Selfish parents ruin their children's lives

[HecateQueenOfGhosts]

according to this

What do you think?

This BBC report made hopping mad on so may levels - attacking women in general, working mums, lone parents, step parents etc but snowleopard argued those points very well. All the newspapers this weekend have taken a biased angle on it and basically peddled the same s**t that they always do.

What I can't stand is the blatant and absolute guilt tripping scare mongering that it spews.

Why oh why is there so much research into the supposed unhappiness of the chioldren in this country?
Most are loved, clean, healthy, well fed...not traumatised by working parents etc.
We should spend our energy and money helping tthe poor buggers going through the care system - 60,000, of them. Or the thousands of unaccompanied children fleeing torture and persecution. Or the millions of children dying of starvation and HIV.
Tsk.

"Dr Williams, however, says in his chapter that he does not blame working mothers as much as employers who demand long hours, which strain relationships. Parents should get up to three years off work between them to care for infants, the report says.

Dr Williams points to evidence that nursery care has some negative effects on children and suggests that friends, family and neighbours should be encouraged to take on childcare. "

hmmm - Parents not mothers should get 3 years off work between them.

And... I am not leaving my kids with my neighbours nor am I complicating my mum's recent retirement by asking her to look after my child. Certainly wouldn't ask her to do it for free. To me a nursery with trained employees is not going to damage my child!

Times says:

Dr Williams, however, says in his chapter that he does not blame working mothers as much as employers who demand long hours, which strain relationships. Parents should get up to three years off work between them to care for infants, the report says.

Again, I still think this is a storm whipped up by press reportage and not a problem with the report.

On marriage breakdown:

[Please note that what is said below does not represent my own opinion...]

"Drawing on 90 studies, it [the report] says that on average 50 per cent more children with separated parents have problems at home or school compared with those whose parents stay together. Children of separated parents are far more likely to underperform at school, have low self-esteem, be unpopular with their peers and be prone to depression and anxiety."

Grim though this is, it sounds as if the report is, well, simply reporting... Doesn't of course mean (or to me imply) separation might not be the best option for some in some circs, in a Benthamite way.

of course, we could look at it another way if we wanted to make ourselves feel better.

Men are irrelevant. Nothing a man does, makes any difference in society. They have no influence. Only women shape society. Men are pointless

Also the main report actually commends the Children's Plan and the progress that has been made. How can people who work at the coalface of child welfare and those who work for charities feel when faced with inaccurate reports but undermined and ignored? There are some very positive points in the report and only a few media chose to report these.

Hecate - did you write the report in the Observer that men should step aside and let women fix the economic mess that these silly men have created? Go on, admit it, twas you.

I can deny no longer. Am feminist reporter

How and why is care by family, neighbours or friends inherently better than a nursery? How does this fit with the statistical fact that these groups are responsible for the vast majority of child abuse? Whereas in a nursery a child has trained carers who can keep an eye on each other. Yes, nursery care needs to be of a higher standard across the board and that is an issue. But I hate this assumption that family = best, blood relations = best, community = best. Yes, if they are nice and responsible and good people and competent at childcare. No, if they're not. And really quite often, they're not. Nurseries get a bad rap but I have never heard of a nursery inflicting the appalling neglect, abuse and injury that parents and families across the land are doling out to their children day in, day out as we speak. This idea that a child is automatically better off at home - why?

I think the report does have a fair number of valid points and it certainly is something this country needs to debate. For instance, how useful is it to give infant children homework? I was talking to some other parents about it and I was in a minority that thought it was pointless as caused more anxiety to both parents and children than any real academic or developmental benefit. Most other parents thought it was good as it taught the children discipline and made then realise that life is not fun and games! Wow what a fab lesson for a five year old to learn! Surely we should then introduce them to alcohol, drugs and cigarettes - the things adults often use to cope with the tough world!

I don't disagree with you snow but don't you think there will be an impact on institutionalising childcare accroos the board, parents are now being encouraged to use nurseries from age 2.
A baby needs a warm pair of arms and a knee to sit on not to be a 3 to 1 ratio and have three bouncy chair lined up for feeding time, babies need human contact I would suggest that is minimal in a nursery setting.

So by your argument then Snowleopard babies should be handed over at birth ? Clearly the majority of parents have no idea what they are doing and the state controlled nurseries are a safer option.

I know sorrento, I don't actually think all children should be institutionalised, and I agree that parents giving their children real love, warmth and affection and respect is very important for development. Was just making an extreme point really because it bugs me so much when reports and social services etc seem to think there is some inherent superiority about "the family" - when actually it is a horrendous prison for so many children, and women too in fact.

Also totally agree with Yingers about homework - many parents I know also seem to think homework and a rigid curriculum are wonderful things for tiny children. I went to view one nursery where the staff couldn't stop telling me how detailed and non-stop their curriculum activities were - I said "but I don't think that's such a good thing for pre-schoolers, do you?" and she said well no not really, but all the parents do!

Well yes I take your point but then instead of improving childcare shouldn't some funding be thrown at improving family care, taking children out of the home isn't the answer I don't think at all.

x-posted. I'm not at all saying all families are less good than a nursery - but that plenty are, therefore "the family" is not some sacred wondrous thing that automatically does all children good, and nor is "the community". I think these things are held up as automatically Good Things and that doesn't make any sense to me.

From the Children's Society website. I fail to see why the reports aren't "Christian charity condemns modern parenting". Lazy journalism? Deliberate provocation?

Since 1881, when Preb Edward Rudolf, supported by Archbishop Archibald Tait, founded The Children?s Society, we have remained allied to the Church of England. We reach out to those forgotten children who face danger or disadvantage in their daily lives; children who are unable to find the help or understanding they need anywhere else.

Basing our work on the Christian principles of love, justice and forgiveness, we support children in trouble with the law, young runaways at risk on the street, disabled children who face exclusion and young refugees rebuilding their lives in the UK. We work with children who are often forgotten or whose needs are ignored, such as young carers, Traveller children or children whose parents are affected by alcohol or drug use.

Our relationship with the Church of England is very important to the work of The Children?s Society.. We have three Church Partnership Managers and our own ordained Church of England Chaplain Missioner to advise on our work and provide staff with pastoral support. Although we do not always use the charity?s full title, we remain The Church of England Children's Society. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are presidents of the Society and nearly all of the Diocesan and some Suffragan Bishops (60 in all) are Vice-Presidents, and the Chair of Trustees is currently the Bishop of Leicester, Bishop Tim Stevens.

Nationally, we work closely with the Bishops in the House of Lords, the network of Children?s and Youth Work Advisers, the Board of Education and The National Society which oversees and works with all Church of England primary and secondary schools, General Synod and with Dioceses and parishes across England. We continue to affirm our Christian mission and values and our partnership in mission with the Church of England and to look for new ways to express that partnership.

Our liturgical resources help to bring over 600,000 children into the heart of worship through Christingle, Leaves of Life and Halloween Choice.

Our actions are guided by Christian values and the unconditional belief in the worth and importance of all children. It is our motivation for working with children and young people.

Their key recommendations include "Help children develop spiritual qualities" hidden agenda?

But then work needs to be done then to ensure the community is a good place and that the old lady next door could have your child for a couple of hours because you know her and trust her and then you look out for her too.
As for the parents thinking that all the activities are a good thing it's because it's ramned down your throat from ante natal onwards that you are not enough for your child, you cannot do the job properly so the best thing for you the mother to do is hand the baby over to the professionals and get yourself back to work.

Snow - my five year old got sent out of gym class for laughing! And I was told to 'have words with her'!

For me, i think the report is trying to offer an alternative view to the the Government's ie everyone should go to work hence pay more tax and kids should all be brought up by the state! Their idea of wrap around school care is horrifying to me! Do we really want to leave our childrens' wellbeing and morality to the government and school? The answer is somewhere in the middle, and I go back to that saying (hope i have it correct) 'it takes a whole society to raise a child'! School etc does have a part to play but the family also needs to shoulder some of the responsibility. I think we all worry about preschool years but children are just as vulnerable as teenagers when emotions are all over the place! Leaving it up to a overworked stressed teacher in charge of 30 is just not good enough!

"then work needs to be done then to ensure the community is a good place"

That would be great, but how? I might sound like a stuck record but the vast majority of child abuse comes from family, community, people children know, etc. I think it's a hugely intransigent problem. I am not advocating all babies be handed to state care, of course not, but I do think places like nurseries play an important role in identifying children who are suffering at the hands of theor families and communities.

I have some lovely neighbours I'd leave my child with. I have others - and certain family members - who I wouldn't leave my child with in a million years. I don't trust people because they're my family or because they're my community, but because I make a judgement based on who they are. You can't just "make communities safe" - all paedophiles, murderers, alcoholics, whatever - they're all in someone's family, they're all in someone's community. I just don't think it makes sense to bleat "children belong in the bosom of their family and their community" (not that you did, I'm referring to this DM style reporting) and raise these concepts to the level of some pure, perfect safeness and loveliness. It's just not reality.

Perhaps there is a hidden agenda, I don't know! I just think anything which raises the debate of happiness is important! I have been screamed at by kids who I accidently bumped into, sworn at by a teenager who nearly ran over my five year old and insisted it was her fault. The question is why are these kids all so highly strung? I honestly believe kids these days are much more stressed.

This is most definitely confusing me.
Ok, so ds is going to have a shit childhood because I am both a single parent, AND I work.

So why are the government bringing in legislation to make single parnents go back to work when children are 7, with rumours of bringing it forward to when the child is 2?

If the child is having a hard life because of 'family breakup', is making the mother work when the child is young going to improve it?

While their may be correlations between bhaviour / happiness / achievement in lone parent familes, working families etc etc, they have not looked at the causes of those correlations.

For example, you could say that in one class where I work there are 4 TAs, and the behaviour of the children is appalling. Therefore, having more TAs causes bad bahviour in children. It would even be wrong to say that bad behvaiour causes the school to employ more TAs in the class. Instead, there are 4 TAs for children with special needs, and there happen to be some badly behaved children in the class.

It is bad journalism imo to report these without reporting the causes.

It takes a village to raise a child and unless people are able to get to know their fellow villagers and regulate what's acceptable or not themselves without big brother handing down orders from on high then society will fail.
If I don't know the old lady 2 doors down what should I care if her milks been left outside her door for 4 days, how would I notice if I'm at work from 7.30am to 6pm.

Sor - I see your point! I do know my neighbours though but only after I gave up work!