This Is Our Social & Cultural Issues Thread

[talktoomuch]

Here in GA, seeing, holding, naming, and burying/cremating a stillborn child are all choices of the parents. They can opt for any, all, or none of the above. If they choose not to bury/cremate the baby, the hospital takes care of the arrangements.

[possibilities]

I thought they had not picked out the names until after the births, and that they chose all K names to honor the doctor. In that case, I don't think we were told that they just gave Randall the name they were planning to give the third triplet. They could have named the third triplet Karl or some other K name for all we know.

[ShadowFacts]

5 hours ago, possibilities said:

I thought they had not picked out the names until after the births, and that they chose all K names to honor the doctor. In that case, I don't think we were told that they just gave Randall the name they were planning to give the third triplet. They could have named the third triplet Karl or some other K name for all we know.

I think that's right -- they went with the K names because of ol' doc. 

[OtterMommy]

10 hours ago, breezy424 said:

I can't remember exactly what happened.  Was the third triplet stillborn or did he die during childbirth or right after?  Wouldn't it make it five people born on that day?

 

Dr. K referred to the child as "stillborn."  He was born with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck (which, unfortunately, is not uncommon).

[BoogieBurns]

10 hours ago, breezy424 said:

Wouldn't a full term baby be named by their parents and have been buried or cremated?  I couldn't find much on the internet and thankfully haven't experience this personally or know someone who has

Unfortunately, I have seen two people close to me go through stillborn loss. In both cases the baby was named months in advance. One baby was a twin, where only one twin had a heartbeat after they were delivered. The other was a single baby whose umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck. In both cases the babies had a few photos taken, and only given out to the closest of friends and family (those who wanted them of course). Both were given a funeral and buried.

However, if the babies didn't have names before the birth, there's no benchmark on what to do about naming a baby who is born without a heartbeat. Maybe naming the baby would have made it harder, maybe they named the baby and never showed us that scene. It's very likely they had a farewell to their baby, even just a small burial. If they ever do show us that scene, I'd like to let you know I'll be sobbing. 

[kassygreene]

Re-using the name of a dead child for a later one is generally creepy in this modern day.  It used to be very common.  One of my great-grandfather's brothers lost all but one of his children to the same disease in just a couple of weeks in the early 1890s (I believe it was diphtheria).  At least one of those children's names was given to a later child, and the family history documenting this (written in 1974) spent a page explaining this.  Children that lived long enough to be named but still died very young (and infant mortality used to be really really high) didn't have a generational lock on the name.

It doesn't surprise me that in 1980 a name intended for a baby that didn't make it could have been given to the "replacement".  I think Show got it right, to do a story on that and to make the point that Randall deserved his own name.

I'm not familiar with the customs of the 80s, but in just slightly earlier times stillbirths wouldn't necessarily merit a funeral.  It's not that long ago that the general advice to medical tragedy was to forget it ever happened.

[photo fox]

I didn't think "Kyle" was ever the stillborn baby's name, since the K's were for Dr. K, and they didn't even know him before that day.  I took the "give him his own name thing" to be "give him a name that's not a K, because he's not a triplet".  So while they may have had an idea to name them all with the same letter, "Kyle" was always "Randall", never the stillborn triplet.  Just my interpretation - it wasn't especially clear.

12 minutes ago, kassygreene said:

I'm not familiar with the customs of the 80s, but in just slightly earlier times stillbirths wouldn't necessarily merit a funeral.  It's not that long ago that the general advice to medical tragedy was to forget it ever happened.

1

My cousin had a stillborn daughter just around this time (I was just old enough that I can remember it).  Not sure she got a full funeral, but she most certainly had a name and a burial, because she has a tombstone.  But we're Catholic, so... that's maybe different for us.

My parents lost a pair of twins in the early 70s.  They were born alive but far too small, and in those days there wasn't much that could be done.  They named the weaker one, who only lived a day, after my grandfathers.  No one else in the family ever used the names, I think for fear of upsetting my parents, and I know they never wanted that.  They would have loved to have had a little "Frankie" running around.  I think it would have actually soothed their pain.  Instead the only "namesake" my grandpa ever got is a name on a grave.  (Not unusual in a lot of families, I know, but in my family we pass down a lot of names.  So it's sad to me that his isn't passed down.)

[possibilities]

6 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

It's very likely they had a farewell to their baby, even just a small burial. If they ever do show us that scene, I'd like to let you know I'll be sobbing. 

It definitely would have added to the general sobworthiness of the episode!

I think they wanted the pilot to be uplifting despite the sorrow, and if they had shown us more of the farewell than just the scene of Rebecca in the hospital being given the news and crying during the montage, that it would have been impossible to go on to show the twist as a happy ending, with the Big Three in their bassinets. It would have felt tasteless, and like the adoptee really was a "replacement baby."

