The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for mothers to raise their children, not their status > Comments

Time for mothers to raise their children, not their status : Comments

By James McConvill, published 12/9/2005

James McConvill argues that resident parents need to focus on the best interests of their children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
Reason - interesting points and question... thankfully back on topic too!

One of the reasons I described McConvill's article as silly in my first comment was due to his assertion that "In contemporary society, a great number of parents, and in particular mothers who are usually the resident parent, use their children as a status symbol, to compensate for the life they have “given up” to become a mother, or the alternative life that they have never had".

I would have thought that, at least in the Weberian sense of status as social esteem or honour, parenthood in contemporary Western societies would confer relatively less status on parents than in previous generations - hence the tendency to smaller families or having no children at all. This is in contrast to societies where parenthood conferred its own status, and in many cases was a prerequisite to full adult status.

Having said that, there is no doubt that many parents use their kids vicariously as signifiers of conspicuous consumption - via dress, schools, etc. It could also be argued that many parents attain a kind of proxy status via their kids' accomplishments, e.g. in sporting and academic fields, or in child beauty pageants etc.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 2:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol. 'Give the brass monkeys a jolly rogering'. I can't stop laughing at that, well done duck.

Timkins, I'm not disputing your findings, I'm sure the research you've done, albeit one sided, is legit. But all I'm trying to say is perhaps it doesn't mean that much to say: 'On average, kids with single parents aren't as (whatever)!' Because as I said, just because it doesn't work for some, or even most, doesn't mean it should ever become a rule.

It's the sort of study that can come to pretty much any conclusion you wish. 'Kids with parents of lower IQ's don't grow up as smart!' or 'Kids with cheaper shoes grow up to...take less..care of their shoes!'

...ok, let's look at it another way. You've found studies that show there are specific groups that unfairly treat men in the family court or whatever I can't remember the details. Are you, then, denying the existence of studies that show women receiving the same vilification?

Your studies are selective.

People, families, whatever, need to be judged by their individual merit, not by the cateogry they fall into. That's all I'm saying. Individual merit. Take any given family, assess all the factors that make up their lifestyle -including, but not at all limited to- whether they are nuclear-style or not, then judge them if you must.

Yar.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 3:58:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Spendo, maybe we are all being too maligning and judgemental of Timkins. Clearly he has the most perfect marriage, with beautifully well adjusted and fully actualised children, and merely wants all others to have the same opportunities for domestic bliss
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 4:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,
I don’t think it has much to do with a battle of "wills", but more to do with the public being misinformed.

If someone asked a nutritionist “What should people generally eat”? The nutritionist would probably be failing in their duty and profession if they said “Whatever they like. It’s their choice. Whatever they see advertised in the popular media”.

Instead, the nutritionist would likely say “Follow the Healthy Eating Pyramid” http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/Food_Facts/Fact_Sheets/about%20_the_healthy_eating_pyramid.asp (NB. most foods advertised in the popular media, are not recommended by nutritionists).

But if someone asked a Social Scientist “What type of relationship should people generally have to best raise children?” Would the Social Scientist be failing in their duty and profession if they said “Whatever they like. It’s their choice. Whatever they see advertised in the popular media”.

There have been studies into marriage in Australia, but few studies have been carried out into alternatives to marriage, (eg. de facto relationships, cohabitation, single parent families etc), even though about 31% of children are now being born outside of marriage. This lack of study into alternatives to marriage (or lack of publishing of any results of such studies), becomes a very serious professional failing by Social Science in Australia.

When marriage is compared to other relationship types, marriage is normally far superior. But the public has been receiving mostly negative messages about marriage and few positive messages from Social Science or the media, and almost no information about the alternatives to marriage, or about any alternatives to the nuclear family.

So that is my main principle:- If more taxpayer’s money is to be spent, it should be spent on trying to repair the misinformation the public has been receiving, and also spent on repairing marriages, and not spent on encouraging more divorce, (and thereby encouraging the divorce industry).

Enja,
Would calling another poster “old” be a reliable and responsible choice?.

It has never been established that Family Law or Child Support is humorous.

Mahatma Duck,
Still waiting for your answers. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3800#15319

Spendocrat,
Would calling other posters “brass monkeys” be a reliable and responsible choice?
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 6:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj,
I agree. Living vicariously through children is certainly a trait in both women and men who feel as if they haven’t achieved in their own lives so live through successes of their offspring. Not altogether a bad thing as pride (balanced with humility) is ok.

I think you highlighted the issue in exampling the private school comparison – it should not be the school that matters but the endeavours of the child. How are they doing? Not where are they attending and whom are they connecting with. Personally, I think this last issue is a growing danger (and subject of another article some time). But you struck the chord for me. That people need to ‘one-up’ each other is more about appearances than substance – another malady of our society?

Duck-man (if I may?),
Agreed that it appears as far as parenting goes ‘less are producing more’ and the status of a parent would seem to be diminishing. However, I think that this may in fact be creating a situation (in social circles of a certain class where status seems to be most important) that the child becomes almost a sign of superiority (i.e. we achieve, succeed and have time for children - make sense?). This is what may lead to a lack of caring for the child’s wellbeing, as the status is the focus, not the child.

That parenting has diminished as a kind of ‘right of passage’ - I do not disagree. That it is a loss to society (as with the nuclear family) is, perhaps, debatable. Arguments regarding moral/value loss in our society tend to be based on strict dogmatic codes that refuse to accept that society is a fluid environment and that no moral/value code survives in a static state.

Laurie,
Agreed. A parent's pride in their child’s achievements is a good thing, even healthy for both. It is when the child is ‘used’ in a narcissistic way that it becomes dangerous.

Spendo,
Couldn’t have said it better…

Lisamaree,
Aaarr, let’s keelhall the disenters and split the booty… where’s me parrot?! Yarrr…
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 22 September 2005 12:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, the nutritionist metaphor was a good one…you almost had me stumped, until I realised that while different social and family environments work for different people, good food is pretty much universal. Barring an allergy or something, an apple is good for everyone. Not so with the nuclear-style family. So it was close, but no cigar.

Not to mention the fact that I wouldn’t listen to a nutritionist anyway, but that’s just because I’m reckless and addicted to fried chicken.

I don’t know about your idea that marriage is receiving a lot of ‘negative’ attention in the media. I would say it’s not really receiving much attention either way, mainly because who cares? For example, the distinction between a married couple without kids, and an unmarried couple living together without kids, is an entirely arbitrary one. The difference is a piece of paper.

All studies aside, I don’t think the fact that there is less marriage (or more divorce) these days has changed the average family environment one bit. Back in the day when everyone got married and had kids, there was still crime, still domestic violence, still misbehaving children, depression, money woes, on and on. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there were more unhappy marriages back then, because some people married (and stayed married) out of pressure, rather than because it was something they really wanted to do.

I know there’s problems in the family court, that much is obvious. I find it sad that people need to take these things to court, rather than being grown up enough to sort out the problems themselves. If you aren’t mature enough to sort out what happens to your child in the event of a divorce, then maybe you aren’t mature enough to have kids in the first place (Note the disclaimer: ‘maybe’. I concede I don’t really know enough about the topic to have the answers, just expressing my thoughts).

Your passion for the subject seems to suggest perhaps a negative personal experience? If this is the case, I’m calling your objectivity into question.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 22 September 2005 12:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy