Stay-at-home mums should go to work!

[Grenoside123]

I find it sad that you equate a better quality life for a child as having more money and wanting for nothing, other than the most important thing a child wants, you are the most important thing to a child and no amount of toys can replace you.

 

We haven't got much money after we've paid the mortgage and bills! what im saying is that by me working rather than being a full time stay at home mum is that we're able to provide our son with a good home in a lovely area, an education at an excellent school etc rather than settling for living in scumsville and sending him to a substandard school like we would have had to do if I didn't work. Sure we'll buy him nice clothes and toys when we can afford to do so but he has all the love in this world from us regardless.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2013 at 09:04 ----------

 

I didn't refer to the quality of life for the child, I was referring specifically to the income for the family re: the claim that "child care is too expensive to allow the 2nd parent to go to work", that claim makes no sense in the case of a single child.

 

And I totally agree, it's expensive but over all makes more sense to have a little more than a little less. However I can't see why any mum would choose to go to work if it weren't for improving the quality of life you are able give your child.

If my husband had a better paid job that would allow us to live as we do now without my income then there's no way id work whilst my little lad is young.

As a mum, everything you do is for your child.

[Staunton]

Systems of government will evolve, over time, as they do...

 

Generally, I would not blame the rich for making the poor, poor (though I do not doubt there are sections of wealthy society, who engage in 'divide and conquer'). To do so, is to suggest that the power lies with the rich, and not with and within the individual, to determine his or her own fortune and fate. When a person says (or more importantly, believes) that the power to determine their fate, is outside of themselves; they make themselves weak, they dis-empower themselves.

 

I would like to see a system, with a minimum of state intervention, that does not encourage a dependency on the state, but encourages and rewards the efforts of people to become strong and prosperous, by and for themselves.

 

If a boy is still wetting the bed at the age of twelve, or a fourteen year old girl is self harming, it is important that there is mental health support available, and that the personnel who offer such support are approachable, calm, sensitive and reflective. These are not the qualities associated with a successful entrepreneur.

 

It is by no means uncommon for a highly successful class teacher to run into enormous difficulties having progressed into school management.

 

In a flourishing mixed economy we need entrepreneurs with vision, drive and confidence, and we need sensitive and caring staff in our hospitals and schools, our nursing homes and social services departments.

 

The demand that everyone should be assertive, go-ahead and business oriented does not take into account our natural differences in character and personality, and fails to recognise the advantages bestowed upon some through access to an independent education system that delivers a high degree of self confidence to its pupils, or the benefit that wealthy, supportive and well placed family and friends represent.

 

Of course, some can make it even from the most humble of origins, and others do not become high achievers even with the most auspicious start in life.

 

By locating the fault within the individual, we risk missing the point that all people, whatever their history, their skills and their shortcomings, are valid human beings, to be respected and cherished.

[Waldo]

By locating the fault within the individual, we risk missing the point that all people, whatever their history, their skills and their shortcomings, are valid human beings, to be respected and cherished.

 

Well, I'm not sure I agree with your point that all people are to be respected and cherished, simply by virtue of them being human. I also don't think it necessarily follows, that when we point out dysfunctional behaviour; we are demeaning a person. I suppose that depends on why we are pointing out such behaviour...

 

I know people who have the most intensity dysfunctional lives you could imagine. In debt, about to lose their home, yet they find the money to buy their kid the latest iPhone5 and subscriptions to Netflix and Sky <whatever>. Plus, all the money they spend on tobacco and drink. They live in utter chaos, and they don't seem to have the will to change and improve their lot in life.

 

I think people like that, need pain in their lives. You do them no favours by propping them up, supporting and allowing them to continue as they are. They need to form a crystal clear connection in their minds, between their dysfunctional behaviour, and the very real and painful consequences of such behaviour. I truly believe, that such pain, is the only thing that will motivate some people to change and reassess their priorities. When you shield people from the painful consequences of their own actions, you rob them of their opportunity to learn and change and grow.

 

I wasn't suggesting that everyone be an entrepreneur either. You're right, in that people do have different propensities, and contribute in different ways, and we should acknowledge and reward their skill and contribution.

[Staunton]

I know people who have the most intensity dysfunctional lives you could imagine. In debt, about to lose their home, yet they find the money to buy their kid the latest iPhone5 and subscriptions to Netflix and Sky <whatever>. Plus, all the money they spend on tobacco and drink. They live in utter chaos, and they don't seem to have the will to change and improve their lot in life.

 

I think people like that, need pain in their lives. You do them no favours by propping them up, supporting and allowing them to continue as they are.

 

Sadly, those chaotic families already have too much pain in their lives. The pressure to provide their children with the latest technology is a significant factor. Chaotic families are also vulnerable families. Often headed by single mothers, who find dealing with teenagers and their unreasonable demands very difficult, it iseems to be the easy option simply to give in rather than resist a child's cravings. Peer pressure is a major factor here too. And such families often have the least resistance to a sophisticated mainstream media that mercilessly exploits peoples' desires. They market the latest electronic devices, branded clothes, low nutrition fast foods and stimulant laden beverages with the single aim of making money, indifferent to the social consequences.

 

Children growing up in a chaotic household do not develop thinking skills. They become impulsive. This is a natural response to an unpredictable environment. And this is likely to be compounded by difficulties in school, where impulsive pupils become problematic class members and find themselves marginalised and labelled. This further prevents the development of those thinking skills that help us to form some measure of resistance to the highly seductive saturation marketing that today's TV, online and press outlets peddle.

 

Children exposed to a poor quality culture are bound to develop wants and desires, and parents are prone to giving in to children, especially when they are themselves subject to the difficulties that poverty, mental health issues, domestic violence, isolation, stigmatisation or substance misuse represent.

 

Unless we see the pained individual behind the demonised figure that the tories are working hard to represent, then we shall go on blaming the victims, and fail to see the ugly face of ruthless capitalism that creates a structural underclass, and seeks to make us all into mindless consumers. Vulnerable families deserve support, and if we are ever to promote change, then we must be prepared to develop a more sophisticated analysis of these issues than the conservative party would ever adrmit.

[Waldo]

Vulnerable families deserve support, and if we are ever to promote change, then we must be prepared to develop a more sophisticated analysis of these issues than the conservative party would ever adrmit.

 

I don't disagree with much of what you say Staunton. However, such support shouldn't, in my opinion, be financial. That would be like pouring water in to a leaky vessel, without first fixing the cracks. Instead, such support should 'pattern interrupt' dysfunctional behaviour, and educate people, bring them to an awareness of what's going on, and the influences that play upon them, and how they are responding to those influences etc.

 

I'm also loathed to say that the problem is caused by the rich, that the poor are the victims of the rich, and than nothing will change until the rich decide to change matters (they won't). All such statements take power away from the individual to improve his or her own life.

 

I'm not saying "don't blame the rich" out of any sympathy for them. It's more that I believe the power (and responsibility) to change one's own life, originates within the individual, and starts right now. It doesn't even matter so much how far you improve things for yourself, what really matters, is the taking of each step and the effort you consistently put in.

 

I don't want to take money away from people who are putting that effort in, and give it to another person, who is just mindlessly feeding their consumer itch.

[Staunton]

... support shouldn't, in my opinion, be financial. That would be like pouring water in to a leaky vessel, without first fixing the cracks.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree. I do not advocate monetary solutions, rather a package of support that takes into account the difficulties that pertain in marginalised communities. Such issues are complex, and demand individual assessment and address of multiple needs. Parenting programmes, especially those delivered in a group setting, can be highly effective. But there are also many other difficulties such as those mentioned earlier, relating to personal distress, anxiety, domestic violence, isolation, substance misuse, and other aspects including financial management, nutritional issues and educational engagement that require focus if chaotic families are to be effectively supported.

 

It is important to acknowledge that many issues apparent in chaotic families are thoroughly entrenched, and would take a great deal of time and effort to turn around. But great improvements are possible, if the will and the resources that such an undertaking would require were forthcoming.