Nice people thread part 8 - worth the wait

LydiaJ

Spirit wrote: »

She has something called 'painting week' coming up where you get a week off to go and decorate your new house. Friend has no interest in material things/style whatsoever whereas her husband will happily browse soft furnishings. They are however used to having people in to do stuff...so I expect it to become tasteful but without either of them lifting a paint brush. She tends towards high Anglican (as high as you can be being a woman in the church). The ordination is at the end of June....what to wear....Cathedral, drinks and canapes and then the 'after party' at their home. Tips welcome. Do I need a new hat?

I shouldn't think so. I didn't wear a hat to my SIL's ordination last summer. I can't remember if anybody else did, but if so then there weren't many who did. Just wear something reasonably smart. The bit in the cathedral will probably have a dozen or so candidates all getting ordained at once. There are usually opportunities for people to take photos outside afterwards - not an official photographer but various people getting their friends to stand in a group while a few people take snaps. Then each candidate usually goes off (with friends in tow) to the church where they will be serving, and has food there. It's not like a wedding - conspicuous expenditure would be considered inappropriate. The food is usually more along the lines of a bring and share by the church congregation than a professionally catered banquet, although the drinks and canapes may be a bit more upmarket in an anglo-catholic parish! Of course, your friend can give you more details of the sort of after party she's planning in her home.

Hope that helps.

PasturesNew

Spirit wrote: »

The ordination is at the end of June....what to wear....Cathedral, drinks and canapes and then the 'after party' at their home. Tips welcome. Do I need a new hat?

... as I've never been, and will never be, in any similar situation I'll keep my suggestion of a wrap around skirt, flip flops and a flowing T shirt to myself

Itismehonest

SingleSue wrote: »

I've been going against the experts my whole life :rotfl:

I actually have no guilt from going against the experts, more of a gratifying "See, they didn't need drugs" sort of thing.

They wanted to put both youngest and middle on calming drugs, I refused saying there were other methods that could be used rather than drugging a child up all day, only for them to not be able to sleep at night.

It was suggested (well almost ordered) that middle son go into a residential school, I refused (we have gone over this on here before, too long a story as to why). He was also labelled unteachable by his first primary school...his current high school have great difficulty understanding why they said that!

We were told youngest would never go to a main stream high school...well he is there, ok with a very high level of support and maybe not always very successful but that has been more down to the change to an Academy.

The experts did try to label eldest son as having an ASD....that didn't get very far as I knew (and demonstrated) that apart from being slightly eccentric, he didn't meet the criteria for ASD, for a start, he had an amazing imagination and creative flair. Would you believe they tried to label him not after a lengthy diagnostic process as had been for the other two but just because he had two autistic siblings and he was having meltdowns due to stress from his siblings!

I do suffer guilt though for the childhood James missed because of the care needs of the other two (my now ex husband was about as effective as a chocolate teapot for helping out) and because I allowed myself to be fobbed off that his joint pains were perfectly normal for a growing lad....the allowing the fobbing off and the damage it caused, has accelerated his progress into a wheelchair by many years, it is now predicted to be mid 20's instead of nearer to 40.

We have much in common in very different ways then.
My then DH disappeared believing the child would die as a toddler & then it was just me for many years.

Itismehonest

PasturesNew wrote: »

It seems to me that these people'd be better off handing over their own money and going down the pub..... the cost of doing such things often far outweighs the amount raised.

Maybe that's why the likes of her are always away doing altruistic things for people who have real problems & without charging those that benefit while the likes of us are here, trying to feather our own nests & being sad & self-obsessed on forums :rotfl:

lostinrates

Itismehonest wrote: »

Maybe that's why the likes of her are always away doing altruistic things for people who have real problems & without charging those that benefit while the likes of us are here, trying to feather our own nests & being sad & self-obsessed on forums :rotfl:

I am sort of with PN on sponsorship. Things I sponsor tend to be things like 'picking up rubbish'. Not terribly fun and not at all self serving, a challenge to ones altruism rather than ones body or mind, but does good twice, once in the act and once in the money raising.


My pins and needles side effects are crazy this morning.....mainly in my hands. I was going to fast to day but decided a hot breakfast might help. Trying to scramble eggs with pins and needles I. Your hands is really odd. .

PasturesNew

I read once that studies proved that "simple sponsorship things" pay out "more per piece of effort".

So, rather than cycling 10,000 miles round the world and being sponsored per mile - you'd make more money per mile cycling 100 miles locally, or even a 24 hour "non stop cycle" in a local shopping centre. So it'd be easier and raise more money doing lots of smaller things.

A lot of these "big showy sponsorship ideas" cost a fortune for the participant to take part in, whereas getting your bike out costs nothing It can cost £30,000 to climb Everest (I read in the DM earlier).

lemonjelly

LydiaJ wrote: »

What has that got to do with any of it? You find out that your child has an issue that it going to make a whole host of things harder for them, and you feel worried for them, and anxious to do whatever you can to help them overcome it.

Any parenting issue is always going to be sensetive to discuss. It is one of the most personal aspects of life I guess.

As someone who isn't a parent, yet would love to have a child, seems I'm in a no win situation. Best not comment, as I can't understand what it is like to be a parent. It is a reaction I've seen/heard before.

Children face issues every day that could adversely affect them. Any parent will want the best opportunities for their child/ren. That is a huge part of life.

However I do have friends with disabled children. One person I know had a son with what is suspected to be (unconfirmed as yet) some form of learning difficulties. There are a number of additional physical conditions too. In the first instances of the parents becoming aware, it seemed to be putting them off parenting. In some ways, the comment I made had to be made to these friends.

Perhaps I phrased it badly? The biggest thing that a child could need, want or benefit from is the love and support of a kind parent. For me at least, that/they are the biggest motivators in creating a happy life for a child.

Perhaps I'll leave it there though, as after all, what can I know?

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

Any parenting issue is always going to be sensetive to discuss. It is one of the most personal aspects of life I guess.

As someone who isn't a parent, yet would love to have a child, seems I'm in a no win situation. Best not comment, as I can't understand what it is like to be a parent. It is a reaction I've seen/heard before.

....

Perhaps I'll leave it there though, as after all, what can I know?

There have been, over the years, a few threads on the relationship board about this sentiment. I can never really know what's its like to have a child. But I have a strong rebellion against the 'parental love ideal' idea because in practise, IME, it is very far from common. I also reject it on a personal level because I think its a very damaging idea. For children ( even adult ones) definitely and potentially for quite normal parents who feel insufficient or unrealistic on what their remit is to provide and how. In less great situations they give a very warped message a both what love is or can be, and what sort of treatment is acceptable in a 'loving relationship'. It took me a little while to figure that out. Once one lets to of the fairly tale about perfection in parental emotion its much easier to forgive parents their inevitable mistakes. It must be easier as well, as a parent, if one realises one cannot possibly get it right all the time however much they love their kids, and that sometimes loving kids can mean saying no, and even putting some priorities before them at times.


Eta: to clarify....I think a lot of childless people ( but not all) might struggle with the idea of putting a little dependant person first, of the practicalities of child rearing...little sleep, the embarrassment of tantrums, the conflict of working and parenting etcetc, but many have transferable experience as carers, sometimes even for children. Others just are empathetic. I am not naturally empathetic and have to work hard to be, but others I can see find it easier!

silvercar

I wonder sometimes at the amount that can be done to support a child in their education. Given that it is possible to provide so much support (time, money and/or expertise) into tackling specific difficulties, I sometimes think that "nuture" beats "nature". If you have a child with a problem and you are interested and value their education, then you provide support to deal with the problem. Whereas if you are a parent without the interest in their education you just shrug and carry on with your life.

lostinrates

silvercar wrote: »

I wonder sometimes at the amount that can be done to support a child in their education. Given that it is possible to provide so much support (time, money and/or expertise) into tackling specific difficulties, I sometimes think that "nuture" beats "nature". If you have a child with a problem and you are interested and value their education, then you provide support to deal with the problem. Whereas if you are a parent without the interest in their education you just shrug and carry on with your life.

I don't doubt this.

I also hold that the positive attitude is part of this.

As an example My fil is hailed as a quite brilliant thinker, but I just see a guy with a lot of confidence in himself. He had a 'stereotypical Jewish mother' and this I think has been a strong element in his success.