+
A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM UPWORTHY
We are a small, independent media company on a mission to share the best of humanity with the world.
If you think the work we do matters, pre-ordering a copy of our first book would make a huge difference in helping us succeed.
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
More

5 bizarre features of American politics that shock people when they first hear about them.

...including one reason people are staying involved despite it all.

Tuning in to American politics for the first time in 2017 is a lot like drinking from a firehose while fighting a grizzly bear and trying to summarize the plot of "Inception" from memory.  

Photos by: Win McNamee/Getty Images (Paul Ryan), Justin Sullivan/Getty Images (Neil Gorsuch, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren), Zach Gibson/Getty Images (James Comey), Jim Lo Scalzo - Pool/Getty Images (Donald Trump), iStock (Supreme Court).

As breaking news and scandals continue to erupt at an Usain Bolt-ish pace, many Americans are experiencing the early days of the Trump administration as a crash course in what makes our government kind-of-but-honestly-not-exactly work, with emphasis on the "crash."


Granted, even for those of us who have been mainlining C-SPAN for years, the current political climate is more than a little strange. For those just wading into the pool, it's like the water is 150 degrees, there are knives in the water, and oh yeah, it's peanut butter instead of water.

I spoke to four political novices who are getting acquainted with our political system for the first time — a teacher in Boston, a corporate retail worker (also in Boston), a marketing executive in New York, and a former advertising project manager in Detroit. Here are just a few of the surprising things they were shocked to learn are real parts of American politics:

1. If one political party wins enough elections in a state, they can change the maps to make it harder for their opponents to beat them in the next election.

If you've been paying attention to politics for a while, you know this is called gerrymandering, and you know it happens all the time. When a state redraws its districts to shut your party out of power, sure, you might throw up a rage post or two on your old blog, but when your party does it, hey, all's fair in love and war! After all, it is, has been for a long time, and is, for the most part, perfectly legal.

Now... consider gerrymandering as if you were learning about it for the first time.

You'd grab the pointiest pitchfork in grabbing range.

Take Texas. Its state government is completely controlled by Republicans and has been since 2003, which means they get to draw the congressional districts however they damn well please.

As a result, you get districts like Texas' 35th. Note its dispassionately illogical shape:

Imagine believing that congressional districts should make at least vague geographical sense and that your vote is distributed, weighted, and counted the same as anyone's anywhere in America. Then imagine looking at that.

Then, imagine learning that the 35th owes its gunky bottle-brush shape to the fact that it's 63% Latino. Texas Latinos vote pretty heavily for Democrats. If you wanted to dilute the Latino vote, the best way to do that would be to pack them all into one comically skinny but technically geographically contiguous region, creating one safe Democratic seat and a bunch of safe Republican seats around it.

You'd be furious.

In the case of Texas' 35th, the gerrymandering was so blatantly racially motivated that it recently lost a court challenge. But usually, states can get away with if they claim they're doing it for partisan — rather than racial — reasons, which is a bit like saying, "Sure, I punched him in the face, but not because I hate the guy — just because my arm was swinging really fast in his direction and my hand happened to be clenched, so it's not assault."

Boxing isn't fighting! It's just aggressive stretching in close proximity. Photo by skeeze/Pixabay.

If you were new to politics, you might think the system would intervene more often to put a stop to such blatant inequity. After all, this is America and we have checks and balances! Right?

Not exactly. And by "not exactly," I mean right now, you're waking up to the bizarro reality that...

2. There are no "checks and balances" if the people we elect don't want to check or balance each other.

The notion that evil or bad policy is ipso facto checked by our fair and just system is comforting — but hilariously wrong, as nearly all of the political newbies I spoke to reported being horrified to learn.

Of all the supposedly holy features of our government, perhaps none is more vaunted then the tripartite separation of co-equal powers — executive, legislative, and judicial — that you learned about in civics class. They're among the foremost concerns of our Constitution, praised by politicians left and right alike. You watched "Schoolhouse Rock" animations about them in middle school, where they were discussed in weird circus metaphors sung to you in a soothing Joni Mitchell voice. And you were soothed.

You feel good and serene about the nice normal people making the laws that govern your every waking hour. Photo by Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

That song today, however, would probably feature singer James Hetfield, probably with bronchitis, and a gang of horny sea lions would be slapping at his throat.

We're all going to die. Photo by Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images.

When, as in 2017, one party controls the executive, legislative, and (probably soon) judiciary, that party can basically go hog-wild with its most ludicrously ideological, borderline unconstitutional ideas — and pretty much no one can stop them.

Several of the political newcomers I spoke to were particularly shocked at how far executive orders can go and how long they can stay in place, even when they're clearly illegal. Indeed, executive orders have become sort of like the Tom Brady Super Bowl Hail Mary of policymaking — presidents just give it a go and damn it to Wednesday if anyone tries to stop them. Republicans were livid when President Obama signed a series of executive orders protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation. And Democrats are furious now that President Trump has signed orders making it easier to kick them out and build a gigantic wall on the southern border. Congress can pass laws to overrule them. But if they don't want to, they won't, and right now, they clearly don't.

Sometimes, the old constitutional reflex kicks in, as with Trump's two travel bans, which were blocked in the courts. But even that might be a temporary victory. If Neil Gorsuch gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, reinstating its 5-4 conservative majority, things could easily change.

Aw shucks, this nice Colorado dad just thinks the law is the law, and if the law just so happens to line up completely 100% with the favored policy outcomes of Republican party political leaders in 2017, so be it! Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

True, the Constitution remains, technically speaking, the supreme law of the land. But a lot of bad stuff is constitutional, as many formerly carefree Americans are learning as they find themselves increasingly glued to the incoming stream of ludicrous news "Clockwork Orange"-style. The Supreme Court decision that led to the Japanese internment camps? Still hasn't been overturned! And even if an executive order or bad piece of legislation is unconstitutional, partisan forces are often enough to persuade enough legislative, executive, and judicial officials to pretend that it's all good, at least for a few weeks, years, or decades.  

Add that to ubiquitous gerrymandering, and you begin to realize with ever-increasing dread that:

3. For politicians, their parties are bae (before all else), including bcs (before common sense) and btbiotap (before the best interests of the American people).

These people are all thinking about biting each others' faces off. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

If you didn't know much about how lawmaking worked, you'd probably assume it went something like this: Members of the two parties argue for a while about some bill or another, then get together, have a few beers, compliment pictures of each others' grandkids, and come up with something that basically lands in the middle of what they want. You know, compromise. It wasn't so long ago that this was the case.

Imagine how political newbies feel when they find out the truth, Bruce-Willis-gripping-his-bloody-gut-at-the-end-of-"The-Sixth-Sense"-style.

Sure, some members will occasionally buck their party leaders for strategic reasons, but for the most part, politicians these days defend their parties to the death — logic, reason, and, uh, you know, what's good for the country and the world be damned. Think about learning that for the first time and realizing that if you prefer, say, progressive policy outcomes, you'd be better off voting for a ferret with a "D" next to their name than a reasonable, well-spoken, moderate Republican doctor-war-hero-astronaut. And vice-versa. It would barely compute. And it should barely compute!

Don't blame me! I voted for Mr. Longfloppy. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

Since both parties are pretty well ferreted up at this point, you get a spectacle like James Comey's March 20 hearing, where the FBI director revealed that aides to the president of the United States and, perhaps, the president himself, are under investigation for potentially colluding with a foreign power to undermine an American election, and Republicans on the panel only wanted to grill him about who leaked this embarrassing revelation to the press. It's as if during the O.J. trial the prosecution had spent its time trying to slam Ron Goldman's parents for making such a big deal out of everything.

If this base-level skullduggery were news to you, you'd probably assume we, the people, could band together, decide on a few things we all agree on, agree to disagree on the rest, and vote these jokers out.

Except then you learn, in perhaps the most heinous twist of twists...

4. There are some politicians who actively make it as hard as possible for people to vote, and they're getting pretty good at it.

Wouldn't be surprised if this woman had to fight a few great whites to get here. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

This may be old news to some of us, but if you're one of the people just learning about voter ID laws for the first time, you'd probably feel like giving the nearest window a good bricking too.

Believe it or not, historically, voting isn't something Americans have been good at. Even in our presidential elections, only a little more than half of us do it. If you were newly engaged in politics, you'd probably assume that most politicians — grateful for the patriotic exercise of franchise that allowed them to serve their country — would want to make it easier.

Instead, you're learning that dozens of elected officials across America are actively trying to make voting harder. "Sure," the thinking apparently goes, "you technically can vote as long as you fill out forms A through Q in a timely fashion, bring the right laminated card, and survive the piranha-stocked moat we dug in front of this elementary school cafeteria."

