"We don 't believe in that [WOHM]"
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 01-09-2006 - 11:31am |
On Friday, as I was driving hom from work, I stumbled across an interview with the wife of the one surviving miner from the collapse in WVa. In the course of the interview, someone asked her if she worked.
Her response was that they don't believe in that. She explained that her husband was very proud of the fact that he was the sole supporter of the family, and that he didn't need her help in supporting them. She explained that they just don't believe in women working after they have kids and husbands, and that they believe her place is at home with the kids.
My heart really goes out to her, and this post isn't about her, but about the sentiment that women shouldn't work because their place is at home. And being a real man, even if it means working in dangerous conditions, long hours, holding two jobs and being a step away from poverty at every turn, means that your wife doesn't work.
I suppose this is the first time that I've heard someone, not a movie character or a character in a book, express this sentiment. I don't understand why anyone would be proud to limit their spouse's potential. Or why be proud that you live right on the poverty line?
If they didn't see the dangers of their POV before, surely that entire community, and even the whole country, has now seen the risk that we talk about on here all the time, the risk that suddenly the SAHM will need to find a way to financially support the family. I wonder if anyone will re-think what they believe in.

Pages
That is the point...there was no contridiction. I suggest you go back and see what I was responding to.
The post I was responding to stated clearly... I would never send a cop into a house alone. I clearly stated back that dispatchers don't send cops anywhere. Dispatchers do not tell an officer when to go inside or how to handle a situation. That may change if there is an individual inside the home and is on the phone with said dispatcher. Other than that...a dispatcher isn't qualified nor has any authority over a police officer.
Edited 1/12/2006 5:21 pm ET by ahlmommy
They often ride alone, but I always see car's pulled over in pairs.
PumpkinAngel
<>
Oh, there aren't any of those. Because that would mean there are crooked cops and crooked prosecutors.
The point, as you very well know, is that you can't use "X% of cops were convicted of corruption" to show a FACT as to how many were guilty of corruption. I don't want to count how many are corrupt and I didn't say I did. My point was simply that your argument was built on shifting sand.
<>
Right you said that, which was clearly incorrect because dispatchers send cops to all sorts of places based on the call they receive.
<<
PumpkinAngel
Yes, if a cop decides to disregard the consititution and start searching and arresting without a warrant (or probable cause and immediate danger), then he was negligent, doing a bad job and injuring the public. The prosecutors were unable to convict a guilty person because the cop was incomeptant. In the sense I used it, incompetant and negligent=bad.
But despite this, you blame the defense attorney, who is ethically charged with vigorously defending his clients' rights, whether he happens to like the client or not. Rights don't exist only because your attorney happens to think you are a stand-up guy.
Ok...GOOD GRIEF
Understand...Ok...Ready?
She said
Well, we certainly would not have sent one cop into a home with a kidnapper and a child involved when I was a dispatcher.
I SAID
When you are a dispatcher you dont send a cop anywhere.
I was responding to her statement nothing else. That is why I said in another post...they send them to a house or location. My statement was a direct response to hers.
If you meant "When you are a dispatcher you dont send a cop inside a home, you simply send him to an address/location", then that's what you should have said. But you didn't. You can hardly blame us for replying to what you *said* rather than what you *meant*.
Pages