I'm hard-pressed to think of an actual example of this. But, assuming it happens, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it. What's the problem with referring to individuals and groups in the way that they prefer to be referred to? I will give an example. I'm in favor of women have access to legal abortions. Personally, I think the position taken by people who want to have abortion re-criminalized is best labelled "pro-illegal abortion." But, I realize that people who think abortion should be illegal 1) do not think that accurately represents their position and 2) take offense at it, so I don't use it. It would be disrespectful of me to use it, and it would certainly not be conducive to productive dialogue. Is it really a burden to refer to somebody as "a person with a disability" rather than as "a cripple"? Is it a problem to use "American Indian" or "Native American" rather than "Indian"? I don't really see it bringing any inconvenience to my life, and, even if it did, to me it's just a matter of basic respect and good manners to refer to people in the way they wish to be referred to. I do think it's sad that we've come to dismiss people's efforts to be respectful of others--which used to just be considered good manners--as fearful, "feeble-minded" attempts to avoid offending anybody. I now say "chose adoption" rather than "gave up for adoption." I'm not doing it because I'm "feeble-minded" or afraid, but because I can see how the former term is both more accurate and more respectful. I'm very glad to have been made aware that there is more accurate, respectful language available, on this subject and in other areas. I'm not really sure why people get so--here it comes!--offended by the idea that the way they say things might not be the most appropriate, respectful, or accurate way to do so. To me it's kind of like insisting that you call somebody by a nickname that they don't go by, rather than their preferred nickname--why would somebody do that? Again, it just seems like a matter of good manners to me, not "political correctness." And if the preferred term changes? Then you roll with the punches and use the new preferred term. It's no different than somebody who decides they want to go by a different nickname. If you've been Kathy to me for years but now you want to be Katie, well, I'd be happy to call you Katie, while also hoping you'd forgive me if I forgot and called you Kathy sometimes. ;) Just basic respect and decency on both sides.

I find that my own tendency is to assume that I am airing valid grievances whereas others are complaining. I'm standing up against an injustice while others are taking offense too easily. In some ways I think we live in a very odd culture, where you'll see things like people getting very, very angry over the fact that other people aren't taking enough personal responsibility, and not seeing even a tiny shred of irony in that. But in other ways it's not odd at all, because I do think that's our tendency. We're always seeing that shard in the other person's eye. I think it's best when I can extend grace to others while not giving myself much wiggle room. I'd like to keep myself from complaining while responding to the complaints of others--which I usually want to tune out--with the assumption that whatever they are complaining about is an issue that may indeed matter a great deal to them and that they need to talk about. I'd like to keep myself from taking offense while responding to the offense other's take with the assumption that they experienced real hurt that they need addressed. I'm not going to say I'm very successful with that, but I do think that if I think people complain too much or take too much offense, the only real course of action is to stop complaining and stop taking offense myself, rather than wanting others to stop. I didn't know until very recently that the language traditionally used around adoption can feel hurtful or demeaning to birth mothers. I'm glad I know, and I'm glad there are alternatives. I can see, now that I'm aware of it, that "giving up" is probably not the best term to use, and there are better ways to talk about the adoption process and the people involved in it. It isn't a burden on me to make those changes, but I'm also not aware of anybody having taken offense at my use of language before I was aware of it. Having somebody point out that there are other, more preferred ways of referring to a person, or group of people, or certain actions, doesn't mean they are taking offense. I always feel like I live in a different world that most people (on the internet, at least!) because I just don't run into all of these quick-to-take offense people. I've never met a black person who got upset if you called them black or if you called them African-American. (Yes, there are terms that would make them upset, but I would hope that we'd see refraining from using racial slurs as a matter of doing the right thing morally, not "politically correct.") I don't know if most people take having somebody suggest an alternate, preferred term to mean that person has taken offense, or just know way touchier people than I've ever run into, but I don't see people taking offense too quickly over language use as a particularly rampant problem.

