Bathroom Baby plays with mommy's dildo

[DGayle]

I really dislike when people put their kids in full-time childcare JUST to avoid their kids.....but are you kidding me?

Many, many, many parents of young children work full- time out of the home. Maybe even most. A huge number of little kids are in full- time childcare. You seriously think most working parents shouldn't have had their kids, cause they are just " tossing them to others to raise" ?

So you've already stated that people shouldn't plan to have children if they are going to need any sort of government help ( including housing assistance, food stamps and Medicaid) AND they shouldn't plan to have kids if they can't provide a fairly unrealistic abundance of private space.

Now, apparently they also shouldn't plan to have children if both parents will be working full-time out of the house??

You do know that leaves a very, very small group of people who you feel are acceptable to breed, right?

Show me now where I said that people shouldn't have kids if both parents work outside the house.

I was talking about parents who are at home who put their kids in full-time care to not have to deal with them, not parents who have to work outside the home. If you're home all day and decide pinning in Pinterest is a job, so off to daycare for the kids so you can be on Pinterest and hit up the gym, that's a problem.

And I still do think that people shouldn't have kids when their plan for supporting them is to go sign up for aid. That's different than having kids and shit happening. Deciding to conceive when you know you won't be able to support them without needing aid is creating a bad situation, instead of landing in one because something happens later.

[treemom]

I have a purple Lelo that's like a Hitachi, that is really used for my back (screwed up in a car accident where my daughters were also hurt). Sometimes one of my daughters likes to hold it on her own back on a low speed since she still has aches, and still has ongoing appointments, and when I posted a picture to Facebook of her holding it on her sister's back, I made sure to write that this is strictly for backs, and wrote about how she's still dealing with a screwed up vertebrae. Someone still reported it for child porn. It probably isn' a surprise that Facebook agreed and banned me for a week, when breastfeeding photos still get you banned, but raunchy nudity of women is fine.

The #sterilized tag means that that Hitachi isn't for backs. I am beyond grossed out. Not only the kids playing with it, but how can you use that thing sexually later without thinking about the kids?

The funny thing is, that would never fit the criteria for child porn (I only know for a fact because my husband investigated it for a decade.). Intent is a huge part of child porn.

FB is lame. So if whoever reported it.

[DGayle]

The funny thing is, that would never fit the criteria for child porn (I only know for a fact because my husband investigated it for a decade.). Intent is a huge part of child porn.

FB is lame. So if whoever reported it.

Sometimes I think the people in charge of that stuff are barely-trained monkeys who just sling their own shit on a wall, then flip a coin. Heads, it's porn and bad, and tails, it's okay. Unless it's bouncy boobies without any covering. Those are glorious and shall remain on the sight. But if a baby is covering the nips, banhammer for you for nudity.

[lilith]

Wow. Yeah, crappy mother. She "works" by taking pictures sometimes and posting on Pinterest, and because of that, has a kid in childcare full-time (don't be fooled into thinking preschool is for preschool when she has the other kid in childcare too), the other in childcare a few days a week, has kids come over for an hour a morning to get her own kids ready for the day, and then brags about only having her kids on weekends, holidays, and the youngest for a couple days a week.

I actually work a real job from home. A really real job that we'd be sunk without. Not a lot of checkboxes include "working from home mother," usually just "stay-at-home mom," or "working mom," which means not at home. It's because of people like her who think bullshitting on Pinterest is a job. I have 12 hours a week without my kids, and that's because they're in a 3-hr-a-day, M-TH preschool right now since they'll be in kindergarten next year. I miss them when they're gone, and don't brag about them being gone. If someone was to tell me I should just put them in full-time childcare so I could make a career out of FreeJinger, or even just focus on my real job, I'd ask what the point is of choosing to have kids if I'm just going to toss them to other people all the time. Working from him is real work, but it's really not incredibly difficult to be at my best and keep an eye on them playing on the floor. If I have important calls to make, I either ask a friend to come over for a short time, or just tell my client I'm working from home and they might occasionally hear a kid. So far no one at all has ever had a problem with this. So what's her excuse for full-time daycare so she can post to Pinterest? Why did she even have kids?

According to her, because the Mormon church told her to. Even though her Mormon parents, her Mormon sister, her Mormon friends and the authorities in her Mormon ward ALL advised her to at least wait til she had finished college and she had left the church by the time she got pregnant with T2.

But apparently she was brainwashed by the church and now she has to have a late extended adolescence to make up for it.

[lawfulevil]

The real answer is she had kids (especially T2) because her husband is even more averse to dealing with them than she is, so she's got a guaranteed low-effort "job". No, really... look at the timing. They got married in October 2008. T1 showed up in early April 2010- so she got pregnant in July 2009. Right about the point TA was probably starting to put serious pressure on her to Get A Fucking Job. She got pregnant again in June 2012- T2 had just turned 2, so again, presumably TA was starting to put some pressure on her to Get A Real Fucking Job.

It's probably going to backfire right as soon as they're just a little older if she doesn't stop spending so much money, though ($11 milk, nuff said). Right now they're little, and childcare in the Bay Area is extremely expensive, but once they're school-age, TA will be able to keep them out of his hair from dawn til bedtime for less money than it costs to keep Jenna in wildly overpriced photography workshops, airfare, and "thrifting". There's not a doubt in my mind he'll get custody- men who want custody usually get it, he's got all the money, and Jenna has provided AMPLE proof that she's an unfit mother. TA's still got almost 4 more years to divorce her before he'll be stuck paying alimony indefinitely. His goals before meeting Jenna were to retire early and she's blowing that up. And we all know she's not physically his type. Meanwhile, T2 is almost two years old and the area they live in does full-day Kindergarten.

Of course, Jenna being Jenna, she could always just get knocked up again pretty soon (probably early summer of 2015) and restart the clock. What's ignoring 3 when you're already ignoring 2?

Either way, tick tock, That Wife...

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Yes, I'm aware that I hate this bitch with a probably unhealthy level of passion. I don't envy anything else about her life, I'm very glad my husband doesn't lock up the cheese, but she has two adorable children she takes completely for granted. I know so many people who would kill to have children who can't.

[DGayle]

There's not a doubt in my mind he'll get custody- men who want custody usually get it, he's got all the money, and Jenna has provided AMPLE proof that she's an unfit mother.

She'd get custody. She's the "primary" parent, and legally isn't unfit. Giving him custody would mean he'd have to use a lot of daycare. It's just optional for her. He'd have to show she's unfit for him to get custody.

[lawfulevil]

She'd get custody. She's the "primary" parent, and legally isn't unfit. Giving him custody would mean he'd have to use a lot of daycare. It's just optional for her. He'd have to show she's unfit for him to get custody.

Give her a chance, she just keeps escalating.

[Mama Mia]

Give her a chance, she just keeps escalating.

I don't know where you get the idea that men who want custody usually get it. Do you have any statistics or anything for that? Yes, access to money and a good lawyer is hugely beneficial in custody disputes, but that isn't the same thing as courts favoring men.

Also, any of the unfit and questionable parenting seems to be about issues they could both be called out on equally. The sleeping in the bathroom when they had an actual extra bedroom and stopping speech therapy are situations they both had to buy in to. And while I think she's a really, really emotionally distant parent -- I would be shocked if a court found her " unfit"

[2xx1xy1JD]

Reading that was painful. It seems like she does everything possible to avoid spending time with these kids, as well as her husband working almost non-stop so they can afford to live in an expensive area and have nice things. I get that not everybody parents the same way but reading that I just wanted to give her kids a hug.

Honestly, daycare sounds like it's the better options for the kids.

She wasn't particularly good at being engaged with the kids when she was a SAHM. She'd pose T1 for pretty pictures, but actually playing with him and interacting with him all day was too much for her. He's better off being in a setting with other kids, and in a place where he can actually run around and play with the toys, so that he has a shot at catching up in his development.

[Pretzel]

Where did you all get the idea that TW is not TA's type?

[treemom]

Where did you all get the idea that TW is not TA's type?

I think most of feel like if you have to make a PowerPoint deck to convince someone, you may not be his type. Plus cheese police.

[lawfulevil]

People often ask what took us so long to meet. Why didn’t we start spending all of our time together in July of 2005 instead of January of 2007? Truthfully, it’s because I looked like this. One of the things I love most about my relationship with That Husband is our ability to be honest about touchy subjects. We both acknowledge that I was so heavy at this point that he never would have been interested in me. If our roles were reversed and he were 50 lbs heavier than he is now I probably wouldn’t have been interested in him either. It sounds harsh, but it’s simply the rules of attraction. If I hadn’t lost all this weight, we could have become friends, but we would never be married.

Some of you may agree with that assessment. Personally, I'm glad I married someone who, when changing antidepressants caused dramatic weight gain in a fairly short period of time, was happy that I was happier instead of pissed that I was fatter. Jenna's been struggling with her weight since she was a teenager, and that battle doesn't get any easier after 30.

As far as paternal custody- I don't feel like digging out my Gender in Society (SOC 310) textbook, so here's a page that says roughly the same things:

www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archiv ... ortcu.html

Societal bias? You decide. Financially, however, divorce outcomes are provably better for men than women.

Since the marriage powerpoint has been invoked: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... lide=id.i0

[2xx1xy1JD]

Some of you may agree with that assessment. Personally, I'm glad I married someone who, when changing antidepressants caused dramatic weight gain in a fairly short period of time, was happy that I was happier instead of pissed that I was fatter. Jenna's been struggling with her weight since she was a teenager, and that battle doesn't get any easier after 30.

As far as paternal custody- I don't feel like digging out my Gender in Society (SOC 310) textbook, so here's a page that says roughly the same things:

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog ... ortcu.html

Societal bias? You decide. Financially, however, divorce outcomes are provably better for men than women.

Since the marriage powerpoint has been invoked: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... lide=id.i0

Thanks for the link.

Simply looking at stats re custody in a vacuum is rarely useful. It's probably more helpful if it's done to determine trends - for example, looking at how sole mother/joint custody/sole father custody orders have shifted from state to state, or over time.

Not all fathers ask for custody, as the studies show. In my experience, those who do make a serious claim for custody often do so because they have a good reason. It's not just about having better lawyers. When I did mostly legally aid cases, I would only fight on custody if we had a good case. So yes, my ratio of winning cases for dads was pretty good. I wouldn't claim custody for a guy who only showed up once in a blue moon. I'd claim it for the guy who was left with the kids after his wife took off to do crack.

In Ontario, Canada, I have noticed an increased trend toward joint custody. I work in an area where there are a lot of middle-class, 2 income families. In many of these families, both parents were involved in the daily schedule, carpooling, kids' activities, etc. If that was the pattern before the separation, it makes sense to continue joint parenting afterward unless there's a serious problem.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Wow. Yeah, crappy mother. She "works" by taking pictures sometimes and posting on Pinterest, and because of that, has a kid in childcare full-time (don't be fooled into thinking preschool is for preschool when she has the other kid in childcare too), the other in childcare a few days a week, has kids come over for an hour a morning to get her own kids ready for the day, and then brags about only having her kids on weekends, holidays, and the youngest for a couple days a week.

I actually work a real job from home. A really real job that we'd be sunk without. Not a lot of checkboxes include "working from home mother," usually just "stay-at-home mom," or "working mom," which means not at home. It's because of people like her who think bullshitting on Pinterest is a job. I have 12 hours a week without my kids, and that's because they're in a 3-hr-a-day, M-TH preschool right now since they'll be in kindergarten next year. I miss them when they're gone, and don't brag about them being gone. If someone was to tell me I should just put them in full-time childcare so I could make a career out of FreeJinger, or even just focus on my real job, I'd ask what the point is of choosing to have kids if I'm just going to toss them to other people all the time. Working from him is real work, but it's really not incredibly difficult to be at my best and keep an eye on them playing on the floor. If I have important calls to make, I either ask a friend to come over for a short time, or just tell my client I'm working from home and they might occasionally hear a kid. So far no one at all has ever had a problem with this. So what's her excuse for full-time daycare so she can post to Pinterest? Why did she even have kids?

Why does a family need an "excuse" for daycare? Please explain this to me.

I think we've established - and even Jenna herself would agree - that she's not the world's most engaged parent, and they weren't doing all that well when she was a full-time SAHM. Daycare didn't take her attention away from the kids. She wasn't capable of giving them the sort of focused attention and interaction that they needed to truly thrive. She's not so deficient that this would be a child protection case. So, we've got a mom like Jenna, we've got a dad who works all the time, and we've got 2 kids to raise. What, realistically, is the best scenario for them at this point? I'm pretty sure that it's the daycare, where they can have a chance to get some stimulation and socialization and opportunity to explore and actually play with some toys. Jenna may be able to deal with the kids better if she has them in limited doses.

I don't want to cause anyone to reject daycare out of a misplaced sense of shame. There is no shame in making a decision which is objectively in the best interests of children, given their current situation. We've used daycare for this purpose in some of my child protection cases, and I support an organization abroad which operates extended daycares for children at risk. When there is no real risk of active abuse, it's a better alternative than foster/residential care.

We don't determine what is in the best interests of children by asking "why bother having children just so strangers can raise them". That's about a mother's feelings, not the kids' needs. We certainly don't do it by asking "why can't the mom do everything like I do, since I am able to manage?"

There are some practical advantages to working from home, but I wouldn't promote it as the ideal child care arrangement for everyone. If you managed to do your best at both your work and your parenting simultaneously, great. I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't do that. Except for when I breastfed babies while typing, it wasn't that easy to multitask. Doing my office work requires some mental energy and focus, and constant interruptions disrupt the flow. When my husband and I are around, the kids wants our attention. They can understand that on a sick day, I may still need to make calls and log on to the office while they lie in bed, but they don't want that to be the norm. I mean, I wouldn't put up with a daycare provider, teacher or nanny being on the phone regularly or being distracted by unrelated work while caring for my kids.

[lawfulevil]

Oh god no, daycare is absolutely the best thing that could happen to T1 and T2, they've got half a chance of being normally socialized. It is pretty infuriating she had another child after ignoring the first, though.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Okay, yes, some FOO issues here. My mother is a piece of work and Jenna strongly reminds me of her.