Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from solemn Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 12:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Crap sakes, I just threw up in my mouth. (reply to this comment)

from neez Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 00:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Happy Xmas... wtf is this? Love is chocolate: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw . (reply to this comment)

From love is blind ;P Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 15:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Merry Xmas neez!    (reply to this comment)

from therli Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 00:25 (Agree/Disagree?) love is a chemical released in your body when certain subconscious information is sent to your brain and finds synaptic connections with other parts of the brain that get stimulated which causes an decrease in serotonin and a release in neurotrophins which therefor cause a feeling of obsession or addiction, which is love. that's what's love.   (reply to this comment)

From rze Thursday, December 18, 2008, 20:51 (Agree/Disagree?) You release my neurotrophins. My serotonin has never decreased this much over anyone. I'm definitely using that next time.(reply to this comment)

from guru love Tuesday, December 09, 2008 - 16:37 (Agree/Disagree?) good documentory 1984 on cult worship http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6272335793596892362&hl=en (reply to this comment)

from love..... Tuesday, December 09, 2008 - 15:28 (Agree/Disagree?) love is gentle, love is kind, love does not boast nor is concieted. love casts out evil. love is gracious, love is joy peace long suffering. love is pure, love is wise. Love can move mountains. love rejoiceth not in iniquity but glorifies truth. love is not easily provoked nor behaves unseemigly and thinketh no evil. love conquers all. love worketh no ill to his neighbour. therefore love fufills the law. there are many things that it is not (which i am sure you are all aware off.) beware those who call good evil, and evil good. (reply to this comment)

From and then? Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Does no ill to his neighbour include putting him out of his misery if he's an idiot?(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 15:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Um no. We all can quote that particular section of the Bible it goes something like this. 4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. (reply to this comment)

from Nodoby Monday, December 08, 2008 - 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?)   That is really sweet. Did you write that yourself? You express yourself beautifully! I wish we all believed this all the time...with God all things are possible! You are loved!     (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Monday, December 08, 2008, 09:45 (Agree/Disagree?) lol(reply to this comment)

From Nodoby Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 05:23 (Agree/Disagree?)   ??? Carry on laughing!! ;)(reply to this comment)

From exfamily Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 14:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks, I will.(reply to this comment)

from steam Monday, December 08, 2008 - 06:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I think people should stop criticizing this post after all it offers very practical advice. To wit: "Love isn't just bearing each others burdens but lifting them off each others arms and on to the shoulders of the only One who can truly bear it all, for He bore it all on the cross so we didn't have to." Clearly a very practical solution to all of life's myriad problems. (reply to this comment)

From colden Monday, December 08, 2008, 18:42 (Agree/Disagree?)  practical solution? all lifes problems? three shades whiter! low low price! ask about our money back guarantee!(reply to this comment)

From Nodoby Monday, December 08, 2008, 09:33 (Agree/Disagree?)   Hear here! Well said!(reply to this comment)

from opposite: indifference Friday, December 05, 2008 - 19:01 (Agree/Disagree?) . (reply to this comment)

from rainy Friday, December 05, 2008 - 18:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, I've found a story of a life lived in true love. Love of himself, his life, his work, and his family. This is what happens when you truly love what you do and do what you love. When you are true to your dreams. Read it: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html (reply to this comment)

from rainy Friday, December 05, 2008 - 17:54 (Agree/Disagree?) If you don't value your own life, you can't truly love yourself or anyone else. If you forgive and forget every time you are wronged, you are neglecting yourself, setting yourself up to be taken advantage of, and avoiding a chance to make something right and stand up for yourself. If you sacrifice your own dreams for others you will never truly live. And in the end you have nothing to show but a life as a doormat. That twinkle in a child's eyes isn't love for you, it's love for life and naughtiness. Your boss is just trying to make the most out of you that he can, and encouragement is a great motivator. He doesn't love you. And that truck driver is desperate for a pick-up. Why else would he stop? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, December 19, 2008, 05:28 (Agree/Disagree?) There is a difference between forgiving and forgetting, rainy.  And I believe forgiveness is a virtue. I have to disagree with you when it comes to sacrificing your own dreams for one you love.  My cousin is a lawyer, he works for a powerful law firm up in Tennessee, and has three beautiful kids.  But he got married before he graduated law school, and get this: His wife had to work for two years so that he could finish his degree.  Things ended up working great for them, but if she had not been willing to take the role of bread earner while being mother to a child (maybe two, I forget when he graduated) so that her husband could study and complete his law degree, neither would be where they are today.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, December 20, 2008, 01:58 (Agree/Disagree?) You do realise that it is normal for a woman to work, right Samuel? If she had sacrificed and stayed at home because her husband had thought women didn't need careers, then she would have most likely been miserable. How is working a sacrifice? She would have worked if she'd been single.(reply to this comment)

