Driving in the car with Grandma

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Firstly, Grandma is NOT, we HOPE, going to be holding comforting stroking while
drive her alone to the hospital.
Right. My point was that calling an ambulance instead
of having Grandma drive does not necessarily solve the issue
of holding/comforting/stroking. Getting another person in the
car does that (assuming an ambulance is not needed), whether
that person is Mom, a neighbor, whatever. And the spare adult
can be the driver or the comforter. So many variables, so why
make iron-clad decisions in advance?

This isn't making "iron-clad decisions" - this is making *contingency plans*.

So, ah, what's the big deal about leaving room for more
options in the contingency plan, especially if it makes it
easier to sell?

Why on earth would any more complication be desirable? An emergency plan should
be as simple as can be and still be comprehensive. If there were to be one more
option that would satisfy you, what would it be, and what 'hole' would that
plug, and exactly how?

What, exactly, has to be "sold"? That puzzles me. Why would a loving Grandma
be anything other than happy to know exactly what kind of contingency plan to
follow? Why would she have to be "sold" on it?


So that option is out from the get go. It's infinitely more likely already,
therefore, that Grandma will be in the back of the rig with her, and if not her,
it will be *somebody*. Somebody quite experienced with just this sort of
situation!
Again, the only options on the table are not Grandma drives
vs. call an ambulance. I don't see why the options should be
artificially limited when the option to make the decision at the
time with knowledge of the conditions involved and the resources
available is actually at hand.

Ah, yes, there's:

Grandma the knowledgable nurse treats at home. Feasible: yes - done. No - next
in the decision tree.
Grandma decides between: Calling Mom and Mom coming home (to take to doctor or
ER) or calling 911. Based on her knowledge.
That's the next branch in the decision tree. With a sub-branch for not being
able to get ahold of Mom.

That's how things are done, Ericka. It's that way in EMT training, in military
training, and I'm very surprised your prescool doesn't have something like that.


You know, I'm really tired of being patronized here,
and I'm tired of being propped up as your strawman.


I'm not doing a strawman argument. Else, perhaps you can answer the questions I
asked above simply, staightforwardly, in a single sentence or two. Because how
I understood your idea was that Mom would be called and they'd wing it from
there, with a lot of sentences about many factors, capped with the need for some
kind of understanding that Grandma would respect what Mom decides, whatever that
means (not argue with her? Or just not take action other than what she comes up
with, even if they argue? I'm not even sure what that means.). That's hardly
any better an emergency plan than anyone *without* an emergency plan would do -
quick call somebody and improvise. And that's not a good way to go.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Firstly, Grandma is NOT, we HOPE, going to be holding comforting stroking while
drive her alone to the hospital.
Right. My point was that calling an ambulance instead
of having Grandma drive does not necessarily solve the issue
of holding/comforting/stroking. Getting another person in the
car does that (assuming an ambulance is not needed), whether
that person is Mom, a neighbor, whatever. And the spare adult
can be the driver or the comforter. So many variables, so why
make iron-clad decisions in advance?
This isn't making "iron-clad decisions" - this is making *contingency plans*.
So, ah, what's the big deal about leaving room for more
options in the contingency plan, especially if it makes it
easier to sell?

Why on earth would any more complication be desirable? An emergency plan should
be as simple as can be and still be comprehensive. If there were to be one more
option that would satisfy you, what would it be, and what 'hole' would that
plug, and exactly how?

How simple is a three level decision decision tree?
Mine actually doesn't have any more decision points than yours,
and is no more complicated. It's simply more flexible.

What, exactly, has to be "sold"? That puzzles me. Why would a loving Grandma
be anything other than happy to know exactly what kind of contingency plan to
follow? Why would she have to be "sold" on it?

Because while both decision trees allow mom to control
the outcomes in *exactly* the same way, one rubs Grandma's nose
in the lack of trust and the other doesn't. A little tact
never hurt anyone, especially when it comes at no cost.

