"Slow food" is a concept designed to make women feel guilty, because it basically implies that, the more time you spend cooking, the better person you are. The longer dinner takes to get on the table, the healthier it is and the more virtuous you are. That's my cynical take on it, at least. ;) My family got bread, grapes, cheese, and nuts for dinner last night. It was healthy, took minutes to get ready, and I don't feel one whit of guilt for not spending an hour cooking. I like to cook, and I do enjoy spending time cooking, but I just see so much class bias and privilege exhibited in the "slow food" movement that I cannot get behind it.

I'm not sure what the current test looks like, but I know that, a while back, they added a third section to the SAT, so there were 3 sections (critical reading, math, and now a writing section) that were all scored from 200-800 points. So the top score became a 2400, not a 1600 like it was when many of us took the test. If they are looking for a minimum score of 1560, I'm assuming it must be on that 2400-point scale, which would mean averaging about a 520 on each section. That sounds about right for a state school's minimum SAT requirements. I've never heard of a school accepting SAT scores that are 10 years old, so that also could have been part of the issue.

Oh, absolutely. I have an aunt who has cerebral palsy and is severely mentally retarded (I don't know what her diagnosis would have been if she'd been diagnosed today). My grandmother's doctor told her she should tell people the baby had died at birth, put her in an institution, and never see her again. It's just horrifying that that was pretty much standard practice at the time.

I learned to knit as a teen, then didn't do it for years, and then started up again shortly after my DS was born, so probably about 5-6 years ago. I accumulated an insane amount of yarn and patterns and books that first year. I'm still working through that stash. The amount of time I've spent knitting has varied a lot. I go through phases where it feels like I'm knitting all the time; that was especially true before DD was born, when DS was old enough that he didn't need tons of hands-on attention. At other times, I don't knit very much at all. I did very little knitting the first year of DD's life, just because my hands weren't free enough of the time. I have a feeling that, once the new baby comes, it's going to be a while before I get much dedicated knitting time. But, I figure it's something I'll do or not do depending on what's going on in my life. I totally agree with you about being realistic; I'm learning to be a lot more minimalist about my knitting materials, especially since it's likely there will be times when I don't do any knitting at all for long periods. But, I don't really feel any guilt when I put it away for a while.

Audiobooks, my dear, audiobooks. They are the knitters best friend. ;)

I don't know how true this is, but I'd learned that IQ tests were never intended to categorize people who were of average or above-average intelligence; the tests were primarily designed to classify those of below-average intelligence. My understanding is that IQ tests are actually a pretty good tool for determining the cognitive capabilities of people who are cognitively disabled. Knowing that a child has an IQ of 50 or 60 or 70 can give you a pretty accurate idea of their level of functioning and help to develop an educational plan for them. But, once you get into the normal range and above, all bets are off. IQ simply doesn't provide much useful information at that point. The one exception, AFAIK, would be in cases where you have a child with a high IQ who is performing very poorly academically, which in many cases can indicate a learning disability.

I never felt badly-treated by the public school system, but I was just bored. Insanely, out-of-my-mind bored, to the point where, when I try to recall my K-12 days, pretty much the only thing I remember is watching the clock and not understanding how it could be moving so slowly. That's absolutely influenced my decision to homeschool. I think everybody in my school was given an IQ test in second grade, to determine if you'd be put in the G&T program. Other than that, I've never taken an official IQ test. I see little reason to have one administered to my kids, as I don't think they provide much if anything in the way of useful information for children who are of average or higher intelligence.

I think you do a good job explaining how higher-functioning ASD kids probably went undiagnosed previously. At the other end of the spectrum, when we're talking about severely autistic kids, I tend to think that many of them would have been diagnosed as mentally retarded in the past. It's my understanding that we've seen diagnoses of mental retardation drop at a rate pretty similar to that at which we've seen diagnoses of autism rise. So, it seems likely that we're seeing a diagnostic shift rather than a rise in incidence.

I don't know. Honestly, since we're talking about a teenager, I'd be less inclined to get really angry about a relative trying to change/influence their beliefs. If somebody talked to my young child like that, yeah, I'd be furious and insist on really firm boundaries. But, I do think a teenager is old enough to be exposed to that (and I'd say that holds true in either direction, whether we're talking about a Christian relative trying to evangelize them or an atheist relative trying to debunk their faith), and if that was the only issue--and it sounds like it might not be here--then I'd probably be inclined to just tell my child to proceed however they want. If they're the feisty type, they can challenge them, but if they aren't, IMO there's nothing wrong with simply waiting patiently for the subject to change and not engaging. If he keeps persisting to the point where she doesn't want to see him anymore, then she doesn't have to see him. And, if he asks, I'd just be honest and tell him why: she doesn't appreciate him pushing his beliefs on her, and would rather not be around him if he's going to do that. Then it's on him, not you, to decide whether it's more important to him to try to convert his granddaughter or to have a relationship with her.

