Letters to the Editor
domini
Published Letters: 1053 Editor's Choice: 76
-
I'm 40 and pregnant. Do NOT do this without the husband
[Read the article: I want to carry a child for my sister]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The first trimester is exhausting, far more so than when one is in the thirties. The odds of life threatening complications like ectopic pregnancy go way up. Stomache pain, nausea, etc, all are accelerated. My husband wanted this, too, and he's picking up the slack. But things don't get done, or must be changed. It's harder for me to travel, to do a whole host of activities. And I'm having a good pregnancy for a 40 year old. Mood swings can be regulated, but it takes more effort.
The second trimester will find you buying maternity clothes (you probably gave the first away), with backaches, headaches, things you didn't have in your thirties. You show faster. There are a host of invasive tests to consider. Will abort an imperfect child? Not all tests will show?
Your children are the most important thing here. You have three. What will happen tot he Mommy Taxi? The attention? In the middle of the night, will you have the energy to attend to them. I have one, and I have to work past my energy level to give him adequate attention and also do my job. The result: Braxton Hicks contactions.
DO NOT DO THIS> It is selfish. Your children here need your energy. You will need your husband, and he will rightfully be mad about the imposition he never signed on for. If you die from preclampsia or something like it (and your risk is higher- consult a newer version of What to Expect When You are Expecting and look at Chapter 20. p. 491. Rread the WHOLE chapter. Think of going through it alone, and putting your children through this for a child who will not be their sibling. Think about the pain you can inflict on your children, LW.
Cary's right in that you sound like you are going to do it anyway. Think like a mother. Put yourself away, and think of your kids. DOn't do this without your husband's support.
-
It depends on the city and the area
[Read the article: Is it dangerous for a woman to wear party clothes on a bus at night?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If it was fully safe she would not be asking Cary. The people around her must not have thought this was a good idea, or it must be rarely done there. That's her answer. If a number of people aren't, they probably shouldn't either.
There are certainly places in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, etc where I would not wear a party dress on a bus, and there are places it would be OK. WIthout knowing the suburbs, I can't say defnitively yes or no. I go with the "What are other people doing" test.
I do think it is dumb ot go downtown in clubwear without a cover or a coat. Clubwear tends to limit mobility (especially those shoes) and rapists look for limited mobility and vulnerability. Lots of skin attracts the mentally ill. Sorry, that's true. Seen it. Do you really want a homeless person harassing you? Or someone worse than a homeless person? This should not be the case, but it is. I can't change that reality. "Should be" is not "is".
The boyfriend sounds like he has more sense than LW. She sounds a bit prejudiced against the BF (boring? etc).
-
Actually, the election had nothing to do with it
[Read the article: A question of timing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once Army Times called for his resignation, and the Army refused to put in a budget, it was over. This is full blown revolt, unprecedented. He could not stay. With Brent Schocroft et al's (Bush elder's pragmatists) non- neo-con crew coming on board, Rumsfeld had to go. People with actual military experience were NOT going to come in to save the day for a man who had so thoroughly forced the branches into outright rebellion.
The Ary took down Rumsfeld, not the election. The new crew will have to deal with a Democratic Congress. Baker et al can. Rumsfeldt never could.
-
LW is an unreliable narrator
[Read the article: Is it dangerous for a woman to wear party clothes on a bus at night?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We don't know if he suggested or ordered.
Maybe he should get her ju jitsu lessons (preferable with the Gracie brothers) so she can beat the hell out of people and take guns away.
Or maybe LW should lighten up. That so many people here are using the "common sense" argument makes me think this is not so big as the LW makes it. She may be just stirring up mess. LW seems to like drama.
-
Yet
[Read the article: The apron versus the fire hose]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]White women have done far, far better than blacks on all economic and political indicators of power. We are about to have the first female Speaker of the house. Where's the black man? There are a number of female senators. How many black senators do we have? How many black governors versus female? Female CEOs versus black male or female at the Fortune 500 level? Between stereotyping and the issue of "outsiderness, white women have an advantage. White women go to the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, network in the same clubs, and have the racial advantage. This has already translated into greater representation as elected officials.
When you look at behavior, women are advancing more quickly in politics. SOme of it is from family ties blacks are not privy to. Clintona and Pelosi, etc have the benefit of family names and links that an outsider would not. Moving women into family political dynasties is one issue. But white women have better access to white male power, know the mainstream mores, and are less threatening in many ways.
Some people will profess anti-racism but their actions don't match. Dinkins should have won by far more than he did, according to the exit polls. People said they voted for him when they didn't. Some people don't want to say they are racists, but will privately priviledge race.
Will as many whites vote across racial lines as vote across gender lines now? I would say no. I think we will see a female president first.