Greta
-
Posts
8,163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Greta
-
-
I've found that ones with tea tree oil in them work better for me, but I don't know if tea tree oil might be irritating to the skin for some people. I only recently made the switch from anti-perspirant, though, so I haven't done a lot of experimenting yet. I'm going to try some of the ones that were mentioned here, so thanks everyone!
-
I have to gently correct your thread title, because I promise you, that is something I would do too! (((hugs)))
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:I will say, the GOOD thing about ADHD is you get used to this stuff, and learn how to make do. So I only temporarily panicked and then fixed it as well as I could, and hoped for the best.
I haven't mastered that skill. For me the panic goes on and on, and the anguish lasts even longer!
-
6 hours ago, Quill said:
I’m also thinking we humans want rules and limitations. In the absence of rules like, “you must awaken at 6am and feed the chickens,” are we making new rules like, “I cannot eat meat/gluten/dairy”? Setting aside actual allergies or health realities, is the propensity towards having a Way of Eating part of this longing for rules?
I also meant to mention that I thought this was an interesting example. Many religions have dietary restrictions: certain foods must be avoided, foods must be prepared in a certain way, there are periods of fasting, etc. That is not entirely but largely absent now in the US. Also in times past people were far more in touch with their food, growing/raising/preparing it themselves far more than we do now. And I suspect that fostered a much greater sense of gratitude and appreciation. Maybe these self-imposed dietary limits are a actually an attempt to regain some of that? I radically changed my diet several months ago, and went vegan. What I was shocked to discover was that the limits I had imposed on my diet, deemed largely unbearable by most people, actually dramatically increased the sense of satisfaction and appreciation that I derived from each meal. I sat down to my meals with far more joy than I had ever experienced before. Rather unexpected, though, isn't it? I can't say how much of that was because the change brought my actions more in line with my ideals, and therefore gave me peace, and how much of it was that I derive satisfaction from knowing that I am following a philosophy or a set of guidelines/rules/limits, because I feel that both were definitely at play.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MaeFlowers said:
Joining a group of people with shared interests is slightly different than being born into a group that expects conformity, wouldn't you say? Forced comformity (even under the guise of expectations vs rules) lends itself to oppression. We need a certain level of conformity for society to function but we also expect a certain amount of freedom to move within those "rules". Religious groups are often a perfect example of how precious that wiggle room really is.
In terms of rules vs limits, I would agree that while most people don't like rules, they do like limits. Society tends to use rules to set limits, though. A rule follower is going to work within the given limits. A rebeller is more likely to reject those limits and set their own. So, both have limits. One more external, one more internal. Maybe? Still thinking this through...
Oh, yes, there is definitely a down side to the prospect of being born to a more homogenous society, particularly if it is also a strict one. No disagreement there at all, but I do wonder sometimes if the freedom and individualism that mark modern American society isn't its own kind of oppression. This isn't something well thought-out on my part, and so it's going to be almost impossible for me to articulate it. So I ask your forgiveness in advance for this clumsy attempt. I'm just thinking aloud here... about both biology and religion. Biologically, we evolved to be a highly social species. Being accepted by the group was vital for our survival. So psychologically, we've been built with that need. And religiously, from what I know of the world's religions and wisdom traditions, however the doctrines may differ, they often share a message about self-sacrifice, or basically, just the message that I am not the center of the universe (in Eastern Orthodox Christianity there's "dying to the self" and in Buddhism and Taoism there is the philosophy of detachment or renunciation, and so on.)
I think that our (modern western, US in particular) culture emphasizes personal growth and individualism and being your authentic self and being your best you and so on. But what if my best me is actually less "me"? There seems to be a whole lot of loneliness and dissatisfaction and depression in this culture that is so focused on individual freedoms and self-fulfillment. Were we actually happier when we had less freedom? Were people more content when life was less about "the pursuit of happiness" and more about the individual's obligations to the community? I've read about studies showing that people were less happy when they had the freedom to make a decision. When circumstances make decisions for us, we're more likely to just accept it and feel content about it and move on. When we make the decision ourselves, we're more likely to doubt that our decision was the right one, and wonder if things would have been better if we'd decided differently. So what if psychologically we are not actually well-equipped to deal with the freedom to make all our own choices about our lives? Would we be more content in a culture with a greater common purpose and less personal freedom?
