how do i convince my husband
Find a Conversation
how do i convince my husband
| Mon, 07-18-2005 - 4:09pm |
how do i convince my husband to let me at least job-share so i can take care of our 3 month old dd? he grew up with his mom working & all his friend's moms working. we can afford it if we cut back on some things, but he doesn't want to cut back & just doesn't understand someone wanting to be a stay at home mom...it doesn't help mycause that the grandmothers will babysit. i'm so unhappy about having to go back to work...he wants me to work full time 1 more year & just doesn't get it! i feel like my heart is being ripped from my chest every time i hink about it.

Pages
"In reality, every baby on the planet must adhere to their parents' schedule eventually. Yours too. You just pat yourself on the back that you didn't have to force it. But if your dd adhered to a sleep-all-day, stay-awake-all-night schedule past a certain age, you'd have to put a stop to it."
And in reality, my dd *didn't* adhere to "a sleep-all-day, stay-awake-all-night schedule past a certain age", even given the fact that I "didn't have to force it." Are you suggesting that children need to be "taught" or "trained" to sleep properly? My child certainly didn't need or require this.
"A baby has a need for getting X hours of sleep within any given 24 hour span."
I agree. However, this is a biological need that exists in and of itself, not as a result of "scheduling".
"They also have a need for getting food at certain intervals."
Again, I agree. However, this is a biological need that exists in and of itself, not as a result of "scheduling".
"Once those needs have been met, the baby's desire to be asleep at some times and awake at others is a 'want,"
How exactly is "a baby's desire to be asleep at some times and awake at others," a "want"?
"Let me give you an example that happens in every parents' life if they live where there is winter. It is freezing out. The baby is asleep in the car. If the baby remains in the car, he will freeze. The parents' need to move the baby out of the car and into the house takes precedence over the baby's desire to stay sleep."
First of all, why do you assume that the baby will necessarily wake up? Secondly, it is the *parent's*, as well as the *baby's* need, to be moved into the house.
Sorry, for this typo as well (big storm, lightining, power surges). It should read:
"there are many people that believe that the order of creation reflected in Genesis, for instance, reflects an ancient people's understanding of the process of life being created/evolving from less complex to more complex modes of existence."
But isn't the Story of Creation supposed to be "the word of God", rather than "the word of an ancient people"?
"The Creation Story is the Word of God and the POINT of it is to give the "who dunnit" of creation, not "how he did it"."
Can you prove that the Creation Story is the Word of GOd? Can you prove that a Christian God is the "who dunnit" of creation?
"How he did it is irrelevant to a book intended to teach people how to live in relationship with God, with each other and with the world around them."
And a book intended to teach people how to live in relationship with a "Christian" God is irrelevent to those who aren't "Christians".
"I just p[lain don't believe you. Why not? Because nobody in the thread brought up the mythological stories but you."
That is correct, I am the only one who brought up the mythological stories.
"You are absolutely trying to discredit the bible as a whole in order to discredit the biblical refernces to WOHMs."
No, actually I'm not trying to discredit the bible as a whole, nor am I trying to discredit the biblical refernces to WOHMs. THe two discussions are entirely separate discussions. This isn't an all or nothing scenerio. At least it isn't as far as I'm concerned. BTW, I haven't even taken part in the other discussion, as it isn't something that interests me. THere are many, many sub-threads within a particular topic. Not everyone posts, discusses, debates, has an interest in, each and every sub-thread.
"Uhm, because you have said over and over in this thread that you rely on materialistic, logical, mathematical truth rather than supernatural explanations for events."
THat is correct. I do in fact, rely on materialistic, logical, mathematical truth rather than supernatural explanations for events."
Why do you assume that I believe in a "supernatural" God, as opposed to a "natural" God? Because you belief in "God" is based on a "supernatural" God?
"But I guess that's what I get for taking you at your word."
And what word is that? Have I somehow gone against my word here?
"The rest of your post is just dumb. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is."
Why? How so? In what way?
"There is no basis for any of your assumptions in anything I have said."
What assumptions are you referring to? BTW, the only one I see who is making assumptions here, is you.
"The Genesis account sees creation as outside the realm of personality. In that, it is not in direct conflict with modern science."
Yes, actually it is in direct conflict with modern science, in that it relies on supernatural explanations, rather than scientific ones. Unless of course you are suggesting that science relies on supernatural explanations?
A "natural" God, hunh? Did you see him/her/it last Tuesday or something? Could you send him/her/it my way so I can believe in him/her/it, too? Can you verify the existence of this so-called "natural" God/Higher Power of yours? Has he/she/it shown up in a laboratory? Because if you can't verify his/her/its existence through natural means, your "natural" God is no less "super-natural" than the God of the Bible.
Please do not assume that all of my conclusions about you are based on what I hold true and my experiences. Some of us are capable of making deductions from evidence that is outside of our own experiences. Honest.
Pages