Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About BlueDreams

  • Birthday 05/17/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Under the mountains
  • Interests
    People, art, politics, diet, social issues, living and breathing, etc

Recent Profile Visitors

4,481 profile views

BlueDreams's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. I haven't followed this thread at all. So this could really be a miss, but this was actually something I was thinking about a ton recently. I think light of Christ includes but isn't solely the conscience. People can have different degrees of conscience, sometimes being more innate and very often socually shaped as well. But I think its core is still a derivative of the light of Christ. The more encompassing view to is is the power and ability we all have to recognize good and truth. So for example, most who will walk into a forest, will since the good and beauty of nature, a gift and responsibility from God. That is not something that immediately engages one conscience. It's personally why I can see that most largee religions gold some strongly core similarities: people built beliefs and rituals around the light they saw, sensed, and experienced around/in them. I think it's a little oversimplistic (but also really common), your description comparing and contrasting the light of Christ to the gift of the holy ghost. For one, it's an assumption that experiences of the spirit are "rare" outsidefor people the church. I don't think it's an assumption based on actual scripture or history and moreso on cultural messages and simplified messages that stack up together...but it's also really easy to poke holes in. You can just go with JS pre-baptism/confirmation. He was in the middle of the translation process of the BOM. Had already experienced and been guided by God in several powerful ways and manifestations, etc. When I was reading through a few things I saw one account that described a man who noted that he'd received the HG well before baptism that helped to guide/prepare him to receive the gift of the HG. So it doesn't surprise me when people who are not lds describe even amazing manifestations of the HG in their lives. It's happened plenty before. I also think it's a bit of an oversimplification to describe the Gift as the constant companionship of the HG. As in you sometimes experienced the HG prior now you always can. It's more tied to the power and capacity opened up in you via the sanctification of the ordinance/covenant and ones willing heart/humility. That can absolutely lead to and increase recognizing the HG with you. I also don't "rank" them. No more than I rank a baby walking over learning to talk. They're necessary parts of our development. I also think it can be difficult to describe what's the "difference" because for most of us it's something we've been privvy to for most of our cognicent life or we don't necessarily experience as an obvious difference immediately. It's like asking people to describe what it's like to talk or talking in a different language. As I noted I don't rank them, but I do see them as necessary and distinctive....even if I struggle to perfectly describe the distinction. This conviction comes from the difference I experienced from my endowment. I knew prior it came from some vaguely described gift of greater knowledge (again relying on common descriptors). But it wasn't well described how this happens or what this even looks like. Still, I noted and experienced a marked difference between me before and me after. One of greater capacity and access to light and truth than before, if I followed it. Can I aptly describe it? Probably not....I can describe pieces of it but in many ways it's subtle and at this point there's no base BD to compare the distinctions from who I am now v who I would have been without it. That makes sense, though I think there will be limits to how much of even a fundamental shift could make on this. One can value and enjoy a person and still hold boundaries based on things that are still considered important. For example, I enjoy(ed) midnight mass and other religious services I've gone to. If I went to the community and actively participated in them to some degree without fully joining or subscribing to their beliefs and maintaining several of my distinctively lds beliefs (BOM, non-trinitarian, HM, etc) I would assume that there would still be a difference in engagement that I could be a part of. And I'd respect that. I'm sure at some point, particularly if this community was small, I would come to really love them and wish I could do "more" in the community. But I would also know that my vision of more may not really be aligned with theirs and as long as I wasn't willing to change to better align with them, I can't expect for the distinctions to not be important for them. To me, respect love and siblinghood doesn't mean an absolute same expression and permeability in their views and experiencs of the sacred. It means balancing and honoring what connects us all while also honoring and giving space to our differences. Personally I think assuming or wishing for the former is setting oneself up for pain in the future. It's just not realistic. With luv, BD
