...is for fathers, rather than mothers, to stay home with the child(ren). Of course, this presupposes that mothers earn enough to support families without fathers' incomes - but is this not a distinct possibility in today's world of enhanced educational opportunities for men and women alike? I speak here from my own personal experience. My husband and I have a 16-month-old child. He gave up his job and has stayed home since the day I returned to work full-time. I do, of course, feel the opposing pulls towards both career and home about which the author wrote, but thanks to a certain amount of scheduling flexibility (which I acknowledge that I am fortunate to have), I am able to satisfy my loyalties both to my career and to my family in fairly equal measure. I now find my work doubly satisfying - not only do I get to satisfy my intellectual needs, but also I am successfully supporting my family. And I still get to spend a lot of time with my child. And the unexpected but wonderful side benefit is the wonderful, loving, strong relationship developing day by day between my husband and our child. This is a kid who knows for certain the extent of both parents' love. The only sacrifices I make now - and they are substantial - are sleep and the pursuit of my own hobbies and interests. I think it's worth the trade.

I have to note, by the way, that my husband has never had to endure any negative responses to his decision to become a stay-at-home father. Nobody has ever denigrated him for "failing" to maintain the stereotypical male-as-sole-provider role the way that educated women who choose to stay home now find themselves under attack as traitors to the feminist cause. In fact, when he first announced he'd be staying home, the majority of his male friends and co-workers reacted first with amazement, and then with congratulations at having found himself such a cushy situation! Interesting, no? In any event, I know this isn't the solution for every family, because there IS no one-size-fits-all solution, but I'm always surprised not to see it more widely discussed and practiced.

My hubby and I were married in 2001. At the time, the average wedding cost $20K, which I happened to have (got it the old-fashioned way, I inherited it!) We wanted to get married on Sanibel Island, off the Gulf Coast of Florida, and we really wanted our nearest and dearest friends and family, ALL of whom were broke, to be there. Here's how we did it. We shopped around for the best lodging deal at a fun, not-quite-luxury-but-still-very-nice Sanibel Island resort. We planned a sunset beach wedding that cost next to nothing. We booked our reception at a casual waterfront restaurant, and it too cost next to nothing. And then we spent the rest of our budget flying all of our closest friends and family (about 20 people) to Florida, and putting them up for two nights at the resort. Needless to say, EVERYONE was there, there was no ill will, and several people have told us since then that it was the best, most enjoyable wedding they ever attended.

Seriously, if you're going to expect your loved ones to fly thousands of miles away to see you get married, the least you can do is pay their way. And if you're getting married in a lovely, exotic place, you can get away with spending next to nothing and letting the location speak for itself. One of my good school friends, who was at my wedding, got married a couple of years later in Hawaii and did not pay anybody's way. Fortunately, I had an ironclad out - her wedding was two days before my due date with our daughter! Perhaps the LW could fake a pregnancy? On second thought, no, that's probably not the way to go.

I've got an 18-month-old daughter who has been exposed pretty regularly to age-appropriate children's programming. She enjoys Clifford the Big Red Dog and Sesame Street but does other things while they're on. She also enjoys the "Here Comes the ABC's" DVD by They Might Be Giants, which is *absolutely* designed to bring parents into the viewing experience - TMBG is an alternative band which had a string of hits when I was younger and hipper. I know and enjoy all their ABC songs, sing them to her while it's on, and don't consider it coincidence that some of her favorite toys are her alphabet refrigerator magnets. She also adores the Wiggles, an obsession with which I have no concerns. They are teaching her how to dance (hello, motor skills and rhythm), and she has also started to sing along with the show as well as alone. This is not to say that she watches a TV screen all day - not at all! But her day is punctuated with brief (up to 1 hr) blocks of appropriate media exposure, screened and monitored by us, and I honestly believe she is taking something of value from most of it. I must also note that her interest in being read to, in imaginative play with toys, and in just running and jumping around have continued unabated despite the presence of the evil brain-sucking screen in her life.

I think this "Sesame Beginnings" thing looks cute and potentially enjoyable for all of us. I doubt I'd shell out the cash for it, but I wouldn't mind if a doting grandparent picked it up for her!