Dear Wendy
Dear Wendy

Friday Links

Here are a few things from around the web that may interest you:

“Master online dating by thinking like an economist” [via Quartz]

“Colorado ballot measure proposes education classes to marry” [via The Denver Post]

Here’s some awful advice to a man whose girlfriend will only marry him if he will have kids with her (second letter down) [via Slate]

“Why Don’t More Women Want to Work With Other Women?” [via The Atlantic]

“How Our Abortion Changed Our Relationship” [via Cosmo]

“Getting too comfortable, ladies? Women gain SEVEN pounds in first year of new relationship… while men LOSE four” [via Daily Mail]

Thank you to those who submitted links for me to include. If you see something around the web you think DW readers would appreciate, please send me a link to wendy@dearwendy.com and if it’s a fit, I’ll include it in Friday’s round-up. Thanks!

You can follow me on Facebook here and sign up for my weekly newsletter here.

144 comments… add one
  • GatorGirl

    GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 1:03 pm

    I was going to send you a link about the Colorado pre-marital counseling mandate. I’m curious to the collective’s thoughts.

    Reply Link
    • iwannatalktosampson

      iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 1:05 pm

      I think the government should mind their own business, per usual. I mean overall do I think people should take marriage classes? Sure. Definitely. I did, and look where that got me. But to mandate it? Why doesn’t the government get a new hobby, like you know, fixing the economy.

      Reply Link
    • katie

      katie January 24, 2014, 1:09 pm

      im with sampson, i dont think that they are bad things, but im worried that if it becomes a mandated thing it will turn into drivers ed, which is of course a complete joke now.

      Reply Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 1:17 pm

        also, i dont believe you can change something like divorce rates with mandated pre marital counselling- which im assuming is what the law is aiming to fix.

        if we want to change divorce rates, a whole cultural shift would need to take place. good/healthy marriage would need to be seen as an example in childhood, people would need to not be pressured to have a marriage to be “complete”, people would have to understand that NOT marrying is a perfectly acceptable choice, ect, ect… a few hours of mandatory counseling is way too late in the process, i think.

        Link
    • mylaray

      mylaray January 24, 2014, 1:23 pm

      I don’t think it’s a good idea either. Would they decide what type of pre marital counseling is acceptable or not? I did faith based counseling at a non religious center and wouldn’t have wanted to be forced to do it a church or to do counseling with no faith at all. While I think pre marital counseling is good, I don’t think it’s for everyone and really messed up to require it. So many people would not get married because of the cost I would imagine.

      Also requiring more education simply because someone got divorced is not fair. You don’t know why they got divorced.

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      kerrycontrary January 24, 2014, 1:39 pm

      I’m with everyone else, I just think it’s government getting too big. I think marriage classes are great, but this proposed mandate is part of the mindset of “if I do everything right then I’ll be rewarded”. People can’t control everything. You can prepare all you want, but sometimes the person you marry turns into an asshole or something else happens and you get divorced.

      Reply Link
    • KKZ

      KKZ January 24, 2014, 1:55 pm

      I get what others are saying. Counterpoint – Don’t we sometimes say here that it should be harder to get married, and easier to get divorced? This seems like a step in that direction.

      (If that’s not an opinion that’s been shared here, my bad, I may have read it elsewhere.)

      Reply Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 1:58 pm

        Yeah but they’ll never make it easier to get divorced, they can’t really, so then we’ll just have more government involvement in our lives, which is always, no exception, a bad thing.

        Link
      • meadowphoenix

        meadowphoenix January 24, 2014, 3:40 pm

        It’s really too bad anarchy never did catch on.

        Link
      • avatar

        kerrycontrary January 24, 2014, 2:01 pm

        I say it should be harder to have children (i.e. license to breed), but we all know that’s not going to happen.

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 2:06 pm

        i think when people said “harder to get married” they meant along the lines of how divorce works- lots of paperwork, waiting periods, money, lawyers, tracking down and showing tax statements and earnings statements and bank accounts, ect.

        but- good point. i just worry that anything the gov’t touches turns to shit a la the DMV. can you imagine having to bribe an official to get you “approved” after the counseling sessions? can you imagine sititng through a drivers ed-esque course on “how to have a good marriage”? that sounds like hell. lol

        Link
      • KKZ

        KKZ January 24, 2014, 2:12 pm

        Oh yeah, I’m not really arguing FOR this rule, I don’t have a strong opinion either way. It’s hard to get me riled up over “size of government” issues, that’s just not one of my political priorities. I just think it’s intriguing even as a hypothetical.

        Link
    • othy

      othy January 24, 2014, 1:58 pm

      How they will decide what to teach in the class. I mean, who decides what values are important in marriage. I could see a marriage class being very different if it were taught the conservative right wing compared to the liberal left. Do folks get to choose which type of class they attend? Because it sure isn’t one size fits all.

      Also, who is going to pay for this? I don’t imagine that counseling sessions (especially ones not done through religious organizations) come cheap.

      Reply Link
    • GatorGirl

      GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 2:27 pm

      So, I actually have no idea what I think about this. On one hand, I think it’s a fabulous idea to put WAY more thought into marriage than a lot of people do. We took a free, county sponsored pre-marital counseling class, and it was pretty okay. Being someone who is semi-obsessed with improving our relationship, we had covered a lot of the topics presented, BUT I think a lot of people would get something out of it. It focused on things like productive conflict resolution, how to combine finances (multiple ways presented)…I’ll have to grab the handouts and see what else it covered. But over all I thought it was a pretty good, non partisan class.

      On the other hand, if you read how this thing is structured, it’s pretty dick-ish. People on second marriages have to take twice as much counseling, civil unions are exempt, all kinds of weird things. And the government does have bigger fish to fry.

      So yeah, basically I’m not sure what I think.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:33 pm

        I was with you until I thought of this: who gives a shit if marriages fail left and right? Does the general public suffer somehow because of it? Not that I’m aware of, so because of that, I say butt out govt, as usual.

        I do think people would get a lot out of it, but I can’t imagine too many couples would end their engagement at that stage over something they learn in class anyway. People also could get a lot out of college, or stay drunk for 4 years. There have to be choices for people I think.

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 2:35 pm

        I guess it just seems so controlling and creepy to me. Like do they want to come to my house and regulate the number of blow jobs I give as a wife too? Just to make sure the marriage doesn’t fail? It’s bizarre, and truly weirds me out. Get a life government, get a life.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:36 pm

        Yea, I agree. Let’s fix the issues they are supposed to be working on before adding new things they really shouldn’t have a say in.

        Link
      • othy

        othy January 24, 2014, 2:42 pm

        At least blow jobs are legal in your state…

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:43 pm

        Psh, makes it sexier when its illegal.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 2:37 pm

        Yeah, I mean I have no idea how divorce affects the government, and I agree- who gives a shit if Joe Blows marriage fails? I shouldn’t.

        So, I guess I think the intention is good, but it’s just not viable IRL. There are definitely other ways to decrease the divorce rate (if that’s what the goal is) and #1 would be de-glamorizing the whole f-ing wedding machine, thus less weddings!

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 2:44 pm

        “I canโ€™t imagine too many couples would end their engagement at that stage over something they learn in class anyway” — exactly, thats why i said if there is to be improvement here, it has to be wayyyyy before marriage classes would start.

        “People also could get a lot out of college, or stay drunk for 4 years.” — great point.

        also, yea, im not exactly sure why divorce is such a huge deal? but i imagine its one of those “but think of the CHILDREN!” things…

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:48 pm

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 2:57 pm

        WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES, OK?

        haha i die.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:06 pm

        So funny. I love the woman who plays the baker too. She’s hysterical. Try to find her doing Justin Beiber. Its so on point.
        Anyway, apparently Nancy Grace people on pot shoot, stab, strangle each other and kill whole families. What the fuck?

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 3:10 pm

        did ya ever stop and think about the babies, lets? geez.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:10 pm

        And this just reminded me that I wish people could just be sane and not so beyond ridiculous. Even if they had a good point/argument about something, it will be ignored because they stick 400 ridiculous, extreme points in the middle of their one decent point. (not that I agree with ANY of what she is saying, just in general)

        Link
      • avatar

        kerrycontrary January 24, 2014, 3:12 pm

        “who gives a shit if marriages fail left and right? Does the general public suffer somehow because of it?” Yes—actually. Marriage is good for society as a whole and leads to a happier, more productive society.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:30 pm

        Is that considered a fact? It sounds like an opinion. I’m sure if marriage didn’t exist at all, there would be some ramifications, but I don’t think your statement is really true, although I’ve heard it before.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:38 pm

        I’m googling around and finding a lot of research showing that married couples spend more money thus stimulating the economy.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/165599/economy-benefit-marriage-rate-increases.aspx

        I’ve also seen some things (that I’m not finding now) about how married individuals are seen as more desirable job candidates. I know in GGuy’s career path, married men have a MUCH higher rate of success than any other “group”.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:47 pm

        Does it say they spend more as a couple compared to one person? Of course you have more money disposable when you combine money with someone else.

        If that’s true about marriage/jobs, it makes no sense to me. I would think a single person with no familial responsibilities would be a better hire.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:55 pm

        More as an individual.

        I wish I could find the article about historians. It’s really interesting.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:02 pm

        Found it- it’s on the average time till tenure
        Married men- 5.9 years
        Unmarried men- 6.4 years
        Married women- 7.8 years
        Unmarried women- 6.7 years

        It’s a pretty interesting study on gender and marriage with in a really small subset of academia.
        http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/being-married-helps-professors-get-ahead-but-only-if-theyre-male/267289/

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:11 pm

        I know Addie has mentioned not experiencing any discrimination being a woman in her field and I’m the same way, which is lucky.
        But in general, the whole being married makes life better or society better feels like bullshit to me. I agree with Iwanna’s rant so much.
        Interesting link, but only applies to (like you said) a small group of people.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:15 pm

        I agree. Being married doesn’t make life better for a heck of a lot of people. I don’t think it makes that big of an impact on society either, but I felt like Kerry was being attacked! Honestly, I think being married makes a lot of people shitty, because they married the wrong person and are unhappy.

        (And the study is super interesting to me because I’ve basically devoted my life to following GGuy around…so I’m hoping he gets a job soon! haha.)

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:19 pm

        haha on your last point! I think the reactions were because of how kerry stated her opinion so factually. I also don’t think most DWers believe what she said.

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 3:55 pm

        Well then that’s a self fulfilling prophecy. If society treats married people better then of course marriage benefits society because married people are happier. They’re the ones making them happier!

        I can’t quite tell why that irks me so much but it does. It is not the government’s job to make me happy. It is not their job to make me take a class, and I owe society nothing. I don’t need to get married so that I am more productive. They can go fuck themselves. The government needs to defend me from foreign enemies, and that’s about it.

        Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither. I am really shocked that people are so willing to have the government set up rules. Are you people really okay with this type of shit? It’s shocking to me. What else should they regulate? What else should taxpayer dollars go towards? Telling me the exact number of poops I should be taking every day?

        At a certain point you don’t give people a fish, and you don’t teach them to fish, because fishing’s not that hard. People can figure it out themselves. It is a free country, everyone should be free to be as happily married, unhappy married, happy single, unhappy divorced, happily divorced, etc. as they want.

        IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO REGULATE HAPPINESS. Wtf people.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:08 pm

        Yikes…that was intense.

        I don’t actually think this idea is a good one…I was just saying that there are some studies/info out there that says people who are married are happier.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:12 pm

        I don’t buy that married people in general are happier at all.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:16 pm

        I don’t either! Which I just posted above! And for every study that says married is happier, I’m sure there is at least one that says the other.

