Jump to content

Menu

Wind-in-my-hair

Members
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wind-in-my-hair

  1. It seems to be the right time to begin first grade; my son just turned seven. I know that's late by many people's standards, but he has had decent phonics education, his printing is coming along great, and we've kept up with the basics in math. We revived our efforts to use Right Start B and it now feels like just the thing for us. And believe it or not, I really like the Charlotte Mason approach to teaching phonics and spelling, as confusing as it is to read about in Volume 1. I would like to follow an overall CM approach that is literature based and can be completed in under 2 hours.

     

    The problem is, finding literature has been tough. I have a very negative visceral reaction to some of the vintage books out there, and I dropped many of the AO Year 1 selections after trying them. I know the books are supposed to be enchanting, but I felt a lot of dissonance with them on my lap. That's the only way I can explain it. 

     

    I'd like to have at least 10 books on various subjects to rotate through. I want to do a more global approach to cultures, history, and literature rather than a Western Judeo-Christian-oriented approach, which is a significant deviation from the classic CM roundup of literature. But I believe there are probably homeschoolers that have felt the same way. 

     

    Can you recommend anything to me?

     

    Here is what I was looking at:

     

    Virginia Hamilton's books

     

    Books illustrated by the Dillons

     

    Story of Mankind 

     

    Story of the World

     

    Holling C. Holling's books

     

     

     

     

     

     

  2. When I was trying to cobble together a still-Christian faith, the CBE figured prominently in my reading material.

     

    I respect the effort and passion.

     

    In the end, though, no one can re-write Paul in my mind to make him NOT be a misogynist (and arrogant).

     

    Paul's gospel doesn't figure into the UU's (very liberal) tradition, so I thought it odd that we would have dismissed something egalitarian in his message if there were one. I sort of suspect he needed to get his message across, and perhaps he relied on women in that capacity. Its a shame that they were denied agency in the growing church after what was probably a sincere and energetic ministry at the grassroots. Its sort of like the expectation that comes with revolutions or war efforts, where women do a lot of the same work as men, and then, back to the same pigeonhole as before. 

     

    But, at the same time, I can't ignore when Christian women speak out against misogyny. I used to keep on top of breastfeeding-in-public laws and scandals, and I cannot ignore when Christian women refer to Christ being nursed by his human mother as a defense against being asked to leave the pew when they breastfeed their infants at church. That we can ignore the deep symbolism of a divine child being nourished by mother's milk, and regard the image of ordinary mothers doing that for their babies as somehow inappropriate, is messed up. 

    • Like 3
  3. This article really got me thinking some weeks ago. Feminism has a long history traced back to the 1800s, when most of its champions would have been Christians. But this article actually positions Paul as someone who promoted egalitarian values within the early Christian community. Its amazing how many faiths use the same Bible and get so many different interpretations. 

     

    http://www.sojo.net/magazine/2009/08/empowered-god

     

    And I liked this article, too: 

     

    http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2009/11/18/boys-are-warriors-and-girls-are-princesses-spiritual-gifts-are-not-divided-gender

  4. I pity my sons how many women on this earth will disdain *them* because they were born men and want to partake in and enjoy God's design for their sex both singly and in the context of marriage. i worry far more for them than my daughters, based on the current fashions of this culture.

     

    I have boys; I don't want them restricted by their gender any more than I would want a girl to be denied the sort of womanhood she chooses. What I do want for them is to be firm in their self-worth and flexible in their expectations of what sort of familial roles they should take on. 

     

    I think that in this day and age, most families will still be some variation of the traditional family, and I think that even where there is religion at the center, there will still be more equality just by virtue of being a 21st century family. 

     

    I see the male-headed family as still being important. Families have to organize themselves in some way that works, and history has shown us a dominant style of doing so. Its just that the system became arbitrary in its wider applications; when the modern era gave us fields that relied more on the individual and the use of one's mind, it didn't make sense to uphold strict gender roles that denied women the use of their talents, as well. 

    • Like 1
  5. Oh, amen to the bolded. 

     

    It bugs me to the ends of the earth and back that these are the women who get forgotten in the discussion about middle class women and their careers ( to be clear, I am totally 100% in favour of middle class women having access to high quality childcare, maternity leave and careers :) but often the conversation begins and ends there.)

     

    Well I think its profound how we fail to see ourselves in the people we exploit. That's all I can say.  