So that option is out from the get go. It's infinitely more likely already,
therefore, that Grandma will be in the back of the rig with her, and if not her,
it will be *somebody*. Somebody quite experienced with just this sort of
situation!
Again, the only options on the table are not Grandma drives
vs. call an ambulance. I don't see why the options should be
artificially limited when the option to make the decision at the
time with knowledge of the conditions involved and the resources
available is actually at hand.
Ah, yes, there's:

Grandma the knowledgable nurse treats at home. Feasible: yes - done. No - next
in the decision tree.
Grandma decides between: Calling Mom and Mom coming home (to take to doctor or
ER) or calling 911. Based on her knowledge.
That's the next branch in the decision tree. With a sub-branch for not being
able to get ahold of Mom.

That's how things are done, Ericka. It's that way in EMT training, in military
training, and I'm very surprised your prescool doesn't have something like that.

You know, I'm really tired of being patronized here,
and I'm tired of being propped up as your strawman.


I'm not doing a strawman argument.

It is, because you are deliberately recasting my arguments
so that you can knock them down instead of addressing the actual
issues on the table.

Else, perhaps you can answer the questions I
asked above simply, staightforwardly, in a single sentence or two. Because how
I understood your idea was that Mom would be called and they'd wing it from
there, with a lot of sentences about many factors, capped with the need for some
kind of understanding that Grandma would respect what Mom decides, whatever that
means (not argue with her? Or just not take action other than what she comes up
with, even if they argue? I'm not even sure what that means.). That's hardly
any better an emergency plan than anyone *without* an emergency plan would do -
quick call somebody and improvise. And that's not a good way to go.

First of all, the emergency situation is covered exactly
the same way in both plans (call 911), as is the obvious to deal
with at home scenario (Grandma deals). The *ONLY* difference is
what to do in situations requiring urgent care that could be
handled in a number of different ways depending on the situation.
Your plan forestalls all other options and says call an ambulance.
Mine simply says let mom decide what looks best under the circumstances,
which could include any number of safe and reasonable options, at
mom's discretion. *I* wasn't the one who brought up the "what
if Grandma argues about it" issue. I simply said that A) I doubted
she would, because it takes a real b*tch to pull a power play with
an injured child in her arms and B) if I were the mom and had any
real idea that someone would do that, I would consider them an
unfit sitter at any time. Nevertheless, I did say that if one
was unsure, one could make it explicit to Grandma that the
expectation was that Grandma would abide by mom's decisions in
the moment.
So, my suggestion is no more complicated, it is
more flexible, it is pretty much the same plan as at our preschool
(and many others, so it's hardly as outre as you wish to make it
out), it continues to vest all the decision making in mom's hands,
it gets mom out of the difficult conversational bind she found
herself in where she was having a hard time enumerating
which situations belonged in the call-an-ambulance bucket and which
belonged in the grandma-deals bucket (nevermind that she'll never
be able to enumerate them all), and all without nearly as
much risk of getting grandma's dander up and thus greater
cooperation and harmony. But I'm sure it would be sooooo much
better to make all the decisions a priori so that there's no
flexibility to react to the situation at hand in order to
get grandma to knuckle under in a more obvious way that leaves
her no room to save face.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Firstly, Grandma is NOT, we HOPE, going to be holding comforting stroking while
drive her alone to the hospital.
Right. My point was that calling an ambulance instead
of having Grandma drive does not necessarily solve the issue
of holding/comforting/stroking. Getting another person in the
car does that (assuming an ambulance is not needed), whether
that person is Mom, a neighbor, whatever. And the spare adult
can be the driver or the comforter. So many variables, so why
make iron-clad decisions in advance?
This isn't making "iron-clad decisions" - this is making *contingency plans*.
So, ah, what's the big deal about leaving room for more
options in the contingency plan, especially if it makes it
easier to sell?

Why on earth would any more complication be desirable? An emergency plan should
be as simple as can be and still be comprehensive. If there were to be one more
option that would satisfy you, what would it be, and what 'hole' would that
plug, and exactly how?

How simple is a three level decision decision tree?
Mine actually doesn't have any more decision points than yours,
and is no more complicated. It's simply more flexible.

No, it's more undefined.


What, exactly, has to be "sold"? That puzzles me. Why would a loving Grandma
be anything other than happy to know exactly what kind of contingency plan to
follow? Why would she have to be "sold" on it?

Because while both decision trees allow mom to control
the outcomes in *exactly* the same way, one rubs Grandma's nose
in the lack of trust and the other doesn't. A little tact
never hurt anyone, especially when it comes at no cost.

And yours is very likely to have that sore point put on the table, at the very
worst time. Nothing is solved; only deferred, to the worst time.

And see how I persist in calling it "a sore point"? I dont' say "Grandma
untrustworthy"; I don't say "DIL fearful". I just call it a sore point. This
is how people get around disagreements. They dont' leave continuing flahspoints
laying around like landmines. Wills don't say "the three sisters who dislike
each other can decide how to split up my assets".

Since the DIL has the final say anyway, if this is still a problem, take it off
the table, I say. Grandma needn't personalize it to a "trust" thing.


So that option is out from the get go. It's infinitely more likely already,
therefore, that Grandma will be in the back of the rig with her, and if not her,
it will be *somebody*. Somebody quite experienced with just this sort of
situation!
Again, the only options on the table are not Grandma drives
vs. call an ambulance. I don't see why the options should be
artificially limited when the option to make the decision at the
time with knowledge of the conditions involved and the resources
available is actually at hand.
Ah, yes, there's:

Grandma the knowledgable nurse treats at home. Feasible: yes - done. No - next
in the decision tree.
Grandma decides between: Calling Mom and Mom coming home (to take to doctor or
ER) or calling 911. Based on her knowledge.
That's the next branch in the decision tree. With a sub-branch for not being
able to get ahold of Mom.

That's how things are done, Ericka. It's that way in EMT training, in military
training, and I'm very surprised your prescool doesn't have something like that.

You know, I'm really tired of being patronized here,
and I'm tired of being propped up as your strawman.


I'm not doing a strawman argument.

It is, because you are deliberately recasting my arguments
so that you can knock them down instead of addressing the actual
issues on the table.

Recast how? I thought the issue was to get a cogent and viable emergency plan
defined. It needn't work in this driving issue.


Else, perhaps you can answer the questions I
asked above simply, staightforwardly, in a single sentence or two. Because how
I understood your idea was that Mom would be called and they'd wing it from
there, with a lot of sentences about many factors, capped with the need for some
kind of understanding that Grandma would respect what Mom decides, whatever that
means (not argue with her? Or just not take action other than what she comes up
with, even if they argue? I'm not even sure what that means.). That's hardly
any better an emergency plan than anyone *without* an emergency plan would do -
quick call somebody and improvise. And that's not a good way to go.

First of all, the emergency situation is covered exactly
the same way in both plans (call 911), as is the obvious to deal
with at home scenario (Grandma deals). The *ONLY* difference is
what to do in situations requiring urgent care that could be
handled in a number of different ways depending on the situation.
Your plan forestalls all other options and says call an ambulance.

Have you been reading?? Actually, mine says an intermediate option is to call
Mom, and Mom comes. To possibly do the drive to the ER or doctor with Grandma
in back seat with baby.

Mine simply says let mom decide what looks best under the circumstances,
which could include any number of safe and reasonable options, at
mom's discretion.

Which isn't a plan, it's an improvisation. (And an opening for Granma to "can't
I can't I can't I can't I just DRIVE her there?")

*I* wasn't the one who brought up the "what
if Grandma argues about it" issue. I simply said that A) I doubted
she would, because it takes a real b*tch to pull a power play with
an injured child in her arms and B) if I were the mom and had any
real idea that someone would do that, I would consider them an
unfit sitter at any time. Nevertheless, I did say that if one
was unsure, one could make it explicit to Grandma that the
expectation was that Grandma would abide by mom's decisions in
the moment.

Like I said before, she wouldn't see it as a power play. She'd likely see it as
the Best Thing To Do. And I didnt' bring up the b-word :-)

So, my suggestion is no more complicated, it is
more flexible, it is pretty much the same plan as at our preschool
(and many others, so it's hardly as outre as you wish to make it
out), it continues to vest all the decision making in mom's hands,
it gets mom out of the difficult conversational bind she found
herself in where she was having a hard time enumerating
which situations belonged in the call-an-ambulance bucket and which
belonged in the grandma-deals bucket (nevermind that she'll never
be able to enumerate them all), and all without nearly as
much risk of getting grandma's dander up and thus greater
cooperation and harmony.

How does it do that?! If she's to make the decision on the spot when Grandma
calls her??

And how is it there's no effort at harmonizing that's to be done not to get
*DIL's* dander up? Or feeling's hurt or feeling bulldozed over. She counts
too, if there's to be peace!! You'd have her take this plan that leaves things
open-ended and possibly dealing with this sore issue between the two women at a
very bad time to be doing that. *My* dander'ed be up, I tell ya.

All that "enumeration" was all about Grandma trying to put forward examples
where she should be able to drive and DIL resisting. They're not even the crux
of the issue - it's the kind of unfortunate conversation one gets into when
either one either can't muster to say "no" directly, or the other person isn't
taking "no" as an answer. "What about this...what about that...what about that
other case.....".

My plan leaves a medically knowledgable Grandma to decide amongst three options
on medical grounds. Fix at home, urgent but not-911 so call DIL, very urgent so
call 911. If she's feeling "untrusted", she should take consolation in that.


But I'm sure it would be sooooo much
better to make all the decisions a priori so that there's no
flexibility to react to the situation at hand in order to
get grandma to knuckle under in a more obvious way that leaves
her no room to save face.


There's *sufficient* flexibility. And, if Grandma is respecting DIL's wishes
concerning driving, what's this "knuckling under" about?? There's the plan that
answers the question that she claims her friend brought up.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Firstly, Grandma is NOT, we HOPE, going to be holding comforting stroking while
drive her alone to the hospital.
Right. My point was that calling an ambulance instead
of having Grandma drive does not necessarily solve the issue
of holding/comforting/stroking. Getting another person in the
car does that (assuming an ambulance is not needed), whether
that person is Mom, a neighbor, whatever. And the spare adult
can be the driver or the comforter. So many variables, so why
make iron-clad decisions in advance?
This isn't making "iron-clad decisions" - this is making *contingency plans*.
So, ah, what's the big deal about leaving room for more
options in the contingency plan, especially if it makes it
easier to sell?
Why on earth would any more complication be desirable? An emergency plan should
be as simple as can be and still be comprehensive. If there were to be one more
option that would satisfy you, what would it be, and what 'hole' would that
plug, and exactly how?
How simple is a three level decision decision tree?
Mine actually doesn't have any more decision points than yours,
and is no more complicated. It's simply more flexible.

No, it's more undefined.

It's very clearly defined. It's just that one of the
possibilities is that Mom makes the decision at the time when
information is available. It all

What, exactly, has to be "sold"? That puzzles me. Why would a loving Grandma
be anything other than happy to know exactly what kind of contingency plan to
follow? Why would she have to be "sold" on it?
Because while both decision trees allow mom to control
the outcomes in *exactly* the same way, one rubs Grandma's nose
in the lack of trust and the other doesn't. A little tact
never hurt anyone, especially when it comes at no cost.

And yours is very likely to have that sore point put on the table, at the very
worst time. Nothing is solved; only deferred, to the worst time.

And see how I persist in calling it "a sore point"? I dont' say "Grandma
untrustworthy"; I don't say "DIL fearful". I just call it a sore point. This
is how people get around disagreements. They dont' leave continuing flahspoints
laying around like landmines. Wills don't say "the three sisters who dislike
each other can decide how to split up my assets".

Since the DIL has the final say anyway, if this is still a problem, take it off
the table, I say. Grandma needn't personalize it to a "trust" thing.

So that option is out from the get go. It's infinitely more likely already,
therefore, that Grandma will be in the back of the rig with her, and if not her,
it will be *somebody*. Somebody quite experienced with just this sort of
situation!
Again, the only options on the table are not Grandma drives
vs. call an ambulance. I don't see why the options should be
artificially limited when the option to make the decision at the
time with knowledge of the conditions involved and the resources
available is actually at hand.
Ah, yes, there's:

Grandma the knowledgable nurse treats at home. Feasible: yes - done. No - next
in the decision tree.
Grandma decides between: Calling Mom and Mom coming home (to take to doctor or
ER) or calling 911. Based on her knowledge.
That's the next branch in the decision tree. With a sub-branch for not being
able to get ahold of Mom.

That's how things are done, Ericka. It's that way in EMT training, in military
training, and I'm very surprised your prescool doesn't have something like that.

You know, I'm really tired of being patronized here,
and I'm tired of being propped up as your strawman.

I'm not doing a strawman argument.
It is, because you are deliberately recasting my arguments
so that you can knock them down instead of addressing the actual
issues on the table.

Recast how? I thought the issue was to get a cogent and viable emergency plan
defined. It needn't work in this driving issue.

I'm not asking it to. What I am suggesting is in no way
related to the driving issue, except to the extent that what I
am proposing has as its first goal responding appropriately to
the situation rather than defending against any glimmer of possibility
that the caregiver would ever drive.

Else, perhaps you can answer the questions I
asked above simply, staightforwardly, in a single sentence or two. Because how
I understood your idea was that Mom would be called and they'd wing it from
there, with a lot of sentences about many factors, capped with the need for some
kind of understanding that Grandma would respect what Mom decides, whatever that
means (not argue with her? Or just not take action other than what she comes up
with, even if they argue? I'm not even sure what that means.). That's hardly
any better an emergency plan than anyone *without* an emergency plan would do -
quick call somebody and improvise. And that's not a good way to go.
First of all, the emergency situation is covered exactly
the same way in both plans (call 911), as is the obvious to deal
with at home scenario (Grandma deals). The *ONLY* difference is
what to do in situations requiring urgent care that could be
handled in a number of different ways depending on the situation.
Your plan forestalls all other options and says call an ambulance.

Have you been reading?? Actually, mine says an intermediate option is to call
Mom, and Mom comes. To possibly do the drive to the ER or doctor with Grandma
in back seat with baby.

Mine simply says let mom decide what looks best under the circumstances,
which could include any number of safe and reasonable options, at
mom's discretion.

Which isn't a plan, it's an improvisation. (And an opening for Granma to "can't
I can't I can't I can't I just DRIVE her there?")

*I* wasn't the one who brought up the "what
if Grandma argues about it" issue. I simply said that A) I doubted
she would, because it takes a real b*tch to pull a power play with
an injured child in her arms and B) if I were the mom and had any
real idea that someone would do that, I would consider them an
unfit sitter at any time. Nevertheless, I did say that if one
was unsure, one could make it explicit to Grandma that the
expectation was that Grandma would abide by mom's decisions in
the moment.

Like I said before, she wouldn't see it as a power play. She'd likely see it as
the Best Thing To Do. And I didnt' bring up the b-word :-)

So, my suggestion is no more complicated, it is
more flexible, it is pretty much the same plan as at our preschool
(and many others, so it's hardly as outre as you wish to make it
out), it continues to vest all the decision making in mom's hands,
it gets mom out of the difficult conversational bind she found
herself in where she was having a hard time enumerating
which situations belonged in the call-an-ambulance bucket and which
belonged in the grandma-deals bucket (nevermind that she'll never
be able to enumerate them all), and all without nearly as
much risk of getting grandma's dander up and thus greater
cooperation and harmony.

How does it do that?! If she's to make the decision on the spot when Grandma
calls her??

1) Parent has the information to make the decision: the injury/
symptoms, the relative locations of all parties, time of day/
day of week (and thus what's open/who's available to treat),
parent's availability to drop everything and leave at the
moment, child's emotional situation, and so on and so forth.
2) Much more flexible: can choose among parent comes to child,
parent chooses someone else to get child, parent chooses to
call 911, parent chooses to meet caregiver & child as specified
location (transportation via caregiver, taxi, other designated
driver), and so on and so forth--any of which could be reasonable
options under the circumstances, and any of which could be
unavailable as options at any particular time. 911 and caregiver
are always available by definition, but in the gray area in
between pretty much any option could be unavailable.
3) Common: This is precisely what most places I know do. If
it's an emergency or a little boo-boo they know exactly what
to do. If it's something in between, they call and ask the
parent what is preferred.
4) Resolves an encountered problem: All of the above are
generic issues that would apply in any situation. In this
specific situation, there had already developed a sensitivity
around a particular issue, and both parties were frustrated
over it. Crafting a solution specifically designed to
foreclose an option *and* make it clear that an option was
being foreclosed is less than tactful. All other things
being equal (and in this case, parental prerogative is
completely and totally preserved either way), being more
tactful is better than being less tactful. Also, not only
were sensitivities already heightened, but

And how is it there's no effort at harmonizing that's to be done not to get
*DIL's* dander up? Or feeling's hurt or feeling bulldozed over. She counts
too, if there's to be peace!! You'd have her take this plan that leaves things
open-ended

There is nothing left open-ended about who has the authority
to make the decision. Nothing.

and possibly dealing with this sore issue between the two women at a
very bad time to be doing that.

Again, if there was any real possibility of that happening,
the child should not be in that caregiver's care. Period.

All that "enumeration" was all about Grandma trying to put forward examples
where she should be able to drive and DIL resisting. They're not even the crux
of the issue - it's the kind of unfortunate conversation one gets into when
either one either can't muster to say "no" directly, or the other person isn't
taking "no" as an answer. "What about this...what about that...what about that
other case.....".

It's also a conversation one gets into when one is trying
to make decisions a priori without the information that would
ideally inform the decision. The whole issue could have been
resolved by saying, "Call me, tell me what's up and I'll decide,"
which forestalls all the "what ifs" rather than "Call me and wait
for me to arrive" which practically begs for "what ifs" and also
screams "because I know I'm not going to trust you to do anything
except wait for me to take over."
It doesn't *matter* why the unfortunate conversation
arose. It's a tactful way to shut it down while preserving
parental authority, and isn't *any* skin whatsoever off of
the parent's nose. What's there to be upset about?

My plan leaves a medically knowledgable Grandma to decide amongst three options
on medical grounds. Fix at home, urgent but not-911 so call DIL, very urgent so
call 911. If she's feeling "untrusted", she should take consolation in that.

No, that's *my* plan. Yours is fix at home, urgent but
not-911 so call DIL and wait for her to arrive to fix, urgent
so call 911 is your plan. The difference between the two is
small but significant.

But I'm sure it would be sooooo much
better to make all the decisions a priori so that there's no
flexibility to react to the situation at hand in order to
get grandma to knuckle under in a more obvious way that leaves
her no room to save face.

There's *sufficient* flexibility. And, if Grandma is respecting DIL's wishes
concerning driving, what's this "knuckling under" about??

Have you never seen that there is a difference between
capitulating and capitulating but having your nose rubbed in it?
*NOWHERE* in the entire situation had the caregiver gone against
the parent's wishes, and there is no hint that the caregiver
would have done so at any time or under any circumstances. That
was never on the table. The only thing ever at issue was how
the involved parties *felt* about the issue, and whether sufficient
clarity could be achieved on legitimate items of concern. Allowing
the caregiver to save a little face without giving up any parental
authority is *precisely* at the heart of handling this sort of
issue. It comes up all the time and in many different ways,
particularly among family members or friends who are interdependent.
Learning to maintain boundaries without bludgeoning people over
the heads with it is key to making those sorts of situations work
in the long term. There was an opportunity to do that in the
conversation over this issue that was missed.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Have you never seen that there is a difference between
capitulating and capitulating but having your nose rubbed in it?

What's to be "capitulted" about? If a neighbor asked me to refrain from my
(assredly accidentally) setting up a border garden a little over their property
line, and I stopped, would that be a 'capitulation' on my part??

*NOWHERE* in the entire situation had the caregiver gone against
the parent's wishes, and there is no hint that the caregiver
would have done so at any time or under any circumstances. That
was never on the table. The only thing ever at issue was how
the involved parties *felt* about the issue, and whether sufficient
clarity could be achieved on legitimate items of concern. Allowing
the caregiver to save a little face without giving up any parental
authority is *precisely* at the heart of handling this sort of
issue. It comes up all the time and in many different ways,
particularly among family members or friends who are interdependent.
Learning to maintain boundaries without bludgeoning people over
the heads with it is key to making those sorts of situations work
in the long term. There was an opportunity to do that in the
conversation over this issue that was missed.

We'll have to disagree to disagree. Sure, there's no doubt she'd like your
solution better.

There's a natural consequences cost to one being generally, um, persistent, with
one's preferences regarding others. Do you recall my post about the babysitting
neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones that
were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.

I still think a more defined emergency plan is highly prefereable on *general*
grounds. But if I were the DIL, I'd be much more comfortable with your idea if
I weren't so pressed on this by Grandma in the first place.

Banty

In article , Banty says...

Do you recall my post about the babysitting
neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones that
were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.

Um, make that conscientious.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Have you never seen that there is a difference between
capitulating and capitulating but having your nose rubbed in it?

What's to be "capitulted" about? If a neighbor asked me to refrain from my
(assredly accidentally) setting up a border garden a little over their property
line, and I stopped, would that be a 'capitulation' on my part??

"Capitulate" means "cease to resist," so yes, stopping
doing what you were asked to stop doing is capitulating. Not
sure what the problem is there. We all capitulate at times,
but it's more pleasant (and easier to do) when someone leaves
a little room for face saving.

*NOWHERE* in the entire situation had the caregiver gone against
the parent's wishes, and there is no hint that the caregiver
would have done so at any time or under any circumstances. That
was never on the table. The only thing ever at issue was how
the involved parties *felt* about the issue, and whether sufficient
clarity could be achieved on legitimate items of concern. Allowing
the caregiver to save a little face without giving up any parental
authority is *precisely* at the heart of handling this sort of
issue. It comes up all the time and in many different ways,
particularly among family members or friends who are interdependent.
Learning to maintain boundaries without bludgeoning people over
the heads with it is key to making those sorts of situations work
in the long term. There was an opportunity to do that in the
conversation over this issue that was missed.

We'll have to disagree to disagree.

Which is fine by me, not that you need my permission ;-)

Sure, there's no doubt she'd like your
solution better.

And it puts the parent in no worse a situation, with no
loss of authority. Sounds like a win-win to me.

There's a natural consequences cost to one being generally, um, persistent, with
one's preferences regarding others. Do you recall my post about the babysitting
neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones that
were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.

I still think a more defined emergency plan is highly prefereable on *general*
grounds. But if I were the DIL, I'd be much more comfortable with your idea if
I weren't so pressed on this by Grandma in the first place.

Well, considering that this happened over a rather short
period of time, I'm thinking that while there was certainly
tension on this front, we're not talking about a real high
degree of pressure. I think it was more a combination of stresses
and sensitivities on both parts that made both more likely to
see intent that wasn't really there. Hence my feeling that taking
the temperature down a notch by standing down where it didn't
result in boundary violations would be a good thing. But that's
just my philosophy in general--when dealing with folks I care about,
my general policy is to give as much as I can give without violating
boundaries or principles. Sort of like not arguing with a 4yo--
it's not like it matters if you win, even if it sticks in your
craw that she won't back down from some wacky position or other.
Reality doesn't change if you can force her to back down--she just
gets cranky ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Banty wrote:
In article , Banty says...
Do you recall my post about the babysitting
neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones that
were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.

Um, make that conscientious.

I figgered ;-) Don'tcha love the fingers with a mind of
their own? Mine have taken to typing properly spelled words (so
the spell check doesn't complain), but not the words I intended
to type.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Have you never seen that there is a difference between
capitulating and capitulating but having your nose rubbed in it?

What's to be "capitulted" about? If a neighbor asked me to refrain from my
(assredly accidentally) setting up a border garden a little over their property
line, and I stopped, would that be a 'capitulation' on my part??

"Capitulate" means "cease to resist," so yes, stopping
doing what you were asked to stop doing is capitulating. Not
sure what the problem is there. We all capitulate at times,
but it's more pleasant (and easier to do) when someone leaves
a little room for face saving.

Many of the defnitions I see harken to *surrender*, and even if a few
definitions are to be found along the lines of "cease" I think you're
emphasizing denotation and ducking what the connotation is to that.


*NOWHERE* in the entire situation had the caregiver gone against
the parent's wishes, and there is no hint that the caregiver
would have done so at any time or under any circumstances. That
was never on the table. The only thing ever at issue was how
the involved parties *felt* about the issue, and whether sufficient
clarity could be achieved on legitimate items of concern. Allowing
the caregiver to save a little face without giving up any parental
authority is *precisely* at the heart of handling this sort of
issue. It comes up all the time and in many different ways,
particularly among family members or friends who are interdependent.
Learning to maintain boundaries without bludgeoning people over
the heads with it is key to making those sorts of situations work
in the long term. There was an opportunity to do that in the
conversation over this issue that was missed.

We'll have to disagree to disagree.

Which is fine by me, not that you need my permission ;-)

Assuming you understood that I meant "*agree* to disagree" ;-)


Sure, there's no doubt she'd like your
solution better.

And it puts the parent in no worse a situation, with no
loss of authority. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Not really.


There's a natural consequences cost to one being generally, um, persistent, with
one's preferences regarding others. Do you recall my post about the
babysitting
neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones that
were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.

I still think a more defined emergency plan is highly prefereable on *general*
grounds. But if I were the DIL, I'd be much more comfortable with your idea if
I weren't so pressed on this by Grandma in the first place.

Well, considering that this happened over a rather short
period of time, I'm thinking that while there was certainly
tension on this front, we're not talking about a real high
degree of pressure. I think it was more a combination of stresses
and sensitivities on both parts that made both more likely to
see intent that wasn't really there. Hence my feeling that taking
the temperature down a notch by standing down where it didn't
result in boundary violations would be a good thing. But that's
just my philosophy in general--when dealing with folks I care about,
my general policy is to give as much as I can give without violating
boundaries or principles. Sort of like not arguing with a 4yo--
it's not like it matters if you win, even if it sticks in your
craw that she won't back down from some wacky position or other.
Reality doesn't change if you can force her to back down--she just
gets cranky ;-)

And, as I see it, it's the resistance to driving thing that stuck in a craw.

Banty

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Banty says...
Do you recall my post about the babysitting
neighbor family with whom I was the *most* flexible? They were the ones that
were the most contientious about what my wishes may be.

Um, make that conscientious.

I figgered ;-) Don'tcha love the fingers with a mind of
their own? Mine have taken to typing properly spelled words (so
the spell check doesn't complain), but not the words I intended
to type.

"Contentious" and "conscientious" are so close in spelling, and would mean such
opposite things here!

Banty