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 4:30 pm

        Sorry I actually wasn’t ranting at you, I’m not sure why I responded to your comment, haha. I stand by my point though that I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would think a government mandated class is a good thing. But I also don’t think the government should tell me I can’t drink full sugar pop (new york). Or tell me how much beer I can buy (ala utah). It’s scary to me that people are so used to weird government intervention in their lives that they’re not outraged anymore. That’s sad.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:31 pm

        Its called soda ffs.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:32 pm

        Haha, okay! Come to PA or FL, the beer laws are even nuttier.

        Link
      • Fabelle

        Fabelle January 24, 2014, 5:50 pm

        ahh I totally agree with everything you’re saying, @IWTTS. I am very freaked out that many people seem to WELCOME & even invite laws that interfere with individual choice? (like to use your example, I’ve seen many arguments like, “I’m glad soda over x ounces is banned, nobody needs that anyway” like…WHAT)

        Link
      • othy

        othy January 24, 2014, 10:07 pm

        Hey, we can buy all of the beer we want. At the grocery store. That’s only 3.2% alcohol. If we want the real beer, we can buy as much as we want in the state run liquor store, or one beer at a time in a restaurant. With a meal. Because restraints are not bars, gosh dang it!

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 4:19 pm

        i dont actually think that you (general you) can make an informed, un-biased, science based call like that.

        marriage is the default in our country. you cannot have an accurate control group against that, because of our culture.

        there are societies in our world that dont operate with marriage, and they probably just as happy and unhappy as anyone else.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:22 pm

        Just out of curiosity, because I literally don’t know, what societies don’t have marriage as a default?

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 4:36 pm

        well like everything, i learned about it from cracked – http://www.cracked.com/article_20542_5-insane-foreign-versions-traditional-marriage_p2.html

        thats the second page, and read the last entry. its a small group in china.

        and actually, as you can see from that article, there are many ways to interpret marriage anyway. so to say that it “makes society better” or whatever is very egocentric…? whats that word that means you think your culture is the best? that word. ethnocentric?

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:46 pm

        Pretty interesting.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 2:36 pm

        Yeah, I’m with LBH. Let people have shitty marriages if they want to. I do think that free, non-partisan marriage classes would be a GREAT idea though. If a couple elects to attend, they can, but they don’t have to.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 2:39 pm

        In our county you get a discount on your marriage license if you take the free class. I thought that was interesting. $30 off is a lot of money, and I could see that motivating more people to take it.

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 2:47 pm

        i think that is a great way to do it- give an incentive to do it, but not make it a mandatory thing.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 2:54 pm

        They also have a list of approved counselors (some of which require a fee), so if you wanted to do faith based counseling, you can still get the discount, and if you don’t you can take the county course. I was pretty impressed with the system. (We didn’t end up getting the discount because we married in PA, not FL, but it was still cool.)

        Link
    • theattack

      theattack January 24, 2014, 2:34 pm

      It’s a terrible idea, IMO. Where I live, there aren’t many non-religious pre-marital counselors, and I’ll be damned if I’m going down to the local evangelical church to learn how to be a good wife. Marriage is such a personal thing, and it only matters that the two people getting married agree on what it means. Requiring a couple to invite someone else’s opinion into their marriage, and perhaps that they have to “pass” this class, is a recipe for disaster. It probably wouldn’t be as much of a disaster in a place like Colorado, but move this idea down South, and I guarantee you the government would be requiring women to learn to be obedient housewives before you know it.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        starpattern January 24, 2014, 4:25 pm

        Ha, that is an EXCELLENT point. I know nearly all my friends who are non-religious have struggled to find pre-marital counseling that isn’t super Christian.

        Link
    • avatar

      Shadowflash January 24, 2014, 3:13 pm

      Mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think it’s a great way to inject a waiting period between declaring the intent to marry and following through with the deed. It gives people time to come down from the high, sober up (if necessary), and give some thought to the contract they’re about to sign. This would be a good thing.

      On the other hand, I can’t think of what you’d teach in the class other than pompous holier-than-thou “nanny state knows best” marriage advice. Someone (I think katie?) said it’ll turn into driver’s ed–scary statistics, a few nasty videos about the fallout from bad choices, and a lecture about the tax code are all I can really envision without bringing religion into it. And the government for sure shouldn’t be advocating (or even incentivizing) religious counseling. Plus, the whole “your first marriage(s) clearly failed because you didn’t have enough credit hours in Marriage 101” attitude really bothers me.

      Reply Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:26 pm

        re, what would be taught: the one very helpful thing our county sponsored course taught was conflict resolution. Basically it was how to fight fair and not be a total dick while still getting your point across. That is something I think 99% of the country could use.

        But yeah, the second marriage thing is gross. The thing says you have to take 10 hours of counseling before your first marriage and then 20 before your second…wtf?

        Link
      • avatar

        Shadowflash January 24, 2014, 3:35 pm

        Good call on the conflict resolution. God knows we see plenty of letters around here that could have been spared by that ๐Ÿ™‚

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:40 pm

        But maybe that should just be a mandatory “you’re alive, you have to take this class” class, not a pre-marriage thing. Haha.

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 4:21 pm

        ha, i think there are a lot of “your alive, you have to take this class” subjects that we could make.

        but really, even, isnt that parents job? this must mean parents are sucking.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:24 pm

        Haha yes, but I think we can all agree there is a fair share of not great parents in the world. Maybe it should just be a high school class?

        Actually I think we did have it in our senior seminar class, but I don’t think that’s the norm

        Link
  • avatar

    jlyfsh January 24, 2014, 1:07 pm

    Yikes that advice to the guy who doesn’t want kids and his gf does. I can’t believe how terrible that is.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      ktfran January 24, 2014, 1:20 pm

      Right? What the fuck? Was that serious, or was the columnist being a smart ass?

      Reply Link
    • CatsMeow

      CatsMeow January 24, 2014, 1:25 pm

      Worst advice ever!!

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 1:46 pm

        Right? Nobody really wants kids, and they’re all doing just fine. Wtf.

        Link
    • avatar

      Gwensoul January 24, 2014, 1:52 pm

      I think that column is supposed to be tongue in cheek given some of the other answers in other columns. At least I hope so!

      Reply Link
  • avatar

    AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 1:16 pm

    “It seems that unhappiness often equals weight loss amongst women.”

    Wow, that’s pretty interesting. And being in a relationship = happiness, being single = unhappiness. But relationship = weight gain, and single = weight loss.

    I know my Mom said she gained like 10+ pounds in the first year of dating my Dad. But she said it was because they were going out on so many dates/going out to eat a lot more than she did when she was single and just cooked at home. That does make sense to me, although that doesn’t account for the fact that men lost weight in the study when they were in a relationship.

    Reply Link
    • GatorGirl

      GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 1:20 pm

      I’ve gained like 10 pounds since our wedding, haha. Because we’ve been in honeymoon mode and gorging ourselves on craft beer and tasty foods.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 1:30 pm

        Yea, I could totally see that happening. People usually try to lose weight before the wedding, so you presumably are down a few pounds and then treat yourself after the wedding to all the foods.

        Link
    • iwannatalktosampson

      iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 1:31 pm

      Colin and I gained 20 pounds and 10 pounds respectively the first 3 months we were together. I think for both of us it was a combination of being really really in shape when we first met (he ran a marathon the weekend before we met, me the same race half-marathon) and going on dates and happy hours and other fun lovey things. Love is really fattening.

      The week before I moved out of the house with Ethan, I lost 6 pounds. That week alone. So for me stress, anxiety, sadness, drastic changes and just general shit storms are a recipe for me to have massive loss of appetite. I know some people eat more when they’re stressed, and for me that’s true for I guess minimal stress. But once it gets into shitstorm territory it’s like my mind is in overdrive and consequently my physical needs just shut off.

      Reply Link
    • Fabelle

      Fabelle January 24, 2014, 1:39 pm

      I was going to come on here &, in relation to that article, just be like, “oh stfu Daily Mail” but your comment is making me actually speculate, ha. I think it’s more likely that in the first year of dating, eating meals together & maybe being a bit unused to voicing dietary wants/needs, men & women tend to match each other’s eating habits? So, generally speaking (very VERY generally), women are smaller & tend to be more health conscious while men are larger & tend to not be so absorbed with nutrition concerns… so, if a man & a woman in a new relationship are blending the other’s eating preferences, a woman will start eating more & more unhealthily than usual, while a man will eat less & healthier? That’s my theory, if anyone can make sense of it. Obviously I’m speaking in stereotypes, not to mention how heteronormative thus whole thing is, but yeah

      Reply Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 1:43 pm

        Yeah I completely agree. Also when I’m single I have no shame about eating what I truly want, which is often a bunch of weird, but healthier shit. Like I never worry about having a serving of vegetables, meat, and a grain for example. I’ll have like corn, tomatoes, and green beens with cheese on top, because that’s what I want and I have no shame. Being in a relationship makes me feel like I need to act like an adult and eat respectable meals, which tend to be higher in calories and I eat more.

        Link
      • Miel

        Miel January 24, 2014, 2:39 pm

        I think it might also be about portions sizes, on top of food choices. When I cook with my boyfriend, I make two equal portions in the plate. But that’s a bit less than what he’s used to, and it’s a bit more than what I’m used to. But on the other side, making a small plate for me and a big plate for him would really look like “Father Bear” and “Baby Bear” in Goldie Lock. So we become two Mother Bears.

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 2:40 pm

        oh i like this theory.

        in my house, jake still gives me way more, and hes always like “geez you didnt eat anything!”. im gonna tell him he will be the reason im ever too fat. haha

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 2:42 pm

        I think this is true. I 99% of the time serve us the same amount of food even though I’m a solid 8 inches and 55 pounds smaller than he is. I need to work on better portioning for both of us.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:44 pm

        I’m now realizing peter overloads my plate and serves me seconds and he often just eats whatever is leftover. I think we’re in opposite world.

        Link
      • Fabelle

        Fabelle January 24, 2014, 3:51 pm

        Yeah, this. Fabello is a big-ish guy, & I’m a smallish woman,, & obviously he can (& should) eat more than I do, but he expects me to eat as much as him. When we cook, I make like 4 timea as much as I would than if I were cooking for myself. Like if it’s pasta, he wants me to make the whole pound & then is like, “you’re full already?”

        Link
      • avatar

        AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 2:46 pm

        Haha, we have baby bear and father bear portions when we cook together. I just can’t eat as much! Sometimes I feel particularly enthusiastic and I take a mamma bear portion… but then I can’t eat it all…

        So I make him eat it. Resulting in juvenile bear portion and super-fatty-father-bear portion.

        Link
    • avatar

      kerrycontrary January 24, 2014, 1:42 pm

      I lose weight when I’m falling in love. Like can’t eat can’t sleep kind of lust and falling in love. But otherwise, yes, I think it’s normal to gain a little weight in a relationship. A lot of times, men eat crappier than women (especially men in their teens/twenties) cause they burn so many more calories than women. So they can just eat more. I heard that newleywed women gain like 9lbs on average the first year of marriage.

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:42 pm

      I’m the type who can forget to eat, so I guess I’m slightly heavier with a boyfriend only because he force feeds me.

      Reply Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 3:07 pm

        God and the appetizers. Colin can’t go to a restaurant without ordering an appetizer. It’s hereditary apparently. When his parents were in town over Christmas and we went out to eat (which was like every night) his Dad would immediately order at least 4 appetizers and two bottles of wine. They’re italian and it was exhausting. I was so excited for them to go home so I could just not eat for a day or two.

