AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > October > 16 > Entry
Are traditional families necessary to raise healthy children?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
For years, groups of every ideology have studied what family structure is best for raising healthy children. Nearly all have concluded, sometimes reluctantly, that it isn’t even a debate: it’s a married, mother-father family. Kids need a mom and a dad. Now, “best” is not the same as “necessary,” and other families produce great kids. But there is an ideal, and it is clear.
We’ve all heard the discomforting facts. Even after controlling for variables like poverty, kids outside mother-father families are twice as likely to end up abused, poor, sick, on drugs, in jail, and with poor reading and math skills. By contrast, children who live with a married mother and father (or, sometimes, stepparents) are more likely to excel in school, have good self-esteem, seek healthy friendships, and avoid self-destructive behaviors. Those contrasts are devastating in an era when one-third of all babies (and two-thirds of all African-American babies) are born to single moms. Those contrasts should also raise great caution about choosing to deny kids either a mother or a father via even the most loving same-sex parenting.
The evidence about how broken families affect children is so incontrovertible that the government created an initiative to encourage marriage — and some academics are seeing how it could make a difference. Wade Horn, the assistant secretary of health and human services who runs the initiative, defended it to me this way. “The government spends a huge amount of money to pick up the pieces after a marriage has failed, or when a child is born out of wedlock, or in dealing with all the problems that come from broken families. It makes more sense to spend a little money to try to prevent those things from happening in the first place.”
The Future of Children, a fall 2005 publication by Princeton and the Brookings Institution — hardly bastions of conservative thought — concluded the same thing: “Although marriage has undergone profound changes in the past 40 years, it continues to be the most effective family structure in which to raise children. Low-income children and society stand to reap large gains if marriage can be restored as the norm.”
Rebuttal
No one argues against the conventional wisdom of the two-parent heterosexual couple as the ideal childhood setting. But to our misfortune, this so-called “truth” is based on conservative spin, backed up by dubious research.
Luckily, bad science is easily sniffed out.
Dr. Louise Silverstein, a Yeshiva University professor psychology, explained to me that studies hailed by the conservative camp usually compare middle-class, two-parent white families with poor single black mothers. The studies aren’t comparing the outcome of children in a heterosexual two-parent family with a single mother. They’re really looking at class and financial issues.
While Silverstein agrees that a two-parent family is often better to raise children, she’s quick to point out that the poor single mothers who do marry don’t really benefit from the alliance. These women marry within their own social class, which doesn’t raise the household income.
In contrast to the studies designed to validate conservative values, Dr. Silverstein studied parenting in different social contexts. “Our research with divorced, never-married and remarried fathers has taught us that a wide variety of family structures can support positive child outcomes. We have concluded that children need at least one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emotional connection to them, and with whom they have a consistent relationship.”
If you look at another conventionally held truth about raising healthy children, another assumption crumbles under closer scrutiny: the benefits of the stay-at-home mom. The best-selling book “Freakonomics” dispels this myth by looking solely at statistics. It finds that pre-school children with stay-at-home moms have no academic advantage over kids with working moms.
Moreover, if you look at the marriage rates among some Scandinavian countries you’ll find upwards of half of all women deliver children out of wedlock, yet the crime rates in these countries remain quite low.
So, you see, conventional wisdom isn’t always wise. Sometimes, it’s just a slave of convention. Having healthy children and a strong community doesn’t require a traditional family, just an open mind.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Denise Noe
October 14, 2005 07:18 AM | Link to this
It is interesting the Shaunti and Diane are having this discussion the day after an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution saying that 44% of Georgia babies are now born out of wedlock. Most of the time these are not the results of responsible, well-heeled lesbians in committed same-sex relationships making a trip to the sperm bank. They are the results of getting “swept away” by passion or using contraceptives poorly. Too many of these children will live in material deprivation and the anxiety that so often accompanies it and will see a string of mama’s boyfriends drift in and out of their lives. The best way for children is to come into existence is as the result of a planned pregnancy by a committed, happy, financially stable married (or committed if same-sex) couples who yearn for a baby. Women today generally want men to do their “fair share” of chores such as diaper changing and bathing (although only mothers can breastfeed). Fathers won’t do their share of the grubby work of child care, nor will they appropriately bond with the young, unless they are around the baby and the best way to ensure they are around is to be married to the mother. Healthy children does not always require a “traditional” family but a stable, committed couple is best. When so many babies are born out of wedlock, we are not doing the best we can by our children.
By Jack
October 14, 2005 07:37 AM | Link to this
Right on Denise.
By Renee
October 14, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this
Healthy children does not always require a “traditional� family but a stable, committed couple is best.
I agree with this statement 100%. But I also think should something happen preventing a stable, committed couple raising a child, the child can still be healthy with good parenting. No matter the financial or economic situation of a household, whether it’s one parent or two, nothing should stand in the way of good parenting.
By Jack
October 14, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this
I guess the previous subject didn’t work out.LOL
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this
People need to understand a simple point before having kids: Your job as a parent will be to do what-ever you have to in order to ensure a healthy stable environment.
And this may conflict with your life goals if you are looking for everything to still be fair in the world.
This applies to all people (men and women), and supersedes those individuals needs - so if you find sacrifice unfair, live vicariously and hang with your nephews/nieces.
By helenc
October 14, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Q: There’s a concerted effort right now to rehabilitate the image of nuclear power. Proponents argue that fossil fuels are more damaging to the environment, as well as being in short supply, and that nuclear is the [best option going forward]. What’s going on here?
A: The people saying these things are not biologists, they’re not geneticists, they’re not physicians. In other words, they don’t know what they’re talking about. And that makes me very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about [20 to 30] tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years. As it leaks into the environment, it will bioconcentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish, us.
It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill you. [The most common plutonium isotope] has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future generations God only knows — and we’re not the only species with testicles. What we’re doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that.
By Jack
October 14, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
and I thought the subject was about stable family environments.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Did you learn nothing from this last weeks blog???
