View Full Version : Input needed on problems during pregnancy because of hormones!
I love my wife dearly and there is nothing that I went through during
the entire 9 months our pregnancy that I would not would not endure
again when I think about the joy brought into both of our lives as a
result.
Unfortunately for both men and women, the entire pregnancy period is
not smooth. Some women have raging hormones that bring about wild mood
swings. Not all men know how to deal with it. I was certainly not
prepared.
When it comes to men that are together with hormone-enraged
wives/girlfriends, I've generally run across two types: Rubber and
Glue. The 'rubber' guys can take all the verbal abuse and laugh it
off. I take my hat off to these types of men. Then there is the
'Glue' type of man. This is the sensitive man that needs
reassurance and cannot tolerate much criticism and verbal abuse.
Typical reactions are either to lash out or to go into a shell. I am
the latter. If I feel that I did my best on anything, but then someone
comes along and criticizes it, it damages my ego. Now apply that
scenario to my marriage. If I feel that I'm doing everything in my
power to ensure a good and comfortable future for our family, it's
nice to hear that my hard work is acknowledged. Unfortunately during
the 9 months of my wife's pregnancy, I hardly ever heard encouraging
words although I did my best to provide my wife with comfort and
support. When I tried to voice my frustration, it was met with the same
answer each time: "Oh, poor you".
I decided to gather input in a NG so that I can hear from both men and
women that have gone through pregnancy and problematic hormones.
Your stories may be used in a book I am working on. Your permission to
publish your quotes will of course be obtained first. Anonimity is
optional. You can email me directly at or post your
story on the NG.
Jenrose
March 8th 05, 06:14 PM
> off. I take my hat off to these types of men. Then there is the
> 'Glue' type of man. This is the sensitive man that needs
> reassurance and cannot tolerate much criticism and verbal abuse.
> Typical reactions are either to lash out or to go into a shell. I am
> the latter. If I feel that I did my best on anything, but then someone
> comes along and criticizes it, it damages my ego. Now apply that
> scenario to my marriage. If I feel that I'm doing everything in my
> power to ensure a good and comfortable future for our family, it's
> nice to hear that my hard work is acknowledged. Unfortunately during
> the 9 months of my wife's pregnancy, I hardly ever heard encouraging
> words although I did my best to provide my wife with comfort and
> support. When I tried to voice my frustration, it was met with the same
> answer each time: "Oh, poor you".
>
I'm sorry you didn't get the support you needed. Unfortunately, when one is
pregnant, and especially in a difficult pregnancy, it can be *very*
difficult to be sympathetic to someone else's need for attention. Been
there, twice.
This pregnancy, I've gone out of my way to be appreciative of my partner's
efforts... can't always do it every time though. Pregnancy is a huge
"distraction". From my perspective, it feels like a complete derailment of
my entire self-identity--in every way that my dignity, comfort and
self-confidence could possibly be eroded, they've been eroded.
You've identified two problems... first, your own sensitivity. Second, your
wife's lack of support. Here's the thing... your own sensitivity is the only
thing you have any control over whatsoever. And your wife's lack of support
is, hopefully, temporary if it is truly hormonally generated. It make take a
few months or so after the birth, but she'll get back to being the woman you
loved and married. You may have to delay gratification on your need for
approval until she's come "out of it" enough to say, "Thanks, honey!"... but
she's less likely to do so if you've spent as much time bellyaching about a
lack of gratitude as you have working hard. I'm not saying that's what
you've done... but it is a common scenario.
From the pregnant woman's perspective, as a message *to* other pregnant
women...
In my first pregnancy, I had clear and high expectations for what a
father-to-be "should" do, say, be, etc. While my daughter's father was not
particularly "clued" where these things were concerned, the biggest mistake
*I* made during that time was that whenever he *did* try to do something
supportive, I found fault in it, because it did not match my high
expectations. Couple examples... Two things I "needed" from him were to be
involved and to help me out in nurturing ways. Two things that "represented"
this to me were reading books on pregnancy and getting me food when my blood
sugar crashed. One day he came home with a book he'd found for dads, and
cooked me one of the suggested recipes. Did I thank him? Maybe. But what I
most clearly remember doing was suggesting that next time he use milk rather
than cream so it wouldn't be so high fat. Which both quashed his desire to
cook and desire to read books with helpful suggestions on how to be a better
dad. That's a *tiny* representive sample, not, of course, the entire reason
the relationship ultimately failed, but certainly a piece of it. Didn't help
that he had no good example of how to be a nurturing father, and my
expectations were built around my own dad, who I did not know at the time
was pretty dang extraordinary in that department. And certainly he did
things that nothing like that would excuse. But looking back, I can remember
several similar situations where he tried to do something nice and
supportive and got criticized or corrected or just not thanked.
In this pregnancy? Let's just say that while my expectations started much
lower, my husband's ability to meet my needs was much greater. And I'd
learned quickly with him that the fastest way to persuade him not to do
something was to get in there and criticize how he was doing something...
learned that long before I got pregnant. I explained to him even before I
got pregnant some things he could do, say, watch for, etc. that might help
me through. When I did get pregnant, even when I was most miserable, I made
some effort to make sure that if he did something supportive (even if it
wasn't what I'd asked for, exactly) I thanked him. If there was something
about it that I wanted changed the next time he did it, then the next time
it was needed I might ask him *very* specifically to do something a certain
way. For example, dh *hates* eggs. Has never cooked them in his life. They
happened to be one of the foods that helped me get going in the morning when
I had morning sickness. So the first time he scrambled eggs, he put them in
the pan and kept stirring them until they were done...and the consistency of
sawdust. I never knew you could do that to eggs. They were edible enough on
toast, and I just thanked him, specifically recognizing that cooking eggs is
one of his least favorite things to even think about doing in the kitchen.
The next time I asked for eggs, I explained how much he could "neglect" them
and still have them come out okay.
There have been times when I've grumped at him, and times he's done some
really boneheaded things. But I've made a conscious effort to focus on the
95% great part...because that's the part I want to encourage.
I handed him a few books early in the pregnancy. And kept my mouth shut
about when he should read them. Sure enough, in the past month, he's picked
up every one of them. He expressed early on some anxiety and little joy at
the prospect of becoming a parent. I let him, and just reminded myself that
he was about the same before we got engaged, and that turned out just fine
(he really likes being married...) Sure enough, the farther into it we got,
the more interested he became in the prospect.
It has NOT been an easy pregnancy. I've had to lean on him, hard. But he's
picked up the slack and then some, and gone farther than I ever would have
hoped.
One of the things I've told him is that even when I'm not totally gracious
or appreciative, etc... it's not about him. It's about the hormones and
feeling bad and being distracted by pain or discomfort or exhaustion. That
it's temporary. He's taken it to heart.
Jenrose
Jenrose
March 8th 05, 06:40 PM
> the 9 months of my wife's pregnancy, I hardly ever heard encouraging
> words although I did my best to provide my wife with comfort and
> support. When I tried to voice my frustration, it was met with the same
> answer each time: "Oh, poor you".
>
Another thought just occured to me... have you expressed gratitude to her
for carrying your child and dealing with the discomforts of pg? Expecting
gratitude if you're not also giving it is a losing game.
Jenrose
Hi Jenrose,
Thanks very much for your input. However, I think you're missing the
point of my post. I was seeking article submissions rather than advice
and support. We're greatfully over the most challenging times. ..and
yes I have expressed my happiness to my wife many times for carrying
our child.
wrote:
> Your stories may be used in a book I am working on. Your permission
to
> publish your quotes will of course be obtained first. Anonimity is
> optional. You can email me directly at or post your
> story on the NG.
How much are you planning on paying us for writing your book for you?
Or are you just going to use Usenet to gather your information, and
call it all "anonymous"?
If I want to share my experiences with pregnancy in print, I will write
my own damn book, thank you very much.
Amy
Cuddlefish
March 9th 05, 12:46 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Jenrose,
>
> Thanks very much for your input. However, I think you're missing the
> point of my post. I was seeking article submissions rather than advice
> and support. We're greatfully over the most challenging times. ..and
> yes I have expressed my happiness to my wife many times for carrying
> our child.
Well personally, I thank Jenrose for her thoughtful post. We have many
lurkers in this group and I am certain her words resonated loudly with those
who do need support.
Since the point of your post was to get people to write a book for you, I am
quite pleased she "missed the point" of it.
--
Jacqueline
#1 Due late Jul/early Aug
Jamie Clark
March 9th 05, 02:12 AM
You should have written, "Submissions Wanted" at the top of your post. It
wasn't very clear.
As other's have said, go write your own book. We're here to help and
support each other.
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you" and
"Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Jenrose,
>
> Thanks very much for your input. However, I think you're missing the
> point of my post. I was seeking article submissions rather than advice
> and support. We're greatfully over the most challenging times. ..and
> yes I have expressed my happiness to my wife many times for carrying
> our child.
>
I'll make one more attempt at this since something is getting lost in
translation by all of you. I am not asking everyone to give me material
that will make up 100% of the book. If you've ever read a book that
contained quotes, you will get an idea of what I'm looking for. You can
hardly call a book containing nothing but quoted material a book. The
plan was to include 3 or 4 lines from indivduals with similar
experiences. You have the option of having your name included or not.
I specified this in my first post. I send you a release to sign. You
fax it back. Release form has a checkbox that states whether or not you
want your name included. Doing it any other way amounts to plagiarism.
Excuse me but the goal is to end up with a book that will help a much
wider audience....not just the computer saavy, so I don't see your
point about only 'helping and supporting each other'.
Jamie Clark
March 9th 05, 06:04 AM
Oooh, hostility is a great way to get people to help you.
Bah.
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you" and
"Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'll make one more attempt at this since something is getting lost in
> translation by all of you. I am not asking everyone to give me material
> that will make up 100% of the book. If you've ever read a book that
> contained quotes, you will get an idea of what I'm looking for. You can
> hardly call a book containing nothing but quoted material a book. The
> plan was to include 3 or 4 lines from indivduals with similar
> experiences. You have the option of having your name included or not.
> I specified this in my first post. I send you a release to sign. You
> fax it back. Release form has a checkbox that states whether or not you
> want your name included. Doing it any other way amounts to plagiarism.
> Excuse me but the goal is to end up with a book that will help a much
> wider audience....not just the computer saavy, so I don't see your
> point about only 'helping and supporting each other'.
>
Cuddlefish
March 9th 05, 06:09 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Excuse me but the goal is to end up with a book that will help a much
> wider audience....not just the computer saavy, so I don't see your
> point about only 'helping and supporting each other'.
Gosh, I really want to help you now!
--
Jacqueline
#1 Due late Jul/early Aug
Jenrose
March 9th 05, 06:18 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Jenrose,
>
> Thanks very much for your input. However, I think you're missing the
> point of my post. I was seeking article submissions rather than advice
> and support. We're greatfully over the most challenging times. ..and
> yes I have expressed my happiness to my wife many times for carrying
> our child.
>
As other posters said, I'm not here to write your book for you--I write
articles myself and don't generally need to fill space with other people's
work to make them fly.
HOWEVER... the topic in question is one that is near and dear to my heart,
and if my answer helps anyone *else*... then I'm happy.
I didn't miss your point... I simply chose to take a different tack, one
more in keeping with this newsgroup. If you spent much time here becoming
part of the community, you might understand that while we love to offer help
and support for free, we don't like doing other people's work for them, and
few "Send me submission" requests work from people who haven't taken the
time to *be* part of the community.
I've asked for submissions myself in the past...mostly photos when I was
working for a midwifery magazine... but I did so as someone who'd been part
of this community for YEARS.
Showing up, asking for input, and then getting ****y when people respond as
if you *might* actually want to be part of the group (rather than mining us
for pithy quotes)... it ain't the way to get *me* to sign a release.
Jenrose
Don't Disturb The Cranky Pregnant Women
(IA*S*NIL)
To those of you that have already sent me submissions, I thank you. I
will be in touch shortly. To those of you that gone a different route,
I think you need to review the rules of Netiquette. If something in a
Usenet post does not apply to you or you feel that you cannot help,
then simply ignore the post. There is no need to turn it into a
'rudeness contest'. I have enough material for the book and do not
need to use quotes as 'filler'. I was merely trying to show other
points of view. That's all.
The pregnancy process can be an intensely private period within a
family and I can very much respect your need to not share it. However,
it may or may not surprise you that a large percentage of couples split
up either during the pregnancy or shortly after. A large number of men
reported that they have neither the ability nor willingness to deal
with or understand the emotional changes that their wives/girlfriends
go through. If you had simply emailed me privately I could have
explained all of this to you...including my ultimate goal and purpose
of the book. It was not my intention to offend anyone, but its been my
experience in Usenet groups that there are people that don't have the
patience in attempting to understand a post. Rather than provide any
help, they feed their own ego by being rude.
Jenrose
March 9th 05, 07:51 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> To those of you that have already sent me submissions, I thank you. I
> will be in touch shortly. To those of you that gone a different route,
> I think you need to review the rules of Netiquette. If something in a
Pot, kettle.
Jenrose
Jenrose wrote:
> HOWEVER... the topic in question is one that is near and dear to my
heart,
> and if my answer helps anyone *else*... then I'm happy.
Helped me! Right after I read it, I had a heart-to-heart with my
husband about "why I've been a shrew..." I explained that I just
didn't feel myself yesterday, and I was really sorry, and I'd make
every effort to avoid taking it out on him in the future. I came down
with what feels like bronchitis today, so it seems that it wasn't just
"all in my head" - I was coming down sick. But it really did help me
express my appreciation to him, so THANK YOU!!!!!
> (IA*S*NIL)
Rats! I was hoping that you were!!
Amy
(No one has my permission to use any of the preceding in any printed
form, whether it be book, magazine, newspaper, brochure, pamphlet, or
otherwise)
wrote:
Wow, are you thick!
Ok, here are some quotes you CAN use:
1) "I think that a man writing a book about pregnancy is about the
equivalent of a fish writing a book about bicycles."
2) "Wouldn't it be nice if people still actually wrote books, rather
than just filling shelves with books full of other peoples' words and
ideas??"
3) "**** off."
I won't hold my breath waiting for the release form.
Love & kisses,
Amy
OMG.
Its amazing how so many ppl can be so blind as to read 10% of a post
and assume they know the meaning.
I'll attempt to answer your meanderings in order because at this point
I have what I need.
> 1) "I think that a man writing a book about pregnancy is about the
> equivalent of a fish writing a book about bicycles."
What part of my postings gave you the impression that I was writing
about pregnancy? How in this world or any other could a man write such
a book? This is a book for men.
> 2) "Wouldn't it be nice if people still actually wrote books, rather
> than just filling shelves with books full of other peoples' words and
> ideas??"
Re-read my previous post. Nobody could sell any book filled with
other's quotes. Then it would be called a 'collection of essays'. Using
quotes from various ppl with their permission is usual in writing
books. Try visiting a library. This is not rocket science. I really
didn't think I had to explain all of this in so much detail to ppl that
have somehow managed to connect their computers to the internet. Read
my postings perhaps 10x to finally get the point or just ignore it.
3) "**** off."
This one I can use, as it was very predictable and immature.
> I won't hold my breath waiting for the release form.
I suggest you do hold your breath and wait for my next response to you,
thereby doing us all a favor.
'The End'
Sorry for butting in. I've been lurking until now. Speaking as another
guy (please don't beat me up), I can understand where (whatever his
name is) is coming from. Women have it rough during pregnancy but its
certainly no picnic for us men either. I know this from experience. If
the poster had made it a bit more clear from the beginning what he was
looking for, I think a lot of this bickering could have been avoided.
All he was looking for was a few perpectives from both men & women but
telling it from a man's perspective (poster, correct me if I'm wrong).
This is not uncommon in 'self-help' type books. However, I hope he now
got what he needed because I think ****ing off a newsgroup full of
pregnant women was not a good idea!
Brian
March 9th 05, 04:14 PM
I think you are all being rude for no reason. The guy might be asking
for something that feels a little personal, so don't answer if you do
not want wish too. As for the dude, you got to use a little more tact
before posting and replying, I understood your concept only as we went
along.
As for me, I have no tact so allow me to say this, your all idiots in
my opinion. rude A$$ people!
Elizabeth H Bonesteel
March 9th 05, 05:31 PM
In article om>,
> wrote:
>Women have it rough during pregnancy but its
>certainly no picnic for us men either.
See, I vascillate between two thought streams when I see lines like this.
1) Courtesy is important in a relationship; but to expect ordinary
emotional responses when someone is undergoing extreme physical changes
is naive at best. If the wife in question is pleasant when she is not
pregnant, best to make a concerted effort to overlook any transgressions,
because they are surely not intentional.
2) Boo effin' hoo. Grow up and get over it.
Which one I go with tends to depend on how much sleep the World's Biggest
Baby got the night before.
>All he was looking for was a few perpectives from both men & women but
>telling it from a man's perspective (poster, correct me if I'm wrong).
Seems to me he also posted in a newsgroup whose culture he was not
familiar with, and then proceeded to lecture people when they did not
respond as he had hoped. This kind of faux pas is discussesd in pretty
much every usenet guide ever produced since the dawn of time.
JMO,
Liz
--
"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963
Melania
March 9th 05, 05:49 PM
Elizabeth H Bonesteel wrote:
> In article om>,
> > wrote:
> >Women have it rough during pregnancy but its
> >certainly no picnic for us men either.
>
> See, I vascillate between two thought streams when I see lines like
this.
>
> 1) Courtesy is important in a relationship; but to expect ordinary
> emotional responses when someone is undergoing extreme physical
changes
> is naive at best. If the wife in question is pleasant when she is
not
> pregnant, best to make a concerted effort to overlook any
transgressions,
> because they are surely not intentional.
>
> 2) Boo effin' hoo. Grow up and get over it.
>
> Which one I go with tends to depend on how much sleep the World's
Biggest
> Baby got the night before.
>
> >All he was looking for was a few perpectives from both men & women
but
> >telling it from a man's perspective (poster, correct me if I'm
wrong).
>
> Seems to me he also posted in a newsgroup whose culture he was not
> familiar with, and then proceeded to lecture people when they did not
> respond as he had hoped. This kind of faux pas is discussesd in
pretty
> much every usenet guide ever produced since the dawn of time.
Agreed. Some people have perhaps been responding rather more harshly
than he might have hoped (Amy, I love your posts, don't change a
thing!!), but the culture here is one of sharing experiences and asking
for advice (often in the form of personal experience). It's also
predominantly women, discussing women's issues and experiences with
pregnancy, although we welcome fathers too! Soliciting submissions for
publication does not mesh well with the mkp atmosphere. When I read the
subject line "Input needed on problems during pregnancy because of
hormones!", I thought, "here's a guy who is having trouble coping with
his partner's hormonal changes and is looking for support." I was
surprised when I read his clarification on what he was really seeking -
and I lost interest in responding to him.
