Training women doctors = waste of money?

[1Path]

Like I said above, this is the typical female argument when it comes to this area. They say, I'm a chef, a cleaning lady, a chauffer, a day care worker, etc etc. Therefore according to my calculations I do sixty jobs which means I make $10 million/year, so really the guy owes me that much money.?

I think you have my viewpoint confused.I didn't chauffer my husband nor was I his daycare worker, he didn't pay me for that nor was I paid for doing that for our kids. He paid me because when I made the decision to stay at home, I lost my income. And since normally we have others do those tasks for us, when I took on that responsibility (of my own choosing of course), I needed to be paid just as we would have paid someone else to do it had I been working.

So if you're doing 60 million jobs and not being paid, that's just dumb IMHO. And if you're doing those things for some "guy" and not a spouse/fiance', then that's stupid as hell.

So if that's the case, can the guy fire you if he wants? And hire someone else? And can he tell you to do something when he wants? That, after all, is the definition of "working" in that role

I realized now that this conversation is a bit over your head and that not only have you probably NOT been in a serious relationship, but almost certainly never married. Why don't you sit down and let the grown folks continue to have this conversation.

I'm not saying that what you do has no value. Far from it. But let's not go overboard and act like you "are a chef." Come on. That's like saying wives give Tylenol and Band-aids to their sick child so they're all doctors.

Just becasue your Momy fed you ramen noodles, spaghetti, and ravoli on a regular basis, don't assume everyo ther mother does the same. I used the term because I've taken a cooking class or 2 and I don't serve dinner, I present it (when I did cook, I don't have much time these days). Thus the term Chef is clearly warrented here.

That's like saying wives give Tylenol and Band-aids to their sick child so they're all doctors.

In a sense they are. I've literally saved my duaghter's life twice after a doctors screwed up andif you talk to any involved mother, you'll haer the same thing. However, I think you're confusing the term Wife with Motherhood perhaps because you're one of those Mama's boys who hasn't cut the cord yet.

My simple point is that I find it all odd because you're all in the mentality of winning some battle with your spouses and boyfriends and congratulating each other for winning. When did it get to that?

I'm congratulating women for refusing to be some dudes doormat. Women who aren't afraid to assert themselves against societies antiquated views on motherhood/career/relationships, SHOULD be given a pat on the back. Or maybe a pat on the a$$, NBA style!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[1Path]

Women such as yourself want it all. You want to act like women, get paid and treated like men in the workplace, return to being treated like women in your personal lives, and have the ability to jump in between the two professionally. And you consider that to be reasonable. If you envy men so much, be a man.

Up until that "be a man" statment, I thought you were a dude. But no man on the planet would tell a woman to "be a man" becasue to many of them don't want us in the playing field to begin with.

No, Imma guess that you're a woman, who probably delayed her own personal ambitions to put a guy through med school/residency for example, and now resents it. Am I right?

But I am curious, what does it mean to be treated like a man professionally in a field like medicine? The equity in pay I understand which is why anytime I interview for a position, I'm tempted to go in there and say, "just gimme the white dudes starting salary". Fortunately, I've mastered the art of negoting the deal so no worries there!

 

[Empi]

I don't disagree there are differences; that's the funny part. What I think is silly is how women approach the issue, as if being the "caretaker" or "mother" is a dirty word or an insult, like "slave." Seriously, you guys have to let it go.

No, on the contrary, being nurturing and caretaking should be more highly vaued in our culture.

Like I said, if you want perfect equity, then you need to act that way. In other words, like the "penisless man" that you were talking about originally. Not "I get to choose if I want kids," but "I don't have kids period." That's the essence of the issue. Women such as yourself want it all. You want to act like women, get paid and treated like men in the workplace, return to being treated like women in your personal lives, and have the ability to jump in between the two professionally. And you consider that to be reasonable. If you envy men so much, be a man.

Again, no, the male model shouldn't be held up as the ideal for us to follow. There should be more respect for individual circumstances, if caretaking was shared, people who have family responsilities would be respected and accomodated. If the *men* in medicine also needed to take time off to take care of his baby or elderly parents, this would be accomodated. There would naturally be avenues to allow for part time work, there would be more comprehensive child and elder care solutions for people. Not as many female physicians would leave medicine when they start a family.

