Posted on 12/19/2004 8:17:15 PM PST by tbird5
With journalists as well as social scientists continually on the lookout for new trends, the public is regularly treated to the discovery of social "revolutions." One of the latest concerns women and work. In October 2003, Lisa Belkin detected an "opt-out revolution" in her New York Times Magazine article about accomplished women leaving high-powered jobs to stay home with their kids. Six months later, reports on the revolution were still going strong. For example, the March 22, 2004 cover of Time showed a young child clinging to his mother's leg alongside the headline, "The Case for Staying Home: Why More Young Moms Are Opting Out of the Rat Race." But the evidence on this score is thin. Both the New York Times and Time stories are based mainly on evocative anecdotes. Princeton college graduates with law degrees from Harvard staying home to change diapers may be absorbing as a human-interest story. But as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.
The limited empirical evidence offered in support of the opt-out revolution draws upon facts such as these: 22 percent of mothers with graduate degrees are at home with their children, one in three women with an MBA does not work full time, and 26 percent of women approaching the most senior levels of management do not want to be promoted. However, with information of this sort one needs a ouija board to detect a social trend, let alone a revolution. The fact that 57 percent of mothers from the Stanford University class of 1981 stayed home with their young children for at least a year gives no indication of whether the percentage of Stanford graduates remaining at home with their children has increased, decreased, or remained the same over time.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicinterest.com ...
I have a problem with that kind of behavior, too. A marriage should be a BECOMING ONE. Everything he has is hers and everything she has is his. The two become one. Not his and hers. And no secrets. No games.
Now, THOSE are great shoes! :) I think they are adorable. Unfortunately, with so many small kids, I have nothing white that I could wear them with.
*sigh*
Amen.
Maybe .. but when you're only 5'2" like myself .. they make your feet look Huge
Really? I'm 5'3", and I don't believe anyone has ever said that they make my feet look huge. I don't think so, either. Guess it just boils down to preference. :)
== For every 1 American woman who still knows how to nurture and take care of her husband, there are 10 screaming witches ripping his guts out daily.
Only for that three minutes she can't find her keys. It all works out.
Would things be easier if I was bringing in some money? Of course, and I'm working on it. But but we've got a roof over our head, food in the house, the bills are all paid, and some extras even without it.
Womens fashion is such a scam, by the time you have all the new styles in all your favorite colors the style changes. LOL
Can I give you a hint
Get married .. have a few kids .. juggle all of things that life brings with it and then talk to me about priorities and playing the 2nd fiddle
I believe GOD knows he is passing the test.
My husband is a very good man, and there is no way I will do anything but keep him.
Take care and a Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Sorry, it's been a long day.
LOL. That's why my big vice is shoes. It's easier to revamp them than your whole wardrobe. Then again, I've always been inclined towards the preppy look. I love the whole sweater/skirt thing. Now that I stay home with the children, though, my usual attire consists of jeans and t-shirts. (Much to Mr. Ex's chagrin) It's easier to change out of that when the baby has spit up on you for the umpteenth time, LOL.
When I worked .. daycare alone was $1,200 per month and that was just for one kid
Well, it is good that you do not have a woman. You sound like my former son-in-law. My daughter worshiped the ground he walked on, if you know what I mean. They were married for five years and had a lovely sixteen month old daughter and my daughter was seven months pregnant with a son, when he walked out on her to live with another woman.
After one and a half years, they reconciled and had another baby. But, they did not remarry. Why? Because this man, the father of three children had been born again and could not marry a woman who was not a Christian such as himself. Yes, indeedy, he was going to church, and could not abide the thought that his wife would not be baptized in the faith.
Well, he is gone again, having put God above his children and the mother of his children. He would rather lean on his religion that take responsibility for his family.
Well my ex battleax wanted tp wear pants in the family and harangue and abuse me in front of the kids. Needless to say her quest for absolute power resulted in me leaving on a temporary seperation to give her a chance to realize what she would be giving up and she filed for divorce.
I agree :)
Most women I know don't look for something like that to work.
I think you need to find other women to associate with.
If the wifey spends so much money that the hubby can't make a regularly scheduled house payment, the hubby needs to sit wifey down and make her understand about finances. Hubby is allowing her to be stupid and/or hostile. There are a lot of hostile wives out there (thank you Glamor/Cosmo/NOW), but they should not be allowed to be stupid. Hubster should also give his wife a copy of Dr. Laura's book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" for Christmas!
I'm sorry for your loss of your beloved dad.
And I'm sorry for my flip comment about the house full of females - they consist of me, our daughter and the 2 dogs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.