Alberta Advantage' does not include toddlers and working moms

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

No it wasn't I really think we should ship kids off to 3rd party institutions to be developed.

Wouldn't it be easier to just stop women having careers?

Lock them all up and force feed them cookery and cleaning lessons.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Wouldn't it be easier to just stop women having careers?

Lock them all up and force feed them cookery and cleaning lessons.

Devil's advocate is that you?

Life is pretty easy when you can just make up the opposing argument and shape it into something it isn't. Just to show you, and only you (well you and DA I guess) have the only sane and logical argument. I mean it HAS to be that I hate women having a career and they need to cook full time. Anything less than that and you would have to think about if YOU had that selfish viewpoint.

If you read earlier you would have saw that I am (as are most) indifferent to who stays home, just that someone should, otherwise parenting gets slotted into a to do list.

If people decide to have kids, it should be the most important thing in their life. And raising a normal, happy self sufficient kid should be more important than a career. If both parents want a career great, don't have a kid. Simple as that.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Any other wide sweeping generalizations or stereotypes you wish to share?

How about fat, disrespectful kids come from families where both parents work?

[Flames in 07]

Probably just a coincidence. That everyone would rather work than parent and the quality of parenting is decreasing.

[Vena]

Of all the single mothers in Alberta that need assistance, they use that lady? She comes off as a self-entitled 'lady'. I know she may not want to use the cheapest daycare in Alberta, but there has to be something cheaper than $3000 a month.

We've probably all seen single-mothers do way more with less than this woman has.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If people decide to have kids, it should be the most important thing in their life. And raising a normal, happy self sufficient kid should be more important than a career. If both parents want a career great, don't have a kid. Simple as that.

I see. All 2 income families are irresponsible, their children are miserable and they should be snipped or stripped of their career goals. Simple as that?

So you're a parent of how many and you did your degree in child psychology where?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So you're a parent of how many and you did your degree in child psychology where?

Good question, how many kids do you have Flames in 07?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Probably just a coincidence. That everyone would rather work than parent and the quality of parenting is decreasing.

Probably is. Money's nothing to do with it.

Farmers shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Nurses shouldn't be allowed to practice unless they can give written proof that their partner is looking after the kids. And as for people that do shift work, well ... if they can't give their kid some sense of ongoing daily structure and routine they should be banned too.

Would solve everything.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by photon

Good question, how many kids do you have Flames in 07?

Zero. Prefer my career and think if I raise a kid it should be the most important thing in my life. I have coached hundreds ... well maybe about a thousand now, of kids in community sports over 14 years and have seen a noticeable difference in that time.

We can have 50 kids at a tryout and within the first ew hours of being around them you can see alot. You can pick out with a high degree of certainty which kids do not have male role models in their life (that's the easiest thing to see off the bat) you can tell which kids play hockey (don't ask why they are different ... its not important to the point) and out of each group you can tell a handful of kids are being raise full time by a parent. They just interact with adults different ... and better, the best way to describe them are that they seem to be further along in development and maturity.

I see by this thread that society is finding it more and more acceptable to be more selfish and sluff off their roles as a parent on institutions and tax payers so they can entertain themselves at work because parenting is either below them, or boring or for whatever reason not worth their time ... on a full time basis anyway. Quite sad actually.

[Boblobla]

The skinniest kid I know had both his parents work while he was growing up.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Probably is. Money's nothing to do with it.

Farmers shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Nurses shouldn't be allowed to practice unless they can give written proof that their partner is looking after the kids. And as for people that do shift work, well ... if they can't give their kid some sense of ongoing daily structure and routine they should be banned too.

Would solve everything.

Well when I have time I'll dig up some cases I have read on the issue to show you that others that have dedicated all or part of their life to the topic don't think its a coincidence.

I'm not sure what farmers and nurses have to do with anything.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I see. All 2 income families are irresponsible, their children are miserable and they should be snipped or stripped of their career goals. Simple as that?

So you're a parent of how many and you did your degree in child psychology where?

No, 2 income families should realize that for about 5 years until school starts that raising their own kid is more important than their career. Careers are not more important than kids.

I cannot believe how selfish this argument is.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I see by this thread that society is finding it more and more acceptable to be more selfish and sluff off their roles as a parent on institutions and tax payers so they can entertain themselves at work because parenting is either below them, or boring or for whatever reason not worth their time ... on a full time basis anyway. Quite sad actually.

The thread is actually quite the opposite IMO.

Cut the size of the brush you're tarring everyone with by about half and you might find a few agreeing with you.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

No, 2 income families should realize that for about 5 years until school starts that raising their own kid is more important than their career. Careers are not more important than kids.

I cannot believe how selfish this argument is.

Sounds like someone has some resentment issues to me, since we are all playing psychologist. Were you not hugged enough because both of your parents worked?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The thread is actually quite the opposite IMO.

Cut the size of the brush you're tarring everyone with by about half and you might find a few agreeing with you.

As to why people feel the role of parenting to be secondary to a career I probably am tarring a bit, but if you have met all the kids I have over the years, seen how they are changing and correlating their behavior to their parenting styles people would have the burden of seeing such a common cause and affect relationship between the quality of parenting and the quality of their kids.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I'm not sure what farmers and nurses have to do with anything.

Nurses should only have children with men that will stay at home or else they should leave nursing. Farmers wives should never help out on the farm.

To do otherwise is irresponsible

[Just Someone]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If people decide to have kids, it should be the most important thing in their life. And raising a normal, happy self sufficient kid should be more important than a career. If both parents want a career great, don't have a kid. Simple as that.

Thank God you don't live here. I bet you could never sleep, you would just sit curled up in the darkest corner of your room, thinking of all those poor children, who have horrible, uncaring, cruel, working parents.

What is even more terrible is that they grow up to be completely normal people.
They go to work - kids or no kids - pay their taxes and keep the country running.


It is not about how much time parents spend time with the child, it is the quality of that time that matters. I'm not saying that it is good, if child has to be alone from 7am to 10:30pm, 'cause it is not. Still, gluing one of the parents at home just because of a child* - if other arrangements can be done and the child can be properly taken care of - is more than stupid, I think. It's not putting the role of a parent as second. Caring parents can raise their kids to be normal, even if they work. And uncaring ones make their kids miserable no matter what.
*If neither of them wants to do that


[/OT]

[Ozy_Flame]

The phrase that kills this mother's entire argument is "wants to work."

So she gets bored of parenting before the kids are ready to go to school, puts her kids in what looks like to be high-society private academy daycares ($3000 a month??), and complains that she's not getting the Alberta Advantage?

Typical sense of entitlement people think they're owed. I bet her husband probably makes just as much if not more as well.

For me, I have a bit of a problem wanting to ditch your kids off for the day at SIX MONTHS. What kind of parent is she? Does she not want to spend time with her newborns? Most six-month old babies need constant attention from their mothers / fathers still, let alone an attention-grabbing three-year-old.

She "wants" to work and have us pay for her to do it. What a poor, poor choice this woman is making, at least from what the article entails.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I see by this thread that society is finding it more and more acceptable to be more selfish and sluff off their roles as a parent on institutions and tax payers so they can entertain themselves at work because parenting is either below them, or boring or for whatever reason not worth their time ... on a full time basis anyway. Quite sad actually.

Wow, you are the master of the broad brush.

I don't think that many people are disagreeing with you in general, but the way you are making your statements basically make it impossible to agree with you. For you it's one side or the other, with no middle ground.

Don't let reason get in the way of your sweeping judgments though.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vena

Of all the single mothers in Alberta that need assistance, they use that lady? She comes off as a self-entitled 'lady'. I know she may not want to use the cheapest daycare in Alberta, but there has to be something cheaper than $3000 a month.

We've probably all seen single-mothers do way more with less than this woman has.

Coming from a single parent home, I agree completely. I'd love for the chance to talk to this lady face to face and tell her where she can shove her sense of entitlement. She and her husband chose the lifestyle, they can pay for it.

Leave the support money for the people that actually need it.