i wanna help the baby!
Chery
I am only 20 and had my daughter when she was 18, when I had my baby shower
when paradise was 2 weeks old my sister was very jealous, in are family
there a thing called the 4 generation photo that is a photo with the first
female from each generation, the last one was of my great grandma, my
grandma, my mother, and my sister (she is 22). now that I had paradise
before my sister had a kid the new picture is my grandma, my mom, me, and
paradise. (this is a picture that gets hand drawn to a huge picture).
Needless to say my sister got really mad at me because she is not in the
picture and then said one of my friends that were at my shower, "I wanna
have a baby now,and I don't care who its with." then when my friend asked
why she followed with "She (me) is getting all the attention"
Of course my friend told me what my sister had said even though it was in
confidence, and I didn't want to talk to my sister about it because it was
not supposed to be told to me.
Two weeks later she started going out with one of her ex's who had cheated
on her in very mean ways and treated her very bad (including beating her).
Three months after this was the last time I saw her, (I talked to her on the
phone alot but she always made up excuses not to see anyone) the
relationship between my sister and her bf didn't get much better then last
time. He still cheats on her, he doesn't beat her anymore physically but
beats her down emotionally.
I ran into her yesterday when she was shopping and found out the reason she
was avoiding us is because she is pregnant (due June 22).
Needless to say I am very worried about her and the baby!
She is older then me that's true but she is not responsible at all. She
spends her cash very poorly, sometimes she goes for days without any food in
her fridge. She has had to move 5 times in the last year because of not
paying her rent, and just recently she had gotten her water shut off! Not to
mention the fact that her Bf smokes pot in the apartment in front of her.
She already thinks I am out to get her (make the whole family hate her) just
because of the 4 generation photo.
I know I shouldn't say this but I really want her to leave her bf! I have
told her before that we have enough room here for her and the baby, but she
wont let me help her.
......I really need some advice on how to help her, so she and the baby will
be safe and healthy.....
......If I don't do anything I know the baby will end up in child and family
or will end up very sick.......
........PLEASE HELP ME.......
fm...@one.net.au
Try not to worry now. YOu know yourself what it is like to have a baby. Ones
its there, MOST (not all) but most mothers become protective, and learn to
be a mum. Give her support, and love, and then when the baby is born, IF
she needs help, then she will be more likely to come to you for it. If you
bag her now, then if she does need help, you will be the last person she
goes too, and THAT is what could put the baby at risk. You obviously love
your sister, and are a great mum, cause you are already caring for your
neice, or nephew. Dont give up, support, love them both. Then you can help
her when the baby is born.
All the best
Fiona
Chery <ple...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kJLH6.766$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
Rosalie B.
>in are family
>there a thing called the 4 generation photo that is a photo with the first
>female from each generation, the last one was of my great grandma, my
>grandma, my mother, and my sister (she is 22). now that I had paradise
>before my sister had a kid the new picture is my grandma, my mom, me, and
>paradise. (this is a picture that gets hand drawn to a huge picture).
We have a tradition of 4 generation photos also but it is not just females
(although usually it is a great grandmother as they seem to live longer).
What kind of hand drawing to a huge picture do you do? I know this isn't
the topic, but it sounds interesting.
My mother had a photo done with her mother, her grandmother and her
grandmother's mother, AND with her mother, her grandfather and her
grandfather's mother. Two separate pictures. I had one with my mother, my
grandmother and my grandmother's father. (My grandmother's mother had died
by then.) My oldest daughter had one taken with me, my mother and her
father (her mother died 4 or 5 years earlier).
I now have 10 grandchildren, and my mother is still living - I have tried
hard to get 4 generation pictures of my mother with all of the children
individually (the grandchild, my child, me and my mother). However it is
difficult to do this - a saloon sitting isn't always possible and people
seem to think that the spouse of the child and other children should also
be in there. I've had to make do.
Your sister sounds like a very immature child. I would wait until after
the baby is born though, and hopefully she will mature at that point. It
is not (unfortunately) uncommon for young girls to get pregnant as a way of
getting attention or having something of their own to boss around.
grandma Rosalie
hamilton
gmbe...@mindspring.com wrote:
> "Chery" <ple...@home.com> wrote:
> >in are family
> >there a thing called the 4 generation photo that is a photo with the first
> >female from each generation, the last one was of my great grandma, my
> >grandma, my mother, and my sister (she is 22). now that I had paradise
> >before my sister had a kid the new picture is my grandma, my mom, me, and
> >paradise. (this is a picture that gets hand drawn to a huge picture).
why would you do a multi generational picture that excludes members of any
generation? e.g. Dads or sisters who haven't had babies yet etc? Why not
include everyone living of the four generations?
