SusieBlue wrote: » This has to be a wind up. Your comments are extremely insulting to any parent who has to put their child into childcare so they can work to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. If there was full time parenting for all, who would pay your precious Margaret her 50k a year to be "a mother first"???
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am saying that she sees her primary role as a mother.She is not a career obsessed women who decides to tick the boxes when she hits 30 then has 2.5 kids. Ticks the boxes and back to work, kids to childminder. Cash sees her role as a full time mother first and foremost. That used to be the way of society but those values are lost. In a way as the taxpayer carries the can for the likes of Cash who does not have a working man to provide for her. The childminders (mostly paid and lowly paid) carry the can for the working part-time parents.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am saying that she sees her primary role as a mother. She is not a career obsessed women who decides to tick the boxes when she hits 30 then has 2.5 kids. Ticks the boxes and back to work, kids to childminder. Cash sees her role as a full time mother first and foremost. That used to be the way of society but those values are lost. In a way as the taxpayer carries the can for the likes of Cash who does not have a working man to provide for her. The childminders (mostly paid and lowly paid) carry the can for the working part-time parents.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents. Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not. Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » But the fact is those parents who put thier kids into childcare are 'part-time' / weekend 'quality time' parents. Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Alternatively those working parents could chose not to have kids at all.
lawred2 wrote: » it's clear that you have an axe to grind with these women getting all uppity and having the temerity to have jobs and such.. there can be no other reason for finding valour in the lifestyle of Ms Cash over those women working and rearing similarly minded children they should be at home popping them out annually and running them all down to mass at the weekend... right?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am saying that she sees her primary role as a mother.
She is not a career obsessed women who decides to tick the boxes when she hits 30 then has 2.5 kids.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » My point is they are trying to have the best of both worlds, but in reality someone else is doing the parenting. It baffles me how it has become the social norm. Look at what that parent is missing out on (it does not have to be mother by the way - it could be house husband). A childminder gets to see the kid growing up instead of the parent. You try telling a traveller that someone else is going to rare your kids and both (for the most part) because that is the way we do it in society... Just because it is the way we do things now in modern Ireland?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Those working parents could also chose to live on welfare like Cash, but they want a nicer lifestyle so they do not.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » alternatively people like Cash could just to have no kids as they can't afford them. You seem happy for the most indigent in society to have as many kids as they want and the state to pay for them but put down those working people who only have the kids they can afford.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her. She has made her choices that is the situation she is in. By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means. But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » My point is they are trying to have the best of both worlds, but in reality someone else is doing the parenting. It baffles me how it has become the social norm. Look at what that parent is missing out on (it does not have to be mother by the way - it could be house husband). A childminder gets to see the kid growing up instead of the parent.You try telling a traveller that someone else is going to rare your kids and both (for the most part) because that is the way we do it in society... Just because it is the way we do things now in modern Ireland?
Gravelly wrote: » Wasn't Margaret herself reared by someone else other than her parents?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up.
Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: » For now, she is. Lets just hope she keeps getting suspended sentences from our lenient judges, or those kids might not be seeing their model Mammy for a while.
cloudy90210 wrote: » Gives her more time to make extra babies too. Good judge letting her off
Gravelly wrote: » Can't be putting away a good legal industry earner like Margaret - that's be killing the golden goose. Imagine the future earnings from her, her kids, their kids etc.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » That is an alternative yes, but at least she is around to see her children growing up. That is clearly the things that are most precious to her. She has made her choices that is the situation she is in. By the way I am in no way saying that she is a nice individual by any means.But she seems to love her kids and her role as mother.
retro:electro wrote: » And do you think these “career obsessed women” are slaving away with 40+ hours a week under their belt for the fun of it? Most people work in order to provide stability for their future. It also sets a good example to their children