Well, as I said, I'm just musing. I'm sure there's a happy balance somewhere between expectations placed on us (rules, limits, however it's best to articulate that) and personal freedom. And I don't claim to know where it lies!
-
3
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Quill said:
That’s true. One of the “succesful” aspects of Amish life is no doubt that they all agree to hold to the same conventions within a community. This is sort of what we’re doing, too, when we join a homeschool co-op, a church, a tennis club, a scouts group.
Yes, that tendency we have to join groups where people are of like mind and/or are pursuing a shared interest definitely speaks to an innate need within us, I believe! I imagine that the sense of community and belonging is all the richer when it's the same people in all of those aspects of your life.
-
1
-
-
One interesting aspect of this to me is how much a shared set of limitations and rules binds people together as a community, gives them a shared sense of purpose, a feeling that we are all working together cooperatively toward the same goal. I suspect this is something missing from (or at least, significantly reduced in) modern life compared to most of human history where people lived in smaller groups with shared religious beliefs, and where they depended much more directly on one another. The psychology of being a member of a tribe (with a set of rules that everyone lives by) must be very different from the psychology of being a member of a family in a sea of disconnected families (all making their own rules beyond the basic ones that are put into law).
Not that I have any particular insights to share on that! Just that I wonder about it.
-
11
-
-
2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:
I think it’s directly related to a decrease in neuroplasticity. The brain definitely ruts, this is proven. And add that to the twin issues or risk aversion time spent optimizing lifestyle and preferences, and you get self fulfilling prophecies of people set in their ways, just the way they like them.
I would tend to agree. It's not a topic I'm well-educated on, but based on the chapter on aging in the book Spark! by John Ratey, and the fact that I've read elsewhere that the brain actually physically atrophies as we age (as in, some brain tissue dies off), I would guess that it is due in no small part to brain degeneration. Even by the age of 40, my brain MRI showed that I had "areas of hypodensity", or put more bluntly, tiny holes in my brain. A pleasant thought, isn't it? ?
-
1
-
-
This one is a feather-light liquid that soaks right in and disappears, and doesn't smell. If you want it to be moisturizing too, then I recommend this one. But I will warn you, these are a little pricey - at least within the parameters of my budget. But I use them anyway (CLEAR in the summer and Moisture Boost in the winter) because I can put them on under my makeup and they don't feel heavy or greasy or sticky -- put another way, they don't feel/smell like sunscreen at all.
-
3 hours ago, regentrude said:
I highly doubt that is the reason. First, the trend of girls not engaging with math and science starts in school, way before young women begin to weigh issues like work hours and job security. Second, I grew up in a country where issues of job security were non existent, all careers paid pretty much the same, and girls were heavily encouraged to go into technical fields to help wit the labor shortage - yet the ratio of girls to boys among physics majors in their first year was 1:7.
I will admit I was skeptical when my husband proposed that explanation - and I told him as much. I mentioned your first point to him, in fact, but never having lived anywhere but the US, wasn't equipped with the knowledge in your second point. But then when I saw the same points he'd made proposed here I thought perhaps I'd dismissed the idea too easily. The biologist part of my brain always thinks that if there is a biological explanation, then that is the simplest and most likely explanation. The feminist part of my brain thinks that sexism, both subtle and overt, is very real, and could be at play in this dynamic too. But overall, I suspect that biological differences in interests and personal strengths is probably playing the largest role here. What do you think?
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Bluegoat said:
I don't know that there is really a "who" because it seems to be some real variety of opinion, so it's more a weight of opinion than a consensus. But she seems to be way to one side, and she's also on the softer science side - once you get into the harder sciences there seems to be more of a tendency to see brain differences as having significant elements.
