[The rise of patriarchy]

Most people don't bother reviewing restaurants. If you are getting ones reaching a critical mass on "waitress smiling," then I would suspect an ex-boyfriend or wannabe boyfriend or stalker type trying to sabotage either the waitress(es) or your place.

 

And Patriarchy?

 

I don't even know what to say to that. Unless the customer was disciplining kids with plumbing line at the table...

[Wegman's is coming. Should I be excited?]

Abso-blooming-lutely!

 

Oh, how I envy you.

[Vent (long): Young child events, and parents who just don't care....]

My brothers and I used to do all our Olympic events on our lawn, using stuff from the garage to mark things off.

 

Adults were not welcome.

[Furry pets/kids. Do I want to finally allow a pet?]

Having had both dogs and cats, I think cats are FAR less work. I find them therapeutic for *me* haha! I do most of the work though, even though the kids help. That's why I'm glad it isn't much work!

[Facebook Sp*rm Donor...This is Bizarre]

It's like getting one of those butterfly kits for homeschool science.

[Non-Functioning]

So sorry to hear this!

 

Do lawyers just assume there will be money to pay them eventually if it isn't available now?

[Please advise me about fleas-getting desperate here]

Salt on the rugs. Treat and vacuum periodically.

["I hope you die before you're 20!"]

Cruel comments from 10-year-olds is just batting practice compared to middle school.

[Keeping children clothed when company is over...]

I really don't get it.

 

I understand that children can be molested, but I don't understand how that can be the child's or the parent's fault.

 

I don't get how being naked factors into it. I just don't. Is that supposed to be a trigger for a molester or something? I thought most abuse happened when children were left with non-parental caregivers, which is not the case in this situation and anyway, so many babies are naked at least part of the time when being cared for, is that even an option, having a child with underwear on all the time?

 

I don't get how having regular toddler naked time is somehow a risk factor for abuse.

 

I get that it might make someone uncomfortable if they have been conditioned to think of naked children as related to child abuse and sex, which clearly is the case for some people since this conversation "went there", but I don't get how it is actually related to child abuse and sex.

 

(Am I the only one who doesn't think it's necessary or even common for a child to be totally naked before being molested?)

 

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't blaming the child for being naked. (and I don't think the 2-year-old factors in at all) But I do think age 4 is a little old to be a "toddler" -- that's a preschool age child who is old enough to have been taught it's okay to be naked at home, but not in front of people outside the family. Not the child's fault, but I think the parents should have delivered that lesson, or at least taken the initiative to re-clothe there child if they "forgot" at someone else's house.

 

Re: the abuse angle, you never know if a child has been molested. Whether at their family home, at school, by a neighbor, whatever. While I think the odds are against that, I don't want to be the adult who let the kid run around naked in my house and rub up against my leg if it turns out down the road that someone else has done something untoward to that child.

 

Also in this era of Facebook I find myself surprised by photos I didn't even know were taken appearing there. Not that anyone would deliberately take a photo of a naked 4-year-old and throw it up on Facebook, but weirder things have happened. 

 

You wouldn't let a 4-year-old run around pantsless at any other non-family social function (other than Nude Daycamps, appparently), so why is it appropriate at someone's house? At NO time would it be appropriate at preschool, Bible class, the YMCA, an in-home birthday party with other 4-year-olds (who presumably wouldn't mind) or anyplace else I can think of.

 

Someone else's house isn't an extension of your own family home, unless it's a relative.

 

IMO.

[Keeping children clothed when company is over...]

In this era of abuse and reporting issues, I'm surprised people are so blase about naked children in the presence of non-relatives. Contact with someone else's naked 4-year-old sounds sketchy to me unless you were assigned to give him a bath or something. Crazy accusations aren't impossible. Explaining that any naked social contact was initiated by the 4-year-old is a situation I'd want to avoid in any case.

 

 

[An embarrassing confession, and a request for help]

It's probably easier to break this habit now than down the road when you don't want to be Grandma Potty Mouth.

 

Good luck, I vote for coming up with fun substitutes. Somewhere on the 'net there is a Medieval cursing list which is pretty funny. They're made up to sound Medieval, I'm sure not genuine from the period. Maybe they have those too.

 

Meanwhile, I bite my thumb at thee!

[So mad at United Healthcare]

This. They (all of them) also like to send letters telling people they're denying claims for random, inaccurate reasons, like not having a piece of information on the claim that is right there on the claim. It's not a new practice at all (though the premium non-payment "reason" is).

