Wow, what amazingly stark contrasts we have here.

On another page, on OLO today, we have Dr Noel Preston, pleading for world equity and justice - "As if the world matters" - and on this page we have sister Jane pleading to be saved from the shocking debacle of choice that Western wealth has created for her. Whatever one's views might be on either article, the glaring difference illustrates clearly the vast chasm that exists globally between those-who-have and those-who-have-not.

"20,000 people die each day because of extreme poverty," writes Preston. Meanwhile, in salubrious uptown Sydney, Caro perplexes over her kinder's affluence, "What about the piano lessons they hate?" - she writes.

The poor woman.

If she was starving, she'd complain. But here, given lashings of wealth and dripping with choice - what happens? She still complains. Will women like Caro ever be happy?

'Struth. Save us from this creeping evil that is Western bourgeois female privilege.

Maximus, read the article through to the end, you stopped too early (or read and ignored the closing paragraph) - I think Jane is pointing out how little real difference all those choices make.

I've read the article as a somewhat satirical comment on obsession with "the extra's" and how little real difference they make. (Am I right Jane?)

The choices Jane lists as having made at the end of the article don't read like the choices someone obsessed with their western female privilege would make.

R0bert

Yo! Nice try RObert. And of course I did read the bottom line mate. And I also did comprehend the attempt at whimsy.

But despite this attempt to ho-ho-ho it all away, the fact remains that Jane has herself considered all these matters as revealed in the last paragraph, where the political has become personal (first person) - "it seems to me that all that angst was for nothing", she writes.

In my assessment, Jane's "angst" was concern about her choices of privilege. Not something to ho-ho-ho about with 20,000 people dying everyday. In fact I see it very much as an abuse of privilege.

Come on, the article is basically saying that really, disposable nappies, recyclable or even plain old cloth isn't going to make a difference in the long run.

Sure, kids will grow up a certain way dependent upon what discipline, education and social interaction they have, but outside those pretty broad categories it's really not going to be all that different.

I know quite a few parents who came to this conclusion after their first born, and were much more relaxed in bringing up their second. I haven't seen any reason to assume they're somehow disadvantaged.

Jane asks
"Will you give birth"..No, I won't.

"Will you breastfeed"..No, God didn't give me anything to breastfeed with.

And will I send my children to "the private school you hated when you were a girl"..
No, I won't. Because I'm not a woman, and I was never a girl.
Jane Caro has a lot of cheek to presume to write for all parents. Especially because she can't know very much about what it means to be a man.
Heaven preserve us from these people who assume they know all of human nature!! There are millions of parents out there of a hundred different nationalities and 2 sexes, speaking different languages. Why, Jane, do you imagine you speak for all of them?
Where are men's voices in these debates? Why don't they speak up? Are they worried that someone is going to jump down their throat?
Guys, women can't hear what you don't say. So let's hear what you have to say. I doubt that you have the same world-view as any woman, really. And there are a million experiences, a million opinions, on being a dad, being a son, being a man.

Whimsy? Satire? Meaningless drivel?

The last paragraph of the article is ridiculous. It may certainly be true that obsessing over some things may be pointless, but to suggest that "I could have made a whole lot of totally different choices...and they would have turned out just the same" is just stupid. Why not take such a line to its logical (and absurd) conclusion: "I could have locked my kid in a cupboard all its childhood and it would have turned out the same"? Every experience is going to have some effect on a child's development, even if it's not easily seen or measured. For example, unless your child is a musical prodigy, he or she is not going to be able to play piano without a lesson or by jamming perhaps.

Get real. What a stupid article. There's plenty at this site that is well written and meaningful (even stuff that I don't agree with or that I'm not particularly interested in), then there's about 50% of what passes for writing here that is just complete nonsense. What a vacuous, self-indulgent offering. Is this site (and this nation) so hard up for intelligent writing?

Jane writes in the middle about a new-born human baby that smiles, breathes and "goo-gars" in the context of:
"Then you take it home, will you breastfeed and for how long? Will it sleep in your bed or in its own?"
What is an "it"?
When a human baby is an inanimate object, the last line of:
"Maybe the choices we make have very little to do with our children, and everything to do with how we want the world to see us." maybe is correct.

Really loved this article..It touched me on a bittersweet level that I really understand..It IS so hard to be a parent in the society of today. It seems that nothing is easy, nothing is right or wrong. Every mistake can be forgotten in a second or agonised over for weeks, months and years. My son is 5years old and I still have no idea if I am doing the right things all the time..and I suspect, that much to my distaste, I am probably making just as many, if not more mistakes than my own parents. Yes, the same ones I talk about when I spend time with my therapist...Ah..isn't life grand..

Jane.

Your strange. very Strange.

Why on earth does it bother you what other people do with their kids and their life.

Just get a life yourself without sticking your nose into others and leave people alone.

What a lot of dribble and what a bore.

Hope you dont make up your wage with public funding.

With so much choice is it any wounder that many are making the choice of not having to contend with choices.

It may have something to do with the declining birth rate. Its all just too much bother.

The extent to which kids are pampered and bubble wrapped is an insight into how coiffed and pampered we have become. We are spoiled rotten and we project that onto our kids. Such vicarious existence is normal to parenting, l would suggest. As old as the hills. The extent to which it has morphed reflects our own self absorption.

Oh, for a simpler existence... if only.

peace.

I'm somewhat amazed by the reactions being generated by this piece...

Many seem to aggressively dispute that many of the choices parents make are irrelevant - Caro's prime assertion.

She's not talking about 'locking the children' in a cupboard, as I've seen posted. Nor is she comparing children raised in an environment of domestic violence as opposed to a healthy upbringing.

She is simply saying that a variety of choices that cause stress for parents, aren't necessarily as important as first time parents think they are.

(Okay, I'm adding the 'first time' bit, but seeing as Caro has written this article, it's safe to assume that she, for one, has realised after having a child or two that this is the case. If that's an unreasonable assertion, feel free to attack it).

These variety of choices aren't the biggies, but they do cause stress. The general message here is that if parents are genuinely trying and doing a reasonable job, then they can feel good about that. The fact that your child has had a hissy fit in a shopping mall or started drawing on the walls doesn't necessarily mean that you have failed as a parent and your son or daughter will grow up to be a child molester.

Now on this basis, without the attacking sensationalist attitude of fear which seems more and more common these days... who disagrees?

Jane, Great article. Shame most other posters just don't get it. Bondi Pete, no kids I assume, mate, i am a dad of two 12 and 9 very involved in all the decisions we make about our kids education, sport etc etc. Most middle class blokes are more and more involved with being parents. Sure Janes article is based on middle class issues and these are pressures on parents out there. Drop us a line in a few years when perhaps actually being a parent will give you real experiences to comment on. And Wendy L let me guess, you do all the mothering and dad earns the money and even though perhaps you do reluctantly have to work its really just to pay those pesky private school fees.You would really be much happier spending all your time project mananging your family. Your the sort of great Australian mum that would say to me family income(200k+) and sending their kids to secondAry and primary schools that we are making the WRONG choice and failing our kids!! wENDY l-am i right??

pdev

TurnRightThenLeft: You said, "These variety of choices aren't the biggies, but they do cause stress."

Au contraire, some may not be biggies, but some of the choices mentioned in the article (and in the conclusion) are extremely important which is precisely why so many parents (not just of the current breeding generation) stress (and have stressed) over them. It's a lot more than providing a roof, some food and not beating them. To give but one example, results consistently show that private education vastly outperforms public education. That's no biggy though, and it's not worth worrying about, right?

