Other. It would be some combination of when they ask and an age decided by us. It's not a hill I'd die on, but I also would run out and get my DD's ears pierced when she's 5 just because she might ask.

I think it depends on when/why you are reading. My 18mo right now likes those "first word" books that are just labelled pictures. She looks at them a lot during the day, and we read them to her, and also sometimes we read short picture books. At night, though, DH usually reads her a short chapter from a children's novel. She clearly doesn't understand it. (In fact, right now he's reading The Tale of Despereaux, which he had finished with our oldest, and if she did understand it, he wouldn't be reading it to her, because it's pretty bleak and heavy in parts.) But, it calms her down at night to have her daddy read to her, and I do think that just at the level of exposure to language it's got some benefits. Probably not more benefits than just talking to her would have, but neither one of us is up to coming up with a 10-minute monologue at her bedtime, so a book works better! We got into the habit of reading books they didn't understand when DS was a toddler. He was a horrible, terrible, no-good, very-bad sleeper. It would take him 1-2 hours to fall asleep, and he had no ability to fall asleep on his own. (If we left the room before he was asleep, he'd start screaming and keep it up for hours, getting himself more and more agitated, so we were in the room with him until he was out.) Singing and reading picture books got him too stimulated, but if we just sat there silently he'd get overly restless, so we'd take turns bringing in stuff to read. I'd often just read to him from whatever book I happened to be reading. He liked listening to us, and he was an early and very good reader (and now writer), so I'm not going to discount the possibility that there was some benefit, in terms of things like internalizing language structure, to the hours we spent reading material that was way over his head to him. Or maybe that's just how I try to look on the bright side of the maybe two years where getting him to sleep seemed to be our primary hobby!

What should I feed my kids for lunch? (I mean generally, not today.) I feel like every single afternoon, when lunchtime rolls around, I'm taken by surprise and have no idea what to make the kids. I've tried planning out lunches when I plan dinners, but I always feel like I end up with a lot of wasted food. I'm thinking maybe what I need to do is just serve the same thing each lunch all week, rather than planning five different lunches and having a lot of wasted food? I have no idea. I'm not sure what my issue with lunch is, but I am sooooooo not on the ball with it. What do you do for lunch? Do you plan in advance? Do you just have stuff on hand? Do you serve the same thing every day? Do you prepare it the night before?

I just read through all the responses, and even though I'm not the OP, they have really helped me think through some of the expectations I've had for my DD lately (and the frustration I've been feeling because she hasn't been meeting them). I always need that reminder that fussing and whining (or, as she currently does, turning bright red, shaking, and letting out an ear-splitting shriek when her plans are thwarted) at 18 months does not mean that, unless I nip it in the bud immediately, she'll be responding that way at 18 years. I really like this, and I agree. Plus, I'm not convinced that perfect consistency in all situations is good for kids or helps them learn to deal with life, where people are inconsistent. But, I'm a big believer in the right of grandma and grandpa to spoil (within reason, of course), and I fully plan to spoil any grandchildren I have. At the same time, too, I let my DS do things that my parents aren't comfortable with. I'll let him walk a block to visit a friend, as long as there's no street-crossing. My parents and ILs are made very nervous by the thought of him walking even around the corner by himself in Detroit, so when they're here, and they want to walk him to a friend's house, he doesn't get to say, "But my mom lets me go alone!" I also don't insist that he go alone. If grandma and grandpa want to walk him over, then they do, and he respects that. If we were talking about something truly dangerous or that the parent felt was morally wrong that the grandparents were doing, then I'd think there'd be a place to put your foot down. But in general I think that allowing people to interact with your child in the way that's comfortable for them, rather than the way you want them to, is just fine, probably a good thing for the child, and definitely better for the relationship between the adults.

I guess it's that Easter Bunny that does Santa in! The funny thing with my DS is that his reason for disbelieving the Easter Bunny was that bunnies can't be that big. The idea that a bunny could visit every house in the world and bring candy was fine with him, but it was the fact that it was a really big bunny that he knew was wrong.

I think that expecting grandparents to not pick up a crying or fussy 15mo is probably unreasonable, yes.

I make DS7 play with and read to his sister. It's just so we can all stay sane. I think of it as fostering family closeness. DD was good today, but the last couple of weeks she has been a trial. She naps each day from about 1:00-2:30 or so, but I've started putting her in her crib with some books and toys for a "quiet time" around 10:30, because she seems to start melting down around then, and if nothing is done, she'll just stay moody and unpleasant until her nap. Usually a little snack and then 30 or 40 minutes of quiet in her crib perks her up a bit.

I guess the issue is just if that should be considered a parenting issue or a criminal issue. I'd say that in most cases, it's a parenting issue, not in the sense that the parent did something wrong, but that the parent and their extended support network, including professionals, could and should do whatever they can to handle it first. Would some sort of out-of-home care be possible? My husband's cousin lived with them for about six months when they were teenagers. He had gotten into a lot of trouble, including striking his mother. Just being in a different environment seemed to help in his case. He's now a responsible, productive adult and has a good relationship with his mom.

I've got a bunch of things going on at night this week (I usually just do stuff at night Tuesday and Wednesday, but tonight I'm also going to be out tonight and Friday night) so it's kind of a crazy week. Tonight I'm making lemon herb flounder with rice and steamed broccoli. Tomorrow is grilled cheese. Wednesday I'm making soup for my small group, and I think I'm doing a spinach-coconut soup. DH will probably make mac and cheese for the kids. Thursday I'm feeding the kids PB&J and DH is bringing home fancy pizza for us to eat while we watch Community and Parks and Rec. (That's our Thursday night "date.") Friday I think I'll make African Safari Pilaf.

Personal decision, definitely. I can see why somebody would want to die in their home, but I can also see how, in our culture especially, many people would be more comfortable finishing out a serious illness in the hospital.

I never talk about money issues, because I teach one or at most two classes each semester, and I know "work more" would be suggested. Nevermind that figuring out what to do with three kids while I "worked more" would end up costing us whatever money I'd be making, and probably more. I think people don't realize sometimes that you just want to vent, and aren't looking for them to solve your problems.

Very well said.

The point, though, is that the law would also consider it battery if the daughter did the same to the mother. I get the sense that many would support the daughter being charged with battery for slapping her mom, but would consider the mom slapping the daughter to be a justified and appropriate use of parental authority. Personally, I don't think either one--if we're talking about slapping and not causing damage--would warrant criminal charges.

I disagree that effort shouldn't play some role in grading. As a teacher, I take effort into consideration to some degree, particularly when it comes to improvement. Otherwise, quite frankly, I could just assign grades the first day of class, based on the diagnostic essay. Grading on academic performance only would mean that some students could simply coast by without putting any effort into their work, and that other students would see no point in putting forth effort because their performance would still not get them a decent grade. I don't think effort should supersede academic performance, but I do think it has a place in the grading process. My favorite teacher, when I was in high school, gave me a C on my first essay in her class, because, she said, she knew I could do better. I was a very good student. I was, compared to my classmates, an excellent writer. I had writing A papers down to a science: I knew exactly the minimum amount of effort I needed to put in to get an A, and it really wasn't much. She called me on that, and insisted that I put effort into my work for her class. My C wasn't an objective C; it was based on what she thought I could do and what I'd actually done. I do think there's value in grading that way, particularly if the goal is learning. Because, if the goal is learning, isn't effort what really matters? If person can come into a class and pass all the tests or get As on all the papers without doing any work, have they learned? If a person can study, do the work, and put forth effort but still doesn't test well or write good papers, have they failed? Learning, IMO, is about the process not just the product, and only grading based on performance makes it all about the product. It also makes it seem like the process is irrelevant, so no wonder so many students do things like cheat and plagiarize. That said, this is a huge, huge part of why I homeschool. I see the destructive effect that grades have on my students and their learning, and I just don't want that for my kids. I think this shows that we're really not sure what the purpose of our school system is: is it to educate students, or to evaluate them? If it's to educate them, then it's hard for me to see what real purpose our grading system serves, because there are far better ways to assess and monitor learning. If it's about learning, what's the problem with rewriting a paper that got a bad grade? Wouldn't the student actually learn more, doing that, than they would just being stuck with the grade? Unfortunately, the way our grading system works, the only way you'll get students interested in rewriting a paper is if they are given the prospect of a higher grade; it would be nice if, on their own, they just wanted to find out how to improve the paper so they do better next time, but that rarely happens. But, if the purpose is to evaluate them, then I really don't want my kids being a part of it.

:001_smile: When my son found out that we were Santa, he had such a sweet response. I thought he'd be disappointed and maybe a bit angry that we had "lied," but instead he said, "You guys are so NICE to get me all those presents!"

I think that's a tricky line, though. Parents do have a duty to protect their children. And, calling the police and getting a child entangled in the juvenile or adult justice system is often not going to do anything to help/rehabilitate them. I'd try almost anything, including long-term residential treatment, before getting the police involved.

:iagree:

At this point, none of them do. I never pushed Santa, but I didn't disavow Santa, either, and DS7 believed in him for a while. Then this year at Easter he asked me for the "real real" truth about the Easter Bunny, so I told him, and then the whole line of dominoes fell, including Santa. ;) The two littles are too young to believe either way. Honestly, I'd prefer to just not do Santa with them at all, but I don't think DS7 or DH would go for that.