I think the way they glossed over what happened between Rebecca getting the news and the scene with the three babies at home was in service to the twist being revealed in the first episode rather than having it be an arc for the first season. We didn't see the details of the farewell, or of the adoption. Maybe they will give us flashbacks, though it's hard to predict what they will or won't consider essential backstory vs jump over it territory with this show. If they tell us too much about the past, we never get any forward motion, and that will be as frustrating as getting too little. It's a delicate balance with a show like this, and I don't know what to expect-- that might be part of its popularity, actually (i.e. not knowing what to expect).

[romantic idiot]

On 12/11/2016 at 11:47 AM, SlackerInc said:

I'm torn also, but maybe in a somewhat different way.  I relate to this instinct of feeling like they should have set it up earlier (or maybe started setting it up now, more slowly).  And I am very skeptical that they had intended him to be bi from the beginning.  It strikes me as highly likely that they got criticisms of having no gay characters and went "shit, they're right" and William was the only regular character who wasn't currently pursuing some kind of heterosexual relationship, so it had to be him (although it had to be "bi", because he waxed so romantic about Randall's birth mother in that flashback ep).

But then I interrogate myself about this, and I have to admit there's no reason we would have had to know this about William earlier.  And as you say, an older non-hetero character (nonwhite, as well) is a rare thing.  If the showrunners erred by not featuring diversity in sexuality, what's wrong with their fixing their mistake?

I do think it's silly to insist this was not a "political" move.  We are not anywhere close as a society to the point where making an elderly black man non-hetero, on a major network TV show that's the only real "hit" of the season, is just an artistic decision with no political considerations.  The fact that several people got their noses bent out of joint proves that it is political.  The showrunners aren't dumb: they know that in network family dramas, "straight" is still the default expectation of viewers, especially for older characters.  And when there are gay characters, there will usually be political developments related to that fact (cf. Brothers and Sisters).

But why is "political" necessarily a dirty word?  It's certainly not the first time they've gotten political.  All the stuff about young Randall and the black mother at the pool was very political as well, for example.

I think the term 'political' has a negative connotation in this case because then it wouldn't be 'organic' storytelling. 

Anyway, I don't think William being made bi was in the service of diversity. I think, as I mentioned in the episode thread, that William still needs to be, somewhat, likeable. There was so much hullabaloo over the cat. I cannot imagine how up in arms many people would have been had William ran away from his elderly girlfriend. When it comes to cutting off all communication with his elderly boyfriend, however, it got lost under the 'reveal' of William's bisexuality. 

[jhlipton]

On 12/12/2016 at 5:34 PM, Court said:

This is just as insulting. If someone wants to be a wife and mother, there is nothing wrong with that.

You're taking about women.  I'm talking about 6-year-olds.   Young girls get a lot of encouragement to be wives and mothers (and I have no problem with them being wives and mothers).  But maybe, just maybe, one of the steps for cutting down on teen pregnancy is telling 6-year-olds to be "mamas".

[OtterMommy]

11 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

You're taking about women.  I'm talking about 6-year-olds.   Young girls get a lot of encouragement to be wives and mothers (and I have no problem with them being wives and mothers).  But maybe, just maybe, one of the steps for cutting down on teen pregnancy is telling 6-year-olds to be "mamas".

I don't know what the context of the original post was, but I agree wholeheartedly with @jhlipton's post.  I've been careful about what I say to my kids on a number of topics, including pigeonholing them into a "future" (not because of the mother thing, though).  That being said, my daughter was told all the time when she was toddler/preschool aged about growing up to be a mommy, pretending to be a mommy, etc.  My son was told all the time to be a firefighter or a quarterback.

Edited December 14, 2016 by OtterMommy

[Court]

On 12/12/2016 at 5:34 PM, Court said:

This is just as insulting. If someone wants to be a wife and mother, there is nothing wrong with that. By saying that's not enough, or just wife and mother, the implication is that woman is less and not good enough. It's essentially still limiting women. If a woman wants to be a wife and mother, it's just as good as women who choose a different path. 

Plenty of women who choose to be a wife and mother are not lacking self-worth. 

My daughter loves superheroes which is great. However, it grates when people praise it on the basis of oh yay, not a princess. It's basically saying that liking the "girly" things is wrong.  She likes princesses too and makeup. That's just as good 

I meant girls, females, etc. We've gone so far in the other direction it's looked down on by many when girls choose a traditional path or a "girly"path. I put girly in quotes because in our house there are no girl or boy things. 

Girls being anything they want to be means wife and mother as well. That's not less. It's equal to whatever else they may feel like doing. The implication in the other thread was that women were "just a wife and mother" or that they could be more if they only knew what was out there. 

Hearing my daughter get praised for being Wonder Woman while her friends were princesses is offensive. The message is those girls didn't know what they liked, didn't have a mind of their own and that they weren't good enough. 

My point is I'll encourage girls to be whatever they want and it's ok to choose wife and mother.

[SlackerInc]

On 12/12/2016 at 10:39 AM, kassygreene said:

Re-using the name of a dead child for a later one is generally creepy in this modern day.  It used to be very common.  One of my great-grandfather's brothers lost all but one of his children to the same disease in just a couple of weeks in the early 1890s (I believe it was diphtheria).  At least one of those children's names was given to a later child, and the family history documenting this (written in 1974) spent a page explaining this.

Not quite the same, but my dad's older brother died when he was around five or six and my dad (three or so at the time) had his middle name changed to his deceased brother's first name.  Talk about a heavy mantle to carry!

[MsJamieDornan]

Since one triplet died, why are they automatically calling Kevin and Kate twins ?

[PRgal]

8 hours ago, Court said:

Hearing my daughter get praised for being Wonder Woman while her friends were princesses is offensive. The message is those girls didn't know what they liked, didn't have a mind of their own and that they weren't good enough. 

My point is I'll encourage girls to be whatever they want and it's ok to choose wife and mother.

As a very "girly" kind of woman, I often feel insulted when people look down on princesses while praising those who, say, go into STEM subjects - it was to the point that my(girls-only) high school got rid of Family Studies (Home Ec) back in the 80s to make room for IT, so much of Gen X and practically ALL millennials never truly learned how to cook (don't get me wrong, I LOVE my alma mater and would want any daughter I have to go there as well).  The school even admitted that they wanted their alumnae to be "ahead of their time" rather than only being wives and mothers.  Well, a good spouse and parent has to be able to run the household properly, and this includes, sewing, cooking AND fixing minor issues that traditionally was the man of the house's job.  I was at a mall a few months back and saw a sign which said "why can't girls be smart & pretty at the same time?"  It seems like the view, however unintentional, is just one or the other.  And only one of it is the "right" one. 

[OtterMommy]

7 hours ago, MsJamieDornan said:

Since one triplet died, why are they automatically calling Kevin and Kate twins ?

Because, technically, they are.  Triplets are triplets as a group, but one-on-one, they're twins.  

Plus, I think it would be difficult to explain that, "Well, we have triplets--but, yeah, obviously one of our three kids isn't one of the triplets.  So, you know, one of those kids died. Oh, but all our living kids have the same birthday, so that's something..."  Just going with Kate and Kevin are twins and Randall is adopted is...well, easier (although definitely problematic).

[ShadowFacts]

4 hours ago, PRgal said:

As a very "girly" kind of woman, I often feel insulted when people look down on princesses while praising those who, say, go into STEM subjects - it was to the point that my(girls-only) high school got rid of Family Studies (Home Ec) back in the 80s to make room for IT, so much of Gen X and practically ALL millennials never truly learned how to cook (don't get me wrong, I LOVE my alma mater and would want any daughter I have to go there as well).  The school even admitted that they wanted their alumnae to be "ahead of their time" rather than only being wives and mothers.  Well, a good spouse and parent has to be able to run the household properly, and this includes, sewing, cooking AND fixing minor issues that traditionally was the man of the house's job.  I was at a mall a few months back and saw a sign which said "why can't girls be smart & pretty at the same time?"  It seems like the view, however unintentional, is just one or the other.  And only one of it is the "right" one. 

The schools in my area are dropping the home ec type classes as well as the industrial arts/shop classes, mostly for budgetary reasons.  I think that's too bad, because all of those skills, plus financial literacy and healthy interpersonal skills, are so important in daily life.  Digital technologies are great, but I think maybe those in charge of education don't always see the forest for the trees. 

[izabella]

They're dropping home ec and shop now?  I went to high school in the 80's, and we did not have those classes offered even then.  I'm shocked they have been offered anywhere for the last 30 years!

[OtterMommy]

2 minutes ago, izabella said:

They're dropping home ec and shop now?  I went to high school in the 80's, and we did not have those classes offered even then.  I'm shocked they have been offered anywhere for the last 30 years!

I think it depends on how well a school district is funded (and how funds are allocated).  I know that my old high school still offers home ec and shop-like classes, but they aren't called as such (they are now things like Food Science, Automotive Science, etc).  A good number of grads from my HS now go on to trade schools, and I think the curriculum is created to support that.

[Court]

I had home Ec and shop (in the 90's) and our district still has both. Our high school has many vocational "tracks" and they are expanding the program now 

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, izabella said:

They're dropping home ec and shop now?  I went to high school in the 80's, and we did not have those classes offered even then.  I'm shocked they have been offered anywhere for the last 30 years!

Semi-rural midwest, with some manufacturing jobs that go unfilled - who knew, right?  So there are still some bare-bones type skills classes, but they used to start in middle school and those are mostly gone.  High school still has some, but fewer.  Local employers are clamoring for kids with these skills.  But the "extras" are always what get cut in school budgets, and people hate taxes of course. 

Circling back to where this began, best case scenario:  girls and boys should have exposure/access to the full range.  They can't be princesses or superheroes in real life, so once they're in school, life skills and academics and the trades should all be on the table. 

