It's getting to the point that I dread checking my comments on here, because they are all angry comments from rabid-feminazis. I'm not here to argue with people who are religiously (yes, I said RELIGIOUSLY) feminist. I'm here to share a little about my life and thoughts. I used to enjoy getting on here as a way to keep in touch with like-minded people and write, but lately I've been avoiding it.
I'm not afraid of disagreement, but it gets to the point of being ridiculous. When you are coming from a philosophy based on lies, and won't listen to reason, you're incredibly difficult to argue with.
Please, don't waste my time or yours. We can sit here all day and say the past was this or that past was that. Go try reading some books or watching some films made before 1960. You may be shocked to see that women were not portrayed as helpless dolls and dormats, as you have been falsely taught, and that most men were not opressive ogres set out to destroy women's freedom and happiness. You think it is such a hardship that women were expected to do more housework than men, but the fact is, that was just their job and it NEEDED to be done. Women could not take care of their children and house and have time for a job becaus these things took up ALL their time. The invention of electricity - and subsequently the electric oven, washer, dryer and dishwasher had more to do with women deciding that housewifery was meaningless and boring than anything else. Thank Thomas Edison for your "liberation".
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Saving Money On Outings
Not much time left to waste tonight, but thought I'd go ahead and include a little helpful tip I've learned recently.
A lot of frugal articles stress the importance of avoiding eating out at restaurants too often, since you are paying not just for the food but also the service, lighting, ambiance etc. Usually they advise bringing your own lunch to work. This much is obvious enough. But what about other outings? Do you ever go out for a gallon of milk and end up with a box of doughnuts to go with it? Do you ever go to the playground with your kids and come back with a bunch of hamburgers and fries? I know I have.
Obviously, never shop hungry. But if the shopping trip might involve other errands or travel, that's not always enough. My advice is, bring a snack. Especially bring a snack for the kids. Few parents can ignore the hunger pleas of their children, even if they just ate and are doing it to get a burger out of the outing!
Then again, they may really be hungry. In fact, even an active 4 year old girl can burn as many calories as a moderately active adult woman, and they need more calories than they burn if they are to grow properly. Always with young children, short trips out seem to take much longer than expected, so it's best to be prepared. Pack some sandwiches, fill a thermos or leakproof cup, and throw in a couple of crackers and apples. I've probably saved a good $40 this way already, and prevented a few serious cases of the crankies.
A lot of frugal articles stress the importance of avoiding eating out at restaurants too often, since you are paying not just for the food but also the service, lighting, ambiance etc. Usually they advise bringing your own lunch to work. This much is obvious enough. But what about other outings? Do you ever go out for a gallon of milk and end up with a box of doughnuts to go with it? Do you ever go to the playground with your kids and come back with a bunch of hamburgers and fries? I know I have.
Obviously, never shop hungry. But if the shopping trip might involve other errands or travel, that's not always enough. My advice is, bring a snack. Especially bring a snack for the kids. Few parents can ignore the hunger pleas of their children, even if they just ate and are doing it to get a burger out of the outing!
Then again, they may really be hungry. In fact, even an active 4 year old girl can burn as many calories as a moderately active adult woman, and they need more calories than they burn if they are to grow properly. Always with young children, short trips out seem to take much longer than expected, so it's best to be prepared. Pack some sandwiches, fill a thermos or leakproof cup, and throw in a couple of crackers and apples. I've probably saved a good $40 this way already, and prevented a few serious cases of the crankies.
Fired For Being Pregnant?
Just reading through my employment manual from work and on some laws, and shocked to find out that getting pregnant would probably cause me to lose my job. They don't offer maternity leave, paid or unpaid, for part-time workers. Even full-time workers have to have 32 hours per week for 12 consecutive months to qualify for unpaid leave. So if my family needs the money from my part-time job, and I have to leave work to have a baby...oh well. Guess we're back to square one. I guess I would probably lose my job and have to keep finding a different one every time I get pregnant unless I want to work full-time, which I can't.
The best I could do would be to HOPE that I made a good enough impression as an employee that they would work out some way to hire me back, even if it's not the same position. That does seem possible at my job at least.
You know, I do try to see it from the employers point of view, but there is something terribly unfair about policies which discriminate against half the population and treat pregnancy as a "medical malady" (actual wording!!). It's just a natural part of life for women, like having periods. The whole reason any of us have survived as a species is our strong drive to reproduce. No species without it could possibly have survived as long as we have(which is probably why there IS no species without it on Earth!) But our twisted society doesn't agree.
Most mothers, married or otherwise, can't afford to work full-time. They'd either be handing thier entire paycheck over to daycare for any of their young children, or imposing them on family members (who are always so less than willing to help in our society). You would think that since the most common job situation for a married couple in the U.S. is husband full-time, wife part-time, they would have better plans than this but actually my job is pretty typical. You would think that over 100 years of feminism should've gotten us a better deal than this! Oops, I forgot, feminism isn't interested in helping women be mothers.
Ideally, men should be the wage earners while women fullfill their much more involved role in propagating the species. I've always felt, and still maintain the position that even if I was an atheist, I would still be against birth control because, for one, it makes no sense even from an evolutionary standpoint. If it's survival of the fittest, then those fit enough to be extremely fertile and reproduce healthy offspring MUST do so for the species to remain intact. To permanently cripple our ability to propogate is counter-productive for the human race, and it's counter-instinctual. Allowed to become widespread enough, it would eventually cause the collapse of natural protective family systems, continuously restrict the population replacement rate to dangerous levels (possibly even to the point that one disease or natural disaster could finish it off) and eventually lead to our complete demise and extinction. Evolutionarily speaking, only a defective mutant would believe their own species ought to go into extinction. That being said, I'm not saying I believe in evolution, but most proponents of birth control do so I like to throw this one at them.
And, either way, in order for women to be treated fairly either the laws need to change, or we need to make our men and families work harder to keep us and our offspring out of poverty. Our economy should be adjusted to the situation of a one-earner family, and things should cost less. But alas, this is not the case and there's certainly nothing I can do about it.
I have no idea how women manage on only 3 months (unpaid) maternity leave before returning to full-time work anyway. They must either formula feed or end up forcing their babies to wean early. Breastfeeding is hard enough without a full-time job thrown into the mix.
I like my job, and I feel a lot more sane and healthy while working part-time, but perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the only way that a family can get by with many children in our country is for the man to take on 2 jobs and/or increase his education. HE doesn't have to worry about losing a job due to any of his biological functions.
Oh yes and, technically they aren't supposed to be able to fire you for being pregnant. But in the real world, that means absolutely diddly. They can make up things to fire you over and say it had nothing to do with pregnancy, even when it does.
Either way, if they tell you that you can't take any leave and you happen to not be able to perform your tasks AFTER JUST FREAKING GIVING BIRTH, they can let you go and claim it's too much of a hardship for them.
The best I could do would be to HOPE that I made a good enough impression as an employee that they would work out some way to hire me back, even if it's not the same position. That does seem possible at my job at least.
You know, I do try to see it from the employers point of view, but there is something terribly unfair about policies which discriminate against half the population and treat pregnancy as a "medical malady" (actual wording!!). It's just a natural part of life for women, like having periods. The whole reason any of us have survived as a species is our strong drive to reproduce. No species without it could possibly have survived as long as we have(which is probably why there IS no species without it on Earth!) But our twisted society doesn't agree.
Most mothers, married or otherwise, can't afford to work full-time. They'd either be handing thier entire paycheck over to daycare for any of their young children, or imposing them on family members (who are always so less than willing to help in our society). You would think that since the most common job situation for a married couple in the U.S. is husband full-time, wife part-time, they would have better plans than this but actually my job is pretty typical. You would think that over 100 years of feminism should've gotten us a better deal than this! Oops, I forgot, feminism isn't interested in helping women be mothers.
Ideally, men should be the wage earners while women fullfill their much more involved role in propagating the species. I've always felt, and still maintain the position that even if I was an atheist, I would still be against birth control because, for one, it makes no sense even from an evolutionary standpoint. If it's survival of the fittest, then those fit enough to be extremely fertile and reproduce healthy offspring MUST do so for the species to remain intact. To permanently cripple our ability to propogate is counter-productive for the human race, and it's counter-instinctual. Allowed to become widespread enough, it would eventually cause the collapse of natural protective family systems, continuously restrict the population replacement rate to dangerous levels (possibly even to the point that one disease or natural disaster could finish it off) and eventually lead to our complete demise and extinction. Evolutionarily speaking, only a defective mutant would believe their own species ought to go into extinction. That being said, I'm not saying I believe in evolution, but most proponents of birth control do so I like to throw this one at them.
And, either way, in order for women to be treated fairly either the laws need to change, or we need to make our men and families work harder to keep us and our offspring out of poverty. Our economy should be adjusted to the situation of a one-earner family, and things should cost less. But alas, this is not the case and there's certainly nothing I can do about it.
I have no idea how women manage on only 3 months (unpaid) maternity leave before returning to full-time work anyway. They must either formula feed or end up forcing their babies to wean early. Breastfeeding is hard enough without a full-time job thrown into the mix.
I like my job, and I feel a lot more sane and healthy while working part-time, but perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the only way that a family can get by with many children in our country is for the man to take on 2 jobs and/or increase his education. HE doesn't have to worry about losing a job due to any of his biological functions.
Oh yes and, technically they aren't supposed to be able to fire you for being pregnant. But in the real world, that means absolutely diddly. They can make up things to fire you over and say it had nothing to do with pregnancy, even when it does.
Either way, if they tell you that you can't take any leave and you happen to not be able to perform your tasks AFTER JUST FREAKING GIVING BIRTH, they can let you go and claim it's too much of a hardship for them.
Breaking Some Misconceptions About Working Moms!
Well I had a bad day on Sunday, but thankfully resolved some work-child care trade-off related issues with the husband. I really like my job, and I've lost weight already from being on my feet so much.
I'm a little tired right now. But it's mostly my fault because I've spent baby nap time reading up on astronomy, which interests me. Yes, I got up before dawn, and walked 2 miles to work each way. I'm not used to all that yet, so I don't go to bed as early as I could and don't get a lot of sleep. That will change. And still, overall, it isn't that bad right now! In just a few days, I got more used to it and my muscles no longer hurt.
If I get tired, I remind myself how this is going to help our family afford what we need, and I do it out of love. Even the 16 hours per week of work I was scheduled for would significantly increase our income, and help us dig our way out of poverty. But, I've already worked 25 hours for the week. Now I have 3 days off to catch up on sleep, housework, and family. I don't consider this a hardship. I really don't. Yes it's more work than I'm used to, but I've been a housewife long enough to run things more quickly, efficiently and easily than some.
My husband has been the one so far who's having a hard time adjusting! I think when he decided to take on some of my previous responsibilities, he vastly underestimated what an undertaking it would be. It tired him out more than getting up at 4 a.m. did to me!
All the same, I'm glad I have him. Him being home with the kids when he's not at work, means that I never have to worry that the children are with someone who loves and cares about them. I never have to worry that they are being brought up with our values. And I never have to worry that he will refuse to take them on because of an illness or family emergency of his own (like I would with a babysitter).
I was afraid my job would be detrimental to my role as a mother and housewife. Sure, on my workdays it has been more challenging. But it's not impossible. In fact, my job actually inspires me to find more efficient and faster ways of doing things. It helps me manage the time that I have more wisely. It's amazing how much time a housewife can waste! Perhaps housewives who have time to watch Oprah and keep the soap opera industry afloat shouldn't be so quick to calculate out their estimated (high) monetary value as a "stay at home" parent, or how valuable they are to the psyches of thier children - especially if they allow them to be in the same room while they run that smut.
I believe in hard work. And there is a lot of solid Biblical agreement on the merits of hard work. In fact, no one can say for sure whether the proverbial "virtuous" woman from the Bible was a work-from-home or a working-outside-the-home woman. What no one can disagree with was that she did work! And she worked hard!
And just seeing how seamlessly, even with 3 children under 6, a part-time job can fit into my life, changes my viewpoint in a lot of ways.
As I've mentioned before I do not believe in artificial birth control. I have many arguments against it, but here is another one. Why should it necessarily relegate a woman to the status of full-time "stay at home" mother? Why should it impoverish a family? Even if she has a large family and many young ones, then probably finances will become an issue at some point. (Now you can argue that's because of what feminism has done to the economy and, agree or not, it doesn't matter. We can't turn back the clock. Our economy is what it is). But, maybe there's enough family support that a mom can work part-time and not give in to feminism or worldliness. Not have to abandon her children to godless child care institutions, give her heart and soul to her career, or give up her goals as a mother and housewife. Even higher paying jobs like those in nursing can have part-time opportunities.
I will never see why a mother who struggles financially should necessarily have to work from home either. It may eliminate commuting time, but it does not usually pay as well, and opportunities are limited. Most of all, if she can't finish all her work during baby nap time, her children are going to be cast aside and barely glanced at during the hours she is "on the job". It's not as if by virtue of her mere physical presence she is able to expand them as people! Unless they are somehow involved or she is able to actually do it while giving them her full attention, it's neglectful!
There is nothing inherantly sinful about a woman working outside the home. There is nothing particularly righteous about a woman who is chained to her kitchen and couch, and there is nothing particularly wicked about a woman occasionally leaving her house or leaving her children in the care of someone she knows and trusts. It's how much time she takes, and her motivation that makes it wise or foolish. If she is seeking "vain ambition" and her own glory, then it's wrong even if she does it from home! Even Biblical matriarchs often had maids who would help with the duties of childcare and home. That doesn't mean that family ceased to be her main priority. In fact, everything she did was for her family! Home IS a very special place and important setting for family connection, but it shouldn't be an idol. Those are my thoughts.
I'm also a strong believer that we can reduce stress by binding together as a family, in extended family and close friendships. In many places people live in tribes and look out for each other. That may have lead to it's own problems, but you can't overlook the obvious advantages.
I believe that we need to teach our children to value their relatives (or at least, the ones who aren't detrimental to even know) and build families who look after each other and where everyone pitches in wherever necessary, with no complaints or arguments as to whose responsibility it is or whether or not they've "done enough".
I have always thought, and still do believe, that we push people out of family too much and too soon in life. It should not be the duty of the state to care for the widow or the single parent, it should be the duty of the widow's mother, her aunt, her mother-in-law, and anyone else in her family first and foremost. They understand this with orphans, but we seem to have this crazy notion that an adult should be able to completely take care of themselves - even if they physically can't!
Ideally, no one should have to go on welfare if their family can help them out with whatever it is they need; be it occasional babysitting, transportation, adult care, a downpayment or loan, etc. Now of course, this only works out if your family is trustworthy and not made up of wicked people - which, unfortunately, is rather rare these days. Still I think this should be the goal.
I do understand not everyone has the ideal family to help out. Believe me I do. I don't have much support from my own parents. I do have some from my husband's family, although this is only recently. But I've never been completely without family. When my family proved themselves somewhat unsuitable as role models, I created my own family with friends who I connected with. I had many "moms" and "dads" whom I trusted and who helped me in more ways than I can count. Some day I hope to pass on the favor to younger people to whom I am not necessarily related.
I don't believe it "takes a village" to raise a child. But it's much easier when you don't make an island and an idol out of your own immediate family.
I may work outside the home, but I do it for the sake of my family, to help us get by. I'm a huge believer in frugality (check my topics of you don't believe me) but frugality can only do so much. You can only save the money you HAVE to save!
So what I'm saying is, don't fear a little work. It won't necessarily interfere with your routine as much as you think. I have a lot more time for my children than I thought I'd have. It's not a scary 20 minutes per day type of thing. If I work an average of 6.5 hours and commute 1.5 hours per day, 4 days a week, that ends up being about 25 hours per week. This means I'm contributing significantly to our finances, and I still have 9 free waking hours even on work days! I think this still qualifies me as a "full-time" mom!
Now you can say, well you have work-related expenses. Yes, I do. I have the a $25 transportation cost: I spent $25 on good shoes to where at work, which also get me there. Does this offset my entire paycheck?? Hardly! And even if it had, the shoes will last a lot longer than 2 weeks. I don't pay for the uniform for my job, but even if I did have to dress up, as I did in former jobs, I wouldn't break the bank on it. That's what discount stores, yard sales, and the Good Will is for!!
I successfully resist the urge to spend more because I make more, and strongly encourage my husband to do the same. But even one or two splurges will not offset the total contribution I'm making. We have a goal in mind, and a budget to stick to. Some people may have a problem with greed, but that doesn't mean that working is the problem. SIN is the problem.
Do I splurge on lunches out and convenience foods now? Nope. I pack my own lunch and eat in 3-5 minute breaks during lulls at work (just like I did as a SAHM LOL)or on my way home. I bake extra on my days off or after work, and store the excess. I still cook our family dinners, even on work nights. I still read to and do activities with my children. I still take them out to play in the fresh air, and to the library activities once or twice a week. Their Daddy does too. I still do laundry. I still nurse my baby as much as I used to. I still snuggle my husband and have long conversations with him every day.
Oh, and my statistical chance of divorce has not varied significantly. The biggest thing in my life that has changed is the amount of time I spend talking to friends, reading books I enjoy, and doing things for myself! Haha, I actually *do* need more "me time".
Now you can say, "Well what if an extra part-time job isn't even enough to support a large family?" And I'll say 2 things: #1 that's where frugality, savings, and simplicity come in. We CAN stretch an extra dollar a lot farther than you'd think it could go, and find ways to be happy on less. And #2, unless you are messing with IVF, 6 or 7 kids don't just show up in your life in one day. They come one at a time (usually) and that gives us time to advance in our careers, and save up!
I'm a little tired right now. But it's mostly my fault because I've spent baby nap time reading up on astronomy, which interests me. Yes, I got up before dawn, and walked 2 miles to work each way. I'm not used to all that yet, so I don't go to bed as early as I could and don't get a lot of sleep. That will change. And still, overall, it isn't that bad right now! In just a few days, I got more used to it and my muscles no longer hurt.
If I get tired, I remind myself how this is going to help our family afford what we need, and I do it out of love. Even the 16 hours per week of work I was scheduled for would significantly increase our income, and help us dig our way out of poverty. But, I've already worked 25 hours for the week. Now I have 3 days off to catch up on sleep, housework, and family. I don't consider this a hardship. I really don't. Yes it's more work than I'm used to, but I've been a housewife long enough to run things more quickly, efficiently and easily than some.
My husband has been the one so far who's having a hard time adjusting! I think when he decided to take on some of my previous responsibilities, he vastly underestimated what an undertaking it would be. It tired him out more than getting up at 4 a.m. did to me!
All the same, I'm glad I have him. Him being home with the kids when he's not at work, means that I never have to worry that the children are with someone who loves and cares about them. I never have to worry that they are being brought up with our values. And I never have to worry that he will refuse to take them on because of an illness or family emergency of his own (like I would with a babysitter).
I was afraid my job would be detrimental to my role as a mother and housewife. Sure, on my workdays it has been more challenging. But it's not impossible. In fact, my job actually inspires me to find more efficient and faster ways of doing things. It helps me manage the time that I have more wisely. It's amazing how much time a housewife can waste! Perhaps housewives who have time to watch Oprah and keep the soap opera industry afloat shouldn't be so quick to calculate out their estimated (high) monetary value as a "stay at home" parent, or how valuable they are to the psyches of thier children - especially if they allow them to be in the same room while they run that smut.
I believe in hard work. And there is a lot of solid Biblical agreement on the merits of hard work. In fact, no one can say for sure whether the proverbial "virtuous" woman from the Bible was a work-from-home or a working-outside-the-home woman. What no one can disagree with was that she did work! And she worked hard!
And just seeing how seamlessly, even with 3 children under 6, a part-time job can fit into my life, changes my viewpoint in a lot of ways.
As I've mentioned before I do not believe in artificial birth control. I have many arguments against it, but here is another one. Why should it necessarily relegate a woman to the status of full-time "stay at home" mother? Why should it impoverish a family? Even if she has a large family and many young ones, then probably finances will become an issue at some point. (Now you can argue that's because of what feminism has done to the economy and, agree or not, it doesn't matter. We can't turn back the clock. Our economy is what it is). But, maybe there's enough family support that a mom can work part-time and not give in to feminism or worldliness. Not have to abandon her children to godless child care institutions, give her heart and soul to her career, or give up her goals as a mother and housewife. Even higher paying jobs like those in nursing can have part-time opportunities.
I will never see why a mother who struggles financially should necessarily have to work from home either. It may eliminate commuting time, but it does not usually pay as well, and opportunities are limited. Most of all, if she can't finish all her work during baby nap time, her children are going to be cast aside and barely glanced at during the hours she is "on the job". It's not as if by virtue of her mere physical presence she is able to expand them as people! Unless they are somehow involved or she is able to actually do it while giving them her full attention, it's neglectful!
There is nothing inherantly sinful about a woman working outside the home. There is nothing particularly righteous about a woman who is chained to her kitchen and couch, and there is nothing particularly wicked about a woman occasionally leaving her house or leaving her children in the care of someone she knows and trusts. It's how much time she takes, and her motivation that makes it wise or foolish. If she is seeking "vain ambition" and her own glory, then it's wrong even if she does it from home! Even Biblical matriarchs often had maids who would help with the duties of childcare and home. That doesn't mean that family ceased to be her main priority. In fact, everything she did was for her family! Home IS a very special place and important setting for family connection, but it shouldn't be an idol. Those are my thoughts.
I'm also a strong believer that we can reduce stress by binding together as a family, in extended family and close friendships. In many places people live in tribes and look out for each other. That may have lead to it's own problems, but you can't overlook the obvious advantages.
I believe that we need to teach our children to value their relatives (or at least, the ones who aren't detrimental to even know) and build families who look after each other and where everyone pitches in wherever necessary, with no complaints or arguments as to whose responsibility it is or whether or not they've "done enough".
I have always thought, and still do believe, that we push people out of family too much and too soon in life. It should not be the duty of the state to care for the widow or the single parent, it should be the duty of the widow's mother, her aunt, her mother-in-law, and anyone else in her family first and foremost. They understand this with orphans, but we seem to have this crazy notion that an adult should be able to completely take care of themselves - even if they physically can't!
Ideally, no one should have to go on welfare if their family can help them out with whatever it is they need; be it occasional babysitting, transportation, adult care, a downpayment or loan, etc. Now of course, this only works out if your family is trustworthy and not made up of wicked people - which, unfortunately, is rather rare these days. Still I think this should be the goal.
I do understand not everyone has the ideal family to help out. Believe me I do. I don't have much support from my own parents. I do have some from my husband's family, although this is only recently. But I've never been completely without family. When my family proved themselves somewhat unsuitable as role models, I created my own family with friends who I connected with. I had many "moms" and "dads" whom I trusted and who helped me in more ways than I can count. Some day I hope to pass on the favor to younger people to whom I am not necessarily related.
I don't believe it "takes a village" to raise a child. But it's much easier when you don't make an island and an idol out of your own immediate family.
I may work outside the home, but I do it for the sake of my family, to help us get by. I'm a huge believer in frugality (check my topics of you don't believe me) but frugality can only do so much. You can only save the money you HAVE to save!
So what I'm saying is, don't fear a little work. It won't necessarily interfere with your routine as much as you think. I have a lot more time for my children than I thought I'd have. It's not a scary 20 minutes per day type of thing. If I work an average of 6.5 hours and commute 1.5 hours per day, 4 days a week, that ends up being about 25 hours per week. This means I'm contributing significantly to our finances, and I still have 9 free waking hours even on work days! I think this still qualifies me as a "full-time" mom!
Now you can say, well you have work-related expenses. Yes, I do. I have the a $25 transportation cost: I spent $25 on good shoes to where at work, which also get me there. Does this offset my entire paycheck?? Hardly! And even if it had, the shoes will last a lot longer than 2 weeks. I don't pay for the uniform for my job, but even if I did have to dress up, as I did in former jobs, I wouldn't break the bank on it. That's what discount stores, yard sales, and the Good Will is for!!
I successfully resist the urge to spend more because I make more, and strongly encourage my husband to do the same. But even one or two splurges will not offset the total contribution I'm making. We have a goal in mind, and a budget to stick to. Some people may have a problem with greed, but that doesn't mean that working is the problem. SIN is the problem.
Do I splurge on lunches out and convenience foods now? Nope. I pack my own lunch and eat in 3-5 minute breaks during lulls at work (just like I did as a SAHM LOL)or on my way home. I bake extra on my days off or after work, and store the excess. I still cook our family dinners, even on work nights. I still read to and do activities with my children. I still take them out to play in the fresh air, and to the library activities once or twice a week. Their Daddy does too. I still do laundry. I still nurse my baby as much as I used to. I still snuggle my husband and have long conversations with him every day.
Oh, and my statistical chance of divorce has not varied significantly. The biggest thing in my life that has changed is the amount of time I spend talking to friends, reading books I enjoy, and doing things for myself! Haha, I actually *do* need more "me time".
Now you can say, "Well what if an extra part-time job isn't even enough to support a large family?" And I'll say 2 things: #1 that's where frugality, savings, and simplicity come in. We CAN stretch an extra dollar a lot farther than you'd think it could go, and find ways to be happy on less. And #2, unless you are messing with IVF, 6 or 7 kids don't just show up in your life in one day. They come one at a time (usually) and that gives us time to advance in our careers, and save up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