Chery
tradition.
"hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
news:hamilton-020...@host-209-214-116-87.bna.bellsouth.net...
Chery
tanken and then my grandmother takes it to someone who draws it as a big 4'
by 3' picture. then ever year that picture rotates from house to house of
the 4 people in it. (right now my sister does have the 4 generation picture
with her in it)
"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:v500ft8uph0svsrqd...@4ax.com...
hamilton
<ple...@home.com> wrote:
> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
> tradition.
to each his own -- when I read it and particularly the part about your
sister being displaced, it reminded me of that scene in Pride and
Prejudice where the younger sister scandelously married pushes her way in
front of the eldest sister on the processional into dinner, saying 'I am
a married lady now and so must take your place' or something like that.
but tradition is tradition -- and I know that once something like this
gets started it is going to be that way
I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
AJM&MEM
feels worthy is to be in a 4 generational picture?? Why else would she be
so upset? She stays with an abusive boyfriend. She really needs to work on
herself. She needs to feel proud of her accomplishments (how ever small).
Even though she makes it difficult for you, try to stay supportive and
encourage her to work on herself.
If she stays in this abusive relationship, her baby will learn that this is
"normal" and will either be abusive himself or be abused when he grows up.
Good luck to your sister, she needs it!
Mary Ellen
"Chery" <ple...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kJLH6.766$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
DanS
family
> or will end up very sick.......
> ........PLEASE HELP ME.......
What kind of help are you looking for anyway? Sounds like your typical
dysfunctional inbred squabbling that happens in every extended family.
Rosalie B.
>In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
><ple...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
>> tradition.
>
>I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
>everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
I don't agree. Our tradition is very much like hers (except that we don't
go and have a drawing made of it, and it is a genealogy thing - JUST the
direct line. I have had those multi-generational picture things, and they
aren't nearly as nice. It is near impossible to get everyone looking good
at the same time. Just the child, the mother OR father of the child the
parent of the parent, and the grandparent of the parent's parent. I
treasure the ones that we have in my family, and regret that I can't get my
kids organized enough to do this in a formal portrait with their
grandmother/great grandmother. 4 people is enough.
I know that one of my mother's great grandmothers didn't believe in
photographs (graven images), and the other great grandmother talked her
into it. (THey also didn't play card [sin papers], so they did anagrams)
>> > gmbe...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Chery" <ple...@home.com> wrote:
>> > > >in are family
>> > > >there a thing called the 4 generation photo that is a photo with the
>> first
>> > > >female from each generation, the last one was of my great grandma, my
>> > > >grandma, my mother, and my sister (she is 22). now that I had paradise
>> > > >before my sister had a kid the new picture is my grandma, my mom, me,
>> and
>> > > >paradise. (this is a picture that gets hand drawn to a huge picture).
>> >
grandma Rosalie
Banty
>In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
><ple...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
>> tradition.
>
>to each his own -- when I read it and particularly the part about your
>sister being displaced, it reminded me of that scene in Pride and
>Prejudice where the younger sister scandelously married pushes her way in
>front of the eldest sister on the processional into dinner, saying 'I am
>a married lady now and so must take your place' or something like that.
>
>but tradition is tradition -- and I know that once something like this
>gets started it is going to be that way
>
>I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
>everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
I agree that the way the multigenerational picture, the way it's set up, is
just plain human-relations dumb. Anytime when, within a family, one or
another is given some sort of ceremonial role like this but not others,
it's just bound to create jelousies.
My gut on this is that it started with *a* generational picture with
certain members, most probably these members by happenstance, and someone -
someone with more of a sense of the romantic than the real - decided that
this "tradition" should continue. Which was just bound to lead to all this
peculiar stuff about who had what baby first and who was in this picture.
Perhaps the OP's best shot at doing anything to mollify all the hurt
feelings (although I acknowledge that she didn't *necessarily* have a role
in the hurt feelings) is to propose an alternate or parallel tradition of
some sort of family picture that had more family members in it.
Banty
Banty
wrote:
>hami...@dnvln.com (hamilton) wrote:
>
>>In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
>><ple...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
>>> tradition.
