Holiday cards question
Karen Askey
printed on regular paper) in them?
I ask b/c I can't help but to show off my little one--he's so photogenic. And
I also like to receive pictures of my friends' and family members' kids as
well, although I usually don't keep them year to year to year.
As I told someone the other day, "I just think everyone need to have a picture
of my baby." When the receive it, it's up to them what they choose to do with
it. :-)
koa
Proud breastfeeder and SAHM to James Phillip 02/06/01
Next Spawn of Freaks EDD 05/05/03
http://hometown.aol.com/llllibrarian/myhomepage/profile.html
Shell
updated picture of the kids anyway. :-)
~Shell
"Karen Askey" <sup...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
news:20021218000003...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Brigitte Ironmonger
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
>
> I ask b/c I can't help but to show off my little one--he's so photogenic. And
> I also like to receive pictures of my friends' and family members' kids as
> well, although I usually don't keep them year to year to year.
>
> As I told someone the other day, "I just think everyone need to have a picture
> of my baby." When the receive it, it's up to them what they choose to do with
> it. :-)
I'm careful to whom I send pictures. I will not send pictures to
friends unless they ask for them because I'm not sure if they are having
fertility problems or not.
I know how painful it can be receiving pictures of children when you are
desperately trying to conceive.
--
Brigitte
SAHM to Katerina and Joshua
October 20, 2001
toypup
"Karen Askey" <sup...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
news:20021218000003...@mb-ch.aol.com...
pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
>
> I ask b/c I can't help but to show off my little one--he's so photogenic.
And
> I also like to receive pictures of my friends' and family members' kids as
> well, although I usually don't keep them year to year to year.
I love getting photos of friends' children and we are sending photos of our
little one this year. I don't really think it's bragging, just letting them
know what our littles ones look like as they grow up so fast.
Rosalie B.
>When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
>printed on regular paper) in them?
The first Xmas for DD#1 we sent a photo card (a real card with her
photo on it). Unfortunately we posed her in front of a mirror, so
many people thought I'd had twins <g>
We always took our own pictures, and put them into a newsletter
printed on paper and not a separate photo. In those days we got them
professionally copied as there wasn't as much high quality copying
available.
Some people send the school picture wallet sized photos out.
>
>I ask b/c I can't help but to show off my little one--he's so photogenic. And
>I also like to receive pictures of my friends' and family members' kids as
>well, although I usually don't keep them year to year to year.
I sometimes used to keep the pictures to compare.
>As I told someone the other day, "I just think everyone need to have a picture
>of my baby." When the receive it, it's up to them what they choose to do with
>it. :-)
I wouldn't send but the one photo.
grandma Rosalie
Wendy Marsden
the text. We print it on a color copier on 24# paper. This is a big
production and it goes like this every year:
"Staff writer" comes up with a draft of the Newsletter. It has a short
article, a paragraph really, about every person, and maybe two or three
other short articles about big news this year. Each family member reviews
the draft and makes changes.
Meanwhile, the "art director" gets a picture of the kids taken and
developed in such a way as we get a jpeg out of it. This year we did a
professional family portrait sitting and got the photographer to give us a
jpeg, too.
The "mailing list manager" gets updates on addresses, adds and culls the
list, and prints out 130 or so envelopes for the ones nearest and dearest
to our hearts.
Then it begins. :-)
The entire family assembles around the diningroom table with
stickers, markers, ink pads and art stamps, postage stamps & a calligraphy
pen. One person signs our names, another stuffs envelopes, the children
decorate the envelopes with stickers and artwork, the envelopes get
stamped and sealed. The entire time we're talking about who on earth all
these people are. ("Those are my sister's godparents. They stood up
for my parents at their wedding 40 years ago.")
Because the "Marsden Family Times" is a one-page newsletter with different
headlines, I expect a variety of people read different things. If you're
a friend of my husband's from work you might not read the articles about
the kids, etc. It's newsy, friendly, and conveys to these people that we
are thinking of them. It doesn't go into excruciating detail about our
dental problems, nor brag about test scores, nor detail what we did each
and every week-end. It's just a one-page newsletter and we keep the font
large. It usually has three columns, sometimes two.
I think people really appreciate it. I get notes to that effect. I
suppose there are people who really don't care a hoot still on our mailing
list (my sister's godparents come to mind) but it's worth a stamp to keep
in (potential) touch with them.
We used to insert it in with cards, but for the past several years we've
just included a holiday greeting in the top middle column along with a
place to sign and leave a (very brief) note.
-- Wendy
Ericka Kammerer
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
>
> I ask b/c I can't help but to show off my little one--he's so photogenic. And
> I also like to receive pictures of my friends' and family members' kids as
> well, although I usually don't keep them year to year to year.
>
> As I told someone the other day, "I just think everyone need to have a picture
> of my baby." When the receive it, it's up to them what they choose to do with
> it. :-)
I do often send pictures and enjoy receiving them. I have
to say that I like getting pictures that are just printed on the
paper, unless it's really close friends or family. When I get
real pictures, I feel like I need to *do* something with them.
Still, that's a relatively minor thing. Mostly I just enjoy
seeing what people look like when I haven't been able to see
them in a while.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Irene
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
>
Last year, we sent pictures to almost everyone. (We had gotten the big
Sears package, so he had a ton). This year, I'm being more selective
- mainly to out-of-town friends who don't get to see ds often if at
all, and to a few nearby friends who I think would appreciate them.
This year we did a big portrait session at home, partly to test our
new camera! So, we got double prints and are sending the best ones,
plus we'll get enlargements made for the grandparents.
As far as infertility goes, the only couple I know is struggling with
it is not actually on our holiday card list. Everyone else either has
kids or isn't trying (as far as I know). If any of them are
struggling with it but haven't told me, then I don't think it should
stop me from sending a picture - I'm more likely to offend by NOT
sending one, in my crowd.
Irene
Mom to Thomas 7/10/01
Michelle S. Spina
>
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
>
> I ask b/c I can't help but to show off my little one--he's so photogenic. And
> I also like to receive pictures of my friends' and family members' kids as
> well, although I usually don't keep them year to year to year.
>
> As I told someone the other day, "I just think everyone need to have a picture
> of my baby." When the receive it, it's up to them what they choose to do with
> it. :-)
We do the holiday photo cards now - I LOVE the way they look, and I know
that I really appreciate getting these cards from my friends with kids
(and did even when we where kid-less).
Definitely either get a photo card, or enclose a pic. People like them!
And if they don't, well, then they are scrooges!
m.
James 12/17/99
Lauren 10/18/02
Brigitte Ironmonger
> As far as infertility goes, the only couple I know is struggling with
> it is not actually on our holiday card list. Everyone else either has
> kids or isn't trying (as far as I know). If any of them are
> struggling with it but haven't told me, then I don't think it should
> stop me from sending a picture - I'm more likely to offend by NOT
> sending one, in my crowd.
Just because they have kids doesn't mean they aren't struggling with
infertility. They could be secondaries. Just to let you know, this is
a very *hot* topic with people struggling with infertility.
LFortier
>When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
>printed on regular paper) in them?
>
>
Yep. I have bunches of relatives who only have seen my girls a handful
of times in real life, so the annual picture with a card is how they
keep track of how big they're getting. This year we don't have tons of
wallet sizes, so people who have seen them recently irl don't get one.
And of course, my children are so beautiful that everyone appreciates a
picture of them. ;-)
Lesley
Rosalie B.
>Karen Askey wrote:
>>
>> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
>> printed on regular paper) in them?
<snip>
>We do the holiday photo cards now - I LOVE the way they look, and I know
>that I really appreciate getting these cards from my friends with kids
>(and did even when we where kid-less).
It's important though to identify the people in the picture. It's a
pain to have to struggle to remember whether Frank is the husband the
kid or the dog :-)
>Definitely either get a photo card, or enclose a pic. People like them!
>And if they don't, well, then they are scrooges!
So put the names on the back of the photo, or if a newsletter, caption
the pictures. And date as well.
I have got albums of people pictures from the late 1800s and no idea
who they were.
grandma Rosalie
Cheryl S.
news:3E00CE8D...@mom2many.com...
I understand that it's very painful for such people, but really, how is
anyone else supposed to know? I think, if people who are having
fertility problems don't let others know that they would like special
treatment, it doesn't make sense for them to expect it. Of course
people should be sensitive to those who they *know* are struggling, but
it doesn't make any sense for everyone to go around assuming that
everyone of childbearing age they know is struggling to get pregnant.
If people send pictures of their kids in holiday greeting cards as an
innocent gesture of friendship, I don't think it should be considered
offensive.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 20 months
Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> I understand that it's very painful for such people, but really, how is
> anyone else supposed to know?
Ask.
> I think, if people who are having
> fertility problems don't let others know that they would like special
> treatment, it doesn't make sense for them to expect it. Of course
> people should be sensitive to those who they *know* are struggling, but
> it doesn't make any sense for everyone to go around assuming that
> everyone of childbearing age they know is struggling to get pregnant.
Why not? Just because your are a fertile doesn't mean every one is.
> If people send pictures of their kids in holiday greeting cards as an
> innocent gesture of friendship, I don't think it should be considered
> offensive.
What do sending pictures of your children have to do with gestures of
friendship?
Cheryl S.
> Cheryl S. wrote:
> > I understand that it's very painful for such people, but really, how
is
> > anyone else supposed to know?
>
> Ask.
That's an overly personal question, IMHO. And what would lead me to ask
such a question anyway? Under what circumstances would I assume that
another person is infertile? If a person keeps their reproductive life
private, I would think they would not appreciate being asked about it
either. If they want me to know, there's nothing stopping them from
telling me.
> > it doesn't make any sense for everyone to go around assuming that
> > everyone of childbearing age they know is struggling to get
pregnant.
>
> Why not? Just because your are a fertile doesn't mean every one is.
Why not? Simple: statistics. The large majority of people are not
infertile, so assuming that everyone *is*, would be a very odd
assumption. Obviously my fertility has no bearing on anyone else's -
I'm not sure of the point of that statement. Even if I were infertile,
it still wouldn't make any sense to assume that everyone else was too.
> > If people send pictures of their kids in holiday greeting cards as
an
> > innocent gesture of friendship, I don't think it should be
considered
> > offensive.
>
> What do sending pictures of your children have to do with gestures of
> friendship?
People's lives tend to revolve around their kids, so it would be pretty
difficult to be friends with a person without knowing enough about them
to know what their kids are up to as well. That's the whole point of
friendship, isn't it? Knowing each other? I don't get, at all, why you
seem to be saying that a person's children have nothing to do with being
friends with that person.
Serious question: is it just the pictures that are a problem for people
with infertility, or any description of the kids' activities at all?
Brigitte Ironmonger
> That's an overly personal question, IMHO. And what would lead me to ask
> such a question anyway? Under what circumstances would I assume that
> another person is infertile? If a person keeps their reproductive life
> private, I would think they would not appreciate being asked about it
> either. If they want me to know, there's nothing stopping them from
> telling me.
>
You misunderstood me. Ask if they would like a picture. Not ask if they
are infertile.
> Why not? Simple: statistics. The large majority of people are not
> infertile, so assuming that everyone *is*, would be a very odd
> assumption. Obviously my fertility has no bearing on anyone else's -
> I'm not sure of the point of that statement. Even if I were infertile,
> it still wouldn't make any sense to assume that everyone else was too.
Statistically speaking, there are more people able to walk than in
wheelchairs but there are bylaws mandating wheelchair ramps. All I'm
suggesting is thinking about who you send pictures to, not don't send
any at all.
> People's lives tend to revolve around their kids, so it would be pretty
> difficult to be friends with a person without knowing enough about them
> to know what their kids are up to as well. That's the whole point of
> friendship, isn't it? Knowing each other? I don't get, at all, why you
> seem to be saying that a person's children have nothing to do with being
> friends with that person.
That's not what I said. You said gesture of friendship. You still
haven't answered my question: What does sending pictures have to do
with "gestures" of friendship?
I also don't agree with your statement about being friends with someone
without knowing about their kids. I have plenty of friends with kids
that I don't really know much about their children's lives. I really
couldn't care less if Sally got an 'A' or 'B' on her report card. I'm
friends with the adult not really the child. If there was something
important such as injury or winning a full scholarship, then I would be
interested but not the minute detail of the child's life.
There are also different degrees of friendship. There are people you
send cards to but that you only communicate with once or twice a year.
I would not send pictures of my children to these people unless I
absolutely knew they wanted one. Why would I assume they would want a
picture of my children? What are they going to do with it? They have
no emotional attachment to my kids.
I just question this new "tradition" of sending kid's pictures with
cards to "everyone" on your list. It used to be pictures were sent to
close friends and family.
> Serious question: is it just the pictures that are a problem for people
> with infertility, or any description of the kids' activities at all?
Unless the person in question asked for the information, I wouldn't.
They generally don't want to hear about kids *at all*. It's very painful.
> Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
> shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.
I've always liked your sig.
iphigenia
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just
> pictures printed on regular paper) in them?
Mine's pretty darn photogenic, too : )
I think I'm a pretty decent photographer, so I just took a photo taken while
we were on vacation for Thanksgiving (digital camera), cropped it, resized
it, and printed copies out on our photo printer. I feel bad throwing away
studio portraits, but I think a picture I printed off myself is casual
enough that no one has to keep it if they don't want to.
For the record, here's the photo I used:
http://home.attbi.com/~ppdbt1/gabriel/112602currituck2.jpg
--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net
Michelle S. Spina
I would also add that even if people are struggling with infertility,
they are not necessarily upset by a picture of someone else's child!
They are fully aware that other children exist in the world - pretending
that they don't seems silly to me.
m.
James 12/17/99 (who was moderately difficult to conceive, and followed a
m/c - and it never crossed my mind to be upset by other's children)
Lauren 10/18/02
Michelle S. Spina
>
> > Serious question: is it just the pictures that are a problem for people
> > with infertility, or any description of the kids' activities at all?
>
> Unless the person in question asked for the information, I wouldn't.
> They generally don't want to hear about kids *at all*. It's very painful.
They don't? It is? Wasn't a problem for me, at least, when we were
having troubles conceiving. Perhaps for some people, sure. But to make
this assumption that most people feel this way is a stretch, I think.
Actually, I would have been pretty peeved if I noticed people
purposefully *not* talking about their kids to me.
m.
Michelle S. Spina
>
> "Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >Karen Askey wrote:
> >>
> >> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
> >> printed on regular paper) in them?
> <snip>
>
> >We do the holiday photo cards now - I LOVE the way they look, and I know
> >that I really appreciate getting these cards from my friends with kids
> >(and did even when we where kid-less).
>
> It's important though to identify the people in the picture. It's a
> pain to have to struggle to remember whether Frank is the husband the
> kid or the dog :-)
>
> >Definitely either get a photo card, or enclose a pic. People like them!
> >And if they don't, well, then they are scrooges!
>
> So put the names on the back of the photo, or if a newsletter, caption
> the pictures. And date as well.
>
Definitely! We always have names included.
> I have got albums of people pictures from the late 1800s and no idea
> who they were.
Very cool - too bad they are anonymous!
m.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> They don't? It is? Wasn't a problem for me, at least, when we were
> having troubles conceiving. Perhaps for some people, sure. But to make
> this assumption that most people feel this way is a stretch, I think.
> Actually, I would have been pretty peeved if I noticed people
> purposefully *not* talking about their kids to me.
A STRETCH??????
Go lurk on a.i.primary for a few days. Sheesh!
Brigitte Ironmonger
> James 12/17/99 (who was moderately difficult to conceive, and followed a
> m/c
Moderately difficult?
paull...@hotmail.com
Jr. was murdered because he was a good Prosecutor and an independent
Journalist. We cannot blame the weather again. Every single bad
Journalist and every single bad Prosecutor is partly responsible for
the murder of John F. Kennedy because these abusibve propagandists
[Rush Limbaugh in particular] are responsible for creating a world
where bullshit triumphs and the truth is routinely buried. God Bless
JFK Jr.
Please link to his homepage, to keep his vision about the need for a
free and independent press, alive ! THIS IS REALLY, not politics AS
USUAL ! ! !
Oh, and please don't feed us the line that it was the weather or that
he was disorientated or that he was reckless, because the plane was on
automatic pilot just before he crashed, and even the fools who post
this propaganda, could fly an airplane, while it is on automatic
pilot.
JennP
> Cheryl S. wrote:
> > I understand that it's very painful for such people, but really, how is
> > anyone else supposed to know?
>
> Ask.
I think that's ruder than sending them a picture of your family...
JennP.
Cheryl S.
> You misunderstood me. Ask if they would like a picture. Not ask if
they
> are infertile.
Ah. I see. But if the mere mention of children is enough to cause
infertile people pain, is asking if they want a picture of your children
all that different from just sending it? And wouldn't it put them in an
awkward position to have to say "no", and worry about offending you?
> Statistically speaking, there are more people able to walk than in
> wheelchairs but there are bylaws mandating wheelchair ramps. All I'm
> suggesting is thinking about who you send pictures to, not don't send
> any at all.
That is a good suggestion.
> That's not what I said. You said gesture of friendship. You still
> haven't answered my question: What does sending pictures have to do
> with "gestures" of friendship?
You are giving them something, to convey to them something about your
life.
> I also don't agree with your statement about being friends with
someone
> without knowing about their kids. I have plenty of friends with kids
> that I don't really know much about their children's lives. I really
> couldn't care less if Sally got an 'A' or 'B' on her report card. I'm
> friends with the adult not really the child. If there was something
> important such as injury or winning a full scholarship, then I would
be
> interested but not the minute detail of the child's life.
A picture is hardly minute detail - it just shows what they look like at
the present time. I didn't mean you have to know everything about the
kids - just that knowing nothing about the kids at all, means there is a
huge chunk of the person's life that you don't know about. At my
extended family Christmas party, I asked a cousin I see 2-3 times per
year about what she's doing now. She answered by telling me X is in
gymnastics and Y is in swimming, so I spend most of my time driving them
to practices and meets. With children of certain ages, it's practically
inseparable to tell someone about yourself vs your kids, just because
they take up so much of your time.
> There are also different degrees of friendship. There are people you
> send cards to but that you only communicate with once or twice a year.
> I would not send pictures of my children to these people unless I
> absolutely knew they wanted one. Why would I assume they would want a
> picture of my children?
Those are the people from whom I most like to get pictures of their
kids, but I realize that what I like is not true of everyone.
> What are they going to do with it?
Look at it. After that - who cares?
> They have
> no emotional attachment to my kids.
They don't need to have one. No one expects anyone to put their kids'
pictures in frames on their mantels. It's just a form of communication.
> I just question this new "tradition" of sending kid's pictures with
> cards to "everyone" on your list. It used to be pictures were sent to
> close friends and family.
FWIW, I didn't send any pictures in my cards at all. I'll be giving
pictures to my close relatives in person next week.
> Unless the person in question asked for the information, I wouldn't.
> They generally don't want to hear about kids *at all*. It's very
painful.
I don't see how it's possible to live a life anywhere approaching
normal, and never hear about kids at all. That must be an unimaginably
difficult situation.
> I've always liked your sig.
Thanks. :-)
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 20 months
Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
Catherine C.
Karen,
Our first grandchild was born in September and we made our own cards
with an adorable picture of him ON THE FRONT!!!
I absolutely LOVE to get pics of other people's kids...we didn't
really expect to ever be grandparents and we are thrilled...if anyone
receives one and doesn't like it, they can throw it away...I also
can't imagine anyone not wanting to receive a pic of my grandson!
Feedback to date has been amazing...DH took one to his work place and
the staff were "fighting" over whose office the pic would be in!
We've received e-mails from many saying how much they appreciated the
card.
I grew up in a home where showing off/praising children was taboo and
I'll be da*med if I'm going to do this with Brendan!
Cheers!...Catherine
Michelle S. Spina
>
> Michelle S. Spina wrote:
> > James 12/17/99 (who was moderately difficult to conceive, and followed a
> > m/c
>
> Moderately difficult?
Moderately, in that I required fertility drugs, and it took a number of
months before getting pg (after many months of trying drug-free). That
resulted in a m/c, before James was finally conceived. No, it wasn't a
multi-year endeavor, which may perhaps change one's personality in a
drastic way... I don't know.
m.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> I think that's ruder than sending them a picture of your family...
Again, ask if they would like a picture not about infertility.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Ah. I see. But if the mere mention of children is enough to cause
> infertile people pain, is asking if they want a picture of your children
> all that different from just sending it? And wouldn't it put them in an
> awkward position to have to say "no", and worry about offending you?
It would not cause them as much pain as a picture. If they turn you
down, or hesitate, it would probably be a good clue that there might be
something going on and then next year you might not want to even try to
send one. If there is someone in your realm of friendships that you
suspect might being going through IF why try and send a picture? If
they ask for one then send one but why assume everyone of your friends
want one?
>>What does sending pictures have to do
>>with "gestures" of friendship?
>
>
> You are giving them something, to convey to them something about your
> life.
I guess our definitions of "gestures of friendship" differ. I view it
as lending a shoulder or support in time of need, sending a card out of
the blue thanking them for being a friend, things like that.
> A picture is hardly minute detail - it just shows what they look like at
> the present time. I didn't mean you have to know everything about the
> kids - just that knowing nothing about the kids at all, means there is a
> huge chunk of the person's life that you don't know about. At my
> extended family Christmas party, I asked a cousin I see 2-3 times per
> year about what she's doing now. She answered by telling me X is in
> gymnastics and Y is in swimming, so I spend most of my time driving them
> to practices and meets. With children of certain ages, it's practically
> inseparable to tell someone about yourself vs your kids, just because
> they take up so much of your time.
You said "description of the kids' activities". That was what I was
referring to when I said minute detail.
>>I just question this new "tradition" of sending kid's pictures with
>>cards to "everyone" on your list. It used to be pictures were sent to
>>close friends and family.
>
>
> FWIW, I didn't send any pictures in my cards at all. I'll be giving
> pictures to my close relatives in person next week.
I didn't mean you specifically when I said you. I meant you generally.
> I don't see how it's possible to live a life anywhere approaching
> normal, and never hear about kids at all. That must be an unimaginably
> difficult situation.
It is a difficult situation. I wouldn't call living in fertile world
when you're infertile anyway near normal. Even if you get lucky and
have children the infertility feeling never truly go away. The worst
feelings arise when around the "oops" people.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Moderately, in that I required fertility drugs, and it took a number of
> months before getting pg (after many months of trying drug-free). That
> resulted in a m/c, before James was finally conceived. No, it wasn't a
> multi-year endeavor, which may perhaps change one's personality in a
> drastic way... I don't know.
No disrespect, Michelle, but *I do* know. You were very lucky to have
James after a few months of trying (even with drugs). I'm sorry about
the m/c (truly). I can't begin to know *that* pain. I've been lucky in
that respect.