 

[snoopy brown]

Again, no, the male model shouldn't be held up as the ideal for us to follow. There should be more respect for individual circumstances, if caretaking was shared, people who have family responsilities would be respected and accomodated. If the *men* in medicine also needed to take time off to take care of his baby or elderly parents, this would be accomodated.

See this is what I mean. Your whole outlook is that the job accomodates your lifestyle when in reality it's the complete opposite. You act like the job should be giving you time off and so on for your family. In other words like most women you are putting the job as secondary. That's not bad and I have nothing against that but you have to understand that's why the same population of women are always looking at men and asking why they're doing better.

You say that the men could also partake in this new benefit but that's another problem. Your solution is to say, rather than everyone putting the work ahead of their job (like men do now), the men should join with the women and also put their personal life ahead of their job. That's what you aren't seeing. Your solution is to drag everyone down and demand that the job accomodate the new position. I'm sure you think this is reasonable but that's why you're probably going to feel robbed for a long time to come.

 

[Empi]

See this is what I mean. Your whole outlook is that the job accomodates your lifestyle when in reality it's the complete opposite. You act like the job should be giving you time off and so on for your family. In other words like most women you are putting the job as secondary. That's not bad and I have nothing against that but you have to understand that's why the same population of women are always looking at men and asking why they're doing better.

What I *am* saying is no one with a family (in other words, the majority of people,) are going to be able to be available for work the way a traditional male with a wife can because everyone will be expected to find a balance between work and family. The playing field will be level and threads like this will look meaningless.

You say that the men could also partake in this new benefit but that's another problem. Your solution is to say, rather than everyone putting the work ahead of their job (like men do now), the men should join with the women and also put their personal life ahead of their job. That's what you aren't seeing. Your solution is to drag everyone down and demand that the job accomodate the new position. I'm sure you think this is reasonable but that's why you're probably going to feel robbed for a long time to come.

What I *am* saying is men will not be *able* (or enabled) to put their work ahead of their family to the extent they do today and women will not be expected to sacrifice their careers in order to take care of the needs of her family. *Because* both males and females will be expected to find a *balance* between work and family, both men and women will need to find solutions that work for them their needs will be respected because, in part, they will be the norm.

 

[ForbiddenComma]

What I *am* saying is men will not be *able* (or enabled) to put their work ahead of their family to the extent they do today and women will not be expected to sacrifice their careers in order to take care of the needs of her family. *Because* both males and females will be expected to find a *balance* between work and family, both men and women will need to find solutions that work for them their needs will be respected because, in part, they will be the norm.

Empi, with all due respect, this is not very rational.

For a corporate middle manager or maybe for a radiologist, sure, it's ok to make those positions more family-friendly. But how about surgery? They work long hours in residency for a reason: the only way to get good in surgery is through practice. Or would you consent to having a subpar surgeon for your gallbladder removal just so the surgeon could have long maternity/paternity leaves and cushy kid-friendly hours during residency?

Any number of executive positions qualify for this, as well. In sales and finance, it's no secret that the promotion favors the person who puts in the most hours. Same goes for the ad game. And ask someone who makes partner at a good law firm at an early age just how much time they spend with their family.

Chances are, they will not be mentioning the word "flextime."

Shouldn't someone -- of either gender -- be allowed to choose to place work over family, if they want to?

And if so, does it not follow such people will probably get ahead faster in their career than their 40-hour-a-week-max colleagues who are rearing children?

Or are you saying that we should pass laws to prohibit people from working too hard?

 

[Empi]

When men and women are making those choices equally, it will be a different picture. No, I'm reluctant to have personal decisions legislated, but physicians in Europe are not allowed to work crazy hours, so its being done in European countries. BTW: it could be done more than it's being done, in general. I know a woman who is a pediatrician who is working part time (about 30 hours/week.) because she has a family. She's working in a government run clinic and they're picking up her malpractice costs, and she has no student debt, but it *can* be done.

 

[snoopy brown]

What I *am* saying is no one with a family (in other words, the majority of people,) are going to be able to be available for work the way a traditional male with a wife can because everyone will be expected to find a balance between work and family. The playing field will be level and threads like this will look meaningless.

We're going around in circles because you keep acting like the playing field is not level. It is level. Like I said, you are absolutely right that women more commonly stay at home. Where you are wrong and also keep refusing to look is that women can have exactly the same situation. Simply marry a man who wants to stay at home. But you don't want that. You want the man to work, too. Then you essentially say that you won't be satisfied until everyone can have both work and family with the job subsidizing that arrangement. Only then will "fairness" have been achieved in your eyes. Like I said, you can have that viewpoint; it's your right. You'll just be very angry for the rest of your life and always talking about how the world is anti-woman.

 

[snoopy brown]

And may I add that the reason women don't want to work while men stay at home is because they feel that's unfair, too. As if they'd be supporting some lazy slug husband who sits at home while she earns the bacon. But if the situation is reversed, then it's still the man who is the lazy guy because housework is 24/7 and more difficult than a lousy deskjob and etc etc. That's why I scoff when women say they want "equality" because they don't. They want things to be equal when it benefits them and unequal when it benefits them.

 

[lilnoelle]

And may I add that the reason women don't want to work while men stay at home is because they feel that's unfair, too. As if they'd be supporting some lazy slug husband who sits at home while she earns the bacon. But if the situation is reversed, then it's still the man who is the lazy guy because housework is 24/7 and more difficult than a lousy deskjob and etc etc. That's why I scoff when women say they want "equality" because they don't. They want things to be equal when it benefits them and unequal when it benefits them.

Nope, I'd love it if my husband stayed at home and took care of the kids/house while I was in the workfield. Less cooking, less cleaning, less responsibilities with the kids (i.e. baths, changing diapers, etc). He could do all the things that I currently do with the house, and I would actually get to do LESS because I'm already "employed" (med student right now). Beautiful. Where do I sign up?

How many people really know their spouse when they get married? I sure didn't. I was in love.... everything good about him was fantastic and everything bad about him was "quirky" or "cute". Ha! I'm also guessing most women don't realize how much of the household burden they will bear when they get married. Or, perhaps the hubby shares the burden relatively well until kids come into the picture (my situation).

Just because a boyfriend says they'd be supportive of their future wife's career and would be willing to be SAHD, doesn't mean that it will actually happen that way.

 

[snoopy brown]

How many people really know their spouse when they get married? I sure didn't.

As cruel as this may sound that's your responsibility isn't it? Of course you're angry that he changed his position, but isn't it true that a wife could do the same? Or are you saying women are always straight-forward with men? Bottom line is that I'm sorry that you married a guy who you don't get along with but that doesn't mean the system is unfair towards women.

The fact of the matter is that you have lots of choices. The only problem is that you have to live with the consequences of those choices. Men have fewer choices NOT TO SAY that men are powerless or discriminated against, but it's true. You can talk all you want but you know that if most women met a guy and asked, "what do you do?" or "what are your goals?" and he said "well I'm hoping to marry a woman who works and supports me so that I can stay at home and raise the children" he would disappear off her radar screen. That's life.

 

[lilnoelle]

I wouldn't dream of saying that my choices weren't just that and therefore are my responsibility. All I'm saying is that what one thinks they're life will be when they're 21 years old is not actually how it turns out. Unfortunately, 21 years is pretty young to be making these life changing choices.

Again, my choices, my responsbility. I agree, thats life. Whining about it isn't going to change anything. I'm not whining.

I just try to understand how some people (not talking about gender here) have to struggle harder in life to recieve the same results as others do with little struggle. Life is hard, and complicated. People don't fit into a mold, nor should they be discriminated against because of statistical analysis.

Therefore, I think that the gender of an individual, the race of an individual, nor the religion of the individual should give us good reason to draw conclusions about their motivation in medicine and their likelihood to be worthwhile doctors.

As cruel as this may sound that's your responsibility isn't it? Of course you're angry that he changed his position, but isn't it true that a wife could do the same? Or are you saying women are always straight-forward with men? Bottom line is that I'm sorry that you married a guy who you don't get along with but that doesn't mean the system is unfair towards women.

The fact of the matter is that you have lots of choices. The only problem is that you have to live with the consequences of those choices. Men have fewer choices NOT TO SAY that men are powerless or discriminated against, but it's true. You can talk all you want but you know that if most women met a guy and asked, "what do you do?" or "what are your goals?" and he said "well I'm hoping to marry a woman who works and supports me so that I can stay at home and raise the children" he would disappear off her radar screen. That's life.

 

[1Path]

You can talk all you want but you know that if most women met a guy and asked, "what do you do?" or "what are your goals?" and he said "well I'm hoping to marry a woman who works and supports me so that I can stay at home and raise the children" he would disappear off her radar screen. That's life.

