Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Parents who don't know what children are for

61 replies

emkana · 07/05/2006 20:15

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2168664,00.html\I must say I agree with her}

OP posts:
saadia · 07/05/2006 20:22

me too, very sad, something has gone wrong somewhere.

Smellen · 07/05/2006 21:00

Only briefly scanned the article, but have to say I resent the implication that as an older first time mum, I was motivated by selfish reasons to have DS at 34.

I didn't meet the man with whom I wanted to have children - and, importantly, who felt the same way - until I was 30. I wasn't "getting rich", and although I did have fun, I would have had kids earlier had I been in a stable and loving relationship at that time.

The 'journalist' states that Britons "would rather get rich and have fun, too: 64% of men and 51% of women think it is more important for women to enjoy themselves than to have children." Well, I'd like to see how many people were surveyed for this research, how the questions were phrased and how the sample was selected. In the meantime, the phrase "paper won't refuse ink" springs to mind.

I know plenty of young parents who work hard to give their kids a good start in life - sacrificing sleep, free time, income etc. with willing hearts because they love their offspring. Of course it is easy to find examples of lazy parenting (and as a teacher I have heard some real horror stories), but I am sure that most people put huge amounts of time and effort into raising their kids well; the amount of mums (and dads) on this very website who post questions about all the varying aspects of raising children, proves the amount of thought that they put into their parenting roles.

There. Rant concluded.

Smellen · 07/05/2006 21:01

Only briefly scanned the article, but have to say I resent the implication that as an older first time mum, I was motivated by selfish reasons to have DS at 34.

I didn't meet the man with whom I wanted to have children - and, importantly, who felt the same way - until I was 30. I wasn't "getting rich", and although I did have fun, I would have had kids earlier had I been in a stable and loving relationship at that time.

The 'journalist' states that Britons "would rather get rich and have fun, too: 64% of men and 51% of women think it is more important for women to enjoy themselves than to have children." Well, I'd like to see how many people were surveyed for this research, how the questions were phrased and how the sample was selected. In the meantime, the phrase "paper won't refuse ink" springs to mind.

I know plenty of young parents who work hard to give their kids a good start in life - sacrificing sleep, free time, income etc. with willing hearts because they love their offspring. Of course it is easy to find examples of lazy parenting (and as a teacher I have heard some real horror stories), but I am sure that most people put huge amounts of time and effort into raising their kids well; the amount of mums (and dads) on this very website who post questions about all the varying aspects of raising children, proves the amount of thought that they put into their parenting roles.

There. Rant concluded.

beansprout · 07/05/2006 21:07

Journalist in talking shite shocker! Grin

northerndad2006 · 07/05/2006 22:08

I thought she made some valid points, but a couple of things struck me:
Firstly, it isn't so relevant what people in general think about child rearing; the survey was not of parents specifically so it's a non sequitur to assume it represents parental attitudes generally.
Secondly, I'm not quite sure what is so feckless about postponing childrearing until you're in a stable relationship, or are in a financial position to take the necessary drop in income that being a dedicated parent involves.

SenoraPostrophe · 07/05/2006 22:10

what are children for anyway?

LeahE · 07/05/2006 22:17

Sending up chimneys, isn't it?

Cam · 07/05/2006 22:18

Reaching things that are stuck in small spaces

staceym11 · 07/05/2006 22:24

now a lot in that article makes sense to me, i see countless parents everyday and think is that baby a fashion accesory (generally young mums who are on benefits yet the baby is dressed head to toe in next/gap) not being overly critical as a young mum myself (17 when dd was born and now 19 and pg with no. 2) but my daughter was brought up in tesco/charity shop clothes and living at my parents house as we dont have a lot of money coming in, yet i cancelled my benefits when dp moved in as i was supposed to.

im not sure hwere im going but i think that putting older mums are wrong to make money first then i hitnk some young parents are wrong to have babies early and live off the state for their lives. it makes me think of what my mum said to me when i fdropped the bombshell that i was pg at 17 that there is never a right time to have children, there is never enough money/time/space but if you can love them unconditionally and will give up everything for them then whats the harm? i would starve for my daughter and i think thats what having children is about.

staceym11 · 07/05/2006 22:25

i meant 'putting older mums down' i should learn to preview my posts!

Greensleeves · 07/05/2006 22:25

I don't think it was shite at all. I thought it made some very good points. Some of it was , and is, very sad and alarming.

nooka · 07/05/2006 22:28

I thought that it was a fairly unpleasant article. I was under the impression that after school clubs and breakfast clubs were an invention of the government rather than something useless parents were actively crying out for. Indeed one rationale for breakfast clubs is to make sure children especially in less affluent areas have breakfast and can concentrate on school. I seem to remember that many of my friends (including myself) were latch key kids, so I can't see why an after school club should be considered such a bad modern thing - and I've never heard the term "Kelly's hour"

It's a funny mix that article - on the one hand bad that people don't want to have children until they are ready, and on the other hand bad that celebrities etc should give any indication of liking their children or wanting to be with them. Oh well - I guess these things are just written to raise our blood pressure!

acnebride · 07/05/2006 22:33

[sings]

Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bum is what they write
Telling us how wrong we are and how we could be right
Asking 'Who thinks kids are nice' and reporting a furore
As though it's something noone ever thought of once before

As though a woman never worked until 1983
As though a mother never thought 'I'd just like to be free'
As though a father never thought 'This has entirely changed my life'
As though a mother never thought 'What happened to my life?'

I've had enough: I'm boycotting more than Nestle now
It's cold turkey on the Family stuff that makes me such a cow
Any article with a picture of a woman looking glum
And anything on work/life illustrated with frigging Heidi Klum

Never again, shove them all, I'm reading International
To find out what women are doing in a way that might be rational
I like my life, I love my child, I'm lucky times a mill
Please find another job, all you writers that make me ILL.

bogwobbit · 07/05/2006 22:48

Maybe I'm missing the point but I thought that the article was a bit of a pointless rant. Against people who don't want to be parents; people who have their kids after they've had fun (sounds pretty sensible to me :)); against parents who try to give their kids too much - loving neglect, whatever that means; against parents who send their children to after school clubs (oooh shock horror) etc etc etc.
Give us a break Minnette (is that a real name btw) and join the real world.

muma3 · 07/05/2006 22:49

i agree with staceym11 Smile she said excatly what i was thinking

ScummyMummy · 07/05/2006 22:50

I don't know what children are for. just that I like them which is just as well because it's too late now.

OldieMum · 07/05/2006 22:57

I really wish some of these 'family' journos would do some research beyond reading the newspapers, talking to their mates and quoting the head of a think tank. There's not exactly a shortage of good quality, academic research on parenting, after all. Most of it takes on board the fact that there are enormous differences between people with regard to their motivations for having children and the way in which they bring up their children. But, then, an article which discussed these differences couldn't be given some snappy, glib headline, could it?

GDG · 07/05/2006 23:11

Hmm, I thought it raised some good points too. I agree with a lot of it.

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 07/05/2006 23:18

Me too.

milward · 07/05/2006 23:20

hated the rubbish refs to school childcare - imho - what's so wrong with school childcare? - it will be great for parents - lots of people will use the system & the kids will be fine - plus have a super time.

NotAnOtter · 07/05/2006 23:20

agree with it!

finefatmama · 07/05/2006 23:26

Does anyone have children for charitable, selfless reasons?

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 07/05/2006 23:32

School childcare? - don't make me laugh. It'll be underfunded and understaffed. Why would a child have fun at school from 8 til 6?

NotAnOtter · 07/05/2006 23:34

i agree saggar ' fun' maybe for the first week but 'hey' there is life outside of childcare

milward · 07/05/2006 23:37

smbk - think it a super idea - the school facilities, kids on site in time for school start, being with their friends, having a homework hour (for older kids) with help on hand if need be. Would need proper staffing. I think there are staffing guidelines for childcare? In other european countries this system exists & it's mavellous.