Since it’s Friday and I haven’t blogged in ten days, I’ll just give you a few little things here and there to look over during the weekend. First off, Jill over at Feminist has posted this letter from the fervently Christian Jennie, who apparently was overwhelmed by the outside world while attending college, ever so far away from daddy. I seriously doubt all young Christian women “suffer” Jennie’s kind of experience while attending college, nor do I believe that being a Christian woman in the big-scary modern world equals mental anguish. But her letter made me giggle and snicker.
[…]This problem is particularly acute with Christian women, since feminism has slowly but surely crept into the church and stolen our hearts while we were not feeding them with God’s precepts and commands. So many families believe that a young woman, like a young man, is “free and independent” at age 18 or age 21 and should leave home to strike out on her own. This is in total opposition to God’s teachings.
[…]By the time I graduated, I was disillusioned and thoroughly brainwashed into thinking I was going to have to fend for myself in the world. (emphasis mine)
(violins playing) Oh the horror (rolls eyes). Personally I can’t wait until May of 2008, and then shipping off to grad school. But that’s just me.
[…]His Word is true and pure, and we cannot go wrong if we follow Him! Starting in the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), we see that God made woman for man. As much as the feminists hate the idea, it is true. Conversely, man was made to protect, cherish and nourish the woman. Men who are not doing that and are not loving their wives as Christ loved the church are covenant-breakers. Women who refuse to stay home and obey their fathers or husbands are also covenant-breakers. They are inverting God’s created order, which is God-Man-Woman-Animals. (emphasis mine)
(snickers) Wow, my resolve to complete college, go onto grad school, devote pretty much all of my time to my career, and die a spinster is now stronger then ever. And the Great Chain of Being? Puh-leeze. Again, I doubt all young twenty-something single Christian women endure this kind of psychological and spiritual….uh, “trauma”(?) while attending college, and have this bleak outlook on life outside of daddy’s (and the hubby’s) home. Still this is both depressing and hilarious to read. Next, the American Family Association is pissed at American Girl and Girl Inc. for teaming up together recently in their “I Can” band campaign, since Girl Inc. is “pro-abortion” and “pro-lesbian.” Yes, Girl Inc. is pro-reprodcutive-rights and provides resources for sexual orientation issues Yep, Girl Inc. will turn little girls into ‘aborting Sapphists.’
[…]The problem here is that Girls Inc. has on their webpage a statement saying they particularly support abortion and a girl’s right to abort an unwanted baby. They were quite clear about their support for Roe, so there is no mistake or room for confusion on that count. Additionally, Girls Inc. supports contraceptives for girls.
They also support and offer resources encouraging lesbian and bi-sexual lifestyles, actually offering resources for girls. One of their publications states, “The emergence of a lesbian identity is an ongoing process, rather than an event.”[…]
Jessica over at Feministing has her own little commentary on this. I should buy one of these bands just to piss of the AFA. Now onwards to BrutalWomen who has wonderfully gutted this usual crap, written by WorldNetDaily commentator Vox Day (his blog is Vox Popoli.)
Is motherhood instinctive or learned behavior? Both religion and science tell us that it is instinctive, much to the distaste of the feminist ideologists, who have never been overburdened by a solid grasp on either. But one need only watch the way in which a young girl mothers her stuffed animals to see the maternal instinct at work.
Wow! This must mean my three-year-old nephew is Transgender because he loves and cuddles all over his stuffed animals, and even plays with his cousins’ Barbie dolls. But I’m sure with this guy’s vast knowledge of all that is Human Nature and Evolution, he must have a bullshit an explanation for my nephew’s behavior.
[…]And a woman foolish enough to wait more than two decades before attempting to have children has no one to blame but herself. As for the likelihood that the technological future will eventually solve such problems, it is worth noting that no society that possesses artificial wombs, robot sex dolls, multiplayer video games and 24-hour sports networks is one in which men are likely to show a tremendous amount of interest in relationships or the opposite sex.
Fortunately, as we have not yet reached Nerdvana, there are a number of steps that a woman whose priority remains marriage and children can take in order to happily achieve those goals:
Don’t engage in casual dating relationships after 18. They’re fun, and they’ll also prevent you from pursuing more fruitful relationships.
Make those potential long-term relationships your top priority. If you put college or your job first, there’s a reasonable chance that a job is all you’ll have at 40 … and 60. Consider the president’s new Supreme Court nominee. The unmarried and childless Creepy McCrypto is on the verge of becoming one of the two most powerful professional women in the country ““ does she really represent the ideal American woman?
McCrypto?! WTF!
Settle earlier rather than later. I can’t tell you how many women I know who blew off good men in their late teens and early 20s who now regret doing so. Those who are not still single at 35 are now married to men generally considered to be of lower quality than the men they spurned before. Remember, your choices narrow as you get older, while men’s choices broaden.
Let everyone know that marriage and children is your ultimate goal. Too many women, fearing the wrath of the Sisterhood, secretly wish for them while publicly and piously professing feminist-approved cant to the contrary.
Bait-and-switch doesn’t work. Unlike their female counterparts, men who say they don’t want to get married or have kids usually mean it. Play that game and he’ll be perfectly justified in dumping your dishonest posterior despite your time-investment in him.
Don’t hesitate to end relationships that aren’t leading toward marriage, or with men who are less than completely positive about the near-term prospect of children. If he hasn’t proposed in 18 months, he has no intention of doing so. Cut your losses. Most men know how to string women along and know they’ll have no problem replacing you when you finally call their bluff. Never confuse the masculine desire for conflict avoidance with malleability.
Shed your man-hating friends, as well as those who buy seriously into the Equalitarian dogma. Misery loves company and miserable women like nothing better than to make everyone within a five-mile radius miserable, too.
Be brutal when assessing the men who are interested in you. Too many women make the mistake of looking only at a man’s desirable traits and ignoring his weaknesses early on. But it’s not the first kiss that matters ““ it’s the happily-ever-after part. The way he treats others is the way he will eventually treat you.
If you want the odds of easily bearing healthy children to be in your favor, set a goal of marrying by 25. You can always go back to school, you can’t go back in time.
Remember that love is a choice, an action and a commitment, it is not a feeling.
You know I am very glad that I do not measure up to this guy’s perverse standards of the “ideal American women,” and my goals in life are nothing–at this time–in the least bit close to what this guy is preachin’ all women should do. Yeesh. And now for some commentary on Harriet Miers (not “McCrypto”) by BitchPhd to top it off;
But I am wondering if, on the contrary, it might not be the case that an true believer who isn’t a great legal mind–which is what I suspect Miers is–might not be far more dangerous, precisely because she will have the power to rule without the intelligence or background to respect either the precedents or the consequences that form the context for her ruling. Also, in terms of preparing cases to go before a court, if you know how the judges you’re presenting to think, and you also trust that–whether or not you like the way they think–they have a judicial philosophy that is, at least, consistent and rigorous, then you can prepare arguments to appeal to that. If you’ve got someone who, as Miers is reported to have done, will generously agree to meet with people she disagrees with, listen to their arguments, and then simply dismiss them by saying that she doesn’t agree–without giving you anything to go on about why she doesn’t agree, or how to address the premises she uses to form judgments with–then there’s nowhere to go. I very much fear that, as a judge, Miers will play the role of the fundamentalist you argue with about evolution or feminism or the ACLU, someone who no matter what evidence you present them with, simply says, “no, those things are wrong and evil because I believe they are.”
And I think that having someone in power who is not amenable to reason is very dangerous indeed.
Yeah, I’m not exactly slap-happy about Miers’ nomination but “McCrypto?!” Whatever. Anyway enjoy your weekend, because I won’t. Damn midterms are next week so I will be glaring at textbooks most of the time.
Hahah that’s priceless. Is this woman for real? I do have to agree on the part about Harriet Miers though – she sure as hell doesn’t represent many women out there that I’m aware of. Then again, lil Jessica seems unaware that it’s not her being a woman that is the focus of many feminists, because unlike Ms. Thang, most feminists actually give a damn about the politics she might well be affecting (other than those politics controlling women’s reproduction, which I suspect quite greatly Jessica would be a raving idiot anti-choice lunatic about anyways).
