Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Helicopter parents and their presence out of control?", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes three cousins that attended large southern universities. One of the cousin's parents purchased an apartment in the town so that they could attend football games. The other two cousins' parents bought houses where the universities are located so that they could attend games as well. The original poster asks whether this type of clingy parenting is common these days, saying that it was unheard of when she went to college. As the first poster to respond says, "This seems to be more of an SEC football thing than a helicopter thing." Several posters agree that this sounds more like well-to-do parents who are dedicated to football rather than traditional helicopter parents. Moreover, several justifications for purchasing real estate in college towns that didn't involve helicopter parenting were suggested. Other posters, however, do have stories that describe what would be expected from helicopter parents. One poster told of parents sitting in on Zoom interviews for graduating students applying for jobs. Several of those responding mentioned Facebook groups for parents in which all sorts of helicopter behavior is on display. Another poster said that at her son's college, parents of freshmen had to be told that they could not attend "student only" bonding events. On the other hand, one poster — later supported by several others — defended helicopter parents, saying that being a close-knit family is not inherently bad. These posters argued that parents were all trying to do their best and should not be criticized. They argued that helicopter parenting was not hurting those who opposed it and, therefore, they shouldn't care about it. However, other posters contended that helicopter parenting does have negative effects. They describe kids who have been coddled their entire lives failing to develop resiliency. When such students are hired, they crumble instantly when things get rough. Some posters say that this phenomenon significantly increased when the cost of colleges grew. Because college is now often one of a family's biggest expenses, they want to make sure they are getting their investment's worth. Several posters defend this attitude, saying they have paid for services and want to make sure those services are being provided. Other posters don't disagree that getting what is paid for is important, but they argue that it is the role of the students to advocate on their own behalf and that parents shouldn't intervene.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. Titled, "I think I’m being taken advantage of and I want out", the original poster says that her six-year-old son has a friend who lives three blocks from them. The original poster's son's friend is cared for in the morning by his grandmother who also looks after two siblings, one of whom is an infant. The friend's mom asked the original poster to pick up the friend and drop him off at school along with the original poster's son because the baby was still sleeping at drop-off time. However, for the past week when the original poster has picked up the boy, the infant has been awake. Therefore, the original poster feels like the justification for her doing pickups no longer exists and she believes that the other family is taking advantage of her. She wants to know what others would do. There are a surprising number of posters who respond as if the original poster is in the wrong in this situation. They seem to believe that by not continuing to pick up the other boy, the original poster is being uncharitable and petty. They suggest that the original poster should still continue to pick up the boy because she may need assistance in the future. Some argue that if she stops driving the other child, she should never ask anyone else for help. Other posters argue that, petty or not, the original poster resents being expected to pick up the other boy and, therefore, she should simply tell the other mother that she can no longer do it. Some posters side completely with the original poster, suggesting that it is not her job to solve another family's transportation problem and that she shouldn't be expected to continue picking up the other child. They argue that there is a big difference between providing assistance in special circumstances, but this is a routine activity. This is a point that the original poster repeatedly tries to make. She distinguishes between an "emergency" and a "convenience". If the other family's baby is sleeping, the original poster considers that an "emergency", though that is probably not the best term for it. The original poster has no problem helping out in an emergency. However, if the baby is not sleeping and the grandmother is perfectly capable of driving the boy, there original poster is just providing a convenience. The original poster is less interested in helping out merely because it is convenient for the other family. While many posters appear to struggle with this distinction, others understand it perfectly. As one poster says, an emergency is when a mother has to take one child to urgent care while her husband is stuck on a train and they need someone to pick up another child from school. In this case, the other family is looking for a permanent childcare solution. 

Next was a thread titled, "Coping with the knowledge that everyone views your kid as a problem?" and posted in the "Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities" forum. The original poster says that her son has started kindergarten and has an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The child's teacher seems exasperated with him and school officials appear to resent the original poster's attempts to hold them accountable for following the IEP, which the original poster says they are failing to do. The fact that those at the school don't appear to like either the original poster or her child is heartbreaking for her and she didn't expect the level of bias against her child that she is encountering. She wonders how others handle this situation. The original poster is experiencing the clash of a number of different unfortunate realities. In many schools, teachers are overwhelmed, having rooms full of difficult students, facing increased demands, and unable to handle it all. School administrations face dwindling resources and increasing needs. Children such as the original poster's require resources that, in many cases, simply aren't available or require decreasing another service in order to provide them. At the same time, IEPs have become much more common and have become to be seen by some as simply a means to gain an advantage for a student rather than a real need. In the cases in which IEPs are clearly necessary, some parents resent having such kids in their own children's classes because they view them as disruptive and drains on the teacher's time. All of this leads to animosity towards those like the original poster. However, I am certain that the original poster understands all of this and none of it is the focus of her thread, despite the number of posters intent on explaining it to her. Many posters, especially those who are parents of kids with special needs, advise the original poster that her job is to advocate for her child and make sure that he gets the assistance to which he is entitled. However, they agree that doing this will create hostility and that there is, sadly, no solution to that other than developing a thick skin and learning to accept it. Other posters attempt to explain the school's point of view, implying that the original poster is expecting too much. A few posters showed up to castigate the original poster and complain about kids with special needs being in regular classrooms. These posters want such kids segregated into specific classes, if not different schools altogether. One problem with this thread is that some of the participants don't understand the goal of the special needs forum. Unlike most other DCUM forums, this forum is meant for support. Parents who are often in difficult circumstances come seeking assistance. However, other posters often join the discussions and offer what they believe to be alternative, but legitimate, opinions. They see this as part and parcel of a discussion forum and an exercise of their free expression. While we don't expect all posters to be in lockstep without a hint of dissension, posts that take away from the goal of providing support are not welcome. As such, I removed many posts from this thread and eventually locked it.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and titled, "Hairy legs in an office setting". The original poster says that her high school-aged daughter is doing an internship this semester in a traditional office setting where the dress style is probably business casual or higher. Her daughter does not shave her legs and the original poster has advised her to either wear pants or shave. The original poster's daughter thinks that the original poster is nuts and that it is perfectly okay to wear a skirt or dress with unshaven legs. Despite this being an 12 page thread, there isn't a very large variety of responses. Some posters side with the original poster and agree that shaved legs are necessary if they are going to be exposed. Others side with the daughter and argue that norms have changed, especially among the young and that it is not necessary to have shaved legs in order to wear a skirt. Some posters agree that shaving is preferable, but don't expect the daughter to suffer any negative consequences as nobody would say anything to her about it and this is only a short-term internship in any case. Other posters suggest that her daughter wear pantyhose if she doesn't want to shave her legs. The bulk of the discussion in this thread has less to do with the original poster's daughter and more to do with current workplace norms. Many posters believe that failing to meet expectations for dress, including having hairy legs, is something that would be addressed by a supervisor. Other posters argue that these posters must not have been in an office lately because anyone commenting on someone else's body would be reprimanded and even fired if they persisted. Some posters argue that there is a generation gap with older people expecting shaved legs and those who are younger being fine with unshaven legs. However, many posters speak up to say that they are exceptions to such a rule. One poster went so far as to accuse the original poster of trying to humiliate her daughter and keep sexism alive. This poster doesn't think that anyone would even notice that the daughter's legs were unshaven. Other posters agree with this poster and support the original poster's daughter who they believe is helping to end the "the cycle of humiliation and sexism".