It's troubling - actually neglectful IMO - that a mom who knows she has severe difficulties herself would let it go so long. A large part of your challenge will be to communicate diplomatically about how much you can do at the last minute (and at this point with that much deficiency, even a whole year is the last minute). You have to make your own assessment because I wouldn't put much stock in what a parent who let this happen has to say. The ACT is probably not realistic. "Visual learner" though mom may say she is I don't know how much you'll be able to do with geometry and trig if basics are still an issue.

I don't doubt that people sometimes have unpleasant encounters. I'm questioning whether people who are inclined to treat people that way decide whether to do so based on fashion statements. As a person who can't afford to dress up, I have to rely on my speech to relay where I am coming from, and I find it works just fine.

Why are you afraid not to? I mean I think I get it... he's a scary guy, you're scared not to comply with his wishes... but if you give him anything, he'll only want more, and that's where the danger lies. Don't do anything to encourage him. It's much easier to keep ignoring him than to give him attention and then try to withdraw it. Once you let him in you won't be able to justify setting boundaries with him so the only solution is to ignore him totally.

I've never experienced this. Of course, many doctors are women themselves. I see a lot of comments on this site about people disrespecting women or having to dress up to be respected, and as a woman who's not in a position to dress up in any case it's just completely outside my experience. I wonder sometimes if people perceive what they expect.

I've never thought about any of this. I don't wear makeup, or own any jewelry, or style my hair beyond combing and pulling back, and have been on a severely limited budget for so long that anything that isn't sweats is my "dress up." And over the course of a great many encounters over many years in multiple locations, I can't recall having a problem with disrespect from medical personnel, for myself or for family members. Maybe it's down to the way I communicate. An educated, intelligent person can easily recognize a fellow educated, intelligent person, even in ratty sweats. If anything, I wonder if dressing up to deal with doctors may non-verbally communicate that you think they are higher than you, and cue them to respond accordingly, particularly if you come over as at pains to put your best foot forward in terms of behavior as well. The best way to prepare to deal with any professional is to be prepared to discuss the matter at hand as intelligently and knowledgeably as possible, not to powder your nose. Where are you guys encountering all these doctors and nurses who give a fig whether you're wearing "neutral lipstick" or "a statement necklace"? They're far too busy with the real substance of their job to play fashion police.

I would think actually being enrolled in an academic class would be too much, especially while getting used to being in school. Afterschooling has to be responsive to the weight of other obligations, above all school and homework, and a formal class with obligations of its own doesn't give you that flexibility (unless I'm misunderstanding what's involved in a WTMA class). It might be OK if you had the school routine mastered and knew for sure that the homework burden is very light. But without that knowledge and experience you risk overloading him. I am dealing with an academically weak school that requires me to supplement a lot, so I sympathize, but I think you're better off DIYing so that you can dial back the expectations in tune with the ups and downs of school life.

2a-3b = ac+7 2a-3b-ac = 7 2a-ac = 7 + 3b a(2-c) = 7 + 3b a = (7+3b)/(2-c)

To be fair, lower-income people are also much more likely to have found themselves (or loved ones) on the wrong end of the issues we have in this country about access to health care, which could also impact one's feelings about doctors and economics. That's there's a money motivation in health care isn't actually a misconception, even if doctors themselves don't bear the bulk of the responsibility for that (though IMO they do hold some, or else - look at it the other way 'round - lower-income people wouldn't be so unknown to them).

I think a lot of your issues stem from giving too much weight to what kids say they want (thinking also of your ongoing struggles over screen time). I think a lot of people on here would agree with you that public school has issues. That's what afterschooling is for. And yes it's a big trade-off on many levels. But I don't think it's appropriate for a kid that age to be left at loose ends while you tend to other kids for extended periods. Especially with special needs. And it's certainly not realistic to expect good behavior with that lack of structure and stimulation. I find that my ASD child benefits hugely from the structure and social exposure of school followed by structured time - meaning time in which I take an active role - at home and on weekends. I get pushback against the structure, and I definitely wish I had more leeway to let her do her own thing, but without it, behavior rapidly collapses. Leaving them on their own with verbal instructions just doesn't work. You have to be there, and if you can't (I'm not clear how old your younger children are or why you can't make your activities with them a family thing), you should consider arranging with others who can (the school).

The idea of having an audience of twenty people, including children, for a discussion with a doctor would make me very uncomfortable. To me this kind of thing is immediate family business.

I can't imagine bringing a group of 20 people into the hospital. They're not designed to accommodate twenty visitors per patient so what is the effect on other patients' families?

