Preparing sibling for birth process?

"NL" wrote in message
...
Banty schrieb:

Agsf is not a troll. A troll isn't just anybody a lot of people disagree
with. He's out in left (um, right) field on his ideas, and way out of the
ballpark on
some of his facts. But that a troll doesn't make. He *has* had good
ideas to
contribute, (he's a person, and a caring father, not a hairy beast), and
does
represent a certain turn of mind that we all need to deal with.

See, personally, I think he just likes stirring ****.

I agree. That's why I consider him a troll -- he's trolling the groups
looking to stir things up. It would be like if I went out and hung around on
Alt.Support.Childfree and talked on an on about my kids, and how everyone
should have kids and those who don't are immature, selfish and
self-centered.

Even though I do wonder what he uses his toilet for.... ;-D

see above :-P (Sorry, I could so not resist that one...)

cu
nicole


--

Jamie Clark

In article , Jamie Clark says...

"NL" wrote in message
...
Banty schrieb:

Agsf is not a troll. A troll isn't just anybody a lot of people disagree
with. He's out in left (um, right) field on his ideas, and way out of the
ballpark on
some of his facts. But that a troll doesn't make. He *has* had good
ideas to
contribute, (he's a person, and a caring father, not a hairy beast), and
does
represent a certain turn of mind that we all need to deal with.

See, personally, I think he just likes stirring ****.

I agree. That's why I consider him a troll -- he's trolling the groups
looking to stir things up. It would be like if I went out and hung around on
Alt.Support.Childfree and talked on an on about my kids, and how everyone
should have kids and those who don't are immature, selfish and
self-centered.

I understand your point - it's just that that's a bad example. Just about
everyone aside from the believers in the canon of groupthink aren't welcome
there anymore (lest they hear about being a 'breeder-pleaser'). Thats not who
we are. Thank your local diety.

If he stirs **** (and whatever else he likes to do in the toilet to think single
mothers have been toilet-ized LOL) - whatever. He is actually contributing,
too.

Banty

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:28:16 -0700 (PDT), agsf_57
wrote:

To lounge around the house while our wives work
is not something we would cater to. I personally couldn't do it.

This view of what women do when they are at home with young children
is part of the problem.

Anyone at home with young children has a lot to do and mostly not
housework. After the children are in school, btw, it still is not
lounging about that is happening.

Besides that it sounds like you are very limited in your own creative
activities. Work doesn't have to be compensated to be meaningful.
I might be artistic enough to paint or sculpt. I could be inventing
machines even if they never get marketed.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:49:49 -0700 (PDT), agsf_57
wrote:

On Apr 19, 7:00 pm, toto wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:45:07 -0700 (PDT), agsf_57
wrote:

That she rather have her child be raised and in company of strangers
than to sit down with the child and help her grow.

For most of human history, children were raised by the *tribe* rather
than by their individual mothers alone. Human families were extended
families and grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles and other
relatives helped to rear the children. It is really only in recent
times in the West that the nuclear family has become the *ideal.*

In the Kibbutzim in Isreal, communal child rearing is not seen as
inimical to strong family ties.

Underlying these child rearing practices is a different view of
children and childhood. In tribal and communal societies, the child
is views as a full participant in the life of the community from
birth.

--
Dorothy

That's nice and all, but you have to acknowledge that the two
societies are different. In these tribes, the entire tribes were
working together to survive and prosper. Each member had a role to
play in order to better the tribe. Also, I am sure that even in those
tribes, the mother of the child would prefer to be with their
offspring than to relinquish the parental duties and joys onto other
tribal members.

Regards...

You have obviously never asked a tribal woman what they might or might
not prefer. You think that Western civilization's view of parenting
is the only view and that others *must* prefer this emotionally when
it is simply not true.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article , toto says...

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:49:49 -0700 (PDT), agsf_57
wrote:

On Apr 19, 7:00 pm, toto wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:45:07 -0700 (PDT), agsf_57
wrote:

That she rather have her child be raised and in company of strangers
than to sit down with the child and help her grow.

For most of human history, children were raised by the *tribe* rather
than by their individual mothers alone. Human families were extended
families and grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles and other
relatives helped to rear the children. It is really only in recent
times in the West that the nuclear family has become the *ideal.*

In the Kibbutzim in Isreal, communal child rearing is not seen as
inimical to strong family ties.

Underlying these child rearing practices is a different view of
children and childhood. In tribal and communal societies, the child
is views as a full participant in the life of the community from
birth.

--
Dorothy

That's nice and all, but you have to acknowledge that the two
societies are different. In these tribes, the entire tribes were
working together to survive and prosper. Each member had a role to
play in order to better the tribe. Also, I am sure that even in those
tribes, the mother of the child would prefer to be with their
offspring than to relinquish the parental duties and joys onto other
tribal members.

Regards...

You have obviously never asked a tribal woman what they might or might
not prefer. You think that Western civilization's view of parenting
is the only view and that others *must* prefer this emotionally when
it is simply not true.



For one thing - looking at this from what he thinks women should want POV, said
tribal woman gets to play with the babies after hers are older.

I don't know where folks get these ideas. It's the USian isolated nuclear
family thing. And the over-worn unthought cliche's about it. Like this thing
about childcare providers being strangers.

Banty

On Apr 19, 2:45 pm, agsf_57 wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:40 am, Banty wrote:

In article ,
says...

SNIP

That is one of the most pathetic and sadist things I ever heard. I
hope you improve.

How on earth is that "pathetic" or "sad"??

That she rather have her child be raised and in company of strangers
than to sit down with the child and help her grow.


Incredibly sad and pathetic to accept the help and guidance of
experienced people who love my child like their own and who want to
help raise her.

Yes, I will accept others helping to raise my child, because I don't
think I'm so knowledgeable and experienced that I can do it 100% on my
own. I have learned a lot from others, and will continue to accept
their help. I'm thrilled my child has more than 2 adults in her life
from whom she receives (and gives) love and affection and learns about
life.

In article
,
" wrote:

I can't think of a reason why choosing *responsibly* to be a single
mother would be a problem either (not that I think that's what you
meant). I know one woman who adopted a child as a single woman, one
who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's
just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples.

Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. My Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother.
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had
three loving parents. But even with that support, being a single parent was
terribly hard on my Mum. To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily*
boggles my mind.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

"Chookie" wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk-461630.21282223042008@news...
In article
,
" wrote:

I can't think of a reason why choosing *responsibly* to be a single
mother would be a problem either (not that I think that's what you
meant). I know one woman who adopted a child as a single woman, one
who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's
just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples.

Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. My
Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother.
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had
three loving parents. But even with that support, being a single parent
was
terribly hard on my Mum. To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily*
boggles my mind.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

Me too. Until I had my DD, I always thought I'd could have coped as a single
mother. Then I had a child! I look forward to DH coming home and sharing the
task with me! I love being a mother, and God forbid I was widowed, I hope
that I could cope, but there's no way now that I'd ever choose to do it on
my own. Everyone needs a day off, whether it be from working or from
parenting.

Lucy x

On Apr 23, 7:28*am, Chookie wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I can't think of a reason why choosing *responsibly* to be a single
mother would be a problem either (not that I think that's what you
meant). I know one woman who adopted a child as a single woman, one
who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's
just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples.

Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. *My Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother. *
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. *Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had
three loving parents. *But even with that support, being a single parent was
terribly hard on my Mum. *To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily*
boggles my mind.

Wow, Chookie and I agree on something . One caveat, though. Although
I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried
couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such
couples to adopt the children available, single people should be
considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and
otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be
in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so,
IMO.

Artificial insemination of single women, is different IMO. Here the
woman is deliberately creating a child who will never know his or her
father and his relatives, and that is wrong. I've read stories in the
New York Times about how women choose sperm donors, and a few
mentioned that they would not want a "prolific" donor, because that
would increase the chance of accidental incest of his offspring. That
is just one reason why a child should not be deprived of knowing who
his or her father is.

From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able
revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they
father. If the mother dies, for example, the father, not the taxpayer,
ought to be first means of support, and he ought to be given the
chance to adopt the child.

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Apr 23, 7:28=A0am, Chookie wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I can't think of a reason why choosing *responsibly* to be a single
mother would be a problem either (not that I think that's what you
meant). I know one woman who adopted a child as a single woman, one
who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's
just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples.

Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. =A0M=
y Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother. =
=A0
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. =A0Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I ha=
d
three loving parents. =A0But even with that support, being a single parent=
was
terribly hard on my Mum. =A0To walk into such a difficult life *voluntaril=
y*
boggles my mind.

Wow, Chookie and I agree on something . One caveat, though. Although
I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried
couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such
couples to adopt the children available, single people should be
considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and
otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be
in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so,
IMO.


How odd. Wouldn't the children with more needs, need two legally committed
adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources than
those who don't?

Banty