[Neurochick]

15 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I don't know what the context of the original post was, but I agree wholeheartedly with @jhlipton's post.  I've been careful about what I say to my kids on a number of topics, including pigeonholing them into a "future" (not because of the mother thing, though).  That being said, my daughter was told all the time when she was toddler/preschool aged about growing up to be a mommy, pretending to be a mommy, etc.  My son was told all the time to be a firefighter or a quarterback.

And THERE is the problem.  If little girls are told to be mommies then little boys should want to grow up to be daddies. 

[OtterMommy]

11 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

And THERE is the problem.  If little girls are told to be mommies then little boys should want to grow up to be daddies. 

Well, I don't think either should be told they should want to be either.  Childhood is for learning about the world and ourselves, not what our lifelong ambition is (usually....)

[Guest]

My 11th grader had Culinary Arts last year.  The school has a nice, new industrial kitchen for it, too.  It's one of the more popular electives, probably largely thanks to cooking shows.  

[Enigma X]

I have a huge family and some of my family members have used the term of endearment "l'il mama" with their daughters. Every single one who has been called that is either working on their degree (bachelor's or master's) or have it. I am seriously talking no less than 10 family members. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, but I do think we read way more into some things than what is there. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Enigma X

[Neurochick]

49 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

Well, I don't think either should be told they should want to be either.  Childhood is for learning about the world and ourselves, not what our lifelong ambition is (usually....)

But if you tell boys they can be quarterbacks and girls they can be mommies, sounds like an imbalance to me. 

But you are right, childhood SHOULD be about learning about the world but unfortunately that doesn't happen in real life.  I went to school with SO many kids who were told early on that they would go to Harvard/Yale/Princeton.

[OtterMommy]

Just now, Neurochick said:

But if you tell boys they can be quarterbacks and girls they can be mommies, sounds like an imbalance to me. 

But you are right, childhood SHOULD be about learning about the world but unfortunately that doesn't happen in real life.  I went to school with SO many kids who were told early on that they would go to Harvard/Yale/Princeton.

Again, *I* do not say these things to my kids.  It was I've noticed other people saying to them.

[PRgal]

3 hours ago, Court said:

I had home Ec and shop (in the 90's) and our district still has both. Our high school has many vocational "tracks" and they are expanding the program now 

Except academic-focused schools (especially private, university preparatory schools) don't feel it's necessary.  I think the girls' schools were looking at it from a "we're going to be like the guys' schools.  If they don't offer shop, then we shouldn't offer home ec."

Edited December 14, 2016 by PRgal

[chocolatine]

I didn't go to high school in the US, and in Europe where I grew up the type of school I went to (university prep) was strictly academic without anything like "home ec" or "shop" classes. I only heard about one of my American cousins taking a home ec class and baking cookies there, which I thought was an odd thing to do during school hours. Do those type of classes prepare students for a career in those industries, or are they just for life skills? I'm not saying there is anything wrong about a career in food services, but most of the jobs in that field tend to be lower-paying, so maybe high schools/parents don't necessarily want to steer students down that path?

I struggle especially with encouraging girls to go into lower-paying careers, because the reason the gender wage gap is so large is not only that women aren't always being paid the same as men for the same kind of work, but also that they tend to go into lower-paying professions more than men. Of course nobody should be forced into a career they don't enjoy just to make more money, but if I had a school-aged daughter, I'd rather they taught her how to build a robot than how to bake cookies, because the former can lead to a more rewarding career.

Edited December 17, 2016 by chocolatine

[J.D.]

I know someone with a young daughter who not only calls her daughter 'Princess' ad nauseam, but she also buys the child tiaras and floods her Facebook with the pics.  Mind you, this child is not in pageants, which would be bad enough but where at least tiaras would be expected.  This is just a child whose mom calls her 'Princess,' keeps her supplied in sparkly tiaras and never tells her child no.  

Good grief--!!!!!  I don't want to be around either of them  when that overly-pampered child becomes a teenager.  Can you imagine -- !?!?!?

[neuromom]

3 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Well, I don't think either should be told they should want to be either.  Childhood is for learning about the world and ourselves, not what our lifelong ambition is (usually....)

I come from a law enforcement/military family, and my son has known from the age of three that we wants to be in law enforcement. And NO ONE pushed the idea.  In fact my mom speaks against it because she doesn't want any of her grandkids in law-enforcement! As for me and everybody else, I just let him explore what naturally interests him and I don't push one way or the other.  for about six months he was interested in being a pilot. And at one time (very briefly)  he talked about being a teacher .

He is 15 now and is in our local county cadet program. On his way to fulfilling his original desire to beIng in law enforcement.  And now that he's in high school, everything is seriously "career focused" for him. 

