S01.E06: Career Days

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, lark37 said:

Haven't you heard that parents aren't supposed to keep quiet when babies are sleeping? Most pediatricians agree that its best to keep your home life normal and not tiptoe around sleeping children.

I've heard.  As I said earlier, it's not a one-size-fits-all world.  One of mine seemed to sleep through any and all noise, another did not.  Different temperaments of different little humans.   I never tiptoed or imposed absolute silence, nor did I play the piano in the same room.  Three preemies (or at least two) sleeping at one time, I think I would want to keep things reasonably chill because I'm sure sleep is pretty highly prized with multiples.  Light and noise are stressful to pre-term infants.  I don't know how old the Big 3 were in this scene, but still pretty little since they were in bassinets, weren't they?  I'm actually surprised that with breastfeeding three infants, Rebecca wasn't passed out on the floor in the middle of the room.  That's got to be a major challenge. 

[JudyObscure]

I don't think it's a matter of how dangerous or not, but that the "anything" that could happen would have then been on Kate's watch.  Take a nice neighborhood, the parent allows the child to walk to school.  The child is abducted.  If he's outside the school gate, it's the parent's "fault,"  if he's inside the gate it's the school's fault.  So long as Kate was following instructions, she could not be held responsible for anything that happened to Gemma.  Once she stepped away from instructions it would be on her.  And teens have dangers that little kids don't, like accepting rides from boys they barely know.

I'm surprised little Kate knew what XL stood for.  It's all so sad that a child should be body conscious at all.  The actress who played "Anne of Green Gables," had to age from about 8 to 20.  She said the main thing to remember in her child scenes was not to be aware of her body at all, how she sat or moved, etc.  That's the natural way for kids to be. 

[Scarlett45]

3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm surprised little Kate knew what XL stood for. 

Given her age I'm not, 8yrs old are aware of sizes and numbering especially if they go shopping often (or like shopping). Small, medium, large and extra large are common USA sizes, and terms. Also, fat children always know they are fat. When you grow up as an overweight child your body is the topic of public conversation, I've found that people are LESS likely to comment on an adults weight because that's "their business", where as a child people assume you're deaf, or dumb, or they can "save you" before it's too late. I find myself finding little Kate more believable than adult Kate sometimes. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Scarlett45

[jhlipton]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:22 AM, twoods said:

Beth and Randall continue to be the healthiest couple on TV.

They are great, but I also like Blip and Evelyn Sanders on Pitch and Jake and Amy on Brooklyn 99.

On 11/2/2016 at 6:50 AM, KateeBar said:

Watching promos of this show this summer, I was sure it would NOT be for me. I was very wrong.

Same here -- in fact I just binge-watched episodes 2 through 6 this weekend,

On 11/2/2016 at 11:38 AM, luna1122 said:

 I also think the quality of the cheese ..., elevate it from Velveeta. .

Like an English Blue?  LOL

On 11/3/2016 at 10:26 PM, SlackerInc said:

"morbidly obese"

Can I just say how very much I hate this phrase?  Chrissy Metz is not going to fall over and die because of her size (the whole "health risks due to high BMI" is mostly nonsense peddled by the diet industry and bariatric surgeons).  There is no "morbidly" about it, and it disgusts me the way that it has become casually accepted.

[twoods]

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

 

Can I just say how very much I hate this phrase?  Chrissy Metz is not going to fall over and die because of her size (the whole "health risks due to high BMI" is mostly nonsense peddled by the diet industry and bariatric surgeons).  There is no "morbidly" about it, and it disgusts me the way that it has become casually accepted.

It is not a phrase- it is a chronic condition in where the BMI is greater than 35. With that BMI, there is an increase risk of health conditions which is why it has that name. Yeah, it doesn't sound good but that's the correct medical term. I've seen 19 year olds have heart attacks or severe apnea and go into heart failure because of that BMI, so it's not merely something that diet industries talk about.

Edited November 14, 2016 by twoods

[Randomosity]

8 hours ago, jhlipton said:

Can I just say how very much I hate this phrase?  Chrissy Metz is not going to fall over and die because of her size (the whole "health risks due to high BMI" is mostly nonsense peddled by the diet industry and bariatric surgeons).  There is no "morbidly" about it, and it disgusts me the way that it has become casually accepted.

