The Working Mom and Custody Issues
Find a Conversation
The Working Mom and Custody Issues
| Mon, 11-30-2009 - 8:24pm |
There was an article in this month's Working mother magazine about wrking mom's losing custody to SAHD's.

Pages
Most things I went to WERE supervised.
Does it also mean that you will not ever let your child go to any events unsupervised?
I never said that, did I? What kinds of events are you considering a child to go to that are unsupervised?
Well since you continue to refuse to answer those questions...there isn't much point.
I will say though, ds1 and I talked about this tonight, he asked the very same questions that I did, that haven't been answered....he was especially curious about the required supervision...why was it needed and even the high school students?
<<If you're a school that's lucky enough to have security, if security finds somebody wandering around without a reason, they can send them to a supervised area to wait for a ride or back to the activity or whatever. >>
I wouldn't consider that lucky, a school that needs security to keep students where they are supposed to be and is needed to do so, even for high school students.
PumpkinAngel
I'm only speaking from my experience, but where I live, the private schools in this area don't have security guards. I'm sure there are private schools that do, but I suppose the ones near me don't need them or they would have them. Generally, since private schools can be selective as to who they admit, if they had kids who were "bad seeds" they would be capable of expelling them. Often public schools don't have that ability, or they don't have as much leeway in preventing troubled kids from attending their school as a private school does.
As to why the public schools have them, I guess they have security problems. I know the public h.s. for my district has a metal detector as well as a police officer assigned to the school b/c they have had problems with kids having guns as well as fighting.
I also don't presume that all public middle/high schools have them.
If it's unjust to one side, that's a double standard. The limited ways in which I will treat my son differently than my dd's are not unjust to any of them.
I think though if one applies those principles (be safe) in different ways, allowing privileges for one gender and not the other....it's not the same.
That is the key. Ensuring safety without actually removing privileges, so as to keep it fair and just while still addressing the additional risk. If one were to address the risk by removing privileges and making it unfair to one gender, then that might be a double standard. However, my approach does not constitute a double standard, because the privileges are the same, the principles are the same - the way a child gets from point A to point B might be different, but still fair and reasonable to either side.
Different rules means that there are double standards. I have double standard now, between my two boys, based on their maturity and ages they are allowed to do different things.
No, that is not the sole test of a double standard. A double standard would be if your boys were the same age, same maturity, and one was denied a privilege. For example, if when your younger son reached the age/maturity your older son is now, but did not obtain the same privileges with no apparent reason. That would be unfair, and therefore a double standard. Fair application of principles that may differ based on a legitimate risk factors is fair, and if it does not actually infringe on a persons privileges or opportunities, then most definitely it's fair.
Ten Rules for Being Human
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
<>
Please don't change my words or what I have stated, as I have already corrected you at least
PumpkinAngel
Pages