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: 03-16-2005
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:30am

You'd have to prove that there is a pro-sports-and-organized-activities bias. You haven't. Sure, my child is in quite a bit. I have reasons specific to him for that. I certainly don't think that's necessary or even desirable for most kids.

Perhaps you've got a "Felicia, the 40 YO corporate lawyer, is in fact a poor picked on kid" bias which is so ingrained as to be taken for granted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2005
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:32am
I don't have to "assume" it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:39am

You'll have to trust me that I really don't care whether PNJ is picked on; in fact, I don't even see that she actually is. Nor can I "prove" the bias I'm referring to, since it's a matter of interpretation. To wit, how about your post #448, wherein you refer to activities that are "enjoyable" - isn't that an example of bias?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2005
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:43am

"I think parents should be 'presumed innocent' wrt encouraging their kids' physical activity, and not 'presumed guilty' unless they can show their kids are signed up for 2 or 3 official activities by age 5 or 6."

Considering no one has even asked her if she's signed her kids up for "official activities" I think it's grossly unfair of you to believe anyone believes that's relevant.

"But I'd rather assume her kids are as active as any other young kids, regardless of how involved in organized sports they are or aren't." I'd rather not assume anything and go instead on what she says on this point. Which is virtually nothing. And considering she refuses to discuss how it is she would "know," her credibility is even more lacking.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:43am
I suppose that reflects your "seniority" here. Realistically, I consider it "reaching" to draw conclusions about a person's inner life in that way. If that's what the debate on this point comes down to, I'll have to defer to your greater longevity.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:47am

"I just don'rt think grownups should pretend they really really really want to do things but just caaaant because they have kids." PNJ never did pretend that. She simply stated some things she used to do before she had kids but now can't (or "can't", if you prefer) because of them. Of course people who "really really really " want to will find a way. But she doesn't "really really really" want to. And I think that's waht's throwing people. They assume that if somebody says they might like to do something, that "might like to" is some sort of commitment to doing it.

Before dd was born, dh and I used to go to movies very often. I'd like to go to as often as we used to but I "can't" because of dd. I could, of course. We could get a babysitter for nearly every weekend if we tried. But it's not worth the $$ or aggravation more than once a month or so. So we don't. I can go to movies as often as we used to before dd but it's not worth it to me. If I "really really really" wanted to go, I'd make it happen ragrdless of the added babysitter expense or PITA of getting a sitter ( a minor PITA, but one that didn't exist prior to dd). So now we go from time to time rather than every week. I suspect PNJ is using the same logic. Lots of things ARE possible after kids (as you all remind her) but will not come as easily as they did prior to kids. Each person makes a decision whether it is worth it to do thing X. PNJ is most decidedly NOT! in the camp of people who "really really really" wants to do activity X so it's pretty disingenuous of you to say she is when she never made any such claim.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:47am
It gets pretty circular to say one ought to go by what she says, but that she says virtually nothing, but that somehow there's still enough to go. That seems to me like the very definition of assumption. Again, this seems to reflect "history" and longstanding board custom that I'm really not in on.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2005
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:48am

You appear only to have read half of the very short post you are quoting.

I have said as much as the rest of what you have said in several posts now - including the post containing the snippet you just quoted. In that case, the reason for not doing something any more that you used to enjoy is "my interests have changed," not "I can't because I have kids."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2005
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:50am

No. If someone said they did something frequently that they didn't have to do, that's pretty good evidence they didn't find it onerous.

Edited to add that no, I don't think I have to trust you that you don't think Felicia is a poor picked on kid, given this post of yours: "Her clear lack of candor about why she doesn't run a sporty family is being used as an excuse to bash her lifestyle choices. But she's being an awfully good kid about it, as usual!"




Edited 9/6/2005 8:27 am ET ET by dogma_2
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2005
Tue, 09-06-2005 - 7:52am
Nothing to do with my having been here longer than you. Just has to do with me having the evidence to support what I say.

Pages