    • Like 5
  6. I think these are often more of an au pair arrangement where a young student travels, learns a local language & gets homestay in exchange for looking after kids for a short term. Usually these students are from fairly affluent families & it's more of a work experience/see the world arrangement. I know someone who got a degree in French & was happy to spend time as an au pair in Paris.

     

    My college friends were in exactly what you described. But the caregiver who looked after the child of the people I met on the beach was an empty nest-er, I believe. The going rate for YMCA childcare in my local community is about $20 per day per child, so perhaps she felt she didn't need to charge more than that? I wonder why the couple didn't offer her more if they could afford it, though. Rarely, you find someone who's more concerned about your kid than about making money. That's a blessing, and I'd be showering her with extra something if that were my child's caregiver. 

    • Like 1
  7. I agree with this. It's the perception. If my husband were to have an accident or illness bad enough to temporarily disable him, I don't have any idea what we'd do. I've been out of the paid workforce since 1996 and have no marketable skills. I'm responsible, mature, widely read and an excellent manager of time and resources. I communicate well. I have fab math skills. But I have no paper trail and no proof, so no official skill set.

     

    I feel like this is what gets a lot of people into those online schools that overcharge for the degree that spells out what they already could do. I hope if you decide to pursue a career or education you make it about something you love. As far as I know, real estate is still open to people who want to learn on the job after brief training in principles. Not everyone likes sales, though, but all the skills you mentioned would be great in that capacity. Some of my friends have become doulas, which means they are self-employed and also need all the skills you mentioned. Many women in my UU church are accountants: it seems to be another one with options for adult education and flexible work hours. 

    • Like 1
  8. yes, & why do we not stigmatize men who keep on working? Or who work even more?  (oh, they're allowed to work insane hours & be workaholics because they're doing it for family!)

     

    Where are the men staying home?

     

    Why are men not the ones staying home?  Gee, could it be because of greater earning power even in the same jobs? That is misogyny & patriarchy.

     

    Where are the men choosing to become daycare providers?

     

    I really want to see more parents of all genders be able to take time off to parent, to raise their own kids.

     

    We now have parental leave in Canada & a couple men at dh's office actually chose to take it so there are some changes but culturally and financially it seems a huge slog...

     

    The problem with the daycare equation is that it doesn't add up. We end up exploiting someone else to look after our kids.  If you actually pay a real living wage for daycare, for most people it stops making financial sense to work.

     

    It's extremely popular here to have a Filipino nanny. The vast majority of them are leaving behind their families to raise the families of some dual income couple here. There was a radio documentary about Filipino dads having to take courses on how to parent their own kids - because many of them knew nothing about it really, and having had the wives go off to Canada, now the dads are having to figure out how to do the parenting thing.  While on one hand it strikes me as kind of interesting & possibly even beneficial for the men to take on parenting that way in those communities, how is this not an exploitative system?

     

    Then recently I heard that the Philippines were no longer as good a place to get a nanny from - people were seeking out nannies from more underprivileged nations because they were more desperate & worked harder. O.o

     

     

     

    So that's the caregiver criteria I've seen on Canada's immigration website. Pretty crappy to think about. One of my friends (I attended U of T for a year), Anglo Canadian, not an immigrant, was a part-time nanny from highschool all the way through her university years. She carried pictures around of the children she cared for. I admired the level of responsibility for such a young woman: I had only worked at Starbucks!  Another states-side friend of mine nannied while she attended Amherst. Again, what a thing to do for a family. 

     

    On the beach I met of family of two working parents, both engineers, with one child. They loved their caregiver: for just 20 bucks a day she takes their toddler shopping, spoils him in ways that are out of her own pocket, and cares for him out of her home, posting pictures on FB so the parents can see what he's up to from their desks. 

     

    The thing about all the above women were that they were childless -- never had a child or had grown children -- but I cannot imagine asking someone to leave their children to come overseas and be my child's nanny. How weird. Does Canada have a policy that let's these families reunite in Canada, or is immigration going to leave them cold?

  9. Just look at the vitriol coming from this article, in the guise of a rational discussion: 

     

    http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/30/longer-maternity-leave-not-so-great-for-women-after-all/

     

    She is implying that the opportunity at the executive level in the US is equal to or better than European systems that strive to uphold universal opportunity. According to her argument our system is not broken if some people are rising to the top -- its the ceiling's more important than the floor view. That is a very common attitude in this country.

     

    Her book is a 3-star-er, with the most ratings being either 1s or 5s, on Amazon. Divisive and skewed rhetoric such as this does not get us anywhere.

     

    And I know this is an oldie, but Peggy O'Mara was/is my mama-hero. Here is a view I agree with wholeheartedly: 

    http://daraluznetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Postpartum_Postpartum_Depression.pdf

     

    "We need a national policy to support families to successfully balance work and family" (p 3 para 3).

     

    How many on this forum enjoyed the days of Mothering magazine? 

     

     

    • Like 1
  10. Serious question ladies - if women are making 1/3 less than men, what is the financial impetus for a company to have male employees at all? The women make much more economic sense to the corporation if, all else being equal, they are less expensive employees.

     

    I guess the impetus is that they are considered fixtures in the workplace. I mean, in insurance, you would look at the aggregate rather than the individual, so "all other things being equal" between a perfectly matched man and woman in a field doesn't matter; its the gender group as a whole that determines who is more of an asset than a liability. If women have barriers to keeping their jobs, that would naturally cost the company productivity.

     

    In medical insurance, pregnancy is considered a cost to be shouldered by women. They do not look at the man and look at the woman and say, okay, he's had 3 children and she's had three children, and as far as we know all things in their reproductive capacities and the rest of their health are equal, so we will charge them the same premium. No, the women of the pool bear the costs of everybody's fecundity. 

    • Like 1
  11. I appreciate your input that this really is a problem in W Germany, as the only German mother quoted in the article didn't want to leave her child, and was looked down on for it.

     

    I do wonder, though, why she thinks it is wrong that the government doesn't provide these facilities. Aren't there people setting up private day cares if the demand is high? Or, like in the small town without childcare facilities that I used to live in, don't people use the cottage industry method of paying a SAH friend to watch their kids, too? American capitalist's perspective, here.

     

     

    The article pointed out that despite getting parental leave, the tax code in Germany favors the 1 income family, and the lack of child care contradicts the promise to hold jobs for mothers. I think the author suspects that the German mothers are making choices based on cultural norms and should rethink their decision in light of what they could be missing. I often need that kind of reminder as I weigh the pros and cons of keeping my kids out of school.

     

    What we have here in American capitalism is a promise to moms that they can take off enough time to heal from the physical stress of birth -- I have heard of anywhere between 4 weeks to 12 weeks, with pay during that time being either a fringe benefit or coming out of sick pay and vacation. Regentrude suggests that with a parental leave policy it would be possible to see more women choose stay-at-home motherhood, at least for the months and years when the child is developing attachment, and not lose their jobs unless it is a choice they are making to leave the field. This may sound socialist, but it is not; it is legal protection and responsible workplace policy. It helps retain talent and diversity in the workforce while also promotes family values -- who would be opposed to seeing those kind of reforms?

     

    We don't have what Germany has -- a system that already sees it as the government's responsibility to provide long-term family leave, some of it paid, and that, as the article cited, even passed a law to create nurseries but hasn't acted to uphold it. I think her expectations as a European are what they ought to be, and I don't think those German mothers will be begging to have our system supplant theirs anytime soon. 

    • Like 1
  12. It's kind of off topic, but what change in hiring culture would you want to see?

     

    This is something that DH and I were discussing the other day, actually. We've seen articles recently of women and men in STEM related fields, who are upset that after years (5+) out of the work force, they are passed up (in the hiring process) for someone with a more updated resume. DH pointed out that in his field (engineering), for example, things change so frequently that a complete absence from the field for over 5 years is a huge deterrent for employers.

    Something that DH said was that he would thoroughly impressed if a man or woman walked in with a resume documenting 10 years working in the field, 5 years off to stay at home, but that also documented that she had taken the classes and certs necessary to update her skills to current - or even if she/he was in the process of doing so, but hadn't yet completed it. It annoys him (and others, I would imagine) when people become irate because they can't just jump back into a job that changes pace so rapidly. I can't even count the number of conferences and classes DH has had to take in the past 5 years, even while working in his field, just to keep current.

     

    The poster I responded to had said that lack of day cares wasn't the problem, that it was in the culture of re-hiring caregivers (and I responded to clarify whether that was the US or Germany being referred to). A parental leave policy like regentrude explained is had in Germany would be a start, to ensure that parents have the means to bond with their new baby without risk to their job security, before we could even begin to wonder if better childcare options could be made available to working parents. I will agree with regentrude that the US's problem with its lack of parental leave policy is bigger than West Germany's culture of opting-out mothers, though I observe it wouldn't be effective to have a great parental leave system on the one hand and scarce options for childcare on the other. 

