OT: Our new Governor General.

She accepted a job which puts her in the public gaze - no good whining about it now - although I have not heard her saying anything along that line. She presumably has enough smarts to know what it involves, what it will mean to her family life and I am quite confident - she can handle it.

Motherhood and children are not holy, children are conceived mostly in the normal way, born in the normal way, and I for one am not going to drop on one knee and write to my MP suggesting he/she provide shelter for the GG.

Lol

Well I felt the term 'shacked up' was odd but then what more to expect from Colonel Blimp ?

Actually I believe the 'shacking up' was done prior to her marriage as the daughter is not the progeny of the husband. Not that I am critical of that, it's merely a comment.

There are several possibilities to solve this "problem": The father might take some time away from his job to be more involved in the daughter's life (who knows, maybe she's a Daddy's girl anyway), they could hire live-in help (cleared by security) and that person's job would include playing taxi for the child, they could (gasp!) use regular methods of transportation used by other families (buses, carpools, etc.), or they could do what the female mayor of Cleveland does and have off-duty police officers drive the child to school and to various events.

FYI: It is difficult for ANY working mother to be the 1950's "ordinary mother" you seem to think all mothers should be. At least the GG won't have to work two or three jobs to keep a roof over the child's head and there is a husband in the picture so it is quite possible they will have plenty of time to be with each other.

F.James Cripwell wrote: > How else can I express this sort of thought? The lady has been

I imagine there will be lots of time together - the GG has a full regal staff, she does not have to cook and clean, all services that have been supplied to her mostly male counterparts previously, will be hers. She is the third female GG.

At least for the next four years, she will be well above the usual poverty level of the single mother. I am sure security will drive her child to and from school if the GG is unable.

I imagine things are about to be a great deal easier for the GG and the child, I wish her luck, think she will be an interesting GG and I suspect she does not worry her head about all these things. She would have known for some time she was to be the next GG, had the opportunity to decline but didn't, so I think the terrible problems of motherhood and celebrity have already been worked out in her mind lol

Sure, as long as you asked! How about eliminating the bracketed words below, thus avoiding the inference that a mother is so much less important than a governor general?

-- At other times, she will need to be [just another] a mother taking part in the activities of her daughter.

-- However, she should be allowed to specify when she is *not* the GG, but [merely] the mother of her child.

Felice a mother, but not "just another" or "merely"

But why are you making any fuss about it?

As you indicate, there have been numerous prime ministers (federal and provincial) and numerous city mayors and other public officials that have been raising young children while pursuing their political duties. As far as I can see the press normally does not intrude on their private lives. Why should a problem arise now with Micha=EBlle Jean?

Why worry about something that has never been an issue before?

Jallan

But why are you making any fuss about it?

As you indicate, there have been numerous prime ministers (federal and provincial) and numerous city mayors and other public officials that have been raising young children while pursuing their political duties. As far as I can see the press normally does not intrude on their private lives. Why should a problem arise now with Micha=EBlle Jean?

Why fussing over something that has never been an issue before.

Jallan

"Jallan" ( snipped-for-privacy@smrtytrek.com) writes:

Since the original posting that made the point in the first place, the main issue has been lost. Our GG intends to send her child to the Ontario *public* school. There are very few families in the position of our GG who send their children to the equivalent of an Ontario public school, and all that this entails. First a few important details. In Ontario, there are two public school systems; one Catholic, and one for every one else (dont ask). Which school a child goes to is decided by geography, with virtually no exceptions. I understand the GG's child will go to the Catholic school, which I believe is St, Bridgets. But this also implies that the GG's child will engage in all the normal activities that Canadian children do outside school, with no more control that that which is exercised by normal parents. These will be such activities as Girl Guides, dancing, music, figure skating, hockey, soccer, baseball, who knows. And this will happen with the other kids in the neighbourhood. If it is anything like my grand daughter, kids collect in someone's house after school; there are sleep-overs, and all the other things. Rideau Hall will have to be just another house on the block so far as these children are concerned. There will simply be no comparison with the Clinton's, Blair's, or any other person of this sort of national stature that I can think of. Maybe I am wrong, but who else can you name in this sort of position, who sent their children to the equivalent of an Ontario public school?

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"

Since you asked, Jimmy Carter's daughter Amy attended public school when her dad was the President of the United States. Does that qualify as an important enough position?

Lucille

Burden? Speaking as a working woman, I find that very, very offensive. Everyone who becomes the GG has a burden of some sort - an elderly parent, kids in school etc. etc. They, like the rest of us, deal with it. She has had a very busy life as a journalist and this will be not a lot different when it comes to level of activity Why is this any different from Ed Schreyer (I spelled his name wrong in my earlier message)being our GG when his four kids were small? Your prejudices are showing, Jim- why don't you at least wait until she actually takes office, and save your outraged messages to your MP for something that really matters?

Marg

But I really don't see the slant/bias that you see . . . and I'm a mother, grandmother, and have always fought for women's rights. I understand completely what Jim is trying to say . . . and I don't find anything negative in it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Dianne

Felice

Dianne we have argued before on your take of business women/women who work out of necessity, so I won't go into that again!

With the GG on the one hand we have all this concern about her privacy and raising her child, sending said child to public school etc but on the other small verbiage such as Felice pointed out and that term 'shacking up' speaks differently to me.

This woman is one smart cookie, she got herself out of Haiti and worked herself into an excellent job as a journalist, my bet is she knows exactly how she will handle being GG, what path she will take for her child, what she wants to colour her four years with and it is ridiculous to start maundering on about anything to do with her. She will do just fine. Forget writing to MPs - not worth the paper it's written on.

Oh . . . not a "word war" at all. Just a discussion likewise with someone I like and respect.

I know you were quarreling with the way he said it. I didn't find what Jim said was insensitive to women's roles. So, I was merely pointing out that one needn't interpret "just mothers" to be demeaning. It all depends upon context. In Jim's case, the context wasn't demeaning, in my opinion. :-)

I think we can become overly sensitive to useages and create problems where none exists. :-) As a working mom, I wanted the time to be "just a mother"! How I longed to be "just a mother" and not have all the other burdens heaped upon me so that I couldn't concentrate fully on being a mother and all that entails. Now, some will argue you can do and have it all. :-) I won't get into an argument on that. :-) Dianne

Let's not confuse issues. I am merely speaking about and pointing out how the words "just a mother" or "merely a mother" can mean two different things depending upon context. That's ALL I'm talking about. Dianne

I think a lot of people are just too 'touchy' these days - everything has to be so politically correct to some (see me here saying 'a lot of people' not 'people' and also 'some' - we seem to have to wear tin pants every time we make a statement ...' back it up', 'give me references' blah blah Whatever happened to just good old discussions/debates where people just threw out their ideas/comments - it was all digested - and everyone (well some :-)) ) just walked away saying 'gee that was a learning experience'. We're taking the fun out of living with all this 'stuff'. My two cents, period - you don't have to agree, disagree, or ask me for further explanations ... tra la la la la

Shar> > This woman is one smart cookie, she got herself out of Haiti and