I almost wonder if she’s a man posing to be a woman. She seems way too much like a Christian fundamentalist man’s ‘ideal’ woman.
I wonder how thrilled daddy-of-fervently-Christian-Jennie will be at the prospect of paying for her college education, only to have her say that she will not use it to become self-supporting or to support her future family. She’s not much of a marriage prospect without earning power or an inheritance – daddy is going to be stuck with a useless stay-at-home daughter who refuses to work to help pay rent and lights.
About Vox Fundus (voice of the base, ie, a fart in common English): He’s made a pretty good case for use of a sperm bank, and a cooperative housing style arrangement with other young single mothers to spread out childminding and other resources so that most of the single moms in the coop are working, just not all at the same time. Men are for amusement, and when they cease to be amusing, out! At any rate, it sounds like Vox Fundus is one of those 35 year old men still living in their parents’ basement while writing a blog and collecting Star Wars action figures in the original wrapping.
Never confuse the masculine desire for conflict avoidance with malleability.
“…the masculine desire for conflict avoidance…”?!? I thought we naturally programed by God and/or evolution to be super-competitive warriors. Where is he getting his gender stereotypes? Or maybe the immutable laws of gender shift with convinience.
“…the masculine desire for conflict avoidance…”?!? I thought we naturally programed by God and/or evolution to be super-competitive warriors. Where is he getting his gender stereotypes? Or maybe the immutable laws of gender shift with convinience.
Only when it’s convenient for our side of the argument. When it is convenient, we are also nurturing, sensitive, muscular, pot-bellied, loud, quiet, aggressive, violent, rational, logical, emotional, etc.
Hee. Nerdvana.
Is motherhood instinctive or learned behavior? Both religion and science tell us that it is instinctive . . . But one need only watch the way in which a young girl mothers her stuffed animals to see the maternal instinct at work.
So, what about the MOM at my daycare whose baby is underdeveloped because she and dad only held him until he was six months old? The evil preschool had to tell mom and dad to put him down sometimes, damnit. Shouldn’t instinct tell you that babies need time to wiggle on the floor?
Also, at age 3, I dumped my doll out of her carriage and used it to carry around junk. Perhaps I was exhibiting the feminine instinct for grocery shopping.
Jennie was pressured to attend college, and went with a chip on her shoulder. Perhaps as a result, she had a negative experience. Her fault isn’t in choosing to stay home, however, but in treating this decision as a requirement for everyone else. And her claim that ‘disobedient women get what they deserve’ is reprehensible ““ especially in light of the fact her speech should be governed by the Law of Kindness (Prov. 31:26).
It isn’t her place to forgive or condemn the acts of others, but rather to order her own life in such as way that it reflects her values. A godly woman in the conservative Christian tradition may instruct people, including her own husband, through good conduct (1 Pet. 3:1). This is how Monica of Hippo, Augustine’s mother, won over her husband Patricious. Older women are also given leave to teach younger ones, assuming both parties are Christian.
But the relationship among believers is different from the one by which believers should deal with non-believers. This is made clear over and over in the Bible. People who don’t believe in the claims of Christianity can be evangelized, but their separation from God ““ their disbelief in the most basic tenets of this religion ““ moves them beyond redemption whether they stay home or work.
So, by foisting a debate about points of doctrine on people who don’t believe *any* of the Bible, Jennie is doing a disservice. And worse, her arrogant insistence she knows what’s best for everyone, and her desire to use the Bible as a club by which to force obedience, turns even the most receptive people away from the overarching message of Christianity.
I allow my hubby to take our head on familial and financial issues for several reasons:
* Because I believe we were brought together by God, who wishes for me to be a helpmeet.
* Because he has certain physical abnormalities that lead some people to treat him as less than he is, it’s my job – both as his helpmeet and as someone who loves him ““ to build him up and fortify him against ‘the world’. I’m the staff he wields.
* Because I think my spouse is better suited to handle certain kinds of stress than me.
I’ve found this kind of attitude makes us both happier, not because I’m some vapid plaything he orders around, but because he knows there’s always someone in his corner. No matter what he says or does, I’ll always love him for who he is.
Those who see submission as a heavy obligation they must inflict on everyone else in order to bear it themselves have the wrong attitude towards being a suitable helper. And I’m completely in the dark as to how Jennie thinks a woman can help a man, rather than merely building his ego, by being sheltered and ignorant. She claims over and over she’s not against education, but that rings hollow when her original point concerns how college ruins girls.
I wouldn’t be able to help my spouse, either emotionally or materially, if I didn’t have marketable skills. He doesn’t want an intelligent pet; he wants a helper suitable. Despite my myriad flaws, I try to be that foremost.
We’re a team. If we don’t work together, and that includes on earning an income, we’ll both suffer greatly ““ as one flesh.
Pingback: Grand Mental Station
Let me e’splain. no, is too much, let me sum up
Jennie: God will smite you if your heterosexual marriage is not a 24/7 DS relationship with no safewords
AFA: God will smite any dolls that empower girls.
Pretentious wannabe skiffy writer: All women exist to SERVE MY COCK! BOW TO THE COCK! KILL ALL FEMINISTS!
Bitch PhD: Any sucessful woman who isn’t dominated by a man is a threat to the partiarchy. Miers is not tied to a man. Q.E. Fucking D.
Inigo Buttercup is marry’ Humperdinck in a little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape… after I kill Count Rugen.
Westley: That doesn’t leave much time for dilly-dallying.
So you don’t go out and meet potential life-partners, IOW. Daddy and/or Jesus and/or the marriage broker can take care of that for you.
Or you do go out and meet them, but tell them from Day One (in the name of honesty) that they can’t even have a peck on the cheek until you get that weddin’ ring. Yeah, that’ll really bring out the cream of the crop for you to choose from, mate-wise all right. And everyone knows that in romantic and/or sexual relations, you either refrain from all contact completely or you have to give it all up on the first date. There’s no possible middle ground there.
Ho hum.
“Don’t engage in casual dating relationships after 18. They’re fun, *and* . . .”
This is bad?
This is also the probable inspiration for the bumper sticker that says “Dear God, please save me from your ‘good people.'”
“But I am wondering if, on the contrary, it might not be the case that an true believer who isn’t a great legal mind”“which is what I suspect Miers is”“might not be far more dangerous, precisely because she will have the power to rule without the intelligence or background to respect either the precedents or the consequences that form the context for her ruling.”
We’ve been through this. It’s called the Bush administration.
There is something funnyand ironic about what the guy from Vox Popoli said, that “too many women, fearing the wrath of the Sisterhood, secretly wish for them (marriage and children) while publicly and piously professing feminist-approved cant to the contrary”. This is far from the truth! The truth is that young women of today do not ‘publicly’ and ‘piously’ profess ‘feminist-approved cant’; young women of today who would never dream of calling themselves feminists, or indeed, even align themselves with feminism, love their careers. They love being independant, and they delay children and marriage by choice. What’s more, they will never put up with shit relationships as easily either! Just sounds like another anti-feminist creep who’s scared of free, self-defined women to me!
Good stuff!
And after dealing with grown men(w/ guns and badges no less!) acting like five-year olds on my blog, or praying for me to be violently attacked, I have a new appreciation for the intelligent folks here, whether I agree with them or not.
Girls, Inc….LOL…too much time on their hands…
Miers….oooooh, my mom’s been ringing me off the hook with concerns about her! But then my mom’s off her Hillary Clinton for president kick, now.
(she still keeps her Bill Clinton wristwatch…sigh..)
By all the people here, most of whom are great, that does include you Robert…
Harriet Miers can’t be the Christian fundamentalist’s “ideal woman,” since for years and years the eggs that could have turned into babies wept as they were flushed down the toilet with her monthly cycle ….
This doesn’t really contradict “monkey testicle”‘s views, above, but I thought it worth mentioning in the face of others using Scripture to justify patricarchal control: “Ezer B’negdo,” translated as “help meet for” in the Authorized Version of the Bible, might also be rendered as “power complementary to.” I.e. the Lord saw fit to remedy Adam’s solitude by creating for him a counterpart, not an assistant.
Its azer kinegdo, help-against or help-meet, and I’ve heard it translated as meaning for him when he is doing right, against him when he is going wrong.
Which would give the woman a heck of a lot of power.
Also, a study of the imahot (mothers, Sara, Rivka, Rochel and Leah) will not show weak subordinante women (Neither was Chava weark and subordinate, nor for that matter, Ruth, Devorah, Chana etc. etc. etc.) Avraham was in fact commanded BY G-D to listen to all Sara said. NOT listen to her only concerning Hagar, but ALL that she says.
It’s interesting that Jennie failed to mention Deborah, Huldah, or Rahab. She chose only those woman whose stories seemed to affirm her claims about a ‘proper feminine posture’, and downplayed contradictory evidence as presented in Proverbs 31. Nor did she give consideration to Mary Magdalene, who followed Jesus rather than keeping at home.
I don’t see ‘helpmeet’ as a subordinate role, but as one with a complementary function – a function that means different things in different relationships. In ours, it means balancing my advantage through supporting his decisions. It means that if he makes a mistake, I won’t rub salt in the wound by saying, “I told you so.” It means that, when we’re out in public, I defer without question for the sake of his honor. We don’t argue in front of people, but we do have discussions in private.
I’ve seen both men and women demean their partners, or wrangle for years over honest mistakes. These activities are to the soul as poison is to flesh.
I’m no June Cleaver: I’m not a very good cook, and nor do I scrub the toilet with a glad heart. But when my hubby needs me, I’m there; and when he asks me to do something, I do it.
I’ve read a lot on this subject, and am disturbed by the view that women are suited only for domestic prostitution. And worse still are materials produced by women who adopt a pose of childlike innocence merely to avoid adult responsibilities. They consider female ignorance a badge of piety – a trait worthy of cultivation. Even in his most ‘misogynistic’ passage, however, Paul commands that women *learn*. (1 Timothy 2:11) At various points in the Bible, female learning includes finances, religion, law, and defense.
It means that, when we’re out in public, I defer without question for the sake of his honor.
does he do the same for you?
does he do the same for you?
Yes, except it’s very rare that I make a public decision concerning both of us without first talking to him. The point isn’t to look like his doormat: I simply believe my conduct sets the tone for how others treat him. He sometimes picks a more bumpy fork in the road, but I trust him enough to go for the ride.
There’s been but one occasion when he’s chosen a course of action to which I objected morally, and he respected my refusal to participate. But I’ll still be there by his side, and won’t belittle him if he gets flak.
It’s easy for me, I guess, because my hubby’s a good guy not given to rash decisions or illogical courses of action. This relationship is founded on the high value we place in one another – an imperfect representation of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Amusing. What the young Christian woman appears to have overlooked, in her eagerness of conform to (man’s) written Word of God is that this benevolent God created women without a soul; they do not, therefore, count for anything in the great (religious) scheme of things and might just as well go out there and make party while they can. There’s no (biblical) hereafter for you women, live with it!
Pi.
Sounds equal to me.
Pi:
There’s nothing wrong with questioning the value of Christianity, but at least do it based on claims made in the Bible.
In 1 Peter 3:1-7, scripture refers to women as fellow heirs to the grace of life, and commands they adorn themselves with a quiet spirit. Genesis 1:27 says, “and God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.” Galatians 3:28 says all are one in Christ Jesus, making distinctions between slave and free, Jew and Greek, or male and female irrelevant.
Yep, Girl Inc. will turn little girls into ‘aborting Sapphists.’
Now, see, if this is the best argument for non-wingnut sex-ed I’ve ever seen. If these fools had a basic understanding of human sexuality, they’d realize that problem A solves problem B. You can get hot and bothered about one or the other, but you have to choose.
Methinks Jennie just doesn’t want to get a job and is tired of being embarrassed about it. Her solution: declare her laziness a virtue! God wants us to sit around and be kept by men, and all you working women are defying God’s plan.
It’s my experience that women who work at home generally do more labor than women who work for pay outside the home. Keeping a house and raising children is hard work. I am sure that Jennie has her share of issues, but she would be highly irrational to opt for the homemaker role out of laziness.
It’s my experience that women who work at home generally do more labor than women who work for pay outside the home.
Gee, nothing more endearing than a man who sets out to start another round of the Mommy wars. The “all the women who work outside the home sit on their ass behind a desk for eight hours” trope is just as tired as the “all women who work as homemakers sit on their ass and eat snacks and watch soap operas” trope. Borrrr—innnnngggg! Surely you could come up with better snark?
Jennie isn’t opting for the homemaker role. She’s not married. She has no kids. She has no job. She isn’t attending school. She’s sitting around the house, waiting for what, I don’t know. She’s not apt to meet a future husband that way, and her parents are probably going to pawn her off on any guy who will take her after a few years of supporting her deadbeat ass. Maybe her folks should get her a large set of luggage for Christmas.
The “all the women who work outside the home sit on their ass behind a desk for eight hours” trope is just as tired as the “all women who work as homemakers sit on their ass and eat snacks and watch soap operas” trope. Borrrr…innnnngggg! Surely you could come up with better snark?
I’m sure that I could come up with better snark. However, this is your snark – and you’re right, it’s lame.
I made a mild and positive statement – women who stay at home do a lot of work – more, in my experience, than women who work outside. Having done both, and having known lots of women who did both, I think housework is harder than paid work. I certainly know which I would pick to do, given the choice.
You can view this as an attack on working women if you like; however, it simply adds to the perception that you are not a serious disputant of these issues. To be able to discuss, we must be able to describe. We cannot describe if we must engage in petty battles every time we say something more potentially divisive than “flowers are nice.”
One or the other types of work is likely harder; women do both types of work; therefore, one class of woman is likely working harder than another class. Men, too. I have my opinion as to which class this is; this opinion I hold consistently, with reason, and with the knowledge that it is a general statement that does not hold true for all people at all times. I won’t be bullied out of it because someone with a chip on her shoulder would rather pick fights than discuss issues.
You are correct that Jennie is not deciding to be a homemaker today. However, she is opting for a lifestyle where she views that as her first, best destiny. It is presumably what she is hoping and praying for. To say that someone is hoping to become a homemaker out of laziness is akin to saying that someone hopes to become a rock star because they seek a stable home life. It’s possible for that to be the motivation, but if so it betrays a fundamental lack of rational insight.
Whoops! This is a P-A thread. I was asked not to comment on P-A threads. Thought this was Nick’s. My bad. Sorry.
“You are correct that Jennie is not deciding to be a homemaker today. However, she is opting for a lifestyle where she views that as her first, best destiny.”
Exactly how does working outside the home today preclude her from choosing to stay at home once she has kids or even simply gets married? Exactly how does the fact that Jennie thinks that college is bad training for her keep her from going out and working as a maid or a child-care-giver? Would these jobs not be good training? Is there something so inherently wrong about a women working outside the home that even spending her days caring for the elderly at a nursing home is less worthy of her time than simply not working?
La Lubu was not the one to accuse Jennie of choosing to be a homemaker out of laziness, she was simply pointing out that you can’t say that she works harder than women who work outside the home* not only because it’s a stupid argument, but because she isn’t a homemaker Maybe I missed something and Jennie is volunteering full time at the local soup kitchen while she waits for Mr. Wonderful to stumble over her, but if she isn’t, then yes, she’s being lazy and selfish.
*I love how this argument conveniently ignores the vast numbers of women who do both and in fact are often expected to do more of the housework and care-giving than their husbands are, even if they work the same hours. :p….
*I love how this argument conveniently ignores the vast numbers of women who do both and in fact are often expected to do more of the housework and care-giving than their husbands are, even if they work the same hours. :p….
As a matter of fact, this single mother does both! But really, I was just pointing out the inherent classism in the “homemakers work harder” statement; the inference is that housework is more physically active than work outside the home. It is if you’re a bank executive, but it isn’t if you are a waiter/waitress, custodian, nurse, plumber, carpenter, physical therapist, landscaper/gardener, etc. Granted, there are few of us that work in construction, but there are a hell of a lot of folks in other physically demanding jobs—-a damn sight more than have behind-the-desk jobs. For working class folks, housework is most definitely not harder than paid work. Not just physically less demanding, but better working conditions to boot! Screaming toddlers are much easier to deal with than screaming foremen.
Point being? If you grow up in the kind of home where folks have physically demanding jobs and little-to-no power in how their job is performed, not to mention little-to-no status from that job, you’ll view homemaking as both a welcome change and a cakewalk—even though it isn’t given any real status either.
You can view this as an attack on working women if you like; however, it simply adds to the perception that you are not a serious disputant of these issues.
How does her viewing your comment as an attack, rather than as a “mild and positive statement”, detract from her seriousness? You initially presented a view – in this case, that homemakers work harder than those in paid employment – without expanding on it.
Such a statement, devoid of context, carries its own baggage. For example, it could mean, ‘women who work outside the home do so merely to avoid the harder, gender-specific responsibility of caring for family.’
It’s disingenuous of you to plead ignorance as to why your initial post might be taken the wrong way. You’re no wounded rabbit among predators, so quit limping.
Don’t worry, MT. You get used to that from Robert, after a while. Sort of like crummy morning commute weather or slugs in your herb garden. :/
I have a question. How sure are we that this whole thing is real; that this letter writer really exists and this isn’t just some screed put out to stir up the cyberworld? Whenever I see something this far to one side, my bullshit detector starts stirring.
I went directly to this woman’s site and started reading her letter, but I stopped after the first few paragraphs. She has some serious issues!
1. She was home-schooled for 8 years, and then her parents “made” her go to a school 300 miles away, when she didn’t feel comfortable leaving home (for whatever reason). So she was already looking for ways to hate being there, and she still isn’t over it.
2. After she complained and complained about it, her parents apologized for making her go. So now she has validation for hating the whole experience, plus she has stored up plenty of examples of how awful it was being there. I’m probably making a huge assumption here, but I suspect her roommate(s) were probably the leading characters in her version of “College Sucks.”
3. After graduation, she got a job in media relations, and was astonished that she’s become cynical! Hello, media relations is not the job for you if you want to register low on the Cynic Meter. She loved her job but felt bitter inside – probably still resenting being chucked out of the nest.
4. She finally meets someone who is husband material, moves back home, and sometime during her engagement quits her job. Also, somewhere in here, her father dies. Can you say “guilt trip”?
So now she has made it her life’s mission to save other young women who shouldn’t want to leave their families. Too sad.
La Lubu
Quite true – my sister likely finds taking care of her toddler and infant to be much more physicaly demanding than her old office job, but she may not have felt the same if her previous job had been as a maid. Especially since her current role as homemaker only includes day to day housekeeping – a maid comes in every so often to mop the floors, scrub the toilets, etc.
I’ve worked as a housekeeper, dishwasher, in an office, tutoring, babysitting etc. etc. Had losts of jobs. what gets you most is not so much the physical drain, though that is why I stopped the dishwashing (last job) but the tedium.
And staying at home with a crying baby can get quite tedious if you are the only adult within miles and all your friends are away and everyone looks at you as if you spend the day eating bonbons even if they state otherwise. Really, soemtimes kids, even my beautiful crew, can be bores. Sometimse one just once some quiet. What adds to the aggrevation is no one considers it work if you are flat busted. Then you are suppose to get off you keister and earn money, because you really aren’t working when taking care of your own flesh and blood.
I’d just like to let people in on the secret that stay at home mothers of school age children have a lot of time on their hands. I know because my freelancing allows me to be stay at home a lot and I can’t believe how leisurely life is on those days. After all, we’re not making our own clothes and raising poultry anymore. That’s the real reason for the uptick in homeschooling: bored stay at home moms.