Do Thai Girls Really Love Their Kids?

[balo]

Hi

I have a question , my friend have been in a relationship with a thai for a few months , she have 3 kids from earlier thai marriage . I think she loves her children but they used to be very poor.

One of the kids are now living with the monks and have been doing that for over a year.

Is that considered normal in Thailand?

[garro]

First priority for a Thai is Money, Second Family, now I've got that out of the way onto the issue:-

Dumping or abandoning is not the correct description at all, some cultures have no problem with family raising their children, this is the case also with the Australian aborigine, and various other country's. Once again it's probably a different approach to how most of us view the responsibilities of parenthood.

Why is it that everytime something crops up that is culturally different, we have all those people that just love to put other cultures down.

This type of blanket statement is a sure sign of ignorance. Refering to a group of people as one single entity is always a mistake. The people of Thailand are a mixture of different personality types with different motivations just like every other country. To assume that you can label all the people of one country as this or that is just silly.

I do agree with the rest of your post though.

[PadThaiGuy]

ME,

my Family,

my Country.

That sums up the thinking around here.

[chiang mai]

garro,

if you took the baby born to poor parents at birth and moved him into a wealthy family, then he would have a higher chance to grow up and become an intelligent adult. if you leave him with his poor parents, he will probably grow up to be a moron. what you are suggesting is that a child's upbringing has no association for the adult he turns into. thats a pretty ridiculous assertion, imho.

As I said in my last post, educational opportunity is not the same as intelligence in my view. And what you are putting forward as fact is the 'nature versus nurture argument' which, as far as I know, hasn't been resolved despite some of the greatest minds arguing over this. Most people now agree that it is a mixture of both so to say that a somebody is not intelligent because they are poor is a very simplistic argument. Some children grow up in privileged backgrounds yet are complete dullards and some grow up in poor backgrounds, but their innate intelligence allows them to become academic giants.

Also it is important to not confuse intelligence with purely academic achievement.

What is intelligence - it's surely the extent to which a person has been able to learn, hence IQ or intelligence quota. Where do we learn? When young we learn from our parents and those around us and in later years we learn at school. Map that process onto a typical village girl up to the age of eighteen in Thailand and the outcome is fairly predictable, especially when the school is in the village where she lives. I think the result is someone with a very low IQ. Granted, in later years when the most able of them has seen enough things in life they may develop drive and move onto do some great things but for the most of them the process of having babies is something that, well, girls do. Now getting back to the OP's original question (which is not in the least stupid or trollish) do Thai girls love their children. Frankly it's hard to see how many of them can or do when the decision to have children in the first place was made on such a limited amount of knowledge or understanding of life - I suspect strongly that many see children later in life as an overhead, an extra burden in a society where the poor have so many hoops and hurdles to negotiate.

[mikethevigoman]

OK may be controversial but am interested to get some feedback. Reading through the posts on this forum for some time and hearing stories from various sources as well as personal experiences with friends past and present I get the impression that Thai girls with Farang husbands/partners do not really care too much for the half breed kids they produce.

On this forum several guys have asked advice (or just wanted to share their experience) about their female partner having "gone bad" and resuming the good life, leaving the poor guy to take care of the kid/s.

Have also heard stories of girls being a faithful wife and mother for many years until they get the coveted green card or Farang residence then abandon husband and kids just like that.

We are led to believe that Thai family values are really important but are they in reality? How many girls indiscriminately have kids and dump them with the grandparents to go back to the good life in the bars?

Is the family value thing just another myth just like this being the land of smiles or is it just with the new generations that are rebelling against their elders?

D.D.

This is common of girls in the industry, normal thai women are just that, normal and wont be parted from their kids no matter what, i think your question relates to the former type and this is what you get if you marry/get involved with one, we were all warned, some heeded it ,others didnt,.

[Eric1949]

I think it's unwise to generalise.

My ex has a 15 year old daughter.

She was 8 when I came into the family.

Prior to that, my ex spent the daughters earlier years in Cyprus with the father, leaving her with the sister in-laws.

Following the breakup with Mr Cyprus she spent some time with her daughter in BKK, living with her brothers/sister in-laws. She regularly gave the daughter a beating, so bad once that she took her to the hospital, fearing she had broken some bones.

Mr Holland came next from about 1998 - 2000, so she spent a lot of time in Europe or holidaying with Mr Holland. Dumped in 2000, she found a 'job' in Singapore, where I met her.