But after many years of trying, finally resorting to IVF to conceive, it
does change your personality and outlook. Being around children,
especially around the holidays, was painful. If I had to buy a toy for
a friend's kid, it would take me many attempts, because the hormones
would make me break down in the store and I would have to leave. I am
*not* alone in this. So please believe me when I say, sending pictures
of your kids to people struggling with IF, especially during the
holidays, results in anguish and pain, like pouring salt on a wound (a
very deep wound).
Mara (no, really)
Brigitte Ironmonger <brigitte....@mom2many.com> typed:
> leave. I am *not* alone in this. So please believe me when I
say,
> sending pictures of your kids to people struggling with IF,
> especially during the holidays, results in anguish and pain, like
> pouring salt on a wound (a very deep wound).
I have to second this. Right now I've got all my managers at work
bringing me their kids' portraits so I can scan them in and
PhotoShop them for their christmas cards. It's just an endless
stream of one adorable kid after another, pairs, trios, happy
families, you name it. Meanwhile, my only two babie are buried in
cemeteries and I have no chance of having another. It's just one
more "kid" thing I really don't need pushed in my face.
Mara
Brigitte Ironmonger
((((((Mara))))))
Lisa
> From: sup...@aol.comspamenot (Karen Askey)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: misc.kids
> Date: 18 Dec 2002 05:00:03 GMT
> Subject: Holiday cards question
>
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
>
I parked my kids in front of our Christmas tree and took a picture of them.
Took said photo (after being developed, of course) to Wal-Greens and had a
couple of sheets of wallet-sized photos made to include in our Christmas
cards. The photos don't feel as heavy as professional photos, but they
aren't flimsy like plain old paper is.
Lisa
Mom to 3
Cheryl S.
> If there is someone in your realm of friendships that you
> suspect might being going through IF why try and send a picture? If
> they ask for one then send one but why assume everyone of your friends
> want one?
OTOH, why assume they don't? Even if someone is going through IF, maybe
they are like Michelle and aren't bothered by seeing friends' kids.
Life is hard enough without having to try and live it according to "what
if's" (i.e., "what if so-and-so is infertile?"). Unless someone has
come out and told you they're IF and that's it's hard on them to see or
hear about your kids, I think *in general*, it's more likely that a
friend would like to see your kid's picture than not. I do agree that
it's worth giving some thought to as you decide who to send pictures to,
but I don't see the need to overanalyze things.
> I guess our definitions of "gestures of friendship" differ. I view it
> as lending a shoulder or support in time of need, sending a card out
of
> the blue thanking them for being a friend, things like that.
Well, yeah, on the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being donating a kidney, sending
a picture in a card isn't real high up there :-), but I still think of
it as a form of connecting with the other person, offering them a view
into your life and who you are. It's a lot more personal than sending a
preprinted generic message and just signing your names, which tells the
recipient nothing about you (but is exactly what I did, lol).
> You said "description of the kids' activities". That was what I was
> referring to when I said minute detail.
I was just asking if a written mention of kids would be more or less
preferable than a picture. Of course no one wants to read, "...and then
on Tuesday March 12th, Susie ate all her peas at lunch but didn't like
the macaroni..." I was thinking more along the lines of "Johnny's in
third grade now and enjoys Yahtzee." and that's it.
> I didn't mean you specifically when I said you. I meant you
generally.
I was just giving an example of myself, that not everyone is sending
pictures to everyone. I only got 3 pictures this year, so I don't think
it's so widespread as to be called a new tradition.
> It is a difficult situation. I wouldn't call living in fertile world
> when you're infertile anyway near normal. Even if you get lucky and
> have children the infertility feeling never truly go away. The worst
> feelings arise when around the "oops" people.
I do feel sorry for people who are that unhappy about not being able to
have something they want so badly, yet at the same time, I can't help
also thinking, "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Life really
is mostly what you make of it, IMHO. Maybe I'm insensitive, or maybe IF
is just something you can't really understand unless it happens to you.
I'm glad you brought it up though - I've learned from our discussion.
Thank you.
iphigenia
> But after many years of trying, finally resorting to IVF to conceive,
> it does change your personality and outlook.
Not in the same way for everyone, though. My best friend is finally pregnant
after three years of fighting PCOS - she did Clomid, self-administered
hormone shots, constant blood tests, glucophage, two rounds of IUI and many
painful procedures. She and her husband have always been interested in Gabe
and our other friends' babies. She's told me when it's been hard to see
other people getting pregnant, etc., but she still cares for and wants to
hear about our children.
And from my perspective, I don't expect people to not send me wedding
announcements or show affection to their spouses in front of me just because
my husband died. It hurts, yes, but I don't assume that typical displays of
being married shouldn't occur around me.
--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net
Sara
> JennP wrote:
> > I think that's ruder than sending them a picture of your family...
>
> Again, ask if they would like a picture not about infertility.
While I was trying to get pregnant, a friend of mine told me she was a
few months along. I was happy for her, but getting her e-mail made me
cry for myself.
I imagine -- and this is just me imagining, because we didn't have to
deal with drawn-out infertility -- if my friend asked me if I wanted a
picture of her baby, I'd have to say "yes" even if it would upset me.
How can you tell somebody "no, I don't want to see your baby"? And
because we didn't want to tell anyone that we were trying, I
wouldn't've been able to say "no, please don't send me a photo because
it will remind me of what I can't have."
Can you think of a polite way to decline a baby picture?
--
Sara, accompanied by the little barnacle
<< I check this e-mail account infrequently >>
Mara (no, really)
Cheryl S. <spamf...@address.com> typed:
> Well, yeah, on the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being donating a kidney,
You are a donor, right?
;)
Mara
Brigitte Ironmonger
> OTOH, why assume they don't? Even if someone is going through IF, maybe
> they are like Michelle and aren't bothered by seeing friends' kids.
Possibly. But not likely.
> Life is hard enough without having to try and live it according to "what
> if's" (i.e., "what if so-and-so is infertile?").
I understand.
> Unless someone has
> come out and told you they're IF and that's it's hard on them to see or
> hear about your kids, I think *in general*, it's more likely that a
> friend would like to see your kid's picture than not. I do agree that
> it's worth giving some thought to as you decide who to send pictures to,
> but I don't see the need to overanalyze things.
I'm not trying to tell you to overanalyze things. But now I've made you
(and hopefully some others) give pause.
> Well, yeah, on the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being donating a kidney, sending
> a picture in a card isn't real high up there :-), but I still think of
> it as a form of connecting with the other person, offering them a view
> into your life and who you are. It's a lot more personal than sending a
> preprinted generic message and just signing your names, which tells the
> recipient nothing about you (but is exactly what I did, lol).
Let me offer this scenario: If you, after having this discussion, have
friends who are either childless or only have one child, still send a
picture of your child in a card, knowing now they might be struggling
with IF, would that be a "gesture of friendship" or would that be the
opposite?
> I was just asking if a written mention of kids would be more or less
> preferable than a picture. Of course no one wants to read, "...and then
> on Tuesday March 12th, Susie ate all her peas at lunch but didn't like
> the macaroni..." I was thinking more along the lines of "Johnny's in
> third grade now and enjoys Yahtzee." and that's it.
Both would cause pain. But I think the written mention would cause less
pain.
> I was just giving an example of myself, that not everyone is sending
> pictures to everyone. I only got 3 pictures this year, so I don't think
> it's so widespread as to be called a new tradition.
I was being facetious when I referred to it as a tradition. That's why
I enclosed the word in quotes. If you only got three, you're lucky.
> I do feel sorry for people who are that unhappy about not being able to
> have something they want so badly, yet at the same time, I can't help
> also thinking, "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Life really
> is mostly what you make of it, IMHO. Maybe I'm insensitive, or maybe IF
> is just something you can't really understand unless it happens to you.
> I'm glad you brought it up though - I've learned from our discussion.
> Thank you.
I don't think you're insensitive but I think you're right: you can't
really understand unless it happens to you. I'm glad to have this
discussion with you. I hope other people reading this will have learnt
from it as well.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Brigitte Ironmonger wrote:
>
>>But after many years of trying, finally resorting to IVF to conceive,
>>it does change your personality and outlook.
>
>
> Not in the same way for everyone, though. My best friend is finally pregnant
> after three years of fighting PCOS - she did Clomid, self-administered
> hormone shots, constant blood tests, glucophage, two rounds of IUI and many
> painful procedures. She and her husband have always been interested in Gabe
> and our other friends' babies. She's told me when it's been hard to see
> other people getting pregnant, etc., but she still cares for and wants to
> hear about our children.
But she's your best friend not someone you only communicate with once or
twice a year. She's lucky to have a good friend like you to whom she
can confide feelings. You *knew* she was struggling with IF and you
were sympathetic to her feelings.
> And from my perspective, I don't expect people to not send me wedding
> announcements or show affection to their spouses in front of me just because
> my husband died. It hurts, yes, but I don't assume that typical displays of
> being married shouldn't occur around me.
I'm sorry about your husband. That is a pain I hope I never have to
experience. I read about the lovely quilt that was sent.
I am not trying to diminish the pain you feel but IF pain is different.
I don't know how to word that sentiment without causing you more pain.
I'm sorry. :-(
Cheryl S.
news:ObaM9.59462$Y86....@news2.central.cox.net...
> You are a donor, right?
>
> ;)
Mara, you can have both my kidneys, just as soon as I don't need them
anymore. ;-)
Karen Askey
>they are not necessarily upset by a picture of someone else's child!
>They are fully aware that other children exist in the world - pretending
>that they don't seems silly to me.
Me, too. Some of our neighbors were struggling with IF. We didn't all keep
our kids indoors so they wouldn't see them. I'm sure they still watched
television, frought with ads and tv shows with kids. I'm sure they still went
to the grocery store and the mall, two places you are bound to see children,
even small babies.
If you are aware of IF in a couple, then you may already know if they would
mind a picture of your child in a holiday newsletter. If you don't know if a
couple is IF, then I hardly think they could hold it against you that you sent
something like that.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Can you think of a polite way to decline a baby picture?
How about "Normally, I would love to see a picture of little Johnny but
I'm going through a sensitive time right now that I really would not
like to discuss. Could you send it at another time?" with another time
being directed by you when you're at a more stable time emotionally.
Brigitte Ironmonger
>>I would also add that even if people are struggling with infertility,
>>they are not necessarily upset by a picture of someone else's child!
>>They are fully aware that other children exist in the world - pretending
>>that they don't seems silly to me.
>
>
> Me, too.
They're not pretending they don't exist. That's ridiculous.
> Some of our neighbors were struggling with IF. We didn't all keep
> our kids indoors so they wouldn't see them. I'm sure they still watched
> television, frought with ads and tv shows with kids. I'm sure they still went
> to the grocery store and the mall, two places you are bound to see children,
> even small babies.
Of course they did. But are you denying that they might have
experienced pain when confronted with children? That is the inherent
problem when dealing with IF. Children are everywhere and you want one
so desperately it hurts.
>
> If you are aware of IF in a couple, then you may already know if they would
> mind a picture of your child in a holiday newsletter. If you don't know if a
> couple is IF, then I hardly think they could hold it against you that you sent
> something like that.
Again, I'm not talking about close friends. I'm referring to people you
only communicate with once or twice a year. Holidays are hard on
people struggling with IF. Getting pictures of children from people who
aren't close just rubs salt into the wound. So, yes, I *do* think they
would hold it against you. Why is it necessary to send a picture?
