Do Working Moms Put Their Kids at a Disadvantage?

Comments

Comments

• Go girl!

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 17th, 2009

• That right!

  • Report
  

  by BLACKCHOCOLATE on January 19th, 2010

• Not always the case, but overall I agree.
  
  P.s. I THINK YOUR CAPSOCK KEY IS BROKEN. :3

  • Report
  

  by Aspergers syndrome on April 22nd, 2010

• Yes of course there has never been a mother that also works in the history of humanity that has ever neglected there children. If you actually think that i supect your delusional. No crack addicted mother that works as hooker has ever failed to give her children due care? You have percived the statment as some personal attack and have just shouted what ever appeals to your own emotions with out thinking criticly about it. If farthers where true farther there would be no working mums? Whats that even mean? Are you implying that if a man is unable or unwilling to supply enough income to support a whole family he is not a real farther? This is a crazy thing to say.

  • Report
  

  by julianbosca on April 27th, 2010

• Working mom do not neglect their kids I am a working mom and my kids are not neglected in fact most mom are single moms if they do not work their kids are left to suffer. There is a lot of dead beat dads out there and mom are left to work provide and give love and attention to kids all on their own.
  
  Further more there are day care where kids are safe and well taken care of while moms work. 99% of moms I think are the best that they can be to their kids. They work, go to school run a home, business go to soccer game and whatever other activities that their child are involved in and raised happy healthy and well balanced kids. In fact other family members usually pitch in to help raise these kids and they turn out just fine sometimes better than the one that have moms that stay at home. I think that moms should empower themselves by being independent and give themselves choices on whether or not they want to stay at home or have a career or just a job and be a stay at home mom.

  • Report
  

  by ladeepiphany on June 22nd, 2010

• I just think it's funny that most moms come up and say "MY CHILDREN ARE NOT NEGLECTED". Why not just go and ask your children instead of speaking for them if they feel like they want to spend more time with you? Or even get a professional involved. Any mother that takes personal offense to this in my mind is just already getting defensive because they feel that they do work to much. I mean really... if you don't think your kids are screwed up, why come off so defensive and take it personally?
  
  And Ladeepiphany, you're fact is wrong. "fact most mom are single moms". No, most moms do happen to be in a relationship but avoid getting married in order to seek finacial aide, that's the statistics.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

Comments

• that's what i'm saying. these privelaged people saying woman shouldnt work. come pay my mothafuckin bills and i'll gladly sit at home.

  • Report
  

  by delyciouzxma on January 3rd, 2010

Comments

• WHAT??? The point is...being a mother, a parent is about providing your children with structure, love, and finanical security. Maybe back in the early days, a mother could stay at home and pretend to enjoy her life, but now women embrace life to the fullest. I think insecure men fear these working mothers. Is because alot of women can provide for their families better...I dont know, but Its takes a hell of a women to juggle life with success.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on December 17th, 2009

• My belief is that if a woman chooses to be a mother, she should tend to the children at home full-time (if feasible) and raise them lovingly like a mother should. Otherwise, why have children? :)

  • Report
  

  by MRSHINYSHOES on December 17th, 2009

• You have kids just because you don't want to work? Interesting logic.

  • Report
  

  by Nutsy_Rail on December 20th, 2009

• No, if you have kids you should not work (if feasible). Sometimes people use "work" as an excuse to get out of parenting, especially when they don't have to work.

  • Report
  

  by MRSHINYSHOES on December 20th, 2009

• SO because a woman is a mother she's supposed to give up all other roles in her life? Why don't men have to do the same? It's bullshit. I'm glad my mom worked because if she didn't my ass would be on the streets trickin for money because my deadbeat dad isn't in the picture so she needs to work. I'm glad I had a strong woman to show me that you can be a mother and work. We weren't born just to give birth and raise kids.

  • Report
  

  by delyciouzxma on January 3rd, 2010

• That is woman's natural role---to be a mother to her children. Men are the hunters---they should be the ones going out there to earn the money and provide for their families. Yes, they should love and help raise their children, but it's the women who should look after the home and the young children in it. Nature built women and men differently. Women's bodies are made for bearing children, being at home and tending to their needs---hence the breasts, the wider hips, etc. Their bodies are not made for action and strength requiring duties like men's bodies are. I think many young women today are too lazy to be mothers. Maybe that's a good thing. A child doesn't want to be raised by a lazy mother.

  • Report
  

  by MRSHINYSHOES on January 4th, 2010

• Some females become astronauts. Some become brain surgeons. Some change the world. You are calling these women lazy while you stay at home and waste your life. Interesting use of logic.
  
  Have you considered resting from your tedious role staying at home and get a job and earn your living? That should be a vacation from your hard job that teenagers have been able to do for some reason. Sitting on the couch calling yourself a mother must be harder than it appears.

  • Report
  

  by Nutsy_Rail on January 7th, 2010

• Lol. What's your point Jackstain?

  • Report
  

  by MRSHINYSHOES on January 7th, 2010

• "That is a woman's natural role...men are the hunters."
  
  Hello, my name is MRSHINYSHOES and I live in the year 5000 BCE.
  
  While that logic may have been applicable in a hunter-gatherer or even agricultural society, in industrialized nations highly-esteemed occupations often have little or nothing to do with action or strength. One could argue that raising a child takes more physical exertion than maintaining employment at an office or laboratory. Wider hips pertain to giving birth, breasts for feeding an infant. Outside the first couple of years (in some respects), there's no reason why the father is not equally capable of raising children.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 2nd, 2010

• This is getting to far and is flirting with the line of just being rude, Jackstain.
  It's now becoming traditional versus modern.
  While I'm traditional and my main thing I want to do is be a stay at home housewife, I don't mind working a PART-TIME job.
  