The current weapon of choice for politicians getting off on taking away Americans' voting rights is the aforementioned voter ID law, which forces voters to bring identification to the voting booth. Many of these laws specifically ban types of IDs likely to be held by poorer, younger, browner folks (like student IDs) while permitting those likely to be held by older, whiter, more conservative folks (like gun licenses), which is obviously a huge coincidence that will be cleared up just as soon as hahahahahaha.

Felon disenfranchisement, which takes away the vote from convicted felons — who just so happen to be disproportionately black and brown — even after they've served their time, is another biggie.

This felon would definitely have her right to vote taken away just as soon as we figure out what she's guilty of. Photo by Rhona Wise/Getty Images.

And then there's the plain old refusal to streamline and improve the voting process that leads to random mishaps like being tripped up by a clerical error or having your registration lost and being forced to cast a provisional ballot, as one of the political newcomers I spoke to reported experiencing when she tried to vote for the first time in 2008.

Add it all up and you can see why someone just starting to engage with politics might be tempted to disengage right away. Yet many are choosing not to. They're choosing to stay involved and engaged, even when things are at their John-Malkovich-in-the-Malkovich-universe-iest.

And for some, that's because...

5. People power still exists, and it's pretty great to see up close.

Democracy, I am told, looks like this. Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images.

Even if you hadn't been paying much attention to the arcane inner workings of our government, a quick look out the window any time in the last few decades or so would probably lead you to believe that Americans were pretty content to let our elected officials do what they wanted without much taking-to-the-streets. You might even assume that sort of in-your-face activism was a relic of the '60s or earlier, the subject of grainy, black-and-white news footage and CNN baby boomer-bait documentaries, something that our couch-sitting, Arby's-inhaling, Kardashian-watching culture couldn't hope to live up to.

Instead, almost immediately following Donald Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration, we got millions of women and allies marching for their rights in hundreds of cities large and small, thousands descending on airports across the country to show solidarity with refugees and immigrants, and groups organizing across the country to lobby their elected officials to protect their health care. It's like a Woody Guthrie deep cut that was just a little too commie-ish to make it onto your second-grade music class playlist, except it's really happening in 2017.

"The trees are green/And the canyons majestic/Seize the means of production/You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Photo by Al Aumuller/New York World-Telegram and the Sun.

A lot about the way our system works is messed up and has been for a long time. It needs to be reformed up the wazoo, and its wazoo probably won't get so much as a look from the current crop of swamp creatures we've elected. But as the countless Americans just waking up to the reality of our politics are discovering, there's a pretty seriously effective counterweight: us.

Even those of us who are jaded can admit — we're surprised.

Thanks to Abby Huntley, Hannah Eisenberg, Robert Fuhrer, and Mary Kay Gumbel for speaking with me for this piece.

Science

Researchers dumped tons of coffee waste into a forest. This is what it looks like now.

30 dump truck loads and two years later, the forest looks totally different.

One of the biggest problems with coffee production is that it generates an incredible amount of waste. Once coffee beans are separated from cherries, about 45% of the entire biomass is discarded.

So for every pound of roasted coffee we enjoy, an equivalent amount of coffee pulp is discarded into massive landfills across the globe. That means that approximately 10 million tons of coffee pulp is discarded into the environment every year.



When disposed of improperly, the waste can cause serious damage soil and water sources.

However, a new study published in the British Ecological Society journal Ecological Solutions and Evidence has found that coffee pulp isn't just a nuisance to be discarded. It can have an incredibly positive impact on regrowing deforested areas of the planet.

via British Ecological Society

In 2018, researchers from ETH-Zurich and the University of Hawaii spread 30 dump trucks worth of coffee pulp over a roughly 100' x 130' area of degraded land in Costa Rica. The experiment took place on a former coffee farm that underwent rapid deforestation in the 1950s.

The coffee pulp was spread three-feet thick over the entire area.

Another plot of land near the coffee pulp dump was left alone to act as a control for the experiment.

"The results were dramatic." Dr. Rebecca Cole, lead author of the study, said. "The area treated with a thick layer of coffee pulp turned into a small forest in only two years while the control plot remained dominated by non-native pasture grasses."

In just two years, the area treated with coffee pulp had an 80% canopy cover, compared to just 20% of the control area. So, the coffee-pulp-treated area grew four times more rapidly. Like a jolt of caffeine, it reinvigorated biological activity in the area.

The canopy was also four times taller than that of the control.

Before and after images of the forest

The forest experienced a radical, positive change

via British Ecological Society

The coffee-treated area also eliminated an invasive species of grass that took over the land and prevented forest succession. Its elimination allowed for other native species to take over and recolonize the area.

"This case study suggests that agricultural by-products can be used to speed up forest recovery on degraded tropical lands. In situations where processing these by-products incurs a cost to agricultural industries, using them for restoration to meet global reforestation objectives can represent a 'win-win' scenario," Dr. Cole said.

If the results are repeatable it's a win-win for coffee drinkers and the environment.

Researchers believe that coffee treatments can be a cost-effective way to reforest degraded land. They may also work to reverse the effects of climate change by supporting the growth of forests across the globe.

The 2016 Paris Agreement made reforestation an important part of the fight against climate change. The agreement incentivizes developing countries to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, promote forest conservation and sustainable management, and enhance forest carbon stocks in developing countries.

"We hope our study is a jumping off point for other researchers and industries to take a look at how they might make their production more efficient by creating links to the global restoration movement," Dr. Cole said.


This article originally appeared on 03.29.21

Woman's rant about 'pirate' directions is going viral

There are some people that are more directionally aware than others and that's fine. Others of us, not so much. North, south, east and west—what are those words outside of the names of one of Kim Kardashian's kids and an airline? They certainly aren't directions for people in the 21st century.

Taryn Delanie Smith took to Instagram to ask people to stop with the madness. Smith is not lost in the woods looking for what side of the tree moss is growing on to hopefully lead her to the nearest stream. The woman needs landmarks, and she's letting everyone know that they need to get with the directionally challenged program.

"If I'm trying to meet up with you, do not tell me that you are north, south, east or west of something. Respectfully, I don't know what that is and I'm tired of being ashamed that I don't have...I have spent no time in a crow's nest of a pirate ship," Smith jokes.


It may be hard to believe, but there is a portion of the population that has no idea what those words mean while standing on a sidewalk trying to meet a friend for lunch. Are you north of the interstate or south? Is this some sort of grown up quiz everyone is supposed to pass because it seems to have skipped a few folks.

In the caption of the video, Smith reiterated that she is not aware of these directional words, "I do not own a compass. Before y'all say 'use the compass app on your phone!' Literally why would I do that, I refuse."

Maybe a public service announcement of television would reach a wider audience, because other commenters were in agreement with her rant.

"I’ve never felt so seen," one person says.

"LOL!!!!!! AND DONT TALK TO ME IN ARMY TIME EITHER LOL TALKIN BOUT ILL BE THERE IN 1800 hours," another writes.

"Ma’am I’ve never related to something as much as I have this," a commenter reveals.

"I missed that lesson in grade 5 and to this day I believe North is directly in front of me no matter what," someone else shares.

Smith is clearly not alone in her aimless wandering as she looks for a flag with skull and crossbones to locate friends. Not everyone can be a pirate. It probably takes some sort of special training that involves parrot talk and making a compass out of sea water and a leaf. Be kind to the directionally challenged folks in your life and just include landmarks that are hard to miss.

Family

Naming twins is an art. Here are some twin names people say are the best they've ever heard.

With twins, all the regular pressures of having a baby are doubled, including choosing a name.

Are you in favor of rhyming twin names? Or is it too cutesy?

Having twins means double the fun, and double the pressure. It’s a fairly known rule to name twins in a way that honors their unique bond, but that can lead to overly cutesy pairings that feel more appropriate for nursery rhyme characters than actual people. Plus, it’s equally important for the names to acknowledge each twin’s individuality. Again, these are people—not a matching set of dolls. Finding the twin baby name balance is easier said than done, for sure.

Luckily, there are several ways to do this. Names can be linked by style, sound or meaning, according to the baby name website Nameberry. For example, two names that share a classic style would be Elizabeth and Edward, whereas Ione and Lionel share a similar rhythm. And Frederica and Milo seem to share nothing in common, but both mean “peaceful.”

Over on the /NameNerds subreddit, one person asked folks to share their favorite twin name pairings, and the answers did not disappoint.


