Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[hadespussercats]

The example I wrote, which was in fact fictional (for instance, we live in a 1-bed and don't own a car) was influenced by stories I've heard from a few friends who have twins, and a boatload of mommyblogs I've read about same over the years.

Daddy of twins here!

Can I add anything to the discussion?

On second thought, scratch that. I'd rather not get too deep into this thread.

Did my story ring true at all for you?

I've gotta say, Ian, every time I see a couple carrying a double stroller up the stairs, I think You poor bastards. You poor, poor bastards...



(Though when the kids are as cute as yours, I imagine it's a bit easier!)

[FBM]

Sounds like colic is more of a syndrome than a specific disorder: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Colic/Page ... ction.aspx

[Ian]

The example I wrote, which was in fact fictional (for instance, we live in a 1-bed and don't own a car) was influenced by stories I've heard from a few friends who have twins, and a boatload of mommyblogs I've read about same over the years.

Daddy of twins here!

Can I add anything to the discussion?

On second thought, scratch that. I'd rather not get too deep into this thread.

Did my story ring true at all for you?

Every. Single. Line.

Except the one about colic. None of my kids were especially bad about being inconsolable when they were infants, though I've known some kids who were awful. Medically, there might be no such thing as colic, but I have little doubt that some babies are far more prone to crying than others, and there isn't a silver-bullet solution that can fix all of them.

Sleep deprivation was a way of life in our house, for both of us. It was especially bad for Heather when they were very young, since she was breastfeeding them - and she was lucky if they both wanted to eat at the same time. At least once after a late-night feeding she went back into their room in the morning and found she had put them back into the wrong cribs; feeding both in the dark, she forgot which kid was on which boobie. Eventually, they advanced beyond breastmilk and I became a master at putting together bottles of formula in the dark in the middle of the night. And to top it off, our older daughter was still only two-and-a-half when the twins were born.

It's hard to think about now, how sleep-deprived and overworked we were. I'll never forget that we once got into an argument (and we rarely fight) because one day I wanted to leave for work half an hour earlier than normal because I was in desperate need of a haircut, and she was guilt-tripping me about it. The argument was eventually ended when I yelled "Thirty minutes! Thirty fucking minutes!!" and stormed out the door. It seems totally surreal now, like looking back through a haze or at different people, but that's how it was.

Come to think of it, it's 1am now, tomorrow's Mother's Day, and I better get my ass to bed if I'm going to be up and making breakfast for her tomorrow.

[Ronja]

Did my story ring true at all for you?

Every. Single. Line.

Yup, me too, even though we luckily did not have twins. A toddler and a baby is a challenging enough combination to get out of the house, when the baby is an uneasy sleeper and fusses about eating, and the toddler has unusually well developed empathy for her age and worries, asks questions and wants to help when the baby cries.

Except the one about colic. None of my kids were especially bad about being inconsolable when they were infants, though I've known some kids who were awful. Medically, there might be no such thing as colic, but I have little doubt that some babies are far more prone to crying than others, and there isn't a silver-bullet solution that can fix all of them.

I was a colicky baby myself, and had at least these explaining factors (all suggested by research results, and there are more): mother highly stressed during pregnancy, traumatic birth, only two weeks of breast feeding, and proved to have gastro-intestinal problems (at least one of them congenital).

Our both kids had some colic-like symptoms, which appeared to be caused mostly by gas, seeing as taking enough time to burp them, routinely giving them simethicone (which reduces surface-tension of the gas bubbles and thus helps the bubbles break down into smaller ones), assisted "gymnastics" and gentle massages made a big difference. With YD also my diet clearly mattered: after I switched to the blandest of foods (no cheese, no seafood, no fish...) she calmed down noticeably.

Sleep depravation was a way of life in our house, for both of us. ... It's hard to think about now, how sleep-deprived and overworked we were. I'll never forget that we once got into an argument (and we rarely fight) because one day I wanted to leave for work half an hour earlier than normal because I was in desperate need of a haircut, and she was guilt-tripping me about it. The argument was eventually ended when I yelled "Thirty minutes! Thirty fucking minutes!!" and stormed out the door. It seems totally surreal now, like looking back through a haze or at different people, but that's how it was.

This sounds familiar, too. Sometimes I wonder how people get through times like that... but obviously many of us do.

Come to think of it, it's 1am now, tomorrow's Mother's Day, and I better get my ass to bed if I'm going to be up and making breakfast for her tomorrow.

I hope Mother's Day at your house is as nice as it was here.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trust me, people do it. Nothing is for everyone, of course, and I never phrased it as something that everyone would do. Hades asked me, specifically, and she was very clear on this -- she asked me about my life personally.

Valid point.

Moreover, I don't get what that whole "let me recite a story about a horrible day as a stay at home parent" is supposed to tell us. Is anyone unaware that there are good and bad days as a parent? Are we not aware that kids shit and piss and moan and cry? This is stuff people have dealt with for the entire span of human existence. I'd like to know what we're supposed to conclude from it. That an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because he has it so bad at home?

It isn't a story about a horrible day, it's a story about a normal day for a stay at home parent with twin infants.

Assuming same without admitting - so? Does that mean that an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because the day is full of horrible things?

I also disagree that this is stuff people have dealt with for the entire span of human existence. For most of the paleolithic, when we were hunters and perhaps sometimes gatherers, twins would have been rare or nonexistent, and child spacing would have been, at closest, 3-4 years apart. That means one infant or toddler to be taken care of at a time, which reduces the parenting burden considerably. It's only since the advent of agriculture, and, especially, industrialization, that we've started to have babies so much faster and twins have become increasingly common.

What I meant was that dealing with raising kids has been stuff people deal with for the entire span of human existence. And, not having twins doesn't mean that you don't have more than one infant or toddler. Moreover, the point was not whether hunter gatherers had it different than modern humans (although I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be easier to raise a kid in paleolithic times than now, but that's beside the point). The point is that people have raised children for a long time. It's not like all these centuries people have thought it's easy, and it's not like I've said it's easy, and it's not like it's harder now than it was in past eras.

[Coito ergo sum]

Things get better when the kids are older - or at least they're bad in different ways. I question Coito's idea that there's any time left over to try to find ways to earn money, though.

Trust me, people do it. Nothing is for everyone, of course, and I never phrased it as something that everyone would do. Hades asked me, specifically, and she was very clear on this -- she asked me about my life personally.

Moreover, I don't get what that whole "let me recite a story about a horrible day as a stay at home parent" is supposed to tell us. Is anyone unaware that there are good and bad days as a parent? Are we not aware that kids shit and piss and moan and cry? This is stuff people have dealt with for the entire span of human existence. I'd like to know what we're supposed to conclude from it. That an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because he has it so bad at home?

Ah, Coito, I was having fun. Forget it.

Me too. But, you were, it seemed to me, very serious about wanting to hear my answer to your question, in terms of "for me" and not as an in general "what I think most spouses ought to do" or what should be the law. You asked what I would do, personally, if I were a stay at home dad. I gave you an answer. I haven't gotten upset about anything, if that's what you're implying.

[hadespussercats]

Things get better when the kids are older - or at least they're bad in different ways. I question Coito's idea that there's any time left over to try to find ways to earn money, though.

Trust me, people do it. Nothing is for everyone, of course, and I never phrased it as something that everyone would do. Hades asked me, specifically, and she was very clear on this -- she asked me about my life personally.

Moreover, I don't get what that whole "let me recite a story about a horrible day as a stay at home parent" is supposed to tell us. Is anyone unaware that there are good and bad days as a parent? Are we not aware that kids shit and piss and moan and cry? This is stuff people have dealt with for the entire span of human existence. I'd like to know what we're supposed to conclude from it. That an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because he has it so bad at home?

Ah, Coito, I was having fun. Forget it.

