creators home lifestyle web
Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar


Waiting for the Sun to Shine Dear Annie: All of my life, I've heard about the "golden years." Why are mine only black and gray? I have been married to my husband for 40 years. He has not been sexually capable for half that time. I understand that, but he also does not want to …Read more. Dreaded Decor Dear Annie: My mother-in-law has a decor that was personalized for her by my husband's long-term ex-girlfriend. Every time I go to her house, it's the first thing I see and it really bothers me. The problem is, I don't feel I can say anything to her …Read more. Sick of Being the Third Wheel Dear Annie: I live in the same town as two friends from high school. One of these friends married right out of high school and starting having children. My other friend and I both went to college together, and then she also married and started her …Read more. Flicking a Switch Dear Annie: I know I have my faults, but I can't figure out why my wife suddenly hates me. She has said so. We have been married for 25 years and it's like a light switch flicked. At first, I didn't quite get it and didn't respond well (arguing and …Read more.
more articles

Hold the Right Party Accountable


Dear Annie: I'm a very sad woman. I work and take care of my home and kids. My husband and I had trouble getting pregnant with the second child and after months of trying went to a fertility clinic. It was a difficult time, and I was not giving my husband all of the attention he needed.

One day, he was at my friend's house, and a female acquaintance of hers was there. This woman was in the middle of her own divorce, and she and my husband began a conversation. She told him if he wasn't happy, he should divorce me and be happy for himself, instead of worrying about his wife and kids. My husband filed divorce papers while I was pregnant. Now the two of them are together, and he thinks I don't know.

What kind of woman thinks this is OK to do? I have two small kids and love my husband with all my heart. I know I have things to work on. Where is the respect for women out there? — Broken Heart

Dear Broken: While we agree that women shouldn't go after married men (and vice versa), you are blaming the woman when it is your husband who strayed. He wanted an excuse to get out of his responsibilities, and she was simply the match that lit the flame.

Please see a lawyer immediately so you can protect yourself and your children. Then ask your husband to go with you for counseling to see whether you can reconcile. But if he is determined to get out of the marriage, the counseling will help you develop coping strategies for the future. Your children need you to be strong and capable.

Dear Annie: As a working mom, my schedule is tight. For several years, I have enjoyed a periodic lunch with a non-working friend where we catch up on our kids' activities and discuss books or movies.

Twice during recent lunches, her cellphone has rung, and in mid-sentence, she has picked it up and commenced chatting with the caller.

I could understand if it were an emergency call from her son's school, but I end up sitting there staring in silence at my lunch while she cheerfully talks about a trip to the beach.

My husband thinks I should tell her that I find this disrespectful and rude, as well as insensitive to my time constraints. Instead, when she calls to set up a lunch date, I simply say that I'm too busy. I no longer think this "friendship" is worth my time. Am I wrong to cut her out of my life over this? — Disrespected

Dear Disrespected: It depends on whether she offers anything other than an absentee luncheon date. You are angry and looking to punish her. Decide whether you want the friendship to end or whether you simply want her to put down the cellphone. There is nothing wrong with asking her to make your lunch a "phone free" zone so you can concentrate on each other. If she refuses to turn off her cellphone and answers a call in mid-conversation, feel free to get up and leave, saying, "Obviously, you are busy. Perhaps I'll see you another time."

Dear Annie: I am responding to "Outcast Sister," who cares for her mom. It is terrible of her sisters to complain because she is getting paid for this. No one realizes how time consuming it is to watch a loved one.

She should tell them to take a turn watching Mom, driving her to the doctor's, and doing the laundry, housekeeping and bathing, and see how much time and effort it takes. I am one of 10 kids who took care of Mom on weekends when the caregiver needed time off. Her sisters should be grateful that she is willing to take this on instead of hiring a paid stranger. God bless her. — Enraged Reader

Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please email your questions to, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, c/o Creators Syndicate, 737 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



63 Comments | Post Comment
A suggestion to LW2, when you go to lunch with this friend, have it set up ahead of time with your husband (or maybe another friend) to call you during the lunch on your cell phone. Give your friend a taste of her own medicine. Whether the call to you comes before or after she gets a call, she will get the message.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Alondra
Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:16 PM

LW3 refers to the first letter on 25 May 2013.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Miss Pasko
Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:06 PM
LW2- Are you wrong? Well, it sounds a little odd to cut her off without having a chat first. Honestly, you sound jealous that she (potentially) has more free time than you. If the friendship doesn't have anything else going for it, feel free to cut it loose. But if you are so mad that she's doing this one thing, why not address it before ending the friendship? She's being rude, call her on it and see what happens.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Eliza167
Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:30 PM
LW1: I'm sure your ex-husband's new girlfriend is a piece of work, but how do you know what she said to him at that party? From your ex-husband--not the most objective source. He was looking for an excuse to bail, and you're well rid of him. The Annies are absolutely right that you need to protect your interests and stop worrying about what she did or why.

LW2: This has happened twice, and you still haven't said anything? Sure, your friend has the manners of a gorilla, but you need to speak up. Whether you're busy or not, what she's doing is rude.

Comment: #4
Posted by: Baldrz
Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:09 PM
LW1-What do you mean you didn't give him the attention he deserved? Do you mean you had so much on your hands that you were tired, or that you were self-absorbed? I don't know a whole lot of men that leave their wives because they don't get enough "attention." I'd go to counseling, but you may need to divorce this man. Don't be resentful, but do go after him for child support. If he wants to get out of the diapering part of fatherhood, let him, but don't let him out of the financial part. As for his new gal pal, I wonder how much fun she'll have with a guy that has two kids to support.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Leehane
Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:03 AM
LW2 - I think it depends upon how important the friendship is to the LW. If the cell phone calls are the only complaint she has, why not at least tell her friend how she feels and give her the opportunity to leave the phone off during the lunches? Of course the friend is being rude, but unless the LW tells her why she's "too busy" to have lunch, she'll never know. The LW's husband is absolutely correct to advise her to tell her why she doesn't want to go. If she doesn't want to confront her, then using her own cell phone as an example is a good idea, but instead of doing what Alondra suggested in comment #1, set a GOOD example and tell the caller she'll have to talk later because she's with someone and can't talk. Maybe the friend will get the message.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Kitty
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:02 AM
LW1, this is a tough situation, but you acknowledge that you didn't give your husband the attention he deserved - for how long did this go on? You also talk about the struggle to get pregnant with your second child - was the time, effort, and expense of going to a fertility clinic in order to have a second child something your husband was equally committed to as you were, or was it something that you wanted so much that you railroaded him into it? I can see -- to a point -- that if your husband was neglected and was perfectly happy with one child and didn't see the point in getting expensive fertility treatments just for you to have the second child you wanted and ignore him even more, that your husband might have already been half-way out of your marriage long before he met this other woman.

So the question for you is two-fold: Are you sure you even want to get back with this man, who could leave you while you were pregnant and abandon you with two small children; and are you really sure you are committed *to him* as a human being and as your primary partner? (Or are you just in love with the idea of love, of having a husband?)

Something was clearly really wrong, in your husband's eyes, for him to so dramatically change the nature of your relationship at such a delicate time for your family. Do you really have an understanding of what his issues were? How good was your communication beforehand?

He filed for divorce before taking up with this new woman, so at least he's doing things in the right order. Are you sure that your marriage "has things we need to work on" or is perhaps your assessment too rosy, and your marriage was over even before you got pregnant the second time? Were you so focused on your first child and getting pregnant that your marriage died without you even realizing it?

These are hard questions, I know, and may seem unsympathetic -- but in reality, what I'm trying to say is that you should carefully and deeply consider whether or not you are chasing an unrealistic pipe dream (getting back together with your husband when he may have felt like the marriage died a long time ago) when what you should be doing is getting used to your new circumstance and getting on with your life.

I'm sorry you are having to go through all this.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Mike H
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:05 AM
LW2, honestly, and a bit bluntly, I think it's petty for you to simply end the friendship without having a conversation with her about how upset these phone interruptions make you feel. It doesn't seem like a particularly adult, mature way to deal with a problem in a long-term friendship.

In addition, I have to caution you about making too big a deal about how "busy" you are because you are a "working woman"; everyone makes their choices in life, and while I agree it IS rude for her to take these non-emergency calls during your lunches together, your reaction seems a bit over-the-top, and you seem to attach a LOT of importance to how busy you are, and that may seem a bit self-centered to those around you.

As in, you seem to think your time is more important than hers, and that's a rather poor place to be with a friend. So I think you have a few things to consider before deciding what to do. But if you truly thing that your time is more important because you work, then I you should ask yourself if you subconsciously look down on your friend because she doesn't work, and if indeed you see your lunches with her as more about you, and that she should be "at your beck and call" because of the perception you seem to have about how much more important your time is than hers.

(And I'd probably be a bit more sympathetic in my reading of your letter if I didn't have such a visceral dislike towards your attitude that simply cutting her off completely is your first response to what is, in reality, a relatively mild disagreement with a friend.)
Comment: #8
Posted by: Mike H
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:13 AM
Lw1 - Like Leehane, I'm not sure what the LW means by not giving her husband the "attention he needed". Of course it's wrong for a man OR a woman to go after someone else's spouse, but I doubt a single comment from another woman would convince him to leave his wife and family if he hadn't already had that in mind. I'm also wondering who told the LW of the conversation - her husband himself or the friend of hers whose home he was visiting?
In any event, counseling is definitely in order so the LW can learn to cope with things and stand on her own. Personally, I wouldn't want him back after he filed for divorce while I was pregnant and left me to deal with the pregnancy and taking care of another child, but it doesn't sound as though the LW feels the same way and would take him back if he dropped the divorce. She sounds as though she feels a little guilty for "neglecting" him. Counseling should help her overcome that too. Whatever else happens, I agree with the Annies that she should contact a lawher immediately to make sure her husband is responsible for child support for his children.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Kitty
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:17 AM
Did I just read the first letter right? They were trying so hard for a second child that they we going to fertility clinics and yet the husband wasn't getting enough attention?. That's like saying my eyes really hurt, so I'm going to stare even closer at this 1000 watt light bulb. What the hell is wrong with people? There is so much stupid going around I think everyone involved needs a slap.
The wife for having MORE kid in a bad situation. The husband agreeing to to more children even when he's not happy in his marriage, then leaving the wife while she's still pregnant and the clueless bimbo that having an affair with a married man (whose wife is still pregnant)
The Annie were right, the blame is on the wrong party, but not for what they think. If you are having problems with your marriage, you don't breed more.
Comment: #10
Posted by: EB
Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:00 AM
LW1 - While I understand why you're mad at this woman - nobody should go after someone's spouse - you should be more angry at your husband. Stop blaming yourself. Your husband didn't take off on you because you didn't give him enough attention. He did because he was thinking about himself and his desires. If you want to try and save this marriage, go ahead and go to counseling but I think it's moot right now. He's "hiding" his girlfriend from you so that means he has no desire for work on that. I say see a lawyer and see what your options are. Good luck to you.

LW2 - I hate it when you're with someone and they take a phone call and just start chatting away as if you're not there. You need to talk to her about it, though. I mean, people shouldn't even have to be told to put down the darn phone but many do and I would tell her that you enjoy your lunches with her, but that you're not going to go if she's going to take other calls while you sit there.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Michelle
Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:52 AM
Re LW#1-----
It would be nice to know, first, if the LW's husband ever tried to talk to her about the fact that he felt neglected while his wife was concentrating so hard on getting pregnant, and if he did, if she ignored it.
But I would REALLY like to know how it came about that he evidently felt compelled to discuss his unhappiness in his marriage with a female acquaintance of his wife's friend, who was divorcing her husband, when his wife was not present, and to decide to give so much weight to what she advised him to do (leave) that he did it, and coincidentally, ended up with this acquaintance.
The LW obviously realizes now, after the fact, that she was not giving him 'all the attention he needed'. That could be true, and it could be what he says to justify dumping his pregnant wife. She doesn't really say he left her FOR this other woman, only that he divorced her, is now with this woman, and hasn't told her. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt as far as whether he cheated while still married. But he doesn't get a pass for not saying to her "I'm unhappy enough that I'm considering divorce, so can we see if we can save this marriage?"
Obviously divorce is the answer if you are unhappy and the situation can't be fixed. What I'd like to know is, did he try to fix it and get nowhere, or did he just skip that step? And yes, I'm a bit suspect about a woman who is getting a divorce and advises a man she met through his wife's friend that he might want to think about getting one too. I doubt that it was a totally disinterested thing.
Just another reason why it's good to TELL your partner you're unhappy and thinking about ending your marriage, and give them a chance to work on it, if they want to, rather than just coming in one day and saying "I want out".
I fault her for maybe not noticing he was unhappy, and him for not mentioning it to her (assuming he didn't, that is) before deciding to just leave. My suspicion is that he didn't do this because he'd seen something that looked better to him.
Comment: #12
Posted by: jennylee
Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:53 AM
So one sentence from a complete stranger was all it took for your husband to make the decision to file for divorce? Really? While you both undergoing fertility treatments to have a baby together, he suddenly decides, from that one sentence, that he wants to end it all? Sorry, there is a LOT more to this story, whether you know it or not.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Jane
Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:09 AM
Re LW#2----
I really don't see anything that indicates the LW is being condescending about the fact that she works and her friend doesn't. I think she mentions that because of the fact that someone who works generally has a limited time frame for lunch, usually an hour, which also has to include travel to and from the restaurant, whereas someone who doesn't can stay as long as he wants. So if you only have limited time to visit, and that time is taken up with the other person chatting on the phone, it's frustrating. (Not that it isn't frustrating anyway, as well as rude.) It is, in fact, saying "I know I'm with you, but I'd much rather chat with the person on the phone". You feel like you're second choice and if something better comes along your friend will jump at the chance.
I think a good way to address it would be at the time you get an invitation for another lunch. Instead of saying no, why not just say "I'd really like to come, however I only have limited time and it bothers me when you let a phone call cut into our time together; could I ask you please to not let that happen any more?"
Then, depending on the response, and on what happens at the next lunch, you'll know whether it did any good or if you should just walk away. If you like other things about this friend, it's a shame to let it go without trying to fix it. (If you don't care that much, of course, just take this as an opportunity to get out of the friendship.)
Comment: #14
Posted by: jennylee
Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:11 AM
@jennylee, just to be clear, it's the combination of LW2's going on about how limited her time is PLUS the fact that she wants to ditch the friendship, without discussion, after this only happening twice, that makes me question the LW's attitude.

Her whole deal seems like she has a bit of a hair-trigger to me; or it might be indicative of someone who has a bit of "the world revolves around me" syndrome. The interruptions are not constant; it happened *twice*. Ending the friendship without even discussing it? That's abrupt and a wild over-reaction, in my opinion.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Mike H
Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:58 AM
LW1 -
I'm very sorry for your ordeal, and yes, the woman was an opportunist and catty bitch with no sense of decency, but she didn't abduct your husband at gunpoint. Both of them share a 50-50 responsibility here. Not to mention that your husband is the one who owed you and his family loyalty, while she owed you nothing, so he's actually even more at fault than she is.

I don't know what really happened here, there is a lot more to this story than what you're telling, and probably more than you know. I can only wonder whether there weren't other issues already present, as I find it hard to believe that one chance phrase from a perfect stranger would have such a dramatic effect.

It could be that your husband was not all that hot on a second child and neglected to tell you. Considering that the active participation of the husband with fertility treatments is essential, if really he never voiced any dissatisfaction, I can understand that you never saw the ball coming.

But if really there was nothing else (possible, if unlikely) and that's all it took for you husband to run to another woman, then he's just as much of a dog as she's a wanton homewrecker, and the two of them deserve each other. Karma can be a bitch, so you can't be sure either or both of them won't get their just desserts at one point.

In the meantime, do what you have to do, keep your head high (don't forget about child support and the division of assets), but stop blaming the other woman as if your wonderful husband was pure as the driven snow here. He isn't, and he's not so wonderful. You should lay the blame squarely where it belongs.

P.S.: And stop blaming yourself yoo. You say, "It was a difficult time, and I was not giving my husband all of the attention he needed." Well, fertility treatments can be gruelling, and a husband who is truly supportive of both the process and the ultimate goal will understand that his wife is not up to par while they're ungoing. I wouldn't be in the mood for sex either if I had spent half the afternoon with some medical apparatus up my geegee. Seems like you have a tendency to blame women only, whenever something involving a man happens. Stop that. What the Annies said.

LW2 -
"My husband thinks I should tell her that I find this disrespectful and rude, as well as insensitive to my time constraints."
You mean you haven't even told her? What's the matter with you, you think everybody's a mind reader? If you don't say a word, she'll take for granted you don't mind. Why does it seem to be SO DIFFICULT for so many people to say verbally what they take a lot more trouble to write about?

"Instead, when she calls to set up a lunch date, I simply say that I'm too busy."
I'm sorry, but that's the cowardly, passive-aggressive way of dealing. When you find your backbone, I'll feel sorry for you. In the meantime, you're being a punitive wimp.

"Am I wrong to cut her out of my life over this?"
Without even giving the woman a chance ot make amends, yes, definitely you are. And you know you are, otherwise you wouldn't be writing in to ask permission. You're rattling the wrong cage here. Perhaps you're not as good a friend as you think you are. Perhaps SHE should start feeling you're not worth her time. Which, btw, is just as important as yours, for all that she "doesn't work".


@Mike H #8
"In addition, I have to caution you about making too big a deal about how "busy" you are because you are a "working woman"; everyone makes their choices in life, and while I agree it IS rude for her to take these non-emergency calls during your lunches together, your reaction seems a bit over-the-top, and you seem to attach a LOT of importance to how busy you are, and that may seem a bit self-centered to those around you. "
I picked up on that too. The way she's coming across is, "the woman is a SAH mom, she has nothing else to do but to pay attention to me". Picking up your cell and having a big conversation while someone in front of you if being ignored is rude behaviour towards anybody, regardless of who has what schedule.

Comment: #16
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:11 AM
I was going to address Alondra's suggestion about the "taste of her own medicine" gambit, but Kitty beat me to it. I would, however, be just a tad stronger in my response when my own cell phone rang. "Sorry, I can't talk right now - I'm with a friend at lunch and I don't want to be rude." Maybe "friend" will get THAT message. If she just sits there and talks, as Alondra suggested, the message she will get is that it's okay to do it.

And I have to agree that there is just a touch of envy in the LW's tone - I got it from the remark that she has to sit there while her friend "cheerfully talks about a trip to the beach." It doesn't matter what the friend is talking about, other than an emergency - any discussion that distracts her from her "date" says "You're not as much worth my time as this little electronic device in my hand."
Comment: #17
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:13 AM
Re: jennylee
"I really don't see anything that indicates the LW is being condescending about the fact that she works and her friend doesn't."
Just the fact that she mentions that her friend is "non-working" is enough of a clue, as it is not relevant to her complaint. Regardless of who is busy, it is rude to start a conversation on your cell when someone sitting in front of you is being neglected. And that she makes such a big fuss on top of that about her busy schedule, as opposed to her "non-working" friend, is plenty something between the lines imho.

Taking care of children is WORK, and people doing it for children not their own get paid for it. It doesn't become a vacation because the child is your own. Evidently, the LW is one of those people who think it only counts as work when you're being paid for it. I've been saying for years that full-time mothers ought to get a salary, complete with contributions to a pension plan. If they were paid for their work, they'd get a little more respect.

Comment: #18
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:23 AM
LW1--Evidently you thought of your husband as a silk flower; always bright and fresh and in perpetual bloom without any water, fertilizer or tender loving care. Sorry, no. Your husband is more than a sperm donor, handyman or ATM machine. He's a living, breathing human being with feelings and needs completely independent of yours. Maybe you should have paid more attention to that fact. Sorry honey, but that other woman didn't steal your man. She merely gave him the wake-up call he needed to find the courage to exit a bad marriage. Take this ugly chapter of your life as a valuable life lesson. It's unfortunate that your children were caught in the implosion.

LW2--Oh please common courtesy, basic manners and good taste went the way of the Dodo bird once cell phones became ubiquitous. Stop being a spineless doormat. The next time your rude friend stops mid-sentence to answer her cell phone, you put down your fork mid bite, toss a few bills on the table to cover your lunch and leave. If your friend jumps up to run after you, keep walking and explain to her dismissively that since she clearly has more important business to attend to you have better things to do with your time.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Chris
Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:25 AM
LW2 - The next time your friend takes a call, simply smile, wave goodbye and leave...leaving her to pay the check.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Paul W
Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:43 AM
LW!: leave him. Divorce him, take every penny you can get. Even if he thought your marriage was a walking hell, no real man leaves a pregnant woman. You don't love him, he's not worthy of love. You love who you thought he was. Real men don't up and leave without talking to their wives about their problems and trying counseling.
Comment: #21
Posted by: farrar sanchez
Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:54 AM
Why... why would you possibly want to be with this man??? Is your self esteem that low that you feel his behavior is not acceptable, but something you want and deserve? I also like how she subtlely blames herself for him leaving. Get counseling, lady.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Casey
Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:13 AM
I have to agree with Casey and farrar re: LW1.

When a woman is pregnant, it is probably the most vulnerable she will ever be. She's not only taking care of herself, she's growing another human being. There have been recent studies done that domestic violence attacks against women INCREASE when she is pregnant, when it should be the other way around.

The fact that the LW and her husband went through fertility treatments adds a TON of stress to a marriage. But instead of this guy manning up and owning his DECISION to go through with a second pregnancy, he bails at the first breath of another woman (and the LW is either not admitting the full story here, or she's in denial, or whatever, because I'd bet there was more than a conversation that went on before Dirtbag decided to leave his pregnant wife).

Lawyer up BIG TIME, and protect those babies. Don't waste time, money and heartache on counseling. Time to leave this guy in the dust. AND STOP BLAMING YOURSELF!
Comment: #23
Posted by: nanchan
Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:07 AM
LW2: Your friend may or may not realize that you aren't on her timeline, so here's what I do in these circumstances. The next time she picks up the phone and starts in on a conversation, tap her on the shoulder and say "I only have a few more minutes before I have to leave, is it possible for you to continue the call after I leave because I'd really like to spend some time with you."

Usually that gets them: most times people aren't intentionally insulting you, they just need a reminder that your time is valuable.
Comment: #24
Posted by: nanchan
Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:12 AM
LW 2 You friend is well aware that you are on your lunch hour. She's been having lunch with you on your lunch hour for quite a while now. This may be just an annoying habit she has developed or maybe she's bored discussing kids and movies and books. She's being rude. But there's no reason for you to be rude back by being snippy and leaving, as the Annies have advised. The next time she calls you for lunch, why don't you bring along another friend from work? That way when she gets a call, you will have someone to talk to.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Rozelle
Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:46 AM
LW1: While I think it's wise of you to acknowledge that you were not the perfect wife, as if there is such a thing, I have to say that a man who leaves his wife when she is pregnant with his child is a rat. I think he is particularly horrid because the two of you expended so much effort to conceive this child. And while I agree with the columnists that you should direct your anger toward your husband, I have an extremely low opinion of any woman who gets involved with a married man as well. Let karma take care of those two lowlifes. Go to counseling to work on yourself and sort out your situation. Determine to put this behind you and live well.

LW2: Just have an honest talk with the woman and tell her that you would appreciate if she told her other friends that she'd call them back later. I'm of the opinion that if a phone rings, you do NOT have to answer it. Let it go to voicemail and return the call when you can.

LW3: Adult sibling rivalry is ugly. Original LW's sisters need to grow up.
Comment: #26
Posted by: PuaHone
Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:49 AM
Lise, re. this: " I've been saying for years that full-time mothers ought to get a salary, complete with contributions to a pension plan. If they were paid for their work, they'd get a little more respect." Really, are you serious? You do know that people are paid salaries because they are hired by someone who wants them to do a job - right? Who are you suggesting should be the employer who "wanted" the woman to have children and run the house - besides herself and her husband?

I'm hoping you're not serious. That idea is right up there with the other good intentions that lead to hell, like making everyone infertile at birth and reversing it when they "prove" they can be good parents.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:10 AM

When Lacy Petersen was killed, it was stated on the Nancy Grace show that the number 1 reason for the deaths of pregnant women in the US is MURDER!! I just about fell over!

Don't these men think that pregnancy is ever possible or do they think that far ahead? Obviously not. I'm in my 50s now, so no more kids, but I'd be scared to death to consider getting married again, you have no idea what you're getting into unless you take a few years to know them before deciding.

Also, half of the women killed by their husbands or boyfriends are killed when they are trying to escape! So for anyone that says, why don't they just leave? THAT'S why. It's far from easy.

Comment: #28
Posted by: jar8818
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:12 AM
Mike H and Lise-----
Re LW#2, I guess I took something different away from reading this than you both did. I didn't think she "went on " or "made a big fuss" about her working outside the home and the other woman not. She said once that she 'worked' and her friend was 'non-working', and she mentioned her time constraints once. And I think it IS relevant that, as she had to get back to her job, she had limited time here. She wasn't just saying it to seem 'superior', she said it because it had to do with the fact that she couldn't stay longer to make up for time lost to the phone conversation. She thought she had an hour to visit, and turned out she didn't.
As someone who mostly worked full-time through my life, and raised a child at the same time, all I got out of this was that the W, as I did, had limited time (dictated by her job and boss) for a lunch, and time for visiting with her friend was limited to that, while the other woman, if she wished, could arrange for a two-hour lunch, three-hour lunch, etc. She only had X amount of minutes to visit, and she wanted to VISIT, not sit while her friend talked to someone else. I don't think that made me feel 'superior', just under a different set of circumstances. And I didn't even see the 'trip to the beach' thing as envy, but as stating that this was not a conversation that had to be had at that moment, and could have been done when they were not at lunch.
Maybe I missed something, I dunno.
I know she said it happened twice, recently, maybe she saw that as a beginning pattern, who knows? I do totally agree that stopping the friendship without explanation is ridiculous, and that she may be someone who is quick to feel slighted and take offense, but not that she thinks she is 'better' than someone who does not have an outside job. (For myself, I would be offended whether the person I was lunching with also had a job out of her home, or did not. I have had this happen to me even when I was with a friend during non-working hours, when we both had lots of time to visit after the phone call ended, but it made me angry anyway, because it's just plain rude.) There needs to be something said, to give the friend a chance to change this, before dumping her, I think.
Comment: #29
Posted by: jennylee
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:23 AM
LW1 -

It seems to me that instead of blaming the other woman, or the husband, that we should be blaming the obvious culprit: pregnancy/children. Were it not for that, these two would probably still be living together happily! Seriously though, this is your life now LW1 and you should be planning to live it without your "ex" husband. He doesn't want to be with you - it sucks, but it is what it is.

LW2 -

Working mom vs SAHM! Hah. Frankly, your friend sounds like she did something slightly rude a couple times, but it's far more rude to cut someone out of your life for that without even telling them why. Sounds to me like that you're looking for a reason to break off this friendship. Go ahead - you have my blessing to do so. Your friend would be better off without you. She might be clueless and ignorant, but she's not spiteful.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:40 AM
LW1: Seriously? You're breeding? Yikes. Get some therapy - there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. She didn't steal your husband. He left willingly and it's not because he has a short attention span that she took advantage of. What? You think she dangled a shiny object in front of him and he followed her out the door? LOL Please get some therapy - your children deserve way better than a nutter for a mother. You need to get healthy.

LW2: You've already dumped her so are you simply asking for validation? Yes, you were right. Your friend was a tool who should have known better but was too stupid and ended up wasting your time. Good choice.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Diana
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:41 AM
LW1: Seriously? You're breeding? Yikes. Get some therapy - there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. She didn't steal your husband. He left willingly and it's not because he has a short attention span that she took advantage of. What? You think she dangled a shiny object in front of him and he followed her out the door? LOL Please get some therapy - your children deserve way better than a nutter for a mother. You need to get healthy.

LW2: You've already dumped her so are you simply asking for validation? Yes, you were right. Your friend was a tool who should have known better but was too stupid and ended up wasting your time. Good choice.
Comment: #32
Posted by: Diana
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:42 AM
LW 1 Your husband was unhappy being married to you, so he left. It won't do any good trying to blame this on some outside party. You admit you have issues to work on, so go ahead and work on yourself. Stop thinking you are a helpless victim of circumstances. Stop worrying about what he is doing now that you are divorced and focus on making something of yourself. Make it so that when he sees you again he will think he made a mistake because you are so emotionally healthy. You will attract a better type of person this way too.
Comment: #33
Posted by: locake
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:44 AM
@jennylee, when you say "For myself, I would be offended whether the person I was lunching with also had a job out of her home, or did not. I have had this happen to me even when I was with a friend during non-working hours, when we both had lots of time to visit after the phone call ended, but it made me angry anyway, because it's just plain rude." -- you're getting exactly the point.

It doesn't matter that LW works and her friend doesn't. It doesn't matter that LW has limited time to lunch. It doesn't matter what the topic of the call was. It's rude regardless of any of the details the LW thought important to include.

That the LW *did* feel it important to include those details does indeed, I think, give us a little window into the things she feels are worth emphasizing, what her priorities are. It's at the very least not much of a stretch to suggest so.

(In fact, in a weird way, the LW seems to be suggesting that if she was ALSO a SAHM, then she wouldn't feel so offended by this behavior... )

Everyone's busy, even SAHMs. But the LW doesn't appear to think in those terms. At the very kindest, she seems a little self-absorbed herself.
Comment: #34
Posted by: Mike H
Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Re: Locake, #33

Well said!
Comment: #35
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:05 AM
Please stop with the full-time mothers bit. Dads also stay home with their kids, and exclusionary language not only discriminates against them but also the increasingly number of gay male couples who are having children. It's fine if you want to state an opinion about full-time mothers getting paid to stay home, but can you please come out of the 1980s talk about about full-time PARENTS and SAHPs. Unless, you really are suggesting that only women should stay at home with children.
Comment: #36
Posted by: Jane
Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:25 AM
Re: Jane

The letter was written by a working mom about a SAHM, so that's what we're talking about.
Comment: #37
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:37 AM
Moreover, I don't know ANY stay-at-home-dads. I know they exist, but I've never met one. Are you suggesting I talk about them, too, despite not knowing any, just for the sake of being PC?
Comment: #38
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:44 AM
Thank you, Zoe, for the touch of common sense there. As for " exclusionary language not only discriminates against them..." all I can ask Jane is what rabid feminist workshop taught you that one? George Orwell understood all too well that to control thoughts, first you start controlling language. To argue that "exclusionary language" is a weapon of discrimination is just another way for busybody "activists" to try to run other people's lives. Anyone who complains about being discriminated against because someone on this board refers to stay-at-home mothers instead of "parents" is too effed up to be watching children in the first place.
Comment: #39
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:04 PM
Zoe (and Maggie), I wasn't talking to you, or about the letter. I was referring more to Lise's post about paying mothers to stay home with the their children, but didn't want to single Lise out since I had not had time to read all of the posts, including yours (me being a working mom and all, married to a stay-at-home dad). And I don't see such talk as only being discriminatory against men, but also against women. We continue to push the expectation that only women should stay home with children, feeding the pressure to keep women at home and out of the workforce. But unless you've lived it, well, it's all just orwellian mind control right? We should still be referring to CEOs and doctors as males only too. The ironic thing is, Naggie, I'm not a feminist AT ALL.
And you are quite right, Zoe. I completely forgot that every post here is directed exclusively to you, and that since YOU don't know any SAHDs, well...well...I don't even know what to say, since I wasn't even suggesting anything to you, having completely forgotten that all people's worlds revolve around your limited and very vanilla life experiences. Now if you'll excuse me, I off to enjoy a drink on the deck with my hubby.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Jane
Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:01 PM
Re: Jane

Well, when you make a vague comment directed to no one in particular but possibly everyone, sometimes you get challenged by someone you weren't talking to in the first place. Next time, man up and just say whom it is you are addressing.