The subject is whatever the woman wants it to be! Do not go oppressing them now!
Just kidding of course;)
By jlb
October 14, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
What does the gonad thing have to do with the topic at hand?
By Archie
October 14, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
I tend to side more with Shanti on this one because there has been study after study about this subject. Diane does make a good point that children of stay-at-home moms have no academic advantage over children of moms that work. Basically the guy,Silverstein, says two-parents are the best situation to raise a child but obviously there are other situations. In conclusion I would say that we need to work on our male/female relationships and I mean really work so that planning can be done.
By Dan
October 14, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Necessary no, more likely yes
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Here’s what this week’s LAME-O topic REALLY is:
How deeply should we regret our past choices and loathe our selves for them? Did we RUIN any hope for our children’s future success or happiness by making such BAD choices? Just exactly HOW BAD ARE WE if we aren’t raising our kids in the Ozzie & Harriet world? If we could hop into time machines and do things all over again, could we possibly TRY to deserve the children we’re now raising?
Give me a f-ing break. Doesn’t anyone want to talk about going FORWARD to make this world a better place for our kids? No. Back to the blame game. YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY, YOU STUPID BEEEE-YOTCH.
B—w me.
By lozen
October 14, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Our one mother, one father way of raising children has not been around that long. Up until the automobile became the “norm” children were raised in a close knit community by their parents, grandparents and other relatives along with the neighbors. People have raised children in highly differing ways. Why do we believe the only way is one mother, one father? Wealthy people and royalty have always had a village, wet nurses, nannies, maids and other servants, to raise their children. Most of them turn out relatively okay. Many native peoples didn’t have any expectation that a man and woman would be together forever just because they had a child together, so the responsibility for teaching the child belonged to the mother’s brother. Our world has changed dramatically in the past 75 years and our family structure has changed with it. Children who are raised in poverty with parents who give birth to them, not because they want them or are mature to have them, but because they “got caught” aren’t going to do well whether they live with two parents or one. Poverty and parental committment is more of an issue IMO than how many parents are present. I’ve known some very intelligent, creative, happy young people who were raised in intentional community where they had a single parent but many people raising them. We can’t turn back the clock. We can’t make the changes go away. More and more people are choosing to remain single or just never find someone they want to marry. Those people still want children and the one’s I know are doing a great job with their kids. Let’s try to think of ways to make our society better for single parents and their children instead of yearning for the past which is gone.
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Lozie. That was much more eloquent that what I said.
By Gary Harrison
October 14, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
If you look at today’s world (crime statistics, overcrowded prisons, rampant drug and alcohol use), it is easy to see that something is wrong with the big picture. In America, if not the world. single-parent families (with the parent most likely the female) are now the rule and not the exception. We males have and ARE abbrogating our responsibilities as a “daddy.” The “Father ” part is easy: just insert p*** into v**** and sooner or later a baby comes out. There is a tremendous dearth of men who want, accept and perform the time/energy consumption of child rearing as it is supposed to be a fulfilling of role responsibility by TWO people. BUT it takes two to tango. Women should not do that which leads to parenthood without ample provision for such an eventuality. Not to mention that the Bible says that “All fornicators (sex with someone other than a marriage partner) have their place in the Lake of Fire. One simple remedy for the ills of the family (and the world today) is self control. Abstention IS the best policy. Oh, and abortion IS MURDER.
By vince
October 14, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Very recently, more than a couple of man/woman couples with children hollered and screamed about having to shuffle their work schedule around Gov. P’s sudden suggestion to save fuel before Rita hit. So, our children were taught that weekend: Parents don’t jump up and down on “snow” days like children. Parents complain to anyone who will listen about their sudden burden they have to carry for two work days. Parents don’t mind being with their children, just as long as they aren’t in the same house most of the time.
I know there are more lasting effects, but isn’t anyone else furious?
With so many men and women marrying each other and getting divorced over and over and over, what is so wrong with a monogamous long term gay couple raising a child?
By Jack
October 14, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Wow. I have plutonium in my gonads? That must be why I have such a spring to my step.
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Vince, I’m all for it. (Not everyone in Georgia is a gay-hater whose answer to every problem is that someone should be thrown into a “lake of fire.”) Children need love. Why do people make it harder on the people who love them by passing their completely unconstructive, negative, blame-ridden judgment on others who are just trying to the right thing the only way they can?
By lozen
October 14, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
The subject is whatever the woman wants it to be! Do not go oppressing them now!
FatMoose, was that really necessary? I think men on the blog go off topic just as much as the women. And was that really you and your teenager posting on here the other day?
By Jack
October 14, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Yes. I was oppressing as hard as I could.
By Jack
October 14, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
Thank you Lozen. Sweet thing. :)
By lilith
October 14, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Not to mention that the Bible says that “All fornicators have their place in the Lake of Fire. One simple remedy for the ills of the family (and the world today) is self control. Abstention IS the best policy. Oh, and abortion IS MURDER.
So Gary you think I should never have had sex again after my divorce when I was 27? Are you crazy? I never wanted to get married again; I tried it and decided I’d rather be happy. All the polls say the same thing: Married women say they are very unhappy (I know it was the most miserable time in my life); unmarried women say they are very happy (and i’ve been so happy and had much better sex since my divorce). Unmarried men say they are very unhappy, but married men are very happy. Ummmm, I do not believe there is a lake of fire, and I do not believe abortion is murder. And what you think doesn’t effect me thank goodness!
By lozen
October 14, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Oh Jack at least there’s one who can see the sweetness underneath that “bitter old woman” shell ;- >
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 14, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Archie,
I completely agree! We definitely need to work on our male/female relationships.
In many situations the females fall in love and want to marry, but the young men are not ready to committ to just one person. There are many children produced through one night stands and between two people who barely know each other.
Relationship building should probably be taught in home economics in highschool, along with sex education and drivers ed.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 14, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Gary,
“Women should not do that which leads to parenthood without ample provision for such an eventuality.”
