Miranda Was the WORST Mother Ever!
-
breno_bacci — 9 years ago(June 30, 2016 09:56 AM)
Your comment strenghtens the case, at least for me, that people that see Miranda as the good parent have a strong belief that the best people are those who do what they're supposed to do, not those who do what they can do, and definitely not those who do what they want to do. While I agree fathering a child and raising it properly is probably the most serious responsibility one can have, I also think it's a sad world where any challenge to the status quo is seen as a bad thing, or that people who do challenge it are lazy, like if there was never a good reason to question the way we do things.
Lots of fathers are much worse than Daniel. Many of them were not raised properly either, and the same is true for mothers, too; so to expect them to be perfect parents is a bit too much. Everyone here seems to agree that both Daniel and Miranda had good and bad qualities when it comes to raising their children. Even I agree that the number one priority for parents is to provide food for their children. But food alone won't be enough to raise a decent human being.
If Daniel was such a deadbeat, how come he had money to throw a party to his son? Actual deadbeat fathers are often in jail, killed, or actively commiting crimes, which you'd have to agree is much worse than not being able to hold a steady job. It seems Miranda exaggerated his irresponsibility as a professional, probably because she thought the way she acted was the right way - and anyone who has ever been on a relationship knows that happens a lot, on both directions.
You seem to agree with Miranda's view that school should be taken seriously, that one who fails on his grades will eventually become a failed human being. Yet, most people, when they get old enough, eventually realize that most of the educational system they've been through all their lives is a big joke. It allows you to learn skills, improve your knowledge about the world, and lets you exercise your ability to live in a society. But it also exposes you to cheating, jealousy, bullies, mob mentality, ineffective methods of evaluating your learning skills, uniformization of human beings who are essentially very diverse, teachers' pets, a narrowed sense of aesthetics or individuality, etc.
After all, you're another brick in the wall. Not functioning properly on this make-believe world, where schools and workplaces are exactly the best that they can ever be, is for me a sign that you still haven't lost completely your connection with your true nature. Of course, refusing to just shut up and work, or shut up and study, is much easier when you don't have kids that depend on you. But even if you do have kids, making sure that they don't starve or that they get good grades is not the entire job of a good parent. There are plenty of reasons for a kid to not like school very much - in my opinion, an outdated educational system is the most important one, although not getting a proper sense of discipline from your parents is important, too.
If you raise children thinking being poor, unemployed and without a diploma are the worst things that can happen, you're not raising good human beings, you're raising monsters who will see everybody else in the world as competition. Adults who will be unable to empathize with the suffering or shortcomings of others.
Some people adapt easily to the way things are in the world today. Some don't, and some never will. A very small minority of those who are unable to fit perfectly into today's society will become sociopaths or psychopaths. The majority though, I believe, are much better people than those who adapt with little effort. After all, adapting easily to a sick world kinda makes you sick by definition, too, doesn't it?
But I'm still glad there are people who adapt easily. Half of my immediate family is like that, and the other half is not, but I love them all equally. I'm just concerned that, even though you seem to be one among the ones who adapt easily, and you like it that way and you think it's the right way to be, there's a good chance one of your children will feel the exact opposite of the way you feel. With the authority of a father and a mother, you could change that, but I know the kid won't ever be happy. The children that have the hardest time pleasing their parents, on fulfilling their expectations, are the ones who think about that the most. It may not seem like it, but "problem" children live day and night feeling guilty for not being the son or daughter their father or mother wanted them to be. Easily-adjustable kids also disagree with their parents, but they will leave as soon as they can to have their own families and then impose things the way they feel it's right, dragging up a cordial relationship with the old folks until the end of time. Those who can't or don't want to adjust though, will develop one or another addiction to cope with their perceived failure, often slowly dying out of depression or self-destructive behavior. It's no surprise th -
FireMinstrel — 9 years ago(December 10, 2016 09:24 AM)
It IS rather sad that when a mother stays home with the children while the father works, no one thinks anything badly of it(except extreme feminists). But when it's the other way around, the father is seen as a deadbeat. What's wrong with being a stay-at-home father?
To the OP- you've raised some excellent points. By any chance, are you a fan of Stefan Molyneux? If not, I recommend you check out his podcasts. You'd love his stance on family. It's essentially right up your alley.
-
-
Syn84 — 10 years ago(February 14, 2016 04:10 PM)
There is nothing wrong with being at home parent - if you can afford it, meaning that you either have a spouse who makes a lot of money or you have a business that earns you a lot of money. Not when you're on the welfare and applying for food stamps.
When I die, I want to be buried face down. That way whoever doesn't like me can kiss my ass.
-
FireMinstrel — 9 years ago(December 10, 2016 09:27 AM)
Actually, not to derail the subject too much, but often for welfare recipients, the money they would make working a job comes out to much less than they get with those welfare benefits. It's the reason that the $15/hour minimum wage didn't help many of them.
-
MarblesLove — 10 years ago(February 12, 2016 09:43 PM)
Had Daniel had a full time "acting" career then those children would have been LONELY and PINING for one or both parents.
Most kids have a home with two workings parents. They wouldn't be alone. Lots of kids have nannys or attend daycare or a latchkey program after school.
Exactly. As a young child, before starting school, since both my parents were either in school or working, I had a nanny or went to day care. Then when I was finally in school, my dad was always there in the morning to make sure I had breakfast and got to school safely before he went to work and my mom was almost always home from work when I got home from school. I never felt neglected, even in those nanny/daycare pre school years cause my parents were still around and I knew they cared about me.
Once upon a time there was a magical place where it never rained. The end. -
eljaykay1219-310-146082 — 9 years ago(August 14, 2016 03:32 PM)
You made some good points that I agree with.
Daniel could have taken his kids out for pizza and bowling or a movie for Chris's birthday. He did not have to have all those animals in the house and yard. He didn't have to invite every kid in the neighborhood either. Most people would be angry to come home to find a bunch of nonhousebroken animals inside and kids jumping all over the furniture.
She should have agreed to go for counseling and let him take the kids after school as long as he cleaned up any mess they made when he was with them and they did their schoolwork. -
kodakjones — 9 years ago(December 18, 2016 02:50 PM)
A cake and a few gifts is NOT what a kid wants on his birthday
Since when? Apparently you've never heard of birthday presents and birthday cake. You know, that's actually more tradition than any birthday party. -
fiatlux-1 — 10 years ago(March 03, 2016 12:21 PM)
I thought BOTH Miranda & Daniel were terrible parents.
Yes, they both loved their kids. Yes, Miranda provided materially for them and then some.
But Daniel quitting his jobs left & right was horrid. OK so a cartoon character smokes.
Whoopie do! I grew up watching cartoons from the '70s & '80s, and frequently one would see a character smoking a cigar or even a cigarette sometimes.
Big deal! And this movie was made in 1993 no less!
Daniel had 3 kids & bills to care about. But he'd rather dump it all on Miranda!
And he was clearly more interested in being a friend to his kids than a dad.
He never disciplines them, not until he is dressed as Mrs. Doubtfire.
While I agree that he was fine in getting their son a birthday party (punishing a kid for a bad grade by doing that is over the line), he went WAY over the top.
Letting a petting zoo run loose without even monitoring it?!! No way.
I don't blame Miranda for divorcing Daniel. But she NEVER should have fought for custody, never. That was just petty.
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush. -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:30 PM)
It's funny. Every feminist and mangina wants to defend her and demonize him. He has to change. He's wrong. He's irresponsible. He can't be himself and be seen as a good father / husband, because everyone has this narrow-minded idea of what a good father or husband is. BUT they never wonder how he feels. They never care about miserable Daniel might feel when Miranda cares more about her fcking career than she cares about him. They want to reverse the roles and make men like women in the 1950s, but where's the security? Where's the trust? Where's the near unconditional love and devotion? Women weren't thrown out of their homes for making silly mistakes. Women didn't even lose custody if they cheated on their husbands.
Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.