 

6 hours ago, twoods said:

It is not a phrase- it is a chronic condition in where the BMI is greater than 35. With that BMI, there is an increase risk of health conditions which is why it has that name. Yeah, it doesn't sound good but that's the correct medical term. I've seen 19 year olds have heart attacks or severe apnea and go into heart failure because of that BMI, so it's not merely something that diet industries talk about.

I agree; it's a medical term. And knowing the BMI associated with my own degree of overweight-ness, and that the actress is much bigger than me, I have no trouble believing that her BMI does actually fall in that medical range. As far as "nonsense", risks are real. Studies have shown that a BMI in the "overweight" classification actually correlates to a lower risk of death than "healthy" BMI, but that does not extend to obese and morbidly obese. There are serious health problems that CAN be associated with those weights. Not that they always are, but they can be, and are, at a much higher rate than for those with lower BMI. (Of course, BMI has its own issues and not everyone who "should" have metabolic syndrome based on BMI does.)

However, I also understand, to a degree, what the first poster means about the all too casual acceptance of the term. Often, especially in web forums like this, people use the phrase without knowing what it truly means. Suddenly it gets attached to people who, medically, are probably not even "obese" at all but rather just "overweight". It's another form of fat-shaming. Oh, you don't like that character/reality show participant and they happen to be mildly overweight? Berate them as morbidly obese. It's really pretty awful.

[Court]

On the other side of that, I had a Dr who assumed I had a multitude of health issues due to my weight.  She couldn't hide the shock in her voice when my test results came back and I didn't have the things she assumed I had from my weight. Or when she took my blood pressue and she was all wow, that's low! 

It was annoying and frustrating that even the medical professional couldn't look past my weight.

[Clanstarling]

33 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Then again, one article said the loss of life is up to 14 years, rivaling that of smokers.   I would've thought it'd be more dangerous than smoking, given the alarm levels.  But I do think they years she does have would be better with a lower BMI, just from a functionality standpoint.

Not to diminish the risks, nor argue with statistics, what the statistics show and what an individual's experience will be do often differ since averages are just that, averages.

Two of my aunts, who qualified as morbidly obese from the time they were in their 20's, lived well into their 80's (no diabetes or heart issues, but pretty much the same health issues most people in their 80's have) These were women born before WWI, and in a country that didn't have the kind of health care we have. I, myself, have excellent health and scores - and exercise each and every day and have done for decades. I am seldom sick, and most years only see the doctor for annual exams. It is frustrating to me that insurance companies jack up my rates based on statistics (pre ACA and possibly upcoming in 2017), especially since I have a friend who got reduced rates even though she sees every doctor/specialist imaginable, for second and third opinions, and has done all of her adult life whether or not she had any real need.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Clanstarling

[SlackerInc]

On 11/11/2016 at 8:27 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I'm surprised how many people thought that was dangerous.  That never even crossed my mind.  Maybe if it was the freeway.  I have a teen, though.  I'm a helicopter parent but I would totally let her walk in upscale neighborhoods in the day time alone with her phone, within a mile of her house.  At night, even.  Without her phone, even.  

The whole scenario was so manufactured.  If Gemma didn't want to spend time with Kate, which she didn't, why would she not tell her the destination?  It just seemed like an awkward shortcut to arrive at Kate being plucky and standing up for Kate.

 I strongly agree with your first paragraph. But as for the second, as the parent of teenagers I can attest to the fact that they can get petulant and stubborn over ridiculous things. The classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

6 hours ago, Randomosity said:

 

I agree; it's a medical term. And knowing the BMI associated with my own degree of overweight-ness, and that the actress is much bigger than me, I have no trouble believing that her BMI does actually fall in that medical range. As far as "nonsense", risks are real. Studies have shown that a BMI in the "overweight" classification actually correlates to a lower risk of death than "healthy" BMI, but that does not extend to obese and morbidly obese. There are serious health problems that CAN be associated with those weights. Not that they always are, but they can be, and are, at a much higher rate than for those with lower BMI. (Of course, BMI has its own issues and not everyone who "should" have metabolic syndrome based on BMI does.)

However, I also understand, to a degree, what the first poster means about the all too casual acceptance of the term. Often, especially in web forums like this, people use the phrase without knowing what it truly means. Suddenly it gets attached to people who, medically, are probably not even "obese" at all but rather just "overweight". It's another form of fat-shaming. Oh, you don't like that character/reality show participant and they happen to be mildly overweight? Berate them as morbidly obese. It's really pretty awful.

 I only read a small fraction of the forums here, so I will take your word for it that this happens. But I have only ever seen that term used in this case, where the actor and character really are so extreme in their level of obesity as to make me feel that the effect is for it to be lacking a certain amount of subtlety (an "anvil", as the trope goes). They could have done the same storyline with someone 100 pounds lighter and it would more nuanced, I feel. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by SlackerInc
Typo

[mojito]

Quote

Somebody posted that at private schools, the teachers could be less qualified than at public.  Is there truth to this?  

I've often wondered if the nuns who taught me in grammar school  (back in the days when they had American nuns)  even had college degrees. So many of them get sucked into convents at young ages, and I have a feeling that different orders take different views about their education. 

[possibilities]

RE teacher qualifications: private schools can hire whoever they want. There are no requirements. So some may have terrific teachers and others could have terrible ones.

RE the effects of weight on health, my understanding is that almost all of the health impacts are found in people who are dieting, and that it's the dieting itself that causes problems. In addition, the stress and demoralization of constant scorn, shaming, criticism/pressure/assumptions about their eating habits (which often reveal no greater calorie inake than in thin people), and outright discrimination are also factors. In large people who are happy (especially if they live in communities where being fat is socially acceptable), exercise, and have other healthy habits, there is no correlation between being large and having health problems. I've read the studies, but don't have links at hand. Entire books have been written debunking the validity of BMI as a health measure. They're directly contrary to the interests of the diet industry and insurance companies, which have brainwashed the general public as well as the medical profession.

A fairly moderate organization which attempts to address this issue in a non-firebrand way is "Health At Any Size" (they have a website of the same name). There are other more radical organizations which dig even deeper... not sure which ones are still active, as I haven't really been checking in recently. If interested, can try looking for "NAAFA" (National Association For Advancement of Fat Acceptance)... I don't know if they are still active, but they used to have a lot of materials to answer any questions and respond to common misinformation.

[Paloma]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 7:37 PM, izabella said:

I think the writers are also showing Rebecca to be more detached because she wasn't eager to have kids, certainly not as eager as Jack was.  I'm not convinced she totally and enthusiastically changed her mind about that during the course of one football game. 

Yes, I agree with this from personal experience. Probably sharing too much here, but it's relevant: I did not want to have kids (in part because of childhood experiences, in part because I was never drawn to babies or young children). But my husband really did, and I didn't want to disappoint him. We went to counseling and I eventually felt comfortable enough with the idea to get pregnant (though one child was enough for me--I don't know what I would have done if I had twins or triplets!). Although I loved and fiercely protected my daughter, I did not usually interact with her in the same way as my husband--he did most of the reading stories, playing, etc. As a result, he was the "fun" parent while I was the one who focused on getting things done. Also not incidentally, he worked long hours at a job outside the home, while I tried to work as a freelancer from home in the limited time that was not spent taking care of my daughter. So Rebecca's "detachment" makes perfect sense to me and does not (I hope) make her a bad mother.

[ShadowFacts]

6 hours ago, possibilities said:

RE teacher qualifications: private schools can hire whoever they want. There are no requirements. So some may have terrific teachers and others could have terrible ones.

RE the effects of weight on health, my understanding is that almost all of the health impacts are found in people who are dieting, and that it's the dieting itself that causes problems. In addition, the stress and demoralization of constant scorn, shaming, criticism/pressure/assumptions about their eating habits (which often reveal no greater calorie inake than in thin people), and outright discrimination are also factors. In large people who are happy (especially if they live in communities where being fat is socially acceptable), exercise, and have other healthy habits, there is no correlation between being large and having health problems. I've read the studies, but don't have links at hand. Entire books have been written debunking the validity of BMI as a health measure. They're directly contrary to the interests of the diet industry and insurance companies, which have brainwashed the general public as well as the medical profession.

A fairly moderate organization which attempts to address this issue in a non-firebrand way is "Health At Any Size" (they have a website of the same name). There are other more radical organizations which dig even deeper... not sure which ones are still active, as I haven't really been checking in recently. If interested, can try looking for "NAAFA" (National Association For Advancement of Fat Acceptance)... I don't know if they are still active, but they used to have a lot of materials to answer any questions and respond to common misinformation.

Responding in the Kate thread.

[DearEvette]

17 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I strongly agree with your first paragraph. But as for the second, as the parent of teenagers I can attest to the fact that they can get petulant and stubborn over ridiculous things. The classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

I have a non-communicative teenager who rolls his eyes at me witheringly and thinks his dad and I are just the most embarrassing people on earth.  And slams out of a room at the least provoking comments in the world "it is cold this morning, you should wear a warmer jacket?"  for example.  Then he'll turn on a dime and be all talkative and funny.  But no matter what he is never, ever rude to other people. I swear when we observe him in the wild, he is the most polite, well mannered creature you'd ever want to meet.

Re Randall's gifted status:  I was one of those gifted students.  At fourth grade I got plucked out of my comfortable neighborhood public school and shipped off to a tony private school completely subsidized by a gifted grant from Kodak so my blue collar parents didn't have to chuck up a red cent.  In retrospect it was a great thing for me.  It set me on a path I may never have considered.  At the time it was incredibly difficult because I was like one of maybe 3 black students in the entire school all the way up to 12th grade.   And it was probably the reason I sought out every black organization to join once I went to college.  LOL.  But from an educational standpoint, I think it was absolutely the best decision my parents made to let me go.

Re: Teaching qualifications.  Yes public schools require state certification which usually means having gone through a teacher ed program and taking qualifying tests.  In New York state it also requires a butt load of workshops (child abuse, drugs & alcohol etc.), a psychology course requirement and a second language requirement (if you are a Speech Pathology teacher then sign language can be your second language). They also require fingerprinting and a background check.  Teaching programs are also age specific.  So an Elementary teaching program is different from a Middle or Secondary program.  Also in NYS in order to receive permanent professional certification and often tenure you have to earn a Masters Degree.

Private schools don't require all the educational pedagogical stuff.  But they tend toward the highly credentialed.  So they like to say they hire PhDs.  But while the PhDs know their subject matter back and forth,  don't actually know how to teach.  Some do because depending on where they went to school, they most likely had to be TAs while in Grad school or even become adjuncts while searching for tenure track positions.  Some of that does go a long way toward teaching you how to teach.  Especially if you are thrown into teaching freshmen who these days are still really high school students in mentality.  But there is still a lot of theory that gets missed if you don't take take actual Ed courses.  Think about how different your high school teacher's teaching demeanor was compared to a college professor's and there is the difference.  Not the knowledge, but the ability to teach it.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Paloma said:

Yes, I agree with this from personal experience. Probably sharing too much here, but it's relevant: I did not want to have kids (in part because of childhood experiences, in part because I was never drawn to babies or young children). But my husband really did, and I didn't want to disappoint him. We went to counseling and I eventually felt comfortable enough with the idea to get pregnant (though one child was enough for me--I don't know what I would have done if I had twins or triplets!). Although I loved and fiercely protected my daughter, I did not usually interact with her in the same way as my husband--he did most of the reading stories, playing, etc. As a result, he was the "fun" parent while I was the one who focused on getting things done. Also not incidentally, he worked long hours at a job outside the home, while I tried to work as a freelancer from home in the limited time that was not spent taking care of my daughter. So Rebecca's "detachment" makes perfect sense to me and does not (I hope) make her a bad mother.

While my circumstances were different, and I was the one who wanted children, my husband became the fun parent, and eventually became the at home parent. I was the organizer, the scheduler, and generally the disciplinarian. We do what we're able to do, most of us go into it intending to be as good a parent as possible, and we all make mistakes. Even the perfect moms. It's anyone's guess which mistakes will impact our children. (exempting, of course, actual abuse and neglect). Now that my girls are grown, we enjoy a loving, friendly, and lively relationship, and they come to me for help first - even if it's their father's area of strength.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Clanstarling

[JudyObscure]

6 hours ago, Paloma said:

Although I loved and fiercely protected my daughter, I did not usually interact with her in the same way as my husband--he did most of the reading stories, playing, etc. As a result, he was the "fun" parent while I was the one who focused on getting things done. Also not incidentally, he worked long hours at a job outside the home, while I tried to work as a freelancer from home in the limited time that was not spent taking care of my daughter. So Rebecca's "detachment" makes perfect sense to me and does not (I hope) make her a bad mother.

Sounds like the two of you were a  near perfect parenting team.  No child need two "fun" parents, staying up late every night watching Disney movies while eating Smores. or two strict rule keepers who stress out over the slightest break in the routine.  One each is ideal.

[jhlipton]

My last three words on BMI: American Gladiator Turbo

[queenanne]

On 11/2/2016 at 10:31 AM, ZaldamoWilder said:

I was just coming to ask why Randall didn't think it was a good idea.   William's going to die soon? He didn't want it to be his last memory of his bio dad?  He doesn't want to be that close to him after all?  Music was his parents thing and he doesn't want William to intrude? I couldn't figure it out,

I'm a terrible driver and my parents, in a confidence raising decision, categorically refused to be my "driver's ed".  Plus, not all do-ers are great teachers.  My grandmother has tried to teach me spoken Finnish, and to waltz.  Neither was a great experience, as she has no way or talents to pull me over any learning "wall".

On 11/2/2016 at 10:54 AM, ChromaKelly said:

Yes to all of that. How did William play with top musicians? Give me a break! I'm really starting to eyeroll about William.

Yeah, that was tough and a wrong direction - they could've easily gone with "yes, and I never pursued it, which I regret", which is a different way to back into Randall's musical midlife crisis.  To some extent though, I have less problem with William as a character than others, because partly it's only logical; if you are that person, and you are a drug addict, you either (a) come out of the other side with a lot of life wisdom; or (b), die of drug complications, a bad trip, at the hands of bad companions, etc.

On 11/2/2016 at 1:21 PM, ClareWalks said:

I mentioned in the Kate thread how little things we do or say around our kids can make such a difference. How many moms do you know who say things like "I want to lose weight" or "I shouldn't eat that," without even thinking about how it affects our kids? I felt bad for Rebecca because although she was screwing things up, she was doing what a lot of folks do without really realizing it. I like that Rebecca isn't a perfect mom and I hope it shows women watching that our kids pay attention to that kind of stuff and it sends a message that isn't great.

To some extent this weight thing is a hard storyline, because Kate is often the one telling herself to compare herself to Rebecca.  Rebecca not being able to ask Kate to give her a piece of clothing because there will be a size differential, is realistic but inane (not to mention, with Mandy being five foot ten or something like and having a decent-sized rack, what are the chances she takes a medium/large in some tops?  I'm thinking high.)  Clearly some things do wound the larger, but we might as well say "existing gives people a sizeist complex".  It seems to me that you could in fact treat your child perfectly, tell them you love them at any weight; and then find yourself with a chunky preteen who becomes an obese adult; simply because those are the formative metabolism years for some, at the time when you're telling them "Oh sure, just eat whatever!!" - as the idea of everyone having a "thinning growth spurt" is, from my body's experience, mythical.

On 11/2/2016 at 3:01 PM, Emily Thrace said:

Yeah that puzzled me too a bit. Things like that can vary so much between districts though its possible the school didn't have those programs. Or because Randall tested high specifically in math (which doesn't always translate to an aptitude for English and other subjects.) the private school probably has more flexibility with programming than a public one does. I also wonder if Randall didn't qualify for a scholarship being black and gifted seems like it would have qualified him for something particularly given that this was the era when integrating schools was really  happening in a lot of areas. It didn't affect private schools as much but a lot them did start being more aware of diversity and starting programs because it was a hot topic.

They thought this was good treatment regardless of your actual talents in the 80s, though - I'm proof of that.  I was next to innumerate - transferred schools at fourteen and midyear to boot - the hotshot guidance counselor, proclaimed to my parents "Oh, she's just being lazy about math."  As part of "G&T" pre-high school I'd already taken the SATs - near perfect in English and lucky to get 400 in math, that's "the old 400" in scoring - "oh, she'll catch up". 

I went from already floundering in improper fractions in the "average" school; to being expected to understand 7th grade algebra.  Mid-year.  To this date I have no idea how the "gifted" math teacher passed me with the multiple weeks/months of lessons I was expected to understand - maybe he felt sorry for me - and I of course never caught up mentally from the passported minimum-6-months skippage, because, surprise - I have difficulty understanding the concepts.  lol.  My mother likes to say I had early mathematical promise and was doing great pre-K, until I was forced to consider the concept of "zero" at length after feeling I understood it instinctively pretty well, count on my fingers, use little colored plastic bears and number lines, and - the eternal favorite of kids all over - the basic "I don't care if you can do XYZ in your head and it's instinctive; you need to 'show your work'.  No, not 'the actual work' you did; 'the methodology I told you you had to use to solve this problem' way."

On 11/14/2016 at 7:23 AM, Randomosity said:

 

I agree; it's a medical term. And knowing the BMI associated with my own degree of overweight-ness, and that the actress is much bigger than me, I have no trouble believing that her BMI does actually fall in that medical range. As far as "nonsense", risks are real. Studies have shown that a BMI in the "overweight" classification actually correlates to a lower risk of death than "healthy" BMI, but that does not extend to obese and morbidly obese. There are serious health problems that CAN be associated with those weights. Not that they always are, but they can be, and are, at a much higher rate than for those with lower BMI. (Of course, BMI has its own issues and not everyone who "should" have metabolic syndrome based on BMI does.)

It doesn't take much at all, though, to term someone such.  (Not saying it's correct evaluation standards people use; just saying.)  I once had a doctor tell me I was "morbidly obese".  She was a twiggy lady, I will say; and/but it's based off of those actuarial charts, which are insurance agency generated and not with the help of doctors, IIRC.

I had quit smoking, and at the time she was scolding me about being "morbidly obese and needing to lose weight for my health", I was... 175 pounds, and five feet seven inches to boot.

[Randomosity]

16 hours ago, queenanne said:

it's based off of those actuarial charts, which are insurance agency generated and not with the help of doctors, IIRC.

I had quit smoking, and at the time she was scolding me about being "morbidly obese and needing to lose weight for my health", I was... 175 pounds, and five feet seven inches to boot.

By BMI there's no way a doctor should have said that. That's probably squarely in overweight - maybe by 20 lbs. Not even obese, certainly not morbidly obese. I'm 5'8 and the limit between normal and overweight is 163 for my height.

[abbey]

I am 5'6" and was classified by my doctor as morbidly obese at 296 lbs.  Now at 191 I am considered obese.  No way would you be morbidly obese at 175 lbs.

[ZaldamoWilder]

On 12/3/2016 at 8:20 AM, abbey said:

I am 5'6" and was classified by my doctor as morbidly obese at 296 lbs.  Now at 191 I am considered obese.  No way would you be morbidly obese at 175 lbs.

First of all, girl that's awesome!  Congratulations.      When I asked my doc about a hundred years ago (5'5".5 + 219), I was classified as morbidly too.  She said it's just math, medically all that means is you're a minimum of 20% over the ideal range according to this handy dandy chart from 1953.   I looked at that thing and it said I should weigh 134.   My 17 yo is now my height so I have a chance to test out the theory.  It turns out that (in my family anyway) 134 at 5.5-1/2 is a size 2-4.   That's *normal* range.   Walk into a Target in April and try to find a swimsuit in a size 12 or 14.   So yeah the charts can kiss my grits.

[possibilities]

But whether you have actual health problems (like high blood pressure) is an individual thing, and they can measure it, so there's no reason to assume it based on BMI.

[Superpole2000]

I loved Randall's declaration that he was going to learn how to play the piano and perform a recital in the future. Brilliant! The guy who is probably good at everything he does wants to try something at which he is not good. I hated that his family pretty much just laughed at him for it. He certainly deserved better from his wife in that situation, especially after she shit all over his job earlier in the episode.