I went to some Grateful Dead and Phish concerts as a teen, and even there I didn't end up getting high off of secondhand smoke. I wouldn't worry. There may be some people smoking pot at the concert, but I'd say it's extremely, extremely unlikely there'd be enough smoke to affect your daughter.

I also had them after having my kids, so I assume they can be hormone-related.

I think it depends if you are looking for realistic fiction or fantasy/adventure stuff. I agree it's hard to find realistic fiction for advanced elementary-aged readers. My son enjoys Beverly Cleary, but other than her, I can't think of anybody writing about kids his age that he reads. Maybe some Roald Dahl books, but I'd classify those more with fantasy. Most of the realistic books with protagonists his age he'd consider too easy, though, and realistic books written at his reading level generally have more mature themes than he could appreciate or I'd think appropriate. But if you look more at fantasy/adventure stuff, I think there's generally more to pick from.

I'll admit to having the opposite bias: I don't often read or have DS read anything more than 40 years old, and it's VERY rare for me to read anything published before the 20th century. I took a seminar on the eighteenth century novel in grad school, and I think that just about did me in on older literature. ;) (And, FWIW, we read mostly classics but a few popular novels from that time period. The sentences were longer, and some of the language archaic, but some of it sure was trashy.) Compared to what I read as a kid, I think DS reads pretty good stuff. And, he reads mainly contemporary novels. I mostly read Babysitter's Club and Sweet Valley Twins books when I was in grade school. (And, while they certainly weren't high-quality literature--I'd say they were more trash than "twaddle"--I don't believe they did me any harm. I ended up being a very avid reader.) He reads some of the same stuff I did, like Beverly Cleary, but mostly newer, fantasty-ish stuff. DS just started a new book, Peter Nimble and His Fantastic Eyes, that I read some excellent reviews of. I skimmed it and it looks quite good.

:lol: I think I've said "Just eat this french fry!" and yelled "This is unacceptable!" to my kids.

I think her school room is bigger than my house.

My son likes listening to Classics for Kids.

It says that human beings are pretty darn resilient, and that most people turn out just fine even if you raise them really, really badly. We all know adults who were abused as kids who are wonderful people. That isn't a testament to the abuse having good results, but to the resiliency of children. I don't think the fact that the Pearl children appear to have turned out okay is an endorsement of beating babies for crying (which is exactly what the Pearls recommend).

Nope. I own an iron, though. I sometimes use it to block stuff when I'm knitting, and DH will pull it out once in a while to iron a tie (he wears them maybe three times a year, and the rest of the time they get thrown into his sock drawer, so they're usually wrinkly when he needs one).

Actually, all the threads on this got me interested in the Pearls, and from what I've read of their theology, they actually don't think that. They think infants come into the world morally neutral. The point of training is to prepare them for the moment when they reach their "age of accountability," so they can choose rightly. But they aren't seen as sinners from birth in the Pearls' theology.

I feel like these sorts of programs teach you to ignore instinct. I can see why a parent would be convinced that they can't just take what works for them after reading Ezzo or the Pearls. The authors leave no room for that. I've read all of On Becoming Babywise and only skimmed TTUAC, so I can comment more on Ezzo. Ezzo leaves no room for going halfway. You are either a good Babywise parent who will raise a decent child, or a permissive parent who is going to raise a terror. There is no gray, no in-between. If you have a well-behaved child, it's because you followed Babywise right; if you don't, it's because you didn't follow it well enough. Now, sure, a confident parent can probably read that and still have the good sense to take parts that might work for them and leave the rest. But a desperate, demoralized parent, especially a first-time parent, may not have the emotional resources to do that. They read that if they don't follow the plan, if they just do A but let B and C go, they are going to raise a disrespectful, disobedient child who will run roughshod over the entire rest of their lives. I'm not blaming only Ezzo and the Pearls for doing this. I think there are AP proponents who also present things as though, if you don't respond immediately to your child's every cry, you are going to raise a horrid, empathy-less, self-centered monster. But the fact that both Ezzo and the Pearls are backed by church cultures that also promote the idea that they have the One True Method for raising children right makes it a bit more pernicious, I think.

