I have read enough! I think that you are ignorant and uneducated. I cannot stand to read poor grammar, and I have seen it enough. You call Kim and Christine ignorant, stupid, immature, moron, and other nice adult names because of the way that they are choosing to raise their children. You have never met them, interacted with them, and definitely never met their children. But you are the stupid one! And I don't have to know you to tell you that! You need to get a dictionary. I know that everyone else has said that, and they want you to look up the words "abuse," "spanking," and "hitting." My request is simpler. Look up the difference in the words "then," and "than." The words are different, with completely different meanings and use. YOU sound really stupid here! Maybe it's just me, but when you are calling someone stupid, you may just want to proofread and/or spell check!

And I bet that you are the lady in Wal-Mart, the mall, the grocery store, etc. with the screaming kids who do not get corrected. They can't very well get a timeout on the bread isle now can they! So with that, your only disciplinary option removed, they just get to yell and piss off people like me with their whiny, bitchy wailing! Ugh! and in your words, "eeew."

__________________

My Blog

With your reasoning, you say that spanking as discipline does not work because in the child's mind, they see, "If I walk into the street again, I will just get spanked." Ok. So you propose that the scared parent do what? Give kiddo a timeout? Ok. So, according to your reasoning, now the child sees, "If I walk into the street again I will have to sit in the corner."

Either both forms of punishment work, or neither of them do! Because the child sees everything as cause and effect. I think that either way you go about it, an explanation of why it is WRONG is needed, and completely possible. Before or during both types of punishment you can easily explain the bad things that can happen. You make your argument saying that the child associates that spanking with walking into the street, 2 + 2 = 4, I walk into the street, therefore I get spanked. Are you saying that the only way he or she will know what will happen is if it happens? Are you proposing that I stand him/her in front of the grill of my car and blow the horn for 5 or so minutes instead?

__________________

My Blog

1. How can you say that you have all this compassion when you use the words "compassionate," and "*****" in the same sentence! Your kids will have such potty mouths lady! Good. You are in Wisconsin, far from the ears of my children.
2. Bush is a nice southerner. Not a crazy hippee damn-near Canadian like you. *and so you know, the first sentence, sarcasm. The second one, not so much.
3. I don't know Kim myself, but you are implying that all Republicans support the war. And in your views, that means that they support going over there and dying. Not true. For some, supporting the war means supporting the cause and wanting to eradicate terrorism. For others it means ridding Iraq of wmd's that didn't exist. For still other people, it means supporting the soldiers who are there, fighting, after all, THEY signed up for it. Not me! They weren't drafted, they did it!
4a. Healthcare for all is a great idea. It would make things much less expensive. In turn, doctors would essentially be government employees, or, at the least, government contractors, and they would not make as much money because it would be very evenly distributed. Then part of the draw to be a doctor (LOADS OF $$) would no longer exist. Also, ask your neighbors to the north there how long it takes them to get in to see that doctor? A much longer time! Appointment wait is drastically higher. Watch or read the news.
4b. First off, it is called welfare. "Duh." How old are you? Jesus. Oops. Just ignore that word since it doesn't exist
No. I am very against welfare. I am all for this other program, called GetADamnJob. While I believe that some programs are helpful to an extent (WIC, Subsidized Housing, Even Food Stamps), I don't think a check to cash is helpful. I think that the check might as well have the words, "beer, drugs, and new clothes" printed in the memo line. Theoretically that program is a nice sweet idea, but there are no checks and balances. Some people use it right, but so many don't. And I am left buying their cigarettes, cocaine, and gold chains. Next question. . .
5. Why would any mother vote for a party who thinks that abortion is right? I personally did not vote in this election. To be quite honest, despite my wit, intellect, and humorous intelligence, I was not old enough to vote in the election prior to it! But I didn't vote because I was not really behind either. And voting independent is just futile. It's waiting in line just to be there. If I had voted, I would have voted Republican! GASP!!!! How could I do such a thing! What a terrible woman I must be! Shoot me!

I cannot rationalize voting for the Democratic party because of one of their more clear, controversial platform components. I cannot as a woman, a PREGNANT woman at that, vote for someone who thinks that abortion is supposed to be legal!

So because you did, you are saying that if at about month 2 or three, or possibly even six, you might have just had a really shitty day, said, "to hell with this throwing up and this back ache, I'm ending this now!" And you think that would be ok. Shame on you. And one big emphatic "eeew," as well.

__________________

My Blog

TO whoever wrote: Bush is a nice southerner. Please! Let's be real here. A "nice" person doesn't hide behind his father's coattails when it's time to serve in the army. A "nice" person doesn't start a war, allowing hundreds of thousands of innocents to be killed for his own selfish rationalization. A "nice" person would have treated the people affected by hurricane Katrina like human beings. A "nice" person would treat international institutions with respect and dignity. Instead of this "nice" person, we have a hit-em-up shoot-em-up cowboy in office who is just an embarrassment to the entire country. He is not, in my humble opinion, a "nice" person. He's a total idiot and 75% of the country cannot wait until he is gone.

Also, a vast majority of women are against abortion, but it's ridiculous to pick the leader of the free world based on his stand on abortion alone. Let's think a little wider here, and manybe expand your thoughts?

Did you just read half of it? I mean, you really did completely miss what I said right after it! Come on. I am disregarding everything else you said, just because you really didn't read what I wrote, and gave your clearly democratic views just because of what I said as a very obvious joke.

And like I said, I did not vote in that election. And as a woman, and almost a mother, I could very well base my political decisions on that one issue, because I feel very strongly about it. If there is one issue that you really care about, and feel very strongly about, you would probably do the same. Except, maybe in your case, those issues and the direction that you feel, is probably already Democratic anyway. As mine is Republican. I just happened to state mine, that is all. Quite simply, I think that baby murder is wrong. Sorry if that sounds crazy.

__________________

My Blog

OH come on. First of all, you assume I'm a Democrat, which is quite an assumption based on one short response I made. Second, abortion is certainly a volitile topic for everyone. All I said was if you base your decision on one topic we're doomed. You have to look at a person in their totality and decide based on that. I'm definitely anti-abortion, but I am also PRO supporting our children who need help and I am ANTI death penalty. How can the majority of Republicans be pro death penalty and pro life simultaneously? Not all mind you, because not everyone thinks alike. But the vast majority support those 2 issues, and it's hard for me to work out internally! Anyway, have a great day.

Oh, and the "Not a crazy hippee damn-near Canadian like you" comment....call me crazy but I really don't get it. I'm a well educated American living the American dream and I don't have to bash people and call people names just to make a point. Have a great Saturday!

I had never really thought of it like that, the "How can the majority of Republicans be pro death penalty and pro life simultaneously?" But, basically, to me, I would guess that I am! My way of explaining it would be that rapists and murderers did the crime, and deserve that punishment because they committed a horrible crime. And an unborn child is innocent. Good way to put it though.

And the other comment was to the author of the post I was responding to.

__________________

My Blog

Thanks for explaining. Have a good rest of the day.

The best thing about She knows is it allows us a place to find women with experience and advice on so many different topics, whereas in our normal every day lives these days we might not have the opportunity to come in contact with so many diverse women.

With that said, I would like each of us on here to strongly consider how important it is for us to share our experiences with each other in a constructive fashion. We need to learn how to care for our children from those who have already been through it.

I have been doing some real soul searching lately and this morning I found an article that really touched me. For those that are athiest, the article still applies.

"God's Wisdom
When we look at the makeup of men and women the wisdom of this arrangement is clear.
Men and women are different in their areas of weakness. We women are easier targets of deception and beguilement than the men are. It was no accident that the serpent singled out Eve in that first beguilement in the garden.
Meanwhile, men appear especially subject to lustful temptations in the areas of sex, power, and money. That is why history furnishes many examples of kings who had many wives, and few examples of queens who had many husbands, and why the world conquerors of history have been, without notable exception, males.
I think it is unnecessary to elaborate much on this. What is likely to be the outcome if you place older males, subject to lustful temptations, in a church Sunday school class with young females, subject to beguilement, and ask the males to lead in a discussion of love, sex, and how to nurse a baby? Would you want your daughter to be in attendance? The plan should be--that the older women should teach the young women the womanly arts--exhibits some obvious wisdom, doesn't it?
But there is much more wisdom in this plan than just that associated with the peculiar weakness of the sexes. Beyond the obvious impropriety of male involvement one must question the value of male instruction in the womanly arts. The simple question is: What do men really know about the womanly arts anyway?
What man has ever birthed a baby? What man has ever nursed a child? What man has ever related as mother to a child for even one day, let alone twenty years? What man has ever or will ever fathom the intricate complexity of God's design in woman, and the urges and emotions, unique to us, which God has built into our very beings that we might naturally and easily and yet with a profound skill which defies textbook description or explanation, nurture the next generation for Him?
Is it not obvious that men do now know, and that they cannot know? Is it not clear that they are not even equipped biologically to know in any experiential way what they would pretend to teach as experts?
The simple wisdom of God's pattern for the transmission of the womanly arts in the church is so plain it is a little difficult to imagine how it manages to be so routinely overlooked and so flagrantly flaunted in Christian circles today. How is it that from before Dr. Spock on down to the present time many Christian women have been looking to men to teach them how to mother? And how is that more than one man has been able to make a name for himself and a comfortable living besides by doing so?
The fact is that God has given men and women different roles in creation. That is why He has designed them so differently (have you noticed?). Man is in no better position to tell woman how to carry out her created role than she is to tell him how to carry out his. Male and female are two highly specialized expressions of mankind, and this created specialization prohibits anything even approaching expertise on the part of either in the other's created sphere.

The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia notes under the topic of Woman: [John Rea, "Woman," Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Voss, John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1817.]
The Hebrew word 'ishsha, "woman, wife," is thought to be derived from a root '-n'sh, "to be soft, delicate." While it is similar to Hebrew 'ish, "man", there is an intentional contrast in the meaning, for 'ish seems to come from a root '-y-sh, "to be strong"...
It is important to recognize that when God created mankind (Hebrew 'adam), when He made human beings in His image, He created them both male and female, not one or the other. Therefore the image of God appears equally in man the male and woman the female, and the peculiar personality characteristics of each sex are needed fully to mirror the nature of God. The very word 'ishsha for "woman" suggests her special God-given sensitivities and gifts in the emotional realm. These serve to enhance mankind. Woman has a special sensitivity to human needs which enables her to understand intuitively the situations and feelings of other people.
Yes, we females are specially equipped inside and out for the job of nurturing people. The males, try as they might, are just not built right for this, either inside or out.
Let's suppose a young woman goes to her rabbi for advice on how to deal with her crying baby. Since this falls in the category of teaching women "how to love their children", the young mother is unwittingly asking this male whom she respects to fill the shoes of an older woman for awhile. If he is wise (and wishes to preserve his dignity) he will follow the biblical pattern and promptly direct her to an experienced older woman.
If, on the other hand, he lacks wisdom, he will probably fail to see that this topic is, outside his domain. He graciously tries his best to help her (perhaps a bit reluctantly--after all, he has more important things to do). Since he is coming at the problem as a man, he reasons it out as a man and gives male advice. How does he feel when he hears a baby crying? He wishes the mother would take the child to the nursery and stop disrupting the worship service, of course. He doesn't stop to wonder why the baby might be crying or whether it might be in need of anything. He isn't naturally keyed in to the needs of the baby, you see--God didn't make him that way.
It doesn't bother him too much if a baby cries, as long as he doesn't have to listen. The "solution" is thus perfectly obvious to him. He tells the distraught mother, "Just put the baby in its crib, close the door, and go somewhere where you won't have to listen to the child. He can't cry forever, you know. When your baby is done crying then he can rejoin the rest of the family and nobody's peace will be disturbed.
Now I must point out here that this "solution" will work--after a fashion. It is indeed true that babies cannot cry forever. Once the baby reaches the point of physical exhaustion he will necessarily stop crying.
This "solution" leaves much to be desired, however. Let me point up just one objection, so as not to interrupt my example too severely.
In all my years of mothering I have never yet encountered a baby who cried for any other reason than that they had a need of some sort--to be changed, to be fed, to be comforted, etc. Every indication is that God gave babies the ability to cry so that they would have some means of communicating their needs to those responsible for their care. So this "solution" is like suggesting to the mother that the next time she is woken up by the insistent beeping of the smoke alarm outside her bedroom door, she should put a pillow over it so she won't have to listen to it and so she can get back to sleep--the battery can't last forever, you know.
But the mother at this point raises an objection of her own. She says, "But it tears me up inside when my baby cries. I don't want my baby to cry."
Being a man, he is very ill-equipped to understand what the mother is saying here. He is as unfamiliar with her mothering emotions as a man born blind is with light. But he has been trained in theology and he knows that people are born with a sin nature. So he finds it very easy to conclude that the baby knows it is tearing its mother up and that it is using this knowledge to manipulate its mother and get its own way. From this point on, the idea that the baby is simply trying to communicate a basic need and that God has given the mother these feelings because He wants her to meet that need would have little fascination for him even if someone were to mention it--the mother's problem has suddenly taken on cosmic spiritual dimensions. He is a male, and it is a holy war which he now sees.
He says, "He is trying to control you. You must ignore your feelings and use your head! If you love your son you will not give in to him. Crying never hurt anybody; in fact it's probably good for his lungs. You need to get control now, or the consequences could be severe for the future."
This is a man teaching how to mother from a male perspective. He has done the best he can with the knowledge he has, but, unfortunately, he does not realize that he has left His God-ordained sphere and that, as a result, he is way out of his depth. He does not understand that because of a certain congenital blindness to the womanly arts common to all males his ideas are falsely premised and his conclusions are far from the truth. He is unaware that his "help" will only hurt."

Thank you all for your point of views, and I look forward to more opportunities to learn from you experienced women.

__________________
Me, Tiffany - 27
DH Francis - 30
DD Talia - 2/25/05
DD Eva - 10/26/06

Are you f****ing kidding me?


More insulting, anti-woman propaganda from the Christian right. That is pure bullshit. Speak for yourself (obviously) and not all women, please.

Prior to the advent of Christianity, many of the world's religions promoted equality amongst the sexes and many were even matriarchal. Christianity set out immediately to quell the power of women and have since succeeded in diminishing their influence and importance in modern Christian cultures and societies.

Unfortunately for them, we women are much more tenacious than they would have us believe.

__________________

Which is why patriarchal religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam) and cultures prefer to keep women uneducated and out of the workforce. It makes them easier to control and manipulate. Funny that.

__________________

Seriously?!?!?! And even better, you bumped a 10 month old post to share that "wisdom."

__________________