UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 12° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Happy families: The non-nuclear options

As National Family Week begins, The IoS celebrates the rise of British diversity. Jonathan Owen reports

Old, young, gay, straight, married or single – our families are a celebration of the diversity of our nation. But while the families have never been more diverse and inclusive, they are also under pressure to an unprecedented degree.

The traditional nuclear family – Mum, Dad, 2.4 children – is a shrinking minority. In less than 40 years, the proportion of households fitting this description has dropped from 52 per cent to 36 per cent, according to the latest social trends report from the Office for National Statistics. "The nature of family life has changed significantly in the past 40 years. The traditional family has become a museum piece," said Dr Richard Woolfson, a family expert and child psychologist.

From tomorrow, the UK celebrates its first National Family Week, which will see hundreds of thousands of people taking part in events around the country, from picnics and sports days to "storytime" events.

More than 150 bodies, ranging from the Department for Children, Schools and Families to the Grandparents' Association, will celebrate and attempt to kick-start a more family-friendly culture, encouraging parents to spend more time with their children.

But according to new research published tomorrow, more than half of the parents questioned admit they don't spend enough quality time as a family, with work, money and housework blamed most often for this.

Family meals, watching TV, holidays and shopping are Britain's favourite family pastimes. Just 3 per cent cited reading stories, according to a survey of 2,000 parents. One in five of families define themselves as a "TV & Digital Family", spending time together by watching television or playing video games. Only 11 per cent see themselves as a "Foodie Family", where family life revolves around mealtimes.

Kevin Steele, co-founder of National Family Week, said: "Families come in all shapes and sizes, but what matters is the quality of the relationships. There are very powerful tensions between family life, long working hours and the need to generate enough money to fund a modern-day lifestyle."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Prediction: Liberal family values lead to...
[info]visiona4thought wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 12:02 am (UTC)
...lonely, depression fuelled adult life. Unless a nuclear family is disfunctional to the extreme (happens), I hate to say it, but from my 10 years experience in liberal Northern California, while those who do not adhere to the nuclear family ideal when young may feel a sense of liberation and/or enjoyment, in reality, it is a false sensation that will be dashed as the unnatural and selfish nature of such an existence catches up with them over time. Parents and grandparents will feel neglected and hopeless, children will lack a certain 'something' - that something being the love and guidance of a loving parental unit. The majority of people I know (both sides of the Atlantic) from intact nuclear families are happier and more financially and mentally stable than those who live fragmented ultra liberal lifestyles. And the majority of such people need drugs and/or alchohol to maintain a level of 'happiness' that is otherwise provided by a genuine lifetime soulmate, only available from a trusted close family member. Friends are NOT the same as family. Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves for the sake of political pointscoring.
Re: Prediction: Liberal family values lead to...
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 02:18 am (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely! The notion of the family came to seem very old fashioned; surely we could modernise and come up with something better? It seems not; we're in real trouble and it's not clear where we go from here.

Re: Prediction: Liberal family values lead to...
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 04:20 am (UTC)
Spot on - the trouble is this view is villified as being intolerant.
Strawberries and Cream
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 05:16 pm (UTC)
Bless you for your strawberries and cream version of the nuclear family :-)
Re: Prediction: Liberal family values lead to...
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 05:37 pm (UTC)

Agree with your comments.

This modernity view of the 'rights of the individual' over the 'rights of society' was in some part a brain child of Ishiah Berlin and others like him from the last century.

