|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 11:32 PM
The most frustrating thing is you dismissing my points as me 'not knowing any better.' I feel that is very rude indeed. I don't dismiss your points because your grammar is bad, so why should you dismiss mine because I'm younger than you?
Do you have a child yourself? If not, your experience of it is the same as mine. Even if you do, it doesn't mean you can be rude about mine. I do not like children, so I do not have a motherly bond with them. However I can understand that people love their children and do love to spend time with them - nobody objects to that. My point is that a mother doesn't have to stay at home and look after the kids all the time if she doesn't want to. That ideology has passed and is proven to be sexist and old fashioned. My other point is there needs to be a balance and for both parents to be working is a good thing as long as they spend enough time with the child. This doesn't mean that one of them needs to stay at home all the time while the other works. If I had a kid now, it'd be way easier. I could drop out of University, get my own free house, live on benefits. Sure, living in a crappy council house on a chav estate for the next few years ain't my idea of fun, but it'd be a walk in the park compared to what I'm doing now. University and working and everything that comes with it is harder than if I just had a kid. Why do you think girls my age have kids all the time? Why do you think England has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe? It's because people are lazy and they can't be arsed, and pregnancy IS the easy way out in an England that has very little in the way of employment prospects. Oh and I didn't say having a kid is easy, I said it would be EASIER than what I'm currently down now, at this point in time. 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-19-2010, 11:39 PM
Quote:
Men and women are very different. nature provided Mothers to carry the child in her womb, to breast feed her child. Mothers should know instinctively how to treat and care for her child. Not all do of course-- as I know to my own cost. How can one be sure that where ever their child is placed in day care or nurseries, that the child will be looked after properly? There have been many stories of badly run nurseries. usually the staff are underpaid. No doubt if parents earn enough to employ a GOOD NANNY-- they can leave their child in that nannys care--BUT--------------- How do they know how that child is treated when they are not there? child minders are usually CB checked-- but does that mean they know how to care for YOUR child in the way that YOu would wish. How safe are they? There was a lot of abuse in foster homes and in childrens homes. because there was nobody there to supervise them. children were supposed to be cared for-- but too many were-- and ARE NOT.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-19-2010, 11:43 PM
Quote:
Um yes-- I have a son and daughter and six grand children expecting soon to be a grt grannny. what are you doing now that you think would be made easier by having a child now? NO, Unprotected sex is the reason too many children are born. Just expecting the STATE to pay for everything is not definite these days. It is irresponsible to bring any child into the world--Just because you think it will be easier than what ever you are doing nOW. You don't have a clue MISA-- really you don't.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 11:46 PM
Haha, alright then. Obviously unprotected sex is the reason children are born, but what are the reasons people aren't using it? Some people are niave as to think 'we don't know' but that's only a small part of it.
If you think teenage girls get pregnant because WOOPS we didn't know about condoms, then you are incredibly niave. Of course it's stupid to bring a child into the world because it's easier than what I'm doing now. That's why I'm not pregant. My friend quit 6th form because it was too hard and she had a kid instead, she's way richer than me atm and she has her own house. Just sayin' you know.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-19-2010, 11:46 PM
Quote:
Sorry, I'm not actually disagreeing with you as such, just the wording, lol. I think the problem is people think kids are an easy option, that being a stay-at-home mom/dad is a soft option, but having worked/been around kids I can honestly say it's not! I am extremely glad that I'm still in university and soon will have a career, because children are much harder to look after full-time than it is to study/work, and I know I'm far from being ready for that. I think people are naive for assuming stay-at-home parents are taking an easy option, and that time with children would soon change the mentality (again, not directly to you, just directed at the mentality of some people in general).
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-19-2010, 11:47 PM
Quote:
So you wouldn't care who looked after your child? Not over protective-- SENSIBLE. I know too well about abuse to children. NUNS who were terribly cruel to girls in there care-- all over the world. Priests who regularly abused the boys in their so called CARE.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 11:51 PM
No, it would be easier for me, at this point in time. Only I can tell you that.
My friend is the same age as me, same income, same family, same nursery, same primary school, same high school. She had a kid at 18, I didn't. Right now her life is easier than mine - she says it herself. But that's just the here and now. When I've finished everything and I have a cushy job, a nice house and decent wage (hopefully) she'll be lumbered with kids still and it's damned hard work. I've looked after her kid many times and I know it's not easy. I thought having a child would be harder than what I'm doing now until our lives have been running a parallel and she's got it easier than me atm. Personally I think the myth works the other way round. I've said many times I don't want kids. If I had a kid, I'd hate it, it'd be unwanted, and I wouldn't care about it at all. This is why I would not have a kid under any circumstances, duh. D: If I liked kids and wanted kids, of course I'd care who looked after them. But that person doesn't have to be ME just in case something obscure might happen. It'd be me some of the time because I liked to spend time with the kid and it'd be a nanny the other times so I could work and have a break. Why is that bad?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-20-2010, 12:01 AM
I agree with MMM, my dad said he DESPISED leaving me in the care of other people. He was very protective and only put in day care when he had to (his was in the Air Force reserves). Especially when we were little and by the time I was 10 my dad considered me mature enough to watch my siblings so we were rarely in the care of others. (That and I was homeschooled since 3rd grade) My dad knew he wanted to be the ones to raise his kids. Not the public school system, not my evil-ass British baby-sitter who I was in the care of her for a little while, during which she enjoyed slapping the shit out of me and her son kinda sexually molested me (we were 5 so it wasn't too bad-- still kinda gross though
 ). I'm glad I had my dad home with me and my siblings, and I'm glad I was homeschooled. I have a very close relationship with my family because only my mother worked. And while my dad did 'sacrifice' his career and went into the reserves, it also gave him the time to follow his passion and start a (rather unsucessful) machine shop.I'm sure two working parents can raise a child well. Just remember that if you're not raising your child, someone else is. That person's methods and views may not coincide with yours. I believe the parents should do most of the raising and 'shaping' of the children. But like I said, I'm sure two working parents could find a healthy balance betwee work schedules and find time for raising thier children. All I'm saying is I'm glad I was raised the way I was-- I wouldn't change it at all. Just my two cents.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