I recently had surgery and though it went well, I was still totally overcome for a good while afterwards. I think the idea of the whole family trooping in would have been unbearably stressful. Although I was objectively all right, I don't think a layperson, particularly a young one, would have been at all assured of that from looking at me. I would seriously reconsider this, even aside from the question of contagion.

I agree with G5052. Past a certain point, if you understand the *function*, the terminology becomes academic. It clearly has pronominal, adjectival and possessive functions. If you can identify all that you don't really have to choose what to call it, in fact confining it to one term could be misleading.

My mom always wore eye makeup but acted like face makeup and lipstick was some inconceivable incomprehensible thing. Not sure what was up with that. As teens, I experimented with the full range of makeup and my sister did not. I eventually also settled on no makeup. There was never any sense that we had to do what mom did. We all have very straight hair that won't "do" anything so I'm not sure what my mom was even doing with her electric rollers, hair spray etc. - I think it was just a cultural habit from having grown up in a certain era and it did not pass down to us. We both just comb our hair. We both definitely got our conservative, classic/down to earth style of dress from her - I was a tall kid and started borrowing her clothes in grade school. I am raising my daughter to just comb her hair and take good care of her skin. I would not be comfortable with makeup until she is at least 16 and I would definitely discourage the type of heavy makeup that's trendy these days. It makes me sad to contemplate young women of my acquaintance who feel the need to apologize if they've "only" put on regular foundation instead of radically modifying their face with contour. My mom always wore earrings and pierced my ears when I was 12. Jewelry has never agreed with me and the holes ended up closing from disuse (but still visible) so I will probably have my daughter wait until 18 to make her own decision about piercing.

I feel very exposed in bathing suits, and I wasn't raised with any particular idea about it. Objectively, they are quite exposing. Luckily there are many more choices today than there were twenty years ago as far as swim capris, rash guard tops etc. but I go the cheap route with a tankini top and a pair of men's board shorts. A lot of women from all backgrounds aren't quite comfortable in revealing styles so don't feel like you have to go outside your comfort zone to prove you are normal or anything like that. Nobody's going to look at you and think "she must have hangups" or "she must be from some religious group" just because you're dressed a little more conservatively than average. You may not share the underlying beliefs anymore but that doesn't mean every little habit you picked up from them has to carry a stigma.

Like others said, it's impossible to tell from a post, but my daughter has autism and it sounds a lot like what we went through. If your child does have a serious issue, going to school is not the cure, but it can be very helpful. The great thing about school, which many homeschooling parents of neurotypical children overlook when they diss "socialization," is that it scaffolds development of ongoing relationships by spending so much time around the same people. My child just doesn't have the skills to create relationships with other kids off of seeing them for a couple of hours at a once or twice a week activity; and while the activities themselves may be more holistic and developmentally appropriate than school desk work, in reality you're spending most of the time at the activity doing the activity, not striking up a chat, and certainly if you're a child with social skills struggles you're not going to magically create friendships in offhand moments that occur. If your child has similar problems to mine, running around to a bunch of activities to increase the number of such glancing encounters with a constantly shifting variety of children is not going to help her. And unlike PP's experience, IME you are about at the age where the expectation that children participate independently, and not have mom constantly at their side to intervene, starts to kick in. If you find you have to supervise in situations where most other children are participating independently, that is a definite sign of trouble. In any case you should definitely talk to your pediatrician for a reality check about how unusual her behavior is, and next steps in terms of evaluation. The downsides of the school approach have been noted by others. It is not an ideal environment, and for some special needs kids it can make things worse by overwhelming them. But then again, the structure which many homeschoolers decry can be useful for teaching self-regulation and that everything isn't always about me, and IME it is a much friendlier and more interactive environment than homeschooler "everybody has to sit in silence staring straight ahead while the teacher drones on and if you talk at all you're severely punished" rhetoric makes out. In any case I would talk to the doctor before starting school. Most children should be able to develop their social skills just fine in a homeschool-plus-activities lifestyle. If yours is having trouble that may be a sign of something and just plopping her in school is unlikely to do the trick.

Well, oral is kind of a stepping stone to written (on an ongoing basis at each level), so if you are having trouble getting oral done I wonder if you won't have similar problems getting writing done. What exactly will they be writing if they can't even just say something, you know? I wonder if you aren't making "narration" too much of a formal big deal, if writing seems easier by comparison. Try seeking their feedback on a more holistic, informal basis rather than a big deal "now we will do our narrations." On the other hand, if you have kids who are eager to write and draw but struggle to express themselves orally you should obviously give them a chance to show their strengths while continuing to work on oral skills. Maybe select smaller chunks of content to narrate, and maybe be more Socratic about it like "what did you think of....?" rather than a demand for straight recall. Is Charlotte Mason the one who insists on perfect recall after one hearing/reading? I don't agree with that.

I've always used curricula designed for classrooms (previously MEP, now EngageNY), with a lesson for the teacher to actively teach, and the bit the kid does in the "book" (sheets) just one part of the whole. When I got on these forums I was honestly a bit amazed at how widespread just opening up a textbook apparently is. At the very least the example problems need to be actively worked together, finding places to put in comments about why it works the way it does and getting her to tolerate listening to an explanation. (I know how hard that is because I have an autistic child for whom "being told" is extremely touchy for some reason, but I just had to keep asserting myself. Because sooner or later you're going to get to topics that require pretty involved explanations/demonstrations, and if the kid isn't acclimated to that type of interaction they'll be stuck.) Preferably switch to a curriculum that has concept development built in on the teacher side. These often differ from what is shown in the student text in surprising and fascinating ways.

I'm not denying that looks sometimes play a role for men as compared with other men. But women are being judged on a whole different scale. In many settings, a woman gets counted as having an appearance problem simply for not being all done up, not actually having a problem. An average-looking, unadorned man is simply average-looking; an average-looking, unadorned woman has something wrong with her and gets bumped down a rung (or several). And I personally have as little option to do myself up as the man does, because of my sensory and other issues. And that gets counted against me in a way that wouldn't affect a man otherwise similar to myself.

I really don't think so. When I was temping, I realized that my practical, tomboyish approach to business casual was limiting me. And part of how I knew it was limiting me was because I was stuck working with a guy who was 400 pounds with bad hygiene. The men who presented with a similar level of care to what I did - khakis, sweater, hair neatly combed - were on a level above me, alongside women who put considerable effort into looks and fashion; and needless to say, if I as a woman was 400 pounds with bad hygiene I would not have had the job at all. There are high powered public-facing careers where looks matter a lot for both sexes, but for the most part, at the levels where most of us operate and excluding special subcultures such as academia, all you have to do is look around to see women making a greater effort than similarly situated men. Because they have to.

To the bolded - because to women who don't wear makeup (or can't - I have both allergies and sensory issues, and it makes me feel not-myself to the point of throwing me off, psychologically) it doesn't feel like a free personal choice that nobody cares either way about. We know that many people look down on us for not wearing it, and we know that it can affect us in jobs etc. Even in this thread, not wearing makeup has been repeatedly compared to going around dirty and ungroomed. So saying "it's just my personal choice! what's the big deal?" seems like an unjust denial of the pressures and consequences that are involved. Trying to question the shared, unspoken societal assumptions about women that drive the idea that our plain face just isn't good enough isn't digging for hidden psychological motivations in individuals. Anyone who tries to attack another woman in those terms is out of line. It's about asking, what are we all assuming about men and women that makes this seem so unremarkable to so many people, yet carries all these consequences?

He can be himself without anyone thinking he is out of line, let alone unprofessional, for failing to "correct" it. If his natural face doesn't look great, "oh well" indeed - as a man, it won't affect his social esteem or income, because unlike you and me he's not living in a society where his degree of conformity to the sexual/aesthetic standards of the opposite sex is the implicit bottom line on his worth as a person.

It would be very difficult for a woman to maintain a professional wardrobe that never reveals the legs, especially in warm climates, and recently we had a discussion of how hard it can be to find dresses and blouses with sleeves anymore. And in most settings it's acceptable for men to wear their facial hair, as long as they groom it (analogous to grooming of the hair). So let's call that one a draw, at best, and get back to the original topic: Coloration of the face doesn't vary with sex. Why is men's natural coloration acceptable and women's not?

This begs the question. Why isn't it required for men? What does it say about our view of women that foregoing corrective coloration is in the same category as dirty uncombed hair?

I've never heard of dark lines around the eyes being a sign of fertility. I don't think it's "for men," directly, as an individual behavior. I do think that society's notion of what it means for a woman to look good is largely based on what men are sexually attracted to, to the point that in some settings it is considered impolite or unprofessional for a woman not to doll herself up in this way. The unspoken presumption being that men have the right not to have to see women who don't appeal to their sensibilities. I think we have internalized this as just "looking good" without questioning why our society defines that particular way of looking as what's "good," and we protect our dignity by ignoring the sexual judgment that men habitually pass on women and use to filter their level of interest/respect. (Yes, they do. Many of them are civilized enough to consider other factors to one degree or another; others are not.) So it's crude and dehumanizing to tell someone she's just doing it for men, but ultimately, our sense of what looks good - and our sense that we have a psychological need to look good "for ourselves" - has a lot to do with society's standards, which are largely men's sexual standards.