helena handbasket

Well I AM a teacher and frankly there are a lot of children out there who behave badly not because they have social problems (that's a whole other story) but simply some children are not taught to have any boundaries. Wait until these children are ten or eleven and end up in my classroom, and all of the nice respectful students sit and learn nothing because the day is spent on basic behavior management. It's not funny and if I were the parents of those children I would be livid. As it is I think I may be giving up teaching because I have just had enough of trying to teach when it's really just crowd control, day in and day out. I feel more like the zookeeper to be honest and it's demoralizing. I went into teaching because I'm good at it and it's noble and I wanted to end my day by feeling good about what I contributed to society today........... HA! And I know that these kids would be FINE with a bit of hands-on parenting. zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank god you're not a teacher LEDF! you do > actually realise that children who act > aggressively may be being treated aggressively by > their parents/carers or other children themselves? > This doesn't make it ok but a 3 year old doesn't > realise that do they? Children copy behaviour

The hands thing is strange, I also had two doctors ask to look at my hands in the weeks leading up to the birth. I have small child's hands so when they saw them there was a lot of head shaking. Assume hand size has something to do with frame size? I was looking pretty hefty by 37 weeks so maybe it was the only way to tell what I might be built like under all the pudge!

But I think they're mostly kind of a version of that, right? Healthy baby that can't get out for whatever reason. I just console myself by remembering that if it was Little House on the Prairie we would have both died in our little sod house ;-). Our survival is a modern miracle!

Kes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta - how utterly ignorant of those people!!! Or > perhaps it was lazy of me to reluctantly agree to > major surgery after 34 hours of labour. I shall > give myself a stern talking to at once! > > I have to admit though I was a bit disappointed > with the piece, having read the other comments I > wanted to like it but as my CS was all due to > problems with me I find it hard to feel empowered > that I was doing it selflessly for my baby - she > was calm as a cucumber throughout the whole > process! > > But then I think us Mums will always find > something to feel guilty about! I'm glad it was > helpful for everyone else. > > K Don't be so hard on yourself! There is no easy way to have a baby, I think the blogger was trying to say that birth is bravery no matter how it happens. I mean, 34 hors of labour? Wow, I didn't have to do that and am in awe of those who did.

gwod Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lovely piece - thanks for posting. I read a > passage in the Book Bhuddism for Motherhood which > described the disapointment some women feel about > the "failure" to have a natrual birth and it > suggested that the letting go of your birth > choices for the needs of the baby can be the first > act of motherly selflessness and should be viewed > as a positive relinquishment. I found this very a > very helpful idea. It's funny you mention this because I can remember the exact moment that this was completely clear to me and I never looked back. Those first 37 weeks of growing the baby felt pretty straight forward, not much to decide besides no booze, cigs or soft cheese. :) But then one day you are given the biggest decision of your life really; it's life and death, and nobody can predict the outcome and the consequences are beyond what you can even imagine. But sitting in the hospital with my perfect baby and his perfect heartbeat on the monitor, it took me about a nanosecond to realize that my birth plan was just plan, and life is bigger than that plan. I absolutely believe that it was the day I became a mother (he was born by a few days later). It's so hard to articulate that because CS always come with statistics and rarely the people behind them. I've yet to meet anyone who had one out of convenience.

BB100, you're flogging a dead horse. ???? you summed it up perfectly.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Moving: > http://avital.blogspot.com/2011/01/cesarean-courag > e.html?spref=fb#axzz1HC0Dkzmh What a wonderful piece, Fuschia. Thank you so much for posting it. I've actually read it over several times, because I have always felt that it was the bravest and most terrifying decision I've ever had to make and yet I don't recall anyone ever actually telling me that. It's probably one of the most personally important things I've ever read.

Having served time in many soft play places, in at least six cities and two countries, I can honestly say that it is the same everywhere. The kids just go mental and for some reason many parents think it's a place to switch off. Found my hysterical son at the top of one once, he was being used as the floor on a mesh bridge by a couple of dozen school aged children. Let's just say I didn't mince words when I finally found my way up to him and the little jerks were pushing us both out of their way! That said, I used to take him to Goose Green in the late afternoon when it was heaving with school children, and I was always blown away by how thoughtful and polite they were with my then two yr. old. They were gentle and kind and even let him join in their football games sometimes, making sure that they were careful with him. Kids are generally good, they just get over-excited and need parents to lead the way. A child who is being dangerous or hurtful just should not be allowed to continue, it sends a terrible message. Would you let your child push YOU off the slide? Or hit and scratch YOUR face? It's just not okay. It's much worse when the mean children belong to your friends! A very old friend of mine has a four year old that is absolutely diabolical; my son gets nervous just talking about her. She's not just physically aggressive, she also says cruel. He's so sensitive it just destroys him. Her aggressive personality is the nature part, however friend's response is generally along the lines of "I know my kid is no angel but it takes two to fight". Uh, no it doesn't take two for your monster to push my child off the swings, or down the stairs or whatever flavour of the day. It has really put a strain on our 15 year friendship, and I know we are not the only friends who feel this way. But what can you say? THAT is the child you are encountering at the playground, the one whose mother refuses to believe that their child is misbehaving. Or another "friend" who says "boys will be boys" when the little monster throws toys at my face. Yes my face! Don't see much of them anymore either. Fortunately I think these parents are in the minority, but I feel sorry for their children because they will really struggle to keep friends once in school.

zeban Wrote: Look at the thread on swearing for > example!