However, he says that he has received a number of anecdotes privately,
so if that's the case good for him and mission accomplished. I don't
think there's anything inherently wrong with soliciting anecdotal
material to flesh out a book, if it's properly documented and
supplements a solid body of work - I just don't think that this forum
is the best source for it.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania wrote:
> Agreed. Some people have perhaps been responding rather more harshly
> than he might have hoped (Amy, I love your posts, don't change a
> thing!!)
That's because you "get" me. Apparently the subtle irony of my style
is lost on many. I'll try to sum up for those less fortunate... ;)
The guy comes in to a group chock full o' pregnant women, claims to
have weathered the storm of his wife's pregnancy hormones (which I
sincerely doubt, now that I've seen that he's Mr. Touchypants), and
****es me off (rightfully, I believe, but that's not where the irony
be). Then he gets all wormy and defensive when he realizes that he has
provoked me/us (even going so far as to tell me/us how to behave!!).
And I react hormonally. I thought it was funny.
I mean, clearly the guy claiming to be "expert" enough to write a book
on dealing with pregnancy hormones can't actually deal with pregnancy
hormones! That's hilarious. I ****ed him off if less than 100 words.
Try 40 weeks of me, Bud. You'd be screwed. I suspect that his wife
was lovely and thoughtful and charming all throughout pregnancy... If
not, well, he'd have thicker skin, to say the least!
I think he'd probably better go write a book about something else.
Maybe Usenet etiquette...
Amy
Jenrose
March 9th 05, 09:18 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Sorry for butting in. I've been lurking until now. Speaking as another
> guy (please don't beat me up), I can understand where (whatever his
> name is) is coming from. Women have it rough during pregnancy but its
> certainly no picnic for us men either. I know this from experience. If
> the poster had made it a bit more clear from the beginning what he was
> looking for, I think a lot of this bickering could have been avoided.
> All he was looking for was a few perpectives from both men & women
And I gave him one... and he was *very* rude in his response. No, I didn't
follow his "instructions" because I'm more interested in the topic and
keeping it here on USENET where it might benefit people *here*... if he'd
then asked if he could use some of it, nicely, I would have said "yes". But
apparently it wasn't what *he* wanted, which is okay...and he got rude,
which flies here not at all from someone who hasn't bothered to become part
of the community before trying to mine us for pithy quotes.
If he *had*... he would have approached the topic differently *and* gotten
lots of good stuff because people would have wanted to help him.
His general attitude since then tells me that his wisdom in such matters is
lacking, which makes me wonder what use his book would be...
I don't care if it's a man or a woman writing the book--more books for
dads=good. More books by people who don't even really comprehend the issues
they're dealing with=bad. Clearly he hasn't learned to deal effectively with
pregnant women yet, is completely unwilling to engage in discussion on the
matter, and thus, the fact that he's writing a book on the subject at all...
I've *been* there. I had a crappy partner and a great partner through
pregnancy. I was unappreciative through one and very appreciative through
another. From what I've seen here, this guy writing a book for guys on "how
to put up with a bitchy pregnant woman" is like my ex doing it. What guys
NEED is something from people more like my husband or my dad, who actually
figured out how to handle it even when it wasn't easy, not from someone who
is *still* whining about how unappreciated he was.
Jenrose
Jenrose
March 9th 05, 09:22 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Melania wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Some people have perhaps been responding rather more harshly
>> than he might have hoped (Amy, I love your posts, don't change a
>> thing!!)
>
> That's because you "get" me. Apparently the subtle irony of my style
> is lost on many. I'll try to sum up for those less fortunate... ;)
>
> The guy comes in to a group chock full o' pregnant women, claims to
> have weathered the storm of his wife's pregnancy hormones (which I
> sincerely doubt, now that I've seen that he's Mr. Touchypants), and
> ****es me off (rightfully, I believe, but that's not where the irony
> be). Then he gets all wormy and defensive when he realizes that he has
> provoked me/us (even going so far as to tell me/us how to behave!!).
> And I react hormonally. I thought it was funny.
>
ROFL! That was *exactly* my take... Why the hell is Mr. Touchypants the guy
to write the book to tell guys how to cope with something he STILL hasn't
figured out? And if he so dislikes interacting with pregnant women, what the
HELL is he doing here? They don't get much more pregnant than I am right
now, and since I am spending all my emotional energy being nice to my
husband who takes care of me and indulges 90% of my whims, even when I'm
cranky, why the heck should I waste that on someone who's rude enough to
lecture me on USENET ettiquette while violating it himself left and right?
Jenrose
Cuddlefish
March 10th 05, 12:19 AM
"Brian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I think you are all being rude for no reason.
<<snippage>>
> As for me, I have no tact so allow me to say this, your all idiots in
> my opinion. rude A$$ people!
>
Gotcha. Thanks for sharing. You know that finger you are pointing at us? It
leaves three fingers pointing back at you. :-)
--
Jacqueline
#1 Due late Jul/early Aug
> And I gave him one... and he was *very* rude in his response. No, I
didn't
> follow his "instructions" because I'm more interested in the topic
and
> keeping it here on USENET where it might benefit people *here*...
I understand your point. What I don't agree with is your statement
about him getting rude. This was his reponse to you:
>Thanks very much for your input. However, I think you're missing the
>point of my post. I was seeking article submissions rather than advice
>and support. We're greatfully over the most challenging times. ..and
>yes I have expressed my happiness to my wife many times for carrying
>our child.
I didn't see any rudeness in this reply but I do agree that this was
the wrong usenet group to ask for this type of information. He could
accomplish the same thing in 5 lines and it would be a bit more clear.
Jenrose wrote:
>
> ROFL! That was *exactly* my take... Why the hell is Mr. Touchypants
the guy
> to write the book to tell guys how to cope with something he STILL
hasn't
> figured out? And if he so dislikes interacting with pregnant women,
what the
> HELL is he doing here? They don't get much more pregnant than I am
right
> now, and since I am spending all my emotional energy being nice to my
> husband who takes care of me and indulges 90% of my whims, even when
I'm
> cranky, why the heck should I waste that on someone who's rude enough
to
> lecture me on USENET ettiquette while violating it himself left and
right?
Maybe if you spent more time cooking dinner, cleaning the house and
taking care of him instead of typing a lot of crap to fat pregnant
cows, the quality of your marriage and your pregnancy would be a lot
better.
> Jenrose
Regards...
My take is this:
Pregnancy is a predetermined condition. It is the role of a woman to
bear children for her husband. A woman should be held responsible for
her mood swings, whether it is because of her pregnancy or her period.
For me, I let her know that I understand that she is emotionally
troubled and that I will excuse myself until she is able to discuss the
situation rationally. Luckily my wife knows her role in life and we
seldom had any issues.
I hope that helps.
Regards...
wrote:
> I love my wife dearly and there is nothing that I went through during
> the entire 9 months our pregnancy that I would not would not endure
> again when I think about the joy brought into both of our lives as a
> result.
>
<SNIP>
Melania
March 10th 05, 10:41 PM
wrote:
> My take is this:
>
> Pregnancy is a predetermined condition. It is the role of a woman to
> bear children for her husband. A woman should be held responsible for
> her mood swings, whether it is because of her pregnancy or her
period.
>
> For me, I let her know that I understand that she is emotionally
> troubled and that I will excuse myself until she is able to discuss
the
> situation rationally. Luckily my wife knows her role in life and we
> seldom had any issues.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Regards...
>
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Best troll I've seen in weeks. Well written, comes off as being
rational and almost supportive, with just enough offensive bait ("wife
knows her role in life" is gold!) to set the trap.
Too bad you overplayed your hand with the "fat pregnant cows" comment
in response to another post by Jenrose. Just a little more subtlety and
restraint next time, and I'm sure the flames will come rolling in for
you.
You have the potential, with a little more honing of your skills, to
become a truly superior troll; you definitely get an A for effort!
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania wrote:
> wrote:
> > Luckily my wife knows her role in life and we
> > seldom had any issues.
> *clap* *clap* *clap*
>
> Best troll I've seen in weeks. Well written, comes off as being
> rational and almost supportive, with just enough offensive bait
("wife
> knows her role in life" is gold!) to set the trap.
Eh, the French judge only gave it a 3.3. The Russians loved it,
however, giving it a 5.8 for style, and a 5.9 for substance. If only
he had pulled off that triple yutz... The landing was terrible!
Amy ;)
Jenrose
March 11th 05, 05:13 AM
>
> If only
> he had pulled off that triple yutz... The landing was terrible!
>
Oh, that needed a drink warning....
Jenrose
Melania wrote:
> Well written, comes off as being
> rational and almost supportive, with just enough offensive bait
("wife
> knows her role in life" is gold!) to set the trap.
What's gold is the high divorce rate. If you only knew how to care for
your husbands and understand that your hormones are your
responsibility, there wouldn't be a "problem during pregnancy".
> Too bad you overplayed your hand with the "fat pregnant cows" comment
> in response to another post by Jenrose.
I call any woman who thinks pregnancy is some special moment and they
should be carried on some type of throne and constantly cared for and
have their emotional and physical needs met a fat pregnant cow. If you
ever walked into a Babies R Us and see this fat cow being pushed in a
wheel chair, you'll know what I am talking about. Your husband should
come first, he's not a dog for you to bitch too. Even Jenrose couldn't
keep her first boyfriend/husband.
>
> You have the potential, with a little more honing of your skills, to
> become a truly superior troll; you definitely get an A for effort!
Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's wife
just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of lazy
dependant women. I'm telling you, instead of typing on the internet all
day, do something nice for your husband, like making dinner or cleaning
the house. No man wants to come to a dirty home and see his unshowered
wife wearing sweats and microwaving a hotdog for dinner. Also, after
the baby is born, introduce yourself to the treadmill.
Follow my advice and you'll have a happy husband and marriage.
> Melania
> Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
cool name by the way.
> and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Regards...
Melania
March 11th 05, 10:26 PM
wrote:
> Melania wrote:
> > Well written, comes off as being
> > rational and almost supportive, with just enough offensive bait
> ("wife
> > knows her role in life" is gold!) to set the trap.
>
> What's gold is the high divorce rate. If you only knew how to care
for
> your husbands and understand that your hormones are your
> responsibility, there wouldn't be a "problem during pregnancy".
>
> > Too bad you overplayed your hand with the "fat pregnant cows"
comment
> > in response to another post by Jenrose.
>
> I call any woman who thinks pregnancy is some special moment and they
> should be carried on some type of throne and constantly cared for and
> have their emotional and physical needs met a fat pregnant cow. If
you
> ever walked into a Babies R Us and see this fat cow being pushed in a
> wheel chair, you'll know what I am talking about. Your husband should
> come first, he's not a dog for you to bitch too. Even Jenrose
couldn't
> keep her first boyfriend/husband.
"Got rid of" is probably more accurate than "couldn't keep." Now she's
got a strong, responsible, caring, mature, successful man instead, so I
think she's ahead of the game.
>
> >
> > You have the potential, with a little more honing of your skills,
to
> > become a truly superior troll; you definitely get an A for effort!
>
> Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's wife
> just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of lazy
> dependant women.
I'm utterly amazed that you have a wife and a son. Seriously. But, hey,
more power to you, if that's what works in your relationship (and if
you're not abusing her).
I'm telling you, instead of typing on the internet all
> day, do something nice for your husband, like making dinner or
cleaning
> the house. No man wants to come to a dirty home and see his
unshowered
> wife wearing sweats and microwaving a hotdog for dinner. Also, after
> the baby is born, introduce yourself to the treadmill.
Oh, you would feel so foolish for saying any of that if you actually
knew me.
>
> Follow my advice and you'll have a happy husband and marriage.
Thanks. Already got it covered.
>
>
> > Melania
> > Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
>
> cool name by the way.
I guess I'll accept a compliment, even if it comes from a misogynist.
Seriously, looking at some of the things you've said about women
elsewhere, I'm just happy you actually manage to keep using the word
"women." Why don't you have any respect for women? Is it always a part
of goth culture?
Does your wife know you write this stuff, or is this just your little
"acting out my frustrations in anonymity" thing?
Hope you and your wife are very happy together,
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Um, the 1950s called. They want their attitude back.
Love & kisses,
Amy
Melania
March 12th 05, 01:40 AM
wrote:
> Um, the 1950s called. They want their attitude back.
>
> Love & kisses,
> Amy
You're right Amy. I think I'm going to have to side with the French
judge on this one.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Jenrose
March 12th 05, 06:53 AM
"Melania" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Even Jenrose
> couldn't
>> keep her first boyfriend/husband.
>
> "Got rid of" is probably more accurate than "couldn't keep." Now she's
> got a strong, responsible, caring, mature, successful man instead, so I
> think she's ahead of the game.
>>
Eh, with dd's father, first I "couldn't keep him", but then, in the end, I
got rid of him. One of those long, complicated things... IOW, first he left
me, then later, I left him, twice. Thank god I finally figured all THAT out.
And lordy am I ever ahead of the game with dh.
>> Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's wife
>> just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of lazy
>> dependant women.
>
> I'm utterly amazed that you have a wife and a son. Seriously. But, hey,
> more power to you, if that's what works in your relationship (and if
> you're not abusing her).
Wow... glad I killfiled! "Lazy dependent"... Amy had it right with her
response.
We figured it out. Being pregnant is like hauling around the equivalent of a
family-sized thanksgiving turkey you can't put down for months on end. Strap
something like that to a guy and see how fast he starts whining....lol! Then
inject him with all the extra hormones, and he'll cry too.
>
> I'm telling you, instead of typing on the internet all
>> day, do something nice for your husband, like making dinner or
> cleaning
>> the house. No man wants to come to a dirty home and see his
> unshowered
>> wife wearing sweats and microwaving a hotdog for dinner. Also, after
>> the baby is born, introduce yourself to the treadmill.
>
> Oh, you would feel so foolish for saying any of that if you actually
> knew me.
>
And isn't it just so hard to believe a woman would want to be married to
such an insensitive jackass?
>>
>> Follow my advice and you'll have a happy husband and marriage.
>
Funny, I already HAVE a happy marriage and a husband who blesses every day
the fact that he's married to me.
Jenrose
Melania wrote:
> wrote:
> > Melania wrote:
>
> > Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's
wife
> > just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of lazy
> > dependant women.
>
> I'm utterly amazed that you have a wife and a son.
Why are you amazed? What is wrong with entering into a marriage in
which the traditional male and female roles are defined?
> Seriously. But, hey,
> more power to you, if that's what works in your relationship (and if
> you're not abusing her).
What makes you think she is being abused? Was your grandfather abusing
your grandmother?
> Oh, you would feel so foolish for saying any of that if you actually
> knew me.
Then this post doesn't apply to you and you should know what I am
talking about.
> I guess I'll accept a compliment, even if it comes from a misogynist.
It was a compliment, I wasn't being sarcastic. And why am I being
labled a misogynist? I love women, I even ended up marrying one. I
don't see how I can be called a misogynist.
> Seriously, looking at some of the things you've said about women
> elsewhere, I'm just happy you actually manage to keep using the word
> "women."
I would have to look at it at a case by case basis to understand what
you are referring too.
> Why don't you have any respect for women?
I do have respect for certain women. Do you have respect for all men?
> Is it always a part
> of goth culture?
I have no idea. I no longer live the lifestyle and I think that a
subculture doesn't standardize male female relationships.
> Does your wife know you write this stuff, or is this just your little
> "acting out my frustrations in anonymity" thing?
I have no frustrations. I do like to debate. I see all these
relationships fall apart due to lack of understanding between men and
women. That's the only reason why I jumped on this thread. The original
poster was asking for advice for a "problem" that shouldn't exist in
the first place.
> Hope you and your wife are very happy together,
We are. Thanks.
> Melania
Regards...
wrote:
> Um, the 1950s called. They want their attitude back.
Not a bad idea, considering back then we didn't have so many *******s,
single moms and gender confusion.
I'm all for having equal rights for both men and women, however I do
not seeing it happening in the near future. I also prefer that one
parent stays home with the kids while one parent works to support the
family.
> Love & kisses,
> Amy
Regards...
>Funny, I already HAVE a happy marriage and a husband who blesses
>every day the fact that he's married to me.
Jenrose: I just had to comment on this one. Do you by any chance write
Hallmark greeting cards for a living? Your life sounds like one big
fairy tale in which the prince treats the princess like precious gold.
Unfortunately it doesn't reflect real life and marriage is a 2-way
street. It doesn't sound like you work, so do you thank your husband
for paying the bills? Keeping a roof over your head? Giving you a
child?
Melania
March 13th 05, 04:38 PM
wrote:
> >Funny, I already HAVE a happy marriage and a husband who blesses
> >every day the fact that he's married to me.
>
> Jenrose: I just had to comment on this one. Do you by any chance
write
> Hallmark greeting cards for a living? Your life sounds like one big
> fairy tale in which the prince treats the princess like precious
gold.
> Unfortunately it doesn't reflect real life and marriage is a 2-way
> street. It doesn't sound like you work, so do you thank your husband
> for paying the bills? Keeping a roof over your head? Giving you a
> child?
Nice, SpeedRacer.
I was trying to be friendly and supportive of you till this point, but
you appear not to actually be wanting that.
Glad to see you got the hand-holding you needed over at soc.men.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania
March 13th 05, 05:06 PM
wrote:
> Melania wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Melania wrote:
> >
> > > Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's
> wife
> > > just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of
lazy
> > > dependant women.
> >
> > I'm utterly amazed that you have a wife and a son.
>
> Why are you amazed? What is wrong with entering into a marriage in
> which the traditional male and female roles are defined?
Absolutely nothing. It's calling women one doesn't know derogatory and
insulting things over the internet that I have a problem with, and
consider unbecoming of a husband and father.
I just don't think that because you and your wife entered a marriage
where the traditional male and female roles are followed means that you
have the right to tell other people that's the only kind of viable
relationship out there. My parents and my in-laws have been happily
married couples for upwards of 30 years, each. Husbands and wives work,
and share domestic duties. What makes a marriage work, IME, is a
partnership of (different) equals who communicate openly with one
another and work together. In my own case, I am a SAH mom, I currently
do most of the domestic work and the cooking, and my husband works
outside the home. I also work from home, which is why I'm so frequently
on the internet. If my husband is tired and worn out from his work day,
do I put in the extra effort to make him feel better? ABSOLUTELY. If
I'm achy and uncomfortable and grumpy from being pregnant and caring
for our active little 2 year old all day, does he go the extra mile to
pamper me a bit and make me feel better? Of course he does, and it
doesn't make me a cow to think that's a hallmark of a good
relationship. And, I don't plan on staying home once my children are in
school, because I do like to work and to contribute to our income.
