Work 1: 6. Three are all related to one thing, though. Work 2: 25. I am behind. Because it is work 2. :( Personal: 1. I am waiting on a reply. It's for the PTA. I try to empty my e-mail inbox often and frequently unsubscribe. I'm a master sorter and archive everything that doesn't require a response. ETA: Unread? No, they are all read daily. People communicate to me via e-mail. Even if I don't respond, I read to know what I have to do.

This is a zombie thread, but I appreciate your input, arliemaria. We have tried all the legal, non-marking forms of discipline that "fix things quickly" to no avail. She's getting better but it's a slog. Doodling is not preferred as it distracts them but she's getting better at taking notes and I plan to work with her on that.

Honestly? As I get older, I'm not sure I fully understand what "love" and "forgiveness" mean. I can care, I can give someone another chance, but forgiveness as some abstract virtue? I don't know. I also don't know if I could say whether or not something is "forgivable" until it happens to me.

Seattle Times dropped comments, ostensibly because of "maintenance" but really because 90% of the commenters appeared to be active members of the American Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan. Some of that stuff was just repulsive.

A collection, like a coin collection or anything that is stored in small places, is great for fine motor skills, as is clay.

Sorry for not using multi quote. I agree with this as well. I simply think that there is a real question about much of the humanities--TKMB is a middle / high school book and it's usually not read in college. College-level books deal with very adult themes at times. In those cases the child may lack most of the referents required to discuss the book. I am sure they will get it on some level, yes, but can they really engage in that university-level conversation, which is building on a lot of other mature conversations about the book? By "adult" and "mature" I am not referring (only) to sex, of course.

Absolutely, for certain science subjects, yes, and I believe we have agreed on this before--that some children who are gifted in the natural sciences can really only have their gifts fully nurtured with mentors at the university level.

Starting in middle school.

Really? In my experience boys shun drama and symphony as well. Music has the rock musician persona to benefit it. Drama, not so much. There's a celebrity culture around music and drama that may help, but in my hick high school, choir had one boy (he turned out to be a drag queen, literally, a nationally acclaimed drag queen) and drama had NO BOYS. They had to recruit specially for the school plays. I do not support this as I know many men and women who are quite masculine and feminine, respectively, wonderful people confident in their sexuality and roles in society, who are artists. But I do think there's that stereotype there in many of the arts, among some groups of people.

I think the thing about literature is that while some gifted children have the ability to handle the abstract thought, the themes require a breadth of life experience that almost no children have, to really "get". This is the difference between math/theoretical science, and the humanities. In the humanities, the "what" matters. You can't just move the objects around within the ontology to get a result. You need to really, deeply understand the objects of study. Whereas in math in particular, you don't have to know anything about the external world. You just need to know the system. It doesn't have to reference anything, really. It is a theoretical system and you can pretend it's about anything. I suspect this is a big reason we will see math and chess prodigies, but humanities prodigies are hard to find. You simply cannot learn the subject matter in so short a time. Math and chess are systems. There are no qualia to deal with, so to speak. It's pure system. A bright child can get it. No matter how bright, though, most children cannot "get" romantic love. It's not just that they can't get all the words. Those words have meanings that must be lived. That said, it is possible to do really good work if you can find material with which the child is familiar. In fact... when I was little I was in fact recognized in the humanities. But the concepts I had to work with were very simple because I was so little. I think it's like... imagine someone doing theoretical physics from home. You could see that. But if someone said they were doing PhD level biology, you'd be like, "No. They aren't." Because you can't DO that at home. You don't have access to the materials, period. You just do not. No matter how hard you try. In those cases, yes, it does seem unbelievable that a gifted child would be doing college level work at home. I feel that way about the humanities. I do believe that children can be that gifted in the humanities. I do not believe that a gifted child can exhibit / practice all of that talent at home in every field because I think some of those fields are more about a conversation, a living process, than about mastering one specific process. Again, I'm not doubting the kids' capacities for abstract and complex thought. What I doubt is that a child could, at home, replicate the living, ongoing scientific process that is necessary for a lot of college-level material. But for high school... tough call. I think a lot of high school humanities work is actually inappropriate. Not morally so, but because kids just don't get a lot of that stuff. Because they haven't lived it and unlike astronomy, in which you can look from afar, the humanities involves thousands of complex sensory experiences that you need to live up close and personal. You can't zoom through that. You can't zoom through the broken heart, the longing, the fear, the hate. You can work with those words but you can't work with the objects. This is also why some people despise the humanities. They don't get it. They don't get that in math, you draw a conceptual bridge, and you describe all those relationships, but it's all theory. In the humanities, you have to build the bridge. It always looks uglier. It's more prone to breaking. But it's a real bridge. Physics is somewhat in between, but for most of physics, they deal with theoretical, perfect systems, with limited variables. So it's like building that bridge, but not over a river--just, in a vacuum. That is why I like social sciences. You have to deal with reality, with the most complex objects, the human brain, every day, in your calculation. You get the science, the math, and the qualia of these incredibly complex beings who fall in love and act irrationally and surprise you all the time. The conclusions might look stupid, but that's only because we are testing common sense. In some cases, common sense is bound to be right. And when we cannot reject the null hypothesis, nobody believes us, because it's rejecting common sense. But that's beside the point... the point is, I don't think it's easy to be a child who is gifted in the humanities. I also don't know what it means to be ready for college when you're only gifted in 3/5 areas in which you will be accepted to perform in college. I do think it's a great question, though.

See, I think that could be taken amiss. Like, you were insulted so didn't invite her. Nobody would want that. An understanding note with a smiley acknowledging the tradition, your intentions, and her busy schedule is more appropriate particularly in case she finds out there was a party. The only way I wouldn't invite her would be if you said ahead of time, you are so appreciated, and we totally understand your schedule--stop by if you wish but otherwise we will have a great night knowing you are getting rest at home. Like, invitation but in person.

Art involves expression of emotion. So I think that's where the whole, "it's not manly" thing comes from. It's bullcrap, of course. First of all, some of the most masculine men I can think of express emotion, and not through art. Art is fundamentally human, as are feelings. That's why many art classes are filled with girls as well. This division of personality by sex is depressing.

I don't know about Australia but in my state re-partnering and moving in that quick would not be considered a "proper mom and dad" in Family Court. They are looking at stability and putting kids, not love of the parent, first. People often argue the opposite, that the partner living in the home with the children is effectively a stranger so it's not the best environment, and besides, that the parent who moved in with a partner put their needs first. I personally chose to date after filing for divorce, in spite of a prior year-long separation. Kids would not meet anyone for one year, and we would not move in for one year, though moving in would have made a substantial improvement in finances. Like, my bankruptcy thread would not have happened, because those living expenses would have been reduced so much, as would his have. On the other hand, I am the second person my partner had lived with after divorce. He moved in with the first person after just three months. I don't agree with that. I do not think it is possible to know someone well enough after that short a period of time, to be assured of stability for the children. I don't care if you divorced and are dating, but the question of family stability is different. Love or no love, very few people in this country are starving to death because they aren't living with a partner after divorce. So I get the question. I think there's a huge difference between dating and finding love, and moving in with someone right away. I'm pro-love, not necessarily pro-stranger-in-my-home-with-my-kids. I don't regret a single penny I spent on rent and living alone or the long weeks when we didn't see each other, before we committed to moving in together.

I just worry, personally, about house prices in our area going up so much. Traditionally this has been a working class neighborhood but property has seriously appreciated recently. The idea that soon people will be wanting HOAs and complaining about lawns and stuff is sad. :( I guess if you pay good money to get away from the riff faff, you do have a right to be upset... to an extent. It just goes to show there's only so much money can buy. Good neighbors isn't one of them, happily for us.

