View Full Version : Isn't Having Families An Amazing Thing?
mostlyharmless
09-Mar-06, 23:10
I was saddened recently to see how the continual striving for something more is strangling the importance of families.
Sailor Shirley Robertson announced she will be attempting to win an unprecedented third gold medal.
She said; 'I look around all walks of life and women do the most amazing things and also have families'
I thought having a family was an amazing thing wonderful that shes trying to be an example for women kind, but is it not an example that puts more pressure on women in general and puts families and the wonder of a family very sadly down?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
09-Mar-06, 23:27
I was saddened recently to see how the continual striving for something more is strangling the importance of families.
Sailor Shirley Robertson announced she will be attempting to win an unprecedented third gold medal.
She said; 'I look around all walks of life and women do the most amazing things and also have families'
I thought having a family was an amazing thing wonderful that shes trying to be an example for women kind, but is it not an example that puts more pressure on women in general and puts families and the wonder of a family very sadly down?
My family IS my world.My wife and my two boys make my world go round.The jokes we have and tell take all the hassles of ma day oot o' ma head.
Ye go back to the days when ye were young and going boozing and night clubbing.Ye never had a care in the world and ye used to say a dram oot with your mates was the best thing in the world.
Knickers!!!!!!The best thing in the world is when your youngest turns round and says that ye are COOL!!!!Me an auld man being COOL!!!!.......ahhhhh bliss!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Families are indeed amazing. I read something recently about the mother of Thomas Hamilton the guy who murdered the kids and their teacher in Dunblane 10 years ago. She still couldnt reconcile herself with the crime and her wee boy. She still loved him dearly and would have visited him in prison had he not committed suicide.
Sometimes I think families have an unhealthy claim on our lives.
I say good for Shirley Robertson to take some time for herself. I am sure she loves her family dearly and the importance of her family to her are no less than than the importance of the families of the 2 above me are to them.
Knickers!!!!!!The best thing in the world is when your youngest turns round and says that ye are COOL!!!!Me an auld man being COOL!!!!.......ahhhhh bliss!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Cedric, I got told by my Grandaughter "Grandad you are interesting" I was walking on air for a month
I pulled my fifteen year old up for his attitude the other day - saying that it appeared disrespectful.
He said "mum i respect you more than anyone else i know. I absolutely respect you you are smart and cool and fun and you work dead hard and you look after us and you cook great food and you put up with me when i have a go at you. I think you are great" i then got a huge hug from him and i was moved to tears. Family are the thing that makes it all worthwhile.
They are great
I was saddened recently to see how the continual striving for something more is strangling the importance of families.
Sailor Shirley Robertson announced she will be attempting to win an unprecedented third gold medal.
She said; 'I look around all walks of life and women do the most amazing things and also have families'
I thought having a family was an amazing thing wonderful that shes trying to be an example for women kind, but is it not an example that puts more pressure on women in general and puts families and the wonder of a family very sadly down?
Have to agree with this and one of the saddest things is when parents hand over their children to someone else, even as small babies, so they can pursue their careers and get rich. Giving your child every material luxury is no substitute for time spent with mother or father or both. I know many people don't have a choice and have to continue working but there are many others who could take time out and those precious years can never be replaced.
Can never quite make up my mind about adventurous mothers (or fathers) going off to achieve their dream. Wonderful for the children if all goes well and they can welcome them back but devastating when something goes wrong. Parents can die for any number of reasons but I do wonder whether they have a right to take unnecessary risks when they have young children, especially if they think that somehow having a family is not sufficient challenge. At least we seem to be getting over the attitude that being a stay-at-home mum or dad is something to apologise for, as if somehow it wasn't enough.
Have to agree with this and one of the saddest things is when parents hand over their children to someone else, even as small babies, so they can pursue their careers and get rich. Giving your child every material luxury is no substitute for time spent with mother or father or both. I know many people don't have a choice and have to continue working but there are many others who could take time out and those precious years can never be replaced. I hope that isn't yet another swipe at working mothers. :confused:
I most certainly wouldn't expect you to do such a thing, so I hope I'm reading you wrong here.