Obviously, I just don't get it. I don't understand why someone I'm not
close to would think I would want to have pictures of their kids.
Michelle S. Spina
<brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote:
>>
>Why is it necessary to send a picture?
>Obviously, I just don't get it. I don't understand why someone I'm not
>close to would think I would want to have pictures of their kids.
Then why communicate with them at all? Children are usually an
important part of people's lives - if you are sending a quick "hi," a
pic of the kids seems like the *most* important thing to send! If you
don't care to see that, then I'd think that you really don't give a
whip about the sender at all, and they should save the 37 cents and
cross you off their Xmas list.
m.
James 12/17/99
Lauren 10/18/02
Kavvy
> JennP wrote:
>> I think that's ruder than sending them a picture of your family...
>
> Again, ask if they would like a picture not about infertility.
This has been an enlightening conversation. I've never experienced IF so I
don't really know what I'm talking about but if I try to put myself in that
place....I think I'd ten times rather get a picture in the mail I can
immediately throw in the garbage and be done with then actually have to
discuss is with someone. Discussing it seems like it would be much more
difficult.
--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (3) and Luke (1)
Nan
"Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:l5e20v85mii1c64ss...@4ax.com...
So, you're saying that people that wouldn't want a picture of your
kids isn't worth communicating to??
Nan
Kavvy
>
> Let me offer this scenario: If you, after having this discussion,
> have friends who are either childless or only have one child, still
> send a picture of your child in a card, knowing now they might be
> struggling with IF, would that be a "gesture of friendship" or would
> that be the opposite?
Well now you have me all stressed out. I do have one dear friend that has
no children. We correspond only a few times a year at this point but I
still care very much for her. She lets me know, in detail, the things in
her life (job, things her and her husband enjoy, updates on various things)
and I do the same. I would never want to cause her added pain if they are
unable to have children but to be quite honest, my kids are young and
consume almost my entire life. It would be pretty hard to update people on
my life without mentioning them. I also think it would be really really
odvious I was avoiding the topic if I updated a close friend and didn't
mention my children. At any rate, I will keep it brief and won't gush, that
is for sure.
Michelle S. Spina
wrote:
If someone is annoyed by the inclusion of a picture of my kids, then
they clearly aren't really interested in knowing what's going on in my
life. It seems silly to continue any sort of communication, doesn't
it? Why would they want to hear from me, if they don't care about the
kids?
Or, perhaps I have a VERY different Xmas list than you. Granted, if I
were sending a card to my dentist, I wouldn't include a picture. But I
don't send cards to my dentist... I only send cards to people who are
at least somewhat interested in my life, and would therefore be at
least somewhat interested in a pic of my kids.
Mara (no, really)
Cheryl S. <spamf...@address.com> typed:
> Mara, you can have both my kidneys, just as soon as I don't need
them
> anymore. ;-)
!!!!
Well, we don't want *that* to happen!
=8)
Mara
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Then why communicate with them at all? Children are usually an
> important part of people's lives - if you are sending a quick "hi," a
> pic of the kids seems like the *most* important thing to send! If you
> don't care to see that, then I'd think that you really don't give a
> whip about the sender at all, and they should save the 37 cents and
> cross you off their Xmas list.
That's very self-centred.
Mara (no, really)
Michelle S. Spina <sp...@mit.edu> typed:
> Then why communicate with them at all? Children are usually an
> important part of people's lives - if you are sending a quick
"hi," a
> pic of the kids seems like the *most* important thing to send! If
you
> don't care to see that, then I'd think that you really don't give
a
> whip about the sender at all, and they should save the 37 cents
and
> cross you off their Xmas list.
Just because you don't care to get a picture of someone's kids
doesn't mean you don't care about the sender. Just for an
example: I have a dear friend with one son. I did not have a
relationship with the son. I had a relationship with his mother.
If she were to send me a family portrait (which she has) I would
keep it because it's a picture with my friend in it. But why would
she send me a picture of her son? What am I supposed to do, stick
it in my wallet and show it off to people? Why not just send me a
picture of her DH while she's at it? He's an important part of her
life, too.
Whenever I was with his mom, he was usually at school, at karate, at
baseball, out with his dad. I don't know this kid. I only saw him
in passing. It would be a different matter if I were close to him,
as well. Of course I would want a picture of him. I have many
pictures of babies and children that I used to take care of and love
like they were my own. Of course I keep their pictures and always
will. I think most people receiving these pictures just don't have
*that* kind of relationship with the child, and that's why it's
bemusing.
Truthfully, most of the people who send me pictures of their kids
are obscure relatives that I only see once a year, if that. I don't
even know these kids, and when I go through my pictures a few years
from now, I'm not going to have the first clue who the heck they
are. They will go straight into the trash, like the batch that
just did.
Mara
Rosalie B.
Yes - one of my dd's lost a baby early in pregnancy, and her cousin
asked her a question which I don't remember what it was right this
minute, but indicated that the cousin was making light of the problem.
My dd was furious, and upset - she started to cry, which astonished
her cousin who had not even known she was pregnant let alone that she
wasn't anymore.
My mom lost 2 babies in succession and the lady down the street had
one about that age and she said she could not ever bear to look at
that child. But she didn't blame the other mother, nor did she ever
say anything to her about it.
So while there may be a lot of angst in people's lives from various
sources, I don't think that the world in general should be regarded as
insensitive because they don't tiptoe around in case there was a
problem that they don't know about. Sure - if you know someone is
unhappily IF, don't make it worse by sending a long glowing report
about your child to them. But just sending out a photo at Christmas
to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to deal
with, not yours.
grandma Rosalie
Rosalie B.
>Of course they did. But are you denying that they might have
>experienced pain when confronted with children? That is the inherent
>problem when dealing with IF. Children are everywhere and you want one
>so desperately it hurts.
I'm sorry but there's lots of things that hurt people.
This is your problem - not ours
grandma Rosalie
Brigitte Ironmonger
> This is your problem - not ours
I find that extremely supercilious.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> But just sending out a photo at Christmas
> to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to deal
> with, not yours.
Nice holiday spirit with that card.
toypup
"iphigenia" <preter...@hotmail.comeon> wrote in message
news:Xu6M9.418849$NH2.30561@sccrnsc01...
> Mine's pretty darn photogenic, too : )
> I think I'm a pretty decent photographer, so I just took a photo taken
while
> we were on vacation for Thanksgiving (digital camera), cropped it, resized
> it, and printed copies out on our photo printer. I feel bad throwing away
> studio portraits, but I think a picture I printed off myself is casual
> enough that no one has to keep it if they don't want to.
>
> For the record, here's the photo I used:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ppdbt1/gabriel/112602currituck2.jpg
Cute!
Mara (no, really)
Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com> typed:
> So while there may be a lot of angst in people's lives from
various
> sources, I don't think that the world in general should be
regarded as
> insensitive because they don't tiptoe around in case there was a
> problem that they don't know about.
I certainly don't expect anyone to tiptoe around me. There are
children everywhere and there's not a darned thing I can do about
it. In just the four months since Sofia died, I have been to two
baby showers and one first birthday party. I had to go shopping at
the children's store for all three occasions. I handle it as
gracefully as possible, then go home and cry. I think it was a bit
insensitive to invite me in the first place, but I wouldn't dream of
making someone feel like a clod or an a**hole for asking me. So I
go. But that doesn't mean it's easy, and it doesn't mean I want to.
Truthfully, the two who were friends *should* have known better.
The one that was a casual acquaintance probably shouldn't have
extended an invite to someone she didn't know all that well in the
first place.
Same thing if someone gives me a picture of their child. No,
they're not *obligated* to think of me when they're doing it, but it
sure would be nice, and something I would consider courtesy.
> But just sending out a photo at Christmas
> to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to
deal
> with, not yours.
Well, really, if someone is just a "general acquaintance", why the
heck would I want a picture of their kid to begin with? I mean, you
may chitchat with the teller at the bank every week, but do you
really want pictures of her kids?
Mara
Nan
Gee, I'd think you could have people that *are* just interested in *you*.
I have people in my life that are friends with *me*.
Not my hubby, and not my children. Just *me*.
There are people that I work with that think my dd is a cutie-pie, but I
wouldn't send them a picture in a card.
I do have an area of life that is separate from my family, and I don't
define myself by my family.
I find the idea that everyone should want a picture of my kids to be
pretty self-centered.
Nan
Karen Askey
>Date: 12/18/2002 10:00 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <atrfvd$22lhv$1...@ID-88901.news.dfncis.de>
I don't believe that is at all what she's saying. She's saying (or I believe
this to be true in my realm of the world) that if I'm not close to that person
(which is what Brigitte said) that I'm probably not going to send them a
Christmas card. If I'm close to them, then they will likely get a photo
embedded into a newsletter that talks about all our lives.
I send the letter with pic to relatives and friends who rarely if ever see me
or my family. Those I see weekly or so usually don't get the picture b/c they
already know what we look like.
I know Brigitte says spousal death issues are different, and I'm sure they
are--each painful experience is different. But I didn't expect my engaged
friends not to talk about their wedding plans even though they knew I really
wanted to find a good man and get married. I still was a part of their
ceremonies in some capacity, even though I'd rather be a bride myself and I
still had no prospects in site. It was sometimes painful, but I dealt with it
as I also took delight in the fact that they were able to enjoy something I
couldn't at the moment.
I maintain that if I'm close enough to know if a couple is having IF problems,
then I'm close enough to know if they'd be upset over receiving a picture of my
child. If they have not disclosed this information, then I trust that they
know that *I* didn't know and am only wanting to share news about our lives
which happen to include a small photo embedded in a newsletter. If they choose
to throw away the letter then I'm fine with that. If they choose not to read
the letter at all once seeing a pic inside, I'm fine with that.
Wendy Marsden
> Well, really, if someone is just a "general acquaintance", why the
> heck would I want a picture of their kid to begin with? I mean, you
> may chitchat with the teller at the bank every week, but do you
> really want pictures of her kids?
Mara, I wanted to reply to an earlier post but this is as good a thread to
hang it on as any: the reason you want to see pictures of your friend's
children is so that you will recognize them as allies. For example, I ran
into a high-school kid the other day that I vaguely knew as my friend
Barbara's child. She was talking to the store clerk whose attention I
wanted. :-) I was able to get into that conversation (with my items to
ring up) by saying, "Hi! You're one of the G___ kids, aren't you?"
As these kids grow they become part of your community, part of your group
of allies, part of the "good guys". When you need to learn about
Portland, OR quick you can call your friend Jane's kid who lives
there. Okay, so that's a silly example, but the idea is the same: the
network of friends grows as you age to include friends of the family even
if it's in the second (or third) degree.
This is why I send out 130 Holiday letters at all. I've seen what happens
when you reach retirement age: suddenly the men who were friends in
college and then too busy to meet for 40 years start hanging out together
playing golf in Arizona. Making good friends is rare: it's best to keep
the ones you used to have and build on that. Even if someone is sort of
moth-balled right now, I know we'll get close again one day if I can only
sustain the contact during these busy years. So I send them my "what's
happening with us" newsletter and it has a picture of the growing family
in it. I can't find anything evil in this.
Wendy
Nan
"Karen Askey" <sup...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
news:20021219085917...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Her direct statement is, "then why communicate with them at all?" Which I
find
pretty self-centered and arrogant, actually.
> I send the letter with pic to relatives and friends who rarely if ever see
me
> or my family. Those I see weekly or so usually don't get the picture b/c
they
> already know what we look like.
