The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 07-11-2007 - 6:29pm |
I recently read "The Proper Care & Feeding of Relationships" by Dr. Laura Schlessinger and was surprised to find I agreed with much of what she said in the book...so I returned to the library to borrow "The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands" and again...I find I agree with most of what she writes. I would have scoffed at the titles alone 12 years ago when I was married, working up the corporate ladder with my 2 year old in dc full time from 11 months on. I thought I had it all.
I ended up divorced and now the 2 year old is 14 and I realized recently how fast she is growing up and that I really missed a lot of time with her and my husband by choice(working).
I am remarried and 3 yrs ago our son was born. I returned to work when he was 10 months and found what I think is the best dayhome I could have...they were amazing and very loving. Our family is very close with them now....I was working(primary breadwinner) and couldn't shake the feeling that I was putting my career ahead of my family when my family is monumentally more important to me than the money I was bringing in. We COULD change our situation to enable me to be at home...so we did and I now wonder why any mother who is emotionally healthy and does not *have* to work for the family to get by....doesn't stay at home? I am not meaning that disrespectfully or sarcastically as I myself did not make that choice with myt first. I resigned 9 months ago. I am proud to be at home even though I wasn't with my first(which I now regret but didn't think I would!). I am proud to send my husband off to work with hot coffee and a lunch I made that always includes homebaked treats....welcome him home to a clean home and wonderful meal...spend my days teaching my son and playing with him; treasuring it sincerely...and being here for my 14 year old daughter whether she needs me to yell at; or hug and talk...or just to stop her from sitting on the computer all day or getting into mischief.
To give you the tone of the books I will give you a couple of excerpts;
"The issue of "roles" in a marriage and family is often a sensitive one. Stay-at-home moms as well as hardworking primary-breadwinner men are not given much respect from our society-at-large. Feminist educators and activists keep trying to squeeze men and women into niches that may simply not be a good match for their innate qualites...as well as their masculine and feminine drives. It is more in the female nature to nest and nurture. It is more in the male nature to conquer and protect. Frankly, the more we ignore the true, inherent masculine and feminine qualites of people, the farther apart we pull them."
"...feminism has brainwashed women to believe that all men are inconsiderate beasts you can't rely on. Therefore, the threat goes, never give up your independence. This mentality has confsed and frightened women into an avoidance of becoming dependant on their men. To protect themselves, women ferociously parry with their men, while denigrating their own desires to tend the home and raise children. Then they call me all angry and depressed... nd they think it is because of their husbands."
So...what do you think?
*edit to correct a typo
Edited 7/11/2007 7:57 pm ET by hi_kimmie


Pages
Ok, I *think* what you are saying is that: *Some* H.S. graduate mothers have the choice to sah or woh and *some* college educated mothers have the choice to sah or woh.
If this is what you are saying, then no one is disputing that. What a few are saying is that a person has a *better* chance at *more* choices *if* they also have a college degree. It doesn't mean that *ALL* who have a college degree have the choice and *ALL* who have only a H.S. degree have none.
Not to mention others, such as:
"OMG, is she smoking crack?"
"What is my problem? I must be smoking crack today!"
Etc.
;-)
I wonder why it's so hard for some to grasp the concept of "analogy."
Mary
Mom to Kevin 11/4/03
Everyone should have kids. They are the greatest joy in the world. But they are also terrorists. You'll realize this as soon as they are born, and they start using sleep deprivation to break you.
Ray Romano, actor/comedian
Technically, you still have a choice...it's called debt or welfare or mooching off of family.
Although in many areas of the country, with black-belt frugality, you can live on very very little.
You believe that people choose to be laid off, disabled, and other things that could put a family into financial difficulties?
PumpkinAngel
LOL! Sure, if you want to look at it that way, it's a choice. I guess I could have chosen to be homeless (wouldn't have qualified for welfare on my salary) or moved home with all three kids. I could have let the bills pile up and risk having the lights turned off (oops, that really happened) or the water turned off (oops, that really happened too!). I could have moved to Bridgeport or New Haven in one of the dumpiest, scariest parts of town.
No, I never really thought of those as "options". As a responsible adult it was my job to do what I could to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table, etc.
Carole
"you prove they don't! and I have that choice because anyone can go work if they choose!"
I can prove the existance of women in this country who are well educated but canot work for pay if they wanted. I live in the Washington DC area and there are many familes that come here from outside the US to work at various Embasies, World Bank, IMF, or work for non-US companies. Their spouses come here on G-4 visas. They cannot work. It is against the law. They do not have a choice. In several cases they have stayed here so long they have purchased homes. What do they do? It depends on the country, but many gravitate to the schools to volunteer.
Not necessarily. Not all "have to" situations are the
Pages