At least we seem to be getting over the attitude that being a stay-at-home mum or dad is something to apologise for, as if somehow it wasn't enough. Indeed. And I hope we are also getting over the atttude that it's wrong for mothers to work whilst leaving their children in daycare.
The most important roll we will ever play is bringing up our children to be happy and well adjusted adults - whether or not we go out to work.
Being a parent is more about quality than quantity, and whatever choice the mother makes is up to her. I would have chosen to stay at home and bring my children up myself when they were little, but financially that was not an option. However I also enjoyed the independance my own wage gave me, and the companionship of my workmates, many of whom have remained my friends to this day. I was lucky that my mother stepped in so my children did not have to go to a stranger.
When I had my last child (my afterthought) Iwas in a position where I could be a full time mum, and enjoyed every minute of that too.
Now i can work part time and be a part time granny - best of both worlds - yes, families are wonderful!
Have to agree with this and one of the saddest things is when parents hand over their children to someone else, even as small babies, so they can pursue their careers and get rich. Giving your child every material luxury is no substitute for time spent with mother or father or both. I know many people don't have a choice and have to continue working but there are many others who could take time out and those precious years can never be replaced.
At least we seem to be getting over the attitude that being a stay-at-home mum or dad is something to apologise for, as if somehow it wasn't enough.
Oh dear baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad working mother!!!!
How nice it would be to have had a choice!!!! Why is that often men dont take a dig at women that work but other women think its ok. Dont they know that it offends and increases the sense of guilt that many women have? Cant they see how hurtful their comments often are?
Many a time i have had to sit and let some - usually older - woman tell me that i should really reassess my priorities and that my children will suffer because i go to work.
Reassess my priorities? Bit like your Getting rich badger??? how about paying rent and putting food on the table, making sure that my children are clothed and kept warm and that i can pay my bills? Are those priorities enough?
I could of course sit at home on Income support and then there are many on here that would label me as a "scrounger" or "waster". Seems there is no winning when you are a working mum single or otherwise.
[mad]
landmarker
10-Mar-06, 17:21
I think , given the choice if money was not an issue then most mothers would prefer to stay at home.
I didn't read much criticism of working mums into Badgers - though for most mothers it is not about 'getting rich' - post to be honest.
It's a case of needs must and this is not an ideal world, is it?
I do not like to see very young children handed over to comparative strangers in nurseries and if this happens more than a couple of times a week I think it is highly regrettable. I doubt if the 'socialising' aspects of nursery care compensates for the lack of a parent present. I repeat this is not always possible, but where it is, I reckon if you have a child your first duty is to that child until at least school age and preferably beyond. Even if it means some belt tightening.
My two penneth.
Some belt tightening is all very well landmarker but homelessness and starvation are a bit more scary than that and in addition - nursery workers are often well qualified professionals. Childminders can become good friends and you wonder where you would be without them. Its not quite the same as patting some stranger on the shoulder in the street and saying - hey would you look after my baby when i go off to have fun and games in my highly paid and lucrative job just so i can go to Saint Moritz for my holidays.
landmarker
10-Mar-06, 18:43
Some belt tightening is all very well landmarker but homelessness and starvation are a bit more scary than that and in addition - nursery workers are often well qualified professionals. Childminders can become good friends and you wonder where you would be without them. Its not quite the same as patting some stranger on the shoulder in the street and saying - hey would you look after my baby when i go off to have fun and games in my highly paid and lucrative job just so i can go to Saint Moritz for my holidays.
An element of over reaction there Squidge. Have I touched a nerve here?
I hope not, and I do not say that to wind you up in some way either.It's obviously a sore point.
I did say nursery workers were 'comparative' strangers after all. For your term 'well qualified professionals' I'd venture to substitute 'objective and clinical' Objectivity is not always what a toddler needs, more a subjective cuddle. If you read what I wrote and then the second half of your response I think you might agree they are poles apart.