Honestly, my kids did tree climbing, bike riding, swinging, monkey bars, and mud pies for gross motor skills. I really do not think that if a child is not seven, provided he has exposure to reading, that it's necessary or helpful to keep him at a whiteboard all that time. Gross and fine motor skills can be well developed through outdoor play. They need those muscles. Lego, just building, and marble tracks help more with fine motor control, as do things like move their hands through dirt. Digging holes. Painting a model train. That kind of thing will develop motor skills just fine and it is fun.

The FAFSA is not a joke. Private school tuition is a joke. It is not the government's responsibility to fund private schools. You may take out loans. There are many injustices in higher ed but the American public's failure to pay for your child to go to a private school is not one of them.

I think sending it with a note is a good idea. You might even want to just let her know that the invitation is letting her know she's special but she should not feel like she has to attend because she's already shown how much she cares.

Salman Rushdie is good but can be explicit. Midnight's Children is an amazing book. Sexually explicit content, IIRC, but in the context of a larger commentary on social norms and growing up, so it's your call. The Satanic Verses is also really good and a bit easier than Midnight's Children. Orhan Pamuk's work is shorter and easier to read (since it's translated). I liked My Name Is Red and The White Castle but I can't remember if the latter was magical realism or not. Rushdie is funnier than Pamuk IMO.

Has anyone read The Handmaid's Tale? No longer speculative fiction. It's like how now we have communicators (mobile phones), just like on Star Trek. And just like in the Handmaid's Tale, we have this flopped up situation.

I don't think it's an unattractive word at all. It does bother me when the word is used inappropriately. I would hope that a report on sexual contact would use the correct terms!

My stepson plays the clarinet and he's really talented. I don't think he has ever squeaked. I wish he'd practice more. Threads like me make me realize that I'm not overly biased thinking he has great tone. I often comment but they seem to think it's normal. I feel like it's rare not to squeak.

nm--Congrats! :)

This is an American thing, a British thing. In some places, if you ask the nuns how they are, wow. You'll get an earful.

Wait, is TeA an acronym? I get the euphemism. But why TeA?

We know full well what happens to women who are not educated, do not have a source of social support outside of their husband and his friends/network, and who spend all their time caring for children, and whose husband and families do not support them in getting any independent skills that would ensure survival outside of the family in an emergency (widowhood, abuse, etc.). It is well documented because it was the state of affairs for women for thousands of years, and moreover, many women live like that in countries around the world today. In my experience in traditional societies, what usually happens to such women is that they either return to their father, if he's a good man, or they are reduced to begging, or they begin to work and are often labeled as "whores" (with all the derogatory implications of using that term) by their communities, even if they are working in a very woman-centered industry like tailoring. For example, I would witness widows on the street with a baby after their husband left them and claimed the baby wasn't his. In other cases, the daughter would return home to be her brother's maid, to "earn her keep", and never have her own family. Often she would be maltreated by her SIL and own mom. In some cases the father would refuse to take his daughter back and the mom and daughter would strike out together. In other cases in Muslim societies, if she was a widow, she MIGHT be able to get a second husband, for example his brother or cousin or a friend of his who would mainly do it for a free lay and to respect his nephews or his friend's sons after the death of the brother/cousin/friend. If the guy is nice to you, lucky. All you have to do is be cared for. If he's not, well, if you happen to be living in a sub-culture, you can appeal to the larger culture and get out and get services. THAt happens here in the US all the time. If you can't get out, like if your whole country is like that, you're screwed. That is why we have Social Security (developed initially for widows, orphans and the disabled). That is why we have feminism. Because while having the privilege of never studying or working is nice for any man or woman, and many people love staying home with small children, being forced to maintain a level of subservience and reduced power (intellectual, social, professional, and even emotional) sucks. You don't have to agree with it but I'm yet to see a system in which women have fewer rights and powers than men, but are equally well off.