"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.

Yep Tulip, it's no wonder our society is in the state it's in after all those feckless parents who went off fighting and dying in world war two.

Best to stay indoors and bury your head in the sand. Sure it will probably turn out alright in the end as long as you don't do anything, cos that's how things are actually achieved. Right?

I actually read a long profile of her in the New Yorker, and at least one of her sons is not supportive of her he feels that she abandoned him and his father. And, well, she did yes, for a good cause, but to a son who only has one mother, of course he will feel abandoned.

And I do think one can argue that she could have pursued her work abroad -- look at the Dalai Lama, and the worldwide respect and attention he commands.

As an outsider, I don't criticise her choice, and I agree that a father would not be criticised as she has been. I have a lot of respect for her.

But I do feel for her sons. They have sacrificed a lot as well. I think we should allow our heroes to be human, and complex, and not let their great accomplishments erase all the consequences of their actions.

Dione you are a very angry person. WW2 was obviously a very different situation and many people had no choice, they had to enlist and go and fight.

And our society is as bad as it is because of poor parenting.

I'm not at all surprised one of her sons does not support her. I'm on his side. As i said she was/is an unfit parent (but is a hero to Burma).

No Tulips I am not a very angry person.
I am a very happy and grateful person who recognizes the contributions and sacrifices of others and the positive impact they have had on life today.

But Burma is becoming steadily more democratic, Tibet has zero chance of independence currently, so I don't think you can claim she's not achieved much.

I'm still gasping at people describing house arrest as cushy.

Anyway, she did leave her children with one parent, not like she dumped them in care.

I'm sure it was an extremely difficult choice to make, but as the daughter of an influential politician, she was in the position to be heard and fight for her people. I'm not sure I could turn away from that.

Besides, if Burma had been allowed to be a democracy, she could have been the leader and had a family life, I'm sure she'd have preferred that, rather then fighting a military junta for years.

Let's not forget who the real villains are.

Burma has not been becoming steadily more democratic -- almost all of the real progress has been made in just the last two years.

I agree you can't compare Burma and Tibet, my point is that it's a bit of a false choice to say she had to leave her family in order to work for democracy. It's possible she could have achieved a lot in exile as well (obviously we'll never know).

No, the Dalai Lama has not achieved Tibetan independence -- that will never happen. But he has kept the issue on the world stage, helped keep a lot of pressure on China, helped raise a lot of money, and inspired loads of people.

Haven't read the entire thread but surely she was being a wonderful parent by making the WORLD a better place for her children and grandchildren to grow up in?

I'd rather know my children could thrive without me because of my contributions to the world rather than need to hide behind me.

Plus, it's pretty darn sexist to assume a child cannot be raised by their father. Because Tulips, even though you deny it it's fairly obvious you only feel this way about mothers not fathers.

Yes men can be deployed for a couple of years.

I have to say I think she had a real Sophies Choice to bear. I could not have chosen her path and would have chosen the personal welfare of my kids over my need to stay in Burma and fight the good fight. That is my opinion and it has nothing to do with wether she is a woman or a man - it is as a parent. I just could not do it. I will never win the peace prize.

I found reading abou tthe life of Buddah really difficult too, as to attain his nirvana he basically had to crap on his wife and kids from a great height. It made for uncomfortable reading and I have never been able to view his wisdoms in the same way. As to me his behaviour seemed utterly utterly selfish , his wisdoms discuss living a selfless life.

Someone mentioned not wanting to be Ghandi's wife. I'd agree.

No one can argue that these people's impact on the world have not been incredible. But where there is a person (who has a family) who has achieved great goods, his family are there - strong wives or husbands, who have seen thier family lives suffer often terribly so thier spouse can achieve this greatness. You can't have it both ways....

I think people with strong attitude like Aung tend to be with people who share similar attributes.

She was still their mother in Burma. Parenting is about more than snotty noses and baking cookies.

What lurking said. Speechless, really

It's good to know that we have so many armchair pundits here who can quite confidently argue that Aung San got it wrong and could have achieved what she did whilst living in Oxford and doing the school run every day. What a comfort it is to have people with such understanding of political reform that they could without hesitation step into the shoes of a Nobel Prize winner (although they would of course choose not to as it is important that their children know that they are more important than achieving democracy for a whole country).

Thistle, that's harsh, I don't think anyone is saying that.

I'm not suggesting she could combine pro-democracy work with the school run but perhaps there was a middle way? Something between leaving her family completely, and being there all the time?

This wasn't leaving the kids with their dad for a year or two, this was essentially permanently leaving them, even when their dad died. That is a pretty extreme sacrifice on everyone's part and yes it was for the good of Burma, but I can't help but feel bad for her family.

The reasons why the Burmese regime loosened up are still a bit opaque. Anyone saying that Aung San's house arrest directly achieved democracy in Burma is just as much of an armchair pundit, because we will never know if she could have had an impact of a different form in exile.

I'm not saying she's a bad parent, I just don't have a problem admiring her political work while acknowledging it was less than ideal for her family. I don't think one erases the other.

I saw her being interviewed on the C4 news last night - the interviewer asked her how she felt about being revered as 'almost a saint' and she said 'that's terrible. I'm no saint'. Then he asked her if she was worried that her popularity was in danger of eclipsing the PM of Burma! God the poor woman must get sick of such moronic questions!

What struck me about her was her total conviction that she did the right thing - there was no sense of martyr about her whatsoever, she said she believed that she had a choice to do what she did, it wasn't her 'destiny', she had a free choice and that she believed it was the right one. I found her really inspiring.

In a much more trivial note, I couldn't help thinking how amazingly youthful she looks for 67, in spite of all she has suffered

she did what she did
I doubt she gives a flying fuck what any of us think of her, especially Simon Waughn
Im sure she has tortured herself with the thought of sacrificing her motherhood for her beliefs
no-one really, has any idea what they would do, in her shoes
I think we should stop judging her from our ivory towers

I would always choose my child over a country. No achievment is worth sacrificing the love and respect of my children. I could not live with myself if my children knew that for YEARS they were not my priority. I'm sure others could have furthered her cause in Burma, she didn't have to do it all. It might have taken longer that's all but at least her children would have not been the losers.

It's the difference between living in a small world and living in a big one. To be what society generally calls a "good mother", you have to live in a small world, dealing with the minutiae of your children's lives.

tulips but you have to know that your country is safe for your kids
I wouldnt want my kids to grow up in Nazi run England for example. In fact, they would have been killed, therefore fighting against the Nazis would have been putting my kids first

(as an example)

The trouble, of course, is that the lives of your children, and everyone else's, will be affected by the goings-on in the big world, on which you will have no influence.

I am SO sick of this mothers have no brains, minds of their own, dreams, hopes and challenges because they're a mummy now.

Blerg.

Just because how she went about her life isn't for you, doesn't mean yo need to get all 'won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!'

I say this as someone who is studying for a job that will require me to bring my children p in all sorts of circumstances all over the world. Helping people is MY dream. Having a family is MY dream. And guess what? I can do both without being an awful parent.

I'm sure others could have furthered her cause in Burma, she didn't have to do it all. It might have taken longer that's all but at least her children would have not been the losers

but someone has to do it; if everyone relied on 'someone else' to further the cause, then no-one would do it.

Someones children would always loose out, in that way

(and we can all be grateful, it wasnt our children)

"It might have taken longer that's all but at least her children would have not been the losers."

Do you know what the causes were that she was trying to further in Burma? Are you really saying that it would be acceptable to you if that situation continued for "longer", just as long as Aung Sang Suu Kyi was wiping her own children's noses?

Shame on you.

Just try this, if you're so uninformed. Type "Burma child" into a search engine and see what the autofill puts in.

I'm sure that, to the mothers of those children, they were the most important things in the world. But they weren't in a position to change what was happening to them. Aung Sang Suu Kyi, because of her background, was in that position. And you say that she should have stood back and stayed at home.

Life is full of tradeoffs. All golden idols have clay feet. The level of selfishness required to do what she did is huge, the question is will it have been worth it..

But IMO she has yet to really deliver much other than being a beacon of unrealistic hope. I predict the reality of politics will tarnish her halo somewhat over the next few years.