>
> > Seriously. But, hey,
> > more power to you, if that's what works in your relationship (and
if
> > you're not abusing her).
>
> What makes you think she is being abused? Was your grandfather
abusing
> your grandmother?
No, again, I felt that your comments showed you to have little respect
for women. Actually, on one side my grandfather emotionally abused my
grandmother and their children, and on the other side my grandmother
harried and nagged my grandfather, who let it roll off him. I'd say an
even split, and both relationships taught my parents the value of
mutual respect, open communication, and taking responsibility.
>
> > Oh, you would feel so foolish for saying any of that if you
actually
> > knew me.
>
> Then this post doesn't apply to you and you should know what I am
> talking about.
>
> > I guess I'll accept a compliment, even if it comes from a
misogynist.
>
> It was a compliment, I wasn't being sarcastic. And why am I being
> labled a misogynist? I love women, I even ended up marrying one. I
> don't see how I can be called a misogynist.
>
> > Seriously, looking at some of the things you've said about women
> > elsewhere, I'm just happy you actually manage to keep using the
word
> > "women."
>
> I would have to look at it at a case by case basis to understand what
> you are referring too.
>
> > Why don't you have any respect for women?
>
> I do have respect for certain women. Do you have respect for all men?
I would say I have respect for *most* men, not just certain ones. My
starting point with people, men and women, is that they are decent,
honest, kind, and responsible, until they prove otherwise. Generally,
I'm actually not disappointed.
>
> > Is it always a part
> > of goth culture?
>
> I have no idea. I no longer live the lifestyle and I think that a
> subculture doesn't standardize male female relationships.
That's certainly fair - it's just that you were posting in alt.gothic
as of a week ago.
>
> > Does your wife know you write this stuff, or is this just your
little
> > "acting out my frustrations in anonymity" thing?
>
> I have no frustrations. I do like to debate. I see all these
> relationships fall apart due to lack of understanding between men and
> women. That's the only reason why I jumped on this thread. The
original
> poster was asking for advice for a "problem" that shouldn't exist in
> the first place.
You're right - I just think that "hey fat pregnant cows, go satisfy
your men" was a pretty poor solution to offer. I see women who delight
in man-bashing and expect to be treated like princesses, and trust me,
I know it does no favours to the rest of us. I do believe that if we
expect men to respect women as a group, then women need to respect men
as a group. But, and this is key, I do think we need to be respectful
of each other. You just said relationships "fall apart due to a lack of
understanding between men and women," and that's true. But lots of men
wouldn't actually want a relationship with a 1950s style housewife,
strange as that may seem to you. The key is understanding each other,
and what the relationship is/entails, before committing. Every marriage
is different, and I for one am happy to know that yours, mine, Amy's,
Jenrose's and many others here are working so well.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania
March 13th 05, 05:33 PM
Jenrose wrote:
> "Melania" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Even Jenrose
> > couldn't
> >> keep her first boyfriend/husband.
> >
> > "Got rid of" is probably more accurate than "couldn't keep." Now
she's
> > got a strong, responsible, caring, mature, successful man instead,
so I
> > think she's ahead of the game.
> >>
>
> Eh, with dd's father, first I "couldn't keep him", but then, in the
end, I
> got rid of him. One of those long, complicated things... IOW, first
he left
> me, then later, I left him, twice. Thank god I finally figured all
THAT out.
> And lordy am I ever ahead of the game with dh.
>
> >> Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's
wife
> >> just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of lazy
> >> dependant women.
> >
> > I'm utterly amazed that you have a wife and a son. Seriously. But,
hey,
> > more power to you, if that's what works in your relationship (and
if
> > you're not abusing her).
>
> Wow... glad I killfiled! "Lazy dependent"... Amy had it right with
her
> response.
>
> We figured it out. Being pregnant is like hauling around the
equivalent of a
> family-sized thanksgiving turkey you can't put down for months on
end. Strap
> something like that to a guy and see how fast he starts
whining....lol! Then
> inject him with all the extra hormones, and he'll cry too.
When I was pregnant with ds, dh wouldn't let me carry *anything* if he
was with me. He'd carry all 6 bags of groceries, or whatever. When I
protested, he said "you're carrying the baby. Once the baby's born,
then I'll be able to carry the baby and you can carry the groceries."
You're right about the hormones, too. I'm one of those people who
*never* cry, but I do cry occasionally while pregnant - and almost
always for no real reason at all . . .
>
> >
> > I'm telling you, instead of typing on the internet all
> >> day, do something nice for your husband, like making dinner or
> > cleaning
> >> the house. No man wants to come to a dirty home and see his
> > unshowered
> >> wife wearing sweats and microwaving a hotdog for dinner. Also,
after
> >> the baby is born, introduce yourself to the treadmill.
> >
> > Oh, you would feel so foolish for saying any of that if you
actually
> > knew me.
> >
>
> And isn't it just so hard to believe a woman would want to be married
to
> such an insensitive jackass?
Yep. What kills me is the idea that no man would want to come home to a
dirty house, a bedraggled wife, and microwaved hot dogs for dinner, but
that most pregnant women would be perfectly happy to live in squalor
and eat crap. There are days when one is so sick and worn out, and just
trying to keep up with older kids if you have them, that nothing gets
done. But I hate those days. I don't make them a habit. I prefer to eat
good food and live in a clean house and take care of myself - who
wouldn't? - and I take pride in it.
>
> >>
> >> Follow my advice and you'll have a happy husband and marriage.
> >
>
> Funny, I already HAVE a happy marriage and a husband who blesses
every day
> the fact that he's married to me.
>
> Jenrose
Yeah, I have to say that for us, pregnancy is an extra special time -
the whole "you're so wonderful!" "No! You're so wonderful!!" feeling is
going around a lot, in spite of all the ups and downs.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Jenrose
March 13th 05, 06:42 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Funny, I already HAVE a happy marriage and a husband who blesses
>>every day the fact that he's married to me.
>
> Jenrose: I just had to comment on this one. Do you by any chance write
> Hallmark greeting cards for a living? Your life sounds like one big
> fairy tale in which the prince treats the princess like precious gold.
> Unfortunately it doesn't reflect real life and marriage is a 2-way
> street. It doesn't sound like you work, so do you thank your husband
> for paying the bills? Keeping a roof over your head? Giving you a
> child?
>
You obviously missed some posts somewhere....
My mom explained something to me when I was a teenager... as she put it,
"Right now, you're in the part of your life where you have to slay the
dragons and go find your fortune. I'm living my happily ever after."
And no, it's not all a fairy tale... we have taxes and a mortgage and the
cat pukes on the kitchen floor and sometimes dh drives me up a wall and
sometimes I drive him up a wall.
I don't work at the moment--we knew that would happen during pg before we
got engaged. And I do thank hm for paying the bills and keeping the roof on
and giving me a child. It's part of what makes our marriage work.
But yeah, compared to the first time around, it does feel like my happily
ever after. And that's a good thing, don't you think?
Jenrose
wrote:
> I call any woman who thinks pregnancy is some special moment and they
> should be carried on some type of throne and constantly cared for and
> have their emotional and physical needs met a fat pregnant cow. If
you
> ever walked into a Babies R Us and see this fat cow being pushed in a
> wheel chair, you'll know what I am talking about. Your husband should
> come first, he's not a dog for you to bitch too. Even Jenrose
couldn't
> keep her first boyfriend/husband.
So, if the pregnancy laid up your wife and she needed a wheelchair you
wouldn't be willing to help her? That comment is so horrible. I
happen to have needed a wheelchair when pg and when not, and when my dh
was pushing me while I was pushing our dd in a stroller and we were
saying wee and laughing, people told my dh how lucky he was to have us
because it is the joy you bring each other not the servitude that makes
for a happy marriage.
>
> Well thank you. I'm only seen as a troll because as a guy, who's wife
> just had our first son, gave his honest opinion to a bunch of lazy
> dependant women. I'm telling you, instead of typing on the internet
all
> day, do something nice for your husband, like making dinner or
cleaning
> the house. No man wants to come to a dirty home and see his
unshowered
> wife wearing sweats and microwaving a hotdog for dinner. Also, after
> the baby is born, introduce yourself to the treadmill.
I think you will have a rude awakening if you all have subsequent
children. Your wife just had a baby. Trust me it gets alot harder
past 1 kid when you are up all night with baby while other kids keep
you up all day, and they all make messes that have to be cleaned, and
all need care and attention. When I had my first baby I thought it was
alot easier to regain my shape after and to keep everything clean and
nice. Not to mention that my first pg laid me up the least, and that
subsequent pgs were alot more painful orthopedically. When not
suffering in the last trimester of pg I keep a fine house and I cook
good healthy foods, but I just decided this week that things have to
slide a bit because my blood pressure is up and I hurt in my back, hips
and pelvis so moving at all just hurts, and the important thing right
now is just letting this baby have more time inside of me rather than
worrying about keeping a clean house and my dh agrees. Based on your
comments if your wife had a hard pg you would expect her to keep work
work working no matter what.
>
> Follow my advice and you'll have a happy husband and marriage.
>
I already do have a happy husband and marriage. I would not be happy
with a partner like you.
KC
Melania wrote:
>
> Absolutely nothing. It's calling women one doesn't know derogatory
and
> insulting things over the internet that I have a problem with, and
> consider unbecoming of a husband and father.
Well I don't have the luxury of personally knowing everyone who reads
this. If one feels like they don't fit the profile of my accusations,
then my post should be ignored.
> I just don't think that because you and your wife entered a marriage
> where the traditional male and female roles are followed means that
you
> have the right to tell other people that's the only kind of viable
> relationship out there.
Every marriage should have properly defined boundries and outlines to
make it work. Research indicates that if one parent stays home with
kids and one parent supports the houshold, then the outcome is far
greater than both parents working. Now to achieve this, roles must be
defined and understood if the marriage is going to work. Only time will
tell if the choices my wife and I made was a viable one, but I think we
are on the right track.
> My parents and my in-laws have been happily
> married couples for upwards of 30 years, each. Husbands and wives
work,
> and share domestic duties. What makes a marriage work, IME, is a
> partnership of (different) equals who communicate openly with one
> another and work together.
The fact that there are "different equals" only supports my position.
> In my own case, I am a SAH mom, I currently
> do most of the domestic work and the cooking, and my husband works
> outside the home. I also work from home, which is why I'm so
frequently
> on the internet. If my husband is tired and worn out from his work
day,
> do I put in the extra effort to make him feel better? ABSOLUTELY.
As a wife, you should do this on a dialy basis.
> If
> I'm achy and uncomfortable and grumpy from being pregnant and caring
> for our active little 2 year old all day, does he go the extra mile
to
> pamper me a bit and make me feel better? Of course he does, and it
> doesn't make me a cow to think that's a hallmark of a good
> relationship.
You're putting the responsibilities of your emotions on your physical
condition instead of yourself. If you cannot handle pregnancy, then
maybe you should refrain from being pregnant. Just like he shouldn't
bring his work home, you shouldn't bring him down by complaining about
your day. As a woman, you should deal with your pregnancy.
> And, I don't plan on staying home once my children are in
> school, because I do like to work and to contribute to our income.
If you cannot afford to stay at home to raise your children, then in
reality, you two cannot afford children and should not reproduce until
you have the financial means to do so.
.... and both relationships taught my parents the value of
> mutual respect, open communication, and taking responsibility.
And that was my initial point.
> You're right - I just think that "hey fat pregnant cows, go satisfy
> your men" was a pretty poor solution to offer.
Given the alternative, I thought is was a viable solution.
> I see women who delight
> in man-bashing and expect to be treated like princesses, and trust
me,
> I know it does no favours to the rest of us. I do believe that if we
> expect men to respect women as a group, then women need to respect
men
> as a group. But, and this is key, I do think we need to be respectful
> of each other. You just said relationships "fall apart due to a lack
of
> understanding between men and women," and that's true.
I agree with the above, except for the following:
> But lots of men
> wouldn't actually want a relationship with a 1950s style housewife,
> strange as that may seem to you.
As a guy, I'm telling you that men would rather have their wives focus
their attention on them, instead of their careers. No man likes to come
home to a dirty home and a microwaved hotdog because his wife is at the
office.
There are three studies just released on this topic that prove my point
of view.
> The key is understanding each other,
> and what the relationship is/entails, before committing. Every
marriage
> is different, and I for one am happy to know that yours, mine, Amy's,
> Jenrose's and many others here are working so well.
If your pregnancy hormones is an issue at your house, then I have to
question the dynamics of the marriage.
> Melania
Regards...
wrote:
>
>
> So, if the pregnancy laid up your wife and she needed a wheelchair
you
> wouldn't be willing to help her? That comment is so horrible.
If she is so physically challenged in which she cannot walk around the
store, then maybe she should give me a list of items she wants and I'll
go and buy them.
> I
> happen to have needed a wheelchair when pg and when not, and when my
dh
> was pushing me while I was pushing our dd in a stroller and we were
> saying wee and laughing, people told my dh how lucky he was to have
us
> because it is the joy you bring each other not the servitude that
makes
> for a happy marriage.
If you're so fat that you need a wheelchair when not pregnant, you
shouldn't have kids. If you can't take care of yourself, how can anyone
expect you to take care of and raise active healthy children?
> I think you will have a rude awakening if you all have subsequent
> children. Your wife just had a baby. Trust me it gets alot harder
> past 1 kid when you are up all night with baby while other kids keep
> you up all day, and they all make messes that have to be cleaned, and
> all need care and attention.
So, what changed since the 1950's (as Amy has stated) that now
pregnancy is an issue for women? Assuming that you have brothers and
sisters, what did your mom do? What did your grandmother do? In fact
what did early Americans do when they had to work on their farm to have
food on the table? Did the guy come in and push his wife around in a
wheel chair just so she could purchase a diaper genie that doesn't
really work?
> When I had my first baby I thought it was
> alot easier to regain my shape after and to keep everything clean and
> nice. Not to mention that my first pg laid me up the least, and that
> subsequent pgs were alot more painful orthopedically. When not
> suffering in the last trimester of pg I keep a fine house and I cook
> good healthy foods, but I just decided this week that things have to
> slide a bit because my blood pressure is up and I hurt in my back,
hips
> and pelvis so moving at all just hurts, and the important thing right
> now is just letting this baby have more time inside of me rather than
> worrying about keeping a clean house and my dh agrees. Based on your
> comments if your wife had a hard pg you would expect her to keep work
> work working no matter what.
Yes, she still has to maintain her job just as I have to maintain mine.
Anytime you let the housework "slide", you are disrespecting your
husband and his quality of life.
> I already do have a happy husband and marriage. I would not be happy
> with a partner like you.
Trust me, I wouldn't marry a woman who needs a wheelchair when not
pregnant nor would I marry a woman who expects special treatment
because she is doing her job as a wife. I feel sorry for any man who
has to put up with your weakness and failure as a woman.
Hey, but if you and your husband are happy, then more power to you.
Just don't ask me what I should do to understand your lack of
responsibility of your emotions.
> KC
Regards...
wrote:
> Every marriage should have properly defined boundries and outlines to
> make it work.
Once upon a time there was a man who thought he was very smart. His
house was painted gray. He thought that it was an excellent color,
because it didn't show dirt. So he told everyone he knew that they
should paint their houses gray, too. Because he was well liked and
respected, everyone listened, and soon every house in his town was
gray.
The man really hated to rake leaves. One year he cut down all the
trees in his yard. He was much happier because he didn't have to rake
leaves anymore. Unfortunately, the leaves from his neighbors trees
blew into his yard on a very blustery day. This drove the man to
convince his neighbors to cut down their trees, too. Because he was
well liked and respected, everyone listened, and soon every yard in his
town was without trees.
The man also resented all the time that his wife spent gardening. He
knew she loved it, but he thought that it would be much better if his
wife spent more time with him. So one day he put down gravel all
around their gray house, all over their treeless yard. His wife was
sad at first, but gradually she began to spend more time with him.
This pleased him so greatly that he told all of his friends, who also
put gravel around their gray houses, all over their treeless yards.
He got tired of washing his red car, too. So the next one he bought
was gray. His friends and neighbors followed suit.
He found that if he wore only gray clothes, he didn't have to do so
much laundry. All of his friends began to wear gray as well.
Pretty soon, the whole neighborhood was gray, as far as the eye could
see. There were no trees, no flowers, no shrubs. No one stood out,
because they all looked exactly the same. On a cloudy day, you
couldn't tell where the earth ended and the sky began. Everyone in
town began to feel very sad and depressed. Sure, their lives were
easy, like the well liked and respected man's, but they didn't feel
happy anymore.
One day, many years later, the man's wife had had enough. She dug up
the gravel and planted a red rose bush. Pretty soon, other people in
the neighborhood got fed up too, but instead of everyone planting
roses, the Joneses planted hydrangeas, the Smiths planted yellow
daffodils, and the Johnsons planted ordinary green trees. Then the
Parkers needed a new car, and instead of the gray sedan that everyone
else drove, they bought a beautiful orange sportscar. Everyone was
jealous (except for that original man! He liked things the way they
were!), and soon many more of the people in town were driving wildly
colored cars. One family even painted their house purple.
When the flowers and the trees grew, and the houses were painted, and
people began to wear color again, they would walk by the man's gray
house, with its gravel yard, and no trees, and its single, red rosebush
in the yard. They'd shake their heads and feel sorry for the man, and
for the years that they'd wasted trying to be like everyone else.
The man never learned that our differences are what gives the world
color and interest. When he died, they buried him in his gray suit.
Since no one could find gray flowers, they decided to just omit them
from the service. They covered his grave with gravel. They figured
that it might make him happy.
I think you'd do well to grow up and realize that your way isn't the
only way, that what works for your family would not work for every
family. Maturity is learning that your way isn't the only way, and
that other peoples' opinions of the way things ought to be are every
bit as valid as yours, and most of all, that the world would be pretty
damn boring if everyone were exactly like you.
Amy
wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > So, if the pregnancy laid up your wife and she needed a wheelchair
> you
> > wouldn't be willing to help her? That comment is so horrible.
>
> If she is so physically challenged in which she cannot walk around
the
> store, then maybe she should give me a list of items she wants and
I'll
> go and buy them.
Why don't we lock up ALL the disabled people, so that they don't make
you uncomfortable? I think that's an excellent idea. We can take all
the people who were born with difficulties, all the people who've been
in accidents, all of the vets returning from the war who are missing
limbs and whatnot, and we'll put them in cages. I mean, YOU shouldn't
have to see someone who is physically challenged out in public! It's
hard to see! It reminds you of your own mortality! You need to be
sheltered from this. They should all have people who can go out and
get items from a list for them, right? They don't need to be
autonomous, or to have the pride of caring for themselves, or even the
joy of being out in the world with the rest of us... Not if it
inconveniences you or makes you feel weird to see them. And those darn
wheelchairs are always getting in the way...
> If you're so fat that you need a wheelchair when not pregnant, you
> shouldn't have kids. If you can't take care of yourself, how can
anyone
> expect you to take care of and raise active healthy children?
You are so far beyond clueless, I have a hard time even thinking of
ways to explain things to you...
See, sugar, once the baby's born, most of that "fat" (which is mostly
baby and fluid) goes away. You really need to find one of those
sympathy bellies and wear it around for a week or two. Then you might
have a clue what you're talking about.
> > I think you will have a rude awakening if you all have subsequent
> > children. Your wife just had a baby. Trust me it gets alot harder
> > past 1 kid when you are up all night with baby while other kids
keep
> > you up all day, and they all make messes that have to be cleaned,
and
> > all need care and attention.
>
> So, what changed since the 1950's (as Amy has stated) that now
> pregnancy is an issue for women?
Pregnancy has always been an issue for women. The difference between
then and now is the frigging internet. We used to talk about these
things over coffee while you and all your meatheaded brethren were at
work. Now we talk on the 'net. Same difference.
> Assuming that you have brothers and
> sisters, what did your mom do?
She talked to her sisters and her sisters in law and her friends.
> What did your grandmother do?
See above.
> In fact
> what did early Americans do when they had to work on their farm to
have
> food on the table?
Early Americans typically lived within 20 miles of the place they were
born. People are more spread out now and don't have the support
networks they had then. Hence, the Internet. Bringing people with
common experience together. I think you need to go check out:
alt.support.pig-headed.oink-oink-oink There are lots of people there
who have things in common with you.
> Did the guy come in and push his wife around in a
> wheel chair just so she could purchase a diaper genie that doesn't
> really work?
Oh for the love of cheese... Are you ****ed off at women, wheelchairs,
or Diaper Genies? I can't figure this out...
> Yes, she still has to maintain her job just as I have to maintain
mine.
> Anytime you let the housework "slide", you are disrespecting your
> husband and his quality of life.
If you were a real man, you'd be able to hire a maid for your wife, so
she wouldn't have to keep up with housework. If you can't afford a
maid, you obviously can't afford kids!
> > I already do have a happy husband and marriage. I would not be
happy
> > with a partner like you.
>
> Trust me, I wouldn't marry a woman who needs a wheelchair when not
> pregnant
So you have issues with disabled people, too, huh? Gosh, you sound
like a real prize.
> nor would I marry a woman who expects special treatment
> because she is doing her job as a wife. I feel sorry for any man who
> has to put up with your weakness and failure as a woman.
Maybe you need to think about how doing your job as a HUSBAND lies in
supporting your wife when she's having a physically, mentally, and
emotionally difficult time...
> Hey, but if you and your husband are happy, then more power to you.
> Just don't ask me what I should do to understand your lack of
> responsibility of your emotions.
You're a real piece of work.
Amy
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Every marriage should have properly defined boundries and outlines
to
> > make it work.
>
> Once upon a time there was a man who thought he was very smart.
<SNIP>
There are so many fallacies to your story that I'll just point out the
obvious:
If you run all your colors together, you'll get black.
>
> Amy
Regards...
Melania
March 14th 05, 05:31 PM
wrote:
> Melania wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely nothing. It's calling women one doesn't know derogatory
> and
> > insulting things over the internet that I have a problem with, and
> > consider unbecoming of a husband and father.
>
> Well I don't have the luxury of personally knowing everyone who reads
> this. If one feels like they don't fit the profile of my accusations,
> then my post should be ignored.
>
> > I just don't think that because you and your wife entered a
marriage
> > where the traditional male and female roles are followed means that
> you
> > have the right to tell other people that's the only kind of viable
> > relationship out there.
>
> Every marriage should have properly defined boundries and outlines to
> make it work. Research indicates that if one parent stays home with
> kids and one parent supports the houshold, then the outcome is far
> greater than both parents working.
That's true. My aunt worked and my uncle stayed home with their kids,
and they have a great marriage and family.
Now to achieve this, roles must be
> defined and understood if the marriage is going to work. Only time
will
> tell if the choices my wife and I made was a viable one, but I think
we
> are on the right track.
>
> > My parents and my in-laws have been happily
> > married couples for upwards of 30 years, each. Husbands and wives
> work,
> > and share domestic duties. What makes a marriage work, IME, is a
> > partnership of (different) equals who communicate openly with one
> > another and work together.
>
> The fact that there are "different equals" only supports my position.
>
> > In my own case, I am a SAH mom, I currently
> > do most of the domestic work and the cooking, and my husband works
> > outside the home. I also work from home, which is why I'm so
> frequently
> > on the internet. If my husband is tired and worn out from his work
> day,
> > do I put in the extra effort to make him feel better? ABSOLUTELY.
>
> As a wife, you should do this on a dialy basis.
>
> > If
> > I'm achy and uncomfortable and grumpy from being pregnant and
caring
> > for our active little 2 year old all day, does he go the extra mile
> to
> > pamper me a bit and make me feel better? Of course he does, and it
> > doesn't make me a cow to think that's a hallmark of a good
> > relationship.
>
> You're putting the responsibilities of your emotions on your physical
> condition instead of yourself.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about the physical condition, not my emotions.
If it's my wifely duty to take care of a tired husband after a hard day
at work, it's his husbandly duty to take care of a tired wife after an
equally hard day of (at home) work. Period. THAT is what equal but
different means. It DOES NOT mean that women care for men, but men
don't care for women in return. There's nothing equal in that.
If you don't accept this equality, if you actually think that women
need to care for men *in a way that men don't need to care for women*
and that men have certain rights that women don't/shouldn't, then that
is misogyny.
If you cannot handle pregnancy, then
> maybe you should refrain from being pregnant. Just like he shouldn't
> bring his work home, you shouldn't bring him down by complaining
about
> your day. As a woman, you should deal with your pregnancy.
I think this argument would only hold water if it wasn't HIS BABY TOO.
You think a baby magically appears in a uterus? You think pregnancy,
childbirth, and childrearing happen in a world of women, separate from
men? Riiiiight. Women wouldn't have children without men, men wouldn't
have children without women.
The way you said "if you cannot handle pregnancy, then maybe you should
refrain from being pregnant" doesn't make it sound like you were really
eager to become a father. Do you believe that only women want to have
children, and that men just oblige out of husbandly duty? That could be
part of your problem (your problem with understanding my perspective, I
mean, I don't mean to suggest there's a problem in your relationship,
which I am happy to leave out of the discussion).
>
> > And, I don't plan on staying home once my children are in
> > school, because I do like to work and to contribute to our income.
>
> If you cannot afford to stay at home to raise your children, then in
> reality, you two cannot afford children and should not reproduce
until
> you have the financial means to do so.
Did you miss the part about "once they are in school"? I could stay
home and raise an empty house, I guess, for 6-8 hours a day, being
really bored and wasting my mind, my skills, my potential to contribute
meaningfully to society. And, before you presume, yes, someone will be
home after school - they won't be latchkey kids. We could certainly
afford to have me stay home full time. But it would not be the best
thing for any of us.
>
> ... and both relationships taught my parents the value of
> > mutual respect, open communication, and taking responsibility.
>
> And that was my initial point.
>
> > You're right - I just think that "hey fat pregnant cows, go satisfy
> > your men" was a pretty poor solution to offer.
>
> Given the alternative, I thought is was a viable solution.
>
> > I see women who delight
> > in man-bashing and expect to be treated like princesses, and trust
> me,
> > I know it does no favours to the rest of us. I do believe that if
we
> > expect men to respect women as a group, then women need to respect
> men
> > as a group. But, and this is key, I do think we need to be
respectful
> > of each other. You just said relationships "fall apart due to a
lack
> of
> > understanding between men and women," and that's true.
>
> I agree with the above, except for the following:
>
> > But lots of men
> > wouldn't actually want a relationship with a 1950s style housewife,
> > strange as that may seem to you.
>
> As a guy, I'm telling you that men would rather have their wives
focus
> their attention on them, instead of their careers.
"Would rather have their wives focus their attention on them." Not on
their children, not on world peace, not on curing cancer. On them.
Something to be proud of. Sounds like selfish, emotionally juvenile
behaviour to me, coming from any adult. These men of whom you speak, I
do not know them. Seriously. I don't. I know a great many men who have
long, happy marriages, and they don't fit the profile you present.
When I worked in China, I was really surprised by the number of white
guys I knew who said, "I wouldn't want to marry a Chinese girl, because
so many of them seem to want to be subservient. I miss the independence
and strength of North American girls." Now, some men *do* want that
subservience. But they are, increasingly, in the minority.
No man likes to come
> home to a dirty home and a microwaved hotdog because his wife is at
the
> office.
You keep saying that. I'm not suggesting that they do. When I was
working full time and my dh was not, there were times when I came home
to a dirty house and no dinner in sight. I didn't like that
particularly, either, but it was uncommon, there was always a good
reason for it, and I dealt.
>
<snip>
> > The key is understanding each other,
> > and what the relationship is/entails, before committing. Every
> marriage
> > is different, and I for one am happy to know that yours, mine,
Amy's,
> > Jenrose's and many others here are working so well.
>
> If your pregnancy hormones is an issue at your house, then I have to
> question the dynamics of the marriage.
God, what is up with you and the pregnancy hormones? It's like you
think women's bodies start producing crazy juice when they get
pregnant, or something!! I'm starting to wonder if knee-jerk paranoia
hormones exist, just reading what you write. Or what your wife was like
when she was pregnant, and how you both dealt with that . . .
At any rate, you should thank God every day that you are physically
able and without sickness, and don't suffer any mental illness caused
by chemical imbalances. By your standards, these would all be
"predetermined conditions" and your wife would be well within her
rights to expect you to suck it up and not complain about any emotional
troubles caused by you being unable to "handle" your condition.
This conversation has outlived its usefulness - please be aware that I
won't be responding to any further posts from you.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania
March 14th 05, 05:50 PM
wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > So, if the pregnancy laid up your wife and she needed a
wheelchair
> > you
> > > wouldn't be willing to help her? That comment is so horrible.
> >
> > If she is so physically challenged in which she cannot walk around
> the
> > store, then maybe she should give me a list of items she wants and
> I'll
> > go and buy them.
>
> Why don't we lock up ALL the disabled people, so that they don't make
> you uncomfortable? I think that's an excellent idea. We can take
all
> the people who were born with difficulties, all the people who've
been
> in accidents, all of the vets returning from the war who are missing
> limbs and whatnot, and we'll put them in cages. I mean, YOU
shouldn't
> have to see someone who is physically challenged out in public! It's
> hard to see! It reminds you of your own mortality! You need to be
> sheltered from this. They should all have people who can go out and
> get items from a list for them, right? They don't need to be
> autonomous, or to have the pride of caring for themselves, or even
the
> joy of being out in the world with the rest of us... Not if it
> inconveniences you or makes you feel weird to see them. And those
darn
> wheelchairs are always getting in the way...
Or, you know, we could just expose defective babies at birth, since
that seems to have suited our (very distant) ancestors so well . . .
I can't get over his assumption that the only reason a woman would need
a wheelchair is because she's fat. What I understood from her post was
that a medical condition required the wheelchair. But hey, why be
charitable when you have the chance to make someone feel like sh*t? I
swear this guy has "Night of the Living Fat People" dreams or
something. Maybe obesity is a huge problem where he lives or something,
and it's scarred him. I don't know. Most of the mothers where I live
are out with the jogging stroller as soon as the doctor gives them the
green light (would not jog, personally).
<snipped remainder of response>
See, Amy, what we've got here is a failure to communicate. Some men,
you just can't reach.
This guy is so wrapped up in his fears, paranoias, and prejudices that
he can't conceive of a situation where a well-adjusted, self-confident,
assertive man might enjoy the life-long companionship of a strong,
capable, intelligent, independent woman. It's his loss in our opinion,
of course, but in the final analysis his world has nothing to do with
mine, and his take on things is so alien to what I've known and enjoyed
as a full, rich life since birth, that I'm happy to leave him to it.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
wrote:
>
> Why don't we lock up ALL the disabled people, so that they don't make
> you uncomfortable? I think that's an excellent idea. We can take
all
> the people who were born with difficulties, all the people who've
been
> in accidents, all of the vets returning from the war who are missing
> limbs and whatnot, and we'll put them in cages.
Pregnancy, unlike your traditional physically challenged person, is a
predetermined condition. You chose to be pregnant and you should live
up to the responsibility of your actions.
> They don't need to be
> autonomous, or to have the pride of caring for themselves,
Bingo! There is no pride in having your husband push you around a
Babies R Us because you're too much of a pregnant princess to walk on
your own. I think it insults those who are truly phisically challenged.
> You are so far beyond clueless, I have a hard time even thinking of
> ways to explain things to you...
>
> See, sugar, once the baby's born, most of that "fat" (which is mostly
> baby and fluid) goes away. You really need to find one of those
> sympathy bellies and wear it around for a week or two. Then you
might
> have a clue what you're talking about.
Talking about not having a clue. I was referring to women who are so
fat that they need a wheelchair when NOT pregnant.
But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The average
weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys, who
weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
> Pregnancy has always been an issue for women. The difference between
> then and now is the frigging internet. We used to talk about these
> things over coffee while you and all your meatheaded brethren were at
> work. Now we talk on the 'net. Same difference.
Keep in mind, my question was in response to the following:
"I think you will have a rude awakening if you all have subsequent
children. Your wife just had a baby. Trust me it gets alot harder
past 1 kid when you are up all night with baby while other kids keep
you up all day, and they all make messes that have to be cleaned, and
all need care and attention."
This implies that the man has to change to accomodate the needs of
today's woman. If nothings changed, then you and I agree that men do
not need to accomodate women who have more than one child.
Also, are you stating that every man who works to support his family is
a "meatheaded brethren"? Do you have some type of hatred for the
traditional male role model? Do you hate your grandfather? Are you a
misandrist?
> Oh for the love of cheese... Are you ****ed off at women,
wheelchairs,
> or Diaper Genies? I can't figure this out...
Maybe you should stop replying to my post, it appears you have limited
capacity of logical argument. By the way, the diaper genie (along with
90 percent of all baby registeries items) are useless.
> If you were a real man, you'd be able to hire a maid for your wife,
so
> she wouldn't have to keep up with housework.
Maybe I should hire someone to do my job?
> If you can't afford a
> maid, you obviously can't afford kids!
Depending on the cost of hire, that can be a true statement.
> So you have issues with disabled people, too, huh? Gosh, you sound
> like a real prize.
Yeah, guys normally are attracted to women who are capable of bearing
healthy children. That's why you rarely see a young healthy man wedding
with a wheelchair bound woman.
> Maybe you need to think about how doing your job as a HUSBAND lies in
> supporting your wife when she's having a physically, mentally, and
> emotionally difficult time...
Like you said, nothings changed. Why should us men change?
> You're a real piece of work.
And here I thought I was just being gray. ;)
> Amy
Regards...
wrote:
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Every marriage should have properly defined boundries and
outlines
> to
> > > make it work.
> >
> > Once upon a time there was a man who thought he was very smart.
> <SNIP>
>
> There are so many fallacies to your story that I'll just point out
the
> obvious:
>
> If you run all your colors together, you'll get black.
I guess it was far too much to hope that you'd actually see my point
and understand... or even that you'd write back something coherant...
Amy
Marie
March 14th 05, 06:29 PM
On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
>But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The average
>weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys, who
>weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
>take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman, right?
Marie
Melania wrote:
>
> This conversation has outlived its usefulness - please be aware that
I
> won't be responding to any further posts from you.
Then why bother writing a huge reply? You realize that you have lost
the argument if you are unable to debate the issue.
> Melania
Regards...
Melania
March 14th 05, 06:43 PM
Marie wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
> >But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The
average
> >weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys, who
> >weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
> >take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
>
> I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman, right?
> Marie
He's definitely guessing. And if he thinks 120 is average, rather than
on the skinny side (the actual average is closer, I believe, to
145-150), then that explains some of his fear and loathing of fat. Also
bearing in mind that muscle weighs more than fat, and that trim,
athletic women often weigh more than they look like they do.
Regardless, however, pregnancy adds an average of 30 lbs to a skeletal
and musculature structure that is accustomed to carrying significantly
less weight around. That's why it's a strain on the system, not the
total weight reached. It's more like if a man suddenly, over the course
of less than a year, found himself carrying around a 30 lb tumor in his
abdomen, or was made to wear a 30 lb water balloon on his front (not in
a backpack, mind you, but suspended from the front of his body) for 3-4
months (i.e., the last bit of pregnancy). All while having been
brutally hungover for several months before than, which is what early
pregnancy often feels like. And having a heart and circulatory system
that, when at rest, is working as hard as it would normally be while
hiking in the mountains, and works even harder when actually engaged in
exercise. And throw in a life partner whose attitude, apparently, would
be "hey, don't come crying to me, honey, you brought this on
yourself!!" That sounds just heavenly!!
That said, I still think you'd have to search far and wide to find any
pregnant woman who was being pushed around in a wheelchair for other
than medical (not counting obesity) reasons. This guy is repulsed by
fat, and has a concern about fat and lazy women that borders on a
phobia.
I can walk. I gained 45 lbs in my first pregnancy, it looked like 30
because it was evenly gained, and I was active, strong, and healthy to
the end. I walked 10 kms the day I went into labour. In this pregnancy,
I've gained 21 lbs or so, so far, and I also carry a 36 lb toddler
around a fair bit (though not as much as he'd like me to). So, I'm
carrying an extra 50-60 lbs around a lot of the time, half inside and
half outside. Do I consider it an injustice? No. Is it exhausting? Of
course.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Marie wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
> >But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The
average
> >weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys, who
> >weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
> >take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
>
> I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman, right?
I knew it at one time because I was debating whether Playboy bunnies
were the idol wives (in terms of looks) and I have since forgotten the
information.
But, by popular request, the number depends on age. And you're right,
it looks like from 130-150 lbs:
http://www.halls.md/chart/women-weight-w.htm
Take a guy, add 30lbs and ask yourself "Should he ride around in a
wheelchair?"
> Marie
Regards...
wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Why don't we lock up ALL the disabled people, so that they don't
make
> > you uncomfortable? I think that's an excellent idea. We can take
> all
> > the people who were born with difficulties, all the people who've
> been
> > in accidents, all of the vets returning from the war who are
missing
> > limbs and whatnot, and we'll put them in cages.
>
> Pregnancy, unlike your traditional physically challenged person, is a
> predetermined condition. You chose to be pregnant and you should live
> up to the responsibility of your actions.
So, if someone becomes disabled by, say, parachuting or base jumping,
THEY shouldn't be allowed out in public, huh? Ok, I get it.
> > They don't need to be
> > autonomous, or to have the pride of caring for themselves,
>
> Bingo! There is no pride in having your husband push you around a
> Babies R Us because you're too much of a pregnant princess to walk on
> your own. I think it insults those who are truly phisically
challenged.
You are such an idiot. What makes you think that you know why she's in
a wheelchair. It might have nothing to do with the pregnancy. She
might always be in a wheelchair, and just happen to be pregnant at the
time. She might have had to have surgery. She might be on doctor
ordered bedrest, with special exceptions for necessary trips out,
provided that she walks as little as possible.
If you want to get ****ed, get ****ed off at the kids who take the
motorized scooters at Walmart and play with them. You presume to know
a lot about people that you couldn't possibly know. Her pregnancy
doesn't make her entire medical history public domain. Should she walk
around with a sign that says, "I just had foot surgery, I'm not just
fat..." so that people like you will give your blessing for her to be
comfortable, or should you just mind your own ****ing business?
> > You are so far beyond clueless, I have a hard time even thinking of
> > ways to explain things to you...
> >
> > See, sugar, once the baby's born, most of that "fat" (which is
mostly
> > baby and fluid) goes away. You really need to find one of those
> > sympathy bellies and wear it around for a week or two. Then you
> might
> > have a clue what you're talking about.
>
> Talking about not having a clue. I was referring to women who are so
> fat that they need a wheelchair when NOT pregnant.
Somebody must think they're ok, if they've managed to GET pregnant. If
it's not hurting you, it's none of your goddamned business.
> But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs.
On which planet?
> The average
> weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs.
Again, on which planet? I think the gravitational pull on yours is
significantly less than it is on mine.
> So by your theory, us guys, who
> weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
> take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
By my theory, guys like you who couldn't possibly know what it's like
to be pregnant should shut the hell up.
> > Pregnancy has always been an issue for women. The difference
between
> > then and now is the frigging internet. We used to talk about these
> > things over coffee while you and all your meatheaded brethren were
at
> > work. Now we talk on the 'net. Same difference.
>
> Keep in mind, my question was in response to the following:
> "I think you will have a rude awakening if you all have subsequent
> children. Your wife just had a baby. Trust me it gets alot harder
> past 1 kid when you are up all night with baby while other kids keep
> you up all day, and they all make messes that have to be cleaned,
and
> all need care and attention."
>
> This implies that the man has to change to accomodate the needs of
> today's woman. If nothings changed, then you and I agree that men do
> not need to accomodate women who have more than one child.
Idiot. I'm saying that nothing (except technology) has changed with
regard to women's desire to talk about pregnancy.
I think people who love each other should do whatever they can to make
each other comfortable and happy, whether they're pregnant or not.
Apparently you think that all women should look like this:
http://www.insanitorium.co.uk/
....and were put on earth to serve you. I'm just grateful that I
managed to find and marry a man who isn't a Neanderthal like you.
> Also, are you stating that every man who works to support his family
is
> a "meatheaded brethren"? Do you have some type of hatred for the
> traditional male role model? Do you hate your grandfather? Are you a
> misandrist?
Not in the least. I have merely found that the Al Bundies and Archie
Bunkers of the world tend to stick together.
> > Oh for the love of cheese... Are you ****ed off at women,
> wheelchairs,
> > or Diaper Genies? I can't figure this out...
>
> Maybe you should stop replying to my post,
Maybe you should go paint your face white and hang out with your
vampire friends, instead of hassling a bunch of pregnant women.
> it appears you have limited capacity of logical argument.
I'm just trying to come down to your level. It's difficult for me.
> By the way, the diaper genie (along with
> 90 percent of all baby registeries items) are useless.
Thanks for the tip. Not that you know, because Donna Reed changes the
baby. After all, that's women's work...
> > If you were a real man, you'd be able to hire a maid for your wife,
> so
> > she wouldn't have to keep up with housework.
>
> Maybe I should hire someone to do my job?
You've got plenty o' time to bug us, here. I doubt that you're getting
any actual work done (I know I'm not...).
> > If you can't afford a
> > maid, you obviously can't afford kids!
>
> Depending on the cost of hire, that can be a true statement.
> > So you have issues with disabled people, too, huh? Gosh, you sound
> > like a real prize.
>
> Yeah, guys normally are attracted to women who are capable of bearing
> healthy children. That's why you rarely see a young healthy man
wedding
> with a wheelchair bound woman.
In your limited little black and white world, I'm sure that's true.
However, I've known plenty of disabled people who have been married,
both men and women, and they'll be so pleased to know that you think
they're defective...
> > Maybe you need to think about how doing your job as a HUSBAND lies
in
> > supporting your wife when she's having a physically, mentally, and
> > emotionally difficult time...
>
> Like you said, nothings changed. Why should us men change?
Clearly some of you are incapable.
> > You're a real piece of work.
>
> And here I thought I was just being gray. ;)
No, actually, you're coming across as an immature, spoiled little boy.
Amy
wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Why don't we lock up ALL the disabled people, so that they don't
make
> > you uncomfortable? I think that's an excellent idea. We can take
> all
> > the people who were born with difficulties, all the people who've
> been
> > in accidents, all of the vets returning from the war who are
missing
> > limbs and whatnot, and we'll put them in cages.
>
> Pregnancy, unlike your traditional physically challenged person, is a
> predetermined condition. You chose to be pregnant and you should live
> up to the responsibility of your actions.
So, if someone becomes disabled by, say, parachuting or base jumping,
THEY shouldn't be allowed out in public, huh? Ok, I get it.
> > They don't need to be
> > autonomous, or to have the pride of caring for themselves,
>
> Bingo! There is no pride in having your husband push you around a
> Babies R Us because you're too much of a pregnant princess to walk on
> your own. I think it insults those who are truly phisically
challenged.
You are such an idiot. What makes you think that you know why she's in
a wheelchair. It might have nothing to do with the pregnancy. She
might always be in a wheelchair, and just happen to be pregnant at the
time. She might have had to have surgery. She might be on doctor
ordered bedrest, with special exceptions for necessary trips out,
provided that she walks as little as possible.
If you want to get ****ed, get ****ed off at the kids who take the
motorized scooters at Walmart and play with them. You presume to know
a lot about people that you couldn't possibly know. Her pregnancy
doesn't make her entire medical history public domain. Should she walk
around with a sign that says, "I just had foot surgery, I'm not just
fat..." so that people like you will give your blessing for her to be
comfortable, or should you just mind your own ****ing business?
> > You are so far beyond clueless, I have a hard time even thinking of
> > ways to explain things to you...
> >
> > See, sugar, once the baby's born, most of that "fat" (which is
mostly
> > baby and fluid) goes away. You really need to find one of those
> > sympathy bellies and wear it around for a week or two. Then you
> might
> > have a clue what you're talking about.
>
> Talking about not having a clue. I was referring to women who are so
> fat that they need a wheelchair when NOT pregnant.
Somebody must think they're ok, if they've managed to GET pregnant. If
it's not hurting you, it's none of your goddamned business.
> But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs.
On which planet?
> The average
> weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs.
Again, on which planet? I think the gravitational pull on yours is
significantly less than it is on mine.
> So by your theory, us guys, who
> weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
> take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
By my theory, guys like you who couldn't possibly know what it's like
to be pregnant should shut the hell up.
> > Pregnancy has always been an issue for women. The difference
between
> > then and now is the frigging internet. We used to talk about these
> > things over coffee while you and all your meatheaded brethren were
at
> > work. Now we talk on the 'net. Same difference.
>
> Keep in mind, my question was in response to the following:
> "I think you will have a rude awakening if you all have subsequent
> children. Your wife just had a baby. Trust me it gets alot harder
> past 1 kid when you are up all night with baby while other kids keep
> you up all day, and they all make messes that have to be cleaned,
and
> all need care and attention."
>
> This implies that the man has to change to accomodate the needs of
> today's woman. If nothings changed, then you and I agree that men do
> not need to accomodate women who have more than one child.
Idiot. I'm saying that nothing (except technology) has changed with
regard to women's desire to talk about pregnancy.
I think people who love each other should do whatever they can to make
each other comfortable and happy, whether they're pregnant or not.
Apparently you think that all women should look like this:
http://www.insanitorium.co.uk/
....and were put on earth to serve you. I'm just grateful that I
managed to find and marry a man who isn't a Neanderthal like you.
> Also, are you stating that every man who works to support his family
is
> a "meatheaded brethren"? Do you have some type of hatred for the
> traditional male role model? Do you hate your grandfather? Are you a
> misandrist?
Not in the least. I have merely found that the Al Bundies and Archie
Bunkers of the world tend to stick together.
> > Oh for the love of cheese... Are you ****ed off at women,
> wheelchairs,
> > or Diaper Genies? I can't figure this out...
>
> Maybe you should stop replying to my post,
Maybe you should go paint your face white and hang out with your
vampire friends, instead of hassling a bunch of pregnant women.
> it appears you have limited capacity of logical argument.
I'm just trying to come down to your level. It's difficult for me.
> By the way, the diaper genie (along with
> 90 percent of all baby registeries items) are useless.
Thanks for the tip. Not that you know, because Donna Reed changes the
baby. After all, that's women's work...
> > If you were a real man, you'd be able to hire a maid for your wife,
> so
> > she wouldn't have to keep up with housework.
>
> Maybe I should hire someone to do my job?
You've got plenty o' time to bug us, here. I doubt that you're getting
any actual work done (I know I'm not...).
> > If you can't afford a
> > maid, you obviously can't afford kids!
>
> Depending on the cost of hire, that can be a true statement.
> > So you have issues with disabled people, too, huh? Gosh, you sound
> > like a real prize.
>
> Yeah, guys normally are attracted to women who are capable of bearing
> healthy children. That's why you rarely see a young healthy man
wedding
> with a wheelchair bound woman.
In your limited little black and white world, I'm sure that's true.
However, I've known plenty of disabled people who have been married,
both men and women, and they'll be so pleased to know that you think
they're defective...
> > Maybe you need to think about how doing your job as a HUSBAND lies
in
> > supporting your wife when she's having a physically, mentally, and
> > emotionally difficult time...
>
> Like you said, nothings changed. Why should us men change?
Clearly some of you are incapable.
> > You're a real piece of work.
>
> And here I thought I was just being gray. ;)
No, actually, you're coming across as an immature, spoiled little boy.
Amy
Melania wrote:
>
> See, Amy, what we've got here is a failure to communicate. Some men,
> you just can't reach.
>
Since you're not going to respond, I just thought I'll point out the
irony of your post. You're quoting from a movie that is based on trials
of manhood to justify your point of view and your projection of false
facts.
>
> Melania
Regards...
Nan
March 14th 05, 06:59 PM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:29:32 -0500, Marie >
scribbled:
>On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
>>But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The average
>>weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys, who
>>weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
>>take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
>
>I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman, right?
>Marie
/snicker
My thought exactly :-)
Nan
Melania
March 14th 05, 07:07 PM
wrote:
> Melania wrote:
> >
> > See, Amy, what we've got here is a failure to communicate. Some
men,
> > you just can't reach.
> >
>
> Since you're not going to respond, I just thought I'll point out the
> irony of your post. You're quoting from a movie that is based on
trials
> of manhood to justify your point of view and your projection of false
> facts.
>
> >
> > Melania
>
> Regards...
Eh, what the hell, I take it back, I will respond. I know that I'm
quoting a movie about the trials of manhood, you silly person. You
think because we have vaginas we only like romantic comedy schlock? I'm
amused that you think this automatically means the quote could never
apply to women dealing with men who willfully blind themselves to the
reality of rich, complex adult relationships, though.
By the way, I haven't projected any "false facts" (there's no such
thing as a false fact, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be a fact). I'm
simply talking about my own experiences and opinions.
This isn't a debate where someone wins and someone loses. It's just a
discussion of differing lifestyle choices and their relative merits. My
husband and I think our way is best; obviously you and your wife think
your way is best. Hooray! We all win! See, that's why I don't see any
need to slag your marriage - I'm secure in mine. I don't understand why
anyone would actively seek out a pregnancy newsgroup and attack women,
and their marriages, if he was a really happy, fulfilled, satisfied
person. Doesn't seem like the behaviour of an emotionally healthy
person to me.
When I said the conversation was no longer useful, incidentally, I
meant that I had said my peace, rested my case, and that I knew nothing
I said was going to change your mind. And I could really care less
about changing your mind. I stand by that.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Nikki
March 14th 05, 07:18 PM
wrote:
> Marie wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
>>> But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The
>>> average weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us
>>> guys, who weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel
>>> chairs? (give or take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
>>
>> I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman, right?
>
> I knew it at one time because I was debating whether Playboy bunnies
> were the idol wives (in terms of looks) and I have since forgotten the
> information.
>
> But, by popular request, the number depends on age. And you're right,
> it looks like from 130-150 lbs:
>
> http://www.halls.md/chart/women-weight-w.htm
>
> Take a guy, add 30lbs and ask yourself "Should he ride around in a
> wheelchair?"
>
You do know that there is a lot more going on in pregnancy then weight gain
don't you? The actual number of pounds gained and extra fluid can feel
quite bad (as it would for a guy if he gained significant weight in 6
months...I know pg is 9 months but weight gain in the first three isn't
much) but it isn't what causes all the trouble. The actual baby puts
weight/pressure in weird places, hormones loosen all your joints, nerves may
get pinched etc. Those things are barely noticeable to some woman and quite
dramatic to others.
--
Nikki
Jenrose
March 14th 05, 07:43 PM
>> Trust me, I wouldn't marry a woman who needs a wheelchair when not
>> pregnant
>
> So you have issues with disabled people, too, huh? Gosh, you sound
> like a real prize.
>
Omigod. His wife had better pray that she's never struck by a disabling
illness. If he's really married.
Funny thing is that when my husband is supportive and nurturing of me when
I'm having a hard time, it makes me WANT to get back on my feet faster so I
can be supportive and nurturing to him in turn.
Jenrose
Jenrose
March 14th 05, 07:53 PM
"Melania" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Marie wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
>> >But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The
> average
>> >weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys, who
>> >weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give or
>> >take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
>>
>> I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman, right?
>> Marie
>
> He's definitely guessing. And if he thinks 120 is average, rather than
> on the skinny side (the actual average is closer, I believe, to
> 145-150), then that explains some of his fear and loathing of fat. Also
> bearing in mind that muscle weighs more than fat, and that trim,
> athletic women often weigh more than they look like they do.
>
> Regardless, however, pregnancy adds an average of 30 lbs to a skeletal
> and musculature structure that is accustomed to carrying significantly
> less weight around. That's why it's a strain on the system, not the
> total weight reached. It's more like if a man suddenly, over the course
> of less than a year, found himself carrying around a 30 lb tumor in his
> abdomen, or was made to wear a 30 lb water balloon on his front (not in
> a backpack, mind you, but suspended from the front of his body) for 3-4
> months (i.e., the last bit of pregnancy).
An 18 pound gain is like carrying a smallish thanksgiving turkey around ALL
the time. A 30 pound gain is like carrying around a stuffed turkey all the
time. A 45 pound gain is like carrying around a full fledged turducken...
which you can't put down. For MONTHS on end. My dh *can* lift a 45 pound
turducken from the counter to the stove...but he makes a lot of noise while
doing it, even though he's active, exercises religiously, works out, etc...
> All while having been
> brutally hungover for several months before than, which is what early
> pregnancy often feels like. And having a heart and circulatory system
> that, when at rest, is working as hard as it would normally be while
> hiking in the mountains, and works even harder when actually engaged in
> exercise. And throw in a life partner whose attitude, apparently, would
> be "hey, don't come crying to me, honey, you brought this on
> yourself!!" That sounds just heavenly!!
Or in my case, going from that "hungover" feeling to the whooping cough and
being bedridden for three months....
>
> That said, I still think you'd have to search far and wide to find any
> pregnant woman who was being pushed around in a wheelchair for other
> than medical (not counting obesity) reasons. This guy is repulsed by
> fat, and has a concern about fat and lazy women that borders on a
> phobia.
>
The only time I use assistance to get around is at the grocery store... and
I still do most of the shopping, even at 41 weeks.
> I can walk. I gained 45 lbs in my first pregnancy, it looked like 30
> because it was evenly gained, and I was active, strong, and healthy to
> the end. I walked 10 kms the day I went into labour. In this pregnancy,
> I've gained 21 lbs or so, so far, and I also carry a 36 lb toddler
> around a fair bit (though not as much as he'd like me to). So, I'm
> carrying an extra 50-60 lbs around a lot of the time, half inside and
> half outside. Do I consider it an injustice? No. Is it exhausting? Of
> course.
You know what's really amazing? I went from near-bedrest (lasting up to
about 33 weeks) to being able to walk a mile at term. I'm still pretty
astounded by that. Seriously, I had *no* muscle tone by the time the
whooping cough let up, except my abs of course...<eyeroll> May be the single
greatest blessing of the prodromal labor crap I've had--when it first
started, it was very hard for me to walk a quarter mile with help. Yesterday
I managed to walk about a mile, without leaning on anyone for more than a
second or two... and it didn't take two hours, either. Which means that I
may have a half a chance of being "on my feet" after the birth--which was my
biggest question mark.
Lazy...my ass. Or not my ass, in this case...lol!
And I *am not* average weight... so I'm already hauling around extra.
Jenrose
Jenrose
March 14th 05, 07:58 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Why don't we lock up ALL the disabled people, so that they don't
> make
>> > you uncomfortable? I think that's an excellent idea. We can take
>> all
>> > the people who were born with difficulties, all the people who've
>> been
>> > in accidents, all of the vets returning from the war who are
> missing
>> > limbs and whatnot, and we'll put them in cages.
>>
>> Pregnancy, unlike your traditional physically challenged person, is a
>> predetermined condition. You chose to be pregnant and you should live
>> up to the responsibility of your actions.
>
> So, if someone becomes disabled by, say, parachuting or base jumping,
> THEY shouldn't be allowed out in public, huh? Ok, I get it.
>
Or good god... someone gets *SICK* while pg... I MEANT to get the whooping
cough. Riiiiight. Even though I did everything I could to be in great shape
before getting pg, eat healthy, etc... I *meant* to have walking make me
throw up. Sure. And I *wanted* my pelvic bones to separate so that walking
and most exercise caused excruciating pain. Uh huh. All those things were
"predetermined". I just knew they would happen, and decided to take
advantage of my condition to be dependent on the people around me. Sure.
