I understand that you need to defend your faith, but I also am no less convinced of my own opinion, based on my own study of Islam. That study has included reading the Quran, the hadith, the history surrounding the Prophet, and talking with Muslims I know. Please believe me, that I don't hold you as any less kind or intelligent than any Christian or other religious person, because I disagree with your particular religion. Muslims face a lot of prejudice and suspicion in our society, and I just want to make it clear that even though I disagree with many aspects of Islam, I have found many things to respect about my Muslim friends.

Pardon me for asking...but, what is an umbrella school?

The Egyptian Copts (Christian) and certain African Christian societies also practice it, as well as the brutal FGM. I brought Christianity into this because it contains a great deal of sexism, and sexism is at the heart of what is happening to this girls and women. As I stated before, we can hardly stick our noses into these societies, when there are many groups right here in our society that practice and promote inequality between the sexes. All we're talking is difference of degree.

But are men and women being called by the scriptures to submit equally to each other? I submit to you (pun intended) that they are not. The fact that the scriptures call for a husband to be considerate and loving of his wife, and to even be willing to sacrifice his life for her, does not negate the fact, that he is still named her head. Her authority, even as Christ is the authority of the Church. If that analogy is taken to its logical conclusion, then his authority over her is viewed as being as complete as Christ's is over the Church. And since Paul equated all women with Eve, as being likewise so susceptible to deception that all of us require a man to guide us, it is not just his authority that is regarded as superior. It is also his wisdom, his intellect, his judgment. So, if man is as to wife, as Christ is as to the Church, then his authority and superiority over her are unassailable, as God's is over us, from a Biblical standpoint. Therefore, even when a man fails to uphold the charge to treat his wife well, his authority does not depend on his compliance with that. His authority is not in danger of being revoked. Again, nowhere in the NT it states that if a woman is mistreated by her husband, that she is justified or entitled to defying his authority over her, or to divorce him. If he does not honor her, she has no recourse, Biblically, speaking. She can take it to her church pastor, or a counselor, but they will focus on reforming the husband, instead of reforming the power balance in the relationship. On an ethical level, this is the same exact position of the girls and women in third world society. Many of their cultures promote good treatment of women as well (Islam has its positive verses on how men should treat their wives, and how wives have certain rights to divorce). However, when individual men choose to act according to their base instincts, there is no spiritual authority affirming the rights of these girls and women to defy the men in their lives. Oh sure, it's tolerated from time to time; but it's not often encouraged, and it's even more rarely something positively regarded. They do not want the model revised from its male-top, female-bottom ideal. Finally, I understand that my position is upsetting to you, because you certainly don't like to think of yourself as being in an inferior position, and you have a good marriage with someone who I am sure is very kind. AS YOU SHOULD FEEL! I do not believe for a second that your husband is bullying you around, based on your response to me. However, the fact that your husband is considerate of your feelings, and takes them into consideration, is due to basic human decency, and respect and love for you, as a person. It is not due to scriptural mandate--even though they command him to treat you well, they do not make that requirement a condition of his continuing authority over you, understand? The only compunction he has to be the great guy he is, is his own conscience. If he was a different person, they would not strip him of his authority. The authority is conferred as an accident of birth (the fact he is XY), and not according to his character. Paul wrote in Romans 11:29: God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. This is significant, because it establishes once again, the indelible nature of the gifts and authority that are assigned to various believers. This is not a new or unusual concept, by the way. The OT and NT are entirely consistent on this point, as demonstrated by the fact that even when King Saul went mad and was a complete tyrant, NO ONE WAS ENTITLED TO REMOVE HIM FROM HIS CAPACITY as king over Israel -- again, another allusion to Christ and the Church. Which again, carries over to the husband and wife relationship. That is why I maintain that traditional, literal Christianity ultimately does not uphold the equality of the sexes, anymore than other societies and religions. And until women are regarded as the equals of men IN EVERY REGARD, especially decision-making power, we will continue to see symptoms of this inequality taking the form of everything from female genital mutilation in Africa, to the home schooled Christian girl in Georgia who is discouraged from going to college, so she can just marry and have babies. P.S. I also have an awesome spouse. And in 10 years of marriage, we have never yet come upon a problem that we didn't solve together. Some decisions he has had more input, because he happened to know more about the situation or subject. Other situations, I had the final word, because I was more qualified to make that call. We work as a team, we solve our problems as a team, and we make decisions as a team.

Would it be irreverent of me to say, "Amen?" :) Anyway, yes, I agree.

First of all, I am very sorry and upset to read what was done to you when you were 11. :mad: I hope you were able to heal emotionally as well as physically, and that the guy went to jail. Secondly, yes, forcible rape can definitely cause enough tearing that hemorrhaging occurs. If the rape is violent enough, he can tear right through her vaginal walls, causing not only bleeding, but leaving open access for bacterial pathogens to enter into the bloodstream and cause septicemia (life-threatening infection). Furthermore, if she becomes pregnant, she enters into a whole new category of risk, from both the pregnancy (including anemia, nutritional deficit, etc.), and the birth itself.

I understand all that, really I do. Rest assured, I've read the entire Bible, more than once. I was raised in an evangelical denomination, was "saved" at age 3, baptized at age 5 (at my request), and began serious study of the Bible at age 12. I was part of a Bible quiz team for 4 years, where we had to commit huge portions of the NT to memory. Please believe me, I'm very familiar with all of the teachings on Christian marriage. To turn this back to the original subject of the thread, many of the practices we find repugnant are based on a premise that women are inferior to men. A huge proportion of those societies which practice things such as child marriage (really, child rape) and female genital mutilation are Islamic, a fact which I do not find coincidental. Though these practices owe their beginnings to obscure cultural roots pre-dating Islam and Christianity, the reason that they are still being practiced today is due in large part, to the sustained belief that women are born to be owned and used by men. Islam does promote a view of women, in my opinion, that relegates them to second-class status. Here in the West, Christian societies in the past have also had its times when 11-14 year old girls would be married off by their fathers to other full grown men. Do you think it was any less hideous an existence for those girls? The only difference between our societal past and the present situation of these poor child brides is that their societies have not undergone their Enlightenment. We've moved pass that stage, but we still promulgate some of the same ideals that supported those practices then and now, in other societies. And those ideals, based upon not just Christian, but Islamic, and Hindi concepts (it seemed few religions could pass up the opportunity to degrade women) could be summed up as: Women are given over to the authority of men, because they are too weak, or too emotional, or too easily deceived to make their own choices, and be their own authority. Abolish that premise, and replace it with a simple: Men and women are equally valuable to the species emotionally, intellectually, physically, and psychologically, and therefore should be equally empowered to determine their own fate. Do that, and the entire underpinnings of sexist practice from child marriage to over-controlling husbands in the West are undone.

elegantlion, your point about an only's relationship with the grandparents is one I hadn't considered before. My parents have 3 grandchildren: my son, and my sister's ds and dd. My other sister just married last year, but she may never have kids. I would say that having few grandchildren like that definitely means that they relish every minute with my niece and nephew, and with my ds, who is their first grandbaby.

Hi Beckey! Sure, the reason there's that box thingy with some of your post, is that I quoted part of what you said, so you knew what I was responding to exactly. Hope that makes sense? The quote function lets you designate who and what you are addressing in a thread. And welcome once again to the board! :)

I hope to avoid some of those pitfalls of "no cousins, aunts, etc." by encouraging a close relationship between ds and his cousins. They are close in age and they are like siblings when they are together. It is not the exact same thing of course, but someday, I could definitely see my sister's grandchildren as being like my ds' nieces and nephews, and vice versa. They'd be "second cousins," but still family.

I'm pretty new myself, and I'm glad you posted! I had only seen a few other posters here with only kids, so I started this thread to try to connect up with others. It's nice to have others here who can relate to your particular situation and challenges. :)

Hear, hear. (I speak as a Christian who is tired of having my faith defined only by the face of conservative Christianity in this country.)

This is a concern for DH and I as well. We are planning for retirement, and we'll check ourselves into a retirement home before we become a burden to DS. Also, it's unfortunate, but I have read a couple of studies that showed that having more than one child doesn't really have much impact on lessening the burden on one person. It seems that it's quite common for siblings to dump Mom and Dad on one person, who is often the oldest sister. This has played out in both my parents' families. My dad has 4 siblings, but it is the oldest daughter who is currently living with their 82 year old mother (who has Alzheimer's), and has been named the executor of her estate, and her power of attorney. It's not that she wanted this responsibility; but no one else volunteered, and it's just easier to dump it on her than to make it a family effort. :glare:

Me, neither. :confused:

I appreciate these posts. Someone said it's a very personal thing, deciding on your family size, and that's true. I do question my choice sometimes, because there are advantages and disadvantages to every size of family, and I sometimes worry I'm overlooking something. A blind spot, so to speak. ElegantLion, your post really struck as being quite similar to my situation. I hated being pregnant--it was the most traumatic period of my life. I won't go into details, but suffice it to say, I thought of termination more than once.:( We've discussed adoption, and that may happen some day. At this point, we're enjoying our son, and yes, he is indulged! :D

Anyone else here who has one child? Dh and I have one son, and while a few years ago he wanted another, he has changed his mind and is content with one. I never wanted children, and ds was a surprise, so I was always against getting pregnant again. But there have been times when I have considered having another, even if I really like the size of our family as it is. Are you happy with your family size, or do you want another? Do regret having one, or do you think you ever will? Is socialization more of a challenge with hs since there are no siblings? This last question has been an issue on my mind, making sure ds has plenty of interaction with other kids. (If you have multiples, you can chime in, too! Just wanted to connect with some other "only" parents here.)

Yes. Exactly. :iagree: Regarding the question of "Could I give up the internet?," my answer is sure I could, but why would I want to? I could also go live in a 1800's cabin with no modern plumbing or electricity; but again, why would I do that? Just to save money? Ok, so I'll own my cabin faster without a light bill, but I'll be sitting in the dark and disconnected from many things that make life interesting and educational and fun. Methinks this is less a practical issue, and more a relational one with your spouse. Perhaps some counseling by a third party (pastor, Christian therapist, etc.) might be warranted, if he is not listening to your concerns.

I suspect the mother probably needs the Risperdal more than the child. It never helps one's case to act wildly defiant like that, even without a gun involved.

That's a shame about those people. And you understood my intent at least partly. Yes, I wanted to see the people who believe Camping, not just out of amusement, but to get a grasp on why. I stated as much early on in the thread.

Something that has not been addressed in this debate on the software vs. the hardware, is that Macs are the only computers that are made precisely for the software mounted on them, and vice versa. PCs are NOT. Windows software is made to be a "one-size-fits-all" so that it can be used on every machine made in China to Timbuktu. In order to be versatile enough to blanket such a wide divergence of hardware out there, Windows cannot make the same type of intuitive linkages to its software that Mac + OSX does. The OSX kernel was based upon UNIX, and that is what gives it is stability. However, the entire program was always designed for and only MAC MACHINES. It's like the difference between buying a dress at a department store, and having one designed, cut, and sewn exactly to your specific measurements. Sure, the department store dress will fit some folks better than others, and it can be somewhat altered to fit better. But, it still cannot be as good or perfect a fit or style as the clothing specifically designed for ONE individual in mind. That is why Macs are generally much more functional, secure, and enjoyable to use than PCs. Macs DO have issues, they are not problem-free. But, I just think it's an entirely different level UP from PCs. [This message has been brought to you by my son's 700 mghz eMac, running on 10.3.9 - and still zippier and more reliable than my 2 year old HP work laptop running on Windows 7.]

No, what I said was your attempts to shame me were shallow. Not your "thoughts." As indicated by what I said: "Shallow attempts at shaming others..." See? The word "shallow" is modifying the noun "attempts," and together these form the subject, for which "shaming others" is the direct object. Therefore, your statement is disingenuous, because you are assigning meaning to my words which is quite different from what I actually said.

I don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, but I thought I'd share what happened two weeks ago with my family. My husband and I have been collecting coupons and using the online Grocery Game site to experiment with couponing. Our son, Jackson, has been kind of dubious about all the time and effort spent on this project, and he was asking us about it when we made a special trip to CVS to take advantage of some sales there with our coupons. Anyway, my husband and son waited in the car while I made the quick trip. I came back out to the car, all triumphant, and told them, "Look! I got everything for $3, and it would have originally cost me about $20." Jackson asked from the back seat,"Mom, what's the big deal about coupons? The store doesn't care." I said, "It's kind of like a game, Jackson. We're trying to get certain things for less money, and we won this round." Jackson just looked thoughtful, and didn't reply. Next, we went to Walgreens to pick up a prescription for my husband, only to find out that our insurance company had changed its coverage of the medication he was using, so it was more expensive. We'd been expecting to pay $25, but instead, we had to pay the $65 higher bracket. We were not happy. As we drove away, Jackson waxed philosophically from the back seat: "Guess the store won this time, Mom." :glare:

. . . I. . . I never realized I was missing this in my life until now. :drool:

I have been watching the news since they first reports came in. It appears that the main hospital, St. John's Regional, actually lost portions of its top floors. That is an incredibly powerful storm to have ripped off whole chunks of a concrete structure like that. They were afraid for a while that there may be an explosion in the hospital, I think due to leaking gases and oxygen tanks. From the pictures, it doesn't look like any of the windows are left intact on the building. They all look shattered. One report said that as much as 3/4 of the entire city was damaged or leveled. Terrible devastation. Poor people.