 

I was firmly convinced 20 years ago that claims denial was a way of making money by (a) holding money while they make interest on it and (b) not paying out when people get tired and give up.

 

I can't imagine any medical billing office taking anything in a rejection letter seriously.

 

I agree with all of this. I think the Frustration and Incompetence Factors are ratcheted up to benefit the insurance companies, buy them time, and hopefully (for them) they won't have to pay at all.

 

We've had claims denied because we abbreviated Florida instead of spelling it out.

[NAACP - Dolezals - Fraud AA allegations]

The majority of abusers in the U.S. have electricity.  :huh:

[Worst Carpool Experience Ever]

She said that other parents know of this girls issues, so this isn't a secret that only she knows.  

 

I interpret this as:

1. Left a wrapper in the car

2. Put their feet on the roof of the car (she didn't say it left foot prints or did damage, just put them up there)

3. They were loud

4. They spit at each other

5. They tried to reach over the back seat

6. Talked bad about private schooled kids

7. The left the car messy.

 

 

Those are not things to go ballistic over in my book.  Those are things that say 'rude kids--glad they are not mine' and then I move on.  It is not up to me to parent every. single. person that rides in my car.  She was the carpool driver.  Not a coach, Not a teacher, Not a hired bus driver, Not in a position to be responsible to do anything but drive them safely from point A to B.   If the OP felt distracted, then she should have pulled over and dealt with the distraction.  Since she didn't, I assume it wasn't so distracting that she felt she couldn't drive safely. 

 

  These things she mentioned are wayyyyyy different that your examples.  There was not talk of opening car doors, drugs, taunting, throwing things out of a car.....  they are teenagers and IRL they were being annoying, not dangerous, overreacting is not going to gain respect, but it will create problems for the daughter.

 

The parents likely already know that the kids are not angels. If the kids are acting like that in someone else's car, then the parents already know how their kid acts.   Calling attention to it, is not going to make a bit of difference in my experience.  But, in retaliation, it will quite possibly get he her own daughter labeled.

 

 

She said it was in fact THAT distracting. I did not suggest going ballistic on the girls. She already spoke to them to no avail. At that point I would head back to the point of origin and drop the girls off. If you feel no explanation is necessary, perhaps you're right! But I would've offered one, in case the parent were wondering why their children were home so early.

 

I can't imagine behaving as described above, and the parent actually agreeing to drive me ANYWHERE I wished to go!

[Why do schools get out so early in the day??]

That's disgusting.

 

I realise that's not a helpful contribution to the thread, but 

 

:huh:  :confused1:  :ohmy:  :scared:  :scared:  :scared:  :scared:

 

That's disgusting.

 

I had a similar reaction. The amount of time she spent on the bus amounts to the whole of our academics in our homeschool day. (when we got to middle school)

["Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans" (article) -- cross-post]

Having to take out loans, which other people are making a profit from, just to get a basic education, could be considered a reasonable thing to protest through non-payment.

 

At least make the loans no-interest, payable as income reaches the median wage.

 

Isn't this an Ivy League graduate? Times three? Or two? (I wasn't tempted to read his article either, notwithstanding the expensive writing skills)

 

What's basic about that?

 

Only about 40 percent of U.S. adults have at least an associate's degree. I'm not convinced money is the issue.

[Why do schools get out so early in the day??]

So they can go home and chop kindling, pull weeds, collect eggs, sweep the barn, water the horses, and make sure the coal bin is filled.

 

Obviously!

["Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans" (article) -- cross-post]

It isn't that hard to get a job as a writer. I majored in journalism, and have had plenty of writing jobs, only one of which was with a newspaper. They all paid decently well, certainly well enough to keep up with my student loans! 

 

Sounds like he took out more than the "recommended" amount of loans.

 

If you default on your mortgage, you have to give the house back. If you default on your student loans, you should have to give your brain back. j/k

[Worst Carpool Experience Ever]

Whether or not she attends the public school with them or not, it doesn't matter in my book.  If she is high school age, and will be on a sports team with those girls, you do not want to be the parent who caused trouble for them.  As an adult, you can handle teen age peer-pressure/social bullying.  But, for your daughter, Especially since they already think less of kids in private school, it will just give them one more reason to pick on her.

 

Mean girls suck.  Mean girls who have a target....can make that girls life a living h3ll. 

