Anonymous wrote:At the risk of stating the obvious, living paycheck to paycheck seems terrifying and horribly stressful.

You are super blessed to never have lived through it. It's not just for those in poverty. Millions of truly middle class Americans live paycheck to paycheck each week. People with educations, loving spouses, and careers. It's not unique.

People aren't perfect all the time. They make bad decisions and those decisions have consequences, but the what I liked about this show is that it shows how thin the line is between survival and ok and not ok for many people. The whole time Alex and everyone around her was just one unlucky event or bad choice away from disaster.

I also like how nuanced the characters were. Alex isn't perfect, a lot of her problems are her own fault. Sean isn't a total villain , he is abusive and controlling, but he is alternately sweet and caring and he tries to be a good dad. He is also an alcoholic and has serious issues of his own. You hope that he gets his life together someday for his own sake.

It is the same with Alex's mom and dad and lots of the other characters. This is a complicated and messy story, which is how life is.

One of my best friends immigrated to the US in her twenties. She worked as a nanny and housekeeper until she married a young graduate student. He was like a Nate without the money but was wonderful with her young son and completely in love with her. She wasn’t attracted to him at first but when he asked her to marry him, she said yes because she thought she could grow to love him. And she did and they have a very happy and stable family home twenty years later.

Anonymous wrote:At the risk of stating the obvious, living paycheck to paycheck seems terrifying and horribly stressful.

My mother grew up with a single mother who lived this way. She went hungry often. It affects you for life. We always had two refrigerators full of food and brimming pantry shelves. She had toilet paper and household supplies stacked against the wall. I find myself anxious if I have empty spaces. My nanny also grew up with a single mom and has this anxiety about running out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. He only put in "strings", in this case better known as BOUNDARIES when Alex left maddy with him, without telling him she would be gone all night, to go f#ck Sean. Yes Alex was messed up in trauma if her mom and not thinking clearly. And Nate STILL told her to keep the car. But she needed to leave so long as she was going to be involved like this with Sean. And that is normal and HEALTHY. Sh!tty but healthy. Just like they also have to leave the DV shelter if they are getting with the abusers. Like alcoholics who drink. Trauma can be almost like an addiction, a toxic chemical soup. Alex could never have dated Nate (at least at the time) because he was nice. This went against her internal belief system about who she is and what is her role in life.

It's certainly a fair point. Nate did put boundaries for himself. That said, I think they blindsided Alex. I think she was justified in thinking things would never be equal if they dated--which is very healthy. Many women in her position would have jumped into his arms for what he was offering. I don't think it's because it goes against her belief system that she can't be with a nice man. She went back to Sean because Sean was familiar and claimed to understand her in ways "no one else ever could"--which is very much an abuser trait. And of course Sean was the one to be there to uncover the Basil/home theft thing and to run to save her out of the arms of Nate. Again, abusers want to feel needed. This made Sean feel needed. It made him the "we" he claimed to be when Alex justly corrected him there was no "we" and he went on to correct her that Paula was his daughters grandma and therefore there was a "we". All very minor details but very much part of the traits of someone who desperately wants Alex back. And as the lady at the shelter says, most people go back. Abuse isn't black or white. I, as a viewer, remained conflicted about Sean until the end and almost let out an "awee" when he called her "Alaska" at the very end.

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. He only put in "strings", in this case better known as BOUNDARIES when Alex left maddy with him, without telling him she would be gone all night, to go f#ck Sean. Yes Alex was messed up in trauma if her mom and not thinking clearly. And Nate STILL told her to keep the car. But she needed to leave so long as she was going to be involved like this with Sean. And that is normal and HEALTHY. Sh!tty but healthy. Just like they also have to leave the DV shelter if they are getting with the abusers. Like alcoholics who drink. Trauma can be almost like an addiction, a toxic chemical soup. Alex could never have dated Nate (at least at the time) because he was nice. This went against her internal belief system about who she is and what is her role in life.

I watched the first episode last night, and it really triggered me. Too close to home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I Googled Stephanie Land and turns out that as she was finishing college and slowly climbing out of poverty she had ANOTHER daughter without a partner... what’s up with poor people and babies?!

You really do not understand the cycle of poverty. Her body, her choice means you butt out of the choice part, even if it’s not the choice you would make for yourself or the choice you would make if you were her.

https://time.com/6102655/maid-stephanie-land-poverty/

No I don’t. Even though I grew up poor and was poor myself and am not rich now. Somehow it never occurred to me to have babies in my circumstances. Maybe I was not in a cycle

Well said and bravo.

Honestly, I’m not impressed by her story. She had a kid at an age when she should have known to use BC or not to put the bio dad down on the birth certificate. He made her life hell but she was the co- author of her own crazy life story. I don’t know why women like her allow men to control them and then get all “woe is me” when they find the public safety net missing. No one owes anyone a handout. The way the show portrayed her trying to get assistance is sad but what if there wasn’t SNAP or housing vouchers?

Then we have a homeless, abused single mom on the streets. Does society need that? Do we not have a moral obligation to help? Women like her don’t choose to “allow men to control them” but that happens and it happens a lot. It isn’t right and I personally have no problem paying into a system that helps free them of a cycle of abuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I Googled Stephanie Land and turns out that as she was finishing college and slowly climbing out of poverty she had ANOTHER daughter without a partner... what’s up with poor people and babies?!

You really do not understand the cycle of poverty. Her body, her choice means you butt out of the choice part, even if it’s not the choice you would make for yourself or the choice you would make if you were her.

https://time.com/6102655/maid-stephanie-land-poverty/

No I don’t. Even though I grew up poor and was poor myself and am not rich now. Somehow it never occurred to me to have babies in my circumstances. Maybe I was not in a cycle

Well said and bravo.

Honestly, I’m not impressed by her story. She had a kid at an age when she should have known to use BC or not to put the bio dad down on the birth certificate. He made her life hell but she was the co- author of her own crazy life story. I don’t know why women like her allow men to control them and then get all “woe is me” when they find the public safety net missing. No one owes anyone a handout. The way the show portrayed her trying to get assistance is sad but what if there wasn’t SNAP or housing vouchers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I Googled Stephanie Land and turns out that as she was finishing college and slowly climbing out of poverty she had ANOTHER daughter without a partner... what’s up with poor people and babies?!

You really do not understand the cycle of poverty. Her body, her choice means you butt out of the choice part, even if it’s not the choice you would make for yourself or the choice you would make if you were her.

https://time.com/6102655/maid-stephanie-land-poverty/

No I don’t. Even though I grew up poor and was poor myself and am not rich now. Somehow it never occurred to me to have babies in my circumstances. Maybe I was not in a cycle

Well said and bravo.

Anonymous wrote:Re: all the people saying “she should have this or that” (personally I loved Nate and thought he was cute and sweet!)

You should read the book. This is a point the author, Stephanie Land, makes over and over: no one is perfect. You’re never going to find the “perfect poor person” who does everything right or the “perfect DV victim” who never hit back or started fights, etc. Stephanie made a lot of mistakes. Including having a second child without a partner (!) once she finally gets to Montana and lands them all back into poverty again.

She admits she made mistakes too including not going to college in the first place or not using her twenties to develop a marketable skill (in real life, she had her daughter at 29).

Nobody’s perfect but some people are just... not smart at all. At all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I Googled Stephanie Land and turns out that as she was finishing college and slowly climbing out of poverty she had ANOTHER daughter without a partner... what’s up with poor people and babies?!

You really do not understand the cycle of poverty. Her body, her choice means you butt out of the choice part, even if it’s not the choice you would make for yourself or the choice you would make if you were her.

https://time.com/6102655/maid-stephanie-land-poverty/

No I don’t. Even though I grew up poor and was poor myself and am not rich now. Somehow it never occurred to me to have babies in my circumstances. Maybe I was not in a cycle

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also I Googled Stephanie Land and turns out that as she was finishing college and slowly climbing out of poverty she had ANOTHER daughter without a partner... what’s up with poor people and babies?!

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?

Wait the wiki says she is married (since 2019). Do you mean the father of her second child? Or someone else? She has a complicated love life it seems lol

At the risk of stating the obvious, living paycheck to paycheck seems terrifying and horribly stressful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it! I’m a bit naive and privileged so I think it helped me see the other side. She just had so many crazies around her that drag her down and I’ve never experienced that.

I loved Nate and wished she would date him. I married a man just like him and he’s such a great dad and husband.

Nate wasn't a good guy. He was offering to help her so long as she met his expectations (Date him). He exemplifies how so many women, who leave abusive relationships fall into other abusive or controlling relationships. He appears as the knight in shining armor but he isn't.

So no, I am glad she didn't date Nate.

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.

I’m sure he would have saved it off for her.