The majority of women, especially those educated gold diggers I spoke of eariler don't walk around saying for example " I want to go to med school so I can meet and marry another doctor so I won't have to work" either so bringing this up is a moot point regardless of gender.

 

[snoopy brown]

I just try to understand how some people (not talking about gender here) have to struggle harder in life to recieve the same results as others do with little struggle. Life is hard, and complicated. People don't fit into a mold, nor should they be discriminated against because of statistical analysis.

Therefore, I think that the gender of an individual, the race of an individual, nor the religion of the individual should give us good reason to draw conclusions about their motivation in medicine and their likelihood to be worthwhile doctors.

First of all I want to say that your attitude of responsibility is admirable and I applaud it. I also agree that we should not draw conclusions about anyone's motivations for medicine or any career. I don't think I ever said that and if I did then it was phrased poorly. I certainly don't think that you should discriminate against someone for example to say, "well you are a woman so I'm not accepting you even though you are qualified." (Although I can also see how, realistically, a residency for example could factor that in if they had been burned in the past. For example I heard from a friend that one residency that had five residents for a certain year had three females quit because they wanted to be stay-at-home mothers. Realistically you can't tell them not to be skittish of taking a woman after that.) All I am saying is that, in answer to the OP question, I can't see how it wouldn't be considered a waste if a woman did get fully trained and then quit. Not that she shouldn't be allowed to do it or we should prevent her, but it's still a waste regardless, right? I'm repeating myself a lot but I want to be sure that everyone understands what I'm saying.

To 1path: Agreed with you, too, that gold-diggers don't announce their intentions. You are correct. But being stay-at-home doesn't equal gold-digger, right? All I mean is that if a man was up-front with his g/f and said, "hey, you make the bread and I'll raise the kids" it would probably not be received as well as if the reverse were proposed. If women want to act like men can stay at home, then they should follow through on their statement. That is all that I mean.

 

[lilnoelle]

All I am saying is that, in answer to the OP question, I can't see how it wouldn't be considered a waste if a woman did get fully trained and then quit. Not that she shouldn't be allowed to do it or we should prevent her, but it's still a waste regardless, right?

I can agree with that completely.

I'm not sure what can be done about it though.

 

[snoopy brown]

Probably nothing at all, which is why I said I was puzzled that this thread extended past one post. I assumed it would be "yes" and then thread ended.

 

[Empi]

What if she got fully trained and managed to find a way of working fewer hours in order to find a balance between work and family? Shouldn't that be another option put in play?

Why one extreme or the other?

 

[ForbiddenComma]

What if she got fully trained and managed to find a way of working fewer hours in order to find a balance between work and family? Shouldn't that be another option put in play?

Why one extreme or the other?

But that's already an option. People work fewer hours when the kids arrive all the time in medicine.

The downside is, if you choose to work part-time for whatever reason (and there are many reasons besides kids), you are not going to make as much money, or climb the ladder as rapidly as the woman with the same qualifications who works full time, takes q4 call, and has her husband or nanny do the child-rearing.

I'm not sure how that basic fact of life is even an issue with you.

What IS an issue is whether a medical degree is "wasted" on someone who chooses not to use it because they'd rather raise their kids.

This is because the M.D. degree is a special case. We aren't talking about law or business school. There are a limited number of U.S. M.D. spots a year, strictly regulated by the government. Furthermore, everyone knows there is a critical shortage of healthcare professionals, especially in primary care.

Therefore, one could make the argument that maybe we should ensure these limited, valuable med school slots go to those who will actually benefit society by practicing medicine. Or if nothing else, maybe we could agree that people like my classmate who hog up a med school spot and then not even practice more than a couple years are *actively harming* society by denying admission to someone who would have practiced medicine full-time.

Empi, on the surface you are making a feminist argument but perhaps what you are saying is actually anti-feminist. You are saying that a woman's primary duty is to raise children, and the career comes second. How on earth is that any different than what a Christian fundamentalist would say?

 

[1Path]

But being stay-at-home doesn't equal gold-digger, right?

It does to me if your primary intention in getting married in the first place was to have a man take care of you for the rest of your life or to have so many kids that him leaving you would cost him (It's cheaper to keep her, comes to mind).

Having an education and/or taking an elitist position in life makes no difference as far as who can be called a gold digger is concerned. A spade is a spade no matter who's in the card game.

