to find some people attitudes, such as "i work hard i deserve it" really sickening

[carriedababi]

was reading some magazine in the dentist, there was a woman from dragons den iin the mag.
saying how she had a wardrode worth 3 million.

and she went onto say well i work hard for it.
so ideserve it.
and something todo with she sees her expensive clothes as a symbol of how sucessful she is.

really made me feel sick, how a horrible nasty attitude to have in life.

i'm sure even if i was a millionaire, i would not be proud about spending that much on clothes.

i don't know its just the arrogant im entitled to this that got me.
and dont they think people how have less also work hard. probably alot of them work alot harder

what do you think

Agree with Xenia's previous post and Georgie's as well. I spent my 20s and early 30s working (at times) ridiculously long hours, as expected in the City if you want to rise to the top. The pay off is that now that I have small children I am able to structure my days as I please.

I am lucky in that one thing that I have built up over the years is stamina, so Xenia's past is my current reality. I have just returned to work after maternity leave so after I breastfeed my baby at 5am, I do a couple of hours work, take a shower and get dressed before I go down and have breakfast and then play with the kids (I have a toddler and baby). I then breastfeed my baby again before I head off to work. I get home to do bath, stories, milk and bed with both children before dinner with dh. After that then it's about an hour of work before bed. Baby is not sleeping through yet so I am still doing 2/3 night feeds. Some people could do it, others (eg dh) couldn't. I work in an environment where doing 3 nightime feeds is not anyone's problem but my own and I just need to crack on with it. For example, Friday was my day off but received a call at 12.30pm giving me less than 90 mins to come up with a solution to a problem before the US markets opened at 2pm. Once I had found a solution, we had a transatlantic conference call. If anyone could hear my son having his lunchtime feed they were polite enough to not say anything!

Two of my friends are unemployed at the moment and another two can't have children (naturally) so I count all my blessings each day. When I say I work hard, it is taking looking at my own life and is not automatically denigrating others by implying that they don't work hard but more saying that I didn't come from money and have made my own way in life and dh and I have paid for the nice things we have. That's the way that I understand it when others say they work hard.

I agree with novice and I also don't denigrate those who don't have that stamina or determination or ability to cope. People have always given me things to do because I will always cope. it's as important or more important than my IQ as is my health although I'd attribute that in part to eating well. It is why my oldest can manage too (although she doesn't have baby in the mix yet).

I think those with chidlren under 5 though whether they are at home or working need to realise it is absolutely dead easy once children are older and you have that tiny period (tiny in terms of your 90 year life span, even if you spread it over 5 chidlren as I did) when it is hard particularyl when they don't sleep, none of mine slept a single night through u ntil they were at least a year. We did a swap though. I did all th enight feed s with the twins (as I fed them) and then their father did all the night wakings from age 1 - 4 which was about a fair deal. If you both work ful time there is nothing wrong with trying to ensure things are fair at home.

On the social inequality point, there was a study just out saying things were getting a bit better. I can't remember where I read it. It was unusual because a lot of earlier studies suggested the opposite.

I suspect most women who earn a lot do not have it all handed to them on a plate. I'm sure the lady who the thread is about didn't. I'm not sure I did either except that my parents supported me to go to university.

I haven't read the whole thread. What I most dislike is when people who earn a lot of money think they are superior to people who earn less money because those who earn less must just be lazy. Is that what you mean op?

I certainly don't begrudge anyone to spend their money how they see fit though.

To take about what Xenia said about stamina, I know I have nothing approaching hers but I never would have thought before DC that I could work full time and cope with getting up 3 to 4 times a night with a baby. But I did. After a few months it became almost easy. You often can "dig deep" to find the strength to do what you want to or have no choice but to do.

Bugster, with reference to this

'Social inequality is much higher in the UK than in most of Europe and becoming more so, to my mind this is largely due to popularity of private schooling for those who can scrape together the money, which does more to promote social inequality than anything else.'

If you really believe this, then why on earth would one want to stick to a tired and ineffectual model? Isn't it time to start asking what private schools are doing right and what publically funded ones are doing wrong?

I can't understand the mentality of those who want to stick with someine thsat doesn't work out of misguided loyalty to the sanctity of public services and supposed noble intent of those who work in them.

Effective schooling is nothing to do with money and to suggest so over and over is disingenuous. It's to do with evidence based methods and viewing teaching as a science, not a nebulous theory drivent by liberal nutters arty farty learning styles reflective practice hands on experiential refelective practice skillset EYFS framework.
That is such an insult to teachers, parents and teachers

Georgimama, I agree, it is a case of digging deep to find the strength/stamina. I think sometimes women think that they won't be able to do so, and I believe that they do themselves a disservice when they think this. From what I observe it is the main reason that women in the City do 10 years hard slog in the city. They are usually 31/32 which (if they are good enough) is when they are on the cusp of director in a bank or partnership in a law/accountancy firm. At this point in time, they tend to think that they can't cope with doing the hard slog and having a family so they tend to take a slower track or get off the track all together. Unfortunately, what they don't realise is that if one gets to those senior levels it is a lot easier to structure your day.

I agree with Xenia that the baby/toddler period is the hardest and doesnt last very long but to some it doesn't seem that way if you're in the depths of it. We have a 2 year old and a newborn and while I realise that it won't always be this hard, dh is more focused on how tiring it all is so he isn't keen for a third dc. That's a different thread, but my point is that I think women have the ability to cope better than they give themselves credit.

Do you really think that you are truly influenced in your major life decisions (eg whether to SAH or WOTH) depending on the flavour of the current government?

moondog, I do really believe that about private schools, but I certainly can understand why people wouldn't want their children to go to a schhol where expectations were low and disruptive children got all the attention. I wouldn't want that for our children either and if state schools were like that where I lived I would probably try to send em private too. But as to why the state schools are often like that, I think it has a lot to do with middle class pupils whose parents have higher expectations of their children and will be actively involved in their education being 'creamed off' as many posters have put it into privte schools. If they were all together, the general standard would be higher.

Here in Switzerland, there are very few private schools, the private sector just consists really of international schools for expats and Steiner schools. It is normal for the Swiss, even the very wealthy ones, to send their children to the local state school without giving it a great deal of thought. The Swiss who attend private schools are generally assumed either to have special needs or to be unable to take the pressure in state schools, therefore there is no social or professioanl benefit to having attended a private school; rather a stigma if anything. As a result, children of the wealthy go to the same school as the children of postmen, hairdressers etc, and there is much less social inequality.

*If you really believe this, then why on earth would one want to stick to a tired and ineffectual model? Isn't it time to start asking what private schools are doing right and what publically funded ones are doing wrong?

I can't understand the mentality of those who want to stick with someine thsat doesn't work out of misguided loyalty to the sanctity of public services and supposed noble intent of those who work in them.*

yes, very good moondog

But as to why the state schools are often like that, I think it has a lot to do with middle class pupils whose parents have higher expectations of their children and will be actively involved in their education being 'creamed off' as many posters have put it into privte schools. If they were all together, the general standard would be higher.

Sounds like you are again blaming middle class parents - this time for being involved.

The truth is that the education philosophies which flourished under Labour depended on the parent having to pick up the slack for what the teachers were not teaching.

Old-fashioned methods ie tried and tested methods which work - were seen as oppressive, opporobrium was heaped on learning by rote, and as for the time wasted on rainforest projects and dress up days - which may be very lovely but should take priority over reading and sums -well let's not go there.

The result - middle class parents had to become heavily involved. Labour let down the children that needed the most help, and I really hate them for it Society will be paying for this lost generation for years and years and years and I don't mean just financially. A whole generation let down.

ha - should not take priority

It's hardly the responsibility of middle class parents to educate other people's children. We pay our taxes for a decent education system. It should be able function at the most basic level. They have our children for seven hours a day from 4-11 and children can't read and right? Shome mistake shurely.

blueberties don't know where you got the impression I was trying to defend what the labour government did to education. I would agree things seem to have got a whole lot worse under them, I hate all that jargon too and what I have heArd of state schools from a friend of mine who is deputy head in a huge comp sounds completely mafd to me, with their form filling, senior leadership teams, pseudo management styles - I think teachers should first and foremost teach.

I don't understand your point about the reponsibility of the middle class to teach other people's children. I didn't mean they should teach them, just perhaps be ready for their children to have some contact with them? There's an educational benefit to meeting peop.e from the wider society, not just staying in your ghetto

It does amuse me when middle class parents think that my poor little urchin would benefit so much from a little contact with their special children - as if they are Princess Di touching a leper. My dd will manage quite fine!

Having said that I think we all benefit from meeting people from many background.

I must have misunderstood what you said about defending it.

But this part: I think it has a lot to do with middle class pupils whose parents have higher expectations of their children and will be actively involved in their education being 'creamed off' as many posters have put it into privte schools. If they were all together, the general standard would be higher. - I've heard it so often and I find it a bit of a mystery.

There's no reason why middle class parents and children should take any responsibility for the education of other people's children. If they're going private, they're paying twice anyway. The school should be good enough. It shouldn't depend on whether or not parents are involved. The quality of teaching should be high enough and the quality of teachers should be such that there's no need for parental involvement at all.

I'm not sure there is an academic benefit though bugster if there is a huge difference in ability and commitment. There may be a social benefit but I think it's up to people to make that choice.

Most parents - men and wom en - summon up resources when they need them. People can cope with a lot as those who survived the second world war will tell us. Parents will suffer much for the benefit of their children. Getting up to a baby in the night and going in to work the next day is not the hardest thing any of us have to cope with but tiredness certainly wears you down. In some ways having my first 3 in my early to mid 20s made it easier as I'd never really had work without babies nor indeed adult life so now it all seems fairly easy.

Also as mentioned above once you do rise in seniority then you get much more money and power and control over things so it's worth sticking it out u ntil you reach that point. That doesn't mean your hours are necessarily less but you may have more choice of them. I work for myself. I like most people balance work and children every day and sometimes work comes first and sometimes children but I have much more control over it all now than I did 20 years ago.

(As for having more children that is a difficult topic for every couple to decide. We did discuss it before we married in our case but not everyone does).

(The private/state school issue is a bit off topic. There's a good interview in today's papers with the man who is likely to become head of schools inspection and how he turned around a state schools.)

Just got onto the private schools thing because people were taking about social inequality and whether Britain is right wing/ individualist oriented as opposed to left wing. In my opinion the private school issue is at the heart of that and anyone who does care about social inequality (and i certainly get the impression that a lot of posters don't) needs tp think about that. In Britain a huge number of people in the professions and in leading positions in highly paid jobs were privately educated. That simply isn't the case in most other European countries.

I want the poor to be fed and warm but I don't accept the principle that we all have to be the same nor the concept of relative as opposed to absolute poverty.

'In Britain a huge number of people in the professions and in leading positions in highly paid jobs were privately educated. That simply isn't the case in most other European countries.'

A better argument than any that pouring money into public services is not a panacea.

Personally I would have more of a problem with someone buying a 10 grand bottle of wine which would end up (eventually) being pissed down the toilet.

Actually private preps do do things differently to state schools because they don't have to follow the National Curriculum. Children are at a higher level at 11/13 than they are in the state sector and that feeds through. It's not all down to class sizes and chucking children out. They are hot on achievement, competitiveness, excelling in whatever field and never letting go on the basics.

I totally agree with moondog about this - if the private system is so central to the issue, and if they'r eobviously doing something right - don't destroy it, emulate it.

Most people don't want to spend 150-thousand pounds on education when they already pay tax. Some do it for mixing and meeting the right people but if the local school was a good school, we wouldn't. It's not - so we do. Not the fault of the private school or the parents who go there. We paid for the other school, it's not our fault it's not working properly.