Where I live on the East Coast there are relatively few LDS Church members, so I'm asking this on this forum. (Because I think there's a larger percentage of LDS members here than in in my actual physical community).
In my community, marriage and children are pretty much optional. If you want to date, fine. If not, fine. Same with marriage, same with children. When I lived in D.C.(a very secular city), there was a formal attitude that love/ sex/ marriage/ children could be done in conjuction, or could be cafeteria style -- if you want sex & children but no love or marriage, fine. Some people were very open about that.
But I've noticed on this forum, in some topics, there's an undercurrent of "pressure" or "expectations" to date, marry, and have children.
Am I wrong? Does the LDS Church have such expectations of its members? Or have I totally misread things?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It depends on which question you're asking.
God commands that we abstain from sexual contact until we are within the bonds of marriage, and requires complete fidelity after marriage.
One of the first commandments God gave to Adam and Eve was to bear children; that commandment is still in effect today. The way that individual members fulfill this commandment is up to the individual; you don't HAVE to have children to be righteous/saved/etc. That said, God has revealed that marriage and progeny are components of our eternal purpose for existing. Our ultimate goal is to be like our Heavenly Father and Mother-- eternally bound together through marriage and able to produce spirit children, the way they produced us.
So...marriage and children are very, very important to Mormon doctrine, and the culture reflects that. (Sometimes rather cruelly.)
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
There is definitely an expectation to marry, but I think this is true with most religions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You are not mistaken. The LDS Church (or at a very minimum the LDS culture) expects people to marry and have children. The LDS church teaches that sex outside of marriage is a serious sin, that marriage is essential to enter the highest level of heaven, that parenting children is one of the most valuable things you can do with your life and that children should be born and raised with a loving mother and father who are married to each other.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am currently in the DC LDS community, and here people figure you are an adult and leave you alone to make your own life in whatever way you and the Lord decide is okay. You don't have to devote yourself to some mortal in order to prove your devotion to God. The principles mentioned above are taught in church, but people don't take it upon themselves to hammer it unsolicited outside of church on individuals.
The only exceptions are the recent transplants (who get over it) and the exceptionally rude, but those are easy to identify and avoid because they rarely limit their nosy, gauche actions to questions about other people's love lives.
I really love this place.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I live in Arlington but am from the midwest. It was quite the shock to me when I got here how different attitudes are about marriage and kids. I got married at 24 and moved to DC shortly after. I worked as a preschool teacher at an affluent school. The parents continuously made comments and expressed shock that I was married "so young". No one made these comments in Michigan to me. In fact, I was often teased a bit about when I would finally get married as I had been with my SO for about 5 years by the time we did get married. At 25, I got pregnant. The shock for the East Coast parents was even greater. They seemed to accept as gospel that the late thirties were the time for kids. I have a friend in Arlington with a child the same age as mine and we joke we had to be friends because we are the only two twenty-something mommies in the city. It really is a very different attitude depending on where you live.
I would like to see the judgement on both sides go down a bit. I don't think young marriage or old marriage are in competition. It really depends on the person. Perhaps if some of the cultural pressure was lifted, people would get married when the time was right for them.
[ May 07, 2009, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: theresa51282 ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that the no sex until marriage thing is a huge motivator for marrying early. I was shocked when at 26, I had my first child and people commented on how young I was. Having been married for 6 years (I was married before I was old enough to legally drink), I thought that I had actually waited a long time to have kids. When I moved to my house, I had been married for 3 years without a child and no one here ever pressured me. I did get the definite impression that everyone assumed I was infertile since I had been married a whole three years without a kid and spoke of no future plans. People would be like very careful in what they said- like on Mother's day some one said something about hoping I was handling the day ok. Of course, considering that I do have potential issues (endometriosis), my doctors actually stronlgy encouraged me to not put off having children anymore then I had to.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
The wait-til-your-late-thirties-to-have-kids advocates have a rude shock awaiting them when they're in their late 50s and they still have teenagers to deal with. The younger you have 'em, the younger you are when they leave home. We have 3 kids, the youngest 26, and I'm only 57.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yes, here the LDS community does emphasize being married having kids, but all such decisions are between couples and the Lord, so it's not a pressure-cooker type thing. Just the community is geared toward kids, which I think is marvelous.
I have to say that for me personally being a mom suits me wonderfully, and I absolutely love it. If it were possible, I would certainly quit my day job and be a full time mom until my son is healthy and on his own. I don't think that would have been the right choice for me when I was just out of school, but after enjoying a fun career for a number of years, and finding some modicum of success at it, I'm totally ready to devote full time to building a family.
I've been a doting aunt for the last 20+ years, so I thought motherhood would be like that only more-so. I was so surprised that it's much more. In some ways it's been a total transformation into this person who is a mom. <laughs> Do other moms find that to be the case? I'm still learning how to be a good one. Maybe you never stop doing that. And I've grown up a lot. I wouldn't take anything for the experience. It's been maybe the best thing I ever did in my whole life.
(I mean I didn't do it for myself. I did it for my son who needed me. And he's doing a whole lot better now, thank goodness. But it turned out to be like the best thing I ever did for myself, as well.)
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
What if they don't leave home before they're 25? If you have them when you're 30 you could be 55 and have a kid in your house. Yikes.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Having kids in the house is fun at all ages, I think. It is a lot of work but what better work should I be doing with my time? And even after they move out, you're still a parent. I still ask my mom stuff all the time, and she's now 78 and I'm 51. =)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think that the no sex until marriage thing is a huge motivator for marrying early.
I don't know; has there been a poll, asking young Mormon couples if they got married just so they could have sex?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
It's also considered a motivator for earlier marriage and shorder dating periods in the Orthodox Jewsih community.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: What if they don't leave home before they're 25? If you have them when you're 30 you could be 55 and have a kid in your house. Yikes.
And if you have them when you're 49 you could be 55 and have a first grader. So what?
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: The wait-til-your-late-thirties-to-have-kids advocates have a rude shock awaiting them when they're in their late 50s and they still have teenagers to deal with. The younger you have 'em, the younger you are when they leave home. We have 3 kids, the youngest 26, and I'm only 57.
I know you were not directing that at people like me, the ones who have found themselves unable to (do to many, many factors) marry until nearly thirty but who who would have loved to have found themselves married and having kids in their early twenties, but that stung a little. (That assumes that 'the ones' mentioned above agree with and abide by the marriage first, sex and kids after thing.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I had my first child at 30.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My parents had me at 29 and 5 more after that and managed to raise us with reasonable vitality.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I think that the no sex until marriage thing is a huge motivator for marrying early.
I don't know; has there been a poll, asking young Mormon couples if they got married just so they could have sex?
Wrong question because even if it were true, no one is likely to admit it even to themselves. Furthermore, I don't think that's even the correct contention, even if people marry younger because of the no sex until marriage thing, that does not suggest that sex is the only reason they are getting married. Just one of them.
The more appropriate question would be something like, do you think you and your spouse might have waited longer to get married if you had considered premarital sex acceptable?
You don't have to look very hard at Mormon Culture to know what the answer to that question would be. Church leaders often even encourage very short engagements so that couples won't give in to the temptation to have sex before they are married.
[ May 08, 2009, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My parents had me at 29 and 5 more after that and managed to raise us with reasonable vitality.
Same here (which is enough detail in common to be rather odd if you think about it). My mother was 41 when my youngest brother was born and she didn't seem that old when you finished his Ph.D.
I just checked the stats and the average marrying age for women in the US is 26. The average age for men is 27. The average age at which women give birth to their first child is 25.2. So if people think you are very young to be having a child at 26, they have a rather skewed perspective, you are actually a little above average. The averages for LDS men and women are about 3 years younger than the national average.
In my experience, urban professionals in the major cities on the east and west coasts are marrying and having children at an older age. In the rest of the country, people are still marrying and having their first child in their mid to late twenties.
Back in the 90s in Seattle, it was extremely rare for students to marry before they graduated from college, but it was relatively common for students to be married both in Montana and Utah. The difference between the largely Mormon students in Utah and the largely non-Mormon students in Montana was much smaller than the difference between Utah or Montana and Seattle.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I just checked the stats and the average marrying age for women in the US is 26. The average age for men is 27. The average age at which women give birth to their first child is 25.2. So if people think you are very young to be having a child at 26, they have a rather skewed perspective, you are actually a little above average ...
I thought the numbers looked a bit low from my POV, so I checked for Canada.
quote: The average age for first marriages is rising steadily for both brides and grooms. In 2000, first-time brides were 31.7 years old, while grooms proclaimed their first marriage vows at an average age of 34.3.
Only two decades earlier, women and men were 25.9 and 28.5 years old, respectively, when they got married. Statistics Canada attributes the change to greater economic opportunities for women and the growing popularity of common-law unions.
Unless I'm reading the numbers incorrectly (and I very well might), thats a fairly substantial difference. Its like the US is lagging roughly two decades behind in the case of women and more than that for men.
(haven't found first child stats yet)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, there we go:
quote:Statistics Canada says the figures reinforce a long-term trend that more women are waiting longer to start families. The average first-time mother in 2003 was 28 years old. The agency's Patricia Tully tells CTV.ca that's a fairly significant jump from 1983 when the average age of first time mothers was 25.1.
So thats another potential two decade lag, interesting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:You don't have to look very hard at Mormon Culture to know what the answer to that question would be. Church leaders often even encourage very short engagements so that couples won't give in to the temptation to have sex before they are married.
I'm musing about whether I think this demonstrates that the rule (sex only within marriage) has become somewhat divorced from the principles it is meant to uphold, which I think MIGHT have something to do with strength of bond and commitment...tough one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Wow, I would not have thought there would be such a large difference between the US and Canada. Canada has a higher marrying age than the UK, German, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and basically any where in the world except Chili.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: That is a pretty large difference. I wonder culturally what is going on.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:You don't have to look very hard at Mormon Culture to know what the answer to that question would be. Church leaders often even encourage very short engagements so that couples won't give in to the temptation to have sex before they are married.
I'm musing about whether I think this demonstrates that the rule (sex only within marriage) has become somewhat divorced from the principles it is meant to uphold, which I think MIGHT have something to do with strength of bond and commitment...tough one.
Well, sort of. I think the principle behind waiting until marriage to have sex is to ensure that all children have a committed mother and father to raise them. The LDS Church is very youth-centered in both doctrine and culture.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Women used to be advised to bear children before 30 because of the risk of complications; nowadays I think OB/GYN's are a little more flexible in their advice. But I'm relying on my male memory; am I mistaken, ladies?
Also, I don't mean to be snickety regarding typos, but I love the mental image The Rabbit gave me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: The wait-til-your-late-thirties-to-have-kids advocates have a rude shock awaiting them when they're in their late 50s and they still have teenagers to deal with. The younger you have 'em, the younger you are when they leave home. We have 3 kids, the youngest 26, and I'm only 57.
Actually, that's not the rudest awakening. Mostly, people can handle teens in their fifties. The bigger issue is whether they are waiting too late to have the children in the first place. Fertility peaks around age 30 and then declines, particularly sharply after 35.
I went with the middle ground approach. I had my son at 28 and my daughter at 30 (almost 31). It gave me the time I needed to figure out who I was and what I wanted out of life and I'll still get the kids out of the house before I'm 50. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My doctor told me the optimum age for childbirth was 27 - that was when risks were the fewest. Anything over 35 carries an increased risk for certain birth defects or genetic disorders like Down's syndrome, but of course many healthy babies are born every year to moms in their late 30's and early 40's.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit/BlackBlade:
I dunno, I wouldn't have guessed that either. If I have time, I'll check out the demographic analysis put out by Statscan later tonight.
But my off-the-cuff guesses are, greater numbers of non-religious and less religious people, differing minority groups (blacks and hispanics in the US are largely switched with Chinese and South Asians in Canada), greater acceptance of premarital sex (leading to later marriage?), but I'm sure I can get a better answer later.
Edit to add: More sex education with no abstinence-only, better access to family planning and abortion, could be a lot of small factors adding up actually
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It interesting the average Canadian woman gives birth to her first child at 28 but doesn't marry until she's nearly 32. I also found a report that said the average age of childbirth (not just first children) in Canada is 29. Has it really become that exceptional in Canada for people to be married before they have a child?
Is this just an effect of skewness in the data or is it real?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
People who marry later and don't have kids would raise the marriage age but not the childbirth age.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It's the same here in the US -- average age of first child just under 25, average age of marriage (for women) 27. The trouble with the statistic, I think, is that it throws in first and second marriages.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooh...the joy of statistics! I can see the headlines* now...
"The average woman has a child before she gets married!"
*Or speech by Rep. Bachmann
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Anything over 35 carries an increased risk for certain birth defects or genetic disorders like Down's syndrome
*sigh*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Care to elaborate, rivka?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know, considering the celebration in the thread in the beginning of people minding their own business and respecting other people's choices to live their lives as they see fit, the petty and judgmental comments about people who have led different lives than their own were massively disappointing.
There are pros and cons for having kids at any age. A little respect would be nice - if you had kids when you were young, you don't have to imagine something terrible happening to those who didn't in order to make yourself feel better about it, I hope.
The young versus older parents thing always makes me think of To Kill a Mockingbird.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Care to elaborate, rivka?
<-- had 35th birthday a few weeks back
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
In what way, Katharina? The part where Atticus instructs Scout to always try to walk around in the other person's shoes and consider things from his point of view?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I've never seen any problem in having an open and honest conversation about the pros and cons of anything. How else will we make good choices for ourselves?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit + dkw:
I don't think the difference in single-parent families is substantial. Page 25 of the UNICEF report here http://www.unicef-irc.org//presscentre/presskit/reportcard7/rc7_eng.pdf seems to indicate that the percentage of children living in single-parent families is actually higher in the states, roughly 22% if I'm reading the scale right versus 15% in Canada.
I think dkw is right about the lower fertility in Canada skewing the data and may be part of what I hinted at with my first two guesses.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Care to elaborate, rivka?
<-- had 35th birthday a few weeks back
I see. Didn't mean to be nosy, but I hope you had a happy birthday.
The reason I asked is because I actually assumed you found something wrong about the assertion you quoted. It's the same as what I've heard and believe, so I didn't understand the sigh. I think I understand better now.
Thanks for explaining. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scout (age 6) has a conversation with Miss Maudie about how she wishes Atticus (who was at least 40 when his oldest was born) were younger so he would play football with them. Since he's old, he doesn't do anything impressive.
Miss Maudie has known Atticus all his life, and she told Scout that he can do lots of things. For instance, he can play a harmonica. Scout is not impressed. He is also amazing at checkers. Scout says that she and her brother beat him all the time, and Miss Maddie informs her that it's time Scout knew that's because Atticus lets them.
Miss Maudie says that he can make a will so tight that it can't be broken after someone dies and that he is an awesomely dedicated state legislator. That's all fine, but not what Scout has in mind for an impressive parent.
The conversation doesn't change Scout's mind, but later that summer Atticus walks into a street and shoots a rabid dog right above the eye from 300 yards away.
Miss Maudie: "Oh yeah, Scout, your father is also the deadest shot in Maycomb County."
The irony of the conversation being, of course, that Atticus is ... Atticus is a hero, as the rest of the book proves. I swear, I don't think they make people like that. The point of the conversation being, perhaps, that perhaps youth isn't the only or best yardstick by which to measure a parent.
[ May 08, 2009, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did, scifibum, thanks. Two new nephews and a new niece for not-quite-on-my-birthday-but-close-enough presents!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The trouble with the statistic, I think, is that it throws in first and second marriages.
No Christine, the stats I used were specifically average age at first marriage. I checking to see if that is also true for the Canadian stats. If the Canadian stats aren't specifically first marriages, it would explain the discrepancy.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
quoting Traceria quoting me: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Cashew: The wait-til-your-late-thirties-to-have-kids advocates have a rude shock awaiting them when they're in their late 50s and they still have teenagers to deal with. The younger you have 'em, the younger you are when they leave home. We have 3 kids, the youngest 26, and I'm only 57. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you were not directing that at people like me, the ones who have found themselves unable to (do to many, many factors) marry until nearly thirty but who who would have loved to have found themselves married and having kids in their early twenties, but that stung a little. (That assumes that 'the ones' mentioned above agree with and abide by the marriage first, sex and kids after thing.) unquote
My sincere apologies for the sting, Traceria, (and for the obvious offence it caused you Katherina), it was not meant as a dig at anybody's choices or forced circumstances, more as a riposte to those who criticise others, as mentioned by one of the earlier posters, for making "wrong choices" marrying and/or having children "too early", implying that there is something wrong with them, something vaguely repressed/oppressed about them because of those choices.
My daughter, an intelligent and independent young woman got married at 20 because she wanted to, and has 4 children. I found myself being put into the position of having to virtually justify, even make an excuse for her choice to at least some of my friends, the implication from some of them being that because she was from a religious background it was evidence of her repression, the whole "barefoot and pregnant" thing. Those really were the ones I was referring to as the "wait-til-your-late-thirties-to-have-kids advocates". These are some of the same people that referred to a mutual friend, who had made the decision while engaged that sex was going to wait until she and her fiance were married, as irresponsible.
Also, I have friends who have seven children (including one set of twins). They, especially the wife, get a lot of stick from some people about being socially irresponsible and backward in their attitudes.
Those attitudes I find offensive. I'm not offended by peoples' choices, just their attitudes to other people's choices.
I also think it's a lot easier to deal with the stresses of teenagers when you're relatively young than when you're older. That's not to say that it can't be done eminently well, just that the energy that teenagers can demand from you can be easier to find when you're in your 30s/40s than when you're in your 50s/60s
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"There are pros and cons for having kids at any age. A little respect would be nice - if you had kids when you were young, you don't have to imagine something terrible happening to those who didn't in order to make yourself feel better about it, I hope."
Don't look at me. I have regretted having Skyler when I was 23 a number of times over the years. She's a great kid, a special person, and someone I look forward to having intelligent conversations with (as relative equals) in a few years. However, it has been hard at times. I wasn't fully ready, financially or emotionally.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "There are pros and cons for having kids at any age. A little respect would be nice - if you had kids when you were young, you don't have to imagine something terrible happening to those who didn't in order to make yourself feel better about it, I hope."
Don't look at me. I have regretted having Skyler when I was 23 a number of times over the years. She's a great kid, a special person, and someone I look forward to having intelligent conversations with (as relative equals) in a few years. However, it has been hard at times. I wasn't fully ready, financially or emotionally.
LOL...is there an age where you get emotionally ready to have kids? No luck here at 28.
As for financially, it's an interesting truth about modern times that we have less money when we're young and need more. But I haven't really found kids to require that much money and I've known families to do it just fine with very little money and a ton of money. Most of us are some where in the middle.
What's more important, IMO, than any particular amount of money or any supposed level of maturity (kids wisen you up quickly no matter what age you are) is family stability. Kids don't bind a marriage (proven fact), they strain it. So to me, the number one consideration in when's the right time to have kids is a strong, supportive family situation (couldn't care less if it's traditional or non-traditional, just stable and supportive).
As for the rest...it comes. The day I brought my son home from the hospital I couldn't believe they let me go home with him when I was so clearly not ready. I'd never even changed a diaper. (My husband changed every diaper until he went back to work...about the first 10 days...yeah, I'm backwards.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
See, me, I consider money the less important resource. Time is more important. I would not have a kiddo right now because I would not have the time I feel they deserve.
Everything I have ever learned from the developmental and social sciences anchor this fact. I'd trade being able to retire when I'm old to be able to be 'retired' (i.e., finances covered, neither me nor the mom have to work) when I have a kid. It seems like the most important time to have time and patience to spare.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As for the rest...it comes. The day I brought my son home from the hospital I couldn't believe they let me go home with him when I was so clearly not ready. I'd never even changed a diaper.
I've had several friends who had never even held a baby when they had their first child. I think that this may be one of the most significant changes in our society as a result of smaller families.
My mother had her first child when she was 27, which was considerably older than average at the time. But she had younger brothers, numerous nieces and nephews and neighbors who she had baby sat so she had had plenty of experience holding, diapering and feeding babies before she had her own. I know that having your own child is nothing like baby sitting, but she was at least familiar with the mechanics of all the tasks long before she became the mom.
I've noticed something among parent's I call first child syndrome. I'm not talking here about being a first child, I'm talking about the syndrome associated with having your first child. Its sort of a an obsessive almost paranoid parenting style that tends to go away with the second child and it is much much more pronounced among parents who have never cared for an infant before having their first child. I have no idea what the long term repercussions of that are for either the parent or the child but it certainly seems stressful and unhealthy at least in the short term.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've noticed something among parent's I call first child syndrome. I'm not talking here about being a first child, I'm talking about the syndrome associated with having your first child. Its sort of a an obsessive almost paranoid parenting style that tends to go away with the second child
After my first was born, I tended to turn every conversation to the details of her poop. It was probably 75% of what I thought about. Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Where I live (rural American south), many, many people get married straight out of high school or within the next few years, and often the babies follow quickly. This is for both the LDS and non-LDS population. When I moved here from Maryland, I was surprised by this because I was used to being the one in the crowd who had married the youngest (at nearly 20), but here I was part of the norm.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
If you have a baby at 18 you've probably spent the past few years thinking about algebra class and the prom. If you have a baby at 28 you've spent a lot of the last few years reading books, articles, and watching documentaries about raising babies, including hearing about the millions of things out there in the world which can hurt your child. We become those helicopter parents they talk about.
But in the long run they grow up anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit:
quote:I've noticed something among parent's I call first child syndrome. I'm not talking here about being a first child, I'm talking about the syndrome associated with having your first child. Its sort of a an obsessive almost paranoid parenting style that tends to go away with the second child and it is much much more pronounced among parents who have never cared for an infant before having their first child. I have no idea what the long term repercussions of that are for either the parent or the child but it certainly seems stressful and unhealthy at least in the short term.
I think I know the syndrome, though I myself am a second child.
It was actually really surprising for me to ask my parents last Christmas if they felt that their ability to discipline increased, decreased, or remained consistent, as they raised all six of their children, and found they both had no problem admitting that it had decreased steadily.
I've often wondered if that affect can be avoided, or what ramifications it has on children.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
We definitely worried/obsessed more with the first one than with the next two. If/when there's a fourth, it'll be a free for all. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've noticed something among parent's I call first child syndrome. I'm not talking here about being a first child, I'm talking about the syndrome associated with having your first child. Its sort of a an obsessive almost paranoid parenting style that tends to go away with the second child
After my first was born, I tended to turn every conversation to the details of her poop. It was probably 75% of what I thought about.
Yeah, this was something I lamented when I had my first child...that I'd never had the opportunity to be around other children. Technically, I do have two cousins whose diapers I changed (once each) when I was 12 and 15 and I gave each one a bottle. Of course, I breastfed my kids so totally different. In fact, breastfeeding was what 75% of my conversations ended up being about, both in person and on line.
