I ask this because I read an article about a woman who chose to 'leave behind' her kids (they remained with their father)while she worked on her career ( a six month absence where they continued to visit her). The comments on that article were HORRIBLE concerning this woman but yet , we have men everyday who are called away for weeks or months at a time as part of their job, they never have to say they prefer it because they arent put in that position to have to explain it, and they are not seen so heinously.


I think parents have to do what is best for THEIR children, and if that means the woman has to be provider and stay gone for extended lenghts of time, it shouldnt be a mark against her as long as she is working WITH her childrens OTHER parent to provide the childrens needs.

If this is the same article I read, she had no trouble walking away from her kids. Didn't seem to bother her at all.

In my own personal opinion, if she had wanted a career more than kids, she shouldn't have had kids.

I happen to be one of those men that is more nurturing than gathering. I would be a happy househusband, doing the work at home while my spouse (in my case husband) goes to work and pays the bills.

I don't judge this woman, I just feel that she should have thought about the career BEFORE having kids.


what say you?

Apparently, Chase and a whole lot of others in business know something the OP is oblivious to. To remain competitive in their perspective markets, whether it’s global or regional, a company must consider the values, attitudes, and beliefs, of all individuals or groups within their market.

Once upon a time, few companies extended their market base beyond a town, city, county, district, region or state. Larger organizations may have had broader interstate markets but only a considerably few dealt internationally, and global markets was all but an unknown concept.

During that era, the recognition of Christian holidays was not a spiritual act, nor was it particularly a reflection of the business owner’s personal religious values. It was however, a good marketing tool.

That whole era had a rather unfortunate side affect, it seemed to make Christians feel as if their majority status gave them special privileges. Back then (not really that long ago) Christians NEVER had to be tolerant to any other belief system. The only mainstream religious ideal that was ever recognized was Christianity. Naturally Christians rarely learned about any other religion and naturally they were suspicious of and even offended by businesses that did not recognize Christian holidays but closed instead for some ‘other’ non-Christian religious reason.

As companies began to pursue a greater share of a wider and more diverse market, the ‘non-Christian’ cliental in this country began to feel empowered, because their beliefs were being recognized and respected by virtue of being shared with international and global markets. Those markets had at least as great and generally greater financial clout as the ‘Christian majority’ within the confines of the USA.

Of course that didn’t change the fact that USA culture was still resting on Christian tradition which heavily influenced how those with other religious views were being treated. No longer willing to accept being oppressed in a country that stood on a premise of religious freedom, court battles ensued – remove prayer from schools, anti-pledge of allegiance, take down all symbols of religious origin from government property….etc.

These actions and similar legal activism has been an attempt to equalize the minority voice within the private sector, just as representative government and laws governing over minority issues were meant to equalize the minority voice in the political arena. This extreme action is necessary in order to break down the sense of Christian ‘majority’ privilege that has long endured in this country.

At this point, Christian tradition, as the defining characteristic of this nation, is in the process of decline. At some point in the future, Christianity in this country will become one of many tolerant religious views within a nation and a global community of religious views.

When that happens, I will welcome an elaborate Christmas display in a business in which the values of the owner are reflected, because next store to that business, perhaps at another time, I will see an elaborate display of another kind of religious expression.

Neither store will suffer a loss of clients because the vast majority will be as they were ‘once upon a time’ - But instead of ONE religious expression tolerated by everyone ....

it will be every religious expression tolerated equally ...

and no single religious tradition will create a cultural climate indicative of an oppressive 'privileged' majority.

So you can make posts attacking atheism but no one should defend them, is that right? Atheists can be attacked but don't say anything bad about christianity?

Gotta love the people that can dish it out but can't take it...