  2. I think he's jokinglu referring to the married student wards. I've visited one or two. One for a presentation I was giving, one for my friend's kids baby blessing. They tend to be the same age range as ysa's and are usually made of people in new marriages attending school. Because of that the usually have no YW's/YM's, and a smaller primary that leans heavily to the young side...usually under age 5. That's the only major differences I remember. With luv, BD
  3. I appreciate this as well. I'm glad you were able to see some of your parts in this a little more Something to help a little bit, There were reasons that people were describing things as sexist/mysoginist as well. Since I was one, I'll try to help explain in a way that I hope is a little less confrontational. I knew that doing so often does not help conversations grow, but can shut them down into more defensive protective posturing. I've seen that happen more than once over the years on varying topics and still did it. For that I apologize. There are better ways to help encourage understanding on this, which I hope will come across in this post. It's important to note that the view your espousing, even when you tried to soften or make it less black and white, is not hypothetical or distant for most the people posting here. far from it. Think of it like when there's bad public news about an LDS family. Some people start talking about it and attributing the problems that went down in as connected to their religious affiliation. You've probably seen it happen, I certain have. And the response from us LDS folk who value our faith is instinctively to protect and defend and show that that's not a sure deal....because it's your people, your family, your values, not a hypothetical from a faith you have a vaguely negative bias towards. Around 72% of women with children under the age of 18 work to some degree outside the home. Which means just about everyone here will either be a working mom or be close to people that are ones. Most of us also really love our families and would define it as our highest priorities. I definitely do. My future children was the motivation for years of change, therapy, and healing I prioritized so that I could be prepared to be a good mom to them and not bring them the baggage that came from my family history. Speaking about this isn't hypothetical, it's not distant, it's deeply and profoundly personal....which means it can help to really be particularly careful when walking on people's sacred ground. My family and the balance I have here is sacred ground...the culmination of a journey I took with God for ~15 years to be able to get to this good space. Again, I'm not saying this to shame you and I'm grateful that you took the time to look back and introspect on what happened. I only want to help you understand that this is likely part of the reason people reacted as they did as well. With luv, BD
  4. I want to choose my words carefully, as I don't want you to think I'm attacking you. I'm not. The wind was coming out of my sail around my last post and it dropped entirely around MiserereNobis' post. It's not my nature to stay irritated for very long, particularly at strangers. Overall, I will accept your apology and let this go as it's not worth continuing as it is. What I'm concerned about is that you're stating that you can't fully see why people are riled up and what you were doing that escalated the problem. You haven't been here for very long, so you likely don't know our general styles very well. But most the ones that were actively pushing back, are also ones that are not known for getting easily irritated. They tend to discuss without much escalation. If you don't understand, it may be good to go back and look at the last few pages and see what your part may have been in this. This deterioration didn't happen in a vacuum or without reason and there's quite a broad range of people with broad views and experience that began pushing back at you hard. The insight can hopefully help you express your views in a way that can help people understand them, even if they adamantly disagree. At the very least, you may be able to better understand why they're describing them in ways you wouldn't. Plus it'll likely give you less of an agitated experience. It may also be helpful to picture what you were saying from the other's perspective or experience. I'm not telling you this to be patronizing or passive aggressive. As I mentioned, it's not my general style or nature. I'm saying this because it usually helps me personally get my message across. Plenty will and often do disagree with me on this board and sometimes strongly so, but most of my engagements still end in general respect and understanding. I personally know exactly my part in this exchange, at what point your posts began to irritate me (it wasn't actually a post you directed to me, but to others I found disrespectful to those I consider friends), and the exact moment I decided to stop playing more judiciously and why. I also can tell you why I started to lose steam on that irritation and why. Knowing what I'm doing, correcting how I'm coming across, and working to make my experiences or thoughts clearly understandable is what I strive to do on this board and it makes my experiences (even in very opposing conversations) generally enjoyable. So I'm stating this as general advice that may help you better understand why even your apology/olive branch is still receiving some push back. On my part, I apologize for not being my usual self. It's not who I prefer to be and I know I allowed my irritation lead at least a couple of my posts directly and one more indirectly. If you want to understand why or what caused that, you're more than welcome to ask. I will tell you honestly, though I would prefer if you not dismiss them immediately but really try to picture what I'm seeing. If you don't or can't, I'll just let it sit and walk away. I'd prefer to stay myself this time. @MiserereNobisthank you for your kind words and defense. It reminded me strongly of who I would prefer to be. With luv, BD
  5. sigh...fine I looked at them. 4 out of 5 more in depth. 1 Was under a paywall. And the other 4 are really 3 articles....the quote one of the articles twice. I'm only willing to do this once...luckily since this is all the research you've given, that's pretty easy to do. For ease, I've numbered the different articles in blue to ID them from here one out. There is of course overarching problems with all of them. Some that were obvious to me just at a glance. For one, all of them are OLD. I mentioned this before, but in social science terms, these are positively ancient. As a general rule of thumb, when doing research I at best quoted 20 year old research for facts that had some staying power and very very rarely. Factors around reasons for divorce do not stay consistent, so I wouldn't quote any of this for more than one quote and/or to show historical understanding and evolution in research. Anything over 10 years old when writing a research paper was usually best not added for exploring recent trends. So none of this touches the most recent numbers to marry (millennials) and thus the bulk of most recent divorces and marital trends....which are both different from their predecessors on several fronts. Another weakness all of these had: None of these are meta-analysis. Meta-analyses are research that takes the body of research on a subject and synthesizes them to get overarching trends. Without that, what you have research wise is basically small data points....snap shots of the small population they study at the time they did and with the questions they had. In terms of research, these smaller studies are needed, but aren't great for making lofty claims like the site are making. And all of these are still correlative. Very little research in the social sciences are more causal...it's inferences based off of analysis and stats work. Lastly: All research is nuanced with very very caveated points, whereas the claims quoted and used were edited to give a very solid assertion. In almost all of these quotes there were important parts left out that reduce the potency of the initial message. I had one more point. But it's getting late and my brain is like a sieve. This in and of itself was enough for me to dismiss the work as these are really big problems. But I'll continue. 2 of these were a little more problematic. #3 is about 30 years old. This means it would not only exclude all millenials and gen z and most of gen x, because they were all too young or not born. It's not at all translatable to the current era in divorce, particularly when reading parts of #4 or 2 I believe, that noted that traditional/non-trad attitudes were becoming less and less indicative over time in research. #2 showed a bias in its wording. As mentioned, most research is tentative and quickly acknowleges where more research is needed and the limitations to their research. #2 was defensive, recognizing their potential limitations but quickly noting why they didn't think these limitations were significant or concerning. Some of the argumentation is really weak. For example, when discussing using behaviors from a feminist ideology (participation in women’s liberation groups, using one’s maiden name, voting for far-left political parties, etc), it poo-poos the problem that behavior is not always a good indication of ideology. But it ignores that these behaviors may indicate a very extreme end of an ideology and miss larger numbers with more moderate egalitarian views. For example, I consider myself a feminist....yet I've never participated in a women's lib group, gleefully got rid of my maiden name, and vote left of center to strong left but probably not the dutch definition of far left. In other words, I'd likely not have been included in their assessment of women who adhere to feminist and/or egalitarian ideals in marriage. That's a big hole and not only does it dismiss, but it also shows a major blindspot, where a feminist becomes an extreme activist caricature. Still, even with 2, the actual paper is still more nuanced than the 2 quotes from it. For example it mentions this: Note, the first part is in line with the quotes taken. BUT, the second half that they stat is most important strongly indicates that Women work effect is mitigated by the value orientation. Have more feminist or egalitarian values, and the role of work outside the home disappears. That means it's the values, not the factor of work that's a more important determinate to whether women working will be a problem in the marriage. This research also iterates more than once that it often conflicts with american research into this topis and is likely not universal in correlation/effects. Kinda a biggie, since most of us are not dutch. #1) is so much more nuanced than this quote to the point that the quote is almost moot. For one the work a man does was more a stand in for financial stabiilty, since most male work paid more. Because this is a dutch study the average hours for men were around 39 hours. And when male work was sussed out, it's most important factor wasn't the hours, it was the financial stability they generally represented. Overtime or working too many hours was tied to both likelihood of some financial stressors and less marital time (neither good in terms of divorce). Because it was so indirect on the last part, it's not really mentioned in the conclusion even though it's clearly in her summary of the results...it's assumed that because its indirect it's probably a weak factor or not-significant. I'm not sure why she started off her conclusion with such an oversimplistic statement that was what was then quote, as the bulk of the work was far far more nuanced. Likewise women's work, that was in efforts to try and pick up the slack of men's work often indicated financial stress. But this isn't discussed at all in the conclusion. Which is just weird. But since it wasn't tied to her hypothesis I guess she didn't find it important to include it(?) #4 is a little laughable in how oversimplified chopped this quote was. ALL of their hypotheses would come back with mixed support from their results and most of their research had nothing to do with traditional values or work....morereso hardships and their effects on marriage. This also ignores half the finding on what it quoted. Yes women's traditional views were correlated with lower divorce BUT men's traditional views were correlated with higher divorce. It gives a few potential reasons for this. I'd note that men struggled more with even minor disagreements in this research and women held less traditionalist views at this point in the research. Meaning if reality entailed flexibility, men would struggle with changes in roles moreso than women would. Women were more likely to let go of inequalities (ie have more values flexibility) as long as overall happiness in the relationship was there. This would be plenty for me to eyeroll the use of the research to bolster a point. Most of the research mentioned wasn't really trying to bolster the points being made. But while googling, I found another article that popped up from 2011 (just a few years older than the youngest article....I assume it referenced one of these articles, cuz I didn't purposely search for it) that actually directly studied work and how it effected decisions to leave a marriage. Here's part of the abstract: In other words, as long as the marriage was happy women working had no effect on the marriage. It also gives a really important illustration why pointing to just one research article...or even 4, is not enough to get a good picture of actual trend: And why more recent research can shift the picture on divorce and marital satisfaction research: And it digs more into why women who are employed are more likely to leave a marriage. What really shouldn't be a surprise, it's because the marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones and it gave greater abilty to vacate. It also pointed to the fact that because women more quickly shifted views around traditional roles to ones more flexible and egalitarian than men, it meant that men's more traditional views often ended up being a stumbling block to better compromise and thus satisfaction in the home-work balance. Women working had no effect on if a man called it quits. Here's the full paragraphs so you don't have to take my summaries for it: If I wanted to I'm sure I could find even more papers that indicate a nuanced view that's largely unsupportive of your claims. But I did what you wanted. I analyzed these articles, looked at them, and still find your website of evidence extremely wanting. In short, this isn't good enough to bolster to claims. Far from it. (link to last article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3347912/ ) With luv, BD
  6. You could simply ask Calm if she agrees with her interpretation of her words instead of taking them, running with them, and pushing more concordance than she's shown in this thread. It's not that hard....let me show you what that looks like: Calm, I assume you're using follow as a form of wordplay for the end question. I take follow at the beginning of your paragraph to mean more "stand with, partner with, walk with, counsel with, work with" etc as opposed to a more literal definition such as "act according to" my husband or "do as my husband says/does as leader." Is that something you'd agree with? If not, I would disagree with you on that, while still agreeing with the bulk. @Grug the Neanderthalit doesn't hurt to check when someone who generally is disagreeing with you, says something you might technically agree with for clarity before insisting a) they see eye-to-eye and b) therefore should be tacked with the same problems in your argument. With luv, BD
  7. I already carefully read each of your posts. it's littered through each of them. Including the one on this page where you reiterate your basic belief. Again. If you assume any degree of harm from a woman doing work that a man can not only do but be praised for, that is a form of sexism. As far as I can tell, you've softened your words, but haven't changed your message. So if you want an example, your last statement will do. I'm not about to quote every post you've made here. Again you're allowed to believe your message. I'm not going to stop you. But I'm equally allowed to call it out, point out it's problem, and describe what I see. It's still sexist. With luv, BD.
  8. As nehor mentioned, I'm being kind. So let me take off my gentle gloves, yank out my east coaster, and be clear and unequivocal. If you generally agree with my summary of what I've seen on this thread that is sexist. You are saying women can't do the same things as men without it causing social and familial harm. Any woman or family that conflicts with this view is at best circumspect because of said prejudice. That's misogynistic. You don't have to call a woman a b****, sl*t, witch, or other sexist slurs in order to have beliefs that are misogynistic. This form of benevolent sexism, where the women who match your ideals are extolled and the women who dare to live otherwise likely hold questionable morals or are harming their families is a clear parallel to just about every misogynistic culture's problem: a good woman is a woman who gets in line with what others expect from her. Where their voice in the public square is reduced because a good woman's place is rarely outside the home. Gentrifying the words, giving cheap platitudes to "choice" and that women are also capable of a career or education or what have you does not make this underlying message better. It makes it patronizing and demeaning. It comes off like: of course you can be a doctor! Now get back in the kitchen to finish nurturing the kids... you're so cute. Shifting blame for basically everyone getting the same message from you is childish. Proclaiming victimhood for being the poor conservative man in the room is pathetic and weak. Taking no accountability for how you present and your biews' intellectual flaws/holes while insisting nothing could be wrong with what you're saying is asinine. So don't blame me because your views "sound" misogynistic. I have plenty of civil comfortable conversations with people more conservative than me all the time on this board...ironically several of them are ones you've assumed are "progressive." No, Blame the misogyny in your damn words. With east coast oldest sister of a heck of a lot of bros grit, BD
  9. The prejudice shows up in this conversation between the gap of your 2nd and 3rd paragraph. When a woman, like myself, chooses to maintain a career alongside raising kids these two paragraphs come into conflict for you. You responded to my account with unnecessary skepticism that I could maintain a healthy family life even though there are no indications of problems reported by me (far from it). Besides that being patronizing, your only reason to bring up doubt is because I work...and me working apparently places my family's happiness at risk. You give Pogi the same dismissive skepticism and completely ignore Buckeye's lived experience. I assume it's easier to be skeptical of mine and dismissive of Pogi's since mine is a young family and Pogi's situation is still hypothetical. So Buckeye's must be a rare "exception." This strongly indicates a prejudice that working moms are largely antithetical to healthy families. You've dropped more than hints that you assume materialistic motivations for mothers wanting or choosing to work. You've also set up the wording so that women are EITHER nurturing their children at home a ton OR choosing to work. What nudges this to being sexist, is that this same standard is not applied to men. You praise your father for working long hours and likely having far less time to be with his family in person. You do no associate men like him as putting their family's happiness and security at risk. Far from it, they're praise worthy. If a woman does what your father did, they're damaging their families. If a woman works even a little outside the home, it's putting her children and marriage at risk. And when a woman chooses this, she's assumed to be selfish, materialistic, going against prophets (and presumably god), and/or worldly. Most sympathetically she's at least a victim of modern culture pressuring her to work. So either a victim or spiritually circumspect for doing something a man can not only do, but be praised for. Her ability to work is like my ability to get drunk. Technically a choice I can make and am capable of, but one that is morally and physically unsound. So yeah, that sounds like an ingrained prejudice against women who do not fit your ideals. And that's a definition of misogyny With luv, BD
  10. For what it's worth, I don't see this as disparaging. To me it's just a potential risk when both parents work, particularly in high demand and inflexible jobs. Particularly in our country that tends to have an excessive work culture (working long hours ID-ing with what you do to earn first). Thankfully I think the pandemic and recent events are starting to break down this over focus of work as a virtue at the very least, but I think we could definitely have policies and means to support families, particularly young families and families where there's need for parent(s) to work longer hours than what would be ideal. And to reduce how many fit that category. When my husband and I married we were in agreement that what was most important to us was having space and time for our family...that we wouldn't work or strive for money...moreso a lifestyle that was conducive to a good home life and the things we loved most. And that's what we've done. It'll probably switch up a little once I have our twins and we'll probably need more outside help than we did before to make it all work. But we will. I think when it crosses the line is to assume that neglected latchkey kids and overworked parents are more the norm than the exception to what it looks like to have 2 working parents. It's just a potential risk that needs to be understood. Just as there are potential pitfalls to diadic roles with a SAHM mom and at work dad. We can all find space to live principles that put family first in our own circumstances. That's a principle we incorporate in, not a built in feature of a specific family role structure IMHO. With luv, BD
  11. Lol! I may not have a crystal ball, but I'll wager that I have a better understanding of what places a marriage at risk than you do. My job is basically helping couples have healthy relationships, with a focus on sexual issues. My masters is in marriage and family therapy. I got said degree at BYU, which had the top program in the US at the time. My obsession, due to my generationally problematic family was what made people tic and what was attributed to a healthy marriage, probability wise. At this point it's not hard for me to pinpoint a fatally flawed marriage or at least a marriage in serious risk in my office. In my years as a therapist, a woman choosing to work had absolutely no correlation to whether a marriage was fatally flawed or at risk. In all my studies I met no research that would point to that. The only time I've seen work be a problem is when one partner works too much or in high demand fields and it's causing stress or distance in their family relationships. Or when work is triangulated to ignore emotional/relational problems. But that happens more often with men than women. I don't think that's necessarily an inherent gender difference, just that different socialization pressures leaves it more likely to be men. Most the problems are pretty simple: conflict styles, abuse/control patterns, unresolved baggage that enters the marriage, stress management patterns, infidelity, etc. Some things increase likelihood of said problems, such as marrying young, marrying someone they don't really know (usually super fast relationships, but also longer ones with aloof/long-distance partners), marrying for social pressure or ulterior reasons (ex. wanting stability, wanting a baby), etc. I don't have any of these in my relationship. Closest one is a fast marriage....but I knew him pretty well by the time I said yes over the alter. A plane can always crash, but a well built one flying on a good weather day is extremely unlikely to do so. That's my marriage. I'm not worried at all. Certain couples with certain relationship styles come with their own strengths and potential weaknesses. That includes traditional set ups where mom is at home, dad works. The biggest ones I've seen entail disconnection because they get so focused on their roles they lose track of being partners or themselves. Another is falling into dependency and/or conflict about things like finances because it's "his" money and the one hand doesn't fully see of value the other. Another is work load at home begins to fall heavily on the woman. With kids it can be a stronger connection to mom than dad or an idealized play-based relationship with dad v mom. A big one that happened for my grandma was basically getting trapped in a bad relationship for decades. I could give you another list of potential problems/weaknesses for large families, never having kids, blended family, working moms and dads, etc. Each couple will need to balance and be aware of potential risks and benefits in deciding what's best for them and theirs. I don't have a need to denigrate a decision that's not mine. My SAHM's are not more or less than my working mom friends. You can disagree. It's still certifiably crap research. I would have been seriously dinged if I gave something that fundamentally flawed and biased as a source for my ideas. Funny story, I was always uncomfortable with the Proc, because it seemed to only be interpreted the way you picture it from my generally more conservative church leaders growing up. But in a sunday school lesson while I sat with my then fiance, I read it and realized that we were planning to follow the advice given to a tee...even though people like you would not see it that way. Turns out I have more of a problem with its most common interpretations that were particularly prominent when I was pretty young...not with the actual principle. I believe firmly in Prophets and apostles. One of my favorite sections is moses 5, when it describes the interconnected and equitable relationship of Adame and Eve. And I believe in continuing revelation and restoration. I don't need the advice from the 70's/80's to become crystallized for all time. Which is why they've likely shifted talks and guidance to be more inclusive and careful with their messages in the last 10-15 years especially. It's becomes more and more apparent that this view you describe is oversimplistic, fuels unnecessary conflict, and quite often is just not true. As I mentioned, each work and family decision has it's strengths and weaknesses. NONE of them are a good measuring stick for child and family outcomes. NONE of them. Stable homes, with loving parents, who teach them their values, support them when they struggle, and are flexible enough to shift plans when needed....those are great patterns and it can happen in a large family or a small. A family with 2 working parents or ones with more traditional parental roles. I didn't take Calm's initial words the way you did. Especially after she clarified and made it absolutely clear what she meant. It seems only respectful to take her at her word and not yours. With luv, BD
  12. If you want more anectdotal evidence beyond those who've already given some, you're welcome to mine as well. I chose from day one that I wouldn't quit my job. I chose a job that gives me a lot of flexibility too though and I've upped the hours based on what felt right...it was only zero hours for about 3 months. Our kid is turning 4 this year. She's absolutely fine, because she also has a dad that from day 1 was involved and does his fair share of nurturing and parenting. Course, covid oddly helped. I joke we're both largely SAHP's since both of us can work largely remote. I go into the office more than him even though I work less. He supports me and I support him. We have a fabulous marriage, one of joint partnership and equity and that I'm deeply proud of. I'm so glad that I purposely made sure to take steps back and let my husband be a nurturing dad in his own way. I don't feel guilty or wrong or worried when I leave the home, I know she's with a very capable and loving parent, who taught her her ABC's, the fun of building things, and how to spell her name. She runs to both of us for comfort, both of us for the individual things we do for her, and feels confident to go out to preschool and the world knowing we'll be back for her always. The house doesn't fall apart when I leave, because he does his part, cares for our kid and any other domestic needed thing. There's not an inherent conflict in our work dynamics because we openly talk and decide together what we need to do for both our individual goals, our careers, and our kid(s). I don't want something different. There have been harder hairy days, sure, but I feel whole as a person with my work and I value what I do not just for my daughter but for my community and self, which currently includes some working pay. With luv, BD
  13. Jumping in after reading through the last few pages. Here's the problem I'm seeing: minus the feeling and personal bias you hold toward this, you're not giving any really good stats, figures, and umph to claims minus loose anectdotal assertions you've tied to the change in women working out of the home more often. Your one site isn't a "study" but a series of quotes from old sources (in terms of social research) that is usually quoting other unnamed research. You're making a lofty claim, one that is going to be inherently offensive, with crap evidence. But you keep asserting it sometimes almost as fact and then almost at the same moment as if it were just your opinion...but a really solid opinion that it has to be a factor because it "correlates" with the divorce rate. Correlation does not equal causation is an a research adage as old a time. And this correlation is fairly weak. yes, Divorce spiked at the same time that working moms started to increase from around 1970-1980. But this ignores that divorce had been rising for decades (albeit slowly and minus 1950's) before then and didn't have much of a correlation with working women before this. It ignores that divorce finished spiking by 1980 and started to drop significantly (we are by no means are "sky high" divorce rates at this point)....even though workforce participation by women continued to rise well after, before it starts to dip gradually around the early 2000s. It ignores any other theory or possibly connection between these numbers, including reverse cause. Namely divorced women most often have to work to make ends meet....so if divorce rises working women would naturally rise with it. Or the obvious one of greater legal ability to divorce in a generation where there were also more couples at the right age to divorce in a uniquely large generation. Or that there were shifting values and expectations in marriage that settled into slightly healthier patterns after a while. Or that working moms often still carry disproportionate workloads in the home even if working equal hours, creating greater stress and higher chances of resentment since apparently a man can't pick up a mop. Or that those who would have divorced simply stopped marrying as much from either self awareness or less pressure to have to marry. Etc. I could go on and on with so many other potential reasons. There's also quite a few counterfactuals too. For example currently the rate of marriage is highest among high income, highly educated couples. It's also that demo who generally have more working moms and less divorce. But none of this is really engaged with beyond vaguely noting there may be other reasons and then focusing on your pet theory affirmed by namely your anecdotal experience as both a child and I assume a father in a household with a SAHM. And any info or theories that are given that conflict with this are dismissed (such as pointing to reasons such as abuse I don't want to put words in your mouth. I know you've used means to soften this by insisting there's issues with men as well, there's other unnamed issues that could also be at play (the only ones actually named tend to fit your religious/social stances already), it's moreso a specific type of working mom (aka the ones choosing to work "rather than nurture" their children), etc. Personally this doesn't do enough to make this position if not inherently sexist to some degree then at least deeply problematic. Because at the end of the day, the only correction for this trend if it were a cause would be for women (not men) to stay home with their kids and forgo work unless absolutely necessary where they will magically pick up a decent earning job that will fill in the financial gap with often with little to no work history and no recent work history. (Again, this last assertion made without evidence beyond "common knowledge," a knowledge I have never seen and runs counter to just about every last bit of info and experiences I've seen). There's no other solution given to this. You are allowed to your opinion. You can believe it till the end of your days. But that doesn't make you're opinion a good one. I get that you value SAHM's and working dads. Kudos. If that works for a family, great. What you're doing isn't just valuing but elevating by devaluing or gently denigrating any chosen path that's not that one. (note I said chosen v. forced into due to exceptions). That's not going to fly well. With luv, BD
  14. I see plenty of issues where the kid's issues are definitely reflective of the parental environment....luckily almost none of that has to do with whether both parents work or not and far more to do with relationship difficulties or poor habits/stresses that rub off on the kids in varying ways. With luv, BD
  15. I recently read about composting bodies. It's only legal so far in 6 states, but I'm young and healthy enough to hope it catches on well before I die. The idea that my body would become compost to feed plants would be my ultimate wish. I want to continue to be a part of the healthy lifecycle of the earth and help maintain future generations. I love the idea of my body going full circle, returning to earth from which it was derived from. Becoming sources of new life. Plus the bones left over are crushed and can be kept like cremation with less pollution. So if my family wants a keepsake to bury and add a plack to they can. Now if only more states would adopt the practice.... If not I'll probably rank my options by how green they are and how pricey. I think the ritual of burial can have a lot of good closure for the living....but a lot of that ritual can be had without the things we've built up to preserve bodies for way too long. Beyond that I don't get the point. Dedicate the land or tree or wild seeds that my body will feed and call it good. My Spirit isn't there anymore so my body should be good for something else. With luv, BD
  • Create New...