How does this relate to the debate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
How does this relate to the debate?
2771
Wed, 08-20-2003 - 7:56pm
Hey I rhymed! lol

Something occurred to me earlier and I wanted to see how others thought it might relate to the whole "which is harder SAH/WOH" portion of the debate that crops up so often.

I think that, when you look at either group *as a whole*, the WOHs might have it harder. And this is why ...

There are virtually no SAHMs who SAH because they "have to". There are virtually no SAHMs who are forced to SAH. A woman that SAH wants to SAH.(I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there; controlling dhs who MAKE their wives SAH, disabled children, etc) A woman that SAH doesn't hate her "job", or else she'd go get a WOH job. A woman that SAH is generally getting what she wants.

There are LOTS AND LOTS of WOHMs who WOH because they "have to". A single mom, or one whose dh doesn't make enough to support the family, or one with a disabled dh, whatever the case may be ... she may long, with all her heart, to SAH, but *can't*. Many WOHMs hate their jobs, but can't quit.

Anyhoo ... just wanted to stir up something new

Hollie

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 8:46pm
All right, now ya did it...you went and called me gross. You know, I have been trying to stay the heck away from this sub-thread because I figured that if I wanted to debate bf versus ff...I could take a walk on the wild side over at the debate board (which I might have to wander back over after this little fiasco--might oughta give sunny a heads up...)...

HOWEVER!

I am a formula feeder by choice. I never had the urge to breast feed. Never...not once, not for a mili-second. It never even crossed my mind to attempt it. I would NEVER tell a bf'ing mother that it is simply gross that she didn't at least try a bottle.

Where the he(double hockey sticks) get off telling another person that "not even trying to bf is just plain gross."

I am not talking about extended bf'ing either...in my mind..that is neither here nor there because your comment had absolutly nothing to do with hers. She was speaking of extended....you took it to a whole new level.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 8:50pm
Great, another mess on my puter screen! ROFLMAO!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 8:54pm
If my "dribble" is on your screen, why do I need the tissue?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 8:57pm
Ooh...the "I know you are, but what am I" gambit.

How original.

Avatar for akpennington
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 9:02pm
"How much differently could you read this - I personally wouldn't bother pumping and giving breastmilk to the kid in a cup when it's so much easier to deliver it the way God/nature intended

Oops maybe she meant it is so much easier and more natural for HER or HER child to take breastmilk from a breast. Maybe it is so much more natural for HER and/or HER child to do this."

Because I read it as your oops.

"I personally don't know why anyone would care how I deliver nourishment to my child."

I don't either.

"More specifically I don't know why anyone would presume to make claims to some kind of natural superiority without knowing the nature of the child/relationship."

Me neither, that's why I'm not.

"Whooppee for you, your breasts flowed freely - well I nursed 24/7, ate oatmeal, drank the tea, pumped, nursed, pumped some more, nursed some more, took vitamins, relaxed, played soft music, changed positions, consulted a nurse and the bottle flowed more freely than my breasts ever did."

You've got me pegged all wrong. I was asking a question. Which was why one would pump for a cup when their breasts worked fine and the child had no problem taking it from the breast. I wasn't in ANY way judging your method of feeding your child.

"Thankfully there was a period that I was on a roll and was able to freeze a fair amount and gave that to my child in a cup/bottle. That was what was natural for us, but by the insta-assumptions made by some here, that certainly wouldn't be the thought process if you encountered us in public (although I should embrace their every parenting choice because it is the natural one.)"

I'm not one of them.

"Also, I didn't ask about the difference between cow's milk and breastmilk, I am aware. I was asking about the health/ortho issues regarding sucking things (no delicate way to put that- sorry). Why is it so important to wean from a x,y or z, but an any-time accessible breast is okay?"

I didn't tell you the difference between cow's milk and breastmilk, either. I answered you. Those reasons seem to consistantly be at the top of list of reasons why some feel a bottle (or pacifier) should be ditched at a certain age and not the breast. Furthermore, I didn't say it was important "to wean from a x,y or z."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 9:05pm
Minus the spelling errors and the basic incomprehensibility of the posts, it reminds me of the big borg fest over at Hot Topics and Morality Debate.

The poster at PI.....wasn't the name sunflower or something like that?

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 9:09pm
Nope. I *can't* have a problem with the way you navigate the boards, because I don't *know* how you navigate the boards. The "evidence" you quote was in regards to your post, not your navigation techniques.
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 9:15pm
Yes, I did say you stood up to your name - the name "unity", and I illustrated what I meant by telling slim that you had given us something to agree about.

What in that post led you to claim that "You have no idea what my sig means anyway, you just as usual assume you do." Is there some alternate universe where the word "unity" doesn't have anything to do with unification?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 9:16pm
Who is "we"?
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 9:19pm
Why yes, escm *did* disagree with your stance on the topic. That was the purpose of her remark - to indicate that she disagreed with your assertion that the previous poster had made some "great" points.

I'm sorry you spent so much time and effort on all those posts simply because you didn't understand her remark, despite it being explained to you several times.

I guess it hasn't occured to you that you've spent far more effort in this little diversion than any of the rest of us. It's pretty silly to claim that anyone here has more invested in this side debate than you do.

Pages