Tuesday, April 17, 2012

"Engaged? Engaged?" By Sandra Carol Mers Clayton

       

             "Big" celebrity news: actors Brad and Angelina are engaged!     Uhhhhhhh ... they've been living together for, what ... seven years I believe I just read.  They have six children. They have several homes. They've had seven-years' worth of seeing each other as they are when they wake up in the mornings.  They've been playing house together for a long enough time now that's it's almost laughable to see the headlines:  "Brad and Angelina Engaged!"     "Engaged" for what?  They've already BEEN engaged in living together without the seal of marriage.  According to celebrity news reports they've made their could-care-less-about-marriage views well known over the years.     They've both been married before:  Brad once, Angelina twice. They were both involved in a marriage break-up: Brad Pitt's.  They started their affair, which ended Brad Pitt's five-year marriage, when they worked together on a film. I'd say that makes them "home-wreckers".  But we are all supposed to be SO excited that they are NOW "engaged".     A newspaper article states:  "The A-list celebrities have been partners since they began a relationship in  2005 while working on the film 'Mr. & Mrs. Smith'.  (The Wichita Eagle, 4/14/2012, "People In The News")     "Since they began a relationship" means since they began the illicit affair.  Since Brad Pitt became a cheating husband.  Since Angelina happily became "the other woman" in the illicit affair.     I suppose, as a believer in marriage, I am at least happy they ARE finally thinking of giving their kids a legal status, a "legally joined" set of parents who will have a harder time splitting up than if they were simply living together with no legal attachments.  Legal or not doesn't seem to make much difference to so many of the Hollywood crowd (nor to many others, for that matter), but ... who knows?     So.....................getting married?  Okay.  Good. Do it. Though Mr. Pitt's manager states that there is no wedding date set, but that the engagement is a "promise for the future".  Let's hope, at least for the six kids, that it's a NEAR future.     "Engaged".  Getting engaged, not so long ago, WAS a "big deal".  It was exciting, giving the couple something wonderful to look forward to.  It was a time of getting to know each other even better (and I don't mean sexually) as the couple dreamed and planned their wedding day and of their life together.     Getting engaged was a beginning - not a sealing-of-the-deal for a couple who has already moved in together.  However long or short the engagement was, it led to the "I do's" of the couple, which THEN led to the sleeping together.  The sex came AFTER the wedding, believe it or not, the way God ordained it.     Too many have it backwards nowadays.  Remember the old jump-rope chant: "First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage!"?  Now it is too often sex first (with or without love) and then, sometimes, the baby, too ... then moving in together (which, by the way, is completely to the guy's advantage in a number of ways - wake up, women!) ... then a few years later getting "engaged" (or not, as many women have discovered, after living together) ... which may, or may not lead to marriage eventually.      In such a situation I just fail to see the purpose of announcing an "engagement".  The couple has already BEEN engaged in living together like a married couple.  "Engagement", in this case, fails to meet the definition of the word as they are wishing it to be understood.     Which is why I can hardly get too excited over the big news of the already-living-together-for-years couple, Brad and Angelina, getting "engaged".  After seven years.  After six children. After years of letting us all know that "marriage papers" aren't important.  After the example they are to our youth.     If "engaged" is a beginning, a newness between a man and a woman who have fallen in love and are getting to know each other more and more, are looking FORWARD to moving in together and setting up housekeeping and "sleeping together", then announcing an engagement AFTER they've already become sexually active and moved in together seems a bit late.     The "newness", the "beginning", has already BEEN!  What do they look forward to?     Get married.  Okay.  Fine. I hope they do, even after seven years of already living together. I hope they stay married and give the six children a stable life.     But announce an engagement????  Uhhhhhhhhhh.........?

Never Actually Worked?

Never Actually Worked?

by Sandra Carol Mers Clayton on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at 4:39am ·
               


Wow! Big news: stay-at-home-moms aren't intelligent enough to understand economics, and they don't know what real work is ... especially, I guess, those WEALTHY stay-at-homers.  This is according to Hilary Rosen , a CNN political contributor, former Democratic strategist and frequent visitor to the White House.

Granted, Hilary was speaking of the fact that Ann Romney is wealthy - that she most likely had/has lots of help: a cook, housekeepers, etc., - or not. Does Hilary KNOW this? Does she KNOW that Ann Romney never worked? (Actually, after googling "Ann Romney" I found some who say that Ann Romney didn't have live-in help and did cook for her family, when they were at home.)

The fact remains, though, that Hilary Rosen said, "Guess what? His wife has never actually worked a day in her life ...".

Even if that were true, the question comes to mind: Are there NO intelligent stay-at-home-wealthy-moms? None who can understand economics? None who are highly educated? None who've ever worked outside of their homes?  Are ALL wealthy women simply lay-around-waiting-to-be-waited-on women, who contribute nothing to their families, to society?  I hardly think so.  Click on "Ann Romney" and you will find out quite a few things about her - like how much volunteer work she's done and does, as she was being a stay-at-home-mom, and as she was also aiding and supporting her husband's political career.

Guess what, Hilary?  You don't KNOW that about Ann Romney.  You've belittled a woman without proof of what you said. By insinuation you are saying that women who choose to be home raising their children, and making a home for their families have "never worked a day in their lives".  That they can't understand the "outside" world. That economics is above their heads.  Maybe you think the stay-at-home-WORKING-women (and some dads) are just a bit "less than" those who CHOOSE to leave their kids and home in others' hands, while they work outside of their homes.

There are many women who are not fortunate enough to be able to stay at home; they MUST work outside of their homes, even when they'd prefer not to.  They need to supplement their husbands' salaries, or they may be single moms who have total responsibility of caring for their children and their homes. They have no less love for their families. They do what they have to do.

There are other women who COULD stay home but CHOOSE not to.  They prefer a career other than working in their homes. They work outside of their homes with the help of others (nannies, house cleaners, etc.).  They don't love their families any less than those who stay home.

The thing is, Hilary Rosen, women CHOOSE different ways because we are different. And that's okay. But, contrary to what you seem to think, many, many women who choose to stay home, to WORK within their homes, DO have brains enough to understand the "outside world" - things like economics. On the other hand, working outside of the home does not guarantee that you understand economics! :)  Neither being a stay-at-home-mom nor being a work-outside-of-the-home-mom is criteria for intelligence - either mom is capable of understanding economics. (I speak of economics because you, Hilary, spoke of it.) Nor is it true that a stay-at-home-mom, wealthy or not, cannot understand the lives of other moms who MUST work outside of their homes. You do not have to walk in another's shoes in order to understand them, to see the ups and downs in their lives, to see where you can help.

Yes, I have read your comments and listened to you on t.v. ... the big news story of the week. After reading, word for word, what you said, I still believe you are insinuating that stay-at-home-moms "have never worked a day in their lives"...... even if you were speaking specifically of Ann Romney, as a wealthy stay-at-home-mom.  Stay-at-home-moms WORK.  They are "on" 24/7.  They have few sit-around-doing-nothing times.  It's beyond me why women who work outside of their homes as nannies, cooks, maids ... nurses, teachers, etc. are seen as "working women", when the stay-at-home-moms are doing the very same work (yes, even some nursing and lots of teaching!), plus more, but are not considered to be "working women"!

Hilary Rosen, you owe ALL stay-at-home-moms an apology - not just Ann Romney.  They work. They WORK. They work long and hard.

They balance household budgets, buy groceries, pay bills, hand out allowances - they handle money.

Guess what?  They CAN understand economics ... because they DO actually work!
· · · Share · Delete