Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


moonflower last won the day on June 23

moonflower had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,342 Excellent

About moonflower

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Queen Bee

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it. I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family. But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil." I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.
  2. Of course, but if you don't want to debate about whether you're right, but want to talk about another aspect of the situation (the emotional effect of the conflict, in this case), you can't talk about the specifics because people will not be sympathetic to you or even be willing to talk to you about that aspect without castigating you about the thing they disagree with. (as you explicity said in an earlier post) which, I dunno, whatever It works if you're normalish (for this board)
  3. and I'd assume, given the OP's history of posts, that she thinks divorce and a single-parent household would be worse for the kids than remaining unmedicated/undiagnosed for ADHD or ODD or whatever is going on. so she's trying to figure out ways to make it work without causing a divorce-worthy fuss, and she has gotten some help from posters here for that, although it is an uphill battle. OP, the problem with the babysitter is that your average babysitter is not equipped to deal with your kids because they have ADHD or ODD tendencies and are unmedicated. It's like when I have an emergency situation and want to leave all 7 kids with my mom. The oldest 3 are no big deal; the baby is a baby; the middle 3 boys (6, 4, and 3) are nearly impossible for her to handle.
  4. I'm not sure if you've just not read the past several years' posts from the OP; her husband definitively does not want evals, diagnoses, or services for issues like ADHD or autism, etc. It wouldn't be like you going to get services without running it by your husband because you and your husband both agree on the basic need for services of this kind; if he were vehemently opposed to those services, doing it behind his back would cause serious marital strife, presumably.
  5. I am unclear on the details; do you think he was resentful that he had to pay 2/3 of the lodging even though he was taking up 1/3 of the lodging space? That would irritate me.
  6. I guess it's just that if you have fairly mainstream views, you have the privilege of being a completely open part of the community and can discuss things with people frankly. If you're not within certain bounds on various topics (for Scarlett, evidently, JW religious convictions) then either you can't talk at all about various topics or you have to be vague and hope for people to have experiences to which you can relate, even if the exact circumstances are different.
  7. Right, and because JW religious laws and personal convictions are often fairly out of the norm in the USA today, I can see why she wanted advice or sympathy from people undergoing a similar situation from their perspective without talking about the specifics of the situation, because, as you just said, a thread started about a specific situation that many posters here disagree with would veer sharply into "you don't have a right to feel that way because your values aren't modern enough" territory.
  8. I don't think Scarlett has to decide if being right is worth losing her relationship with her son; I think she has to decide, and has decided, whether doing right is worth losing the relationship. It's not like she's trying to prove something to him; she just has a moral/religious boundary she cannot cross. It might not be one any of us share, but that doesn't make it less real for her.
  9. Well I dunno, I thought it was a helpful thread even without specifics. I myself do often start vague threads, or even if it's a specific one I leave a lot of stuff out. If I'm going to ask for book recs for my kids, for instance, I might say that I have a set of requirements, then list the ones I have that I think are at least marginally palatable to this board. Of course I'm not going to list it all because I want to be able to keep talking to people here even though we have disagreements, and some of my views are waaaaaaaaaaay to the right of the board, so I just leave those out and filter on my own later. It's not completely upfront but it does keep the thread from becoming an argument about a side issue that I don't really want to argue about when I'm asking for book recs, kwim?
  10. I think that for some people in some religions, there's an area of morality where the Law (that is, the absolute religious requirements) may be either unclear or left up to the conscience of the follower. I'm not like 100% sure about Mormons, but the missionaries we had come visit us for a couple of months were pretty explicit about prayerful consideration of what is right in a certain situation, and I got the idea that while they adhered to the tenets of their religion, a lot was left up to this ongoing sort of conversation they were having with God. I don't know why religious requirement would be seen as a more valid constriction of behavior than conscience (that is to say, morality without religious requirement). Are you saying that non-religious people should just do whatever because there's no religious requirement for them to follow, so they have no excuse not to do whatever other people want them to do in any scenario? I mean it makes no sense.
  11. She said specifically (I think) that she was fine with the DIL and their relationship. She didn't leave that truth out. I will admit that I am rarely entirely forthcoming on this board, because often I want support or advice for a situation that I know people have probably experienced in similar forms, but if I describe the exact situation or request, the thread will focus on that and how (bigoted, stupid, evil, crazy, fanatic, patriarchal, anti-woman, etc.) I am. So I can sympathize with Scarlett on this one.
  12. Yes, it is harder then, definitely. But then again, that hard "no" is sometimes naturally reached at such a time, because it takes extremity to really get some generally good-natured people to their breaking point. Not all of life will be carefully prepared for and thought out, and that is okay; that's why you clean up after yourself instead of leaving an increasing pile of mess everywhere - so that you don't encroach gradually on the goodwill of the people you're living with.
  13. And while I agree that very explicit and concrete requirements (do the dishes, walk the dog, etc.) are more effective and easier to handle than more vague ones (clean for an hour), I also think it's not a terrible life lesson to learn that if you skate by on someone's good will for a long time, doing the bare minimum and/or leaving a mess behind you, one day they might just say that's it, I've had ENOUGH and react in an unpredictable and unpleasant way.
  • Create New...