I think we're underestimating the enormous pressure that having a very difficult infant or child can put a parent under, especially when they are coming from a culture that has rigid behavioral expectations and demands first-time, cheerful obedience from children. I'm not excusing the parents, at all. But, I know from experience how difficult and frustrating some children can be, and how feeling like a horrible failure as a parent can lead to desperate measures. I do not believe in spanking. I think it's wrong. I am very, very cognitively committed to the idea that spanking is wrong. I'm a pacifist, for goodness sake. And yet I did spank my son. More than once, and a few times harder than I should have. Why? Because I was so desperate to see behavioral changes, was feeling like such a failure, and was just so beaten down by feeling like a failure that I decided that I'd try anything. I had friends who swear by spanking, and figured that I had a duty as a parent to try anything and everything to bring about better behavior. So I went against some of my deepest convictions, both as a parent and as a Christian (which I feel demands a commitment to total non-violence), because I felt that lost and frazzled and desperate as a parent. And people like the Pearl's both create the desperation in some parents, by insisting on things like first-time obedience (it was when I was spending a lot of time with a few moms who believed in FTO that I began to feel like I HAD to spank because I just couldn't get my son to do it--spanking didn't lead to FTO for him, either, though), which is setting up a lot of parents to feel like failures, and then presenting their plan as the only way to get there. Anyway, I'm not letting the parents off the hook. But, I can see why a good person can be led to do things they don't feel right about as a parent--or even that they know are wrong--because they are so tired, frustrated, and desperate, and really do want to do the best thing for their child. Maybe that wasn't the case here, and these are just abusive jerks who don't care about their kids, but I don't doubt a lot of good people have wronged their kids--and know they did--because they took the Pearl's advice out of desperation.

That's why I don't think we should be so fast to let them off the hook entirely. If somebody is telling you, "You MUST do this to be a good Christian, and if you don't you're children will be horrible little hellions forever," and also "If you do this, then you will have wonderful, perfect, obedient children (and if you don't it's because you aren't doing it right)," then there's a lot of room for a parent to take things too far. If you must hit your infant with piping in order to obey God and raise children who aren't horrible, selfish, undisciplined monsters, and if hitting your infant will result in good behavior if done right, then not only are you going to feel like you must hit your infant, but if hitting them once doesn't get the result you've been promised, of course you might conclude that you just didn't hit them enough. It just seems so easy for advice like this to be taken too far, especially by a desperate and exhausted parent, and I think anybody writing a parenting book has to think through how their advice might be applied by parents in the real world.

I disagree. I don't think the Pearls bear all the blame, obviously. But, you have to know your audience. The Pearls are writing to the parents of young children. They have to know how stressful and difficult that can be, and how desperate parents can be to change their children's behavior. Because of that, they have a responsibility to think through how their advice might sound to a frazzled, exhausted, frustrated parent desperate to see some changes in their child. If there is any possible way that such a parent could conclude from their writing that, if hitting a baby with a switch a few times is good, doing it even more times is better, then that's a serious problem. Sure, there's lots of bad parenting advice out there, but I'm not aware of anybody but the Pearls who advocate hitting infants with piping.

Congratulations! My new LO was a surprise. We had six years between our first two (both planned) kids, and then I got pregnant with the new baby when DD was only 7 months old. I cried for about three days, and then spent pretty much the entire pregnancy in denial. I honestly don't think it really hit me until I was in transition in labor that we were going to have an actual baby, at which point I told everybody I changed my mind and was going home. ;) But, he's great. His timing wasn't the greatest, but he's a wonderful little baby and everybody is really happy we had him. DS told us that surprise babies are the best surprises there are. :)

I think it depends. Different people probably have different standards for what they consider love. I was never in love before I met my husband (although I was only 19 when we started dating, so I was a teen in love ;)). I did tell one high school boyfriend, who I dated for about seven months, that I loved him, but I knew I was lying when I said it. I think I have a pretty high bar for what I'd consider real romantic love, though. But, I also have a pretty high bar for what I'd consider friendship. I have to be really close to somebody before I'd call them a friend. To me, a friend is somebody you can call at any time of the day or night if you have a problem. It's not somebody you just have a friendly conversation with on a regular basis; for me that's an acquaintance. So I'm guessing a lot of people would probably consider a friend somebody I'd just consider an acquaintance, and would consider love something that I'd just consider liking.

I don't think I'd ever describe another person's clothing as "frumpy." The thing is, I think we're all headed for frumpy, because it tends to refer to people wearing out-of-date or "old-lady-ish" clothes. If we're all fortunate enough to live long enough, we'll all get there, because I don't know anybody in her 80s who walks around wearing the latest fashion trends. The jeans we're wearing today? They ARE mom jeans. We're moms. And they're our jeans. We only think of high-waisted, tapered-leg pants as "mom jeans" because our moms wore them, but the crazy thing is that they were actually fashionable when our moms wore them. Ten years from now, maybe sooner, people in their 20s and 30s will be turning up their noses at low-rise boot-cut jeans, calling them "mom jeans," and we'll probably still happily be wearing them, because to us that's what jeans are supposed to look like. Same with everything else we wear. Or, maybe, "frumpy is in the eye of the beholder." I'm guessing the peers (husband and same-age friends) of most women who dress "frumpy" think they look just fine.

DS usually has two silent reading times a day, one after lunch (when I'm resting with the babies) and one before bed. For one of the times, he can read whatever he wants: novels, comic books, picture books, video game strategy guides, joke books. For the other time, he has to pick a novel, and he's encouraged to keep reading until the end (although not forced if he really, truly doesn't like the book after giving it a chance). I don't assign books to him, although I do suggest. If there's a book I think he just must read, we'll do it as a read-aloud. I don't make DS read aloud to me. He hates reading aloud if forced. He'll sometimes spontaneously read something aloud to me if he thinks it's interesting or funny, and he'll read books to his sister. At this point I feel confident enough about his reading skills that I don't see any reason to make him read aloud.

How old is the girl? If she's under 18, I'd be VERY concerned, legally.

I really don't do much correcting at all. Usually after he finishes work he did independently, we sit down and go over it together. If there's an error, we talk through it. That's pretty much it. With my college students, I use whatever pen I have, usually blue or black.

I like to compliment people, but I generally don't compliment people on their appearance. The exception is interesting knitwear. As a knitter, I notice knitwear that's unusual or interesting or looks handmade, and I'll sometimes comment on that.

I'd say we usually have four successful days each week. We usually seem to have one day a week where everything just falls apart. But, I plan a four-day week (the fifth day is a much lighter workload), so we just work around that everything-falls-apart day.

But the post that was being responded to basically implied that spending time/money on your appearance beyond the basics is a moral necessity. The poster was just responding to that. That's the sentiment I don't get. Sure, I could spend 10 minutes in the morning putting on make up. I could spare that ten minutes. I could afford the make up. But, why? For me, there's no reason. I'm not particularly interested in decoration, just functionality. I keep my house clean and pretty tidy, but not decorated. I don't do centerpieces or knickknacks or worry about whether my pillows match the rugs. That's just how I approach things. So, I get up, I shower, I brush my teeth, I wash my face, I comb my hair (and may put it up in a ponytail), and I get dressed in something simple (which may just be yoga pants and a t-shirt). And, I'm good to go. I've got everything covered that needs to be covered, and I'm appropriately dressed for any of the things I might reasonably do. What I don't understand is why that would bother another woman, or why she'd look at me and wonder why I didn't put on make-up and blow out my hair. Seriously, what would cause somebody to look at another person and wonder those things? In what way does my not putting on make-up or my wearing a ponytail affect her life? The thing is, while you might, on a thread like this, see some pushback with people saying things like "I don't wear make-up because I have better things to do with my time," you rarely see somebody just express that out of the blue. I've never seen a thread anywhere online where somebody was going, "Oh my gosh, I saw somebody wearing a suit at the grocery store! How dare they!" or "What possesses some women to leave home with make-up on? What is this world coming to?" But, it's very, very common to see people starting threads about how appalled they are that somebody else dare to pick up their kid from school in PJ pants, or go grocery shopping in sweats, or wear crocs to the mall, or go out with a ponytail and no make-up, and wonder what is wrong with these people/bemoan the end of Western civilization as we know it. And I just don't get that. Why do people care so much what other people--in most cases total strangers!--are wearing? Why would somebody give a second thought to another woman they see in a store not wearing make-up, much less feel concerned or upset about it? And, let's not forget the ****ed-if-you-do-****ed-if-you-don't position women are put in. Don't worry about your appearance or put much effort into it, and your "frumpiness" is apparently going to cause concern, dismay, and offense to many other women who are out, and leave them wondering what's wrong with you. But, wear too much make-up or the wrong kind of "nice" clothes, and you're going to have women calling you a trashy tramp and blaming you for tempting their husbands and sons.

Send me a PM. Depending on when you graduated, maybe we had a class together.

I took a typing class in seventh grade, and we used an electric typewriter. In ninth grade I took keyboarding, and we used a computer.

I know this has been asked before, but I'd like some fresh suggestions. We're starting back up with school next week. DS is 7. Then there's DD, who is 17 months, and the new baby, who is 2 weeks old. I'm not too concerned about the new baby. Homeschooling was easy when DD was a new baby, and he's a pretty content little guy. I think I'll be able, most days, to pop him in the sling, nurse him if he needs it, and be able to give DS's school the attention it needs. It's DD I'm worried about. She's in that getting-into-everything phase right now. Ideally I'd do school during her nap, but I don't think that's going to work this year. For one thing, I'm assuming I'm going to be tired, and so I'll probably lay down with the baby during her nap time, since that will be my only chance to really get some rest or a nap each day, and make that a time for DS to use the computer or watch TV and do some fun reading. For another, her nap is generally after lunch, and if we put off school until then, knowing myself, it just may not get done. So, she's going to be awake for school. Aside from plopping her in front of some DVDs, what can I do to keep her occupied? What's worked for you when homeschooling with a toddler?

