Guess I am too old school.

Oldschooltuba · Post by **Oldschooltuba** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:45 am

Just lost a high school tuba student because her parents don't want her playing while pregnant.

A first for me.

paulver · Post by **paulver** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:21 am

Unless there is some underlying medical issue involved that would cause playing an instrument to be detrimental to either the baby or the mother..... I think that's a crock!!

Throughout my years of teaching, I've had students who were "extremely pregnant" not only playing (brass) instruments, but marching around football fields for halftime shows and city streets for parades!! My preference was not to have them participate, but that was from my own "liability" standpoint. However, their parents insisted that they participate....... so the school allowed them.

Heck, at one school there were so many pregnancies in the band program that I thought I was gonna be required to take 'Lamaze" classes with the girls......especially in the band front. It was like there was something in the drinking water in that town!!! Unbelievable!!!!

The parents call the shots!!

timothy42b · Post by **timothy42b** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:05 am

I played a gig with a horn player who delivered about an hour after we finished.

It didn't seem to hurt her playing though.

roweenie · Post by **roweenie** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:15 am

High school? Please tell me she's at least a senior.

Oldschooltuba · Post by **Oldschooltuba** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:43 am

yes...but this happened last spring apparently

tbonesullivan · Post by **tbonesullivan** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:27 am

Can't really argue with the parents. Of course you may only hear part of the story, and this could also be a punishment from them. They just don't want word getting out that they punished her in that way.

Physiologically, there shouldn't be any reason why they can't play. Their air capacity may not be at their best, for obvious reasons.

Worth · Post by **Worth** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:40 am

Maybe she met the Dad through band and this is a way for the parents to separate Romeo and Juliet

Big Toot · Post by **Big Toot** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:53 am

bloke wrote:Actually, our current social norms are "new school".

My wife's direct ancestor and founder of Memphis, (Rev. War general) James Winchester was common-law married at age 40 to Susan Black at age 15. (He ended up in north-central Tennessee, due to land being given to him for a home - in exchange for his service.)
By the age you mention in your post, she had birthed two children.

The more striking change in societal mores is (not birthing ages of mothers, but) the epic percentages of births to bastard children. As most students of unadulterated history understand, this phenomenon began to appear after 1965, due to certain deliberate and top-down administrated reasons - reasons which are not discussed on TubeNet.

Well, there were bastard children galore before 1965. It's just that they tended to be hidden away or relegated to a subject not spoken of. Royalty, especially, in all phases of European history birthed bastards in staggering numbers.

Donn · Post by **Donn** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:13 am

One of the potential problems with playing while pregnant, is that in the later period of development, they hear stuff and there's reportedly some degree of musical influence. The result could be an unnatural attraction to the tuba, which is the last thing we need more of.

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:23 am

bloke wrote:Actually, our current social norms are "new school".

My wife's direct ancestor and founder of Memphis, (Rev. War general) James Winchester was common-law married at age 40 to Susan Black at age 15. (He ended up in north-central Tennessee, due to land being given to him for a home - in exchange for his service.)
By the age you mention in your post, she had birthed two children.

The more striking change in societal mores is (not birthing ages of mothers, but) the epic percentages of births to bastard children. As most students of unadulterated history understand, this phenomenon began to appear after 1965, due to certain deliberate and top-down administrated reasons - reasons which are not discussed on TubeNet.

History lesson: One of the main reasons for the doctrine of "common-law marriage" had all to do with the child born of the union, so the child could inherit, which in a prior age a person born "out-of-wedlock" could not do. Fortunately, most if not all states have updated their statutes to allow children not only inheritance rights, but child support rights and other legal benefits deprived in a prior age. And to avoid getting chopped, that is all I am going to say about the matter:
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... ontext=ylj" target="_blank

Big Toot · Post by **Big Toot** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:27 am

iiipopes wrote:
bloke wrote:Actually, our current social norms are "new school".

My wife's direct ancestor and founder of Memphis, (Rev. War general) James Winchester was common-law married at age 40 to Susan Black at age 15. (He ended up in north-central Tennessee, due to land being given to him for a home - in exchange for his service.)
By the age you mention in your post, she had birthed two children.

The more striking change in societal mores is (not birthing ages of mothers, but) the epic percentages of births to bastard children. As most students of unadulterated history understand, this phenomenon began to appear after 1965, due to certain deliberate and top-down administrated reasons - reasons which are not discussed on TubeNet.
History lesson: the doctrine of "common-law" marriage had nothing to do with the marriage, either the man or the woman, and had nothing to do with marital financial benefits or obligations or estate planning. It had all to do with the child born of the union, so the child could inherit, which in a prior age a person born "out-of-wedlock" could not do. Fortunately, most if not all states have updated their statutes to allow children not only inheritance rights, but child support rights and other legal benefits deprived in a prior age. And to avoid getting chopped, that is all I am going to say about the matter.

There's very little "history" in the quote you cited.

We'll go with bloke's "definition" for the sake of argument, though. There are many factors, including changes to how society regards illegitimate births, better nutrition, changing definitions of "marriage", popularity of "shotgun weddings", etc.

Three Valves · Post by **Three Valves** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:34 pm

bloke wrote:
Big Toot wrote:Well, there were bastard children galore before 1965. It's just that they tended to be hidden away or relegated to a subject not spoken of. Royalty, especially, in all phases of European history birthed bastards in staggering numbers.
Today in the USA, 40% of all births are to unwed mothers. That's my definition of "epic" and "staggering".

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarr ... earing.htm

When the unwed wind up with nary a pot to pee in, it’s Capitalism that’s broken.

TubeNet

Guess I am too old school.

Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.

Re: Guess I am too old school.