Come to think of it 'homelessness & starvation' are a bit over the top as alternatives as well. There's a huge grey area here and it is an inescapable fact that often, both parents (when there are indeed two of them) choose to
both work full-time to buy a bigger house and run two cars, while enjoying a
couple of holidays per year, and in my view dumping their young children into full time care. Contrast this with the single mum who stays at home on state benefits for sixteen years to bring up a child. Between these two opposite ends of the spectrum there a million and one stories.
Somewhere in the grey, the middling bit in between is someone who gets it right for their kid/s and a few hundred thousand more who simply do their best. It's the two extremes that I have difficulty in understanding, or supporting.
I thought I'd made it clear that I know many mothers have to work because they need the money. I also mentioned both mums and dads so it was certainly not intended as a dig at working mothers where they have no alternative. Equally I see nothing wrong with dad staying at home while mum goes to work as it frequently happens these days that her earning power is greater so that makes sense. I was just saying that where possible at least one parent should be at home for the pre-nursery years. Having spent most of my life in the south I have seen far too many mothers handing their babies over to nannies/childminders almost as soon as they're born so that they can resume their careers and I think that's sad. They don't need the money, they just want what it buys and often realise too late what they have missed.
As a matter of interest I went out to work as soon as my youngest was at nursery just for those hours and before then I worked at home but we had no luxuries. The latter was much easier then than it is now when there is so much pressure to buy all the latest things.
landmarker
10-Mar-06, 21:56
The latter was much easier then than it is now when there is so much pressure to buy all the latest things.
Isn't most of this 'pressure' self-inflicted?
Where else does this imagined 'pressure' come from?
If it's just older kids mithering for things then going without now and again never did anyone much harm.
I was just saying that where possible at least one parent should be at home for the pre-nursery years. Having spent most of my life in the south I have seen far too many mothers handing their babies over to nannies/childminders almost as soon as they're born so that they can resume their careers and I think that's sad. They don't need the money, they just want what it buys and often realise too late what they have missed.Ok, so it was a non-sexist swipe at families with two working parents. But then you go and spoil the illusion by referring to "mothers handing their babies over to nannies/childminders almost as soon as they're born". What a horrible connotation.
It seems to me that you are expressing your personal opinions in a rather judgemental way. Not everyone shares your opinions. I wouldn't dream of telling you that you should (or shouldn't) have gone to work when your kids were young.
I have just discovered this conversation.
I don't for one minute suggest that DrSzin and I agree on everything, but on this I stand behind him. I am a working mother, not getting a great pay, so it wasn't to afford luxuries that I have worked. Questions were raised as to his voice as a male in this discussion. As a woman I support his statements.
landmarker
10-Mar-06, 22:50
I have just discovered this conversation.
I don't for one minute suggest that DrSzin and I agree on everything, but on this I stand behind him. I am a working mother, not getting a great pay, so it wasn't to afford luxuries that I have worked. Questions were raised as to his voice as a male in this discussion. As a woman I support his statements.
If you didn't need the money canuck, would you still go out to work full time or even part time? Or would you rather stay at home sharing most of your childs waking hours. It's a fair question. You may not have a choice, like so many others. Though if you did have the choice what would it be?
i was a single parent for 6 years, i felt forced to go out and get a job as the stigma (and i note there were conitations of this in earlier posts) of being a single parent and receiving benefits was (and is) pretty big. Within 3 years i was in a position to get a mortgage. I have also had to go through the benefit system and believe me it is no mean feat trying to raise children and run a house on the amount received. (for which i am grateful)
With my second daughter i had to return to work when she was 3 months old as my partner was ill. I am now a full time mum, it was something at one point of my life that i thought would never be fulfilling, but i have done enourmously. It did make me regret the time i missed with my eldest but she is a lovely happy girl of 10, who possess stong social skills, skills best learned in nurseries.
I don't think either is a bad option and it is not going to have a dramatic effect on the child either way. Children like routine, it makes them feel safe.
I also don't think its fair to critise helen macarthur, she is showing her children and others that you can achieve great things if you put your mind to it. Helen would be slated again if she hadn't even mentioned her family....which i'm sure no one would point out if it had been a "father" pioneer.
