| Nate was being kind with strings attached. He tricked her-even if he didn’t mean to. He is the warning sign of why not to go to the next nice man when you leave DV. |
I thought the same. Also, she ended up divorcing her husband who she met in Montana because he used to physically beat her. Shows there’s no panacea and patterns are hard to break, I guess? |
+1 I felt for Alex in so many ways but really sick of the *constant* excuse-making and victim-fetishizing. She was a smart young woman who should never have let that group of losers crash her daughter's party. And I agree, the landladies would have absolutely helped her, had she asked. |
I have to agree. I just do not get this. If you can barely afford to keep yourself and a child alive, why on earth would you bring another child into that world? |
And this is why we have studies in the cycle of poverty. There is no easy answer, but the early years of childhood are so important in breaking cycles. |
Yes, it is very realistic. Daycare for one. How is one supposed to pay for that with no job? Then there is job experience, she basically had none or lets say she had a little it could take a long time to find a job. Transportation think about the cars you own. Let's say they are in DH name and he beats the crap out of you, you leave he calls the cops because you stole his car. Guess what that car goes back to him no transportation for you. Domestic Violence shelters are not always located in places easy for women to commute to work or daycare or schools. |
This |
I’ve made some very stupid decisions in my life, but I never had sex without a condom. In fact, I’ve literally never ever had sex without one because I know that I have terrible taste in men and can’t seem to have successful long term relationships. All this and I want kids, can afford to be a single mother, and have no qualms about abortion. Still…condoms. Always. I feel that I do have a good understanding of the cycle of poverty. But I do not understand this particular issue. |
DP. I don't think that's fair. Nate was, indeed, a good guy. He gave her the car with no strings attached. He found a place in a good preschool for Maddy. It was only after Alex, Maddy, and Paula moved in with him did he start to see relationship possibilities with Alex. Without his early help, she would never have made it. Yes, he grew jealous of Sean, but that doesn't make him a bad guy. My biggest issue with Nate was his awful beard. He was 99% hair and would have looked so much better without it. |
| Really boring and no characters that you really care about after all those episodes. I think the ending was ok w/ her mom but wow long haul to get there. |
Boring? Only boring people would say that. The show is flawed but it has also a lot to chew on. |
|
Well, maybe you live in Texas. |
Yes, boring. It's 10 episodes of the same thing. The characters are flat and you don't get invested in any of them. Not sure what there is to chew on--it made it's point pretty quick and the rest was redundant. |
He gave her the car without any strings. She could do a lot worse than an attractive, smart, generous, kind man who would be an excellent father. |