"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.

Tulips, do you think the same about all the fathers in the armed services?

Tulips, if you applied your logic to all parents (as you state that you would) then having children rules you out of ever being a world changing hero.

Anyone who takes a stand like Aung Sang, or Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, etc will inevitably be absent from home much of the time. They will inevitably put themselves in danger. You are saying that to do this as a parent is irresponsible. Therefore you are saying that nobody with children should be admired for work that takes them away from their children for extended periods of time EVEN if that work benefits the world as a whole.

I also think its interesting to state that you cannot be a hero if you are flawed in one area of life. That is a high bar to set. I cannot think of anyone who I would not judged as somehow flawed. In my eyes they can still be heroes.

I don't think there is any historical figure whom you could examine in detail and conclude that they were wholly selfless, heroic and kind in every aspect of their lives. If you held every hero up to such a stringent standards, we would have none left. The point is that all our heros are people, and like every person they will be flawed and imperfect, but that does not detract from the fabulous things that many people have managed to achieve, and it does not detract from us admiring and respecting them.

I completely agree that in every area of professional achievement a woman will be scrutinised as to the 'sacrifice' that it has caused her family in a way that will never happen to a man.

Is it imperfect to leave your children in the care of your husband anyway? I don't see why it should be considered imperfect. Perhaps they just made the choice that was right for them.

Would you say Nelson Mandela was an unfit parent? Getting involved in a, what was at the time, terrorist movement. Abandoning his children for a political cause - he wasn't even let out to attend his (I think it was) son's funeral.

In all the discussions around Mandela, i've never ever seen anyone question his fitness as a parent.

I nearly mentioned Neilson Mandela earlier, but thought the Winnie stuff might make the point less clear...

There are loads of loons on mn who think that being in the armed forces automatically makes you an unfit parent, pubes. tbh it's best not to go there - just nod and smile, roll your eyes, pat them on the head and go and hang out with the sensible ones.

You are being unreasonable for listening to Jeremy Vine in the first place. He only every pushes his Christian right wing views and most of his show is made up from the lastest outrage that the Daily Fail produce and as for Simon Waugh he is just a rapid shouty strange person who hopes to win out a debate by incessant jibberish and hyperbole that bores the listener to death.

Aung Sung seems no different to Thatcher so if the left criticise Thatcher for abandoning her children then it would be reasonable to criticicse her I suppose.

Since the Myanmar government said she could leave any time she wanted and then she complained about how difficult it was to have any influence on politics there whilst under constant house arrest it makes me wonder how sincere her selflessness was since she could have been freely moving around the western capitals lobbying governments left right and centre but instead decided to stay put in her nice house under arrest.

Her name is Aung San, not Aung Sung.

yellow - I think the one thing you can safely say about being a parent is that there is no perfect way to do it! I agree that they probably made the best choices for them, but it doesn't make them perfect.

Actually - YES why doesn't get Mandela get more flack for leaving his children with Winnie? That woman is pretty dodgy, though there is the question as to whether she is so dodgy because she was left on her own for so long, or she was that way to begin with. With her "soccer clubs" and what not.

Tulip's statement 'She is an unfit parent' can perhaps only be judged by her sons. The boys were 15 and nearly 11 when she left them in the care of their father to return to Burma to care for her mother who had had a severe stroke. Her mother lived for about another 8 months and while caring for her Suu Kyi became involved in the democracy movement.

Interestingly it's documented that before marrying Aris she said to him 'Should my people need me, you would help me do my duty by them'. He agreed. Furthermore, when he was dying (he was diagnosed about 2 years before his death when his sons were 20 and 24) he urged her NOT to return. They were 22 and 26 when he died. Aris must have completely understood and supported her deep sense of commitment and duty to her father, Aung San, who was instrumental in bringing about Burma's independence.

And of course Aung San Suu Kyi is a devout Theravada Buddhist. Life, the concept of suffering and the values that are inherent within Buddhism which are very unfamiliar for most Westerners. Yes, the boys would have 'suffered' and missed their mother deeply. However, if part of a mother's role is to teach her children the importance of duty and responsibility then she could have hardly have done a better job. And a nation may be moving towards the democracy they so richly deserve because of the determination and selflessness of their incredible mother.

Just read Novack's post.....her 'nice' house, was quite literally, falling down. Her phone was cut off and she was often short of food under house arrest.....

That's my point, Thistledew.

NovackNGood...so you reckon she just sat there, enjoying her nice house for 15 years because she was feeling a bit tired and she just wanted a rest?

I have no idea how she's the same as Margaret Thatcher and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the left who criticised her for leaving her children. Plenty of other things to hate her for.

I think the attitude that she was an unfit parent because she was separated from her sons while they were with their other parent is rather shockingly rude about the father.

If he'd been abusive, a drunk, or whatever, and she'd gone "ok kids, you stay with your dad, byeeee!" then THAT would have been unfit parenting. But there is no indication of that. I remember listening to one of them on Radio 4 (maybe Women's hour, actually, wish I could remember when/find it) talking about their Dad. And it all sounded rather lovely.

I like to imagine that, if I should get hit by a bus tomorrow, DH would be a very fit parent to bring up my son, even without me. Because he's a great dad. I'm sure he'd be heartbroken but I don't think he'd suddenly start neglecting or abusing DS. So, erm - what's wrong with a single-parent family setup, is what I'm saying, I suppose.

This attitude that only the mother's presence means a happy/successful child really diminishes the role that other family members, friends of the family, and indeed fathers play in a child's life.

Mandela was locked in an abusive prison system and was never offered the chance to leave.

ASSK could have left any day she wanted gone to the airport and been at the UN the White house number 10 lobbying day in day out. Why did she chose to stay in Myanmar where she was ineffective for decades??

I too laughed out loud at the comment about pursuing personal glory.

If all parents put their children's needs first and foremost very little would get done in this world.

I am sure her sons are incredibly proud of her.

I would love to meet her.

Why didn't she leave?

Because neither the UN, British or American governments have or had the power to depose the military Junta; because remaining in her country suffering similar human rights abuses as the people who had elected her leader was a potent symbol that she was not abandoning them, and did not consider herself to be above suffering the same problems as they did.

I am sure that she can and has explained her reasons far more eloquently and in far more detail.

NovackNGood, huge steps have been made in Burma, I'm quite sure she helped that. She didn't want to leave her country and not be allowed back in.

Martin Luther King's children were a similar age when their father was assassinated.
Should he have stepped back from active campaigning because he was a father? How much poorer would the world have been if he had?

Thisteldew has taken the words from my mouth (but much more eloquently!)
Leaving would have been tantamount to deserting the her people. Her party had, after all won the 1990 elections convincingly but the junta refused to recognise the results.

We often go and watch the Russian ice stars at our local theatre. If you read their programmes you come to realise several of them are married and have DCs being raised by extended family back home.

That it is Mum and Mum alone who raises a child is not the norm everywhere.

Some of you clearly know absolutely fuck all about Burma and its unbelievably awful situation. It is my mother's homeland and I care about it passionately. I have never been there, I never will go there until it is a properly functioning democracy, but get some information first before spouting all this crap.

Leaving aside the sexist crap about its being a mother's job to look after her children and nothing more: her children had a loving father and a mother of whom they could be incredibly proud. They - and many of us - grew up enjoying the kind of privilege that most Burmese couldn't even understand. Have you any idea of the lives of impoverished Burmese children?

She did not achieve nothing. Do you remember the 88 uprising - the Burmese uprising the year before Tiananmen Square? Do you remember that only one newspaper in this country thought it was worth the front page? Things have changed no? Could that possibly by any stretch of the imagination have anything to do with her?

So it's ok to desert your dying husband and children who need you (not your wider family) whilst their father is dying.

Armed forces personnel are of course different and are not away from their families for YEARS.

I don't think the likes of Gandhi etc were indispensible figures in history. There are always many people behind an important cause. Being an abusive father/husband is unforgivable. How can he care more about his country than his own family. The country will always find itself another leader/crusader. The children CANNOT find themselves another father.

Put yourselves in the shoes of the small child who wants it's parent. It's a crime to abandon/abuse your children in the pursuit of what you percieve to be a greater cause. There is NO greater cause than the needs of your own child.

tulips There are plenty of people who are crap parents who deserve your ire. Abusers, twats and general idiots.

A woman who fought for the good of her country, for the impoverished children there, for all the people who couldn't vote seems to me to be last on the long list of people who could have been better parents.

He was not dying when she left - incidentally to visit her dying mother. Get your facts straight. She had been under house arrest for years when he contracted cancer.