Think of it more as coming from the original owner than as coming from your mom, and pass it down (along with the picture). The value of family history doesn't depend on how you feel about individuals and your daughter may appreciate having *something* in lieu of that relationship.

Said a prayer for you.

Prayers for your son and family!

I don't think it's necessary to discuss other people's business in order to normalize body stuff. I would be pretty weirded out if I learned a mom of one of my kid's classmates was keeping track of who had gotten their periods or started wearing bras yet. I know it's the ~modern, sophisticated~ thing to look down on mainstream American culture in favor of alternatives but the thing is, it's the culture most people here follow, and they're entitled to their boundaries. Especially when it comes to kids. Worry about your own kid's development and let other families have their privacy. If someone wants to discuss THEIR kid's business with you they'll let you know, as in the bra discussion you mentioned. That's a far cry from the situation in the OP.

Having spent time in such areas I don't think that is quite accurate. True, almost everything will be packaged/processed. That is not the same as "junk food" as I think it is commonly understood. Canned ravioli, ramen, and the like do not make for the greatest diet but they are not in the same category as potato chips. In any case the answer to the food supply in such areas is not to decrease the affordability of whatever there is.

Taxes that are nominally the same for everyone fall harder on poor people because they have less money to spare.

Other people's kids' sexual development is none of your business. It's certainly none of this lady's son's business. The idea that girls' bodies are up for casual discussion will probably reflect in the boy's behavior, whether to that girl or someone else. It's bad modeling.

I wouldn't comment on someone's voice changing either! In many cases I might not comment on height, depending. It's questionable manners to comment on people's bodies, definitely bad manners if it's something that might be sensitive, as children's sexual maturation certainly is, especially if it's happening at a different rate than most of their peers, in either direction. Can you articulate why you feel the need to make children's developing bodies a topic of conversation? This is not about "noticing." Everybody notices. Why does it have to be a discussion? What, other than potential awkwardness, is gained by airing your thoughts on people's bodies?

Yeah, I don't see it as horrible repressed secret hiding and taboo to refrain from comment on other people's bodies. There's a happy medium between oppressive taboo and going out of your way to point out young girls' sexual development, complete with emphatic gestures.

Five cents per gram of sugar? That would be over eight dollars on a gallon of whole milk. You can't be serious. The problem with taxing "junk food" is one of definition, which in turn is a problem of resources. Everybody thinks they know what it means, but making a scientific definition that the government can enforce, and then vetting every new food product (or every recipe change on existing products) would take a lot of work and money. And the definition would not be uncontroversial. Some people feel that sugar is the bad guy, some people carbs in general, others fat. Whose definition of a healthy diet would be chosen for the foods that would be tax-free? The government has made mistakes about this in the past, recommending a very high carb diet which turned out to be not so great after all. And that was just recommendations - not a penalty for failing to follow them. An attempt to tax people for eating the "wrong" kind of diet would be a bureaucratic and political nightmare. Besides, even foods that we agree are less than ideal can be OK in moderation in the context of a balanced diet. Ice cream is not as harmful as cigarettes. The idea of living in a country where poor children go their whole lives without a bite of ice cream because it's been taxed to the point of effective prohibition sounds nightmarish.

I wouldn't characterize what OP describes as the kid not being taught that it's a big deal. To the contrary, it seems like something they focus on a lot. He's being taught that comments on girls' bodies are his right - it only stands to reason that he will probably end up doing so to girls he knows. And what he perceives as normal or not a big deal from being raised in an atmosphere where the details of female bodies are a constant topic of conversation may not fit what that girl feels qualifies as not getting picked on. She's not anonymous to the boy, who's being taught that her body is an appropriate object of focus. I teach my kid that bodies aren't a big deal by not making them a focus. What exactly is the purpose of commenting on other people's kids bodily development? Everybody knows that kids develop at different rates, why spell it out with respect to specific kids? In what sense is it possibly relevant to anything? How the heck is refraining from graphic comments about young girls the same as not letting ten year olds know that breasts exist? Why not a happy medium where they know that breasts exist, and they also know that other people's bodies aren't there for us to make small talk about?

It would bother me, especially #3. I'm surprised by people saying that's not a big deal or something they might say themselves. I can't imagine making a comment on my child's peers' breasts. Sounds like she is pushing sexual themes and objectification of the female body pretty hard. I agree with concerns about what he may be up to online, so I would limit to outings where that won't be a factor. I would also be concerned, if their family culture is that female bodies are up for discussion with/by boys (#2 and #3), how long before your DD becomes the object of that? I don't find culture much of an excuse, I know plenty of families of Mediterranean background who are quite conservative and dignified. But obviously it's at least her family culture... well you absolutely have a right to your own family culture, especially in this sensitive area. I guess it depends how desperate you are for friends. Ten pounds in a week is incredibly unhealthy, if it's even possible.

I'm sorry if I'm being too harsh but it's not actually intended as snark. Her sense that she's being personally persecuted by the system is unhealthy, and allowing herself to suffer physically over it is apt to intensify those perceptions.

She's in pain and complaining of reduced functioning. It's particularly not a good plan for someone who apparently gets kind of overwhelmed by setbacks and stressors. Besides, wouldn't the deductible cover the twelve months since she enrolled, rather than the calendar year? In any case I don't think she should be encouraged to underconsume needed healthcare and stew in these dysfunctional feelings of being uniquely hard done by.

Until someone in your family comes down with a life-threatening mental health condition requiring tens of thousands of dollars' worth of inpatient treatment. I wonder where one gets the confidence that something like this will never happen.

I think it was pretty well hashed out in the Medicaid thread that you were overinterpreting a lot of your interactions with the bureaucracy, and somewhere between misinformed and wildly paranoid about the rationale behind the questions and the level of power - or inclination - to interfere with your life on the part of the people working in the system. Many people told you that they were on Medicaid while homeschooling and/or with disabled kids and that the idea that it would lead to arrest for homeschooling, or for making your own choices about your kids' treatment, is completely fantasial. While these systems aren't pleasant to deal with, your sense that you are being personally persecuted by them is out of touch with reality. I think you would benefit from some counseling.

It's just hard for me to hear about because I also was at the wrong end of a gendered differential in parental support. I don't see why you have scare quotes on "fair." Even if there's no way to correct it now, that doesn't make it fair. I do think there is a birth right to roughly equitable material treatment. I really hope it works out for OP's daughter.

Although I've got to believe you couldn't have been thinking about it in these terms at the time, the decision to go into major debt for a mediocre student son and do nothing for a high-achieving daughter is...... hard for me to process. Do you work? If not, could you start? Or lower expenses?

You should have the procedure. You will end up having to pay the deductible sooner or later anyway and it is not worth being in pain and sacrificing function (and sitting around only makes back problems worse!!!) because you don't want to pay money that you apparently could pay if you wanted to. It seems, frankly, like this is motivated more by self-pity and a desire to play the victim than by financial prudence. As a person for whom, as it seems from your postings over time, this type of money is in fact discretionary, it doesn't come off well.

After breaking my ankle, I am skittish about minimalism with shoes. If you are going to be buying in any case, I think get a good pair of hiking shoes, and break them in before you go. Also, if you have a lifestyle where you don't even have/need a good pair of tennis shoes, I think you should consult with your friend about your fitness level and what she, as a person who does it all the time, sees as a "not bad" hike. Going uphill can be a good deal harder than people who aren't used to it may anticipate.

I understood that people were dismissing Janeway's experience as not real feminism. I disagree that it is as unrepresentative as people to whom a good name for feminism is important would like to think.

The Feminine Mystique, Sisterhood is Powerful, Sexual Politics, The Second Sex, The Female Eunuch, SCUM Manifesto, Redstockings Manifesto, The Politics of Housework, Woman Hating, Intercourse, Right Wing Women (really Dworkin's whole oeuvre), Lesbian Nation.... etc.... this canon is well-known, certainly among people who regard feminism as an academic study, so I'm not sure whether you're asking sincerely or attempting to catch me out. Sometimes people who understand perfectly well honestly just disagree. Construing disagreement as ignorance is unpersuasive.

No I haven't. I have been studying this for thirty years. Go back and read the primary source texts of second wave feminism and see what they have to say about homemaking and motherhood.

If a person were actually Jewish or gay and was abused by Christians on that basis, we would understand their wanting to steer clear of Christians in the future. Let alone that they would be resistant to the message that they have to become Christians themselves. It's not the job of people who've been hurt by your group to prop up your group's self-image. Feminists are nowhere near as vigilant and outspoken against people who hate mothers and babies as mainstream Christians are against Westboro Baptist. They cannot be, because deprecation of traditional feminine roles is historically central to the feminist project. There is no escaping this fact. There is no reconciling women who know we are hated for the ways we live our lives to the ideology that promotes that hatred. If you want to follow a dissident variant of that ideology that doesn't hate motherhood, that's your business. Other people aren't required to get into that inside dispute on your side to insist that you are the real feminists and the ones who hate the majority of women are fake. If that's the case, prove it by cleaning up feminism from the inside rather than victim-blaming.

Hostility to children and motherhood is definitely a real point on the spectrum of feminist thought, in some quarters and phases of its history a quite dominant feature. One of the problems I have with feminist discourse is this idea that feminism is beyond reproach, therefore anything objectionable isn't real feminism, deflecting the possibility of any real discussion of the underlying ideas.