Ultimately, it comes down to a shift in viewpoint, liberation is thinking about today and short terms gains, whereas traditional conservative living is about making some sarcifices but getting long term gains and happiness.
(no subject) - [info]collin_brown - Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 12:10 am (UTC)
Re: non-nuclear families?
[info]visiona4thought wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 12:33 am (UTC)
Yup. While their attitudes to the environment, animal rights and selected other issues are spot on, I am of the firm belief (despite being all over the place in the spectrum of left, right, centrist etc), that some liberal values (that are fairly selfish an irrational) are responsible for a lot of the world's problems today - icluding the credit crunch, that was partially bought on by loaning money to people who stood no chance of paying it back. That does not deflect from the fact that specific right wing values (such as greedy corporations stuck in the oil age) are not equally destructive, however, anything that effects the wellbeing of the individual or their 'children' is of highest priority. What is really appalling is that anyone who challenges such an unatural way of life is often vilified by today's society - in fact, I bet that by tomorrow morning, this here forum will be flooded with people attacking our comments! But, debate is good and we can learn from each other's crazy ideas and analysis.
non-nuclear families?
[info]collin_brown wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 01:16 am (UTC)
It is all too easy to forget that each of us are the bi-product of a heterosexual relationship however fleeting or repellent as that is to some reading. We all have a mum whether we care to remember it or not.

The nuclear-family is essential to our survival as a people. Please, don't undermine the value the 'natural process' in preference to celebrating other sexual choices in life.
Re: non-nuclear families?
[info]maccyy wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC)
Lots of gay men / women have had children in sham marriages - the sex may have been heterosexual, but the relationship was not.

There is something that seems to be unsaid, even by those who claim to represent the "gay community" - sexuality is not a choice! You are what you are. I am a gay man, but frankly wished I'd been straight. Life would have been so much easier. But, I refused to pretend to be who I'm not - that would be a fraud to myself and any woman I may have ended up marrying, having children with etc.

Bigots, like some of those who have commented here imply, or perhaps naively believe that people one day just decides to be gay. For those who make such comments who are truly straight and not, as often is the case are those who conceal repressed sexual feelings of their own, you need to just get real and move on.
BOMBS? Where ARE THEY
[info]famulla wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 03:27 am (UTC)
Send more troops as we have no jobs here in UK.
Mr Brown has called Mr Blaire to explain how to send more troops as he realised the Obama will ask him in turn. Will NASA say sorry here? Did Brown say sorry promptly?
Things go missing. It's to be expected. Even at the Pentagon. Last October, the Pentagon's inspector general reported that the military's accountants had misplaced a destroyer, several tanks and armored personnel carriers, hundreds of machine guns, rounds of ammo, grenade launchers and some surface-to-air missiles. In all, nearly $8 billion in weapons were AWOL.
At the bottom of a good deal of the bravery that appears in the world, there lurks a miserable cowardice. Men will face powder and steel because they cannot face public opinion. -Edwin Hubbel Chapin, minister and orator (1814-1880)
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Re: BOMBS? Where ARE THEY
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:52 pm (UTC)
Hardly relevant.
Re: BOMBS? Where ARE THEY
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 04:21 am (UTC)
not in the red planet on earth yes
'Diversity' a dirty word
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 04:16 am (UTC)
For children to grow into confident, happy adults, they need the security of a mother and father living and supporting them in the family home; ideally with the knowledge that their grandmother and grandfather love them, and loved their parents. The problem is that today's 'diverse', 'anything is acceptable emotionally/sexually', 'give up at the first hurdle and move on attitudes' are producing emotionally fragile, confused and unhappy children who perpetuate that 'diversity' by thinking it is the norm and society's approval.
Bad statisitics again
[info]majorblimp wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 05:25 am (UTC)
With an aging population, you will automatically get a decline in 'nuclear' families. The children have grown up and left the family. As grandparents and great-grandparents live longer the family unit as such breaks down to couples. British society does not favour extended families.
Modern lifestyle requires modernity
[info]mackname wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 05:55 am (UTC)


Indulging past ways of life has not much effect in making future.
There are also many wrong values concepts that a traditional family forces up on us, lack of independency, religion, sexuality, abuse, punishment... we need a cultural change of values and leaving behind the very concept of family is one of them.

Re: Modern lifestyle requires modernity
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 06:41 am (UTC)
That depends on what kind of future we want - a fractured, unhappy and mentally depressed population is emerging from fractured, unhappy, fleeting and mentally depressing relationships.
Re: Modern lifestyle requires modernity
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:03 pm (UTC)
QUOTE: "we need a cultural change of values and leaving behind the very concept of family is one of them." UNQUOTE

With lunatic views like that you should run for elected office.