For all that, I think I did all right. I was not overly paranoid or obsessive, just nervous. The biggest nerves were all within the first couple of months. After that, the biggest problems I faced were complete misconceptions about what developmental milestones to expect at what ages. (And I took developmental psych -- no help.) I guess I figured a 1-year-old, no longer a baby but a "toddler," would basically be able to have a conversation with you and be all set to learn their alphabet/numbers. To my credit, it was well before his first birthday that I figured out how wrong I was and that a toddler basically means a baby on wobbly legs. I really wished people would shut up about "how quickly they grow up!" I guess it depends upon your point of view.
It helped me that my husband is the oldest of six kids and had PLENTY of experience. I might have been a lot more paranoid/obsessive if not for him.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: If you have a baby at 28 you've spent a lot of the last few years reading books, articles, and watching documentaries about raising babies,
You have got to be kidding. The only way I can see this remotely being true is if someone was trying to get pregnant for those last few years. Or, I suppose, if they really wanted to have kids earlier but put it off for some reason. The vast majority of people who have kids later in life don't spend the interim obsessing about babies -- they're busy doing all the things they wanted to do before/instead of having kids.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: If you have a baby at 28 you've spent a lot of the last few years reading books, articles, and watching documentaries about raising babies,
You have got to be kidding. The only way I can see this remotely being true is if someone was trying to get pregnant for those last few years. Or, I suppose, if they really wanted to have kids earlier but put it off for some reason. The vast majority of people who have kids later in life don't spend the interim obsessing about babies -- they're busy doing all the things they wanted to do before/instead of having kids.
I missed this one earlier...wow, is that nuts. I had my first baby at 28 and I can assure you that the only time I spent reading anything about raising babies was the approximately 36 weeks between the positive pregnancy test and the day the baby came. And most of that time, I was more concerned with hurrying up and having a bit of last minute fun before the baby came! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
While I suspect few spend all their time studying for it, I would not be surprised at all that someone who had their first baby at 29 had watched, read, and heard more about parenting than a 19-year-old.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I have all I need; thanks to one and all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I had been doing research of the kind you refer to since I was, oh, at least 15. So, having my first baby at almost 21, that's almost 6 years of research. And more once I, you know, actually got pregnant, and then more once I actually had a child.
Do I think wisdom comes with experience? Sometimes. Do I think experience comes with age? Often. Do I think most people do as much research as I did/do? Not remotely (present company excepted. )
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: We definitely worried/obsessed more with the first one than with the next two. If/when there's a fourth, it'll be a free for all.
Very true- my friends with just one child are regularly shocked with the laxness three kids has brought me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I had been doing research of the kind you refer to since I was, oh, at least 15. So, having my first baby at almost 21, that's almost 6 years of research. And more once I, you know, actually got pregnant, and then more once I actually had a child.
Do I think wisdom comes with experience? Sometimes. Do I think experience comes with age? Often. Do I think most people do as much research as I did/do? Not remotely (present company excepted. )
In my admittedly limited experience, the women who do the most research prior to actually getting pregnant are he ones who start having babies around the age you did. The friends I currently have who are in their late 20's/early 30's and still don't have children also have no clue about babies.
Also, in my admittedly limited experience, books can't really explain what it's like to have a baby. No amount of research can substitute for hands-on experience. It's possible that with age, a person might have more chances to be around babies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: It's possible that with age, a person might have more chances to be around babies.
But IME, not terribly likely. I had LOTS of experience with babies before I had one at 19 -- oldest of 5 and babysat all the time as a teenager. My friends who had babies later, often didn't have much in the way of younger sibs or babysitting experience, and were generally focused on school or career, not babies. When they started having kids in their late 20s, they'd had less experience than I'd had at 19.
IMO, there are certainly reasons to wait past 19-21 to have kids. But having the opportunity for more experience is low on the list.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Romanylass, your comment reminds me of how horrified we were the first time my wife and I saw our first child fall four feet off the back of a chair onto her face, bending her head backwards as she eventually landed on her back. (She then walked away).
The fourth or fifth time my youngest son did such a stunt, we weren't nearly as impressed.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Of course, what is bad is when your first (and only) child does crazy, crazy stuff that the leaves laid back mothers of four in complete panic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: We definitely worried/obsessed more with the first one than with the next two. If/when there's a fourth, it'll be a free for all.
Very true- my friends with just one child are regularly shocked with the laxness three kids has brought me.
I am going to go through this cycle something fierce. I saw one of my friend's kids go down on the pavement face first not too long ago and just WATCHING it was the most profoundly uncomfortable sensation I have ever ever ever known. There is no way to describe it short of inventing a portmanteau of fear, pain, and adrenaline gunning. It's gonna be worse when I get a kid! I'll always be going AUGH NO DON'T SKIN YOUR KNEE IT IS A DANGEROUS WORLD AUUGH STAY INSIDE THIS CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED HERMETIC BUBBLE WITH ONLY SOFT SURFACES, STAY IN THERE TILL YOU ARE 18, DO IT FOR DADDY.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Wait until the pediatrician tells you that kids can run fevers of 106 or 107.... and you see your kid do it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: It's possible that with age, a person might have more chances to be around babies.
But IME, not terribly likely. I had LOTS of experience with babies before I had one at 19 -- oldest of 5 and babysat all the time as a teenager. My friends who had babies later, often didn't have much in the way of younger sibs or babysitting experience, and were generally focused on school or career, not babies. When they started having kids in their late 20s, they'd had less experience than I'd had at 19.
IMO, there are certainly reasons to wait past 19-21 to have kids. But having the opportunity for more experience is low on the list.
Completely agreed. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Wait until the pediatrician tells you that kids can run fevers of 106 or 107.... and you see your kid do it.
Um, I think I am supposed to call a doctor if ANYONE has a fever over 104, not just children.
And if they're under 12 weeks I am pretty sure that you gotta call it in if the fever goes over just 100.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've noticed something among parent's I call first child syndrome. I'm not talking here about being a first child, I'm talking about the syndrome associated with having your first child. Its sort of a an obsessive almost paranoid parenting style that tends to go away with the second child
After my first was born, I tended to turn every conversation to the details of her poop. It was probably 75% of what I thought about.
(laughs) Along the same vein, there's an entire photo album full of pictures of my oldest brother, the firstborn. I was next, and then my sister (the first girl) was born.
--j_k
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Our pediatrician is a doctor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: It's possible that with age, a person might have more chances to be around babies.
But IME, not terribly likely. I had LOTS of experience with babies before I had one at 19 -- oldest of 5 and babysat all the time as a teenager. My friends who had babies later, often didn't have much in the way of younger sibs or babysitting experience, and were generally focused on school or career, not babies. When they started having kids in their late 20s, they'd had less experience than I'd had at 19.
Yeh. I have 5 younger siblings and had lots of experience baby sitting my youngest brother and sister from the time of their births until they were 7 or 8 years old. I also babysat for other families when I was a teenage. I had a regular baby sitting job 8 hours a day 3 days a week for a 6 month old one summer. Since I started college (29 years ago) I have very rarely baby sat. As an adult, I love holding other peoples babies but I happily hand them back to mom or dad when they need a change. I did spend a week helping my sister after she had her twins but that was pretty exceptional. I'm relatively confident I had lots more experience tending babies and small children as a teenager than I've had in the subsequent 3 decades.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Our pediatrician is a doctor.
And I think the point was that if your pediatrician is telling you not to call if your child is running a fever of 106 because its nothing to worry about, it seems fairly recklessly irresponsible. Maybe you ought to consider finding a new doctor.
I guess on the other hand if your child was running a fever of 106 and the doctor tried to calm you by telling you that children often experience such high fevers and recover just fine -- then its a different story.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't see anywhere that Flying Fish's doctor said not to call about a high fever -- just that kids' fevers do go that high sometimes.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
We had our first when my wife was 23 and I was 27. But I don't think it really mattered how old we were. Our daughter reset the clock for both of us and demanded that we start out at Square One with her. I'm 35 but my "real" age is 8, the age of our oldest. Things before then were part of another life. And I had had plenty of experience with babies and young kids already, as had my wife. But there's nothing like that first kid coming along to change your life. Like I heard someone say once, you don't raise your kids; they raise you. QFT.
Some friends of mine just adopted their first, a newborn baby girl. Holy cow, what an awesome thing to see. It's the first adoption I've really been closely acquainted with. That they didn't go through the pregnancy did not matter--I saw the same joy and wonder in their faces (and fatigue and a bit of terror) that I have in any new parents--and even more, because they had hoped and prayed so hard to have that chance when they couldn't have one on their own.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
afr, I had the same thing happen to me when I adopted a teenager. I had this joy and wonder and ohmygosh I'm responsible now for this person and what if I screw up and ruin his life, they've been gone too long in the mall now and what if they don't come back ohmygosh ohmygosh thing that went on. Somehow I thought the whole motherhood thing would be different for me because I didn't get pregnant, didn't change diapers, and my son was so much older when we got adopted, but I did lose a whole lot of sleep so maybe that's part of it.
But mostly it's just being a mom changed me. I never knew it was possible to hurt more deeply vicariously than I do in the first person. Mother-love for a child is so much more fierce and visceral than any other sort of love I've experienced. It doesn't seem to matter at all that I came to motherhood in an unconventional way, that I joined the secret society of motherhood without doing the weird initiation rite, as Chrissy Hynde described it. It's amazing.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Tatiana: "I never knew it was possible to hurt more deeply vicariously than I do in the first person."
SO TRUE!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Somehow I thought the whole motherhood thing would be different for me...
I'm almost certain it is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
...but we don't need to get into it again.
Do we?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a parent, I am willing to make ad infinitum the distinction between a benefactor and a parent.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I forgot you're the arbiter of all such things, Tom. Next time I'll ask you before deciding how I feel about sacred things.
For sheer effrontery, you are without parallel.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
It seems more about personality than age in regards to how much people think about babies and read about babies before they have them. I am a reader so it is no shock at all that I devoured lots and lots of baby info before I had my daughter. I also went through a year where I just HAD to have a baby. I thought about it all the time. Because of our living situation it wasn't possible at the time so I spent a lot of time just reading and thinking about having a baby. I don't think it was an age thing at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not the arbiter. I'm saying that you are the only person here who sees no distinction between adopting (for insurance reasons) an eighteen-year-old man against the wishes of his parents and actual parenthood; you are the only person to whom it "doesn't matter" that you came to have him in your house in an unconventional way.
That is not parenthood, Anne Kate, and your insistence that it is borders on unhealthy delusion. I will point this out as often as necessary.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, you know absolutely nothing about me and mine, and you just embarrass yourself by pontificating this way about things sacred to someone else's life. Why do you persist? Over the years I think I've made it completely clear that your pop-psyche judgments on me and mine are unwelcome. You smear the sacred with your cynical insolence. It's completely easy to do that. It doesn't mean you're clever in the least. What is it you're trying to accomplish? If I could teach you only one thing, in the 10 years or so that you've been here, I would have it be this. Comment cynically on your own deeply held emotions if you wish. Don't try to smear other people's. You can learn this. I know you can.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am willing to make ad infinitum the distinction between a benefactor and a parent.
At some point, I believe the return is going to amount to less than the effort expended. For me, that point was about 20 minutes after the conversation started the last time.
I get the feeling you care more, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's no pop psych on this, Anne Kate. You will not find a single person on this board -- heck, you will not find a single person anywhere -- that will compare the bond you have to that man to the bond he has with his actual parents.
It is an opinion you have chosen to hold, and which you reinforce through repetition. It is, however, completely wrong. Sadly, I cannot demonstrate it to you because you haven't raised any actual children to experience the difference.
Eighteen is not a formative year. Eighteen is, in fact, the year most people start breaking away from their actual parents to form their adult lives. This has nothing to do with adoption or natural birth, by the way; it has everything to do with the fact that he was already a full-grown adult when you acquired him.
You helped this man when he needed it, and you are to be commended for that. But I firmly believe that you do yourself a disservice and seriously dishonor his actual parents by calling yourself his parent, by posting in New Mommy threads, by expecting actual mothers with breastfeeding concerns to share your worries about whether or not this young man living in your house is eating properly. Every time you do it, I believe very strongly that you are spitting on the concept of parenthood.
In the old days, there was a word for what this guy is. He's your ward.
------
quote:I get the feeling you care more, Tom.
Well, duh. Isn't apathy your thing? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It IS my thing. And I do it marvelously well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Tom, You sound astoundingly like the people who argue that same sex marriage is an affront to the concept of marriage. Give it a rest.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Tom, You sound astoundingly like the people who argue that same sex marriage is an affront to the concept of marriage. Give it a rest.
Does he? Wow, here I thought he sounded like a sane person talking to a crazy person. Your comparison leaves me (literally) scratching my head.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Me as well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Tom, You sound astoundingly like the people who argue that same sex marriage is an affront to the concept of marriage. Give it a rest.
Does he? Wow, here I thought he sounded like a sane person talking to a crazy person. Your comparison leaves me (literally) scratching my head.
I'm not sure how sane it is to reason with a crazy person, but otherwise, yeah. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I agree with what Tom said in many ways, but I don't see why he feels the need to say it. He knows it will not change anyone's mind and will just be hurtful, so why bring it up?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Are you saying that if you continually see someone do something you're convinced is wrong and hurtful you should ignore it if you don't think you can change their minds?
"Well, the South is really committed to slavery -- let's just let them be."
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: We definitely worried/obsessed more with the first one than with the next two. If/when there's a fourth, it'll be a free for all.
Very true- my friends with just one child are regularly shocked with the laxness three kids has brought me.
I am going to go through this cycle something fierce. I saw one of my friend's kids go down on the pavement face first not too long ago and just WATCHING it was the most profoundly uncomfortable sensation I have ever ever ever known. There is no way to describe it short of inventing a portmanteau of fear, pain, and adrenaline gunning. It's gonna be worse when I get a kid! I'll always be going AUGH NO DON'T SKIN YOUR KNEE IT IS A DANGEROUS WORLD AUUGH STAY INSIDE THIS CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED HERMETIC BUBBLE WITH ONLY SOFT SURFACES, STAY IN THERE TILL YOU ARE 18, DO IT FOR DADDY.
That is a way to make a kid who is helpless.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Are you saying that if you continually see someone do something you're convinced is wrong and hurtful you should ignore it if you don't think you can change their minds?
"Well, the South is really committed to slavery -- let's just let them be."
I would say with slavery, you should speak up. But I am not convinced how much harm Tatiana's belief that she is the man's mother actually does.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: We definitely worried/obsessed more with the first one than with the next two. If/when there's a fourth, it'll be a free for all.
Very true- my friends with just one child are regularly shocked with the laxness three kids has brought me.
I am going to go through this cycle something fierce. I saw one of my friend's kids go down on the pavement face first not too long ago and just WATCHING it was the most profoundly uncomfortable sensation I have ever ever ever known. There is no way to describe it short of inventing a portmanteau of fear, pain, and adrenaline gunning. It's gonna be worse when I get a kid! I'll always be going AUGH NO DON'T SKIN YOUR KNEE IT IS A DANGEROUS WORLD AUUGH STAY INSIDE THIS CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED HERMETIC BUBBLE WITH ONLY SOFT SURFACES, STAY IN THERE TILL YOU ARE 18, DO IT FOR DADDY.
That is a way to make a kid who is helpless.
I have a friend who is extremely overprotective of her kids. One day, I managed to convince her to come to the neighborhood playground with me and my son. Her then 7-year-old daughter slid on some loose gravel on the sidewalk, fell, and skinned her knee. She went BERSERK! I mean, I was afraid this girl had broken her leg she was making such a fuss. Her mother spent the next 45 minutes trying to calm her down and eventually, the 7-year-old moped on a bench while her mom played with the younger kids.
I was feeling pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing but didn't say anything. My friend told me, "That's only the second time she's ever gotten a cut."
My first thought was, "Wow, that's messed up." but I managed to actually say, "Wow, she's had a blessed childhood."
I think my first thought was closer to right. Kids need to scrape their knees sometimes. It's good for them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: We definitely worried/obsessed more with the first one than with the next two. If/when there's a fourth, it'll be a free for all.
Very true- my friends with just one child are regularly shocked with the laxness three kids has brought me.
I am going to go through this cycle something fierce. I saw one of my friend's kids go down on the pavement face first not too long ago and just WATCHING it was the most profoundly uncomfortable sensation I have ever ever ever known. There is no way to describe it short of inventing a portmanteau of fear, pain, and adrenaline gunning. It's gonna be worse when I get a kid! I'll always be going AUGH NO DON'T SKIN YOUR KNEE IT IS A DANGEROUS WORLD AUUGH STAY INSIDE THIS CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED HERMETIC BUBBLE WITH ONLY SOFT SURFACES, STAY IN THERE TILL YOU ARE 18, DO IT FOR DADDY.
Well, it still upsets me just as much when my youngest falls down and gets hurt. (Although the oldest still holds the record; he tried running on concrete pavement and tripped, put out his hands, and neatly executed what I shall call the flat tire wheelbarrow. He pivoted right over his hands and when his forehead touched pavement it skidded with just about all of his weight on top of it. He still has a faint pink circle there to commemorate his gymnastic skin removal.)
But to contrast and compare: Oldest: all cabinets and drawers locked Youngest: Keep knives and chemicals out of reach
Oldest: Stairs locked and patrolled Youngest: She was so cute learning to crawl up the stairs
Oldest: OMG what is that grit in his pooooop!? Youngest: Heh, this is gritty.
Oldest: Is denim too coarse? Oh no, the embroidered logo will scratch. Youngest: Sackcloth. (Very pink, pretty, cute sacks.)
Oldest: Maybe we should cut the peas in half. Youngest: Want some help cutting your steak?
OK, I exaggerated on that last one.
Of course, we've also gotten a little better at a few things in addition to getting more relaxed about others. I almost think there might be a way to influence these child-creatures' behavior. I'm still looking into it.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
The three best pieces of parenting advice I got before I got the kids:
When you put them down for the night, if one cries and says "I'm lonely, I can't sleep, will you hold me? I want to be with you...." What ever you do, don't pick 'em up. Tell 'em, "Yes you can go to sleep; see ya tomorrow." Then leave. After a week they get the message.
When they fall and get hurt, don't run to them, pick them up, and hug them. Tell 'em "You're not hurt. Get up by yourself."
And when they're old enough so you don't have to worry about them choking and they're old enough to eat honey, then they start to eat what everybody else eats. Tandoori, hot wings, snails.... "If you don't want this, I'll get you some slices of bread."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Her then 7-year-old daughter slid on some loose gravel on the sidewalk, fell, and skinned her knee. She went BERSERK! I mean, I was afraid this girl had broken her leg she was making such a fuss. Her mother spent the next 45 minutes trying to calm her down and eventually, the 7-year-old moped on a bench while her mom played with the younger kids.
I was feeling pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing but didn't say anything. My friend told me, "That's only the second time she's ever gotten a cut.
Don't blame this entirely on the Mother, the personality of the child plays and important role as well. I have a friend whose first child is naturally extremely cautious and safety conscious. He's 6 and has never had scrapes or bruises (well maybe one or two but almost never). His younger sister at 2 is a little hell raiser and is constantly getting scraped and bruised up despite her parents (and older brothers) best efforts to keep her safe. I happened to be there the first time she banged herself up when she was just starting to crawl. Her mother went to pieces (This never happened to her brother), but the mom has since them come to accept that she shouldn't try to protect the girl and is actually kind of proud of her daughters daring spirit.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: The three best pieces of parenting advice I got before I got the kids:
When you put them down for the night, if one cries and says "I'm lonely, I can't sleep, will you hold me? I want to be with you...." What ever you do, don't pick 'em up. Tell 'em, "Yes you can go to sleep; see ya tomorrow." Then leave. After a week they get the message.
When they fall and get hurt, don't run to them, pick them up, and hug them. Tell 'em "You're not hurt. Get up by yourself."
And when they're old enough so you don't have to worry about them choking and they're old enough to eat honey, then they start to eat what everybody else eats. Tandoori, hot wings, snails.... "If you don't want this, I'll get you some slices of bread."
Are you being facetious? I really can't tell... 'Cause I almost agree with the last one but the first two I can see how they'd maybe work for some families but I don't really agree with.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
No, I'm being serious. The point of the first one is to teach the child how to go to sleep alone, in his or her own bed. The point of the second is to not reinforce the expectation that every little pain is a reason to stop moving forward and receive unlimited comfort (kind of like the earlier commentor who said that it's possible to "make a kid who is helpless"). The point of the third is that Mom (or Dad, or an older sibling or relative who is cooking) is not a short-order cook making everybody in the house exactly what they want to have that night.
And the key to your comment is "for some families." I fully acknowledge that the principles I found most valuable aren't for everybody.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think sympathy has a place but it should be calm and appropriately sized. A scraped knee might not merit much beyond "Ouch! That looks like it really hurts. That's too bad. Let's clean that up so it doesn't get infected (sorry kid this is going to hurt some more)."
But some things are terrifying and difficult for kids beyond what they can usefully learn from them. My middle child had a difficult day at a hospital (suspected meningitis) during and after which I was not at all restrained in my sympathy and efforts to comfort him (thank goodness it was just an afternoon).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Are you saying that if you continually see someone do something you're convinced is wrong and hurtful you should ignore it if you don't think you can change their minds?
"Well, the South is really committed to slavery -- let's just let them be."
I would say with slavery, you should speak up. But I am not convinced how much harm Tatiana's belief that she is the man's mother actually does.
Exactly. You're not convinced -- so don't speak out against it. That doesn't give you the moral high ground to correct someone who perceives the amount of harm she's doing differently than you do.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Scifibum, I can't imagine anything more scary. I'm not saying that when one of my kids gets a hangnail I'm not tied up in knots. I just can't let them know that for each and every hangnail. And in a situation like what you said, you give them every sympathy possible. Did he get ice cream on the way home?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think many times a child responds as much to YOU as to the pain. So, if a toddler falls and your reaction is "You're okay, get back up," you'll often find the child pulls himself back up and keeps toddling around the room. But, if he falls and your response is "Oh no! are you okay?" and you run and snatch them up to "comfort" them the child thinks there must indeed be a reason to be scared and upset and that is a self-fulfilling prophecy - they become scared and upset.
So, I guess I mean I get what Flying Fish is saying here. I'm not a big reactor either. In fact, now that my kids are all 8 years old or older, my response to a kid who says "Mommy, I fell down!" is often "Is it bleeding?" If no, I say, "You'll be fine." If yes, I say "Go wash it off and I'll get a bandaid."
Then again, it's quite possible that I am just plain heartless. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
He was too exhausted for ice cream, but did what we could.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"afr, I had the same thing happen to me when I adopted a teenager."
Tatiana, please have mercy on us all and shut the heck up about your "son". I really thought some folks were being too hard on you, reading what they said on Sake and Entropical...but, after seeing THAT response to afr's post...I gotta say, woman, you need help with something. I don't really think you're all that crazy (heck, I'm a bit bonkers myself), but I definitely think you are annoying the ever-loving crap out of a lot of people here. And now, that group includes me.
Seriously, if I, steven, have to be the one to reign you in...I don't know.
[ May 11, 2009, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Then again, it's quite possible that I am just plain heartless.
