What kind of errands....

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
What kind of errands....
2007
Wed, 08-31-2005 - 1:41pm

Do you run on a daily basis? Weekly basis? Monthly basis?

I've often heard people say that they need a lot of time during the week to run errands and that those errands would otherwise take up their evenings and weekends if they had to WOH ft. It made me curious because I just don't seem to have many errands to run at all. Are we just lazy :-)?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 9:35am
Well. How about your post #323, where you say more or less that PNJ's kids might really be drained by school and that's why the probably haven't had a chance to check out athletics as much as your ds or QM's. To me, the one doesn't have much to do with the other. Kids' energy levels don't always have a lot to do with their interest in sports. And kids who do a lot of sports can easily get tired in school. And kids who are more laid back don't necessarily get tired in school. So, to me, your post implies a positive value to being interested in athletics, as well as a spurious connection between that and their energy levels in school.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2005
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 10:48am

First of all, post 323 is her lament that I must not agree that her child will be tired by school. (Which, as I point out, is untrue.) The post I believe you must mean is this:

"But I do agree with you. Your child is apt to be totally drained by school. Some really are. I doubt very much that QM's were, any more than mine was. Hence the reason I think it's unlikely that your children have had the opportunity to see whether or not they'd be interested in athletics that QM's have and mine has."

There is no suggestion whatsoever here that they should in fact be enrolled in some sort of athletic program. Or that they will be tired by school BECAUSE they weren't in an athletic program. Or even that it is a bad thing if kids are tired out by school OR athletics. The only thing this post is about is (1) dispelling her lament that I won't believe her kids will be tired by school and (2) showing why I am unconvinced that she has the basis she claims (but will not discuss) for saying her kids are not interested in any sports whatsoever - I strongly suspect she has decided that by herself in advance, just as she has decided by herself in advance that her kids will be exhausted by school.

Try again.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 11:02am
I agree. And that's what I tried to say in the first place.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 11:11am

Can we just clear this up right now. Whose response says that she is falling short? Which poster said that? >>>>>>the responses that uphold the active family as some sort of ideal that she might be falling short of.>>>>>

I think you are confusing "suggestions to the contrary" with "you need to live the way I do".

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 11:15am
Is it a definite negative for kids not to do activities because mom doesn't have the energy or the will to organize them?
Congratulations! I'm so happy to hear it. I just heard the good news and popped back over, just in case you were still checking in.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 11:21am
Just seems pretty self defeating to me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 11:38am

OK, I'll say it. I've read the whole thread, and the ONLY person here who seems to be holding up the active family as some sort of ideal that Felicia is falling short of is......Felicia. Yup. She's the one who claimed that she and DH used to have a wonderfully active life with social events and bike rides and dinners out and all kinds of things, whatnot, and now that she has kids she has no place to go. Because most of us have had a history of Felicia's laments about how life with young children sometimes is very horrible (I think she has used the word "S-cks" to describe it, as a matter of fact), it sounds very much to us (me at least) as if she believes her former life is the ideal that she can no longer meet.

Those of us who have continued to have active lives -- albeit quite different activities -- even though we have kids have pointed out that if the active life is desirable (as it was to Felicia B.K.) then it can be achieved even with kids. Felicia, for reasons known best to Felicia, has decided that it's no fun, or not enough fun, to be active with children, and if she were content with that, no problem. I know lots of people whose family lives center pretty much around their own homes. And they are happy with that. Felicia is apparently not happy with things as they are and pretty much unwilling to change.....although I have seen signs of a breakthrough recently as she has discovered, for instance, that one CAN socialize with friends and not hover continually over her three and five year old children.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 12:12pm
My DH and I are inveterate travellers. There are three or four places on this earth that we probably would have visited already if we didn't have children. Turkey, Egypt, Denali National Park in Alaska, and India. We COULD have gone with small children, but it wouldn't be the experience we dream of in those places, so we are content to defer those trips. I think they are almost the right age for Denali and if we wait too much longer, DH will be the wrong age, so we might go soon. But just because we can't go those places, we haven't stopped travelling. One or both of us has been to 29 States with one or both kids since DS#1 was born. We've made four trips to Europe as a family in those years. That's a whole lot better, at least to me, than going nowhere because we can't make the three or four trips we've dream of most (and for those who ask "why" we can't go to Turkey, Egypt and India, part of it involves risk (probably more perceived than real) and part is just we realize that we can only afford to do a trip like the one we're thinking of ONCE and we don't want to compromise our dream itinerary based on stuff the kids would or would not enjoy doing).
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 12:24pm
Right on the money.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 09-03-2005 - 1:39pm

Well, I pointed one post of dogma's out to dogma earlier this morning. There's another one from dogma, too, the one to PNJ that starts with "You know how you always say..."

It suggests a connection between having difficulty adjusting to full day kindergarten, low physical stamina, and building up a kid's physical stamina through physical activity. As if there were a connection between PNJ's observation that her ds will have difficulty adjusting to full day kindergarten and his overall level of activity. As susannah and others point out, it's not just about energy levels. I get the impression that some posters think PNJ should put her kid into training or something like that. That if he were more into organized sports, there wouldn't be an issue of his having the stamina for full day kindergarten. And that if he were more into oranized sports, then PNJ would be a better parent. Maybe I'm reading too much into these posts, but that's what I'm getting from them.

Pages