I mainly worry about the unnecessary fear it causes in women. I realized, after I said I drank on two occasions total during my two pregnancies, that that was drinking when I knew I was pregnant. With my first, I had two drinks the week before I found out I was pregnant. We decided to take a few months off from trying, and I got pregnant on our first "off" month. I was in grad school and it was September, so we had a few back-to-school parties. I had a cosmopolitan at one and a beer at another. I almost never drink, so I felt horrible about having drank when I was pregnant. I was extremely worried, because the message I'd gotten about drinking in pregnancy basically boiled down to "Don't do it, ever, because it will cause your child serious harm." My OB assured me that my child would be just fine, and that I could continue to have a drink or two during pregnancy and my child would still be just fine. I only had one more drink the whole pregnancy, and I was still a little worried, but when I looked at the research to reassure myself I realized that I didn't have anything to worry about. Anyway, I've known other women who've had anxiety their whole pregnancy about the potential damage they think they did by having a few drinks before they knew they were pregnant. That's unnecessary stress, and if we were honest about the risks, it wouldn't happen.

Of course, but that's probably the case for anything. A mom with a food sensitivity might need to completely avoid certain foods during pregnancy that other mothers can eat safely. If somebody knows that they cannot have only one drink, or that drinking in any amount will cause a reaction, then they obviously shouldn't drink. The problem is with issuing blanket recommendations that are based not on the science but on a mistrust of women. That's what this seems to be. It seems like everybody aware of the research knows that 1-2 drinks per week is safe, but they are afraid to tell women that, out of fear that either women with problem with alcohol will take that at a license to start drinking or that women will think that if 1-2 drinks a week are fine, then 3-4 per day are probably fine, too.

I'm not sure what you're asking, because every study that has looked at drinking in pregnancy that I'm aware of has found that 1-2 drinks per week in pregnancy does not cause problems. Nobody is talking about drinking heavily. Nobody is talking about drinking regularly. But, occasional light drinking of 1-2 drinks per week is not correlated with any future problems. The children born to mothers who have 1-2 drinks per week are, according to research, no different from children born to mothers who don't drink at all. I wasn't saying, to clarify, that heavy drinking on some days is fine, because it only causes harm during critical periods. That wasn't the point. The point was that there is NO time in a pregnancy where it's safe for a woman to drink heavily, because even getting drunk a single time could cause problems, because it might occur during a critical period. And, regular moderate drinking is also an issue. But, 1-2 drinks per week isn't. I would assume that most FAS advocacy groups would take the same stance as American doctors: no drinking at all, because some women will take it too far if you tell them they can have 1-2 drinks per week. And, that's understandable. But, it's not in line with what the science has indicated.

I'm going to get really nitpicky and say there's a difference, too, between "drinking in moderation" and "moderate drinking." "Drinking in moderation," as used here, is referring to engaging in occasional light drinking. "Moderate drinking" is a term used along with "light drinking" and "heavy drinking" to denote the quantity somebody drinks. AFAIK light drinking generally refers to 1-2 drinks, moderate drinking to 3-5, and heavy drinking to more than that, although it may not always be exactly that way. But 1-2 drinks per week would be occasional light drinking, not "moderate drinking."

I had a friend in grad school who was blind. She hated the lack of Braille materials available. Apparently the cost of printing things in Braille is pretty prohibitive, and Braille texts are very unwieldy, so fewer and fewer things are being printed in Braille and instead being produced as audio. Pretty much all of the reading she did in grad school was either recorded audio or via a reader. She much preferred reading in Braille, though. Of course, she was studying English literature and loved to read, so I'm not sure how representative she was of blind people, but I have to imagine there's at least some demand for materials printed in Braille, and a need for people who are capable of doing it. My father, for some reason, learned Braille when he was in the Air Force.

I think it can be used that way, but I don't think it has to be. I wasn't aware of "worldview" used in that way until I started homeschooling, but it's a term I was familiar with from reading theory in college (although not used in exactly the same way).

I think that's a false dichotomy. I also think that the things we encourage competition in are, quite frankly, usually not very important or productive things, and are things that, in the end, it doesn't really matter if anybody is very good at. I don't remember kids in my school getting really competitive about who could learn the most in a class, but competitive over who could get the highest GPA. Those are two very different things, and the competition over GPA generally involved trying to figure out how to best "game" the system. And, I remember many more people being competitive over whose team could win the gym volleyball tournament than over GPA. I'm assuming nobody could even remember the following marking period who had won that tournament, much less remember it now. We get competitive over grades, not learning. We get competitive over scores, not sportsmanship. I don't think we get competitive over the things that really matter. I don't see much value in being really good at something that doesn't matter all that much--or that matters in ways that I think are not-so-good--so I'm not going to cry over kids not being made to feel extra special because they get higher grades than other people or are better at sports. I got high grades, and it's not something I deserved accolades over. But I tend to find the emphasis we put on achievement, affluence, and appearance in our culture very disturbing. I don't particularly like the "everybody wins" philosophy, but that's because I prefer the "who the heck cares who wins because it's just a game/number anyway?" philosophy. Huh. I'd want every child to be honored at a school. If we believe that each child is made in the image of God, or has inherent worth and dignity, or anything to that effect, certainly a school honoring each child would be a good thing. I don't think those schools are saying that competition is bad, but just that there are things more important than competition. I'd say that a school respecting and honoring each student is more important than showering praise or awards on a few students who excel at certain things the school culture has deemed impressive. But I've never gotten the annoyance people feel over certain people not being singled out as extra-special. If you are truly great at something, and that something really matters (matters in a way that makes a real difference in your life or the lives of others, rather than just being something that only matters because of the praise you get for it), then it doesn't matter if you are singled out for accolades or not; just being great at that thing is its own reward. And if you need somebody handing you a trophy or telling you how great you are for being really good at something to matter, then that thing you are really good at probably doesn't matter much, and so you shouldn't be that invested in it anyway.

My grandmothers used to give babies a nip when they were teething. I wouldn't see the harm in doing it, myself.

I think the issue would be whether alcohol crossing the placenta causes harm, not whether it crosses or not. It appears both from research and from anecdote (i.e., all the healthy European babies) that whatever amount of alcohol could cross the placenta if a mother has 1-2 drinks per week does not cause any harm.

Hmm. Now I'm tempted to try Singapore, but I'm loathe to switch his curriculum again. We did Math Mammoth last year and he absolutely hated it. He called it "Math With Tears." He likes the spiral approach, but I do think CLE is presented in a way that may not be challenging enough for him.

If you've got wine, brie, and crusty bread, I think you're all set. I would take those over a mixed drink any day. I absolutely hate the taste of liquor.

That would bother me, too. At the same time, I think that's the kind of thing where you need to look at the intention behind the words, because I think it's one of those things people just say/write without thinking and are intending to convey something that they aren't conveying. I think "I'm so sorry" just doesn't seem enough for people, or maybe seems too trite. I don't know. I think usually that's about the only thing you can say.

My understanding is that it's heavy drinking during critical periods--so getting drunk even once during a critical time--and regular drinking over long periods--several drinks a day every day for weeks--are what causes problems. I don't think, from what I've read, that there is any day/time during a pregnancy in which 1 or 2 drinks could cause harm. Getting drunk, yes. If you have just one night where you have 4-5 drinks, and it happens to be during a critical period, it could do harm. But AFAIK even on those critical days, light drinking wouldn't pose a problem.

I do think there are genetic/biological factors at work, and not just people not understanding moderation. I do think there are people who cannot be moderate in their intake of alcohol or nicotine or other addictive substances. My DH and I both smoked in college. I quit with my problem at all. It took him years to finally quit. I'm not aware of any addicts in my family, whereas I can't think of anybody I know in his family who doesn't have an addiction of one sort or another (alcohol, drugs, gambling, pornography). I do think that some people are predisposed to become addicted to things, and, for them, using it in moderation would be so difficult that they do need to avoid it entirely. I don't think it's a willpower issue, or a knowledge issue, because my DH, in general, has a lot more willpower than I do. But he's somebody who you'd say has an "addictive personality"--although I think it's probably more of an "addictive genetic make-up," because his mother has had problems with alcohol addiction and his father has had problems with pornography/sexual addiction, and his aunts, uncles, and cousins have all kinds of addictions--whereas I don't. He can't just have one or two glasses of coffee a week--he either has none, or drinks 4-5 cups a day and gets headaches without it. I'm pretty sure that if he ever started drinking a few times a week, he'd very likely become an alcoholic. So I do think there are people who can't have 1-2 drinks a week, but I also think we shouldn't make recommendations based on that.

That's how I read it at first, too! I was wondering if werewolves were a topic up for debate now. ;)

Both of my OBs must have been really laid-back, because I wasn't told anything food or drink-wise was off-limits. I mean, I assume they knew I knew that any kind of regular or heavy drinking was bad, but both told me that an occasional drink was fine. Neither gave me any no-no foods, either, other than to make sure I was moderate with my fish intake. Nothing was made off-limits, though. I don't know if I drank anything with artificial sweeteners--I'm not a big fan of diet drinks generally--but I wouldn't have thought twice about it if I did. I don't know, I'm not advocating throwing out moderation at all, but I do think we go a little overboard with things. Heavy drug users have healthy babies. Women who get no prenatal care have healthy babies. People who are severely malnourished have healthy babies. I think that, in general, we probably don't have to worry about eating or drinking the stuff we'd normally eat and drink, in moderation.