Actually shorbe, results show nothing of the kind.
The only consistent reason behind high educational achievement is socio-economic background of the parents, public and private have no impact in and of themselves. Private schools with high levels of middle class parents do well, so do similar public schools.
But once kids get to uni, there is a great deal of evidence that kids from comprehensive public do better. 4 studies ( the most recent from Monash Uni in Melb, I think) have shown that kids from comprehensive public schools who get to uni generally start out with a 5 mark disadvantage. By the end of their first year, this has been neatly reversed and the public school kids are out performing both their private and selective school peers by, wait for it, an average of 5 marks.
So, if you're middle class, your kid will probably do well whatever school you send them to, but if you want them to do really well at uni - send them to the comprehensive public.

ena: I think you're defining things extremely narrowly. Firstly, the socio-economic background of parents of private school children is not necessarily middle class (or upper class). In many cases, the parents have much lower educational levels than their children will have, and the parents simply aren't wealthy. So, whilst (to use a Melbourne example) there might not be a difference between Camberwell High School and C.G.S., there's a massive difference between the performance of students who live in Springvale and attend the local high school compared to those who attend nearby Haileybury College. That's the whole point of the "suburban" private school: you buy your kid a ladder to the next socio-economic class. Otherwise immigrants and other aspirationals wouldn't fork out five figures a year per child. It would be a pretty bad investment.

Secondly, regarding performance at university, I'm not disputing that, but what you're missing here is that a much larger number of kids from private schools get there in the first place (even if they have to be spoon fed), and not all of those are from middle class backgrounds. Otherwise, like I said, the aspirationals wouldn't make the sacrifices they do to send their kids to private schools to begin with.

Finally, regarding where to send kids who are already in the "right" socio-economic class, I suggest it's as much about networking. As much as anyone might claim to dislike the Old Boys' Club, once again, it performs.

You're trying to hold up a handful of kids who would probably succeed no matter what as evidence that the government system isn't a complete shipwreck (which a lot of people who send their kids to private school are only too aware of).

While the socio-economic background of kids at private schools is not necessarily middle class, it is more likely to be, merely because they charge up front fees.
Latest figures say 1 in 6 kids at private schools is from a "low income' family ( or understating their taxable income). That means 5 out of 6 are from higher income families.
It is the bleeding obvious that schools that don't charge up front fees get more of the poorer kids. That is the most likely reason many public schools don't get the results private ones do. Schools like Killara High, Cheltenham Girls and Mosman High in Sydney out perform most private schools. Why? because they draw from high socio-economic areas.

Maybe ena,
a word in shorbe's first comment motivated you to write the comment that you wrote.

That word is "STRESS". Have you studied the motivational psychologists Freud, Yung, Fromm, Erikson, Rogers, Maslow, Pavlov and of course Skinner who taught a pigeon to bowl?

University study is a major dose of 'stress' and it is how you cope under stress that defines what will happen the student. Under stress, all humans go under the pressure of the "fight or flight' syndrome. It is how we are motivated and what motivates us in life that decides what and how we evolve as people and go forward in society, or back.

Some fight, some sit and freeze and fret, and some flee and run away.
Now if a public school student is subjected to some stress they begin to learn how to cope with stress and develop coping strategies against stress. Some take up smoking, some drugs, some listen to music.

Others who are put in cotton wool in private school and their mummy and daddy looks after them in that cotton wool, when they go to university they can not cope.
The public school child is better able to cope and they have had some stress more than private school students.
It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is how we cope in the world on our own under stress that predicts what we will become

Now Ena you say:
"The only consistent reason behind high educational achievement is socio-economic background of the parents . . ."
Yes, that is correct because it is the best starting point up Maslow's ladder and it gives tenacity against stress and whether under stress you will fight and move forward learn and make your way in the world . . . and pass that exam, and get that job, and marry that girl and buy that business, and become a person of respect in society, a leader and not a follower.
Someone like Jane Caro who was made into who she was and is before the age of seven.

Jane,
I for one find your ability to balance feminine (not feminist) ideas with partnership, family and self quite reasonable (no pun!)

I do believe that it is those who are threatened by a woman’s success and intimidated by a family with an achieving mother that are the one’s who are make the most noise

Keep writing – both my partner and I find your writing interesting and providing plenty of food for personal thought and discussion.

Sorbe, I agree with your analysis that the suburban private school is catering to the aspirational families out there. One issue we have noticed locally is that parents where there is a good/reasonable govt school choice will send thier kids there particularly if they are tertiary qualified themselves. They believe their kids will succeed and feel very comfortable with the education mindset but many parents who are not tertiary qualified seem to feel the only option is high cost elite private schools. That is they are not willing to take the chance. I believe this has much to do with their perception of their own secondary school years and feelings of having'missed out' theselves. The private system has done a fantastic marketing job in convincing many that the govt system is residual and definetly not a place for them. This is supported by articles almost everyday in The Age and herald Sun in Melb praising the virtues of struggling families who scrimp and save for that private school product. Again perhaps I am writing from a position of comfort having got my son into a high performing but not selective inner city school. What the middle class do not seem willing to do is band together send there kids to the local high school, reclaim it from its residual status and guess what, results improve social mix changes and everyones happy. The only sector not happy with this scenario is the private schools. I am not a conspiracy nut but hey how do you sell your product but market heavily (girsl and boys ib unforms plastered on trams and billborads) and diminish the alternative at every opportunity.

Shorbe - A few debatable points.

Whether or not private schooling is better than public is another debate and I'll happily acknowledge I don't have all the facts at hand. That being said, during my high school years I spent a pretty equal time at both public and private school, and while I noticed there was more resources at the private one, it didn't change the amount of work I put in, which is what really counts - though I couldn't tell you if private schools turn out better students overall.

One thing I can tell you is this:
There is a pretty wide spectrum that constitutes good parenting. Because a parent may have a relaxed attitude, they aren't necessarily worse for the child - a neglectful one is, certainly, but that's not quite the same, and that's not what Caro's saying.

If a child is to grow up and be a success, one day they will have to leave the nest. If they don't have the skills and self reliance and confidence to be self sufficient, they will fail.
I've seen plenty of parents who have taken a magnifying glass to their children's upbringing - everything their child does is scrutinised, and the children have no room to take risks or flex their wings. Overprotectiveness can be almost as harmful as neglect, and these children don't become self sufficient.

Parents need to accept that some elements of their children aren't up to them - fate will intervene, and so will the will of the offspring, and if it doesn't, then that's when you have a real problem.

ena: There's the middle class and there's the middle class. Tchnically, a family on a combined income of $80,000 (gross) is in the middle class, but in order to pay the school fees for two kids, half their before income tax is swallowed up. After a mortgage (for a modest house in a modest suburb), it doesn't leave much. I would suggest that the figure of 1 in 6 you suggest doesn't adequately describe the legions of small business owners or other people who live lifestyles with little leeway for extravagence, but instead make sacrifices and are prudent with their money. These people are hardly from a high socio-economic bracket.

Ultimately, I think there's something absent in your analysis or thousands and thousands of parents (regardless of class) wouldn't spend a lot of money on private education, and kids wouldn't travel (in some cases) over an hour to avoid the local hell hole.

Glen: I'm not really sure what you're getting at. To suggest that private school kids (who aside from the stress of high academic expectations -- both from themselves and others -- often have to put in a lot of extra time doing extra-curricular activities) don't have stress is a little disingenuous.

pdev: Are all private schools high cost and elite though? The biggest growth area is in small schools that supposedly provide the moral guidance lacking in the government system, and for whom, having a fantastic rowing team is irrelevant.

I disagree with you about the middle class reclaiming the government system and changing the social mix. The problems with education are far more deeply rooted. Particularly relevant though is a fundamental difference in culture. In very general terms, those who are willing to inflict the suburban government system on their kids see education as a punishment, not either inherently good or a means to social mobility. This is a gaping chasm that cannot be bridged and that the inner city left dare not admit (despite never wanting to live in such places or send their kids to such schools).

Despite the highjacking of the original article about choice in the modern Western world - by myopic private-public school/ideology fanciers - the main point is still here. And that is, why does Jane Caro gloat so over modern Western choice?

I say, because she can.

Remember, she wrote this article. She expressed angst about parental choice. She wanted to make light - Satire? Whimsy? Drivel? (loved that post by Faustino) - about the matter. Schooling is just one very minor subordinate issue.

Back to the point. Caro's diatribe is about whinging over privilege. A bemused "little number", she scribes, that, which would sit well with her personal elite set. The trouble of course comes when she, and her elite set, lose sight of what real life is actually like for the rest of us out here. She has absolutely no idea. She really doesn't have the first idea. No idea at all. It's all there in her writing.

And that's why this tragic article stands testament to exactly what it is - a bourgeois rant. "Tut-tut, ha-ha, ho-ho, let them eat cake, you know what I mean darling?". The sort of chuckle you'd have over croissants in your new stainless steel kitchen, whilst wearing designer underwear that "YOU KNOW" is better than what she's wearing.

The entire article is just so quiche.

I won't write anymore, to save myself having to barf.

Jane Caro's "elegant" rubbish is disgusting, modern feminist princess entitlement gone sick. If this is the mentality and depth of parenting today, we are so, so, so, way, way, way off the track - you know what I mean dear?

Give it a rest Jane.

shorbe,
You know exactly what I am getting at. That is why you mentioned the middle-class salary, and then you bump up that salary by saying it is combined and then bump it again by saying it is gross. yes it is gross by that other meaning shorbe.
Just who is the chump here. It ain't me.
Let's cut that $80,000 combined salary in half to $40,000 and that is where the middle-class combined salary is where I come from.
Could you take that stress to live on half of what you earn.

TurnRightThenLeft: Sorry for not responding in the lass comment, but I was running out of words. I see what you're getting at, I just don't think that's (entirely) what she was saying. If she was, then I admit I'm wrong and off the mark.

Glen: Who says I do or don't earn anywhere near that much? For those who do, good on them. Maybe they're not the Little Aussie Battlers (aka Little Aussie Bludgers) who won't get off their backsides yet still expect others in society to carry them. I'm sick of hearing it. This country is still a land of opportunity, not entitlement, though it's fast becoming that way. The real backbone of this country get shafted from both ends. I don't like John Howard much at all (and I didn't vote Liberal last time in case you're wondering), and I'm sure a lot in the middle don't, yet here's why the left in this country are so far off the mark: even if the right only pays lip service to middle Australia, at least they're not outright hostile to them. Enough with the politics of envy already. It's boring.

GlenWriter. All is well if children don't get depressed, develop behavioural problems, mental illness and/or commit suicide. But then again if that happens we can just blame the parents anyway!

People seem to forget that children are like little adults and they feel, they see and they understand.

Decisions can be stressful for parents because in many instances they have limited control and they have real live children to deal with who are often struggling to cope and loosing hope.

I thought it was a ridiculous article.

Jane, I don’t know why you felt you had to make all these choices and decisions re schooling and outings etc., especially as they got older for your children?

My husband and I have always equipped our children with the knowledge, skills and confidence to make their own choices and decisions. To date they have always made my husband and I proud and they have always made decisions that were in their best interest and we have 4 children, two are teenagers. If we don’t allow them to make their own choices and decisions then they don’t learn to make the right choices and they don’t learn about consequences.

Our job as a parent is to encourage and support our children, not to live their life for them so if you thought you had to make all those choices and decisions for your children, then that was a situation that you created.

Not all parents bring their children up that way!

There was an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today about worried children http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,19952867-5006010,00.html
Children are not oblivious to what is happening in the world and as a result they don't really have it made!

Jolanda,
Don't you know that the Australian Women's Weekly is more scientific, the Woman's Day is more rational and the New Idea well Simone swears by it that it has the complet facts.
The Daily Telegraph well they just ram camaras in peoples faces while out with their children.
If you want the real facts the New Idea is the one.

Dear Jolanda,
Um, the article was meant to be satirical. I am, in fact, totally of your mind, that all the agonising of modern parents is, by and large, a waste of time and energy.
I see it as a kind of projected egotism - that the decisions modern parents make are all of extreme importance - when, in fact, they are mostly trivial, and more about the parents - and how they want the world to see them - than about their kids.
My message- perhaps badly communicated - is meant to be a common sense one, that kids (particularly middle class ones) are resilient and, unless actively abused or grossly neglected, tend to turn out as they were meant to turn out.
I meant to poke gentle fun at the obsessive control culture practiced by many parents today, so I celebrate your desire to let your kids decide what they will do and have, in fact, practiced much the same philosophy myself - and my kids are doing pretty well too.
Jane

"My message- perhaps badly communicated," she wrote!

Hmm, massive understatement.

But wait, what's this I've found?

B&T (19 December 2001)
Caro begins new year with new home at Principals
http://www.bandt.com.au/news/8d/0c009c8d.asp

"Caro said she was 'running out of puff'."

Well, I can see that nothing's changed here then.

Never mind dear, feminist entitlement princesses have had their day. Dinosaurs are supposed to go where they're supposed to go - into history.

Nothing personal, you understand Jane?

Have a happy life.

Thank you enaj for clarifying your true position with us. We appreciate it. Too bad for your general readership not privy to supplementary notes we at OLO are privileged with. All those choice induced stress infested middle-class families torn apart by decisions such as sending Hunter and Pearl to piano lessons, or splurging out on a new Lexus.

It somewhat explains you generic references to obsessive parenting without once mentioning gender. We can only presume this was in the interest of neutrality. Commendable.

But there is one choice you totally omitted. This is available to every modern feminist parent, considered by at least half and probably exercised by a third; the choice of one resident parent over two.

My goodness, it was obvious to me that Jane was being ironic, even before I read any clarifying comments. If you're oblivious to irony, that doesn't actually mean the author is communicating badly.

Back on topic, I'd say this touches on the nature vs nurture debate. Obviously Jane thinks that nature is more responsible than nurture for the resulting personalities of the kids. But I think it's also an interesting point about Western parenting as opposed to the sort of parenting that goes on in other parts of the world. In traditional cultures, where people don't do things like read books that tell them how to bring up their kids and (irony alert for those who don't understand it) that it's very important that they listen to Mozart or their brains won't develop properly, and they must teach them to read from flashcards before the age of two or they're neglectful parents, there is consensus as to how children are treated, and so much less choice about how to raise them.

I actually think this is an important factor in the children not turning into brats. Their parents are certain of both their roles/actions and the children's roles. There is no parental uncertainty for the children to exploit. The child won't sense indecision and have a tanty, because there's no indecision - the parents simply act the way their parents and their grandparents acted, and all the other parents around them act.

The point is that all the choice we have doesn't improve anything. (Although also, for the record, I'd suggest that anyone "chosing" to give birth with their feet in stirrups is not actually being empowered to make an informed choice!)

I found this article to be amusing in parts but I could not relate to it. I agree with Maximus that this article can be construed as offensive when viewed in the wider context of world inequality. I am glad that Jane has made clear how lucky I am that I do not have all the angst associated with middle-class parenting choices.

Public or Private? Private is out of our reach financially - glad I don't have to agonise over that.

Piano lessons that my children will hate? Can't afford a piano or the lessons. My children will get only one extra-curricular activity because we can't afford more for each of our three children. They will learn to choose carefully.

Indeed Maslow's heirachy of needs dictates what it is a parent will 'angst' about. For our family, it is getting the bills paid and what budget we have for food this week. I have little angst about my childrens future success in life because I operate on the assumption that modelling of healthy relationships, self-respect and respect for others and a strong work ethic will be enough to send them out to make their own choices.

Jane is right that all that angst has probably come to nought. But perhaps she would like to consider how desirable that angst might be to those of us who don't even have those options.

Can anybody please explain?

Why is it that women complain (at length) about how hard it is to be a mother, how dreadfully boring it is, how many dilemmas and difficulties they have to contend with. How men are pathetic for doing the bulk of the paid work, paying for everything but not also looking after the kids as well?

Yet, when push-comes-to-shove, they hang onto this dreadful burden with all the legal and immoral tricks their lawyers can think of... In the place where push-comes-to-shove, in the Family Cout?

Yep, why don't women embrace shared parenting after divorce?
Especially the feminists who should want equality?

Answer: the Feminasties (nasty feminists) have taken over from true pro-equality feminists. Feminasties don't want equality, they are just nasty!