One person wrote “Honestly, for me it’s hard to beat the Rugrats combo of Phillip and Lillian (Phil and Lil) 💕”

A few parents who gave their twin’s names that didn’t inherently rhyme until nicknames got involved:

"It's the perfect way! Christmas cards can be signed cutely with matching names, but when they act out you can still use their full name without getting tripped up.😂"

"The parents of a good friend of mine did this: her name is Allison and her sister is Callie. Their names don’t match on the surface, but they were Alli and Callie at home."

“Alice and Celia, because they’re anagrams! Sound super different but have a not-so-obvious implicit connection.”

This incited an avalanche of other anagram ideas: Aidan and Nadia, Lucas and Claus, Liam and Mila, Noel and Leon, Ira and Ria, Amy and May, Ira and Ari, Cole and Cleo…even Alice, Celia, and Lacie for triplets.

Others remembered name pairs that managed to sound lovely together without going into cutesy territory.

twin names, twins, babies, baby namesThese matching bunny ears though. Photo credit: Canva

“I know twin toddler boys named Charlie and Archie and they go so well together,” one person commented.

Another wrote, “Tamia and Aziza. I love how they follow the same sound pattern with the syllable endings (-uh, -ee, -uh) without being obnoxiously matchy matchy.”

Still another said, “Lucy and Logan, fraternal girl/boy twins. I think the names sound so nice together, and definitely have the same 'vibe' and even though they have the same first letter they aren't too matchy-matchy.”

Other honorable mentions included: Colton and Calista, Caitlin and Carson, Amaya and Ameera, Alora and Luella, River and Rosie, and Eleanor and Elias.

One person cast a vote for shared style names, saying, “If I had twins, I would honestly just pick two different names that I like separately. I tend to like classic names, so I’d probably pick Daniel and Benjamin for boys. For girls my two favorites right now are Valerie and Tessa. I think Val and Tess would be cute together!”

Overall though, it seems that most folks were fans of names that focused on shared meaning over shared sound. Even better if there’s a literary or movie reference thrown in there.

twin names, twins, babies, baby namesMany adult twins regret that their names are so closely linked together. Photo credit: Canva

“My mom works in insurance, so I asked her. She’s seen a lot of unique ones, but the only twins she remembers are Gwenivere [sic] and Lancelot... bonus points... little brother was Merlin,” one person recalled.

Another shared, “If I had twin girls, I would name them Ada and Hedy for Ada Lovelace and Hedy Lamarr, both very early computer/tech pioneers. Not that I’m that into tech, I just thought it was a brilliant combination.”

Other great ones: Susan and Sharon (think the original “Parent Trap”), Clementine and Cara (types of oranges), Esme and Etienne (French descent), Luna and Stella (moon and stars), Dawn and Eve, plus various plant pairings like Lily and Fern, Heather and Holly, and Juniper and Laurel.

Perhaps the cleverest name pairing goes to “Aubrey and Zoe,” since…wait for it… “they’re A to Z.”

It’s easy to see how naming twins really is a cool opportunity for parents to get creative and intentional with their baby naming. It might be a challenge, sure, but the potential reward is having the most iconic set of twins ever. Totally worth it!

A woman looking content with her child-free life.

Every couple that has ever considered being child-free has had to deal with people who have children telling them they will regret their decision. They're often told that they’ll be lonely when they get older and never understand the joy and fulfillment of having a child.

Even though there is so much pressure for couples to have kids, more and more people are deciding to live child-free lives. A recent study found that 47% of adults under 50 without kids say they're unlikely to have them — up 10 percentage points from 2018.

There are many different reasons why people don’t want to have kids, whether it’s affordability, the state of the world and the environment, or they just don’t feel like it. The child-free movement gets even stronger as people get younger.

Sixty-seven percent of young women and 50% of young men say they just don’t want children. So, are all of these people setting themselves up for a lifetime of regret because they choose not to have kids? A recent study out of Michigan says no, they probably won’t.


The Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University studied 1,000 Michiganders, asking whether they have or want children. The study separated those who wish to be child-free from those who want children but can’t have them.

The study found that by the time people reach the age of 70, people who have children and those who decided not to are just as satisfied with their lives.

child-free, no kids, childrenA couple enjoying coffeevia MART PRODUCTION/Pexels

“Childfree people, especially women, are often told they’ll be dissatisfied with life or regret their decision later,” Jennifer Watling Neal, one of the study’s authors, told PsyPost. “In this study, we compared how much adults age 70 and older said they’d want to change something about their life — in other words, whether they had any regrets about how their life had gone. We didn’t see any difference between child-free people and parents. This suggests that child-free people are similar to others in terms of life satisfaction and often don’t regret their decision later.”

