The kids sound bored to me. If it were my kid and s/he didn't want to be there, I wouldn't force it. These goal can be met other ways, ways that don't inspire one to look for a sharp stick to thrust into their own eye in hopes of dulling the pain the environment inflicts upon an innocent child. Edited to add, Maybe I'm projecting a bit there. But I hope you get the point. :)

Part of the answer is to teach and emphasize critical thinking skills. Question authority. Be skeptical. Identify and pay attention to the details. Learn to think rationally and logically. In the same way we've overcome our natural tendency to assume every event is related to every other event in some superstitious way, we can, as a society, learn to overcome natural desire to oppress that which we think is weak (women and children), and elevate their standing to that of equality with regard to identity, value, respect, and positive contribution. It's a change in paradigm, and sadly, it's being fought against by those who have the means to influence public policy and private behavior. So, in my opinion anyway, we as a society have some Growing Pains to get through.

Literary characters authors scientists world leaders mythological characters Leave a "cheat sheet" in the bathroom or in the car, laminated for strength and durability, so they can familiarize themselves with those people and characters they might not know. I'd have maybe a photo or picture on one side and stats on another, like a baseball card, and put them in a 2" ring per category. If your kids are young, find super hero images of each figure and character to make them a little more memorable. Man, what a fun game! I almost wish my kids were young enough to play this!

That, and, they're not solicited for advice. I tend to think most people who struggle with faith want to hang on to their religious beliefs, so when they ask questions they're really asking, How can I reconcile what I want to believe with what I know to be true? It's why I asked the OP in the beginning if she's looking for information or to maintain her faith. There are different sources to go to for each goal, and that's not accidental.

When I read that, there were a few things that came across my mind. One is that Howard Stern is a shock-jock. He's paid to keep his filter off, to ruffle the feathers of your generally socially conservative population. The other thing is that from what I recall, Stern is an outspoken advocate of equality at every opportunity. I would think it more concerning if he laughed at the brothers for not getting service at a restaurant, for example, than to use a word that is not socially appropriate for the general population. Considering he used the word in context, it suggests he's not entirely ignorant about what he's doing.

I have three teens, but we have no rules. My oldest took care of that idea (rules = well behaved kids). In short, I think the best things you can do is 1) identify your major goals, and 2) learn to work with your child's temperament, and 3) identify when the child pushes you out of your own comfort zone. I personally think that last part is what makes us say certain kids are "easy." I also think this is why people work to maintain control in their homes, which often times results in tension and distrust.

Fascinating. I enjoyed reading every bit. I am amazed, though, at how women particularly are so easily conditioned to protect and continue this control, and encourage their daughters to internalize these very rationalizations, even at the cost of their own autonomy. It speaks more to human behavior than culture, or religion, or political organizations, I think, and why teaching critical thinking skills and rational arguments is so very important. It's not enough to believe something simply because one is surrounded by a particular belief, or one feels like it must be true. There's too much at stake here to just brush it off and hope for the best. Anyway, I'm glad you posted.

.

The idea that fantasies are victimless "crimes" came as a response to I.Dup.'s comment in reply to your post that you "don't think there's true harm in people just noticing that a teenage girl isn't wearing a bra". I agree with that. There is no harm in noticing the lack of bra. Further, there is no harm in mental fantasies that may be inspired by such things being noticed. So, not off topic, just clarification of point.

By these standards, there's no way you would have thought your dress (long sleeves, below knee) was immodest, right? I share Jennifer's confusion as to how this pertains to modesty, but further, I'm confused as to how unbroken eye contact would compel you to sabotage your self-esteem. That's not a correlation generally found between women dressing modestly and men who watch them for a few minutes. It lends more support to the argument that there exists no standard of modesty to which people can agree is appropriate. It also suggests you had issues that were unrelated to the man, that he inadvertently triggered rather than caused. In short, when you got pissed at my mentioning fantasies don't victimize people, I must have triggered an unpleasant memory. I'm sorry for that, I'm sympathetic to being accosted by unexpected, traumatic memories, but it doesn't change my point that *fantasies don't victimize people.* They can't.

Were you raised with a belief system that included the necessity of modesty, and correlated it with respect?

For staring across a restaurant? I'd be interested in hearing cases like this that actually went to court. In any case, my comment was that *fantasies* do not victimize people.

"The Secret" is just woo. Easily debunked like all other woo. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and Haselton and Nettle’s Error Management Theory explain why woo seems to work. KK, it's called a "Law" because it supposedly offers an explanation to an observation (like "Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion" does). Only it clearly doesn't, because there is no such observation to be made, even if it really really seems like it to an individual.

I'm sorry if my comment pissed you off, but there is simply no support for the claim that someone is a "victim" of another person's fantasies. Unless there's more to this situation, your perceived victimization was not the result of one man staring.

You do have the right to walk around half-naked. In some places, you have the right to walk around fully naked. Some people exercise that right with nary a loss of self-respect.