If you hadn't had kids...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
If you hadn't had kids...
1649
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm
And your dh made enough $$ to support both of you comfortably, do you think you would be working?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 06-05-2004 - 8:32am
Gee, and except that her post was only 5 words long (6 if you count contractions as 2), and was clearly a response to ONE couple about ONE very specific situation, and not at all addressing SAHP as a generalized topic, you almost had a credible point.

You seem to have read an awful lot into a post that was barely long enough to qualify as a subject title. What a shock you're now trying to sell it as some kind of derogatory manifesto on the topic of SAHPs. Is it too much to ask that your rein in your bias against Jorvia at least enough to limit your ravings to things she's *actually* done and not include the ones you just invent?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Sat, 06-05-2004 - 9:05am
Since you obviously went to the ARchives, can you please re-post her response here? The words were pointed and spoke to me as I wrote above. In addition, in light of the entire discussion responding to the husband who wrote in, her pithy retort was also consistent with my above. The father wrote in about his sah wife. How could Jorvia's response not discuss sah?

Do you think that in the amount of time Jorvia's been posting on this board, she's never once discussed sah?

Further, my point has been that I thoroughly enjoy Jorvia's posts and that PKA erred in taking my disagreements with Jorvia's posts or anyone else here as insults. People can disagree without it being an insult. In general, more often than not, I disagree with Jorvia's comments posted here, which includes her views on sah. Unlike you, I just don't have the time to go through the Archives to quote her. I will defer to you then and assume she has never once (except for her response to the man) on sah despite that being the general theme of this particular debate board. How that can be, I just don't know.

And as for my having a "bias" against Jorvia, I'd love to hear what you think that is. What is my bias?

I truly respect Jorvia's position as trial partner in a big Manhattan firm. SUch jobs are demanding and usually offered to men. Litigation in the courts of Manhattan and the other boroughs is a different animal than any other job a person could possibly have. I thoroughly enjoyed the trials. I can imagine Jorvia shares the same opinion about litigation. I was not insulted by Jorvia saying my response was indicative of the reason I quit being a lawyer. I chuckled, she's entitled to get in a jab. I know why I am no longer a trial atty in Manhattan whose salary was close to $200K. I'm sure she knows too. That's the beauty of debate!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 06-05-2004 - 10:11am
I shouldn't *have* to do YOUR research, but since it's clear you can't be bothered to accurately quote Jorvia, despite making claims and posting them as if they were factual, the post is #388 of the "is it hard to SAHM?" thread. BTW, it took a little less than a minute to find the post....*without* knowing 1) the name of the gentleman to whom she was responding, nor 2) the name of the thread.

You must really suck at research.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 06-05-2004 - 10:16am
k, bye!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 06-05-2004 - 10:18am
Are you crying, AGAIN?????
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 06-05-2004 - 1:57pm
You can't possibly disagree with my position on SAHM's because I don't have one. I don't have one on WOH either, at least in terms of good/bad. My view is that you do what rocks your family's boat - be it SAH, WOH, WAH, or any combination or permutation.

I've certainly commented on individual SAH situations (just as I've commented on numerous WOH and WAH situations), but never on SAH generally. Since you've no doubt followed H&I's posts and found the original by now, I'm sure you'll agree that there was much more to the OP to which I was responding than you've described in your post immediately above. Under the circumstances he described, he was being used.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sun, 06-06-2004 - 11:01pm
I see you are still around on this thread.... and still NOT answering the questions and still NOT talking about the substance of this debate.....

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sun, 06-06-2004 - 11:12pm

No...I quite think I wasn't in error in calling you on insulting jorvia and others on this thread and other threads...what else would you exactly call it then?

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 06-07-2004 - 5:45am
J. obviously read this exchange. If she were so insulted, don't you think she would have said so?

I don't know how many times you need to hear this: people on a debate board are permitted to disagree with each other. Disagreement does not equate with insulting. You will concede you are a much more sensitive person than I? I will, if that helps you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 06-07-2004 - 5:50am
Certainly, if you wish to ask questions concerning the substance of a discussion, I'll answer them. But I won't respond to a litany of personal or irrelevant questions. How do you have time to conjure them up anyway? I certainly don't have the time to respond to all of them, and I'm sure you wouldn't have time to read all of my responses.

You allege I've been name-calling and insulting OTHERS - not even you. WHy aren't these other debaters complaining that they were insulted? Doesn't that tell you something? If no one else was insulted, why do you worry about such things? There are more meaningful, substantive discussions going on. It's time to get to them and call it a day on this debate.

Pages