 

She's opening the door while the car is moving -- what exactly would she have to do to trigger someone to "be the parent who caused trouble" for her? Illegal drugs in the vehicle? Taunting the daughter? Physical bullying? How about swearing at someone, or swearing in general? Tossing stuff outside the car? What would the Not Wanting To Cause Waves Parent do then? 

 

In other words, if  "not wanting to cause trouble" is a good enough excuse to ignore highly inappropriate behavior, when exactly would the behavior be bad enough to trigger a parental response?

 

In my experience, if you ignore bad behavior, it GETS WORSE.

 

Another question I would have for people to ponder: why do the well-behaved people have to worry about "burning bridges?"

 

Maybe the misbehaving girls should worry about burning bridges. And their parents.

 

If I were a parent of a misbehaving kid, I absolutely would want to know about it!

[Worst Carpool Experience Ever]

I would have flipped out.

 

Pulled over.

 

Dressed them down.

 

Turned right back around.

 

And returned them all to their parents with reports of how unacceptable they'd behaved.

 

That's well beyond the bounds of a little teen silliness and straight into rude, snotty disrespect. Nope. No flipping way.

 

This.

 

There are more important things in life than getting to a soccer game on time. If you had done this, it would've been the Disciplinary Moment your child would bring up in conversation until the end of time as an example of How It's Done. (I know, because my siblings and I still cite parental moments like this from our childhoods and there are several of them)

 

This would've been the Bridge Over The River Kwai for me.

 

Not meaning you should go ballistic with the parents, just explain calmly what happened and it isn't going to be happening any more because you're done with the car pool.

 

Allowing that to go on in your car is NOT the lesson I'd want to be giving my kid. I had a similar moment back when my kids were in school, driving home from a field trip. The boys started taking stuff out of seat pockets and throwing it at each other (tissues, maps, miscellaneous). Then someone started DRAWING on the roof of our van with a pencil. It was a large van and they were pretty far back, but as soon as I noticed it I pulled off the freeway and into a fast food parking lot. Got out of the vehicle and stepped into the rear to YELL at everyone. (and I am not a  yeller) I said I expected PERFECT behavior on the way home, or everyone's parent would be getting a phone call from me this very day.

 

Glorious Silence for the next half hour.

[Awww, man. We have *neighbor kids*.]

10-year-olds don't need babysitting per se. Just some mild supervison, or someone being available just in case.

[Kids accessing (owning!) smartphones and having (largely) unsupervised internet-access]

 

But see I guess that is where the problem is....  I automatically take the as a Christian to mean what she understands Christianity to mean.  I don't think everyone else thinks that way...  She was just explaining she was a Christian NOT that every Christian agrees with her.  If you are trying to say that we shouldn't use the word Christian on this board unless we know that most people would agree with it, then that word would never be used...  

 

As a homeschooler, I agree with you. I don't think Christians are any more monolithic than homeschoolers. I know better. 

[Jim Bob and Michelle giving tv interview]

People are turned off by hypocrisy. This was not an element with Sandusky. It is a focal point with the Duggars.

 

I'm horrified and disgusted by the whole lot.

 

The effect of the bible on the actions of people does not follow the claims made. Case in point, this whole sexual assault / incest horror is not unique to the Duggars, and while it's not unique to xianity, we can determine certain variables that predictably increase the risk of such events. The Duggars' created an environment that maximizes these risk factors, and did so specifically and publicly by appealing to your book of supposed moral codes. 

 

Starting a charity to "help children" and then abusing those children is not hypocritical? Perhaps you define it differently then.

 

Lots of people create environments that increase risk factors. The Duggars are not unique in that regard. You seem to be looking at this emotionally rather than rationally.

 

I'm not defending the Duggars. I wish someone could throw the book at them.

 

Both books.

[Jim Bob and Michelle giving tv interview]

The NFL doesn't present itself as the superior moral code, or publicly call out soccer players for being inherently untrustworthy while raising the next freakin' Pele. 

 

So people aren't turned off by the actions, they're turned off by the "superior moral code?"

 

Personally, I'm turned off by the ACTIONS, and lack of appropriate REACTION by the parents.

 

The superior moral code is the Bible, and everyone interprets that differently.

[Jim Bob and Michelle giving tv interview]

If people don't realize by now that this is a problem across all walks of life, there's no help for them. Did everyone get turned off football after the Jerry Sandusky stuff?