This is an interesting documentary, if you haven't seen it, and it talks to some specific scientists if you are looking for some names - I don't remember them of the top of my head. The whole episode is about the gender equity paradox and is very interesting, as is the whole series.
I tend to think that the tendency of women to go into certain professions rather than others, when it isn't directly related to issues around family life, isn't about women being less mathy or good at science. It's more about them being more interested in other people and relating to people in a certain way, and perhaps less interested in certain kinds of technical work or work with machines etc.
I enjoyed that documentary. Thanks for posting it. I thought the study about in utero testosterone levels and their effect on the development of empathy and language ability was really fascinating.
As to the part I bolded - I was just thinking this morning about how my daughter plans to get a STEM degree (geology/paleontology) but what she plans to do with it is more people- and relational-oriented. Her hope is to work in a natural history museum in a capacity which would allow her to share her love of paleontology with the public. She has specifically said that her dream job would be "talking about dinosaurs all day" ?
13 hours ago, Arcadia said:My kids are turn off by engineering careers because of my husband’s pay and working hours, as well as layoffs being frequent (the most recent is Qualcomm). One is looking at business and law, the other is looking at tax accounting.
My lady cousins are all “mathy” and most went into accountancy because it pays better than engineering for similar ranks in the corporate world. Accountancy isn’t counted as a STEM field/career so they won’t have been counted under ladies in STEM. I was in engineering management so I could be counted as 1/3 engineering and 2/3 management, so probably not counted at all if I was surveyed during my working years.
My English scores were as high as my math scores so teachers and lecturers never knew what to suggest for careers other than maybe technical writer/translator.
I was chatting with my husband about this thread last night. He has several decades of experience in the engineering and physics world, both in private industry and in a national laboratory. He was saying that he believes the reason there are fewer women in STEM is that smart women can see that the crap you have to put up with in STEM (the long hours of demanding work, the pay being low relative to the amount of work you have to put in, the massive layoffs, the problems created by H-1B visas, etc.), just isn't worth it, and they wisely go into business instead (which is what he wishes he had done in some ways). So it was interesting for me to read your post today, saying basically the same thing!
-
33 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:
I don't understand.....there is a call for the press to determine & label which families clearly qualify as "homeschoolers" (how exactly are they supposed to determine that in states where homeschoolers don't even have to register or submit any documentation?), yet homeschoolers themselves refuse to draw clear lines between those parents who follow the homeschool laws/regulations in their own state and who actually educate their own chidren and those parents who don't (e.g. everyone participates in the same coops/activities; no one actively questions who is and isn't doing what is required; and - if the subject comes up - many homeschoolers knowingly support or accept other parents who openly refuse to comply with even the most basic state requirements). Which is all fine, but then you can't really complain when the general public (or the press) lumps all "homeschoolers" together. The homeschool community itself doesn't have a clear definition.
Yeah, that is a good point.
-
1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:
Yes.
The original article doesn't want to accept the possibility that the difference stems from a tendency of men and women to have different interests.
And "relative" abilities (if that's the right way to word it) like the second article pointed out. What I mean is, as I've been thinking more and more about this topic today, I've started to wonder if the teachers who encouraged me in English were on the right track all along! Because while I did fine in math, and I loved science and did very well in it, the truth is that English and reading just came more naturally and easily to me. So perhaps my teachers could see what I wasn't seeing: that's really where my personal strength was.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Arcadia said:
From a Feb 18 The Atlantic article The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
““Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.
When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.
The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.
The findings will likely seem controversial, since the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is often used as a reason, by some, to argue we should forget trying to recruit more women into the STEM fields. But, as the University of Wisconsin gender-studies professor Janet Shibley Hyde, who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.
“Some would say that the gender STEMgap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.””
Interesting - I wasn't aware of this dynamic. Thanks for posting this.