If you didn't need the money canuck, would you still go out to work full time or even part time? Or would you rather stay at home sharing most of your childs waking hours. It's a fair question. You may not have a choice, like so many others. Though if you did have the choice what would it be?
It is a fair question landmarker and I am not sure that I know the answer. I have thought about it often and still don't know where I would lean. I was fortunate to be in a situation where I had a very flexible schedule and my husband could cover when I was not home for the time when the children were infants. If that was still available to me, then I would choose to continue to work at my profession. Would I go on national television with it, not likely, but then I am not a public figure.
Would I be a stay at home mom if I thought that the welfare of my children was seriously being threatened otherwise? Yes I would. Would I be frustrated watching yet another episode of Sesame Street and having very little adult intellectual stimulation? Yes I would. Do I recognize that a decision is not easy or even possible for some mothers? Yes I do. Do I see full time working mothers and fathers raising healthy families? Yes I do.
I don't support parents walking away from their responsibilities for their children. Yet, as the community we need to be able to support as we can, where there is need, so that parents can be the very best they can be for all of our children.
Ok, so it was a non-sexist swipe at families with two working parents. But then you go and spoil the illusion by referring to "mothers handing their babies over to nannies/childminders almost as soon as they're born". What a horrible connotation.
It seems to me that you are expressing your personal opinions in a rather judgemental way. Not everyone shares your opinions. I wouldn't dream of telling you that you should (or shouldn't) have gone to work when your kids were young.
I said mothers here because it just happened that it was the mothers that I talked to and worked with but yes, fair point, it is probably an equal decision by both parents. I do believe though that for the first few months the ideal situation is for a child to be with it's mother who would be feeding it. Please note - I'm saying "ideal" as for many this is simply not possible. I have never said that it is always wrong for a mother to go to work and I wish some people would read posts properly before jumping in. Many mothers don't have a choice and I have seen too many heartbreaking situations where mothers have very reluctantly left their children because they simply have to work. Again I can only say mothers because I have no experience of fathers in a similar situation. Times are changing and I believe it has been made much easier for both parents to spend time with their very young babies if they so wish.
The parents I have a problem with are those that do not both need to go out to work but choose to for the reasons Landmarker identified. That is my opinion, however unpopular, and I'm entitled to it. For a long time the pendulum seemed to have swung too far away from stigmatising working mothers to patronising mothers who didn't go out to work - as if they were somehow inadequate. Hopefully it is swinging back to respecting motherhood or fatherhood as a worthwhile and challenging occupation for those who are able to choose it.
connieb19
11-Mar-06, 20:07
What do folk think about sending children to boarding school then?:confused:
Depends on all sorts of things - the school, the child, the circumstances. If a child is sent to boarding school to be got out of the way or for any negative reason, then they'll probably know that and be unhappy. If they go willingly with the love of their parents and are temperamentally suited it can be a wonderful life. I suppose, like most things, it's horses for courses. It's certainly nothing like it used to be when I was young and even that was much better than Tom Brown's schooldays! Some love it, some hate it, but the same can be said about day schools which can be pretty miserable places for many.
Alice in Blunderland
11-Mar-06, 21:00
If you didn't need the money canuck, would you still go out to work full time or even part time? Or would you rather stay at home sharing most of your childs waking hours. It's a fair question. You may not have a choice, like so many others. Though if you did have the choice what would it be?
Okay here goes, I do have the choice on whether I work or not and I choose to work part time I enjoy bringing up my children and there is nothing I would not do for them.I feel that by going out to work means I am contributing allbeit in a small way to the finances in the house.I also have experience of having recieved benefits for a couple of years when I was a single mum and thus having to work no choice.Yes there were side swipes made to me by people in conversation about who was paying to look after my children.As long as my children are happy and cared for then it does everyone good in our house to spend a little time apart,when we come together in the afternoon we have loads to chat about.Having a family is a privelidge that not all people are fortunate to have and also theres no rule book to go by,what works for one family may not work for another.I would not change it for the world.