  First off, if her view is traditional... who cares? Really, stats say that tradition does work better in this case, but who cares? If you have a woman who enjoys working (like I do) then work. People have different aspirations, if someones aspiration is to care for their family emotionally, then that is their goal.. why argue them out of it?
  
  If a female wants to become an astronaut, then that's the female. If they're a brain surgeon, it's probably because they wanted to be a brain surgeon. If some want to change the world, then they change the world.. I change the world everyday - the world around me, and to me, that's all that matters. My family is my world, and I play a huge part of that so... who cares what other women are doing on the rest of the planet when I have other things on my mind?
  But let's look at the percentage also, how many women in the world are astronauts or brain surgeons versus women who are stay-at-home housewives? I think there's more women who stay at home, really.
  
  Last I checked, I do spend an X amount of time on the computer, but I'm constantly cleaning, I'm cooking, I'm doing laundry, I'm rearranging the basement, painting the house, it's a hard job that you dont' get paid for and the fact that people undermind it because there's no salery is ridiculous. I'd rather work at home then to be stuck in the fast food industry flipping burgers. Not only do I clean, but I'm pretty much the handy man. I get the shopping done and make sure everything is organized and I even garden because nothings better then fresh food (it's one of the things I got into... love cooking). But just like anyone can go and stay at home and take care of the house, anyone could go to work also. Sure, there's idiots out there who stay at home and watch tv all day, but to put those in the same category as women who take care of a house, it's completely close-minded. There's people who go to work and do nothing... all they do is show up, there's one of those people at every work force who got a job because of the good 'ol boy way.. and they do nothing but stare at the computer all day.. so.. you just claiming that people who stay at home do nothing but laze around, is like me saying everyone who works just shows up and does nothing... based off of the SMALL percentage who actually do nothing, and that small percentage is all people are focusing about.. so let's small focusing on the small percentage and look at the bigger picture.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

• MSA, I do not think Jackstain meant to sound condescending towards stay-at-home mothers, rather he was attempting to show MrShinyShoes (who is male, not female) that women can have a purpose outside of the home. MSS contends that mothers use work as an excuse to be free from their responsibility as parents, so I think you would have more of an issue with him than with the person trying to defend the rights of women to work as they please.
  
  For the record, I also think that one of the most significant reasons why there is a larger percentage of women caring for children than traveling in space or performing surgery is because there is a much greater demand for childcare. There are far more children to be taken care of than there are positions to be filled on a shuttlecraft.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on July 9th, 2010

• When you throw being condescending and sarcastic into the mix of trying to prove a point, instead of coming off as actually intelligent, you come off as a jackass, quite plainly. Personally, I don't listen to the thoughts of jackasses because they can't show themselves in a light as respectable... so it doesn't matter what his point was it was how he was addressing it and bringing others down.
  
  So... if you want to stay by his side and try to stick up for him and say "well.. he didn't mean it that way" than that's fine, but it doesn't matter what he means because he already ruined it by how he came off.
  
  No, I don't use work as an excuse to be free from kids, so.. if you're planning on putting words in my mouth, atleast take words I written and take them out of context. I understand people have to work, my mom works, my mom worked while I was growing up, not all the time, she balanced things out along with my dad while I was growing up.. and I'm very close to my parents, so there is no bitterness with my parents and work, if a woman has to work, then she has to work, plain and simple.
  
  it was more of the fact of looking at women who "change the world" and then looking at women who stay at home. I don't care who is going to the moon, honestly. I don't care about supply and demand, I do care that if you bring a child into the world, you should take care of it in a balanced environment. The "world" and what others are going through doesn't concern me, what does concern me is my world and my family. I know a ton of women who have jobs, none of them care about women who are "changing the world", why? Because they're focused on the world around them, they're focused on college, relationships, and where they live. Sure, I'm focused on the news and I pay attention to some current events, but even like the whole thing with Arizona Immigration Act, I don't really care about it.. it's not apart of me because I don't even live in Arizona, I don't live near it and I'm not even on the same coast.. so, it doesn't effect me and it's not part of my life or my world.. and that's it.
  
  If you're going to write a post and try to describe what I think and what I say, atleast quote me so you don't make yourself look like an idiot by throwing assumptions around.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

• "If you're going to write a post and try to describe what I think and what I say, atleast quote me so you don't make yourself look like an idiot by throwing assumptions around." ... "If you're planning on putting words in my mouth, atleast take words I written and take them out of context."
  
  In the same light, if you are going to accuse me of throwing assumptions around and taking phrases out of context, at least make sure you have read my post correctly. Allow me to quote myself (lest I sound like an idiot).
  
  "MSS contends that mothers use work as an excuse to be free from their responsibility as parents..." - Meridian the Imaginary
  
  Note the last letter. It is the letter S, indicating that the third word of the acronym also begins with an S. Also note that the third word of the username MsSmartAss begins with an A and is therefore not properly suited to the acronym MSS. So, who is this mysterious individual? Perhaps if you had read my post within context, it would have been clear that I was writing about the user named MrShinyShoes whom I refered to in the third person (using his name), while I addressed you, the user MsSmartAss, in the second person (using "you"). Therefore, using the acronym MSS to refer to MsSmartAss would have been not only incorrect, but inconsistent in terms of grammatical person. But I shouldn't have to tell you that, since you know all about context.
  
  Speaking of which, my assertion perfectly within context. I will quote him (so as not to sound like an idiot).
  
  "Sometimes people use 'work' as an excuse to get out of parenting, especially when they don't have to work." - MrShinyShoes
  
  Within the framework of the argument, in which he was putting forth his perspective that men are supposed to work while women are the natural parents, it is evident that by "people," he meant "mothers." Meanwhile, Jackstain was not refering to all stay-at-home moms. His comment appeared to be directed at MSS. I say this because he wrote "You are calling these women lazy while you stay at home and waste your life," before describing how his addressee wastes his life. MSS did in fact call working women lazy. However, you apparently took Jackstain's comment as one of condescension towards every mother who doesn't work, which in my opinion was...how did you refer to it? Throwing assumptions around?
  
  Considering all of this, I maintain my position that your issue should be with the man who accused working women of being lazy and avoiding responsibility, and that that man is MrShinyShoes, not Jackstain.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on July 9th, 2010

• Except the fact that me and MSS, or whatever the persons name is are completely different people.. So, I'm not going to speak for him, her, it, whatever... just like I don't understand why you're speaking for Jackstain. You're not neighbors are you? He's not over your house and just chilling on the computer together are you? Because either way, that's really sad.
  
  Instead of speaking for him, I'm sure he has his own keyboard and can speak for himself on accord of his own rudeness. No disrespect, but I think he's an adult and doesn't need someone to hold his hand on the internet.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

• I am with you on this, Mr. Shinyshoes and talking to people that are conditioned to go against their grain is fruitless - most people in Western culture believe in independence while us Asians are more interdependent.

  • Report
  

  by Cheery Cherry on August 21st, 2010

Comments

• Thats a really great point :)

  • Report
  

  by AngelKym07 on March 12th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Well said. And let's not add the fact that if a woman does not work she will never have an opportunity to a good standard of living unless she is good looking. Let's face it back in the days when women did not work, good looking women married the rich guys and poor women would have to do with a dead beat. Now women regardless of the way they look at least have a shot at a greater standard of life. Sure they will always be the pretty girl who gets the rich guy however now more women are able to hack it and improve their standard of living without the need of a man regardless of the way they look.

  • Report
  

  by ellesheen on May 19th, 2010

• I don't understand how looks got into it, really.
  I've dated some guys who were.. well.. more than well off, and it's not because of looks. If a guy has money, he's not going to want someone who is out for his money, just like a girl isn't going to want to be with someone because they like the way she looks.
  
  I don't think all moms should work, and I really think it depends on the relationship of the couple. I understand things happen and eventually a woman may step up, but for example, my boyfriend just wants me to work part time, that's it.. and that all I'll ever want to do because he supports me wanting to be a housewife.
  
  It sucks when these situations happen, and shit does happen.. but it's also the economy and recession. How the hell is anyone going to get a job when there's no calling for it? Lucky me, I have job expierence but i just think there's a ton of things to be accounted for before anyone says "all women should work, doesn't matter if they need to or not". Personally though, I work everyday anyway. Taking care of a house is work, it may not be the same work that people consider work, but... it's not laying on the beach and tanning all day either.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

• I don't know in which world you live in, but most women and most men do not care for what they are dated for. Most good looking women know the guys they are dating them are dating them for their looks, why do you think they are so many young good looking girls with old hags? Same goes for men, while they like to think they are not being dated because of their money, they know that money attracts the best looking women, which is why money and power has always been the major drive of males.

  • Report
  

  by ellesheen on July 9th, 2010

• No... like I said, I've dated some pretty well-off guys, and not because of looks or money.
  Yes, they're couples out there like that, I happen to know one, and it's very sad and very depressing because that's not a loving relationship, and love doesn't last when there is greed, no matter what the circumstance is. If you're dating someone who looks good because of looks, it will not last. If you date someone for money, it will not last, period. Greed=no love.
  
  So, I don't know what planet you live on where people can obtain love based on superficiality, but I'd love to see it because that would be something I'd love to observe and document the success of.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

• You really have a lot to learn. Do you think most affluent people stay married because of love? Actually divorce within the upper class is less seen than within the lower class because they know that staying married looks better for their image than being divorced. Most of the time they live separate lives but stay married due to apperances. Love is a very idealized myth, it just doesn't exist. As humans we are driven by hormones, it doesn't get deeper than that even if we like to think it does.

  • Report
  

  by ellesheen on July 13th, 2010

• I have a lot to learn because you disagree with me?
  I have an aunt who married for money and looks, not love. I have a people surrounding me who marry for money and not love, but you know what? I don't deal with those people and I don't fully care much for those people. If they feel money is a part of love, who am I to tell them otherwise? Personally, I don't think it is, but that's my opinion, and that's all it is.
  
  Okay, so it's better for their image in whatever setting they're in. I kinda figured that, I do study relationship therapy and do have an interest in general and family psychology, so yes.. I would know these statistics.
  I don't agree love is a myth.. it's more of mind over matter, it exists. It's not like Medusa or Greek Gods. Studies do show that when a person feels love and enjoyment that certain hormones are released through the body and it does change the hormonal balance in the brain, but to say it doesn't exist.. eh. But that's my opinion, not saying you're wrong but I don't agree with you, and I don't think it's fair for you to say I have alot to learn because I don't agree with your statements.
  Humans aren't driven ENTIRELY by hormones. I agree that hormones play a part but there's more to it then just that.. so again, sorry... but I disagree. Now, I'm not going to be insulting and tell you that you have alot to learn because you disagree with me, but this conversation is getting ridiculous.
  Most couples well at the middle-age mark in middle class don't stay together because of the expections of society.. I wouldn't take things that far. But you know what? You seem abit bitter about love, and I apologize on the fact that maybe it hasn't been so kind to you, and I hope things get better.
  
  Now.. I think this conversation is done because you're going to argue that people are with others for looks and "social status" and I'm going to argue that while attraction does play apart because of hormones, it's not the main thing and that even though someome may say they love someone, despite what their definition is (and I may not agree with it) I'm not going to tell someone how they should define love, except for having a standard on it. So..

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 13th, 2010

• Perhaps both arguments have truth and merit. To write of the infinite possibilities that exist or can exist where people are concerned as being only this or that simply will not work as for every rule there is an exception :0

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

• In a HEALTHY, HAPPY and SUCCESSFUL relationship, you can't have "greed". being with someone for money or social status is a part of greed and pride.
  My argument is that relationships don't last when there's greed, not if middle-aged, middle-class couples are together for social status (because everyone knows that happens).
  
  "Love" doesn't work when there's greed. Period.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on August 4th, 2010

• all of you have valid points that dont apply to everyone. Love is not a myth, but it sought more by women than men. Golddiggers do exist, but most people are not them. Some men chose their partner on looks alone, but certainly not all, not even the majority (we see super hot girls get used and dumped every single day)Some women even chose their partner on kooks alone.
  
  Ms smart ass mad ethe most relevant point in saying that love doesnt work when there is greed. I would only add to that it doesnt work when there is selfishness, apathy or lack of commitment either.
  
  Now, to get back on subject.....when people marry, we all hope for the best, but reality tells us that the chances of ending a single mum are high. So, simply be prepared to raise your family alone. If it doesnt happen, Great! Its a helluva lot better to be prepared than to have to stay in an unloving or adulterous relationship for the rest of your life. We only have one life, it would be a shame to waste it.

  • Report
  

  by ladyshakespeare on August 4th, 2010

• From your perspective this is a truism and you have every right to state as such in your opinion.
  
  People are motivated by whatever they are motivated by to do whatever it is that they do. Their motivations and expectations are based upon their own personal value system or even the value system of their culture. Sometimes love is not defined in romantic or even western cultural terms. Even the concept of love as most accept it as being now was in fact not the case in the not to distant past. My point is that no one person can really "define" what love really is or is not to another person. For you "Love" doesn't work when there is greed. For another there motivations, social status and the expectations placed upon them by external influences may dictate that love be defined other than as you see it. You may not see this as love but to them it is.
  
  I neither agreed nor disagreed with either of you. Wonder why? Because each of you were stating your "opinions". I merely suggested that both arguments may have some merit. Something to think about and give consideration to in the larger context.
  
  You seem to wish to discount others as having little value in their thoughts if they do not fall in line with your own, why the need to behave so defensively? After all these are all based upon opinion, and opinions are based upon life experiences and observations. One opinion has no greater importance than the other, they each hold equal importance to each of you independently. But where we learn is from looking at the experiences of others and then trying to understand their perspective rather than simply dismissing it out of hand because their experiences and opinions do not fit into our own small profile of what is life.
  
  I offer a question, is not the very nature of love itself, somewhat greedy?

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

• hmmmmm....not sure how I have discounted yur thoughts, but it certainly was not my intent.
  
  Is love greedy? love is the act of give and take, to and for the needs and feelings of each other. It could really only be called greedy for those who wish to be in an all take no give relationship (which there are many.)It is my opinion that these individuals dont actually love, so I must set that aside. I cant really call it love if one person is just using the other and giving no return. In my opinion that is only self gratification and isnt comparable.

  • Report
  

  by ladyshakespeare on August 4th, 2010

• Apologies ladyshakespeare, my "discounted" comment was not directed at you.
  
  I tend to agree with your comments. My question regarding the nature of love being greedy is based upon my opinion that there are in fact two types of greed/greediness. One can certainly be greedy in a negative way and that is the most common take on the word but then there is also a type of greediness that is a bit more altruistic, but is greed or greediness none the less. I greedily hunger for the caresses of my love, I am greedy in the need for seeking out the truth, I have a greedy need to help others for I understand that by helping them I help myself. So forth and so on.
  
  I do not personally have a problem with certain types of greed. Not wishing to see ones lover harmed or unhappy can also be said to be a form of greed or greediness as well, for certainly we can agree that when they are happy we benefit from it as well. So one would hope that in the end our greed would be of a positive rather than a negative nature;)

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

• The human species is motivated to mate. The instinct is to mate and to survive. While love is a balance of hormones and emotions, it makes for a more comforting idea of finding a "forever mate". So... led by hormones? Not really, more by instinct. Hormones however, do help us find a mate we are attracted to, one example would be pheromones.
  I still don't understand why I'm arguing this, I say one comment such as "'Love' isn't a part of a healthy and successful relationship when there's greed" and then I get "Hormones guide human action" which really isn't all that true. What's the sense of having hormones that help you pick out a promising partner when there's no need of a partner? That's like saying "Wow... I have a great plan for this fork, but there's no damn cheesecake!".
  
  Humans, like animals are motivated by surviving... mating, continuing the species. It's not an opinion, it's not something a pushed out of my ass, it's a fact. Plain and simple.
  When you're talking about love as a feeling, no... no one can define it, but love is a balance of emotions and hormones, and if you cut the emotions and it's just led by hormones, then you're goal is just to mate and instead of "mating with the person you find interest it", you mind as well just call it a dog really, since dogs don't really choose partners and "wine and dine" their way into eachothers pants.
  
  And that's fine, if love to them is having someone who only makes them look good and important, then that's fine. Does it typically last? No. Does built up resentment occure? Ofcourse. Does the relationship contain hidden feelings? You betchya. Is there a way a relationship could be balanced and make both parties look good? Well.. arrange marriages do tend to last longer than those who are able to choose their partners, but again.. is that love in the emotional sense? Not really. It's more of a trade, a deal.. "you scratch my back, I scratch yours. You do this for me, I'll do this for you".
  
  Lol.. I'm being psychologically analyzed..
  As far as being defensive, I'm more for the truth, even in soft science. I'm for things that make sense in modern day ideas and logical. The fact that someone puts emotional love on a pedastool and then says that it happens between couples who make a trade of social status, it's rather annoying. It's either something of unity and something to cherish, or it's not.
  
  Like I said, love is an emotional and hormonal balance which was made more than likely to help pick a "life partner" (traditionally). If you look at it with a scientific POV, then love is a mind-of-matter thing and humans are not capable of being monogomous (which is why people do go through several relationships instead of being with their first). When you look at today's concept of love (finding someone who can fit with your life and your goals) I think it's reasonable. Why look for a "forever mate" when there's a possible clash of interests of upbringing young? Because then that clash of interests could infect the young and allow them to have problems seeking a mate when it comes time to reproduce. For humans in modern day, it's not only having a connection, but having similiarities in aspirations, goals, and views in order to bring a respectable generation into the world.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on August 4th, 2010

• Love is the act of give and take in a balanced relationship, yes, as everything does need to be balanced. Both people need to "give and take", but if someone is greedy and is worried about taking rather than giving, does it work? Most likely not because there becomes resentment.
  
  Looking out for the truth isn't greedy.
  "Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."
  No one deserves truth? And also "more than what one needs" would show that it's for self-purposes.
  Truth isn't a one-person amusement act.
  
  And "I have a greedy need to help others for I understand that by helping them I help myself. So forth and so on."
  So you help people in order to help yourself and to self glorify yourself? Because that would be greedy and attention seeking. When you help someone without expecting anything in return, it's not greedy.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on August 4th, 2010

• @MSA
  
  ;)
  
  This is where experience, subtle understanding, and interpretation come into play. The human language is informative, expressive, as well as interpretive.
  
  Do you not greedily long for the touch of your lover/husband/partner?
  Dose he not greedily long for the same of you in return?
  Do you not greedily safeguard your lover/husband/partners happiness and well being above that of your own?
  
  The use of the word greedily is utilized in each example above to instill within the reader a sense of greater need or desire, creating if you will a sense of urgency more than what is implied by simply stating a sense of longing.
  
  I have a greedy need to help others for I understand that by helping them I help myself.
  There is no self glorification intended within this statement at all. It is the subtle understanding that by giving of yourself to others "more than what one needs" that in the end you help yourself to become a better person-no self glorification at all.
  
  The philosophers of many an age would heartily disagree that truth isn't a one person "amusement act" as you state, but rather postulate that the search and quest for truth is a solo journey that one must take on for ones own benefit.
  
  Subtle interpretation and understanding of intent it is called poetic license, the expressive and interpretive use of language.
  
  So... to each their own, to own their each, to do with it as they will. All opinions are subjective and each has their own merit. My original stance.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

• Experience? lol... Why is it people on this site see that I'm 20 and think I lack experience when everything I say is pretty logical when it comes to the relationship department? And experience would say not to assume... so... let's throw "experience" out the window and stick with common sense.
  
  I, by instinct crave a physical relationship, yes... peoples main instinct is mating anf surviving and bringing up new generations.
  Do I say "Touch me right now because I want it"? no.
  Again
  "Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."
  Do I love being with my partner? Yes... as most people should. But I don't hop up on him and dry hump him (against will) for what *I* want. Technically, is it greedy is the other person agrees with what you are doing and feels the same way?
  We're not possessive or demanding.
  And yes, I think of my partner on the same level as me, and vise versa, and we'll put our needs aside for eachother, it's called balance. Like I said... selfishness and greed doesn't work in a happy and healthy relationship.
  If you want to call your local psychologist and discuss that with them, then feel free to, because I don't think years of my own research are all that wrong.
  
  You're not using greedy really the way it's defined, and I'm starting to question if you really know what it means. I think you're more obsessed with helping people in order to try and grow... I don't think you're greedy about growing, otherwise you'd be taking care more of yourself and focusing on yourself to grow instead of them. Don't get the two confused.
  
  Philosophy is a laughable subject. Philosophers are nothing but the smart man of the day. Truth is out there for anyone to take, one person in the world can't have it. If you're talking about "truth' as life, then yes.. it is a one man's journal to see what they want from their own surroundings... but as finding out why the sky is blue, that's for anyone to know. Don't try and bring life and the POV into this, because all you're stating are opinions, nothing to do with facts.
  
  Love doens't work when there's greed. If you want someone for yourself beyond of what a healthy and balanced relationship is (according to BOTH parties terms), then it's getting selfish. If you're greedy in the sense that you have a partner who cheats on you and you want to be their only relationship, then go find someone who can have similiar morals and goals instead of having a clash of interests... because then that's greedy to try to change someone to fit your mold when really, and it's greedy on the other persons turn to put someone through that and expect them not to live the same life.
  
  We're talking about greed in relationships and how they don't work, not about greed for wanting someone and obsessing over them. It's fine to be obsessive but if you get greedy, that's different because you're acting out on it.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on August 5th, 2010

• The experience I spoke of has little to do physical age, it has to do with an exposure to life and of different stimuli, thought processes, and at least attempting to understand things not only from your own perspective but of tying to place yourself into the place and circumstances of others.
  
  That you do not embrace the poetic expressive use of our language is "in my opinion" unfortunate. You see only black and white in words and their use, oh well, I do not. I prefer to use the language to it's fullest potential. If you were to take on a literary journey then you would come to see that the question I posted regarding love being greedy in its nature has been asked and explored in one form or another by several noted writers and philosophers thru out history. But I forget you do not follow such nonsense, you are far to accomplished in your knowledge to fritter your day away in the pursuits of such trivial things.
  
  The truth that is spoken of is personal truth and it is a personal journey, that frankly goes beyond the bounds of flesh and earthly matters. I am so glad to see that you appear to believe yourself to be on or even above the level of the people who have spent their lives in the pursuit of it. Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau all you other guys pick up your pink slips your out of here we have MSA thats all that matters.
  
  I understood the topic thank you and I understood the implications and the expressed views. Could I have mundanely gone with the flow? Sure, but where exactly is the fun of that? You merely state the blatantly obvious, not some great pearl of wisdom. I simply offered you the opportunity to look at "the subject" from a different perspective or explore an alternative line of thinking and all you have been capable of is more of the same things you espoused before several times.
  
  Your so hung up on being right and of justifying your correctness and impressing everyone with your "knowledge" and "logical" thinking and of having to have the final say that frankly you turn them off and miss all of the fun that could be had and all of the alternative experiences that are here to explored. But then again your not really into that are you? This was rhetorical no need to reply.
  
  I've not looked at your profile page you are the one who has brought age forward frankly I do not care. With regards to the "age issue" I would hazard to guess that more often than not it is hoisted by your own petard, rather than by someone looking at your profile page.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 5th, 2010

• although I have appreciated the interesting and highly intellectual exchange, I have to wonder if either of you have noticed how far we have gone off course. We seem to be floating somewhere in the middle of the Arctic Sea. Does anyone knwo how to get back to Antioch? (ok, was tryin to be funny)

  • Report
  

  by ladyshakespeare on August 5th, 2010

• ladyshakespear,
  
  I concur whole heartedly with your assessment and observation of the situation and appreciate the wit;)
  
  Thank you for you indulgence and patience.
  Z

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 6th, 2010

• Experience with "life" comes with age, does it not? I have more experience with life than a 2 years old. A 40 year old has more life experience than I do. I don't have the experience of raising a family, I don't have the experience of paying the mortage bill or buying a house, so yes... what comes with life would take age and also your surroundings.
  
  Actually no, you assumed wrong. At my old school, every year we had a poetry week and I won first place and I did amazing in my creative arts classes, so I can understand when people are attempting to speak/write poetically in order to try and sound wise or philosophical.
  
  Philosophy, like I said, is a laughable subject... it was the Smart-Man-Of-The-Day's view on life at the current time and nothing more. People considered them wise because they had ideas and could come up with witty sayings or write things that obviously no one else was considering, probably because they were more focused on famines, farming, illnesses, and figuring out how to survive.
  
  2+2=4, is there anything to argue? No. Why? Because it's true. Just like it's true that you can't have greed in a relationship and have it be happy and successful "til death", and someone in this conversation even knows that better than I do.
  I'm done arguing what the term "greed" means, it's not like the word "pressure", where there's good pressure and bad pressure... yeah, it's greedy if you help people out in order to get an award and be titled Person Of The Year and that's your motivation on why you help people out. Yes, it's a tad wrong to help people out only looking to benefit yourself, that's a tad selfish, but if you're not expecting more from it than what you're given, then it's not greedy, but obsessive.
  
  I'm hung up on bringing right because I don't agree with being wrong. And I don't agree with arguing what 2+2 equals. I'm good with relationships, it's... my forte, a common sense. I have to be able to look at all sides and situations that are there and even make up some more sides, and I do, and that's what makes me good. You have to be 5 steps ahead, people are unpredictable and so are relationships... but sorry, relationships don't work when there's greed, maybe if the relationship is more of a social deal rather than a romantic bond, then fine, but half relationships aren't that, so let's be realistic.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on August 6th, 2010

Comments

• It takes two incomes to be able to afford to live because of women’s lib. Prior to the mass influx of women in the work place, people were able to afford to support a family on a single income. However, once families began switching to a dual income, inflation resulted. All of a sudden you had families able to afford to spend more on homes and other commodities, which inevitably resulted in the price of homes and other commodities going up.
  …
  Of course, this also resulted in an increase in income disparity. Prior to the proliferation of the dual income household, poorer families could bridge the income gap by the wife taking on some work. However, since we now rely on dual incomes to get by, those poorer families need dual incomes just to stay poor. This also had a devastating effect on single parent households who don’t have the option of a second income.
  …
  Now, I am expecting someone to respond complaining “why does the woman have to stay home”? The answer is they don’t, but a woman who wants to have children is less marketable than a man in the job market. Moreover, prior to (and through) WWII, the vast majority of jobs were manufacturing jobs (i.e. manual labor jobs), which men were naturally better at. So at that time, it made logical sense for women to stay at home.

  • Report
  

  by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 11th, 2009

• Bady1988, you completely right.
  OHLOOK-I would not be as concerned about the question of "why does the woman have to stay home" When in fact your entire take of the impact of women in the work force is false. Actually, poverty was much more wide spread and serious prior to the woman's liberation movement. All you would have to do is look at the number of slums and tenement communities across America particularly at the the turn of the century. The poor and the working poor was one the largest groups & People suffered and died of as a result of poverty since this country's birth up until WWII & the new deal got us out of the depression. When and where after the woman's lib movement do you hear of people dieing of starvation and or exposure in this country. A more obvious point is to a reminder that we were in a depression prior to WWII-so what era are one referring to? The pre-labor union 20's and people are earning like 8 cents a day for a 10-14 hour work day and/or miners and migrant workers owe out their pay check before they receive it. Certainly, not the WW1 era and 00's. The era of rampant child labor and the enormous influx of immigrant workers to this country. Yet, one has to notice they didn't bring about both parents working. Also, the fact that industry fought to keep their child workers and just their large presences in the labor force undermines the theory that the reason woman stayed home was because that were inferior to men. Surely if that is measuring stick that nobody would have mined a female adult taking a labor job.
  The fact of the matter is that both economists and historians agree that the rise in the cost of living is due to rise of standard of living. It has very little to do with what we earn as oppose to how we spend. Prior to the war, people pretty much worked to just pay their rent, feed their family and keep shoes on their kids feet. After the war Americans became the consumer culture. It here when we stopped being a country of debtors to creditors. For instance the reason homes cost so much is that the idea of owning a home is now common experience. The same with automobiles, vacationing, the amount of clothing we buy, etc. Esp, technology today and the percentage of income spent. Not only the poor there are so many things that average American has today, that in any preWW2 era would have being reserved only for the rich.

  • Report
  

  by lotusbee on December 12th, 2009

• I agree with Ohlook. My mother, in the sixties, bought a house on her income alone when she had just graduated. Price inflation means that now that same house would be unaffordable to me and my partner even ten years after graduating. In fact, if prices had risen exactly in line with financial inflation, that house would now be worth only a sixth of the market value it now has. House prices have risen to the maximum level they can rise to and people still be able to afford them. These days, since the majority of families are dual income, that means to a level that a majority of dual-income not single-income families can afford. The only families I know where one partner can afford to stay at home are those who live in social housing that they rent cheaply. Yes, maybe a big reason homes cost so much IS because the idea of owning a home is now a common one. But at the same time, prices only rise as far as a majority of the population can afford, since the market needs to stay fluid. Now a majority of people live in dual income homes, prices reflect this. If we lived in a society where single income homes were still the norm, this would be reflected in lower house prices. Lots of women, including myself and my friends, would prefer to stay at home with our children. But we can't. Most of us, with arts degrees, therefore became teachers so that at least we could spend the holidays with our children.

  • Report
  

  by Irisibis on December 19th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Why look at children alone, Mill? Look atthe generation of 30's. Most of them had working mothers, and it is obvious they lack the mother's influence. This lack is manifested in their generally failed relationships. They cannot relate to another, because they were not taught by example by their mothers.

  • Report
  

  by Wisdom Tooth on December 27th, 2009

• Yes! I quite agree, Wiz! And the "disrespectful" attitude of "kids" today toward their elders is reprehensible! I used to LIKE being around young adults! NOW. . . . . . .I DON'T want them even at "arms-length"! Their manners are deplorable!

  • Report
  

  by Millenium - The Mysterious M. . . GONE! on December 29th, 2009

• Not surprising, considering that it appears to be the fashion to lose your virginity by 14.

  • Report
  

  by Wisdom Tooth on December 30th, 2009

• Sad, isn't it? It's just so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o sad!

  • Report
  

  by Millenium - The Mysterious M. . . GONE! on December 31st, 2009

• Back then when women couldn't and didn't work they were at the mercy of men. Thank God my mom went to college otherwise I don't think she would ever have left my abusive father and I would have had a really terrible life. Thank God she was smart enough to make her own bank because nothing is guaranteed. Sorry but only a dummy has no backup plan in today's society.

  • Report
  

  by delyciouzxma on January 3rd, 2010

• I know what you're saying, delyciouzxma! Really! I do! And. . . .I know an education is VERY important; ESPECIALLY as a "back up" plan! But if a woman, even after getting her education, could stay home and take care of her children (assuming she's married to a good, caring, loving, supportive, responsible mna) while her husband is off to work and support his family, I think children would be FAR better off in almost ALL areas of their lives. Yes! It IS a sacrifice for a woman to have to postpone or even give up her career, but biologically speaking that's where the onus lies; with the MOTHER! If women DON'T want to stay at home and take care of their children (assuming that's an option for them) then I see the answer as quite simple. . . . . . . . . .DON'T HAVE CHILDREN!!!! It's just that simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for your comment, though! It IS appreciated as is your opinion! Have a terrific day today, delyciouzxma! And make it a terrific 2010!

  • Report
  

  by Millenium - The Mysterious M. . . GONE! on January 4th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• It simple she is a right wing conservative spokes person who refuses to accept that society has changed and in fact seems vehement on denouncing anything that has occurred in the past few decades as being anything other than a detriment to the accepted right wing view of what a "family" should be.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• I agree, it's a good point. People who don't spend time with their children should just not have had children, unless it is one of those single parent situations

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on May 18th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• this is very true.this is showing the kids a good example of how life is & that if you want nice things you work for them.benefits you get the very basics.its not living is scrapping by & settlin 4 2nd best.

  • Report
  

  by nic76garrett on April 22nd, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• amen!!!!!!!!!! im so glad my momma left my dead beat woman beating dad and went to college and provided for us.

  • Report
  

  by delyciouzxma on January 3rd, 2010

• Lol! Glad to hear that! My Mom was in a similar situation, and she really toughed it out! Thank God for women like our mothers!

  • Report
  

  by thebabbster on January 4th, 2010

• no its not fair! but if the father is abusive ,then its sad for the kids!!!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Katrina_N on January 7th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• ...as far as you know.

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on May 16th, 2010

• Well they are both in their 20's now and we certainly haven't had any problems with them.

  • Report
  

  by Nightwatchdog on May 16th, 2010

• Again, as far as you know. It's not like it matters because they're so old now, but kids don't tell you when they skip classes, do drugs or accidently get themselves knocked up or infested with crabs. They just haven't gotten into any really intense trouble. I know I could be wrong, but I'm just making a point.

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on May 18th, 2010

Comments

• I had a stay at home mom, and the first paragraph suits my childhood to a T, while I never came home to freshly baked goods. Either way, one could argue that chores reach children responsibility, they can take the bus to school, and the mother can bake at night and have their freshly baked goods waiting for them for breakfast.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 2nd, 2010

• Well, I'm sorry that you had such a crappy childhood, and yes, chores may teach children responsibility, but that's not really something they need to know until they reach highschool, at the youngest. Wouldn't you rather have only had homework and that lamp you broke playing with your friends to worry about when you were younger? And I'm not saying you actually broke a lamp, it was theoretical.

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on June 9th, 2010

• I didn't have a "crappy childhood." You don't have to be completely free of responsibility to be happy. It's better to build things like chores into your schedule earlier because not many teens I know want to add to their job and school with housework they've never had to do before.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 10th, 2010

• well, whatever, I manage.

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on June 10th, 2010

• ??????????
  
  Children do not need to do chores or know about responsibility until high school? Good luck on that one.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

• Sorry I must've missed this before: "not many teens I know want to add to their job and school with housework they've never had to do before."
  
  They shouldn't have to. Even a teen that has done chores all their life shouldn't have school, a job AND chores. Like if a kid who does chores gets a job, their first day of work should be their last day of chores. We have to go to school, so everything else is a one or the other deal. All three would leave no time for anything else.
  A shirt I read today said 'how am I supposed to get better at video games when I have to be at school 7 hours a day?'

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on August 4th, 2010

• See I have a bit of a different take. My kids always had chores to do around the house. Chores were also not gender based they all had a rotating schedule of responsibilities around the house. Including cooking, washing, mending, ironing, yard work and handy man type of repair work.
  
  Our take was that a job was an extra curricular activity. That they could go out and get a job if they wished to but if their school work began to suffer the job was cut. School and getting an education was their primary job and chores were about being part of a family and learning to be self sufficient on the home front. The last thing we wanted was for our kids to be locked into gender specific association regarding the roles of a woman and a man within a marriage. It worked for us but I know this take isn't for every one. My kids spouses seem to appreciate the knowledge we gave them, my sons can cook, clean, sew, and change a diaper with the best of em. My daughter can as well but she also knows basic automotive repair, electrical wiring,etc., and isn't to prod to get into a task and get dirty when required of her.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 4th, 2010

• That's totally cool. I just have one question, at any point that your kids weren't working, especially at times when you'd cut them off, did you pay for things they wanted? Even if it was like a 'pay me back when you get a job' kind of thing.

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on August 5th, 2010

• Yes but we also had "cash" bonuses for grades and maintained GPA's. F, D, or C no payment, $50.00 for each B and $100.00 for each A. When report cards came a 3.5 was the lowest and it was worth $350.00 with a 4.0 receiving $500.00. If they did extra curricular or additional work depending upon what it was and what they got this also got them extra money. It is amazing how serious kids can get about their school work when they know that just like work they will be rewarded/paid for good work.
  
  If they needed extra cash for something that they wanted but did not necessarily need we would barter with them. By this what was done was find a thing at the house that needed doing say like cleaning and organizing the garage or storage shed or if we were going to replace the lawn for example they would take on doing or helping with these jobs over a given amount of time and once completed to our satisfaction we would purchase said item for them. This helped to teach them the value of good hard work and the cost of desired items.

  • Report
  

  by zyrblue on August 5th, 2010

• Pretty sweet deal. My mom makes me load and unload the dishes sometimes, gives me a lecture about trying harder when I don't get good grades and buys me stuff, more often when she works, less often when dad doesn't.

  • Report
  

  by Starla24 on August 5th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• LAir

  • Report
  

  by CaRbOnPrOdUcK is Baccuss on May 11th, 2010

• Lol.. yeah, that's real great.
  "Sorry bobby, mommy is away at the office to actually teach you how to be independent and not get eaten up in the adult world. Love ya. Dinner's in the fridge".
  
  And first hand work ethic? First hand work ethic is actually having them work, when they observe you work that's more like second-hand, and when they don't see how you work and they don't see what you do at your job, that's just third-hand, and you can't even call it that. How can you teach a kid work ethic? By showing up to work everyday? If that's what you consider work, just showing up, then that's still not going to work.

  • Report
  

  by MsSmartAss on July 9th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments