Ladies...Enough Already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Ladies...Enough Already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
779
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 2:10pm
Can we please voluntarily end this thread from grlimilakinskeeper, or whatever her screen name is...it's getting too personal, and not very productive.

Kat

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 6:40am
If my kids have problems, they'll go. I have NO faith in a particular psychiatrists ability to dianose a problem let alone one that doesn't exist yet. My kids will have people to talk to. They're not existing in a vaccuum. If they have problems, we'll call in the shrinks (I'm sure it will be plural. From past experience, you have to go through several to find one that's any good.) I don't have faith in a psychiatrists ability to diagnose a problem that was staring them in the face (dss's misdiagnosis) let alone to see into the future which problems a child might have.

Don't worry about my kids. They'll have people to talk to. I just don't see any use for a psychiatrist at this point in time.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 6:50am
I can't imagine that your children's best friends are the best sounding boards. Some of us feel that it's important to be proactive about this stuff instead of reactive. Personally, I like to do what i can to minimize the problems before they even become problems.

also, with our insurance it only costs me $15 per session out of pocket. Oh, and i don't think they'd need a psychiatrist -- that would probably be overkill.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 7:12am
"Would you send your child to the doctor for an hour every week because you knew someday they will get sick and need the doctor? No, you send them when they have a problem." Actually, she's been to the doctor MANY times without being sick. First well-baby checkups with great frequency and then annual checkups. I don't believe in waiting for a problem. Your analogy actually works pretty well because there are lots of people who are anti-checkup and ONLY go if there's a problem. Perhaps you are one of them. But just as I don't wouldn't wait for a stroke before having my own blood pressure measured, there's no need to wait for manifestations of problems due to divorce.

BTW, I agree that they don't need to see a psychiatrist. Somebody along the lines of a grief counselor would be more appropriate (there is probably a sub-specialty just for kids whose parents are divorcing). The goal is not to fix a problem. The goal is for them to be able to vent to somebody about their feelings on the divorce. Uncles are good. However, could they fully, freely vent to your brothers without the worry that any of it might get back to you or their dad? Because they need somebody to who will patiently bear the venting wihout ever saying "watch what you say about my sister!".

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2004
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 7:21am
And some of us believe in being pro-active rather than reactive. also, when dealing with divorce issues, there is not a "diagnosis" that needs to be made. sometimes kids just need to talk and/or work things out in their own minds. I've seen examples of it in my own life countless times over.

eileen

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 8:03am

1. Who said anythng about a psychiatrist? That you seem to think all therapy is interchangeable illustrates how little you know about the subject. Your children don't need a psychiatrist, they need a licensed family therapist (who will probably be a licensed clinical psychologist, but doesn't need to be), preferably one specializing in children and divorce.


2. You don't have to be rich. Most insurance covers outpatient therapy.


3. The point of therapy in this situation is to prevent issues. Chances are, you won't have a clue if your children are having issues, especially given their ages. Your children are at the age when divorce will hit them the hardest. By the time they are "having problems" the damage will already be done.


4. Absolutely I would send my children to the doctor before they become ill, especially if they were exposed to an environment which could result in a chronic condition later on. I'd want them checked out, monitored, and given any preventative treatment available.


5. You get more use out of your best friend, but we aren't talking about you here. A point which continually escapes you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 8:26am
Nothing to add to that. Too bad she can't hear you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 9:37am
Just tacking on the end here, but aren't you guys exhausted from beating this dead horse?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 11:13am
I totally agree, you saved me some typing.

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 11:14am
Yes, that is why I am trying to just not even get into it any further. Its a waste of time, and just sad.

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-13-2004 - 11:48am
When you act, you are being PRO-active if you are acting to prevent a situation or circumstance from occuring.

When you act, you are being RE-active if you are acting in response to a situation or circumstance which has occurred.

When you act, you are being OVER-RE-active, when you RE-act to a perceived threat of situation or circumstance which doesn't actually ocurr.

Over-re-acting is not a great mode in which to operate, and its not a consequence free mode. It can create issues and circumstances where none were going to be there otherwise.

Its well worth avoiding. The line between pro-active, and over-re-active is there, and its not ambiguous, but its not generally particularily obvious. What I read leads me to believe that a good many posters aren't even aware that it exists.

Pages