Have you read '1984'; might be just your thing. To train the citizens of Oceania for complete submission and devotion to Big Brother and the Party the family bond has been completely devalued, as:

"No one dares trust a wife or husband, a child or a friend any longer."

The Junior Spies are an organization in which children have become the police and denouncers of their parents in the name of Big Brother. By this means, the Party has managed to wedge itself between one of the most powerful instinctual bonds to turn parental devotion into fear and children into faithful machines of the Party as an extension of the Thought Police.

Nice.
Celebrate diversity?
[info]rogersbrother wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 07:21 am (UTC)
Better to stick with what nature gave us.
As is so often the case the Independent seems to be stuck in the student politics of the 1980s
self deceptional liberalism
[info]borderreiver1 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 07:39 am (UTC)
More rubbish on a sunday morning from a failing effete newspaper.

Lets all give a big round of applause for the liberal establishments experiments at giving the 'alternatve' lifestyle almost priority over the established natural state of affairs.

Why just look at its success in this country.......

More people on antidepressants than anywhere else in europe
Gangs of useless feral youths roaming around in packs like wolves
sickening levels of crime
Child abuse....nearly always seem to come from dysfunctionals
Chronic levels of drug,and alcohol abuse
I could go on

Yes-well done the liberal establishment what a success you have been.
Re: self deceptional liberalism
[info]rojaws wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:24 am (UTC)
Do I detect a hint of cynicism here?

Oh well, cynical or not it seems to sum up the situation quite nicely.
You could also add too your list that this so-called 'liberal establishment' seems to encourage the 'every person for themselves', "I'm alright Jack, f**k you" attitude.
Re: self deceptional liberalism
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
You could add "endless moaning" to your list.
It's not like the good old days
[info]hkrinkle wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
If modern humans are 150 thousand years old then like marriage and going to church the nuclear family is a very recent invention. Some people sound as if they think The Flinstones is based on fact. Our recent tribal ancestors would have a hard time understanding the notion of mum dad and 2.4 children.
"Diverse....Inclusive"????
[info]jackkrak wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
Your "celebration" of non-nuclear families is about as subtle as a mugging. More liberal propoganda about how a traditional family - that is, a REAL family - must be an oppressve, almost traumatic environment for everyone involved. The wider social breakdown and the problems that come with it can be directly traced to the statistics cited in the story. But you go ahead and keep pretending that a "married" gay couple with an in-vitro child carried by the "husband's" lesbian sister all living in a hippie commune is just as respectable & desirable (maybe more so...) than what our stuffy old grandparents did....
Re: "Diverse....Inclusive"????
[info]colinru wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)
Be careful - if you post things like that (even though it is true), you will be accused of being "homophobic" which seems to be one of the greatest possible sins in the New Labour Socialist Handbook.
Dr Richard Wolfson
[info]colinru wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:22 am (UTC)
So according to this "expert" 36% of the population are living in a Musuem Piece. So much for "expertrs" ability to use common sense.
Re: Dr Richard Wolfson
[info]hkrinkle wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 12:00 pm (UTC)
You sound as if you wish to spend your life wrapped in cotton wool. A life of uniformity, uniformity, uniformity surrounded by people that look and sound exactly like you. Looking back to a past that never existed is a common theme in fascist circles, as well as an unhealthy obsession with race and sexuality.
Re: Dr Richard Wolfson
[info]colinru wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 12:58 pm (UTC)
No - but I do object to "experts" who use the "museum piece jibe" about 36% of the populace because they do not fit the "experts" view of how we should live.