In 2001 I came into the family and by December 2001 we were living together as a family. This was the first time her daughter had experienced proper family life. It wasn't long before the beating started again. I witnessed it once, and told my ex never to do it again when I was there. She told me, she my daughter, I can beat, this normal in Thailand, none of your business. Since 12 months ago, when I escaped, I can only imagine what her daughter has had to go through.

So, if this is 'love', I thank god that she dosn't hate her daughter.

[way2muchcoffee]

normal thai women are just that, normal and wont be parted from their kids no matter what.

What a remarkably uninformed statement. Are you saying that the 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands or more, of Thai women who leave their children in the village to work in BKK as maids, servants, laborers, and construction workers are not normal? Are you saying poverty is not 'normal' in Thailand? I don't get it. I am not saying they don't love their children. Economic pressures force a huge number of mothers to go find work in the city, leaving their children in the care of the extended family. This is normal.

Edited March 17, 2008 by way2muchcoffee

[garro]

garro,

if you took the baby born to poor parents at birth and moved him into a wealthy family, then he would have a higher chance to grow up and become an intelligent adult. if you leave him with his poor parents, he will probably grow up to be a moron. what you are suggesting is that a child's upbringing has no association for the adult he turns into. thats a pretty ridiculous assertion, imho.

As I said in my last post, educational opportunity is not the same as intelligence in my view. And what you are putting forward as fact is the 'nature versus nurture argument' which, as far as I know, hasn't been resolved despite some of the greatest minds arguing over this. Most people now agree that it is a mixture of both so to say that a somebody is not intelligent because they are poor is a very simplistic argument. Some children grow up in privileged backgrounds yet are complete dullards and some grow up in poor backgrounds, but their innate intelligence allows them to become academic giants.

Also it is important to not confuse intelligence with purely academic achievement.

What is intelligence - it's surely the extent to which a person has been able to learn, hence IQ or intelligence quota. Where do we learn? When young we learn from our parents and those around us and in later years we learn at school. Map that process onto a typical village girl up to the age of eighteen in Thailand and the outcome is fairly predictable, especially when the school is in the village where she lives. I think the result is someone with a very low IQ. Granted, in later years when the most able of them has seen enough things in life they may develop drive and move onto do some great things but for the most of them the process of having babies is something that, well, girls do. Now getting back to the OP's original question (which is not in the least stupid or trollish) do Thai girls love their children. Frankly it's hard to see how many of them can or do when the decision to have children in the first place was made on such a limited amount of knowledge or understanding of life - I suspect strongly that many see children later in life as an overhead, an extra burden in a society where the poor have so many hoops and hurdles to negotiate.

I disagree that IQ is a measure of what a person is able to learn. The IQ test is biased towards certain types of knowledge. The fact that some people who have priviliged educational experience can perform badly in academia, while somebody with poor educational opportunities can do well works against your argument, such as it is. Einstein would be considered an educational failure as he left school with little qualifications. Also as I already mentioned intelligence should not just be based solely on academic credentials. Repairing tractors requires a certain amount of intelligence. Don't you agree?

A perfect example against your argument would be Christy Brown who suffered from cerebral palsy and was judged to be 'intellectually subnormal' following IQ tests. He went on to write books using just his left foot and became the subject of the film 'my left foot'.

Edited March 17, 2008 by garro

[Scott]

I think there are a lot of things getting mixed up here. Mother's usually love their kids--regardless of nationality. Fathers usually love their children, but sometimes aren't fully convinced they are his. Fathers sometimes abandon the family (as do mothers), but not out of lack of love. Families are complicated entities and for many men visiting the kids means putting up with the woman they left and all the crap that goes with it.

In a lot of societies the actual care of children is left to the grandparents who are beyond their productive years and the providing of finances, food etc. is left up to the parents, who have the energy to do so. It's difficult, as most of us know to work and raise kids, especially alone. Especially if you are away from extended family, such as are many parents in Thailand.

Trying to simplify things down to love-not love kids is quite wrong. Do you think the 'orphans' of Africa in the Zoe's Ark scandal were unloved or did they just have parents who could best provide for them by giving them a more promising future elsewhere?

[mikethevigoman]

normal thai women are just that, normal and wont be parted from their kids no matter what.

What a remarkably uninformed statement. Are you saying that the 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands or more, of Thai women who leave their children in the village to work in BKK as maids, servants, laborers, and construction workers are not normal? Are you saying poverty is not 'normal' in Thailand? I don't get it. I am not saying they don't love their children. Economic pressures force a huge number of mothers to go find work in the city, leaving their children in the care of the extended family. This is normal.

Of course there is much broader picture, however we all know the type of woman/mother the op is asking about and i answered him about that type,. Torrenova answered this also with an exquisite reply with post 48,.,. Edited March 17, 2008 by mikethevigoman

[way2muchcoffee]

Fair enough.

[a2396]

It seems your knowledge of Thai girls is mainly made up of girls who work in bars. Widen your social circles and you might stop asking stupid questions about whether or not women love their children.

His is not necessarily a stupid question. Certainly there are instances of the behaviour he describes. What the percentages are - who knows? Always hazardous packing off a young foreign lady to the "promised land" (your country).

[a2396]

ME,

my Family,

my Country.

That sums up the thinking around here.

MONEY!

ME

MY FAMILY

[BigSnake]

Yes, yes they love their kids, they hate the F####K that left them along to raise the kids(ie run off with MINOR), yes they love them for sure, why else would they be selling their honour to Farang to support the kids, except maybe a little GREED!!

[chiang mai]

garro,

if you took the baby born to poor parents at birth and moved him into a wealthy family, then he would have a higher chance to grow up and become an intelligent adult. if you leave him with his poor parents, he will probably grow up to be a moron. what you are suggesting is that a child's upbringing has no association for the adult he turns into. thats a pretty ridiculous assertion, imho.

As I said in my last post, educational opportunity is not the same as intelligence in my view. And what you are putting forward as fact is the 'nature versus nurture argument' which, as far as I know, hasn't been resolved despite some of the greatest minds arguing over this. Most people now agree that it is a mixture of both so to say that a somebody is not intelligent because they are poor is a very simplistic argument. Some children grow up in privileged backgrounds yet are complete dullards and some grow up in poor backgrounds, but their innate intelligence allows them to become academic giants.

Also it is important to not confuse intelligence with purely academic achievement.

What is intelligence - it's surely the extent to which a person has been able to learn, hence IQ or intelligence quota. Where do we learn? When young we learn from our parents and those around us and in later years we learn at school. Map that process onto a typical village girl up to the age of eighteen in Thailand and the outcome is fairly predictable, especially when the school is in the village where she lives. I think the result is someone with a very low IQ. Granted, in later years when the most able of them has seen enough things in life they may develop drive and move onto do some great things but for the most of them the process of having babies is something that, well, girls do. Now getting back to the OP's original question (which is not in the least stupid or trollish) do Thai girls love their children. Frankly it's hard to see how many of them can or do when the decision to have children in the first place was made on such a limited amount of knowledge or understanding of life - I suspect strongly that many see children later in life as an overhead, an extra burden in a society where the poor have so many hoops and hurdles to negotiate.

I disagree that IQ is a measure of what a person is able to learn. The IQ test is biased towards certain types of knowledge. The fact that some people who have priviliged educational experience can perform badly in academia, while somebody with poor educational opportunities can do well works against your argument, such as it is. Einstein would be considered an educational failure as he left school with little qualifications. Also as I already mentioned intelligence should not just be based solely on academic credentials. Repairing tractors requires a certain amount of intelligence. Don't you agree?

A perfect example against your argument would be Christy Brown who suffered from cerebral palsy and was judged to be 'intellectually subnormal' following IQ tests. He went on to write books using just his left foot and became the subject of the film 'my left foot'.

Untrue! If you take a look at any IQ test you will see that maths and English play a significant role - see the attached MENSA test as an example. http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php . Other aspects of IQ tests require logic and that requires that a process be learned first. I believe also that my point of view only holds true when we refer to Thai females up a certain age and I have in mind to suggest around early twenties. Thereafter the theory decays because learned life experiences and outside knowledge begin to effect.

[garro]

garro,

if you took the baby born to poor parents at birth and moved him into a wealthy family, then he would have a higher chance to grow up and become an intelligent adult. if you leave him with his poor parents, he will probably grow up to be a moron. what you are suggesting is that a child's upbringing has no association for the adult he turns into. thats a pretty ridiculous assertion, imho.

As I said in my last post, educational opportunity is not the same as intelligence in my view. And what you are putting forward as fact is the 'nature versus nurture argument' which, as far as I know, hasn't been resolved despite some of the greatest minds arguing over this. Most people now agree that it is a mixture of both so to say that a somebody is not intelligent because they are poor is a very simplistic argument. Some children grow up in privileged backgrounds yet are complete dullards and some grow up in poor backgrounds, but their innate intelligence allows them to become academic giants.