From celestej Sunday, December 21, 2008, 04:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Working is a sacrifice for a woman with children.  She's sacrificing time with them.  If I had children I would not want to work.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, December 21, 2008, 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) So your solution is what? Children support themselves? Parents who create children need to support those children. Parents are not suddenly retirees once their children come along. Most of us are still fully-functioning human beings with a life and with aspirations outside our home. If you're implying that the mother has more right to stay at home with the children than the father has, don't you think that's rather unfair? How would you feel about that if you were the dad?(reply to this comment)

From colden Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 23:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I think your missing the point, its about who is better equiped to care for the child. Not who has more right to stay at home, thats a petty way of looking at it. The child's needs should take precedence over his feelings no? (reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 02:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't want to make an enemy here.  I have very strong opinions on this subject.  Let's just leave it alone. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Hahaha Making 'enemies' was the furthest thing from my mind. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions and feelings, same as the rest of us. :)(reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I know but things do turn nasty so quickly when strong opions are involved.  I hate to be overly critical, I have ridiculously strong opinions on children and how they should be raised, it's probably good I don't have any yet.  Suffice it to say, I really really want to stay home with my kids.  And I honestly feel that most men prefer to be the breadwinners, believe it or not.  If we gave them the chance!  If you'll notice, it's mostly the females involved in this discussion who are protesting so strongly against the old-fashioned, "archaic" family system.  (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 04:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I promise you I will not turn nasty. :) I also care deeply for children and love to be able to spend as much time as I possibly can with them. When my son was a baby and toddler I had a Family Day Care at home so I could work and care for him at the same time. That worked really well, and when the time came for him to go to a kindergarten he was so used to the structure and activities because he'd grown up in a similar environment, it worked out really well. :)(reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 04:54 (Agree/Disagree?) That's wonderful!  I don't know if you live in the U.S., but I've never heard of such a program here.  My sister left The Family when she was 17,  got pregnant at 18 by a scumbag who was married and had two other kids. He ended up going back to his wife, my sister had to put her baby in a daycare so she could work, one of the women wasn't watching the children closely enough, and my niece ended up falling out of a highchair and breaking her arm.  My sister took her to the hospital and ended up losing her baby daughter due to allegations of child abuse.  She has never regained custody, mostly because she was young and single.  She started doing drugs to cope with losing her daughter and has been in and out of rehab ever since.  This is a tragedy that haunts every thought I have ever had about having children.  I want to protect them with my life, if I ever have them that is.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 13:10 (Agree/Disagree?) That's an absolutely horrific story. Why was your sister charged with abuse when the incident happened at daycare? If anything like that happened at a daycare here the daycare would most likely be shut down. When I ran my home-based daycare, we were very closely scrutinised. We had surprise spot-checks twice a week. We also had a lot of support, we were members of playgroups, had access to toy libraries, and could call at any time of day for advice. I learned a lot during that time because I'd always been involved in childcare in the family which puts a lot of emphasis on discipline and creating well-behaved children. The Daycare staff re-taught me all of this. I learned to encourage independent development. I have a lot of faith in the childcare places I've put my son into and I've had wonderful communication with them and learned from them. I've never had a situation where I've dropped my son off screaming and he wanted to be with me. I wouldn't do that. I'd re-think everything. Of course his childhood is more important than my work. But I've managed to allow him to develop his confidence to the point that he was excited and feeling grown-up from going to childcare and then school. It's been all good for him. Here's the link to Family Day Care: http://www.familydaycare.com.au/ Hey, I found it in America: http://www.nafcc.org/include/parents.asp I have to say, if I HAD to work while my child was still a baby, I would DEFINITELY choose Family Day Care. You get to know the person who will be caring for your child intimately. You choose carefully the home you take your child to. When I was a carer, I loved having babies in my home. Unlike large centres, the carer doesn't get burned out from the bureaucracy, etc.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Sunday, December 21, 2008, 04:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Thats cuz you don't have kids. What about a father? Are they sacrificing time with their kids? What about when the kids go to school? It could just as easily be argued that a women, who stays home sacrifices her own income, being challenged mentally, relating to adults as a whole person rather then someone's 'Mummy' etc. I think it's different for each person and whats right for them.    (reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:06 (Agree/Disagree?) If a woman is still so concerned with a career, being challenged mentally, her social life, etc., then why does she have kids?  I agree that it's different for each person, but I know what's right for me.  I don't have to accidentally have a kid to figure out what kind of parent I want to be.  The reason I don't have kids yet is because I want to get all my selfish crap out of the way so I can be a fully devoted mother.  I honestly cannot understand how a woman could not want to be home with her babies.  That's our whole purpose.  Men are by nature providers, women nurturers.  That's how it works in many families and what's wrong with that?  I want the very best for my children, I don't want anything taking my time or attention away from them.  I already know I'm cut out to be a mother, every friend, every boyfriend I've ever had has told me so (even my own mother, who was more involved with herself than her children).  Taking care of people is what I do best.   (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Children are not something you do in order to find yourself. They are individuals. To try and replace your career, mental challenges, and entire social life with another person puts an incredible burden on that person. I love children too, and I agree that it's an honour to be there for them. To nurture, protect, guide, and share their experiences. It's probably the greatest thing I will ever do. But I can't lose sight of the fact that ultimately, my child's life is his and mine is mine. And if I want to have anything to give my child, my own life must be full and rich. To put my entire life and world on hold for him, to become a martyr for him, would be to teach him that he was a sacrifice. My child is not a sacrifice. He is a person who I have the privilege of having brought into this world, and I get to guide him for a little while. I treasure every moment with him, but I recognise that he and I are two separate beings. From the tone of your above paragraph, it sounds like you are basing your entire sense of self on your hoped-for future parenthood. This is too great a burden to put on your children. (reply to this comment)

From colden Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 23:45 (Agree/Disagree?)  That burden exists only in your mind dear rainy. (reply to this comment)

From colden Saturday, December 27, 2008, 16:23 (Agree/Disagree?) come on people its a burden of expectation! that kind of quid pro quo has no place in a parent child relationship. The old you have to "follow in my steps" or "do better than I did" or in this case "make my sacrifice worth while" no matter the form it takes thinking that your child owes you some form of surreder of self to your expectations is silly.(reply to this comment)

From Dani Saturday, December 27, 2008, 17:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Please go in the chatroom if you are online. Pretty Please (reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 04:37 (Agree/Disagree?)   Well you obviously know more about this subject than I, since you are already a mother.  And it sounds like you're a good, well-balanced one.  I know that no one can understand parenting until they have experienced it.  You are right in a lot of ways-  Since I have no children yet, I do have the tendency to base my entire sense of self on my relationships with men, which has led to some problems.  I feel like men are better at a lot of things than I am.  Not that I can't take care of myself.  But taking care of other people is easier for me.  I don't think any child (or person) has ever suffered from being loved too much. They have definitely suffered from being loved too little, as we all personally know.  Maybe I subconsciously want to fix all my mother's mistakes by being overprotective of my children (not healthy, I know).  However, I don't want to smother or rob my children of thier independence, and I don't want them to ever feel like they were a sacrifice.  I think I will be very happy and fulfilled being a wife and mother, I don't know what I would be sacrificing.  But I do want to be a whole and complete person before I ever have kids, and after they leave the nest.  I'm working on that right now.   (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 22, 2008, 19:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Celeste, why are you comparing yourself to men?  They have their strengths, and you have yours.  Instead of focusing on their strengths, foucsing on using yours to their fullest potential.  Otherwise, you will never be the full and complete person that you want to be.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Your children will grow up to despise both you and themselves because you have taught them that you as a person are of no value.  (reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I think valuing her children above all else is the ultimate way a woman can value herself.  They are after all a part of you, are they not?(reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) By the way, people whose mothers sacrifice everything for them typically grow up to adore thier mothers, and maintain a strong relationship with them for the rest of thier lives.  Not to mention they have higher self-esteem and a healthy attitude towards women.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 13:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I would say that statement is pretty much exactly opposite to the truth. #1, if you think that the mother is automatically the parent who has the right to always be home with the children, you are cheating the father out of developing that close, bonding, nurturing relationship with his children. Don't you think the two parents should discuss and work it out so you can both spend time with your children and also spend some time on yourselves? #2, if you have a little boy, you are teaching him that fathers go to work and mothers stay at home. As he grows this will become ingrained in his mind and he will one day expect the same from his wife. To stay at home and be a good, sacrificial wife like his mother was. You are perpetuating the system that hurts both men and women by trying to polarise them into different halves of a balanced life. #3, if you have a little daughter, she will learn from what you do, not what you say. If your attitude is that stuff like a career is selfish stuff which must be put away once a woman marries, after which a woman's place is only at home and her reason for being alive is only her children, your daughter will slowly internalise these things and her fight someday to realise her full potential will be that much harder. #4, you will not have the resources and inner strength you need if you deny all other aspects of yourself other than your parenthood. What if one day (as happened to me) your husband becomes abusive? Will you have the inner strength to say, "I am more than this. I'm not just a doormat. I need to walk out that door and be who I really am, for my sake and my children's sakes. I need to be an example of a strong adult for them." (I didn't. I stayed far too long, and needed help to get away.) Sacrificing everything for your children is not that much different than sacrificing everything for the Lord. It's just another ideal people use as a focus for their life when their own self-esteem is so low that they don't feel they deserve to do anything just for themselves. How do you think I know?(reply to this comment)

From celestej Thursday, December 25, 2008, 01:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Good for you for leaving an abusive relationship.  That took a lot of courage and was a great example for your kids.  I have a lot of respect for women who work if they have to, of course.  Relationships don't always work out the way we plan, and someone has got to take care of the children.  I'm not saying women should not do anything for themselves.  As a matter of fact, I'm very selfish right now.  Most of what I do is for myself.  I'm hoping that by the time I have kids, I'll be a lot less selfish.  I'd like to be married for about five years before I have kids so I know my children's father really well.  Impulsively having children is not such a good idea.(reply to this comment)

From clark Monday, December 22, 2008, 19:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I absolutley agree, a woman who is "sacrificing" is miserable, and therefore a bad mother/wife. Children pick up on everything and can tell if a parent resents them, or is being stiffled because of them. I have several male friends who are much more "maternal" than their wives, and they have great relationships. I think whomever is home with the child needs to make that kid feel like they are thrilled to be there with them, and wouldn't want to be doing anything else in the world. Content parents who are doing EXACTLY what they feel they should be doing, not what others expect of them, raise well rounded, secure kids.(reply to this comment)

From celestej Thursday, December 25, 2008, 01:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, if a woman wants to be the breadwinner she should by all means find a girly man to marry.  Not everybody is compatable with the same type.  Personally, I'm a girl and I like being the girl in the relationship.  I'm not attracted to "maternal" men.  I know it's hard to believe that a woman actually would want to be home with the kids not because it's expected of her, but because she loves being with her kids. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Friday, December 26, 2008, 14:57 (Agree/Disagree?) A girly man. Seriously where the hell do you come from. My husband who is in no way a girly man stayed home with our two kids when I was working. He is not maternal. He is paternal. So he made sure they were fed and cleaned and the diapers are changed so they didn't sit in their own waste. I have even seen him play doll house with his girls. You talk a lot about sacrifices and selfishness. I have been with my spouse closing in on fourteen years. It is a partnership, a teamwork where one hand washes the other. I work he stays home, he works I stay home. You work different shifts so one of you is with the kids while the other one works. It is not one person with the ball and the other one guarding the goal. It is both of you working together to win the game. (reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, January 05, 2009, 05:26 (Agree/Disagree?)  I truly think that's wonderful that you've been with your spouse for fourteen years.  That's a very long time.  I'd love to be married to the same person forever.  I'm just wondering when you find time for each other if you both work different shifts so the other person can be home with the kids.  I vaguely remember my ex describing his ten-year relationship the very same way.  It struck me as a little sad.  You don't ever get to see your husband?  Perhaps that's the key to a long relationship....?(reply to this comment)

From celestej Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 00:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Working and having kids at the same time just seems so stressful.  I would hate to be tired and stressed out all the time.  My best friend married a friend of ours who was interested in me first.  He pursued me for a long time and I never gave him the time of day.  When I moved away he started dating her and they got married a year later.  They have a gorgeous house and she doesn't work.  I visited them and realized that could have been my life if I'd chosen it.  Obviously he wasn't the man for me, but I think I still have that idea in my head for some reason.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 02:57 (Agree/Disagree?) But hon, wouldn't it feel so much better to get there yourself and end up with YOUR own home and your own lifestyle that you carved out for yourself? Then if you decide to spend the rest of your life with another person it will just be for the joy that person brings to you because of who they are, not because of the lifestyle.(reply to this comment)

From colden Friday, December 26, 2008, 20:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Why couldent it feel as good to "get there" with some one? I'm not judging your path in life but you seem to think that your way is the only way, it may be thye best fit for you but you seem to have a bias against any one who dosnt follow the rainy steps to make it feel better method of living. By your measures I'm sure my life is a tangled mess but it works for me. Not every one wants a segmented life of sequencial singular focuses, thats way to sterile for my tastes.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, December 27, 2008, 01:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm tiring of these ridiculous petty arguments, so I think I'll give the site a little rest for a while. I'll just reply to this to say that a) I don't have a "way". In fact if there's anything I've been trying to get across in this thread, it's the notion that there is no set way. b) I respect, celebrate, and seek to cultivate diversity. I don't have steps to a better method of living. Just basic ethics such as equality, tolerance, and honesty. c) I do sometimes say more than I should here when I see someone and I understand where they are, and I've been there. Sometimes I want to reach out, but I guess everyone has to find their own way and there's really not much I can do. Okay, bye.(reply to this comment)

From colden Saturday, December 27, 2008, 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Reducing comments you disaprove of to "rediculous petty arguments" and seperating your self from them is a novel way to "respect, celabrate, and seek to cultivate diversity" I thought you more tolerant than that. (reply to this comment)

From * Saturday, December 27, 2008, 15:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Will you be in the chat room any time soon? Used to be good friends with you and love to catch up. (reply to this comment)

From colden Saturday, December 27, 2008, 16:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I would love to chat with a good friend. You can always drop me a email, I shall try to be in the chat room when I'm on ;)(reply to this comment)

From * Saturday, December 27, 2008, 17:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Dropped you an email. Hope to speak to you. (reply to this comment)