I detest those generic once-a-year letters. But maybe that's just me. I'd
much
rather have communication all year as opposed to only December, when people
feel more obligated.
Fortunately, nobody in our family does those letters.
I agree that one can't be expected to try and anticipate the reactions of
every single
person one knows. I think the point was, that people should give pause to
the possibility that
your picture might cause hurt. That at least one person has replied that if
anyone is hurt it's *their*
problem, is pretty insensitive, imo.
Nan
Rosalie B.
>Rosalie B. wrote:
>> But just sending out a photo at Christmas
>> to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to deal
>> with, not yours.
>
>Nice holiday spirit with that card.
I think that you are making this into a 'my pain is greater than your
pain' competition. I don't think that is a good way for you to deal
with your pain, and I don't think it is productive for the group.
You don't have to get into great detail of why you don't think photos
of children/babies are appropriate for everyone to get -- the people
that it might make a difference to are probably already culling out
the people that might be sensitive, and the people (like Mara's
friends) that are terminally insensitive are probably not going to
change.
I like getting cards with photos from friends AND relatives - even
those I don't know well. I'd like to know the names and ages of their
kids - even if I've never seen them. For one thing it helps to keep
track genealogically of the various branches of the family.
grandma Rosalie
Nan
"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:s0n30vsnskbpr79rt...@4ax.com...
> Brigitte Ironmonger <brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote:
>
> >Rosalie B. wrote:
> >> But just sending out a photo at Christmas
> >> to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to deal
> >> with, not yours.
> >
> >Nice holiday spirit with that card.
>
> I think that you are making this into a 'my pain is greater than your
> pain' competition. I don't think that is a good way for you to deal
> with your pain, and I don't think it is productive for the group.
Wow. And I'm wondering why you couldn't possibly find your comment
insensitive.
It must be easier to twist it as you have.
I haven't experienced any type of pain related to this, and *I* found your
comment pretty cold and insensitive.
Nan
Cathy Kearns
keep on our Christmas list hoping to still be friend when
the less hectic days of retirement allow us more traveling
time. Do you send them a letter asking if they would
like a Christmas card? Do you send anyone you aren't
sure about a regular Christmas card? Then what if they
run into one of your other friends that has the photo
card displayed on their mantle? Is there an age limit?
What if our kids are elementary school aged? High
School aged? Would a picture of my husband and I
on vacation trigger the same response?
I'm truely confused on this, and don't understand where
the line is drawn. I love getting pictures, even of the
retired couples on vacation. I love getting pictures and
news of the kids I only hear about a few times a year, at
those occasional meetings I can then recognize them and
might even have a subject to talk about. This year a
family that always sends pictures of their boys didn't
send a picture. I admit, I was disappointed. I see the
pictures and letters as a sign of friendship, letting
friends see a little bit into our lives, "Here is what we
have been doing this year. Hope you are doing well
too!" If children are part of what they are doing this
year then I want to hear about it. If elderly relatives
are a big part of their day I want to hear about that
too.
I truely don't think people are trying to be insensitive.
It just isn't clear to me how to determine which people
I'm going to hurt by sharing a glimpse into my life
with them. Especially when we only catch up once
a year. Is there a sensitive way (Not the "Why
don't you have kids!" question) that we can determine
who will be hurt? And who will be hurt if we treat
them different?
Cathy
"Brigitte Ironmonger" <brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote in message
news:3E011BB5...@mom2many.com...
> JennP wrote:
> > I think that's ruder than sending them a picture of your family...
>
> Again, ask if they would like a picture not about infertility.
>
Brigitte Ironmonger
> I think that you are making this into a 'my pain is greater than your
> pain' competition. I don't think that is a good way for you to deal
> with your pain, and I don't think it is productive for the group.
No, I'm not. Reread the thread. It was a discussion regarding another
perspective. That's all. Until you.
> You don't have to get into great detail of why you don't think photos
> of children/babies are appropriate for everyone to get -- the people
> that it might make a difference to are probably already culling out
> the people that might be sensitive, and the people (like Mara's
> friends) that are terminally insensitive are probably not going to
> change.
>
> I like getting cards with photos from friends AND relatives - even
> those I don't know well. I'd like to know the names and ages of their
> kids - even if I've never seen them. For one thing it helps to keep
> track genealogically of the various branches of the family.
Good for you, that wasn't what we were discussing.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> I truely don't think people are trying to be insensitive.
I don't either.
> It just isn't clear to me how to determine which people
> I'm going to hurt by sharing a glimpse into my life
> with them. Especially when we only catch up once
> a year. Is there a sensitive way (Not the "Why
> don't you have kids!" question) that we can determine
> who will be hurt? And who will be hurt if we treat
> them different?
There are *usually* (but, I admit, not always) clues. Childless (or
only one child). Weight gain. Both working but don't have lots of
extras (money spent on IF treatments). Now, granted, if you only
communicate once a year, you won't know these things, generally. But, I
ask the question, again, Why do you think they would want a picture of
your kids? I must be really dense in this matter because I *really*
couldn't care less what the kids of an acquaintance looked like. It's
different with family and close friends.
Obviously, I look at it from a different perspective.
Cheryl S.
Mara (no, really) <domfr...@coxadoodledoo.net> wrote in message
news:AVbM9.59731$Y86....@news2.central.cox.net...
> Just because you don't care to get a picture of someone's kids
> doesn't mean you don't care about the sender. Just for an
> example: I have a dear friend with one son. I did not have a
> relationship with the son. I had a relationship with his mother.
> If she were to send me a family portrait (which she has) I would
> keep it because it's a picture with my friend in it. But why would
> she send me a picture of her son? What am I supposed to do, stick
> it in my wallet and show it off to people? Why not just send me a
> picture of her DH while she's at it? He's an important part of her
> life, too.
I think the reason people send pictures of children, and not their DH,
is because children's appearance changes dramatically from year to year,
while adult's typically doesn't. If you don't see the kids somewhat
regularly, you have no idea what they look like. Now I understand that
some people do not care what they look like. But no, you're not
supposed to stick it in your wallet and show it off to people. No one
expects anyone else to "do" anything with the picture they send, except
look at it. If you don't want to even look at it, don't. I just don't
see it as that much of an intrusion, but I will keep in mind now that
others might.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 20 months
Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.
Wendy Marsden
> So I send them my "what's
> happening with us" newsletter and it has a picture of the growing family
> in it. I can't find anything evil in this.
I just thought of an evil application for my keeping a network of
friends: I could grow up to be an old lady like Jessica Fletcher in
"Murder She Wrote" where everyone of my old friends and family has a
murder in their midst when I visit them during my retirement years. It
seems to me that most of those people ought to have caught on to the idea
of ducking her visits, if not actually severing their ties with her!
Wendy (with a weird sense of humor)
Karen Askey
>ask the question, again, Why do you think they would want a picture of
>your kids? I must be really dense in this matter because I *really*
>couldn't care less what the kids of an acquaintance looked like. It's
>different with family and close friends.
Again, if they are just an acquaintence, they ain't gettin a card from me. I
send cards to relatives and friends, not simple acquaintences. Even so, I sent
out over 70 this year. If I included acquaintences then I'd have more than 100
to send. Who wants a holiday card from an acquaintence? I don't even care for
the cards I get from my financial planner and my cleaning service, and I see
them more than once a year.
Ericka Kammerer
> I think the reason people send pictures of children, and not their DH,
> is because children's appearance changes dramatically from year to year,
> while adult's typically doesn't.
...and if the appearance *is* changing, it's probably not
for the better ;-)
Best wishes,
Ericka
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Again, if they are just an acquaintence, they ain't gettin a card from me. I
> send cards to relatives and friends, not simple acquaintences. Even so, I sent
> out over 70 this year. If I included acquaintences then I'd have more than 100
> to send. Who wants a holiday card from an acquaintence? I don't even care for
> the cards I get from my financial planner and my cleaning service, and I see
> them more than once a year.
My mistake, I must of glanced over the part of your post that you don't
send cards to acquaintances.
Wendy Marsden
Tersely put, but not out of line. Brigitte, a few months ago there was a
poster who mentioned how painful it was to see someone NIP because she had
had a miscarriage. As nice as it would be to make the world more gentle
for people in pain, it just wasn't reasonable to expect people to HIDE
their children in anticipation that someone, somewhere, might be
sheltering a painful secret causing them grief.
The grief comes from your condition, not from our insensitivity to it. It
doesn't make sense to me to blame well-meaning people for causing you pain
when the actual cause of the pain is the infertility.
That said, I was at a cookie exchange this past week-end where I know one
of the women has been battling infertility for many years. One of the
questions the hostess asked us was to discuss, in small groups, what we're
the most proud of. Okey-dokey, everyone here in this group knows what the
top answer came out as: our kids! Hands down, they beat our professional
accomplishments, etc.
But I was in the group with this friend so I answered, "my relationship
with my husband". I then encouraged people to talk about non-kid
accomplishments, which we did. But when our group reported back to the
main group about the results of our discussion, someone from another group
hijacked the conversation to how meaningful all our lives are because we
have children. I WRENCHED it back to a more general version, "more
meaningful because of our relationships with people". Arrrrgggh. I was
doing my damndest to be sensative to this woman. She caught it, but I
don't think the other women in the larger group did, and they all KNOW
this woman. Perhaps they don't know about the infertility? I dunno.
Maybe it just didn't occur to them. Or maybe they just weren't willing to
change their honest answer to a more sensative one.
My sister had some gynecological issues as a young adult and eventually
married a man 30 years older than her. She always loved and adored
children, was a "natural" around them... but has never had any of her
own. I have no way to have a dialogue with my sister about how she feels
about being child-less. She's my own SISTER but she builds walls of
privacy that I wouldn't dare breach. Maybe your family is different, I
dunno. I send her many, many pictures of my kids (who she adores and has
a significant relationship with). I just have to assume she would let me
know if she would rather I stopped mentioning the existance of these
people.
-- Wendy
Heather Husvar
>
> I find the idea that everyone should want a picture of my kids to be
> pretty self-centered.
>
> Nan
>
>
But Nan!! What do you do with those 8 gazillion useless wallets you get
with the portrait packets? ;)
(For instance, this year we had a coupon for Wal-Mart 3.88 for 1 10X13,
2 8X10, 4 5X7, 4 3X5 & 40 *FORTY* wallets)
Heather
Brigitte Ironmonger
> Tersely put, but not out of line. Brigitte, a few months ago there was a
> poster who mentioned how painful it was to see someone NIP because she had
> had a miscarriage. As nice as it would be to make the world more gentle
> for people in pain, it just wasn't reasonable to expect people to HIDE
> their children in anticipation that someone, somewhere, might be
> sheltering a painful secret causing them grief.
Where did I ever state that people should hide their children? Of
course not.
> The grief comes from your condition, not from our insensitivity to it. It
> doesn't make sense to me to blame well-meaning people for causing you pain
> when the actual cause of the pain is the infertility.
I realize this. I never said people were insensitive.
> Maybe it just didn't occur to them.
Probably.
> My sister had some gynecological issues as a young adult and eventually
> married a man 30 years older than her. She always loved and adored
> children, was a "natural" around them... but has never had any of her
> own. I have no way to have a dialogue with my sister about how she feels
> about being child-less. She's my own SISTER but she builds walls of
> privacy that I wouldn't dare breach. Maybe your family is different, I
> dunno. I send her many, many pictures of my kids (who she adores and has
> a significant relationship with). I just have to assume she would let me
> know if she would rather I stopped mentioning the existance of these
> people.
But she's family. That's not who we're discussing.