     

    Five years with absolutely no contact with the field would be a deterrent. I think that is why the #2 article I had posted made the observation that even if a woman's income is entirely spent on childcare in her absence, the long-term payoff to staying in the field outweighs the expense. Having a career has immediate and compounding long-term benefits for the individual, so I can see why the writer of article #2 felt so strongly about her choice to hire a nanny and return to work after 6 months parental leave. It would be part of a responsible family leave policy to provide a means to stay connected to the workplace if the parent intends to return to the job after a certain amount of time. I think the 6-week unpaid maternity leave that most women get in this country is crap! If you want to parent longer than that -- and I would hope most compassionate mothers and fathers would, look at the article #2 author who stayed home for 6 months -- you'd have to quit your job and re-apply when you wanted to go back. That's a big hassle, and it sends a clear message that parenting cannot be reconciled with individual job security --  you need to be supported by a spouse who does not need to spend copious amounts of time with their infant. New dads shoulder an extra burden instead of getting to partake in parental leave also.  

  13. (Wind-in-my-hair) The family can and should be regarded as supporting its provider(s) just as much as those people are supporting and upholding the family. In that case, there should be no disparity between the domestic and working roles and the people who assume them. (AimeeM) I'm not about to live my marriage based on what would be best for the rest of society, regardless of what is best for myself, DH, and our children - that would be irresponsible and impossible (because it's impossible to label what makes a "best" marriage for every single individual in a society). Maybe I misread what you wrote there, though.

     

     

    I think it is important to see systems of power objectively, and try to see their practical or moral premises, and answer questions about their broader impact. Patriarchy as a system deserves a better investigation than I am giving it here. 

     

    I am most interested in talking about sharing power as well as responsibility between partners in marriage, and all the ethical implications that that entails. It means calling out the problem that marriage is considered a union, but that the whole may also be broken into a head and a subordinate. Don't we tend to seek partners that are equal to us in the most important aspects? And don't we abandon inequality and absolve difference when we love somebody deeply?

     

    This question strikes a deep nerve in me. I am hoping for a resolution. The internal inequalities, as I would call them, are a little bit harder for me to swallow than the external ones -- demographic history that could be explained in efficient terms. Deep moral codes from millenia ago hold women as unequal to men, or more benevolently, as strictly different in assigned purpose or function. I can accept that family arrangements strive to fulfill needs -- all sorts of which might be more readily met in a traditional way. But I do not see inequality as a natural precursor, or a positive outcome, to how a family is formed.

    • Like 1
  14. The issue isn't missing daycare.  

     

    The issue is that after caring for your children for a couple of years (or ten or twenty), it is nigh on impossible to get a job that qualifies as a career.  Hirers act as if you have no experience at anything and have forgotten everything you ever learned, but are too set in your ways to adapt to the company culture.  It is related to age discrimination and disproportionately hits caregivers trying to return to a career.

     

    With people living til their 80's, 90's and 100's, taking a few years out to raise children shouldn't make the other 60 years useless.

     

    Are you talking about Germany or the US? -- just to be clear. 

     

    I agree with all your points, except I do think that universal access to quality childcare is missing in the US. However, there would have to be a change in the hiring culture before we could expect that to change at all.

  15. Probably because it isn't my nature to feel resentful... or worthless. 

    Possibly because I don't attach my self worth to decision making.

    It's more likely, however, because this is the way I was raised. As dysfunctional as my family was, there was one thing my father never tolerated - and that was disrespecting, or making to feel worthless, his wife or his daughters. 

    I will admit that my family was dysfunctional enough that it took walking into DH's family home to see what a functional traditional home structure looks like. 

    People seem to envision, when we say our husbands are the heads of our homes, that they are lording over us like caveman ("Me man; you woman"), making demands and ordering us around. Honestly, that makes me giggle.

    Know what we spent last night doing? Hint: it probably looks a lot like what you (general "you"; not specific to the poster I quoted) may have done. We watched a movie with our daughter, my husband went back to spend some extra time with our middle kiddo, and then we (him and I) cuddled on the couch, holding hands, giggling about the new house, fretting about the showings, and talking about how much we would miss each other this week (he left this morning for a week long business trip). Oh, and he asked if I wanted him to make my favorite soup before he left (Tom Yum, or something like that). 