Me too. But, you were, it seemed to me, very serious about wanting to hear my answer to your question, in terms of "for me" and not as an in general "what I think most spouses ought to do" or what should be the law. You asked what I would do, personally, if I were a stay at home dad. I gave you an answer. I haven't gotten upset about anything, if that's what you're implying.

Well, my hypothetical was more detailed than "what would you do if you were a stay-at-home dad?" You weren't really responding to that. As evidenced by your earlier comment that SWMBO'd would take care of night feedings because she likes to breastfeed.

It doesn't matter.

As for this:
"Does that mean that an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because the day is full of horrible things? "

I wasn't suggesting that. At all.

I wrote my little imaginary scenario because I think your image of your typical day at home with two small children is funny. Laughably naive, and sort of sweet. I wasn't trying to convince you of some point of financial policy (and since I've already explicitly stated that I don't necessarily think one parent should pay the other an hourly wage, it's a little disappointing, and a little boring, that you decided to read what I wrote as propaganda for that end.)

All I'm getting at is of course what you wrote is what you'd want to do. But reality might come as a shock.

[Coito ergo sum]

Things get better when the kids are older - or at least they're bad in different ways. I question Coito's idea that there's any time left over to try to find ways to earn money, though.

Trust me, people do it. Nothing is for everyone, of course, and I never phrased it as something that everyone would do. Hades asked me, specifically, and she was very clear on this -- she asked me about my life personally.

Moreover, I don't get what that whole "let me recite a story about a horrible day as a stay at home parent" is supposed to tell us. Is anyone unaware that there are good and bad days as a parent? Are we not aware that kids shit and piss and moan and cry? This is stuff people have dealt with for the entire span of human existence. I'd like to know what we're supposed to conclude from it. That an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because he has it so bad at home?

Ah, Coito, I was having fun. Forget it.

Me too. But, you were, it seemed to me, very serious about wanting to hear my answer to your question, in terms of "for me" and not as an in general "what I think most spouses ought to do" or what should be the law. You asked what I would do, personally, if I were a stay at home dad. I gave you an answer. I haven't gotten upset about anything, if that's what you're implying.

Well, my hypothetical was more detailed than "what would you do if you were a stay-at-home dad?" You weren't really responding to that. As evidenced by your earlier comment that SWMBO'd would take care of night feedings because she likes to breastfeed.

I answered your hypothetical. Now you're saying I haven't fully answered it because it was more detailed than "what would you do if you were a stay at home dad." Well, you posed a scenario and said what would I do in those circumstances. That's what I would do. And, you're arguing with me about it, telling me it's not realistic by virtue of the horrendous example you gave of a parent who on a typical day finds it impossibly to clean the house, go to the store, or even leave the house.

The example you gave rings true for people, of course, but not because, in my view, it represents a typical day, but because it encapsulates the stresses and problems associated with parenthood. It's one of "those" days. But, just as often, parents take the kids to the store without much incident -- in my experience - maybe yours is different, and I can't speak to that. Maybe everyone's is different than mine. I can't help it. You asked for my view of it, and I see it in a much more positive light than many, apparently.

It doesn't matter.

As for this:
"Does that mean that an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because the day is full of horrible things? "

I wasn't suggesting that. At all.

What are you suggesting, then? I'm trying to keep on track with the conversation, which between you and I started with a discussion of the stay at home parent being paid, and you even asked me whether I thought the stay at home parent should receive some compensation from the wage earning parent.

I mean - if your example was merely to suggest that parenting can suck sometimes, and it's hard, then - well, I don't dispute that. It's most certainly true, and days like that certainly do occur.

I wrote my little imaginary scenario because I think your image of your typical day at home with two small children is funny. Laughably naive, and sort of sweet.