I said mothers here because it just happened that it was the mothers that I talked to and worked with but yes, fair point, it is probably an equal decision by both parents. I do believe though that for the first few months the ideal situation is for a child to be with its mother who would be feeding it.Ok, I agree with that. What you said previously was:
I was just saying that where possible at least one parent should be at home for the pre-nursery years.It was the word "years" that I didn't like.
Anyway, I think some women are better mothers because of their paid employment. They would simply get very fed up if they weren't out at work at least some of the time. Others want to be with their young children most of the time, and that's just great! :)
I think society should accept and encourage both situations when they're right for the individuals concerned.
Please note - I'm saying "ideal" as for many this is simply not possible. I have never said that it is always wrong for a mother to go to work and I wish some people would read posts properly before jumping in.(The following sounds a little patronising, but it's not supposed to be - honestly.)
A word of advice: people don't read every word of a post before responding. It's important that your post conveys your intended meaning on a first reading. You can convey unintended meanings without stating them implicitly. I've learned this the hard way on several occasions. :o
The parents I have a problem with are those that do not both need to go out to work but choose to for the reasons Landmarker identified. That is my opinion, however unpopular, and I'm entitled to it. For a long time the pendulum seemed to have swung too far away from stigmatising working mothers to patronising mothers who didn't go out to work - as if they were somehow inadequate. Hopefully it is swinging back to respecting motherhood or fatherhood as a worthwhile and challenging occupation for those who are able to choose it.You are indeed entitled to your opinion, but by posting it in public you should be prepared for a response from people who don't share it.
Finally, just to make sure no-one misunderstands what I'm trying to say here: I agree that mothers who don't have paid employment should not be stigmatised by society. To do so would be appalling imho.
Btw I don't think the pendulum analogy is a very good one. Pendulums don't swing too far in one direction and just stay there - they come back and hit you hard in the face. :lol:
If we're going to have a pendulum, let's keep it away from the extremes and have it swing gently near near the vertical. :)
Well I am a stay at home Mum and I love my job and I love my family. Despite all the trials and tribulations(spelling???) we have been through they are growing up happy, loving, well mannered and well behaved children and I would'nt swap them or my job for the world!
Saying that I think that women who want to go out and have a career and a family should go for it, after all what works for one doesn't always work for another!
cuddlepop
11-Mar-06, 22:29
For the past few years i didnt have the specialist child care to return to work so i had to stay at home.Me being me had to thrown myself into volantary work which i could do around my daughter.
Work of anykind is benifical to everyone i think.:Razz
Families are amazing and the most amazing thing is every family is different.What suits one doesn't another.It's up to them how they choose to live their lives.If all women stayed at home to look after their children then I wonder how the country would cope.The majority of women who work are not high earners,they do the jobs that are poorly paid but none the less essential to the running of the country.
mostlyharmless
12-Mar-06, 18:52
I thinking a family is an amazing thing mostly to have it and partially to survive it.
I think its wonderful that some women manage to work and bring up children
but should not put one in front to judge another.Particularly those in the public eye.
Women work so hard to bring up children in every way and those that cannot manage to work or achieve wonderful things should not be made to feel bad about themselves.
Every women whoever they are and however they do it should feel that they are amazing to bring and nuture another life or set of lives.
Every woman is different and the womens movement has made that I hope acceptable so if we don't feel we can be fulfilled without working,that individual will know the right choice for them.
Sad that circumstance dictates that women who don't want to work outside of the home, but just want to raise a child, cannot do it.At times they might feel like they're treading water, but whatever the job whatever the circumstance they have raised a family a wonderful thing!
There is no success that can compensate for failure in the home.
landmarker
12-Mar-06, 18:56
I thinking a family is an amazing thing mostly to have it and partially to survive it.
I think its wonderful that some women manage to work and bring up children
but should not put one in front to judge another.Particularly those in the public eye.
Women work so hard to bring up children in every way and those that cannot manage to work or achieve wonderful things should not be made to feel bad about themselves.
Every women whoever they are and however they do it should feel that they are amazing to bring and nuture another life or set of lives.
Every woman is different and the womens movement has made that I hope acceptable so if we don't feel we can be fulfilled without working,that individual will know the right choice for them.
