Would this irritate you?

[Cammie]

I think you are going to have to ask yourself - given what you know about the group does it jive with your personal beliefs. The fact that women CANNOT be officers simply would be a no-go for me. It would fly in the face of everything I believe in and everything I hope I teach my daughter to believe in.

 

If it irritates you, even a little, you might want to look for a group that is more in line with your personal life philosophy - that way you avoid any big confrontations down the line.

 

You have to give the group credit, at least they are upfront about their beliefs and how they intend to run the group. Better to know now.

 

- Cammie

[WishboneDawn]

While it's not seen often' date=' I don't think it's necessarily an outrageous or cult-ish issue. There are some faiths which hold to very strict Biblical standards, one of which is that the husband literally is the patriarch of the family. [/quote']

 

I would think there's still a clear line for many who might follow that reasoning between acknowledging the husband as head of the family and infantilizing the wife by making her get her husband's permission.

 

A husband may well be the patriarch of a family but that does not mean the wife is not an adult.

[WishboneDawn]

I had one more thought...That requirement to get the father's signature is a) a signal that the wife can't be trusted so what kind of support could they truly offer and b) that's a huge invasion into your family's privacy. So what if you DO get your husband's permission on certain things? What business of theirs is it? Why does your husband have to prove himself to them (why is it that in social structures where a woman must submit it so often seems that's only the prelude to demanding the men must also submit to some other figure or structure)? Or you?

 

And the male officers thing...just ew. I've gotten to know a lot of conservative Christians here and on other forums and although I've heard about patriarchy and submissiveness I've rarely gotten the impression that those families though women were to be kept from any type of power or leadership position, especially when it concerns something so closely tied to the wife's role.

 

I think a very safe bet is that if the membership form causes you to pause then the group itself is going to give you troubles and it's not worth joining.

[shadowcat]

Would it irritate me? No. I am well beyond irritation just reading this. Suffice it to say I'd have nothing to do with such a group, beyond using them as a teaching tool for my kid.

[asta]

Would all of you who agree that this is outrageous come and join the new group I'm starting next week?

 

The ONLY homeschool group within 2 hours of me has bylaws that say:

 

The purpose of X Area Home Schoolers Association is to offer information and support from a distinctly Christian perspective to (residents) in the area who are homeschooling their children or are considering educating their children at home.

 

[...]

 

Member Commitment:

Members of the X group view home schooling as a wonderful opportunity, a deep commitment and a rich blessing. We endeavor to instruct our children with excellence not only in academics, but in sound character, wisdom, good conscience, love and sincere faith.

 

[...]

 

Pretty good so far, as long as you're alright with the Christian bent, right?

 

Article 4 – Leadership

Due to the special circumstances of the homeschooling community in this area, we choose to have our group business conducted by the wives/mothers of the group on behalf of each family. We choose this option based on the fact that most of the fathers in our group are (gone quite often), and are subject to widely varied schedules and significant travel obligations. This is arrangement is balanced with the understanding that each wife is subject to her own husband according to scripture and is responsible in all of her actions involving X group for making sure that she has her husbands blessing and approval. Business questions requiring decisions will be published well in advance of the need for a vote so that each couple has the opportunity to confer before participating in a decision. The limitation to wives as representatives is firm and is intended to facilitate the greatest degree of uninhibited participation possible for all families regardless of the schedules imposed on each headof-household.

 

eg: Men aren't allowed to participate in the meetings.

 

Section 1 - Selection of Leadership

Leaders will have read and agreed to the member commitment and undertake the responsibility only with the full blessing and support of their husbands.

 

BUH?

 

There are at least a hundred families in this group, and no one I've spoken to seems to batt an eye - except one Catholic woman who stopped attending because she was tired of the "well, we're doing such and such, but YOU wouldn't understand, YOU'RE CATHOLIC" comments.

 

The sheer level of discrimination burns me up. It's made worse by their leader saying "but we DON'T discriminate". No, of course you don't. You just have a Christian prayer at the beginning of every event, don't allow fathers, and consider Catholics not Christians. No discrimination there. What happens if a Muslim shows up? Or a Jew or a Wiccan?

 

I hope someone shows up to my new group (kid came up with the idea).

 

 

a

[keptwoman]

Good luck with the new group Asta. Persevere with it, I've seen a friends group go from 2-3 families 2 years ago to 10ish on an average meeting these days. It takes time.

[*********]

I was looking at joining the largest local homeschool group. Basically, there is a line for the "head of household" to sign off giving permission for the wife to join.

 

I consider myself a pretty conservative Christian type. I just find it a little irritating that my husband has to sign off on something that he will never go to or have anything to do with. It's basically so I can go to a support group meeting once a month.

 

It's not that I disagree with the submissive wife thing. I just don't like the idea of showing up with a form and being like "okay... here's my permission slip from my husband. Can I join now?"

 

There's no line for me to sign either. And I'd be the one actually joining!

 

Ok, I've read all the responses, and I guess I'll be the one dissenting voice.

 

I don't find it irritating. To me, the group is just making sure that since the women are the ones that join, the husbands are ok with it.

 

Why is that bad? I don't get it. I wouldn't join a homeschool group against my husband's wishes. So what's the big deal with having him sign a paper that says 'yeah, I'm ok with my wife and children joining this group'.

 

Please don't throw tomatoes. Just my opinion. :)

[RoughCollie]

I'd probably sign the form as head of household...with my own name and everything. Of course, that might cause more trouble than leaving the signature line blank, lol.

 

I'd sign the form as head of household. If the group really wanted DH to sign it, I would not join the group because I wouldn't fit in.

[Happy]

I ran into this when we moved to this area a few years ago. I went to the intro kick-off meeting of the large homeschool group in the fall. When I went to the table to join up the men there wouldn't let me join without my husband's signature. For the record, my husband is a pilot. Travel is his middle name. *He* trusts me to make all kinds of decisions in our life. How dare these men in this group usurp his authority.

 

Needless to say, our family didn't join their group...and our guys survived just fine.

[Peek a Boo]

I'd probably sign the form as head of household...with my own name and everything. Of course, that might cause more trouble than leaving the signature line blank, lol.

 

:lol: :iagree:

yup. I'd sign it and cite Proverbs 31: 11; 16; 27.:tongue_smilie:

 

eta: also, Eph 5:21 and add "signing as ONE per Eph 5:31."

Edited September 11, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

How dare these men in this group usurp his authority.

 

BINGO!!

 

 

I don't find it irritating. To me, the group is just making sure that since the women are the ones that join, the husbands are ok with it.

 

Why is that bad? I don't get it. I wouldn't join a homeschool group against my husband's wishes. So what's the big deal with having him sign a paper that says 'yeah, I'm ok with my wife and children joining this group'.

 

i don't find the inclusion of the option irritating, but if they make a stink about women signing it......THAT would be irritating.

 

Would all of you who agree that this is outrageous come and join the new group I'm starting next week?

 

The ONLY homeschool group within 2 hours of me has bylaws that say:

......

eg: Men aren't allowed to participate in the meetings.

 

......

......

The sheer level of discrimination burns me up. It's made worse by their leader saying "but we DON'T discriminate". No, of course you don't. You just have a Christian prayer at the beginning of every event, don't allow fathers, and consider Catholics not Christians. No discrimination there. What happens if a Muslim shows up? Or a Jew or a Wiccan?

 

I think the level of discrimination in THAT group per Christian standards is a healthy discernment based on specific criteria. That does mean some people will be excluded. That-s ok --not every group is designed for everyone. It's We hear the same sort of thing ["oh, but YOU wouldn't understand"] when it comes to anyone non-black speaking about racist policies.

 

as to the requirements -- i don't mind them being upfront with their expectations and recommendations, but if they made the wife bring all kinds of signed permission slips instead of simply understanding that she's likely already discussed their w/ her dh and HE's acting in a mutually submissive role per Ephesians 5, THEN I'd have a problem. ;)

 

 

good luck w/ the new group --we started a secular yahoogroup a few years ago and have 40 families on it. There is absolutely a need for secular groups, even for Christians. There's a few Christians that won't join because i put key words like "atheist, homosexual, gay, bi, pagan, wiccan, mormon, lds, liberal, conservative, etc" on it. But that's ok -they have plenty of other groups that i can direct them to; they aren't required to like this one. :D

[Nestof3]

I've seen that on some form for something I went to once, but I cannot remember what it is now.

 

Yes, I do think conservative Christians are too stuck in Old Testament culture, with men owning women and such.

 

I'm seeing more and more of it, and I am getting concerned.

[Danestress]

Why is that bad? I don't get it. I wouldn't join a homeschool group against my husband's wishes. So what's the big deal with having him sign a paper that says 'yeah, I'm ok with my wife and children joining this group'.

 

 

 

 

Is that I also wouldn't join a homeschool group (or anything else) against my husband's wishes, but I am insulted by the idea that I have to prove to someone else that I haven't done so. My marriage is perfectly fine, thank you. I don't need some women I don't even know and who I don't really consider to be in "authority" over me just because they are organizing a homeschool group to check up on that.

 

If I were running a HS group for Christians I would assume that the women are there with their husband's blessings. If that turned out not to be the case, I would expect them to work it out. If it became a problem that impacted the group, that would be the time for action. I would never ask another woman to certify for me that she and her husband are on the same page about something unless it had major legal significance - ie I needed both parties to sign a loan or a medical release. To do so seems to suggest that a third party needs to verify that their relationship is on good terms.

[*********]

Is that I also wouldn't join a homeschool group (or anything else) against my husband's wishes, but I am insulted by the idea that I have to prove to someone else that I haven't done so. My marriage is perfectly fine, thank you. I don't need some women I don't even know and who I don't really consider to be in "authority" over me just because they are organizing a homeschool group to check up on that.

 

If I were running a HS group for Christians I would assume that the women are there with their husband's blessings. If that turned out not to be the case, I would expect them to work it out. If it became a problem that impacted the group, that would be the time for action. I would never ask another woman to certify for me that she and her husband are on the same page about something unless it had major legal significance - ie I needed both parties to sign a loan or a medical release. To do so seems to suggest that a third party needs to verify that their relationship is on good terms.

 

Seems to me the group is just trying to prevent having to take 'action' if it were to become a 'problem' between a wife and husband.

 

If I were running a homeschool group, I wouldn't want women and children to join whose husband/father didn't approve. I don't see how that's bad. :)

 

I also don't see how it's so objectionable that they ask for the husband to sign as the head of household. Let's face it, mom is the one joining the group; of COURSE she approves, or she wouldn't be joining, right?

[Tap]

It wouldn't irritate me, I just wouldn't join. They have a different belief system than I do, so it wouldn't be the place for me. Obviously there are a lot of other people who do subscribe to this belief and that is great that they have found common ground to meet.

[Scuff]

It is a Christian organization.

 

The application asks for general info (name, phone number, kids, ages, email). Then has a line that states "Father/Head of Household Signature_________ Date_______".

 

I'm assuming they want the dad's signature. Especially after reading this in the constitution...

 

1. Officers shall be men. The reason for this is that the organization is composed of homeschooling families over which the men are to provide the leadership according to Scripture. *****, INC. is an extension of the home and should mirror the home in this respect.

 

And this in their statement of faith... "We understand family to mean a male and female parent with one or more children, all related by blood (Gen. 1:26-28), though we realize the exception of a single parent and adopted children (Jam. 1:27)."

 

 

Funnily... I showed the form to DH and asked him if he saw anything out of place. He caught a misspelled word. I asked him about the HOH thing... he just said "well... they probably assume the mom is on board and just want to make sure the dad is too". Maybe I overreacted? It seems weird to me they don't have female officers either. I went and heard a speaker with this group and they said "our president's wife put all this together". Hmmm.

 

it sounds like they have a certain religious bent. I'm guessing these are signs that this isn't the group for you.

[Danestress]

I do dozens of things for my kids every week, as does my husband. We take them to the doctor, sign them up for sports and art classes, register for things online, fill out forms for this and that. I've never been asked to prove that my husband "approved" of my enrolling my children or myself in any kind of activity, and I'm not sure why a homeschool group would be different. I've participated in homeschool group for years and never seen any problems with one parent objecting to participation, though that very well may happen in the privacy of homes.

 

I just personally think this is the result of some women with too much time on their hands and too much interest in the personal lives of other women making too much attempt to anticipate problems that haven't happened and aren't likely to happen. Obviously we can agree to disagree. But I don't consider the leaders of a homeschool group to be in any kind of "spiritual authority" over, so to me it's really not different from boy scouts or tennis lesson in the degree to which I am interested in providing proof of the status of my relationship with my husband.

[*********]

I do dozens of things for my kids every week, as does my husband. We take them to the doctor, sign them up for sports and art classes, register for things online, fill out forms for this and that. I've never been asked to prove that my husband "approved" of my enrolling my children or myself in any kind of activity, and I'm not sure why a homeschool group would be different. I've participated in homeschool group for years and never seen any problems with one parent objecting to participation, though that very well may happen in the privacy of homes.

 

I just personally think this is the result of some women with too much time on their hands and too much interest in the personal lives of other women making too much attempt to anticipate problems that haven't happened and aren't likely to happen. Obviously we can agree to disagree. But I don't consider the leaders of a homeschool group to be in any kind of "spiritual authority" over, so to me it's really not different from boy scouts or tennis lesson in the degree to which I am interested in providing proof of the status of my relationship with my husband.

 

Danestess, that's cool; we don't have to agree. But just because we don't agree on something doesn't mean we should throw around words like 'controlling' and 'strange'. I'm just sayin'. My dh isn't controlling just because we, as a family, would not have a problem with this. Strange, yes, perhaps we are strange. :tongue_smilie:

 

To each his own, yes? :)

[Danestress]

I think that I was clear that my DH and I would have a similar policy about him actually agreeing with activities I chose.

 

The question for me is a third party demanding *proof* of that. That's what I think is controlling and strange, and I will stand by that even though I totally understand that you don't agree with that. I feel okay with calling that policy "controlling" and "strange" but I don't know your DH and would never insult him with a label like that. I don't think that wifely submission is about "controlling" husbands. Sorry if you thought that I was saying otherwise!

[Moxie]

Seems to me the group is just trying to prevent having to take 'action' if it were to become a 'problem' between a wife and husband.

 

If I were running a homeschool group, I wouldn't want women and children to join whose husband/father didn't approve. I don't see how that's bad. :)

 

 

 

I know very little about the private lives of those in my HS group that aren't close friends of mine who have chosen to share that information with me. I can't see any situation where 'action' would be required from the group leadership on any private matter? Could you explain this more? Is this something you've seen happen?

[Rebecca VA]

I, too, have never heard of a homeschool dad taking serious issue with anything his wife participated in. Ever. In fact, all the husbands I know are really glad to see their wives get out and have an occasional nice evening with friends.

 

I think this is more a "worldview" issue -- some people are really obsessed with the whole submission issue -- and the group is trying to weed out people who don't think the same way they do.

[*********]

I know very little about the private lives of those in my HS group that aren't close friends of mine who have chosen to share that information with me. I can't see any situation where 'action' would be required from the group leadership on any private matter? Could you explain this more? Is this something you've seen happen?

 

I was just 'quoting' Danestress. I've never seen it happen. :001_smile:

 

If I were running a HS group for Christians I would assume that the women are there with their husband's blessings. If that turned out not to be the case, I would expect them to work it out. If it became a problem that impacted the group, that would be the time for action. I would never ask another woman to certify for me that she and her husband are on the same page about something unless it had major legal significance - ie I needed both parties to sign a loan or a medical release. To do so seems to suggest that a third party needs to verify that their relationship is on good terms.

[Hikin' Mama]

An I'm a conservative Christian.

[Word Nerd]

Ok, I've read all the responses, and I guess I'll be the one dissenting voice.

 

I don't find it irritating. To me, the group is just making sure that since the women are the ones that join, the husbands are ok with it.

 

Why is that bad? I don't get it. I wouldn't join a homeschool group against my husband's wishes. So what's the big deal with having him sign a paper that says 'yeah, I'm ok with my wife and children joining this group'.

 

Please don't throw tomatoes. Just my opinion. :)

 

I wouldn't join a homeschool group against my husband's wishes either (though I have no idea why he would object...I'm having a hard time even imagining such a scenario and wouldn't view it as asking for his permission but rather taking his views into account and making a decision we can both agree on), but that's really not the point. A homeschooling group is not a church, and it has no spiritual authority over the women who join it. This requirement presumes that it does have that authority, and it's a sign of how the group will operate. I'm an adult, and this is a matter between me, my husband, and God.

Edited September 11, 2009 by WordGirl

[*********]

I wouldn't join a homeschool group against my husband's wishes either (though I have no idea why he would object), but that's really not the point. A homeschooling group is not a church, and it has no authority over the women who join it. This requirement presumes that it does have that authority, and it's a sign of how the group will operate. I'm an adult, and this is a matter between me, my husband, and God.

 

Well, here maybe we have a different understanding of what the church is.

 

I'm a Christian. I consider other Christian women to be part of the church. Therefore, I have no problem being accountable to them in this way.

 

I've got an interesting story to share that relates to this...

 

I had been considering signing up for a co-op this year. I'd been praying about it (just as I do about all big decisions), and had discussed it with dh and asked him to pray about it, too.

 

As the sign-up time approached, I just didn't feel as though I had a clear direction on if we should join or not.

 

Out of the blue, ds6 says 'Mom, I don't want to do a co-op this year. Let's wait until next year.' We weren't talking about it or anything. It was literally out of the blue.

 

I said 'Well, ok then'. And then that evening, I told dh about it. He said 'Oh good. Because I didn't have any peace about you joining the co-op either'. He hadn't said anything yet because he thought I really wanted to do it, and he didn't want me to be disappointed.

 

But the thing is, I want to do what the Lord wants me to do. And sometimes, that direction comes directly from the Lord to me, and sometimes it comes through my dh. And apparently, sometimes it is confirmed by my six year old son as well. :001_smile:

[Word Nerd]

In my view, accountability is not something that is imposed upon another believer. It's initiated by the person who is asking for accountability in a particular area that they struggle with, and it doesn't imply that one party has any authority over the other. That's not what I see happening here, though I grant that I'm extrapolating about this group based on my experience with others like it.

[MrsMe]

I was looking at joining the largest local homeschool group. Basically, there is a line for the "head of household" to sign off giving permission for the wife to join.

 

I consider myself a pretty conservative Christian type. I just find it a little irritating that my husband has to sign off on something that he will never go to or have anything to do with. It's basically so I can go to a support group meeting once a month.

 

It's not that I disagree with the submissive wife thing. I just don't like the idea of showing up with a form and being like "okay... here's my permission slip from my husband. Can I join now?"

 

There's no line for me to sign either. And I'd be the one actually joining!

 

Yes, it would irritate me. If it were me I'd sign it and blow off the rest. We have a hs group that requires dh's signature too. When did a simple hs group get so complicated and for what reason? I don't do much with mine. The paperwork is insane. Nothing that a simple yahoo group wouldn't fix. Drives me batty.

[WishboneDawn]

 

I don't find it irritating. To me, the group is just making sure that since the women are the ones that join, the husbands are ok with it.

 

Why do they need to know that? What business is it of theirs?

 

Assuming I'm in a marriage where I'm a submissive wife to a patriarchal husband and I need my husband's permission to join such a group, even then, why shoul I give that group the authority to request that both myself and my husband testify that yes, I've secured that permission?

 

Nevermind that even though I tend to disagree with submissive or patriarchal models of marriage I've rarely seen women in those marriages think that meant they themselves were infantilized or denied all personal, individual choice. Requiring permission is something we do with children, the infirm or the incapable after all. Not intelligent, stable adults.

 

The issue of permission would be between my husband and myself. Period. And the only authorities I might submit to in terms of demanding private knowledge of what goes on in my marriage would likely be the church and God. Period. Not a some local homeschool support group.

 

Needless to say I'm not in such a marriage so the matter is much easier for me but even if I was, I really can't imagine being okay with them asking both myself and my husband to prove ourselves to them.

[WishboneDawn]

 

as to the requirements -- i don't mind them being upfront with their expectations and recommendations, but if they made the wife bring all kinds of signed permission slips instead of simply understanding that she's likely already discussed their w/ her dh and HE's acting in a mutually submissive role per Ephesians 5, THEN I'd have a problem. ;)

 

I think if the group had something like a statement of beliefs that needed to be signed then I wouldn't object. I'd likely still find the statement objectionable but heck, it's their right to build a group of people with similar beliefs.

 

But permission? That's not something adults looking for support sign, that's what kids get from parents for field trips or play groups.

[swellmomma]

That is really bizarre! And what about families like mine where I am the head of the household, would that prove I have split personality if I sign to give myself permission to join?

[WishboneDawn]

I just realized that if most of us were thinking clearly about this then we'd realize that what the group was REALLY after with their request for the signature of the head of the household would be the household cat's paw

print.

 

Honestly, what power does a husband really have when there's a cat in the house? :)

[Slartibartfast]

I just realized that if most of us were thinking clearly about this then we'd realize that what the group was REALLY after with their request for the signature of the head of the household would be the household cat's paw

print.

 

Honestly, what power does a husband really have when there's a cat in the house? :)

 

That would be made of awesome if someone had their cat sign it.

[mommaduck]

Very conservative Christian here, but an ex-fundamentalist....

 

RUN, Don't Walk!

[Tutor]

It wouldn't irritate me, I just wouldn't join. They have a different belief system than I do, so it wouldn't be the place for me. Obviously there are a lot of other people who do subscribe to this belief and that is great that they have found common ground to meet.

 

:iagree:

[MamaSheep]

See, these are decisions that my DH and I would make together....can I handle the extra responsibility and still do my other responsibilities well. Same if he is asked to volunteer for something, we discuss if it's a good fit for him and our family. Probably more so for him, simply because he has sooo little time with us as a family as it is because of his work schedule, that he tends to not volunteer for anything long term....he's first in line for a single day project or need, but more than that and he just can't....taking away from family time but also because he travels so much. But I also manage my time so that I don't do things in the evenings or weekends, as that's family time. THe rest of the time I will if I can find the time and the kids are involved as well, so they aren't inconvenienced by it....but everyone at church knows if it involves evening/weekends my answer is 99.9% of the time sorry, no.

 

I know it's the Morman way and hey, that's probably why I'd never make it as a Morman....but if it truly is about being sure that the volunteer doesn't overcommitt, shouldn't they also be asking your permission before allowing DH to volunteer? After all his committment to the family would also be very valuable...and if he's like my DH, his time is even more precious than mine because he's away at work more than he's home already....like most working outside the home husbands.

 

I'm not really arguing, or expecting a response, it's more a rhetorical question....if it's good for the goose it's good for gander kind of thing. And I know it's just a difference between how your household works and mine....I'm happy in mine and you probably are too, so it's all good. But I'm often curious why his opinion or wishes would be more important than the wife's. I know at some point in some decisions, one person has to be the final say....but most of our marriage decisions aren't that way and those that are, fluctuate between who gets final say. Kids, me...finances, me....hmmm, what does he get the final say in? Gotta go ask him, lol. :lol:

 

Hi, sorry to dredge this old thread up. I just stumbled over this searching for something else and just thought I'd add a smidge of clarification here. This LDS goose has been asked about her gander taking up a position at church more than once. It IS common practice to discuss a man's calling with his wife, especially if it will have a major impact on his time with the family. I've also been asked quite often to serve in a position at church without anyone having discussed it with my husband first.

 

The husband's opinions and wishes are definitely not considered more important than the wife's in LDS families; it's generally expected that a husband would consult with his wife as an equal partner, and vice versa, in making decisions that would affect the family. And all church members, men and women equally, have the right, and the opportunity to object to any calling that is issued, including wives objecting to such for their husbands.

 

However, husbands are considered to have a formal religious responsibility to God to see that their wives' needs are properly met (priesthood authority in the LDS church is about stewardship and responsibility, not about who gets to boss whom around, or who has to obey whom), so it is considered good form for church leaders to ask him if their request will interfere with him being able to meet that responsibility, and to ask him to support her in her new responsibilities should she accept the position. It's not a matter of their asking his "permission" for anything--though if it WERE about permission, it would be the church leaders asking the husband's permission for THEM to approach his wife, not them asking his position for HER to serve in a particular position. She doesn't need his "permission" (though they would probably not make the request if it were apparent that doing so would cause problems in the marriage) but she could sure use his support.

 

Anyway, I hope that's a little more clear.

[dirty ethel rackham]

 

1. Officers shall be men. The reason for this is that the organization is composed of homeschooling families over which the men are to provide the leadership according to Scripture. *****, INC. is an extension of the home and should mirror the home in this respect.

 

 

 

This would be reason alone for me not to join.

 

 

1. It is one thing to hold to a male head of household-ship. It is quite another to have women have to be accountable to men other than their own husbands. (We do not have a "submission" marriage except for that we submit to eachother, as in a partnership.)

    

2. How are male officers who do not do the day to day homeschooling better than the mothers who are in the trenches every day?

 

 

This whole thing just gives me the willies. Stepford anyone?

[Ellie]

Yes, it would bug me. And it would bug Mr. Ellie. I'd have to have SERIOUS compelling reasons to join that group.