DH and I have been wondering about this. My DD sleeps with two stuffed animals, and she always puts one of them under her head. We've been wondering if we can just get her a pillow, so she'd be more comfortable.

I don't use it for myself. I prefer to keep a written calendar. But, my DH uses Google Calendar at work, so if there's something I want/need him to know about, particularly if it's going to involve him rearranging his work schedule, I always add it to my Google Calendar, which is linked to his.

And yet it does often feel like there is, especially with a first child. I'm fortunate that my best friend is a child psychologist and also very patient. When my son was 2, I'd call her on a weekly basis, telling her about how I was SURE I'd already ruined him. It was over. Clearly, he was going to be a despot, a serial killer, or both. I had raised Pol Pot. I mean, he threw tantrums, threw objects, hit when upset, demanded his own way all the time, wouldn't accept no for an answer, and on and on. He wasn't even potty-trained yet, and I'd ruined him. I was pretty sure that the only thing that would ensure he didn't throw tantrums, hit people, and start biting when somebody said "no" as an adult was if I managed to parent it out of him ASAP. The idea that maybe just not being two would help the situation greatly didn't occur to me, although my friend was nice enough to remind me.

Along with that, though, what do we think is going to happen to this kids who run wild? They're going to grow up to be criminals? Speaking of treading gently, I'm going to tread very gently on this, but I do think it's worth saying... Most of the parents I know--and there are VERY few--who let their little ones run wild and don't discipline are well-educated, affluent types (I really only saw this among a small number of parents when I lived in Ann Arbor, MI, an area not known for either authoritarian parenting OR producing criminals). And, frankly, their kids will be fine. Their kids are not going to end up raping and pillaging and stealing cars and bringing about the downfall of civilization as we know it. They may, it's true, be entitled, obnoxious little brats who e-mail their college professors sixteen times demanding a grade change when they don't get an A in a course, but many of their spanked peers from the same social milieu will also turn out that way. They are, most likely, going to be among those we consider successful and well-adjusted, despite their behavior as children. And, now that I live in Detroit, where corporal punishment is absolutely the norm, I see many, many children small children who are very obedient. Shockingly so, in fact. I go to the doctor's office, and cannot believe that these kids will, at 1 and 2, sit silently in their parents' lap for an hour or more, waiting. Even my very well-behaved DD wouldn't do that. And if they don't do it, they get a swat. These are obedient kids and nobody would argue they weren't disciplined. But, statistically, many of them are very likely to end up dropping out of school, engaging in criminal activity, and winding up in prison. It's terrible and unfortunate, but it's reality. (And I've also seen these kids as preteens and teens, and many of them know exactly how to act obedient to your face, and then turn around and break your trust. I just had to tell a boy he isn't allowed in our home any more. He put on that "I'm so obedient and respectful" act, and then stole stuff from my son while he was over.) Now, obviously the difference here isn't how these kids were raised. It has way more to do with socioeconomic status and opportunity and culture. But that's the point. How kids end up isn't, I don't think, very much determined by how or even if they were disciplined at all. A kid from Ann Arbor, no matter how they were raised, is very likely to end up finishing their education and being productive, law-abiding members of society. A kid from Detroit is very likely to end up dropping out of school and quite likely to even end up in jail (if a male), again regardless of how they were disciplined as a child. The determining factors go so far beyond parental discipline. Or, to put it another way, the way we act at two, and how we're disciplined as children, has very little to do with the kind of adults we'll end up being. That seems to go against everything the parenting manuals tell us, but there doesn't seem to be any way around it.

I think I'm a good-enough mother. I love my kids. I could be more patient and less selfish, for sure. But, I love them and I meet their needs and I put some effort into rearing them, and in the end I think they'll be just fine. I was talking to a friend the other day, and she wants to write a book about what she's learned about being a parent since moving to Detroit, which she says she'll call You're Not Going to Eff Them Up Too Badly. Her point was that, living in a place where you see kids every day raised by parents who are abusive, neglectful, stressed out and overworked and in poverty, and otherwise raising their children in very-much-less-than-ideal circumstances, you realize that most of them STILL end up turning out okay. They still end up being decent, productive adults. And it kind of takes some of the pressure to do everything perfectly off. I mostly agree. I do feel like, if you love your kids and give them a halfway-decent amount of attention, in all likelihood they are going to turn out just fine. I still feel like there are so many areas where I could do better. But, overall, those are mainly things that would make my relationship with my children better right now, not things that their future is riding on, if that makes sense.

I agree. (And if you think that was a dissertation, you haven't seen me when I really get going! ;)) This is the part I was objecting to, this idea that, if only kids were/had been spanked, they'd be better behaved. There is simply no evidence to back that assertion. I've seen several people on this thread indicate that they think that more defiant/challenging kids need spankings. My point was just that that's not necessarily the case; some of those kids will respond even more negatively to spanking than to other discipline methods. You can't look at a kid who's misbehaving and say "If only his parents spanked him!" Unfortunately, that seems to be what many people do (and in many cases I'm guessing that child is spanked).

How do you know that? Difficult, defiant children do NOT always or even usually respond well to spanking. In many cases it will just make them more angry and defiant, and more likely to lash out. It doesn't lead automatically to more obedience.

I don't enjoy cleaning. I do find, though, that listening to something interesting on my iPod--a lecture, an audiobook, a sermon--makes it go much, much faster and more enjoyably.

I think you need to understand that much of the pushback online is because in most settings, spanking is still the norm. 90% of parents report spanking their kids. It is what most parents use for discipline, especially with little kids. So, people who don't spank, or don't want to spank, are under enormous pressure in nearly every setting to do so, especially if they have difficult children. I know that I've had to either justify why I don't spank or just keep quiet while parents talk about spanking as if it's just a given that everybody does it or must do it, more times than I can count. And I don't travel in very conservative circles. Even among the middle-of-the-road parents I know, it's still very much the norm and expectation. So if there's pushback, that's probably why. It's pretty freeing to come online and meet people who don't spank, when it's so difficult to find people who don't in real life in most places (again, given that 90% or so of parents spank). And that probably does lead to some overly intense pushback, since people maybe feel free to say things they can't say in real life. That said, I wouldn't judge somebody for spanking. I don't spank, at this point, more for me than for my kids. I don't like what spanking does to me. It goes against deeply held convictions of mine. It makes me feel like somebody I don't want to be. For me, I think it hurts my relationship with my kids because of what it does to me. But I can't know what happens in anybody else's family and as long as they love their kids and aren't causing them physical or emotional injury, then it's just not my business how they discipline and not something for me to judge.

I was re-vaccinated in the hospital after I delivered my son. I think they told me that, if I hadn't had a Tdap shot as an adult, they recommended I get it.

I wouldn't wear these--the butt zipper freaks me out, and the open foot would defeat the purpose for me--but I've often though I'd like footie PJs in the winter. Why? I can't stand wearing pants to bed, because they ride up my legs and I don't like that feeling. And, when it's really cold, I don't want my top riding up and leaving any gap between it and my pants.

I said other. My long-term goal is to be a writer. But, right now, with a few little kids, homeschooling, and part-time teaching, it's just not the right season. I figure when the kids are older and need less hands on care (and hopefully when DH is making a bit more so we don't need me teaching part-time), I'll be able to write on a regular basis.

My kids tend to go a while between most feedings, too, even as newborns. But they've all been pretty big (8-9 lbs.) and I've had a really good milk supply. I've never tried to get my newborns on any kind of schedule, though. My son right now eats completely erratically. He'll go 4-5 hours between some feedings, and then has one or two 2-3 hour periods each day where he seems to want to eat every 45 minutes. My daughter did the same thing. I think the concern is that babies were failing to thrive, because they weren't being fed as often as they needed--some need to feed much more often than every 3 or 4 hours--and moms were having supply issues related to not having frequent enough feedings. Again, I might be wrong, but it's my understanding that they used to promote the 3-4 hour schedule for all babies, from birth, regardless of hunger cues (or not really saying anything about paying attention to hunger cues).

He lived in the dorm room next to mine our first year in college. We were friends first. I'm not normally a sappy or romantic person, or a love at first sight person, but I actually told a mutual friend of ours that I knew I was going to marry him, about a month before we started dating. Somehow I just knew. Tomorrow is our eleventh anniversary, and we've been together for almost fifteen years.