For Better or For Worse by Lynn Johnston for February 25, 2014

You have to admit that Mike has a point: he does need her..and not just for a taxi service either.;-D

Ouch

Pay attention wannabe parents.

B I N G O !!!

If there was a conflict we split up the sports…hubby got football and wrestling…I got softball and gymnastics. It’s gotta be a team effort (no pun intended).

When I was but a mere goober like Mike sixty some years ago, schools at that grade level were close enough to walk to- and we did, in all weather school was open. Extracurriculars like sports were on school grounds or transportation was provided for interschool competitions. Mom and Dad did not provide taxi service either to and from school itself or any meets, nor did the school OR THE KIDS expect them to. I guess times have changed a bit since then.

Because sometimes circumstances dictate that both parents need to work, even after the children arrive. That is what happened to us. I have to work, and I work part-time. My husband works 3rd shift. We do what we have to. I am “there” for my daughters as much as humanly possible (they are around Mike’s age right now) but they understand that I have a job. Don’t judge ‘til you’ve been there.

I agree with bluskies and a couple others. My parents did financially fine, yet they didn’t feel the “need” to be the only one to drive me everywhere, cheer me on for every practice or praise me incessantly. They were from the generation where kids had things to do and they did it without the constant hovering from their parents. Kids should also see that their parents are doing what’s best for the family and the world doesn’t revolve around them. If Elly looks at the big picture and how much time is spent with Michael, it should be apparent what is necessary. Personally, I’d rather have someone else take him to hockey so that I can finish my work and then play with him later. I’m sure he’d remember that more than time in the car. It’s quality, not quantity.

Since when is a young child responsible for transportation.She should have that all taken care of. Transportation is not something you leave till the last minute.

@KreatureFeatures—to answer your question about what comic book that wasgosh, I don’t even remember the incident……but knowing my brother, it was probably the Blackhawks or maybe Sgt. Rock and his combat happy Joes……(god , yes, they actually said that in that comic book—-probably helping to inspire thousands of young men to go into the marines with the chance to be ‘combat happy’ in Vietnam)

The thing is, in this comic strip world, Elly doesn’t need to work. They have enough income. She’s working for herself. My problem is that she’s putting her wants before her kids. Once you’re a mom, you don’t matter anymore, they do.

Considering that my first marriage broke up when my daughter was six months old and her father wanted nothing to do with her, staying at home was not an option if we wanted to eat and have a roof over our heads!

oh please. kids and parents both matter. kids don’t matter more than parents. such screwed values. kids need real parents, to role model after. giving up your “self” makes some nerdy, incomplete kids. always looking for someone else to “complete” themselves with. needy wives and empty husbands. real people sacrifice for their kids, but never shortchange themselves at the same time.

the American concept of kids over everything is just another American “fantasy” of unrealistic parenting. or self murder.

Way to be clueless B3!

By agreeing that your kid can participate, you agree to get them there on time, every time. The kid’s “job” is to learn what the parent teaches. The parent’s job in this case is to demonstrate responsibility, trustworthiness and sacrifice. The library will survive without Elly for the 10 minutes it takes to drop him off.

Gweedo said, “Yeah, mom ! If you caint be there fer the younguns, why have them in the first place ?”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It takes two to tango, buddy.

I find it interesting that not one person has blamed Michael’s dad for not driving him to hockey.

This sort of thing happens all the time here. Parents have an appointment that runs late or double-book sports/school stuff, and call me to ask if I can take their kid somewhere. It’s not a big deal if it’s reciprocated, and time in the car is just meh.

I like that we spend more time with kids now but think we overdo it if parents just become cheerleaders following their kids around. I think it’s good for kids to see both parents doing things that are important to them in addition to playing and talking with them. Not just expecting the dad to drive them everywhere, stay home every evening in case they wake up, that he leaves his job and that he doesn’t volunteer or have hobbies or friends. What is that teaching kids? Not much good.

There was a lot of “lassez-faire” when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, but mostly it was excellent, from the POV of the kids. As long as kids can entertain themselves, do their school work, are fairly active, and have parents who will play and talk with them, and show love, they don’t need 24/7 everything, and I don’t think it benefits them.

I’m home, possibly going back to work this year as my youngest starts K, so I’m not taking my own advice, but being in the “at home, molding young kids the way we’re supposed to” trenches, I can definitely see what we’re doing wrong.

- If you caint be there fer the younguns, why have them in the first place -That sentiment could only appear in our country, during this time period. In other countries and most other times in human history, the world did not revolve solely around the needs (and wants) of children. Most of us, when young, took buses or walked to activities because many of our families only had one car (if we had a car at all) and that car was used by the father to get to his job. If the mother worked (and many, many families had to have income from both parents to make ends meet), Mom took the bus or walked to work.

Shoot my parents never took me to practice. I always walked, road my bike or found a ride with a friend. If you really want to do something you find a way.

Bwana, you are judging both Elly and K.C. unfairly. In today’s economy (and for the past 20 years or so) most families need both parents working in order to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. For you to sit back in your easy chair and say they are selfish for doing so is wrong on so many levels. This isn’t the world of 50 years ago when Dad’s salary was a living wage. I grew up in that environment, and while I agree that it was the best scenario for children, that world just isn’t here anymore. Your attitude would eliminate 95% of all children completely if the woman was required to choose between the necessity of a job and the desire for kids.

Night-Gaunt49: No one seems to know this any more, but Canada’s National Sport is lacrosse.

I’ll come to KC’s defense on that comment. Situations change in life and you have to adjust. For you to make such a comment about another’s life is short sighted.

Both parents working is often not as necessary as we think. It used to be that people ate almost all their dinners at home. Going out was a rare treat. They didn’t need to have all the latest electronic gadget either. Expectations have changed. Also parents rarely came to games. We would have made fun of a kid whose parents were always there.

Ah the guilt trip.

Insulting another commenter is against the terms of use. You are flagged.

Okay I rarely comment but I have to say something here. My husband and I have made the decision to only live on 1 income so someone is always home with the kids. That means we run up credit card debt when needed drive old cars etc but it is a choice that works for us. That said that is not a viable option for most people. If only people who can afford to have kids have them the majority of the population would not have kids. That statement is just so ignorant. Also when did it become bad parenting to ask another parent to run carpool for a change.

argy.bargy2: While police were probably involved, the attack on the bonus marchers (who had permission to camp there) was by the U.S.Army under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the actual order to attack with gas and destroy the marchers’ property was given by MacArthur’s Aide de Camp, Col. Dwight David Eisenhower.