Yeah I am a sports widow. And yes, I resent the fact that his job affords him time for a daily workout and mine does not.

But he cooks dinner 90% of the time, takes care of our kids equally (maybe even more than me) and does all of the grocery shopping.

When you are working hard and trying to make ends meet with small children to care for, it is tiring and being tired can result in a lot of bickering and resentment. Reading a survey like this one is good for my marriage because it reminds me how well I did.

I think that was from 90210.

Anyhow, I agree with the posters who said, "if you have to ask, you'll never know."

Break it off with both guys, learn to be without a partner for a little bit and hold out for the man who is both funny and stable, who brings out the best in you AND wants to build a family.

You won't regret it.

I would be shocked to see Michelle Malia or Sasha suddenly sporting dreadlocks or Afro-puffs.

But I think it has to do with being part of the power structure and looking and dressing the part. I think the same would be true no matter the ethnicity or race of the family sitting in the White House.

It is just a preppier look, vs. a wild, avant garde artistic or hippy look or a hardened hairsprayed sexy city girl look or a punk rock look or what have you.

This article I think was written by the same woman who wrote about Mrs. Obama's rear end a few months ago. The subject matter is worthy of a sophmore level sociology paper and not much more than that. Manufactuered controversy, if you ask me.

So are the days of our lives.

All we are is dust in the wind.

Be excellent to one another.

I wasn't copying you I hadn't read that far. Really, it looks like we had the same initial response to the LW which I never thought possible.

I am sure the women in your age group that are going it alone because they weren't willing to make the trade-offs necessary to snag a guy like you are pitying your fiancee right back.

Arrogant much?

I think the book Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis pretty much sums it up.

I agree with you regarding focusing govt. dollars on rebuilding infrastructure, nationalizing health insurance to move the burden off employers, and strengthening our public education system. I don't know how feasible it would be to offer free college but it would certainly ease the strain on many and create a more positive household cash flow.

However, you kind of lost me because there are too many gaps between your quote of the economist and your social-program manifesto. All of the logical steps weren't in place to go from a to z. Z being a kind of redistribute the wealth to the poor position.

I think most Americans don't want to redistribute tax dollars to failed Wall Street CEOs and they don't want to redistribute tax dollars to the poor, either (beyond basic compassionate subsistence programs like SNAP).

You make the point that in the 1970s, global competition (the race to the bottom) had an immediate and real diminishing effect on the lives of working Americans.

The answer to how the government can direct and stimulate the economy requires revisiting the tension between protectionism and free trade.

That is where the hardest decisions need to be made, and I predict that they won't be in this administration.

Hillary Clinton is making Asia her first priority. This is for economic purposes I am sure.

I think that the push toward more open globalization of the economy is inevitable, and with that will be fewer protections for the U.S. worker.

The U.S. cannot police the third world which exploits and abuses its underpaid labor force, and refuses to comply with environmental standards. It can only police itself, and we can not eliminate the standards already acheived.

We can't turn our own society into a third world cesspool for the benefit of corporate shareholders. There has to be something left to the notion of representative democracy, a government of and by the people.

This was left out of your essay, Ms. Walsh. The answer can't be limited to having the Federal Government employ more people. It is much more complex than that.

that wasn't covered in this discussion already.

when giving birth, sometimes a woman poops on the delivery table! how gross is that?

It is slightly annoying but my kids can eat their peanut butter at home. There is no reason to put other people's children in danger.

In the old days, any child that had a life-threatening food allergy (or other special need) was probably sent to an alternative school or homeschooled. We didn't see problems like autism and allergies among our classmates because there was no mainstreaming back then.

Whatever, it is a small price to pay to have a better more inclusive system that accomodates children with a variety of needs.

The whole point of the phrase it not to explain that a man who just broke up with a woman is not that into her.

The point is to explain to woman that a man sending mixed signals, seemingly playing hard to get or acting mysteriously "conflicted" about prior breakups or committments is obviously not that into her.

There is a moment in every woman's life where she has this "aha" moment-- this awakening-- and stops dissecting every nuance of a man's friendly but noncommittal text message or email with her girlfriends, stops wondering why its already thursday and he hasn't called, or why he keeps inviting other women friends along on outings together.

This phrase became a phenomenon because it saved a lot of women a lot of needless pining, wondering, code-breaking and heartbreak.