Sad that circumstance dictates that women who don't want to work outside of the home, but just want to raise a child, cannot do it.At times they might feel like they're treading water, but whatever the job whatever the circumstance they have raised a family a wonderful thing!
There is no success that can compensate for failure in the home.
A key ingredient, still in most families, surely. I know some are a waste of space but on reading your mini polemic I was surprised to see their was no mention of men and six references to 'women'.
mostlyharmless
12-Mar-06, 19:24
Are you trying to draw me on whether I am a man or a woman or say something important here?
The original post was about an Olympic woman and many wouldn't care less if she had raised a family or not but won gold medals definitely worth mentioning??
The quote given came from her and therefore Put the comparison in the public domain, like my further comment on it has.
If you want to bring up Steve Redgrave and his family I haven't a quote to start that but... fair enough but that wasn't the original intention.
The final quote ;
'There is no success to compensate for failure in the home' is fairly universal.
It isn't supposed to be a judgement quote on which to look back on hindsight with. It is a way to try an begin.
Men should have an equal responsibility in all things in relation to the family
some may say they are made differently and need different things from a relationship. But a women could just as easily say that.
So those that do their very best in taking responsibility in raising a child should be described as amazing too!
landmarker
12-Mar-06, 19:35
[QUOTE=mostlyharmless]Are you trying to draw me on whether I am a man or a woman or say something important here?
The original post was about an Olympic woman and many wouldn't care less if she had raised a family or not but won gold medals definitely worth mentioning??
QUOTE]
Something important? Oh no, please dont accuse me of trying to say something 'important' this is just a knockabout exchange of views.
Conversely, I'm not bothered whether you're a woman or not. I just found the lack of any reference to men, on a view of 'family' a bit strange.
(((I confess to losing the thread a little , and the Olympian who seems to have inspired it. Personally I find 'gold medals' significantly less important than family. The whole self absorbed commitment required for Olympian success is something of a mystery to me. I don't even know what sport we're talking about, but lets assume it's the 100m. sprint final or some other blue riband event. The fact that someone can cover the ground a millisecond quicker than anyone else is of no consequence to me . I can't see what all the fuss is about. Of course, now the corinthian spirit has gone and money is involved, then yes, a gold medal is one route to material wealth.)))
I know I'm coming into this thread rather late in the day, but I've decided to put my two pence in, anyway. I had to work full-time when my oldest child was little, and it wasn't through choice, it was out of necessity. My husband, who has very good qualifications, was working full-time as well, but we had a mortgage to pay, for a modest 3 bedroomed house in the USA. We didn't even qualify for a mortgage in the first place, till I had a job too, and this was before we even had any kids! It absolutely broke my heart when I had to go back to work when junior was a baby, and if there was anyway I could have stayed at home with him, I would have. We couldn't even afford for me to work part-time, unfortunately. There were no fancy holidays, no going out and having a good time, and certainly no "keeping up with the Jones's!"
I was able to find an excellent babysitter, who took care of children in her own home. She had been recommended by a work colleague, who also had her baby in this lady's care. The babysitter was licensed to take care of children, as well as having had loads of experience, as she'd brought up 6 children of her own!
When our second child came along, I still ended up having to go back to work full-time, much to my regret. If I thought life was no picnic before, it was even tougher now! Still working full-time, 9am to 6pm, Monday through Friday, and still having to come home to cook and clean, and two young children to take care of, as well as my husband.
I finally got a reprieve when my younger son was a couple of months shy of 2, and the older one was almost 7. My husband was made redundant, and ended up having to take a job overseas. Because of this, our financial situation improved somewhat, and I was able to stay at home with my kids for a couple of years before I had to go back to work. And when I did go back, we could afford for me to just work part-time, so I didn't feel so bad about that. Especially as my hours were in the evening, and at weekends, so hubby could look after the kids, instead of them going to a babysitter.
My sons have grown up into two fine, trustworthy young men, despite the fact that I was not a stay-at-home mum all the time.They're talented, smart and creative, and I love them both dearly. Yes, families are indeed amazing! :)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.