Best of the Week
of Oct. 4, 1998
Here are the most intriguing cross-cultural exchanges either begun or
advanced during the week of Oct. 4, 1998, as selected by Y?
These postings, as well as "Best of the Week" entries from previous
weeks, also can be found in their respective
archives, which we invite you to browse.
There, you will find questions that have received answers, as well as
questions still awaiting responses. We encourage you to answer any
questions relevant to your demographic background, as well as to ask
any provocative question you desire. Answers posted are not
necessarily meant to represent the views of an entire demographic
group, but can provide a window into the insights of an individual
from that group.
First-time users should first make a quick stop at our
guidelines pages for asking and
answering questions.
DIRECTOR'S NOTE:
The Oct. 6, 1998, "Further Notice
3" response to Question SE30 in the Sensitive Matters archive, a
section reserved for viewing by adults 18 and older, is one of the
more remarkable replies Y?
has received.
THE QUESTION:
GE83: Why is it that women
universally want their husbands to be faithful? Isn't lifetime
monogamy too heavy a burden on anyone, including women.? What's wrong
with a little fooling around as long as the other person doesn't
know, and everyone takes care of their responsibilities?
POSTED OCT. 10, 1998
V.V., 40, female <VIJAY@DAUPHINE.FR>, Paris, France
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE103: It seems to me that many
Jewish people are in positions of financial and/or political power in
the world. For example, it's my understanding that the diamond
industry is nearly entirely Jewish-owned, as well as the
movie/production industry, etc. If this is true, why is there such a
perception thay Jews are persecuted to this day? How can they occupy
what seem to be so many influential positions (disproportionate to
their demographic) and yet be persecuted at the same time?
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Brian T. <wolfie@mpath.com>, Sunnyvale, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
A24: Why do people feel it is all
right to stereotype all teenagers and younger people based on one bad
apple? Example: In my hometown, teenagers who came into the local
mall in groups of four or more were told they either had to split up
or leave. Why don't they do the same to 40-year-olds?
POSTED AUG. 3, 1998
Craig, 15 <Bonowitz@aol.com>, Des Moines, IA
ANSWER 1:
I don't know, but what I do
know is that it's not fair. I am a teenager and I can honestly say
that I am not bad at all. I don't like violence, I don't drink or do
drugs and I actually have respect. But since I'm 15 and I wear baggy
clothes, many adults see me and think trouble. I don't think it's
fair. I've smiled at little kids, and their parents have actually
pulled them closer to them - away from me. Gee, thanks.
POSTED SEPT. 28, 1998
Meg X., 15, female, Modesto, Ca
FURTHER NOTICE:
The problem is that there is
more than one bad apple. This country is littered with teenagers out
of control, with no direction or proper family values. Gangbanging,
illiterate behavior, drug use and hopelessness leave negative
impressions on adults' minds. I feel kids just don't know how to act
anymore. Too much negative influence, violence on TV, etc. Can you
blame adults? I feel the same way!
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Frankie S. <Leanmann@hotmail.com>, Los Angeles, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Sure, there is some survival
instinct in this stereotype. Parents have been known to be
overproctective of their children, and if they have heard of
teenageers as a threat, then they will do what they think will keep
their child safe. Likewise, a mall that can earn more money by
keeping groups of kids apart so that shoppers have a "better"
atmosphere when shopping, is going to follow the money. So, I don't
think anyone is trying to lay blame. But the question is, Why is the
stereotype being propagated? Are the majority of teenagers bad
apples? I don't think so. I think that overall, the media hypes the
bad and ignores the good, and I think it is a reason for many
negative stereotypes these days.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Eric W., 19 <wainright@cheerful.com>, Cupertino, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD34: I'm clueless: What is an
aborigine?