    I make my own decisions. How on earth (why on earth) do people assume that I don't, simply because our marriage "works" much like my own grandmother's, and her mother's before her? I make decisions daily. Hourly. Probably by the minute. 

     

    I'm fond of the sous chef analogy. Yes, I know that it isn't the same, because the sous chef isn't submitting to the head chef because of body parts, but the analogy works for me. Is a sous chef worthless because he answers to the head chef? Is he less a person because he isn't as high up in the ranks as the head chef? More than that, I would bet that any good head chef realizes what an irreplaceable job his sous chef does, and that the kitchen wouldn't run as well or as efficiently without his sous chef. Just because their roles are different, doesn't make one more or less important than the other. 

    DH never hesitates to tell me how much I mean to him, and to the children, and that the things I do are appreciated and worth so much to him. I try to make sure I tell him as much about what he does for us. 

    I've seen patriarchy abused (definitely) but I've also seen it work. It works here.

    It would be just as silly of me to change the way our family works, just because of DH's appendage, as it is for you to imagine changing the way your family works for the same reason. I was raised this way, as was DH, and it was just the natural route that our relationship took... it wouldn't be natural for you, which is why you can't imagine it working.

     

    (First bolded) Its hard for me to imagine that self-esteem can be divorced from decision-making. There seems to be always some level of personal interest in the outcomes of our own choices, even if its small. 

     

    (second bolded) Of course a sous chef is an important helper to the chef, and indispensable in a busy kitchen. But does a wife need to be compared to a sous chef? In an arrangement such as marriage, is that really a fair comparison?  In a sous chef's job, it is assumed that the chef could do all that work -- he is in possession of all the knowledge and training -- but he has a helper. But a marriage is usually founded on deep needs -- mutual gratification -- and love that takes more than words to understand. I cannot imagine any member of such a deep union being the helper to the primary, without some sort of emotional ramification. 

     

    At the same time, no one can argue with your points on love and natural attraction, mutual respect, personal choice of family dynamics -- and the security of tradition. Families fulfill deep needs in the human psyche, and that is why I advocate for plurality and deeply respected equality. In patriarchy, looking at it from the outside again, it is believed that the family owes its existence to the male head, and that the family is his privilege and his responsibility to uphold. That view does not inherently contain abusive elements, but it is unjust if one takes a look from a societal perspective, because it denies that there can be any other way. It assigns power based on responsibility -- yet it freely ignores the large responsibilities assumed and benefits created by the domestic-bound partner. It also makes it difficult for non-traditional arrangements to work even on an individual basis, because in creating a broad fraternal security network it leaves other people out. Also, it looks at the male head's status in his work life as being the very justification for the family to exist -- that form of radical individualism we have in America. In reality, families are an important part of human well-being. The family can and should be regarded as supporting its provider(s) just as much as those people are supporting and upholding the family. In that case, there should be no disparity between the domestic and working roles and the people who assume them. 

     

    Added: Our children will inevitably become part of families as they mature into adults, whether they have children or live as a couple, or form micro-social groups that function like families to create well-being for the individuals involved. So when I say "upholding the family" above please know I mean a very broad view of it. 

  16. I think US culture is pretty unique. And quite a lot of it has to do with the fact that the US is the only highly developed nation with high rates of religious fundamentalism and conservatism, as well as the strong tradition of individualism.

     

    Germany is a very strange mix of modern and old fashioned. I find it difficult to approve of a nation that bans homeschooling though!

     

    Australians are entitled to 18 weeks of paid parental leave (can be taken by the father too) at the moment but it has been very controversial and may not remain available in the future.

     

    I think its important that you mentioned the uniqueness of US culture. Individualism would have had a lot to do with convincing people to embrace feminism at every stage, and it is also where arguments in favor of patriarchy come from.  I often feel like patriarchy works here -- because so many people uphold it -- and families that it doesn't actually work for, for practical reasons (ideals aside), get blamed for not being hard-working, or having moral shortcomings.

     

    Personally, I feel that a lot of my moral worth is judged by my and partner's ability to uphold a certain standard of living, and that the ideal really is kind of an upper-middle class one: A mom that stays home while a father earns plenty of money; her career will fall to her again when the kids are a certain age, but its not essential to the family's income.

     

    At a certain level of income, it does not matter what your political or religious views are -- an ideal becomes tenable, and you can choose it or not. The first article pointed out that feminism made its earliest victories among upper-class people on the right -- they had the resources to provide home-based childcare. 

  17. I think that the message of charity and forgiveness clashes with the view of Jesus as warrior liberator in his second coming. We are supposed to love our enemies -- until they are destroyed by supernatural forces. I also take issue with the human sacrifice as penance for human inequity - if taken literally. I imagine that because an execution of a well-loved person as Jesus would have been a terrible thing to face, his followers did not want to believe he died in vain. Story telling is a means of expressing our deepest emotions, longings, and ethereal experiences.  

     

    The Hare Krishna community believes Jesus to have been a transfiguration of the god Rama/Krishna and blends elements of both Hindu and Christian themes. I think it is an interesting interpretation, and reminds me of how fluid and plastic the tenets of religious belief can be. 

    • Like 3
  18. 1. The first one describes feminism's complex bi-partisan history, its victories as well as defeats, very engagingly: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/16/lift-and-separate

     

    What do you think of the 1970s vetoed Continuity of Child Development Act? This author seems very passionate about its lost, potentially positive impact. I wonder what would have been the impact - would it have been beneficial to have the "vast moral authority" of the government to endorse the non-traditional family and make life easier for those families who are that way by necessity? 

     

    2. This one talks about the very high rate of stay-at-home motherhood in Germany compared to France and Sweden and asks why there are so few options in the social infrastructure for things like childcare in Germany: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/europe/24iht-letter24.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

     

    I know some people from this forum are from Europe. Is there anything you'd add to the information in the above article? 

     

    3. What do you all think of this statistic:

     

    "Americans are vastly more (52 percent) than Canadians (18 percent) to believe that 'The father of the family must be master in his own house'" (Statistic from Environics 2004 Social Values Survey, appearing in Canada and the United States: Differences that Count, 3rd Ed., Eds. Thomas and Torrey, 2008, p 47 para 2).

     

    I think it is interesting how America splits over gender issues, and how we compare to some other western countries. There is a lot to think about, to say the least, let alone to apply a particular point of view to the decision or necessity to homeschool one's children. But I think about these issues a lot as I decide whether hs-ing will work for us long-term. 

    • Like 1
  19. I had stumbled across these: http://www.rainbowresource.com/product/sku/026317, the Story of Western Civilization series. They are designed for remedial readers, with comprehension questions following each reading. I thought about using these as read-aloud/ attention-to-detail training for the early years and then using it as oral reading exercise and sentence writing: Since we are doing Spalding I thought these might fill a niche in simple reading and writing exercise, but I also like the very minimalist, highlights-only approach to covering history. It would be necessary to flesh them out with a variety of readings from more literary sources, such as Story of Mankind or CHOW or Guerber's books, I think. 

     

    Maybe try the resource Ancient Science, which is recommended for the logic stage in WTM. http://www.rainbowresource.com/proddtl.php?id=023655. The projects are divided up by civilization. 

     

     

  20. I actually wrote a perfect love letter to my 7-year-old son, yesterday. I left it on his bed beside his winter clothes, and sent him up to get dressed after he had breakfast. It read: "Dress warmly because we are going SLEDDING today. Love, Mom." And we went sledding for 2 hours while Dad and little bro snuggled at home.  :thumbup:

  21. I am curious why the extreme dichotomy of completely no vaxing and complete vaxing. We delayed vaxinations, giving my son two every six months starting when he was five (he had a very short stint in preschool of less than two months). It was not the onslaught of insanity (nine were strongly suggested within a day of Ds' birth, all to be given at once). The delayed vaxing meant he got all the big ones, opted out of over seven due to aging out of the "worry zone," and had a much lesser chance of complications.

     

    Why so all or nothing?

     

    I am not meaning you guys are all or nothing, but more are curious if anyone knows.

     

    Did your doctor work with you closely to create that kind of schedule? I would like to know more about how I might follow a reasonable program that minimizes worry but gets the job done. Can you recommend any books or sources that helped you create a custom vax schedule?

  22. We stopped drinking so much coffee and started trying a lot of new tea. We are much more mellow and focused in the mornings, no longer temperamental from the caffeine highs and lows. 

     

    My son didn't want to go over his Spalding phonogram flashcards with me, so I bribed him with the promise to make him some paper airplanes if he could get through at least 10 or so. He agreed, and then, I had the idea of writing the phonograms he struggled most with on the paper airplanes I made him. He was so excited that he kept taking out the flashcards and finding phonograms that he wanted me to write on new paper planes, and in extreme giddiness we threw them all around and called out the phonogram sounds. 

×
×
  • Create New...