Zeban you have GOT to be kidding.

I think there is a long bus ride between yelling ?*&! when you slam your hand in the door and pushing your children to moral depravity with the power of a few random words. Children learn to interpret those words through your behavior; if it is a part of your daily language and used violently (as in calling the child a ?uc3ing idiot and such) that speaks generally for the state of the family. Likely children in this situation will have issues deeper than being sworn at. But as reneet was trying to say (I think) is that this conversation is lacking a sense of proportion. Happy children in happy households are not going to need therapy because mummy has an unfortunate vocabulary when she stubs her toe on the bedpost. Jeepers.

Oops cross posted, but yes Ruth I agree with what you are saying.

The fact that people are googling says that there is no one definition for the term. As a non-Brit, I've seen many uses for it but I believe it is the spirit of the use that defines it......... specifically it seems to be used to mark a level of superiority. "Us" vs. "them". It's much like the way my mother-in-law in Sussex used to refer to things as "too common"; a way to make clear that one is that step above. Feels like a hangover from the old (?) class system, this need to identify with one-up rather than be confused as one-down. I'm not speaking of anyone on here, just to be clear. Just an outsider's observation. I could be full of ........ edited to change my tone

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah I know there's different contexts but it's > just too chavvy for me. I would much rather have my son hear me say the odd swear word then have him learn to say things like chavvy about people. I might hear Thomas and his friends yell "dammit" from the other room once in a while, but I have never heard my son use nasty terms about anyone and he does not know to make value judgments about people. He might hear me lose my cool once in a while and say un-mommy like words, but he has not seen me be unkind to people and to me that's much more important. I will always feel a bit ugly when I catch myself using bad language, but like Molly said if the worst example I set is to use a naughty word once in a while then I can live with that. My husband doesn't like it, but he can't relate because doesn't show much emotion anyway. So my son sees a mother who is human and at worst (and only rarely) when angry uses creative language to "get it out". It just seems to me that it could be worse, and he could have two parents who don't show their emotions! Swearing is like so many other things in life: fine in moderation but pointless to say never. As I've always said to my students: if you wouldn't say it in front of your grandmother, think twice about saying it here.

I had it as an infant. I had been under treatment for somewhat severe cub feet and my ankles had been in corrective casts (can't remember what you call them :-$). The day of my appointment to have the casts removed, they took them off and propped me up to see how well my newly corrected feet looked and lo and behold, my hips were wonky. Hip displasia. Can you believe it? From one issue to the next, my poor mother. I was probably around your son's age and also a "healthy" sized baby. The only treatment that I know of was a plastic diaper thingy, although I'm sure there was more it definitely wasn't invasive. No surgery or anything. Anyway no horror stories, just wanted to put you at ease about the future....... I walked normally at the normal age, have had no issues medically and because I was so young when they treated me I have no memory of it all. For me, it's like it never happened. My mom has a theory that both the cub feet and the hip displasia had something to do with me being a big baby. Then again, my mom has a lot of theories that I ignore so who knows.

Well put Sillywoman. SW I think it was you who also posted about Harvey Karp's book on here a while back? The first one is called The Happiest Baby on the Block and he suggests that the first three months of baby's life is really more like a fourth trimester. That made sense to me and kind of changed how I approached those months. Great book BTW if you are looking for a nice read. Is that relevant? lol I don't know. Hope you got a bit of sleep.

I had a very similar situation. I know all too well how stressful (and also disappointing!) it is and then to also feel so judged. But I want you to know that it's OKAY! Be kind to yourself and don't beat yourself up, it doesn't go anywhere good believe me. So the breast feeding didn't work out........ you love your baby and there's so much more to being a mother than breast feeding! Take a deep breath, give yourself permission to move on and just enjoy your baby. You will lovingly gaze into each others' eyes regardless of how you feed them. Please don't waste another moment worrying about it...... go love that baby!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And it allows other forumites to give advice on > security, prevention and local organisations that > can help. This was what my point was clumsily trying to say, as well as KidKruger's point about being more aware for your personal safety if you know that it is happening. I had been to London many times as a tourist so had a false sense of confidence about what I knew about living there , and was actually quite naive. The forum was a crucial source of information for me that I otherwise wouldn't have had access to, and I think that it does an amazing job of informing the community of what's going on. To be honest, I can find a curry shop by myself and if it's not great it's not life or death. But knowing there is a violent gang of thieves on bikes operating in my area and tips on how to avoid becoming one of their victims is quite valuable. I also had never heard of a London bar or some of the other security measures mentioned by forumites and that information was priceless. Maybe the thread should be called "public service announcements" or something but that information does belong here.

Great post lindylou. I don't think it was reading these posts that made me nervous in ED. It was being burgled in the night and then an attempted mugging (mid day) three months later that made me nervous. I agree with the post that suggests that not everyone is from London and has that instinct to have eyes on the back of your head and nail all of your possessions down, if you have any left. I don't know what my muggers were after, I didn't have a mobile as the burglars had already taken care of that. But I did learn some street smarts pretty quickly courtesy of the EDF........ especially the tips about carrying a "dummy" handbag for them to grab and sufficiently going into lockdown in the evenings. Good times. But as James Barber says, the long story of this is a paranoia you can't shake. And it made me really sad to realize that I couldn't tell the difference between someone in the neighborhood who was just lovely and friendly or someone who was working out my situation so they could come back later, and that is I think the worst part.

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We went to John Lewis to buy a load of stuff, the > guy then showed us the buggies. We were set on the > Maclaren xlr ( as recommended by friends and > friends on here). The chap recommended the > babyjogger as it folds very very easily and is > versatile too with other products. This is the > second shop assistant from two diiferent stores > recommending the jogger and being very confident > about it. People have different requirements. We > don't have issues with stairs. Must say the jogger > seems easy to drive one handed whilst holding a > latte or mobile phone. We still have not decided > though and left that one out for now. Bloody > confusing this world of buggies.:-S We really loved our Baby Jogger City Mini. Of the three yes three buggies we have, I can't think of a single complaint. It folds ridiculously easy with one hand, fit my son up to four years old (and he's big!), it fits everywhere including small car boots, runs really smoothly even with one hand. Fits on buses and trains easily too. It was also inexpensive, think in the ?180 range from Kiddicare who of course had it shipped to us overnight. Can't say enough about it really.

What I wonder, though, is why the President of PLANS (the group sponsoring the website) is keeping herself so busy in her crusade against Waldorf when it appears that she has founded her own school? Shouldn't she spend a bit more energy on that? I don't get it. These messages that Waldorf preaches must be pretty subliminal, because I'm been to a couple of schools and certainly known a few Waldorf educated children and I fail to recognize traits of a cult anywhere. It's not for everyone but it's a great fit for some children, especially those who struggle in the mainstream system. I would hate to think that parents who are considering alternatives for their struggling children would dismiss Waldorf due to a website run by someone who has organized their own school. It could all be true, who knows? But I'd dig a little deeper than googling "criticism of Waldorf schools". Ofsted must have information as well.

I think it's a bit of a myth that it's only breast fed babies who are night wakers though. I had to throw in the BF towel around three months and my then exclusively formula fed baby was up similar hours to yours Supergolden. It actually got worse and worse until I nearly lost my mind and sleep trained at 10 mos.. I sat down at one point and counted out how many ounces of formula he was actually getting at night, and let's just say, it wasn't hunger waking him up. That said, I mostly ignored my insensitive childless friends and their comments because they don't know what they're talking about. It was the other mothers with the good sleepers I reserve a special place in hell for. Why why why would you gloat to someone who is clearly having such a hard time? Shame on them I say. I have actually changed my opinion of some previously good friends over their lack of grace.

This example might not even be relevant but my husband recently watched the ashes via an Australian network, which was fine but being a Brit he felt it wasn't the same. Does it make sense to block access to something others are providing anyway? I'm now in over my head in the discussion as I don't really know how this all works, but again it seems like the BBC could be generating income in places they are not. As I said previously, we would gladly pay the licensing fee and I don't think we're alone on that. The rates for the third party servers are quite high anyway.

Okay that makes sense. I guess my point though is that people are accessing BBC property without the money going to the BBC, and therefore offsetting the costs of production (admittedly a drop in the bucket but.......) I'm certain that those using third party servers are not paying anything to the BBC, the server providers are making this money. I have considered going this route but my paranoid husband thinks it will blow up our computer and invalidate our warranty:-$. But I really really miss QI!

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They sell individual programme broadcast rights to > channels around the world, hence why iplayer is > limited to > It's a very important revenue stream for the beeb. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but here the programs they're selling are so old and repetitive that they aren't competing with iplayer. And we honestly don't get anything here that's less than a few years old. The property shows are still talking about the fool-proof/rising property market for Pete's sake. I don't think you could even find them on iplayer. I think I pay about ?1 a month for our awful BBC Canada channel; would happily pay much more for a licence to access current programs. Or a charge per download fee, you could hold an account and just be charged like pay-per-view. They can make much more revenue this way, I think. Maybe they just haven't kept up with what is otherwise mainstream technology?