I do too. I just think that, ultimately, you have to be prepared (on both sides) for the fact that their peace may not include you (or in a very altered way) going forward.

To the bolded, of course, no one said otherwise. Therapy is always beneficial. My mother only apologized to me after a year of it. I’m glad it helped her. My experiences weren’t extrapolated to Scarlett except to say that she cant control her son’s response and has to find a way to live with/find peace with where things are. That’s it.

My DH always says, “do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?” When we are fussing at each other or over our kids. Rarely can you be both at the same time when a major conflict occurs. If you prefer to be ‘right’ that’s fine. You just need to find another way to be happy because it’s not going to come from the opposing party. I don’t think age necessarily gives anyone any special wisdom. My mom has been making some of the same mistakes in her personal and professional life for decades because she never learned to do things differently. This she admitted to me just last month as part of the very first apology/acknowledgment I’ve ever received from her. In this as in most things, time will tell.

I am sorry you are hurting, Scarlett. Truly. Given your feelings and those of your son (which you both knew), I have to believe you were both aware this could cause a schism. You have to be prepared to live with that until such time as forgiveness or grace is possible. It took almost 10 years to extend grace to my mother after a similarly deep rift (around the same time as I married DH, she chose someone else over me) and our relationship has never been the same. I accept her around my kids because she is good to them and I don't want to gift my scars unto the next generation. Thing is, I was busy working and living life with DH...I was happy. The ONLY thing that pushed me to try to salvage something was my kids. I know she was also hurt, anew, when I did not choose her to parent my kids if/when DH and I should die. It's a tremendous relief to me that my kids are now old enough to communicate directly with her (and they do with their own devices) and that I got through this well enough that they feel very comfortable doing that. I love my mom but she is not and will never be my close confidant. I can never fully trust her. My mom has taken to befriending my friends to learn more about me. It's sad. I hope better for you.

I thought all of the Smithsonian museums in DC were free already.

Yeah, I didn’t say anything about school placement, or grad school, or... My point was that HS grades count for something. They reflect work ethic. That doesn’t mean that students can’t (later) demonstrate that work ethic. It means I think those kids who demonstrate that work ethic and readiness from the beginning (HS graduation) should be rewarded with selective admissions, not those who slide in on a single day test score.

The thing is, let’s be real, as an adult employee or employer...do you want the hard worker who WANTS to learn or the slacker who does the bear minimum? It doesn’t matter whether I’m dealing with low, middle, or upper class kids, I want the hard worker with a positive attitude who shows they can rise to the occasion. The focus on test scores obscures the lack of this trait in high income kids who can pay to study the test in a way that grades don’t support. Low income kids have no such advantage to obscure their lack of hard work/effort. This is a major loss for our country and economy (credentialing low EQ individuals and eschewing raw talent that might better help us all).

Wealthy male teens have more adolescent behavior issues than low income teens, males or females?

Enlightening but unsurprising.

I don’t feel like it’s my role or obligation to stand in judgment of my adult children, particularly if they no longer live with me (or are eminently moving out). They know my values. They can adopt or eschew them as they see fit. Unless I have minor children still at home that I am concerned about influencing, I think this is the right/appropriate time to use that age-old adage—Hate the sin, love the sinner—and keep it moving.

Yeah, at this point, I’m not sure we can assume any of the spectators is a neutral arbiter given what happened with at least two parents, presumably spectators, who exchanged photos of the girl’s backside last year.

I haven’t read anything that says there was fear on the part of the other refs. Is that in some opinion pieces or blogs or something? The only other quote for attribution was from the ref who left, Rhode? And it wasn’t as you say above. She said she disagreed. Nonexistent below the waist? Seriously, that’s what you’re going with? Aside from a thong, which this suit wasn’t, I’ve never seen a one piece swimsuit that doesn’t extend below the waist. Have you? Why would a coach assume that choosing one suit for all would fail if it was an approved suit?

I haven't been reading opinion pieces, just news articles and public statements. I don't subscribe to the notion that the only way racism can be identified is through overt acts of name-calling and noose-hanging tho. I think using whiteness to center 'norms' in form/feature/manner, etc. is also a form of racism. None of us is free of that.

You're making the point of those who were initially outraged. Curvier girls will never fit in standardized, 'approved' clothing the same way flat girls will. If it wasn't OK when the girls were wearing their own suits, and it's not OK when they're wearing standardized ones, then the issue isn't the suits but the girls...a fundamentally untenable position to maintain. They deserve to be able to compete like anyone else. That's the very point the district Superintendent articulated so well. It bears repeating, not even all of the refs agreed with the initial DQ and none of the other refs at any other meet this season said a word. I get wanting to believe that everyone has great intentions. Maybe this ref did but it's also possible to have the best motives and still get things wrong. The coach chose suits that were approved for competition by the governing body after suits the athletes chose themselves were ALSO questioned...by the same ref, no others? How is that in any way indicative of a vendetta on the COACH'S part? I am very confused by this line of thinking. What is this strange side note/subtext? What am I missing?

I didn’t see racist statements mentioned in any reports, just that the district called it ‘biased’ enforcement. All kinds of biases can impact our judgements tho, including our perception of what ‘normal’ wear/fit looks like.