FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


"It takes a village to raise a child" - in urban





Crinoid
"It takes a village to raise a child" - in urban society. Getting help and providing help: who is able to do that (physically, emotionally, mentally, time off work and own nuclear family and friends, loss of income and life time time consequences of this)?

Sorry for controversial topic, just wondering. No offense meant, feel free to express yourself:

Recently, clicking TV channels, I found the postpartum depression documentary. Somehow I got impression, that accent/emphasis was made on other women, taking care of newborn child, instead of parents (repeated interludes, where mother gives her child - passing the father - to other, older women; they brestfeed child and taking care of her).

What continue to bother me:

- pictures are taken from agricultural or nomadic societies, where somehow the pictured older women were able leave work for living to provide this service. Mothers, who were portrayed in need of help, were clearly urban. How do you imagine making this happen in urban environment?

- why father was passed in favor of strangers: because he has to go to work? How to be in the single mothers case, when she has to go to work and care of child, not being high-paid professional?

- If other women will provide this service/help, then the mother has to do the same, in turn, for all children and, I guess, all elderly, disabled or just in need, of the "village". Leaving work, own nuclear and extended family, for quite prolonged periods of time, because of this. How to make a living then? And instead of 1 year of emotional and physical strain, it will become a lifetime of this, with no income to pay for the cost of living.
I don't see how being treated like queen (something like that was said in the film), without returning favor to others as a working bee, again and again and again, will work.

- Mass media shows a lot of images of individualism, as a way to live in modern society:

-- get own place at 18, not shared with those, who would like to use this person's help,
-- make a living income, not shared with others,
-- get a life and stop/keep away people, including relatives, who tried lead life of mutual help.
-- "I can't do that alone" (or something like that) was said. Who wants to be alone in need: her mother, grandmother, unhappy teen or single mother, working shifts?

Where the mutuality in promoted expectations starts? Note, that talk was not about hiring other women to take care of mother and child, but as a voluntary help, a norm of behavior in society.

Your thoughts?
redslazers
its very important that children have a support network of differnt adults and children other than own family or they might not be able to develope the social skills need in later life.
standready
It used to be that a person would depend upon their own family/ related family /extended family to help with kids. Nowadays, just leave kids on their own or expect society do take care of them. Can't figure.
deanhills
redslazers wrote:
its very important that children have a support network of differnt adults and children other than own family or they might not be able to develope the social skills need in later life.
This is so true. That also means that the fathers and mothers need to be well adjusted and have normal social activities which include other adults and children. People have become so focussed on surviving in their jobs, that not many parents have time for social activities with their friends.
ocalhoun
standready wrote:
It used to be that a person would depend upon their own family/ related family /extended family to help with kids. Nowadays, just leave kids on their own or expect society do take care of them. Can't figure.

Or on their friends, or on their associates, to include from work, church, the school they go to or wherever.

That people would go to the government for help rather than these places is a sad thing, but now that the government has provided, and people are used to it, a worse problem has developed in that people expect the government to help, and believe they have a right to it, often going there for help first before looking in other places.

So, instead of people charitably helping others by choice, which benefits both in different ways, they are forced to help by the government through taxes and redistribution of wealth, which benefits only the recipient. Very sad.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
So, instead of people charitably helping others by choice, which benefits both in different ways, they are forced to help by the government through taxes and redistribution of wealth, which benefits only the recipient. Very sad.
This is also very true. And also in a disempowering way, as becoming reliant on Government benefits to compensate for normal family support can be self-perpetuating and make for people that can't seem to get out of the viscious cycle. Worst part of course is Government programs that are heavily loaded with layers of bureaucracy for which taxes of course are needed. Not being applied effectively and efficiently. They have become institutions in themselves instead of helping people in a temporary way.
apple
I would really prefer if my relatives stayed out of my child raising,,,,I may be the only one who wants no help, but I know my family and sometimes you prefer to give your child something less than to give them a lot of bad things. In this case I mean bad/negative influences.
deanhills
apple wrote:
I would really prefer if my relatives stayed out of my child raising,,,,I may be the only one who wants no help, but I know my family and sometimes you prefer to give your child something less than to give them a lot of bad things. In this case I mean bad/negative influences.
They say you can't choose your relatives, but you can choose your friends. So if your relatives are not a good influence, possibly you can limit other company to friends of your choice. But it is important that children have a wider circle of people to emulate, including friends of the parents and children of friends of the parents. Smile
Ghost900
I agree deanhills, children should have a wider circle of people around them, even if they are not related.
apple I can see what you mean, I have relatives that have tried influencing our family against what my parents believe so we are not that close to them.

As far as the Government part I agree with you completely, the government provides and so people themselves don't feel they need or should help as they know that the government will take care of it.
apple
deanhills...yes, its such a pity that we can't chose our relatives Razz

Ghost900...My relatives are a huge mess. They say one thing and do another. I'd really like if I could keep my kids away from them all together.
Related topics
Frankfurt Motor Show, 2005
black radical FBI stooge benefits white liberalists?
War on Terror?
Talk about your children...
Homosexuality, is it biologically natural?
Seeding
Post your opinion on Indian Marriage System
What or Who Created God? Any ideas?
D&D
Anyone want to critique my review *Spoiler Alert*
A rant on God, religion and morality
Psychology of Human Nature... are these really "truths?
Racism and scientific responsibility
Things only a Republican could believe
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.