If my husband is responsible for doing something, he'll remember it. So, he knows the days and times I teach, because he's home with the kids then. He doesn't schedule work stuff during those times. If I let him know in advance that I need him to take one of the kids somewhere, he's generally good about remembering without too many reminders from me. But, if he isn't needed, he won't remember. This week I had a small group at the neighbors' one night at 6:30. I must have reminded him about a dozen times that I was going, and he still, when I mentioned at 6:15 that DS and I needed to eat quickly because we were going out, responded with, "Where are you going?" He had no idea. Then, the next day, I needed to go out to sign DS up for some classes, and again he seemed to have no idea why I was leaving the house. He doesn't mind, obviously, but if what I'm doing doesn't require a change in his schedule (like adjusting his work schedule to be home while I'm teaching), it doesn't seem to register with him no matter how many times I mention it. That said, I'm terrible at remembering which days he's travelling for a meeting, since it doesn't affect me at all, so I understand. Like him, unless it's going to affect me--like, if he's going to be home very late--I tend to forget.

I'm extremely non-competitive. I don't really get the competitive impulse, so when other people get really competitive about something, it pretty much baffles me, and sometimes kind of annoys me. My DH is, I'd say, moderately competitive, and my DS takes after him. They'll get into a competition, but not to the point where they're just completely and totally obsessed with winning. Both of them can still manage to keep a sense of humor about things when they're feeling competitive, at least most of the time.

That just annoys me to no end. I don't even get it. Yes, if somebody is the kind of person who cannot stop at one drink, then they shouldn't drink while pregnant. But, that does not describe most women I know, at all.

I'm wondering how I can accelerate DS in math without missing important information. Background: I was hesitant to accelerate DS in math because he seemed to have such a hard time with his addition facts. He could do all sorts of addition problems in his head, but when drilled on his facts, he'd freeze. Now that he's had the summer break, I'm starting to think he was just bored. He has no more struggle with his basic facts at all. He gets frustrated going over material he already knows, and that tends to manifest itself in his not paying attention and then saying he doesn't know what he's doing. He does know what he's doing, he just has a hard time focusing if he feels like it's too easy. When we're covering new topics or more challenging topics, he does better. So now I'm thinking I should accelerate him, but I'm not sure how, because I don't want to miss something vital. We're using CLE, if that matters. (The spiral approach is working very well for him, so I don't want to switch programs, just move him ahead faster.) What I'm thinking is that I'll do two lessons with him a day, rather than one. So he doesn't get overwhelmed with the amount of problems, I thought I'd do all of the problems for each new concept in both lessons, but then only assign half of the "We Remember" problems. That way he'd be doing the same amount of review work he'd get if we did one lesson a day. He'd get through second grade math in half the time, and then we'd start third grade math after our winter break. Does that sound like a reasonable plan? Any other ideas?

Or driving, for that matter. If we're going to avoid everything that might potentially cause harm, driving should be the first to go. I don't drink, so it's not a big deal. But, I also don't drive much, so I could give up driving just as easily as giving up drinking during pregnancy. But while people would think I was just being reasonably cautious if I said I abstained completely from drinking while pregnant, they'd think I was being a nut if I said I abstained completely from driving while pregnant, even though driving poses a much more significant risk. I can't say I've ever even met anybody who decided to limit their time in the car to only what was absolutely necessary when pregnant, even if they would never think to have a single drink. If occasional drinking is a part of somebody's life or culture or whatever, then I don't see any reason why they should give that up when pregnant just to be on the safe side, anymore than somebody should give up driving just to be on the safe side.

Nvm. Let's just say I'm going to be keeping this boy and his family in my prayers.

I totally get what you mean. I do not think I'm right about everything. Or most things. So, while I do have a particular understanding of the world that, to me, seems more right than the others, I accept that I might be wrong. So it doesn't pose a logical problem for me to accept that other worldviews could be equally valid, even if those worldviews claim exclusive truth, because I know I might be wrong. That said, I don't think all worldviews are equal. If somebody's worldview rests in the universe being 10,000 years old or the earth being flat, I will consider it to be not particularly viable. That doesn't mean there might not be some truth in their worldview, but it's not one I'd rank very high on my scale of how well it reflects reality.