I’m going to correct you on that statement, it should read something like this “Women and MEN should NOT do that which leads to parenthood without ample provision for such an eventuality.”
I’m sure you are familiar with the statement: “Man can not live on bread alone.” The same thing goes for producing a child.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
FatMoose, was that really necessary? No, that is why I said just kidding;)
I think men on the blog go off topic just as much as the women. I do too, and that was not my point - When you and Whiley change the topic, and we (men and women) address it; you claimed it was bc we did not want to hear it. You and Whiley have explained that we must talk about what you want to talk about - but do not even finish those topics before sabotaging it and moving on.
And was that really you and your teenager posting on here the other day? Yes it was. She got an A on her paper, btw, and wanted to know if you ever looked up (and understood) the answer to “What is the derivative of the area of a sphere?” Also - she cut/pasted much of your twos postings and that got a big laugh, and some grimises(sp?).
By E. Lewis
October 14, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
It really goes back to what is a traditional family. A mother and father who love and support each other, who share in the caretaking of children and the home are what is best, but I ask when the last time you knew a family that fit into this definition? Over 50% of all marriages in divorce and too many of those that don’t are in disarray. My own sister has had to deal with having to assume all the wifely responsibility for the family (taking care of her child, taking care of the home, all the cooking and cleaning etc) in addition to being the family bread winner and paying the mortgage and bills. Her husband on the hand finally has a steady job, but has assumed no responsibility for anything. He gets to hunt, go to football games and hang out with his friends. Her financial life is in ruins. It has taken a toll on her, the marriage and her child. This is one traditional family that like others isn’t working.
Look at other countries that have higher out of wedlock children rates, that have more nontraditional families and then look at countries that have very traditional marriages (i.e. Middle East). The tradition of marriage, mother, father, children may not be what is important. Perhaps a happy, stable life is what matters most to children.
By lozen
October 14, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, that’s the way you’re raising your daughter, to laugh at people she doesn’t understand and/or doesn’t agree with? What a great lesson to pass on to future generations!
By bdmlw
October 14, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
Whiley - Here you go. Nothing like a little girl-on-girl crime! I believe the same thing happened in Ohio when I was living in Cleveland about 4 or 5 years ago.
“Valerie Oskin, 30, was believed to have been eight months pregnant when neighbor Peggy Joe Conner allegedly clubbed her with a bat and slashed her with a knife on Wednesday.”
By Jack
October 14, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
I’m old fashioned but am open minded enough to see that the problem is not necessarily that the children are born out of wedlock, the problem is Dad doesn’t have the guts to stay around and help raise the child. Can think of no solution to the problem other than making examples of the men who flee their responsibility by castrating them.
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
In many situations the females fall in love and want to marry, but the young men are not ready to committ to just one person.
Yes, and many other times a man falls in love and wants to marry, but the young woman is not mature enough to have an adult relationship - although she maintains the facade of adult/sharing mentality until post-wedding. Both sexes frequently lie about where they are at emotionally - so lets not make this a sex thing again - all people need to grow up.
What you do not get about child responsibility: Sex is like a two party lease; both persons are individually and jointly responsible. Meaning, if one does split, the other will, in reality, have to carry the weight.
Seeing as women tend to have the children; it is going to disproportionately fall in their lap - by design of reality. If I was a female, I would understand completely that it is my body (why the absolute claim of body in one instance and not another?); and if I do not want a child to care for I better make MY decisions with reality in mind.
I subscribe to the same mentality for guys - they really need to step up.
By lilith
October 14, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
I really try to stay away from this horrible blog so full of horrible people because it makes me sad. But I have to say, I cannot understand why anyone would do what FatMoose did and get a child involved in this. I guess if you want to teach your child to make fun of people, people who obviously are in pain because they feel minimized as women, it’s a great place to do it. You can do it in obscurity so you never have to face yourself, the depth of your mean spirit, and the fact that you’re teaching that to your children!
By Marti
October 14, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
Lozen and Lilith, I had to go back and read what you’re talking about and it is terrible. I agree with everything you’ve said and can’t believe a father would do that.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
FatMoose, that’s the way you’re raising your daughter, to laugh at people she doesn’t understand and/or doesn’t agree with? What a great lesson to pass on to future generations!
First, we understand what you posted and where you come from; and it was not simple dissagreement - it was gross slander, to humans en generalmente.
Um…Yes, I would advocate laughing at your misdirected angst(remember you first post ended with what you later complained was a males typical statement to his wife/GF: Shut the F up) than to take it seriously. You are not to be taken seriously: Just one of the many jellyfish (jhendrix).
Both daughters wanted to checkout this weeks blog, but I cannot allow that much of your twos backwater logic into their heads. Your posts this week were quite sick.
She thinks both you two are off you rockers; figuratively and literally.
By Ben
October 14, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Get over yourselves!
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
That child is 17 and in her second year of college. If you are going to comment on something; get educated.
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
bdmlw,
Did you read about the woman that cut a fetus from her neighbor bc she wanted a child? Talk about sick violence and things a sick person will go through to have and screw up a child!
But that is different, right Whiley?
By lozen
October 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Gross slander toward all humans in general? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
By Ben
October 14, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Moose - Don’t explain yourself to these ole’ bitties. It’s not even worth it.. It’s your child right? Who cares what they think. They’re just a bunch of bitter a** women.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Gross slander toward all humans in general? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Ok, is it extremely serious, or not at all? Schizoid much? lol
By lozen
October 14, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
If you are going to comment on something; get educated. You first, FM!
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Ben,
Thanks for the backup.
I am just having fun with them today. None of this stuff is near sane enough for me to take seriously, even if I wanted to.
How you doing today?
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
And Ben are you an over sensitive wuss! I don’t remember anybody saying anything to you, stupido. Please don’t speak until spoken to.
By Ben
October 14, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Moose - Gotcha! I’m the same as usual. Watching the clock and laughing at the ignorance I see on here everyday.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
If you are going to comment on something; get educated. You first, FM! You sure you are an old women? Sound more like a kid.
First of all refering to a 17 as child is ignorant - and second: Still waiting on a reply to ‘you ever looked up (and understood) the answer to “What is the derivative of the area of a sphere?â€?’
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
Ohhhhh, I think Fatty has found a life partner. Bennie Boy the wuss.
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Okay lozen, this is a terribly important question! Why don’t you answer Fatty’s earth shattering question? We really really need to know the answer.
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
I say POOT on the question
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
What is the derivative of the area of a sphere? Come on—- anybody? I know we’re all dying to know the answer to fatty’s poop question. Poop question, flush, down you go
By Ben
October 14, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
MichaelDumbAss - I’ve got your over-sensative wuss buddy. And how appropriate that you speak when I talk about ignorance. It’s like whistling for my dog you retard.
And get used to me speaking whenever I feel like it you foolish child.
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
And I would like to respectively (since you’re bitter old, bitter a* women) disagree… Fatty is teaching his girl the right stuff. My daddy taught me how to make fun of people and it’s really really fun. Your all crazy. I’m the only sane person here. Answer the damn question!
By Jack
October 14, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
Oh it’s downhill from here.
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
First of all refering (sic) to me as a child is ignorant - second What is the answer to fatty boy’s POOP Question? POOP! POOP in, POOP out ya old bitties.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this
All that a child needs to flourish is a stable and supportive environment. That could mean a mom and dad, a single mom, a single dad or a gay couple. Just be stable and supportive. When you have a child you commit to make your needs and wants subservient to those of the child. I work a lot of long hours because I am the family breadwinner who makes 5 times more money than my husband. I show my son that a woman can be a strong contributing member of the business community. I also take care of all of the “womanly” duties at home — cleaning, cooking, food shopping, etc. — to show him that a woman can also be a caregiver in the home. Life is by no means perfect, but we work through it. Most of the women I work with are either bitter because they have to work or so absorbed in what they do at work that family is an after-thought. Two-income families are here to stay unless you make the choice to live a simpler life without the perks. I want the best of both worlds and I am imperfectly accomplishing it. Hopefully, my son will grow up knowing that life is not easy but that if two people try their best to balance, even if they are not totally successful at it, they can make it work and everyone ends up relatively happy in the end. I cannot promise my son the world, but I can give him the basic necessities and everything else I can afford with a simple lesson that nothing is free. Love your kids. Hug your kids whenever the opportunity to do it is there. Make them as safe as you can. Give them what you can but make sure they know that everything has a “price.” That is how I hope to raise a good person and citizen.
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
So, How ‘bout this for a topic:
Is the apprentice a good example of how women work together? (Must have seen the last couple shows)
How about 911 nanny? Crazy how in every one the father is quite slack and the mothers are so agnsty towards the nanny. Why is it that in every one the father steps up asap - but mom fights with the nanny?
And wife swap? Seems there are A LOT of conrtolling women out there! And when they return, and the man sees a helpfull mate, things get to a changin’!
Speaking of which, Bowie rocks!
By Bruce
October 14, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,
In your 11:41 post you stated,” Why do people make it harder on the people who love them by passing their completely unconstructive, negative, blame-ridden judgment on others who are just trying to the right thing the only way they can?”
That’s not what you were saying the first of the week, remember? You were agreeing with everything Whiley had to say about MEN stopping violence. Please explain your change of heart…..
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Accurate observation Bruce; which usually means an ignore or rant that deviates from your point.
Curious to see…
By Marti
October 14, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
D.A.D., are you serious? I applaud you for the hugging and loving advice but what are you really teaching your son? What does your husband do? It sounds like it’s not much. Your son will mimic his father’s behavior too, you know. You have to be subservient to your son? Are you from a middle eastern country? You make five times the money your husband makes? What exactly do you all do? Still, you choose to do all the caregiving and housework too? What your son is learning is to expect a wife who will be subservient to him and his son!
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
D.A.D
subservient?
Do you by chance mean that you sacrifice for him, or are you actually subservient to him?
There is a difference and you better be quick to clear it up before the fem-police get on you!
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Bruce, thank you for your questions. First, we got a new topic today. The topic earlier this week was “Has feminism failed women?” I had little to say on that one actually, thinking instead that JOURNALISM has failed women. When I jumped in on Whiley’s rants, it was to suggest people give her a break as she’s obviously using this forum to vent some strong, and not entirely unfounded, feelings. I don’t recall “agreeing with everything Whiley has to say.” Compared to some weeks, I’ve said relatively little. Were you perhaps confusing me with someone else?
Why not answer MY question, instead? Or rather, why not join in with today’s new topic, which seeks only to re-hash what went WRONG in everyone’s lives — specifically, choices we cannot go back and change now, like whom we had children with 5, 10, or 15 years ago? OR, you could, as I often hope with futility, focus on ways to make the world better for our children, and things we can do going forward, since none of us has the power to go backward.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
not entirely unfounded
No, 5% is not entirely unfounded; but it is 95% unfounded to blame the 100% for the 5%.
See, it should be simple math.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Marti: Sorry you feel that way. I am not subservient because he is a boy child, but merely because he is MY child. My husband is a law enforcement officer and we all know that they make crap money. I am a corporate lawyer and executive. My husband does a lot around the house (mowing the lawn, for example) but we all know that men just aren’t as tuned in to cleanliness as we women are (plus they don’t get the urge to paint rooms like we do). He also takes great care of our son during all of the times that I cannot be there. We are in our mid-30s and I will have the house paid off next year and then will decide if I want to continue to work. My son respects both of us for what we do…but of course dad is “cooler” because he has a gun. I am better than my husband at things like cooking and cleaning — and why pay someone to do something I can do myself? As a mother and wife I have certain responsibilities. I take care of the “boys” in my life and I am not ashamed of that. I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let him forget he’s a man…because I am a woman. Wasn’t there a commerical about that years ago? What the heck is wrong with being a high-powered career woman during the day and a darn good wife and mother after hours? At the end of the day, my husband is a great dad and I love him for that.