-
1
-
-
"Early in school, teachers’ unconscious biases subtly push girls away from STEM."
Yeah, I can believe this. My brother and I both had the same teacher for third grade (four years apart). We both had a hard time with multiplication tables. All I remember getting from that teacher was scolding and disapproval. My brother got extra help and encouragement, and a mini-celebration when he passed the final test.
I have always loved science, but also thought of myself as not good enough at math to do most sciences. I got my degree in biology specifically because I felt I couldn't handle the math required for astronomy, which was my first love. I wonder if my math skills might have developed differently if I had ever had one teacher who had said "you're pretty good at this. If you work hard, you could do really well." I almost always managed to make A's in math in primary and secondary school (I think I had a couple of B's in elementary school, but that was it), but despite that, I always felt like I was bad at it. And no one ever told me otherwise.
ETA: But it's funny to look back and think of how many teachers encouraged me to become an English teacher, despite the fact that I'd never expressed any particular interest in going that direction. I absolutely loved science, but I had precisely one teacher (my high school biology teacher) who encouraged me to go into science.
ETA2: I feel I should clarify that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with my teachers encouraging me in English! The fact is that I did do well in English, so it was natural for them to encourage me. But I also did well in science, and I though I didn't think so at the time, looking back I think I was doing pretty darn well in math too. But I didn't get the same encouragement in those areas.
-
5
-
-
Oh, another thing I forgot to mention. Initially, I thought that I didn't have food triggers, because I couldn't correlate my migraines to any particular foods other than alcohol. But then I read that food typically triggers a migraine 12-24 hours after you eat it, not immediately. So then I figured out that high-tyramine foods were triggering me.
But it seems that everything I do to help reduces the severity of my migraines, which don't get me wrong is great. If they were still as severe as they were initially, I honestly don't know how I'd be able to function. Unfortunately nothing I do seems to reduce the frequency. But they aren't as bad and they don't last as long, so I am profoundly grateful for that!
-
1
-
-
I haven't read the other replies yet, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything! But I wanted to share my experiences.
First of all, (((hugs))) because migraines stink. I've had them since puberty, but mine became chronic when I hit 40. Chronic, by the way, is defined as 15 or more migraine days per month. If you are having chronic migraines now, that's when a doctor will prescribe you preventive medications in addition to treatment ones. I've tried all the standard ones (I think) at this point. The calcium-channel blocker was the worst. I took only two doses of it. It made me feel like I was having a heart attack or something, chest pains, rapid breathing, and just this weird feeling that my heart was really struggling. It was awful, but I assume my reaction is not common! Topomax made me feel really tired, loopy, disoriented, like I was in a brain fog (it also reduced my appetite and made me lose a little weight. I didn't mind that, but if you're underweight it might not be wise.). And it didn't help anyway. Amitriptyline worked for a few months but then stopped, and when we tried increasing the dose, it gave me heart palpitations. It had also made me very sleepy even at the lower dose, and I was sleeping about 9 hours every night and still having a very hard time waking up. Beta blockers did nothing to help. Made me feel a little bit weak, but not too bad (my blood pressure was already on the low side of normal. I've heard that people with high blood pressure have a lot of success with beta blockers, so your experience might be different). I'm currently trying Botox injections, and I can't say there have been any miraculous benefits (I think it's reducing the severity some, but not the frequency, I'm still having them basically every day, just as before. But my neuro says you need at least three treatments to know how well it will work, and I've only had two so far). But I will say that it's had ZERO side effects, so that's nice at least.
As far as non-prescription things I've tried: feverfew, butterbur, vitamins B2 and D, and magnesium all did absolutely nothing for me. My migraines became chronic when I was on a low-carb ketogenic diet. Going off of that diet and getting on a high-carb, vegan diet reduced the severity tremendously. That helped more than any other single thing that I've tried, including the prescriptions, but if you're not eating low-carb, this might or might not be relevant for you, I can't say. Regular aerobic exercise reduces the severity a bit. Ginger and turmeric help some. Avoiding alcohol and high-tyramine foods is an absolute necessity for me. This, unfortunately, is a whole lot of foods: anything aged (cheeses), cured (deli meats), pickled (pickles, olives), or fermented (sourdough, miso, soy sauce). And some foods are just naturally high in tyramine such as citrus fruits (which I LOVE and dearly miss), nuts, chocolate, bananas, eggplant, avocado, and many others. (So just a personal whine/vent: being vegan without nuts, avocados, citrus, and miso/soy sauce is not fun. But I am committed to it now for ethical and spiritual reasons in addition to the health reasons that initially set me on that particular path.)
About caffeine: withdrawal can trigger a migraine. So if you're having frequent migraines, it's actually recommended that you avoid caffeine. And given the negative effects that it has on you, you might be better off with a preventive prescription rather than relying on caffeine. Yet another thing that I dearly miss: coffee.
You also mentioned that not eating enough will trigger a migraine, and it does the same thing to me. I think that the reason the low-carb diet was so bad for me in this regard was that insufficient carbs means insufficient serotonin, and migraines are intimately tied to neurotransmitter levels (though I don't claim to understand the details of how that works, both my GP and my neurologist have told me that's the case). So I recommend eating plenty of complex carbs: potatoes, whole grains, beans and legumes. (And incidentally, I lost weight going from low-carb to high-carb, so I no longer believe the "carbs make you fat" claim. But I do eat moderate/low protein and low fat. I think where many people get into trouble is eating both high-fat and high-carb.)
You might want to watch this video about the use of ginger to treat migraines: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/ginger-for-migraines/ I've found that it does help, but the effect doesn't last as long as an NSAID or triptan, so I have to keep taking it pretty frequently.
ETA: I forgot to mention that crying triggers a bad migraine or severely worsens an existing migraine for me too. I think it's those neurotransmitters again, but I don't know. In any event, I try very hard to avoid crying! No more sad movies for me. Also, dehydration is a major trigger. But I found that making an effort to drink extra water did nothing. So I just drink to thirst and that works just fine.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SKL said:
So home schoolers get no exception to the truancy laws? Or does the state not have truancy laws?
If a parent decided not to provide any education to a child, there is nothing the state can do about it?Court cases are law btw.
I was just going to ask about that - if a state doesn't define homeschooling or recognize it as a distinct thing, then how does it distinguish homeschooling from truancy? That seems very problematic.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:
So in a state that requires registration of some sort, what is the penalty for NOT registering? Is it like a warning or a ticket, or more like they put you in jail? I'd assume you'd only be found out if there was some other red flag like CPS or nosy neighbors reporting as truant? Just wondering how it works.
I've wondered this too, but I have never been able to find any official answer. I suspect not registering could you make you vulnerable to prosecution for truancy, which in my state carries a small fine and community service for a first offense, and a larger fine and jail time for a second offense. But in reality I would guess that rarely/never happens. They probably just tell you "register or you will be prosecuted" and that's the end of it. (I'm guessing!)
-
41 minutes ago, SKL said:
Some ideas that I've used at different times:
- Walk (or run, swim, or whatever) while they are doing a kid activity or sport. For example, I've gotten some good walking done while they were playing soccer, swimming, in gymnastics class or math tutoring. I either use the facilities present (e.g. in the rec center) or look for a nearby trail with nice scenery - or just walk around the nearby neighborhood. There are also some drop-in fitness places near where my kids have their activities; I might try them sometime.
I can't believe I didn't think of this with my first reply, but when my daughter was in taekwondo several years ago, there was a gym in the same shopping center where the TKD school was. That was so convenient: one trip, and we'd both get our exercise done.
