New research suggests younger generations may spend more years in poor health than those before them. This is not just an NHS crisis. It is a society crisis.
Easily one of the silent elephants in the room is working mothers. My friend was a nursery worker for years and they took babies from 6 weeks up to infants school. The children are there from about 7am to about 7pm five days a week. They don't know their parents. Their parents don't know them. They have all sorts of issues with behaviour. Motherhood has been debased. I was a stay-at-home mum and people assumed my husband was a millionaire banker and I was obviously stupid. People assumed I was always bored. The people who loathed the summer holidays and tried to book their children into week-long activity clubs. We went without exotic holidays, satellite TV, fancy bits and bobs. We had one car and one computer. But I was there for my children at all times so they could confidently go out knowing I had their backs. That is what society and governments should be aiming for - the ability of a parent to stay home and care for their children. Not going to happen though is it?
Thanks for sharing your perspective. It really highlights how much our cultural and economic expectations around family life have shifted over the decades. The modern economic setup certainly makes it an uphill battle for anyone trying to opt out of the 7-to-7 routine, and as you rightly point out, it's the foundational habits at home that often take the hit!
This is one reason why birthrates are falling. I don't know what the figures are so I might be wrong but I suspect even today it is assumed that the mother is the one who either stays at home or takes a part time job in order to look after the children. So the woman has a choice between that and not having children at all and I think that is what many are opting for. I have three daughters and none of them have or plan to have children.
Of course these days with better birth control not having children is easier but it wasn't always like that. A few years ago there was a history programme on the radio and they visited an old mill in the north of England. The mill featured a special window and according to the presenter this was where the grand mother would take a baby for the mother working in the mill to stop work for a few minutes and feed it. This was considered enlightened by the mill owners since it also tended to delay the woman's next pregnancy. The good old days.
I have two daughters - one always intended getting married and having "hundreds of dogs and children"! Then it dawned on her that she would have to marry an investment banker who would never be around to see all the dogs and children. Then she started work and discovered that she has a very nice life without having to go without all the bits and bobs (weekends away, theatre trips, restaurants etc). Then she realised she would have to carry on working even if she did have all those children and dogs because her fella is just a normal bloke with a normal job and not an investment banker. My other daughter has been trying for years to have children but she reckons her and her husband are too full of toxic chemicals and plastic to make it happen. She, too, has realised that, even if a baby arrived, she'd have to keep working because neither of them are investment bankers. Which is all pretty heart-breaking.
It is interesting that the Trump administration has come out with a new policy on food and diet which they call "real food". It emphases the importance of high quality protein, healthy fats, fresh vegetables and fruit. When I read it I suddenly realised they were talking about the food my mother cooked for us in the 50s and 60s.
Spot on, Steve. It’s funny how revolutionary it sounds today to suggest eating actual, real food instead of something engineered in a lab! Turns out our mums had the right idea all along in the 50s and 60s—no fancy algorithms required, just a proper home-cooked meal.
Easily one of the silent elephants in the room is working mothers. My friend was a nursery worker for years and they took babies from 6 weeks up to infants school. The children are there from about 7am to about 7pm five days a week. They don't know their parents. Their parents don't know them. They have all sorts of issues with behaviour. Motherhood has been debased. I was a stay-at-home mum and people assumed my husband was a millionaire banker and I was obviously stupid. People assumed I was always bored. The people who loathed the summer holidays and tried to book their children into week-long activity clubs. We went without exotic holidays, satellite TV, fancy bits and bobs. We had one car and one computer. But I was there for my children at all times so they could confidently go out knowing I had their backs. That is what society and governments should be aiming for - the ability of a parent to stay home and care for their children. Not going to happen though is it?
Thanks for sharing your perspective. It really highlights how much our cultural and economic expectations around family life have shifted over the decades. The modern economic setup certainly makes it an uphill battle for anyone trying to opt out of the 7-to-7 routine, and as you rightly point out, it's the foundational habits at home that often take the hit!
This is one reason why birthrates are falling. I don't know what the figures are so I might be wrong but I suspect even today it is assumed that the mother is the one who either stays at home or takes a part time job in order to look after the children. So the woman has a choice between that and not having children at all and I think that is what many are opting for. I have three daughters and none of them have or plan to have children.
Of course these days with better birth control not having children is easier but it wasn't always like that. A few years ago there was a history programme on the radio and they visited an old mill in the north of England. The mill featured a special window and according to the presenter this was where the grand mother would take a baby for the mother working in the mill to stop work for a few minutes and feed it. This was considered enlightened by the mill owners since it also tended to delay the woman's next pregnancy. The good old days.
I have two daughters - one always intended getting married and having "hundreds of dogs and children"! Then it dawned on her that she would have to marry an investment banker who would never be around to see all the dogs and children. Then she started work and discovered that she has a very nice life without having to go without all the bits and bobs (weekends away, theatre trips, restaurants etc). Then she realised she would have to carry on working even if she did have all those children and dogs because her fella is just a normal bloke with a normal job and not an investment banker. My other daughter has been trying for years to have children but she reckons her and her husband are too full of toxic chemicals and plastic to make it happen. She, too, has realised that, even if a baby arrived, she'd have to keep working because neither of them are investment bankers. Which is all pretty heart-breaking.
It is interesting that the Trump administration has come out with a new policy on food and diet which they call "real food". It emphases the importance of high quality protein, healthy fats, fresh vegetables and fruit. When I read it I suddenly realised they were talking about the food my mother cooked for us in the 50s and 60s.
Spot on, Steve. It’s funny how revolutionary it sounds today to suggest eating actual, real food instead of something engineered in a lab! Turns out our mums had the right idea all along in the 50s and 60s—no fancy algorithms required, just a proper home-cooked meal.