lillylover123 (Big)

Member Since 01/07/2012

From Florida

  • lillylover123 10 years ago on Why It's Okay To Want To Be A Stay At Home Mom

    I don’t think anyone dislikes the SAHM dream for the reasons that you outlined, because it’s too boring or something. This is America, and you’re free to do what you want, even if that’s willingly adopting the career that so many women fought so hard not to be confined to. If that’s really what you want to do, go for it.

    What rubs me the wrong way about the girls that dream of being stay at home moms is that it seems kind of… gold-diggery. It just feels kind of entitled to think you’re going to be in an economic situation to be able to live off a single income (which is quite difficult these days). It seems like you inherently plan on marrying a doctor or lawyer or something, placing wealth over personality, which is kind of cringey.

    Also I don’t think you realize how those things that you define as stay-at-home-mom-exclusive, like feeding you, clothing you, taking care of you when you’re sick, waking up at night when you’re crying, aren’t optional. Working moms do those things too- did you really think a busy working mom would just ignore her crying child? Or that her kid having to take the bus meant she loved them any less? I mean I guess there are some neglectful working moms, but I’d bet there are plenty dysfunctional stay at home moms too.

    It’s just kind of sad that young college girls haven’t found anything they’re passionate enough about to pursue as a career, so they just go for the default position. Like really? You’re not interested in teaching, or art, or research, or writing, or building things, or medicine, or politics, or literally anything? Motherhood is kind of like showering, it’s a normal part of life that just happens, it doesn’t preclude other activities, and honestly, I think it’s kind of silly to define yourself by.

    -37
    Log in to reply or vote on comments
  • lillylover123 10 years ago on Meet The New Face Of Feminism: The Modern Republican Woman

    Great article, but the 77 cents thing has been proven time and time again to be pretty much a direct result of women taking maternity leave/time off to take care of their kids. When you adjust for experience and time spent in the workplace, women make more like 98 cents for their male equivalents. This is another issue entirely – maybe paternity leave should be more socially acceptable, or government subsidized daycare/preschool should start earlier like it does in scandinavian countries to allow women to get back to work earlier, or workplaces could be more flexible to both men and women working from home to allow for better childcare options (I think you’d find the democrats to be more supportive of these solutions than republicans, though). But as it stands, most women choose to have children and work on and off or part time throughout the first and second decades in the workforce, which definitely stagnates their careers. It’s not really anyone’s fault; wanting to have children is a very normal and reasonable life goal for both men and women, but unfortunately it’s women that have the machinery to grow/birth/feed them. And really, after you have more than one child in daycare, for a lot of women it’s just more economical to stay home, at least part time, so that decision makes sense too.

    Yeah, it sucks that a lot women essentially have to choose between a highly successful career and being the ideal perfect stay-at-home supermom, but unfortunately it’s just a consequence of having the baby-making organs, not a sexist misogynist agenda.

    -6
    Log in to reply or vote on comments
  • lillylover123 10 years ago on It's Okay To Want To Be A Stay At Home Mom, And Anyone Who Says Otherwise Can Buzz Off

    Do you have any idea how unlikely it is to live as comfortably as I assume you did throughout your childhood (if your parents were able to pay your tuition, that gives a good benchmark) on a single income these days? This isn’t the 1960s, where men were paid enough to support a family alone. Not even the 90s that we grew up in. From the information you provided (along with the privileged tone of your article…) I can guess your father made an above-average salary, and your mother made a choice that fit well for her and your family. That’s all fine and good, but why on earth would you assume that your marriage will unfold the same way? Especially in this economy? Look at some statistics for incomes of normal americans, and then maybe reevaluate if that would be enough to run your theoretical household. If you want one income, you should probably be prepared for one car, a two bedroom house in the not-as-nice neighborhoods, and minimal college savings for your kids.

    The problem with the stay-at-home-mom plan is that it inherently implies that you plan on marrying rich. Like not the ‘oh I only want a guy over six foot with blue eyes and makes 250k’ jokes that sorority girls make, but literally planning on that. I mean, if you end up in a financial situation that is comfortable enough for you not to work, by all means, stay at home with your kids and definitely no one should judge you for that. But to make that your career plan at the age of 22? Well that kinda means you’re a shallow gold-digger that literally values men based on their wealth, and I think I can definitely judge you for that.

    Also, I wish people stopped using the ‘being a mom is the hardest job on earth’ thing so literally. Every job has it’s challenges and rewards. Parenting is especially difficult, since you’re so emotionally attached. Being a mom (or a dad) is definitely hard. But what about our men and women in uniform protecting our freedom? Doctors who work 80 hour weeks and literally watch people die on a daily basis? People who do all that AND are still awesome parents to their kids? Every job has its difficulties and should be appreciated, there’s no point saying which is the most difficult.

    Honestly, it just seems like you need a dose of reality.

    12
    Log in to reply or vote on comments
  • lillylover123 10 years ago on A Non-Smoker Explains Why It's Completely Reprehensible To Rag On Your Friends For Smoking

    Just FYI:

    Caffeine is so harmless it’s actually ridiculous that anyone bitches about it (the LD50 is equivalent to like 100 cups of coffee in an hour). The cancer-causing effects of aspartame have been proven to be negligible and the Diet Coke thing was put to rest years ago, the worst it’s going to do is maybe give you a bit of heartburn. Hooking up with randos is not a medical issue at all unless you’re dumb about it. Hell, even Taco Bell and binge drinking really aren’t huge problems if you do it in moderation and lead an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

    Tanning and smoking are different. They definitely, undisputedly cause cancer, and every single exposure is damaging and irreversible. There are no safe, allowable limits. The carcinogens (UV light, and the like 20 harmful substances in cigarettes) literally enter into your cells and promote abnormal reactions in your DNA that cross-link the strands in ways they shouldn’t be, making DNA replication waaaay more likely to mess up and cause mutations. Those mutations might be harmless, might cause an abnormality or death of the cell, or they might be cancerous. Literally every time you smoke a cigarette or enter a tanning bed, you are rolling the dice with cancer.

    That’s not to say whose place it is to moderate others’ behaviour, but saying the dangerous effects of Starbucks are comparable to those of cigarettes makes you seem really uninformed.

    20
    Log in to reply or vote on comments
  • lillylover123 10 years ago on Diet Coke. TSM. Coke diet. TSTC.

    Nope. Meth doesn’t even do anything to your teeth directly, the reason addicts have disgusting teeth is because it decreases saliva production so sugar and other bad stuff don’t get flushed away and end up rotting their teeth. Diet Coke (or any dark beverage) can stain your teeth, but that’s what straws are for… and whitening…

    -9
    Log in to reply or vote on comments
  • lillylover123 11 years ago on Understanding The Supreme Court's Decisions On Same-Sex Marriage

    In general, I am totally for gay relationships and love and people and all that. This is America, and you should be free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn’t harm others. Certainly no one should have to put up with abuse, verbal or physical, for what they do behind closed doors, like many gay teenagers and adults experience.
    While I totally agree with the supreme court’s decision regarding the legal rights of gay couples, there is always the religious and social aspect to marriage. As an institution, it used to serve a greater purpose than to just have a party and get some tax cuts. It was once a sort of informal contract between a man and a woman which legitimized sex, and ensured that the woman (who historically had a pretty slim shot at making it in the workforce) and any future children would be provided for. This still lingers today. The thing is, gay couples don’t have to deal with the same struggles as heterosexual couples. Shotgun marriages? No way, every child will be well planned out via adoption, donors, surrogates, etc. It doesn’t happen by accident for them. Advantages in the still somewhat unequal labor market? Nope. The word ‘marriage’ has a historical meaning and an unwritten social obligation that isn’t really applicable to homosexual couples. So I guess my only objection to gay marriage is that it kind of belittles the word. I feel like heterosexuals should be allowed to get defensive about it in the same way that certain racial minorities get defensive about their words, and the unique struggle and history that goes along with them.

    -20
    Log in to reply or vote on comments