>>
>
>>I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
>>everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
>
>I don't agree. Our tradition is very much like hers (except that we don't
>go and have a drawing made of it, and it is a genealogy thing - JUST the
>direct line. I have had those multi-generational picture things, and they
>aren't nearly as nice. It is near impossible to get everyone looking good
>at the same time. Just the child, the mother OR father of the child the
>parent of the parent, and the grandparent of the parent's parent. I
>treasure the ones that we have in my family, and regret that I can't get my
>kids organized enough to do this in a formal portrait with their
>grandmother/great grandmother. 4 people is enough.
I think the problem here was that their tradition was to have a specific
4-generation picture featuring the first female in each generation, and
that apparently switched if a second-or-later female had a female child
first. From your post it sounds like in your family it is more loosely
defined as to who can be in the photo.
Banty
Chery
mentioned that there is a full family photo that we also do everytime that
there is a new member added to the family. also i should of added that this
is not the only reason that she wanted a child. She also wants a child for
reasons like; she will then have somone to look after and model after her,
and so she will have somone she can take out shopping and to the park and
stuff.
one other fact that i guess would of help explain the situation (i didnt
think it was relivent before) is that she does have ADD.
I am trying to understand why everyone is so into the whole 4 generation
photo, that is just a small part of the problem.
I do agree however with you people who think that the photo should not
disclude other members of the family, but the whole thing about that is just
a generation timing issue ( the photo states the birth dates of each of the
people) it is also layed out as the first born female of each generation
because of the fact that (sorry to say) we never know when the 1st
generation of the photo is gonna pass away. This is the first time that the
4 generation photo has encounter a situation such as this (the first born
not having the first female of the next generation) and the other 3 of the
last 4 generation photo did cunsult my sister to ask her opinions on whether
or not they should get it done with my daughter or wait for her to have a
daughter. [my grandma has cancer so we dont know exactly how long (god bless
her) she will be around for ]
"Banty" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dhc1ftoif51rn5rre...@4ax.com...
Rosalie B.
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 18:21:41 -0400, Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>>hami...@dnvln.com (hamilton) wrote:
>>>In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
>>><ple...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
>>>> tradition.
>>
>>>I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
>>>everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
That's a faint hope- her sister is easily hurt. However, her tradition is
the first born girl, and even if her sister has a baby now, it won't be the
first.
>>
>>I don't agree. Our tradition is very much like hers (except that we don't
>>go and have a drawing made of it, and it is a genealogy thing - JUST the
>>direct line. I have had those multi-generational picture things, and they
>>aren't nearly as nice. It is near impossible to get everyone looking good
>>at the same time. Just the child, the mother OR father of the child the
>>parent of the parent, and the grandparent of the parent's parent. I
>>treasure the ones that we have in my family, and regret that I can't get my
>>kids organized enough to do this in a formal portrait with their
>>grandmother/great grandmother. 4 people is enough.
>
>I think the problem here was that their tradition was to have a specific
>4-generation picture featuring the first female in each generation, and
>that apparently switched if a second-or-later female had a female child
>first. From your post it sounds like in your family it is more loosely
>defined as to who can be in the photo.
In most cases (modern times) it's because the females live longer. My
mother is the only one of the great grandparents that is living (she is
almost 92). My husband's parents are dead. My sister's husband's parents
are also both dead. My SIL's (dh's sister) husband's parents are both
dead.
But my BIL's (dh's brother) wife's parents are both still living. So if
she had that tradition, it would be my niece's two boys, my niece, her
mother, and her mother's mother and father both.
In my mother's case, both her grandmother and her grandfather had a living
parent. But they made two separate photos of it.
The photo is really for the child - so my mother has the photos of herself
as a baby, and I have mine, and my oldest daughter has hers. In her case,
it was me, my mother and her father, as my grandmother died when I was in
HS. Since it is for the child, and not for the other relatives, including
the other relatives in the picture is not appropriate. This is NOT a
family picture.
It is really special to be able to do a 4 generation picture, and often the
first great grandchild is the only one able to do it because the great
grandparent doesn't live long enough to be pictured with very many great
grandchildren.
I don't think that any of my grandchildren have another great grandparent
other than my mother.
We do have a lot of pictures of assembled family - we took one at a family
reunion last May -- but three babies have been born since then, and three
family members were not present for various reasons.
grandma Rosalie
hamilton
gmbe...@mindspring.com wrote:
> hami...@dnvln.com (hamilton) wrote:
>
> >In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
> ><ple...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
> >> tradition.
> >
>
> >I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
> >everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
>
> I don't agree. Our tradition is very much like hers (except that we don't
> go and have a drawing made of it, and it is a genealogy thing - JUST the
> direct line. I have had those multi-generational picture things, and they
> aren't nearly as nice. It is near impossible to get everyone looking good
> at the same time. Just the child, the mother OR father of the child the
> parent of the parent, and the grandparent of the parent's parent. I
> treasure the ones that we have in my family, and regret that I can't get my
> kids organized enough to do this in a formal portrait with their
> grandmother/great grandmother. 4 people is enough.
so you think it is okay to have a picture of say your grandmother, your
mother, you and your oldest daughter -- while your younger daughter and
son just stand off to the side and watch [or the equivalent]?
The fact that it has caused dissension in this family [the older sister is
miffed to have been supplanted by her younger sister who had the new baby
according to another post by the OP] should be a sign that it is a bit
nasty.
Obviously every family gets to decide what they do -- but I hope If I were
ever invited into one of these exclusionary photo ops that I would say
'get real -- I am not doing this with my oldest and not my youngest and of
course [brother] and his kids should be in it too' How is it more
meaningful to have a multigenerational picture that just shows 4 people
than one that includes everyone of the 4 generations still living?
Just another perspective.
hamilton
<ple...@home.com> wrote:
> As for all the responces about the 4 generation photo, i guess i should of
> mentioned that there is a full family photo that we also do everytime that
> there is a new member added to the family. also i should of added that this
> is not the only reason that she wanted a child. She also wants a child for
> reasons like; she will then have somone to look after and model after her,
> and so she will have somone she can take out shopping and to the park and
> stuff.
ya know -- people are entitled to want to have a baby because they want
someone to follow after them, they want someone to play with, etc etc --
how many people have 'good reasons' to have a baby. the only reason you
need is that you want one.
hamilton
gmbe...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Banty <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 02 May 2001 18:21:41 -0400, Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com>
> >wrote:
> >>hami...@dnvln.com (hamilton) wrote:
> >>>In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
> >>><ple...@home.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
> >>>> tradition.
> >>
> >>>I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
> >>>everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
>
> That's a faint hope- her sister is easily hurt. However, her tradition is
> the first born girl, and even if her sister has a baby now, it won't be the
> first.
but the SISTER is the first born girl of THAT generation so this excludes
her and supplants her with her younger sister and disrupts the order as
planned. The whole thing is WAY out of hand and designed to put ritual
above human beings.
It is like those wall photo galleries where husband and wife pictures on
Grandma's wall are above pictures of the the grandchildren etc etc -- a
pretty idea -- and then there is divorce and stepkids and stepmoms or dads
etc etc so the wall display is not working symetrically. So what do you
do? Do you keep the old spouses pictures up and not include the step
kids? People are more important than sentimental displays -- the display
needs to fit the family -- the family shouldn't be hacked up to fit some
orderly idea of the display.
Banty
>In article <423I6.801$rA2.1...@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
><ple...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> As for all the responces about the 4 generation photo, i guess i should of
>> mentioned that there is a full family photo that we also do everytime that
>> there is a new member added to the family. also i should of added that this
>> is not the only reason that she wanted a child. She also wants a child for
>> reasons like; she will then have somone to look after and model after her,
>> and so she will have somone she can take out shopping and to the park and
>> stuff.
>
>ya know -- people are entitled to want to have a baby because they want
>someone to follow after them, they want someone to play with, etc etc --
>how many people have 'good reasons' to have a baby. the only reason you
>need is that you want one.
>
I always wondered about it. (Especially being a single mom by choice -
what people say..) Exactly what is the "right answer" sanctioned reason
for having a child in people's mind?
Banty
Banty
wrote:
>The photo is really for the child - so my mother has the photos of herself
>as a baby, and I have mine, and my oldest daughter has hers. In her case,
>it was me, my mother and her father, as my grandmother died when I was in
>HS. Since it is for the child, and not for the other relatives, including
>the other relatives in the picture is not appropriate. This is NOT a
>family picture.
I think if it's really this way - it's really for the child, then it's more
obvious why one or the other person would be in the picture (although I can
still see problems with whether or not to go up the maternal or paternal
lines, etc., etc), it's more acceptable. In the OP's family it seems to be
more of a family icon.
Perhaps the OP can be a gentle advocate to make it more of a 4 generation
photo as a gift to each baby. That way, when sis has a baby, she'll
eventually be back in that place of honor.
Banty
Rosalie B.
>In article <2r11ftkp5ti7gh028...@4ax.com>,
>gmbe...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> hami...@dnvln.com (hamilton) wrote:
>> >In article <e1UH6.778$rA2....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca>, "Chery"
>> ><ple...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> i dont know why the whole thing started, but thats just our family
>> >> tradition.
>>
>> >I just hope you also get a real multi generational picture that includes
>> >everyone and that your sister is not easily hurt
>>
>> I don't agree. Our tradition is very much like hers (except that we don't
>> go and have a drawing made of it, and it is a genealogy thing - JUST the
>> direct line. I have had those multi-generational picture things, and they
>> aren't nearly as nice. It is near impossible to get everyone looking good
>> at the same time. Just the child, the mother OR father of the child the
>> parent of the parent, and the grandparent of the parent's parent. I
>> treasure the ones that we have in my family, and regret that I can't get my
>> kids organized enough to do this in a formal portrait with their
>> grandmother/great grandmother. 4 people is enough.
>
>so you think it is okay to have a picture of say your grandmother, your
>mother, you and your oldest daughter -- while your younger daughter and
>son just stand off to the side and watch [or the equivalent]?
My younger daughter and son weren't born yet, so they would not be standing
off to the side. If the grandparent was alive when they were born, they
would have their OWN 4 generation picture, with just them and their mother,
grand parent and great grand parent. I don't see what is the matter with
that.
>The fact that it has caused dissension in this family [the older sister is
>miffed to have been supplanted by her younger sister who had the new baby
>according to another post by the OP] should be a sign that it is a bit
>nasty.
>
>Obviously every family gets to decide what they do -- but I hope If I were
>ever invited into one of these exclusionary photo ops that I would say
>'get real -- I am not doing this with my oldest and not my youngest and of
>course [brother] and his kids should be in it too' How is it more
>meaningful to have a multigenerational picture that just shows 4 people
>than one that includes everyone of the 4 generations still living?
Who is excluded is inlaws, and children who don't have any children yet.
i.e., my dh is excluded because his grandmother died before we had any
children. He doesn't like to have his picture taken anyway, so he's OK
with that. My younger daughter who had no children would have been
excluded when taking a picture of my son's baby with my son, me and my
mother. ALso my son's wife would not be in the picture.
If I was doing it with you, both of your children would be included,
although I would rather have one picture for each of them, rather than two
in one picture. And your brother and his kids would each have their OWN
picture.
>Just another perspective.
>>
>> I know that one of my mother's great grandmothers didn't believe in
>> photographs (graven images), and the other great grandmother talked her
>> into it. (THey also didn't play card [sin papers], so they did anagrams)
grandma Rosalie
Chery
again
my sister had her baby 8 weeks premature and 3lbs 12oz, now she (kyla) is
down to 3lbs 2 oz, the father has only seen her once since she was born 4
days ago and she is in a incubator, not breathing on her own yet.
my sister only goes up to see kyla for about an hour each day and i want to
explain to her why kyla needs to see at least a little more of her own
mother.
any suggestions on how to explain this?
Sandy Hostetler
<hamilton-030...@host-209-214-115-2.bna.bellsouth.net>,
hami...@dnvln.com (hamilton) wrote:
Well, around these here parts, the picture is generally taken soon after
the "4th generation" baby is born, so there is no other sibling. It's
not really exclusionary, unless you choose to view it that way. It's a
picture that captures the direct family line back through a number of
generations--it's not a photo intended to show everyone. Our local
paper recently ran two pictures in which the infant was of the 5th
generation on both parent's sides. I'd say that baby has good genes for
longevity!
Luminaria
Hi Chery,
I appreciate your concern, that shows you have a kind heart - but maybe the
parents just can't deal with more time there. Some people have a very
tough time dealing with hospitals and desperately sick people. Sometimes
especially sick people they love. I know it sounds weird, but for some
people, they care so much, it is acutely painful for them to be in the
presence of someone they love who is suffering. My brothers were like
this. I would also suggest that if anyone should do any explaining to your
sister, it should probably be Kyla's doctor. It will go over a lot better
than "off the cuff" advice from Sis. No matter how "right" you are, you
are still "just Sis", you know? I know that some studies show that even
very young infants can tell their mother from everyone else - but as long
as the baby is getting some contact from someone, even nurses, or you, then
that's good too.
For whatever it's worth - back in 1962 I was a preemie too - I was born in
June, had been due in mid-September - weighed 4lbs 4 oz. I was in an
incubator for a month - and I seem to have come out ok... :-)
Kyla and her parents are in my prayers,
Peace,
Lisa