Nan
"Heather Husvar" <HAL...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HALLEN-85DE28....@clmboh1-nws3.columbus.rr.com...
I still have the 8 gazillion useless wallets from our last sitting at
Walmart. Which was such an *awful* experience, it will definitely be our
last.
Really, the only person we send pics to is my mil.
My fil and his wife have a computer, so we send them digital photos and they
print out the ones they like best.
Nan
Brigitte Ironmonger
> But Nan!! What do you do with those 8 gazillion useless wallets you get
> with the portrait packets? ;)
>
> (For instance, this year we had a coupon for Wal-Mart 3.88 for 1 10X13,
> 2 8X10, 4 5X7, 4 3X5 & 40 *FORTY* wallets)
<butting in> I think Wal-mart, Sears, etc. is precisely to blame for
the picture of kids to everyone you know, even remotely. ;-) You just
*hate* to see a picture go to waste so you try and use them up, if you
KWIM. ;-)
Every year I get 8 gazillion of those pictures with the kids having fake
smiles pasted on their faces. I would rather have a snap-shot of them
in daily life, much better IMHO.
P. Tierney
"Karen Askey" <sup...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
> When sending out holiday cards, do you include photos (real or just
pictures
> printed on regular paper) in them?
We create a card on Photoshop and print them on photopaper
at home, horizontally, making three per sheet. We send it out with
an annual holiday family letter.
P.
Tierney
Kavvy
> There are *usually* (but, I admit, not always) clues. Childless (or
> only one child). Weight gain. Both working but don't have lots of
> extras (money spent on IF treatments). Now, granted, if you only
> communicate once a year, you won't know these things, generally.
> But, I ask the question, again, Why do you think they would want a
> picture of your kids? I must be really dense in this matter because
> I *really* couldn't care less what the kids of an acquaintance looked
> like. It's different with family and close friends.
I wouldn't expect a card or picture from an aquaintance, nor would I send
one. I agree, the whole thing would be odd. I think of aquaitences as
people I know casually through work or in the community, like at the bank or
store.
I do send cards to people I never see anymore though. We exchange cards and
updates a couple times of year and that is it. I don't call these people
aquaitances though. They were at one time very close friends in every sense
of the word (hung out together, talked together, often lived together).
We've moved but still want to maintain that small connection. Do you not
have anyone that you were close to in the past but no only correspond with
through cards and the like?
--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (3) and Luke (1)
Brigitte Ironmonger
> I do send cards to people I never see anymore though. We exchange cards and
> updates a couple times of year and that is it. I don't call these people
> aquaitances though. They were at one time very close friends in every sense
> of the word (hung out together, talked together, often lived together).
> We've moved but still want to maintain that small connection. Do you not
> have anyone that you were close to in the past but no only correspond with
> through cards and the like?
Yes, these are the people I call acquaintances. You were close in the
past and knew their life but now you don't know what their life is like
in a *close* sense so they became acquaintances. I suppose it's all how
you look at things and their labels. But I'm also starting to drop a lot
of these people because it seems we're both going through the motions
and it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Heather
<brigitte....@mom2many.com> :
>Michelle S. Spina wrote:
>> They don't? It is? Wasn't a problem for me, at least, when we were
>> having troubles conceiving. Perhaps for some people, sure. But to make
>> this assumption that most people feel this way is a stretch, I think.
>> Actually, I would have been pretty peeved if I noticed people
>> purposefully *not* talking about their kids to me.
>
>A STRETCH??????
>
>Go lurk on a.i.primary for a few days. Sheesh!
But isn't it likely that the people who are seeking online support are
probably not the same as the general population of those dealing with
infertility? I would imagine those doing the news.groups thing are
probably more upset/proactive/something as a whole than the "average"
not on there infertility patient.
Honestly, I wouldn't be at all offended if someone said "you don't
need to send me pictures" or something, but if they haven't said
anything, I'm not going to go calling people each year and asking if
they want to be taken off the picture/card list. I just do them as an
assembly line thing tossing the pictures in the envelopes for the most
part.
Of course, I also send cards to all sorts of people, even those who
it's the only communication with annually, so we're not talking close
personal friends in many cases.
Heather
--
My real address is heather @ operamail dot com.
I very rarely read the one shown as a reply to/from address ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Much madness is divinest sense | Mommy to Rowan Justina (11/6/97)
To a discerning eye -Dickinson | Woman of many talents to myself.
Brigitte Ironmonger
> But isn't it likely that the people who are seeking online support are
> probably not the same as the general population of those dealing with
> infertility? I would imagine those doing the news.groups thing are
> probably more upset/proactive/something as a whole than the "average"
> not on there infertility patient.
Why would you assume that?
Why the need then for physical support groups dealing with IF that list
at RE offices?
> Honestly, I wouldn't be at all offended if someone said "you don't
> need to send me pictures" or something, but if they haven't said
> anything, I'm not going to go calling people each year and asking if
> they want to be taken off the picture/card list. I just do them as an
> assembly line thing tossing the pictures in the envelopes for the most
> part.
Again, I ask the question, why do you think these people would like a
picture of your kids? Especially when it has become an "assembly line
thing"? There is no meaning behind it, or so it comes across to me.
> Of course, I also send cards to all sorts of people, even those who
> it's the only communication with annually, so we're not talking close
> personal friends in many cases.
These are the people to whom I am referring.
Heather
<brigitte....@mom2many.com> :
>Let me offer this scenario: If you, after having this discussion, have
>friends who are either childless or only have one child,
What of families with two children who wanted three? What if I have a
daughter and my friend just had a little boy after I *knew* she really
wanted a girl? What if my friend's husband died, should I not include
my husband in the family picture?
Is it just the *picture* or the child in general? My daughter writes
her name on all our cards now - she enjoys it and it's more personal
to me than when someone signs the name of everyone in the family for
them. But should I not do that for someone who may be - but isn't to
my knowledge - struggling to conceive? Should we just sign "The W's"
to avoid the pain of pointing out we're a 3-part union?
If I know someone is having a difficult time, of course I'm not going
to rub it in their faces. But if I have no clue (it would seem
awfully presumptuous to ME - as a parent of an only by choice - for
someone to assume I *couldn't* have more children because I was
choosing not to or was upset about that or didn't want to hear about
their kids!).. if I have no clue about it, I think the burden rests on
the offended party to say something.
>still send a
>picture of your child in a card, knowing now they might be struggling
>with IF, would that be a "gesture of friendship" or would that be the
>opposite?
I still see it as a gesture of friendship, "knowing they might be."
If I knew they were, or if they told me they didn't want pictures
(I've seen people say this, though not "I can't conceive, don't send
me pictures!" but "I get so many little pictures and don't know what
to do with them, I'd rather just wait until I see you in person"),
then sure, it would be cruel. But just on the off chance someone
MIGHT be having a problem they haven't seen fit to let me know about?
I wear perfume some days. I know a friend who's pretty
smell-sensitive, and as such go out of my way to NOT wear them around
her. But if I didn't know this, and wore perfume without thinking it
would do any harm, am I being rude for not going through every
possible "what-if" beforehand?
>I don't think you're insensitive but I think you're right: you can't
>really understand unless it happens to you.
Well. I understand AND am insensitive, I guess. I *did* go through
problems trying to conceive after my daughter was born - two years of
them. (It was not for myself, I was a surrogate.) It was actually an
odd place to be, since the infertility camp wanted nothing to do with
me (even secondary infertility) since it wasn't my child. The
surrogacy world was supportive, but hearing "I just know it will work
for you next month" is as patronizing when it's not your child as when
it is. Honestly, I think it was harder for me personally because it
WASN'T my child, because I felt additional pressure since it wasn't
just myself and husband whose dreams were on the line (I'm not saying
that's typical, or in any way minimizing the pain of someone who can't
conceive for themselves, just knowing myself pretty well, the added
guilt of letting down a totally independent third party made it worse
for ME).
Anyhow. There were times it stung when someone got pregnant, or had a
baby, or when certain surrogates were on their 3rd surrogacy in the
time I'd known them and I was still not pregnant. There were times I
momentarily found myself wishing certain people wouldn't get pregnant
because they took it for granted or complained the whole way through.
But that's about ME, not them. Yes, it stung sometimes, but not so
much that I couldn't also feel joy for others (not at the same time,
but in general). I never felt like anyone should hide their joy from
me because of it.
A good friend did get pregnant while I was in the midst of everything,
she told me on a day I found out another cycle hadn't worked, and kept
apologizing profusely, even though I wasn't at all upset (she told me
the news, then later in the conversation asked how the surrogacy stuff
was going - she hadn't known at the outset).
There's sensitivity, then there's walking on eggshells over things.
If someone lets me know something I do upsets them and I continue
doing it, that's just rude. If I've no idea I'm upsetting them
personally (I am not going to go around assuming anyone who "only has
one child" or doesn't have kids yet is therefore likely struggling to
conceive, at least not in my circle of friends), I'd feel BAD about it
once I found out, of course, but I wouldn't feel guilty that I
should've just somehow known beforehand.
So. The point to that whole ramble was mainly that people react
differently to things, and if they don't let someone else know that
something's hurting them but let it keep happening, they bear at least
a good portion of the blame for being hurt. (Learned that lesson the
hard way with my husband... he's just NOT a mind reader when I want
him to be!)
Sara
> Brigitte Ironmonger wrote:
> >
> > > Serious question: is it just the pictures that are a problem for people
> > > with infertility, or any description of the kids' activities at all?
> >
> > Unless the person in question asked for the information, I wouldn't.
> > They generally don't want to hear about kids *at all*. It's very painful.
>
> They don't? It is? Wasn't a problem for me, at least, when we were
> having troubles conceiving. Perhaps for some people, sure. But to make
> this assumption that most people feel this way is a stretch, I think.
I wonder who it _would_ be safe to send photos to without worrying
about upsetting them. There are reasons other than biological ones why
someone might be unable to have children. What about people who may be
fertile, but don't have anyone to have a baby with? People who would
like to have a baby, but are having marital or financial problems?
This could be just as painful as infertility, I imagine -- it's still
wanting to have a baby, and not being able to.
--
Sara, accompanied by the little barnacle
<< I check this e-mail account infrequently >>
Wendy Marsden
> Honestly, I wouldn't be at all offended if someone said "you don't
> need to send me pictures" or something, but if they haven't said
> anything, I'm not going to go calling people each year and asking if
> they want to be taken off the picture/card list.
I would be offended if someone said, "please don't send me any more
pictures of your children". I would take it to mean, "You and your family
disgust me, get away." I would then go away, as asked. But I might bitch
about them to other people we know in common. :-)
The only way to say such a thing without being offensive would be to get
into a personal and private story about the intimate pain they feel from
their infertility and how they're trying to deal with it by trying really
hard not to notice that other people aren't happily raising kids.
I can't imagine having that conversation with anyone. Not my sister, not
my infertile friend. As for my infertile friend, I know she quit a
stressful job and made a significant lifestyle change in order to increase
her chances of conceiving. I do NOT know if the sight of my kids brings
her pain. She's never suggested it. I not only wouldn't dare to ask, I
can't quite believe you'd suggest that I ask.
Wendy
Heather
<brigitte....@mom2many.com> :
>Heather wrote:
>> But isn't it likely that the people who are seeking online support are
>> probably not the same as the general population of those dealing with
>> infertility? I would imagine those doing the news.groups thing are
>> probably more upset/proactive/something as a whole than the "average"
>> not on there infertility patient.
>
>Why would you assume that?
>
>Why the need then for physical support groups dealing with IF that list
>at RE offices?
I don't hold it exclusively to online support - those patients who
attend the support groups in person are probably in a different place
emotionally than those who do not. Just an observation based on much
experience that those who are well informed about things (it was NOT
intended as a slight to those who are involved in online - or offline!
- support in any way!) and actively seek information and companionship
about them are different, IN GENERAL AS A WHOLE, than those who do
not.
Just because one select group of people who are dealing with the same
condition feel the same way doesn't mean there's not potentially a
whole majority of people who are NOT part of the group who feel
entirely differently? Catholic women who go to pro-life rallies
probably in great part believe women who have abortions, or at least
doctors who perform them, are doing something totally evil and will be
condemned to hell if they don't repent. That doesn't mean that ALL
Catholic women believe the same (I've no idea what the majority is,
goodness knows the last thing one's heard about Catholocism in
Massachusetts lately is their stance on abortion!).
>
>> Honestly, I wouldn't be at all offended if someone said "you don't
>> need to send me pictures" or something, but if they haven't said
>> anything, I'm not going to go calling people each year and asking if
>> they want to be taken off the picture/card list. I just do them as an
>> assembly line thing tossing the pictures in the envelopes for the most
>> part.
>
>Again, I ask the question, why do you think these people would like a
>picture of your kids? Especially when it has become an "assembly line
>thing"? There is no meaning behind it, or so it comes across to me.
I meant the actual putting-together of the cards. Assembly line in
that first there's a pile of cards I write the names of the recipients
in and a personal greeting (and sign my name). Then I rebuild the
pile and hand them over to my daughter to write her name. Then
rebuild the pile and hand them to my husband to do the same (and to
write the personal greetings for his family/friends). Then I address
all the envelopes and insert the cards, build another pile. Then I go
through and stick the photos in without paying much attention to whose
name is on the envelope. Later I sort the envelopes by destination,
stamp them, etc. - all in steps. That's what I meant by assembly
line, not that there's no heartfelt sentiment behind it.
>> Of course, I also send cards to all sorts of people, even those who
>> it's the only communication with annually, so we're not talking close
>> personal friends in many cases.
>
>These are the people to whom I am referring.
Okay, the "why" send them pictures? Because I'm curious about them
and presumably vice versa (if someone doesn't respond and I never talk
to them at all throughout the year, then I don't continue sending
cards assuming they weren't interested). I enjoy reading about
vacations friends have taken (even though it's sometimes painful I
can't afford the same luxuries). I enjoy seeing pictures of them,
their families, their pets, whatever is closest to them that they want
to share. Even if I don't talk to them regularly, a few lines of an
update on the major events of their lives is nice. I guess it comes
down to treating people as we like being treated. I *love* pictures,
so I send them. I like hand-signed and at least a handwritten "best
wishes" rather than the woman of the family writing everyone's name on
the bottom, no date, no greeting, so that's how I send mine.
Rosalie B.
>
>"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:s0n30vsnskbpr79rt...@4ax.com...
>> Brigitte Ironmonger <brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Rosalie B. wrote:
>> >> But just sending out a photo at Christmas
>> >> to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to deal
>> >> with, not yours.
>> >
>> >Nice holiday spirit with that card.
>>
>> I think that you are making this into a 'my pain is greater than your
>> pain' competition. I don't think that is a good way for you to deal
>> with your pain, and I don't think it is productive for the group.
>
>Wow. And I'm wondering why you couldn't possibly find your comment
>insensitive.
I knew it was "insensitive". I expected to get flack.
I just got really tired of Brigitte saying that her problem was worse
than anyone else's problems and I felt that she was implying that no
one should send photos to anyone that might be having a hard time
dealing with it and that sending photos was an insensitive terrible
thing to do.
I still think that this is another one-up-manship (or in this case
one-up-womanship) thing.
Others on both sides of the argument have said (although not so
bluntly) that one shouldn't have to overthink sending photos to people
who might be having an IF problem (or have lost a spouse or any other
really painful problem) and IMHO it would not be expected or even a
good idea either to ask or to assume that the bereft person would NOT
want the photos.
>It must be easier to twist it as you have.
>I haven't experienced any type of pain related to this, and *I* found your
>comment pretty cold and insensitive.
I have painful areas in my life, but I deal with them privately, and
don't feel the need to parade them around in a contest of who has the
most pain. It's true that I was not IF, and my dh is still living,
but I offer support and sympathy to those people that I know
personally who are IF or have lost spouses (and I have a lot of
experience with the lost spouses thing - one of my husband's friends
was the commander of Challenger and there were a lot of others over
the years).
grandma Rosalie
Rosalie B.
>I'm a bit foggy on how one asks the far flung folks we
>keep on our Christmas list hoping to still be friend when
>the less hectic days of retirement allow us more traveling
>time. Do you send them a letter asking if they would
>like a Christmas card? Do you send anyone you aren't
>sure about a regular Christmas card? Then what if they
With us, if they sent us a card, we sent them one. I used to keep
track in my address book of what cards I received and sent each year
to each person. (And at the same time I checked the address, and for
names of new children etc.) And if they didn't send me a card the
previous year, they usually didn't get one this year from me.
When we missed sending stuff out at Christmas, we often got cards
asking where our newsletter was. That was an indication that they
wanted to get it.
I didn't give cards of any kind to folks I know from work even though
a lot of them give me one. I just don't see the point if I can HAND
the card to them.
And I don't send cards at all now. I get those wallet sized photos of
my grandchildren from my DIL, and I've got my kids all trained now
(and even my sister to a certain extent) to send me photos all through
the year so that I can do the calendar - which is kind of what I do
now instead of Christmas cards.
I did send cards to the godparents of the children, and to distant
relatives.
grandma Rosalie
Nan
> "Nan" <cherry...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:s0n30vsnskbpr79rt...@4ax.com...
> >> Brigitte Ironmonger <brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Rosalie B. wrote:
> >> >> But just sending out a photo at Christmas
> >> >> to general acquaintances - that's life - it's their problem to deal
> >> >> with, not yours.
> >> >
> >> >Nice holiday spirit with that card.
> >>
> >> I think that you are making this into a 'my pain is greater than your
> >> pain' competition. I don't think that is a good way for you to deal
> >> with your pain, and I don't think it is productive for the group.
> >
> >Wow. And I'm wondering why you couldn't possibly find your comment
> >insensitive.
>
> I knew it was "insensitive". I expected to get flack.
>
> I just got really tired of Brigitte saying that her problem was worse
> than anyone else's problems and I felt that she was implying that no
> one should send photos to anyone that might be having a hard time
> dealing with it and that sending photos was an insensitive terrible
> thing to do.
I didn't read that in her posts, at all. She brought it up as another
perspective to the
tossing a picture in every card one feels compelled to send out. Nothing
more, nothing
less, imo.
Honestly, *IF* I was the type to send mail like that, I don't know that I
would have thought
of her perspective.
Nan
Brigitte Ironmonger
> I knew it was "insensitive". I expected to get flack.
>
> I just got really tired of Brigitte saying that her problem was worse
> than anyone else's problems and I felt that she was implying that no
> one should send photos to anyone that might be having a hard time
> dealing with it and that sending photos was an insensitive terrible
> thing to do.
I really wanted to end this but I have to respond to this post.
EXACTLY *WHERE* DID I SAY MY PROBLEM WAS WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S?
Quote me. I want to know. I *NEVER* said anything *REMOTELY* like that.
> I have painful areas in my life, but I deal with them privately, and
> don't feel the need to parade them around in a contest of who has the
> most pain. It's true that I was not IF, and my dh is still living,
> but I offer support and sympathy to those people that I know
> personally who are IF or have lost spouses (and I have a lot of
> experience with the lost spouses thing - one of my husband's friends
> was the commander of Challenger and there were a lot of others over
> the years).
What *contest*? You *obviously* have not understood this thread *at
all*. Maybe you should *read* the posts *and* understand them
thoroughly before you reply to one.
Michelle S. Spina
wrote:
>
>"Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:neh20vkqjmnjsp570...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:00:50 -0500, "Nan" <cherry...@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:l5e20v85mii1c64ss...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:02:52 -0800, Brigitte Ironmonger
>> >> <brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >Why is it necessary to send a picture?
>> >> >Obviously, I just don't get it. I don't understand why someone I'm
>not
>> >> >close to would think I would want to have pictures of their kids.
>> >>
>> >> Then why communicate with them at all? Children are usually an
>> >> important part of people's lives - if you are sending a quick "hi," a
>> >> pic of the kids seems like the *most* important thing to send! If you
>> >> don't care to see that, then I'd think that you really don't give a
>> >> whip about the sender at all, and they should save the 37 cents and
>> >> cross you off their Xmas list.
>> >
>> >So, you're saying that people that wouldn't want a picture of your
>> >kids isn't worth communicating to??
>> >
>> >Nan
>> >
>>
>> If someone is annoyed by the inclusion of a picture of my kids, then
>> they clearly aren't really interested in knowing what's going on in my
>> life. It seems silly to continue any sort of communication, doesn't
>> it? Why would they want to hear from me, if they don't care about the
>> kids?
>>
>> Or, perhaps I have a VERY different Xmas list than you. Granted, if I
>> were sending a card to my dentist, I wouldn't include a picture. But I
>> don't send cards to my dentist... I only send cards to people who are
>> at least somewhat interested in my life, and would therefore be at
>> least somewhat interested in a pic of my kids.
>
>Gee, I'd think you could have people that *are* just interested in *you*.
>I have people in my life that are friends with *me*.
>Not my hubby, and not my children. Just *me*.
>There are people that I work with that think my dd is a cutie-pie, but I
>wouldn't send them a picture in a card.
I don't send cards to everyone I work with - just those who I consider
close friends, and they DO want a picture, because, well, they are
close friends with my family.
Again, I must have a different Xmas card list than you. We limit (if
you can say limit - we still send just under 80 cards) to close
friends and family. These people DO want pics of the kids. If I sent a
card to our paper boy, then yes, I'd feel it was silly to include a
picture.
>
>I do have an area of life that is separate from my family, and I don't
>define myself by my family.
Sigh. Neither do I - I'm not a pathetic woman who has no other
interests other than her kids. But, at the holiday season, which, at
least for us, typically involves reconnecting with family and friends,
when our family sends out our family card, if I can only convey *one*
aspect of our lives (we don't do those family newsletter things -
sorry Wendy, but *gag*), a picture of the kids sums it up pretty well.
Maybe the difference is that now, we always get those picture Xmas
cards. If I just got regular cards, I don't know if I'd put in a
picture in every one - somehow, I see that as being a bit different -
more formal or something.
Also, my kids are very young (3 years, and 2 months), so, pretty much,
this past year HAS mostly been about the kids (I've either been
pregnant or tending to a newborn for the last year!). Maybe when they
are older I'll feel less consumed by them, I don't know.
>
>I find the idea that everyone should want a picture of my kids to be
>pretty self-centered.
Well, the idea that everyone should want a card at all is inherently
self-centered, so I don't really see the difference.
m.
James 12/17/99
Lauren 10/18/02
Michelle S. Spina
:-) At least I win a point here. We ALWAYS use snap-shots that I take. I usually don't like the "formal" portraits either.
Rosalie B.
>Rosalie B. wrote:
>> I knew it was "insensitive". I expected to get flack.
>>
>> I just got really tired of Brigitte saying that her problem was worse
>> than anyone else's problems and I felt that she was implying that no
>> one should send photos to anyone that might be having a hard time
>> dealing with it and that sending photos was an insensitive terrible
>> thing to do.
