Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Selfish parents ruin their children's lives

150 replies

HecateQueenOfGhosts · 02/02/2009 07:38

according to this

What do you think?

OP posts:
Poppycake · 02/02/2009 15:11

offerdilemma - absolutely right about confusing correlations with causation. But good logic doesn't sell newspapers.

I really do think that my 18mo is happy having some time at nursery rather than being with me all the time. I obviously want to have lots of time with her, but I think she's fine in there the rest of the time. And I work, and am happier for that too. Dd1 seems to have done very well so far too - happy and confident, after being in nursery from 6m (shorter mat leave in Ireland at the time). I want to be there in the evenings and put them to bed, and in the holidays. And on days like today when the school's shut with the snow. I'm lucky to have a pretty understanding employer. Everybody should have this option. Note option, I realise some women want to stay at home full time, and that's obviously a legitimate choice (for some women and some children).

What I get really narked with is the media stirring up trouble and making people feel awful for the choices they have made.

UKVeggieMum · 02/02/2009 16:48

Maybe all working mothers should give up work immediaely as we are damaging children!

All the doctors, nurses, teachers, paramedics, police officers etc.

thorpeyam · 02/02/2009 18:18

Hello everyone 1st post as new member...This is my opinion...it belongs to me...! Having read the report this afternoon...many of the reports by the newspapers are just 'headline grabbers' aimed at stirring up a response. The report is not sensationalism...it does not in my opinion seek to blame 'mothers', it has however made some 'interesting points'.

It is a fact that more of us are 'forced' back to work after giving birth and for some of us 'childcare' is left to nurseries and before and after school clubs. Some of us 'choose' to either go back to work or stay at home and relinquish some of the 'hard earned' independence and financial security we have gained. I do not agree with the papers pointing the finger at mothers...neither would I like to go back to the 50s style 'motherhood',

I do believe though that because I am their 'mother'(not disregarding their father), we are 'the most able' to give them the individual love, attention, positive reinforcement that they need in their early years...It is 'our values' I wish them to grow up with...until they formulate their own...and no one can convince me that a person paid 'slightly more than the national minimum wage' can substitute the care and attention we can give. The nursery assistants are well trained, got NVQs and have targets and support, they provide the best care they can and are educated to deliver but they in my opinion are not a BETTER alternative to a home environment.

I desperately want to be at home with my children aged nearly 2yrs and 6yrs, I cannot afford/ nor want to live off my husbands wage, and the kind of work I do, comes along now and again...so cannot guarantee any childcare provider 'regular hours'...total catch 22!!!! Newspapers/Reporters/Media sell their stories at pointing the finger at Mothers (blame) Why not look at solutions such as:

  • Allowing parents (their choice) of carer...and having the ability to pay them... (For example grandparents/relatives/friends)
  • Allowing (the parent carer M/F) to benefit from FREE part time/ distance learning courses...(should they wish)...for the period they stay at home to raise their little ones...therefore when ready to re enter their chosen/ new field they return even more competent and confident following career /personal development on top of the many new skills and abilities honed in parenting!

I looked this afternoon at 'opportunities' open to mums at home wishing to work 'part time....' I do not want to sell cosmetics /books /join a franchise...I would love however for my professional qualifications and willingness to give 100% part time to be taken SERIOUSLY by employers who only provide 'lip service' to work/life balance. I want to be a 'full time mum & part time guru'....not cake and eat it?just a simple request!

We women (and men) have a lot to offer both our families AND our employers...and it can be mutually beneficial to all...but not IN MY OPINION...when most employers/roles particularly management...expects FULL TIME....There I have started with a rant.

tumtumtetum · 02/02/2009 19:31

i didn't read this as an attack on women/mothers - but then I haven't read the daily mail article and maybe what I have read highlighted different points.

For me the report seemed to be saying that children were being damanged by society as a whole, by excessive consumerism and individual selfishness of adults. That the " me, me, me" attitude was resulting in unhappy children. That children would be happier if they had more time with their loved ones (which I think is probably true). That adverts aimed at youngsters should be banned and testing/league tables should be scrapped.

Those parts of it made sense to me I have to say.

beanieb · 02/02/2009 21:13

there are plenty of SAHM's bringing up their children really badly. Just because a person thinks they are the best person to care for their own child doesn't always mean it's true.

justaboutisnotastatistician · 02/02/2009 21:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TwoIfBySea · 02/02/2009 22:23

I do think that if someone is a selfish parent then the child will suffer. Kind of obvious.

However that has nothing to do with whether or not the parent stays at home or goes out to work. I am so sick and tired of the SAHM vs WOHM argument debate. It goes round in circles constantly biting its own tail and never getting anywhere.

This has to do with what parents do with the time they have with the child. Not if they go out to work or stay at home. That isn't an indicator of selfishness!

policywonk · 02/02/2009 22:26

Agree TwoIf - but from what we've been able to find out, the report doesn't say anything like that anyway. It's all a load of dishonest guff churned out by the media so that they could make a bigger story out of the report.

cory · 03/02/2009 07:56

Don't know where my post from last night went, but if lack of Christian morals, presence of working mums and absence of marriage vows were really the crucial factors, you'd expect Scandinavian children to be absolutely miserable. Never heard of anyone in Sweden in my generation or younger who bothered to get married simply to start a family. I suspect there are other factors behind the relative unhappiness of English children:

*intense urbanisation which means it is impossible for most children to access the natural outdoors on their own.

pretty well all Swedish children have access to some kind of beach (or lake or stream) with clean water to swim in in summer, to some kind of wood to explore or fields to walk in

*unusually divisive class system which means that some children feel themselves and their families written off at an early age, due to the way they speak and dress and live

other countries have class divisions too, but ours seem particularly damaging

*relative unsafety of urban landscape (cars, gun, cars, knives, cars, cars, cars) meaning children either stay dependent on their parents or feeling unsafe

*a working culture which emphasises long hours rather than efficiency

*a media culture which always stresses the dangers and cynicism of modern childhood and makes it difficult to think of childhood as any kind of golden age

Scandinavian newspapers still do.

*the relative cheapness of junk food.

In Scandinavia junk food is expensive compared to everyday basics, so the temptation of substituting chips and crisps for boiled spuds is that little bit less.

Still, a fair few things mentioned in the article are things that I can influence. It is up to me as a parent if my children are spending hours gazing at adverts on television. It is up to me if they think that people can be pressurised into buying more and more things. It is up to me whether they drink energy drinks or tap water.

dweezle · 03/02/2009 09:37

Cory - interesting take on Scandinavian situation. We were in Stockholm last week, first time I'd been to Sweden, and DH and I were both struck by the number of parents taking small children out for walks at the weekend. Nearly everyone we passed had a buggy, or toddlers/under fives.

Both parents were obviously enjoying playing with their children, and when we went into cafes/restaurants (frequently, to warm up!), there were families enjoying their juice and hot chocolate, children sitting up at the table and joining in.

It made me a little bit sad that it, to be honest, is not like that here. DH and I spent some time discussing why, and it seemed to have a lot to do with the 'outdoor environment'. Plenty of places for families to walk and play, with a tradition of outdoor pursuits within families.

We saw little or no vandalism/grafitti, which makes our own local parks such depressing places to spend time. And families spending time together - it's not just the mother who spends time with the children, but both parents. They take the children out and play with them, not just sit in a cafe and chat amongst themselves and ignore the children, which we see all the time where we live. It is depressing.

Litchick · 03/02/2009 10:10

Cory - your post was very interesting.
You summed up all the reasons we moved from our home in central London to the dreaded home counties.
Despite the fact that it is a rotten commute for DH and the area we now live in is in no way as cosmopolitan it still felt, and remains, the right thing for the children.
We are surrounded by woods, fields, miles of open countryside. Even school has acres and acres of green space.
Though I miss the lovely restaurants and theatres my children are undeniably better off. Sigh.

funtimewincies · 03/02/2009 11:40

I'm afraid that I would be apoplectic if some patronising registrar/gov official attempted to explain to me my 'responsibilities as a parent' especially if I happened to be teaching their child who just so happened to be a little sod monkey !

I'm currently a SAHM but am incensed by the presumption that behavioural problems are caused by working mums. The subtext of this report is that in the days when women stayed at home and were 'selfless' (rather than today's apparently 'selfish' mothers) then all children were supremely happy. Mind you, this debate has been ranging for donkey's about 'latch key' children of women like my grandmother who was a cleaner.

If the government wants us (or heaven forbid, their dads) to stay at home with the dcs, then make it more financially viable.

Oh and pay for our prozac to help us come to terms with the wasted talent and skills and the effort and expense of getting one of those all-important university educations that we should all have . Or will we return to the days when women weren't allowed near such allowed institutions ?

Rant over .

toomanydaves · 03/02/2009 13:16

It seems that the report isn't nearly as knee jerk or as anti-women as the papers/bbc would have had us believe yesterday. I had a brief look at the abstracts yesterday - not enough to work out whether all in all it's a GOOD THING or not - it smacks a bit of Rowan Williamsy mimsiness - but certainly it's not BLAMING working mothers in a simplistic way.

It's the PAPERS who have been lazy and jumping to conclusions to suit their bigoted views. This is just as depressing though.

toomanydaves · 03/02/2009 13:16

It seems that the report isn't nearly as knee jerk or as anti-women as the papers/bbc would have had us believe yesterday. I had a brief look at the abstracts yesterday - not enough to work out whether all in all it's a GOOD THING or not - it smacks a bit of Rowan Williamsy mimsiness - but certainly it's not BLAMING working mothers in a simplistic way.

It's the PAPERS who have been lazy and jumping to conclusions to suit their bigoted views. This is just as depressing though.

FairyMum · 03/02/2009 20:51

I don't think childrens lives are ruined. This is all very Daily Mail. I think the problem in this country is that there are many perfectly good parents with perfectly happy children who have too much guilt and never feel like they are good enough (probably due to reading too many of these reports).And then there are some parents who are really terrible parents and neglect their children. It has nothing to do with working or not working, but I do think you find a level of neglect in this country that you might not find in other European countries.

francagoestohollywood · 03/02/2009 21:09

Have just read the beginning of the thread. I agree with SnowLeopard.

policywonk · 03/02/2009 21:49

Look, THE REPORT DOES NOT SAY THESE THINGS. The papers have said it, and the BBC has said it, but the report HAS NOT said it.

Blame the Daily Mail by all means.

francagoestohollywood · 03/02/2009 22:09

Always happy to blame the daily mail !

hellywobs · 04/02/2009 18:28

It's the way the media has reported it - actually the report says very little about working mums and has a lot to say about other things. For example, the fact that parents are so overprotective of their children and don't feel they can let them out to play etc.

I agree with the extended families point. And I would also like to see a lot more dads working part-time or flexi-time. How many dads pick their kids up from school? Fortunately my husband works flexi hours so he's at school two afternoons a week. Maybe some enlightened employers will see that a recession is a good time to offer flexi-time and reduced hours as you can reduce costs without losing a good employee.

DaddyJ · 05/02/2009 10:42

Just read this beautiful article and thought of this thread.

Surely written by a Mumsnetter!

Thoroughly enjoyed the tone and content of Joanna's writing,
even more so because I pretty much agree with almost all her points.

Personally, I would cross out the memory box (too much navel-gazing)
and add 'Community/Large circle of friends & family' to the list.

mrsgboring · 05/02/2009 11:09

I agree it's a good article. But apart from the ritual church bashing and repudiation of the Children's Society report, it doesn't say anything different. It says we parents are too busy, with work and life pressures. It says we have to work on our relationships with both our partners and our children. It says we shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to spend money and instead spend time. The essence of the original report, surely?

What's different is the middle class cast to the article - cutting down by holidaying in Scotland instead of the Med (when btw it is often far dearer to go to Scotland than to go to a beer and chips bit of the Costas on a cheap deal) Yes, that's what most busy, working parents are worried about this year Keeping 18 box files of memories in your house? Fine if you've got the space. And fine to go to work and assert your right to be a human being and have your own life. For a lot of people that's very very true and valid. For plenty of people it's not that at all. They're working a rubbish job, where they have few rights, don't like it, have to work longer hours than they want and it is anything but a validation of themselves and who they are - it's a theft of their energy and time that they'd rather spend on their children, if economic circumstances would allow. Now that is where I feel the Children's Society report is actually focusing its attention, but since most journos don't have that life in the slightest (and most newspaper readers either) it's not how it's going to come out in the media, is it?

DaddyJ · 05/02/2009 16:06

point taken, Mrsgb

The article would have been more 'real'
if it had been written by someone slightly less affluent and less happy with her lot.

I suppose that's why I enjoyed it -
it was all happy-clappy!

mrsgboring · 05/02/2009 17:27

Well I'm a SAHM so I'm pretty much allergic to things that even imply you can only have a personality and life of your own if you go out to work.

lunamoon2 · 05/02/2009 23:09

What constitutes "selfishness"?
Wanting to have financial independance and self esteem?
Wanting to be a good role model whether that is being a SAHM or working mum.
Not tolerating abusive behaviour and violence from your oh?
I think the report is highly subjective.
When I was young I played out for hours in the street, went roaming about without necesarily telling my parents where I was, had no mobile phone to ring home with etc etc.
It is a mith that parents spent all day cuddling their children, playing with them etc. Like someone said mums cooked every day because they had to, and probably stayed married because there was little alternative.
Yes I do remember spending time with my parents and enjoying it and yes some parents don't spend enough quality time with their kids. Once again I think the media have jumped on the bandwagon.

policywonk · 06/02/2009 10:41

Very well said, mrsg!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread