I love eBay. It's just such a cool place to shop. I love the thrill of the bidding war. I love when the auction goes right down to the wire. I love winning.
I don't love losing.
We've been on a losing streak. Hubby has been looking for a transmission for his father's lawn tractor for some time now. We've bid on three different auctions and were in the lead until the very (and I mean VERY) last seconds and lost. It really fries my bacon when someone comes in with 2 seconds left and outbids me by $.01. I know, I know: that's how auctions work. It doesn't mean I can't be frustrated by losing, does it? This afternoon, hubby was browsing and found three different transmissions to bid on. We waited until the one had about an hour left and placed our bid. Long story short, we ended up winning the transmission for $300. It turns out it's the exact same seller selling the exact same transmission that went for $365.50 last week. Our bid on that auction was $365.00. How is that for awesome? To make the story even better, tonight I was checking my email and found an old email from eBay with a coupon code for 10% off a single item purchase before June 4. We ended up getting $30 off the cost of the transmission! So it ended up costing us $95 less than it would have if we'd have won last week! I love winning AND saving lots and lots of money!
I also scored on some Stampin' Up! stamp sets. I got one set for $1.04, one set for $2.50, and one set for $4.50. Altogether, with shipping, it all came to $17.94. The original cost of one of the sets I bought was $19.95, so I consider my shopping tonight to be very, very successful. I got 16 stamps combined, which averages out to a little more than a dollar a stamp. You can't find decent stamps in craft stores for less than about $5 each. Do the math on that one!!!
Oh yeah, winning feels so good!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
I hate rain
Boy, the showers we should have had in April have hit us hard in May. ("April showers bring May flowers"..yeah right!) It seems like we've had nothing but rain in May. I'm getting sick of it. The rainy weather HAS brought lots and lots of lovely flowers, but it also brings mud (my yard is horrible!) and headaches. I don't know if it's my sinuses or just my brain, but these rainy days leave me feeling so under the weather (pun intended). I woke up this morning feeling anything but refreshed. I have 102 things I want to accomplish but my head hurts so badly that I don't know if I'll get any of them done. The Excedrin I took has not kicked in yet, and I can hear my bed and the heating pad calling my name. Luckily, Todd is home today and I think he's going to get custody of the anklebiters for a few hours while I go in and try to kick this headache in the butt.
I'll return later (hopefully!) with a pain-free head and something happy to blog about!
I'll return later (hopefully!) with a pain-free head and something happy to blog about!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Neglected and abandoned
Once again, I realize that I've been neglecting my blog. Bad blogger!!! I will try to pay more attention to this sad little corner of the blogging world. There may suddenly be an influx of blogs posted (most of which will probably be copied and pasted from my CafeMom page). So much to write, so little time to spread it all over the internet!
Monday, August 20, 2007
So now I'm a danger to my kids?
Are stay-at-home moms dangerous?
Posted: August 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
I remember when feminists – even the radical ones – at least gave lip service to the idea that their movement was about "choices."
For sure, the Gloria Steinems and Betty Friedans of the world always were rather condescending toward any woman who made different choices than them.
But, only now, with the "women's liberation" movement in its fourth decade, are those other choices – those alternate lifestyles, if you will – being characterized as subversive, dangerous and morally wrong by a new breed of pious, feminist fundamentalists.
Exhibit A is Gretchen Ritter, who apparently makes her living directing the Center for Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Texas and as associate professor of government and women's studies, who maintains stay-at-home moms are dangerous subversives and a plague on society.
"It is time to have an honest conversation about what is lost when women stay home," she wrote in the Austin American-Statesman earlier this month. "In a nation devoted to motherhood and apple pie, what could possibly be wrong with staying home to care for your children?"
Ritter goes on to tell us:
* That choice by women denies fathers the chance to be involved;
* Women lose a chance to contribute as professionals and community activists;
* It teaches children the world is divided by gender;
* It stresses children out;
* It victimizes women who work because employers fear women professionals may opt for the same choice some day and quit their jobs;
* It makes it tougher for families with two working parents because schools and libraries will neglect their needs;
Ritter pulls no punches. She comes close to calling for laws to outlaw full-time motherhood.
"Full-time mothering is ... bad for children," she insists.
"... the stay-at-home mother movement is bad for society," she states.
Of course, there is not the slightest effort to cite empirical evidence. There is not the slightest effort to cite anecdotal evidence. There is not the slightest effort to cite her own personal experience – if she has any.
No, these judgments are handed down from on high as if from the university of Mount Sinai. We're just supposed to believe it – in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Mind you, Ritter is someone who says she supports "alternative lifestyles." But what she means by "alternative lifestyles" is anything but traditional. These feminists don't really support the idea of allowing people to make informed choices about how to live their lives. They want to coerce people and badger people into living the lifestyles they prefer – those they consider sacred, holy and sinless in their new religion of goddess-worshipping feminism.
Should we just disregard nut jobs like Ritter? It is sorely tempting. If only we had the choice to do so.
Here's the problem: What Ritter teaches at the University of Texas is de rigueur of what is taught at colleges and universities across this country – at taxpayer expense.
In other words, this is the official government line. What Ritter teaches about stay-at-home moms being dangerous to society is considered culturally mainstream in academia. Women who choose to raise children are looked at as if they came from another planet.
It's easy to point out this kind of demagoguery as if it is an isolated incident. It's not. It's the norm on campus. Your children – those precious beings you sacrificed to raise, sometimes as stay-at-home moms – are being indoctrinated into these ideas at your expense.
It's not enough to battle the corrupt ideas – that's the easy part. We've got to go further – much further.
It's time to pull the plug on the gravy train that funds them at nearly every public college and university in America today.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39743
I am beyond words. I find it hard to believe that this crackpot has ever even met a child. I feel compelled to refute this point by point:
* That choice by women denies fathers the chance to be involved
I'm not sure where she came up with the idea that fathers are denied a chance to be involved with their children simply because the mother stays home. My becoming a SAHM was a mutual decision between my husband and myself, not one I made on my own without his input. He spends ample time with the children. He gives them baths, reads them bedtime stories, tucks them into bed, says prayers with them, plays with
them, and loves them deeply, among numerous other things. He does not feel deprived of anything, and I'm sure he would say that he is glad they are so well taken care of by me.
* Women lose a chance to contribute as professionals and community activists;
So I can no longer contribute to society simply because I don't work outside the home? I must have missed the memo on that! What about all the years I worked? Do they not count for anything? I didn't realize that being a "community activist" was reserved for women with jobs. I thought anybody could put their time and energy into creating a better environment for all to share. As a non-working mother, I actually have more time to devote to community activism. Go figure!
* It teaches children the world is divided by gender;
I hate to tell Ms. Ritter, but there are inherent differences between a mother and a father, the least of which has to do with "plumbing". A child who is breastfed cannot suckle from it's father's breast, can it? Children learn from birth that there are gender lines drawn. It is not necessarily a bad thing. If I had a job that paid more than my husband's, then he would be the one to stay home with the kids instead of me. For us, it was simply a matter of economics and whose job was more lucrative.
* It stresses children out;
In what ways? I always thought my children were well-adjusted little people. They spend their days with the person they are most familiar with: their mother. They are not beaten or abused in any manner; they are well-fed, nutured, clean, loved and have their mother's undivided attention. Explain to me again how this is stressful, because I'm just not getting it. They are not wrenched from their warm beds in the morning to be toted to a day-care center while Mommy goes out and earns a paycheck (only to have the majority of that money go back into day-care costs), they are not constantly sick from being exposed to every single germ, virus and bacteria that comes along, and they are not separated from the person who gave them life for 8-10 hours a day. Sorry, Ms. Ritter, I don't understand your argument.
* It victimizes women who work because employers fear women professionals may opt for the same choice some day and quit their jobs;
Having been a working mother at one point in my life, I can say that I have never seen this. Is she saying that simply by being a woman we are all guilty until proven innocent? That an employer looks at all women and judges them as flighty creatures who will quit their jobs the second they get pregnant? So what is the choice here? Let the human race die out so that employers are not inconvenienced by women who decide that they would rather be home with their children while they are small? I don't see how my choice to quit my part-time job affected all the other people in my office. When I told them early on in my pregnancy that I would not be back after my son's birth, their reaction was pretty much "Um, whatever. There are plenty of people out there to take your place." As much of a blow as it was to my ego, it was the truth. I seriously doubt that companies are going out of business because a few women choose not to return to work after the birth of their children. And if there are companies out there that are truly "victimizing" their employees, then I think the problem is much bigger than a few SAHMs.
