I have been feeling poorly for a few days, and it hasn't been fun. But it's caused me to contemplate "sick days" for stay-at-home moms with young children. Having many members of my family and friend network who are stay-at-home moms, their experiences show a few things.
Unless they are confined to bed, most will not demand that their husband stays home from work to take care of the children. Especially if it's a prolonged illness (like morning sickness), it becomes impossible for him to be there day after day. So they suffer through it; still doing the housework, feeding hungry faces, and cleaning up after messes. In other words, it's not much different from a normal day, except that it might go more slowly and they wish it would speed up.
The children always know when Mom's having an off day. In a way they are like scavengers scenting weakness and ready to move in for the kill. If Mom is distracted, they can get things from the pantry or fridge that they might not have normal, unsupervised access to. Somehow they think that when Mom has a stomachache, it's the perfect time to jump on her. Or if she has a headache, it's the perfect time to yell.
But sometimes, the children can also be very sweet. They bring blankets for Mom, or tell her stories. They suggest movies she might want to watch, or games she might want to play. They supply ginger ale for an upset stomach (as long as they get some too), or cool drinks for a fever (though they might pick out some ice for themselves).
I admire stay-at-home moms. I am grateful for the examples they set for others and for their children. When I was growing up, I always knew that if I was sick, Mom would be there to care for me. In fact, if I needed anything, she would be there.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Few Thoughts on Maine
I have a few words of caution for those who are supporting traditional marriage in Maine. All of these come from my own personal experience and those of friends as we lived through Prop. 8 in California.
* Expect to be considered a religious fanatic. Whether you are religious or not, the opposition will claim that only those who are "religious blind sheep" would oppose marriage equality.
* Grow a thick skin. If you hold signs on a street corner, you will be sworn at. If you call people on the phone, you will be ridiculed and sworn at. Many people who oppose you will not be polite about it.
* Expect your signs to be stolen and vandalized. Here signs were stolen from front yards, from the sides of roads, and from buildings of worship. They were also defaced, slashed, and ruined.
* Prepare your children; high school especially will become an uncomfortable place to be if you support traditional marriage. Some teenagers I knew lost friends over this issue. They were ridiculed and mocked. Our local high school printed letters in their school newspaper, had discussion panels, and held rallies. Guess what? No letters supporting traditional marriage were ever published. No voice supporting traditional marriage was accepted onto their panel. Prop. 8 was pushed by teachers and students as the "civil rights movement of our day", but few stopped to really consider the ramifications.
* Logical arguments are only helpful for those willing to listen. Don't be discouraged if you try to discuss the issues and are in turn assailed by emotional slogans and name-calling. Most of the people I talked to in real life and on forums could not answer the arguments, so they just resorted to swearing and verbal attacks. I spoke and posted on forums anyway for the silent readers; the ones who might really be trying to understand the issue and make an informed decision.
* Most of all, remember that supporting traditional marriage is worth the fight. It is the foundation of our society, and as such must be protected and treated as special. I would say that the three most important relationships to society are: husband-wife, father-child, mother-child. Supporting traditional marriage supports all three of these.
* Good luck.
* Expect to be considered a religious fanatic. Whether you are religious or not, the opposition will claim that only those who are "religious blind sheep" would oppose marriage equality.
* Grow a thick skin. If you hold signs on a street corner, you will be sworn at. If you call people on the phone, you will be ridiculed and sworn at. Many people who oppose you will not be polite about it.
* Expect your signs to be stolen and vandalized. Here signs were stolen from front yards, from the sides of roads, and from buildings of worship. They were also defaced, slashed, and ruined.
* Prepare your children; high school especially will become an uncomfortable place to be if you support traditional marriage. Some teenagers I knew lost friends over this issue. They were ridiculed and mocked. Our local high school printed letters in their school newspaper, had discussion panels, and held rallies. Guess what? No letters supporting traditional marriage were ever published. No voice supporting traditional marriage was accepted onto their panel. Prop. 8 was pushed by teachers and students as the "civil rights movement of our day", but few stopped to really consider the ramifications.
* Logical arguments are only helpful for those willing to listen. Don't be discouraged if you try to discuss the issues and are in turn assailed by emotional slogans and name-calling. Most of the people I talked to in real life and on forums could not answer the arguments, so they just resorted to swearing and verbal attacks. I spoke and posted on forums anyway for the silent readers; the ones who might really be trying to understand the issue and make an informed decision.
* Most of all, remember that supporting traditional marriage is worth the fight. It is the foundation of our society, and as such must be protected and treated as special. I would say that the three most important relationships to society are: husband-wife, father-child, mother-child. Supporting traditional marriage supports all three of these.
* Good luck.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Born That Way or Not?
One of the main arguments for individuals with same-sex attraction having special protection is the "born that way" theory. Basically, the argument goes that since they can't choose who they are attracted to, it is similar to race or national original and should be protected as such.
Which makes it a little embarrassing when a famous lesbian goes straight.
I'm so happy for her. There is nothing like having a beautiful baby with someone that you love.
I agree that bullying has to go. But I don't think it has to be replaced with endorsement. You can disagree with the choices someone makes without being cruel. You can understand that everyone has their own challenges. But that doesn't mean that you have to agree that every choice someone makes is in the best interests of society. And it especially doesn't mean that in the interest of being kind, you have to give up your own moral convictions.
I think my favorite quote from Kerry is the following about her boyfriend.
I've heard that argument before -- "You can't help who you fall in love with." It sounds a little different coming from her and knowing her background, though.
I read several comments about the story. One argued that she was really a bisexual, so this shouldn't have been a surprise. But I went back and read all of the news stories from 2005 that I could find. No where was this mentioned. If it's true, this fact was conveniently omitted.
Either way, it's pretty obvious that Kerry Pacer had a choice, and that she made hers.
Which makes it a little embarrassing when a famous lesbian goes straight.
In December 2005, Kerry Pacer, then 17, was featured on the cover of the national gay news magazine The Advocate as its "Person of the Year" — making her the youngest gay person to achieve that honor – for fighting for a "gay-straight alliance" at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia. But there’s apparently no embarrassment for the gay press....when she takes on a boyfriend and they have a baby.
I'm so happy for her. There is nothing like having a beautiful baby with someone that you love.
Pacer stressed that while she is now in love with a man, she is the same person she was when she was battling school administrators to do something about incessant bullying taking place in the halls of White County High School. She and her friends were often called "dykes" and "faggots."
I agree that bullying has to go. But I don't think it has to be replaced with endorsement. You can disagree with the choices someone makes without being cruel. You can understand that everyone has their own challenges. But that doesn't mean that you have to agree that every choice someone makes is in the best interests of society. And it especially doesn't mean that in the interest of being kind, you have to give up your own moral convictions.
I think my favorite quote from Kerry is the following about her boyfriend.
"Yeah, well, we got together in high school. We started liking each other and started building a relationship. It was just fate we got together," she said. "You can’t help who you fall in love with. No matter what, you have to be happy and follow your dreams and be who you are."
I've heard that argument before -- "You can't help who you fall in love with." It sounds a little different coming from her and knowing her background, though.
I read several comments about the story. One argued that she was really a bisexual, so this shouldn't have been a surprise. But I went back and read all of the news stories from 2005 that I could find. No where was this mentioned. If it's true, this fact was conveniently omitted.
Either way, it's pretty obvious that Kerry Pacer had a choice, and that she made hers.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Foundation of Society
I have heard the argument that all adult sexual relationships are roughly equivalent in value to society. That means none should receive special treatment (such as giving special rights to married men and women). But this assertion really falls flat if we look at a contrived situation where we must pick just one.
So here's the illustrative story.
There was once a mastermind who determined to create a new society. His team built an enormous computer that could simulate scenarios given inputs. The goal was to set parameters that would result in the most stable and enduring society.
One of the inputs had to be adult interactions and relationships. The mastermind decided to simplify these by choosing only one and blocking everything else.
"The options are man-woman, man-man, woman-woman," he told his team. "Which should I choose?"
"If you want your society to last more than one hundred years," his biology adviser advised, "Then I would choose man-woman. It's the only one that can reproduce."
So the mastermind plugged that parameter in and ran the scenario. True to the recommendation, man-woman interactions allowed the society to grow. However, the mastermind was frustrated by what the society was doing. Children were mostly being raised by women and their female relatives and friends. The men would create children, but they would not stay to take care of them and rear them.
He tried to rerun the scenario with man-man interactions or woman-woman interactions, but the society grew old and died without children. So the solution had to be something to do with man-woman interactions.
He consulted a social scientist. "You don't really want to base your society on man-woman interaction," he was told. "You want to base it on a relationship; the lifelong husband-wife relationship. In it, men and women come together for life, take care of one another, and rear their children together. It is the best basis for society."
So the mastermind ran the new scenario. And, true to the recommendation, the society grew and thrived. Men and women reared girls and boys together, providing examples and instruction. And they found great joy and happiness in the husband-wife relationship.
"This will be the foundation for society," the mastermind concluded. "I will give this husband-wife relationship a special name. It will be called 'marriage'. And I will set parameters for it to be guarded and protected as something special and cherished through the ages."
So here's the illustrative story.
There was once a mastermind who determined to create a new society. His team built an enormous computer that could simulate scenarios given inputs. The goal was to set parameters that would result in the most stable and enduring society.
One of the inputs had to be adult interactions and relationships. The mastermind decided to simplify these by choosing only one and blocking everything else.
"The options are man-woman, man-man, woman-woman," he told his team. "Which should I choose?"
"If you want your society to last more than one hundred years," his biology adviser advised, "Then I would choose man-woman. It's the only one that can reproduce."
So the mastermind plugged that parameter in and ran the scenario. True to the recommendation, man-woman interactions allowed the society to grow. However, the mastermind was frustrated by what the society was doing. Children were mostly being raised by women and their female relatives and friends. The men would create children, but they would not stay to take care of them and rear them.
He tried to rerun the scenario with man-man interactions or woman-woman interactions, but the society grew old and died without children. So the solution had to be something to do with man-woman interactions.
He consulted a social scientist. "You don't really want to base your society on man-woman interaction," he was told. "You want to base it on a relationship; the lifelong husband-wife relationship. In it, men and women come together for life, take care of one another, and rear their children together. It is the best basis for society."
So the mastermind ran the new scenario. And, true to the recommendation, the society grew and thrived. Men and women reared girls and boys together, providing examples and instruction. And they found great joy and happiness in the husband-wife relationship.
"This will be the foundation for society," the mastermind concluded. "I will give this husband-wife relationship a special name. It will be called 'marriage'. And I will set parameters for it to be guarded and protected as something special and cherished through the ages."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Equality" Means Government-enforced Tolerance
I've heard that same-sex marriage is about equality. I've also heard that it won't affect anyone except those who want to enter into a same-sex marriage. This observation really puts it into perspective. It's something to think about.
Can we have it both ways? I don't think so.
Maggie pointed out that you cannot say both that gay marriage is about “equality” and then turn around and claim that ”it’s not going to affect anyone else.” Equality arguments don’t lead to live-and-let-live tolerance. They lead to the expansion of government power to repress “bigotry”–i.e., the traditional understanding of marriage.
Gay marriage has real consequences. That’s because gay marriage represents a government’s endorsement of a new moral dogma: There is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions. Maggie pointed out that when gay-marriage advocates repeatedly say the word “equality,” we should pay attention: It means people like you and me, who think the ideal for a child is a mom and dad united in marriage, are going to start getting treated like bigots who oppose interracial marriage.
Can we have it both ways? I don't think so.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Putting Family First
After my rather depressing last post, I thought that I would present a contrasting story. This one is also true, and is about a family we know pretty well (although I've changed the names to protect them). The husband told us this story about learning to put his family before himself.
The couple were doing well. Cody, the husband, graduated from law school and was a promising attorney. They were blessed with a beautiful daughter, and then a sweet son. They were in a good part of the country, and Cody was getting excellent training. He had to work long hours, though, and was looking forward to moving somewhere else in a few years and relaxing a little more.
It wasn't until their son, Ashton, was about two that they realized something was really wrong. Cody was working long hours and hadn't spent a lot of time with Ashton. When his wife mentioned concerns, he ascribed it to late development. When the diagnosis of autism came, he was completely overwhelmed. He and his wife were already having some other difficulties, and this was another burden for their marriage.
At first, he admitted that he wanted to bail. He wasn't certain he could deal with all of the weight now pressing down on him. Then, realizing that was not an acceptable option, he thought about at least reducing some of the work stress. He was unhappy with his job, and thought if he could move somewhere else, there would be less pressure.
When Cody and his wife researched autism, they realized that their current home was one of the best places in the country for autism treatment. With this known fact, Cody felt the chance of moving being slammed in his face. He ranted and raved against his wife. "Why shouldn't I be happy?" he asked. "Would you really put the children above me?"
He talked about finally coming out of his pity party, and seeing that his wife was right. He was putting himself first, and she was putting the family first. With the realization that the health of the family was more important than himself, his perspective started to change. He "lost himself" to "find his family", and to establish a relationship with his son.
Because of this, he has now "found himself" as well.
The couple were doing well. Cody, the husband, graduated from law school and was a promising attorney. They were blessed with a beautiful daughter, and then a sweet son. They were in a good part of the country, and Cody was getting excellent training. He had to work long hours, though, and was looking forward to moving somewhere else in a few years and relaxing a little more.
It wasn't until their son, Ashton, was about two that they realized something was really wrong. Cody was working long hours and hadn't spent a lot of time with Ashton. When his wife mentioned concerns, he ascribed it to late development. When the diagnosis of autism came, he was completely overwhelmed. He and his wife were already having some other difficulties, and this was another burden for their marriage.
At first, he admitted that he wanted to bail. He wasn't certain he could deal with all of the weight now pressing down on him. Then, realizing that was not an acceptable option, he thought about at least reducing some of the work stress. He was unhappy with his job, and thought if he could move somewhere else, there would be less pressure.
When Cody and his wife researched autism, they realized that their current home was one of the best places in the country for autism treatment. With this known fact, Cody felt the chance of moving being slammed in his face. He ranted and raved against his wife. "Why shouldn't I be happy?" he asked. "Would you really put the children above me?"
He talked about finally coming out of his pity party, and seeing that his wife was right. He was putting himself first, and she was putting the family first. With the realization that the health of the family was more important than himself, his perspective started to change. He "lost himself" to "find his family", and to establish a relationship with his son.
Because of this, he has now "found himself" as well.
Friday, September 4, 2009
When Selfishness Reigns Supreme
We know that a lot of problems in marriage are caused by selfishness. Instead of a couple coming together and becoming interdependent, they try to retain their independence. Unfortunately, this can become detrimental to the family as a whole if "me" and "my" take precedence over "we" and "our".
The following letter shows this point rather well. Granted that I do not personally know those involved, and it may be a skewed perspective, but if the story is true, it becomes a very sad illustration.
Dear Abby:
Marriage is meant to be a lifelong commitment. It's supposed to provide ultimate stability for the couple and also for children that join their union. It is not meant to be "disposable" like dating is. It's not supposed to be "until someone better comes along". This situation does not sound like escaping abuse; it sounds like married life got boring and the wife started looking for more excitement.
Result of her selfishness? 4 families broken up (her original one, the first neighbor and his previous wife, herself and the first neighbor, and the second neighbor and his previous wife). Who knows how many children have been negatively impacted because of this callous attitude towards her wedding vows?
I thought this was pretty good advice. The grandparents may end up being the only stability the children have in life. Who knows? If she keeps this trend, Libby and her children might eventually end up living with grandma and grandpa, who will represent the anchor they've always needed.
The following letter shows this point rather well. Granted that I do not personally know those involved, and it may be a skewed perspective, but if the story is true, it becomes a very sad illustration.
Dear Abby:
My daughter, “Libby,” is about to be married. It's her third trip to the altar, and her stepfather and I are not in favor of the marriage. After her first marriage — to a wonderful man — she had an affair with a married man who became husband No. 2. Within five years, she began another affair with a married neighbor. They are both now divorced and plan to be married later this year in a big church wedding. My husband and I do not want to attend, but Libby has threatened to prevent us from seeing the grandkids if we don't accept husband No. 3 into our family.
How should we handle this? Should we go to the wedding even though we're adamantly opposed to it?
MOTHER OF THE BRIDE — AGAIN
Marriage is meant to be a lifelong commitment. It's supposed to provide ultimate stability for the couple and also for children that join their union. It is not meant to be "disposable" like dating is. It's not supposed to be "until someone better comes along". This situation does not sound like escaping abuse; it sounds like married life got boring and the wife started looking for more excitement.
Result of her selfishness? 4 families broken up (her original one, the first neighbor and his previous wife, herself and the first neighbor, and the second neighbor and his previous wife). Who knows how many children have been negatively impacted because of this callous attitude towards her wedding vows?
Dear M.O.B.:
If only for the sake of your grandchildren, you should attend the wedding and make No. 3 as welcome as you can for as long as he lasts — which, with your daughter's track record, isn't likely to be long.
She appears to be emotionally unstable. The children need a constant in their lives, so put aside your disapproval and provide them with as much emotional support as you can. You can't “fix” your daughter — only she can do that — but you can be there for the grandkids, and that's what I recommend you do.
I thought this was pretty good advice. The grandparents may end up being the only stability the children have in life. Who knows? If she keeps this trend, Libby and her children might eventually end up living with grandma and grandpa, who will represent the anchor they've always needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