And frankly i think your reference to "vanilla" life experiences is racist and exclusionary. Hah.
Comment: #41
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:25 PM
Zoe--sometimaes the word vanilla means dull---and I just came in on the conversation.
Comment: #42
Posted by: Kay Pederson
Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:51 PM
Re: Kay Pederson
You're absolutely right - in the context Jane used the word, "vanilla" means dull or bland (implying lacking in a wide range of experience). Not EVERY comment containing the words "black" and "white" (or variations thereof) has racial connotations.
Comment: #43
Posted by: Kitty
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:08 PM
Zoe- Kay is right.... Vanilla means dull or boring and is not a racist comment
Comment: #44
Posted by: JustBecause
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:42 PM
Sorry KITTY, I didn't see your post about VANILLA before I posted mine
Comment: #45
Posted by: JustBecause
Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:56 PM
Re: Maggie Lawrence
Yes, I AM serious, and I'm hardly the only one advocating the idea. As for the "employer" thing, I think you and I have both seen plenty of people who keep wailing that we have to rely on immigration to merely maintain our level of services, because the native people don't produce enough babies. Well, guess what, women don't produce when it means slashing their own throats. You'd be surprised at how many women would be willing to have plenty more than their 1.6 if they could afford it.

Not to mention that anything you get no money for also gets no recognition in our money-money-money society, which is one of the reasons why women, children, the elderly and the handicapped have been so often abused and exploited.

And frankly, comparing this to "making everyone infertile at birth and reversing it when they "prove" they can be good parents" is like comparing apples to very rotten oranges.

@jar8818 #28
Actually, I don't know specific numbers, but from what I've seen around me, the men who choose the time of their wife's pregnancy to have an affair and/or become complete jerks are rather frequent. A lot of them wanted this child, or thought they did. And then reality starts closing its walls around them, they notice the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, getting bigger as the date of delivery looms in, and they go crazy. Not to their credit, assuredly, as a man who cracks under than kind of pressure is not a man.

@Jane #36
You're absolutely right and I stand corrected - full-time PARENTS ought to get a paycheck for it, male or female, straight of gay.

This being stated, Zoe was absolutely correct that "The letter was written by a working mom about a SAHM, so that's what we're talking about". It was not intended to be exlusionary.

Comment: #46
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:17 PM
Re: JustBecause
No problem - doesn't hurt to reinforce the answer :)
Comment: #47
Posted by: Kitty
Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:48 PM
Lise, really, try to think it through for a minute - and you didn't even answer my question. WHO - in this fantasy world of yours where stay-at-home parents are paid to stay home - is going to pony up the money? Or is this just another example of how the big mysterious government tit always seems to have more for everybody? You're making absolutely no sense, and I don't care how many other people are equally incapable of seeing the devastating results of such a move. And I'm assuming you're talking about the government paying people to stay home with their children. Oh, very smart. What would be the incentive for people to work - thus being taxed - to pay all those non-outside working parents?

BTW, when LBJ and his "Great Society" got into full gear, paying mothers more money for every baby they produced without a husband/father - guess what happened! MORE illegitimate babies and MORE unmarried mothers on welfare. Gee. What a great idea THAT was. Your idea is certainly the rottenest orange in the barrel, whether or not there are any apples in it. i honestly think you're smarter than that and just spouting off because something got you started.

Well Jane, it wouldn't have been too difficult to at least say to whom you were addressing your corrective comments. But it still sounds to me like you're trying way too hard to be the hip modern woman with your buying into the idea that "someone out there' is "feeding the pressure to keep women at home and out of the workforce." Who, may I ask, could that be? Last I checked the workforce was teeming with women. And the very fact that you have to resort to your little playground name calling - Naggy - oh Ha ha - says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.
Comment: #48
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:08 PM
Re: Maggie Lawrence
Again, you're mixing apples and oranges when you compare this with LBJ's idea of paying more money for each baby. The salary ought to be reasonably modest, and certainly not in the lines of what Forbes suggested it should be worth. The salary should be the same whether you have one child or seven. After all, any salary to anyone is not paid according to expenses but according to hours worked, and nobody has more than 24 hours in a day, regardless of how many children they have.

Yes, the money would have to come out of the government - same as it does when they pay their own workers in government offices. SAHPs would become government employees, and they would pay taxes and file an income tax return, same as any other salaried worker.

And no, it is not a crazy idea. But, like many other basically socialist ideas like medicare and free education, it is not one that garners much sympathy in America.

Comment: #49
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:42 PM
LW1: Good for you for acknowledging that you didn't make your husband a priority, but shame on your husband for not finding happiness or investing himself in his family. Even when Mom's going through a rough patch, being a father to one's children is fulfilling and he has only himself to blame for not giving that role its due. He may get his jollies with the divorcee, but how will he feel when his children grow to display the behavioral effects of a broken home? He's trading short term romance for a long-term committment that holds much more potential.
I hope you'll consider counseling and talk to a pastor, family friend or other family members who can suggest the same to him. Maybe he'll wake up someday; if not, you know who will always be #1 in his life, and it will never be anyone except for himself.
Comment: #50
Posted by: Bliss
Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:47 PM
Sorry Lise, but that idea is truly the most short sighted eighteen karat bullshit I have heard in awhile: "Yes, the money would have to come out of the government - same as it does when they pay their own workers in government offices". What POSSIBLE reason does any government have - other than buying votes from weak-minded, and/or lazy and/or shiftless people - for paying them to take care of their own children at home? Taking care of your own children at home is NOT a "government job," it is something that responsible adults do. But what you're advocating - socialist of course, because that nurtures irresponsibility, is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator both in mentality and employability.

It's the entitlement culture that says "I should be paid just to exist" - which is exactly where this would go. And who, pray, would pay the oversight committees necessary to determine that people were doing the job properly? And who would pay the committees that come up with onerous standards by which people would be judged in order to get government money ?- which is an oxymoron, by the way, because governments have no money other than the taxes they collect from people who actually work. And why would people want to work when they would be taxed to support everyone else - and could quite and claim money for themselves? Before the government went bankrupt, that is.

Sorry - you're out on a limb and sawing in the wrong direction. But I really did think you were smarter than this.
Comment: #51
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:27 PM
Re Maggie- actually, some countries pay families with children a token amount for each child while they are young, so yes, it does happen. And I think the comment was hypothetical, anyway, as in IF women got paid a salary, being a SAHM would get more respect. Which I agree with, because in the U.S., anything that draws a paycheck IS respected, while anything done for free is discounted. Simple fact, not a reason to ridicule anyone for being wishful.
LW1- Go see a lawyer and make a plan for the coming divorce. Your husband did not decide to divorce just because of a chance remark, he has been thinking about it for some time I bet. I don't think he has tried to discuss his hopes and fears with you; he just let it all roll around in his head until he was so frightened, he bailed on you and the children. It sounds like he is immature and thoughtless. So do what you must to protect yourself and the children.
LW2-There is a woman in our group of friends that accepts calls and blabs away while we are having lunch together. We just talk among ourselves while she does this, and sometimes she gets up to talk elsewhere because I guess we are too loud. Well, boo hoo, we think she is rude to have a conversation while we are all eating and talking. I would really be irritated if I was the only one there and she prattled on. By the way, I never call the talker or see her outside of these group things. I have no desire to hang out with a person with bad manners.
Comment: #52
Posted by: Patty Bear
Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:32 PM
Patty Bear, I am aware that there are countries in which families get money per child. When LBJ expanded welfare back in the 60s, I'm sure you can guess the result: more babies. But Lise's premise - and yours - is utterly unprovable because it's based on an assumption: " IF women got paid a salary, being a SAHM would get more respect. Which I agree with, because in the U.S., anything that draws a paycheck IS respected, while anything done for free is discounted. "

First of all, you can't measure "respect" so it is impossible to prove what "more respect" is. Second, even if you could, why is that necessary for anyone to do their job as a parent taking care of children at home? And third, to say that only paid positions "get respect" is to discount all the volunteers in the country who make an enormous difference in people's lives everyday. And that is quite simply incorrect.

The issue that gets me hopping is the idea that yet MORE tax money should be taken away from people who work to support people who have decided to stay home with their children. Such people are not employed by me or the government and should not be paid. Their services are worth nothing to anyone except themselves and their children. It is - to use a very good word that is nearly rusty from disuse - the DUTY of parents to see to their children's care and rearing. If they don't want to take that on, they shouldn't be parents. They should not ask me to fork over money for their decision.

And now it really is my bedtime.
Comment: #53
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:09 PM
Re: Maggie Lawrence
"What POSSIBLE reason does any government have - other than buying votes from weak-minded, and/or lazy and/or shiftless people - for paying them to take care of their own children at home?"
So that SAHP would pay into a pension plan so that their choice of looking after their children instead of choosing another career does not come with the price of dire poverty in their old age, and so they gain respect and recognition, instead of being viewed as "shiftless" and "lazy", and "not actually working", as you yourself are wording it.

"governments have no money other than the taxes they collect from people who actually work"It's people like YOU who are the perfect example of why this would be necessary, because for the likes of you, nothing that doesn't get a paycheck counts as work. (So SAHP don't "actually work", hey? Yrrrch.)

P.S.: WHAT "overseeing committee"? You need no such thing to determine eligibility - the person has children and is staying at home with them. That should be simple enough. And as far as them "doing their job properly", I don't see why this should be more necessary than it is now. Supervision of parental competence is an entirely different subject, with you mixing apples and oranges again.

And btw, while the amount of money "ponied up" by the government (like you say) would increase, it wouldn't increase as much as you think, because some of the people who would become eligible are already on welfare. There is much more respectability with receiving a paycheck than with being on welfare. And there would actually be some monies recuperated and saved because, with a liveable wage, things such as food stamps, food banks, subsidised medication, dental work, glasses and whatnot would become unnecessary.

P.P.S.: Name-calling only emphasizes the lack of a real argument. You really thought I was smarter than this? And I was hoping YOU were a little more rational. Right now, with every objection you bring up being irrelevant apples & oranges comparisons, your reaction reeks of "EEEEEEEK! THE COMMIES ARE COMING! THE COMMIES ARE COMING! RUN FOR THE HILLS!"

Comment: #54
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:09 AM
Re: Maggie Lawrence #53
"When LBJ expanded welfare back in the 60s, I'm sure you can guess the result: more babies."
I don't know how the system works in the US, but in Canada, family allowances are a totally different thing than welfare and the two have nothing to do with one another. Everybody who has children receives family allowances, whether they're on welfare or not - in fact, family allowances existed long before welfare, which was only set up in Quebec in 1958. The criterion is to have children, not to be destitute. In Canada, yes, you get more money when you have more children, and you actually get more for the second child than for the first, and more for the third than for the second, until a maximum per chil has been reached.

Family allowances have existed in Canada since 1945 and they have not resulted in a sizeable baby boom - our population has always been quite sparse, WE would have needed it. If in the US it resulted in so many more babies that it became a problem, then there are other factors at play.

But why do you feel this is applicable here? SAHP would be paid a fixed salary, having nothing to do with the number of children they have. The criterion would be that they stay at home with their progeny, whether that be one child or ten. Apples & oranges comparison.

"First of all, you can't measure "respect" so it is impossible to prove what "more respect" is."
I don't know about that, but we can sure measure DISrespect. How about we start with "lazy", "shiftless", and "not actually working"...

"Second, even if you could, why is that necessary for anyone to do their job as a parent taking care of children at home?"
Because self-esteem is an essential component to the basic well-being and consequent productive output of every human being, and it's pretty hard to develop self-esteem when you get no respect. As you would know if you weren't getting it.

"And third, to say that only paid positions "get respect" is to discount all the volunteers in the country who make an enormous difference in people's lives everyday. And that is quite simply incorrect."
Nobody is discounting volunteers as people - apples and oranges again. But work that is done for free IS discounted indeed, and the proof of which, it doesn't count by itself on a resume, only along with "real", "actual" PAID work. If your only experience in a given acitivity is volunteer work and none of it was ever paid for, then it's like you did nothing, you're not gonna get a job in that field, at least not one that requires experience.

"from people who work"
"to support people who have decided to stay home"
"Their services are worth nothing to anyone"
Keep going, your contempt is coming across loud and clear, and bringing water to my mill with every word you write. I'm sure you're endearing yourself aplenty to any SAHP reading this.

It is the duty of parents, full-time or not, to take GOOD CARE of their children, that yes. It is NOT their duty to be reviled and called "lazy", "shiftless" and accused of "not really working", PLUS ending up in dire poverty in their old age as a thank-you for their effort. And as for you precious tax money, they would be paying the same as you, as opposed to welfare people.

"They should not ask me to fork over money for their decision."
Frankly, what's the difference between paying the SAHP or paying the child care worker? If the parent is working, then *somebody* is being paid to look after the kid(s). Yes of course, daycare is paid by the parent and not the government, but are you going to tell me that subsidised daycare doesn't exist in the US? If that be the case, then there must be a helluva lot of single parents who are forced to stay on welfare when they would rather work, because they can't afford daycare with the kind of paycheck they can generate.

Not to mention that, for those who are indeed on welfare, whatever they get is not enough to make ends meet, which is why food stamps, food banks, subsidised medication, glasses and basic dental care programs exist. You're ALREADY "forking over" the money.

But as long as it's for paying perfect strangers to take care of the kid, or additional welfare programs so that the recipients don't starve, that's fine? But talk about paying the real parents so they don't HAVE to go out take the job somebody else may need and entrust their kids to a perfect stranger, that becomes EEEEK and something you're "hopping" about? O-o-o-o-kay....

Comment: #55
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:16 AM
@Maggie, the biggest expansion of welfare happened under RIchard Nixon. Just fyi.
Comment: #56
Posted by: Mike H
Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:09 AM
Maggie and Lise:

Why are you spending so much time arguing over something that's not going to happen, at least in our lifetime?

When governments finally realize that children grow up to become productive, contributing members of society and giving them a good start will benefit everyone, they might subsidize SAH parents.

When our population growth finally falls below replacement levels, and they need to encourage people to have more children, like some countries do, maybe it will happen, but I don't see it happening in the next 50 years, so what's the point?
Comment: #57
Posted by: Annies Fan
Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:35 PM
Re: Annies Fan
Actually, because ideas need to be put forward and discussed before they happen in reality, even if the time of discussion can be quite long. If nobody even talks about it, it certainly will never happen - ever. My motherly duty for La Belle Province is done and finished with, so I don't care at what point in the timeline my talking about it is occuring, at least I will have done my part by talking about it.

And... not everybody who reads BTL comments - in fact, if we go by statistics, the ones who post are the tip of the iceberg. You never know who reads what and may start thinking actively. Great ideas are generally inspired by something - sometimes something that was read somewhere. ;-D

Comment: #58
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:46 PM
Maggie L- your comments were very insulting toward stay at home parents. The tone of your post was very dismissive of the hard work it takes to raise a child who will be an asset to society instead of a burden. You also misunderstood part of my post. I was referring to a lump sum payment that some forward thinking countries make each year to families who have young children; it is NOT welfare and has nothing to do with the welfare system as it existed in the United States. I agree with Lise, that worthy ideas should be discussed, not dismissed with some comments about how hard you work and how you don't want your hard earned money going to lazy people. In societies where families with children are supported by everyone, there are higher rates of educational attainment, and less juvenile delinquency. And where day care is made affordable through government help, parents are able to return to full time work sooner, a worthy goal with which I would have thought you would have agreed. In countries like the U.S., with half of the population screaming to take away the social safety net, there is little continuity of help and the result is fragmented health care, substandard housing and nutrition, more crime, and more despair.
Comment: #59
Posted by: Patty Bear
Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:13 PM
Doesn't the US federal tax system provide a tax deduction (allowance?) for each dependent? That IS supporting families, is not means-tested and is simple to administer.

For decades, the UK has had a universal benefit called Child Benefit paid direct to the main caregiver. There is no tax allowance for dependent children. But we have recently amended this to reduce or remove the benefit for those over a certain income. We still have neglected children and problem youths.
Comment: #60
Posted by: Miss Pasko
Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:31 AM
Hi My name is 'Bruno Rico' just want to share my experience with the world on how i got my love back and saved my marriage... I was married for 7years with 2kids and we lived happily until things started getting ugly and we had fights and arguments almost every time... it got worse at a point that she filed for divorce... I tried my best to make her change her mind & stay with me cause i loved her with all my heart and didn't want to loose her but everything just didn't work out... she moved out of the house and still went ahead to file for divorce... I pleaded and tried everything but still nothing worked. The breakthrough came when someone introduced me to this wonderful, great spell caster who eventually helped me out... I have never been a fan of things like this but just decided to try reluctantly cause I was desperate and left with no choice... He did special prayers and used roots and herbs... Within 7 days she called me and was sorry for all the emotional trauma she had cost me, moved back to the house and we continue to live happily, the kids are happy too and we are expecting our third child. I have introduced him to a lot of couples with problems across the world and they have had good news... Just thought I should share my experience cause I strongly believe someone out there need's it... You can email him via Don't give up just yet, the different between 'Ordinary' & 'Extra-Ordinary' is the 'Extra' so make extra effort to save your marriage/relationship if it's truly worth it.
Comment: #61
Posted by: bruno
Sun Aug 4, 2013 4:56 AM
After being in relationship with my boyfriend for six years,he broke up with me,I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to someone online and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that never believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I mailed the spell caster, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened, that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him, that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem. Contact him now for your relationship or marriage problems via this email
Comment: #62
Posted by: moore
Thu Sep 5, 2013 4:10 PM
I just lost my man about five months ago though he is back again full of love and passion with the help of great man Dr oshogum. i norah warland from norway, have been into relationship with daniel moork since i was 22 years old and i am 28 now. i so much love him but i could not show the love, it was very deficult for me to prove my realness to him because i thought proving my love to him might make him look down on me and go after other girls. for over six years dan have give me all that i ask of him. i was always trenthened him with break up each time i want to see his level of love for me because i was told if i threntened him, he will propose to me and then will get married to him before i can show my love despite his complains of him not sure of my love i was respond to him with negative words. though i was suspecting he have another girl in his life, i did not border to ask him about that because i was so sure of his love despite my attitude. on the 8th of september a day to my birthday he came and gave me so many lovely gift like never before claiming to wish me a happy birthday in advance with his words and behaviour i expected him to propose to me on my birthday night then i will also tell him of my pregnacy for him. i wait for him on my birthday he did not show up not even a call, i tried his number and it was not going through i refuse to go check on him because the anger in me six days later i went to his house and i found nothing not even a sign of my dan once live there. i was disappointed, faustrated, confuse with so many thought on my mind like hang my self if i did not see him again because i can not my parent about the pregnancy when the man responsible for it had disappear. our religion it's against that, my family will be disappointed in me, i have brought them shame. i look for dan every where till i could chart with him on social network, he warned me never to desturb him again because he already had find another girl that he want to live his life with, after a while he block me from all access then i could not tell him of my pregnancy for him. so, i needed a help from all coners of life, i decide to check google my self or read some write up on site on how to coup with my pain because i could not tell any body about it not even my friends were aware of my pregnancy. i keep reading to cancel my self till i find how Dr OSHOGUM help so many persons from different walls of life with their testimonies. then i decide to also contact him with Because i do not know much about contacting a spell caster, i was not sure he can bring my Dan back but i decide to give him a try though his requirement was another problem i meet with a friend for help because i could not the items that he needed i have to plead with dr oshogum to help me get the items because really need my man back to take away my shame. just two days after i send him the requirement Daniel call me, pleade for forgiveness. just yeterday he propose to me and i am so happy. you can also contact him with OSHOGUMSPELLTEMPLE@LIVE.COM
Comment: #63
Posted by: nora warland
Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:53 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month