I'll join you on that bench. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Slide a cheek, willya?
I'm pretty good at telling when a cry means real hurt and when it's something they can just deal with. I really don't think I'd be doing my kids any favors by jumping up and wringing my hands every time they let a peep.
Still, I am terrified that something horrible will happen to any of my kids, like a car hitting them. Those thoughts scare the crap out of me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Slide a cheek, willya?
*double-take*
Ok, I never heard THAT expression before! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: The three best pieces of parenting advice I got before I got the kids:
When you put them down for the night, if one cries and says "I'm lonely, I can't sleep, will you hold me? I want to be with you...." What ever you do, don't pick 'em up. Tell 'em, "Yes you can go to sleep; see ya tomorrow." Then leave. After a week they get the message.
When they fall and get hurt, don't run to them, pick them up, and hug them. Tell 'em "You're not hurt. Get up by yourself."
I could do this but I guess if I did act this way towards them I wouldn't at all be surprised if I got the same dispassionate response when I start whining about how I don't want to live in a crummy nursing home and the food is cold and why do they never visit??
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Slide a cheek, willya?
*double-take*
Ok, I never heard THAT expression before!
And I still don't get what it means. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Slide a cheek, willya?
*double-take*
Ok, I never heard THAT expression before!
And I still don't get what it means.
Make room on the bench. Scoot over. That kind of thing. (Not the cheek on your face...)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: The three best pieces of parenting advice I got before I got the kids:
When you put them down for the night, if one cries and says "I'm lonely, I can't sleep, will you hold me? I want to be with you...." What ever you do, don't pick 'em up. Tell 'em, "Yes you can go to sleep; see ya tomorrow." Then leave. After a week they get the message.
When they fall and get hurt, don't run to them, pick them up, and hug them. Tell 'em "You're not hurt. Get up by yourself."
I could do this but I guess if I did act this way towards them I wouldn't at all be surprised if I got the same dispassionate response when I start whining about how I don't want to live in a crummy nursing home and the food is cold and why do they never visit??
If you think pandering to your child's every whim will make them more likely to care for you in your old age, you have a rude awakening in your future.
Children need to learn independence. They need to learn how to comfort themselves when they are hurt or afraid. Those are important life skills. That doesn't mean you just throw them in the metaphorical pool and let them sink or swim but there is a lot of latitude between that and putting them in the metaphorical padded room so that they never get hurt. I think what people are saying is that it is important for parents to recognize that their instinct to protect their child from all harm is not beneficial to the child in the long run. You have to find a balance. You need to protect them from real danger like beeing run over by a car but allow them to occasionally scrape a knee. You need to lavish them with sympathy when they are really hurt, but not hover over them every time they fall down.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Her then 7-year-old daughter slid on some loose gravel on the sidewalk, fell, and skinned her knee. She went BERSERK! I mean, I was afraid this girl had broken her leg she was making such a fuss. Her mother spent the next 45 minutes trying to calm her down and eventually, the 7-year-old moped on a bench while her mom played with the younger kids.
I was feeling pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing but didn't say anything. My friend told me, "That's only the second time she's ever gotten a cut.
Don't blame this entirely on the Mother, the personality of the child plays and important role as well. I have a friend whose first child is naturally extremely cautious and safety conscious. He's 6 and has never had scrapes or bruises (well maybe one or two but almost never). His younger sister at 2 is a little hell raiser and is constantly getting scraped and bruised up despite her parents (and older brothers) best efforts to keep her safe. I happened to be there the first time she banged herself up when she was just starting to crawl. Her mother went to pieces (This never happened to her brother), but the mom has since them come to accept that she shouldn't try to protect the girl and is actually kind of proud of her daughters daring spirit.
I'm absolutely certain both mother and daughter have a role in this one, based on dozens of other incidents I've seen over time. I just meant this as a simple example, which of course you're right it never is. The child in question is undoubtedly highly sensitive. Then again, the mother is also very protective, rarely leaves the house, and tends to exaggerate minor things. For example, the same day her younger daughter fell of a swing. She was fine. She picked herself up, brushed herself off, and was halfway across the playground when her mother caught her up and started fussing over the fall. The younger girl then turned on the waterworks to maximize the attention she was getting from her mom.
Don't get me wrong, I know there's a tough balance here. My 3-year-old has lately taken to crying when he gets minor injuries. He never used to. He fell down a flight of stairs once and though i was pretty scared, he just walked away without a word. But lately he's been crying if he bumps his elbow.
I don't know if I'm taking the right approach or not, but I figure if he's crying, there's something he needs from me and even though I know he's not really hurt, I have no problems at all hugging him and kissing it better. IMO, it is a simple enough way to show him that he is loved and that he is safe.
Could be wrong. Parenting is hardly an exact science. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Children need to learn independence. They need to learn how to comfort themselves when they are hurt or afraid. Those are important life skills. That doesn't mean you just throw them in the metaphorical pool and let them sink or swim but there is a lot of latitude between that and putting them in the metaphorical padded room so that they never get hurt. I think what people are saying is that it is important for parents to recognize that their instinct to protect their child from all harm is not beneficial to the child in the long run. You have to find a balance. You need to protect them from real danger like beeing run over by a car but allow them to occasionally scrape a knee. You need to lavish them with sympathy when they are really hurt, but not hover over them every time they fall down.
I just posted at the same time as you...but yeah, this is a hard balance to find sometimes. And of course, children don't need to learn to be independent all at one. This will be a gradual process that will occur over the course of many years and begins with a secure attachment to a caregiver. Now, I've known many people who follow something they call "attachment parenting" which isn't an entirely bad approach but some people (that I know personally) seem to take it too far and basically give in to every whim their child has.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Slide a cheek, willya?
*double-take*
Ok, I never heard THAT expression before!
And I still don't get what it means.
Make room on the bench. Scoot over. That kind of thing. (Not the cheek on your face...)
No no I thought all about butts and face cheeks, and I came up with nothing. Thanks for the clarification, I'm not sure I'll ever use that expression as I'd probably start laughing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: The three best pieces of parenting advice I got before I got the kids:
When you put them down for the night, if one cries and says "I'm lonely, I can't sleep, will you hold me? I want to be with you...." What ever you do, don't pick 'em up. Tell 'em, "Yes you can go to sleep; see ya tomorrow." Then leave. After a week they get the message.
When they fall and get hurt, don't run to them, pick them up, and hug them. Tell 'em "You're not hurt. Get up by yourself."
I could do this but I guess if I did act this way towards them I wouldn't at all be surprised if I got the same dispassionate response when I start whining about how I don't want to live in a crummy nursing home and the food is cold and why do they never visit??
If you think pandering to your child's every whim will make them more likely to care for you in your old age, you have a rude awakening in your future.
Perhaps I am as serious when I say that as I am when I exaggeratedly indicate my desire to have my kids grow up in padded hermetic bubbles!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't know why but I'm feeling really excited right now I think it's the cadence of the conversation!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not sure I'll ever use that expression as I'd probably start laughing.
I know I won't. Not IRL, anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I don't know why but I'm feeling really excited right now I think it's the cadence of the conversation!
I had a cadence once. It was really painful to have removed.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, I'm so surprised that all these people who barely even know me seem to have an opinion about my family life! I mean, I don't have any opinions at all about theirs. It's quite astonishing to me to see this. And they talk about me on other forums where I don't even go? How bizarre is that?
The reason I keep talking about my son is that mothers do that. You might have noticed that with other parents on the board. Our kids are very important to us, and whenever the subject of families comes up, we tend to talk about them. I'll probably be doing that in the future as well. Please don't let it upset you.
Since I know I'm Sasha's mother, and he knows it, and God knows it, it really doesn't matter too much if some other people decide I'm not, does it? But most important of all, I want you to understand that in no conceivable way is it your place to pronounce upon someone else's family relationships. Even someone you barely know. You step far beyond the bounds of your stewardship when you presume to judge things like that. Please think about that. It's simply not your place.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I am Tom's uncle.
Thought you should know.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Scott R, I wish you great happiness in the relation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do Sasha's parents know?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
More than do Sasha's parent's know, my question is what does Sasha's birth mother consider her relationship with him?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm more curious about where I fall in Scott R's family tree.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pappou!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
ScottR is the Níðhöggr gnawing at my family tree's roots.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
nom, nom, nom
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Jeepers!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm surprised you haven't heard the expression "Slide a cheek"! I thought it was pretty common. I don't blink an eye at it. I must have thought it was funny the first time I heard it, but that was when I was a kid.
Maybe it's a Minnesota saying?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Could be. This thread is the first place I can recall having heard it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Never heard it.
<--- Minnesotan
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Huh.
*undergoes tiny, strangely disturbing paradigm shift.*
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Never heard it, not even from my two good friends from Minnesota. Could ask them, next time I see them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
First time I've heard it too, but I really like it!
I pronounce myself CT's sister, because I've never had a sister and she is singularly awesome. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm surprised you haven't heard the expression "Slide a cheek"! I thought it was pretty common. I don't blink an eye at it. I must have thought it was funny the first time I heard it, but that was when I was a kid.
Maybe it's a Minnesota saying?
I've never heard it either, even from my Minnesota friends but the fact that it followed immediately after rivka's "I'll join you on that bench", made the meaning pretty obvious to me.
If you hadn't admitted it was a common saying, I would have believed it was original.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
RE: Telling kids to go to sleep and leaving the room:
One issue I run into with my kids is the fact that they share a room. If one of them intends to cry loudly about wanting to get up or be comforted, we have to do SOMEthing, or they'll wake up the other one, and no one in the family will sleep all night.
So we try to be tough when we can, and the alternatives we offer to lying in bed and crying are usually along the lines of "be held by Daddy while he watches a boring Daddy show on TV". But just walking out amidst crying and complaints isn't a viable strategy for us.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I hadn't been reading this thread, since I'm not terribly interested in either marriage or parenting, but my brief stop-in has been totally worth it for that exchange between Noemon and Scott R. There's a fair amount of funny in this thread, but that one really got me.
Noemon: ScottR is the Níðhöggr gnawing at my family tree's roots.
Scott R: nom, nom, nom Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: RE: Telling kids to go to sleep and leaving the room:
One issue I run into with my kids is the fact that they share a room. If one of them intends to cry loudly about wanting to get up or be comforted, we have to do SOMEthing, or they'll wake up the other one, and no one in the family will sleep all night.
So we try to be tough when we can, and the alternatives we offer to lying in bed and crying are usually along the lines of "be held by Daddy while he watches a boring Daddy show on TV". But just walking out amidst crying and complaints isn't a viable strategy for us.
Without any intent to comment on what works best for your family, I'll just offer my different experience -
We found that even for kids sharing a room, drawing a hard line about crying at night was effective. After a very short while the kids learned that they have to stay in bed all night.
The fact that we have yet to do this with our youngest (still has her own room with a crib) shows that for us, it's very much a question of when/if we find it to be WORTH the short term pain of letting her cry in vain in order to get the benefit. We might have a fourth on the way. So I'm going to insist that a couple of months before the new baby arrives we go ahead and teach #3 to settle down and comfort herself at night, because we haven't coped well when there are multiple kids waking up and demanding attention in the middle of the night.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm surprised you haven't heard the expression "Slide a cheek"! I thought it was pretty common. I don't blink an eye at it. I must have thought it was funny the first time I heard it, but that was when I was a kid.
Maybe it's a Minnesota saying?
I've never heard it either, even from my Minnesota friends but the fact that it followed immediately after rivka's "I'll join you on that bench", made the meaning pretty obvious to me.
If you hadn't admitted it was a common saying, I would have believed it was original.
I'm beginning to think it is original, even though I know I didn't make it up and I've heard it used many times in my life.
Maybe it's my family? I can't remember who I've heard use it. I could swear it's not my family. I can't imagine anyone in my family saying it.
I'm disappointed. Usually Hatrack is a pretty good cross-section sampling for things like this. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I hadn't been reading this thread, since I'm not terribly interested in either marriage or parenting, but my brief stop-in has been totally worth it for that exchange between Noemon and Scott R. There's a fair amount of funny in this thread, but that one really got me.
Noemon: ScottR is the Níðhöggr gnawing at my family tree's roots.
Scott R: nom, nom, nom
I laughed aloud at Scott's response.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The fact that we have yet to do this with our youngest (still has her own room with a crib) shows that for us, it's very much a question of when/if we find it to be WORTH the short term pain of letting her cry in vain in order to get the benefit. We might have a fourth on the way. So I'm going to insist that a couple of months before the new baby arrives we go ahead and teach #3 to settle down and comfort herself at night, because we haven't coped well when there are multiple kids waking up and demanding attention in the middle of the night.
The best thing I did to prepare for having a second child was making sure the first one slept well -- even before my pregnancy, which was rough. I got terrible migraines and took an afternoon nap with my toddler many days.
I haven't had to deal with sharing a room, but my kids' rooms are right next door and my son wakes up when my daughter cries. I have not let this affect my sleep strategy. A few painful nights and the whole family got better sleep. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
One rule we've stuck hard and fast to in our home is no kids sharing our bed. They've all learned to sleep in their own beds, and by and large they've gotten pretty good at sleeping all night and going back to sleep on their own if they wake up. In addition, we made a point with all three to get them sleeping through the night as early on as possible. It meant a few nights of terrible, anguished crying for hours on end, in the which we had to tie ourselves down so as not to run to them a la Homer. But they would wake up the next morning smiling at us, and after that our nights would be much quieter. Great for the sanity.
Our kids have been pretty good at sleeping through the younger one crying at night. Maybe we're just lucky that way. I figure I'd sleep better if I weren't responsible for anything that went on at night.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: But most important of all, I want you to understand that in no conceivable way is it your place to pronounce upon someone else's family relationships.
Doesn't seem to stop you from pronouncing upon Sasha's actual family relationships, claiming to be the mother of a full-grown man who already has a mother.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Children need to learn independence. They need to learn how to comfort themselves when they are hurt or afraid. Those are important life skills. That doesn't mean you just throw them in the metaphorical pool and let them sink or swim but there is a lot of latitude between that and putting them in the metaphorical padded room so that they never get hurt. I think what people are saying is that it is important for parents to recognize that their instinct to protect their child from all harm is not beneficial to the child in the long run. You have to find a balance. You need to protect them from real danger like beeing run over by a car but allow them to occasionally scrape a knee. You need to lavish them with sympathy when they are really hurt, but not hover over them every time they fall down.
I just posted at the same time as you...but yeah, this is a hard balance to find sometimes. And of course, children don't need to learn to be independent all at one. This will be a gradual process that will occur over the course of many years and begins with a secure attachment to a caregiver. Now, I've known many people who follow something they call "attachment parenting" which isn't an entirely bad approach but some people (that I know personally) seem to take it too far and basically give in to every whim their child has.
If my daughter hurts herself, I comfort her if she cries, but I also praise her when she deals with it herself, so she gets just as much attention from me either way. About three times out of four she chooses to get back up without a fuss.
That's what works for me, but I'm from the family bed camp. Not 'cause I think it traumatizes babies to sleep on their own (some people get all militant about that like you might as well drown your kid in the river if you're going to make them sleep in a crib), but because it's so much easier to get back to sleep after nursing if I never have to get up in the first place.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: But most important of all, I want you to understand that in no conceivable way is it your place to pronounce upon someone else's family relationships.
Doesn't seem to stop you from pronouncing upon Sasha's actual family relationships, claiming to be the mother of a full-grown man who already has a mother.
I think it's become clear that Hatrack has little chance of altering the behavior so maybe it's better if we are content with embarrassed silence. I'm not sure, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm so pleased at making Noemon laugh out loud, I may be mistaken for someone who isn't apathetic.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think it's become clear that Hatrack has little chance of altering the behavior so maybe it's better if we are content with embarrassed silence. I'm not sure, though.
*awkward pause* . . . . . . . . Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Ahem.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: If my daughter hurts herself, I comfort her if she cries, but I also praise her when she deals with it herself, so she gets just as much attention from me either way. About three times out of four she chooses to get back up without a fuss.
That's what works for me, but I'm from the family bed camp. Not 'cause I think it traumatizes babies to sleep on their own (some people get all militant about that like you might as well drown your kid in the river if you're going to make them sleep in a crib), but because it's so much easier to get back to sleep after nursing if I never have to get up in the first place.
That's not a bad idea. And I don't have a problem with the family bed. Both of my babies started out in bed with me. I tried to put my son in his crib at first but nights were sheer agony until I brought him in bed with me and learned to nurse on my side. I did kick both babies out around 5 months, though, because they learned to crawl and I was worried about them falling out of the bed. Actually, my daughter did fall out of bed once, right before I moved her. It actually worked out great for us because both moved very easily at 5 months.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm in Jamio's camp. I think the important thing in dealing with a toddler falling down or otherwise hurting themself is to suspend your reaction until they react. That way you avoid the problem of your reaction causing them to over-react, but can still comfort them if they are actually hurt or scared.
And we leave a stool at the foot of our bed so the 2 1/2 year old can climb in at 3 am without one of us having to sit up and help him.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
We find that toddlers make rotten bedmates (the youngest who we haven't bothered to train to sleep alone yet). She turns and kicks in her sleep, and we've had toes put up our noses. No better when she's conscious, she'll try to pry our eyes right open with her sharp little fingernails if we're slow to match her morning cheer.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Ahem.
Er ...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I pronounce myself CT's sister, because I've never had a sister and she is singularly awesome.
Me too?
*puppy eyes*
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Strange how things can be an issue in one family but not in another, or an issue with one child but not with another. The thing I dreaded most was potty training. It seemed to be the one area where none of the "experts" gave clear advice. And I knew quite a few parents with kids three, four, and five wearing diapers.
And then with my oldest, the weirdest thing happened. The night before her second birthday, she took the training potty out of the closet in her room, took off her last diaper ever, sat down and said, "I'm doing this from now on."
And it was done.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Since I know I'm Sasha's mother, and he knows it, and God knows it, it really doesn't matter too much if some other people decide I'm not, does it? But most important of all, I want you to understand that in no conceivable way is it your place to pronounce upon someone else's family relationships. Even someone you barely know. You step far beyond the bounds of your stewardship when you presume to judge things like that. Please think about that. It's simply not your place.
Um,..
If I start calling myself my brother's new mother, I can't just say it's 'not your place' if you point out how that simply just doesn't work the way I desperately want to think it does.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
In our defense, scifibum, we did try the "hard nights" strategy with the first one for quite some time. No response whatsoever. She just cried and cried and cried. She may be afflicted with my own terrible lifelong insomnia
In any case, every child is different. I think the younger kid might easily have responded to the "leave 'em in the room" treatment if that hadn't been such a miserable failure with the older kid Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh goodness, I'd missed that.
(((Belle))) (((rivka)))
Honored!
(and )
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
CT's my grand-aunt: but the impossibly young and fabulous one (because of a sizeable age gap between siblings up the family tree) who is always off in exotic climes, having marvelous, if slightly eccentric adventures (camel trekking through Kazakhstan with Pierre Trudeau type of thing). Every now and then she comes to family reunions, and they always seem indescribably dull the following years in her absence.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yay! That makes me and rivka sisters too! Two sisters! It's a dream come true. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, Puppy, I don't think you need to defend yourself. What works for you and your kids works!!!! (!!!) (!!!!!!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: That makes me and rivka sisters too!
Exactly! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Well, it still upsets me just as much when my youngest falls down and gets hurt. (Although the oldest still holds the record; he tried running on concrete pavement and tripped, put out his hands, and neatly executed what I shall call the flat tire wheelbarrow. He pivoted right over his hands and when his forehead touched pavement it skidded with just about all of his weight on top of it. He still has a faint pink circle there to commemorate his gymnastic skin removal.)
You know, ... this means your kid actually pulled off the legendary midget wrestler face slide. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, CT, I thought better of you.
I'm going to point out that none of you know anything like the whole story. I'm not planning on telling it because it's my son's story to tell, not mine. Because of that, and because you for some reason think your stewardship extends to my family, you've made this mistake. It IS your mistake, and not ours. I'll say that again. You are the ones making a mistake here, for the obvious reason that you don't know much about the situation. I'm still trying to fathom why it happened that a group of you think it's your duty to judge in this matter, but that's not important. If you feel like you'd like to maintain an embarrassed silence, or any other sort of silence, every time I mention my son on hatrack, please do so. Thank you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1. They aren't going to feel like it, and
2. Nobody's going to know 100% of every situation; clearly they feel they know enough Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
3. You do not have a son, just an extremely worrisome set of delusions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I need to find out more about the situation before I jump on board #3.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I didn't even know it was possible to legally adopt someone over 18.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I agree we don't know the whole story. But you have chosen to share part of it, and you can't expect us not to make judgments based on what you've chosen to share. You can't have it both ways -- if you're going to talk about Sasha as your son, you're going to have to deal with the fact that many of us find what you have shared deeply troubling. We know we cannot change the situation -- you are both adults, and made your choices. We can, however, express our disapproval, and we have every right to do that. It is part of being a community. Sometimes disapproving is all you can do.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
At the risk of getting very off topic, I'd like to point out that people seem far more accepting of the claim that Tatiana's labeling herself as a mother is "spitting on the concept of parenthood" than they are of those who claim that gay marriage contradicts the concept of marriage.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'd like to point out that many people disapprove of specific instances of marriage (gay or not) without wishing to make the whole thing illegal.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Wow, CT, I thought better of you.
[edited]
Let's just leave it at that, then.
[ May 13, 2009, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I'd like to point out that many people disapprove of specific instances of marriage (gay or not) without wishing to make the whole thing illegal.
That's certainly true. I'd think it's generally unwise to pass judgement on a specific instance of relationship unless one has a pretty in-depth knowledge of what's going on. People can be rather unique, and so relationships between people can accordingly follow rather unique rules in specific instances. I suspect there's times when making those kind of judgement calls can be helpful, but from what I've seen it more often than not just makes people angry without any real benefit to any party.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not surprised by that. People are the same all over - self-righteous and sure of their own moral rectitude while quick to blast anyone who disagrees with them using the same tactics and the same reasoning they decry in other people.
[ May 13, 2009, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Xaposert: Depends on the person. People often judge a great number of specific instances of relationships without in-depth knowledge anyways. Trophy wifes, Hollywood marriages with large differences between ages are some common classes.
Additionally, there are large cultural differences in what are suitable personal topics for strangers to comment on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I agree we don't know the whole story. But you have chosen to share part of it, and you can't expect us not to make judgments based on what you've chosen to share.
Perhaps I shouldn't expect that of everyone, but I ought to be able to expect that of Christians. Jesus taught not to judge each other, certainly then those who claim to follow him ought to avoid making judgements based on what they know is only part of the story.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Wait until the pediatrician tells you that kids can run fevers of 106 or 107.... and you see your kid do it.
I have no kids, but this alarms me. My eight-year-old cousin just got out of the hospital a week or so ago, where he had been for two weeks thanks to Post-Strep Kidney Disease. He had been running a 103-104 temp for five days before the doctor got some test results back, said, "Oh, I'm going to refer you to a kidney specialist," and did nothing else, like start the kid on antibiotics for the strep A he'd picked up from his mom (he'd had flu-like symptoms). When the kidney specialist saw the results, she was so alarmed she called my aunt and uncle and said to take him to the ER right away. He was admitted as fast as you can be and spent most of those two weeks in Pediatric ICU (the most serious of the sections or the intermediate area) with tubes in him to get dialysis once a day.
I also ran a 104 temp when I was eight and ended up in the hospital for four days with the worst case of scarlet fever the hospital had seen in like fifty years. This type of thing might not happen very often, but it would make me wary of a temp degrees lower than 106 or 107 in my own child (or younger cousin, as the case my be).
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Yes, let me clarify. The fact that kids can run fevers higher than adults is not a reason to ignore any fever. And any fever or anything that concerns you is a good reason to call or visit your family doctor or pediatrician.
The point I was trying to make is that before I had kids I had never heard that could happen; I thought any human died at 102 degrees. And then I got the chance to see both my son and daughter go through such high fevers (under medical monitoring).
And to further clarify: when you call or visit your doctor they ask lots of questions designed to uncover possible cause, consequences, etc.
And to even further clarify: don't take anything I say as medical advice. I'm like a tv exercise infomercial in that regard. See a real doctor.
I'd write more but I have to go now: my wife got some rusty metal stuck in her eye and I've got to find some pliers or something to try to get it out....
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Luckily, Rabbit, I have not claimed to follow those teachings anytime recently, so you don't need to have any expectations of me.
As Tom said, Tatiana did a good thing by adopting Sasha and extending her medical insurance over him. I hope that the care she was able to fund helps him overcome his medical problems. I'm sure he feels a deep appreciation for this, and love for her. There is no rest of the story that I can conceive of that would make me agree that that makes her his mother.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Jesus taught not to judge each other, certainly then those who claim to follow him ought to avoid making judgements based on what they know is only part of the story.
Actually, Jesus taught us to judge wisely, and to be merciful.
He never said close your eyes; nor did he say, "Leave that mote in your brother's eye."
:shrug:
The 'don't judge' argument is dumb.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Eljay, You may not profess to follow Jesus but many of the the people who have posted judgements on Tatiana here do. My post was directed at the
Scott, Since you are LDS, you should read Dallin Oaks talk on righteous judgement. He says, and very wisely so, that the first and foremost criteria for righteous judgment is that we judge only within our stewardship. I don't believe you or anyone here has stewardship for Tatiana and Sasha. If some one who has posted here does have that stewardship, then they are certainly violating that it by posting their judgements publicly on this forum.
And if you are talking about wisdom, I fail to see any wisdom in continuing to beat this dead horse knowing very well that the outcome won't be any different this time than it was any of the previous times its come up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The 'don't judge' argument is dumb.
I'll make sure I pass that on to the man who said it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It wasn't said by the person you think it was.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with Tom and ElJay that Tatiana did a very generous and good thing by helping Sasha and his family.
Not judging does not extend to endorsing delusions, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think my opinion is in line with what Elder Oaks says. It's an intermediate judgment that judges the situation, not the people.
The stewardship question (raised by both you and Tatiana) doesn't really apply. Elder Oaks makes it clear that he's discussing stewardship in terms of Church responsibilities, not community interaction. That's the point of his example.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, let me note that your "first and foremost" rule on stewardship was listed third in Elder Oaks' talk, and was definitely not qualified as being "foremost."
Let me suggest that next time you want to reference a talk from a General Authority, you look it up first. The Church has this nice website and all... shame to let it go to waste...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott, Elder Oaks is talking specifically about intermediate judgements when he says "Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities."
There is no indication that by stewardship he is referring solely to our stewardships with in the church. In fact, his use of the "personal responsibilities" in the following sentence indicates he intended a much broader interpretation.
He then follows this by saying "Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. " Unless people people are privy to information that was never posted here, I don't think any one of you has adequate knowledge of the facts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The information posted here is plenty enough to make a judgment on.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If the only place you know someone from is their postings on an online forum, you have very very little information about them and their life.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sometimes very little information is enough.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott, Perhaps you can explain to me how your judgement of this situation meets any of the Oaks criteria except that it is an intermediate judgement.
quote:Let me suggest that next time you want to reference a talk from a General Authority, you look it up first. The Church has this nice website and all... shame to let it go to waste...
What qualifies you to judge that I didn't.
He didn't use the words first and foremost, but its pretty clear that this was essential for any judgment to be righteous.
I find it very aggravating when Mormons justify themselves judging others using Oaks words and other church sources. It is really clear that the object of Oaks speech is to severely restrict what can be considered righteous judgement and any honest reading of the talk would lead most people to see that most of the intermediate judgements we make are likely not righteous. Here are some exerts that emphasize this point.
quote:We do not need to judge nearly so much as we think we do. This is the age of snap judgments. … [We need] the courage to say, ‘I don’t know. I am waiting further evidence. I must hear both sides of the question.’ It is this suspended judgment that is the supreme form of charity
quote:The scriptures give a specific caution against judging where we cannot know all the facts.
quote:There is one qualification to this principle that we should not judge people without an adequate knowledge of the facts. Sometimes urgent circumstances require us to make preliminary judgments before we can get all of the facts we desire for our decision making.
No one here has either a complete knowledge of the facts or any urgent circumstance that would require them to pass judgement on this situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sometimes very little information is enough.
Except apparently when you and your situations are the ones being judged. I am absolutely astounded that you could say this after you have so frequently has posted that people who know you only from the forum know nothing about you.
But perhaps you are right, I think I have more than enough information to judge your posts to be hypocritical.
And now, I'll bow out of this thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's hilarious considering you feel free to pass judgment on any and all and get self-righteous about it until it gets turned on a situation that strikes and chord a you don't like it.
Looks like Elder Oaks's advice is the kind you only think applies to other people and not to yourself.
And for the record, if I start claiming grown men are my children and talk about them like they are three years old, feel free to call me on it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There is no indication that by stewardship he is referring solely to our stewardships with in the church. In fact, his use of the "personal responsibilities" in the following sentence indicates he intended a much broader interpretation.
I disagree with your interpretation. I think the fact that he used an example referencing someone executing their church calling is sufficient evidence he intended both "personal responsibility" and "stewardship" to refer to Church callings.
Let me note, whilst I'm noting stuff, that no one is questioning the emotions Tatiana apparently feels. This discussion isn't a condemnation of their relationship, or her actions, which as far as I know, are exemplary.
It is a discussion about the words she is choosing to describe the relationship-- words which, according to most of the people in this community, don't mean what she intends them to mean. Because those words conjure powerful images and emotions in other people, when they appear to be misused, there is bound to be a reaction.
As happened in the "Mommies with new babies" thread, where Tatiana talked about her 17 year old "child" who was cranky and sick, as if he were a new baby, and she his mother. None of those terms apply to the people in question, according to the definitions generally used by this community. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I find it very aggravating when Mormons justify themselves judging others using Oaks words and other church sources.
Consider me an object lesson in long-suffering, then. I'm happy to be a part of the Lord's efforts to improve your life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I didn't even know it was possible to legally adopt someone over 18.
In some states the cutoff is 19.
Personally, I don't find insurance fraud all that generous. Opening one's home certainly is. But not the insurance fraud.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
rivka, IIRC, Tatiana did this on the up-and-up. Sasha was 17 (I think) when she adopted him, and apparently, his parents were all right with the arrangement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
He was 18, almost 19, and at least one parent objected strongly. Even if both had agreed, how is it not defrauding the insurance company?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I can't find the thread where she talked about adopting him, and without proof...:shrug:
quote:how is it not defrauding the insurance company?
I assume that she did this all legally, and that he was adopted with the blessing of the appropriate authorities. If you follow the rules, you're inherently not defrauding the insurance company.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Eljay, You may not profess to follow Jesus but many of the the people who have posted judgements on Tatiana here do. My post was directed at the
That may be, but I'm the one you quoted.
--------
rivka, I am choosing to look at it as "exploited a loophole" rather than "defrauded" for the most generous possible interpretation of the situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It is a discussion about the words she is choosing to describe the relationship-- words which, according to most of the people in this community, don't mean what she intends them to mean. Because those words conjure powerful images and emotions in other people, when they appear to be misused, there is bound to be a reaction
I know I said I'd bow out but there is a 500 pound guerilla in the room and I need to point it out. Its a load of crap that people are just emotional about misuse of the word mother. Mother's day just passed. I had at least a dozen people at church tell me I was a mother because I have a calling in the primary . We have a boy in our primary whose mother abandoned him at birth and it was clear mother's day bothered him, so I told him he could be my son for the day. It made him smile. Nobody got all emotional about incorrect use of the words mother and son. That isn't what's going on here and we all know it.
The problem people have isn't that Tatiana is using the term mother to describe an unconventional relationship, we use the term that way all the time and nobody objects. The problem people have is that she asked Sasha's birth mother and father to sign a form relinquishing their rights as parents so that she could adopt him. And we know that she was frustrated when his father was reluctant to do this. And I will agree, that is disturbing.
But what we don't know (unless some of you are privy to information that hasn't been posted here) is what his father's objections were or how those objections were resolved. A lot of the parents on the forum presumed that Sasha's fathers objections to signing the forms were the same objections they would have if someone asked them to sign over their children -- but that is pure speculation. We don't know what Sasha's relationship was with his parents either before or since Anne Kate "adopted" him. We don't know how they feel about her calling herself his mother. We don't know whether Sasha thinks of himself as her child. We don't know how this has changed his relationship to his mother and father. For all we know, Sasha parents concerns were fully resolved and they are delighted to have Tatiana mothering their son.
As Elder Oaks said, you can never slice a piece of cheese so thin it doesn't have two sides.
The reason this keeps coming up has nothing to do with obsession about correct use of the word parent. You hit the nail on the head a while back when you started the not so subtle thread about illegitimate surrogate parents. People keep bringing this up because they think that by calling herself Sasha's mother, she is interfering with his relationship with the mother and father who gave birth to him and parented him for years and that she is illegitimately usurping their place. My point is the this is an unrighteous judgement unless you actually know things about Sasha's relationship with his parents and their current attitude toward this arrangement that have never been posted here.
And now I really will stay away.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Incidentally, can ANYONE find the adoption thread where we first discussed this issue? Tatiana adopted Sasha in the early part of 2008, I think; but there are no hits on her name and the word "adopt" between 2006 and March 2008.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: rivka, I am choosing to look at it as "exploited a loophole" rather than "defrauded" for the most generous possible interpretation of the situation.
That's because you're a nicer person than I am.
I'm curious how you and Scott would see a couple who barely know each other but got married for insurance purposes? Or a green card?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:That's hilarious considering you feel free to pass judgment on any and all and get self-righteous about it until it gets turned on a situation that strikes and chord a you don't like it.
What's hilarious, or at least ironic, is that all of us arguing here are guilty of the same crime. It's a feature of human nature, I think.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Incidentally, can ANYONE find the adoption thread where we first discussed this issue?
I believe there were at least two related threads, both of which were deleted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Incidentally, can ANYONE find the adoption thread where we first discussed this issue? Tatiana adopted Sasha in the early part of 2008, I think; but there are no hits on her name and the word "adopt" between 2006 and March 2008.
That thread was deleted.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Actually, Rabbit, I started that thread to point at you.
From the "Mommies with New Babies Thread"
quote:Tatiana, I have a negative reaction to you posting as if you are a new mommy to a new baby.
By my definition, you are not, and he isn't. I'm not denigrating the idea that you CARE for him-- I allow that you do. But he's not a baby. He's a teenager. He's almost an adult. And you're not a mommy, Tatiana, not by my definition. You can be motherly, or even a Mom, or a mother-- but a 'mommy,' in my opinion, is the mother to a very young, dependent child.
Your point about thread drift is a good one, IMO; we shouldn't care about thread drift. That's what we keep telling n00bs.
You've got a history here on this subject, Tatiana. Many people have expressed reservations about your relationship with this boy. Those reservations are going to keep surfacing every time you bring up the subject. Especially if you insist that there's no difference between what biological parents, or long-term guardians, do and what you've done with "Sasha."
I don't mean to discourage you from posting about this kid's difficulties. Apparently, he needs lots of assistance, and if you're helping, more power to you. I hope this community can help you help him. That said, your insistence that he's a baby, and you're his mommy is really problematic for me, to the point that I doubt your trustworthiness on this topic.
That was me, disagreeing about Tatiana's word choice, a year ago. I can't speak for everyone else who has objections. Tom has pointed out, however, that Tatiana could have used the word "ward;" and there are a number of posters in the thread I linked who also confirm that their reservations stem at least in part from the words Tatiana is applying to her relationship with Sasha.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There might be a thread talking about how angry people were that the original thread was deleted.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Mother's day just passed. I had at least a dozen people at church tell me I was a mother because I have a calling in the primary .
I HATE that. I am not a mother. Trying to pretend that I am only rubs it it. Which is why I refuse to go to family wards on Mother's Day.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Incidentally, can ANYONE find the adoption thread where we first discussed this issue? Tatiana adopted Sasha in the early part of 2008, I think; but there are no hits on her name and the word "adopt" between 2006 and March 2008.
Regarding judgments: It seems to me that making judgments is a normal part of human existence. When we learn new information, we don't reserve judgment, we immediately try to compare it to the things we already know...to categorize it. Whatever we say openly about the situation, our brains judge as a matter of course.
Now, we do have a choice about what we say and do about these judgments. We can keep them to ourselves. We can share them. We can try to affect change with them (either changing the subject of our judgment or others who may be following a similar course) or we can simply ridicule.
When and how it is appropriate to do any of these things is a complicated gray area of morality that I feel Jesus only touched about very lightly. Most of his followers aren't any more enlightened than the rest of us about when and how to make judgments. He did have some good points, my favorite of which is the classic: "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." (My apologies if that quote isn't worded perfectly.) I feel certain that everyone who is decrying the open judgment here has, at one time or another, openly judged others. So I find myself wondering if judging is the right word to describe the problems with what are happening here.
I admit that I find it odd when Tatiana tries to compare her parenting experience to mine. Given the style of debate that is typically used on this forum, it seems to me that when someone tries to make a comparison that lacks credibility, it is socially acceptable to challenge it.
The trouble occurs when these challenges escalate past the point of reason. I'm not really sure what this is about anymore. Most of us agree that it's odd, so why keep beating the point into the ground?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: He was 18, almost 19, and at least one parent objected strongly. Even if both had agreed, how is it not defrauding the insurance company?
One way, now that I think about it, is if the adoption was all about the old parents relinquishing their role and a new parent assuming the role. If that's what it was ALL ABOUT then the insurance thing would not be fraud. I think that's interesting.
But if it was about getting insurance then yeah, it's questionable. Probably not legally fraud - that would be if you pretended a legal adoption happened when it hadn't - but it'd be unethical at the very least. (Leaving aside the ethics of the adoption itself.)
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Tangentially, I find this blog a really interesting exploration of the issues inherent in fostering/adopting teenagers. The author provides long-term (essentially, until they reach the age of emancipation) foster care to older teens. She's currently parenting her fourth long-term placement. In her experience:
quote:Once kids hit 16 though they are pretty much unadoptable. It is not just that the potential adoptive parents aren't interested -- the kids are no longer interested. They need to seriously think about planning for adulthood. They often don't have the emotional energy to go through the adoption process.
Parenting these kids often requires a light touch. Many of them do not want (or think they do not want) an emotional connection. They are not looking for a mommy, but they might accept a mentor.
There's a lot of good stuff there, including her thoughts on what's involved in "parenting" a child who still has (a) living parent(s).
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Maybe it's useful to differentiate between the terms "judgment" and "opinion."
"Judgment" seems to have some formal and specific denotations in LDS communities, as well as in other religious communities, a supposition given weight by the fact that "judgment" is specifically addresses by Jesus's words in scripture.
"Opinion" on the other hand might be something we all form all the time, based on admittedly scant data, such as posts on a thread, outward appearances, connotations of words, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The element of the situation that I find disturbing is the pretending that Sasha is much younger than he is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I completely missed this hullabaloo (wow firefox knows that word!) because I felt like I didn't really have any business in the mommies with new babies thread.
I can't see discussion on Tatiana's legitimacy as a mother going very well for either side. The emotional threshold for rational conversation was breached long ago.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
He was only a couple of weeks away from turning 19, IIRC (the original thread having been deleted). Calling him a "teenager" is a bit misleading. He was a FULL GROWN ADULT. Yes, nineteen technically ends in "teen", but it's still a misleading term.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Mother's day just passed. I had at least a dozen people at church tell me I was a mother because I have a calling in the primary .
I HATE that. I am not a mother. Trying to pretend that I am only rubs it it. Which is why I refuse to go to family wards on Mother's Day.
Do you also refuse to go to General Women's Conference, which always features a talk about women without a temporal family sharing in motherhood?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:The problem people have is that she asked Sasha's birth mother and father to sign a form relinquishing their rights as parents so that she could adopt him. And we know that she was frustrated when his father was reluctant to do this. And I will agree, that is disturbing.
That is a problem, but it is not the only problem. Do you refer to yourself as a mother to the children you help care for in primary, or the boy who you said could be your son for the day? Do you talk about your concern over their eating and sleeping habits to your aquaintences? Many words have degrees of meaning, and if "we all know" anything, we all know that the way Tatiana is referring to Sasha as her son is different from the way you told that boy he could be your son for the day.
When Tatiana first posted about her plans, people expressed disapproval and she deleted the threads. Every time she brings the subject up, she acts surprised that people aren't thrilled for her over her experiences as a new parent. And yet she keeps coming back, expecting people to share in her delight, and acting hurt and offended when they don't. It's not going to change. People aren't going to magically start approving of her actions. And as long as she keeps posting her looking for validation of her relationship with this young man, she's going to be disappointed.
--------
rivka, there are situations where I would consider that exploiting a loophole and situations where I would consider it insurance fraud. Raja and I have talked about getting married to help him find a job in this country, since many companies reject his application out of hand because he's not a resident. We've been together 4 years, and would be doing it with the intent to stay together. Ultimately we're not comfortable with it. But I don't think I'd feel like we were commiting fraud if we did it. I know you asked about strangers, not us, but. . . *shrug*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry I can't seem to stay away from the thread as I had intended.
quote:That is a problem, but it is not the only problem.
I understand it isn't the only problem, I just think people would be able to let the rest of the problems slide by if it weren't for the big problem that underlies it all. If Tatiana or anyone else here announced that they had adopted a teenage orphan from Africa or had just had a teenage foster child move into their home, I don't think people would object to them talking about their new "son" or being a new "mommy". In this particular case context is everything and I think its disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
quote:Do you refer to yourself as a mother to the children you help care for in primary, or the boy who you said could be your son for the day? Do you talk about your concern over their eating and sleeping habits to your aquaintences? Many words have degrees of meaning, and if "we all know" anything, we all know that the way Tatiana is referring to Sasha as her son is different from the way you told that boy he could be your son for the day.
I wasn't implying it was the same, I was simply pointing out that the idea that mother was some sort of sacrosanct word that is somehow degraded if used in other ways is silly. People are disturbed by Tatiana say she is this boys mother because it heightens their sense that she is trying to usurp his real mother's place. Isn't that what you were trying to say when you asked "More than do Sasha's parent's know, my question is what does Sasha's birth mother consider her relationship with him?"
That is a legitimate question but doesn't your opinion of this whole situation hang very heavily on what you presume to be the answer to this question. If you found out that Sasha's birth mother was delighted to share the name of mother with Tatiana, would your objections be the same? If you found out that Sasha's birth parents were meth addicts who had neglected him for all his life and whose only objection to Tatiana legally adopting him was that they were hoping to weasel some money out of her, would it change your opinion? If you found out that Sasha, perhaps due to his illness, was several years less mature emotionally and physically than a typical 19 year old, would it change your opinion? I'm not saying that I think any of those are true. I'm saying that I can imagine answers to your question that would change most peoples opinion of this situation.
I don't fault people for forming opinions on the limited data. We all do that. But I do think they should keep those opinions closely guarded and maintain an open mind toward changing those opinions until they know all the facts. To do otherwise is uncharitable.
quote:Every time she brings the subject up, she acts surprised that people aren't thrilled for her over her experiences as a new parent. And yet she keeps coming back, expecting people to share in her delight, and acting hurt and offended when they don't. It's not going to change. People aren't going to magically start approving of her actions. And as long as she keeps posting her looking for validation of her relationship with this young man, she's going to be disappointed.
On this much we agree. In this respect, Tatiana is making the same mistake that so many others are making here. It is as foolish for her to expect a different response when she posts about Sasha as it is for those who criticize her to expect a different response.
[ May 13, 2009, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
good lord. This drama takes the cake.
The stuff I'm filling myself in on is just blowing my mind.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Mother's day just passed. I had at least a dozen people at church tell me I was a mother because I have a calling in the primary .
I HATE that. I am not a mother. Trying to pretend that I am only rubs it it. Which is why I refuse to go to family wards on Mother's Day.
Do you also refuse to go to General Women's Conference, which always features a talk about women without a temporal family sharing in motherhood?
No, I don't boycott Women's Conference. It really does bother me that because marriage and families and motherhood are so important and emphasized in our (LDS) culture that they feel the need to throw a bone to those of us who are single and childless by pretending we are mothers. I would much prefer it if they would just say that our contributions matter as well. Which is what they mean, I know. But our contributions are different than motherhood, and trying to equate them does not lessen my mourning for the babies that never were.
But to get back to your question, hearing the "all women are mothers" spiel in a conference talk is not nearly as visceral and personal as being forced to stand and accept Mother's Day gifts in Sacrament Meeting. It's kind of like the difference between listening to a lesson on eternal marriage as a singleton and going to a Valentine's dance alone.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Just to point out that the mommies with new babies thread wasn't for NEW MOMMIES, but mommies (or daddies) with NEW BABIES. Tatiana didn't belong there whether she was this guy's mother or not.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If Tatiana or anyone else here announced that they had adopted a teenage orphan from Africa or had just had a teenage foster child move into their home, I don't think people would object to them talking about their new "son" or being a new "mommy". In this particular case context is everything and I think its disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
If she popped into a breastfeeding thread to talk about she was a concerned "new mommy" about how her 19 year old "baby" from Africa was eating, you better believe it would get a reaction.
However, it is true that knowing the adoption was only agreed upon by the actual parents was so that Tatiana could commit insurance fraud is something that is coloring our perceptions, or at least mine.
And Eljay is right. The part that most makes Tatiana come off as a nut-job is that she is SHOCKED whenever anyone expresses their opinions on this, as if she hadn't heard it all before in a dozen threads! It's as if once she deletes a thread she actually believes it never happened.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If Tatiana or anyone else here announced that they had adopted a teenage orphan from Africa or had just had a teenage foster child move into their home, I don't think people would object to them talking about their new "son" or being a new "mommy". In this particular case context is everything and I think its disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Honestly, I would still think it was creepy if she talked about him in a way (and in contexts) that made it seem like he was a young child instead of an adult.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The Rabbit, I actually considered if my opinion would be different if I knew Sasha's birth parents were abusive. I didn't consider if he was developmentally delayed, because we know that's not the case. He's psoted here, or she's posted stuff that was written by him about his medical issues. And they initially got to know each other over AIM. If he were several years less emotionally mature than your typical 19 year old, I would question the situation even more, because the only thing that makes it even close to okay is the fact that he made the decision for himself. If he wasn't competant to make that decision, it opens a whole nother can of worms.
For the abusive part, no, it wouldn't make a difference. She still did not raise him through his formative years. She would be an adult helping out another adult that she cared about. Not a mother.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No, I don't boycott Women's Conference. It really does bother me that because marriage and families and motherhood are so important and emphasized in our (LDS) culture that they feel the need to throw a bone to those of us who are single and childless by pretending we are mothers. I would much prefer it if they would just say that our contributions matter as well. Which is what they mean, I know. But our contributions are different than motherhood, and trying to equate them does not lessen my mourning for the babies that never were.
But to get back to your question, hearing the "all women are mothers" spiel in a conference talk is not nearly as visceral and personal as being forced to stand and accept Mother's Day gifts in Sacrament Meeting. It's kind of like the difference between listening to a lesson on eternal marriage as a singleton and going to a Valentine's dance alone.
Yup, yup, yup. I couldn't share your sentiments more. For years I have planned to be out of town on Mother's day so I could avoid the whole affair. This is the first time in ages I've been to church on Mother's day and I went mostly because I was directing the primary singing Mother's day songs. That is the one part of Mother's day I like because I'm reminded of singing them to my own Mother and I can think about how wonderful my Mom is without being reminded that I'm not a Mom.
And mother's day is lots worse than Women's conferences because motherhood tends to be at most one topic of many at the conference. On Mother's Day, its the only thing they talk about for a full hour and it isn't even just at church.
I'd also add that calling what women without children do "motherhood" is a particularly poor way of saying our contributions matter because it not only makes you at best a 2nd class "mother", it also tends to discount any contribution you might be making that doesn't involve children and nurturing. Most of things people with children say in attempts to console women who want children but can't have them are absolutely awful. It would be much better if they said nothing at all,
Oh, along these same lines, the thing I find most objectionable in the LDS church regarding motherhood is the attempt to draw an equivalence between holding the priesthood and being a mother. They seem to forget that the priesthood is given to men based on their worthiness and all worthy men who desire it can receive the priesthood. Many worthy women will never become mothers (at least in mortality) while thousands if not millions of unworthy women become mothers every day.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness! And I thought we Catholics were bad!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I guess I wasn't paying attention when I used to go to church. They make the non-mothers stand up to receive a mother's day gift?
That sounds terribly awkward.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And they initially got to know each other over AIM. If he were several years less emotionally mature than your typical 19 year old, I would question the situation even more, because the only thing that makes it even close to okay is the fact that he made the decision for himself. If he wasn't competant to make that decision, it opens a whole nother can of worms.
I'm not talking about being developmentally delayed. There is a pretty wide range of what one might call normal maturity for a 19 year old. I guess my opinion on this is strongly influenced by the fact that I have known 2 people who entered fosters homes while in high school and formed life long parent/child like bonds with their foster parents. I just don't see that there is necessarily a huge difference between someone in high school and some one who is 19. I know plenty of 16 year olds who are more mature both emotionally and physically than some 19 year olds. I have no idea where Sasha fits in this spectrum but the fact that he has been sick for some time may mean that he hasn't been able to the develop the independence one might normally expect from a 19 year old.
I don't think what Tatiana has said about him on this forum gives me any idea how they interact in real life. If she treats him like he's a toddler or even a 13 year old, it would be a real problem but I can hardly imagine that any teenager would put up with that. I simply think its premature for me to make a judgement on these issues until I've actually seen the two of them together and have an idea how they interact.
[ May 13, 2009, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In that case, I can see why a Mormon might find it inconsistent to exclude someone that had adopted a teenager from "motherhood" when motherhood is emphasized to such a degree even for non-Mothers.
Thanks for that explanation.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Goodness! And I thought we Catholics were bad!
I didn't. I always thought the Catholic church got a worse reputation than it deserved on this one. When I was growing up, they spoke of marriage and children as a vocation a person was called to, but on equal footing with a number of others, including becoming a priest or a nun. And no one ever suggested to me that I had to get married or have children if I wasn't called to do that.
Now, the Catholic church does discourage the use of birth control, but it seems their influence on that one is a bit tenuous at best. I've known a few to take them seriously, but the vast majority here in the U.S. seem to ignore it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, I can see why someone in that situation might be desperate to be considered a mother.
Christine, I had my tongue at least a little in my cheek there. We have gotten much better.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Rabbit, I am a mother and I find those talks demeaning as well. And in a few weeks, I will even be a sahm (though I am calling myself unemployed).
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Is saying something is equal is the exact same thing as saying it's exactly alike?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Christine, I had my tongue at least a little in my cheek there. We have gotten much better.
I figured. I just get a bit defensive sometimes. Which is weird, since I'm not really Catholic anymore. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Puffy Treat: It depends on how you implement equals() or alternatively == in operator overloading. But generally, yes, things that are equal are exactly alike.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:I know plenty of 16 year olds who are more mature both emotionally and physically than some 19 year olds. I have no idea where Sasha fits in this spectrum but the fact that he has been sick for some time may mean that he hasn't been able to the develop the independence one might normally expect from a 19 year old.
That still goes back to the competent to make the decision against his parent's wishes part. Neither of them wanted him to do it, if I recall correctly, his father just objected more strenuously. His mother was relucantly willing to agree because it was what he wanted. Either he's an adult and can make the decision for himself and so she shouldn't be infantilizing him or she took advantage of a vulnerable teenager. I'm still not seeing a situation where my opinion of the situation would change.
I can see where teenagers who've lost their parents or been removed from their homes due to neglect or their parents being imprisoned could form that sort of family bond with their foster parents. I bet the foster parents in those cases didn't claim to be the kids real mommies the day after they moved in, though. The key term is formed. It doesn't happen overnight, or through years of IM conversations.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Is saying something is equal is the exact same thing as saying it's exactly alike?
In math yes. In language, it generally doesn't mean exactly alike but certainly implies that they are alike in the most important ways.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Puffy Treat: It depends on how you implement equals() or alternatively == in operator overloading. But generally, yes, things that are equal are exactly alike.
It's often understood that 'equals' is only up to isomorphism; 'exactly alike' is stronger.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Puffy Treat: It depends on how you implement equals() or alternatively == in operator overloading. But generally, yes, things that are equal are exactly alike.
Not in a lot of common usage. "All men are created equal", for instance.
But I think it's even more common to equate particular qualities of unequal things. "Motherhood is equally as important as the priesthood" is something I'm sure I've heard at church, but of course it doesn't denote the same thing as "motherhood equals priesthood".
But I'm thinking such proclamations can only ever be seen as patronizing, and making them just tends to delineate other roles/groups that weren't mentioned and are implied to be less important and so need their OWN platitudes, and so it goes.
[ May 13, 2009, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: But I think it's even more common to equate particular qualities of unequal things. "Motherhood is equally as important as the priesthood" is something I'm sure I've heard at church, but of course it doesn't denote the same thing as "motherhood equals priesthood".
But I'm thinking such proclamations can only ever be seen as patronizing, and making them just tends to delineate other roles/groups that weren't mentioned and are implied to be less important and so need their OWN platitudes, and so it goes.
It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just for the record, I don't agree with the characterization of motherhood = priesthood, and I don't think that's an integral part of the gospel.
Spoken as a happy Mormon woman who is not a mother and has no prospect of being such.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I agree that its not part of the gospel, but if you haven't heard said and said over the pulpit, you haven't been going to church.
And I am also a happy Mormon woman who is not a mother and has no prospect of being such. I've gotten to the point where I'm comfortable with that, but I haven't always been there. There have been plenty of days when words spoken over the pulpit by general authorities about Motherhood have made me cry uncontrollably.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I respect that the same words have not had the same effect on both of us, despite some superficial similarities in our circumstances.
And actually, I don't go to church on Mother's Day. After sobbing every year for about six years in a row, the Lord and I worked out a deal where I don't have to go on that day. Mine wasn't because I'm not a Mom, but because of how badly I miss my own and it's like attending her funeral all over again every time. Still, that may be why I don't hear that much over the pulpit - it's a seasonal thing, and I skip the Sunday of that season.
ETA: Some women really love that Sunday. Some women are tired, lonely talking mostly to their kid, and love the day where they are reassured about the great thing they are doing. I would never want to take that away from them - I do think being a Mom is a great, great thing. Mother's Day just has nothing to do with me - I don't celebrate Cinco de Mayo either. I think the Lord is okay with people who find that day hard just skipping it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think motherhood is honored fairly clumsily in the church, from all the grumbling I hear. There are a lot of somewhat patronizing comparisons with the Priesthood. While a lot of good counsel is given, IMO, we all brace for what seems to be the mandatory lauding of mothers from the pulpit, gritting our teeth and knowing we're all just doing it for the sake of the holiday. The women know it's forced, the men know it's forced. Still, I don't think it diminishes the importance of motherhood, or the importance of being able to celebrate our own mothers. The thing is, motherhood is held in incredibly high, genuine esteem, and I think that should be expressed. We're just currently doing it from two different trenches. There is a whole spectrum of ways to be offended.
They didn't give out the candy bars to non-mothers in my ward. Still, I'd be fine with letting go of that particular awkward tradition and letting mothers be recognized individually in their own families, in whatever ways are most comfortable for the families.
Mother's Day is also made for all of us children as a chance to honor our mothers and remember their fundamental importance in our lives--not just for the mothers themselves. I'll never be a mother, either, but I enjoy Mother's Day for that. Like any holiday, you use it how you will.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Still, that may be why I don't hear that much over the pulpit - it's a seasonal thing, and I skip the Sunday of that season.
Certainly Mother's Day is a peak time for this kind of thing, but it is hardly something that is only taught seasonally. Until a few years back, one Relief Society lesson every month was on motherhood. The topic comes up in virtually every women's conference and often enough in General conference. The very worst experience I had was during a talk by Elder Nelson in a stake conference.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
That also seems fairly dissmissive of fatherhood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent male role?
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I'm not from a religious tradition in which motherhood is so deeply entrenched--and I'm a mother--and I STILL skipped church deliberately on Mother's Day. It's just too sentimental and icky and forced.
My husband didn't spend any money on me--he didn't buy a card "from" the toddler for me--although he did let me pick what I wanted to do all day, which was exactly enough recognition.
Stupid invented Hallmark holiday.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I'm not from a religious tradition in which motherhood is so deeply entrenched--and I'm a mother--and I STILL skipped church deliberately on Mother's Day. It's just too sentimental and icky and forced.
My husband didn't spend any money on me--he didn't buy a card "from" the toddler for me--although he did let me pick what I wanted to do all day, which was exactly enough recognition.
Stupid invented Hallmark holiday.
I'm not a huge fan of mother's day either. My husband and I have adopted a tradition of going out to eat with the family sometime around mother's day, but no on mother's day, because the restaurants are too busy and sometimes they even jack up the prices. We don't do cards or gifts or anything like that and to be honest, when my husband brought up going out to eat this past Saturday, I considered telling him to drop even that. I'm just not big on these forced, made up holidays. Don't even get me stated on Valentine's Day...
The only thing I was looking forward to about Mother's Day was my son coming home with some kind of Mother's Day art project from school (it's his first year in pre-school so this would have been the first time). Instead, the school sent me, I kid you not, a stuffed rabbit. I would have much rather had scribbles on the fridge.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
That also seems fairly dissmissive of fatherhood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent male role?
Absolutely! It's not intended to be dismissive of fatherhood, but it certainly is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Stupid invented Hallmark holiday.
That's a myth. The celebration of Mother's sunday goes back at least to the 16th century in England. Mother's Day in the use was founded in 1912 due to the efforts of Anne Jarvis, founder of the Mothers International (or something like that).
My Mother told me that she used to hate Mother's Day because all the exultation about wonderful mothers made her feel horribly inadequate. She said that changed when she started thinking of the day as being about her mother rather than about her. By that time, her mother had been dead for several years and so she dedicated the day to thinking about all the good thing she remembered about her own wonderful mother. I think that would be a good practice for anyone except perhaps those who had abusive mother's or for whom remembering their mother is painful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: rivka, there are situations where I would consider that exploiting a loophole and situations where I would consider it insurance fraud. Raja and I have talked about getting married to help him find a job in this country, since many companies reject his application out of hand because he's not a resident. We've been together 4 years, and would be doing it with the intent to stay together. Ultimately we're not comfortable with it. But I don't think I'd feel like we were commiting fraud if we did it. I know you asked about strangers, not us, but. . . *shrug*
I don't consider that a remotely comparable question. Without speaking to anyone in particular's situation, when a couple has been together for years and plans to stay together, my question is why aren't they married, not why are they.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, I know it's not comparable. I mostly mentioned it to say that even in our circumstances, we weren't comfortable doing it, among other reasons because we would be doing it for the purpose of getting him a visa rather than because we decided we wanted to get married. Yet I can still imagine situations where I would not consider it insurance fraud for two near strangers to marry to get one on the other's insurance.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: among other reasons because we would be doing it for the purpose of getting him a visa rather than because we decided we wanted to get married.
Ah! I see.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Yet I can still imagine situations where I would not consider it insurance fraud for two near strangers to marry to get one on the other's insurance.
I can't. That is, I can see reasons for two near strangers to get married (although it concerns me), with insurance being a benefit of that. I cannot see any way getting married in that situation for the insurance benefits would not be fraud. Ethically, and possibly legally.
(Leaving aside that the plan was to claim that he was a full-time student without that actually being the case.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the full-time student part. That definitely would have been fraud.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I am somewhat confused by the idea of the husbands making the gifts on Mother's Day.
Before I went to preschool, I was too young to understand what the holiday was anyway. In preschool, our teachers had us make cards for our mums. Later on I bought flowers (yes, with money from my dad, but this was the only contribution he's made towards that day -- and rightly so, I think. It's not Wife's Day, it's Mother's).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am somewhat confused by the idea of the husbands making the gifts on Mother's Day.
I do it because being a mother is a big part of my wife's life, and she's really, really good at it.
I made a whiz bang dinner for her this year-- bacon wrapped shrimp on the grill, corn on the cob, french fries, and crab cakes, with Dutch crumb apple pie for dessert.
The kids picked out some impatiens and pansies for her, and we gave her the whole Mother's day weekend "off." I think we were pretty successful in communicating our appreciation for her.
The trick is to not go a whole year between bouts of appreciation; or even days...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's much worse than that scifibum because in this analogy, it is generally implied or even state out right either that "women aren't called to the priesthood because they are called to be mothers" or worse "it's fair and reasonable that only men are called to the priesthood because only women are called to be mothers". And both of those implications hurt really deeply if you are a woman but can not become a mother.
That also seems fairly dissmissive of fatherhood. Wouldn't that be the equivalent male role?
Absolutely! It's not intended to be dismissive of fatherhood, but it certainly is.
I'm not so sure it is. Priesthood is routinely explained to encompass one's duties as a father. Being the a righteous head of the household and administering gospel ordinances within the family has always been described to me as a priesthood role.
In the past I think the church overwhelmed some fathers into shirking their fatherhood responsibilities in lieu of stake or ward callings. Fairly recently there seem to have been strong currents from the first presidency instructing priesthood leaders to encourage men to never put one above the other, and instead achieve balance between the church and home.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Priesthood is routinely explained to encompass one's duties as a father. Being the a righteous head of the household and administering gospel ordinances within the family has always been described to me as a priesthood role.
I am so glad my husband doesn't think this is his role as a father or husband.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What does it mean to administer gospel ordinances?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fatherhood is spoken of separately. How often and how much seperately has a lot to do with the age and background of the person doing the talking.
It isn't completely settled, but the impression given from this thread is not how I think either the gospel deals with the issue nor how it has most often been experienced by me. In other words, people are giving their impressions, not a complete picture. I don't agree with any of the characterizations here, except ScottR's on why it is nice for fathers to be involved in Mother's Day.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What does it mean to administer gospel ordinances?
Giving blessings-- the priesthood holder lays his hands on the head of the person to be blessed, and basically prays over them.
Baptizing/confirming family members-- the priesthood holder dunks the person to be baptized, and later blesses them (see above) to receive the Holy Ghost.
Conferring priesthood-- priesthood holder blesses the family member, and confers either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood upon him.
Giving blessings of healing or spiritual strength is the most frequent ordinance usually performed at home.
Other ordinances not usually performed at home: temple ordinances, sacrament or communion, naming a baby, patriarchal blessings. With the exception of temple ordinances, all of these are performed by men.
I have no good answer for why that is.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Priesthood is routinely explained to encompass one's duties as a father. Being the a righteous head of the household and administering gospel ordinances within the family has always been described to me as a priesthood role.
I am so glad my husband doesn't think this is his role as a father or husband.
Um, yeah. Totally not what I meant by fatherhood. I was talking about changing diapers, giving baths, singning songs and reading stories, keeping the kid from running into the street, helping with homework, supporting and teaching and guiding -- you know, parenting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Right. Fatherhood in the parenting sense is spoken of separately, and it is spoken on its own.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What does it mean to administer gospel ordinances?
Giving blessings-- the priesthood holder lays his hands on the head of the person to be blessed, and basically prays over them.
Baptizing/confirming family members-- the priesthood holder dunks the person to be baptized, and later blesses them (see above) to receive the Holy Ghost.
Conferring priesthood-- priesthood holder blesses the family member, and confers either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood upon him.
Giving blessings of healing or spiritual strength is the most frequent ordinance usually performed at home.
Other ordinances not usually performed at home: temple ordinances, sacrament or communion, naming a baby, patriarchal blessings. With the exception of temple ordinances, all of these are performed by men.
I have no good answer for why that is.
Interesting. Thanks Scott!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Um, yeah. Totally not what I meant by fatherhood. I was talking about changing diapers, giving baths, singning songs and reading stories, keeping the kid from running into the street, helping with homework, supporting and teaching and guiding -- you know, parenting.
I don't think I can be a worthy priesthood holder without being a worthwhile father. Priesthood, fatherhood, and husband-hood are connected and complementary.
*A man can be a good father without the priesthood; a priesthood holder can be a good man without being a father. If a man is a father and a priesthood holder, and a husband, then in order to truly be good, he must engage all three to be good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Right. Fatherhood in the parenting sense is spoken of separately, and it is spoken on its own.
That's not the language used in the Priesthood classes that I attend. I'm not saying that's how God sees it, but it's a very common practice to refer to all acts a father does that could be described as parenting as part of his Priesthood calling.
Over and over we're asked, "How can fulfill our calling as holders of the Priesthood at home?" Teachers frequently go on to then describe attributes like counseling with ones spouse what is best for the children, being involved in school activities, gathering the family together for family home evening.
When a religion believes that eternal families are forged by the bonds of the priesthood, the unit becomes a natural extension of the priesthood office.
I'm not saying that we must always talk about the Priesthood when discussing parenting, but parenting is often juxtaposed with being a good Priesthood holder in the Priesthood classes I've attended.
Scott did a good job of describing the relationship more succinctly.
--- Christine:
quote:I am so glad my husband doesn't think this is his role as a father or husband.
I was not aware that comment you were responding to could be seen in a negative light. Could you elucidate my understanding?
---- Scott: I have ideas and impressions as to why men and women don't have the priesthood together, but nothing that's convincing to me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
BlackBlade: The part I had a problem with is the idea that the role of a father/husband is as the "righteous head of the household." I have a couple of problems with it, including the meaning and possible connotations of the word "righteous," which causes me to have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of, "Well, that's a bit arrogant." (Although I accept that I may not be understanding your use of the term.)
But putting that aside, I do not see my husband as the head of the household but rather that we are co-heads of the household and co-parents of our children.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Christine, that's were most people's problems with the LDS view of marriage comes in. The 'righteous' part is more about he must be doing things correctly (from proper fathering in exactly the sense DKW was talking about) to keeping Church standards (ex-nay on adultery for example ), and that a husband acting as 'Head of Household', well, shouldn't be acting as head of household if he's not righteous. What the heck is mean by the phrase 'head of household' is really the big question and to my mind it's not really fully answered even within the Church. I think (notice the shift into my views away from the general comments on Church views) shying away completely from the patriarchal overtones it brings on isn't right as the Church's main document that most often sited on the matter, "Family: A Proclamation to the World" doesn't seem to avoid those overtones. However, the traditional ideas of a ruling father, or the stereotypical 50s view of marriage is also not right. A lot of it becomes semantics and my guess is that most active LDS would agree that you definition of "co-heads" of the household would coincide with they way they think a marriage should be run (though not being most active LDS nor knowing your exact definition I can't promise that ). Certainly a domineering, or in any way controlling father or husband is very specifically against Church teachings. It's a subject that comes up fairly frequently and is always spoken against by Church leaders.
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Co-heads is exactly what is taught by the church. The husband and father has no place to be controlling and domineering and should never think of himself as the sovereign in the household. He does have the responsibility to see that things are being done properly in the home according to church teachings, and I think that's where the connection between priesthood and fatherhood comes in most strongly in LDS homes. He also needs to make sure his family is provided for and protected--the alternative being, perhaps, him sitting on the couch playing video games all day and ignoring the household. When the husband and father takes his role seriously he is essentially holding up his part of the partnership with his wife. However, he is also reminded that his leadership is not unilateral; he is an equal partner with his wife and the family is led by this council.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Christine: I'd be one of the first to admit that even when playing at being "the righteous head of the household" I am woefully inadequate much of the time. It's an ideal to be aspired and accomplished whenever one can manage it.
I see a father and mother as being co-heads of the household virtually all the time. I don't think I've ever made a decision without my wife being happy about it, and many times I've acquiesced to my wife. But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision." Ideally, the husband and wife could pray about the decision and find out the will of the Lord on the matter. But it still seems possible that God might leave the decision to the parents. In that case, typically in Mormon culture when all else fails, the father makes the decision so long as he is acting in righteousness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And if the wife disagrees about the righteousness... you're back where you started. This sort of thing must be worked out between the people involved; saying that decisions default to one gender or the other is just not very helpful.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If I were being self-righteous, which is the type of righteousness I think KOM is implying, my wife would have full authority to call me for it and disregard what I was directing. She is under no compulsion to agree with me or accept my decisions if she doesn't feel good about my actions or attitude.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:She is under no compulsion to agree with me or accept my decisions if she doesn't feel good about my actions or attitude.
But if she can't detect any unrighteousness, but still disagrees with the head of household tiebreaking vote, what then?
The head of household thing can never solve a disagreement, in my view. If you can't reach agreement then I think the answer is "keep trying." That is, for situations where agreement is necessary.
Asserting authority even as some sort of last resort tiebreaking thing is bound to cause resentment and definitely implies unequal partnership. Which is fine, if both people sign up for it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If I were being self-righteous, which is the type of righteousness I think KOM is implying
Wrong. I am talking about a genuine disagreement on whether or not you are being righteous.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: I'd be one of the first to admit that even when playing at being "the righteous head of the household" I am woefully inadequate much of the time. It's an ideal to be aspired and accomplished whenever one can manage it.
I see a father and mother as being co-heads of the household virtually all the time. I don't think I've ever made a decision without my wife being happy about it, and many times I've acquiesced to my wife. But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision." Ideally, the husband and wife could pray about the decision and find out the will of the Lord on the matter. But it still seems possible that God might leave the decision to the parents. In that case, typically in Mormon culture when all else fails, the father makes the decision so long as he is acting in righteousness.
This makes it sound like the husband is the tie-breaker, which amounts to the same thing as his being the head of the household, especially since there are only two votes.
Really, I get the difference between an authoritarian husband, ruling over his family, and one who takes his wife's feelings into account. These are clearly two different scenarios and I can even accept, by your definition of righteous, that the authoritarian husband isn't.
Of course, righteousness as you've described it is an idyllic concept. Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined. Where is her out?
I don't feel like my marriage requires a tie-breaker. When we disagree we strive for negotiation and compromise but sometimes that is difficult. In the end, the bottom line is that we are both striving for the same goal: to make one another happy. In the heat of confrontation, a lot of couples miss this point and strive instead to be right. I often accede to my husband's desires not because I like it, but because in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things. Then again, sometimes he acedes to my desires for the same reason. In neither case, do I feel that he gets the deciding vote, I just feel like we've made a decision together to put our marriage above petty disagreements.
In no case have I ever felt like one of us needed to have the deciding vote. We work things out together.
[ May 14, 2009, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Asserting authority would in my view be completely wrong. Coming to a decision is the domain of the husband and wife together. If my wife says, "It's your call," it will be when we have discussed it thoroughly and she is happy with or at least accepting of either decision. If she disagrees with one or another, we haven't ironed it out between us sufficiently yet.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined.
If you think the husband and wife roles are highly defined you are getting the wrong impression. The church does teach that husbands and wives have different roles but the definition of what those roles are is not at all clearly defined. All the LDS couples I know of are continually struggling to figure out what those roles are in there own marriage and families.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
"All the LDS couples I know of are continually struggling to figure out what those roles are in there own marriage and families." --The Rabbit
I think about 85% of married couples in America are struggling to figure out their roles to some extent or another.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yes Flying Fish, but I think the process is complicated for LDS couples by the fact that the LDS church gives strong council on the subject which despite being frequent and strong is sufficiently ambiguous to give rise to broad interpretation.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I can see your point.
Even for people who get no religious proscriptions, or people like me who get the minimum (I've had no council outside of the Big 10), you get so many mixed messages from pop culture and elsewhere. Women get messages that they are failures if they don't wish to be an executive or a politician along with being a Mommy, or if they feel they need let the man be the titular or de facto head of the family. Men get messages that they are by nature idiots or ogres, or patriarchal dominators. And as for fidelity or chastity? Pop culture doesn't exactly place these values at the pinnacle.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure it does. Everyone knows that people who have affairs are either murderers or get murdered. Don't you watch cop shows?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: And as for fidelity or chastity? Pop culture doesn't exactly place these values at the pinnacle.
I would agree that it doesn't put a high value on chastity, but IMO, it does put a very high value on fidelity. No one likes a cheater.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined. Where is her out?
Her out? There are no restrictions that I can think of, or community repercussions beyond the natural consequences anybody would face in any community for airing their laundry. There's no sheen of perfection on husbands or any sense of immunity or infallible "righteousness." She has no obligation to take his word as gospel. He needs to earn her trust, and she his. There aren't any shortcuts there.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
My wife loves cop shows. I really like very few of them. I did watch something called Law and Order CI a few times, in which a detective named Bobby solved crimes with Sherlock Holmseian powers of ivestigation. (I think he unspooled a typewrite ribbon and applied an ad hoc algorithm to determine what had been typed on that typewriter).
I do watch the news occasionally. I think people who have affairs can win awards, get elected, head foundations, and such.
Not that it bothers me when Tom Brady has a child outside of wedlock, or Ray Lewis has 4 or 5 and tells the women and the kids, "I'll pay support but I don't want to know you or have anything to do with them." and then someone on ESPN says, "But that doesn't MAKE HIM A BAD FATHER...."
Is it any wonder people get confused?
(Sorry about the editorial)
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Maybe I should change my username from Flying Fish to Fuddy Duddy,
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Flying Fish: I'm not sure who's unclear about that situation. It's pretty wrong. The fact that there are bad people in the world doesn't mean that pop culture in general feels it's ok.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: And as for fidelity or chastity? Pop culture doesn't exactly place these values at the pinnacle.
I would agree that it doesn't put a high value on chastity, but IMO, it does put a very high value on fidelity. No one likes a cheater.
Speaking as the cultural ambassador of sexually-liberated-libidinous-twentysomething-youthistan: Unrepentant or serial cheaters are treated worse than dogs here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: I'd be one of the first to admit that even when playing at being "the righteous head of the household" I am woefully inadequate much of the time. It's an ideal to be aspired and accomplished whenever one can manage it.
I see a father and mother as being co-heads of the household virtually all the time. I don't think I've ever made a decision without my wife being happy about it, and many times I've acquiesced to my wife. But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision." Ideally, the husband and wife could pray about the decision and find out the will of the Lord on the matter. But it still seems possible that God might leave the decision to the parents. In that case, typically in Mormon culture when all else fails, the father makes the decision so long as he is acting in righteousness.
This makes it sound like the husband is the tie-breaker, which amounts to the same thing as his being the head of the household, especially since there are only two votes.
Really, I get the difference between an authoritarian husband, ruling over his family, and one who takes his wife's feelings into account. These are clearly two different scenarios and I can even accept, by your definition of righteous, that the authoritarian husband isn't.
Of course, righteousness as you've described it is an idyllic concept. Among other things, I worry how a woman would "call her husband" on his lack of righteousness in a community in which his role is so defined. Where is her out?
I don't feel like my marriage requires a tie-breaker. When we disagree we strive for negotiation and compromise but sometimes that is difficult. In the end, the bottom line is that we are both striving for the same goal: to make one another happy. In the heat of confrontation, a lot of couples miss this point and strive instead to be right. I often accede to my husband's desires not because I like it, but because in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things. Then again, sometimes he acedes to my desires for the same reason. In neither case, do I feel that he gets the deciding vote, I just feel like we've made a decision together to put our marriage above petty disagreements.
In no case have I ever felt like one of us needed to have the deciding vote. We work things out together.
Well to be candid, I've yet to encounter a situation where anybody needed to be a tie breaker. I've yet to have something come up, where a decision absolutely needed to made, with no more time to deliberate, and yet Tiffany and I had not yet reached a consensus. Theoretically such a thing could happen but even then prayer would most likely resolve the issue. Barring all thatI'd still be reticent if my wife was going to be upset if we did things my way. At the very least I would hope that while we might not agree, we are at least convinced the others way is not unbearable.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well to be candid, I've yet to encounter a situation where anybody needed to be a tie breaker. I've yet to have something come up, where a decision absolutely needed to made, with no more time to deliberate, and yet Tiffany and I had not yet reached a consensus. Theoretically such a thing could happen but even then prayer would most likely resolve the issue. Barring all thatI'd still be reticent if my wife was going to be upset if we did things my way. At the very least I would hope that while we might not agree, we are at least convinced the others way is not unbearable.
My husband and I have also yet to be able to resolve things through discussion, compromise, negotiation, prayer, and the occasional night on the couch.
I can't really come up with a reason someone would need to break a tie in our marriage.
I guess the thing is this: You seem like a nice, reasonable guy. And nice, reasonable men don't need a tie breaking vote because in the end, they care too much about their wife's happiness to use it. So why even claim the power? The only reason I can think of using it is basically because the couple has poor argument and communication skills (the #1 reason that marriages break up). Or I guess because the couple has gotten to a point where their differences are irreconcilable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Christine: Couples do disagree, and on rare occasions strongly. I feel the mechanism needs to exist because the situation is not impossible.
I think one of the benefits of society today is that men and women have so much information at their fingertips they no longer need to cultivate specific skill sets in order to cover the full spectrum. There's no need for one parent to know all about running the household while the other simply provides. It's just, ultimately we are all accountable to somebody IMHO. Decisions I make will be weighed and measured by my God as will my stewardship over my family unit. I feel commanded to be a good husband to my wife, a loving father to my future children, as well as a dutiful son, and a helpful brother. I just feel it's important to acknowledge that perfect harmony is a destination fraught with mistakes. As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
I'd be far happier if the day never comes where such a decision would need to be made. I cannot see any sort of decision of that kind being anything but disappointing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But what do you do when both of you absolutely cannot reach a consensus on a decision? Do you decide nothing? Somebody has to eventually say, "It's all been said, you know how I feel, one of us has to make the decision."
No. There has never been a case in which I would make an important decision about our family and our home without the approval of my wife. It has never happened and will never happen.
You know what that whole concept reminds me of? Those silly little coupons lovers sometimes give each other, for "one night of hot sex" or "half an hour of massage." I've received a few of those over the course of my life, but I've never redeemed one in a situation where I couldn't've gotten the same thing just by asking. I wouldn't want any "hot sex" from someone who's only doing it because the coupon says she has to; nor, I suspect, would I be able to enforce the terms of the coupon on someone unwilling.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: Couples do disagree, and on rare occasions strongly. I feel the mechanism needs to exist because the situation is not impossible.
As long as the mechanism exists, you are using it. It only takes one person to push a disagreement to a stalemate, so you have that choice every time. You choose to defer to your wife or not. She does not have that choice, because if you ever feel strongly enough about something you have the option to hold out until your "tiebreaking" vote is required.
If you and she are both happy with that arrangement I'm sure it works for you. It's not a relationship I would agree to, from either side.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: I don't think you can know that it will never happen. What happens if your wife is in a coma? What if she is hysterical in a moment of crisis? What if something is wrong with her behavior and she can't see it? All of those things can of course happen to men as well and were I to be any of those things I would expect Tiffany to step beyond her role as co-head and take the reigns. Do you really think it's impossible that a situation could arise where you and your wife would be unable to stop and reach a consensus? I concede it's quite unlikely, and again I can't see any such situation leaving me with anything than a bitter taste, but never will happen? ----- dkw: I'm not sure I follow. How does active application of a principle necessarily follow it's existence? My wife most certainly does have the right not to differ to me. In the worst case scenario I could say, "You have to trust me on this," and she could very easily say, "I'm sorry but I think you're disastrously wrong on this and I can't go along with it." Tiffany has only promised to love, honor, and obey her husband so long as he is following God's council. If she is not convinced that I and God are in agreement why would she capitulate?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom: I don't think you can know that it will never happen. What happens if your wife is in a coma? What if she is hysterical in a moment of crisis? What if something is wrong with her behavior and she can't see it?
If my wife's in a coma, her input on new decisions doesn't count. I don't suddenly become free to revisit old disagreements, however, now that she's not around to argue with me.
If something's wrong with her behavior and she can't see it, it's my job to make her see it. It's not my job to just go ahead and do something anyway; it's my job to bring her around.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Application of a principle does not necessarily follow its existence.
However, in this instance if you automatically have the tie-breaking vote, then in every disagreement you are the one who decides whether you will follow your wife's preference or yours. You can choose to defer to her, in which case you are choosing in favor of hers. She can choose not to defer to you, but if you feel strongly enough about it her choices are to defer or push it to a stalemate, in which case you get to decide. So the only time her preference is the choice is because you chose to give the choice to her.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
BlackBlade, what I am having trouble understanding is how your role is different from your wife's in this respect. If she disagrees that you are following God's counsel, she is under no obligation to follow you, and so, to, for you towards her. So what then makes one of you the "head" of the household?
Honest question -- it's not clear to me, but I'd like to understand how you see it.
[ May 14, 2009, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:However, in this instance if you automatically have the tie-breaking vote, then in every disagreement you are the one who decides whether you will follow your wife's preference or yours. You can choose to defer to her, in which case you are choosing in favor of hers. She can choose not to defer to you, but if you feel strongly enough about it her choices are to defer or push it to a stalemate, in which case you get to decide. So the only time her preference is the choice is because you chose to give the choice to her.
I'm not sure why you're asking this.
quote: In the worst case scenario I could say, "You have to trust me on this," and she could very easily say, "I'm sorry but I think you're disastrously wrong on this and I can't go along with it." Tiffany has only promised to love, honor, and obey her husband so long as he is following God's council. If she is not convinced that I and God are in agreement why would she capitulate?
Doesn't that answer it?
His wife only has to defer to him if she believes he is acting in accordance with God's will. He only has the power to 'give her the choice' insofar as she believes he is being obedient to God.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm not sure why you think I was asking a question.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Any time this role becomes a power instead of a responsibility they're doing it wrong.
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure why you think I was asking a question.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase, then: "I'm not sure why you think this can be addressed to Blackblade."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think we're making too much out of it here. Yes, the LDS man's stated role is to preside in the home. It is also made abundantly clear, time and time again, that the man is not to exercise any improper control or dominion in the home. As soon as he does that, he loses any authority he might have had. It is not his place to be anything but kind, considerate, helpful, and humble when working with his wife. They are equal partners, as I've said before. The relationship, and the responsibilities therein, are no different than those not of the LDS faith, especially those who have posted here.
That the man is given the role to preside is for the benefit of his wife and children, who can call on the divine power available through that role for their benefit as needed. He does not take it upon himself, or gain any leverage from that role. It is a service role, and a burden rather than anything to exalt him.
Like I've already said, and BB has said for his family, I make decisions in harmony with my wife. I really do. We decide things together. I do not request the final vote in anything, and I often defer to her judgment. We do our very best to make sure we are in consensus on every decision before it is made. My goal is to build our relationship based on trust, love, and respect, not to assume sole power in my home. I know many LDS husbands and fathers with the same desires. I know men not of my faith with the same desires. We don't have a monopoly on it. I really do hope this helps to some small degree dispel the notion of some insidious patriarchy we're trying to cultivate in the church. It is simply not so.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm still not seeing why it is necessary to designate a head of the household if, in the end, you both have equal power and responsibility toward the marriage.
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways: the man is the head of the household but if he's a good and righteous head of the household then he will act in accordance with his wife and they will be partners. This argument is not even unique to the LDS church. There is a passage in (I think) Ephesians that talks about the role of a man as the head of his family as Christ is the head of the church. It comes up often, and in the end they try to explain it away by talking about how a good man will behave in that role. But I've never bought it. You can't have it both ways.
quote: As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
If it comes to this, a mechanism does exist: It's call divorce. Of course, the argument would need to be more important than our marriage but then again, the only reason we would not eventually come to a consensus would be if somehow, the argument were more important than our marriage.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm not sure why you think I was asking a question.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase, then: "I'm not sure why you think this can be addressed to Blackblade."
Because Black Blade stated that he believes there needs to be a mechanism in place to give one partner the dedciding vote if consensus cannot be reached. Other people have disagreed, and he expressed that, while he hopes never to have to use it, he really thinks it needs to be there just in case. I expressed the opinion that if the mechanism is there, it is being used whether he intends it or not. He said he didn't understand my reasoning, and I interpreted his post as a request for clarification.
I note of further clarification: nothing I have posted is meant to question what LDS doctrine means by head of the household or presiding over the family or anything else. I am solely addressing BlackBlade's argument that it is necessary in a partnership for one partner to be the ultimate decision maker in case consensus cannot be reached. I disagree.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote: As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
If it comes to this, a mechanism does exist: It's call divorce.
Or rock-paper-scissors.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote: As long as my wife and I are human, we will not always see all the angles. With that weakness comes the possibility of differing points of view, sometimes the failure to make a decision is worse than either view point, and so a mechanism must exist for when all else fails.
If it comes to this, a mechanism does exist: It's call divorce.
Or rock-paper-scissors.
My husband won't let me use that. I always win. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I am solely addressing BlackBlade's argument that it is necessary in a partnership for one partner to be the ultimate decision maker in case consensus cannot be reached. I disagree.
So do I, for what it's worth. My interpretation of D&C 121
quote:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile
...maintains that the idea of being an inherent tie-breaker by virtue of the priesthood (or manhood) is antithetical to how the priesthood is supposed to be viewed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Claudia: As I'm thinking about it, I don't think I have the words right now to adequately respond to your honest query. I by nature am a pretty accommodating creature. I take my wife's beliefs as seriously as my own, and so I confess I have not put much thought into when I would have to act independently, though I believe such a principle may be necessary in certain instances.
It just seems plausible that a circumstance could arise where both points of view are of equal merit to the adherents, as the time to deliberate is already exhausted, and both husband and wife agree either person prevailing is preferable to doing nothing, that one of them is designated to make the decision on which route to take.
Again, this is a topic of which I am less set in stone than others, but there it is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I get the difference between how an LDS husband (as steward of the family) and wife (who, if I understand, isn't steward of the family) are supposed to behave. From what many people are saying, it doesn't seem like there are differences.
If that's the case, what is the meaning of one of them being a steward and the other a stewardee?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, It seems to me that a way of resolving disputes where the partners just don't agree is something that should be tailored to the couple (I'd probably go with trading off so that whoever made the deciding vote the last time accedes this time), rather than dealt with as a general "the man is always right" rule. But then I thought, this is part of LDS spiritual beliefs, correct?
Is it that God or some other spiritual force makes it so that the man should be the deciding vote?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But then I thought, this is part of LDS spiritual beliefs, correct?
Is it that God or some other spiritual force makes it so that the man should be the deciding vote?
No.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky: I was not advocating "the man is always right," nor does Mormonism advocate any inherent ability within males to be right more often than women. Most scriptures dealing with this relationship are dated, and seem to fit the social norms of that time period. The church's "The Family: A Proclamation To the World" seems to be the most modern specific instructions as to how God wishes a household ought to be conducted.
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
Preside, is a tough word to describe for me. My previous post about presiding over priesthood ordinances concerning the family is definitely in that category. Beyond that things get fuzzy.
With Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (and this is the Mormon understanding of the event) Eve made a rational decision without initially informing Adam, she then presented the case to Adam who saw the wisdom and necessity in what Eve said. Both of them were visited by God afterward and first Adam passed the buck on to Eve who passed the buck on to Satan. After cursing Satan God then addresses Eve and states the effects of being fallen in regards to childbirth. He then does the same to Adam in regards to his role in providing sustenance for his family.
Finally, Adam and Eve are explained the manner in which they can be redeemed from the fall (ala Jesus), and part of that arrangement is Eve promising to obey Adam as he obeys God, and Adam swearing to obey God in all things.
Again, I can't put my finger firmly down on this principle, I'm still thinking about it. Perhaps I am conflating "stewardship" with "dominion."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I'm still not seeing why it is necessary to designate a head of the household if, in the end, you both have equal power and responsibility toward the marriage.
One of the primary responsibilities of a man who holds the priesthood is to make sure his home is blessed and protected by the power of God. That, I think, is the definition of "preside." Like I said above, presiding is a function of service specific to the priesthood. It does in no way diminish the wife and mother's leadership role in the home. The fact that the man presides in the home means his family can be blessed through the power of the priesthood. It does not make his "throne" one inch higher than his wife's. But there does have to be that designation--and I think it's there primarily to remind the man not to shirk his responsibilities.
Is that distinction apparent?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, If the man isn't always right, why should he be the one who always is the tie-breaker?
---
I think the thing that isn't coming across here is that there is something the husband has which the wife lacks in regards to the household but we're not getting what this is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
afr, I'm not sure how the gibes up with the man being the "head of the household" and the wife not.
It may be that the terms that seem to denote authority to me aren't supposed to be interpreted that way.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
If the title is merely a way to get a man to avoid "shirking his responsibilities", why don't women similarly need a title to encourage them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A man who holds the priesthood leads his family in Church participation so they will know the gospel and be under the protection of the covenants and ordinances. If you are to enjoy the blessings of the Lord, you must set your own homes in order. Together with your wife, you determine the spiritual climate of your home. Your first obligation is to get your own spiritual life in order through regular scriptural study and daily prayer. Secure and honor your priesthood and temple covenants; encourage your family to do the same.
Take seriously your responsibility to teach the gospel to your family through regular family home evening, family prayer, devotional and scripture-reading time, and other teaching moments. Give special emphasis to preparation for missionary service and temple marriage. As patriarch in the home, exercise your priesthood through performing the appropriate ordinances for your family and by giving blessings to your wife and children. Next to your own salvation, brethren, there is nothing so important to you as the salvation of your wife and children.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I'm not sure how the gibes up with the man being the "head of the household" and the wife not.
I'm not calling the man the sole head of household. That is a joint title, IMO.
quote:If the title is merely a way to get a man to avoid "shirking his responsibilities", why don't women similarly need a title to encourage them?
It's not "merely" a way to get a man not to shirk his responsibilities. I should have put a smiley after that statement. But it is and should be a sobering reminder to him to take his responsibilities in his family seriously.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
OK, so Scott and advice for robots seem to be indicating that the special role for the father isn't about breaking ties or getting a deciding vote, but rather about being the spiritual leader of the household...does that sound like a remotely correct interpretation?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
So...men should go to work and women should stay home and have babies? Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Spiritual leader? Not necessarily. Not in the sense of a holy man. Again, that's a shared role between mom and dad. As the priesthood leader, however, the husband is responsible to watch over the home and ensure that spiritual guidance is there, and share in providing it. He is accountable for that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Christine: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."
So no, women don't just stay home and make babies and men go to work, and anything else is not OK. I don't have any children right now, but my wife and I have decided that I need to move towards employment that will permit her to quit her job and to start having children. That's us, I have a very good friend who is a stay at home dad while his wife works. They've decided that she doesn't want to pursue a career and so while he is at home he is figuring out what he can do to fill the roll. I don't see anything wrong in either of our approaches.
Raising children is a crucial part of Christianity as far as Mormonism is concerned. As men do not have the child bearing facilities it makes sense that to some degree women tend towards child rearing while men provide. Since we don't live in an exclusively agrarian or industrial society anymore, men and women have a significantly more flexibility.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I ahve seen many times that when an atheist says, "Christianity does not make men better, but worse", and points to statistics, then the Christians will respond that it is not a doctrine for perfect men, but for sinners. And yet here are any number of Christians proposing that men should only use their priesthood authority when acting in accord with their god's will. Just how perfect are these Saints? Are they truly so able to discern when they are acting out a will outside their own, that no trace of self-willedness can possibly come into their marriages? This is not a doctrine for men, but for angels. Assume for a moment that their god really exists; then if their men actually act in accordance with its will, there is no need for this authority, for their wives will surely see the same will and obey accordingly; and if they do the opposite, then authority can only do harm.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Christianity exalts men as well as damning them. One either rises to the ideals of the faith and becomes a help to mankind, or else shrinks into despair because they will not do what is required. Jesus himself said that far more fall short of the mark than make it.
What studies are you referring to that demonstrate that Christianity makes men worse?
Men and women have to learn both how to be subjects to God as well as good stewards to the things God places in their care. We're going to screw up, that is expected, but the lesson must be learned nonetheless. I am inclined to agree with you that with a perfect understanding of God's will there would not be any disagreements nor need for discussion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MrSquicky: I was not advocating "the man is always right," nor does Mormonism advocate any inherent ability within males to be right more often than women. Most scriptures dealing with this relationship are dated, and seem to fit the social norms of that time period. The church's "The Family: A Proclamation To the World" seems to be the most modern specific instructions as to how God wishes a household ought to be conducted.
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
That passage you quoted there is something I take to be as evidence of the Mormon Church slowly evolving out of "The man is the boss of the household" ideals. They are already starting to 'vague' their way out of it: in one paragraph alone we trip over some contradiction between 'preside over' vs 'equal partners'
They are transforming from the former to the latter while still trying to assure constancy. haha, neat Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
KOM: As soon as he starts using the priesthood for his own aggrandizement, his authority to use it ends. That authority to use it comes from outside him, from God. He doesn't take it on himself.
You seem to be assuming that given just one little chance, men will use any authority given them to do harm. That is not so. ETA: Men can and do do much good of their own free wills, and can have the best interests of others in mind. They can call upon the authority they hold to do good. In that sense, there is plenty of self-willedness in it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:OK, so Scott and advice for robots seem to be indicating that the special role for the father isn't about breaking ties or getting a deciding vote, but rather about being the spiritual leader of the household...does that sound like a remotely correct interpretation?
I think that's pretty close... It's hard to express the exact feeling in words.
But I think it's easier to relate to when you realize that the family is the basic unit of our church, and it goes up from there. Families, wards/branches, stakes/districts, areas/missions, countries/regions, First Presidency. Each has a definite order and structure that is a bigger version of the last, the only real divergence being in the family, where instead of one President with two counselors, we have the father, who is supported in function as a Bishop or Stake President is by his counselors in his work, by the mother. But in each we have a nominal leader whose real job is not as much to lead as to shepherd, and who does so with assistance by others who often serve the exact same functions when needed. The Bishop is often referred to as "the father of the ward" and I think that is one demonstration of how we kind of treat the whole church structure as an enlargement of the family structure.
And that probably made no sense when I tried to explain it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not calling the man the sole head of household. That is a joint title, IMO.
Ok, that makes sense. The husband and wife are co-heads of household and co-stewards then?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."
This quote doesn't help you. What it says is that men are supposed to help women carry out their womanly responsibilities, and the women are supposed to help the men carry out their manly responsibilities. It doesn't say that they are equally responsible for both.
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life"
quote:So no, women don't just stay home and make babies and men go to work, and anything else is not OK.
We can all read what you cited. It was quite explicit, it is the man's sacred responsibility to provide the necessitities of life. It is not the woman's. If she does it, and he doesn't, he is shirking his divinely designed responsibility.
Is shirking one's divinely bestowed, sacred responsibility really OK?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KOM: As soon as he starts using the priesthood for his own aggrandizement, his authority to use it ends. That authority to use it comes from outside him, from God. He doesn't take it on himself.
His moral authority may have ended. Will you seriously argue that his actual authority, in the sense of being able to enforce his will in the actual physical world of human beings, one of whom he's married to, has also ended? Again: If the will of your god is clear, then how can there not be consensus? If the will is not clear, then why is the male's interpretation the one that shall hold? Loss of moral authority aside, how can you argue that this power will not in real life be used for unrighteous dominance? To say "It won't happen if the man does it right" is not a defense, it is a doctrine for angels. To hyperbolate for a minute: Suppose I had the legal right to force you to work on my farm for no wage. Would that be ok because I chose not to exercise my right, but instead allowed you to work at whatever you chose? What if my right were extended to a large class of people, and only a very few abused it; would you then argue that they had thereby lost their moral authority, and that it was therefore fine for them to have the legal right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I ahve seen many times that when an atheist says, "Christianity does not make men better, but worse", and points to statistics
I'd be fascinated to see some of these statistics that actually support that point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9).
Notice that the correlation is still there even if you exclude the outlier US.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Notice that the correlation is still there even if you exclude the outlier US.
No it is not. Did you even look at the figures? Even including the US, there isn't a strong correlation on most of those. From the graphs the only things in that list that are strongly correlated with religiosity are infant mortality and abortion. And once again, correlation does not demonstrate cause. It is much more likely that these things are the result of economic disparity which happens to be correlated with religiosity in the developed countries.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is the old knot of correlation v. causation as well; i.e., perhaps people in more chaotic circumstances (born into or chosen, whichever or both) may be more likely to turn to religion for answers. But if that were the chain of events, religion would not be the cause -- rather, part of the attempted solution to the problems for which there would be some other [preceding] cause. [which is? who knows. socioeconomic disparity, countless other possibilities, and if the case fits, most likely some huge roiling brew of many causes left to stew together]
BlackBlade, thanks for the honest attempt at answering the honest query. It's rather more than I can get my head around this morning, but I will keep trying. Looks like there is a lot more between here and there to read.
Again, thanks.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9).
This data does not relate to the question of whether religion makes people better. If you want to do that, you'd need to study individuals, and you'd need to look at what happens when they go from being unreligious to becoming religious. You'd want to compare that to a sample group of people who start out unreligious and remain unreligious.
Studies that look at individuals (instead of cultures) have found that religious individuals are generally happier and with fewer problems than the nonreligious. link
The study you linked to only relates to the question of whether a culture that has more religion is correlated to various problems. It doesn't explain why such a correlation would exist. A look at the actual criteria hints at why though.... Note that the criteria they use for "religious" are: an absolute belief in God, praying multiple times a week, church attendence multiple times a month, disbelief in evolution, taking the Bible literally, and atheism. Most of these criteria are less a measure of religion and more a measure of how conservative their approach to religion is. Many religious people do not pray multiple times a week, believe in evolution, don't take the Bible literally, and wouldn't term their belief in God as "absolute" (some even don't believe in a God). That doesn't mean they are not religious. Thus I think what you're really measuring is how liberal a nation's culture is, compared to what sort of problems it has.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No it is not. Did you even look at the figures?
I did, and I'll thank you not to make such accusations. That correlation is at least 20%, not counting the US.
As for correlation versus causation, yada yada. I know what statistics can show and what they cannot show. But it's gotten to the point where this is used as the all-purpose, fully-general response to any disliked statistic. An argument that can be used against anything is as useful as a theory that explans any data whatsoever: Utterly useless.
These figures are not proof that religion causes immorality. But they are evidence that such is the case. If anyone would like to produce evidence in the opposite direction, feel free. A statement that "causation is not correlation" is not evidence, it is a refusal to think about what the data mean.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You seem to be assuming that given just one little chance, men will use any authority given them to do harm.
I generally assume that given the opportunity, people in general will use any authority given to them to do harm. And the longer they are given authority, the more likely it is they will begin to use it to do harm.
There are exceptions, but I believe these exceptions are vanishingly small and generally rely on the enlightened self-interest of the authority figure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also try this unpleasant piece of information.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I did, and I'll thank you not to make such accusations. That correlation is at least 20%, not counting the US.
On which graphs? Please be specific? Furthermore, a correlation of 20% in a data set of such limit size is certainly not statistically significant. They aren't evidence of anything what so ever.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Again, you're measuring conservativism's relationship to supporting torture, not religion's.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: I am solely addressing BlackBlade's argument that it is necessary in a partnership for one partner to be the ultimate decision maker in case consensus cannot be reached. I disagree.
So do I, for what it's worth. My interpretation of D&C 121
quote:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile
...maintains that the idea of being an inherent tie-breaker by virtue of the priesthood (or manhood) is antithetical to how the priesthood is supposed to be viewed.
I completely agree with this. I feel that Black Blade's interpretation about how the man is the tiebreaker is not in line with the scriptures, what the General Authorities say, or what the Lord wants.
quote:You seem to be assuming that given just one little chance, men will use any authority given them to do harm.
D&C 121:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen. 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness...
Priesthood authority is maintained only by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, etc. That means that if those don't exist, then the priesthood doesn't either. Force or unrighteous dominion are simply not available tools in the priesthood authority toolbox. If that's the only tools someone feels he has left, then "amen to the priesthood of that man". Who decides when that authority is gone in a family? That family. If that judgment is made for crappy or unrighteous reasons, that's a problem for them and the culpability for it is on their own heads.
Priesthood is all service and responsibility. The only authority is, at it were, leased to them by the Lord on the condition that he do as the Lord would, and it only needs to be accepted if those presided over agree that the authority is being used as the Lord would wish.
[ May 15, 2009, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Studies that look at individuals (instead of cultures) have found that religious individuals are generally happier and with fewer problems than the nonreligious.
Your study is (as far as I can tell from a crappy journalism link) measuring church-going rates, which you disliked when mine did it. Would you like to have a single standard? Further, it is using self-reported happiness, a notoriously unreliable number; and it has nothing to do with morality, which is the point I was making. Being a moral person does not automatically make you a happy person, or vice-versa.
Further, even within the US crime rates are higher in more religious states, and atheists are way under-represented in prison populations.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A statement that "causation is not correlation" is not evidence, it is a refusal to think about what the data mean.
*amused
It is intellectual integrity.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let's try some Bayes. Suppose you did not know about the study I just linked. Suppose further that you had some probability estimate of the proposition "Religious belief makes people more likely to murder" - say, 5%. Then I tell you about the study. Does your estimate increase, decrease, or stay the same? Notice that I do not ask about quantities, since I made up the 5% anyway, but about directions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Church-going rates are a reasonable measure of religion in the country. Biblical literalism or disbelief of evolution are not; they measure only a subset of the religious, and a subset that happens to differ in significant cultural ways from the rest.
And again, if you want to measure whether accepting religion makes a person more moral, you need to look at individuals - and you need to look at how they were before being religious vs. how they are afterwards. Comparing states or countries in that way involves way too many confounding variables that you are not controlling for. (For instance, I think you'll find that more religious states are significantly warmer than non-religious states in the U.S. - does that mean religion determines the weather?)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Looking at the plots for this study, I'd say it makes no contribution to the argument. Even with the US included, half the graphs look like shotgun patterns. Even if you have prior reason to believe that religion has a 5% probability of making people more likely to murder, that wouldn't make these correlations significant at any reasonable standard of evidence.
The US is so far off scale on the STD graphs you can't even tell what the trend might be among the other countries.
I'm personally appalled that reviewers allowed conclusions that are so strikingly at odds with the data presented to be published. This paper isn't science, its rubish. I'm really appalled you'd even reference such a piece of trash.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just to reiterate, this is possibly one of my all-time favorite scriptures:
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness...
I love the emphasized part - it explains how the Lord works. Simply, force and dismissal and disrespect in general isn't in the toolbox of righteous leaders. If that's the tools they are using, they are no longer righteous. It's very reassuring, because if they aren't righteous, I don't have to listen anymore.
I do wish I'd understood this sooner - there are a couple of guys I dated in my early twenties that caused me a great deal of distress by claiming final say because of the priesthood when I disagreed with them. I knew they were full of crap - the Lord I knew didn't disrespect me like that - but I couldn't pinpoint with the scriptures why.
I am very grateful for the comfort of the Spirit that told me not to give up the truth I knew because someone wanted to package some baloney along with it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Church-going rates are a reasonable measure of religion in the country.
And, as you'll observe from the figures in my link, it is just as strongly correlated with homicide etc as any of the other variables used. You could drop the absolute belief, prayer, and belief in evolution, and the conclusion would still be the same. This being so, will you kindly withdraw this objection to the link?
quote:Comparing states or countries in that way involves way too many confounding variables that you are not controlling for.
I will ask you the same question I asked CT: Does this study make it, in your estimation, more likely or less likely that religion leads to homicides?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Let's try some Bayes. Suppose you did not know about the study I just linked. Suppose further that you had some probability estimate of the proposition "Religious belief makes people more likely to murder" - say, 5%. Then I tell you about the study. Does your estimate increase, decrease, or stay the same? Notice that I do not ask about quantities, since I made up the 5% anyway, but about directions.
[edited for snark; my apologies, out of line]
The Discussion section near the end of most relevant journal articles usually includes some bit about this issue, often at great and tiresome length.
"With qualifications" does not equal "impossible to make any deductions whatsoever," and it never has. But the qualifications are what makes for rigor and intellectual integrity, and they are what help us balance more carefully as we try to move from research to policy. We have to make policy, but our understanding is never set in stone, so we have to make policy knowing it may change and with the acknowledged willingness to anticipate and seek out such changes, and make whatever corrections to policy are indicated, if so.
[ May 15, 2009, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I will ask you the same question I asked CT: Does this study make it, in your estimation, more likely or less likely that religion leads to homicides?
[edited for snark; my apologies, out of line]
Your study would not lead me to conclude anything one way or the other as regards likelihood. It would make me curious about certain directions, generate additional and potentially fruitful hypotheses, and likely be the nitus of several interesting phone calls, though.
But conclusions as to meaning? None. Possibilities and interesting areas to look further? Yes.
What makes them not be firm conclusions is the required qualifications, and it is the qualifications that raise the further questions.
[ May 15, 2009, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And, as you'll observe from the figures in my link, it is just as strongly correlated with homicide etc as any of the other variables used.
No its not. You are completely harpooning your own credibility as a scientists by making such statements. Look at the graph!! The only reason there is any correlation between religiosity and murder is because the US and Poland happen to be high in both factors. Leave them off and there is no correlation at all. If you look at frequent church attendance, the US and Poland are off scale in the murder rate but in the mid range for church attendance which completely destroys what ever correlation existed.
I'm in the middle of marking student research papers and if one of my students made a conclusion like that from this data set, I'd fail them. If you are actually a Ph.D student in physics as you've claimed, you must be doing solely theoretical work because your data analysis skills are really atrocious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Does this study make it, in your estimation, more likely or less likely that religion leads to homicides?
Based on the data presented in this study, I do not think it make a significant contribution to the debate. All I can glean from it is that most societal factors in the US look more like developing countries than they do other developed countries, which is curious but not evidence that religiosity is the cause.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I get what you are saying, King of Men (or at least, I'm pretty sure I do). I'll also confess to a healthy skepticism that committing to a religion makes one a better person, helps one to be a better person, or even is an aid to preventing one from becoming a worse person (whatever the definitions may be).
I just honestly don't take anything away from the study other than interesting questions, as, quite frankly, the alternative explanations are just as viable [and the potential confounders play havoc so readily].
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QB] Even if you have prior reason to believe that religion has a 5% probability of making people more likely to murder, that wouldn't make these correlations significant at any reasonable standard of evidence.
Let us run some dang numbers. I am picking a figure at random; if you like you can pick a different one and run the same analysis. Figure four, middle of the second column, "Atheists and agnostics" versus "Under-five mortality/1000 births". Reading off from the figure:
Notice that I left out the US. The correlation coefficient is -71%. Seventy-one percent, dude! And this is 'trash'? What sort of data do you work with, then, that has so much stronger correlations?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And, as you'll observe from the figures in my link, it is just as strongly correlated with homicide etc as any of the other variables used. You could drop the absolute belief, prayer, and belief in evolution, and the conclusion would still be the same. This being so, will you kindly withdraw this objection to the link?
Well, if you look at only the charts comparing to "church-going", the only correlation that I see clearly is to abortion, especially once you take out the U.S. And arguably infant deaths. That to me suggests there could be some connection between religiousness and teen pregnancy, but I suspect poverty or culture are the confounding variables causing it.
quote:Does this study make it, in your estimation, more likely or less likely that religion leads to homicides?
I'd say more likely. But then again, a random guy on the street telling me religion leads to homicides also makes it more likely to be true.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Notice that I left out the US. The correlation coefficient is -71%. Seventy-one percent, dude! And this is 'trash'? What sort of data do you work with, then, that has so much stronger correlations?
Again, I think you could find a similar correlation between average temperature and religion if you compared U.S. states.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Your study would not lead me to conclude anything one way or the other as regards likelihood.
I am sure you can do better than this. You apparently agree that this data is not utterly irrelevant. It follows that it must have some sort of effect on your probability estimate. Which direction? Up or down? It can be a very tiny change if you like, but unless you are willing to state (with Rabbit) that these data are completely irrelevant, your estimate has to go one way or the other. Please choose.
Rabbit, you posted while I was working out that correlation coefficient, and I believe you have now crossed the line into personal attack. You probably did not intend to do so. Perhaps you would like to back down?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She's not wrong, King of Men. Statistical analysis does not support your conclusions.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It follows that it must have some sort of effect on your probability estimate. Which direction? Up or down?
My apologies, but I am constrained by the rigor of my training. I do not make assertions without possibility of tenable substantiation.
No matter how often someone may ask me to do so.
---
Form the article:
quote:Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.
The qualifications already acknowledged by the [author poses] limitations on any conclusions that can be drawn. As far as I can see, there is no attempt to take into account the potential confounding of socioeconomic status, either in aggregate or in terms of spread between highest and lowest in a country.
[SES is the most cliched but also most common confounder in the business. It is never irrelevant enough to disregard without mention in this sort of study.]
That isn't fancy laboring over the data, but rather basic, solid, analytic technique.
All this raw data can be good for is purest speculation, nothing more. And if the data were to be presented without proper qualifications extensively discussed, it would be shoddy work that lessens the understanding about the topic, not furthers it.
Are there any responses to this article in the literature? Other articles that cite it, positively or negatively?
[ May 15, 2009, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Man, it's like reading creationists attack evolution.
Step 1: Start with some information Step 2: Filter it through a lack of understanding of how science works Step 3: Declare it shows whatever conclusion you started out with Step 4: ... Step 5: Profit!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The author of the study King of Men referenced, ""Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look"," is Gregory S. Paul (link is to Wikipedia), described as "a freelance paleontologist, author and illustrator."
The Wikipedia article list several areas of criticism regarding that particular paper. I'm excerpting Wikipedia below for anyone who wants to pursue primary sources of the criticisms referenced there. I won't, but I'd be happy to read along on any discussion that follows. As it is, though, other areas of my life are pressing.
quote:Religion See also: Morality#Religiosity and morality
Paul authored a paper in 2005 entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look".[2] He states in the introduction that the paper is "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".[3] This paper has been criticized on statistical grounds, for conceptual ambiguity , its indirect measure of "religiosity" (the author's term) and its "chi-by-eye" interpretation of scatterplots rather than quantified measures. Summing up in a published article in the same journal, Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach from Cedarville University wrote that "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify."[4] [bold added for emphasis, and it summarizes well my opinion on the matter --CT] At the time the paper was published, Paul announced plans to write a book on the subject, claiming that the findings are strong enough to justify further study.[5]
Gary F. Jensen of Vanderbilt University is one of the scientists who criticizes the methods used by Paul, including that "Paul’s analysis generates the 'desired results' by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion". In a response [6] to the study by Paul, he builds on and refines Paul's analysis. His conclusion, that focus only in the crime of homicide, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualistic Christian beliefs, something Jensen defines as the strong belief in all of the following : God, heaven, devil and hell. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it."
---
Added: Wikipedia listing of relevant references and footnotes:
quote:Footnotes
1. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-61946-2. 2. ^ Gregory S. Paul (2005), "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion and Society. Vol. 7. [1] 3. ^ Paul 2005, p. 2. 4. ^ "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". [2]. 2006. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html. Retrieved on 2007-05-27. 5. ^ "Religion and social problems". MSNBC. 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/10364362#10364362. Retrieved on 2009-02-19. 6. ^ Jensen 2006.
References
* Jensen, G. F. (2006). "Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations" (PDF). Journal of Religion & Society 8: 1–14. ISSN 1522-5658. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-04-07. * Paul, G. S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popularity Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" (PDF). Journal of Religion & Society 7: 1–17. ISSN 1522-5658. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-04-07. * Paul, G.S. (2002). Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[ May 15, 2009, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My view of humanity is apparently very rosy.
I'll retract my previous statement about men and using authority for good. It is a fairly safe assumption that they will use it for wrong if they get it. Still, it is my privilege to know many who don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Again, I think you could find a similar correlation between average temperature and religion if you compared U.S. states.
Well, since only stupid people live in hot climates...
*keeps tongue firmly in cheek*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QB] Even if you have prior reason to believe that religion has a 5% probability of making people more likely to murder, that wouldn't make these correlations significant at any reasonable standard of evidence.
Let us run some dang numbers. I am picking a figure at random; if you like you can pick a different one and run the same analysis. Figure four, middle of the second column, "Atheists and agnostics" versus "Under-five mortality/1000 births". Reading off from the figure:
Notice that I left out the US. The correlation coefficient is -71%. Seventy-one percent, dude! And this is 'trash'? What sort of data do you work with, then, that has so much stronger correlations?
KOM, I don't know if you are being dishonest or just nor reading thoroughly but figure 4 (religiosity vs early childhood mortality) is one of the cases where I already admitted the data is correlated.
Instead, lets pick the graph of church attendence vs murder, which you specifically claimed showed a correlation. Reading the data off the chart (if you want I can post the numbers I read) I get a correlation coeficient of 0.0356 with all countries included. If you exclude the US, the correlation coefficient drops to 0.0125. If you exclude both the use and Poland, you actually get a very slight anti-correlation with an R2 of 0.005.
Does that make my point clear?
The human brain is programmed to see patterns even when none exist. This is particularly true when one already has preconceived notions about what the data says. This is why statistical analysis is so important and why this paper is a load of crap.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I gave numbers. So far katharina and Rabbit have responded with assertions of "You're wrong" and Squicky and Rabbit have added insults. Now, it's possible that I was unlucky in my random pick and got the only large correlation in the whole lot, which would make the significance drop considerably. If that's so, then fine, I was mistaken and the study does not actually support my claim. Nobody has even attempted to argue reasonably in this direction, unless you count Rabbit's "Your data analysis skills are really atrocious". Is this really the standard of argument you people want to hold yourself to?
quote:My apologies, but I am constrained by the rigor of my training. [Smile] I do not make assertions without possibility of tenable substantiation.
Your rigorous training does not appear to include Bayesian methods. Is it possible that you misunderstood my question? I do not ask for an estimate of X in "There is X% probability that religion will cause a homicide." I ask for a degree of belief in "Religion increases homicides", as in, if an all-knowing god offers you a bet on this statement, and will reveal the answer, what odds do you want? Unless you are asserting either that these data do not bear on that question at all, or else that they are equally likely to appear whether the statement is true or false, then your requested odds must change. Right?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
All right, the homicide graph does not show a correlation. Was that such a hard argument to make? What's with the insults?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KOM, The sources of error make it so that to a real scientist, for the purposes you are trying to put it, the valid information from that data is non-existent. This is another case where your ignorance of basic scientific epistemology (and heck, statistical inference) is coming through.
[ May 15, 2009, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And then there is this follow-up paper by a different author.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:My apologies, but I am constrained by the rigor of my training. I do not make assertions without possibility of tenable substantiation.
Your rigorous training does not appear to include Bayesian methods. Is it possible that you misunderstood my question?
"No matter how often someone may ask me to do so."
quote:Summing up in a published article in the same journal, Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach from Cedarville University wrote that "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify.
Or those you do. [As MrSquicky puts it so succinctly, "the valid information from that data is non-existent." Indeed, it is.]
I am sorry, but I have nothing further to say on the matter, and I will have nothing further to say.
Some questions are not meant for answering, but rather for allowing to be left hanging, isolated against the clear blue sky, swinging gently in the breeze. (Unfortunately for the impatient and importunate, this is one of them.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'll retract my previous statement about men and using authority for good. It is a fairly safe assumption that they will use it for wrong if they get it. Still, it is my privilege to know many who don't.
I've known many who would use it correctly as well, but I've known many more who would abuse it. And historically, the (often religiously justified) idea that men hold authority over women has been put to uses that are very different from what you are saying it should be.
In fact, forget historically. This is going on right now. I'm willing to bet that this is even true for a not insignificant number of people in your religion.
---
edit: I'm not sure how to get my concern across here, so this may be clumsy. I think people are often more concerned with justifying the potentially problematic things they believe instead of guarding against the problems that very forseeably develop from people believing them. Also, this very instinct to justify often abets the furtherance of these problems and abuses.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oh, and by the way KOM. If you are talking about the percent of variance in a data set that is described by a linear correlation, you should be reporting R squared and R. Which for graph #4 turns out to be 50.6% not 71%.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KOM, You, I suspect consciously, present yourself who understands how science works, but you don't. I note this when it becomes very apparent so that people who are not as acquainted with what science actually is don't see your mistaken ideas presented as valid without challenge.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Evidentally one of my earlier post got lost. Here is roughly what I said some where around the bottom of the last page
The authors of this paper claim,
quote:In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (figure 1-9).
Of those 6 claims, only 2 (early childhood mortality and abortion rates) are evident in the data they present. The remaining claims are not support even by the data the authors present. With those two exceptions, any correlations in the data are not statistically significant whether or not the US is included in the data.
It is worth noting that early childhood mortality and abortion rates have been shown to be strongly correlated to poverty and that the correlation between income disparity in the countries studied and childhood mortality and abortions is much stronger than the correlation with religiosity.
It is an interesting note that there appears to be a correlation between religiosity in these countries and income disparity and I think the reason for that is worth discussing.
The paper in question is not.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, you posted while I was working out that correlation coefficient, and I believe you have now crossed the line into personal attack. You probably did not intend to do so. Perhaps you would like to back down?
My personal attack was specifically regarding your statement that murder rates as strongly correlated to church attendance as other factors of religiosity. If you had said childhood mortality was as strongly correlated to church attendance as other factors, I would have agreed. If you don't wish to be ridiculed for bad science, don't present yourself as an accomplished scientist and then make claims that are scientifically ridiculous.
No I don't plan to back down.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, and by the way KOM. If you are talking about the percent of variance in a data set that is described by a linear correlation, you should be reporting R squared and R. Which for graph #4 turns out to be 50.6% not 71%.
I'm not doing a fit, I'm just calculating the correlation coefficient. Since the information content is the same, saying that or the other 'should' be used is purely conventional. If you want to argue that R^2 is more often used in social sciences, that's fine; I wouldn't know. But there's no 'should' about it.
If your lost post had not been lost, this discussion would have been a lot more pleasant. Perhaps you would like to retract your accusation of dishonesty and/or not reading your posts, now?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:My personal attack was specifically regarding your statement that murder rates as strongly correlated to church attendance as other factors of religiosity.
Well, I admit I was looking at Figure 4 when I said that, so the phrase "homicide etc" was rather unfortunate, careless, and mistaken. A simple "Hang on, you'd better check that" would have done the job, though.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Squicky: It unfortunately is true for many in my religion, who apparently do not understand what the authority is and how it may be exercised.
If they are using it to secure power and control for themselves, that is a sure sign they are misusing their position and therefore will have that authority taken away and be left to their own devices. Abuse of one's position in the marriage and family is not a characteristic of priesthood authority.
Even if it can be misunderstood and the position of a priesthood holder misused, however, we believe priesthood authority is necessary and does much good that could not be done without it. I have personally seen it do much good and change lives for the better, both for priesthood holders and for those they serve.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is almost trivial to find extremely high correlations in the social sciences. That has never been a problem. And yet, most of those correlations are not considered particularly useful in an explanatory context, much less a causative one.
If all that is being reported is a variety of correlations, all of which mentioned in the thread have obvious likely other variables driving the correlation, then we gain no information whatsoever. And, as we know the other variables are very likely explanations, the correlations do not increase the evidence of causation at all. Controlling for appropriate variables could easily confound or reverse the correlation, such that there is no causative information in the two-variable correlations.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, and by the way KOM. If you are talking about the percent of variance in a data set that is described by a linear correlation, you should be reporting R squared and R. Which for graph #4 turns out to be 50.6% not 71%.
I'm not doing a fit, I'm just calculating the correlation coefficient. Since the information content is the same, saying that or the other 'should' be used is purely conventional. If you want to argue that R^2 is more often used in social sciences, that's fine; I wouldn't know. But there's no 'should' about it.
I wasn't comment on which statistic should be used. What I was saying that it that the R^2 is the fraction of the variance in the data set which is described by the correlation the R value is not. Calling the R^2 value a percent makes some sense, it is a percent of the variance captured by the correlation. Reporting the R value as a percent is just wrong. Percent of what?
If your lost post had not been lost, this discussion would have been a lot more pleasant. Perhaps you would like to retract your accusation of dishonesty and/or not reading your posts, now?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Reporting the R value as a percent is just wrong. Percent of what?
Wait, what? You're objecting to the notation? 71% == 0.71. And it's a percentage of correlation, where 100% is "complete linear dependence with no noise". I really do not understand what problem you are having with this. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Correlation coefficient, not a goodness-of-fit metric. Possibly they are the same number for the special case of fits to straight lines.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If your lost post had not been lost, this discussion would have been a lot more pleasant. Perhaps you would like to retract your accusation of dishonesty and/or not reading your posts, now?
And if you had not repeatedly claimed that this paper found that murder rates were correlated with religiosity, you would have deserved more pleasant responses. My insults were directed at a very specific claim you made that homocides were correlated to church attendance. That claim is contradicted by the evidence you used to support it. You deserved to be called on that.
I will retract my accusations that you were either lying or didn't read things carefully when you admit that you retract your claim that this paper provides any evidence to support the your contention that religions increases murder, suicide, teenage pregnancy, STDs and other social problems.
It really is a very very bad example of scientific work and you should feel embarrassed by having used it as a reference.
O, and I still don't believe you picked that graph at random. I've been in science way too long to believe any scientist who claims that they just happened to randomly select the one set of data that best supported their contention. Sorry, I'm not buying it. It would be a bad use of Bayesian reasoning. The chances you picked that graph at random, are 1/45. Based on my past experience, the chance you picked it intentional because you knew it would support your point are closer 3/4. Combining the two, I get a probability of around 0.005 that this was just random chance, so I'm better than 99% confident that this wasn't a random event.
Its just so obvious that this is the graph any one would have picked if they had been trying to make your point. If you retract that exaggeration, I'll apologize for being so snarky about it.
I'm sorry if I'm snarky but I'm in the middle of end of the semester project report grading so my tolerance for this kind of inexcusably bad argumentation is really low. You may be catching wrath that my undergraduate students deserve more readily -- but frankly I expect someone working on a Ph.D in physics to be more compent than that even when posting on an internet forum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I already agreed that there is no correlation in homicides. I don't see any way I can convince you I picked at random, so there's no use in further discussion of that; I'll only request that you consider whether I am really stupid or not. Suppose I had decided to pick the graph that best supported my case; that would require me to check out correlations, and I would then be aware that some of them were near zero. If I then reported only the best case, it would be quite trivial to say "Sure, in that one graph; but what about these three"? Which, indeed, is exactly what happened, after half a page of insults. Am I supposed to be completely oblivious to this scenario? Why would I post something knowing I'd have to retract it in a couple of posts?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Reporting the R value as a percent is just wrong. Percent of what?
Wait, what? You're objecting to the notation? 71% == 0.71. And it's a percentage of correlation, where 100% is "complete linear dependence with no noise". I really do not understand what problem you are having with this. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Correlation coefficient, not a goodness-of-fit metric. Possibly they are the same number for the special case of fits to straight lines.
Yes, that's what I'm complaining about. Its one of my pet peeves as a scientist. Percent must be a percent of something. It doesn't make sense to talk about percent unless you specify percent of what. R^2 is the percent of statistically meaningful quality of the data. R is not. The fact that 0.71 is 71% of 1 does not mean it is always sensible to call equate 0.71 with 71%. In this case its not. And no I'm not confusing R^2 with a goodness of fit or even statistical significance of the fit.
And yeah, I recognize that I'm probably being overly nitpicky about that for an internet forum. Blame the reports I've been grading. You should still be able to grasp the validity of the point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, actually, I really don't. A correlation coefficient tells you how correlated two variables are. No more, no less. It does not have anything to do with the "statistically meaningful quality of the data", except that the one is apparently the square of the other; which, by the way, ought to tell you that the numbers contain the same information, and which you use is plain convention and not some deep moral quality that matters for whether you are a good scientist. Further, it makes perfect sense to say that two variables are X% correlated, 100% meaning they are the same variable and no noise, 0% meaning one gives you zero information about the other. Perhaps this language is not used in your field; it is in mine, and I really find it quite annoying when you call this meaningless. Differing conventions have no scientific weight. It is not the case that one convention makes you a good scientist and another makes you a bad one.
The percent symbol is just a shorthand for 'hundredths'; whether you call something '0.71', '71 hundredths', or '71%' is completely indifferent. If this is really a pet peeve of yours, you need to rethink it.
I can see, now, where I went wrong; I assumed we were having a reasonable discussion, where one side might say "Take a look at this graph", and the other can say "Yeah, sure, but you've got all these other ones that wash out the significance", without accusations of dishonesty being thrown about; and the first can then again say "Ah, good point; right you are." This is how I generally talk to colleagues when discussing a statistical point. I don't quite know what sort of discussion you were having, but it does not seem to be a polite one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I already agreed that there is no correlation in homicides.
Yes, you agreed to that after I called you on it. Only a real idiot would have continued to make that argument after I actually calculated the correlation coefficient to be less than 0.1 and I never claimed you were a total idiot. What I want is for you to admit that this paper does not support your original claim that religion causes all kinds of social problems. Its a piece of crap paper and you should feel embarrassed for having referenced it and made unsubstatiatable claims based on it.
quote:I don't see any way I can convince you I picked at random, so there's no use in further discussion of that; I'll only request that you consider whether I am really stupid or not. Suppose I had decided to pick the graph that best supported my case; that would require me to check out correlations, and I would then be aware that some of them were near zero.
No it wouldn't. It's really easy to tell with a brief glance which of those graphs show significant correlations and which don't. You don't need to do a single calculation to tell that the graphs for child mortality show strong correlations and most of the others do not. To be fare, I don't know that you actually picked the best example. I certainly haven't taken the time to calculate correlation coefficients for all those graphs, but I can easily tell by eye that one there are only 4 or 5 of the 45 graphs that would give you a a correlation as high as the one you picked. So the odds that you would pick one of the best 5 by chance are 1/9. The odds that you would pick one of the because it proved your point and claim it was a random choice, less than 1/4. Which gives me a 2.8% probability that you are exaggerating, so I can only reject your claim at the 95% confidence level not the 99%.
If you happen to be that 1/20 case, I apologize.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your priors are made up from thin air; your apology is worth its weight in gold.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is there anything more stubborn than a nerd with access to percentages?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The percent symbol is just a shorthand for 'hundredths'; whether you call something '0.71', '71 hundredths', or '71%' is completely indifferent. If this is really a pet peeve of yours, you need to rethink it.
I highly recommend you change your opinion on that before you send a scientific paper reporting things as percent or you will find I am not alone in this pet peeve.
If you use percent with out specifying what its a percent of, it can be extremely misleading. If for example you say there was a 50% change in the concentration over time, you have no idea whether that is 50% of the initial concentration or final concentration or the average of the two and it can make an enormous difference. It isn't valid to talk about percent unless you are talking about percent of something meaningful. If a store was advertising a 50% off sale and they'd simply cut the price of everything by $0.50 (50% or a dollar), customers would be hopping mad. Percent is nonsense unless its a percent of something meaningful and that thing is specified. The R value isn't a fraction of some meaningful quantity and so calling a % correlation is just wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Your priors are made up from thin air; your apology is worth its weight in gold.
If you want to test me on it, I'd be happy to comply.
Here is the proposal.
E-mail me a set of graphs where you have the numbers and I have only a graph. I'll spend less than 5 seconds per graph, and post my estimates of the R^2 values as quickly as I can.
I've done a lot of data analysis. I'm willing to bet you I can estimate an R^2 to one significant digit better than 80% of the time without doing a single calculation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: If a store was advertising a 50% off sale and they'd simply cut the price of everything by $0.50 (50% or a dollar)
Then they would be using very bad notation. If they'd said $50%, that would be accurate, although customers would still be misled because they would be going against the convention for prices. But it is only a convention, and I would be quite unsurprised to find shops in some other nation using [Our currency symbol]50% without anyone raising an eyebrow. Except that this would be a pretty small discount in any currency I know of, so probably they don't bother.
quote:The R value isn't a fraction of some meaningful quantity and so calling a % correlation is just wrong.
One more bloody time. 100% correlated variables have a linear relationship with no noise. The statement "X and Y are Z% correlated" conveys numerical information accurately; it is perfectly meaningful.
I'm done with this discussion, it's degenerated basically to semantics. Conventions are fine things, but once it is recognised that the difference under discussion is one of convention, then insisting on the superiority of one over the other is the lowest form of useless pettifoggery.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you want to test me on it, I'd be happy to comply.
Not the prior I was referring to. I meant your 25% probability that I was lying. I quite believe you can estimate correlation coefficients by eye, so can I. I also believe you would happily lie about taking only 5 seconds per graph, so your test is useless.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I also believe you would happily lie about taking only 5 seconds per graph, so your test is useless.
Not if there is a time stamp on the graphs you send me and time stamp on my response.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I know the subject of a man's position in his home in the LDS church has long passed, but I have to add my two cents, anyway.
Having a "tiebreaker" vote between two people is the same as having the only vote, and I think that approach is ridiculous. In a healthy marriage, a husband and wife should both agree to a decision, or there is no decision.
I see the father's "presiding" role as a ceremonial role. I don't mean that in the colloquial sense of "a role lacking in importance". This is a religion, so ceremony IS important. But that ceremonial role is mostly significant in ceremonial settings — official family meetings, family prayer, father's blessings, that sort of thing. When it comes to making practical choices, there is nothing about being a husband or father that gives a man a right to impose his will on his wife. And a man has no more or less authority than his wife to impose his will on the children. They are equals.
When a man starts thinking that his position in the family grants him some practical ability to get his way all the time, he has completely lost track of what his priesthood is about, and as a result, automatically loses whatever authority he might have presumed himself to have.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not the prior I was referring to. I meant your 25% probability that I was lying.
You really question this? You are continue to stretch the limits of believability here. I thought it was a fairly generous estimate. It's a prior based on typical behavior not on you in particular. Selecting the best data you ever collected and calling it a "typical result" is so common its become a standard joke. I think its more likely to by 99% of the time than 75%. When humans choose an example to illustrate a point, the tendency to choose an example that illustrates the point well (if that can be readily determined) is incredibly strong. That's one of the reasons for doing studies blinded and truly randomized. If you the reseacher isn't blinded the potential for non-objectivity is extremely high and you clearly weren't blinded. You can't honestly tell me that you didn't know before you interpolated a single number off the graph that the example you picked was going to make the point you wanted. You've already admitted you can tell correlations fairly accurately at a glance.
Maybe you did just happen to open figure 4 first, but do you really expect me to believe that if you had opened figure 3 first you would have bothered to do the work and post it, knowing it would undermine your point? That's what makes this a a non-random choice. I'm don't know whether you looked at all the graphs first and selected one you knew would give a good result or if you opened the first one you saw, recognized it would serve your purposes and then proceeded. Making a judgement about the desirability of the outcome before proceeding makes the selection non-Random. I can't believe you would have proceeded if you had randomly selected a bad example which makes it extremely difficult to accept this was a random example.
I know very well that I would not have bothered reading the numbers off the murder vs church attendance chart if I'd had any question about whether the correlation wasn't going to be pretty close to zero, even though it strengthened my point that this was the example you had used earlier.
Maybe you are more willing to do tedious work to prove you were wrong in an internet forum than I am. But I think the chance of that are much less that 25%.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Notice that the correlation is still there even if you exclude the outlier US.
No it is not. Did you even look at the figures? Even including the US, there isn't a strong correlation on most of those. From the graphs the only things in that list that are strongly correlated with religiosity are infant mortality and abortion. And once again, correlation does not demonstrate cause. It is much more likely that these things are the result of economic disparity which happens to be correlated with religiosity in the developed countries.
Oh, my mistake. I just found the post I made where I said that infant mortality and abortion showed a strong correlation to religiosity. I made this post an hour and half before you posted the data analysis and well before I posted the insult about your poor reading skills.
So no, I'm not taking anything back. You should be embarrassed for continuing the argument as long as you have.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:One more bloody time. 100% correlated variables have a linear relationship with no noise. The statement "X and Y are Z% correlated" conveys numerical information accurately; it is perfectly meaningful.
KOM, I really don't want to pull rank because I know it won't do any good but this is part of my research specialty, I know my stats extremely well and you are just wrong. R^2 is the percent of variance in Y that can be explained by variance in X. That is statistically meaningful. R is the square root of that. Expressing it as percent is not meaningful because it isn't linearly related to a meaningful statistical parameter.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It doesn't matter whether it is "statistically meaningful". If I tell you that the correlation coefficient is 71%, then I have simultaneously told you the value of R^2, unless you are claiming to be so stupid you can't take a square. This is a difference of convention in the presentation! How hard can this be to understand? In physics we communicate correlation coefficients, and we all understand each other. In your field (remind me what it is, by the way?) you communicate R-squared, and all understand each other. Exactly the same information is conveyed. It is just nonsense to say that one is more 'meaningful' than the other. The only time this could possibly be a problem is when we communicate between fields; and even then it's only a problem if one side insists on making it a problem by whining "statistically meaningful" for three pages on end. The square root of a number cannot possibly be less meaningful than the number itself; they are - hah! - 100% correlated.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I take that back, the correlation coefficient also contains the sense of the correlation and therefore has more information in it than R^2.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And finally: Let x have the larger variance. Then the correlation coefficient is the increase in <y>, in units of its standard deviation, per standard-deviation increase in <x>. So, it is the ratio of increases in averages. Being a ratio, it is perfectly sensible to express it in percent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For your information KOM, I'm a chemist.
I have made 5 posts on the subject, which is far less than 3 1/2 pages. Technically, its 10% of 1 page or 2.8% of 3.5 pages. Or 500% of one post. Use what ever number you like.
I've never claimed that R^2 is any more or less meaningful than R, only that it is less statistically meaningful to present R as a percent. I am unfamiliar with any statistics texts or papers which define R as a percent or express it as a percent. I believe that's commonly done in certain areas of physics although not in the areas that overlap with my research. If you can send can post references where it is done this way, I would appreciate seeing it. Until then, I will consider the subject closed.
Like I said, the imprecise use of the word percentage is a pet peeve of mine. If I were reviewing a paper of yours or I was your professor, I would insist you change it. But I'm not so do it however you like.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Puppy: Could you do me the kindness then in perhaps extrapolating why it is that Eve promised to obey her husband Adam as he followed God, and yet Adam's vow was obedience to God?
Why not simply have both of them pledge fealty to God, why does the Adam factor at all into Eve's covenant?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Puppy: Could you do me the kindness then in perhaps extrapolating why it is that Eve promised to obey her husband Adam as he followed God, and yet Adam's vow was obedience to God?
Why not simply have both of them pledge fealty to God, why does the Adam factor at all into Eve's covenant?
Well, I can't speak for Puppy, but I'm thinking it's because at some point, a man wrote it. Whether or not he was inspired to do so by God and to what extent that makes every word he wrote accurate is a long-standing argument among the various Christian and non-Christian denominations, the most literal of whom get all choked up when you start quoting some of the harsher passages in Leviticus at them.
I like to think that the human race has come a long way since the apple. When choosing verses to read at my wedding, that one from Genesis was offered as a choice but I specifically avoided it because I refuse to live my life according to the things it says there and frankly, I don't believe it ever happened like that. I'm reasonably sure the human race came to be on this planet through millions of years of evolution.
You don't have to look too far to see the results of what happens when we allow one gender a dominant role. They are still going on in the world today and you can sugar coat them if you like but there are millions of women who are not even allowed to show their faces and if they get raped, it is clearly their fault and they get stoned to death. These men, too, think they are righteous, and somehow I'm not seeing any evidence that the women's protests (if any) are doing a whole heck of a lot of good.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
BlackBlade:
quote:Could you do me the kindness then in perhaps extrapolating why it is that Eve promised to obey her husband Adam as he followed God, and yet Adam's vow was obedience to God?
Why not simply have both of them pledge fealty to God, why does the Adam factor at all into Eve's covenant?
Since what you're talking about is presented in a very ceremonial sort of way, my original explanation should suffice.
When you're extrapolating ceremonial language into practical life, you have to be judicious about how literally you translate your instructions. I think that the Brethren's counsel that couples should act as equals, "neither walking behind the other", indicates that we aren't meant to literally put the husband in charge of practical matters, with veto power over the wife. He has an important role to play in religious ordinances and ceremonies, but that doesn't translate into general, everyday dominance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Is there anything more stubborn than a nerd with access to percentages?
my name is king of men, i have here in this post a collection of percentages that prove religion is bad
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: BlackBlade:
quote:Could you do me the kindness then in perhaps extrapolating why it is that Eve promised to obey her husband Adam as he followed God, and yet Adam's vow was obedience to God?
Why not simply have both of them pledge fealty to God, why does the Adam factor at all into Eve's covenant?
Since what you're talking about is presented in a very ceremonial sort of way, my original explanation should suffice.
When you're extrapolating ceremonial language into practical life, you have to be judicious about how literally you translate your instructions. I think that the Brethren's counsel that couples should act as equals, "neither walking behind the other", indicates that we aren't meant to literally put the husband in charge of practical matters, with veto power over the wife. He has an important role to play in religious ordinances and ceremonies, but that doesn't translate into general, everyday dominance.
I see, thank you for your explanation. I think we disagree on less than you might think. As for interpreting ceremonial language, would you be willing to take this to email? A little bird whispered in my ear that perhaps I am drawing pretty close to things of a sacred nature.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Sure! Though I warn you that we're getting perilously close to the edge of where I feel like I actually know anything
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. We have a boy in our primary whose mother abandoned him at birth and it was clear mother's day bothered him, so I told him he could be my son for the day. It made him smile. Nobody got all emotional about incorrect use of the words mother and son. That isn't what's going on here and we all know it.