see, this is where we part ways. We can argue their position on Disney. We can believe that they will find it difficult to fufill their plan to remove Disney from their home. We can even suggest that their tone re: gifts from other people leaves something to be desired.
But predicting that their kids are gonna be fucked up 'cause of their stance on Disney?
pfftb.
IN the first place, it’s this sort of comment that makes the recipient raise their hackles and become more committed to their stance (so if you’re attempting in any way to suggest that they aught to ‘lighten up’, this tactic makes it likely to fail)
But more realistically, on some level we’re pretty much all neurotic to a degree, sometimes 'cause of stuff our parents did or didn’t do, other times despite our parents attempts to do or not do stuff. and all parents at some level do stuff (even w/the best of intentions etc.) that can backfire. My mom for example, refused to allow me to wear a dress when I wanted to as a toddler, I argued w/her to no end about it. Later in life, she was in the position of begging me to wear a dress sometimes.
let’s all collectively take a chill pill, ok? sheesh. it’s Disney. not nourishment.
lee, I don’t much care about your hatred of Disney and your non-Disney rule. When your child gets old enough to actually make their own decisions, I’m sure you’ll allow them the trust and respect to allow them to decide for themselves. I too think that you overreacted to a minor quip, but I’m not too surprised either.
However, what, exactly, did you mean by this?
Care enough? I prefer not to speculate about a poster’s intentions or ideas unless they are clearly stated, so I would ask you to further expound on this statement. Thank you in advance.
OK, wait a second…let me see if I’ve got the boil-down here:
"Hi, I’m lee and I don’t want my child being anywhere near Disney products because many of the children in the movies don’t have mothers or are orphans. The disrespect for the institution of the family and motherhood is one of the apparently many reasons I want to put Walt’s frozen head in the microwave.
Oh, yeah, the child is the product of my transexual lesbian lover and was conceived while my husband watched."
Flame me if you will, but I need an exploding head smiley here.
I don’t predict it. I guarantee it. And I suspect that if they are this way about Disney, they have other strong “beliefs” too.
And I didn’t appreciate that crack about “taken care of by strangers” either. I think it was very good for my kid to be around other kids in day care at an early age. She was also with her mother and me many more hours than she was at school.
Like i said earlier, the “strangers” weren’t strangers after the first day. And we checked them out thoroughly before we left her there. Because “We cared enough”
Thank you Hamlet! I was just about to post that as well. I didn’t realize that parents who are forced to make the hard decision regarding day care didn’t “care enough” about their kids. :rolleyes:
jarbabyj, you and Hamlet are misreading lee. She’s not saying that people who don’t have a choice but to put their child in daycare don’t care. That’s a really nasty take on what she had to say.
djf750. I’ve worked w/felons for 25 years. I’ve seen fucked up kids, fucked up by their parents drug abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, severe emotional abuse, absence due to prison terms etc.
and not allowing Disney in the home doesn’t even come close to the bar for guarenteeing a fucked up kid.
When I was younger, a friend of my brothers wasn’t allowed to watch “Batman” (the campy series from the 60s) “cause there was too much violence in it”. Didn’t fuck him up. yea, he got teased, but name me one child who doesn’t get teased. I was teased about my name. my son was teased about his glasses. I was teased about my speech impediment. my sister was teased. my brother was teased. etc etc etc.
Their comment about ‘caring enough’ I believe is being taken somewhat out of context, since y’all seem to be focusing on the “caring enough” part and disassociating it from (what I think is the more important part) “and have the financial means to do so” part.
I believe that they were suggesting that since their financial status afforded them the ability to have one parent home at all times, (vs. a single parent family where the parent has to work or both parents have to work and have to work the same shift etc.), that they’re choosing to not put their child in day care.
the “Caring enough” was (I thought) a dig at wealthy parents who hire nannies, put their kids in day care etc. so they can jet off to whereever etc. I could be wrong about that.
I do think their goal is unrealistic. But to tell them flat out that they’re fucking up their kid 'cause they don’t want Disney products in their home is also quite fucked up.
What did she say? If you make the choice to put your child in daycare you don’t care? What goes into the determination? Those are the questions I want answered. If a child is in daycare by choice does that mean the parents don’t care enough? That’s why I asked.
Hamlet, no, that’s not what she said, and it’s quite clearly what she said. You’re just reading it some other way out of spite or vindictfulness, or something that I really don’t care to understand. I know a lot of parents have a “hot button” on being accused of not caring when they put their kids in daycare, but really, this is too much.
Anyway, our child won’t be in daycare unless one of us gets hurt or something and can’t work or care for the child.
She quite clearly stated that she “cares enough” not to put the child in daycare. Therefore, I, who have my children in daycare despite having ample resources to be a SAHM, obviously does not care enough.
If that isn’t what she meant, I suggest she gets her butt in here and apologizes — no grovels.
jarbaby and some one **totally unrelated ** to lee/KellyM saw that the “care enough” was followed by “AND HAVE THE RESOURCES TO”. So, to me, the existence of the following clause with the word “AND” suggests that lee isn’t trying to say that folks who need to use daycare don’t ‘care enough’.
Now, I will wait for her to explain if she means that only people who must work to survive are exempt from the ‘care enough’, and perhaps if she wishes to explain what level of ‘need to’ is expected (for example, in both of my siblings two parent households, both parents worked, and in both households, at least one parent made a decent income, but they wanted more than simply ‘subsitence’, and wanted ‘comfortable’ living, so both parents worked. )
wring, I don’t consider the decision to have both parents work in order to maintain a better-than-subsistence lifestyle to be “having sufficient resources”; that decision is a tradeoff and one that has to be weighed by each individual family. Neither does having enough income to allow one parent to stay home, but no parent with the necessary temperament to be a full-time caregiver.
We could survive on one of our incomes if we had to, but it would be a meager existence and not one I would care to subject our child to. Having two incomes and a third parent who can (and in fact wants to) stay home works out very well for us, and in that regard we are extremely lucky.
wring, that’s what I’m asking lee to explain. What exactly are the circumstances that equate “not caring enough”. I DID read the second part of the statement, and it still left me with a bad taste. Plenty of people care deeply for their children AND have them in daycare.
And that response above that looks directed at you, was directed at KellyM. When we asked for explanations, she basically just said we were jerks without offering one.
