gormdubhgorm wrote: » My answer to this is simple those working parents chose to have children. If they find it that difficult long commutes, long hours, barely seeing thier kids etc. Why bother becoming a parent? You are only fooling yourself in that scenario. It is just part-time parenting, full time work. Rinse and repeat then. Surely the parenting has to suffer when it is not the main focus. As I said earlier I think that is a positive aspect of traveller culture the full time mothers and the sense of community. Granted thier are obvious unsavory aspects as well.But the main principle is sound. If mothers in the settled community only had children if they could afford with a stay at home / stay at home house husband. That would mean less stress, no part time parenting and a parent who sees thier child grow up. Anything else seems to be trying to burn the candle at both ends and one or other aspect suffering. But society at large has made thier choices this is the norm for others to bring up kids for working part-time parents. I still find it odd, but that is just my opinion.
baldbear wrote: » I'm not a fan of Margaret Cash but I feel like a bit of a bully slagging her off. She has received alot of crap after her stunt but I think this thread has run it's course. Would this thread be closed if she killed herself?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » My answer to this is simple those working parents chose to have children. If they find it that difficult long commutes, long hours, barely seeing thier kids etc. Why bother becoming a parent? You are only fooling yourself in that scenario. It is just part-time parenting, full time work. Rinse and repeat then. Surely the parenting has to suffer when it is not the main focus. As I said earlier I think that is a positive aspect of traveller culture the full time mothers and the sense of community. Granted thier are obvious unsavory aspects as well. But the main principle is sound. If mothers in the settled community only had children if they could afford with a stay at home / stay at home house husband. That would mean less stress, no part time parenting and a parent who sees thier child grow up. Anything else seems to be trying to burn the candle at both ends and one or other aspect suffering. But society at large has made thier choices this is the norm for others to bring up kids for working part-time parents. I still find it odd, but that is just my opinion.
givyjoe wrote: » What the actual fcuk?
Strawberry Milkshake wrote: » She wrote on FB before that she doesn’t want to live anymore. But she then said all was good as was just having a moment.
SusieBlue wrote: » You are also not so subtly saying that working women don't care about their children (bolded) but I won't take the bait.
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: » I think it is almost a box ticking excise for the working mother now. Education - Marry Late - Man - 1 kid - back to work childminder brings up kid. (Which means someone else takes over the parenting) Granted, not all stay at home mothers are good. But the travellers have it right it is more natural and less manufactured. If the travellers could sort out education and after education, then they would be on the right track completely. In my view. But that is up to the travellers to sort out.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » But the travellers have it right it is more natural and less manufactured.
If the travellers could sort out education and after education, then they would be on the right track completely.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » raising children to be criminals who live off the state is having it right?
gormdubhgorm wrote: As I said earlier I think that is a positive aspect of traveller culture the full time mothers and the sense of community. Granted thier are obvious unsavory aspects as well. But the main principle is sound. If mothers in the settled community only had children if they could afford with a stay at home / stay at home house husband. That would mean less stress, no part time parenting and a parent who sees thier child grow up. Anything else seems to be trying to burn the candle at both ends and one or other aspect suffering.
SusieBlue wrote: » Why are you criticising women for finishing their education, getting married, and buying a house before they decide to have a child? Are you saying it isn't a good thing for a child to be born to an educated woman with a good work ethic, parental stability and a secure home? Why isn't that a good thing? Why is it better to be one of 7 children to a 26yr old single mother who didn't complete primary school, has no home, and a blasé regard for the law?
gormdubhgorm wrote: Granted, not all stay at home mothers are good. But the travellers have it right it is more natural and less manufactured.
SusieBlue wrote: » Why are you criticising women for finishing their education, getting married, and buying a house before they decide to have a child? Are you saying it isn't a good thing for a child to be born to an educated woman with a good work ethic, parental stability and a secure home? Why isn't that a good thing?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » What I am saying is that they could have thier education then marry etc. No problem with that. It is the working and giving the kids away to childminders while they work baffles me. They end up part-time parenting but full time working. Then the childminding costs me they would be nearly better off not working in the first place. Have the child stay at home bring it up then work. Otherwise don't have the child because it will be more a childminders child, then a parents child. Parent would have only being half there.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Who pays for this choice?
lawred2 wrote: » zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
gormdubhgorm wrote: . Society at large pays for it through taxes etc.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The travellers do at the moment because they marry too young and do not get educated except on a basic level. Society at large pays for it through taxes etc.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » So those that go out to work get the privilege of financing the Cash brood. Thanks for confirming. System would collapse for Cash and co if every taxpayer decided to stay at home and pop out the sprogs.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » So you honestly do not find it odd that the full-time working parents/part-time parents in this country work thier @rses off for someone else to bring up thier kid/2.5 kids? It is madness. As I said the good aspects of the traveller culture could be learnt from. But people chose to ignore them.