Secular science, particularly past the elementary years. Bible study/religion/character materials coming from a secular or mainline/moderate Christian perspective. Just secular stuff, in general, that is open-and-go and specifically designed for homeschool.

This. If you watch something like Mystery Science Theater 3000, there were certainly some really bad films made before 1980. I think we just don't see them as often, because they get forgotten, whereas we actually remember first-hand a lot of bad movies from our youth. I do think some of it is also just production value. Poorly-made movies today still use more modern movie-making techniques than poorly-made movies from a decade or two ago. So, they're going to look better than more recent bad films. But I'm sure that in twenty years we'll look back on many movies coming out now and think they look just as ridiculous as bad movies from the 80s do.

If I were a camper, I absolutely would. As it is, I kind of hope my DD would be more inclined to want to spend a weekend with me at a hotel by the beach. ;)

Don't you hate that? This pregnancy was a total surprise, and I wasn't particularly happy about it for a while (DD was 6 months when I got pregnant, and I would have chosen to wait until she was at last 2 before having another). DH's "look on the bright side" to me for a while was, "Hey, at least you just missed them writing 'advanced maternal age' on your chart." Thanks, hon. I was a nervous wreck during my entire first pregnancy, which wasn't helped by the fact that I had PIH. I was a bit more relaxed with my second, although I did still have a lot of paranoia about things going wrong. This time, though, I've had a really easy pregnancy and think I was in denial until maybe 22 weeks or so, which really cut down on the amount of time I've had to worry.

The gist of it seemed to be that the state constitution stipulates exclusive local control of public schools, and charter schools are created by a state commission, which conflicts with that. It sounds like a charter school created and controlled locally would not pose a problem.

How fun! I think making a bouquet sounds like a lot of fun, and jewelry-making (something simple like beaded bracelets) could be another non-messy activity they'd like.

Wow, that is just horrible. :grouphug: I honestly can't imagine anything like that happening anywhere I've lived, but maybe I'm just naive. I'm really sorry your family had to deal with that today.

I would not have more children than is right for your family out of guilt. It sounds like maybe this comes down more to what you want than what is the right decision medically (if there is such a right decision). If you feel like, with three kids, your family will be complete, then even if you could safely bear 10 more children, I wouldn't feel guilty about not doing so.

I really like Does God Hear My Prayer? But, it is purposely inclusive and written in an interfaith way, so it might not be something that would work for all families in terms of how they view prayer.

If you have a dollar store in your area, I sometimes find storage boxes and expandable binders at mine that work really well for hs storage.

See, I'd agree that it's not real cheese. But, it's food. And, it's not imaginary.

In my somewhat tongue-in-cheek opinion, "real food" is what the person talking about "real food" feeds their family. What inferior parents feed their kids (generally, food associated with the poor) is not real food.

You honestly think that? I don't know anybody who wants to see more women have abortions. What I have seen is 70-year-old men weeping as they talk about loved ones they lost to illegal abortion. And once you see that, you understand how this is about saving lives for people who are pro-choice, not about celebrating or promoting death in any way. Maybe if people didn't feel as if the lives of women were being valued less than an ideology (because most pro-choice people know that the legality of abortion has little or no impact on incidence), then they wouldn't feel as if they had to so vehemently defend it. But as long as they feel like people are out there trying to pass laws that, in their view, will have the effect of killing women, then of course they are going to fight that.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, or if it's at all useful, but if you have a university nearby, you might want to see if their school of ed or psych department provides IQ testing. Many times grad students in those areas need to be trained in administering the tests, and so free testing is available to those willing to participate. When my DH was in grad school (in the psych department, although he wasn't clinical and so he didn't do any testing himself) he used to get e-mails looking for kids to come in for various tests all the time. We brought out son in for a couple of different things, although never an IQ test. They always made it fun, and the students got some training hours in. I realize that it sounds like that sort of thing wouldn't count for admission criteria in a lot of districts, but it could be a way to get a baseline assessment, or to just familiarize your child with the kind of testing being done.

My DD is still little, but it's not unusual for her to wake up at 7, take a nap from 10-12, take another nap from 3-4:30, and then be asleep by 7:30. Even at her age, if my DS had napped like that, he'd have been up until midnight.

No, life isn't defined by the government, but legal personhood--and what such personhood entails in terms of rights and responsibilities--is. So in your ideal world, women who have abortions would be charged with murder? Do you think that women who have had abortions (about 30% of all women, and my understanding is that the number wasn't much different before Roe) are the same as child murderers? In the end, though, you can legislate whatever you want, but when it comes to abortion, it is not going to change behavior. What will change is how many women will die from having abortions. So if the goal is to preserve life, I just don't think that outlawing abortion is the right solution. There are many other ways to effectively reduce the abortion rate and encourage women to continue pregnancies that do not lead to maternal death. For me, that's what it comes down to, not ideology, but the actual lives of actual women and children. I think those actual lives are best protected by making the alternatives to abortion better and more realistic, rather than by making abortion illegal.