From celestej Thursday, December 25, 2008, 01:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I would never marry someone for a lifestyle.  I want to marry for love of course.  But I'm not going to marry someone who can't provide for me or my children.  Really, who do I need to prove my independence to?  I've been taking care of myself for a long time.  Anyway, if a man loves a woman he usally wants to take care of her, and vice versa.   I would never pressure a man into anything.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 03:34 (Agree/Disagree?) And with kids and a full time job when is she supposed to find the time to date and find out who it is that she wants to spend the rest of her life with?(reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 02:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, what so now you can't find love whilst holding down a job? Is love only for the unemployed then? And as far as kids go- she hasn't any yet.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 02:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, what so now you can't find love whilst holding down a job? Is love only for the unemployed then? And as far as kids go- she hasn't any yet.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, December 22, 2008, 13:46 (Agree/Disagree?) What she said!(reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, December 22, 2008, 15:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Yep, the points made in those two last paragraphs in particular were exactly the things that came to my mind when I first read the comment rainy is referring to. (reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, December 22, 2008, 15:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Merry Christmas, by the way, to you two and your families. Have a great time celebrating! (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 15:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks Vix Same to you and the girls!xxx I envy you a cold Christmas. Got any snow?(reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, December 22, 2008, 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) No snow :( And right now I really feel like cancelling Christmas and just hibernating for a week or two. HOpefully some Christmas spirit will emerge in the next couple of days... Miss you, hope you're well and enjoying yourself x (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Me too beautiful, I'm hoping some kicks in today. All I want to do is sleep. Glad to hear your doing well. We'll have to catch up sometime.   Have a happy happy Christmas, full of eggnog and chocolate.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 15:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Too hot here for xmas spirit... But honestly, my sister's done such a wonderful job on decorations and an amazing tree, I think It really will feel like Christmas on the day. I'm sure your girls will make it all Christmassy for you as well. :)(reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, December 22, 2008, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting.. What do you base this statement on, exactly? Regarding this whole discussion, I think the difficulty here is that there is no definitive qualification of 'sacrificing everything', so that differing opinions on whether this is in fact healthy or not most likely reflect conceptual differences more than actual disagreement. I have to say, though, that parenthood in theory is very different to the reality of it, and many times being a parent will at some point bring out unconscious behaviours and/or coping mechanisms that one might not expect to display. I am only thirteen years into parenting and already I see many ways in which i could have done better, and I am an extremely conscientious parent and always have been. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Nurture is of no value, frag?  Do explain, please.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I would like to but you seem unable to grasp simple concepts(reply to this comment)

From If what you say is true: Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:52 (Agree/Disagree?) He is "unable to grasp simple concepts" Then, why on earth would you go on an on and on? Because it makes you somehow feel better?? Sam may be socially awkward but, You are pathetic! (reply to this comment)

From *And on Monday, December 22, 2008, 04:10 (Agree/Disagree?) and on and on and on and on and on and on...(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I can grasp this! Celeste said: "If a woman is still so concerned with a career, being challenged mentally, her social life, etc., then why does she have kids?  I agree that it's different for each person, but I know what's right for me...The reason I don't have kids yet is because I want to get all my selfish crap out of the way so I can be a fully devoted mother...  Men are by nature providers, women nurturers.  That's how it works in many families and what's wrong with that?  I want the very best for my children, I don't want anything taking my time or attention away from them...I already know I'm cut out to be a mother, every friend, every boyfriend I've ever had has told me so (even my own mother, who was more involved with herself than her children).  Taking care of people is what I do best. "  You respond by telling her that a woman who does this is of no value.  Maybe according to your values system, but not according to mine or hers.  In fact, I don't know if I would want anything to do with that values system of yours, it sounds rather cruel to me.  Isn't that like saying that Celeste would be a bad Mother because she wants to stay home with the kids?  Let me ask you, because I'm sure you've heard this before as there are some very rude people in the world- Have you ever had someone accuse you of being a bad Mother because you work?  What would make them think that- could it be their values system?  How is what you've said to Celeste any different?(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 04:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Lisa is not saying that the woman is of no value. Celeste had said that a woman's "whole purpose" was to have babies. Lisa was saying that when a woman doesn't have a sense of her own value she can't pass a sense of self-worth on to her children. That's how I read it.(reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 05:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I didn't say that a woman's whole purpose was to have babies (if I thought that I would have ten by now!), I said that once she has them her whole purpose should be to love and protect them, which is easier to do if she's not absorbed in a career.  I don't think a woman devalues herself by being devoted to her children- the way a woman conveys a lack of self-worth is by allowing other people to mistreat her or her children.  (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:52 (Agree/Disagree?) As I said unable to grasp any concept more complex then ctrl c ctrl v(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:52 (Agree/Disagree?) As I said unable to grasp any concept more complex then ctrl c ctrl v(reply to this comment)

From LOL! Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:55 (Agree/Disagree?) DUH!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 20, 2008, 05:00 (Agree/Disagree?) But you're a feminist, rainy.  For women that are of a different viewpoint, where a woman should not have to work once she is married, that was different for her.  And I agree with that, that a woman should not have to work once she is married.  Of course a woman should be allowed to work if she wants to, and should recieve equal pay.  But I don't beleive a woman should be required to work and if she does, that money should belong solely to her.  There are circumstances where a woman might have to work, for example if her husband is disabled or can't work, but otherwise I would consider a guy who stays at home and makes his wife work (like Fish seems to want) to be quite lazy (In this case, that was different.  He was studying so he could live out his dream and get a good paying job with her Father) Think about it this way: Say you married a guy who used to work as an airplane mechanic.  His company had to lay off workers, and he was one of them.  But because he was covered by a union, he got a very generous pension plan.  He gets $80,000 a year in retirement, despite the fact that he's only in his 30's.  But here's the catch.  The two of you not allowed to make over a certain amount in a year, say $65,000.  He has a job that he loves directing movies.  He's tried to quit his job and just work as a volunteer for another film company, hoping this would satisfy his desire to direct movies, but it's just not the same.  Only poor low budget movies would want a volunteer director.  He makes $50,000 a year, but you would not be allowed to work.  Do you see now how a married feminist might consider not working a sacrifice?  It's not really that much different.  (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Feminism is a belief in the right of women to have political, social, and economic equality with men. I do not beleave that you can be a woman, and not be a feminist. Unless you honestly beleave that you, as a woman, do not and should not have rights.   (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 22, 2008, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) You do not believe that you can be a woman and not be a feminist?  That's quite progressive of you, frag, but how far does that go?  Does that apply to women who you disagree with strongly?  Does it apply to women who are pro-life?  Does it apply to Sarah Palin, Kathy Ireland, and Patricia Keaton?  Or perhaps you agree more with Pamela Anderson when she said that Sarah Palin "hates women".(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course it applys to women who disagree with me. I disagree with many feminists. Yes a women can be pro-life, and a feminist. A women can hold any views she want's as long as she agrees that women have the right to have political, social, and economic equality with men. I think Sarah Palin is a walking, talking example of that.  I disagree with her opinions and beliefs, but I strongly support her right to have them.  (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, December 26, 2008, 18:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Kudos to you, Frag!  That is very open minded of you, and I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.  I hope you had a great Holiday.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, December 21, 2008, 13:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, I'm not sure whether I'm a feminist. Feminists often don't regard me as one. I am, however, rather partial to human rights and common sense, both of which your comments show a rather high lack of awareness of. For example, in your scenario you are defining it as a woman's RIGHT to quit work once she marries. I wholeheartedly disagree. Does she cease to be an adult because she has married someone else? Does her romantic union/life commitment now resolve her of all personal responsibility? How do you figure? Even if you think it is somehow a good thing for a woman to become a lady of leisure, how do you really think this is going to work? Do you intend to support your future bride on your income from bagging groceries? You, my friend, are living in another century.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 21, 2008, 14:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe you are pushing your value system on other women, Rainy.  I don't exactly blame you for it, as I am sure you are exposed to a different value system on a regular basis.  Either it is a woman's right to quit work once she is married, or it isn't.  I would say that if you look at the world, you will find that a majority of women feel that they do indeed have the right to quit work once they are married.  They raise the kids, they run the errands, they keep the house clean.  Now as far as I'm concerned, society has changed a lot over the past decades and it is no longer "expected" that a woman should not work at all and should stay at home cooking and keeping the house clean.  But many married women still do that not because it is expected of them but because that is how they were raised.  That is the value system that they choose.  I believe it to be a bit archaic, but that does not stop from respecting women who do choose that route.  Perhaps my belief that if a woman does work, that money should be solely hers is flawed, as a marriage should be a joint partnership, should it not? I still believe that it is a woman's right to quit work once she is married, but I do not have a problem at all with women who decides to do things differently.  It is up to each partnership to determine these things together.  But if a woman does choose to work, and her money becomes part of the common pot, shouldn't the husband be helping with the home affairs?  After all, he is benefiting in part from the extra money.  (reply to this comment)

From celestej Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry you had to stumble into the midst of the attack of the feminists, but if it makes you feel any better I do agree with you.  I know being old-fashioned is not considered cool anymore but the fact that it's more rare than ever makes it all the more courageous on your part to voice your "archaic" opinions.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Sunday, December 21, 2008, 15:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think a woman has a right to quit work when she marries, men certainly don't have that option. I don't think it is a sacrifice that a woman goes to work when she has children. Many women including myself, are happy to get out of the house when they have children and the extra money certainly doesn't hurt either. I do however think, that a woman should be able if she desires, to stay home with her children. Many women prefer to do so. And many women wish they could do so. Marriage should theoretically be a joint partnership. I have found it much easier not to fight about money if both partners are making some. Dividing the bills and keeping up with ones half makes it more difficult to argue if one party splurges once in a while. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 22, 2008, 03:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I don't understand.  You don't think a woman has a right to quit work when she marries, but you do you think she should be able to stay home with the kids if she desires?  It sounds like the same thing to me.(reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, December 22, 2008, 10:31 (Agree/Disagree?) WHEN SHE GETS MARRIED is not at all the same as WHEN SHE HAS CHILDREN.. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, December 22, 2008, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I think a mother should be able to stay home if she chooses to for the first year of her child's life. If they can afford it, certainly. I think the government should actually fund this, most modern countries have something to that effect although I believe the length of time varies. She certainly does not have a right to stay home if she has a child. There is nothing that makes me think a woman has any more right to stay home after the birth of a child than a man does. We are talking about equality. A man does not have the right, and should not have the right to stay home once he marries. Why should a woman have that right? It is only saying a woman should depend on a man for her living. Now if they have a passel of children, and the mother works and then comes home and has to cook and clean with little to no help from her spouse then the issue needs to be revisited. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, December 21, 2008, 14:59 (Agree/Disagree?) It's not a matter of whether he should be "helping". He lives there doesn't he? I'm assuming he's not quadriplegic. So one would expect, like all human beings, he goes through the rituals of caring for home and family, same as she would, same as they'd be teaching their children to do. I don't understand why you keep trying to put some sort of gender association to various parts of normal life such as caring for one's home and earning a living.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 21, 2008, 15:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Because so many women and men feel that they (wives) should not have to work once they are married.  What is left to do then?  And if a woman chooses to go by the system of staying at home and not working, is she a bad Mother or wife because of it?  No more than working would make her a bad Mother or wife.  It's all about what is best for the family as a whole, is it not?(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Sunday, December 21, 2008, 18:30 (Agree/Disagree?) You see, here Samuel, your argument runs out of steam. Rainy nailed it in the her comment above and you retreat to the defense of your own preconceived stereotypes. Honestly, please join us in the present, not the value system of the 50s. Why should there be a definite gender type attached certain roles in the family? I know plenty of moms who spank their children. I know a few stay at home dads. I know just as many powerful women as man who are dominants and dictate the direction of the family. I really don't know where you get the idea that it's a woman's right not to work once she's married. What entitles women to that anymore than a man? Proficiency at work which then translates into financial power? Let's say for example then, if I married Madonna, could she still kick my ass and tell me to go to work without me screaming, "Sacrifice! Sacrifice!"? Why on earth does gender have to play into it? This honestly sounds to me more like your own mental picture of how the world should be. Not the way it is. Compound that with the whole  "knight in shining armour" mentality (which often stems from what I can only call a feeling a superiority to the opposite sex), which seems to be the building block of your argument, and you can see how I feel that your view is actually quite patronizing and condescending toward women.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 22, 2008, 19:36 (Agree/Disagree?) But here's the problem.  If you say that a woman does not have the right to quit work once she is married, then doesn't that give her husband liscence to force her to work?  That doesn't exactly seem fair, a marriage is supposed to be a partnership.  And if she wants to work for the benefit of the home, that should be her choice.  I say she does have the right, and she can do with that right as she pleases.  If you think this comes from a view of superiority to the opposite sex, I would say that you are wrong.  If women felt that that was the way things were, that their husbands felt they were inferior to them, I don't think they would be doing the things they do.  I don't see it as playing certain roles, I see it as focusing on the strengths that each indivdual has.  I paid attention at work today, and you know what I noticed?  On this random weekday, 70% of the shoppers in the store were women.  And of them, only about 10% had their husbands with them.  Of course some of those women had husbands that died or are incapable of coming with them to help, and many of them are single.  But that still leaves a large percentage of women that for some reason were left to go grocery shopping on their own.  Where are the men?  If these relationships are so perfect and both parties work and contribute to the efforts of running a home, then where are they when the food runs out and its time to restock? Considering that your fantasy dream comes true, and you get to marry Madonna, why would she want you to work?  Certainly she makes enough to support you both, and if she makes you work, then who is going to run the home? As I'm leaving for South Carolina tomorrow, this will be my last post for a couple days, so I will finish by saying that if I got married and my wife wanted to work while I looked after the affairs of the home, I would not have a problem with that.  I would probably talk to her about my dreams and the possibility of my going back to college in hopes of working in politics or government, but I would still not have a problem with it.  But I call what my cousin's wife did a sacrifice because she did not really want to work and support her husband.  She did it because it needed to be done, but as soon as my cousin got his law degree and the job at her Father's firm, she quit her job.  Perhaps staying at home and raising kids WAS her dream?  And if so, then who are we to belittle that dream?  Who are we to say that other women should not stay at home and raise kids, if that is what they do best? Cheers to all, and Merry Christmas!(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Friday, December 26, 2008, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) It could also be that seventy percent of women cook better then men. Which is the case in our home. I have a male friend who I have known since I was in the Family who has alway done the cooking even when he worked 12 hours a day. He was the better cook.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Saturday, December 20, 2008, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) This is why you have never and will never get a girlfriend.  You have never had a fufilling, challenging job or shag, which is one of the many reasons your opinions on both are moronic.(reply to this comment)

