Lori Alexander:Being treated poorly not grounds for divorce

[Curious]

So strange o0 be dealing with people like this on this Forum, who all battle for what they believe is decency, yet cannot show much of it themselves.

Translation: So strange to be dealing with people who understand that words actually have meaning and I can't just say any old thing that falls out of my mouth and they will fall all over it because I have a penis.

If we could have sig files mine would be Words have meaning because so many people seem to forget that (and I seem to be saying it a lot lately)

[Curious]

This is really inappropriate.

I get that you're striking back trying to hurt people the way you feel they hurt your wife. I would be very angry if I saw people calling my husband was a *** monster, so I understand. But it is not ok to go on the attack against abuse survivors and throw their hurt and pain back in their face. You are dead wrong here.

I think we need to stop perpetuating this version of the story. The thread about Lori is 9 months (NINE MONTHS) old. That sucker has been showing up in google for 8 months and 27 days or something close to that based on my experience with how fast our threads are indexed. It wasn't until someone mentioned a perceived threat to Ken until he suddenly decided that Lori's honor needed protecting.

[SunnyAndrsn]

It's stuff like this that pushes people away from Christianity. This is why I refer to people like Ken and Lori as false prophets. To Lori and Ken, you can talk about all the marriages you believe you've helped save if you want, but I'm going to bet that all of these couples where already espousing your version of Christianity, or something close to it.

How many people have been pushed away from Christianity because of you? For a blog called "Always Learning", I have yet to see evidence of that. Instead it's "Ken and Lori are right and everyone else is unbiblical."

Between the blog and what I've read of Ken here, I read a harsh, unloving, and unchristian behavior. You both need to take a long hard look at yourselves, because this is how you are coming off to a lot of people.

Do you realize that?

[OkToBeTakei]

Ken, a piece of advice from somebody who lives in the UK. NEVER EVER EVER use the the Daily Mail affectionately known as the Daily Fail as a reference to well......anything! It's like comparing The Washington Post to the National Enquirer.

1008 women were polled. 1008 eh? :lol: A tad random eh?

Hint number two. Lack of money and debt are feck all to do with feminism. That's economics or a little thing called a tanked economy something we in Europe like to thank Mr Bush and sub-prime mortgages for. So if women feel they have to go back to work to make ends meet sometimes it's because you know they need to make ends meet. Lori and you don't seem to understand any other demographic but your own, that is exceptionally ignorant. *I* choose to work I do not need to technically, that does not mean I am unaware of those who have no choice.

Do you know something. Quoting the bible and telling them they are doing their children a disservice is just piling on more guilt. Tell Lori that the next time she decides to open her entitled mouth.

[OkToBeTakei]

I think we need to stop perpetuating this version of the story. The thread about Lori is 9 months (NINE MONTHS) old. That sucker has been showing up in google for 8 months and 27 days or something close to that based on my experience with how fast our threads are indexed. It wasn't until someone mentioned a perceived threat to Ken until he suddenly decided that Lori's honor needed protecting.

I posted this on t'other thread probs got lost, did you see it Curious? :lol:

https://productforums.google.com/forum/ ... iCVx2QZqrw

Actually I think this needs it's own thread :)

[Mama Mia]

Never learned the alligator "thing"

We learned it this way.

Pointing is not polite. A big guy can point at a little guy, cause the little guy can't do any thing about it, but if a little guy points at a big guy, the big guy might take offense and punch him. THus, the point on the "arrow" always points at the little guy/smaller number.

I just started reading this thread, but boy this jumped out at me. Can you imagine a teacher giving that example in a school today :shock: that's like an ad for bullying :lol:

[Mama Mia]

These were ALL related to your answers, they were what could be called follow ups or continuing the conversation--but never mind.

As I said earlier :dead-horse:

But this bit is patently ridiculous. Honestly, are you saying that 18 to 30 percent of women in the USA keep jobs they don't want so they won't feel embarrassed to say they are SAHMs at cocktail parties or when meeting new people? Where are these conversations occuring, where people not only ask "what do you do (ie, they are strangers) but they are such stupid conversationalists that they don't say "oh, how many kids do you have" or some other normal bit of conversation instead of "oh." And who are these women who deny their own life preferences to avoid the alleged occasional "oh"?

If you know thousands of women who have told you they don't stay home because the occasional stranger might act oddly when they meet, then OK. That is too bad for them.

Bye.