* It makes it tougher for families with two working parents because schools and libraries will neglect their needs;
This one is my favorite because it makes absolutely no sense at all to me. How exactly does a library neglect a child's needs because both of their parents work? I didn't realize there were libraries out there that had two separate sets of rules: one set for one-income families and one set for two-income families. When my son filled out an application for a library card several years ago, nobody asked him if his mother worked. They asked for his name, address, phone number and my signature. If Ms. Ritter is referring to the fact that most libraries schedule their programs for children in the morning and afternoon, as opposed to the evening, I have a simple explanation: most children are at the best in the morning and early afternoon. By the time most parents gets home from work, feed the children, and get to the library, the kids are getting close to bedtime. I can't see any librarian worth his/her salt scheduling programs for children
in the evenings. My library has hours until 9:00 pm, regardless of who works in our household. As far as schools are concerned, more clarification would be nice here. I don't understand how children of stay-at-home mothers are making life harder
for children of working parents. In my opinion, the working parents make it harder on the stay-at-home parents because it would seem that more of the responsibility for helping out in class would fall on them because they don't have "real" jobs. (For the record, I homeschool, so none of this pertains to me. I am merely offering an opinion.)
The frightening part to me is that this woman is shaping the minds of young men and women in a large college. She is a prime example of why the word "feminist" is so terrifying to some people. By claiming that stay-at-home mothers are "dangerous subversives" and a "danger to society", she will not only earn the wrath of men, but of women as well. The decision to stay at home with one's children is a personal one, is nobody's business but that of the couple making that decision. It is an incredibly difficult and personal decision, and who has earned the right to tell me what is right or wrong for my OWN family? And out of curiosity, what is her opinion on stay-at-home fathers? Even though they make up a much smaller percentage of the population, they do exist. Are they going to ruin the world like stay-at-home mothers? Are they ruining things for working dads?
What scares me is that she can say whatever she wants, not offer any evidence to back it up, and it will be taken as truth and respected by her students simply because of who she is. I think the real demon here is a college professor who speaks of things she knows nothing about. Until she can prove her theory with hard evidence, she is simply an overpaid crackpot with a mouth loud enough to be heard by too many people.
Posted: August 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
I remember when feminists – even the radical ones – at least gave lip service to the idea that their movement was about "choices."
For sure, the Gloria Steinems and Betty Friedans of the world always were rather condescending toward any woman who made different choices than them.
But, only now, with the "women's liberation" movement in its fourth decade, are those other choices – those alternate lifestyles, if you will – being characterized as subversive, dangerous and morally wrong by a new breed of pious, feminist fundamentalists.
Exhibit A is Gretchen Ritter, who apparently makes her living directing the Center for Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Texas and as associate professor of government and women's studies, who maintains stay-at-home moms are dangerous subversives and a plague on society.
"It is time to have an honest conversation about what is lost when women stay home," she wrote in the Austin American-Statesman earlier this month. "In a nation devoted to motherhood and apple pie, what could possibly be wrong with staying home to care for your children?"
Ritter goes on to tell us:
* That choice by women denies fathers the chance to be involved;
* Women lose a chance to contribute as professionals and community activists;
* It teaches children the world is divided by gender;
* It stresses children out;
* It victimizes women who work because employers fear women professionals may opt for the same choice some day and quit their jobs;
* It makes it tougher for families with two working parents because schools and libraries will neglect their needs;
Ritter pulls no punches. She comes close to calling for laws to outlaw full-time motherhood.
"Full-time mothering is ... bad for children," she insists.
"... the stay-at-home mother movement is bad for society," she states.
Of course, there is not the slightest effort to cite empirical evidence. There is not the slightest effort to cite anecdotal evidence. There is not the slightest effort to cite her own personal experience – if she has any.
No, these judgments are handed down from on high as if from the university of Mount Sinai. We're just supposed to believe it – in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Mind you, Ritter is someone who says she supports "alternative lifestyles." But what she means by "alternative lifestyles" is anything but traditional. These feminists don't really support the idea of allowing people to make informed choices about how to live their lives. They want to coerce people and badger people into living the lifestyles they prefer – those they consider sacred, holy and sinless in their new religion of goddess-worshipping feminism.
Should we just disregard nut jobs like Ritter? It is sorely tempting. If only we had the choice to do so.
Here's the problem: What Ritter teaches at the University of Texas is de rigueur of what is taught at colleges and universities across this country – at taxpayer expense.
In other words, this is the official government line. What Ritter teaches about stay-at-home moms being dangerous to society is considered culturally mainstream in academia. Women who choose to raise children are looked at as if they came from another planet.
It's easy to point out this kind of demagoguery as if it is an isolated incident. It's not. It's the norm on campus. Your children – those precious beings you sacrificed to raise, sometimes as stay-at-home moms – are being indoctrinated into these ideas at your expense.
It's not enough to battle the corrupt ideas – that's the easy part. We've got to go further – much further.
It's time to pull the plug on the gravy train that funds them at nearly every public college and university in America today.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39743
I am beyond words. I find it hard to believe that this crackpot has ever even met a child. I feel compelled to refute this point by point:
* That choice by women denies fathers the chance to be involved
I'm not sure where she came up with the idea that fathers are denied a chance to be involved with their children simply because the mother stays home. My becoming a SAHM was a mutual decision between my husband and myself, not one I made on my own without his input. He spends ample time with the children. He gives them baths, reads them bedtime stories, tucks them into bed, says prayers with them, plays with
them, and loves them deeply, among numerous other things. He does not feel deprived of anything, and I'm sure he would say that he is glad they are so well taken care of by me.
* Women lose a chance to contribute as professionals and community activists;
So I can no longer contribute to society simply because I don't work outside the home? I must have missed the memo on that! What about all the years I worked? Do they not count for anything? I didn't realize that being a "community activist" was reserved for women with jobs. I thought anybody could put their time and energy into creating a better environment for all to share. As a non-working mother, I actually have more time to devote to community activism. Go figure!
* It teaches children the world is divided by gender;
I hate to tell Ms. Ritter, but there are inherent differences between a mother and a father, the least of which has to do with "plumbing". A child who is breastfed cannot suckle from it's father's breast, can it? Children learn from birth that there are gender lines drawn. It is not necessarily a bad thing. If I had a job that paid more than my husband's, then he would be the one to stay home with the kids instead of me. For us, it was simply a matter of economics and whose job was more lucrative.
* It stresses children out;
In what ways? I always thought my children were well-adjusted little people. They spend their days with the person they are most familiar with: their mother. They are not beaten or abused in any manner; they are well-fed, nutured, clean, loved and have their mother's undivided attention. Explain to me again how this is stressful, because I'm just not getting it. They are not wrenched from their warm beds in the morning to be toted to a day-care center while Mommy goes out and earns a paycheck (only to have the majority of that money go back into day-care costs), they are not constantly sick from being exposed to every single germ, virus and bacteria that comes along, and they are not separated from the person who gave them life for 8-10 hours a day. Sorry, Ms. Ritter, I don't understand your argument.
* It victimizes women who work because employers fear women professionals may opt for the same choice some day and quit their jobs;
Having been a working mother at one point in my life, I can say that I have never seen this. Is she saying that simply by being a woman we are all guilty until proven innocent? That an employer looks at all women and judges them as flighty creatures who will quit their jobs the second they get pregnant? So what is the choice here? Let the human race die out so that employers are not inconvenienced by women who decide that they would rather be home with their children while they are small? I don't see how my choice to quit my part-time job affected all the other people in my office. When I told them early on in my pregnancy that I would not be back after my son's birth, their reaction was pretty much "Um, whatever. There are plenty of people out there to take your place." As much of a blow as it was to my ego, it was the truth. I seriously doubt that companies are going out of business because a few women choose not to return to work after the birth of their children. And if there are companies out there that are truly "victimizing" their employees, then I think the problem is much bigger than a few SAHMs.
* It makes it tougher for families with two working parents because schools and libraries will neglect their needs;
This one is my favorite because it makes absolutely no sense at all to me. How exactly does a library neglect a child's needs because both of their parents work? I didn't realize there were libraries out there that had two separate sets of rules: one set for one-income families and one set for two-income families. When my son filled out an application for a library card several years ago, nobody asked him if his mother worked. They asked for his name, address, phone number and my signature. If Ms. Ritter is referring to the fact that most libraries schedule their programs for children in the morning and afternoon, as opposed to the evening, I have a simple explanation: most children are at the best in the morning and early afternoon. By the time most parents gets home from work, feed the children, and get to the library, the kids are getting close to bedtime. I can't see any librarian worth his/her salt scheduling programs for children
in the evenings. My library has hours until 9:00 pm, regardless of who works in our household. As far as schools are concerned, more clarification would be nice here. I don't understand how children of stay-at-home mothers are making life harder
for children of working parents. In my opinion, the working parents make it harder on the stay-at-home parents because it would seem that more of the responsibility for helping out in class would fall on them because they don't have "real" jobs. (For the record, I homeschool, so none of this pertains to me. I am merely offering an opinion.)
The frightening part to me is that this woman is shaping the minds of young men and women in a large college. She is a prime example of why the word "feminist" is so terrifying to some people. By claiming that stay-at-home mothers are "dangerous subversives" and a "danger to society", she will not only earn the wrath of men, but of women as well. The decision to stay at home with one's children is a personal one, is nobody's business but that of the couple making that decision. It is an incredibly difficult and personal decision, and who has earned the right to tell me what is right or wrong for my OWN family? And out of curiosity, what is her opinion on stay-at-home fathers? Even though they make up a much smaller percentage of the population, they do exist. Are they going to ruin the world like stay-at-home mothers? Are they ruining things for working dads?
What scares me is that she can say whatever she wants, not offer any evidence to back it up, and it will be taken as truth and respected by her students simply because of who she is. I think the real demon here is a college professor who speaks of things she knows nothing about. Until she can prove her theory with hard evidence, she is simply an overpaid crackpot with a mouth loud enough to be heard by too many people.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Summer nights
Tonight was one of those nights I wish I could capture in a jar and keep forever. After dinner, we went outside and Sam and Norah played on the swingset while Todd and Jacob tossed a baseball back and forth. It wasn't anything special, just a wonderful hour of family togetherness that I treasure. The sound of Sam and Norah laughing as he pushed her in her swing; the way Todd cheered for Jacob when he caught the baseball in his mitt; I wish there was some way I could bottle these moments and keep them on a shelf. There is nothing like a lazy summer evening spent in the backyard together. Good times...
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Y'all gonna make me lose my mind
What is it with kids and repetition? My kids get on these kicks where they find a movie and insist on watching it on a continuous loop all day. Seriously, it's enough to make a grown up lose their sanity.
The movie du jour is The Little Mermaid. My three year old is now obsessed with it. He's watched it approximately 152 times in the past three days. Our DVD player will just play the movie over and over, so he doesn't even need Mom to start it over when it ends. And heaven forbid you should try to watch something else. He goes ballistic and starts screeching "I WANNA WATCH ARIEL!!!!". I went into his room last night and I kid you not, he was singing "Kiss the Girl" in his sleep. It would have been cute if it wasn't so strange to hear him sleep-singing. Oh, did I mention that he was singing in a Jamaican accent? Just like Sebastian...it was adorable and disturbing at the same time...
Is it wrong that I'm praying for the DVD player to break? Or for that movie to disappear? Because I fear for my sanity if one of those two things doesn't happen soon...
The movie du jour is The Little Mermaid. My three year old is now obsessed with it. He's watched it approximately 152 times in the past three days. Our DVD player will just play the movie over and over, so he doesn't even need Mom to start it over when it ends. And heaven forbid you should try to watch something else. He goes ballistic and starts screeching "I WANNA WATCH ARIEL!!!!". I went into his room last night and I kid you not, he was singing "Kiss the Girl" in his sleep. It would have been cute if it wasn't so strange to hear him sleep-singing. Oh, did I mention that he was singing in a Jamaican accent? Just like Sebastian...it was adorable and disturbing at the same time...
Is it wrong that I'm praying for the DVD player to break? Or for that movie to disappear? Because I fear for my sanity if one of those two things doesn't happen soon...
Anything I can do, he can do better
Have you ever heard of Couvade Syndrome? It's also called sympathetic pregnancy. It's where the man experiences the same symptoms as his pregnant wife. I think my husband has a form of that syndrome. No, I'm not pregnant and even though he did gain more weight than I did in all three of my pregnancies, his need to always one-up me continues.
Whenever I'm feeling sick (it doesn't matter what I've got), my husband always has to have something worse. If I've got a cold, he's got pneumonia. If my throat is sore, he thinks he has strep throat. Bronchitis? He's got the early stages of emphysema. Stomach ache? Oh, well he thinks he was food poisoning. Backache? He thinks he slipped a disk. Sore muscles? He starts asking if right-side abdominal pain is appendicitis. It's really frustrating to never be allowed to just be sick and not have to be outdone by him.
I've been pretty sick for almost a week. Major head cold with ear infections and perforated eardrums. I've felt like crap, and haven't gotten much sympathy from him. I ended up going to the doctor yesterday to find out for sure if I had an ear infection, which I do. We met up at his parents' house yesterday afternoon to pick up the kids. This is the conversation we had:
Me: I've got to run home and take the groceries in the house. I don't want the ice cream to melt. I also need to get some Advil. My ear is throbbing and there are pains shooting through it. I'm in agony.
Hubby: Oh, don't worry, my throat is sore. I think I'm getting sick too.
Me: And your point?
Hubby: Well, I just wanted you to know that I don't feel well either.
Me: Congratulations.
Notice that he never offered any sympathy to me? No murmurs of "Oh, you poor thing. That must be agonizing for you." No offers to come home with me and help me with the groceries. In fact, he ditched me until almost 10:00 last night. He's not my favorite person right now (in case you hadn't already picked up on that.)
If he tries to one-up me when Aunt Flow comes to visit this month, he's in big trouble. I can just hear it now:
Me: Boy, I've got some serious cramps.
Hubby: I think my prostate is enlarged. I should see the doctor.
Would it be wrong to smother him with his pillow while he snores next to me at night? It's really tempting...
Whenever I'm feeling sick (it doesn't matter what I've got), my husband always has to have something worse. If I've got a cold, he's got pneumonia. If my throat is sore, he thinks he has strep throat. Bronchitis? He's got the early stages of emphysema. Stomach ache? Oh, well he thinks he was food poisoning. Backache? He thinks he slipped a disk. Sore muscles? He starts asking if right-side abdominal pain is appendicitis. It's really frustrating to never be allowed to just be sick and not have to be outdone by him.
I've been pretty sick for almost a week. Major head cold with ear infections and perforated eardrums. I've felt like crap, and haven't gotten much sympathy from him. I ended up going to the doctor yesterday to find out for sure if I had an ear infection, which I do. We met up at his parents' house yesterday afternoon to pick up the kids. This is the conversation we had:
Me: I've got to run home and take the groceries in the house. I don't want the ice cream to melt. I also need to get some Advil. My ear is throbbing and there are pains shooting through it. I'm in agony.
Hubby: Oh, don't worry, my throat is sore. I think I'm getting sick too.
Me: And your point?
Hubby: Well, I just wanted you to know that I don't feel well either.
Me: Congratulations.
Notice that he never offered any sympathy to me? No murmurs of "Oh, you poor thing. That must be agonizing for you." No offers to come home with me and help me with the groceries. In fact, he ditched me until almost 10:00 last night. He's not my favorite person right now (in case you hadn't already picked up on that.)
If he tries to one-up me when Aunt Flow comes to visit this month, he's in big trouble. I can just hear it now:
Me: Boy, I've got some serious cramps.
Hubby: I think my prostate is enlarged. I should see the doctor.
Would it be wrong to smother him with his pillow while he snores next to me at night? It's really tempting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)