The researchers found that child-free people may be happier than those with kids.“In fact, older parents were slightly more likely to want to change something about their life,” Neal said in a statement.

The study was conducted on 1,000 people; times change and everyone’s experience is different, so there’s no telling who will or will not have regrets about their decision to have children. But the study should bring some peace of mind to those who are tired of hearing that they may regret their choice to be child-free, whether from friends, family or the little voice in their heads.

The discussion also raises a deeper question: How do we create a society where people are excited about having children? What changes could be made to make it affordable for people to have families? How can we create a brighter future so that parents can feel confident that the children born today will be able to thrive as adults?

Family

Woman sparks dialogue after saying she doesn't take advice from men no matter how successful

"I tend to take their advice with a grain of salt," says Paige Connell.

Courtesy of Paige Connell

Woman says she doesn't take advice from men.

Being a woman comes with certain expectations, no matter where in the world you live. Becoming a mother adds another layer to those expectations, with traditional society often not considering the impact on the woman experiencing that shift. For instance, many women work outside of the home and are still expected to be the one who figures out which childcare center would be best.

Women are also often expected to put their careers on hold to stay at home if it's decided that outside childcare isn't feasible. Sure, some dads may do the heavy lifting in this area, but that's not a societally expected thing. Because these things are typically expected of women, men don't generally have to consider many of the logistics of children if they're partnered with a woman.

Paige Connell sparked a conversation when she shared on social media that she doesn't take advice from men, even if it's their job. On the surface that sounds harsh, even though she clarifies that she considers the advice but takes it with a big grain of salt, and her reasoning involves the invisible labor aspect.


"I do not tend to take a lot of advice from men, even the most successful men. And I mean advice in the form of self-help books, podcasts from successful men or just men in general. I tend to take their advice with a grain of salt because I do not think it is applicable to women and mothers in particular," Connell share before revealing her reasoning.

In the video she shares that she was recently listening to "The Diary of a CEO" podcast where the man talked about all the risks he took, including moving from Connecticut where his young child and ex-girlfriend live to New York. Connell pointed out through the entire episode detailing his risks and upward mobility, he never mentioned his child, which caused her to surmise that it was because childcare concerns weren't a part of his journey.


@sheisapaigeturner I do not often take advice from men, even the most successful of men, because the common thread is usually that they were able to become successful, because there was a woman standing beside them, or behind them, supporting them. Without acknowledging this, the advice means very little because women often don’t have men standing besides them, or behind them to support them. #caseyneistat #diaryofaceo #millennialmom #workingmom #wfhmom #corporatemom #successfulwomen ♬ original sound - Paige


She continued explaining how the burden of childcare tends to fall on women, working and nonworking, allowing the male parent to be free to corporate climb uninhibited by the worry. Connell shares that she prefers to listen to professionally successful moms because they share the help needed with childcare and how they navigated these spaces being the default parent. Others agreed to much of what she was saying.

"I came to a similar conclusion…I have read quite a few books of men going on their 'hero’s journey' where they did all these extravagant endeavors and eventually found success or enlightenment. But nothing about how a mother deep in the trenches of child raising is the [true] hero’s journey. Motherhood can chew you up and spit you out. A mother dies a million deaths and finds strength to continue to show up for her child day and night. Motherhood changes and refines us. No mother goes unchanged after motherhood. It is late nights and isolation. The flames of motherhood, the true hero’s journey," one person revealed, describing her own experience of realization.

"I love that you talk about it. Also all the so called geniuses, poets, writers, great personalities were able to accomplish all they did because their wives babysat their 8 kids at that time," someone else sighed in frustration.

"Couldn’t agree more. It’s the equivalent of men being able to work late, work weekends, put in the face time, to get ahead - whilst someone else is looking after their children," another wrote.

"I remember reading one comment in the daily routine of a successful writer. He had four kids and yet he could write for 6 hours daily during the day. Never once mentions his household manager, cook, cleaner, nanny—his wife," a commenter pointed out.

What do you think? Should more women be talking about this reality when it comes to the success of their male partners?