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Doreen <rdcs1020@monmouth.com >, Long Branch, NJ
ANSWER 1:
Aborigine is a term usually
used to refer to "Native Australians." I think the word can be used
to refer to any indigenous (native) people. I am not sure what the
"weight" of this word is in Australia, i.e. if it is positively or
negatively charged. I prefer to use the term "indigenous people." I
would appreciate hearing from native peoples as to which phrase is
least insulting.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Iteki, 22, Irish lesbian <iteki@chickmail.com>, Stockholm, Sweden
FURTHER NOTICE:
The word "aborigine" comes
from the Latin phrase "ab origine," which means "from the origin."
When applied to people, it means those people are one of the original
native inhabitants of the region. Native Americans (or American
Indians) are considered aboriginal people in the New World. The
misnomer "Indian" was applied by Columbus, who at first thought he
had landed in India instead of a new continent. The name stuck. When
Europeans came to Australia, they correctly called the natives there
"aborigines," meaning that they were the original people on the
continent. But, just as in the case of the American Indians, the name
stuck, and now the native people of Australia are known as
Aborigines.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Stephen S., San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
"Ab origine" is a Latin
expression meaning "from the beginning." It's most commonly used to
refer to the native tribesmen who inhabited Australia before English
colonists arrived, but you'll occasionally see native, indigenous
peoples of other countries referred to as "aboriginal."
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Astorian, Austin, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Some people use the term only
when referring to the original people of Australia. More correctly,
it can mean any indigenous people. For example, the American Indian
veterans' groups of Canada call themselves the Aboriginal Veterans
Association.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Aborigines are the true
owners of the land now known as Australia. There are like the Native
Americans, in that they are the owners or first habitants of the
land. There are very dark (like the regular Africans), but they have
broader noses and thick, curly hair. Do not get carried away with
television and think that Aborigines still live in caves. They are
regular people who wear clothes and live in houses, go to school,
etc.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Ify <ifebigh77@hotmail.com>, Miami, FL
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE101: If one faith (for example,
Christianity) is the way to salvation, why would God create people
before the invention of that faith? Wouldn't that mean they're all
condemned to Hell?
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Marissa, 15 <Lytylfyly@hotmail.com>, Sault Ste. Marie, MI
ANSWER 1:
When God created people,
there was no need for religion in the sense we know it. Adam and Eve
were on a "talking relationship" with God in Eden. It is only after
the betrayal of man and being forced out of Eden that we lost that
relationship and had to develop a new way of relating to God. The
other part of your question is about having to be a certain religion
to reach salvation. Most religions today will admit there are many
ways to heaven, but all have the basics the same, the belief in God
and following His Commandments.
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Susan, MO
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R362: I see people from southern
India who have African features and color. I don't understand how
they got that way. Was there once an invasion of India by African
warriors? Or did they develop these features separately?
POSTED JUNE 27, 1998
Ilya, 22, Eastern European, Redwood Shores, CA
ANSWER 1:
If you take a glance at a map
of the world, you will see that India and Africa fit almost like a
jigsaw puzzle (if you take into account many thousands of years of
erosion and other natural events that reshaped the beachfronts). They
were once connected. Also, the climates of northern Africa and
southern India are almost identical, which facilitates similar
evolution of people, flora and fauna. As an aside, people in Africa
are not like what is depicted in Tarzan movies and the like. Northern
Africa contains many a metropolis: Alexandria and Cairo are only two.
Your term "warriors" suggests you have been hoodwinked by the
stereotypical propaganda the media tends to perpetuate. The more
likely incursion of India by Africans is a sojourn or vacation.
POSTED JULY 26, 1998
Jennifer G., 30, black <ibvanity@aol.com>, St. Petersburg, FL
FURTHER NOTICE:
There are two major racial
groups in India, as far as I know. One is the Aryans, or descendants
of the Aryans, who may have entered the subcontinent from the
northwest (around the Khyber pass), and the other is the Dravidians.
The Dravidians are said to be the original inhabitants of India and
resided mainly in the south. Their features tend to be darker, and
perhaps, as you have said, more African. Residents of Sri Lanka are
probably as close to what Dravidians in India may have been like at
one time, as mixing between the north and south has undoubtedly
softened some of the distinctions over time.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
G.B., 33, East Indian, Clinton, NJ
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R455: To Japanese Americans: How
do you feel about the fact that the U.S. media has spent so much time
discussing the Holocaust but has mostly ignored discussion of the
Japanese-American internment camps in operation in the United States
during the same time?
POSTED SEPT. 10, 1998
Laura W., 37, Jewish female, <lauraw@cobalt.cnchost.com>, Los Angeles, CA
ANSWER 1:
Wow, someone cares. I'm not
Japanese American, but I feel strong empathy for what happened to
them during World War II. I recall seeing a posting on a newsgroup
once from a guy who wanted to know why the U.S. government was
compensating Japanese when "the Japanese government didn't compensate
American POWs." How incredibly ignorant. That's why I admire men like
U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, who volunteered to fight for his country
right out of the internment camps, even though the rest of America
considered him a "Jap" and incarcerated his family.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
Ray, 24, Asian American <yangban@erols.com>, Washington, DC
FURTHER NOTICE:
Thank you for asking. As a
Japanese person living in the United States, I do think about the
issues surrounding World War II quite a bit. What does bother me is
that while Americans seem to remember Pearl Harbor and bring it up
every year, they seem to have forgotten two atomic bombs they dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't want to justify what my countrymen
did at Pearl Harbor, but what happened there doesn't even compare to
the genocide that occurred in those two cities, as well as what
happened in the Tokyo and Osaka area from massive bombing. Many, many
more people died in much more painful, cruel ways in Japan from those
bombings. On the other hand, Japanese history books don't address
even a tiny bit of the massacre, rape and genocide that we did in
greater Asia up until World War II. We basically enslaved and robbed
Korea, China, Mongolia, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam
and other Asian countries that Japan occupied. This bothers me as
well. I hope this sheds light on your question about the camps for
the Japanese in United States during that war. It bothers me that
both sides of the issue are not addressed, but we Japanese are as
guilty as Americans.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Japanese <ari@tkp.com>, Austin, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am the Archivist for the
Japanese Canadian National Museum and Archives in Vancouver, B.C. The
Japanese in Canada faced the same discrimination during World War II
as Japanese Americans. In dealing with the Japanese in Canada, there
seems to be a pervasive attitude that although they acknowledge the
horrors of Canada's recent history, there is an attitude of "letting
the past go and moving on." A very positive attitude, although often
viewed with a sense of denial of the past injustices forced upon
them. While the principles of segregating and confining Japanese
during the time were similar to the European Jewish experience,
Japanese Canadians weren't slaughtered, a tremendous difference.
However, in relative terms, the Japanese lost their property and
dignity, and many were forced to denounce their Canadian citizenship
or move to Japan, a place many had never been to or could not
entirely relate to. It is vitally important to never take the rights
and freedoms we currently cherish for granted.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
S. Foster, archivist (bi-racial) <jcnmas@bc.sympatico.ca>, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
What we did to Japanese
Americans in World War II was bad, but to me it is an outrage to
compare it to the Holocaust, where more than six million defenseless
Jews were murdered.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Al, Jew, 66 <maydec1@mailexcite.com>, Fort Pierce, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Six million people were gazed
and burned by the Nazis during World War II. How many Japanese
Americans were? How can you (Jewish) compare a racial slaughter with
a security (even if unfair) matter?
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
FDON, 60, French republican <fdondon@minitel.net>, Paris, France
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R477: Why do people call Italians
dagos, wops or guineas? I'm Italian and have no idea what they mean,
but I know they are slurs.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Mario <Bigppajay@hotmail.com>, Newbury, OH
ANSWER 1:
I wish I could answer your
question or hear the answer because I'm Italian, too, and it really
bothers me off when people use those slang terms.
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Sarah, 16, Italian, <odaraho@juno.com>, NH
FURTHER NOTICE:
I believe the term "wop"
stems from the days of immigration into the United States. WOP meant
"Without Papers" and was notated on the top of the ship's manifest
for illegal immigrants as they arrived at Ellis Island. Not all ships
would get the notaion. Thank god for the Discovery Channel.
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
M. Miller, 32, white male, Detroit , MI
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
"Dago" is an American
mispronunciation of the common Italian name "Diego." There is no
authoritative source for the origin of "wop," but it's widely
believed to have been shorthand on Ellis Island. Many of the Italians
who came to America at the turn of the century arrived with no money,
no form of identification and no passports, visas or work permits.
Supposedly, Ellis Island clerks referred to such immigrants as
W.O.P.s (W.O.P. stood for "Without Papers").
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Astorian, Irish-American
Austin , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I'm not sure about the other
terms, but "wop" is an acronym for "Without Papers," a reference to
illegal immigrants. How it got attached to Italians rather than any
other ethnic group I don't know.
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Laura, 37, Italian American on my father's side, Baltimore , MD
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
R464: Sometimes when I am driving
down the street, I encounter an African American crossing. As I get
closer, they seem to slow down, as though they are daring me to hit
them. Why is this? I'm sure there's some logical explanation.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
Bill C., gay white male <nellytooth@aol.com>, Memphis, TN
ANSWER 1:
Many blacks are treated by
whites as if they are invisible. In most day-to-day interactions,
other than school or work, there is normally little eye contact and
seldom interpersonal communication between races. So the crosswalk
phenomenon you describe is a passive aggressive way to send a message
that "you have
to see me, you
can't deny that I exist, and you must acknowledge my presence. You may want to destroy me ...
but you can't." The slower the walk, the more control, though
displaced, the person lingering feels. This attitude stems from
deeply internalized effects of racism, some of which manifest
themselves in the most peculiar ways. Keep in mind that, however
unfair, until a person gets to know you personally, you are just
another white man who has the burden of disproving that you have a
racist agenda.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
Dee W. <westde@hiram.edu>, Cleveland , OH
FURTHER NOTICE:
Dee, pu-lease! The reason for
that slow walk across the street is rudeness and risk-taking
stupidity, plain and simple. I have seen a lot of pedestrians do it,
black and white alike.
POSTED OCT. 10, 1998
Diane, African-American female, Durham, NC
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
D27: To people who stutter: I
was at Wal-Mart the other day, and the boy ringing me up at the
register had a bad stuttering problem. They had to do a price check
on one of my items, so I stood there waiting for about 10 minutes.
During this time, I did not speak to the boy because I felt I would
be putting pressure on him or making him nervous (I was nervous,
too). He did not offer any conversation, either. Did I do the right
thing, or is there something else I should have done?
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
R.D., white female, Jacksonville, FL
ANSWER 1:
I am 25 and stutter. I don't
believe you should have done much different, unless something else
came more naturally for you. It's normally better for the stutterer,
and the listener, for the listener to act normally, just as she would
if the person didn't stutter. Of course, you may have to try harder
to listen to the stutterer through all the starts and stops and ums
and ahs, with or without eye contact, so he wouldn't have to repeat
himself, which makes the stuttering worse and more embarrassing. When
I found myself in those situations, I was embarrassed and really
wished for a quick end. But when people just stood there and listened
intently for as long as it took for me to speak, or spoke when they
wanted to, or remained quiet when they didn't feel like speaking, it
made all the difference. It helped me get back to the feeling of
normalcy, which actually helped eliminate the stuttering. My
stuttering is worse when I consciously think about it, and when
people make a big deal about the way I speak by becoming overly quiet
or "scrunching up their faces" or filling in words, it makes me think
about it more. Just talk, even when it may be uncomfortable, and
eventually you and the stutterer will benefit.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Issac B., 25, one who stutters, black male <ibailey@thesunnews.com>, Myrtle Beach, S.C.
FURTHER NOTICE:
I would say simply respond to
the cashier as if he spoke "normally." A smile or a kind word you
would give anyone in that situation would be appreciated. I grew up
with that problem, and although it's gone now, I recall vividly the
stares and giggles. And, yes, I worked in public places, too.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Male, 39 <alan4433@lycosmail.com>, Atlanta, GA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GE78: Why do women wear fake
nails? I have been seeing this for the last few years, first on
performers on stage, then on a lot of black women, and now on a lot
of white women. The answer I get 95 percent of the time is "because
everyone else is wearing them." Very, very few men like to see them,
and they are not attractive. To me, women today are trying to be
independent, but they seem to all want to look the same, and if they
are not wearing the fake nails, other women seem to put pressure on
them to wear them. I would think women would want to show their
natural beauty, especially their hands. So why pay so much for
something that looks fake?
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Tony, 43, black male <cinatisoulman@mailexcite.com>, Cincinnati, OH
ANSWER 1:
They wear them because they
like them. It seems to be somewhat of a status symbol, too. Moving to
the Detroit area from Nebraska, I was pretty surprised to see the
number of urban women here who wear long acrylic nails. Numerous
shops are dedicated to separating substantial amounts of money from
customers in exchange for snazzy painted nails. I suspect a dealer
would have quickly starved to death trying to earn a living from that
in Nebraska, where plain, hard-working unadorned hands were the norm.
My first year here two women with long painted nails with little
rhinestones in them played on my softball team. Long nails didn't
seem to impede their softball ability any. They were good players
with strong throwing arms. I view acrylic nails as just another type
of body adornment, like tattoos, piercing, makeup, hairstyles, etc.
Different strokes for different folks. Incidentally, no one has ever
suggested that I get false fingernails. Long ago I was told that any
lesbian with long nails did not have a current lover. That was a
myth, too.
POSTED SEPT. 28, 1998
DykeOnByke, white lesbian with plain short nails <DykeOnByke@aol.com>, Southfield, MI
FURTHER NOTICE:
A woman's choice to wear fake
fingernails is the same as wearing makeup or visiting a hair salon
for a perm, etc. It has nothing to do with being independent, in my
opinion. It has more to do with looking nice and taking care of
yourself. I wear the nails because I like them, not because a man may
not like them, and I feel that you may be generalizing when you say
that most men do not like them.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
Amy P., 28, single white female, Port St. Lucie, FL
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
SO44: Do bisexual women find
greater satisfaction with their male partner or female partner, and
why?
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
Ty, 35, straight black male, Costa Mesa, CA
ANSWER 1:
Your question seems to be
making a common incorrect assumption about bisexuals: Namely, that we
have to have one partner of each sex to be happy. As with gay or
straight people, the choice to be monogamous or have multiple
partners depends on the individual's preference (and the preference
of their partner(s), hopefully). I am a bisexual woman who is now
happily married to a man. I don't feel I'm missing out by not having
a female sex partner in my life. In fact, the only time I have dated
more than one person at once, I was seeing three different men! (All
of whom knew I was seeing other people). Sex with women and men is
different, but it's like enjoying both chocolate and strawberry ice
cream - they're both nice in different ways, and you don't have to
have both to enjoy having ice cream. Having one or the other is
equally fulfilling.
POSTED SEPT. 1, 1998
S. Addison, 24, bisexual female, <elusis@dreamscape.com>, Syracuse, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
I haven't found there to be
any significant difference between males and females in terms of
love-making or level of satisfaction. It all depends on the
individual. There is a greater correlation with enthusiasm and
playfulness than with gender. You might say that is part of the
essence of being bi: A marked lack of preference based on gender.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
Athena W., 47, bisexual female, Houston, TX
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
D24: If you are being
introduced to someone and they are unable to shake hands - they are
missing their right hand or their right arm is paralyzed - do you
wait to see if they offer their left hand, or should you leave it at
a verbal greeting such as "Nice to meet you"?
POSTED SEPT. 4, 1998
Michael G., single male, Seattle, WA
ANSWER 1:
I have severe rheumatoid
arthritis, and I find shaking hands often very painful. This isn't
just what you've asked, but it has a similar effect: I don't offer my
hand, and I know this disturbs some people, who are then unsure how
to act. Twice, I have had others grab one of my hands to give it a
shake. My advice? Don't. I found the experience humiliating and
frightening, and it left me (if you'll excuse the pun) feeling badly
shaken - aside from the pain. So let it go.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
S.L.S., 40, San Francisco, CA
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
THE QUESTION:
GE59: I'd like to hear from
mothers and fathers who've made the decision for one parent to stay
at home. I'm doing some research on the influence media and society
have on this decision. I've heard hostility, resentment and regret
from women on both sides of the issue. There seems to be more support
for working mothers outside the home, while mothers who decide to
remain full-time parents often lack support from family, friends and
other working professionals. Please give your background and
own experiences about choices in your life, and please note
the majority of time your child(ren) spend with adults, caregivers,
family, etc. I'd also like to hear from children about who the major
influences in their life have become and why.
POSTED AUG. 3, 1998
Anne C., 39, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
ANSWER 1:
Before getting married, my
wife and I agreed she would stay at home. We now (after 14 years)
have two children. Yes, my wife has told me it is tough to "stand
alone," staying at home when even women in our church hold women who
work in higher esteem. I spend time with my children more than a lot
of people. I feel it is important to have a support network, whether
it be organizations like Focus on the Family or other friends who
share the same values. Media of all types suggest that children can
grow up on their own, but the news media point also to all the
problems in our society, a lot of them because of lack of parental
care and involvement. This doesn't mean children with a stay-at-home
parent are necessarily better adjusted. But they do know that they
have someone at home who can help them when they need someone.
Leave it to Beaver, Father
Knows Best and other
television shows are often presented as obsolete, but the next
generation of children is far more important to society than an extra
car, a cottage or an annual vacation to the Caribbean. Children are
No. 1 in our household.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
A. Urbonas, 45 <urbonas@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
FURTHER NOTICE:
I am extremely frustrated
with those who call my wife and I economically selfish for working.
The previous respondent says that "children are No. 1 in our life"
and suggests that working couples somehow prioritize vacations and
cars above their children. I do not find such comments helpful or
constructive, but merely tools to make them feel good about their own
choices. Children are No. 1 in our household, too, but we have
legitimate economic reasons for having to work. We don't live a
lavish lifestyle. Our previous home suffered a major decline in value
and we could not afford to sell it; even renting, we lose hundreds of
dollars a month on the mortgage. (Incidentally, we moved in part to
be closer to our extended families, and took pay cuts to do so). My
wife and I would love to stay home, but we can't afford it.
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Dan H., 34, father of two <dnh6n@virginia.edu>, Charlottesville, VA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
If both parents must work
because they can't make ends meet, I think it's time for them to
examine their priorities. In my parents' generation, families had one
car or perhaps no car at all. There were no credit cards, so people
had to save up for things. There was no cable TV, no color TV, no
VCRs or video games. Children wore hand-me-down clothes from their
older siblings, cousins or neighbors. There were no daycare expenses.
Children are a lifestyle choice that people must deal with.
POSTED OCT. 10, 1998
43, white female <wordaday@england.com>, Fresno, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Growing up, I didn't have a
father, only a mother who had to work to support both my grandma and
I. I understand this and I'm very grateful that I always had
something on my plate and something on my back, but I still wish my
mother would have spent more time at home. I had some rough teen
years, specially growing up in L.A. Now my husband and I have decided
that we won't have children until we can "afford" to have them. That
means if we can't afford for one of us to stay home with them, we
will not bring them into this world. Some people might think this is
going too far, but is not wanting to have to choose between giving
your children what they need physically vs. what they need
emotionally going too far? Why can't we give them both?
POSTED OCT. 10, 1998
Aztlan, 21, Mexican female <aestra@chmc.com>, Bothell, Wa
To
respond
BACK TO
TOP
Copyright and disclaimer