I said it very early in this thread. If a woman goes to med school and residency then doesn't work in a field related to medicine or quits, she should have to repay with interest, all the money it cost to train her. People talk a lot about why medicine has changed and want to blame insurance companies only, but it seems ironic to me that medicine started to take a downfall at about the same time women started to enter the profession in larger numbers. Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

 

[snoopy brown]

What if she got fully trained and managed to find a way of working fewer hours in order to find a balance between work and family? Shouldn't that be another option put in play?

Empi, on the surface you are making a feminist argument but perhaps what you are saying is actually anti-feminist. You are saying that a woman's primary duty is to raise children, and the career comes second. How on earth is that any different than what a Christian fundamentalist would say?

You know, Comma, throughout this whole thread you have demonstrated your biases. You keep talking about how you're from the Midwest, where women are expected to be submissive and everything is backwards and apparently the hayseed Christian fundamentalists are beating their wives. Why don't you just move to the coasts where everyone is liberal and enlightened and no bad is ever done?

To Empi: sure, a woman can balance career and family. Why do you feel that in America that is not allowed? The only problem is that as I have said, you get paid less.

 

[snoopy brown]

It does to me if your primary intention in getting married in the first place was to have a man take care of you for the rest of your life or to have so many kids that him leaving you would cost him (It's cheaper to keep her, comes to mind).

This is what I don't understand. Are you saying it's OK to be stay at home or not? Whether it's a man or woman staying at home, the spouse is presumably taking care of them for the rest of their lives, right? Are you saying it's only OK to be stay at home for a certain period of time and then if you stay at home too long you become a gold-digger?

I agree with you that some women seem to go to medical school because it basically introduces them to a higher level of people to date, though. Then again, isn't that also true of people who don't go to medical school? For example, I know nurses who basically are just nurses in order to meet doctors and plan to catch one and then quit nursing. That irritates me, too.

 

[ForbiddenComma]

Thank goodness that you have not been displaying any biases on this thread, snoopy Not sure why you have so much anger towards the opposite sex.

If only they realized their true happiness by cooking for you, right?

 

[snoopy brown]

Not sure why you have so much anger towards the opposite sex.

That's a fairly poor defense given that the only things I have said were that everyone should be equal. But if that's the only way to cover your feelings towards Midwesterners and Christians go ahead.

 

[ForbiddenComma]

I see you're pretty "active" over in the URM forum as well. Let me take a wild stab in the dark here: you take exception to diversity efforts by colleges, am I right?

lawlz

 

[snoopy brown]

No you're wrong again. Of course you could always actually read the posts instead of just making a wild guess based on a forum I posted on, but maybe that's asking a little too much from someone who talks about how Midwesterners are wife-beating fundamentalists.

 

[Empi]

Therefore, one could make the argument that maybe we should ensure these limited, valuable med school slots go to those who will actually benefit society by practicing medicine. Or if nothing else, maybe we could agree that people like my classmate who hog up a med school spot and then not even practice more than a couple years are *actively harming* society by denying admission to someone who would have practiced medicine full-time.

I would agree with this statement. I have serious issues with people going into medical school with the *intention* of quitting when they have children. That, in my opinion, is one extreme. The other extreme is regarding anyone who isn't in a high octaine medical career as wasting the slot in medical school. I wish there was a way to weed out applicants that don't want to actually practice medicine because, as you said, they are not only denying admission to another candidate, they are giving women a bad name.

Empi, on the surface you are making a feminist argument but perhaps what you are saying is actually anti-feminist. You are saying that a woman's primary duty is to raise children, and the career comes second. How on earth is that any different than what a Christian fundamentalist would say?

I am not conveying my thoughts well enough if you think I'm saying this. What I'm saying is, in our imperfect society, women are, by default the ones who get child care imposed upon them unequally. I'm suggesting women are laboring under an unequal burdon to work *and* be the primary caretakers. What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents. At this time, the status quo is to have women take care of the children while men have been relatively relieved of this duty because it is socially acceptable for men to have domestic wives while women, generally, don't enjoy this luxury. This is changing albeit slowly, I'd like to see the change accelerated.

 

[Noeljan]

I would agree with this statement. I have serious issues with people going into medical school with the *intention* of quitting when they have children. That, in my opinion, is one extreme. The other extreme is regarding anyone who isn't in a high octaine medical career as wasting the slot in medical school. I wish there was a way to weed out applicants that don't want to actually practice medicine because, as you said, they are not only denying admission to another candidate, they are giving women a bad name.



I am not conveying my thoughts well enough if you think I'm saying this. What I'm saying is, in our imperfect society, women are, by default the ones who get child care imposed upon them unequally. I'm suggesting women are laboring under an unequal burdon to work *and* be the primary caretakers. What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents. At this time, the status quo is to have women take care of the children while men have been relatively relieved of this duty because it is socially acceptable for men to have domestic wives while women, generally, don't enjoy this luxury. This is changing albeit slowly, I'd like to see the change accelerated.

totally agree with both points
What bothers me is when people lash out at female physicians (or physicians to be when they want kids, even if they have no intention of quitting. Like you, I feel both parents should assume responsibility with each married couple coming up with a plan which works. I definately want one or two kids on day, and I want to be a surgeon. I would never imagine of quitting , because I am going into medicine for a reason. I know it will be tough, but I have absolutely no intention of walking away. I wouldn't be getting myself into this if it wasn't what I wanted to do. Heck I can't wait until I am a surgeon On another note, I don't like what I am seeing about socialized care. HOWEVER, if the politicians want to be honest with it, and it does come into play, doctors in places like France only work 35 hours per week with 4 weeks vacation. If they want to cut salaries while also cutting hours like this, family life for all docs may not even be in question. But then again everyone in this country seems to want more for less lately, so they probably think doctors should still work three times of that and make the same.

 

[Empi]

I would definitely want the option of working fewer hours for less money in order to strike a balance between practice and family. I'm not sure if I would want legislated maximum hours that workers in Europe have, but I believe the more choice offered to people, in general, is a good thing.

I also believe that if people are offered some flexability in their work, it will turn out to be a win-win situation. I, personally, would prefer to have a balanced, happy, well-rested doctor who works a 35 hour week, heck, if this was an option, I wonder if those quitter women would rather opt for a position that offers flex time.

I'm also wondering if anyone has done a comparison study of overworked American doctors verses European doctors who enjoy the proverbial 35 hour 4 week vacation lifestyle.

 

[snoopy brown]

I'm suggesting women are laboring under an unequal burdon to work *and* be the primary caretakers. What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents.

You can't hear me but I'm screaming right now.

 

[1Path]

What I *am* suggesting is to change society in order to displace this obligation more equally between parents.

Changing society as you describe it, would mean changing some of the basic characteristics that make men men and women women. As a salient heterosexal, I like my DH manly, with a serious "allergy" to anything domestic!

 

[TopDocChick]

1Path,

Are you insinuating that since I like that my husband cooks and takes care of the kids that I am not a heterosexual? You are defining your sexual orientation by gender roles. I prefer dick which is actually more in line with the definition for sexual orientation. All the other stuff might be more of a homophobic fear that you have that people might *think* you are not a heterosexual if you husband isn't *manly*. Get over it.

 

[lilnoelle]

Lets try to keep the fighting at a minimum gals (and guys).

 

[TopDocChick]

i quit coffee this week, sorry if I'm a little edgy. Oh yea, I also quit smoking this week. Just got sick of all the crap it was doing to me - even though i only smoked one cigg a day (after my cup of coffee). Oh yea, i also quit drinking in the evenings. everyone thinks I am pregnant since I quit it all at once, but I really just got sick of being a slave to bad things. Now I am eating raw seaweed and aramanth and acting like a bitch.

 

[lilnoelle]

i quit coffee this week, sorry if I'm a little edgy. Oh yea, I also quit smoking this week. Just got sick of all the crap it was doing to me - even though i only smoked one cigg a day (after my cup of coffee). Oh yea, i also quit drinking in the evenings. everyone thinks I am pregnant since I quit it all at once, but I really just got sick of being a slave to bad things. Now I am eating raw seaweed and aramanth and acting like a bitch.

I quit Mountain Dew and am on a diet as of 6 days ago. Good luck!

 

[1Path]

i quit coffee this week, sorry if I'm a little edgy. Oh yea, I also quit smoking this week........acting like a bitch.

Yeah, no **** you beat me saying that myself. nd given your mood, might I suggest that instead of you "getting over it" that you quickly and expeditiously "get on it" if you know what I mean??

Now in usual SDN fashion, I wonder how in the hell you got away with explicity mentioning a man private parts with such a vulgar and "minimizing" term.

 

[mshheaddoc]

I think I've let this go on for long enough. Since the thread has seemed to spiraled I'm closing. If anyone cares to continue discussing in a professional fashion, please create a new one! Thanks!