What has this article got to do with Fascism, race or sexuality?
Re: Dr Richard Wolfson
[info]floppsiefrog wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC)
First of all, this guy is a Dick. He's also a doctor (medical, philosophy?), so he's a dickey doctor. He's also the son of a wolf and is therefore a product of our much-celebrated diversity. On the other hand, I think he was just pointing out that the traditional, heterosexual, racially homogeneous family (tribe) idea is withering on the vine ... well, at least in cool Britannia.
Celebrating madness and degeneracy
[info]isaacbrown wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:23 am (UTC)
I was feeling happy - nice weather and the BNP appearing to be progressing well - until I stumbled upon this tripe: "....our families are a celebration of the diversity of our nation". No they are not, they an indication of the increaing degeneracy of our nation. But then, what do you expect in a country which passes race relations acts forcing its citizens to "celebrate diversity" and forces public bodies into having a duty to "promote diversity"? Wake up people, before it's too late!
Re: Celebrating madness and degeneracy
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
it IS too late. We're all of mixed race, including you. The difference between normal people and the BNP is that normal people like diversity and are enriched by it, whereas the BNP are in favour of inbreeding. And we all know what inbreeding leads to.
Re: Celebrating madness and degeneracy
[info]hkrinkle wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
You sound as if you wish to spend your life wrapped in cotton wool. A life of uniformity, uniformity, uniformity surrounded by people that look and sound exactly like you. Looking back to a past that never existed is a common theme in fascist circles, as well as an unhealthy obsession with race and sexuality.
Diversify into alienation and oblivion
[info]floppsiefrog wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
Who in their right mind would choose to invest time, money and energy in creating a family when the alternative is so attractive? It is far easier to pursue a career, buy a new car, enjoy exotic holidays and indulge in a succession of exciting temporary affairs than it is to secure the tenuous benefits of either an extended or nuclear family life. It is also less expensive for the ruling elite (kleptocratic, oligarchic dynasties) to import masses of young, malleable third-world workers to support the country's indigenous aging population than it is pay the price necessary for the country slowly to grow its own.
The Victorian Golden Age
[info]hkrinkle wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
Pre WWII Britain was hardly a golden age. The championing of the family often concealed hipocrisy. In 1848, it was claimed that almost 2,700 girls in London between the ages of 11 and 16 were hospitalised because of venereal disease, many as a result of prostitution. In 1875, the age of consent, which had remained at 12 since 1285, was raised to 13, partly as a result of concerns about child prostitution.
Re: The Victorian Golden Age
[info]floppsiefrog wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 11:19 am (UTC)
Yes, nowadays, in the age of Liberal nepotism, our sex obsessed geriatrics and young social psychopaths either jump on a flight to Bangkok or take advantage of youngsters imported to serve the purpose.
Re: The Victorian Golden Age
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:24 pm (UTC)
Most of us realise there was a lot of hypocrisy in the Victorian era, but at least it put forward a belief ideal. There is a famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi:

"Your Beliefs become your Thoughts;
Your Thoughts become your Words;
Your Words become your Actions;
Your Actions become your Habits;
Your Habits become your Values; and
Your Values become your Destiny"

Also - looking at your examples, has there been much improvement? I'd be very surprised indeed if there were only 2,700 London girls today with serious venereal disease; only modern medicine is keeping them out of hospital. As for age of consent; yep, it should be at least 16 but in various places in Europe it is still 13 and 14 (source: Wikipedia). I think there is a lot to be said for supporting the family.
Nuclear family = explosion
[info]bb_matt wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 11:00 am (UTC)
I'm in my early 40's and hailed from a typical nuclear family. Modern pressures of the time split that nuclear family when I was a teenager. We were never close except on holidays, which generally involved trips to Auntie Jeans caravan in North Wales.

It was a forced family - my parents probably realised they should never have got married shortly after my brother was born. Tradition held sway and they stayed together, unhappily, for another 15 years.

I'd far rather they had divorced when I was a toddler, because quite honestly, thier relationship permeated the entire families relationship.

Subsquently, my partner and I have decided to never have kids, both being of a similar generation.
This means we get to continue to enjoy our lives without the burdens our parents had. I'm sure there will be some regrets in years to come, but right now, I'm anticipating another 30 to 40 years of adventure, without the added burden of child rearing.
Re: Nuclear family = explosion
[info]nckyc wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC)
Dear "without ...burden of child..." You would not be able to anticipate another 30 /40 years of adventure had not your parents been honorable enought to forego their immediate pleasure for your self interest.
Re: Nuclear family = explosion
[info]adampooler wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:19 pm (UTC)
nckyc: this is a ridiculous line of argument. There's nothing inherently more 'honourable' about further populating an already over-crowded planet with more squalling offspring.

There is a potential life not created each time one uses contraception, or even simply abstains from having sex; following your reasoning on what constitutes honourable behaviour, it is equally possible to argue that each of these never-to-be-conceived potential humans is being cruelly denied the chance of life.
Re: Nuclear family = explosion
[info]floppsiefrog wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 01:01 pm (UTC)
I sympathise with your predicament. Raising a family is horrendously expensive and it's nigh impossible to protect children from the onslaught of dumb sexualised consumerism, unless you're rich enough to banish them to enjoy the delights of a public school like Hogwarts. Welcome to the regressive selection club.
Mental health
[info]forlonehope wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
Before celebrating too much, look at the ONS data on mental health for children in different family types. Non-traditional parenting typically doubles the risk of behavioural and mental health problems. Given the overall levels of mental health problems among the young these risks are of significant importance. Doing your own thing obviously works in some cases but the overall result is a very large number of distressed kids. It might be great for the adults but not so good for the children.
Re: Mental health
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC)
Don't waste your breath, the open-minded (code for 'feckless') on family life and its benefits on children, have let their brains fall out into a pre-historic swamp.
Re: Mental health
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:40 pm (UTC)
If you've never had the experience of growing up in a stable family, you're not easily able to establish one yourself, or see the benfits. If you have kids chances are they'll be given the usual atomised, mass consumption upbringing, where parent contact is minimal, the upbringing is farmed out to others and moral relativity rules.

Two interesting statistics I read today; the average 5 to 18 year old spends 6 hours per day watching TV, playing video games and on the internet (very globalised). also, the average teenager spends 3 hours per week watching pornography. Presumably this will have an impact on their own family values; though I've no idea what sort.
Re: Mental health
[info]adampooler wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:54 pm (UTC)
I believe the normal procedure is to post a link when you're going to quote statistics from reports/papers etc.

To the best of my knowledge, the ONS data is specific to reconstituted families, and single-parent families- not 'non-traditional parenting' in general.

And the report certainly isn't attempting to demonstrate a causal link between the two. After all, the children from single-parent and reconstituted families will frequently have had to endure their parents' divorce: this fact alone could account for the higher prevalence of mental illness in these groups.

My point is, firstly, you're mis-using the statistics to make a pretty sweeping generalisation: the data doesn't cover other 'non-traditional' child-rearing relationships, such as children brought up by gay couples. Secondly, you're then again mis-using the statistics to infer a causal relationship where none is necessarily implied.
Happy families the non nuclear option
[info]andreaxyz wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 06:29 pm (UTC)
The celebration of diversity in families is a travesty. As our beloved nation moves further and further away from Christian patterns of behaviour, so we see an increasing breakdown of relationships. Absent fathers, unloved children, battered partners....the me me society. God is not mocked and we will all pay the price for thumbing our noses in his face. But praise Him for Jesus who will not reject anyone who wishes to turn away from behaviour which grieves hims, and turns back to him. He continues to extend his love to all who wish to receive him. Receive him whilst there is still time.
Andrew
Re: Happy families the non nuclear option
[info]majorblimp wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 05:59 am (UTC)
And what on Earth are "Christian patterns of behaviour"? To believe in myths and fairy tales? Do whatever you like and then just say "sorry"?
[info]vgnwtch wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 07:29 pm (UTC)
Why is the term "traditional" used to refer to the nuclear family? Most people lived in multi-generational families before WWII, often sharing homes with other families or other relations; many families were made up of step-parents and children because of high rates of death in childbirth and in many manual labouring jobs (working in factories, down mines, on trawlers, etc.) in the pre-antiobiotic age; many children were out working for a living, with many adolescents working in domestic service or apprenticeships, usually away from home, supporting someone else's family; many people (particularly of the poorest classes, mainly because they had the least property to control via marriage) simply lived together until things fell apart, and then moved on to other relationships; many children were sent to live with relatives or family friends because their parents couldn't cope with the number of kids/were in domestic service and not allowed to have their children with them/weren't married/had to leave to look for work... My grandparents all worked because they had to; one set of grandparents were well off enough to have their own house with an actual oven in the kitchen, whereas most ordinary folk still lived in rented rooms and had chafing dishes over paraffin camp-style stoves and got their meals at the mill canteen or the hole in the wall oatcake and pie shops or pubs.

The concept of the nuclear family, in which Mummy stays at home while Daddy works, and everyone has home-cooked meals together every day just hasn't been the reality for the majority of people for the majority of our history.

It never ceases to amaze me how well we mythologise our pasts, personally and culturally. We're really amazingly good at it.
Tried and true ways
[info]itsthemechanic wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 09:16 pm (UTC)
I'm a child of the non-traditional way of doing things. Going with my mother and her constantly changing boyfriend, I was denied the opportunity of ever building a meaningful relationship with my own father until I was an adult.

This has left me deeply screwed up, with chronic bipolar disorder, and a shed load of meds I'll have to take until the day I die. I have serious issues with trust, belonging, and bonding, and I've given up hope on ever having a lasting relationship with a woman myself because I never had any role models wherer I could have gleamed some hints how this is supposed to work.

Not to mention, despite being quite intelligent, I had emotional and behavioural issues at school that prevented me from realizing my potential, and I'm reduced to menial work here and there instead of having a stable, rewarding career.

You can have your "progress" back. There is a reason the "man, woman, child" model was around for thousands of years before... IT WORKS.

Your cheerleading for "alternative" families is incitement to grievous harm for the children that will be affected by it.. such as myself.
Re: Tried and true ways
[info]red_planet92 wrote:
Sunday, 24 May 2009 at 10:49 pm (UTC)
I've my own "alternative" (broken) family stories to tell. Unhappy consquences for me and my siblings; barely one long-term relationship between us. As it happens both my parents are now alone themselves.

We seem to be thinking of UK only The.
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 04:36 am (UTC)
We seem to be thinking of UK only The. Families are all over the world why, why, why, why we want to stay aloof and want to trade with Hyundai and get the Korean and Iranians Pistachios.

North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test, South Korea Says
North Korea conducted a nuclear test on Monday, South Korea's
Yonhap news agency quoted a ruling party official as saying.
Yonhap reported that President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea
called an emergency meeting of cabinet ministers over the test.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
JE NE REGRETTE RIEN
[info]e_paul_imhof wrote:
Monday, 25 May 2009 at 05:22 pm (UTC)
Wherever we are light and dark alternate. Life offers us challenges, opportunity and risk. You can neither win nor loose them all Like everybody else I made mistakes, had ups and downs. Forget prejudice, retribution and superlatives to preserve your sanity. Accentuate the positive. Don't take yourself too serious. Admit blunders and laugh about them before anybody could deride you behind the back. The longer I live the more I appreciate classic wisdom: Everything flows! Rather than make foosl of yourself let it go for better or worse.
According to Kevin Steele relationships depend on "long working hours and the need to generate enough money to fund a modern-day lifestyle." Powerful tensions between them and family life is a matter of definition. Parents and siblings or lack of them are a given, liittle kids adjust to one way or another. However mates must be chosen carefully as you know what really matters to them and hoped for children when 2 people consider starting a family together. Agree on a lifestyle fitting both best rather than subjecting yourself to whatever benefits only vendors of services and stuff you can do without.
24 hours per day are a given regardless how much or little they earn. $$ don't define the quality of time. What distinguishes working hours from the rest of the day? Compensation? Coaching little league or soccer teams can either way be fun or a bore.
Statistics indicate that every other new marriage ends in divorce. Millions of eligible singles afraid to tie the knot risk doomed relationships. Trading pork bellies serves economic need but may not be kosher. Major Commodity Exchanges are obviously much better regulated than financial markets. Why don't risktakers starting a family in wedded bliss limit potential exit cost preventing ruineous litigatation? That's risk commodity traders can't afford.

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date