From Can you do my reading next? Sunday, December 21, 2008, 00:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Please? (reply to this comment)

From Fish Saturday, December 20, 2008, 03:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't need a career. Can I come live with you? I promise to "sacrifice" and stay at home. Ill even try to be miserable. Please, pretty please?  (reply to this comment)

From murasaki Friday, December 19, 2008, 07:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Nice that it turned out so well for your cousin. However, that arrangement could also been seen as a financial investment. The wife is now legally entitled to a portion of your cousin's earnings since she supported him while he studied, not exactly a purely selfless sacrifice. (reply to this comment)

From sure. sure Friday, December 19, 2008, 08:11 (Agree/Disagree?) but, you make it sound as if they are getting a divorce now.(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Friday, December 19, 2008, 17:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Not at all, just pointing out that the story sounds more like a teamwork effort toward mutual goals rather than pure self sacrifice. (reply to this comment)

from Jailbird Friday, December 05, 2008 - 17:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Seems relatively bogus to me. (reply to this comment)

from What is Love? Friday, December 05, 2008 - 15:04 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo (reply to this comment)

from colden Friday, December 05, 2008 - 14:40 (Agree/Disagree?)  That was the most patronizing, plagiarized, redundant, thing passed of as some form of truistic original thought I have yet seen on this site(at least smallface is ranting from the heart)! do you seriously believe plagiarizing berg letters which were them selves plagiarized to create some bastardized third hand collage constitutes orignal thought or feeling? if that is the best you can do to "leave your mark" I suggest you rejoin the family! if in fact you ever left. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, December 08, 2008, 06:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I wouldn't talk if I were you. I have refrained so far from commenting on your work due to artistic expression. But you post some pretty shitty poetry. How you can post your crap for all to see, and then rag on someone else's work is beyond me. Why don't you first remove the crap you have posted and then go to your brother, or in this case sister, and speak to her about her work. Cheeks 7:3(reply to this comment)

From colden Monday, December 08, 2008, 15:21 (Agree/Disagree?)  I do recall you commenting on one my poems. Apparently your self delusion allows you forget this. At least my shit is my own! and you are not my sister :P(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, December 08, 2008, 19:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I did not actually comment on your poem, if one could call it that, I commented on a comment that was left on your poetry. (reply to this comment)

From colden Monday, December 08, 2008, 20:46 (Agree/Disagree?) so you were really just trying to open up about your unfufilling sex life-I see! is this a comment about a comments comment, or are we still commenting now? (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 07:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Yawn. (reply to this comment)

From colden Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 14:28 (Agree/Disagree?)  Stop, the passion is killing me! ;)(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, December 05, 2008, 16:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Totally agree. Total glurge.(reply to this comment)

From celestej Sunday, December 07, 2008, 20:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, sounds like regurgitated family crap to me.  sacrifice yourself, your own needs and sense of self for the benefit of others.  And never expect anything in return.  The family version of love, which translates into mental, emotional and sexual slavery.  "Love" everybody but yourself.  By the way, tow truck drivers and bosses on Monday morning are usually not that nice.  Not the most loving poeple I've ever encountered. :)(reply to this comment)

From clark Monday, December 22, 2008, 06:06 (Agree/Disagree?) in my humble opinion, I don't think one can ever pay another to love their baby/toddler enough. Workers in daycare get tired and cut corners just like anyone in any work situation. Obviously there are situations where daycare is the only option. But I think if it can at all be avoided, just for the first few years of the child life, by EITHER parent staying home, that is the best option. It is probably most likely the Mother, as she is nursing etc. I am all for women in the work force, but I think when a couple decides to have children, they should be prepared to live off of one income for a while. I too had a horrific experience with day care with my oldest. She lasted one week and I pulled her. I accepted that I would only be able to work half the time till she got older. Thankfully by the time my other two came along, I could stay with them. Now that they are older, I am in school, and look forward to a career as an RN.(reply to this comment)

From celestej Thursday, December 25, 2008, 00:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Good for you.  I can't imagine ever putting my child in daycare.  Even a good one.  I just couldn't trust strangers with my child's well-being.  Isn't that what our parents did?  Look how disastrously that turned out.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, December 22, 2008, 13:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with that. Being there in those early years is extremely important. I would never argue with that. I was just saying I don't think women have a right to expect to be supported by their husbands just because they are married. But I do think it's important that when a couple decide to have a child, they sit down and work out if they can afford it. I think that should include surviving on either one income so one of them can be home, or two part-time incomes so they can take turns being at home. Having children is expensive.(reply to this comment)