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: 03-25-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 9:34am

Just one of MANY sources I found....


Guidelines for offering juice to babies

Juice is in the same category as solid foods. Babies need nothing other than breastmilk for the first six months (except in rare cases).

Hugs,

Bridget & Ethan (5)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 9:47am
I wish I could remember. I just remember being a bit shocked (and thrilled) reading Harold Robbins after a steady diet of Harlequin romances. Then I found Sidney Sheldon and thought I had died and gone to heaven. Ahhh, I can see I had some pretty low standards...
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 9:49am
<> No. But that's not the only reason I sah - it can't be so hard to accept that when some women decide to have children, the natural next step for them is that they will then stay home with them. I mean somebody's gotta do it! It IS mostly caretaking for the first yr or 2 and during those yrs a wohp can come home at night during the work wk (and on weekends) and enhance the child's life in a way the sahm will not. But, it's not a failing either if I feel I'm the one who should do the diapers, feeding, strollering (?), naptimes, and other rote chores either. I often wonder if the children of wohps are better off because that evening and weekend time is so much more special to parent and child. I can honestly (and sadly!) say I've never missed my children. I've never been away for more than 4 hrs. So, if I'm not refreshed and "on" in the morning after being absent from them for a bit - as wohps can be after work - my children just get the same ole low-key, who-spilled-this-juice mom all day.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 10:33am

"But that's not the only reason I sah - it can't be so hard to accept that when some women decide to have children, the natural next step for them is that they will then stay home with them."


No, it's not hard to accept that. I do accept that.


"It IS mostly caretaking for the first yr or 2 and during those yrs a wohp can come home at night during the work wk (and on weekends) and enhance the child's life in a way the sahm will not. But, it's not a failing either if I feel I'm the one who should do the diapers, feeding, strollering (?), naptimes, and other rote chores either."


I actually think you're not being fair to SAHMs here (board, please note this for the record).

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 10:49am
"Hmm, perhaps if you view unemployed moms who are simply "SAHM's" by default, to be the same as SAHM's who actuallly *choose* to be SAHM's."

NO, I am talking about women who chose to be SAHMs, not ones who SAH by default. There are many lousy SAHMs out there, just as there are many lousy working parents. I know SAHMs that are selfish and lazy, and I know WOHMs that are the same. You've never known a SAHM that is a lousy parent? I'm surprised. Just because someone SAH does not absolve them of any wrongdoing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 10:51am
Actually, and no surprise here, I just don't see her tone as condescending or her posts as stating anything other than opinions. Her reliance on research is just one way she supports her opinions. She presents the whole bf/ff thing as fact which is what many do nowadays, even the formula companies. I see momofhk as a sahm full of ideals and that's not a bad way for a good mother to be. I respect and agree with most of what she posts. You have to admit she's nowhere near as flippant as some posters here such as me. She's not condescending, just opinionated. Aren't we all opinionated about something or other, say politics or religion as is obvious from the above exchange with OTBM? Also, I don't think there's anything wrong in saying woh is not going to have any impact whatsoever on the child. To take that a step further and say sah is better is her opinion, she's entitled to it much the same as the wohms are saying woh will have no negative impact. What sahm is sah and thinking it won't have a positive impact? Why sah then?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 11:02am
Big thumbs up!!!!


Janet

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 11:10am
How does anyone really know if their expectations are realistic until they actually go through it? Everyone reacts differently to motherhood. some have a natural high after giving birth. It sounds like you were one of those. SOme have a natural low after giving birth. I was one of those.



Janet

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 11:16am
"Why does God require it?"

Correction, a "Christian" God requires it? You do realize that there are many many religions out there, with equally strange and absurd rituals and practices right? Has it ever occured to you that the religion is NOT defined as "Chrisitainity"? In fact, religion is defined as: any specific system of belief about a deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life.

I myself believe in God without believing in any sort of dogma or doctrine whatsoever. In other words, I beleive in "God", but I do NOT believe in "religion". I believe in God, but not a "CHristian" God, a "Hindu" God, or a "Buddhist" God. Again, I believe in GOd, however I do so without the rituals, ethics, and philosophy of "religion", as well as without the the dogma and the doctrine.

"Not sure why DNA was the method He chose as one of the foundations of creation, either, but he did."

Oh he did, did he, are you sure it wasn't evolution LOL?

"No, I don't see that at all. What I *do* find silly is someone who lacks a belief in God deciding what that same God may or may not require of His followers."

Who said I didn't believe in God LOL? Of course, I beleive in GOd, just not religion. Which is more important here anyway: GOD or RELIGION? My vote is for GOD LOL.

"If you don't believe how can you even begin to pose an argument against that God's and requirement for repentance and atonement."

But I DO believe in GOD, just not YOURS. BTW, have you noticed that we're not talking about GOD here, but rather a "Christian" God. Just because a "Christian" God has requirements for repentance and atonement, doesn't mean GOD does. Hmm, what if you found out that Christianity was wrong? What would you do then?

"The moment you begin to argue what should or shouldn't be the standard, you ahve to either acknowledge that God exists and you personally find his requirements unfair or unreasonable OR you have to admit you are demanding standards from something that isn't real."

But I HAVE acknowledged that GOD exists, just not a CHristian God. Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that RELIGION = CHRISTIANITY LOL? WHY? HOW? Also, do you honestly believe that GOD = RELIGION? Again, WHY? HOW?


"No. It requires faith in the existence of God and you lack that faith."



Actually NO, I DON'T lack faith in the existence of God, just the existance of a "Christian" God. You do realize that you CAN have one WITHOUT the other right? Again, you do realize that GOD does not = CHRISTIANITY right?

"Given the fact that such atonement *is* the meaning of Christ's sacrificial death, take that away and his death IS meaningless. As is his entire purpose and roleChrist didn't have to die for us, then Christianity is a lie."

No his death is just that DEATH. Why does it have to be a special sacrificial death? Clearly, Christianity IS a lie, as it is absolutely impossible for human or animal sacrifice to take away or atone for sin. How could it? How exactly does killing an animal or a human cause sin to disappear or be removed? How does it make any sense to go out and kill an animal to take away sin? Wouldn't killing simply ADD to sin? Isn't murder a sin? DOn't you see the contradiction here?

Not only that WHY ON EARTH would GOD require killing and murder on his behalf? What could GOD possibly get out of someone killing an animal or a human and offering it to him? Here's where the MYTHOLOGY comes in. I guess if this is the kind of GOD that YOU want to beleive in, you have every right. But I certainly don't want to believe in a GOD that requires the killing, murder, and sacrifice of humans and animals on his behalf. That's just downright sick and dememted.

YOu know what, I think the underlying problem here, is the most Christians never even stop to think about what THEY beleive. They simply allow themselves to accept requirements such as animal and human sacrifice without ever questioning WHY WHY WHY. In other words, there is absolutely NO QUESTIONING whatsoever, only 100% ACCEPTANCE.

"Unless you believe Jesus died to save you from your sins, you MUST believe *Christ* is mythology, even if you believe Jesus once lived."

NOPE, I believe Jesus may have lived, but I do not believe that "he died to save me from my sins". HOw could this be possible? Again, how is it that if a human was murdered, I would then be saved form my sins? That's insane? BTW, I don't even beleive in the idea of "sin" in the first place. I just don't get it, and you have yet to explain why and how murder / human and animal sacrifice somehow takes away/atone for sin as well as how it saves me from sins that I don't even beleive in.

"Why wouldn't he? If you don't believe in God, you can hardly claim to decide who he may or may not choose to love."

I'm going to say this ONE LAST TIME. I DO, in fact believe in GOD, I simply do NOT believe in a CHRISTIAN GOD. In other words, I do NOT think that GOD = CHRISTIANITY. Likewise, I DO fact believe in GOD, I simply do NOT believe in RELIGION. In other words, I do NOT think that GOD = RELIGION.

"Christ said himself he came to save the lost."

He also said that HE WAS NOT GOD, now didin't he?


""Sin" is something Christians classify as "resistance to God's grace." because ANYTHING that causes a person to resist God's grace, by definition, puts distance and conflict between that person and God...and that's sin."

So seeing as killing an animal or human and offering them as a burnt offering or as a human sacrifice is technically MURDER, and MURDER is a SIN, than "killing an animal or human and offering them as a burnt offering or as a human sacrifice" is a SIN in that it is also MURDER. How do you explain this? That it's ok to murder and kill as long as the dea animal or human is used as a burnt offering or as a human sacrifice? Again, that's downright sick and demented. Wouldn't you agree?



"To deliberately avoid God, and avoid relationship with God is sin."

But only if you are a CHristian right? Again, why do you insist that GOD = CHRISTIANITY? As I have clearly pointed out, my belief in GOD has absolutely nothing to do with CHristianity. In other words, I wholeheartedly believe in GOD, but I do NOT believe in CHRISTIANITY. You seem to think the two are one in the same? You seem to think that it is impossible to have ONE without the OTHER? WHY? In other words, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CHRISTIAN IN ORDER TO BELIEVE IN GOD. I AM LIVING PROOF LOL!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 11:20am

"To take that a step further and say sah is better is her opinion, she's entitled to it much the same as the wohms are saying woh will have no negative impact. What sahm is sah and thinking it won't have a positive impact? Why sah then?"


Of course SAHMs can (and hopefully do) have a positive impact on their children and families.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages