so sick of hearing....

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2004
so sick of hearing....
1991
Mon, 08-06-2007 - 1:34pm
hello everyone!! i just read the cnn article on how burnt out and guilty the working mom is...and how hard it is to incorparate "quality" time...and all i can say is WILL YOU COME OFF IT PLEASE!! i work-40 hours a week; sometimes 6 days a week to get all my hours...and i have 2 children-7 and 3...and you know what-every day during the school year, i walk my dd to school...i volunteer at my dds school-in her classroom and on field trips-i have the last 2 years and plan to do more of the same this coming year...i keep the house clean-do the dishes and laundry, go grocery shopping, etc. and you know what-neither of my kids feel slighted. we just took a week long vacation where we went to an amusement park and then to visit my sil for a few days...they have a lil shallow pool-and i go "swimming" with them often-usually before i go off to the adult world of work...we go on shopping trips with my mom and visit a cousin who has a huge pool and the adults play cards outside on the deck when the kids swim...we play games, we take walks, we go to parks...it just boggles my mind. yes i get tired-and yes there are days i wish i didnt have to go in to work...but then theres days that i cant wait until i go in-some women are meant to stay at home and theyre happy doing it...and some women are meant to work outside the home-i need that adult stimulation-i need my friends and my friends are all behind that deli counter with me...again i dont feel my kids are slighted in the least-my own mom was a stay at homer and she didnt volunteer at school and we never took the kinds of trips and outings my kids are lucky enough to have on a regular basis...i dont feel guilty when im at work-i dont think being a working mom hurts my kids...im getting sick and tired of hearing how unhappy working moms are, or how guilty i should feel cuz im not with my kids 24/7...maybe im the exception...or maybe the media focuses too much on the exceptions and a lot of working mommies feel like me...??? take care!!
joanne
maman2goons@yahoo.com

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 1:34pm

Further back ;) lol, if we are talking about the dh. He went through the public system in NYC way back in the day before "gifted" had been adopted as a term by schools except for a very few (mostly experimental schools run by researchers).

In fact, I think the first official enshrinement of the term is early in the 70s, maybe 72. Before that, differences in ability were mainly dealt with through tracking, for better and worse. As tracking goes out of fashion, GT comes in, except in those places where tracking is dismantled without any replacement being brought in.

When you say that most schools had GT programs in your schooldays, were the programs actually called that, or do you mean that they functioned like GT programs?




Edited 9/1/2007 1:37 pm ET by sild
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 1:41pm
ONe of my previous bosses, the executive director of our Chamber of Commerce -- who has been in the business for 30+ years -- once told me "If we're not pissssing somebody off, we're not doing our job right. If we want to effect real change, then someone, somewhere, isn't going to like it."
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 1:43pm
I'm so glad my district doesn't "put up" with any children. The *welcome* them all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 1:44pm
bWAHAHAH. You realize you're debating employment law with an attorney who specialized in labor laws ...don't you?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 1:55pm
Who cares what it was called if it did the same thing? It isn't called GT everywhere right now.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 2:27pm
honestly, i could have cared less what she got on tests until last year when she was taking the act, and only then because it affects scholarship opportunities. was i proud of her sure. there is nothing wrong with the results. her results in the school were never the issue, the issue for me was they spent entirely too much time prepping for 1 test, to the exclusion of teaching, and teh pressure put on the students, parents and the teachers was imo ridiculous. i think schools go as far as they need to go to ensure that every child gets an appropriate education. a standard is just that, no where is it written that once a standard for a certain grade has been met that you cant go further. my dd is far from the genius gt students you hear about, she is a bright kid who got a good start in school where she really developed a love of learning - alot of what the gt program did for her was increase expectations. so yes, i think you can have different standards for different kids. i have never expected my kids to be perfect in anything, but i do expect them to do their best, and i have a pretty good idea of when they have done their best or tried to just slide by.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 2:31pm
yes, once she started public school in 4th grade. she was not when she was in private school.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2006
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 2:54pm

<>

thank you. I get comments on it IRL too, LOL! I'm constantly amazed at how much better, more wonderful this relationship is than in all the years that I spent with my ex (almost 15 years).

and you know what's "funny"? at first I stayed married "for the kids", then part of the reasons that I filed for divorce was "for the kids".

cArole

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-18-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 3:03pm

{{Yawn}} You didn't really think I would be impressed or intimidated by anyone being a firm's sole litigation partner, did you? Glad we got that one straightened out.

You rightly define yourself as a labor and employment lawyer. As you rightly know, labor/employment law is a whole different animal than employment discrimination, civil rights and constitutional law. Labor lawyers rarely see the inside of a federal courthouse, forget ever reading or needing to understand the Constitution. Labor lawyers don't try cases to a federal judge in a ct. of orig. jurisdiction before a *jury* either. Instead, the labor lawyer simply works with contracts and unions and does arbitration. As we know, arbitration is just a tiny low-level forum which never involves a federal judge in a court of original jurisdiction. And certainly never a full-on federal jury.

Thus, your unfamiliarity with employment discrimination law, civil rights law and constitutional law explains why you misunderstand Section 1983 and mistakenly claim that Section 1981 has anything whatsoever to do with the current discussion. Sure, Section 1981 is great for contracts and unions and all things plebian which are what a labor lawyer handles.

You should take a look at Section 1983. It has been around since 1871 for a wonderful reason - it affords the oppressed a private right of action in federal court, there's no cap on damages as in Title VII, etc. Many great reasons. A terse but substantive and powerful statute, it has yielded hundreds, perhaps thousands, of decisions useful to the real (not pretend) employment discrimination counsel. Ms. Lilly Ledbetter recently did take a look at that pivotal statute, and I'm sure you would have seen that decision on the cover of the NY Law Journal.

BTW, why the double edit? ;)

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-18-2007
Sat, 09-01-2007 - 3:05pm
I wouldn't be surprised if we've all unknowingly seen Jorvia in the background on an episode or two of Law & Order.

Pages