I knew from the age of 10 that I wanted to go into the military, and no one forced me into that decision.

so, I guess there are some people who just have some "internal programming " for what they want to do from an early age.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Do those type of classes prepare students for a career in those industries, or are they just for life skills?

I think sometimes it's just for students to have access to a broad range of skills early, and because not every class needs to be career or college prep.  Here the electives are broad-- drivers ed, jewelry, stained glass, auto shop, music, aerobics, drawing, sports...

[OtterMommy]

4 minutes ago, neuromom said:

I come from a law enforcement/military family, and my son has known from the age of three that we wants to be in law enforcement. And NO ONE pushed the idea.  In fact my mom speaks against it because she doesn't want any of her grandkids in law-enforcement! As for me and everybody else, I just let him explore what naturally interests him and I don't push one way or the other.  for about six months he was interested in being a pilot. And at one time (very briefly)  he talked about being a teacher .

He is 15 now and is in our local county cadet program. On his way to fulfilling his original desire to beIng in law enforcement.  And now that he's in high school, everything is seriously "career focused" for him. 

I knew from the age of 10 that I wanted to go into the military, and no one forced me into that decision.

so, I guess there are some people who just have some "internal programming " for what they want to do from an early age.

I think it is great when kids know what path they want to take.  I think, however, it is the exception and not the rule.   If a kid can figure it out on their own, more power to them...it is when adults push ideas on kids that I get my dander up.

[neuromom]

Just now, OtterMommy said:

I think it is great when kids know what path they want to take.  I think, however, it is the exception and not the rule.   If a kid can figure it out on their own, more power to them...it is when adults push ideas on kids that I get my dander up.

Most definitely!  In fact I had to have a talk to my mother about not pushing her opinions on my son. Granted, in this day and age, it makes a parent and grandparent nervous to have a kid in law enforcement or military. But,  I told her it's not our place to decide what makes him happy and what goals he should have in life. I have seen too many parents push their kids into one area or another and the kids suffer  because they are not truly happy. 

 And based on all my sons friends and their "life goals"   I am pretty sure that it's rare to have a high school kid so focused on a specific career . 

[chocolatine]

14 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think sometimes it's just for students to have access to a broad range of skills early, and because not every class needs to be career or college prep.  Here the electives are broad-- drivers ed, jewelry, stained glass, auto shop, music, aerobics, drawing, sports...

This must be a cultural thing then. In Germany, where I grew up, school (especially the university prep kind called "Gymnasium") is primarily academic. There are physical ed and art/music requirements, but most of what you described would be considered extraneous and done outside of school. Even typing wasn't taught at our school; we were referred to an evening class at the local community college.

[Court]

Well I'm a huge proponent of trade/vocational skills. Life skills should be taught as well. Maybe that month of caring for the baby doll will also deter someone from being a teen mom. That thing was a pita. 

Not everyone is meant to be in college and that's ok. There's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs. There's also a variety of food service/hospitality jobs that are far beyond cashier at Mcdonalds.

[BoogieBurns]

1 hour ago, J.D. said:

she also buys the child tiaras

This reminded me, my Dad and his wife started this tradition where the grandkids get the "big girl tiara" at 5 years old. I need to make sure that tradition is not forced on my kids. I have a feeling they'll be little weirdos, if everything goes as planned. Plus, what would the boys get? I don't like it. Nope!

[SlackerInc]

11 hours ago, PRgal said:

As a very "girly" kind of woman, I often feel insulted when people look down on princesses while praising those who, say, go into STEM subjects - it was to the point that my(girls-only) high school got rid of Family Studies (Home Ec) back in the 80s to make room for IT, so much of Gen X and practically ALL millennials never truly learned how to cook (don't get me wrong, I LOVE my alma mater and would want any daughter I have to go there as well).  The school even admitted that they wanted their alumnae to be "ahead of their time" rather than only being wives and mothers.  Well, a good spouse and parent has to be able to run the household properly, and this includes, sewing, cooking AND fixing minor issues that traditionally was the man of the house's job.

I'm going to "split the baby" here.  I don't like it when a certain kind of uncompromising feminist advocates teaching girls that motherhood or any traditionally feminine activity is to be avoided or at least certainly not embraced.  But the whole "princess" thing, I find gross.  Princesses are not sewing or cooking or raising their own children!  They are waited on hand or foot.

5 hours ago, Neurochick said:

And THERE is the problem.  If little girls are told to be mommies then little boys should want to grow up to be daddies. 

Absolutely agree.  And I think this kind of attitude has largely taken root among younger generations.  Studies find that fathers are much more involved with their children than they were a few decades ago.

4 hours ago, Enigma X said:

I have a huge family and some of my family members have used the term of endearment "l'il mama" with their daughters. Every single one who has been called that is either working on their degree (bachelor's or master's) or have it. I am seriously talking no less than 10 family members. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, but I do think we read way more into some things than what is there. 