-
1
-
Can your older kid(s) workout with you? Our gym allowed our daughter to join at 15 on the condition that she always be accompanied by a parent. Then from 16 on, she could workout on her own.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:
Nope. If they're not legally homeschooling then on principle I don't consider them homeschoolers. They're criminals because they're breaking the law. (They're not like murderer or traitors, but they're still criminals.) This happens enough that around here there are groups that actually use the phrase, "If you homeschool and obey the law..." or "By homeschoolers we mean someone who has turned in their homeschooling affidavit" They don't allow people homeschooling illegally to participate in their groups or associate with them in any way and they want to distinguish between those legally registered as public schoolers doing public school at home online.
People who refuse to obey homeschooling laws are the people who will end up getting everybody heavily regulated.Interesting - I'm in a neighboring state (NM) and it's pretty common here too (though perhaps not that common). Do you think it's something cultural about this region of the country? This is the only place I've ever homeschooled, so I have no basis of comparison.
-
Thanks for all the replies! I really am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts. I think Jean pretty much summed it up with the point that there is an "everyday" definition that most of us generally use, and a legal definition that's obviously going to be the one used when the government gets involved. I do wish the media would use the legal definition, since the everyday definition is too wishy-washy to be useful when you're reporting about a legal matter (I'm talking about the way they report cases where the government has gotten involved, of course).
-
4
-
-
12 minutes ago, Loowit said:
If they are not following the laws of their state, I would not consider them homeschoolers. They may be schooling their children, and even doing a wonderful job of it, but that doesn't make them a homeschooler under the law.
That would seem to be the most logical, consistent definition. And it would mean that about half of the homeschoolers I know aren't actually homeschoolers!
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, bluemongoose said:
I think if they are not complying with the law, but they are actually educating their children, they are homeschoolers.
If they are not complying with the law and are not educating their children, they are truant.
It can sometimes get a little fuzzy...like with unschooling. I know some unschoolers who consider unschooling a type of schooling where they are working hard to educate their children, but in a child led and less structured than traditional way. Others say it is totally left to the child and if the child chooses nothing, well that is unschooling. So if they claim to be homeschooling as unschoolers and it is the latter type of definition of unschooling, it gets tricky. Personally I still see that as not educating and therefore not actually homeschooling, but others do not.
Yes, it's that "actually educating" part where it gets tricky, indeed! I knew an unschooling family (and I will be honest that I disagree very strongly with the philosophy of unschooling) where it was obvious how hard the mother worked to encourage her daughter's learning: she was very thorough and deliberate with "strewing", she always asked her daughter if she wanted to attend school or even just individual classes that she thought would be of interest to her, she had a massive library, they were involved in a huge number of activities and groups, and she kept beautiful scrapbooks of all the cool stuff that her daughter did. So even though she wasn't formally educating in the traditional sense, I certainly think of her as a homeschooler. But I've known other families who didn't claim to be unschooling, but called themselves "relaxed" or "child-led" who seemed to be using homeschooling as an excuse for laziness. They were guilty of what I would consider educational neglect, and I know that at least one of these families also did not adhere to the legal requirement to register. But I still thought of them as homeschoolers too (just not very good ones). So, anyway, I guess I'm just pondering my definition of what it means to be a homeschooler, because it seems to be in need of revision. ?
-
2
-
S/O Hypersexualization of Today's Culture /Media's Impact on Youth Sexuality
in The Chat Board
Posted
Thank you for articulating this. I was too overwhelmed and distraught to even find the words! I knew this situation was bad, but this video painted a more vivid and horrifying picture of the situation for me. My 18 yo dd just told me last week that she is interested in dating now. Not that she has someone in particular in mind, but she's hoping the right person will come into her life. She simply hasn't had any interest up to this point. How do I protect her??? The thought of her dating someone whose perception of sexuality has been warped by porn absolutely terrifies me. She is modest and shy by nature. She's never even been kissed. And the dating world that she's about to enter is . . . well, this hell that we've created. It truly makes me want to weep.
Other mothers of daughters*, please tell me, how can we help our daughters protect themselves?
* and please know I'm not ignoring or denying the very real need to protect sons too. It's just that I only have a daughter, so that's my focus right now.