Which is why now, at 41 weeks, even though people are used to my not
contributing much and not walking, I managed to walk a mile, fold laundry
and help some around the house. Lazy. Irresponsible. Right.
Jenrose <--amused
Jenrose
March 14th 05, 08:09 PM
>> Yeah, guys normally are attracted to women who are capable of bearing
>> healthy children. That's why you rarely see a young healthy man
> wedding
>> with a wheelchair bound woman.
>
> In your limited little black and white world, I'm sure that's true.
> However, I've known plenty of disabled people who have been married,
> both men and women, and they'll be so pleased to know that you think
> they're defective...
>
Oh, exactly. And pregnancy "disability" is generally temporary... my kid
isn't "defective" just because I could barely walk at 35 weeks with her and
was sick for 5 months. She's actually far from defective. In fact, my
husband married me, knowing I wanted another kid, in part because my dd is
so *not* defective. He figured if I could manage that well with her, alone,
he wouldn't have to worry so much that he might screw someone up
permanaently by being their parent....<g>
And I once dated a guy who'd been married to a woman with cerebral palsy. He
was drop dead gorgeous, a hunk, real sweetheart of a man. She'd died very
young, I think they'd been married a year or two, which is the only reason
he was on the "scene" at all, and we didn't date long because he was still
so heartbroken over losing her. Even though she wore leg braces and wasn't
classically "beautiful" by conventional standards. This guy was *gorgeous*
and had no self-esteem issues at all, intelligent, the works--he just fell
in love with her and the "physical body" was so *not* the most important
thing to him. A friend of mine married a guy, who, while they were dating,
spent a lot of time in the hospital on a stomach tube post-gastric-bypass
because of complications. Neat guy, too--witty, fun to be around, made her
feel really loved and special.
Heck, my husband has Aspergers...and I knew it when we started dating. It's
just one thing about him, among many, many other important factors of his
personality, etc.
If all a guy can see is the wheelchair... the person in the wheelchair is
better of without him. As are the rest of us.
Jenrose
Chotii
March 14th 05, 08:12 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> I
>> happen to have needed a wheelchair when pg and when not, and when my
> dh
>> was pushing me while I was pushing our dd in a stroller and we were
>> saying wee and laughing, people told my dh how lucky he was to have
> us
>> because it is the joy you bring each other not the servitude that
> makes
>> for a happy marriage.
>
> If you're so fat that you need a wheelchair when not pregnant, you
> shouldn't have kids. If you can't take care of yourself, how can anyone
> expect you to take care of and raise active healthy children?
Well now. What an remarkable assumption you have jumped to. Perhaps you have
never heard of Pubic Symphesis Dysfunction. Let me enlighten you:
The pelvis is not a single, fused bone. It consists of two curved bones on
each side which meet at the Pubic Symphesis in the front (this is a joint,
but generally immobile) and in the back, connect via the Sacro-Illiac joints
to the lower spine. During pregnancy, the hormone 'relaxin' causes the
tendons which connect joints, all joints, to relax and stretch. This can
happen quite early in pregnancy, although it's intended for labor when the
pelvis must stretch to allow the baby to pass through it. If the Pubic
Symphesis joint comes loose, and rubs, and moves when it's not supposed to,
it is absolutely excrutiatingly agonizing. Got this so far? All right.
After birth, the body stops making the 'relaxin' hormone, and the pelvis and
other joints go back to normal. The woman can resume normal activities
without exquisite pain.
I'm sorry you're so ill-educated about pregnancy that the only reason you
can think for a pregnant woman needing a wheelchair is that she's "too fat".
You really should do some more reading.
Oh. And by the way? Some disabled women who live in wheelchairs full-time
still manage to raise their children. People are very resourceful and
adaptable.
> So, what changed since the 1950's (as Amy has stated) that now
> pregnancy is an issue for women? Assuming that you have brothers and
> sisters, what did your mom do? What did your grandmother do? In fact
> what did early Americans do when they had to work on their farm to have
> food on the table? Did the guy come in and push his wife around in a
> wheel chair just so she could purchase a diaper genie that doesn't
> really work?
In the 1950s, American families were less insular. Neighbors probably not
only knew each other, but socialized, and helped each other. Most women
stayed home all day. You know, if I walk around my neighborhood during the
day, I am the ONLY mother home with her kids. All the others are out at
their work; the kids are in daycare or school. If I wind up on bedrest on
this current pregnancy of mine - very likely, as I wound up there during the
last 2 - my neighbors will not help me. They didn't help last time, and they
won't help this time. But 50 years ago, that would not have been the case.
Extended families were more common then also, with family members living in
close proximity with others. This is also uncommon today.
> Yes, she still has to maintain her job just as I have to maintain mine.
> Anytime you let the housework "slide", you are disrespecting your
> husband and his quality of life.
Ahhhh.
I see.
The man's quality of life is all that matters.
Spoken like someone who has never been pregnant, much less endured a
difficult, abnormal pregnancy.
Yes, I understand you now.
I hope you go away soon. You're of no value here.
--angela
Melania
March 14th 05, 08:48 PM
Jenrose wrote:
> "Melania" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >> On 14 Mar 2005 10:15:14 -0800, wrote:
> >> >But, let me play along. The average woman weighs 120 lbs. The
> > average
> >> >weight gain in pregnancy is 30 lbs. So by your theory, us guys,
who
> >> >weigh more than 150lbs should ride around in wheel chairs? (give
or
> >> >take 20 lbs depending how factual my numbers are).
> >>
> >> I think you are just guessing the weight for an average woman,
right?
> >> Marie
> >
> > He's definitely guessing. And if he thinks 120 is average, rather
than
> > on the skinny side (the actual average is closer, I believe, to
> > 145-150), then that explains some of his fear and loathing of fat.
Also
> > bearing in mind that muscle weighs more than fat, and that trim,
> > athletic women often weigh more than they look like they do.
> >
> > Regardless, however, pregnancy adds an average of 30 lbs to a
skeletal
> > and musculature structure that is accustomed to carrying
significantly
> > less weight around. That's why it's a strain on the system, not the
> > total weight reached. It's more like if a man suddenly, over the
course
> > of less than a year, found himself carrying around a 30 lb tumor in
his
> > abdomen, or was made to wear a 30 lb water balloon on his front
(not in
> > a backpack, mind you, but suspended from the front of his body) for
3-4
> > months (i.e., the last bit of pregnancy).
>
> An 18 pound gain is like carrying a smallish thanksgiving turkey
around ALL
> the time. A 30 pound gain is like carrying around a stuffed turkey
all the
> time. A 45 pound gain is like carrying around a full fledged
turducken...
> which you can't put down. For MONTHS on end. My dh *can* lift a 45
pound
> turducken from the counter to the stove...but he makes a lot of noise
while
> doing it, even though he's active, exercises religiously, works out,
etc...
Exactly. When I gave birth, I weighed as much as my husband. Difference
is, he's 6'3" and big boned, and I'm 5'7" and small boned.
>
> > All while having been
> > brutally hungover for several months before than, which is what
early
> > pregnancy often feels like. And having a heart and circulatory
system
> > that, when at rest, is working as hard as it would normally be
while
> > hiking in the mountains, and works even harder when actually
engaged in
> > exercise. And throw in a life partner whose attitude, apparently,
would
> > be "hey, don't come crying to me, honey, you brought this on
> > yourself!!" That sounds just heavenly!!
>
> Or in my case, going from that "hungover" feeling to the whooping
cough and
> being bedridden for three months....
I can't even imagine, Jenrose, seriously. I'm speaking just from the
perspective of someone who was young, very healthy, and having a
normal, complication-free pregnancy. To go through the whooping cough,
and all the other things that happen to some women when pregnant (and
I'm speaking strictly physiologically, here, not counting
hormonal/emotional issues) . . . wow.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
wrote:
>
> I guess it was far too much to hope that you'd actually see my point
> and understand... or even that you'd write back something
coherant...
OK, see if you can keep up and correct me where I fault.
Man has provided an efficient mundane (from the woman's point of view)
lifestyle in which was based on set of principals to ensure prosperity
and happiness even if it means to limit the happiness of women.
However, the reality of the matter is that the uniqueness of the
individual makes for true happiness and this realization is indeed,
from the oppressed woman that the man confines.
Sounds like a bunch of Mickey Mouse analogies to disapprove the ideas
of men and to support the free thinking of women (feminists to be
exact). Another story that parallels yours in the opposite light is the
story of the garden of Eden.
By producing this crap, you're hoping that I come to the realization
that maybe my way of life is great for me, and not for the greater
population. What you fail to realize is that I am not arguing a new
concept, but a proven belief system that countless generations have
survived on.
You're introducing color without rules and boundaries for common
society. By doing so, you are polluting the social moral society to
something that cannot be seen or defined, the color of black. If I was
a concerned feminists, I would either adopt the gray or try to put some
standardized color to this black society. I would try to promote the
equality of women and I would not stop until I see an even split of
custody of children between women and men in divorce court, equal
number of women dying in combat, equal government resources for men and
women's health issues not just for women and so on. Did I miss
anything? ;)
> Amy
Regards...
wrote:
>
> So, if someone becomes disabled by, say, parachuting or base jumping,
> THEY shouldn't be allowed out in public, huh? Ok, I get it.
I'm talking about women who are pregnant and insists on being put on
pedastal. Specifically, I'm talking about the pregnant women who sit a
wheelchair as their husband pushes them around the baby store selecting
bumbers and clothes for their kids. If you're too disabled to shop,
then you should stay at home. It's an insult to people who are truly
disabled.
> What makes you think that you know why she's in
> a wheelchair. It might have nothing to do with the pregnancy. She
> might always be in a wheelchair, and just happen to be pregnant at
the
> time.
Although I was specifically talking about a certain type of women, I'll
state that unless they have the financial resources to care for the
child by hiring help or having both parents at home, they shouldn't
have kids.
> She might have had to have surgery. She might be on doctor
> ordered bedrest, with special exceptions for necessary trips out,
> provided that she walks as little as possible.
Going to a Babies R Us is not a necessary trip. In all cases mentioned
above, she should stay at home.
> You presume to know
> a lot about people that you couldn't possibly know. Her pregnancy
> doesn't make her entire medical history public domain. Should she
walk
> around with a sign that says, "I just had foot surgery, I'm not just
> fat..." so that people like you will give your blessing for her to be
> comfortable, or should you just mind your own ****ing business?
I'm stating my opinion and not talking about a specific person unless
such person makes her case known, therefore volunteering her
information in which it becomes my business. At the moment, why
comments are geared to target the pregnant women who feel that they
should be treated in such a special manner because of their pregnancy.
> Somebody must think they're ok, if they've managed to GET pregnant.
I happen to disagree with their decision. If you're so fat that you
can't walk around a store without a wheel chair, maybe you shouldn't
have kids unless you have the financial means to hire another person to
care for your children while you pass out in front TV with a bag of
chips.
> If
> it's not hurting you, it's none of your goddamned business.
By the same logic, neither is it yours.
> Idiot. I'm saying that nothing (except technology) has changed with
> regard to women's desire to talk about pregnancy.
You should learn to read properly before calling me an idiot. Your
comments are invalid to this argument because we were discussing being
pregnant while already having kids and how a man should cater to the
needs of his wife because of this.
> I think people who love each other should do whatever they can to
make
> each other comfortable and happy, whether they're pregnant or not.
Even you probably have some limits to that rule or do you believe in
incest and other sexual deviations?
> Apparently you think that all women should look like this:
>
> http://www.insanitorium.co.uk/
Cartoon characters? Actually, I think women should look like this:
www.playboy.com
> ...and were put on earth to serve you. I'm just grateful that I
> managed to find and marry a man who isn't a Neanderthal like you.
You and I must agree that we have different definition of "man". Was
your husband a product of single mom? Was he trained to pee sitting
down or do you still argue over whether the toliet seat should be up or
down?
> Thanks for the tip. Not that you know, because Donna Reed changes
the
> baby. After all, that's women's work...
Well the diaper genie is supposed to supress the smell of diapers as
well as being of some functional means of diaper disposal. Your best
bet is to dispose of the diaper in a plastic bag from your local
grocery store than to spend money on a product that doesn't work.
> In your limited little black and white world, I'm sure that's true.
> However, I've known plenty of disabled people who have been married,
> both men and women, and they'll be so pleased to know that you think
> they're defective...
I used the word "normally". what you state does not represent the norm.
In other words, you don't see a young healthy man marrying a
parapeligic.
> Clearly some of you are incapable.
Show me something better than what I have and I follow your lead. I'll
even paint my house gray!
> Amy
Regards...
wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess it was far too much to hope that you'd actually see my
point
> > and understand... or even that you'd write back something
> coherant...
>
> OK, see if you can keep up
Keep up? My fat, pregnant ass could run circles around you.
> and correct me where I fault.
>
> Man has provided an efficient mundane (from the woman's point of
view)
> lifestyle in which was based on set of principals to ensure
prosperity
> and happiness even if it means to limit the happiness of women.
The fault here is that the happiness of men is seen as more important
than the happiness of women. You said it yourself - your system limits
the happiness of women. I feel really sorry for your alleged wife,
that her happiness isn't as important to you as your own. My husband's
happiness is more important to me than my own, and mine is more
important to him than his own. That's how a relationship should be,
regardless of who cooks and who stays home with the kids.
> However, the reality of the matter is that the uniqueness of the
> individual makes for true happiness and this realization is indeed,
> from the oppressed woman that the man confines.
Oh my ****ing God. "Confines"? So your "uniqueness" is supposed to be
able to make her truly happy in the absence of freedom? Am I honestly
reading this right, because I don't think anyone could possibly be this
stupid.
Do you have some dominant/submissive thing going on here? That's the
only possible explanation I can imagine. The woman's true happiness
comes from oppression and confinement, huh? Sounds like it's about
time to get out the chips, dips, chains and whips...
> Sounds like a bunch of Mickey Mouse analogies to disapprove the ideas
> of men and to support the free thinking of women (feminists to be
> exact).
The fact that you can pee standing up does not give you the right to
limit the free thinking of others. My anatomy doesn't make me any less
able to determine the course of my own life. Anyone who thinks that it
does is a pig or a fool.
> Another story that parallels yours in the opposite light is the
> story of the garden of Eden.
Oh you're full of ****. I'm beginning to believe that you're just
making this up to rile us up.
> By producing this crap, you're hoping that I come to the realization
> that maybe my way of life is great for me, and not for the greater
> population.
You know what, if you and your wife want to act out the whole master
slave thing, more power to you. You ****ed me off by asserting that
EVERYONE ought to fall in line. Unfortunately, you seem to be unable
to grasp the simple concept that **** that works for you and your
little sub might not work for the rest of us.
> What you fail to realize is that I am not arguing a new
> concept, but a proven belief system that countless generations have
> survived on.
Yeah, and the women were just THRILLED to live in those times, let me
tell you...
> You're introducing color without rules and boundaries for common
> society.
My rule is simple - every couple engaged in a relationship has the
freedom to negotiate their own rules and boudaries. My husband and I
work together, so we have a whole laundry list of rules and boundaries
that apply to us and our situation that would not apply to another
marriage. Thank God that we have the freedom to negotiate our own
rules - if we had to live by yours, this would never, ever work.
> By doing so, you are polluting the social moral society to
> something that cannot be seen or defined, the color of black.
You know, that's the problem with people like you (people who like to
tell other people what to do). Somehow you make the leap from what
goes on between my husband and I to the moral fiber of society.
I'm not polluting anything. I'm living my life, raising a dog,
beginning a family, and running a business. If anyone's polluting
anything, it's you polluting this newsgroup with your bull****.
> If I was
> a concerned feminists, I would either adopt the gray or try to put
some
> standardized color to this black society.
Instead you dress up like Marilyn Manson?
> I would try to promote the
> equality of women and I would not stop until I see an even split of
> custody of children between women and men in divorce court, equal
> number of women dying in combat, equal government resources for men
and
> women's health issues not just for women and so on. Did I miss
> anything? ;)
Feminism is all about choices. Anyone who hasn't figured that out by
now hasn't been paying attention... or has had his fingers stuck in his
ears and has been chanting "la la la, I don't wanna hear you..."
Amy
Rivka W
March 15th 05, 12:34 AM
wrote:
> Research indicates that if one parent stays home with
> kids and one parent supports the houshold, then the outcome is far
> greater than both parents working.
Oh yeah? I'm a research psychologist, and I've never come across this
data. How about putting your references where your mouth is, and
giving me a journal article citation?
> As a guy, I'm telling you that men would rather have their wives
> focus their attention on them, instead of their careers. No man
> likes to come home to a dirty home and a microwaved hotdog
> because his wife is at the office.
I feel pretty certain that women don't like coming home to a dirty
house either. Why isn't it the man's responsibility to keep the house
clean too, if both spouses are working?
Also, since when does two working spouses = microwaved hot dogs for
dinner? I don't think we've *ever* had microwaved hot dogs for dinner.
Takeout Chinese, sure. But normally we eat ordinary meals cooked at
home.
> There are three studies just released on this topic that prove my
> point of view.
Once again, I encourage you to provide some citations for this,
instead of just expecting us to accept your unsupported word.
Peer-reviewed journals, please.
Rivka
Li'l Critter due 4/3/05
--
Visit my weblog at http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com
wrote:
> wrote:
> >
>
> > I
> > happen to have needed a wheelchair when pg and when not, and when
my
> dh
> > was pushing me while I was pushing our dd in a stroller and we were
> > saying wee and laughing, people told my dh how lucky he was to have
> us
> > because it is the joy you bring each other not the servitude that
> makes
> > for a happy marriage.
>
> If you're so fat that you need a wheelchair when not pregnant, you
> shouldn't have kids. If you can't take care of yourself, how can
anyone
> expect you to take care of and raise active healthy children?
>
I am not in a wheelchair for being fat, but actually my disability was
in part caused by pregnancy. I had bad feet due to loose ligaments my
whole life, but was able to even work on my feet for many years and
just put up with the pain. But after pg my feet got alot worse from
the hormones that soften connective tissue. They are now painful to
the point that I cannot walk 100% of the time. I have to pace myself.
It is rare for dh to push me actually as I do prefer to get the
exercise of moving the chair on my own, but when I was recovering from
a foot surgery was when my dh pushed me and people told him how lucky
he was.
> So, what changed since the 1950's (as Amy has stated) that now
> pregnancy is an issue for women? Assuming that you have brothers and
> sisters, what did your mom do? What did your grandmother do? In fact
> what did early Americans do when they had to work on their farm to
have
> food on the table? Did the guy come in and push his wife around in a
> wheel chair just so she could purchase a diaper genie that doesn't
> really work?
No, but I suspect he did push his wife in her wheelchair to some things
if his wife ended up requiring a wheel chair.
> > Based on your
> > comments if your wife had a hard pg you would expect her to keep
work
> > work working no matter what.
>
> Yes, she still has to maintain her job just as I have to maintain
mine.
> Anytime you let the housework "slide", you are disrespecting your
> husband and his quality of life.
If I kept doing housework as vigorously right now as usual I would be
endangering my babies life because I am currently resting to keep my bp
down, but even if I did not have to worry about bp, working just as
hard in late pg would be disrespecting myself and my quality of life.
I think in a good marriage, my dh and I would want to split the
difference, so we both suffer a little over the pg rather than the
burden being entirely on the woman with everything just the same for
the man. Do you really think that men expected their pg women to work
just as hard through the entire pg and in the post-partum period in the
past? Do you really think men cut their women no slack in the past? I
doubt it.
> Trust me, I wouldn't marry a woman who needs a wheelchair when not
> pregnant nor would I marry a woman who expects special treatment
> because she is doing her job as a wife. I feel sorry for any man who
> has to put up with your weakness and failure as a woman.
I did not need a wheel chair when my dh married me, but for better or
for worse... I bet you would leave your wife if something happened to
her that disabled her. And FWIW, I am not exactly a failure. For the
first 3 years after I became disabled I was our families sole support,
while dh was a SAHD. I think the SAHD experience would definitely be
good for your attitude. I still had a great job, and once I did become
a SAHM I am still not a failure. I do tons of stuff. I am not 100%
disabled. I do frequently walk in public, and use the wheelchair at
home (like I said I pace myself). Even a person who was totally
wheelchair bound can do lots of stuff and can keep a clean house, and
take care of kids. I normally do, only now in the third trimester do I
need to take it a bit easier.
You are a piece of work.
KC
Jenrose
March 15th 05, 01:20 AM
>
> Also, since when does two working spouses = microwaved hot dogs for
> dinner? I don't think we've *ever* had microwaved hot dogs for dinner.
> Takeout Chinese, sure. But normally we eat ordinary meals cooked at home.
>
lol! We don't do microwaved hot dogs. We do microwaved chicken-turkey
bratwurst or basil-pine nut sausages on hoagie rolls.
0:-)
Jenrose
Rivka W
March 15th 05, 03:19 AM
Jenrose wrote:
>Rivka wrote:
>> Also, since when does two working spouses = microwaved hot
>> dogs for dinner? I don't think we've *ever* had microwaved hot
>> dogs for dinner. Takeout Chinese, sure. But normally we eat
>> ordinary meals cooked at home.
>
> lol! We don't do microwaved hot dogs. We do microwaved chicken-
> turkey bratwurst or basil-pine nut sausages on hoagie rolls.
>
> 0:-)
Here's where I prove my VAST SUPERIORITY as a woman: we heat up our
chicken-apple sausages in a pan of water on the stove, not in the
microwave. :-P
In preparation for the baby, my husband has decided - after seven
years together, during which I've done all the cooking - that he wants
to learn to cook. He has mastered spaghetti, chicken apple sausages,
and now pork chops with red potatoes. I'm so proud! And he seems proud
of himself too. I'll probably still do the majority of the cooking,
because I enjoy it so much, but it sure will be nice to have another
option.
Rivka
Li'l Critter due 4/3/05
--
Visit my weblog at http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com
Nan
March 15th 05, 04:45 AM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:03:35 -0800,
scribbled:
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:19:54 -0500, in misc.kids.pregnancy "Rivka W"
> wrote:
>PLONK!
You've been plonked by a troll,Rivka :-D
Nan, never understood the point of posting a "PLONK" message...just
plonk and be done with it already!
Jenrose
March 15th 05, 05:32 AM
>
> You are a piece of work.
>
> KC
>
And doesn't he just make you want to run out and buy his book when it's
published? <eyeroll>
Jenrose
Jenrose
March 15th 05, 05:52 AM
> You are such an idiot.
I'm beginning to think I plonked this guy too soon--love the smell of roast
troll in the evening....lol! An excellent distraction. I shared some of his
post with dh, who blinked said, "What, is this guy desperate for attention
or something? I feel like I'm more chauvanist now just for reading that
crap" as he shuddered and left the room.
Jenrose
Nan
March 15th 05, 09:34 AM
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:49:35 -0800,
scribbled:
>Well if it isn't the snoony little bitch Nan..
Oooh, I have a fan club :-)
Nan
Rivka W
March 15th 05, 01:12 PM
Nan wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:03:35 -0800,
> scribbled:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:19:54 -0500, in misc.kids.pregnancy
>> "Rivka W" > wrote:
>
>> PLONK!
>
> You've been plonked by a troll,Rivka :-D
For teaching my husband how to make spaghetti, apparently! Life sure
is exciting sometimes. I can't imagine what might have happened if I
had taught him how to make... *lasagna.*
> Nan, never understood the point of posting a "PLONK" message...just
> plonk and be done with it already!
It's to make sure I feel suitably chastised. Which I totally do,
because, as a psychologist, I really respect anyone who condemns all
antidepressant medication.
Rivka
Li'l Critter due 4/3/05
--
Visit my weblog at http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com
wrote:
> are you the jenrose who encourages children to commit suicide?
*sniff sniff* *sniff* *cough!*
Dude, yeah, you... Mr. ...
If you're going to have a sock puppet, the least you can do is wash the
sock first. The whole newsgroup is going to smell like a locker room
for a month!
Amy
Melania
March 15th 05, 03:33 PM
Jenrose wrote:
> > You are such an idiot.
>
> I'm beginning to think I plonked this guy too soon--love the smell of
roast
> troll in the evening....lol! An excellent distraction. I shared some
of his
> post with dh, who blinked said, "What, is this guy desperate for
attention
> or something? I feel like I'm more chauvanist now just for reading
that
> crap" as he shuddered and left the room.
>
> Jenrose
Thank God for the great husbands of the world, hey? Last night I asked
dh (apropos of nothing, didn't mention the thread), "So, I recognise
this is kind of a goofy question, but - am I a good housewife?" He said
"Yeah, you do great!" I said, "Well, you couldn't have very well said
no, right?" and he said, "Sure I could have. I mean, are you the
perfect neurotic '50s housewife? No. Would I want to be married to the
perfect neurotic '50s housewife? Definitely not. But you take great
care of our son, you manage the house (which is more than just cooking
and cleaning, folks, I do all the home expenses and really do manage
the home), and usually the house is clean and there's something
delicious to eat. And you were always a good cook, but it just keeps
getting better."
This from the man who can't wait till the kids are past breastfeeding
age so he can stay home as a consultant while I go out and pursue my
own career - he's more gung ho on it than I am, I sometimes think! He's
probably more of a feminist than I am, too (gets that from his
parents).
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Nan
March 15th 05, 05:39 PM
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:12:54 -0500, "Rivka W" >
scribbled:
>Nan wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:03:35 -0800,
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:19:54 -0500, in misc.kids.pregnancy
>>> "Rivka W" > wrote:
>>
>>> PLONK!
>>
>> You've been plonked by a troll,Rivka :-D
>
>For teaching my husband how to make spaghetti, apparently! Life sure
>is exciting sometimes. I can't imagine what might have happened if I
>had taught him how to make... *lasagna.*
The horror of it all ;-)
Wonder if the troll would be upset to find out my hubby does most of
our cooking... I'm a lucky womyn <G>
>> Nan, never understood the point of posting a "PLONK" message...just
>> plonk and be done with it already!
>
>It's to make sure I feel suitably chastised. Which I totally do,
>because, as a psychologist, I really respect anyone who condemns all
>antidepressant medication.
Heh
Nan
Larry McMahan
March 15th 05, 05:44 PM
Rivka W > writes:
: Here's where I prove my VAST SUPERIORITY as a woman: we heat up our
: chicken-apple sausages in a pan of water on the stove, not in the
: microwave. :-P
Little story... A couple of years ago, our microwave broke. We
decided to see how long we could go without replacing it. Now,
an electric teakettle and a toaster oven later, we are using it to
store our wine glasses.
Larry
Larry McMahan
March 15th 05, 05:46 PM
writes:
: Well if it isn't the snoony little bitch Nan..
Uh, I think that's snooty. Right, Nan? :-)
Larry
Nan
March 15th 05, 06:14 PM
On 15 Mar 2005 10:46:18 -0700, Larry McMahan
> scribbled:
writes:
>
>: Well if it isn't the snoony little bitch Nan..
>
>Uh, I think that's snooty. Right, Nan? :-)
I missed that typo, thanks Larry :-)
I've *never* been called snooty before <G>
Nan
Daye
March 15th 05, 07:13 PM
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:34:28 GMT, Nan > wrote:
>Oooh, I have a fan club :-)
Well, I respect you, so you have at least one real fan! :)
--
Daye
Mommy to DD3 and DS1
Chump Change for Major Change
http://www.change4change.tk
Nan
March 15th 05, 08:38 PM
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:13:30 +1100, Daye >
scribbled:
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:34:28 GMT, Nan > wrote:
>
>>Oooh, I have a fan club :-)
>
>Well, I respect you, so you have at least one real fan! :)
The sentiment is mutual :-)
Nan
Jamie Clark
March 15th 05, 10:30 PM
Make that two!
--
Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you" and
"Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!
Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password
"Daye" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:34:28 GMT, Nan > wrote:
>
>>Oooh, I have a fan club :-)
>
> Well, I respect you, so you have at least one real fan! :)
>
> --
> Daye
> Mommy to DD3 and DS1
> Chump Change for Major Change
> http://www.change4change.tk
Nan
March 15th 05, 10:57 PM
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:30:24 -0800, "Jamie Clark"
> scribbled:
>Make that two!
Mutual here, as well :-)
Nan
wrote:
>
> Keep up? My fat, pregnant ass could run circles around you.
Bring it on. ;)
> The fault here is that the happiness of men is seen as more important
> than the happiness of women. You said it yourself - your system
limits
> the happiness of women. I feel really sorry for your alleged wife,
> that her happiness isn't as important to you as your own. My
husband's
> happiness is more important to me than my own, and mine is more
> important to him than his own. That's how a relationship should be,
> regardless of who cooks and who stays home with the kids.
Is that what the story was trying to say?
Anyway, I believe that both men and women should be happy in their
marriage. I never stated that you should limit the happiness of the
woman.
> Oh my ****ing God. "Confines"? So your "uniqueness" is supposed to
be
> able to make her truly happy in the absence of freedom? Am I
honestly
> reading this right, because I don't think anyone could possibly be
this
> stupid.
I'm only stating what I feel the story is supposed to mean. I told you
to correct me where you find fault.
> > Sounds like a bunch of Mickey Mouse analogies to disapprove the
ideas
> > of men and to support the free thinking of women (feminists to be
> > exact).
>
> The fact that you can pee standing up does not give you the right to
> limit the free thinking of others. My anatomy doesn't make me any
less
> able to determine the course of my own life. Anyone who thinks that
it
> does is a pig or a fool.
Look, I love to think we live in a world where men and women are equal.
I even support feminism and consider myself a true feminists when
dealing with feminist. However, I feel feminism did it's job half ass
and should step up to the plate and demand equal rights for women.
Until then, I stick to my own life with my wife and our traditional sex
roles. Wake me up when we're truly equal.
> > Another story that parallels yours in the opposite light is the
> > story of the garden of Eden.
>
> Oh you're full of ****. I'm beginning to believe that you're just
> making this up to rile us up.
Hey, if you reference a fictional story, why can't I?
> You ****ed me off by asserting that
> EVERYONE ought to fall in line.
I just stated that there should be no problem with female hormones,
pregnant or not. Take responsibility for your own issues and stop
depending on men to accomodating your needs. A true feminist would
understand that.
> Unfortunately, you seem to be unable
> to grasp the simple concept that **** that works for you and your
> [wife] might not work for the rest of us.
Yeah, it's a shame. While you guys are arguing over your hormones, we
spend our time discussing real issues.
> Yeah, and the women were just THRILLED to live in those times, let me
> tell you...
Some are, some aren't. I'm happy to end up with one that does.
> My rule is simple - every couple engaged in a relationship has the
> freedom to negotiate their own rules and boudaries.
That's fine.
> My husband and I
> work together, so we have a whole laundry list of rules and
boundaries
> that apply to us and our situation that would not apply to another
> marriage.
So what's the difference between you and I? We're both stating what we
think works and why. I happen to base my theory on traditional roles
that have worked since we Americans were British.
> Thank God that we have the freedom to negotiate our own
> rules - if we had to live by yours, this would never, ever work.
Well, I would have never married you and you wouldn't have married me.
No loss on both parts, eh?
> You know, that's the problem with people like you (people who like to
> tell other people what to do). Somehow you make the leap from what
> goes on between my husband and I to the moral fiber of society.
Please tell me why we have a high divorce rate. Obviously more people
are not happy today in their marriages than they were in the 50's. I
personally think it's because men and women are confused as to their
roles in society and the easiest way out is to divorce than to sit down
and discuss this.
> I'm not polluting anything. I'm living my life, raising a dog,
> beginning a family, and running a business. If anyone's polluting
> anything, it's you polluting this newsgroup with your bull****.
So noted.
> Feminism is all about choices. Anyone who hasn't figured that out by
> now hasn't been paying attention... or has had his fingers stuck in
his
> ears and has been chanting "la la la, I don't wanna hear you..."
Then make your choices and stop depending on and holding men
accountable for your choices. As it applies to this thread, deal with
your own hormones.
> Amy
Regards...
Rivka W wrote:
> wrote:
> > Research indicates that if one parent stays home with
> > kids and one parent supports the houshold, then the outcome is far
> > greater than both parents working.
>
> Oh yeah? I'm a research psychologist, and I've never come across this
> data. How about putting your references where your mouth is, and
> giving me a journal article citation?
Since you're a research psychologist (which is my first love) you might
have better access to this info than I do. But here you go:
http://www.lydialovric.com/
Click on articles and it should be called "A mother's place is in the
home."
> > As a guy, I'm telling you that men would rather have their wives
> > focus their attention on them, instead of their careers. No man
> > likes to come home to a dirty home and a microwaved hotdog
> > because his wife is at the office.
>
> I feel pretty certain that women don't like coming home to a dirty
> house either. Why isn't it the man's responsibility to keep the house
> clean too, if both spouses are working?
I wasn't referring to two income households. In fact, I personally
believe that if the both of you have to work to survive, then you
shouldn't have kids. However, the government disagrees because it needs
poor kids as cannon fodder for it's war machine.
> Also, since when does two working spouses = microwaved hot dogs for
> dinner? I don't think we've *ever* had microwaved hot dogs for
dinner.
> Takeout Chinese, sure. But normally we eat ordinary meals cooked at
> home.
Again, I meant single income househlds in which one parent stays home
and the other works.
> > There are three studies just released on this topic that prove my
> > point of view.
>
> Once again, I encourage you to provide some citations for this,
> instead of just expecting us to accept your unsupported word.
> Peer-reviewed journals, please.
Assuming that you're referring to men who rather have the woman take
care of them than to pursue careers, there was a recent article coming
from Ny that described how men want woman who take care of them. I
thought is was a no-brainer, but it looks like you need research for
that type of thing.
I promise that I'll look it up in my free time and get back to you.
>
> Rivka
Regards...
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > are you the jenrose who encourages children to commit suicide?
>
> *sniff sniff* *sniff* *cough!*
>
> Dude, yeah, you... Mr. ...
>
> If you're going to have a sock puppet,
If I were to have a sock puppet, I would hope it could add to this
debate in a more productive manner rather than typing "PLONK".
> the least you can do is wash the
> sock first.
That's women's work. ;)
>The whole newsgroup is going to smell like a locker room
> for a month!
Then don't feed it.
> Amy
Regards...
Melania
March 16th 05, 07:01 PM
wrote:
> Rivka W wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Research indicates that if one parent stays home with
> > > kids and one parent supports the houshold, then the outcome is
far
> > > greater than both parents working.
> >
> > Oh yeah? I'm a research psychologist, and I've never come across
this
>
> > data. How about putting your references where your mouth is, and
> > giving me a journal article citation?
>
> Since you're a research psychologist (which is my first love) you
might
> have better access to this info than I do. But here you go:
>
> http://www.lydialovric.com/
>
> Click on articles and it should be called "A mother's place is in the
> home."
Nothing wrong with the article. A few points: 1) she begins by saying
that a "maternal or paternal" touch is what is required, but then
buries that under the assumption that women will be the ones to stay
home. 2) she's talking about preschool-aged children. The SAHM's she's
quoting are probably planning to return to work once their children are
school-aged - at least one woman said as much overtly in the article.
3) The studies she quotes come mainly from the Fraser Institute, an
organization with an ugly reputation in Canada for manipulating and
deliberately skewing statistics and reports in order to produce the
desired outcomes.
>
> > > As a guy, I'm telling you that men would rather have their wives
> > > focus their attention on them, instead of their careers. No man
> > > likes to come home to a dirty home and a microwaved hotdog
> > > because his wife is at the office.
> >
> > I feel pretty certain that women don't like coming home to a dirty
> > house either. Why isn't it the man's responsibility to keep the
house
>
> > clean too, if both spouses are working?
>
> I wasn't referring to two income households. In fact, I personally
> believe that if the both of you have to work to survive, then you
> shouldn't have kids. However, the government disagrees because it
needs
> poor kids as cannon fodder for it's war machine.
I don't disagree completely with your statement here, although you do
frame it in your usual reductionist style. The fact is, though, that
many of us in this group are fortunate enough not to live in the USA
(please, no flames, people - I just would not choose to live there.)
>
> > Also, since when does two working spouses = microwaved hot dogs for
> > dinner? I don't think we've *ever* had microwaved hot dogs for
> dinner.
> > Takeout Chinese, sure. But normally we eat ordinary meals cooked at
> > home.
>
> Again, I meant single income househlds in which one parent stays home
> and the other works.
>
> > > There are three studies just released on this topic that prove my
> > > point of view.
> >
> > Once again, I encourage you to provide some citations for this,
> > instead of just expecting us to accept your unsupported word.
> > Peer-reviewed journals, please.
>
> Assuming that you're referring to men who rather have the woman take
> care of them than to pursue careers, there was a recent article
coming
> from Ny that described how men want woman who take care of them. I
> thought is was a no-brainer, but it looks like you need research for
> that type of thing.
You keep using this phrase: "men who rather have the woman take care of
them than to pursue careers."
Is taking care of a man really a full time job? Do you want to make men
out to be so dependent, so in need of external care? I don't think you
do - you certainly came down hard on Bob in another thread for
suggesting that men are simple, needy creatures. Can you really not see
how selfish - and childish - it is to take a "men should be cared for
by women" position? What did you do before you got married? What did
your wife do?
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with the article. A few points: 1) she begins by saying
> that a "maternal or paternal" touch is what is required, but then
> buries that under the assumption that women will be the ones to stay
> home.
I noticed that too. Although I do not care which parent stays home, I
think it's better to have the mom stay home until the child is past
breast feeding age. I think that the benefits of breast feeding out
weigh formula.
2) she's talking about preschool-aged children. The SAHM's she's
> quoting are probably planning to return to work once their children
are
> school-aged - at least one woman said as much overtly in the article.
I think one parent should stay home even when the kids are in school.
> 3) The studies she quotes come mainly from the Fraser Institute, an
> organization with an ugly reputation in Canada for manipulating and
> deliberately skewing statistics and reports in order to produce the
> desired outcomes.
I have no experience with this organization. However, it makes logical
sense that it is to a child's best interest when there is one parent in
the home than it is to be a single mom/dad or to have both parents
working.
> I don't disagree completely with your statement here, although you do
> frame it in your usual reductionist style.
I put a lot of thought into my statements. Are you arguing that the US
government doesn't recruit poor kids for the army?
> The fact is, though, that
> many of us in this group are fortunate enough not to live in the USA
> (please, no flames, people - I just would not choose to live there.)
My view spans to different countries as well.
> You keep using this phrase: "men who rather have the woman take care
of
> them than to pursue careers."
A woman who pursues a career puts her career first. Men would rather
they put them first than the career.
> Is taking care of a man really a full time job?
Not only man, but thier children and home as well. Just ask any stay at
home mom.
> Do you want to make men
> out to be so dependent, so in need of external care?
It's not dependency. That's where most women fail in the understanding
of the dynamics of marriage. A man is much more of a man when he
provides for a family in which supports him. A woman who cooks, cleans,
raises the kids, takes care of the home supports a man much more than
if she were to work and neglect the home and family that he provides.
> I don't think you
> do - you certainly came down hard on Bob in another thread for
> suggesting that men are simple, needy creatures.
Bob has had his manhood removed. He is lost, without direction and
unstable. He awaits direction and support of another person to guide
him and set his value system. Bob is the type of guy you see waiting
outside of a waiting room holding his wife's purse while she tries on
new clothes.
> Can you really not see
> how selfish - and childish - it is to take a "men should be cared for
> by women" position?
It's not being childish or selfish. You wouldn't consider it to be
childish or selfish of you to have your husband to work and provide for
the family, would you?
> What did you do before you got married?
I was/am yuppie scum. ;)
> What did
> your wife do?
just finished getting her bachelor's in English Lit and living at home.
> Melania
You have presented a lot of material to digest and reply to on the
other thread. I will get to it soon.
Regards...
Melania
March 18th 05, 10:47 PM
wrote:
> Melania wrote:
> >
> > Nothing wrong with the article. A few points: 1) she begins by
saying
> > that a "maternal or paternal" touch is what is required, but then
> > buries that under the assumption that women will be the ones to
stay
> > home.
>
> I noticed that too. Although I do not care which parent stays home, I
> think it's better to have the mom stay home until the child is past
> breast feeding age. I think that the benefits of breast feeding out
> weigh formula.
Agree completely.
>
> 2) she's talking about preschool-aged children. The SAHM's she's
> > quoting are probably planning to return to work once their children
> are
> > school-aged - at least one woman said as much overtly in the
article.
>
> I think one parent should stay home even when the kids are in school.
I respect that opinion. I think one parent should be home when the kids
leave for school, should be home when they get home from school, and
should be available to come to the school at the drop of a hat to pick
them up if something is wrong. Both dh and my work would allow either
of us to do that.
>
> > 3) The studies she quotes come mainly from the Fraser Institute, an
> > organization with an ugly reputation in Canada for manipulating and
> > deliberately skewing statistics and reports in order to produce the
> > desired outcomes.
>
> I have no experience with this organization. However, it makes
logical
> sense that it is to a child's best interest when there is one parent
in
> the home than it is to be a single mom/dad or to have both parents
> working.
>
>
> > I don't disagree completely with your statement here, although you
do
> > frame it in your usual reductionist style.
>
> I put a lot of thought into my statements. Are you arguing that the
US
> government doesn't recruit poor kids for the army?
Not at all - it's the truth, and IMO it's tragic. To derive from that
the idea that the government is deliberately encouraging poor people to
have children for the purpose of later sending them to the frontlines
is a stretch, though.
>
> > The fact is, though, that
> > many of us in this group are fortunate enough not to live in the
USA
> > (please, no flames, people - I just would not choose to live
there.)
>
> My view spans to different countries as well.
>
>
> > You keep using this phrase: "men who rather have the woman take
care
> of
> > them than to pursue careers."
>
> A woman who pursues a career puts her career first. Men would rather
> they put them first than the career.
By that logic, a man who pursues a career puts his career first. Women
would rather come before their husbands' careers too. Family comes
first for dh and I, in spite of the fact that we have both pursued
careers.
>
> > Is taking care of a man really a full time job?
>
> Not only man, but thier children and home as well. Just ask any stay
at
> home mom.
News flash: you're talking to one. Taking care of preschool aged
children is a full time job. Taking care of a house and a husband are
not. Once my youngest brother was in kindergarten, my mom went back to
work. Our house was generally clean and tidy, we had a home-cooked meal
every night, homemade lunches to take to school, and we were very well
cared for and nurtured. My parents are still together, still in love,
still both working full time, and still living in a nice clean house,
wearing neat, clean clothes, and eating homemade food.
>
> > Do you want to make men
> > out to be so dependent, so in need of external care?
>
> It's not dependency. That's where most women fail in the
understanding
> of the dynamics of marriage. A man is much more of a man when he
> provides for a family in which supports him. A woman who cooks,
cleans,
> raises the kids, takes care of the home supports a man much more than
> if she were to work and neglect the home and family that he provides.
>
> > I don't think you
> > do - you certainly came down hard on Bob in another thread for
> > suggesting that men are simple, needy creatures.
>
> Bob has had his manhood removed.
Bob's a EUNUCH? That's tragic!!!! Wait, that must have happened after
his wife got pregnant . . . Oh . . . Poor Bob. ;-)
He is lost, without direction and
> unstable. He awaits direction and support of another person to guide
> him and set his value system. Bob is the type of guy you see waiting
> outside of a waiting room holding his wife's purse while she tries on
> new clothes.
Unlikely. But, I don't know him and really couldn't judge. You don't
know him either, and I'd have an easier time accepting your arguments
if you didn't construct a whole person out of a few isolated posts in
usenet.
>
> > Can you really not see
> > how selfish - and childish - it is to take a "men should be cared
for
> > by women" position?
>
> It's not being childish or selfish. You wouldn't consider it to be
> childish or selfish of you to have your husband to work and provide
for
> the family, would you?
I would consider it childish and selfish of me to expect my husband to
work and provide for the family while I cleaned clothes in a washer and
dryer, washed dishes in a dishwasher, cleaned the floors using a
vacuum, and cooked dinner in a kitchen with running hot and cold water,
an electric stove, a fridge, and a microwave. That probably adds up to
3 or less hours of work in a day. That's what I would be doing if I
didn't work and didn't have preschool aged children. I would consider
it childish and selfish of dh if he were so dependent and needy that he
expected me to create 8 hours' worth of work in the home everyday, to
satisfy his wants, or insisted that I not work because his "manhood"
was somehow more intact if only he did it.
> You have presented a lot of material to digest and reply to on the
> other thread. I will get to it soon.
I appreciate your consideration.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania
March 18th 05, 10:53 PM
D'oh! Piggybacking on own post to make an important clarification
below:
Melania wrote:
> wrote:
> > Melania wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing wrong with the article. A few points: 1) she begins by
> saying
> > > that a "maternal or paternal" touch is what is required, but then
> > > buries that under the assumption that women will be the ones to
> stay
> > > home.
> >
> > I noticed that too. Although I do not care which parent stays home,
I
> > think it's better to have the mom stay home until the child is past
> > breast feeding age. I think that the benefits of breast feeding out
> > weigh formula.
>
> Agree completely.
What I meant to say was that I agree completely THAT THE BENEFITS OF
BREASTFEEDING OUTWEIGH FORMULA. **Not** that I think the baby of a WOHM
needs formula, won't be breastfed, etc., etc.
Then again, maternity leave in Canada is 1 year, and most women who can
take it do so, and many of them only bfeed for 6-12 months (although I
wish they'd do it for longer).
My aunt, a teacher, went back to work when my cousing was 8 months old.
She would nurse her son before she left for school, come home at noon
and nurse again, and then be home at 4 to nurse again. He was on solids
by then, and also got pumped milk that his dad - who was staying home
with the kids - gave him, if he needed it.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Melania wrote:
> >
>
> I respect that opinion. I think one parent should be home when the
kids
> leave for school, should be home when they get home from school, and
> should be available to come to the school at the drop of a hat to
pick
> them up if something is wrong. Both dh and my work would allow either
> of us to do that.
I agree as well and I find nothing wrong with the both of you working.
> Not at all - it's the truth, and IMO it's tragic. To derive from that
> the idea that the government is deliberately encouraging poor people
to
> have children for the purpose of later sending them to the frontlines
> is a stretch, though.
That's my view on welfare, wic, child tax credit, food stamps, etc.
> By that logic, a man who pursues a career puts his career first.
In order to provide for his family.
> Women
> would rather come before their husbands' careers too.
Someone has to provide for the family. Also, as a man, I am telling you
that men rather be the sole provider of the family and have the wife
take care of home, kids and him.
> Family comes
> first for dh and I, in spite of the fact that we have both pursued
> careers.
The same goes for the both of us.
> News flash: you're talking to one. Taking care of preschool aged
> children is a full time job. Taking care of a house and a husband are
> not.
Maybe we have different difinitions of "taking care of a house and
husband" because I know my wife puts a full day into it.
> I would consider it childish and selfish of me to expect my husband
to
> work and provide for the family while I cleaned clothes in a washer
and
> dryer, washed dishes in a dishwasher, cleaned the floors using a
> vacuum, and cooked dinner in a kitchen with running hot and cold
water,
> an electric stove, a fridge, and a microwave. That probably adds up
to
> 3 or less hours of work in a day. That's what I would be doing if I
> didn't work and didn't have preschool aged children.
Although that's a nice gesture and a great trait to see in a woman, I
still think my wife (with our 3 1/2 month son) still puts more than 3
hours a day into running the house.
> I would consider
> it childish and selfish of dh if he were so dependent and needy that
he
> expected me to create 8 hours' worth of work in the home everyday, to
> satisfy his wants, or insisted that I not work because his "manhood"
> was somehow more intact if only he did it.
Both roles are different from one another, yet they are equally
important and valuable in maintaining a strong family structure. Just
because one parent stays home and the other works, doesn't make one
parent less valuable. I am expressing my opinion as a man who prefers
the traditional (pre-feminism) sex roles.
> Melania
Regards...
Nan
March 24th 05, 05:20 PM
On 24 Mar 2005 09:16:48 -0800, " >
wrote:
>Someone has to provide for the family. Also, as a man, I am telling you
>that men rather be the sole provider of the family and have the wife
>take care of home, kids and him.
Speak only for yourself.
Nan
Nan wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2005 09:16:48 -0800, "
>
> wrote:
>
> >Someone has to provide for the family. Also, as a man, I am telling
you
> >that men rather be the sole provider of the family and have the wife
> >take care of home, kids and him.
>
> Speak only for yourself.
It's a proven fact. Let me know if you want me to provide proof.
> Nan
Regards...
Nan
March 24th 05, 09:50 PM
On 24 Mar 2005 13:08:23 -0800, " >
wrote:
>
>Nan wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2005 09:16:48 -0800, "
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Someone has to provide for the family. Also, as a man, I am telling
>you
>> >that men rather be the sole provider of the family and have the wife
>> >take care of home, kids and him.
>>
>> Speak only for yourself.
>
>It's a proven fact. Let me know if you want me to provide proof.
You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for all
men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many many
many others don't.
Nan
Cuddlefish
March 24th 05, 11:04 PM
"Nan" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Mar 2005 13:08:23 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>>> >Someone has to provide for the family. Also, as a man, I am telling you
>>> >that men rather be the sole provider of the family and have the wife
>>> >take care of home, kids and him.
>>>
>>> Speak only for yourself.
>>
>>It's a proven fact. Let me know if you want me to provide proof.
>
> You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for all
> men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many many
> many others don't.
>
> Nan
LOL! I'm on Spring Break Holidays right now and I pleaded with my husband to
let me do his laundry. See, he prefers to do his own washing, but because he
has been working so hard I thought I could help him catch up. He said no -
although he did compromise: I was allowed to take a shirt and pants to the
dry cleaner. He is also the cook in the family and seldom wants me to even
do that either.
If my husband wants me to take care of him, he has a lousy way of showing
it, LOL! He does on the other hand love having me as a wife for the
intelligent conversation, friendship and companionship.
--
Jacqueline
#1 Due late Jul/early Aug
Nan wrote:
>
> You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for all
> men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many many
> many others don't.
You're right, my bad. A normal avergae guy likes to be taken care of.
You must have married a woman. What exactly does he disagree with me
about?
> Nan
Regards...
Cuddlefish wrote:
>
> LOL! I'm on Spring Break Holidays right now and I pleaded with my
husband to
> let me do his laundry. See, he prefers to do his own washing, but
because he
> has been working so hard I thought I could help him catch up. He said
no -
> although he did compromise: I was allowed to take a shirt and pants
to the
> dry cleaner. He is also the cook in the family and seldom wants me to
even
> do that either.
What's his reasoning?
> He does on the other hand love having me as a wife for the
> intelligent conversation, friendship and companionship.
Yeah, because you can't have intelligent conversation, friendship and
companionship if you're too busy doing the laundry.
> --
> Jacqueline
Regards...
Melania
March 24th 05, 11:27 PM
wrote:
> Nan wrote:
> >
> > You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for all
> > men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many many
> > many others don't.
>
> You're right, my bad. A normal avergae guy likes to be taken care of.
> You must have married a woman. What exactly does he disagree with me
> about?
Remember when we discussed showing people respect? If you'd limited
your response to "what exactly does he disagree with me about?" you
might get more considered answers from people.
Putting aside the "taken care of" part of the equation, many men
*don't* want to be the "sole provider." If a couple (often unevenly)
splits the wage-earning responsibilities, the husband has more time
free to bond with his children and even to do things he actively enjoys
but which might, in your eyes, "pussify" him. For instance, many men
are excellent cooks who enjoy preparing delicious meals. Many men
*don't* want to spend 60+ hours at work every week, plus commuting
time, growing apart from their families and feeling more and more like
their home is a glorified hotel.
I don't put words in your wife's mouth, or try to make her out to be
something that I deride, just because she has different priorities,
preferences, or values from my own. Please show our husbands the same
courtesy.
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)
Nan
March 25th 05, 01:41 AM
On 24 Mar 2005 15:18:35 -0800, " >
wrote:
>
>Nan wrote:
>>
>> You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for all
>> men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many many
>> many others don't.
>
>You're right, my bad. A normal avergae guy likes to be taken care of.
LOL! My hubby is as average as they come.
>You must have married a woman. What exactly does he disagree with me
>about?
He's every inch the man <G>
Your old-fashioned ideals. He prefers to take an active role in
child-rearing, and I'd never insult him by expecting him to defer that
to me. He does 99% of the cooking because he enjoys it and loves
taking care of his 3 girls. It's just a few of the many ways he
demonstrates his love for his family.
Nan
Nan
March 25th 05, 01:46 AM
On 24 Mar 2005 15:27:59 -0800, "Melania" > wrote:
>
wrote:
>> Nan wrote:
>> >
>> > You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for all
>> > men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many many
>> > many others don't.
>>
>> You're right, my bad. A normal avergae guy likes to be taken care of.
>> You must have married a woman. What exactly does he disagree with me
>> about?
>
>Remember when we discussed showing people respect? If you'd limited
>your response to "what exactly does he disagree with me about?" you
>might get more considered answers from people.
>
>Putting aside the "taken care of" part of the equation, many men
>*don't* want to be the "sole provider." If a couple (often unevenly)
>splits the wage-earning responsibilities, the husband has more time
>free to bond with his children and even to do things he actively enjoys
>but which might, in your eyes, "pussify" him. For instance, many men
>are excellent cooks who enjoy preparing delicious meals. Many men
>*don't* want to spend 60+ hours at work every week, plus commuting
>time, growing apart from their families and feeling more and more like
>their home is a glorified hotel.
>
>I don't put words in your wife's mouth, or try to make her out to be
>something that I deride, just because she has different priorities,
>preferences, or values from my own. Please show our husbands the same
>courtesy.
Nice try, Melania. But I doubt he's ever going to understand that
Real Men don't all think like him.
Nan
Melania wrote:
> wrote:
> > Nan wrote:
> > >
> > > You don't get it, do you? You cannot make a sweeping claim for
all
> > > men. My hubby certainly doesn't feel the way you do, as many
many
> > > many others don't.
> >
> > You're right, my bad. A normal avergae guy likes to be taken care
of.
> > You must have married a woman. What exactly does he disagree with
me
> > about?
>
> Remember when we discussed showing people respect? If you'd limited
> your response to "what exactly does he disagree with me about?" you
> might get more considered answers from people.
Hey, be happy I didn't use "pussified man".
> Putting aside the "taken care of" part of the equation, many men
> *don't* want to be the "sole provider." If a couple (often unevenly)
> splits the wage-earning responsibilities, the husband has more time
> free to bond with his children and even to do things he actively
enjoys
> but which might, in your eyes, "pussify" him. For instance, many men
> are excellent cooks who enjoy preparing delicious meals. Many men
> *don't* want to spend 60+ hours at work every week, plus commuting
> time, growing apart from their families and feeling more and more
like
> their home is a glorified hotel.
****, I only put in 40 hours a week. Also, it is difficult to care for
the house, kids and husband if the wife is working. Well, not in your
case, but mostly.
> I don't put words in your wife's mouth, or try to make her out to be
> something that I deride, just because she has different priorities,
> preferences, or values from my own. Please show our husbands the same
> courtesy.
What? they can't talk for themselves? How weak. ;)
> Melania
Regards...
Nan wrote:
> Your old-fashioned ideals.
Oh ok.
> He prefers to take an active role in
> child-rearing, and I'd never insult him by expecting him to defer
that
> to me. He does 99% of the cooking because he enjoys it and loves
> taking care of his 3 girls. It's just a few of the many ways he
> demonstrates his love for his family.
Maybe he feels that you lack in those areas and so he takes control of
the situation in a non-confrontational way?
> Nan
Regards...
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.