I've never ever heard of this before it came up here (I didn't even notice it on screen), so it's hard for me to think of it as just this kind of mild, meaningless term of endearment.  But OTOH you might be so used to it that you haven't really examined or "unpacked" it.  Why aren't the sons being called "little papa"?  If they were, I wouldn't have a problem.

2 hours ago, chocolatine said:

I struggle especially with encouraging girls to go into lower-paying careers, because the reason the gender wage gap is so large is not only that women aren't always been paid the same as men for the same kind of work, but also that they tend to go into lower-paying professions more than men. Of course nobody should be forced into a career they don't enjoy just to make more money, but if I had a school-aged daughter, I'd rather they taught her how to build a robot than how to bake cookies, because the former can lead to a more rewarding career.

As Court said, there are food service/hospitality jobs that aren't bottom of the barrel.  And not everyone is cut out for, or would be happy with, making robots (and before long, those robots are going to do almost all the jobs anyway).  What really bothers me is that women often self-select for lower paying careers because they gravitate to "helping professions" like social work or my wife's job, teaching young children who have learning disabilities or cognitive or emotional disorders.  But I think this is to women's credit, that they want to make the world a better place, rather than to do whatever it takes to make bank!  It's just unfair that we as a society take advantage of their kindness and don't pay them well enough (since we're talking about jobs that generally require master's degrees, but pay less than most everything else with that much schooling to prepare for it).  So instead of just steering our daughters away from social work and towards Wall Street, I think we should agitate for the "helping professions" to get better pay and working conditions.

11 minutes ago, Court said:

Well I'm a huge proponent of trade/vocational skills. Life skills should be taught as well. Maybe that month of caring for the baby doll will also deter someone from being a teen mom. That thing was a pita. 

You were probably not "at risk" to begin with.  A study released earlier this year found that those doll programs appear to "backfire":

Quote

 

The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”

“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”

Collins might have been onto something. In fact, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Lancet, putting a robot baby in the hands of 13- to 15-year-old Australian teens seemed to backfire.

Girls who participated in the virtual infant parenting, or VIP, program were more likely to become pregnant or have an abortion by their early 20s than those who did not, the authors found.

 

That last sentence is worded oddly, but the numbers later in the article seem to indicate that both abortions and live births increased significantly in the doll group.

I felt quite a bit of schadenfreude when I heard about this, because I never liked the agenda behind this program.  I think it could absolutely be useful just in the same way as "home ec", to teach baby care skills.  But I don't like the idea of demonizing babies or motherhood.  So I'm tickled pink to hear that for the more maternally inclined among these teen girls, they were like "all right, I like this and I can do this".

[BoogieBurns]

11 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

I've never ever heard of this before it came up here (I didn't even notice it on screen), so it's hard for me to think of it as just this kind of mild, meaningless term of endearment.

I call my dog lil mama and she is spayed! Sometimes it's just a nickname. I only call actually human female children "lil mama" when they are way too young to be doing something like wearing makeup or high heels. "I see you lil mama" and even then, it's kids to whom I am related. We have no men in the family to compare this to, but "daddy" and "papa" have been sexualized. So I don't think it's said much towards kids. 

[ShadowFacts]

12 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

As Court said, there are food service/hospitality jobs that aren't bottom of the barrel.  And not everyone is cut out for, or would be happy with, making robots (and before long, those robots are going to do almost all the jobs anyway).  What really bothers me is that women often self-select for lower paying careers because they gravitate to "helping professions" like social work or my wife's job, teaching young children who have learning disabilities or cognitive or emotional disorders.  But I think this is to women's credit, that they want to make the world a better place, rather than to do whatever it takes to make bank!  It's just unfair that we as a society take advantage of their kindness and don't pay them well enough (since we're talking about jobs that generally require master's degrees, but pay less than most everything else with that much schooling to prepare for it).  So instead of just steering our daughters away from social work and towards Wall Street, I think we should agitate for the "helping professions" to get better pay and working conditions.

Amen and hallelujah, you said a mouthful.  People who take care of the young, the old, the sick, the injured, the vulnerable are doing amongst the most difficult and important work there is. 

[Court]

@SlackerInc You're correct. I wasn't. I also had two real siblings 10 and 12 years younger than me that were a real pita as well. A lot of their care fell on me. That's an interesting study, thanks for sharing! 

But I do think life skills are incredibly important such as balancing a checkbook for example. Or making a budget. Or even how to grocery shop with coupons.

[AmandaPanda]

I've seen a lot of Latino families that refer to their daughters as "mami" or "lil mama." It might be a cultural thing for them, I'm definitely not an expert there. I just know that I had a lot of Latino families at the pre-school where I used to work and most of them with daughters used that as a term of endearment. I did have one mom who referred to her son as "daddy" and it always creeped me out. 

When I was in middle school, all sixth graders were required to take six weeks each of art, foreign language, industrial technology, computer science, home ec, and speech and drama. It was like a sampler platter of all the possible electives we would be able to take throughout the rest of middle and high school. Then in high school, everyone had to take at least one year of a practical art (culinary arts, keyboarding, clothing, shop, child development, etc.) and one year of a fine art in order to graduate. I took child development and keyboarding for my practical art, then music appreciation and choir for my fine art. Also, in order to graduate, every senior had to take Senior Seminar, which was basically life skills. We learned how to write checks, manage a budget, write a resume, and go through a mock interview. 

In the school district where my husband used to work, every high schooler had to pick a "completer" track in order to graduate. You could do college prep or you could pick a vocational skill. So, they had a plumbing completer, where you actually got experience in plumbing and would graduate with some sort of certification. I used to teach in Baltimore and there were tons of highly specialized high schools. One school was focused on the medical sciences and students had the opportunity to graduate high school with their CNA. So, there are still plenty of schools out there that invest in vocational classes. 

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, AmandaPanda said:

I've seen a lot of Latino families that refer to their daughters as "mami" or "lil mama." It might be a cultural thing for them, I'm definitely not an expert there. I just know that I had a lot of Latino families at the pre-school where I used to work and most of them with daughters used that as a term of endearment.

It's not just with daughters; Sofia Vergara's character on Modern Family calls her sons "papi". 

[izabella]

Call me crazy, but I think life skills - cooking, balancing a checkbook, making a budget, doing laundry, the roles and responsibilities that go along with having babies and raising children - that should be taught to both boys and girls at home, by parents.  Isn't that part of a parent's responsibility?

Edited December 15, 2016 by izabella

[pennben]

3 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

So instead of just steering our daughters away from social work and towards Wall Street, I think we should agitate for the "helping professions" to get better pay and working conditions.

That is a lovely sentiment and worthwhile goal to get behind.  Unfortunately, it's a lovely sentiment and worthwhile goal that has been expressed for decades and decades and decades, and we all say ' huzzah' when it is mentioned and we all hail it as exactly what needs to be done. And then crickets.

So, my advice to little girls...go to Wall Street, go be a power business person, go be a power lawyer, go be a power whatever and get all of those big bucks.   And use those extra big bucks you have to help (or not, you being a girl in no way obligates you more than anyone else).   Hell, retire early and own whatever "helping profession" in your area that you choose.  Don't beg for the money, bring your own to the table. And most of all, don't buy into the notion that someday soon society will monetarily value "helping professions". Society will buy into that notion when someone brings enough cash to the table that folks can be bought. 

[Court]

 Many parents don't know how to do that. There's so many factors preventing it. Or they simply can't because they're working multiple jobs just to put food on the table. Or they're living in a homeless shelter. Or they have to figure out where to sleep. They may not own a washer. Our high school actually has a place where the students can do laundry. When identifying factors that led to kids dropping out or failing was that they had no clean clothes.

 It's not that they don't care, it just simply isn't possible because those things take priority. Also, it's often easier to learn from someone who isn't your parent. 

All of those and more is a lot more common than one may think. A life skills class can help combat poverty along with education. Such as how to interview, write a resume, etc. It's not a fix all but it can help. 

[SlackerInc]

3 hours ago, izabella said:

Call me crazy, but I think life skills - cooking, balancing a checkbook, making a budget, doing laundry, the roles and responsibilities that go along with having babies and raising children - that should be taught to both boys and girls at home, by parents.  Isn't that part of a parent's responsibility?

Some people believe this is true of all aspects of education.  Where do you draw the line?  More about this in reply to Court below.

3 hours ago, pennben said:

That is a lovely sentiment and worthwhile goal to get behind.  Unfortunately, it's a lovely sentiment and worthwhile goal that has been expressed for decades and decades and decades, and we all say ' huzzah' when it is mentioned and we all hail it as exactly what needs to be done. And then crickets.

So, my advice to little girls...go to Wall Street, go be a power business person, go be a power lawyer, go be a power whatever and get all of those big bucks.   And use those extra big bucks you have to help (or not, you being a girl in no way obligates you more than anyone else).   Hell, retire early and own whatever "helping profession" in your area that you choose.  Don't beg for the money, bring your own to the table. And most of all, don't buy into the notion that someday soon society will monetarily value "helping professions". Society will buy into that notion when someone brings enough cash to the table that folks can be bought. 

But I think many women would just feel extremely unfulfilled being a "power whatever".  My wife, a special ed teacher as I've mentioned, certainly would be one of them.  She just would not be able to stomach doing it--and this is a woman who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa and then went on to earn two master's degrees.  But she would be utterly at sea in a corporate shark tank (weird mixed metaphor there, but I like it).  And I think this is to their credit as a gender.  I don't think we should be taking girls and trying to force them to be something as women that doesn't feel right to them.  (The same goes for the smaller number of boys/men who have the same inclination, BTW: my dad was one such, and so am I.)  Even if these pay disparities are never fixed (though I have more hope than you do--people 100 years ago would be utterly shocked by how much money we currently force rich people to pay in taxes to help the poor, and I think this trend will continue over the long term), money isn't everything and teaching girls that it is, is IMO part and parcel of that kind of diseased, rapacious mentality that I'm against.

3 hours ago, Court said:

 Many parents don't know how to do that. There's so many factors preventing it. Or they simply can't because they're working multiple jobs just to put food on the table. Or they're living in a homeless shelter. Or they have to figure out where to sleep. They may not own a washer. Our high school actually has a place where the students can do laundry. When identifying factors that led to kids dropping out or failing was that they had no clean clothes.

Well said.  And some parents are, frankly, only semi-competent.  They can hold it together well enough that social services don't actually need to take away their kids, but they need support--from social workers, and from the schools.  The kids my wife teaches in many (not all) cases have parents like that.  My wife is as bleeding heart liberal as they come, so she does not begrudge them this.  What bothers her (and amazes me to hear about it) is how many of the "paras" (paraprofessionals or what used to be called "teachers' aides", support workers who usually don't have college degrees) she supervises grumble in very right wing terms (usually when the kids are out of earshot) about the "poor parenting" at the root of the problems these kids face.  They go on about "personal responsibility", yadda yadda.  What amazes me about that is that their jobs are paid for by a public policy that doesn't take such a hardline libertarian, bootstrapping stance.  If it did, the PTB would say "you sit in your chair in the regular classroom and do your work without extra help, and if you can't hack it or especially if you act out, we'll expel you".  That is a legitimate position to hold (although one I oppose strongly), but it's so hypocritical coming from people whose salary is paid solely because that is not the policy.

[PRgal]

2 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

Some people believe this is true of all aspects of education.  Where do you draw the line?  More about this in reply to Court below.

But I think many women would just feel extremely unfulfilled being a "power whatever".  My wife, a special ed teacher as I've mentioned, certainly would be one of them.  She just would not be able to stomach doing it--and this is a woman who graduated from college summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa and then went on to earn two master's degrees.  But she would be utterly at sea in a corporate shark tank (weird mixed metaphor there, but I like it).  And I think this is to their credit as a gender.  I don't think we should be taking girls and trying to force them to be something as women that doesn't feel right to them.  (The same goes for the smaller number of boys/men who have the same inclination, BTW: my dad was one such, and so am I.)  Even if these pay disparities are never fixed (though I have more hope than you do--people 100 years ago would be utterly shocked by how much money we currently force rich people to pay in taxes to help the poor, and I think this trend will continue over the long term), money isn't everything and teaching girls that it is, is IMO part and parcel of that kind of diseased, rapacious mentality that I'm against.

 

Though we can't force boys to do this either.  I think we over-do the "girls, you can be anything you want" and forget about the boys.  Only NOW are we beginning to see campaigns telling parents that it's okay to for boys to be sensitive.  That "wearing big boy pants" includes being allowed to cry (for example), yet we've been encouraging girls to go into traditionally "male" dominated jobs for a few decades.

[ShadowFacts]

6 hours ago, pennben said:

So, my advice to little girls...go to Wall Street, go be a power business person, go be a power lawyer, go be a power whatever and get all of those big bucks.   And use those extra big bucks you have to help (or not, you being a girl in no way obligates you more than anyone else).   Hell, retire early and own whatever "helping profession" in your area that you choose.  Don't beg for the money, bring your own to the table. And most of all, don't buy into the notion that someday soon society will monetarily value "helping professions". Society will buy into that notion when someone brings enough cash to the table that folks can be bought. 

Wall Street, power lawyering, early retirement, etc. are obviously not remotely possible for everybody  Agitating for social change is a long haul, and isn't really what I would think of as begging for money.  Social change doesn't come by asking politely anyway.  I have found that appreciation for helping professionals tends to happen when you are in dire need of one.  With the aging population, there may be a supply-demand shift that ends up rewarding people who help people.  You are right that these jobs will never match the big bucks that moneychangers make, but society falls apart without them. 

[Neurochick]

6 hours ago, izabella said:

Call me crazy, but I think life skills - cooking, balancing a checkbook, making a budget, doing laundry, the roles and responsibilities that go along with having babies and raising children - that should be taught to both boys and girls at home, by parents.  Isn't that part of a parent's responsibility?

True, but what if the parents can't do that?  What if they don't know how, or what if they're so busy working two, three jobs that they don't have time?

This may be unpopular but I'll say it here because it's a social issue.  I love seeing Randall and Beth and I'd watch a whole show with them.  I think it's important for black children to see couples on TV like Randall and Beth, all the time, rather than the dysfunction junction that is on shows like Love and Hip Hop and Black Ink Crew.  I grew up in the 60's and 70's and never heard the word "babymama" or "babydaddy."  It was always, "my husband/my wife."  Black children need to see that no, marriage is NOT just for white people (which is a title of a book, "Is Marriage for White People?").