Pizza Delivery Man Helps Rescue Rape Victim

Kudos to pizza delivery man Chris Turner for helping to rescue a woman who had been kidnapped and raped, and for helping to catch the alleged kidnapper/rapist.

People mentally dismiss people in jobs like his all of the time. But no matter what job a person has (or, doesn't have) they can still make a positive difference in someone else's life.

And who knows what would have happened to her if he had not helped her? She could have ended up tortured more and then murdered.

Bachelor Asks About Dating Moms

I found this installment of an advice column in the Philadelphia Daily News.

I am 35 and a lifelong bachelor.

Congrats. Although 35 is hardly "lifelong".

I'd love to get married someday and start a family.

Okay, if that's what you really want - go for it.

Am I at the age where I should consider dating women with children?

No.

Here's why. If you want to start a family, you should not butt in to an existing one. A woman with minor children should not be dating, especially to find a husband, until the kids are adults. She should be focusing on raising her kids. Plus, you should be seeking women at least a couple of years younger than you, if you really do want to start a family. Fertility and health become issues starting at 35, and you need time to get to know each other. Women 33 years old and younger should not have adult kids, so if she has kids, they are still minors.

The "best" case scenario is that the mother is a widower, and the guy died through little fault of his own. You may, if you try really hard, live up to her idealized memories of him. Still, getting involved with her will change the dynamics between her and her kids, and that could be really bad. It will get worse if you start making new babies with her. You'll never have the authority over her kids that you'd have over your own.

You'd be the third wheel.

Now if she has children and is free to marry you because the father of her children died from suicide, or reckless or otherwise self-destructive behavior, or they are divorced, or were never married... none of those things bode well.

If the father (or fathers) isn't dead, then you'll likely have to deal with him at some point, sometimes often. Do you really want that? Every time she looks at her kids, she's going to see the guy she used to have sex with. Are you ready to deal with that? Are you ready to take on the responsibility of raising someone else's kids, with one hand tied behind your back?

Save yourself a lot of trouble. Only date women without children. That's one of the basic rules for guys who want to get married and have kids. There are some others, too, such as avoiding women with serious inherited degenerative diseases, a history of criminal behavior or mental illness, a substance abuse habit, debt (beyond a mortgage and reasonable car loan)... any red flags.

"Steve" responded with:

Forget whether a gal has kids or not; focus on who she is.

Nope - sorry. It is a package deal. That's like telling a woman to forget that a guy is chronically unemployed – focus on who he is. He is chronically unemployed, that is who he is. And she is a mother.

Mike Tyson's Daughter

I don't care who you are, or what you've done, losing your child is a horrible pain that I wouldn't wish on anyone. I saw what it did to my grandmother, and her "child" was an adult. How much more tragic it is when the child hasn't had a chance to grow? I'm not exactly a fan of Mike Tyson, but my prayers are with him and all loved ones who are mourning.

You Should Be Saving, Not Spending More

This LiveScience.com story says that a recession may cause women to splurge on shopping like they are addicts looking for a fix.

In times of crisis, women are more likely to take a shopping spree than in normal times.

That doesn't bode well for her personal finances, or for those of the guy who is paying her bills.

A new survey finds almost half of UK women are frightened or scared by the recession, and 45 percent felt their financial situation had taken a hit. A full 75 percent said they would be making cutbacks.

Yet 79 percent of them said they would splurge to cheer themselves up.

And what about eating more bon-bons? Nothing like adding extra weight to go along with your extra debt!

Of the 700 women surveyed, 40 percent said depression was an excuse to overspend; 60 percent said "feeling a bit low" was a good enough reason.

They are wrong. Browsing is one thing. Buying is another.

"This type of spending, or compensatory consumption, serves as a way of regulating intense emotions," said Karen Pine, a University of Hertfordshire professor and author of "Sheconomics" (Headline Publishing Group, 2009).

What's wrong with sex – if you're married, or exercise or a non-destructive hobby?

The problem is likely not confined to women.

They have to throw that in to avoid charges of sexism.

A 2006 study in the United States found 6 percent of women have it so bad they are labeled compulsive buyers, but so are 5.5 percent of men.

So more than one out of every 20 people you come across is labeled a compulsive buyer. What about the people who aren't labeled "compulsive" but either are compulsive or are otherwise buying stuff they don't need or can't afford? Does anyone believe that just as many men fall into that category?

Pine says this compensatory behavior could become more pronounced in a recession. People use drugs and alcohol similarly to regulate emotions, Pine explains, but she thinks shopping is increasingly employed by women for this purpose. And, paradoxically, worrying about money could lead women to spend more, she said.

I'm sure if any single guy is reading this, he'll feel really motivated to find a woman with whom to join finances.

"Or, perhaps worse still, if they can't spend we might see an increase in mental health problems such as anxiety and depression."

Oh, great. You get to choose between dealing with more debt or more emotional difficulty.

One of the things I think a couple should do when a marriage proposal seems eminent is get full access to each other’s financial records – credit report, credit card statements, bank statements, investment accounts, etc. That will make it easier to tell if there is a spending problem, or any number of other problems. Full disclosure should be a stipulation of the pre-nup.

More Fun With Advice Columns

Time to check in on a two of my favorite advice columns. I look at some recent Dear Abby columns and a recent Dear Margo column.

GROWN-UP GIRL IN KENTUCKY wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm a 21-year-old woman who just moved back home after two years of living and learning on my own.

That doesn't sound very grown up to me.

My family has been wonderful to accept me back into their home until I finish my studies in a few months, after which I assume I'll be getting a job and my own place.

I have an amazing boyfriend, "Jordan," with whom I would love to spend some nights. I'm afraid if I do I would be disrespecting my parents' wishes -- my father is a preacher -- but at the same time I feel restricted because I got used to being on my own and doing what I wanted.

Well, too bad. Part of the trade off of living in someone else's home is abiding by their rules. You're not being held hostage. You can leave.

Dear Abby responded:

Have your parents met Jordan? Do they like him? If they have and they do, it would make things easier on you.

Unless he is a eunuch, I don’t see how any of that matters.

You should definitely respect your father's position and sensitivities.

That's all she should have written.

A more acceptable compromise than spending "nights out" might be for you and Jordan to arrange some weekend getaways together.

Uh, no.

Of this I am certain: Young love will find a way.

Love is one thing. Lust is another. Look, I'm no prude. Well, at least not according to this definition. I know saving sex for marriage is not what most people do. But an adult should not treat her parents' place like a hotel.

COLORADO TEEN wrote:

I'm a 16-year-old guy who has hit a road bump in life. My parents divorced when I was 12 and are still fighting.

That's a lot of fun, isn’t it? Somehow, they got along well enough to make you, but then they act like this. That's quite a way to make a life for their child.

I get involved in their fights because I feel I have to, but it stresses me out.

Not good. That shouldn't be his deal. He should be focusing on his studies, his hobbies, enjoying his youth.

I live full-time with Mom because Dad and I fight too much. Mom and I are also at odds nonstop. She has had several different boyfriends since the divorce. Three of them have moved into our house.

In four years? Ugh. She needs to wait two years or one and a half or however long until you are 18. She's put you at risk, and set a horrible example.

Mom and I have different opinions about her present boyfriend, who she calls her "fiance." He's the biggest reason we fight. Mom has told me her kids come first and if I really don't like him she'll ask him to leave, but I don't want her to do it if she's truly happy with him.

No kid should be put in this position. How awful.

Dear Abby told him to get counseling.

ONLINE MOMMY IN THE NORTHWEST wrote:

A few months ago, my friend and neighbor, "Jill," told me how much she enjoyed an online mothers group she participated in, so I joined. Last week, Jill announced on the Web site that she's pregnant with her second child. I congratulated her online, then congratulated her husband in person when I ran into him in the neighborhood later that day. He was flabbergasted. Apparently, Jill hadn't told him about the baby!

Jill is now furious with me because I "spoiled her surprise" by revealing something that was supposed to be a secret.

I’m not really concerned with the relationship between the women, or what DA's response is. What concerns me more is that this is an example of a violation of intimacy between husband and wife. A woman's husband should be told these things before just about anyone else. The baby is his, too. Unless the person is completely anonymous to the rest of the group (and the world) and is fishing for cute ways to tell the spouse, this was just plain wrong.

Ladies, if you want your female friends, even the ones you've never actually met, to be that close to you... then don't bother being married. Don't say that your husband is your best friend, or you want him to be your best friend, if you are keeping secrets from him that you are telling others (except, perhaps, clergy or a shrink), or if you're badmouthing him all of the time to other women. Because, in that case, your best friend is not your husband – it is the person to whom you are telling all of his shortcomings.

Stressed Out in a Small Town wrote in to Dear Margo:

I have been divorced from my first husband, "Lionel," for 13 years. He was an abusive alcoholic who (thankfully) skipped the state eight years ago to avoid paying child support for our children, "Eloise," now 21, and "Laura," 18.

Sounds like a great guy to marry and with whom make two babies. Are you sure that's the reason he left? From what I understand, states work together on this.

At last count, Lionel owes more than $60,000 in back child support and only recently re-established contact with the girls.

From what I can tell, this is irrelevant to the letter, and she includes it merely as a dig, as if he were writing in to say, "and her ass is saggy."

Laura is graduating high school this year and asked her father to attend the ceremony. He said he couldn’t because he didn’t want to drive 500 miles over Memorial Day weekend, but that he would attend her celebration party three weeks later.

A real prize.

My current husband is furious. He's been a big part of the girls' lives for 10 years, and together we've raised two healthy, well-adjusted young ladies.

Hold it! You said your ex skipped town eight years ago. So maybe your ex figured you and the new stud had it all covered? Why hasn't your husband adopted your girls and made child support from your ex unnecessary?

He absolutely doesn't want Lionel at the party, and frankly, neither do I — he’s extremely rude, obnoxious and inappropriate even while sober.

It is at your home. Surely to could bar him if you want.

If he shows up, my husband would like to have him arrested, since he has several outstanding warrants in our state.

Are any of them not child support based?

What a mess. What guy in his right mind wants to deal with this? This guy she's now married to couldn't find someone without so much baggage? Or did he have a "rescue" complex?

Don't get me wrong – unless someone signs away their parental rights, they should support their children financially, even if they aren't going to be there physically or emotionally.

Dear Margo had a decent response.

Not Feeling It

Do you know someone who is asexual? "Internally Perplexed" wrote in toe Dear Margo:

I am a 21-year-old male who has come to terms with the fact that I am asexual. I have no interest in either sex and, for the most part, don’t mind it.

In our sex-obsessed society*, some people refuse to believe that such people exist. I'm fairly certain I know at least one.

However, my family seems to have an extremely difficult time accepting that I don't want to go out and "fool around" with women.

They're afraid you are gay. Or maybe they want grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. Or maybe it is both. Plus, people tend to think other people should have the same feelings and urges that they do.

I find it incomprehensible and unfair to go out with a woman and not be able to return her feelings for me, if such were to arise.

Good for you! Too many people don't think this way, especially if they realize they can find someone to take care of them financially if they fake it for a while.

I continue dreaming of having a family with children, but if I don't hold a desire to be with either sex, is it even possible?

Well, sure, it is possible. You can find a woman who is also "asexual" and do it just enough to conceive children. Or you can adopt together. But lovemaking is also great relationship cement, and if you aren't going to have that, you'd better have other things keeping you together and happy. Do you really want a lifelong roommate? Plus, there's the risk that one of you will change (like get a hormone surge), and the other won't, and that will really make things difficult.

Dear Margo responded:

Regarding your family, I suspect they will have a tough time comprehending your emotional makeup, it being foreign to them, so just make the statement that, so far, you've not met anyone who interests you enough to pursue.

Families not only have a tough time with a member being asexual, they also have a tough time with a member who does not want children or does not want to get married. I hope I never treat any of my family that way, because I don't think people should get married or have children unless they really, really want to and have found the right spouse and are prepared to be the right spouse/parent - AND have undergone extensive counseling.

There is the additional possibility of being a single parent.

NO!!! ARGH!!!! His desire to raise children should not trump a child's need to have both a mother and a father.

========
*If you don’t think we're sex-obsessed, where are the parallels in other aspects of life to:

Stripping?
Porn?
Sexual harassment?

I mean, we all need to eat, and many of us eat way too much, but who pays to watch a steak slowly unveiled and waved around? Why don't we have "nutritional harassment" prevention training in the workplace, even though some people are vegans, some keep kosher, etc.? Why don't we use the phrase "nutritional orientation", or have laws protecting people from discrimination based on their "nutritional orientation"? How much of our media (music, sitcoms, "reality" shows, cinema) is about sex as opposed to eating?

Pulling a Double Shift

Some eleven-month-olds are twins, but unusual. So says this story from Fox Network's Dallas station.

"I have twins, but they're by different fathers," said Mia Washington.

The twins' parents contacted FOX 4, wanting to go public with their story.

Yuck. I think that was a terrible idea.

Washington admits she had an affair that resulted in two babies, born at the same time, fathered by two different men.

Sounds like something to trumpet from the rooftops, no?

"I'm very shocked," Washington said.

Why? You did know that you had two different penises inside you, right?

The parents went to Dallas DNA Lab Clear Diagnostics after noticing the twins have different facial features.

Uh, you mean like every other fraternal twin set in world?

When twins have two fathers, doctors call it heteropaternal superfecundation.

And I call it sluttery. And that at least three people were completely ignorant of contraception.

Dreiling said the medical marvel can happen when a woman releases multiple eggs during ovulation. If she has more than one sexual partner within the same time period, sperm cells can fertilize two separate eggs.

Is there anyone who has gotten past sixth grade who didn't know that?

The twins’ father said he's forgiven his fiancé's infidelity and has vowed to stay with her and raise both boys as his own.

His fiancé. Wouldn't want to rush marriage, or anything. You weren't married, buddy, so it wasn't infidelity unless you consider all sex prior to marriage infidelity. My guess is that you don't consider all of the other sex you have had with other women before meeting Washington to be infidelity.

"I'm trying to let everybody else know: Don’t put yourself in my shoes, because it can hurt and it does hurt, but you still have to go on with life," she said.

Well I’m glad they included that. And thank you, because if it weren't for you, I would have no idea that unprotected sex with multiple men around the same time could have negative consequences.

Washington said she plans to tell the boys about their DNA differences when they’re old enough to understand.

You're not going to have much of a choice, are you, since you went public with the story? Your kids would have been better off if you hadn't gone public and they never found out they were conceived by two different guys. "Mommy had sex with two different men around the same time, and didn't bother to use protection, so you're only half siblings - one of you isn't daddy's child." Why do that?!?

As for the other father, she has no plans to tell him.

Unless you were with a lot of different guys back then, he can probably figure it out... especially since you've gone public. He probably feels like he is off the hook (though he isn't), but on the other hand, he may sue – and get – some level of custody or visitation, especially since these kids were born outside of wedlock. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Nowhere in the article does it actually say this guy, James Harrison, is the biological father of either of them. It is possible that neither of them are his by blood. And guess what? It will be possible for her to divorce him after 10 years, extract alimony from him (for life) and child support, even if neither of the kids is biologically his, and then live with some other guy – maybe even one or both of the biodads.

Hopefully, that doesn't happen. Hopefully, these kids will be raised in a stable, happy, married household feeling like they are with mom and dad, but it isn't looking so promising for that to happen.

Guys, be careful where you stick it.

Happily Ever After

Do you think this married couple and their families pictured things turning out this way when they got married? Jon Cassidy of the Orange County Register (that’s California) brings us the story, which is sure to end up on one of those basic cable shows that detail crimes, investigations, and court trials. Or maybe Lifetime will do a movie about it where the victim is portrayed as the problem – since he is male.

She wanted to leave her alcoholic husband Frank and move to Wyoming for a fresh start with her three children and her live-in lover, Mikey Shores, according to court records.

Money was all the housewife and her out-of-work lover were missing, both told police.

Maybe they'd have more money if he was working instead of committing adultery with her?

For six months, Mary Sharpski, 46, Shores, 38, and Antonio Ortega, 23, worked on a plot – prosecutors allege – that left Frank Sharpski clinging to life in an alleyway, head slashed open, fingers and nose severed. His attacker was dressed like the Grim Reaper, he told police after he pulled out of a coma.

Shores, Ortega, and Mary Sharpski were in court in Westminster [Friday] morning, where they pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted murder, conspiracy and mayhem.

If you read the article, it seems like there is a lot of evidence.

Right away, police noticed that Mary Sharpski was concerned about money. When she was interviewed in the hospital after the attack, she didn't ask once about her husband's condition; she asked if she could have his ATM card, police said.

Yeah, that’s not a good sign. You have to at least fake being upset.

Two weeks after the March 3 attack, as police were closing in, Mary went to Frank's hospital room to get him to sign over power of attorney so she could have access to his money market account. Police talked Frank out of signing.

The next day, March 17, after Frank had surgery to remove his thumb, Mary was back in the hospital, talking about bills and again asking for power of attorney, and he was ready to sign. He wanted to take care of his family, he told police.

Det. Vernon Ahlo had to tell him what police had learned: that the stranger he was letting live in his home rent-free was having an affair with his wife, that his children and neighbors all knew, and that they were planning to move away together. Shores didn't like him, the detective said, and had admitted that he thought that Frank had got what he deserved.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Frank was shocked. He knew that he drank a lot, drank to the point of passing out, and that he'd get upset when he came home to a dirty house, he told police. But he'd never suspected his wife was behind the attack.

Oh, no, of course not. A lot of people wanted to kill you and not rob you (which was another mistake of the idiot attacker... at least pretend like it was a robbery). It does sounds like he had a drinking problem, but which came first - the evil wife or the drinking problem? And the reason the house was dirty was likely because his wife was getting plowed and thus was too busy to pick up. Hey, is he sure that those kids are his?

Shores appreciated her, gave her a shoulder to cry on, went to dinner and the movies with her and the children, she said.

Well, yeah, he DOESN’T HAVE A JOB! He's got time for all of that, because your husband was out working to support your ass! And pay for his booze.

Mary Sharpski did some research, and read somewhere that FedEx - Frank Sharpski was a contracted delivery driver - would pay off on a life insurance policy if he died while at work.

If you own any of FedEx, you have to love this story.

Shortly after 5:30 a.m. on March 3, Frank Sharpski put on his FedEx uniform, walked out his front door, and walked down an alley toward his delivery van. As he reached the door, a man dressed all in black, with a trench coat and a black hood, carrying a machete, walked up and told him, "I'm going to kill you." Sharpski tried to give him his wallet and keys, but the man wasn't interested, and started to attack. He hit Sharpski with overhand blows on the head chest and hands. He cut off his nose. He cut off his fingers when Sharpski tried to defend himself.

Neighbors began to look out their windows.

When the machete slipped out of the attacker's hand, Sharpski tried to run off, but the man chased him down, and knocked him to the ground and sliced at him some more.

But, you know, the guy deserved it because he's a drunk and complained about the place being a mess and he's out working instead of being around.

The thing I have to wonder about Mikey Shores is – why does he think that this woman would be any different to him? Does he think that he has a magic penis, so that she'd never get tired of him and see greener grass in getting rid of him, like she was apparently willing to do to her husband? That she would never cheat on him? People like him really think they are special – not that there is something wrong with the person who is betraying their vows. Hey, if they somehow beat the rap and end up together and free, here's a little advice, buddy: Don’t make her the beneficiary of anything.

And this is another reminder to everyone, especially the person who is away from home more, not to let anyone move in.

Edwards on Oprah

Elizabeth Edwards (who has terminal cancer) will be on Oprah today, talking about things, including her husband's cheating. Did she choose unwisely or treat unkindly? She probably chose unwisely, and he would have ended up cheating no matter what. The guy is pretty full of himself, as many serious candidates for President are. The Playful Walrus bemoans the Oprah appearance.

Yes, Even More Dr. Laura SAHM Reaction

Time for another survey of what is being written online about Dr. Laura, in reaction to her new book and her publicizing of it.

Anne Hart disagrees with the notion, which she falsely attributes to Dr. Laura, that "ALL moms should stay home for the first five years of their children’s lives."

How can you declare unilaterally that each and every mother and child are better off at home?

She didn't. Next!

Instead, I uphold a mom's ability to choose the right work-life balance and child care arrangement for her family.

What does that mean, really? Of course they can choose – but does that make everything they choose right? What if a woman worked three jobs and was never home, and neither was dad? If that is what she chose to do, would that still be right?

Yes, Dr. Laura, some moms can be breadwinners and breadmakers. And be good at both.

Sure. But almost no women can work full-time AND be fully there as a mother AND wife. I'm willing to admit that my role as a father is not as prominent to my child as my wife's role as mother, because I am not there as much as she is. How can you do something without being there to do it???

However, oodles of work-outside-the-home moms make incredible use of the time they do have with their children, proving there is such a thing as quality over quantity.

I highly doubt this woman would accept that statement from a lover. "Hey, it was good five minutes. See you next week for our next quality time session!" Well, maybe she would if she had a really low libido and no need for foreplay or romance.

Children I know who are in day care or in the care of a nanny or baby sitter are independent, outgoing and have the advantage of seeing their mom have a rewarding professional life.

Maybe they are detached, aggressive, and do not see the point of having children you don't raise yourself?

While I'm thankful for the ability to stay-at-home with my children, there are emotional and financial frustrations that come with that decision.

Yes, and thank goodness there are none of those at the office.

Would my kids be better off if I had the fulfillment, adult interaction, alone time and paycheck that comes with a job outside the home? I don't know.

You don't interact with adults? The only place you can interact with adults is at the office?

However, not every mom has the choice to stay home.

Yes, actually, they do. Maybe not after they buy a house and car and timeshare that they can't afford and become mothers, but the choice was there.

Work-outside-the-home moms already feel guilty enough without you accusing them of parenting by proxy.

Apparently, they don't. Because they are still doing it and still saying it is the right thing to do.

Just one in five working mothers say full-time work is the ideal situation for them, Pew reports. Most want part-time work or more flexible hours.

Many want more time with their children.

And I can see where that is going... they’re going to ask Big Daddy Government to pay them so they can work only when they want to. Hey, I want more time with my kids, too. How about paying me not to work?

Why not write a book that advocates for more mom-friendly changes in the office?

I'm sure she'll get right on that right after she writes about how to find a more gentle abortionist.

Why not push for paid maternity leave; part-time jobs with insurance benefits; and a national minimum standard for paid sick days so moms can stay home with their ill kids?

You see where this is going? We're all supposed to rearrange everything because people want to "have" kids and have stuff and have a professional ego. We're all supposed to pay even more to support other people we don't even know so that they aren't "restrained" by the concepts of picking the right spouse and then making children with them, only if and when they are prepared to be a parent.

Savannah Red responded to Hart in this blog posting, which is pretty good.

"scripto" commented on that entry accusing Dr. Laura of not being their for her own son, which of course is bunk. Scripto thinks reading blogs is "research" into a famous person.

Over at Deep South Moms Blog, we get this:

I am wondering why there is no such thing as the Daddy Wars. It seems that fathers have been omitted from the equation of parenting. Dr. Laura, whom I consider to be a class A nut job anyway, seems to think dads are but a blip in our children's lives.

I guess it is impossible to praise someone these days. If you do, you must be insulting all of the people you are not praising with that moment of praise?

The media, including parenting magazines of every ilk, focus solely on women.

You're right. SAHFs get short shrift. Women make most consumer choices, so the magazines focus on them in general – but when it comes to parenting, there are many more SAHMs than SAHFs. That's a fact. And you know what? A lot of women give SAHFs short shrift, too – including some wives of SAHFs.

Is the onus of raising healthy, happy, productive, aware, confident, giving, empathetic children on mothers alone?

Nobody, save for some single-motherhood or lesbian advocates, has said it is.

Fathers are infinitely important to the fabric of a family. To ignore that fact is detrimental to our children in countless ways.

Agreed! But, the fact is, men are still expected to be breadwinners by most women, and most women choose to marry a man who earns more than they do.

Over at this blog, "Kristi" writes against Dr. Laura, defending her status as a mother working away from her kids. She, like so many others, falsely accuses Dr. Laura of being hypocritical for working and having a son (I should number these memes and simply refer to them by those numbers).

Then she looks down on Dr. Laura being happy that nannies are out of work as people save money in the face of layoffs by raising their own kids, citing the lack of work for the nanny. Would Kristi be upset if oncologists were losing their jobs because breast cancer rates plummeted?

The implication that a mother who works outside the home is not a full-time mom, is no more present in her child's life than the UPS man, and is being selfish by working either a.) because she has to in order to make ends meet, or b.) because she loves her career and finds it fulfilling, is nauseating to me.

Okay, well you try telling your boss that you are working full time, and give your boss the same waking hours most women working away from their kids give their kids (or their husbands!), and see if your boss agrees that you are working "full time".

Do we really need another book that pits mothers against each other? I think not.

The book is simply in praise of SAHMs. How does that pit mothers against each other? Don't confuse a publicity interview with a book.

Over at "Hip Moms Who Work", "Where cool working moms come together", "Andrea", who admits not having checked out the book, again notes that Dr. Laura worked while having a young son.

She also claims she has respect for SAHMs. My question is... why? If children do not need their mothers (or, as I have said, their fathers if their mother is the breadwinner) with them and are just as well off with others, then aren't SAHMs slackers, who should be contributing income to the home and contributing to the workforce?

It seems to me this position is inconsistent. I do respect SAHMs because they are doing what is best for their children. That is not inconsistent.

Over at Deep South Moms Blog, again, we get this:

However, when my son was born, I had a really amazing job. I was paid well and the job was providing security for our future. To leave that job would have been financial suicide so my husband and I made a decision. One of us needed to stay home and the most logical choice at that point was him.

If you had ever bothered to listen to Dr. Laura, you'd know she supports that, too, as long as the wife can still respect her husband. Some women don't.

Instead, she pulls a quote from a WSJ interview.

WSJ: Where do stay-at-home dads fit into the picture?

Dr. Schlessinger: I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom -- unless she's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin.

Women and men are different, and those differences more often make mothers the better choice than fathers to stay with the kids. But yes, there are exceptions. If the woman is in a position that provides better security, enough to outweigh the difference between men and women, then sure. Especially if the husband's personality is good for this role. But in general, mothers are better equipped than fathers for this role.

The bottom line to me is this, we are all in this together...this bringing up of the next generation and we all need to support each others choices.

Nope. There are choices I make you wouldn't support. Let's not pretend otherwse for the sake of comfort.

A lot of these bloggers note that Dr. Laura has a high income, and had flexible work hours, and that isn't how it is for everyone. As if Dr. Laura got to that point by pure luck, through no choices of her own. Some also will put "Dr." in quotes, which makes me wonder if they do that with other Ph.Ds? She's not calling herself "Laura, M.D.", you bitter shrews and scummy guys.

And as if this installment wasn't long enough, I note that over at "Randomness from the Right Side of the Bed", calling itself "ramblings from a working mom of 2-year-old baby boy godzilla, 1-year-old princess, and the newborn diva born August 2008 - swimming through the depths of sleep deprivation, stress, and dealing with a demanding Daddy", someone known as "darkfairymomma" bitches about Dr. Laura, but doesn't say why Dr. Laura is wrong.

I wonder what qualifies as a "demanding Daddy"? A husband who wants sex?

There are positive reactions out there, too, thankfully. Click on the Dr. Laura tag below to read more posts like this one, and to see that I don’t always agree with Dr. Laura, though I usually do.

I’ve Never Had a Nightmare As Bad

...as one day in this girl's life.

Stories like this one are all too common, and unfortunately, only one time is too many. In this article by Rachanee Srisavasdi (try saying that one five times fast) and Larry Welborn in the Orange County Register, we read about one Rodrigo Soto of La Habra, California, who has been found guilty (second-degree murder) of beating his 4-year-old stepdaughter to death.

Now, there are decent, upstanding men out there who become stepfathers and love those kids and are great fathers. However, statistics indicate that a child is more likely to be abused or killed if they are exposed to a stepfather or mother's boyfriend (especially shack-up). This is one reason why child-priority people like Dr. Laura advise against unmarried parents dating until their children are grown.

Rodrigo Soto, 26, faces 25 years to life in prison for the Oct. 19, 2005, death of Madison Haley Greenlee when he is sentenced by Orange County Superior Court Judge Carla Singer on July 31. He also was convicted of felony child assault.

The "mother" - Kiera Risch - was apparently not home when the murder took place.

She had between 75 and 100 injuries to her body – inflicted in the days and weeks before her death, according to testimony.

I don't see how anyone can read things like this and deny the fact that evil is real. That little girl was tortured. We don't treat terrorists in our custody like that – she probably would have preferred to be waterboarded.

The guy committed evil. And the "mother" either directly abused her child herself or turned a blind eye to the abuse inflicted by the guy – meaning that she committed evil herself. Unnamed is the guy who knocked up Risch and left his daughter in her care, although he may have had little choice in the matter after her conception – but shame on him at least for knocking up a woman like that. More shame to him if he could have saved this girl, but abandoned her instead.

When you choose to make a child, you are entering into a partnership with God. When you abuse that child, you are not only attacking the child, you are spitting in the face of God. And you'd better get on your knees, repent, and beg for mercy.

Dear Abby Gets a Letter From Dear John

Here's another look at a Dear Abby letter. WANTS TO MAKE PEACE WITH THE PAST IN WISCONSIN wrote:

I am a 31-year-old man. I have been seeing a wonderful woman for about seven months, and it's starting to get serious. I need advice, though, on how much we should tell each other about our sexual histories.

This is yet another problem people avoid when they save sex for marriage.

Seven years ago, the end of a romantic relationship sent me into a deep depression. I spiraled downward for a long time, during which I engaged the services of prostitutes.

I want to now how actual prostitutes – like the ones on street corners and in brothels, as opposed to women who put out for any guy who buys them a nice meal – stay in business these days. Really... it isn't that hard for guys to get casual sex these days, if that is all they want. Sure, if a guy has really particular tastes and a fetish and thus it is difficult for him to easily find a woman who will fit that, or if he's rich or famous and he wants her to go away after the deed and not hang around, I can see why a guy would hire a prostitute. But are there really enough guys in those situations?

Finally, with the help of my family and a therapist, I was able to take medication and recover from the depression. I was later tested for STDs and was lucky not to have contracted any.

Well, those outcomes are better than the alternatives.

I am not implying that I'm not responsible for what I did at the time. I'm ashamed of the situations in which I placed myself.

That's good.

Abby, should I tell my girlfriend about this at some point as our relationship progresses, possibly toward marriage? If so, how much detail should I give her?

I think you have more of a responsibility to tell her about the depression than the details of your past fornication. As long as she knows you are not a virgin, and that you dealt with depression by seeking casual sex, that should be enough. Beyond that, you are asking for trouble.

Turns out that my advice isn't much different from Dear Abby's.

When it comes to sexual history, you can be honest with her, but you really have no way of verifying if she is honest with you in return. It is best to pay close attention to what she is doing in the here and now - what kind of person she is today, instead of being fixated on her past encounters. (However, if a woman has had "had her fun" and is jaded towards sex, she should make that clear to the guy before he signs on the dotted line... most guys don't want to be married to a woman who sighs during lovemaking and says something like, "Okay... if you want to... I've been there and done that and I'm tired of it.")

Ideally, I think before an engagement is finalized with a set date, the potential spouses should learn about each other's medical, financial, legal, and educational histories – anything where there is a record or paper trail, or anything that could be a significant factor in their life together. Things like credit ratings, psychotic episodes, and a driving record can be a big deal. As far as sexual history, who a person has a past with is only important if that person is still in the picture somehow.

The idea of going to a hooker - someone for whom sex is work - has never appealed to me. Even today, as a faithful married man, I'm not much into having my wife do something for my enjoyment if she doesn't get some level of enjoyment out of it herself (even if that enjoyment is the pleasure of pleasing her spouse).

Some Tips on What to Do With His Tip

Here's a great discussion for you ladies, especially you Christian wives (The website is a Christian one), who want some tips on your OS technique.

Yes, this is an important matter to me, as you can tell by how often I write about it. Spouses should enthusiastically pursue various forms of lovemaking. I really think that there are times in our lives when we should treat it like a hobby.

Husbands can also find lots of good information there to make things better for the wife... just not on that thread.

I don't spend enough time on that site. Oh, and I'm a lurker there so far, so I have not written any of the things in any of the discussions there.

It's Prom Time Again

After dispensing advice to a nanny whose charge is emotionally neglected by her parent, Dear Abby brings us this in a recent edition.

UNDECIDED TEEN wrote, making me glad high school is a distance memory:

I'm a junior in high school and have never had any romantic experience.

Too many people perpetuate the idea that this is a problem. I sure thought it was. I had limited "romantic experience" and thought it wasn't enough. Kids are bombarded with the idea in media that everyone at that age is supposed to be in a relationship, or at least "getting some". Really, they should be focusing on their studies, hobbies, friends, and, as much as they don't want to – family. After all, they'll soon be out of the home. Any "dating" should be in supervised groups.

It wasn't a big deal when I was a freshman, but now as the prom approaches, I'm starting to get anxious about the possibility of being dateless.

Ah, yes. The prom is everything. Magazines and websites targeted towards girls this age, funded by advertisers, place a lot of emphasis on the importance of having a perfectly romantic (= expensive) prom.

My friend "Terri" says you don't have to have a date, but I am still skeptical.

Your friend is right. Heck, you don't have to go the prom at all.

Although it might be fun going with Terri and other friends, who am I supposed to share a slow dance with? I'd feel awkward sitting there while everyone else danced. And I would feel uncomfortable if a guy I didn't know asked me to dance.

I'm against fornication because it leads to dancing.

I love that joke.

Unless this girl has a moral objection to dancing, she should get over it. How else is ever going to meet and spend time with the all-important gay male friends? Seriously, she sounds painfully shy. She needs to know that a dance, as long as it isn't freakdancing, is just a dance. And if he tries anything, she should firmly assert boundaries, with a well-placed knee if needed.

Dear Abby finished her response with:

Unless you're willing to take some risks and put yourself out there, you will never get any romantic experience.

Yes. While some young women these days are way too immodest and aggressive, there are a small minority that put up every indication that they don't want any romantic male attention, claiming that God will make it happen. I notice these girls do lift the food to their own mouths though, somehow not trusting God to feed them the same way they are "trusting" God to bring them a husband.

This girl doesn't sound like she falls into either of those categories. She's simply shy, maybe because she hasn't had wholesome positive reinforcement, and perhaps has been focused on her studies. She needs female friends or relatives to show her how to handle these things in a way that will not be too uncomfortable for her, and some frank talk from some males in the family about that the guys are likely thinking.

I was very shy myself. It was a huge deal for me to approach a girl. It made it easier if she was a flirt or at least placed herself in a situation where it was easier to approach her. I had prom dates for both my junior and senior years, though, so I didn't need to approach anyone at the prom – I just had to make the initial approach of arranging for the date.

As for the horny boys who have gotten the idea from the media that the prom means guaranteed sex as long as they spend a lot of money, it is best for them to be disabused of that notion as early as possible, or it will cost them for years. It will be just as easy (if not easier) for them to hook up at an after-prom party without ever going to the prom itself. No need to shell out all of that cash and endure the hassle.

I do discourage underage sex as a matter of principle, but I don't think the boys who are going to do it should make the added mistake of wasting their money doing something they aren't really interested in doing.

Still More Reactions to Dr. Laura’s Latest Book

I came across a couple of blog entries of note. Over at Out of the Boondocks, we get more of the same stuff I analyzed here and here.

First, she tries to discount Dr. Laura by playing the "hypocrite" card, telling is to find in all by googling it. Then she moves on to previous work by Dr. Laura.

One of her books "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" pretty much compares men to house pets...So to say that he has simple needs, and if I should meet them I will make him completely happy and faithful to me is a tad condescending to both of us, no?

What she is apparently saying is that her husband's needs are not simple. Notice this gives her an excuse not to meet them. And, why bother – even if she does meet her husband's needs, he'll still be unhappy and unfaithful. Sounds like great marriage material.

She touts a woman who greets her man with a kiss, tends to the kids without complaint, and does not challenge his ideas.

Does she really say that mothers should never complain to their husbands about tending to the kids nor challenge his ideas? I never got that impression, and I listen much more than this blogger.

On to her newest book, titled "In Praise of Stay at Home Moms". I think it's a little misleading. It should read, "Outright Bashing Working Moms and their Life Choices". Now, I will not claim to have read the book.

But you do know how it should be titled, eh?

But from the quotes, I can see that she's still touting her 1950's agenda.

Yes, you see, parents rasing their own kids and having roles is something that should be relegated to the past and only took place in the 1950s.

She goes on to criticize comments made by "SAHMs" on the blog entry on which she is basing her reaction.

Some of these ladies bring God into it (which I don't find relevant in a society where we all have a different idea of God.

What if we do? So what? We all have a different idea of lots of things – right and wrong, law, fairness, etc. - doesn't mean we can't invoke them.

Really, now, if you want to make an argument, you'll need to come to the table with more than that).

What is more than God? And what if they are only appealing to other theists? Very few people claim to be atheists. So appealing to God is actually a very good idea.

Others bring in the economy (which not everyone seems to have a grip on how it really works).

You mean – like living within your means, including planning, saving, and insuring – will allow a family to get by on one income while the kids are too young for school?

And a few just bring in their own personal preference (good for them for sticking up for their ideals).

I see – so it is good for them if it is something they personally prefer... unless their person preference involves devotion to God.

Oh, and please don't feel sorry for my son for going to daycare (a quote from the good Dr, "My heart hurts for what these women miss and what their children miss from them."). He's a happy little kid.

When I was a kid, my best friend was killed in an accident. I'm a happy guy. Does that mean it was a good thing that my friend was killed in an accident? Your kid is probably very aware of your feelings, and doesn't want to upset you. However, he probably would have preferred his mother's care over that of a stranger.

Then there's this blog entry, where the writer is "outraged" at Dr. Laura. As it turns out, though, it seems to be a lot of strawmen that are upsetting her. Notice her use of "no" and "all", when Dr. Laura does not say things that way. And, there's the usual "what about dads staying home" question, and the charge that Dr. Laura didn't stay home for her son.

Sheesh. Is there anyone blogging out there challenging Dr. Laura on things she has actually said or written? Why do so many bash her for NOT saying something, when in actuality, she has said it but they just haven't heard her say it? And if praising SAHMs is an automatic trashing of other women, then I guess we can't ever offer praise for just about anything, but someone will always be left out.

One Reason We Leave the Nest and Build Our Own

EXPECTANT MOM IN WISCONSIN wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am a 30-year-old woman with a baby due in June.

There is no mention whatsoever in the letter about a sperm donor, one-night-stand, boyfriend, ex-husband, or anything. It is as if this baby just appeared out of nowhere.

This will be my parents' first grandchild, and they are over the moon.

I have a full-time job, but I live with them because I go to school part-time.

So far, so good – I mean, if you're not going to adopt the child out to a wife-husband couple, that is.

After paying tuition and other bills, I can't afford to live on my own. Moving out is not an option right now.

That's one of the reasons why it is good to conceive your children within marriage.

The problem is my father's drinking...I mentioned to my mother tonight that if he thinks I will let him hold my child after he's been drinking, he has another think coming.

Well, at least you have some sense.

I love my dad, but I have to be a responsible parent, and that means putting my child's welfare first.

Well, yes, except for the daddy-and-marriage thing.

How do I tell him that his drinking will affect his role as a grandparent?

"Dad, I love you very much, I appreciate your generosity and hospitality, and I want you to enjoy your grandchild, but I will not let you hold the child or supervise the child when you've been drinking." He probably won't listen, but you retain control over the child anyway. The worst thing he can do in that case is throw you out. Either way, he doesn't hold that child while he is drunk.

And look at what Dear Abby said:

You tell him in plain English, preferably in the morning while he's still sober, and do not allow yourself to be dissuaded.

Exactly.

We live a short drive from my wife's parents. Her mother used to ask us repeatedly, and "ask" our child (really meant for our ears) when we were going to let our child stay overnight with her. The answer, as my wife has told her mother repeatedly, is never. My mother-in-law is a wonderful, delightful, loving person and a very capable caregiver. When she is sober. Unfortunately, we're never sure when she's going to hit the bottle, and we know my father-in-law "can't" stop her. She has missed some very important family events because she’s been passed out from the booze. (And my wife, who knew from the start I would drink wine from time to time, won't let me keep wine in our house because she was so scarred by her mother's abuse of alcohol... but that's another story for another blog entry, one I hope I get to write before my family's history of heart problems does me in.)

I guess I'm blessed with not having the substance addiction/abuse tendency, myself. I don’t think I've ever been drunk, because I simply haven't ever had much to drink at all. Now, if I was as good about what I ate...

Say Something Sooner

This recent Dear Margo installment features a longsuffering woman, who put herself into a bad situation. Yes, this is a about sex. You are warned.

F.R. wrote:

My partner and I have been together for 26 years.

Nothing else in the letter implies that the writer is homosexual, and Dear Margo responds as though this is a woman writing about a man. So I will, too.

After a messy divorce, he said he didn’t need a piece of paper to tell him whom to love.

Well, no, he didn't. Was there any ceremony? Any public vow before God, family, and everyone? While avoiding the "piece of paper" (which some people are literally marching in the streets over) might free him (and you) from certain legal obligations, what about the ceremony itself? Oh well, the important thing to this letter is how long they have been together.

A few months ago I finally got up the nerve to tell him how dissatisfying our sex life has been.

The implication, taking into account all of the letter, is that it has always been. Twenty-six years is a long time to let this problem go, especially if she has been faking it all of this time.

I asked him if he wanted to tell me anything, and he said he had not been aware that there was a problem.

That's not unusual. It is easier to tell if a man has been satisfied than it is to determine if a woman has. The guy will often squirt stuff, fall asleep, or be agreeable to all sorts of demands.

He knew I was inexperienced, because I told him.

Okay, well, that was a loooooong time ago. After all of this time, you have some experience, no?

Since our "talk," we have not had sex.

Of course not. He's been thinking everything has been fine all of this time, and now you tell him he's been doing it wrong since the first Reagan Administration.

I wanted things to get better, not worse.

Did you tell him exactly what you wanted and needed, or did you simply tell him he's been doing it wrong all of this time?

He is not abusive and supports our son in every way. My family all love him. I just see our relationship disappearing!

How soon before your son is out of the house? Then you can go your own ways. You've destroyed the guy, and it might not be possible to restore the situation.

Dear Margo thinks the guy might be a homosexual. Uh, oooookay.

Here's the thing, ladies. Your man, unless he's a jerk, wants to please you, especially in bed (or wherever else you make out). Never fake an orgasm. To him, it is the same thing as saying "I love you" when it isn't true. My deal with my wife is that she never fakes an orgasm. If she just isn't going to get there for whatever reason, she tells me so. (Every woman is different in this aspect – some can only seem to handle one orgasm, some are "satisfied" without having one every session, and others area prone to multiples of varying intensities.) She also gives me suggestions. This is very important. We are not mind readers. Encouragement and positive reinforcement work wonders.

Here are some handy words and phrases you can use right in the middle of everything:

Ooooooh
Aaaaaah
Mmmmm
"That’s good. Keep doing that."
"Right here."
"I need you to ____"
"It would be so nice if you would _____"
"Harder."
"Gently"
"Faster"
"Slower"
"It's such a turn on when you ___"
"I need you inside me right now."
"Try painting the alphabet with your tongue."

As the guy, one thing I've found handy is to ask, "Is there anything else I can do for you right now?" Sometimes I wonder if my wife has ever thought of replying, "Take out the trash." Of course, the question is a little silly in using the phrase "for you" as I enjoy it all at least as much as she does, even if I am presumably doing it for her pleasure. But that question, or some variation, works, as long as the woman is willing to be honest about what she needs and wants.

From what I've seen in the Bible and nature, God wants husbands and wives to please each other in this way - to enjoy what He has created. So don't be reserved when you are alone with your spouse.

More Reaction to Dr. Laura's Book Publicity

Wow. I am so blessed to have the wife that I do, who is my girlfriend and who is my daughter's mom and the Queen of our home. I am reminded of that simply by looking around for more reaction to Dr. Laura's media appearances promoting her latest book. My previous post on this is here. But now there's more.

http://becki325.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/this-can-not-be-real/
Prompted by a posting on WSJ's "The Juggle" "becki" checks in.

She finds some of Dr. Laura's comments "disturbing", even after waiting a week to post about she was so "riled up":

"When your husband comes home, wrap your body around him at the door and look at his eyes. What people need to learn is that it's not about the drudgery of housework — it's about being at home for all of those incredible moments that make your life more valuable than the person who replaced you at work."

This is not even worth a comment, but COME ON. If you are home all day with the kids, I am sure your disposition will not be ammenable to the above statement.

I don’t get it. When I come home, my wife cheers, wraps her body around me at the door, and looks into my eyes, tells me how much she missed me, and kisses me. So, is the housework at our place magically easier, taking care of our child magically easier, am I some sort of supernaturally hunky dude, or is my wife Supermom? Which is it?

"For everything in life, you have to make a priority list. This must be done. If we truly believe in something and cherish it, we find a way to make it happen. Women go from making seven-figure salaries to staying at home, and things just start to be less important."

Right, so I guess paying the mortgage becomes "less important".

Yes, that's what Dr. Laura says. Don't pay your mortgage.

No, actually, she advises people not buy things (or take out loans) that they can't afford. Or do downsize. You can't afford it if it keeps you from raising your own kids, because it costs you a lot more than money.

And hey, what about those of us who WANT to work because we LIKE OUR JOBS? What would Dr. Laura say to that?

From what I know from listening to/reading her, it would be that you should go ahead and work, if you enjoy that more than raising kids. But don't have kids if you're not going to raise them or have a husband who can raise them. You can't raise them if you aren't with them.

Yes, you have choices to make. Choices mean picking some things and not others. I can want both "A" and "non-A", but I can't have both at the same time in the same way.

Over at second blog from someone else who is also "riled up", we get this:

"I recommend that during the first three years, the mom should be at home because all of the research shows that the person whose body you come out of and whose breast you suck at, at that stage, really needs to be the mom - unless she's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. After that, flip a coin."

First of all, let me say that I am so so so thankful that I have wonderful family and friends who are generous, kind, loving, good examples and caretakers for my daughter.

That shouldn't be their responsibility. They should take care of any kids they have. Once their kids are grown, they have done their part in that area.

I do not worry about her care because I know she is in a loving environment.

Better than a day orphanage, to be sure.

I really hope you are not calling me incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial since I'm not home with my child right now.

Read again. She's saying that your daughter is better off with you unless you are incompetent. She didn't say you are incompetent.

You think that all mommies should stay home

Not true. She thinks mothers should raise their own kids (or have a husband who does it) and make her husband and child(ren) her priority. If a mom can work and still 1) make sure that her child is with her or her husband; 2) see to it that the home is taken care of – either by her husband or hired help if not herself; and 3) be a good wife to her husband, then that works. Use some imagination.

and from what I get of the story (could be wrong), I'm missing out?

Yes, you are. I know I'm missing out when I'm away from my child.

Guess I should have gone on to get my PhD (and gone into debt for more schooling, but I digress) to fully let myself know what I was missing.

If this is a reference to what Dr. Laura did – she raised her own son.

You think I don't know I'm missing out? You think I take this lightly? You think I don't cry at work, in the car, and at home sometimes?

She doesn't say that. You might have mistakenly believed you haven't had a choice in the matter – that is what she's been telling women. And her book is about praising mothers who raise their own children. That's it.

In apparent agony, the blogger goes on to credit God with having her away from her kid - twice. It's very sad. She also goes on to call on Dr. Laura to do something about the mythical "pay inequality" and housing prices.

"Tina" chimed in on her blog.

She praised "SAHMs" but then goes on to write...

Seriously, I know that I could not do it. I can BARELY survive the weekend with my children. Poor Dr. Laura would probably shake her head at the selfishness of me. But honestly, it's not that I can't stay home with my kids. I don't want to. I truly don't believe that I would offer my kids the best version of me if I was at home all the time.

Sad. What if your husband were to say the same thing about spending every night with you? Nevertheless, if it is true, then how about having your husband home raising the kids?

Honestly, I know a SAHM who seriously barely smiles. She never has ANYTHING good to say about being at home. I never knew her to be a working woman necessarily but she pretty much seems miserable. She complains about all the things that are supposedly so fulfilling about being a SAHM.

I could say the same thing about some husbands I know being with their wives. Does that mean that marriage can't be happy?

Is she so happy because she is a SAHM?

Sounds like a miserable person who shouldn't have had kids to begin with. Still, she can choose to be happy.

There is incredible value offered to children who have Moms who stay at home to be their Moms full time. However, there is incredible value for these kids whose Moms choose to work.

Hmmm, I wonder if husbands could try that on their wives? "Honey, there's value in me consistently doing something other than being around you, so you can find someone else to talk with or to take out the trash." If you married a jerk, maybe you'd be happy with that. But if your husband is a decent person, you want him there. Your kids want their parents.

Over at "Mama Candy! For single mama overachieving chicks!", touting itself as "A place to go when you want to talk about everything FABULOUS from smashing open the corporate glass ceiling,to single parenting and life after ex.", we get more fodder.

So first of all, Dr. Laura can SUCK IT!

Great way to start analysis. The language gets worse. Maybe her kids are better off with strangers.

She's been pretty much anti-single mother as long as I've know of her existence, and she has now released a new book strongly urging all mothers to stay at home.

Wrong. It simply praises "SAHMs" and gives tips on being or becoming one. She doesn't say ALL mothers should stay at home. I've never heard her say she is against single mothers. She's against making babies out of wedlock with the wrong man, or driving the right man away after making babies with him, or deliberately conceiving a child who will not have a father raising him. She encourages pregnant women who will not have a husband in the picture to give the baby up for adoption.

Um, hate to break it to ya, I DON'T HAVE A HUSBAND!

And who chose to make a baby with the wrong man?

The blogger then goes on to reprint a news item from two years ago saying Dr. Laura's adult son was being investigated by his employer. Not sure what that has to do with Dr. Laura praising SAHMs. But the blogger tries to make a connection...

Gee, guess staying at home didn't help your kid after all, now did it?

Where does she say that people raised by SAHMs will never ever make mistakes? She doesn't. But study after study does show that children raised without a father are more likely to cause trouble and get into trouble. And, last I checked, her son is still with that employer. Regardless, what Dr. Laura is teaching in this area is true, regardless of any mistakes she or any other member of her family has or hasn't made.

Finally, she goes on to mock Dr. Laura's doctorate. So predictable.

I noticed something in surveying the anti-Dr. Laura bloggers (I have not linked to all of them). Some of them stated that they praise their own mothers for having been SAHMs and think SAHMs are great. That's exactly what Dr. Laura’s book is about. Yet the bloggers go on to either defend their choices not to give their own children that gift, or claim they don't have a choice.

In general, much of the criticism I found out there about Dr. Laura or her advice to women is made as though they are unaware that Dr. Laura also advises men to be dedicated husbands and fathers, to live up to their obligations, to put their family first, etc. For example, she does tell male callers that there are some hobbies or some jobs or some dreams of theirs that they have to either abandon to set aside for now, because they have a wife and kids.

Clearly, her advice is first and foremost concerned with the well being of children. That's a good thing, even when it means adults have to set aside some of the things they want.

Sounds Like a Guy to Avoid

This is the second letter from a Dear Margo column that provided fodder for me yesterday. CONFUSED IN PLATTEVILLE wrote:

I am worried about a friend at work. She was married to a man who abused her. Two kids later, she divorced him. Then she met another man. She loves him and wants to marry and have a baby. The problem is that he is very controlling.

If you read the letter, it looks like he is actually controlling. This is opposed to the kind of "controlling" that some women call men when we:

--Expect our significant other to appropriately respect us, especially when it involves woman maintaining the same level of boundaries involving the opposite sex that she demands we maintain in our dealings with the opposite sex

--Say "no" to something a woman asks of us, especially when we refuse to enter into losing situations

--Maintain control over our own earnings (unmarried, so we're not talking community property)
That is not an extensive list, of course.

The guy sounds very insecure. But she is going to keep picking guys like that unless she figures out why she is doing it in the first place. Maybe it is what she was raised with, and so what she knows and finds "comfortable".

She was expecting a diamond on her birthday, but was disappointed.

Now that is not controlling, nor abusive.

He told her they will get married when he "gets all of his ducks in a row."

Neither is that.

A couple of us have decided that he hasn't even found his ducks yet.

So, she should stop seeing him. She has volunteered to see him and keep seeing him.

He's been in other relationships where he's out the door at the mention of marriage.

Has he ever given any indication that he actually wants to get married? And why would she want to marry someone like this??? She's better off that he hasn't asked and she hasn't accepted!

Now she thinks she may be pregnant! We’re afraid that if she tells him he will go nuts.

Why would he do that? Did she lie about being monogamous or using contraception? Regardless, if she is pregnant, she has boosted her chances that she'll be the victim of violence. She needs to get away from this guy.

Should we tell her what we are thinking?

Yes. But she won't listen.

Dear Margo gets it right when she replies:

This guy is nuts already … and I have a few doubts about your friend, as well.

Exactly.

If she is pregnant and he dumps her, remind your friend that he is responsible, by law, for child support.

How about giving the kid up for adoption? She can start making that possible by filing charges against him for any assault, property destruction, threats, etc. that he does actually commit. That way, she can show in court that he's likely to be an unfit parent, should he want custody or visitation.

Wouldn't it be a kicker if the woman in question filed sexual harassment complaints against her coworkers if they tell her what they think of this guy? "Hostile work environment."

Nice guys who are single but looking see situations like this, not realizing that something is wrong with the woman, and they see that jerks get women. And some of those nice guys stop being so nice. Meanwhile, this scary guy can keep getting women to "sleep" with him. He may not have much motivation to change as long as they do and as long as he doesn't run into trouble with the law.

Succeeding Can Lose You Friends

It can hurt to recognize that a friendship is over. LOSING THE "FOREVER" IN BFF wrote in to Dear Margo:

I'm 21 years old and will be graduating with my bachelor's degree in chemistry, with plans to go for a master's, then a Ph.D.

Good for you!

I have a ring and a date from a wonderful man I have been with for four years.

Okay... so you've been dating while young and in school. Your relationship is likely not going to be the same once you are both done with school, and it sounds like you are going to be busy with school for a few more years. Are you going to have time to be a spouse? Anyway, that's not really want this letter was about.

I was very close to the same two girls throughout grade school and high school; now I can’t stand to be around either of them.

That happens. Nowhere is it written that your best friends at one phase of your life are going to be your best friends through all phases of your life. In the past, you had geography and age in common, and when you were a kid, that's a lot. But you're now at the age where priorities, values, and morals make more of a difference, because you are more freedom over your own life.

One drinks to excess at least three nights a week and always wants to "hang out" at gross backyard keg parties.

Drinking and partying is not bad per se, as long as your friend isn't forsaking obligations. Drinking to excess is a problem. But this isn't your scene anyway.

The other dates a deplorable stoner who treats her like a dog and brags about how much money he makes pushing drugs to the local teens.

Not the kind of people you need to hang with.

Not surprisingly, all they do is whine and cry to me about all their problems, and then try to find problems with my life.

They want sympathy – it feels good and it is easier for them than making good decisions.

I don't return their calls anymore and have no desire to speak with them. So now they leave me messages all day, drive by and "drop in" if they see my car, and try to guilt trip me about being a terrible person for "throwing away" so many years of friendship.

They are the ones throwing it away as much as you. And some things aren't worth keeping.

I used to try getting them together for lunch dates, movies and other non-boozing and drug-using things, but they always said I was no fun.

Drop them. They are losers. You have more important things to deal with. If you want to help someone, go to a shelter and help there. Those are people seeking help.

Margo pretty much agreed.

This reminds me a bit about what I wrote here.

Of course we should stick by our friends when they have suffered setbacks in life – illness, injury, death, job loss, divorce, heartbreak, etc. But when they are making their own lives miserable as a chosen lifestyle and they don't want to change, they become akin to vampires. Especially when you have a spouse or kids depending on you, it is best to cut them out of your life.

In this case, she may find that her "friends" may actively try to subvert her education and her relationship, because the more she moves forward in those areas, the more she is going to be different from them.