Well, I find that insulting, and if we're going that route, then I find your story miserable, a tale of woe from someone who hates being a parent, because they see the day-to-day life with their children as a horror-story. The person you describe is nearing a breaking point, unable to organize the simplest things, like a bag to go out to the store with wipes and diapers and other necessaries. The person you describe can't seem to manage taking care of the twins and cleaning the house and buying groceries, so, it sounds like social services might be in order. Your "typical day" at home sounds like an unending misery, a hell on Earth. If my view of a typical day of parenting is different than yours, then I'm glad of it.

I wasn't trying to convince you of some point of financial policy (and since I've already explicitly stated that I don't necessarily think one parent should pay the other an hourly wage, it's a little disappointing, and a little boring, that you decided to read what I wrote as propaganda for that end.)

All I'm getting at is of course what you wrote is what you'd want to do. But reality might come as a shock.

Look whatever you were trying to do, you asked me a question, and you posted a nice long admonishment of me for not answering "for me" and what I would do in my life. Then I go ahead and answer honestly, from the perspective of someone who is not inexperienced with children, despite your apparent implication to the contrary, and you then tell me that my answer is not reasonable. So, you give me another example, the woeful misery that you described, and you say that that's more like the "typical day" and then you went even further but called my answer - the answer you wanted -- is naive, laughable, et al? Well, since you don't know anything about my life, you don't know what you're talking about. And, since you wanted me to answer for MY LIFE, and not "in general" or the "typical day" of "spouses in general" then for you to move the goalposts and claim that the answer FOR ME was not representative of the typical day for you or others, and then call me naive and laughable, is really ridiculous.

Well, if your miserable example did not relate to the topic had theretofore been discussing, well, I do apologize. I thought there was a linear continuity to our conversation which was not there. Moreover, you admonished me (another admonishment) not to read into your "questions" as if I'm implying you hold a particular view. Well, same here -- I ASKED you if your example meant that you thought the stay at home parent should be paid. I didn't imply that you thought the answer was yes. But, I still don't know what your answer is in that regard. You don't "necessarily" think that one spouse should be paid by the other. Well, that's a little modifier that leaves open either possibility. So, if I may get an answer to a question of mine, since I've answered all yours -- what is your position on wages for stay at home spouses? Yes? No? And, if yes, who pays? Would you mandate it by law? Or, would you leave it up to the spouses involved? Why? Why not?

[colubridae]

Sorry Coito.

I find your posting of a calm masterpiece of analysis of a gish gallop of confusing questions in a thread started by yourself as being very creepy.

Luckily for me I can get away with that accusation and hope that you respond to it with fair and just criticism, at which point you’ll be censured and everyone will go about their business smugly satisfied that justice has been done [/sarcasm]

[hadespussercats]

You find the previous post a "calm masterpiece analysis of a gish gallop of confusing questions"?

Here's what I find confusing. I posted a hypothetical scenario where Coito and his wife decided that he would be the SAHF for two newborn twins, born prematurely, with persistent high needs (undescribed) ensuing, that were too dificult for his wife to breastfeed.

His response, that he would clean the house every day, take care of all home-related chores without fail, every day, and have dinner on the table, and a smile, for his wife when she came home, oh, and would do something to earn money in all the "downtime," too, struck me as really unrealistic. In my response, I took care to note that I was aware Coito was a father, and that my sense that he wasn't the primary caretaker of his children might have been incorrect. Then I had some fun describing what I pictured a typical day might be like (a view which was, incidentally, backed up by a parent of twins-- and while Coito apparently has at least one child, he has not mentioned caring for multiples.)

His response to that scenario was:

I'd like to know what we're supposed to conclude from it. That an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because he has it so bad at home?

I explained that that was not what I was getting at at all. What I was getting at is precisely what I described above. In fact, I'd already stated that I wasn't in favor of an hourly wage-- went to some effort to describe my thoughts on the subject, ideas I'd encountered from Suze Orman and so forth. I said I didn't know what should be done, but I could see a lot of problems that need addressing.

Apparently, "I don't know; let's talk about it" isn't an acceptable answer in a discussion with Coito, because he came back with this:

So, if I may get an answer to a question of mine, since I've answered all yours -- what is your position on wages for stay at home spouses? Yes? No? And, if yes, who pays? Would you mandate it by law? Or, would you leave it up to the spouses involved? Why? Why not?

I guess I'll re-iterate: I don't know. But I no longer want to try to talk about it, because, like Coito,

I thought there was a linear continuity to our conversation which was not there.

So, colubridae, do you feel like you "got away with [your] accusation?" I caught the sarcasm (even without the note) but I may have missed your meaning.
:ta:

[Ronja]

Sorry Coito.

I find your posting of a calm masterpiece of analysis of a gish gallop of confusing questions in a thread started by yourself as being very creepy.

Luckily for me I can get away with that accusation and hope that you respond to it with fair and just criticism, at which point you’ll be censured and everyone will go about their business smugly satisfied that justice has been done [/sarcasm]

I am not sure how much of your post is tongue-in-cheek, colubridae, and how just might be half-serious, but thanks for the term "gish gallop", anyway. I am pretty sure it will come in handy sooner or later, at least for making a mental note of how to relate to some post or another.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry Coito.

I find your posting of a calm masterpiece of analysis of a gish gallop of confusing questions in a thread started by yourself as being very creepy.

Luckily for me I can get away with that accusation and hope that you respond to it with fair and just criticism, at which point you’ll be censured and everyone will go about their business smugly satisfied that justice has been done [/sarcasm]

LOL - I don't know whether to be pleased or insulted by that. Carry on, my good man!

[Coito ergo sum]

You find the previous post a "calm masterpiece analysis of a gish gallop of confusing questions"?

Here's what I find confusing. I posted a hypothetical scenario where Coito and his wife decided that he would be the SAHF for two newborn twins, born prematurely, with persistent high needs (undescribed) ensuing, that were too dificult for his wife to breastfeed.

I must have missed the part about my wife not being able to breastfeed. You asked me what I would do in my life. If it was too difficult for her to breastfeed, we would bottle feed, either with her pumping breast milk if that was possible, or using formula, etc.

His response, that he would clean the house every day, take care of all home-related chores without fail, every day, and have dinner on the table, and a smile, for his wife when she came home, oh, and would do something to earn money in all the "downtime," too, struck me as really unrealistic.

I didn't say anything about "every" day. Nothing is "every" day. And, I've been clear that there will be good days and bad days. I wasn't aware you needed me to recount every different scenario that could arise. You asked a hypothetical, and I gave you an answer to your hypothetical. That is what I would try to do, and how I would want to handle it.

In my response, I took care to note that I was aware Coito was a father, and that my sense that he wasn't the primary caretaker of his children might have been incorrect. Then I had some fun describing what I pictured a typical day might be like (a view which was, incidentally, backed up by a parent of twins-- and while Coito apparently has at least one child, he has not mentioned caring for multiples.)

Well, I am A primary caretaker. We both hold jobs. I don't by default consider SWMBO'd THE primary caretaker. When the child was newborn, she was, by biology, and her actual ability to breastfeed and desire to breastfeed, the primary caretaker for a period of time.

I think your "typical day" was at least as unrealistic as the summary of what I would do under the circumstances presented. If the "typical" day was as described by you, people wouldn't have kids. The day wasn't just difficult, it was an abject misery.

His response to that scenario was:

I'd like to know what we're supposed to conclude from it. That an employed wife should write checks to her stay at home husband like he's hired help, because he has it so bad at home?

I explained that that was not what I was getting at at all. What I was getting at is precisely what I described above. In fact, I'd already stated that I wasn't in favor of an hourly wage-- went to some effort to describe my thoughts on the subject, ideas I'd encountered from Suze Orman and so forth. I said I didn't know what should be done, but I could see a lot of problems that need addressing.

Apparently, "I don't know; let's talk about it" isn't an acceptable answer in a discussion with Coito, because he came back with this:

So, if I may get an answer to a question of mine, since I've answered all yours -- what is your position on wages for stay at home spouses? Yes? No? And, if yes, who pays? Would you mandate it by law? Or, would you leave it up to the spouses involved? Why? Why not?

