Uprooting family to become vp

[Tracey in TX]

I do have issues with females who have young children being deployed. It's my bias. I said that to begin with. I'm not wild about men with young children signing up either. I've seen families struggle (especially the children) when dad's job took him away most of the time.

 

As adults we often think just of ourselves and how we handle the separation. Again, it's ironic when many of you are pro-life, but think little of how the child feels once it is out of the womb. There is science to back up the fact that babies and children suffer w/o the physical contact of their parents in the early years.

Thanks for the reply.

I am pro-life and my children have been raised predominately by me as DH travels often. It's always been that way. They don't know any differently. Someday it would be awesome if DH would be a SAHD while I make a living. (Doubtful, though, given my background. But still something we desire.)

I understand your viewpoint and think it's idealistic (or ideal? :)).

[Katrina]

I am very surprised at the very pro reaction to Palin's nod despite the age of her youngest two. I'm also surprised, because I have heard so often that the man is the head of the house in many of the posts here. How do those of you who believe this reconcile this with a female VP or even female president?

 

I am so glad you posted that...I've been wanting to and even typed it up but deleted it before I could. I haven't read all the posts yet, but I have been rather surprised with the possitive reactions from people who feel that a woman should stay home and be submissive to her husband. Even though I'd rather cut my right arm off than vote for McCain and Pailin, from the little I've seen I've been impressed with her strong feminist voice during her speech. I know the GOP pundints and the ol' boys club are having major fits right now. (almost makes me want to cut my right arm off and vote for her to spite them all!:biggrinjester:)

 

So, how does everyone deal with the whole submissive women belief and their excitement over Pailin? (seriously curious, not trying to be spiteful and snarky.) Thanks!

[Jami]

I am so glad you posted that...I've been wanting to and even typed it up but deleted it before I could. I haven't read all the posts yet, but I have been rather surprised with the possitive reactions from people who feel that a woman should stay home and be submissive to her husband. Even though I'd rather cut my right arm off than vote for McCain and Pailin, from the little I've seen I've been impressed with her strong feminist voice during her speech. I know the GOP pundints and the ol' boys club are having major fits right now. (almost makes me want to cut my right arm off and vote for her to spite them all!:biggrinjester:)

 

So, how does everyone deal with the whole submissive women belief and their excitement over Pailin? (seriously curious, not trying to be spiteful and snarky.) Thanks!

 

 

Well I can't speak for others, but I personally make distinctions between relationships and submission within a particular marriage and household or within the structure of the church leadership and the nation or even a business. I don't see the Bible calling ALL women to be submissive to ALL men. Not even within the church. So I'm fine with women in leadership positions, if their own husbands are. :001_smile:

 

Jami

[Tracey in TX]

I I have been rather surprised with the possitive reactions from people who feel that a woman should stay home and be submissive to her husband. Even though I'd rather cut my right arm off than vote for McCain and Pailin, from the little I've seen I've been impressed with her strong feminist voice during her speech.

 

So, how does everyone deal with the whole submissive women belief and their excitement over Pailin? (seriously curious, not trying to be spiteful and snarky.) Thanks!

I haven't read the entire thread, so am shocked that women in today's society still believe in submissive attitudes toward their husbands. DH also does not understand this any more than I do, and have often suggested I run for political office, allow him to be the SAHD, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought marriage is a partnership. Is the submissive attitude prevalent? Regional? Cultural? Certain religions? I'm also not trying to be snarky, but am truly surprised with this. Can someone explain this?

Thanks,

Tracey

[Kelli in TN]

I think part of the issue for me is that I have already had my assumptions about family life challenged and beaten down.

 

I went to church with a family that had seven boys. Dad was a stay at home, homeschooling parent. Mom had the career that put the food on the table.

 

They were one of the most amazing, wonderful, healthy families I ever had the privilege to know. She worked at Proctor and Gamble and they had a very decent profamily attitude. She would pump milk throughout the day and then nurse in the evenings and mornings. She did not take the full maternity leave that was offered, I seem to remember there was so much paid leave and then it was followed by a very liberal amount of unpaid leave. She took the paid leave because as she told me once "Those boys like to eat."

 

These kids, from youngest to oldest, were so very well adjusted, so secure in their parents' love.

 

Up until I knew them I felt that somehow for young babies the mom was preferable to the dad when it came to who was going to be there all day. After knowing them for several years, I knew better.

 

I hated when her job moved them away.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I haven't read the entire thread, so am shocked that women in today's society still believe in submissive attitudes toward their husbands. DH also does not understand this any more than I do, and have often suggested I run for political office, allow him to be the SAHD, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought marriage is a partnership. Is the submissive attitude prevalent? Regional? Cultural? Certain religions? I'm also not trying to be snarky, but am truly surprised with this. Can someone explain this?

Thanks,

Tracey

 

It is not uncommon here in the South and does tend to be a religious thing, but it's not only Christians (and not all Christians believe in this) who hold this belief in some form. I am quite shocked when I see it myself, but only in a couple cases I've seen were the women being emotionally or financially abused - something that shocks me even more.

[Kelli in TN]

I haven't read the entire thread, so am shocked that women in today's society still believe in submissive attitudes toward their husbands. DH also does not understand this any more than I do, and have often suggested I run for political office, allow him to be the SAHD, etc. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought marriage is a partnership. Is the submissive attitude prevalent? Regional? Cultural? Certain religions? I'm also not trying to be snarky, but am truly surprised with this. Can someone explain this?

Thanks,

Tracey

 

I think it is prevelant and misunderstood. My husband is the leader in our family on a lot of issues. There are just so many areas where is better equipped to lead(finances for one example). I am the nurturer. I think we have a great partnership, but on the big decisions he is the final word. This is my gift to him; this trust I place in his leadership ability. But I am not beaten down and I will stand up to him if the cause is just and I am certain that his direction is dead wrong.

[EKS]

It is hard not to be excited about such a vivacious, capable woman on the ticket...

 

Actually, I'm having no trouble at all.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Let me preface my comments by saying I truly do not mean to offend anyone and I realize I am new here and do not want to risk being ill thought of in my first few days on the block......

That said, I have a question. What does "Man being head of household" have to do with a woman's profession/abilities/calling? Is it an assumption that "head of household" means that the man must be the one "out front" all the time? If a woman is exceptionally gifted/motivated/whatever and happens to be married, does it mean that she must put all personal goals/callings away? Is it not possible for the man to be the spiritual head of the household AND the woman to pursue her calling. If the man stays home and nurtures children, is he automatically not "head of household?" If a woman makes more money or has more drive to achieve professional goals does that automatically make her not submissive? Are these things mutually exclusive?

And does this all mean that no woman, in the Christain mindset/belief structure is allowed to run anything (a family, school district, corporation, country?).

Sorry so long, but this issue has really brought me some confusion...

[Colleen]

(I)f the 'she' in this equation was a 'he' this question would not be asked.

 

If 'she' was a 'he', he wouldn't even be in this position.

[Katrina]

Well I can't speak for others, but I personally make distinctions between relationships and submission within a particular marriage and household or within the structure of the church leadership and the nation or even a business. I don't see the Bible calling ALL women to be submissive to ALL men. Not even within the church. So I'm fine with women in leadership positions, if their own husbands are. :001_smile:

 

Jami, I could respect that opinion if it was handled that way in practice. Unfortunately I've seen too many men really dismiss women's opinions because they were women. Or be ignored when purchasing a car because "men make the financial decisions" and all sorts of other passive agressive examples. If men can't respect women as equals in the home, how can they respect women in the work place or in general society at all???

 

(Please, I'm not trying to be snarky! this is a very troubling question for me!)

[5kidsforME]

 

I agree.

 

 

 

There's rich irony here indeed. Apparently some on the far right are willing to back burner traditional beliefs they've long proclaimed when the right opportunity presents itself. (Please not I'm speaking in generalities with no specific person or persons in mind.)

 

Right and I agree too with Colleen and Jenny and I will stand up and admit that I love that Palin is running. Thrilled even!

 

The only thing I don't quite agree with you on Colleen is that I still believe her husband can be the head of the house. Yes, i do believe that is possible even if she becomes VP.

[5kidsforME]

I'm with you on the kiddo thing, Jenny. My first reaction was "oh, I LOVE her, but geez...what about the baby?" Kiddos need their mommas. I don't think this eliminates her as a great candidate, because I don't live in her house and know how it operates, but I do know that I personally couldn't do it. (Not that I'd make a great VP or anything!)

 

 

However...and it's a big however...I'm probably not completely traditional in this respect. I don't think that God has the same definition of "head of household" that humans generally do. It's not a hierarchy, IMO. My best way of explaining this would be a paraphrase from the new book that's out called "The Shack." (Very cool, if you've not read it!) God designed marriage to be a "circle of relationship" (much like His relationship with the Trinity) where each have interdependence on each other. Man came from woman (thus he's first), woman gives birth to man, we all need each other and are dependent upon each other. One is not more important than the other, no one is to lord over another, partners and all that. I respect him, he leads because he is gifted in that area, he loves me and puts me above himself, making all decisions with my input and for my benefit...it's a circle, not a hierarchy.

 

I say all that to explain that I can support Sarah Palen's bid for VP because I don't see her role in marriage as exclusive of leadership as VP. Inside their marriage, they have to decide together what works for them within the gifts and responsibilities that God has given them...that's between God and the two of them, not the two of them and me! I'd not venture to say that she should not be VP because she's a married woman...there are many examples in the Bible of women God chose to lead. And, frankly, I admire her DH's strength for being willing to face the emasculating comments he's likely to receive from some quarters! My DH is that kind of man (actually, yesterday he said he'd support me running if I wanted to!) so I guess it's easy for me to see as possible.

 

She may be God's woman for the hour, but that remains to be seen. My hope is only that their family has carefully considered this decision in light of their children's needs and the needs of their family, just as I hope that the other families with candidates running do the same.

 

Off to cut shrubs...I hate that job. :glare:

 

I agree with all of the above! Good post :iagree:

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

 

If 'she' was a 'he', he wouldn't even be in this position.

 

:iagree: Can't rep ya so you get a smiley instead.

[Tullia]

how does acknowledging a husband as head of the household automatically preclude the wife's taking on a role outside the home? Different families make different choices based on their particular set of circumstances...that's true regardless of religious or political affiliation.

 

I think, too, that the VP job is flexible and the time needed to do the job is going to vary from one administration to another. That's something to be negotiated by each administration; there aren't any statutory requirements for a VP's office hours that I'm aware of.

 

In any case, Gov. Palin, if elected, would be the VP, not the Pres and as such would have a lot of freedom to fit work and family together. Maybe she will have an opportunity to lead the way in making work and family more integrated. I think that would be a good thing, and would certainly be better than the old days when VP's and first ladies were expected to keep a low profile.

[Jugglin'5]

Well I can't speak for others, but I personally make distinctions between relationships and submission within a particular marriage and household or within the structure of the church leadership and the nation or even a business. I don't see the Bible calling ALL women to be submissive to ALL men. Not even within the church. So I'm fine with women in leadership positions, if their own husbands are. :001_smile:

 

Jami

 

:iagree:

[Jami]

Jami, I could respect that opinion if it was handled that way in practice. Unfortunately I've seen too many men really dismiss women's opinions because they were women. Or be ignored when purchasing a car because "men make the financial decisions" and all sorts of other passive agressive examples. If men can't respect women as equals in the home, how can they respect women in the work place or in general society at all???

 

(Please, I'm not trying to be snarky! this is a very troubling question for me!)

 

 

Well this is a sad misunderstanding of submission and roles certainly. Biblical submission, as I understand it, isn't about inequality or ability, but about roles. And temporary roles at that, since marriage won't exist in heaven. Paul says very clearly that at the foot of the cross there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28) but we are one in Christ. But marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, and there is one head of the church. So there is one spiritual head of the family. It's not because a male is superior to a female, both are clearly made in God's image, but because God ordained the structure of the family to be that way. To demonstrate the beauty of voluntary submission (AND I'll add that believers are to submit to one another within the body).

 

In my own marriage, I doubt some would look on and think "wow, there's a 1950s picture of subservient wife and dominant husband". :lol: We certainly function as a respectful partnership. BUT, the ultimate responsibility of leadership and the decisions we make together falls on my husbands shoulders. Part of this arrangement also goes back to the curse after Adam and Eve's fall...Adam was given authority over his wife and she was cursed with a desire to rule over him.

 

I don't know if that helps or not. I realize not all Christians agree on these things and some of it certainly seems counter-cultural.

 

And I'll add (ala Remudamom) that those men you've seen treat women that way are donkeys, plain and simple. And Jesus certainly did not treat women in that way. Which was very counter-cultural in his day.

 

 

 

Jami

[Jugglin'5]

Well this is a sad misunderstanding of submission and roles certainly. Biblical submission, as I understand it, isn't about inequality or ability, but about roles. And temporary roles at that, since marriage won't exist in heaven. Paul says very clearly that at the foot of the cross there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28) but we are one in Christ. But marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, and there is one head of the church. So there is one spiritual head of the family. It's not because a male is superior to a female, both are clearly made in God's image, but because God ordained the structure of the family to be that way. To demonstrate the beauty of voluntary submission (AND I'll add that believers are to submit to one another within the body).

 

In my own marriage, I doubt some would look on and think "wow, there's a 1950s picture of subservient wife and dominant husband". :lol: We certainly function as a respectful partnership. BUT, the ultimate responsibility of leadership and the decisions we make together falls on my husbands shoulders. Part of this arrangement also goes back to the curse after Adam and Eve's fall...Adam was given authority over his wife and she was cursed with a desire to rule over him.

 

I don't know if that helps or not. I realize not all Christians agree on these things and some of it certainly seems counter-cultural.

 

Jami

 

I agree again. I am the Jami fan club today. I'll just let you do the talking:lol:.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

In any case, Gov. Palin, if elected, would be the VP, not the Pres and as such would have a lot of freedom to fit work and family together.

 

But one of the main roles of a VP is to be ready to take office at any time. Do you think if John McCain dies she should pass to the Speaker of the House? And not only has it been when a President dies that a VP has to take over. If a President is under anesthesia or medication that interferes with his ability to do his job to 100%, the VP is given temporary power.

[Spy Car]

But the other day I stumbled on this verse in 1 Timothy 2:11-12

 

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

 

So I scratch my head, are we all one and it make no difference what gender we are, or are women really to be silent and powerless according to scripture?

 

I get confused by the seemingly cross messages, anyone car to help me out on the theology?

 

Bill

[Colleen]

The only thing I don't quite agree with you on Colleen is that I still believe her husband can be the head of the house. Yes, i do believe that is possible even if she becomes VP.

 

I never said otherwise. Someone else apparently injected the "head of the household" language into the discussion. I'm fear now that any of us who aren't joining the Palin cheer club are assumed to be at odds with her lack of submission or some such nonsense.

[TravelingChris]

I haven't read all the preceeding posts but military families move all the time. We not only survive, we thrive.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

I never said otherwise. Someone else apparently injected the "head of the household" language into the discussion. I'm fear now that any of us who aren't joining the Palin cheer club are assumed to be at odds with her lack of submission or some such nonsense.

 

But, if Palin were a liberal democrat, I feel the tone of this thread would be far different. I'm not so sure the accolades for her career choices would be so strong.

[Jami]

But the other day I stumbled on this verse in 1 Timothy 2:11-12

 

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

 

So I scratch my head, are we all one and it make no difference what gender we are, or are women really to be silent and powerless according to scripture?

 

I get confused by the seemingly cross messages, anyone car to help me out on the theology?

 

Bill

 

This is about rule and order within the church, amongst Christians, in a worship service. And some of it is about the particular cultural context within which Paul is writing. It's not meant to be applied to all segments of a secular society. And I'm pretty sure my posts haven't indicated otherwise. I'm not sure where you're hearing this argument being made on this thread.

 

Jami

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

But, if Palin were a liberal democrat, I feel the tone of this thread would be far different. I'm not so sure the accolades for her career choices would be so strong.

 

Maybe you're right....I'm new to this thread. But not for me. Of course, I've always been far to liberal for my conservative friends and much to conservative for my liberal friends...thankfully they (all 2 of them:D) tolerate me...to my face anyways. I do sense a lot of eye rolls.

[Colleen]

But, if Palin were a liberal democrat, I feel the tone of this thread would be far different. I'm not so sure the accolades for her career choices would be so strong.

 

No doubt.

[Jenny in Atl]

This is about rule and order within the church, amongst Christians, in a worship service. And some of it is about the particular cultural context within which Paul is writing. It's not meant to be applied to all segments of a secular society. And I'm pretty sure my posts haven't indicated otherwise. I'm not sure where you're hearing this argument being made on this thread.

 

Jami

 

Well, since so many CC wish to impose their views on secular society/US laws, can you see the confusion with this?

[sdWTMer]

But, if Palin were a liberal democrat, I feel the tone of this thread would be far different. I'm not so sure the accolades for her career choices would be so strong.

 

Not here.

[Kelli in TN]

Maybe you're right....I'm new to this thread. But not for me. Of course, I've always been far to liberal for my conservative friends and much to conservative for my liberal friends...thankfully they (all 2 of them:D) tolerate me...to my face anyways. I do sense a lot of eye rolls.

 

I share your affliction.

 

I get emails from some of my dearest loved relatives about how concerned they are about my liberal leanings according to my blog.

 

I get emails from soem of my dearest loved relatives about how I need to be careful not to sell out to conservative ideology.

 

I guess that puts me in the middle.

[Danestress]

If Palin wants to take on a 18 hour a day (on a slow day!) campaigning job, that's her business. Yes, I have concerns about a 4 month post-partum woman making that choice, but it's hers to make and I am sure she and her husband and their families have talked about it, and I'm sure she will hire help for the children if they need it. So I'm not loosing sleep over it. If she were my sister, I would lose sleep. I don't know her, and I don't really care. There are children way worse off.

 

And frankly, I don't care at all about the VP having five children, including an infant/toddler. Some VPs stay quite busy. Others, not so much. Maybe McCain isn't planning to actually have her dedicate as much time to that job as other presidents.

 

But I have grave concerns about the mother of five children including, say, an 18 month old, being *president.* I would be less worried if she was announcing, "Hey, I have a great husband, and raising the children is sort of his job. That's what they are used to, and while I do love them, I'm not really the parent who handles the day-to-day," or, "Honestly, my mother sort of raises the kids with us, and that frees me up for the long hours away from children. I never felt I was cut out for the full-time Mommy role."

 

But she's carrying the baby around, popping out to change diapers, trying to incorporate him into her day. And frankly, I don't think that would work for a president, especially as the baby gets older. I want my president to really have her mind on the job, which by no means say he or she should not also honor commitments to family, but it does mean you accept a role as not the primary caregiver of those children. That's just one of the sacrifices of this level of leadership. Maybe that's exactly what she intends, but she hasn't said so. Actually, men never say so either, but I do think we just assume that men will leave the children with their mother and do what needs to be done. I'm not sure we can assume she will - she certaily doesn't seem to intend that.

 

I don't think you can be a good president of the United States and primary care-giving parent of young children. I don't think a man can do it, and I don't think a woman can do it. I assume men won't try (maybe wrongly, but I haven't seen one I thought was trying). Maybe I should just assume the same about her, but I'm not so sure.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Well, since so many CC wish to impose their views on secular society/US laws, can you see the confusion with this?

 

See, this is what I will never understand. Since not all Christians even believe the same things, who should get to decide? Who decides who gets to decide? Do we need a great big war between the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, and Mormons? What about Jews and the Muslims? Where do the Buddhists and Taoists fit in? It's not only the idea of having religion imposed upon the whole of America I am against, it is the idea that a segment of one particular flavor of one religion thinks they have the right to decide.

[Jugglin'5]

Well, since so many CC wish to impose their views on secular society/US laws, can you see the confusion with this?

 

Let me turn this around a bit. From my viewpoint, which is mostly traditional, I am having things imposed on me. People want my tax money to pay for domestic partnerships and social security benefits for those partnerships. That is unprecedented in Western Civilization. I have to pay taxes for things to be taught that I don't believe. (As an aside, this is why I believe education needs to be privatized - you send your kid to the Temple of the Yellow Banana God School, First Presbyterian Academy, or Richard Dawkins Prep - your choice). From my point of view, people want me to pay taxes to murder other people. I feel that things like this are being shoved down my throat. I also feel that secularists sometimes overlook that the reason that this country and Europe are generally pleasant, law abiding, free, and wealthy compared to the rest of the world is due to our Christian Heritage. You can bring up the Crusades, pogroms, etc, which just demonstrates the Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of men, but it still was a long record of progress. Because even when individual men didn't live "you shall love your neighbor as yourself", society as a whole reflected that more and more as Christendom advanced. As someone else noted, life is cheap in other parts of the world. This will probably elicit howls and protests of intolerance, but if I didn't believe Christianity to be true and beneficial, well, I wouldn't bother. All that said, I am not interested in making you submit to your husband. That is above my pay grade (That is such a great all purpose phrase). I also know that not all Christians, maybe most, will agree with me. :001_smile:

[sdWTMer]

 

But I have grave concerns about the mother of five children including, say, an 18 month old, being *president.* I would be less worried if she was announcing, "Hey, I have a great husband, and raising the children is sort of his job. That's what they are used to, and while I do love them, I'm not really the parent who handles the day-to-day," or, "Honestly, my mother sort of raises the kids with us, and that frees me up for the long hours away from children. I never felt I was cut out for the full-time Mommy role."

 

 

McCain is only 72 years old...why is it that some people are talking like he is going to keel over?!? When was the last time there was an attempt on anyone's life...Reagan...long time ago. And it's been even longer that someone died in office.

 

I think that some people need to stop putting the cart before the horse so to speak and just let her do what she's going to do. ;) I realize that we need to plan for those contingencies, but perhaps she could finish out the term and then not go for reelection. I don't see the big deal. More power to her.

[Melinda in VT]

See, this is what I will never understand. Since not all Christians even believe the same things, who should get to decide? Who decides who gets to decide? Do we need a great big war between the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, and Morons? What about Jews and the Muslims? Where do the Buddhists and Taoists fit in? It's not only the idea of having religion imposed upon the whole of America I am against, it is the idea that a segment of one particular flavor of one religion thinks they have the right to decide.

 

*cough* I think you mean Mormons. ;)

[Jenny in Atl]

Let me turn this around a bit. From my viewpoint' date=' which is mostly traditional, i am having things imposed on me. People want my tax money to pay for domestic partnerships and social security benefits for those partnerships. That is unprecedented in Western Civilization. I have to pay taxes for things to be taught that I don't believe. (As an aside, this is why I believe education needs to be privatized - you send your kid to the Temple of the Yellow Banana God School, First Presbyterian Academy, or Richard Dawkins Prep - your choice). From my point of view, people want me to pay taxes to murder other people. I feel that thing like this are being shoved down [i']my[/i] throat. I also feel that secularists sometimes overlook that the reason that this country and Europe are generally pleasant, law abiding, free, and wealthy compared to the rest of the world is due to our Christian Heritage. You can bring up the Crusades, pogroms, etc, which just demonstrates the Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of men, but it still was a long record of progress. Becaue even when individual men didn't live "you shall love your neighbor as yourself", society as a whole reflected that more and more as Christendom advanced. As someone else noted, life is cheap in other parts of the world. This will probably elicit howls and protests of intolerance, but if I didn't believe Christianity to be true and beneficial, well, I wouldn't bother. All that said, I am not interested in making you submit to your husband. That is above my pay grade (That is such a great all purpose phrase). I also know that not all Christians, maybe most, will agree with me. :001_smile:

 

 

Ah, something we can agree on! Taxes!! I don't want my money to pay for a number of things either, some we would agree on. I want less government not more. To me both Dems and Reps both want to take my money and my freedoms and impose the views of others on me. So see... you are just picking the side you agree with. You will force your views and take others moneys in order to do so. If you truly feel as you say.. third party is the way to go. So why are more of us not doing this?

[dirty ethel rackham]

I know that she pumps. Do Down's syndrome babies usually have difficulties nursing? Does anyone know anything about this?

 

Not speaking from experience from having a Down's Syndrome child, but from working with them as a teen and working with LLL ... they do tend to have muscle tone and muscle coordination issues, which can make nursing more challenging. However, there is a wide range of abilities and disabilities amound Down's Syndrome children. Some are very high functioning and some have much more profound disabilities.

[Jenny in Atl]

Not speaking from experience from having a Down's Syndrome child, but from working with them as a teen and working with LLL ... they do tend to have muscle tone and muscle coordination issues, which can make nursing more challenging. However, there is a wide range of abilities and disabilities amound Down's Syndrome children. Some are very high functioning and some have much more profound disabilities.

 

Yes, most do but with age can learn to latch with some work.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Let me turn this around a bit. From my viewpoint' date=' which is mostly traditional, I am having things imposed on me. People want my tax money to pay for domestic partnerships and social security benefits for those partnerships. That is unprecedented in Western Civilization. I have to pay taxes for things to be taught that I don't believe. (As an aside, this is why I believe education needs to be privatized - you send your kid to the Temple of the Yellow Banana God School, First Presbyterian Academy, or Richard Dawkins Prep - your choice). From my point of view, people want me to pay taxes to murder other people. I feel that things like this are being shoved down [i']my[/i] throat. I also feel that secularists sometimes overlook that the reason that this country and Europe are generally pleasant, law abiding, free, and wealthy compared to the rest of the world is due to our Christian Heritage. You can bring up the Crusades, pogroms, etc, which just demonstrates the Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of men, but it still was a long record of progress. Becaue even when individual men didn't live "you shall love your neighbor as yourself", society as a whole reflected that more and more as Christendom advanced. As someone else noted, life is cheap in other parts of the world. This will probably elicit howls and protests of intolerance, but if I didn't believe Christianity to be true and beneficial, well, I wouldn't bother. All that said, I am not interested in making you submit to your husband. That is above my pay grade (That is such a great all purpose phrase). I also know that not all Christians, maybe most, will agree with me. :001_smile:

 

Gays have more rights in Europe, generally speaking. Abortion is decriminalized in Europe. They teach evolution in their government schools. As far as I am aware, a greater segment of Europe's population is not Christian than is Christian.

 

There are people right now who are playing taxes that go to fund programs for minorities that are racists. Do you feel that because they are racist, they should not have to pay taxes? Do you feel that since they are racists, there should not be any laws protecting people from racial discrimination or there should not be any programs for minorities?

 

What makes your rights so much more important than mine, or my daughter's? This goes far beyond simple things that the government funds also like abortion and same sex marriage- neither of which are funded by the government but both things a lot of Conservative Christians want to abolish- for everyone- by law - even though no one is going to ever FORCE them into a same sex marriage or force them to have an abortion. What makes them so much more important than anyone else? God certainly does not place them above anyone else IMHO.

[Jugglin'5]

Well, my DH still wants to vote for Paul, so if I submit to him...:lol::lol::lol: I guess that I am hoping that McCain will cut spending. He seems to be one of the few senators who has ever been serious about it. I HATED McCain/Feingold - it strikes at the heart of free speech by restricting political speech. I suspect more of us are not doing the 3rd party thing because it feels hopeless, and we keep hoping we might see some incremental improvement with the major party we are more sympathetic with. I don't know, I keep hoping that Sarah will add a frontier/wilderness, gun-toting, freedom-loving, kinda libertarian edge to McCain. A girl can dream, can't she?

 

Ah, something we can agree on! Taxes!! I don't want my money to pay for a number of things either, some we would agree on. I want less government not more. To me both Dems and Reps both want to take my money and my freedoms and impose the views of others on me. So see... you are just picking the side you agree with. You will force your views and take others moneys in order to do so. If you truly feel as you say.. third party is the way to go. So why are more of us not doing this?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

*cough* I think you mean Mormons. ;)

 

:lol: OMG- what an offensive typo! Almost as funny as the time I was typing about how hot and wet it was in Virginia and made a major typo then too.

[Jugglin'5]

Gays have more rights in Europe, generally speaking. Abortion is decriminalized in Europe. They teach evolution in their government schools. As far as I am aware, a greater segment of Europe's population is not Christian than is Christian.

 

I wasn't talking about recent history - I know that they are much more secular than we are. And they are not replacing their populations - they are headed for the dustbin of history if something doesn't change soon. I was talking about Christendom, or the medieval period, whichever you prefer. Europe's heritage has been Christian for the last 1800 years, give or take a century.

[Katrina]

Well this is a sad misunderstanding of submission and roles certainly. Biblical submission, as I understand it, isn't about inequality or ability, but about roles. And temporary roles at that, since marriage won't exist in heaven. Paul says very clearly that at the foot of the cross there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28) but we are one in Christ. But marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, and there is one head of the church. So there is one spiritual head of the family. It's not because a male is superior to a female, both are clearly made in God's image, but because God ordained the structure of the family to be that way. To demonstrate the beauty of voluntary submission (AND I'll add that believers are to submit to one another within the body).

 

In my own marriage, I doubt some would look on and think "wow, there's a 1950s picture of subservient wife and dominant husband". :lol: We certainly function as a respectful partnership. BUT, the ultimate responsibility of leadership and the decisions we make together falls on my husbands shoulders. Part of this arrangement also goes back to the curse after Adam and Eve's fall...Adam was given authority over his wife and she was cursed with a desire to rule over him.

 

I don't know if that helps or not. I realize not all Christians agree on these things and some of it certainly seems counter-cultural.

 

And I'll add (ala Remudamom) that those men you've seen treat women that way are donkeys, plain and simple. And Jesus certainly did not treat women in that way. Which was very counter-cultural in his day.

 

 

Jami, I don't want to get into a debate on the rightousness of the issue. I also know that not all households that practice submission look the same. (Most of my family believe this and for the most part all my male relatives treat their wives extremely well. I've also seen examples of the opposite as well.)

 

My question is for the people who believe that women are not to be leaders in mixed gendered company. I've read plenty of post on this forum from women who wont attend a church if a female is the pastor because she's not supposed to lead in spiritual matters. I've read posts on this forum from women who do not encourage their daughters to seek careers so they wont be conflicted when it comes time to marry, settle down and become submissive to their husbands. I've read plenty of posts about how evil and anti-family feminists are. It's these women with these beliefs that I wonder how they can support a woman who very well could become our commander in chief. How can they believe a womans place is in the home yet endorse this woman so completely.

 

And, I dont' want to debate these womens' decisions to believe this way. I just want to understand their thought process. :grouphug:

[Spy Car]

This is about rule and order within the church, amongst Christians, in a worship service. And some of it is about the particular cultural context within which Paul is writing. It's not meant to be applied to all segments of a secular society. And I'm pretty sure my posts haven't indicated otherwise. I'm not sure where you're hearing this argument being made on this thread.

 

Jami

 

Thanks Jami.

 

I'm still not sure how to reconcile this verse with the one you mentioned with us all being the same under the cross, even if the context is limited to authority within the church and worship.

 

Are women not to speak in church, or have a role in teaching theology, or leading services?

 

Or have these notions been abandoned in our new "cultural context"?

 

Maybe this is too off topic, but I'm curious.

 

Anyway, I certainly have no problem with women serving in positions of authority in our government (I welcome it in fact) , but I still won't be voting for McCain/Palin.

 

Bill

[sdWTMer]

What makes your rights so much more important than mine, or my daughter's? This goes far beyond simple things that the government funds also like abortion and same sex marriage- neither of which are funded by the government but both things a lot of Conservative Christians want to abolish- for everyone- by law - even though no one is going to ever FORCE them into a same sex marriage or force them to have an abortion. What makes them so much more important than anyone else? God certainly does not place them above anyone else IMHO.

 

And what makes yours much greater than mine?

[Tullia]

But one of the main roles of a VP is to be ready to take office at any time. Do you think if John McCain dies she should pass to the Speaker of the House? And not only has it been when a President dies that a VP has to take over. If a President is under anesthesia or medication that interferes with his ability to do his job to 100%, the VP is given temporary power.

 

I wouldn't expect her to "punt" to the Speaker. I'd assume that she'd make the necessary adjustments, such as relying on her husband and extended family as she appears to have done in the past. Past presidents have had young children with whom they managed to spend time, and I would assume that would be the case for a woman president as well. Clearly, her job would be more difficult if she had to assume the duties of the president, but it would be doable. Fathers are capable of being primary caregivers IMO.

 

Much of this discussion has assumed that being VP is a demanding job when that's simply not the case. That's the context of my remarks. Past holders of the office have described it as excruciatingly boring and somewhat limiting in that theoretically you're supposed to be ready at a moment's notice. The VP isn't supposed to take off on a whim or have too much to drink, etc., but I expect that the Secret Service could tell some stories about that. The President has a lot to say about how many official duties are assigned and what sort of role a VP takes. If McCain/Palin should happen to be elected, I would expect the job to be defined in a family-friendly way.

[catalinakel]

Sorry I asked in the first place. I was hoping to get some cool links to interviews or articles (I got a few, thanks), but I guess some I misled some into believing that I had another agenda. I did not.

[Mrs Mungo]

And what makes yours much greater than mine?

 

I'm skipping to the end of the debate, bad form, I know. I just don't have tons of time today. But, I don't see anyplace where Jedi has suggesting limiting your rights. In her post where does she discuss taking any of your rights away? Please explain?

 

As far as the OP goes, I don't see how it's any different from any other job where families uproot and move.

[Kelli in TN]

 

There are people right now who are playing taxes .

 

What? Somebody thinks taxes are a game?

 

I don't play no taxes around here, taxes is serious business to me.

 

 

 

 

You know I am just yankin' your chain, right?

[5kidsforME]

 

I never said otherwise. Someone else apparently injected the "head of the household" language into the discussion. I'm fear now that any of us who aren't joining the Palin cheer club are assumed to be at odds with her lack of submission or some such nonsense.

 

/Ok, then I am sorry I attibuted that to you! :001_smile:

[Kelli in TN]

Sorry I asked in the first place. I was hoping to get some cool links to interviews or articles (I got a few, thanks), but I guess some I misled some into believing that I had another agenda. I did not.

 

Conversations on this board almost always take on a life of their own. Not just your thread, but most threads. It is one of the things that makes this virtual water cooler so interesting. I don't know why this bothers you, but you should not take it personally. I have seen some crazy jumps from point A to point B in a thread and everyone just goes with the flow.