        I have found myself getting annoyed that Colin will want to eat meals at normal times and on a regular basis. When I’m single it’s really easy for me to skip dinner a few days a week because I’m busy or just don’t think about it. I hate structured eating. But then of course if someone is eating around me I’ll eat.

        ttif.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:14 pm

        All I usually order are appetizers, haha. My dad is just like Colin’s though. You might go to hell for complaining about too many apps and wine bottles. Just a warning. I’m with you on hating structured eating and eating just because there is food. I could not be hungry in the slightest, but you put a plate in front of me and all of a sudden, I’m a vulture.

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 3:20 pm

        Right? If I just listen to my body and eat when I’m hungry I always eat way less. That’s why the holidays fuck with me so much. There’s just food around everywhere so I eat it all.

        Link
  • mandalee

    mandalee January 24, 2014, 1:31 pm

    That abortion article was amazing and I’m a little shocked it came from Cosmo. I think it’s so great to put a human face and experience on such a political issue. It shows just how personal a thing it is and it really pains me that legislators, mostly men at that, make some disparaging campaigns against a life choice so complicated, mainly for political gain. My mom had an abortion at 16 and considering the state of her life, family, and financial means at the time, I can’t imagine what her life would have turned out if she didn’t have a choice. I may have never came along three and a half years later and she may have had to drop out of high school, and never gotten out of the poverty cycle that was common in my town.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      jlyfsh January 24, 2014, 1:41 pm

      Yeah it was different than what I expect from Cosmo. I enjoyed the personal face they put to the issue as well. The last story was heart breaking.

      Reply Link
    • mylaray

      mylaray January 24, 2014, 1:51 pm

      Yeah I also loved the stories, especially hearing the perspective from men. I wish more people talked about abortion openly. My mom had one 16 years before I was born and is open about it, but there are also other women in my family who have had them and it’s this big secret I’m not supposed to know. Not that anyone has to talk about it, but I wish it was something people didn’t feel ashamed about.

      Reply Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 2:55 pm

        I wish it was something people weren’t made to feel ashamed about. I would love to talk about mine with anyone and everyone, but it’s just not worth the sacrifice of a lot of my personal relationships. If the conversation surrounding abortion was centered more on the people rather than politics, it would be a safer space to talk about it.

        Link
      • mandalee

        mandalee January 24, 2014, 3:32 pm

        Yes! I wish there was much less shame in it, because I think it would make the issue so much more relatable if you knew your family member, friend, neighbor, etc has been there before. I think it’s a choice between the woman, her partner, and her doctor, not the entire country how they feel about the procedure. My mother was ashamed of it but when she opened up and talked to me about when I was a teenager, I really appreciated it. I felt like I knew her better, maybe?

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:41 pm

        That makes sense. It’s a vicious cycle. People don’t think of it in personal ways because they don’t know people who talk about it, but people don’t talk about it because they’re scared of people judging them based on their callous, impersonal comments. No one is in a good position to make the first move, and it’s scary. I only talk about it when the personal risk is low for me. I think I’m still personalizing it for people, but I’m not about to lose my father because of it, ya know?

        Link
      • mandalee

        mandalee January 24, 2014, 3:44 pm

        Yeah, that definitely makes sense. My mother’s parents don’t know either and they’d probably both disown her at this point, even 30 some years later after the fact.

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 4:39 pm

        this sounds like how being gay was 10 or 20 years ago… my gay co worker was telling me his coming out store yesterday on our drive to the airport.

        maybe we just need time with it? i dunno.

        Link
    • KKZ

      KKZ January 24, 2014, 2:24 pm

      KKZ Rant #2 for today – I was getting through that abortion article and feeling all the feels… and then Cosmo popped up with a “Want to see SEXY PHOTOS of SEXY THINGS like SEX POSITIONS??” ad and I about ground my teeth into dust. Yes, reading people’s heartwrenching abortion stories is a turn-on, I definitely want your sex tips now. *glare*

      Oh good. Now I can keep on hating Cosmo despite this one quality article.

      Reply Link
  • the_optimist

    the_optimist January 24, 2014, 1:45 pm

    That Cosmo article was surprisingly excellent (I say surprisingly because I usually think Cosmo sucks). It reminds me of a piece NY Mag did a few months ago: http://nymag.com/news/features/abortion-stories-2013-11/

    Reply Link
  • KKZ

    KKZ January 24, 2014, 2:09 pm

    On the Atlantic piece about working with men vs. women…

    Jeez, I hate when there’s a study like this where the results are clearly in one direction – three quarters of men and women simply don’t care – but then an author zooms in on the dissenters with such a microscope that it looks like a crisis, puts it in the headline, and speculates left and right about what that means. There was a distinctly fear-mongering tone to that article.

    “Fewer Millennial women aspire to be managers” and that is “bleak.” The question I have is, are women obligated to feminism to aspire to higher positions and break the glass ceiling? What if some women don’t want to be managers just because… they don’t want to be managers? I like project management, but would dislike people management, it doesn’t appeal to me. The tone of this article would seem to say “Sigh, yet another Millennial woman who doesn’t aspire to management, clearly the plight of women in the workforce isn’t changing/going to change…”

    I guess what I want to say is – not everyone has to have their sights set on the top. And I say this as a chronic overachiever. If you find a job that’s somewhere in the middle and where you are rewarded financially and personally in a way that meets your needs, that’s great! That’s not to say don’t be ambitious, but being happy as a non-manager is fine too and doesn’t spell doom for the workforce.

    /rant

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 2:18 pm

      I love everything about this.

      Reply Link
    • theattack

      theattack January 24, 2014, 2:57 pm

      Very true. It’s much more relevant to examine how many women vs. how many men want to become managers than to just be concerned that someone doesn’t want that.

      Reply Link
    • iwannatalktosampson

      iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 3:03 pm

      Ha I was talking to someone about this the other day. Like I just don’t aspire to be the top, be the best in my field, etc. I aspire to be someone that gets to snowboard 20 days a season. I aspire to hike as many mountains as I can. I aspire to be the best puppy mom, because Sampson deserves it. There’s lots of goals I have in my life, but most of them are not related to my job. The goals I do have for my career are things like: constantly learn new things, enjoy my work, learn when to say no to clients, bosses, etc.

      My “I have a dream speech” is essentially I have a dream to be very mediocre and happy with that, haha.

      Reply Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:14 pm

        This is the way I feel too. I want to be good at work, but I work so that I can pay for my life. I don’t work just because that sounds like a fun thing to do (wtf?). I would much rather spend my time shopping and hiking and going on fun trips and gardening. I only want to be good enough at my job so that I can afford those things, not so good that I don’t have time for them anymore.

        In my experience that seems to be gendered. P thinks life is for working, and I think work is for living. I see work as a means to do good stuff, and he sees it as the good thing itself. I’ve just always wondered if women grow up learning the value of other stuff, but men only have the option to work, work, work. And of course if that’s all you think you can do, you might want to be the best at it. I don’t know.

        Link
      • LadyinPurpleNotRed

        LadyinPurpleNotRed January 24, 2014, 3:16 pm

        That’s funny because most of the men I know are the opposite. Work is to fund what you love doing.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:23 pm

        That’s really interesting! I have very rarely known a man that didn’t think work was number 1.

        Okay everyone, pitch in your sweeping gender generalizations. We need to settle this matter.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:18 pm

        Yeah, I’m with you. I work so I can live the life I want. Honestly I could careless about what I’m doing for work. GGuy thankfully feels the same way.

        edit: GGuy’s sister is the other way- her work is her life. She’s said out loud she’ll miss events with her hypothetical kids to get ahead at work. ah.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:25 pm

        It’s kind of a strange conversation for me, because I think I just came to that conclusion in the past couple of months. I think I changed from a live to work person into a work to live person. Now I would be thrilled with a job that pays my bills and makes practical sense, whereas a year and a half ago, I wanted something more career-oriented.

        That’s kind of sad to me that her kids might miss out on her for that reason, but I guess that’s normal? I don’t know.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:29 pm

        I think it’s super sad that she would do that to her kids, but it’s not my place to say anything. GGuy and I just looked at her like she had 6 heads when she said it. I can’t imagine putting my kids second to my job, unless it was a situation of say needing to work to put dinner on the table.

        I like my job, and I do it to the best of my ability, and I def worry about it WAY too much, but I also don’t miss life for it.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:33 pm

        I guess there’s a line with the kids thing. If you go to everything you can but then you miss a few basketball games a year, I don’t think that’s a big deal. But if you miss most of what your kid is doing because of work, that’s just sad. I wish that it were possible to have it all, but I don’t think it is. It seems like maybe you either have to be average at both, or great at one and not so great at the other.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:18 pm

        Just thought I’d add this – I believe Lil learned a lot more from me when I was single and working more than she does now that I’ve got an easier life. There is a part of me that wishes I didn’t have the life I have today until after she was older so I could still be that example to her because I fear she doesn’t remember what I was like pre-BF.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:32 pm

        I’m very excited for someone to tackle this comment about it being sad for her kids.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:36 pm

        haha, Well it is sad for kids when they want their parents to be there, but they have to work. I don’t think a parent is obligated to give up all of their career obligations for their kids at all, but it doesn’t make it less sad for the kids. Balance is hard for a lot of people, because you don’t always get to choose when your obligations are.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:42 pm

        I think there’s something to be said for parents working though. Lil is proud of my work and brags to people about me. She’s overheard me telling my mom about a big case I won or whatever and she repeats it to other people. She’s learning a lot simply because I work. I think that’s a great thing. And if parents can explain balance to their children, and give and take, etc., that’s also a good thing. Do I hate missing out once in a while, yes. But I don’t think its a bad thing necessarily.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:44 pm

        Example: my mom/dad can’t be here because she’s the most awesomest [fill in job title here] and has to save the world. That’s awesome to me. And the reality is that they will have to miss out too in life, especially as they turn into adults, so its a good lesson (sometimes!).

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 3:47 pm

        Absolutely. I completely agree. That’s really sweet that she brags about you. ๐Ÿ™‚

        I don’t think there’s anything wrong with missing out sometimes, because that’s the real world, and you have to. I just hope that parents at least feel like they should be there for their kids as much as they can. And if their jobs never allow them to be around, well, I hope they’re thinking very critically about whether the benefits for the family outweigh the heartbreak for the children.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:48 pm

        And I agree with you too. haha.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:47 pm

        Yeah, I mean missing out sometimes because of work obligations- totally normal. SIL’s implication was that kids will take a total backseat to career, and well I just don’t get having kids if that’s the plan. Maybe I miss interpreted her.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:51 pm

        I think you can want both…meaning, you can want a crazy good career and still want children even knowing that your kids will often have to take a backseat and if your partner is cool with that and willing to do more, I think its fine. Shit, it was the norm for men up until 5 minutes ago.
        Of course if she literally would never be there for her children, then I don’t really get wanting to have them either.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:52 pm

        Also, I think its easy to say your career will come before your kids when you don’t even have kids yet. Who knows how she’ll feel once she does.

        Link
      • katie

        katie January 24, 2014, 4:42 pm

        its always about balance. i was always very appreciative for people coming to my things, but geez the moms who were there every single game or meeting or whatever i just felt sorry for. i would never begrudge my parents (and i never did) when they didnt put me 100% first.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:36 pm

        I can’t decide how I feel about this. I’ve said before that I love that my job lets me do parent stuff whenever I want/need and I am a work for life person, but this doesn’t sit right with me. Lots of people need to miss events to get ahead at work, which helps the family in the long run. Would her husband fill in maybe?

        Link
      • KKZ

        KKZ January 24, 2014, 3:54 pm

        I actually tend to fall in the “live to work” camp, but I think that’s partially because my parents and school put a lot of emphasis on academic achievement while I grew up. And when you’re a kid, school is basically your job, and I was expected to prioritize it. Not like I wasn’t allowed to have fun, but I didn’t have many extracurriculars either, and did homework immediately after school before I could go play or watch TV. (I didn’t even complain, to me it was normal and I couldn’t understand why some other kids didn’t get their homework done on time.) And of course all of that was geared towards getting me to college, which was geared towards placing me in the workforce… basically, I was set up to be a super diligent worker bee.

        My priorities have definitely shifted, but it took a while for me to even question the whole “Your entire goal in life is to find a steady 40-hour-a-week job that you don’t hate.” And now as I prepare to run my own one-woman business, I know that Work and Life are about to become the same thing. But I’ll be doing what I really love, what I’ve always wanted to do, so my hope is that it won’t feel like “living to work” is keeping me from living more fully.

        I mean, I don’t know what I’d do WITHOUT a job. If I won the lottery, I’d probably still find a way to keep working, even if I did a bunch of volunteer work. I don’t like being idle and hobbies can only entertain me for so long. I need mission and purpose and objectives, dammit! ๐Ÿ˜‰

        Link
      • avatar

        AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 4:48 pm

        Hmm… this is such an interesting topic to me. I’ve talked before about how single-minded a lot of my classmates are, and how like LBH’s sister I wouldn’t mind and would ideally like to work part time while I part time did things with my children/homeschooled(gasp!!!!!!!!)/helped with the farm/household/side business…etc. And how that is seen as really negative as I should be ALL MEDICINE ALL THE TIME WHAT A WASTE OF SKILLZ.

        So I think that I don’t really live to work or work to live. “I live to help others and provide benefits to society, in a variety of different micro and macro circumstances?”

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 3:18 pm

        Yea, I was talking to my sister recently who is very go-getter-ish and she was being judged at school because she wanted a family and I guess people were saying why bother with med school, she should’ve given up her spot at her big name school for someone who wanted to only be a doctor, etc. So we got in this whole discussion about how its better to find contentment in life than it is to be obsessed with being the Best of the Best. I think people who aspire to that will never understand people who just like their life the way it is.

        Link
      • avatar

        AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 4:43 pm

        <3

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:47 pm

        Does that heart mean you want me to run away with you and the goats to a magical land? If so, I’m in.

        Link
      • avatar

        AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 4:55 pm

        Hahahaha. We better run away soon, they are starting to get really fat and therefore are on their way out. It will be so weird to have no pigs and no goats on the farm this year. Luckily we will be adding some cherry trees, and probably ducks again and we will still have our laying hens and Jeremy the rooster.

        But yeah, I could just leave Benjamin and live in a magical land where baby goats never grow up and we can all prance around together forever and ever.

        Link
      • avatar

        Ammie January 24, 2014, 10:11 pm

        My PhD advisor’s wife asked me that question when I was in school, too. (Which is funny, because she’s also a PhD scientist with a family. :P) Funny how no one ever asks dudes why they’re getting educated if they’re going to have children….

        Link
    • avatar

      Shadowflash January 24, 2014, 3:30 pm

      Right there with you.

      I am that almost ambition-free woman. I *don’t* aspire to be anybody’s manager (I’m a people-hating introvert), I really just want to stay in engineering and do technical things forever. Sure, I’d like to move up in the engineering world, but eventually being “promoted” means going into the management/business sector and I would HATE that. There’s no glass ceiling over me; there’s a nice mural of sailboats and C++ programming, and I put it there myself ๐Ÿ™‚

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      starpattern January 24, 2014, 4:45 pm

      Thank you so much for pointing this out. I try to articulate a similar thought sometimes and it never comes out right.

      I should not have to feel like I’m not “being all I can be” just because I have no desire to get a PhD and apply for the astronaut corps. I am more than my career.

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      Ammie January 24, 2014, 10:08 pm

      Absolutely! My former boss told me not to stay in my field, because there wasn’t a lot of upward mobility (read: management potential). (He started out in the same job I’ve got, and transitioned into something else to make more money, so he knows of what he speaks.) I’m making good money and I love what I do, but he was sure I would be dissatisfied with it if I wasn’t a Director of Something or Other eventually. Maybe he’s right, maybe I will be. But when I shut down my computer and waltz out the door at 4pm so I can take a long run on the trails before the sun sets, or when I can spend the weekends enjoying my boyfriend and my loved ones and my hobbies instead of desperately trying to figure out a way to turn our revenues around because it’s All My Responsibility, somehow I’m not really feeling like it’s a problem. ๐Ÿ™‚

      Reply Link
  • katie

    katie January 24, 2014, 3:04 pm

    for some friday funday fun:

    is it happy hour yet?

    Reply Link
    • iwannatalktosampson

      iwannatalktosampson January 24, 2014, 3:13 pm

      Almost! I have really exciting news and I’m going to fb you about it right now!

      Reply Link
    • GatorGirl

      GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:16 pm

      What? #1 why isn’t it in alphabetical order??

      Also, PA’s drink sucks. As does NC. And Florida for that matter, but at least it’s something I’ve heard of.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        rachel January 24, 2014, 3:41 pm

        They are in alphabetical order, haha.
        I didn’t look at all of them, but I’ve never heard of the drinks in the states I’ve lived in.

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 3:49 pm

        Hmm. maybe my computer was being screwy! Mine came up in a crazy order.

        Link
    • theattack

      theattack January 24, 2014, 3:27 pm

      Omg, I want to tour the US this weekend from the comforts of my apartment. This is awesome.

      Reply Link
    • CatsMeow

      CatsMeow January 24, 2014, 3:43 pm

      The Missouri Mule actually sounds good! I tried a drink recently with bourbon, rum, applejack liqueur, black walnut bitters, some sugar, and a lemon twist and it was surprisingly good too. Although…I’ve totally been on a gin kick lately. Gin is so good. And anything floral. Mmm.

      Reply Link
  • avatar

    Sue Jones January 24, 2014, 4:10 pm

    Well on the one hand, people f up marriage 50% of the time so maybe this is a good idea. I think the Catholics require it. It at least gets people talking about real issues. It may not prevent all divorces, but if it prevents a few marriages that should never be that may be a good thing. They used to require a blood test to marry… and I especially wish people would take parenting classes. Think of all the problems that could be solved!

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 4:15 pm

      If this rule only required people to read Wendy’s Lists, I would agree that its a good idea. haha. I shoved them down my sister’s throat when she was looking to move for a guy and I’ve copied and pasted them to Peter and other random people a million times.
      I could get behind parenting classes a lot faster than I could ever get behind marriage classes.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        Shadowflash January 24, 2014, 4:50 pm

        On a tangent: I’ve been toying in my head with how to realistically implement “parenting licenses”, where you have to demonstrate that you have the emotional, financial, etc. resources before you are allowed to have kids. the two methods I’ve contemplated are:

        1. Reversible sterilization for everyone at puberty, which would be reversed after you got your parenting license.
        2. Let people get pregnant whenever they want, but force them to give the kid up for adoption/”into the system” if they can’t pass the parenting exam.

        Option 2 is kind of horrible, but that’s mostly because the system sucks balls. If the system were better and being a ward of the state didn’t screw you over for life, I would go for that. Reversible sterilization would be good, except that it’s the gov’t doing things to your body without your permission…which isn’t OK.

        Off tangent: What would you put in the parenting classes? Would it be strictly practical, like how to change a diaper and how much sleep is physiologically optimal at different ages, or would it be like a philosophical, “pros and cons of different techniques” kind of class?

        Link
      • GatorGirl

        GatorGirl January 24, 2014, 4:59 pm

        Honestly…both options are horrible. Forcing a medical procedure on a person? WTF.

        Link
      • avatar

        Shadowflash January 24, 2014, 5:04 pm

        Woah, geez, just a random musing since parenting classes came up, which made me think about driving classes, which went to driving licenses, which went to parenting licenses. Which wouldn’t be useful without an enforcement measure. When they revoke your driver’s license, they can impound your car if you keep driving. If they revoked your parenting license, how would they enforce it?

        Obviously they are both not cool. Nobody’s advocating that we do this, it’s just a hypothetical. It will only ever be hypothetical. If you don’t want to talk or think about it, don’t talk or think about it.

        Link
      • avatar

        AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 5:18 pm

        I think about this all the time. It’s like prime social-dystopian-novel material. Seems even more plausible as our population increases and resources decrease creating mass hysteria. I love thinking about these kinds of hypothetical things.

        It’s ESPECIALLY interesting/controversial because of our own country’s history with forced/unknowing sterilization procedures done on people. Back when eugenics was all the rage. Sterilization of “mentally ill” and “criminals” was a really popular stance as recently as the 1920’s.

        Link
      • avatar

        AliceInDairyland January 24, 2014, 5:22 pm

        PS my Mom and I talked about this in a hypothetical scenario type of way for a long time… and we came up with:

        A VOLUNTARY, reversible sterilization procedure where you were paid a sum of money to be sterilized and reversed after you meet a certain set of criteria/attend a course. Kind of like #1, but voluntary and incentivized with $$. We were unsure if you were to receive the money right away, or at the reversal, or if you just didn’t want to have kids then you get the money after a certain amount of time.

        It’s interesting, and would make a great Hunger-Games-esque book if you went with your plots Shadowflash. Mine would probably be more boring.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 5:08 pm

        Yeah, those are both terrible options. I don’t think it’s a terrible idea for new parents to have to take parenting classes at all. By the time parents are eventually referred to parenting classes, there’s often already a big problem that could have easily been prevented. There are lots of good parenting class curricula available already. Forced sterilization is horrible though, and while “the system” sucks, there’s no way for the government to raise children in good and healthy ways. The system is always going to suck. It is never going to be effective for children, which is why it’s so important to provide early interventions in families.

        Also who is going to decide when someone’s worthy of becoming a parent? Who gets to decide what parts of our population are worthy of continuing and which parts should be stopped? There’s no way to take this power from individuals that doesn’t threaten to discriminate against certain groups of people, and of course, that’s almost irrelevant at this point because you’re so severely stepping on the liberties of every person.

        Link
      • avatar

        lets_be_honest January 24, 2014, 5:15 pm

        Hopefully that person would not be BGM, because babies would cease to exist. haha.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack January 24, 2014, 5:22 pm

        For the record, I didn’t actually think you were advocating for any of those things. I just think the whole conversation is too problematic to be workable even in theory. I would just rather throw birth control out to everybody like candy at a Christmas parade, let people get abortions when they want them, provide early interventions like teaching people how to parent, and then snatching up kids when all of that failed. It’s still imperfect though.

        Link
      • Fabelle

        Fabelle January 24, 2014, 5:43 pm

        “I didnโ€™t actually think you were advocating for any of those things. I just think the whole conversation is too problematic to be workable even in theory. ”

        Yeah, this. I like talking hypothetical scenarios, but it’s okay to say, “no, those are horrible options”– like, I don’t think saying that shuts down the conversation… it furthers conversation by presenting a viewpoint. Like, for example, option 1: the cons mentioned towards the bottom (intrusive government, forced medical procedure), for me, WAY WAY outweigh any part that could make option 1 a good idea.

        But anyway, parenting classes are a good idea. Not MANDATORY, just accessible (like everything should be)

        Link
      • othy

        othy January 24, 2014, 10:18 pm

        I thought we once decided that the DW folk got to be the committee. People would write Wendy, say why they thought they were ready, and we’d vote yes or no. If no, we gave them specific goals to work on to resubmit in X months.

        Link

Leave a Comment