I guess I'll re-iterate: I don't know. But I no longer want to try to talk about it, because, like Coito,

I asked that question, which you snipped from the paragraph before it, because you weren't exactly clear. I only asked you for a clear answer. You've now given it. If you think you were clear before and I didn't get it, then now I get it. I don't know why you asking me questions is fine, but if I ask you, then you think I have some ulterior motive or don't accept your answer. I accept it.

I'm left, still, not knowing what the point is of recounting this typical day. Maybe you could identify the problems that you see, and we can talk about how to address them, if indeed they are problems that can or should be addressed outside the family in the first place.

I will apologize for being a bit grumpy in my retort above. I got a bit peeved by you calling me names after I gave you the very honest answer about what I would personally do in my own life under the circumstances you gave, and then telling me that what I answered isn't, in your view, typical. As if my view has to be typical in order to be a valid answer to your hypothetical....

[colubridae]

For hades

Coito’s stuff is more or less always masterful. He cuts through flaws and backpedalling like a knife through butter.

My beef isn’t with you. You’ve made yourself look stupid. All he did was hold up a mirror for you to see it. All you’ve done is flail desperately in your ripostes. Being passionate doesn’t automatically confer reason.


My real beef is with the ‘creepy’ accusation. This was deliberately done to annoy and provoke. It was wholly unjustified. Standard fair from mistermack et al.
Disturbing from a moderator. Especially the desperate backpedalling from the other mods. Bring back dev and charlou to remind the mods of their responsibilities.

There’s nothing ‘creepy’ about coito’s posts. He pinpoints the flaw in your argument and puts the spotlight on it. Isn’t that what rationalia is all about?

The ‘creepy’ slur came from someone whose arguments, on several previous occasions, were put under that ‘spotlight’ and didn’t like it.

“revenge is a dish best eaten cold”.

[hadespussercats]

For hades

Coito’s stuff is more or less always masterful. He cuts through flaws and backpedalling like a knife through butter.

My beef isn’t with you. You’ve made yourself look stupid. All he did was hold up a mirror for you to see it. All you’ve done is flail desperately in your ripostes. Being passionate doesn’t automatically confer reason.


My real beef is with the ‘creepy’ accusation. This was deliberately done to annoy and provoke. It was wholly unjustified. Standard fair from mistermack et al.
Disturbing from a moderator. Especially the desperate backpedalling from the other mods. Bring back dev and charlou to remind the mods of their responsibilities.

There’s nothing ‘creepy’ about coito’s posts. He pinpoints the flaw in your argument and puts the spotlight on it. Isn’t that what rationalia is all about?

The ‘creepy’ slur came from someone whose arguments, on several previous occasions, were put under that ‘spotlight’ and didn’t like it.

“revenge is a dish best eaten cold”.

Chacun a son gout, I guess.

The "creepy" opinion was not stated by me, nor endorsed by me-- though I support Ronja's right to hold that opinion.

I'm not sure where you're seeing impassioned ripostes (mine, I mean-- I don't deny they're elsewhere.) But don't bother pointing them out-- I'll take your word for it.

I've been trying to have a conversation with Coito in a more personal vein, ever since the juice on the original subject of Anne Romney seemed to run out. It didn't pan out. We were talking at cross purposes.

It's funny, what seems masterful to one leaves a different impression with another.

I was talking about this with a friend, actually. I said something along these lines:

"You know what's weird about him? The quoting thing. He always breaks down people's comments into chunks and responds chunk by chunk, many times contradicting himself in the process or missing someone's meaning in the breakdown. And he honestly doesn't seem to remember anything he wrote if it's not quoted.

He forces people to communicate like he does.

I wonder what he does, talking to people in real life, when he can't roll the text back to get the bit he wants."

But, hey, coito-- colubridae wants to give you a trophy. That's cool.