Appoggiatura, either (1) you've read all the prior responses, in which case you have as much free time and interest in this as the rest of us, or (2) you have not read the other responses, in which case you're commenting without knowing wtf you're talking about. Go away and plant a tree or chain yourself to something or other.

As for the other responses, I'll say this again* because it only seems to work for two or three pages at a time: As the LW wrote, the brother and sister-in-law who cut the LW off are the ones taking care of the parents. The good sister is not doing the parent care, and thus does not need assistance. See ya'll in a few pages.

*Not sure why the assumption that the good sister is doing all the parent care annoys me so much. Maybe because it shows that people didn't carefully read the letter; maybe because of the sexist assumption behind it; maybe because it reinforces a simplistic saintly sister vs. horrible brother dichotomy; or maybe because some responses use the caretaking as a way to guilt the LW into resuming contact.

Polygamous relationships are inherently unstable or coercive.

If it's one older man and several young women who've been raised like veal: the women are not there through free and informed choice, and the man is there because he had the right family connections to be allowed to stay and marry several women. Remember that polygamous communities drive off many young men, so that there won't be competition for the young women.

If it's a polyamorous relationship, jealousies will eventually cause it to fall apart. It's hard enough for a two person relationship to stay together, I don't think larger groups can last very long with all the personal changes the members will go through, as well as jealousies and egos. In a marriage of two people, each person changes a lot, and it can be hard to adjust to.

I intend to have a c-section because I don't want to risk an episiotomy, future incontinence, and brain damage to the baby. The main risk to the child, respiratory problems, only lasts for about a year (far better than the permanent brain damage vaginal birth can cause). I also believe the respiratory problems can be avoided if the child is properly suctioned after birth.

Pain management doesn't have anything to do with my decision. I'm sure there will be some posts saying choosing an elective c-section is selfish. I disagree, for the reasons stated above. Also, I'd like to point out that trying to avoid a 4th degree tear to your genitals and permanent incontinence seems like self-protection, not selfishness.

Which is more liberating and feministic:

1. dieting obsessively (remember the Broadsheet blurb from a few days ago that said 80% of college women diet, no matter what they weigh) and spending a lot of your free time exercising (rather than working on some other goal or project)

OR

2. Relying on your undergarments to do the job for you.

It's fashionable to mock the corsets and girdles of the fifties and of Victorian times. However, it seems emotionally healthier to rely on underwear to achieve a certain look, rather than on the obsessive terror of fat that seems to drive most women (and many men) these days. I don't bother with either, but I'd rather have a corset on my body instead of an internalized "corset" strangling my mind. And don't claim it's about health; ask most people if they'd rather have perfect health and be fat or bad health and be skinny, you know which they'd choose.

The cherubic pink-cheeked angel they've been envisioning turns into a real-life screaming poop factory. Biological parents probably feel the same confusion with their first child, but they've only had nine months to build up unrealistic expectations and they haven't had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get their disillusioning little bundle of stress. Also, society is always kind of nudging adoptive parents to admit any problems with the kid, I'm not sure why. A biological parent who admits, "some days I'd like send Junior back just so I can get some sleep," is treated like a monster.

Once the kid starts sleeping through the night and gets to the Gerber-baby stage, both at around six months, they'll feel more kindly towards the baby. Viola! Everyone will say they "bonded" with the baby. No, they just finally got a good night's sleep and woke up to find that the screaming red-faced monster had bloomed into the baby of their dreams.

It's too bad that the adoptions were informal, otherwise the adopted children would have inherited the ranch.

I've never heard feminists accused of pushing women to stay at home, usually feminists are accused of forcing women into the workplace (you know, it goes with the whole "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson thing).

Anyway, I think the true measure of what a housewife "earns" can best be figured out by looking at how much it would cost to replace her. Say Attorney Doe's wife dies and he needs someone to look after little John and Jane while he chases the almighty billable hour. Will Attorney Doe pay someone $143k to take care of the little darlings? Or can he hire someone to do all the chores his wife used to do for under $40k (plus room and board)?

Or, if you don't like that example, think about how much most stay-at-home mothers are willing to pay their babysitter? Yup, not much.