--- Jose Carlos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This doesn't mean, however, that women can only work
> with routines. We say 
> here a woman has often a double agenda: working
> outside the house as a 
> professional and then in the home and for the kids,
> while husband watches 
> his TV. No, I don't mean you paleo men, but ordinary
> men, if ever there is 
> such a thing. 

I don't know how everyone else does it, but it's not
like that in my house.  My hubby and I both work and
with what time is left over to take care of our son is
divided 50/50 in responsibility.  

I do most of the housework because I like housework
and my hubby has a much longer commute than me, I
figure it evens out. He takes out the trash and does
all the heavy lifting and electronic set up as well as
builds a million toys for our son.

I do the budget because I'm a control freak and won't
let him near it.  But I can tell you for sure my hubby
doesn't sit around not doing anything.. I guess I'm
just lucky?  

> But what really breaks my heart (and again the
> sentimental guy is showing 
> up here) is the unfortunate situation of a woman
> having to bring up their 
> children alone, not because she chose to be a single
> mother, but because 
> the father went away, in rejection of the
> child(ren). I don't think this 
> happened with paleo mothers.

I think it did.  What I think happened is that Paleo
women lived in tribes and shared the responibilites of
caring for each others children.  Makes much more
sense that way.  

So for instance one mother would take care of her
children plus another mother's child, and vice versa,
while they went off gathering.  

I think men back then were probably much less involved
then they are now by a great deal.  Heck even a
hundred years ago men were so much less involved in
child rearing.  That was women's work.  Modern women
changed that trend by demanding equality.

Luv,
Debby
San Jose, CA

Website for my son Hunter Hudson, born 10/11/04:
http://debbypadilla.0catch.com/hunter/