In my not very humble opinion BOTH of you are really looking at the issue of being/not being a SAHM from a really, really elitist and entitled view. You come at it from different philosophical points, but the result is the same. For many, many working class, lower income and even middle class families the " choice" to stay home isn't about materialism, or the freedom to have a career. The "choice" is between providing your kids with food, decent shelter, clothes and other basics....or having to choose between those necessities because one income just doesn't cut it. Especially if you live in a high cost area and/or an area with high under employment.

For many families, being a SAHM is a status symbol, it means you've actually achieved a high enough socio/economic status to live comfortably ( not extravagantly ) off of one income. It means you've made it. This was true even in my grandparents time.

Feminism has greatly increased the ability to have good careers, that pay a decent wage. It also has improved working conditions for women with just regular jobs, all of that is fantastic. But, unfortunately, it is also a part of the reason that our economy is increasingly geared towards two-income households, making it more difficult for couples to have a parent at home. It's not the main reason, in my opinion, but it is a factor.

[lilith]

Ken - I asked this earlier, but my post has been lost in the thread.

What are your hopes for your daughters regarding family planning? I understand that any decision is between them and their husbands, but I am curious about what your personal wishes for them are.

I ask because more than once Lori has characterised the use of contraceptives as selfish and advised against using them, strictures that she didn't apply to herself due to her health issues. I assume she has shared those views with your daughters, but I'm more interested in your personal hopes

Ken - I really don't want this to keep getting lost and buried.

[formergothardite]

In my not very humble opinion BOTH of you are really looking at the issue of being/not being a SAHM from a really, really elitist and entitled view. You come at it from different philosophical points, but the result is the same. For many, many working class, lower income and even middle class families the " choice" to stay home isn't about materialism, or the freedom to have a career. The "choice" is between providing your kids with food, decent shelter, clothes and other basics....or having to choose between those necessities because one income just doesn't cut it. Especially if you live in a high cost area and/or an area with high under employment.

For many families, being a SAHM is a status symbol, it means you've actually achieved a high enough socio/economic status to live comfortably ( not extravagantly ) off of one income. It means you've made it. This was true even in my grandparents time.

Feminism has greatly increased the ability to have good careers, that pay a decent wage. It also has improved working conditions for women with just regular jobs, all of that is fantastic. But, unfortunately, it is also a part of the reason that our economy is increasingly geared towards two-income households, making it more difficult for couples to have a parent at home. It's not the main reason, in my opinion, but it is a factor.

ITA

My grandparents on my mom's side of the family were fairly poor. They lived in a poor area. This was in the 40's and 50's. Most of the women worked in the mills. It was a fact of life. The families needed the money and being a SAHM was considered a privilege of the rich. Even if you go back to my great-grandmother, she was hardly what today we consider a SAHM. She worked hard, helping with the farming and having little side businesses going on because the family needed the money.

On my dad's side the family was considerable richer and his mom was a SAHM with maids and a cook(when I read The Help I immediately thought of my Grandma). But once she casually mentioned that she had liked working at a department store and she wished she could have stayed, but of course, what would people think if she kept working after she got married. They would think her husband was poor.

Poor women have always worked. There was no golden age where everyone sat around crocheting doilies and sipping tea while gazing at their cherub faced children frolicking on the perfectly manicured lawns.

[salex]

In my not very humble opinion BOTH of you are really looking at the issue of being/not being a SAHM from a really, really elitist and entitled view. You come at it from different philosophical points, but the result is the same. For many, many working class, lower income and even middle class families the " choice" to stay home isn't about materialism, or the freedom to have a career. The "choice" is between providing your kids with food, decent shelter, clothes and other basics....or having to choose between those necessities because one income just doesn't cut it. Especially if you live in a high cost area and/or an area with high under employment.

For many families, being a SAHM is a status symbol, it means you've actually achieved a high enough socio/economic status to live comfortably ( not extravagantly ) off of one income. It means you've made it. This was true even in my grandparents time.

Feminism has greatly increased the ability to have good careers, that pay a decent wage. It also has improved working conditions for women with just regular jobs, all of that is fantastic. But, unfortunately, it is also a part of the reason that our economy is increasingly geared towards two-income households, making it more difficult for couples to have a parent at home. It's not the main reason, in my opinion, but it is a factor.

