04 2004 11:58 am

If truth be told, I'd rather have a kid who does some rebelling and challenging, yet can still come to me and talk. It gives me some hope for the future.
Deb R.

I don't know if I even think of this incident as rebelling. Your son is about Lee's age. I figure at this point she should be pretty clear on what I consider right and wrong. Her primary focus should be working on what she considers right and wrong.

We talk about issues like this stuff all the time. I'll probably talk to her about your issue tonight. But my role in the conversations is advisory. I can imagine situations where I would tell her what she *had* to do, like hitting a parked car, but her interactions with other people... I can't make those decisions for her.

I find this clash with your son interesting. One might say that he was rebelling and breaking your rule by asking you to drive them. I think he was requiring you to demonstrate how one sticks to one's guns *after* the decision on what is right and wrong. Whether or not it makes us uncomfortable, I think teens should be able to look to us for that. Because that is really, really hard to figure out, and now that they are figuring out what their morals are, putting them into practice is an even bigger challenge.

Did that make sense? I don't see this as rebellion. His message wasn't "I don't care what you think is right and wrong or what limits you set." It was, "Show me how to be strong and do what I think is right when someone I love is pressuring me not to." Of course, I wasn't there; I'm just going by what you said.

jane

Feb 24 2004 2:24 pm

My SO has this mentality that he is a "single father."

Yabbut, he *is* a single father. This isn't some delusion he has.

And I think he always will. Yet on the other hand he wants me there for him and his kids. But who am I? I mean, where do I fit in....I get so lost at times, not knowing where to turn, but yet when he works out of town for days at a time...who does he leave them with?

Taking care of someone's kids doesn't make you their parent. You're temporarily responsible, the AIC.

Couples figure out different approaches that fit their relationships and the kids involved. The bottom line is that your SO is responsible for everything, food, clothing, shelter, book reports, clean clothes, and guidance. Some of that you might feel willing and competent to share in, and some of it he might be willing to delegate. Your role is where your comfort zone and his overlap.

jane

Feb 24 2004 4:29 pm

These kids are grade schoolers. You don't fight with them. You can tell them how it is going to be.

LOL. Geri, you can't run them by remote control.

Grade school aged children making their own lunches seems a little odd to me, but what the hell, if it works it works. In this case it doesn't seem to be working, so I don't really get why the father isn't whipping up the PB&J and putting it in a little brown bag the night before. Maybe the kids making their own lunches is a Wendy innovation and one which is going over like a lead balloon. Maybe Dad is stopping at McD's in the morning. Maybe he's giving them a couple of bucks for lunch.

But that wasn't her question.

jane

Feb 25 2004 1:42 pm

But I also agree, if he wants to keep the "single" attitude, then he should be looking elsewhere besides "ME" for sitters when he is out of town for days.

That's the point. Instead of fighting about what he is willing to do or to let you do, think about what you are and are not willing to do.

jane

Feb 23 2004 11:25 pm

It pays to listen to talk radio! Brian and I are going to get to see that new Mel Gibson movie (that is sold out around here forever when it opens Wed.) "The Passion" at a special screening tomorrow night and then we get to see a live broadcast afterward. We entered their contest and got the call this afternoon.

Congratulations, Geri. Report back.

I think I like Mel Gibson. I saw the interview with his father that's causing all the flap. I was shocked. Then I saw an interview with him. He said that he didn't believe all the things his father said. Then he said something like, "they're just trying to cause trouble between me and my father and it's not going to work. He's my father. I love him." I'm not sure about the first part, but I liked the second part.

jane

Feb 23 2004 10:59 am

Some of the stepmoms here would have to worry about the biomom not being there for her kids, but being there to take the opportunity to tell everyone how wronged she was and what a bastard the deceased was.

You know, though, you really can't ruin a funeral. It's not like a wedding. The dead body keeps things in a little better perspective.

I'm thinking over the different types of death rituals that I've attended. I think the church funeral is the way to go for keeping the ex-wife in check. Preferably a cathedral. If you have one of those services where you're invited to talk about the deceased, you're screwed. I think you should have a wake so that she gets the chance to throw herself on the coffin and sob, "Oh, Ex, why did you leave me?"

While we're on the subject, what is the etiquette on this? The current wife has to stand near the casket and greet people. What do you do about the kids? Until recently, Lee would have wanted me to stand there with her. What do people do?

jane

Feb 23 2004 11:22 am

Well, I think the balance is at the place where you decide that the ex-wife is capable of coming to the service and not being a distraction, causing a scene, knowing when to leave, and not upsetting anybody. Ours isn't. Maybe some people's are.

Yabbut, Anne. You can count on the attendees already being upset. Scenes and distractions that leave them reflecting "at least he doesn't have to deal with that harpy anymore" are not a bad thing.

My MIL would have a stroke.


When her time comes, her time comes.

My SIL would be in a fistfight with BM in the first ten minutes.

Outside or inside? Because if they stayed outside, I'd be in favor of it.

I'm just saying, get a grip. You're not giving a party. Your husband is lying in a box dead. No one expects you to monitor who shows up.

jane

Feb 23 2004 11:31 am

It's not really that big a deal to me, and certainly not worth causing a bigger scene myself by trying to keep her out. That would be exactly what my BM (And Anne's and I suspect Geri) would want anyway.
Love, Melissa

Absolutely. What could be better than a "they posted armed guards at his funeral" story in your repertoire? I don't know that Anne's BM could really do it justice. She'd probably go with outrage instead of deep sadness.

jane

Feb 21 2004 12:17 pm

No reasonable person could possibly justify the existence of partial birth abortion.
Lori

Lori, no reasonable person could take the bible literally, so that argument isn't going to work on me.
Melissa

Yes, they're right on the same level alright.
Anne

I think the point is that "no reasonable person could believe" is one of those things you don't say if you want to continue the discussion. It's like "you're just stupid."

jane

Feb 22 2004 9:18 am

I think the point is that "no reasonable person could believe " is one of those things you don't say if you want to continue the discussion. It's like "you're just stupid."

In which case, I can rephrase, but only to say that I don't *understand* how any reasonable person could believe it. I truly don't, which is why I asked the question.
Lori

What question? Never mind. I'm not the referee. I don't care at all about this conversation.

I'm taking about discussion in general. If you're having the sharing of ideas kind of conversation, you've got to stay away from this kind of remark. It chills the flow of ideas you're looking for.

I'm not sure that couching it in terms of your lack of understanding is much better. It does invite the other participants to help you understand, but the "if you don't agree with me, you're not reasonable" is still lurking in there.

jane

Feb 20 2004 11:59 am

I hate being in the middle of two people that affect my life so dramatically; however, who seem to be completely unmotivated to have any type of personal relationship with one another. I don't want to have to choose between them. It's not fair to me

Now, I'm confused. I was formulating my response to the "my family doesn't accept my stepkids" issue, and now we seem to have shifted to the "dissent among family members" issue.

On the latter...your daughter and your father are grownups. You don't have to get involved in this. Let them work it out. Don't butt into their relationship. Don't feel that you have to take sides. Going to your father's birthday party if he's not inviting your daughter is not betraying her. If I ever hit 70, I'm going to invite whomever I'm in the mood to party with regardless of their relation to anyone else.

Regarding stepkids as grandkids, I don't see what everyone is getting upset about. You married their mother. Your father didn't make that choice. He didn't just love them so much he had to make them part of his family. You don't have to take this as denigrating your parenting efforts or your relationship choices. You don't have to consider it a slap in your face or your daughter's.

jane

Feb 20 2004 2:17 pm

But on the other hand, this man (the OP) is looking for his father to accept *his* family the same way he accepts his sister's family.

Right. That's what he has to let go of. They do or they don't; he can't make them.

He wants to see that his wife isn't hurt, he wants to maintain this kind of fragile balance of relationships that now exists without alienating anyone in the process. I can understand wanting all this. Maybe there are ways to keep this kind of balance without taking sides.

Wanting it I can see. Assuming the responsibility for it is just nuts. OP is my age, our age. He's got to know that relationships hurt. He cannot prevent his wife or his father or his daughter from being hurt in their relationships. It's uncomfortable to see conflict between people you love. But you have to work it out in your relationships and they have to work it out in theirs.

jane

Feb 14 2004 11:51 am

I'm happy and pleased for him, I really am. But I'm also upset and sad, my own life is pretty tumultuous at the momen, and I miss my mom like crazy.

There you go, now I'm more confused than I was before.

That's always a good sign.

I think there will always be stuff that pleases us but freshens our grief. When Lee got her report card, it broke my heart that I couldn't tell my mother. She's been dead over 8 years.

What works for me is to acknowledge and deal with both. I've got to sob about missing my mother, and I've got to celebrate the report card. As long as I'm honest with myself and I give both their due, the one doesn't poison the other. I agree with Anne, too, I'm honest with other people about it, too. Somewhere in all "I'm so pround of you"s I told Lee that I was sad I couldn't tell my mother.

jane

Feb 13 2004 10:33 pm

Jane.
Back AWAY from the Google.

Well, I did. Lee and I went to hear Madeleine Albright speak. It was great.

jane

Feb 11 2004 12:22 pm

Do you think it is *not* OK for anyone to own more stuff than other people?
Lori

I don't see what would make it okay. If people are dividing up what is available - and they are, - it's clear to me that it should be divided equitably.

"Ah," you say, "but what is equitable"?

Good question. I look at what we do IRL when fairness and peace are primary values and we're dealing with primal desires and people at their least civilized. We divide the birthday cake at kids' parties equally down to the crumb. So that tells me that on the most fundamental level we think "equal" is "equal."

However, once we're past the basic need, the cake, we change our approach somewhat. The ice cream is optional and variable. We give the kids no ice cream, a little ice cream, or a lot of lot of ice cream based on their input (unless, of course, their parents are there to intervene). So surplus we distribute according to individual taste and desire.

Within limits, of course. We do not allow one or two kids to take all the ice cream. We also don't allow everyone to seize whatever ice cream she can get. That would be a disaster, because the kids would not be considering how much ice cream they actually wanted; they would be thinking about getting as much ice cream they could. The two biggest kids with the most older brothers would be sitting in one corner with a 10 gallon tub of ice cream they couldn't eat and the others would be lying around the room bruised and ice cream-less and sobbing and hurt.

That's capitalism. We dissociate individuals from their needs and their desires and replace them with acquisitiveness.

jane

Feb 11 2004 4:39 pm

Yes, *I* certainly pay income taxes. I'd be fascinated to know the percentage of people on welfare who have *never* paid income taxes.
Anne

I'm guessing zero. I am so not googling this, though.

jane

Feb 11 2004 5:08 pm

You say that, but you *know* you won't be able to help yourself.
Anne

I'm trying to WORK! For money! You're undermining the economy, you know.

jane

Feb 11 2004 5:41 pm

By midnight EST at the latest

I'm actually a little touched that you think I can hold out that long.

jane

Feb 07 2004 11:04 am

I've been home from work having had an operation on my nose/sinuses

Eww. Bad.

I've been rethinking what I want to do with my life and toying with going back to do a part time doctorate in something.

Yeah. Good.

She's angry though, somehow instead of making her feel positive about finding study skills and other techniques to help, she feels differently about herself.

Yeah, well, Wendy, that's to be expected. You just cannot realistically expect her to skip right over the little yellow bus aspect of this. Let her grieve a little.

As if that weren't enough, a fortnight ago my YD had some friends to sleep over - three girls only one of whom I had any previous experience of,

What people seem to do in this situation is talk to the other girls' parents. I think it's like head lice. You really, really don't want to make that call and discuss this with a total stranger, but as a parent you know you would want them to call you.

Finally, my partner has been quite depressed of late and it seems to stem from issues related to his sense of impotence about effecting changes of behaviour with my children

Sorry he's blue. I don't know why he ever thought he could effect changes in your children's behavior. You guys were together forever, and he's old enough to know better than to go into a relationship expecting to change the other person.

who have been expecting us to do a lot for them, but really haven't been doing much in return.

Okay, but I'm surprised that you are expecting them to do things in return for what you do for them. You do what you do for them because you're their parent and you love them and it's your job. They do what they do for you because they want something. j/k But there's no quid pro quo between you. What you do for them, they do for their kids decades from now.

jane

Feb 07 2004 12:27 pm

I agree with this, but I also see what Wendy's saying. Sure it's her job, but everyone likes to feel cared about enough that someone else will lend a hand willingly once in a while.

Yeah, I had a little knee jerk there. It was the depressed because he can't change their behavior thing. It's in that not owning your own shit area that bugs me. If you're depressed get antidepressants or exercise more or do whatever you have to do for your problem. Don't give me a list of chores.

Just yesterday, though, my son called me at work and said he was shoveling the driveway for me before I got home. If you knew my son, you'd know why I almost dropped to the floor in a faint hearing that. He also said "thank you" when I took him to dinner. Two little things, but it's a beginning.

Yeah! Oh, no, though, your baby is all grown up.

jane

Feb 13 2004 12:38 am

Let her find out what it is like when nobody puts her towel back on the rail.

That would be my house, where fresh towels are used daily and wet ones accumulate in a heap. Eventually, Lee runs out and washes them.

But she has her own bathroom. I can see it could get dicey if she didn't. I think I would throw out all the towels and buy everyone one terry robe. In fact, I am pretty sure that I have done that. Funny how they creep back, though; Lee must have two weeks worth now.

jane

Feb 07 2004 12:12 am

...but not OT, because Lee is a SK.

She got her report card. All A's. 4.43 GPA. I am so proud.

Feb 07 2004 12:18 pm

Congratulations to Lee!

Thanks, everyone. I am just so proud of her. I didn't think you could get report cards that good. Unfortunately, if you recall, I pay for grades.

jane

Feb 03 2004 2:48 pm

I know I better than to respond to your post. I know that I will piss you right off, and you'll be bad-mouthing my sainted mother by the end of the day.

But then you say stuff like this:

I wake up every morning and my first thought is that today I'll be more understanding of the fact that she's only 11 years old and not as mature as I'm used to. I think my problem is that I compare her to myself at her age.

I am incapable of not responding to that.

All you have to do is flip it around in your head. This is all about you and your childhood. It's not your SD that is bugging you. She's a good kid, a nice kid. But there's this quality about her and her situation that hits a nerve with you. Weakness, helplessness, dependency, incompetence - that's what I'm getting.

It's not that you think she should have the same childhood you did or that she should be just like you were. It's that you are still reacting to that quality that you had to overcome to survive as a kid. She doesn't have your abilities to think on your feet and adapt and tough things out because she's living a different life. She's not going to freeze to death out on the tundra if she she can't trap, clean, and cook her food with her bare hands.

Is this making any sense? You love the kid. It's the helplessness itself that gets under your skin. You're programmed to reject it. Just remind yourself of that. When you start to feel upset, just remind yourself that no one is going to starve to death if they can't get the Kraft dinner right. When she bursts into tears, remind yourself that it is okay for her to cry. She doesn't have to be mature at 11. She's not living your life. She can grow up at a different pace.

Here's another thing. You know how hard your childhood was sometimes? You learned how to be tough and strong and resourceful, but while you were learning it, you probably wished it could be easier. You probably wished that you could cry sometimes. SD has an abundance of something you didn't get enough of. If you don't want to begrudge it to her, get some of your own.

jane

Feb 04 2004 12:25 am

SD has an abundance of something you didn't get enough of. If you don't want to begrudge it to her, get some of your own.

I'm not sure what you mean...but I think you're talking about love. As a child (and now) I got alot of Love. I would never begrudge Kelsey of love.

I don't know you. I'm just going by what you say. That's why I was vague. I wasn't thinking of love, though. I don't get the impression you begrudge her love. The word that came to mind was "coddling." And helplessness. I think you begrudge her her helplessness.

I guess I just need a way to understand her better.

Nah. It's yourself you have to understand better. Really. Whenever something drives you nuts about another person, it's all about you. Think about it. Millions of people have millions of annoying qualities. The ones that get right up our noses are the ones that we are touchy about.

Remember, I'm new to this parenting thing. I'm doing the best I can, but I know I'm not being the best dad I can. That's what I want more than anything else in the world.

I don't want to discourage you, but it doesn't happen in a day. If you're in this for the long haul - and you appear to me to be, - you've got to set yourself realistic goals. You're going to be screwing up and kicking yourself in the butt regularly. Go with "the best dad I can be today." And tomorrow you'll try to be better.

Thanks for the reply...8-)

Thanks for not calling my mother trash.

jane

Feb 04 2004 11:22 am

Somebody here said once that if you take somebody that REALLY gets under your skin, you write their faults on a piece of paper and put their name at the top.

Well, I don't entirely agree, but something like that. You have issues with other people where you have them with yourself.

Like me and punctuality. I am very punctual, and I used to have a big problem with people being late. Lee's father blew me off when we were dating and explained that he was in the ER with his father, and I said "they have pay phones in hospitals, you know."

Something (waiting for my father) made me sensitive on the punctuality issue. I rejected it in myself and in others. I had control of my own actions, so the rejection came out in me as punctuality. With others it came out as anger at their tardiness.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if people seem to drive you crazy because they're just like you or totally opposite of you. It's still all about you.

Jane, that's some heavy shit you're dropping on the new guy there.

Yabbut, he seemed troubled. I am a total sucker for troubled.

I know that the usual response to "it's not the kid, it's you" is "fuck you, it is not." But OP seemed really troubled by his reactions. He really didn't seem to understand why he was getting upset. And my experience with people who think about this stuff is that after they reject the idea, they kick it around in their heads, and where it's true it sticks. And this guy is spending a lot of time thinking about this stuff.

jane

Feb 03 2004 8:56 am

Everyone has some power. We have the power to choose carefully what we buy and who we vote for at the very least.

My life is defined by choosing food lately. Have I mentioned this here? The supermarkets are still on strike, and I'd prefer to die without ever having crossed a picket line, so I lost the stores where I did 80-90% of my food shopping. 7-11 is doing great. But Lee, my precious child, is a vegetarian, and they don't carry tofu. Dairy products have to come from animals treated humanely. Not a problem, we can get organic cagefree eggs at the farmers market on the other side of town on Sundays. Unfortunately, they don't carry organic cheese and milk, which I get at the food coop on the other other side of town.

Then there's the low carb diet and the braces to factor in. Food has lost all its convenience. There is nowhere to dash out and grab something anymore. There's nothing to keep around the house to snack on.

jane

Feb 02 2004 11:24 pm

No, I am saying that people need to take personal responsibility for the choices they make and not rely on the government to cover them.
~~Geri~~

You know, Geri, your SD is sucking off my tit. Not that I mind, of course, I'm just saying.

jane