>
>I really wanted to end this but I have to respond to this post.
>
>EXACTLY *WHERE* DID I SAY MY PROBLEM WAS WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S?
>Quote me. I want to know. I *NEVER* said anything *REMOTELY* like that.
Someone (I don't remember who because I didn't keep it - at that time
I wasn't following this thread very closely) made reference to the
fact that she'd had a struggle to get pregnant and had taken hormones
or something, and I felt that you disrespected her problems by telling
her that she was lucky that she could have a baby even if she had to
take hormones to get there. And then you said something similar to
someone who lost her husband.
grandma Rosalie
city girl
"Sara" <que_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:que_sara_sara-763...@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
> I wonder who it _would_ be safe to send photos to without worrying
> about upsetting them. There are reasons other than biological ones why
> someone might be unable to have children. What about people who may be
> fertile, but don't have anyone to have a baby with? People who would
> like to have a baby, but are having marital or financial problems?
> This could be just as painful as infertility, I imagine -- it's still
> wanting to have a baby, and not being able to.
These are my thoughts, too. I have several friends in their late 30's who
desperately want to have a partner and a family and have neither. I would
suppose those people might not want to see picture of my child either, but
yet they like to see her, play with her etc.
By the way, it's also not true that all infertile people want to stay away
from kids as much as possible. I have friends and distant family members who
could not have children. Some chose to adopt, some chose to dote on their
nieces/nephews, some remained childless and volunteered with kids. I would
hope I'd have been able to do that if I could not have children of my own,
rather than being shielded from kids as much as possible. I feel really bad
for my friend who can't have biological child, but I am hoping her adoption
will go through and she'll be a wonderful mom to a baby who really needs
one.
Alena
Michelle S. Spina
wrote:
>
>"Karen Askey" <sup...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message
>news:20021219085917...@mb-fc.aol.com...
>> >From: "Nan" cherry...@usa.net
>> >Date: 12/18/2002 10:00 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <atrfvd$22lhv$1...@ID-88901.news.dfncis.de>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:l5e20v85mii1c64ss...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:02:52 -0800, Brigitte Ironmonger
>> >> <brigitte....@mom2many.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >Why is it necessary to send a picture?
>> >> >Obviously, I just don't get it. I don't understand why someone I'm
>not
>> >> >close to would think I would want to have pictures of their kids.
>> >>
>> >> Then why communicate with them at all? Children are usually an
>> >> important part of people's lives - if you are sending a quick "hi," a
>> >> pic of the kids seems like the *most* important thing to send! If you
>> >> don't care to see that, then I'd think that you really don't give a
>> >> whip about the sender at all, and they should save the 37 cents and
>> >> cross you off their Xmas list.
>> >
>> >So, you're saying that people that wouldn't want a picture of your
>> >kids isn't worth communicating to??
>> >
>> >Nan
>>
>> I don't believe that is at all what she's saying. She's saying (or I
>believe
>> this to be true in my realm of the world) that if I'm not close to that
>person
>> (which is what Brigitte said) that I'm probably not going to send them a
>> Christmas card. If I'm close to them, then they will likely get a photo
>> embedded into a newsletter that talks about all our lives.
>
>Her direct statement is, "then why communicate with them at all?" Which I
>find
>pretty self-centered and arrogant, actually.
Aaaaaaahhhhh! Now I understand the problem - you misunderstood me. I
meant that statement for people who you *only* communicate with at
Xmas - the Xmas card is generally the only contact you have with this
person/family. If, in this single communication, they don't want to
see your family, then I can't imagine that they really want the card
in the first place.
Although, I still can't fathom anyone on my Xmas card list that
actively *wouldn't* want a pic. Perhaps they wouldn't miss it if it
weren't there, but if they really didn't want one, then I sort of
still stand by my original statement - that seems weird and
anti-social to me.
>
>> I send the letter with pic to relatives and friends who rarely if ever see
>me
>> or my family. Those I see weekly or so usually don't get the picture b/c
>they
>> already know what we look like.
>
>I detest those generic once-a-year letters. But maybe that's just me. I'd
>much
>rather have communication all year as opposed to only December, when people
>feel more obligated.
>Fortunately, nobody in our family does those letters.
Those letters make me barf as well. We don't get many, thankfully.
Nan
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:57:44 -0500, "Nan" <cherry...@usa.net>
> wrote:
> >Her direct statement is, "then why communicate with them at all?" Which
I
> >find
> >pretty self-centered and arrogant, actually.
>
>
> Aaaaaaahhhhh! Now I understand the problem - you misunderstood me. I
> meant that statement for people who you *only* communicate with at
> Xmas - the Xmas card is generally the only contact you have with this
> person/family. If, in this single communication, they don't want to
> see your family, then I can't imagine that they really want the card
> in the first place.
Thanks for the clarification :-)
We don't send out cards for our own reasons, but if we did, I doubt
I'd bother trying to keep in touch with anyone that wasn't interested in
communication
throughout the year.
I realize that goes both ways, though.
> Although, I still can't fathom anyone on my Xmas card list that
> actively *wouldn't* want a pic. Perhaps they wouldn't miss it if it
> weren't there, but if they really didn't want one, then I sort of
> still stand by my original statement - that seems weird and
> anti-social to me.
I understand.
> >I detest those generic once-a-year letters. But maybe that's just me.
I'd
> >much
> >rather have communication all year as opposed to only December, when
people
> >feel more obligated.
> >Fortunately, nobody in our family does those letters.
>
> Those letters make me barf as well. We don't get many, thankfully.
I don't think I'd comment to a sender of one, but really.... who wants to
hear
a synopsis of anyone's year, if they can't communicate during the year?
I'll never understand that.
Nan
Brigitte Ironmonger
"Michelle S. Spina wrote:
Moderately, in that I required fertility drugs, and it took a number of
months before getting pg (after many months of trying drug-free). That
resulted in a m/c, before James was finally conceived. No, it wasn't a
multi-year endeavor, which may perhaps change one's personality in a
drastic way... I don't know."
<Then I wrote>
No disrespect, Michelle, but *I do* know. You were very lucky to have
James after a few months of trying (even with drugs). I'm sorry about
the m/c (truly). I can't begin to know *that* pain. I've been lucky in
that respect.
But after many years of trying, finally resorting to IVF to conceive, it
does change your personality and outlook."
Re-read it again. It was regarding "multi-year endeavours" and
"changing personalities". She said "I don't know" and I said "I do
know". And, yes, I think she *was* lucky. What's wrong with that. Do
you want me to say that I wish she had to go through the long route that
other people have had to? I wouldn't wish that on anyone one. I'm truly
happy that she didn't.
Then, responding to Iphigenia, I said:
"I'm sorry about your husband. That is a pain I hope I never have to
experience. I read about the lovely quilt that was sent.
I am not trying to diminish the pain you feel but IF pain is different.
I don't know how to word that sentiment without causing you more pain.
I'm sorry. :-( "
How is that disrespect? All I said was that the pain was different. I
never equated the pain, or claimed it was worse. As *you* said I did.
BTW, I'm *still* waiting for *that* proof.
Brigitte Ironmonger
>
> I knew it was "insensitive". I expected to get flack.
>
The WWW gives this as a definition:
troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies";
which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling";, a style of fishing in
which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The
well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and
flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do,
while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in
fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be
in on it.
The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining
comments given above:
In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a
bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a
newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The
content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may
consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a
deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad
request for trivial follow-up postings. There are three reasons why
people troll newsgroups:
>>>>>>People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt
newsgroups, and simply to make trouble. <<<<<<<
Penny Gaines
[snip]
> With us, if they sent us a card, we sent them one. I used to keep
> track in my address book of what cards I received and sent each year
> to each person. (And at the same time I checked the address, and for
> names of new children etc.) And if they didn't send me a card the
> previous year, they usually didn't get one this year from me.
[snip]
If I don't get a card for one year, I assume that they are having
a difficult year. I'll ususally send out a card the next year, and
I might make a point of including my address.
If I don't get a card two years running, then I'll probably assume they
have dropped me.
--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three
Michelle S. Spina
wrote:
>
>"Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:hoe60vkb1p54ilq86...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:57:44 -0500, "Nan" <cherry...@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Her direct statement is, "then why communicate with them at all?" Which
>I
>> >find
>> >pretty self-centered and arrogant, actually.
>>
>>
>> Aaaaaaahhhhh! Now I understand the problem - you misunderstood me. I
>> meant that statement for people who you *only* communicate with at
>> Xmas - the Xmas card is generally the only contact you have with this
>> person/family. If, in this single communication, they don't want to
>> see your family, then I can't imagine that they really want the card
>> in the first place.
>
>Thanks for the clarification :-)
>We don't send out cards for our own reasons, but if we did, I doubt
>I'd bother trying to keep in touch with anyone that wasn't interested in
>communication
>throughout the year.
>I realize that goes both ways, though.
We do have a few of these - my great aunt and uncle for example. I
like sending them a card, and I know that they are interested in
seeing a pic of the kids, but we only see each other at weddings and
funerals, so, not very often. And although I adore them and wish that
I would send a periodic letter, life gets in the way and it doesn't
happen. But we do keep in touch via my mother, who does talk to them
fairly often. Most of our once a year types are a similar story. I
would feel weird dumping them from our list.
Rosalie B.
>
>"Michelle S. Spina" <sp...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:hoe60vkb1p54ilq86...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:57:44 -0500, "Nan" <cherry...@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>> >I detest those generic once-a-year letters. But maybe that's just me.
>I'd
>> >much
>> >rather have communication all year as opposed to only December, when
>people
>> >feel more obligated.
>> >Fortunately, nobody in our family does those letters.
>>
>> Those letters make me barf as well. We don't get many, thankfully.
>
>I don't think I'd comment to a sender of one, but really.... who wants to
>hear
>a synopsis of anyone's year, if they can't communicate during the year?
>I'll never understand that.
There are newsletter people and there are newsletter hating people.
I'd much rather get a newsletter (with or without pictures) than a
card with just a signature (I hate cards with just a signature), or
even a card with a bunch of signatures. I really kind of like the
newsletters. If nothing else you can make fun of them. Of course a
card with a handwritten message like I get from my college roommate
(who is very organized) would be best, but not everyone will do that.
One problem with them though is that sometimes sending good news
sounds like boasting (and sometimes IS boasting) and people don't like
that. And bad news is really hard to put in there. But if you don't
put the bad news in (death, divorce, illness), then sometimes people
ask and are embarrassed that they haven't known.
And other problem is that people get too detailed - the what I did
every spare moment this year type thing. My mom always insisted that
we take no more than 2/3rds of a page including photos and
explanations of who the kids were and their ages and grade in school.
So it was something like:
"Sorry our greetings are late this year. In Sept., DH was transferred
to Test Pilot School at NAS Pax River. After my dad died unexpectedly
in October my mom came to visit us in RI. Then at Christmas we moved
to Maryland where we bought an old house that we are renovating. Our
new address is xxx. DD#1 is playing piano and clarinet and is in 7th
grade, dd#2 is on the swim team and in 5th grade, dd#3 is in
kindergarten and ds is .... Mom is still living at the same address
in xxx."
This is not an actual newsletter BTW.
And mom always made us revise and rewrite - my dad's idea was that
everything should be revised 7 times. We really tried to make them
interesting. - the kind of thing that I would write if my handwriting
wasn't so bad and if it didn't give me writer's cramp.
grandma Rosalie