I recognize that, but I was/am trying to avoid my own walls of text and answer what I thought his biggest stupid statement was ie, women feel pressured to work because other people will say "oh" in a judgey way if they say they are stay at home moms. I think he is full of it when he says that, hence the cocktail party example because honestly--I was trying to shine a light at a situation where one of these poor women who wants to stay home but can't because people say "oh" might be put in that sort of horribly embarrassing situation.... . And I didn't bother with the example of how many young mothers are judged for putting their babies in day care, because chatting with Ken is :angry-banghead: well.. pointless.

I had long ago posted to him that he might want to read The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap Paperback

by Stephanie Coontz but I have no indication he will, nor the other books on why women need suffrage.

If he had said "A lot of women say they can't afford it but we know it is true" I would have hit the economic issues--but I'm learning with Ken that he doesn't follow multiple points very well, and he made what I saw as a stupid statement so I mocked that one.

I am trying to stop my long posts to Ken, because they seem to confuse him, or he pretends they do so he can just repeat and repeat ssdd.

Thanks

[latraviata]

There was a time in the Netherlands that women who got married automatically got fired. My mum was one of them, mind you she worked as a sort of intern at her father's law firm. He had to fire her.

Also in public services, no married women.

When my late husband and I had our first child aka Cuteneurorad, we talked about who was going to stay home, fortunately it was a choice. My employment record was more than my husband's. So I stayed home with the boys when he worked on his career, untill they both went to school and I picked up where I had left. We made sure there was at least one parent or the grandparents (the best child care service you ever imagined) there when the came home from school. It took some organisation, but it was well worth it.

I loved the first years as a SAHM as I loved having a job and taking care of my/our children.

I was in the luxury position to choose. Not everybody is able to choose, many people have to work to make ends meet and that has everything to do with taking good care of children.

A working mum doesn't equal child neglect, that is ridiculous, it is all about the quality of being present not the quantity.

How does one explains the high rates of divorce, crime, abuse, alcoholism, teen pregnancy and poverty explicitly in the bible belt?

[polecat]

I think we need to stop perpetuating this version of the story. The thread about Lori is 9 months (NINE MONTHS) old. That sucker has been showing up in google for 8 months and 27 days or something close to that based on my experience with how fast our threads are indexed. It wasn't until someone mentioned a perceived threat to Ken until he suddenly decided that Lori's honor needed protecting.

Just to clarify, I said the way he FEELS they hurt his wife. I don't believe either one of them has been hurt here at FJ, but I do understand that he may feel like they have.

[polecat]

The elders are aware of Lori's teaching and have made only one small request of her. They have no problem with what she teaches as it is a personal blog, and the leaders of the mentors group sends the toughest cases to Lori to mentor because of her almost 100% success rate in healing marriages. Our leaders are much more concerned that all who serve believe in the essentials rather than focus on this much smaller issues, like submission.

Our leaders do not make a mountain out of a mole hill like this group does. You would thin that women and children are being Killed every day the way you all act and write, when the reality is that n one is dying or being harmed by what the Bible teaches on these matters.

Three women die every day as a result of DV. More than 300,000 are hurt by DV every year. That's more than 800 a DAY. Nearly 700,000 children are abused every year -- that number only includes REPORTED cases, though. Countless children go abused every single freaking day without ever coming to the attention of the authorities. There are about 1,600 child fatalities every year -- that's about four or five a DAY.

So yes, Ken, some of us act like women and children are being killed every day because they ARE. THEY ARE! And their lives aren't damned molehills. They are worth something. And now they're gone, unable to ever tell their stories.

[salex]

Just to clarify, I said the way he FEELS they hurt his wife. I don't believe either one of them has been hurt here at FJ, but I do understand that he may feel like they have.

'

I don't even think they feel all that hurt... as someone else posted, it wasn't until he recognized that his wife using her real name and him using his real name on blog that waxes poetic on what a lousy marriage they had, why women have to obey men who don't deserve it and the proper, if extreme ways to discipline a wife might look funny to people who knew him outside of church. Although, the longer he is here spouting off, the less I think anyone who has ever spent more than a couple of hours with Ken would be surprised by any of the things he writes on line, or any of the little digs his wife makes toward him.

[Rebelwife]

Three women die every day as a result of DV. More than 300,000 are hurt by DV every year. That's more than 800 a DAY. Nearly 700,000 children are abused every year -- that number only includes REPORTED cases, though. Countless children go abused every single freaking day without ever coming to the attention of the authorities. There are about 1,600 child fatalities every year -- that's about four or five a DAY.

So yes, Ken, some of us act like women and children are being killed every day because they ARE. THEY ARE! And their lives aren't damned molehills. They are worth something. And now they're gone, unable to ever tell their stories.

And I will make book that, given this country's demographics, a large % of those women were professing Christians.

[formergothardite]

In NC a little girl just died because her step father got angry that she has soiled her diaper and smashed her head through a wall. From all appearances these were Christians.

Ken I have provided you stories and links to show that people are being harmed by the blanket advice that submission will save their marriage and that they just need to submit more. Others have shared their stories, you even have stories in the comments of your blog don't lie and claim that no one is being harmed by these teachings.

[Curious]

And I will make book that, given this country's demographics, a large % of those women were professing Christians.

I think I have this quote right, but there were so many nested together I may have it messed up. If I have misquoted you Rebelwife or polecat, please let me know.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/de ... 7-year-ol/

...admitted to police that he hit Arrington on multiple occasions using various household items such as his belt, a spatula and wooden paddle, as well as with his hands.

Last Tuesday, Markiece Palmer admitted to police that he spanked Arrington because he allegedly lied about reading a chapter in the Bible. Dina Palmer struck Arrington on his buttocks with both a belt and her hand, the report said.

When asked about the bruises and scars on her boy's body, Dina Palmer admitted to police the marks were from "whoopins" from both her and Markiece Palmer, the report said.

Police recovered a broken broom stick with what appears to be blood, belts, cords, spatulas and bloodied clothes from a warrant search of the Palmer residence, the report said.

The horrific allegations of child abuse stand in stark contrast to the couple's Facebook pages, which seemingly show a loving and religious family devoted to Roderick Arrington, nicknamed "RJ."

On one Facebook photo — apparently of Arrington and his niece — Markiece Palmer wrote: "My babies they make me happy. GOD bless the children!!!"

On another photo of the boy and another child, Dina Palmer wrote: "I love them with heart and soul!!!!" A Facebook post from October 2010 reads: "Lord please guide my steps.... I'm trying 2 do better.... I wanna do better 4 my son, my family, myself, 4 you LORD!!!!!!!!"

There were 2,171 substantiated child abuse incidents reported in Clark County in 2010, according to the latest Nevada Kids Count study. Of those incidents, there were 13 child abuse cases that led to a child's death.

---

http://www.violence.de/prescott/hustler ... ticle.html

The time has also come to recognize the painful truth that traditional Judeo-Christian moral values of pain and pleasure in human relationships have contributed substantially to child abuse and to the prevalence of physical violence in Western civilization. The religious system upon which our culture is based holds that pain, suffering and deprivation are moral and necessary to save one's soul or to make one a "good person." The crucifixion and scourging of Christ are examples. I mentioned before the biblical proverb that reflects the religious necessity to beat children with the rod to save their souls from hell.

This doctrine was dramatized in Molly Ivin's article "Whippings for God" in the January 25, 1974, issue of New Times. She reported on a home for delinquent girls operated by Lester Roloff, a former Southern Baptist minister from Texas, who was prosecuted for spanking, whipping and beating the girls. He was quoted as saying, "Better a pink bottom than a black soul." State Attorney General John Hill said: "I don't mind pink bottoms. What I do object to is black, blue and bloody."

In addition to this prescription for physical punishment, there is also the prescription for the deprivation of physical pleasure, which is generally considered immoral. We are reminded in the New Testament to "mortify the deeds of the body" (Romans 8:13). The Christian virtues of celibacy and virginity exemplify the extreme repression of physical affection and pleasure espoused by that religious system. Ancient Hebrew custom called for a woman's death by stoning for adultery or for not being a virgin on her wedding night.

In 1976 the Vatican reaffirmed the immorality of premarital intercourse, condemned homosexuality and stated that masturbation is "an intrinsically and seriously disordered act." Denial and repression of sexual pleasure is as prominent in Hebrew tradition as it is in Christian tradition. The code of Jewish Law (Chapter 151:1) states: "Those who practice masturbation and cause the issue of semen in vain, not only do they commit a grave sin, but they are under a ban, concerning whom it is said [isaiah 1:15]: 'Your hands are full of blood'; and it is equivalent to killing a person."

It is interesting to contrast the above moral values to those found in a comparative study of Green Berets and Vietnam War resisters compiled by David M. Mantell. The Green Berets strongly disapproved of masturbation because they perceived it as a weakness, a blow against their manliness, and an indication of social and sexual failure. They also disapproved of or condemned premarital sexual relations for women, but approved of them for men. Mantell found that the Green Berets generally came from families where parental physical punishment was prominent and hard and that there was very little physical affection within these families.

On the other hand, the war resisters came from homes in which strong sexual taboos were virtually nonexistent and in which sex was practiced regularly and with pleasure. The home lives of the resisters were also described as being essentially free from harsh physical punishment, with a high degree of physical affection.

I can keep doing this all day, but hopefully this will be enough to make the point.

[Curious]

While I was looking up the other articles on kids being abused/killed, I found probably the most amazing article about spanking (or reasons not to spank from a biblical standpoint) I've ever read.

http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/

Ken, you and Lori should absolutely read this article. This woman has done her research and from the look of her webpage, she is definitely walking with the Lord.

I quite liked her page. The article is very (very, very) long, but it was well worth the read. I am not breaking the link, because this particular article getting traffic can only be good for kids.

[polecat]

While I was looking up the other articles on kids being abused/killed, I found probably the most amazing article about spanking (or reasons not to spank from a biblical standpoint) I've ever read.

http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/

Ken, you and Lori should absolutely read this article. This woman has done her research and from the look of her webpage, she is definitely walking with the Lord.

I quite liked her page. The article is very (very, very) long, but it was well worth the read. I am not breaking the link, because this particular article getting traffic can only be good for kids.

That is an excellent resource. I love the statement that "gentle parenting is ... non-punitive AND non-permissive."

I've always liked Dr. Sears article on the topic, too. http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/parent ... your-child

[sea_gale]

This is the most entertaining revolving door flounce I've ever seen.

[Curious]

This is the most entertaining revolving door flounce I've ever seen.

I don't think he's ever really flounced or intended to. He said he was not going to post anymore if we didn't change the thread title late at night and posted the next day. He admitted he changed his mind after sleeping on it. I think that is not an uncommon reaction for someone new to forums. He hasn't said he's leaving and never coming back since that post (that I've seen, anyway).

[bean]

75% of new Mom's wish they could stay home, so maybe it is not feminism, maybe materialism that creates the problem. Regardless it is a huge problem. I see almost every day. A penalty for feminism is men allowing women to suffer the consequences of their own desires. Men working less hard for the family and expecting the wife to contribute financially, unlike days of old.

Seriously?

[SunnyAndrsn]

Seriously?

Where is the source for this 75%?

I've always thought that the women who post about how busy they are all day long are at home are lazy. I see posts all the time about "Goodness, I'm so busy, when would I have TIME to even work?" Usually followed by "Those poor, neglected children of working moms..."

I work 32 hours/week, spend about an hour a day on house maintenance, about another hour on working out (usually by jogging with the dogs), and another hour on meals/miscellaneous chores like paying bills, errands, etc. That's three hours a day on routine stuff, MAX. During the summer or during winter weather days there are outdoor chores as well, but that's what, another hour?

So either these SAHM are really bad at all of these things, really bad at time management, or really depressed. I will add the disclaimer that I am now an empty nester, but even when we had kids at home, I didn't find these things overly taxing.

[Firiel]

Where is the source for this 75%?

I've always thought that the women who post about how busy they are all day long are at home are lazy. I see posts all the time about "Goodness, I'm so busy, when would I have TIME to even work?" Usually followed by "Those poor, neglected children of working moms..."

I work 32 hours/week, spend about an hour a day on house maintenance, about another hour on working out (usually by jogging with the dogs), and another hour on meals/miscellaneous chores like paying bills, errands, etc. That's three hours a day on routine stuff, MAX. During the summer or during winter weather days there are outdoor chores as well, but that's what, another hour?

So either these SAHM are really bad at all of these things, really bad at time management, or really depressed. I will add the disclaimer that I am now an empty nester, but even when we had kids at home, I didn't find these things overly taxing.

I hope I don't instigate a mommy-war, but I don't necessarily think that's fair. My sister stays home with her kids and is plenty busy. Of course, she says that being a stay-at-home parent is a time-consuming job, but doesn't complain about it or act like she's a martyr or doing something more taxing than anyone else ever has done (that would be an annoying characteristic!). It's just her job, so she gives it her all-- couponing to save money, planning fun activities for the kids, etc. I mean, I was a nanny for a while, and I was very busy every day... I certainly spend more time on forums now that I have an office job. :embarrassed:

[Curious]

Seriously?

How far back in time do we have to find those magical days where women never worked?

http://www.ehow.com/about_4571155_colon ... z2d3BP6RWj

Many believe that Colonial American women had no legal or personal rights. However, some Colonial women enjoyed more legal and personal freedom based on location and necessity.

Some frontier women owned property in their own names and acted as lawyers in courts. In many small communities, Colonial women worked as teachers, seamstresses, doctors, ministers, innkeepers, singers and writers. Colonial women also engaged in farming, construction and trade.

Significance

The early beginnings of American feminism began in Colonial America. The lack of established social and religious institutions and the physical demands of the Colonial lifestyle allowed women the freedom to fill roles normally reserved for men. Some notable Colonial American women include Anne Dudley Bradstreet, the first published female American poet, and Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who fought for freedom of religion.

---

This interesting article on the history of DV came up while I was trying to find info on those magical days when women didn't work.

http://www.iwf.org/news/2432535/Domesti ... h-Analysis

The "Body of Liberties" adopted by the Massachusetts Bay colonists in 1641 stated, "Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense upon her assault." Wife-beaters could be punished with fines or whipping, and could also be subjected to public "shaming" in church or expelled from the congregation.

---

http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article10.htm

As the century comes to an end, many observers fear for the future of America's families. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significantly higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in their native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its applicants can write a proper sentence. There's an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among men. Many streets in urban neighborhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin "happy dust". Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs, and drug abuse by middle class wives is skyrocketing. Police see 16-year-old killers, 12-year-old prostitutes, and gang members as young as 11. America at the end of the 1990s? No, America at the end of the 1890s.

Some nostalgia for the 1950s is understandable: Life looked pretty good in comparison with the hardships of the Great Depression and World War II. The GI Bill gave a generation of young fathers a college education and a subsidized mortgage on a new house. For the first time, a majority of men could support a family and buy a home without pooling their earnings with those of other family members. Many Americans built a stable family life on these foundations.

But much nostalgia for the 1950s is a result of selective amnesia-the same process that makes childhood memories of summer vacations grow sunnier with each passing year. The superficial sameness Of 1950s family life was achieved through censorship, coercion and discrimination. People with unconventional beliefs faced governmental investigation and arbitrary firings. African Americans and Mexican Americans were prevented from voting in some states by literacy tests that were not administered to whites. Individuals who didn't follow the rigid gender and sexual rules of the day were ostracized.

...Wives routinely told pollsters that being disparaged or ignored by their husbands was a normal part of a happier-than-average marriage. Denial extended to other areas of life as well. In the early 1900s doctors refused to believe that the cases of gonorrhea and syphilis they saw in young girls could have been caused by sexual abuse. Instead, they reasoned, girls could get these diseases from toilet seats, a myth that terrified generations of mothers and daughters. In the 1950s, psychiatrists dismissed incest reports as Oedipal fantasies on the part of children. Spousal rape was legal throughout the period, and wife beating was not taken seriously by authorities. Much of what we now label child abuse was accepted as a normal part of parental discipline. Physicians saw no reason to question parents who claimed that their child's broken bones had been caused by a fall from a tree.

Many of our worries today reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be. Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. in the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began reentering the workforce in ever larger numbers.

For a few decades, the decline in child Labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. The result was an aberration: the malebreadwinner family. In the 1920s, for the first time a bare majority of American children grew up in families where the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of work. During the 1950s, almost two thirds of children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm, a trend not likely to be reversed in the next century.

What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to remain single or to leave an unsatisfactory marriage. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to rearing children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. Until about 1940, the typical marriage was broken by the death of one partner within a few years after the last child left home. Today, couples can look forward to spending more than two decades together after the children leave. The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company has made many individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so. It is no wonder that divorce has risen steadily since 1900. Disregarding a spurt in 1946, a dip in the 1950s and another peak around 1980, the divorce rate is just where you'd expect to find it, based on the rate of increase from 1900 to 1950. Today, 40 percent of all marriages will end in divorce before a couple's 40th anniversary. Yet despite this high divorce rate, expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching that anniversary than ever before. Families and individuals in contemporary America have more life choices than in the past That makes it easier for some to consider dangerous or unpopular options. But it also makes success easier for many families that never would have had a chance before-interracial, gay or lesbian, and single-mother families, for example. And it expands horizons for most families.

Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children. While some people say that women who choose to work are selfish, it turns out that maternal self-sacrifice is not good for children. Kids do better when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether their satisfaction comes from being a full-time homemaker or from having a job.

Again, I could do this all day...