True. But my 12 month olds immune system has been completely wiped. He doesn't even get a chance to get well before another sickness hits him. Its just really hard when you drop your child off in a baby room full of snotty nose kids that you know are just swapping germs. I don't have the option to stay at home....but if I did I could atleast keep him away from illnesses long enough to boost his immune system up so he could have a chance in fighting the germs.

I was able to stay at home for several years after my children were born. There is nothing better than being able to spend the day with your child instilling in them the values and morals you deem important. Then the worst happened.....the divorce. I can tell a huge difference in my children since they have been in the daycare system for the last two years. Children imitate those they are around day to day. If a child is spending more time in a daycare setting with unbehaved, ill-mannered, rude, overly hyper children, then that's what they will pick up. I think if there is any way a mother ( or even a father ) could stay at home with the child.....then they should. Do we have children so we can let someone else raise them??? Have we put our "professions" as a priority over our family? It's sad, but often the answer is "yes".

I have always been happy with the christian schools for my 6 year old. He went to day-care at the christian schools starting at the age of 3. The instilled the values I believed in and the children were well behaved. If the children weren't well behaved then they couldn't stay there. If the parents couldn't help the child to do better and the school couldn't then they were just impacting all the other children's daily routines. It may be sad but it is what happened and I do think it was for the best. I just haven't found anywhere for my 1 year old like this yet. And he is picking up on some bad habits right now from ill behaved children. He was bit three times last week and now he is starting to bite. Ugh!!

I'm a stay at home dad, sorta. I work at home on the computer doing things most people have no clue about(although some may think they do), I consult our family business, and I attend school. However, if ppl see you playing with ure kid Monday afternoon, they assume your cutting yourself short. I've gotten some rude remarks from ppl. They act as if I'm playing housewife at my wife's mercy! I told some ppl who live in other states about it and they perceive it as stereotypical Oklahoma.
ugh! trapped..hehe

I know that this is an old thread, but I couldn't resist. We have all heard the saying, "It's the quality, not the quantity" that counts, and I believe it when it comes to rearing children. There are mothers on welfare who are home all of the time that are not providing quality guidance for their children, as well as those who are. There are full time working parents, one or two parents who are doing the same. There are parents of the same sex who are also doing the same...so, what is the common denominator when it comes to providing quality guidance for your children? This is my opinion, and probably only my opinion, but I truly believe that most important is that we, as a parent, live what we teach...our children are going to imitate us, whether we like it or not, so I don't think it's the amount of time that you spend with your child, but how you spend the time that you do have with them.

Yes, GrandMaMa!

My mom worked, and I still managed to turn out okay. My dad was a SAHD, due to an injury, but he didn't do much at home. His injury kind of prevented him from being very active. However, my sister and I grew up to be very educated, cultured young ladies who sought a university education in the arts, and we had dinner at the table 6 out of 7 times a week, depending on activity schedules. Though my mom worked, her time was "quality" with us; her presence was always known.

Of course there are children of lawyers, doctors, and other professionals that never see their parents. The only folks they know as mommy and daddy are the nannies.

True Uptown. Nannies though? A good boarding/military school would be my choice.

What's the point of having kids if you're just going to send them off to boarding school?

Carrying on the family name, grandkids, summers and vacations.

I don't think it's an option for me really. You never know though. If I had an out of control kids, I'd send them to a military school in a heartbeat.

Carrying on the family name, grandkids, summers and vacations.

I don't think it's an option for me really. You never know though. If I had an out of control kids, I'd send them to a military school in a heartbeat.
You've got to be kidding. Send them to military school, and let them raise your kids because you could not handle them? Out of control kids= bad parenting.

But just because there are a few parents out there who neglect their kids for work doesn't mean they ALL do. Most of my friends and I had working parents and we weren't neglected. We all have good relationships with our parents, at least, better than what most would believe people my age (mid-20's) would have with their parents.

You can't just make a blanket statement like "All mothers who work for a living are bad mothers and neglect their kids." SO not true.

Also--you can't say that all out of control kids are a result of bad parenting. This just isn't true, either. Sometimes it can be some sort of disorder, a learning difference, bullies at school or some other kind of abuse that's not coming from the home. From what I can tell, kids with either lash out or hide in a shell, but there aren't many in-betweeners. I have seen/met frustrated parents who have done everything by the book and their child is still the spawn of Satan.

You've got to be kidding. Send them to military school, and let them raise your kids because you could not handle them? Out of control kids= bad parenting.

Out of control kids does not equal bad parenting. My guess is that in my line of work, I've come into contact with a lot more "normal" families than you have. Teenagers can become 'out of control' regardless of how skilled and loving the parents are. Some kids will make bad choices, give in to addiction, follow bad friends, join gangs. You can't watch them 24/7 and you can't keep them under lock and key.

I'm an outcome based person. I think that if you think that you can give your child a better life by sending them to military school or a boarding school for a few years, you're cheating them by not doing so. Having children should be 100% about what's best for the kids, not what's best for the parents. If having your kids not end up as felons involves sending them to someplace where they can keep them under lock and key and can watch them 24/7, then go for it.

The number one reason to stay home with your children:
Because your mother in law thinks you should.
Because your mother in law thinks you shouldn't.

OK, tacky but I couldn't resist.

If possible, yes, a mother should stay home with her children. I was a work outside the home parent with my oldest (now age 29) and a stay at parent with my younger kids (ages 16 and 18).

From experience, stay at home is better.

Carrying on the family name, grandkids, summers and vacations.

I don't think it's an option for me really. You never know though. If I had an out of control kids, I'd send them to a military school in a heartbeat.

That's a pretty poor reason to have children. If someone doesn't have the time to raise their children, they shouldn't have children. Having children under those circumstances is pretty irresponsible.

And, we weren't discussing out of control kids, so I don't know where that came from. We were discussing children whose parents didn't have the time to raise them. You need to learn how to stay on topic.

But just because there are a few parents out there who neglect their kids for work doesn't mean they ALL do. Most of my friends and I had working parents and we weren't neglected. We all have good relationships with our parents, at least, better than what most would believe people my age (mid-20's) would have with their parents.

You can't just make a blanket statement like "All mothers who work for a living are bad mothers and neglect their kids." SO not true.

I agree. I was referring more to the white collar folks that work 10 hours a day at the office, then go out and play golf with their buds, then hit the bar, and come home around midnight. They never see their kids. Like I said, live in nannies take care of them.

Out of control kids does not equal bad parenting.

It depends. If parents doesn't give a damn about their child, obviously the child is going to try to find a family somewhere else. It's been shown, that most kids that join gangs do so to fill the void of a missing family structure. The gang in a sense becomes their family.

Also, families with no discpline have been shown to lead to troubled kids.

Children from broken homes tend to have more baggage than children from privileged homes, for the most part.

Parents tend to set the example for their children. If the parents are smoking dope, it's likely the children are going to follow suit.

Sure, there are parents who spend all the time in the world with their kids, and their kids turn out bad.

It works both ways.

That is the problem that I have with my son in day-care. He is 12 months old and my mother in law kept him as long as her health allowed her to. He has been sick non stop the last 3 months since I had to put him in day-care. It has cost me so much money. Doctor's co-payments, prescription cost, the money lost from work, the attitude from co-workers for me leaving when the daycare calls. Sometimes I just think it would be best to stay home. I pay $1200 a month total for day-care and private school for my 5 year old.When you say day care an private school, are you referring to the same establishment? How many days a week does he attend and what hours? I know that it seems that I am being nosy, but I'm going somewhere with this.

I agree. I was referring more to the white collar folks that work 10 hours a day at the office, then go out and play golf with their buds, then hit the bar, and come home around midnight. They never see their kids. Like I said, live in nannies take care of them.That's the second time I have heard the term, "Nannies" like it was a dirty word. It is not! My husband was cared for by a nanny for most of his young years and has wonderful memories of her, his family and his youth. Cultures are different in different countries and you can't paint all with the same broad brush. I still don't believe that there has to be an "either/or" solution when it comes to one parent staying at home with the children. When the situation is handled correctly and in a positive way, it can be a reality based learning situation and doesn't necessarily have to detract from their closeness or lack of it, with either of their parents. Children instinctly know where they are on the priority ladder, it doesn't matter whether or not both parents are working two jobs, I still say it's the example that you set for your children and how you treat them and how you teach them to treat others (and themselves) that count. This is somewhat off topic, but is mentioned to add to my point. You can religiously attend a house of worship, but if you curse each other and have a huge family fight getting there each time (so you aren't late) then it doesn't matter what they are dishing out at church, the children learned their lesson at home before they left for church.

That's a pretty poor reason to have children. If someone doesn't have the time to raise their children, they shouldn't have children. Having children under those circumstances is pretty irresponsible.

That's awfully judgmental. Boarding schools/military schools could certainly give a child a better life than many could ever hope to have.


And, we weren't discussing out of control kids, so I don't know where that came from. We were discussing children whose parents didn't have the time to raise them. You need to learn how to stay on topic.

Again.. oh snap! Taking it to me again?

It's a seven page subject. You're going to have to learn to tolerate a little topic modulation. Out of control kids, if the parents don't have the time to "control" them, the parents should have the decency to let someone else have a shot. Therefore, boarding and military schools have a very useful and beneficial role. Perhaps not as a first option, but as a last resort.

-- and if a parent knows off the bat that they simply aren't able to provide the environment that their kids need, then they can easily turn them over to someone who can. That's the unselfish thing to do -- otherwise, you end up with your stereotypical spoiled rich kids.

Uptown, you seem awfully hostile to anything that doesn't fit with your narrow world view.

Mid, please stop saying oh snap. Seriously. My students say that. It just makes you sound more white than you already are.

It's 100% on purpose.

I actually think it reads as quasi-effeminate. I use these quasi-effeminate phrases as reminders of how certain individuals whining about topic is also quasi-effeminate (or even wholly).

Again, I see I have missed the mark :(

oh snap LOL

( much better 's' word than what I say when I'm perturbed! )

Mid, please stop saying oh snap. Seriously. My students say that. It just makes you sound more white than you already are.:butbutbut Oh. Lordy me, Missy bandnerd, is "white" a bad thing?

GrandMaMa--it's just a joke ;) When you teach as many minorities as I do (literally one class has only one white student in there and me) it just becomes a little joke.

And it's just meant to be, well, have you ever seen a white guy who really can't dance, has no soul, no rhythm, or is really nerdy? That's what "white" is. Vanilla. Plain. No flava.

That's the second time I have heard the term, "Nannies" like it was a dirty word. It is not! My husband was cared for by a nanny for most of his young years and has wonderful memories of her, his family and his youth.

Right, wonderful memories of the nanny. That's because his parents were probably never around. Thanks to the nanny for raising him, because it sounds like the parents sure didn't. Might as well sign custody over to the nanny.

Wow, way to presume you know the person's upbringing, Uptown. It says "...wonderful memories of her, his FAMILY, and his youth."

Right, wonderful memories of the nanny. That's because his parents were probably never around. Thanks to the nanny for raising him, because it sounds like the parents sure didn't. Might as well sign custody over to the nanny.
Isn't that the truth? Nannies are only needed when the parents are too busy to spend time with their kids, and don't take the time to raise them.

It's kind of like those that would rather send their child to military school instead of dealing with their problems. Military schools and nannies are about the same, because they are both used by parents to raise their children when they should be raising their children themselves.

BTW, it gets tiring to see bandnerd come to Midtowners defense everytime he sticks his foot in his mouth. Give it a rest.

Isn't that the truth? Nannies are only needed when the parents are too busy to spend time with their kids, and don't take the time to raise them.

It's kind of like those that would rather send their child to military school instead of dealing with their problems. Military schools and nannies are about the same, because they are both used by parents to raise their children when they should be raising their children themselves.

BTW, it gets tiring to see bandnerd come to Midtowners defense everytime he sticks his foot in his mouth. Give it a rest.
Firstly, I've never seen the instance where anyone had to come to Midtowner's defense, in any way. Secondly, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you would realize that a nanny is an intregral part of a family. If you are in the mood to google, you will find both of my husband's parents (deceased) listed in positions that served their communities as well as their country, in addition to their participating in both of their sons educational and recreational pursuits. Maj Gen Russell Heyn was head of the Sri Lankan Army after he contributed greatly to their educational system and served in light Army. His mother was administrator of the local hospital and worked diligently to help inprove the living conditions and human rights in their country. Both of their sons went on to be well educated, well rounded, community minded individuals that played international sports (soccer, cricket and hockey), something that their father not only passed down the gened that helped, but spent what time he could to facilitate their development. So, if you think that having someone siimilar to an aunt or grandmother living with a family, AS FAMILY, helping care for the children is inappropriate, I would like for you to give solid reasons, and not just spout off to hear your fingers make noise on your keyboard.

Excuse me? Do you really think Midtowner needs someone to come to his defense? And so what if I did come to his defense? He has come to mine on occasion, as well.

SOME of us are willing to be friendly here. There are a few here, very limited few that is, that I would defend if they needed it.

I also fail to see how I came to his defense. The "oh snap" thing was heartfelt...I hear it enough at school, I don't have to read it here, as well. But it was really just a joke and if you can't handle a silly little joke then my god, I'm so sorry to have a sense of humor, lame as it may be.

Excuse me? Do you really think Midtowner needs someone to come to his defense? And so what if I did come to his defense? He has come to mine on occasion, as well.

SOME of us are willing to be friendly here. There are a few here, very limited few that is, that I would defend if they needed it.

I also fail to see how I came to his defense. The "oh snap" thing was heartfelt...I hear it enough at school, I don't have to read it here, as well. But it was really just a joke and if you can't handle a silly little joke then my god, I'm so sorry to have a sense of humor, lame as it may be.

:congrats:

Are you applauding because you agree with the whole post or just the part about my sense of humor being lame? ;)

:congrats:

Are you laughing?

GrandMaMa--it's just a joke ;) When you teach as many minorities as I do (literally one class has only one white student in there and me) it just becomes a little joke.

And it's just meant to be, well, have you ever seen a white guy who really can't dance, has no soul, no rhythm, or is really nerdy? That's what "white" is. Vanilla. Plain. No flava.

It'shttp://www.ryanbuck.com/Images/front.gif

versus

http://datapanik.com/photo/gallery/flava.JPG

-- understand?

Right, wonderful memories of the nanny. That's because his parents were probably never around. Thanks to the nanny for raising him, because it sounds like the parents sure didn't. Might as well sign custody over to the nanny.

That's actually quite hilarious.

Uptown, you're usually one to be judgmental, but this time bud, you don't have any of the facts or even enough to make an educated inference.

So you assume from this: ____________.

... that I was raised by third persons who were not my parents? Completely untrue.

Although the thread of military school was leveraged against me on many occasions, it was never actually followed through with. I was lucky though -- luckier than many kids whose parents have responsibilities beyond the household.

If a child is out of control, Uptown, what do you propose to do about this? Allow the parents to 'handle it,' which is an iffy proposition every time, or would you support sending the kid to a military school with is more of a 95% proposition to get the kid straigtened out.

I'm one to favor that which has a higher rate of success. There's nothing wrong with boarding school or military school. In fact, those environements can build great character in young men, foster academic growth, and generally allow certain kids who need rigid structure to thrive. Not all parents are capable of supporting their children in the way their children need to be supported. When that happens, they should be unselfish enough to send their kids to the best possible place to get that attention.

BTW, it gets tiring to see bandnerd come to Midtowners defense everytime he sticks his foot in his mouth. Give it a rest.

Now that is funny.

Bring it on big man.. show them why I need others to defend me.

It'shttp://www.ryanbuck.com/Images/front.gif

versus

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/flava.jpg

-- understand?

Dadgummit, the bottom pic isnt' visible.

Moderator Note: GrandMaMa, I fixed the pic for you.
- Patrick

It's supposed to be a pic of Flava Flav...the rapper with the big clock around his neck.

It's supposed to be a pic of Flava Flav...the rapper with the big clock around his neck.

This IS funny! I just assumed that Midtowner was following up with the explaination and I didn't even notice who posted...it was you, coming to his defense again......:tweeted:

fixed.

Dangit. I did it again. Gah.

In reference to the original topic of this thread, i believe it is a personal preference as to whether or not mommy should stay at home. In fact in many circumstances, the mother doesnt have a choice for economic reasons. When you need to have two sources of income, should you put your entire family into poverty simply so that you can ascribe to ALWAYShaving mommy at home theory? Next on the line, Nannie is not a derogatory term. Which would you prefer, putting your child into daycare, or having someone who they can actually become familar with, and socialize with? Nannies are good things, as long as you still know and play with you children. Now, parents who use nannies to simply dodge the responsibility that they created i completely disapprove of.

also, jeez bandnerd you are just such a horrible poster, how dare you break the golden rule of not allowing people to troll, or allowing other people to be flamed. YOU ARE A HORRIBLE PERSON!!! How dare you do such sacrilege!!!!http://romaine.home.pipeline.com/pics/cat/jpgs/Cat-shame-Img_0660.jpg

Now that is funny.

Bring it on big man.. show them why I need others to defend me.
It's called weakness, which you have plenty of.

It's called weakness, which you have plenty of.

oh snap.
(bandnerd, that was for you)

Excuse me? Do you really think Midtowner needs someone to come to his defense? And so what if I did come to his defense? He has come to mine on occasion, as well.

SOME of us are willing to be friendly here. There are a few here, very limited few that is, that I would defend if they needed it.

I also fail to see how I came to his defense. The "oh snap" thing was heartfelt...I hear it enough at school, I don't have to read it here, as well. But it was really just a joke and if you can't handle a silly little joke then my god, I'm so sorry to have a sense of humor, lame as it may be.
Please don't take this wrong, but you, Midtowner, and GrandMaMa, have got to be the rudest, most unfriendly people on this forum. The last thing you are is friendly. You are all hateful to people that post things that don't agree with your views. Then, if they disagree with you, your boyfriend comes to your defense or visa versa. I don't need anyone to defend my statements.

BTW, I am not calling anybody names and never have. The words in one of my posts, wicked and hateful, were adjectives. I guess you missed that part in school.

Anyway, I went off topic, which I apologize to the moderators for. Some things just need to be said.

Southsider -- are "rudest" and "most unfriendly" adjectives like "wicked"? If I were to call you names which would involve 'curse words,' would those not also be adjectives? Adjectives are words which describe nouns. Insults, abusive words, as we say in message board speak "flames" are almost always adjectives.

Take this hypothetical to see how "name calling" and "adjective calling" are not different in the least (keep in mind that these are just examples!):

"OKCSouthSider is a backslider."

versus

"Hey backslider!"

Again, we're being quite diplomatic. In fact, we're just pointing out that your style of witnessing is terribly lacking. In fact, it's more likely to push people away from God than it is to bring people closer -- at least in my estimation. Can you tell me the name of the last soul you saved by calling the person wicked and hateful?

You'll have to learn to understand that disagreeing with you is not rude.

I'd love to understand your background and why you apparently are having such problems with accepting and tolerating viewpoints which are not your own. You seem profoundly disturbed by this -- or at least that's how you're coming through on my end.

Ok, i have to say a trend i notice Southsider, you have 3-4 posts in this thread, and ALL of them have quotes of midtowner, and then you saying what you believe, and then generally simply saying something derogatory about towner or nerd in one case. Its funny, either you are intentionally causing conflict, or you feel the need to destroy anothers ethos(personal character), because your personal arguments just arent enuff.

I'd just like to see actual examples of how I've ever been really rude to anyone here. I've never used "adjectives" like wicked, hateful, unfriendly, or rude to "describe" anyone's actions. I've attacked people's arguments, and occasionally call them out as being unfounded in any truth, but I have never said they were rude. Closed-minded, maybe. But very few people in some of these more charged threads have been nice to me.

Examples of previous posts:
From the evolution thread: "It's not that ape DNA is similar, Uptown, it's that it is ONE chromosome away from ours. One. Saying that rat DNA is similar is a moot point." I didn't attack anyone, just the idea.

From the Shoving religion thread: "Whatever. We don't ALL support Christian organizations. Sometimes I think they aren't just there to give medical aid but to push Christianity on people who might prefer keeping their own traditions alive." I might not have been *as* nice here, but I didn't call anyone any adjectives.

From the Should mom stay at home thread: "But just because there are a few parents out there who neglect their kids for work doesn't mean they ALL do. Most of my friends and I had working parents and we weren't neglected. We all have good relationships with our parents, at least, better than what most would believe people my age (mid-20's) would have with their parents.

You can't just make a blanket statement like "All mothers who work for a living are bad mothers and neglect their kids." SO not true." Again, I do not see how I am unfriendly.

I know that whatever I say will be taken with a grain of salt. This is only a message board, after all. But it irks me to have someone say completely untrue things about me. There are people on this board that know me in real life and the words unfriendly and/or rude are words that would not be used to describe me.

I would also like to add that if you have any more issues with me, you should take it up in PM's. I also have not mentioned any other poster's names here, lest I show any favoritism OR that I enjoy reading other people's posts.

I thought it was pretty rude when Midtowner tried to tell me I had been misdiagnosed, and was trying to challenge the fact that I wasn't healed, as if he knows my circumstance.

Spina bifida is caused by a failure of the vertebrae to close, and leads to spinal cord damage, which causes paralysis. I know what I lived with for 17 years of my life, and I know that today I can walk, right after a minister layed his hands on me and annointed me with oil.

For someone to sit there and challenge that I was handicap, I think is pretty low.

But at the same time, I saw that he was trying to debate an issue, so I interpreted it as that.

Please don't take this wrong, but you, Midtowner, and GrandMaMa, have got to be the rudest, most unfriendly people on this forum. The last thing you are is friendly. You are all hateful to people that post things that don't agree with your views. Then, if they disagree with you, your boyfriend comes to your defense or visa versa. I don't need anyone to defend my statements.

BTW, I am not calling anybody names and never have. The words in one of my posts, wicked and hateful, were adjectives. I guess you missed that part in school.

Anyway, I went off topic, which I apologize to the moderators for. Some things just need to be said.

Me, rude and unfriendly? How so? I'm just a little 'ole lady that finds it difficult to sit in a room full of BS and not call it like it I see it. When I post, I do attempt to use generally accepted references that are not biased either ethically nor religiously or I will draw from my own life experiences. I do, however, find it somewhat insulting and intolerable to have to forage through a post that is, in my opinion, filled with intolerance, ignorance, biased and lazily written. Now, if the shoe fits, wear it. If not, I suggest you dust your own off and keep on, keeping on with all of your good work.

In addition, on topic and in my own opinion, I will repeat that it is the quality, not quantity of time spent with your child that is most important. I have yet to hear your valid reasoning that will attempt to refute that statement.

Me, rude and unfriendly? How so? I'm just a little 'ole lady that finds it difficult to sit in a room full of BS and not call it like it I see it. When I post, I do attempt to use generally accepted references that are not biased either ethically nor religiously or I will draw from my own life experiences. I do, however, find it somewhat insulting and intolerable to have to forage through a post that is, in my opinion, filled with intolerance, ignorance, biased and lazily written. Now, if the shoe fits, wear it. If not, I suggest you dust your own off and keep on, keeping on with all of your good work.

In addition, on topic and in my own opinion, I will repeat that it is the quality, not quantity of time spent with your child that is most important. I have yet to hear your valid reasoning that will attempt to refute that statement.
:poke: Whoa..........Where have I been?

By the way...Hi GrandMaMa, it's good to see you posting.:Smiley199

I can't believe that I missed seeing this thread. I remember when it first started out, but I sure didn't know things had gotten a little crazy. Ole Patrick informed me that things kinda got outa whack, but it looks like we are back on track. I don't see any TOS violations, just a rambunctious (sp?) poster. Thanks, GrandMama for getting us back to the subject.

I still maintain my position that if both parents want to work, then they should work. There are too many resources out there to not fulfill your career dreams.

Children are not currently in my plan, but I know if I were to have one (and I assure you, it would only be one) I wouldn't stop working except for the requisite maternity leave just to get healed up and get things established. I didn't go to UCO for my MRS. degree.

Geez. If they're "rude and unfriendly," obviously I'm not trying hard enough. :)

:poke: Whoa..........Where have I been?

By the way...Hi GrandMaMa, it's good to see you posting.:Smiley199

I can't believe that I missed seeing this thread. I remember when it first started out, but I sure didn't know things had gotten a little crazy. Ole Patrick informed me that things kinda got outa whack, but it looks like we are back on track. I don't see any TOS violations, just a rambunctious (sp?) poster. Thanks, GrandMama for getting us back to the subject.







Missed you too, it's interesting and educational, but so far, it seems like all ofus are trying to color within the lines.

I still maintain my position that if both parents want to work, then they should work. There are too many resources out there to not fulfill your career dreams.

Children are not currently in my plan, but I know if I were to have one (and I assure you, it would only be one) I wouldn't stop working except for the requisite maternity leave just to get healed up and get things established. I didn't go to UCO for my MRS. degree.
From that post it sounds like you probably shouldn't have kids any time soon; if you did it would most likely be for all the wrong reasons. And if you decide not to well,
there's nothing wrong with not having them either. ;)

I still maintain my position that if both parents want to work, then they should work. There are too many resources out there to not fulfill your career dreams.

Children are not currently in my plan, but I know if I were to have one (and I assure you, it would only be one) I wouldn't stop working except for the requisite maternity leave just to get healed up and get things established. I didn't go to UCO for my MRS. degree.

If there's no need for the woman to work, i.e. the man is makig boat loads of money, the woman shouldn't work. Simple as that.

The reason so many families are falling apart in today's society is because mother is no longer at home to teach the children right from wrong. What our children are missing now is time with their parents.

From that post it sounds like you probably shouldn't have kids any time soon; if you did it would most likely be for all the wrong reasons. And if you decide not to well,
there's nothing wrong with not having them either. ;)

I agree completely. bandnerd shouldn't have children. She wouldn't have time to spend with them anyways, because she'd be too busy working. And it doesn't sound like she'd be interested in having to take off to take care of her children. Children simple require more time than cats, bandnerd.

one, if there is no need for the mother to work, it should be up to her whether or not to work. Where is this idea derived from? The cult of domesticity is long gone! Next i find that any talking about the worthiness of an individual having children is FAR outside the bounds of this question. This topic is Should mom stay at home?, not I think bandnerd would be a bad mother.

If there's no need for the woman to work, i.e. the man is makig boat loads of money, the woman shouldn't work. Simple as that.

The reason so many families are falling apart in today's society is because mother is no longer at home to teach the children right from wrong. What our children are missing now is time with their parents.

Uptown, as someone who makes his living from the transaction cost of divorce, I can assure you that you're absolutely wrong.

As to the rest of that tripe, it's so innane that it's not worth replying to.