"Aung Sang Suu Kyi should have put her children first"

[blondieminx]

Just heard most staggering discussion on Jeremy Vine (yes i know - but am working from home while poorly, with Radio 2 on!) with overemotional "educationalist and commentator" Simon Waugh who was sadly orphaned age 6 who spent a good ten minutes saying that since Aung Sang Suu Kyi became a mother she should have put them first and come out of Burma to fight the battle from afar.

This is the woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in Burma FFS. As the lady from Refuge (didn't catch her name) said, "you woudn't be saying all this if she was a man". Quite.

Just makes me feel very ranty that some men, and specifically "educationalists" think that a woman's place is always in the home. Even in the case of a Nobel Peace Prize winning inspirational woman who has changed the path of her country and been a beacon of light and democracy.

I don't think it is unreasonable to hold the view that some lifestyle/career choices are incompatible with being a good parent.

I don't know if either of her sons have spoken publicly about their mother.

They were 14 and 12 when she returned to Burma, and they remained with their father. I have seen nothing to suggest he was a poor parent, nor do I think that lone fathers are inherently inadequate as parents.

They have maintained privacy about their family life (unless anyone knows better), and so I think it is wrong to speculate about it.

I'm also a Jeremy Vine listener and was shocked at this conversation. It was Erin Pizzey from Refuge and I wouldn't have had her down as much of a feminist (she has done loads of back tracking about her stance on domestic violence over the years) but she was spot on when she said that no-one would even have thought of this question if she had been a man.

In an ideal world the decision to become parents is usually made by a couple (of whatever combination) so that even if something happens to one of you (illness/death/incarceration by a military group) then there will be another parent around to raise the kids. According to the programme, Suu Kyi's DH supported her choices and was the primary carer day to day once their youngest turned 9, apparently.

Does "being a good parent" (knowing that your DC's are being cared for by your partner) necessarily trump the greater good of a nation? Or forging a better space for women in the political sphere?

This is something that cropped up in The Iron Lady too, that split between doing the best for your country and for your family, closer to home. 2 scenes in that film really stuck with me, the first the young Maggie saying she didn't want to die washing a cup, the other with a middle-aged Dennis being left minding the boys yet again as Maggie was whisked off in her car for something urgent.

I guess I'm just feeling sad that sometimes the view is that women should put the day-to-day childrearing above any sort of professional and/or national improvement. Not that I have any idea how to solve that one!

She put everyone's children first.

Remember how mountaineer Alison Hargreaves who died climbing K2 was castigated in some quarters as a mum taking risks?

The day a father is castigated for taking risks or sacrificing his personal life for a country's future or a father is condemned for choices incompatible with parenthood is the day I will think the critics have a point.

Ridiculous.

She's finally collecting het honorary degree from Oxford this week, isn't she

She refused to go back to the UK when her husband was dying and left her young sons to watch their dad die alone whilst she pursued personal glory in Burma. I have not heard Jeremy Vine but i know her story. She is not a heroine and should NOT get the peace prize.

I remember reading about her when I was about ten. She was one of those early politicizing figures in my life. I think she's brilliant.

And the idea that because she has children she shouldn't have done anything else but mother them - is a stupid idea, and one that no one tries to say about fathers.

The Nobel peace prize is given out willy nilly these days. Obama got it for doing....what?

My mother says this EVERY FUCKING TIME Aung San Suu Kyi is mentioned, and it drives me mad.

It is a really tough one, actually, whether the loss to the children when a parent dedicates her/himself to some cmapaign is justified by the gain to wider society that your actions may bring. I don't actually know enough about Suu Kyi to say which side of the line I think she falls, assuming I wanted to make such a judgment.

But people almost reflexively make this criticism of women in a way they don't of men. My mother certainly does.

She knew she'd likely be refused re-entry to Burma if she left. To have to choose between your contry and your dying husband must have been agonising and not a decision any wife would take lightly. Although I'm not about to start speculating about thier personal arangements, that's not the point I was trying to make - that the default expecation of some people is that women will be primary carers of children, rather than world leaders.

BBC news explains why Obama got the prize. HTH.

Hmmm... Gandhi was a crap father and husband. can't say I've seen that coming up for discussion ever! (Am from India so have seen loads of programs on him/his life/his work etc etc....

It's noble when men put the greater good over their family but neglect when a woman does it!

Spot on, SweetGrapes - and that's because nobility/self-sacrifice etc is demanded from women as their default position. They are supposed to put everyone else first all the time.

Hence why feminism is so scandalous, I suppose- women thinking and talking and acting for the good of women! GASP! Who will look after everyone else, if women take care of themselves first?!!!!

It was a staggering discussion, Blondie Minx. Fortunately, that idiot Simon Waugh came across so badly that anyone even with half a mind to agree with that stupid point of view, would have been put right off.

My first time posting in the 'feminist' area (please dont maul me )
I agree with ^ whoever said that her deciding not to leave Burma while her children's father was dying must have been agonising.

It seems to me that parenting is far wider than the day-to-day hands on caring for children and that a parent role-modelling perseverance, commitment to values, self sacrifice, personal bravery etc is passing on very valuable traits to their children.

sweetgrapes I couldnt get past how Ghandi treated his wife, throughout the biography i read--in fact I dont think I finished the book...makes me cross now!

Wow. I can't believe people are still saying this, when men leave their children all the time and it's never mentioned.

tulips do you really believe she was just after personal glory? The woman was under house arrest for 15 years! If she wanted personal glory, there were surely easier ways to get it?

porridgelover I 100% agree with you and was about to post the same thing. Showing your children that there are issues bigger than you, bigger than family must be one of the greatest things you can do.

Tulips, you state that "She refused to go back to the UK when her husband was dying and left her young sons to watch their dad die alone...". What an inflammatory way of describing it. Firstly she did not leave her "young" sons to watch their father die alone. The sons were born in '72 and '77, her husband died in 1999, when they were 27 and 21 respectively and they were not alone but supported by a tight knit extended family. Second, as others have noted, if she had left Burma she might never have got back in, she begged the Burmese Government to grant her dying husband a visa and they would not.

The view that mothers must be there to raise the children otherwise the children will suffer is a very Western view. It ignores the role of the extended family and community as well as the role of the father.

Aung San has fought to improve the lives of a nation of children and in order to do this had to sacrficie a physical presence during her sons' teenage years and early adulthood. What an agonising choice to make but thank goodness she took such an altruistic view rather than thinking only of her family.

Agree that it is not the place of outsiders to speculate about how a particular family deals with a situation such as this, especially as I have read nothing about how their domestic arrangements worked or how their children felt about it.

However I do feel mothers are unfairly treated when they make decisions to prioritise careers or dangerous, world changing, political stands in this case, compared to fathers. There is always an element of sacrifice for either parent in these situations and Aung Sang Suu Kyi will have had to live with that burden, (which i'm sure she never envisioned at the start of her political career), her children were with their father, and as far as we know were loved and well cared for most of their childhood. I don't know how old they were when their father died.

I think we have a responsibility to provide a loving and secure environment for our children and if one parent can provide that, the absent parent, just because she is a woman should not be subject to criticism due to rigid ideas about what it is to be a mother, (as in mothers should never venture into any careers where there are risks.)

What is important is that children have stability with at least one parent and understand that it is not a reflection on their worth if the other parent has to prioritise their work.

I think it comes back to the old idea that for a women there is nothing bigger than motherhood. Well in Aung Sang Suu Kyi case there was something bigger than motherhood and the world is a better place because of her family's sacrifice.

I agree with Sweetgrapes it is not about whether she was a fantastic mother or not it is about the double standard that she is being so harshly judged compared to a man in the same situation.

From what I understand, Aung Sang Suu Kyi would not have been allowed to re-enter Burma had she had left, one of her sons has been living with her since her house arrest has been lifted, and although their private lives are strictly private, I believe that both her Sons are totally supportive of her.

But, it is very interesting that people seem to disapprove of a woman making such a sacrafice but would not have a problem if it were a man. This woman has endured so much in the interest of democracy and peace for her country, something I think is very humbling, surely the world needs more Aung SangsSuu Kyi Shouldn`t we be applauding her?

Rofl at 'pursued personal glory'. I'm sure it felt particularly glorious, oh yes. Not heart wrenching at all, oh no.

I think the double standards on display here are breathtaking.

And those poor ickle 27yos. However did they cope?

Her kids were not 27 when she left them And I'm not saying what I did because she's a woman but because she's a parent. Once you become a parent your children's needs take precedence over any other person(s).

And I agree about Gandhi. He was an abusive parent from what I know. I don't think he's such a hero either.

I hate it when these people are shown as one sided. They should be seen in their entirety and then judged as heros or not as the case may be.

Her husband was ill for a long time vefore he died and her children had to cope with that alone. Afaic she is no hero. She is an unfit parent.