Most annoying modern parenting lingo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK if housewife or SAHM is not descriptive enough, how about kept woman? Its accurate. Unless you had alot of money from inheritance or other means or are on welfare, you are are being taken care of financially by your spouse or partner.

No one said neither was descriptive enough, only that "housewife" isn't any more accurate than "stay-at-home mom," so need to prefer the former over the latter. Way to go with the meanspiritedness, though. You are one of the reasons that this site degenerates into name-calling and that the so-called "mommy wars" exist.

another PP here

I felt like a "kept woman" for two years when I took leave, and it drove me crazy. I HATED being financially dependent upon my husband, and once we were able to find solid childcare again (b/c that was the main problem), I immediately returned to work.

So I don't think it's a Mommy War argument in some cases. There are plenty of us who are so independent that staying at home isn't an option - at least not for very long.

[Anonymous]

The idea of a 7 month old doing art project cracks me up, too. Maybe I am a bad mom, but I can't imagine getting finger paints near my son when he was 7 months old. Everything went in his mouth back then. I think he was just getting the hang of picking up small things (e.g. cheerios) at that time. So doing an art project with him.....um.....never even crossed my mind. I don't envision much helpful participation on his end. Now, at 16 months.....yes, I can envision it. But at 7 months....that really seems like a stretch. Maybe that poster's child is "gifted." Perhaps the child has moved on to woodcarving now, at age 2.3 (two point three).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"That's another thing. Informed consent. I know what it is. I get annoyed however with those who think that if a woman truly "understood" then she would never agree to whatever medical procedure/intervention. That implies that the women who agree are uninformed or even worse, stupid. Some women are very imformed and make the decision that is best to them. Others use the phrase "informed consent" to imply anyone who makes a decision different than theirs is somehow not informed.

So there's another one.. informed consent as it relates to birthing. "

Perfect example of turning around an issue aimed at medical providers back onto other women. Doctors are required to provide informed consent whether you have googled it and done your own research or not. They are not allowed to assume you know all the risks. Many women would make the exact same choices but some would not and regardless of choice the doctor was at fault for not informing the patient.

I know 3 friends who had elective or questionable c-sections without a trial of labor who were never told about the risks of multiple c-sections. Two of them only wanted to 2 kids so while they were pissed the doctor didn't say anything no harm done. The third woman wanted 4-5 kids and now after 2 c-sections is being told in her case the third would be risky and fourth out the question. She is considering a law suit.

Same thing on inductions, I know many people who scheduled elective inductions based on scheduling issues being fully encouraged by their doctor to do so without the doctor ever mentioning the higher likliehood of c-section for elective inductions. A few would have just asked for a scheduled c-section, a few would have decided not to do an induction, and some would have gone forward.

None of these women were stupid, they simply did not realize they needed to do their own medical research and not trust that their doctor would tell them what they needed to know.

Which is exactly what I'm saying happens. These are women who are saying that other women are not informed, or are implying they are stupid for making the decision they did no matter ow well informed they really were at the time.

One woman makes the well informed decison to have an epidural or a c-section or whatever. Another decides not to. It is the woman who said no who is implying the stupidy. If they're pissed at the medical community then be pissed at the medical community. Those women need to stop implying that anyone who disagrees with them is not informed.

I can think of a few in particular who regularly imply that anyone who chooses to agree to medical information simply did not have enough information to make the "right" choice. Then they use the phrase "informed consent" like it's some big mystery half of us are missing out on.

[Anonymous]

Crap. That should say "medical intervention" not "medical information."

[Anonymous]

"The idea of a 7 month old doing art project cracks me up, too. Maybe I am a bad mom, but I can't imagine getting finger paints near my son when he was 7 months old. Everything went in his mouth back then. I think he was just getting the hang of picking up small things (e.g. cheerios) at that time. So doing an art project with him.....um.....never even crossed my mind. I don't envision much helpful participation on his end. Now, at 16 months.....yes, I can envision it. But at 7 months....that really seems like a stretch. Maybe that poster's child is "gifted." Perhaps the child has moved on to woodcarving now, at age 2.3 (two point three). "

I had a preemie and the OT/PT did recommend fingerpainting and called it an art project. Because crayons and most paints have an age 3 rating, I had assumed kids could not use this stuff until them. The therapist recommended it as a developmental aid to get comfortable with different tactile sensations. There is also something cognitive where they begin to realize they can control or create something. Not great art but they realize hey I put my hand down and it made a color blob. There is visual spatial development where the baby learns the difference between 2-d and 3-d things. Notice how a baby tries to pick up a colored block on a drawing even though it is flat. With kids there usually is a lot more going on than what we would normally perceive being adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"That's another thing. Informed consent. I know what it is. I get annoyed however with those who think that if a woman truly "understood" then she would never agree to whatever medical procedure/intervention. That implies that the women who agree are uninformed or even worse, stupid. Some women are very imformed and make the decision that is best to them. Others use the phrase "informed consent" to imply anyone who makes a decision different than theirs is somehow not informed.

So there's another one.. informed consent as it relates to birthing. "

Perfect example of turning around an issue aimed at medical providers back onto other women. Doctors are required to provide informed consent whether you have googled it and done your own research or not. They are not allowed to assume you know all the risks. Many women would make the exact same choices but some would not and regardless of choice the doctor was at fault for not informing the patient.

I know 3 friends who had elective or questionable c-sections without a trial of labor who were never told about the risks of multiple c-sections. Two of them only wanted to 2 kids so while they were pissed the doctor didn't say anything no harm done. The third woman wanted 4-5 kids and now after 2 c-sections is being told in her case the third would be risky and fourth out the question. She is considering a law suit.

Same thing on inductions, I know many people who scheduled elective inductions based on scheduling issues being fully encouraged by their doctor to do so without the doctor ever mentioning the higher likliehood of c-section for elective inductions. A few would have just asked for a scheduled c-section, a few would have decided not to do an induction, and some would have gone forward.

None of these women were stupid, they simply did not realize they needed to do their own medical research and not trust that their doctor would tell them what they needed to know.

To the first PP, I completely agree - there is this notion that women are so fragile or foolish that the naughty doctors are doing lots of bad bad things to the women, and the women are powerless. That is not the case. A doctor can't induce you without your consent, or perform a c-section without your consent, so in my opinion, any woman who agrees to such a procedure shares responsibility with the physician. She made the decision. If she wishes to blindly go wherever a doctor leads her, that's HER issue, not the doctor's. I am well versed in informed consent, and I seriously doubt any of the 3 c-section friends the second PP mentions DID NOT receive what meets the legal definition of informed consent. And for crying out loud, women DO have the responsibility to do at least a LITTLE bit of critical thinking and research on their own. If you want to have five children, bring that up with your doctor. I just had abdominal surgery, and I asked my surgeon what impact this surgery would have on subsequent pregnancies. He was not required to provide me that information as part of informed consent - but being a conscious and thinking person, I was able to open my mouth, get those vocal cords vibrating, and ASK. I find it absurd that all responsibility is pushed to MDs, with women bearing none of it. You can't have it both ways - expect to be treated with respect but refuse to be proactive in your own care.

To the second PP whose friend is contemplating a lawsuit: she'd better have some remarkably compelling facts, including that she never consented to either c-section, or she's going nowhere. Unless she's just planning to be a nuisance lawsuit that will further raise insurance rates for all of us.

[Anonymous]

"Which is exactly what I'm saying happens. These are women who are saying that other women are not informed, or are implying they are stupid for making the decision they did no matter ow well informed they really were at the time.

One woman makes the well informed decison to have an epidural or a c-section or whatever. Another decides not to. It is the woman who said no who is implying the stupidy. If they're pissed at the medical community then be pissed at the medical community. Those women need to stop implying that anyone who disagrees with them is not informed.

I can think of a few in particular who regularly imply that anyone who chooses to agree to medical information simply did not have enough information to make the "right" choice. Then they use the phrase "informed consent" like it's some big mystery half of us are missing out on. "

Where are you getting this? The examples are women who were not informed. Some would have made the same decision but were not happy they did not have all the information to consider. Some women would have made different decisions for THEMSELVES if they had been informed. My friend who can not have 4 kids does not in anyway feel that no one should have a c-section. She is friends with the other women who also was not informed but would have made the same choice. The one who would have still had a c-section is fully supportive of the one who would not have it and just as ticked off at the doctor for both cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Which is exactly what I'm saying happens. These are women who are saying that other women are not informed, or are implying they are stupid for making the decision they did no matter ow well informed they really were at the time.

One woman makes the well informed decison to have an epidural or a c-section or whatever. Another decides not to. It is the woman who said no who is implying the stupidy. If they're pissed at the medical community then be pissed at the medical community. Those women need to stop implying that anyone who disagrees with them is not informed.

I can think of a few in particular who regularly imply that anyone who chooses to agree to medical information simply did not have enough information to make the "right" choice. Then they use the phrase "informed consent" like it's some big mystery half of us are missing out on. "

Where are you getting this? The examples are women who were not informed. Some would have made the same decision but were not happy they did not have all the information to consider. Some women would have made different decisions for THEMSELVES if they had been informed. My friend who can not have 4 kids does not in anyway feel that no one should have a c-section. She is friends with the other women who also was not informed but would have made the same choice. The one who would have still had a c-section is fully supportive of the one who would not have it and just as ticked off at the doctor for both cases.

From people in my own life who are as I described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Which is exactly what I'm saying happens. These are women who are saying that other women are not informed, or are implying they are stupid for making the decision they did no matter ow well informed they really were at the time.

One woman makes the well informed decison to have an epidural or a c-section or whatever. Another decides not to. It is the woman who said no who is implying the stupidy. If they're pissed at the medical community then be pissed at the medical community. Those women need to stop implying that anyone who disagrees with them is not informed.

I can think of a few in particular who regularly imply that anyone who chooses to agree to medical information simply did not have enough information to make the "right" choice. Then they use the phrase "informed consent" like it's some big mystery half of us are missing out on. "

Where are you getting this? The examples are women who were not informed. Some would have made the same decision but were not happy they did not have all the information to consider. Some women would have made different decisions for THEMSELVES if they had been informed. My friend who can not have 4 kids does not in anyway feel that no one should have a c-section. She is friends with the other women who also was not informed but would have made the same choice. The one who would have still had a c-section is fully supportive of the one who would not have it and just as ticked off at the doctor for both cases.

I guarantee you that, unless it was emergency, your friend signed an "informed consent form" prior to having a c-section. I did. You think doctors don't know about informed consent? You're crazy if you do not think that. So, good luck with that law suit of hers.

[Anonymous]

"that's not o.k."

reminds me of "mistakes were made."

how about a simple "no." or "that was wrong?"

[Anonymous]

The woman ranting about how women should know everything about their c-sections is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. I doubt she knew very much about her own. Chances are good that it was unnecessary or at least questionable. MOST OF THEM ARE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You beat me to it. I was going to say that I hate the euphemistic "active boy" and also "spirited child."

I do however like "disruptive boy," since that's always more accurate in the context that "active boy" is being used by the "active boy"'s mom. There are legions of soccer playing, bike riding, scooter riding "active boys" who like physical activity and yet manage not to torpedo Sharing Time every single day in school.

I totally agree about "active" boy. Most young kids (preschoolers and toddlers) that I know are "active." I feel ike 99/100 are "active." I wonder if "active" really means spazz, or that they created a monster needing to fill their day with one activity after another and the kid has no idea how to just play quietly or gasp! watch TV for a bit to relax. Oh, they surely CANNOT stay home on a rainy day because their kids is soooooo "active."

[Anonymous]

People who refer to parks, the zoo, etc. as "resources."

[Anonymous]

"Jimmy, you aren't making good choices" as little Jimmy is tearing through Target being a brat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Which is exactly what I'm saying happens. These are women who are saying that other women are not informed, or are implying they are stupid for making the decision they did no matter ow well informed they really were at the time.

One woman makes the well informed decison to have an epidural or a c-section or whatever. Another decides not to. It is the woman who said no who is implying the stupidy. If they're pissed at the medical community then be pissed at the medical community. Those women need to stop implying that anyone who disagrees with them is not informed.

I can think of a few in particular who regularly imply that anyone who chooses to agree to medical information simply did not have enough information to make the "right" choice. Then they use the phrase "informed consent" like it's some big mystery half of us are missing out on. "

Where are you getting this? The examples are women who were not informed. Some would have made the same decision but were not happy they did not have all the information to consider. Some women would have made different decisions for THEMSELVES if they had been informed. My friend who can not have 4 kids does not in anyway feel that no one should have a c-section. She is friends with the other women who also was not informed but would have made the same choice. The one who would have still had a c-section is fully supportive of the one who would not have it and just as ticked off at the doctor for both cases.

I guarantee you that, unless it was emergency, your friend signed an "informed consent form" prior to having a c-section. I did. You think doctors don't know about informed consent? You're crazy if you do not think that. So, good luck with that law suit of hers.

Not any of the prior posters here, but I couldn't help but run into this gem. A signed consent form is not a guarantee of informed consent.