:grouphug:

DH and I were both raised Catholic. Right now I'm an Episcopalian, and he's an atheist-leaning-agnostic (or maybe, as somebody mentioned on another thread, an apatheist, in that he doesn't really care very much if there's a higher power or not). It works because we both respect each other. It works because our morals views are very similar. It works because I'm a Christian who isn't out to convince people that I'm right and their wrong, and who can completely understand why somebody would be agnostic or atheist or Buddhist or Muslim or whatever they might be, and DH actually feels pretty positively toward religion even though he just doesn't have any desire for a spiritual life himself, and so he's totally fine with me practicing my faith and taking the kids to church and talking about God with them and stuff like that. I don't know, it's just not really a point of contention here. I do find, though, that something that has really helped me spiritually is recently becoming closer friends with some people who have similar beliefs to my own. (Before this, my friends were all either entirely non-religious, much more religiously conservative than I was, or not people who ever talked about faith either way, so talking about spiritual matters in a comfortable way wasn't something I had space to do.) It's nice to have people to talk to about a theological book I read or some issue that's going on regarding religion or just some spiritual issue in my own life, who will listen and understand, so that I don't feel resentful or upset that my DH really isn't somebody who would be all that interested in those conversations.

I'm not sure that "didn't your mom teach you to wait?!" will ever be the opening to a friendly conversation. I don't know, I can't help but keep thinking "So what if they were?" If they were your kids, you wouldn't deserve the rude comments and dirty looks either, you know? Who knows the situation? For all the person knows, you could have been assaulted at 13 and had a child from that; would you really need nasty comments if that was the case? Would there be any case in which rude, judgmental comments would be appropriate? I honestly can't think of any, and it really, really bothers me that people treat teen moms that way. (And I say this as somebody who had my first at 26.) I've got to imagine that it's hard enough to be a teen mom without people heaping scorn on you for something that 1) is done (I mean, it's not like you can send them back) and 2) was handled as well as it could have been. I try, given that, to be as nice and friendly to pregnant teens and teen moms as I can, and I'll go out of my way, if I see somebody who appears to be a teen mom at the playground or park, to go up and say hello and ask about her kids and basically treat her with the same friendliness and respect I'd treat any other mom (or person, for that matter) with. I don't think I've ever mistaken somebody's siblings for their kids, but if I did, it would be a totally innocent mistake and I wouldn't mean any harm or judgment by it. I guess, IMO, if somebody is simply being friendly (if they ask if they're your kids in a "Oh, your kids are so beautiful!" way), I'd just politely correct them. If somebody is being rude, and tries to shame you because they think you have kids, I'd be tempted to just give them a look to let them know how inappropriate their comment was and leave it at that, unless they pushed it and it was necessary to clarify things.

One thing that helped wean us off of eating out a lot--we ate out nearly every dinner before our first was born and when he was a baby, and now we eat dinners out maybe once a week--was thinking "homemade" rather than "healthy." Otherwise we feel like we need to be eating brown rice, tofu, and veggies every night, and it's very easy to get discouraged and give up. If you aren't going to like what you have planned, it's going to be very hard to convince yourself to cook it. I'd probably start by just planning to cook at home, from scratch. Don't worry about how healthy or unhealthy recipes are, just focus on cooking at home and not from boxes. Once you get used to cooking most nights, and you have recipes your family likes, you can begin to rotate in "healthier" meals and to tweak some favorites to make them healthier. But the way we think about it, even eating something that isn't particularly "healthy" but is made from scratch is still much better for us than eating out (as well as cheaper). Tonight, for example, I'm making chicken parm and steamed broccoli: it's easy, it's fast, and everybody here likes it. It's certainly not "health food," though. Still, we're getting better nutrition from the meal than we would from McDonald's or Taco Bell or pizza or whatever we'd pick up if I didn't cook. So, while it's not brown rice, tofu, and veggies, it's workable for our family and a better alternative than what we'd do if we ate out.

The Goddess Keira is my favorite. Not too pricey for a large-cup bra, but comfy, supportive, and comes in an extremely wide selection of sizes. I would be willing to bet that you need a smaller band size and a larger cup size than you think. That is the case for many women.

That's the kind of terrible, bizarre actions I was talking about. Really disturbed women wanting a baby might indeed do that. But it's incredibly rare for women to perpetrate home invasions like the kind being alleged here.

I think the reason that seems unlikely is that, in general, infants are only taken for money (ransom) or by a seriously disturbed person who wants a baby. People who want babies are generally women, and while they'll do all sorts of bizarre, terrible things to get babies, they almost never commit home invasions. It just seems like, since it's not a ransom things and it's almost always a crime of opportunity when somebody takes a baby to "have" as their own (like they walk by a stroller something), it's very unlikely that the parents weren't somehow involved. As to babies and parent size, my pediatrician is completely fine with our babies being absolutely enormous--my baby was 15 lbs. at his 2 month appointment, and my daughter was 22 pounds at 4 months--because she figures, with a mom who is 5'8" and a dad who is 6'5", they're just going to be big people.