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
If you miss picking on Whiley today, please do not attmept to do it through me. If you want to pick on ME, then please make it worth my while.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
Fatmoose: My child’s needs take precedent over mine. Always. I bore him and I am responsible to care for him and make his life as perfect as I can. I know that many people would say that by working I am not doing that but I try my best to give him all of the material things I can as well as my time and love. No matter how much I work, he knows I love him. The thing is, I make sure he knows that “mummy” goes to the office each day to make sure he has all of the things he wants and needs. At age 7 he can understand that now. I love my child and would take a bullet for him. But I leave him each day to make sure that, hopefully, he lives in a place where bullets are not an issue and he can have all that his precious heart desires.
By Ben
October 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Give me a minute Kimberly and I’ll get right on it. lol
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
When I typed “bore” I meant “love”….but maybe I do bore him
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
What the heck is wrong with being a high-powered career woman during the day and a darn good wife and mother after hours?
What is wrong is you are raising the bar; and people do not like that. They also do not like examples of pulling it together bc you can - for they want everything fair, all the time.
The slack you are getting (and will continue to) is the same that we guys tend to get. You are expecting to much from these people if you require adult sacrifice (for the ignorant people on here that will jump on me - adult sacrifice is nothing like virgin sacrifice;).
By Dusty
October 14, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
Oh, no, not another week of the same old stuff. Could we skip this one and start anew on Monday?
How about “When feminism died, did anybody notice?” or
“Can natural herbs replace presciption medicine? or
“Why do our enemies love American free speech ?”
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 14, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
D.A.D.
You are not a unique case, there are many career women who are excellent parents and wives. But, I would like to thank you for pointing out that women are excellent at multitasking.
Also, we all have a case of “no one can do certain things” better that we can do it. That includes cooking and cleaning.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
FatMoose: I do get flack, that is true. Most of the women I work with (many of which are in more “traditional” woman roles like secretary or receptionist) think I am crazy. They say things like — “as long as I have to work I refuse to be a housewife too” and “why should I prepare dinner, we both work?” They have their lives and I have mine. I found a great man, have a great son and I love to take care of them — financially, emotionally and traditionally. I fight every day for women to be treated fairly in the work place. Just because you have a career doesn’t mean you can’t do nice things for the special people in your life. It does not make you anti-feminist. It makes you human.
By FatMoose
October 14, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
D.A.D.
Hats off to you. And I concur.
By Jack
October 14, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
DeltaX. We agree on this. Bowie does rock.
Kimberly is tough, better wear your vest if you pick on her.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Amazed: Multitasking is our specialty. Men cannot do it. No, I am not a “man-hater” but they just can’t. I can start the laundry, cook dinner, clean the carpets while dinner is cooking and then transfer one load of laundry from the waher to the dryer and start another load. I can grocery shop without a list and I know what is in each aisle of my favorite Kroger. I can also be sick and still claw my way out of bed to make sure that everything is taken care of. I can also transact a multi-million dollar acquisition or financing, take a company public and work 12 hours a day without a vacation in 5 years. Men need us. That is our true power.
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Kind of have to be tough to be on this blog;) I do not find it picking though - just backing up someone pointing out inconsistancies.
Although, I agree, people do not like to be called out.
By DeltaX
October 14, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
D.A.D.
This is where we split though: Multi-tasking, Men cannot do it.
Maybe your man, and that woman over there…etc.
I do what you do; work, clean, care for the family - the whole sha-bang. My wife is just not able to keep all the things that need to get done in her head - or that automated part that makes you notice the carpet/litter box/etc. People have different strengths - and almost all of them ignore gender lines.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
I know I am going to take crap for this, but what is wrong with taking pride in a well kept home and a happy husband and son. It is my home — I pay for it. He is my husband — I married him. He is my child — I gave birth to him. I spoil my guys as much as I can. I work a lot so I can’t be here all the time but when I can I want to make them happy. Isn’t that what love is all about? Why does it have to be about men versus women? Whay does it have to be about feminism? I am a General Counsel and Vice President…isn’t that feminism? You cannot shame me about taking care of my husband and child. I am good at it and I take pride in it. They love me and I love them and I will do everything I can to make them happy and there is absolutely nothing “weak” about that. Perhaps I am a stronger woman than those who are bitter about working and who nag at their husbands about not doing enough. The home and the family belong to the woman. They are our greatest accomplishment. You cannot shame me.
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Jack, I’m also sweeeeeet. {;->
By Ben
October 14, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
We LOVE D.A.D! We love you too Kimberly!
By Scott
October 14, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - to address today’s topic with you, I would have to say that while I was lucky enough to be raised in a great family with a mom and a dad, I don’t think that it is the only formula for success. I know plenty of people who have had great childhoods with a single parent because that parent was a strong, loving, guiding influence. I think the two parent thing, if done with love and guidance, is the best way, but it isn’t the only way.
By Jack
October 14, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
I know you are. XOXOXO
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
DeltaX: I apologize. I should not generalize. You are right. Some people are better at things than others. We should all work to our strengths. You mentioned litter box and I am happy to know that you are a cat-person like me. That says a lot about a person. My point is that we should all do our best — for our spouses and our children. Marriage and parenting does not have to be a checklist of who does what. Do what you do and feel god about doing it for the ones you love. Who cares if it is a “man thing” or a “woman thing”? Love conquers all of that. The fact is that you should do everything in your power to take care of the people you love and they do the same. THAT is what leads to happy children who become productive members of society.
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Scott, I think most people today agree. I think the “journalists” who provide this forum intentionally try to stir up arguments that solve nothing. Like I said earlier, we could go on all day about things we SHOULD have done, citing moronic “studies” about what WOULD HAVE been best for the kids. I wish they would promote something more positive here, like an exchange of ideas on how to make things better with regard to isses most of us face. Many of us, especially time-strapped working moms, could use constructive input from strangers (people whose advice we don’t already inherently resent). I know I would, since I appear to be clueless about some things, yet I am still able and willing to offer the wisdom of my experience on others.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Ben: I love you too, man. We are all people and we need to love one another. Love for the strengths and forgive the faults. We are all in this thing together and we need to be supportinve rather than divisive. I appreciate a good argument and discussion, but at the end of the day we have to love each other for our differences. I do it my way and you do it yours — so long as I am not hurting you it is all good.
By Marti
October 14, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
The smug back-slapping of the men on here (looky guys we got them bitties!) is amazing. And yet you don’t see yourselves as part of the problem women have with men.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
Kimberly: I know the woes of a time-strapped mom. All that you can do is your best. Don’t let other people judge you. At the end of the day, if your kid is alive and smiling you have done your job. We cannot control other people’s fate, even that of our children. Good parents have given birth to serial killers. Be happy, that is all you can do. If you are happy, your children will be too. Don’t resent where you are. Don’t hate. Put on a good face and tell your kids that you love them. No matter what.
By Scott
October 14, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - I agree…most of the topics our “journalists” bring up are inane and not nearly as relevant as others we might bring up
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Marti: There is no doubt that most men have the advantage in marriage and parenting. But we women live longer. We all get our time.
Notice, DeltaX, that I said MOST and not ALL.
By MichaelD
October 14, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Back slapping Fatty Mousey and smug Bennie Wuss just find it hard to keep their paws off each other don’t they. I done tole ya idiots they found their life partners on the AJC blog today. I hear violins…
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Thanks, D.A.D. Thanks Ben. My kid is awesomely bright and well-adjusted, something that shocks my relatives. What I need advice on is men. Specifically, why are the psychos drawn to me, why do I like them, and how can I change this pattern?
By Archie
October 14, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
I strongly disagree with the post by DAD. Things like starting dinner,while doing laundry and watching tv, while balancing your checkbook are things I have done many times. I wonder if DAD reads this blog or knows much about men and that is exactly the point I was trying to make in an earlier post. Men and women need to work how we relate to each other. Thanks Amazed(independent woman) for your comment. People are going to have sex but it doesn’t have to result in a child being born unless one party has a secret desire for a child. There’s so much information for birth control via condom,etc. that I feel like people make a conscious decision to have children out of wedlock. Although many single parents do a great job Diane’s expert admitted it’s better to have two parents. I don’t think this topic is about blame ,it’s really about how men and women get along. The divorce rate is 50 percent and that may not be true for my parents generation but for my generation 45 and younger that’s the standard. We have yet to figure our roles in relationships of today. Some women want a strong man but then want to control everything and yet some men want to be the head but don’t understand the role that economics played in the way our parents lived. I love liberated,independent women but you still have to clean your house!!! and cook—sometimes!!!
By Ben
October 14, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
But here’s the thing Marti - my wife doesn’t have a problem with me, my sisters don’t have a problem with me, and my mother doesn’t have a problem with me. That’s all that really matters. I am not part of YOUR or any other woman’s problems because our lives don’t cross paths.
What is amazing is how women can blame all of their problems on men and the evil things men do, when in all acutality the blame belongs on the man (singular, plural depending on your situation) in their life.
By Ben
October 14, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - What advice do you need on men.. I can cover that for you.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 14, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
D.A.D.
I agree that we can do all the things that you do and I do them everyday. Just don’t kill yourself doing the things for you man and child.
I also don’t like the thought of a young man growing up completely helpless. I have dated a few who did not have a clue about laundry or cooking, because their mother did all the laundry/cooking and still did it for them as adults.
I turned down two marriage proposals, because their mother made and kept them so dependent upon a woman doing everything.
By Scott
October 14, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
MARTI - I am not certain what smug back slapping you are refering to, but no, I dont consider myself part of the problem at all, in any way shape or form (unless that form is male)
D.A.D - While I see most of your points and agree with some, it sounds like you tend to think men are inept in some way and must have a woman (granted a good one is a blessing) to guide them lest they fall into squallor. Am I reading you wrong?
By Marti
October 14, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
Actually I just heard about a study this week that says married women die eight years sooner than single women on average. But married men live eight years longer than single men. At a movie recently, an older couple, probably about 70 (an old biddie and an old geezer to you ageist men) sat next to me at a movie. I heard them scraping the bottom of the box of popcorn, then he said he wanted more. She could hardly get up, had to pull herself up by the back of the seat in front of her, shuffled to the concession stand, and missed 10 minutes of the movie. She brought him his popcorn just like a good wifey. Love, love, love, ain’t it grand? Subservience, what all females are taught to do proudly. Show me any other group of people who are proud of being subservient?
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
Archie: I don’t know why you disagree with me. I did state in a later post that I apologized for generalizing and that we should all work to our strentghs — men and women. If a man does the housework better, he should. The problem is that we all seem to resent one another for what we do for the other. We need to stop that. Do what comes naturally to you. If you cook better, do it. If you clean better, do it. The important thing is that we raise productive children, no matter how the parents split the chores.
By D.A.D.
October 14, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Amazed: My mother cleaned my room , did my laundry and cooked my meals until the day I was married. Amazed? I picked it up quite well after that. My first husband had been a Marine but after we were married he was unable to make a bed. Amazed?
SCott: I do not think men are inept. I think we all should strive to our strengths. I like to cook and clean and work on cars as well as practice law. I do those things. I can’t work with electricity. My husband can do that so I let him. My husband doesn’t mind cleaning the litter boxes and feeding the cats so I let him do that too. He can lift more than I can so I let him. He is better at disciplining our son than I am…so he does. We share.
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Ben, okay thanks. I recently ended a relationship after several steady months of togetherness, when I started having flashbacks to my marriage: emotional blackmail, withholding of affection to keep me in line, obsessive attention to his every need while expressing extreme irritation at mine. Since this man loved to argue as much as he loved his nightly bourbon, and I was exhausted from it, I opted to walk away without the arguments. I thought I was doing us both a favor, but he was really ticked. Now he’s all bitter, refusing to address a business issue which any sane professional would have no problem handling. Was I wrong to spare us the drama of the unwinnable arguments that only lead to [my] tears and a sense of humiliation?
By Scott
October 14, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
DAD - okay thanks for claryifying I see your point, just wanted to make sure
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 14, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
When you can’t get everything you want in a man/woman is it okay to settle for half of the requirements?
For instance, I once dated a man who was an excellent cook and could clean house better than myself. (no he’s not gay) He was the oldest of three and was the primary care taker for his sibilings, while his parents worked. However, he was not ambitious and had the worst financial situation, primarily because of bad decisions.
This is just a discussion subject that I am personally interested in hearing about from some of you. How did you make the decision to accept a marriage proposal or to propose to your wife? I know that love plays a big part, but once you get down to basics, everything else seems to count in order for the marriage to work out.
By Scott
October 14, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
MARTI - Was it subservience or was he even less capable of getting around? I don’t know, I’m just curious
By lilith
October 14, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
What they’re calling the “traditional family” teaches traditional values such as: women should be subservient to their husbands. A lesson DAD has learned well, probably because that’s what her traditional parents taught her by their example. the traditional family teaches us to fit into the heirarchy: God on top, Prez/King, the Man, Woman (in the western world) children, so we’ll make good citizens who easily live under the hierarchy of Prez/King or Pope on top telling us all what to do. Why would so many men of today expect it, and so many women of today still do it, all the housework and all the childcare while working at an outside job just as he does? Because that’s the example they wer taught in their traditional upbringing in the traditional family. The sooner we do away with the traditional family the sooner we can change the world for the better for everyone. Women of the world unite. Keep your liberty and your freedom. Have as many or as few children as you wish, and give them your last name!
By Scott
October 14, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Amazed - Every study I have seen on the subject points to finance as being a top reason for divorce. I would think that attitude about finance and the work toward responsibility for those finances would be a big consideration. In my case, my wife has good and not-so-good points (as do I) but I tend to take the totality of the circumstances into consideration. I think it is a matter of priorities. Some things are more important to some people than others. I think the biggest point in that is that it is paramount to know yourself and what is important to you before you try to share a life with someone else. How else would you know if they are compatible?
By Archie
October 14, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
I am sorry DAD I didn’t get the chance to read that later post. I only mentioned the household chores because it’s common complaint from some men about today’s women that they don’t cook or clean. As for Kimberly I will just say make yourself go out with the nice guy. I was called a nice guy when in my 20’s but then the ladies would go out with the not-so-nice guy so I changed my disposition a little. Kimberly check the guys hand to see if he’s married(for some reason women act as if they can’t see the guy’s ring finger) and go out with a nice guy. Some guys don’t have good “game” but they are good people just shy so if you want a good guy you have to be accessible and go out with the shy guy because you only want a good guy not a perfect one. Our choice of sex partners without protection can have a definite impact on this topic. We already know men have to do things better but when women of today understand that everything isn’t about them and that they have to take some blame in relationships and when women understand you can still be feminist and love a man you won’t have 2/3 of children being born out-of-wedlock.
To Kimberly make a list of things you think make a good guy and be reasonable and don’t accept poor treatment. If I were single I would not have alot of girlfriends because I wouldn’t put up with the way women talk to men at times. I would have one girlfriend at a time and she would be a good lady by all counts.
By lozen
October 14, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
I think the biggest point in that is that it is paramount to know yourself and what is important to you before you try to share a life with someone else. How else would you know if they are compatible? Oh Scott, how true. If only I’d known at 18 what I should know now! I still wouldn’t get married again though. I want to live that other eight years!
By Scott
October 14, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Lozen -
I still wouldn’t get married again though. I want to live that other eight years!
I’m sorry marriage was miserable for you. From what you have said about your marriage previously on this blog, it sounds like it was difficult at best. Marriage isn’t a good thing for everyone. Life can be plenty fulfilling without it. I love my wife and love being married to her, but I was pretty happy when I was single too. Hopefully, your single life is as fulfilling as you want it to be!
And though I have not been around as long as you, I agree…oh if I knew then what I know now!!! HAHA!
By kimberly
October 14, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Archie, some good points. Thanks. From what I’ve seen, married men looking for special friends don’t wear their wedding rings. Most of those don’t admit to being married, although some do. Had one claim to be windowed; found out later she was alive and well. Sometimes I think I should keep a PI on retainer to run checks on every man who winks at me before I decide if I’m interested or not. But then, I’m already accused of being cynical. How would that help? It’s sort of that way with a “list of qualities.” If I do, I’m “too picky.” If I just try to get to know someone for who he is, then I’m “too reckless.”
BTW, how do you like your eggs?
By Spoiled Lesbian
October 14, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
We have a maid and a guy that does the yard. While our four-legged children are high maintenance, not nearly as bad as children.
Ladies, if you want to clean, cook and wipe butts, work a job and end up frazzled and looking tired and old before your time; then go for it. I would rather travel, take care of myself and enjoy my Partner and our family.
Whatever makes a person happy. If DAD wants to be an endentured servant, who am I to tell her otherwise?
By Archie
October 14, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Kimberly I am glad you’re still interested in men. I know that we,married men,do some wrong but sometimes you’re asked if you’re married even though your ring is in plain sight on your left index finger…Keep your list because if you want a spouse you might as well get what you want not what I or anyone else wants for you. I have found that there are so many nice men and women but there are problems with the way we relate to each other. There are some bad people but most folk are pretty good people with some problems…If relationships get better then you’ll have traditional families but both men and women are going to have to be less selfish and hang in there when everything isn’t like it was on the honeymoon which is most of the time.
By Spoiled Lesbian
October 14, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Oh, DAD (and others), keep in mind, when you start to look like an old wrinkled, tired, haggard hag, he is not going to want to look at you anymore.
By Scott
October 14, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
Spoiled Lesbian -
Oh, DAD (and others), keep in mind, when you start to look like an old wrinkled, tired, haggard hag, he is not going to want to look at you anymore.
hahaha - well she might not either, but one can hope there is more to it than that
By me
October 14, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
There is nothing wrong with marriage - if you want that and are committed enough.
There is nothing wrong with singles having children - or any other type of couple combination having children - as long as they are stable enough, loving enough, nurturing enough and caring enough for the long haul.
Each situation is singularly unique to the individual in the situation.
There is not much left that is ‘traditional’ in our society.
By Nikita
October 14, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Very non-interesting topic. The problem here is that the research touted doesn’t quantify stable-non-traditional families very well. I have no proof for this, of course, but I’m going to throw out my suspicion that a stable family of any stripe is beneficial to children, and an unstable one detrimental. I doubt it matters if said stable family is nuclear, a single-sex partnership, a single parent of adoptive or natural children, or whatever. The stats above about divorced families don’t quantify this — and it would be hard to. But that’s what I suspect.
By Jack
October 20, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Meep.
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
How you doing Jack?
By Raylene
October 20, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
sometimes one parent in a two parent setting is not a very good parent, and the child would be better off with only one parent.
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Would be nice if sexual maturation (being fertile) was not soley based on age/physiology, and instead one was not fertile until psychologically mature.
That would solve a lot of issues; but we would also probably become extinct; seeing as the majority of people do not mature psychologically past the age of 16-18yrs - ever!
So, whether you have 1 parent or 20; I still think it comes down to people needing to grow up.
By Raylene
October 20, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
it’s ok to be immature sometimes… but you are right, people do need to grow up. like my husband…
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Yep, many guys have issues with maturing;)
Glad I do not have to deal with them on a dating basis.
I dissagree about it being ok to be immature. You can choose to be, but to do something that is no longer in your age range is a (little - but significant) red flag that this person is still holding on to past behaviour.
Understand I am not talking about playing tag with kids, but pouting and tantrums; having to have toys still; redefining yourself every year by the coolest [insert hobby, item, etc here].
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah.
Forgot the most important immature act to watch for: Expecting everything to be fair (read even).
That has to be the epidomy of immaturity.
By Raylene
October 20, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
ok that kind of immature is different and i agree with you. maybe i mean its ok to be a kid at heart. like playing tag. my mom played tag at work, and she is far from immature, though she does act like a kid sometimes. i didn’t mean it was ok to pout when you are 40 yrs old. although i have to say, my friends grandma used to take us to mcdonalds and buy a butt load of happy meals so she could have beanie babies. that is not an ok immature.
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this
Agreed.
Want to solve something else;)
By Raylene
October 20, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
can you help me solve the problem with the VA?
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
Veterans Affairs?
Doubt it, but whats the issue?
By Raylene
October 20, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this
they suck!
they told my husband that he has PSTD, but they won’t help him. but i think i have it taken care of, I yelled… a lot. I was just kidding about solving that.
By DeltaX
October 20, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Too bad that the system is not better at taking care of out veterans - they seem to promise a lot, but fail to deliver when you need help.
My friend was an airforce brat, and his dad refused to take him to military doctors bc of their generally shoddy work/ability.
By Raylene
October 20, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
yeah, I am pretty much frustrated with the whole govt right now. I can’t seem to get help from anyone. Although United Way is looking like a good place to go. I am going next week to talk to them about getting some help with whatever I can. I can’t afford daycare and I don’t want to leave my son alone with my husband since he has the PTSD and isn’t being treated as of yet.
By Ben
October 21, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this
Raylene - What kind of discharge did your husband get?
By vince
October 21, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
A woman throws her three children off a bridge in San Francisco the other day. A woman in Texas drowns her five children in a tub, Susan Smith drowned hers by strapping them into her car and pushing it into a lake. And the huge list of fathers killing their wives and children. A friend of mine is a nanny to two adorable children, 13 and 9. Both parents are very hard working professionals and have at least hired a nanny due to heavy over night travel and long office hours. My nanny friend has to cover more than she should. She knows full well both parents are in town and could drop everything to come home and read a book or just talk to their children before being tucked into bed, and they make up something and stay out. Once she saw the mother driving the block over and over until her daughter’s bedroom light went out. I mean, why bother having children? Oh, wait, I know the answer to that. Because children are better off with traditional families.
By Jack
October 21, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
You cannot dispute the fact that a “traditional” family is best for a child in a perfect world. This is not a perfect world and defining traditional is like defining normal. I think a child should have both a loving mother and father. Absent that, two loving parents (whatever gender)willing to do whatever it takes to raise the child in a loving & caring environment is fine.
Vince. They should throw all three of those mothers in the bay with cement shoes.
By Boscoe
October 21, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Absent that, two loving parents (whatever gender)willing to do whatever it takes to raise the child in a loving & caring environment is fine. No Jack, that’s a false assumption. Two male parents, or two female parents, are no substitute for traditional parents. The roles of Fathers and Mothers in a family have two distinct roles. Where mothers are primarily concern with the physical well being of their child a father is more apt to be concerned with the development the child’s character. Children in traditional families are shown to develop better emotionally, educationally, and financially.
By DeltaX
October 21, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Boscoe,
Absent that, two loving parents (whatever gender)willing to do whatever it takes to raise the child in a loving & caring environment is fine.
You omitting whats in bold on purpose?
Are you saying that a disfunctional/abusive christain unit is better than a loving male/male or female/female headed family that is willing to do whatever it takes to raise the child in a loving & caring environment?
By Jack
October 21, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Yeah Boscoe, the kids floating in the bay were better off with their traditional parents as opposed to a loving gay couple.
By DeltaX
October 21, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
It is that kind of black/white absolute thinking that is screwing up any progress in society.
How did we let these zealots re-form after all the work our fore-fathers did to prevent/erode such narrowmindedness?
I think always having to fight against such ignorance slowly grinds progress to a haul; along with plain out wanting a break.
I am truely tired of the ignorance.