I think it depends. That's the kind of thing that I'd be insanely excited over. But I'm sure there's people who would be overwhelmed. I think if you explain to her that she doesn't need to read or even look at everything right away, but that she can just take a peek and poke into whatever interests her, it might help keep the overwhelm to a minimum. I think it's a really great idea, and a wonderful thing to do!

I don't, but I grew up there. My WS degree is from Rutgers. :)

I was, too! Well, a double major in English and women's studies. Just wanted to say that.

This. It sounds like this is a very tangential issue, given the situation overall. It also sounds to me like these kids (and probably the sister) could really use some grace, understanding, and attempts at relationship.

:iagree:

And that's totally fine. At the same time, though, putting on make-up doesn't make all women feel better. And that's fine, too. I always think I don't look tired enough. LOL I can be 39 weeks pregnant or have a 10 day old baby, and I've STILL got people asking me for favors or dropping their kids off at my house. I think maybe I need to put more effort into looking tired so that people will cut me some slack. ;)

That's teens. I used to grab a book or a magazine when I was visiting with extended family, and spend the time reading. I had one aunt I was close to, but even though I saw most of my aunts and uncles on a pretty regular basis, we didn't know each other well, we weren't close, and it was just awkward being around them. I didn't know how to relate to them, and it was just easier to find a place to read and tune out. Honestly, they never seemed particularly interested in relating to me--aside from the one aunt I was close to, who did show a real interest in my life--and so I'm not sure why I would have been expected to know how to navigate that relationship.

Plus, is it really a crime to look tired? Maybe somebody IS tired. If a man looks tired, I don't think anybody would assume he doesn't care about himself, has let himself go, etc. They'd figure he was working hard and deserved to look tired. Why can't a woman do the same? If I see a friend of mine looking tired, I don't assume they're depressed or letting themselves go or somehow doing something wrong: I assume they're tired. Some of them have lots of littles, some have stressful full-time jobs, some have challenging kids or packed schedules, all have a reason to be tired. I don't think they owe it to anybody to doll themselves up so that they don't look tired. I also don't really think that make-up and fancy clothes makes somebody tired look not tired, but just like a tired person trying to pretend they aren't, but maybe that's just my personal preference for a more natural, casual look. Very true. At the same time, I think it's also good to remember that the woman with no make-up, yoga pants, and a ponytail might be incredibly happy. Things might be going well in her life. She might have had a fabulous night and be heading for a fun lunch with a friend. She just might not care to get dressed up or put make-up on. And that's totally fine, too.

Is your relationship with them anything more than giving them gifts? It's not clear from your post. Outside of holiday gift-giving, do you spend much time with them? If you don't, then I don't think it's surprising that they wouldn't feel much gratitude, warmth, or connection, or that they might feel awkward about thank yous, especially at their ages. I know I always felt kind of awkward around my aunts and uncles who we only saw at holidays. When I was a teen, I absolutely would have felt awkward about how to thank them for a gift. I don't know, I'm not one to make getting a thank you for a gift a relational hill to die on, at all. When I give somebody a gift, I'm giving it without expecting anything in return, including a thank you. I guess to me it sounds like there are two ways to handle this. You could just stop giving them gifts because their lack of expressed gratitude bothers you so much, and, I'm getting the sense, effectively cut off most of the contact you have with them. Or you can work on building a stronger relationship with them, outside of holiday and birthday gift-giving, despite your annoyance at their lack of expressed gratitude, and then maybe they'll feel more comfortable expressing thanks. But, personally, I really don't think there's anything unusual about a teenager being reticent with thanks when receiving gifts from relatives they aren't close to. I guess what comes through to me most from your post is the fact that you seem to feel distant from your nephews, and unwilling to really be in a relationship with them, because you are so upset about their lack of expressed thankfulness for your gifts to them. Without sounding too harsh, IMO you're the adult in the situation, and if you want real thanks from them you'll probably need a real relationship with them, and as the adult you're going to have to be the one to pursue that.

My husband developed that after we had kids. Before we had kids, he used to cook quite a bit and was better at it than I was. Then we had our first child, I ended up home most of the time, and I started doing more cooking and got better at it. At a certain point, he apparently completely forgot how to cook, and now will make tacos, hot dogs, hamburgers, and boxed mac and cheese, and look at me blankly if I suggest he try anything else. ;)