Also it is important to not confuse intelligence with purely academic achievement.

What is intelligence - it's surely the extent to which a person has been able to learn, hence IQ or intelligence quota. Where do we learn? When young we learn from our parents and those around us and in later years we learn at school. Map that process onto a typical village girl up to the age of eighteen in Thailand and the outcome is fairly predictable, especially when the school is in the village where she lives. I think the result is someone with a very low IQ. Granted, in later years when the most able of them has seen enough things in life they may develop drive and move onto do some great things but for the most of them the process of having babies is something that, well, girls do. Now getting back to the OP's original question (which is not in the least stupid or trollish) do Thai girls love their children. Frankly it's hard to see how many of them can or do when the decision to have children in the first place was made on such a limited amount of knowledge or understanding of life - I suspect strongly that many see children later in life as an overhead, an extra burden in a society where the poor have so many hoops and hurdles to negotiate.

I disagree that IQ is a measure of what a person is able to learn. The IQ test is biased towards certain types of knowledge. The fact that some people who have priviliged educational experience can perform badly in academia, while somebody with poor educational opportunities can do well works against your argument, such as it is. Einstein would be considered an educational failure as he left school with little qualifications. Also as I already mentioned intelligence should not just be based solely on academic credentials. Repairing tractors requires a certain amount of intelligence. Don't you agree?

A perfect example against your argument would be Christy Brown who suffered from cerebral palsy and was judged to be 'intellectually subnormal' following IQ tests. He went on to write books using just his left foot and became the subject of the film 'my left foot'.

Untrue! If you take a look at any IQ test you will see that maths and English play a significant role - see the attached MENSA test as an example. http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php . Other aspects of IQ tests require logic and that requires that a process be learned first. I believe also that my point of view only holds true when we refer to Thai females up a certain age and I have in mind to suggest around early twenties. Thereafter the theory decays because learned life experiences and outside knowledge begin to effect.

What is untrue?

You think that the ablity to speak English should be used to judge intelligence?

So those who perform poorly on English tests are not intelligent?

So what you are saying is that IQ tests have a cultural bias towards English speakers and to those who have received a western education. I would agree with this. This is why I don't believe that these tests are good for measuring intelligence.

[bina]

i think that everyone here has to take a step back and rethink what their definition of love or 'mother love' is really about: is it instinctive? is it learned? is it born of neccesity?

i will use myself as an example: i dont like children. yuck. BUT i love my own three kids. i never worked with young kids, didnt know how to take care of kids (never babysat and wasnt exposed in the suburban us to lots of babies in our two kid area)... but when mine were born, i bonded and breast fed and never bothered to read child educ. books or anything else. my mother always laughted and said that i dealt with my kids as if they were my puppies: i carried them with me wherever i went (when they werent in the baby house in the kibbutz while i was working); i nuzzled and licked and played with them in my own way. i dont think i ever used the words 'i love u' to my kids but they feel it through and through. my kids are surrounded and were raised by my (ex) extended family here also.

HOWEVER, i have a very super intelligent, coming from a wealthy family , woman doctor friend, who never had 'mother love'. her mother raised her, fed her, sent her to the best schools, but she til this day, feels unloved. her idea of love is based on what she gives she should get back from her children. which makes it hard for her kids. she is nasty with them verbally, doesnt always like them, but claims to them and to me that she loves them. and she does. in her own way, she would fight to the death to protect them even as she emotionally destroys them.

my ex loves his (our) children but he hs very different ways of showing it, and his expectations of love from them are different then mine as he was raised by parents who had no parents (holocaust survivors so dysfunctional family and old fashioned kibbutz set up)but who love him. but were awful parents since they didnt know how to be parents.

so how can anyone here decide that a mother leaving her kids doesnt love them and a mother staying with her kids does love them.

is protecting your children love? or is nurturing them emotionally love? for many poor thais, food (and money) = love. and it is love. these are (or were) hard commodities to get, so when given it means 'i love u'. jewish mothers running after their kids stuffing them with food then 'food=love'.

i would feel very unloved but perhaps stimulated intellectually in some not open not 'warm' not physical families just as examples as 'cold' as opposed to 'warm' families that express or dont express 'love'.) families that i have met. i didnt see one aspect of anything i would call 'mother love'.

and i've seen rich and poor mothers here giving their kids every kind of junk item needed or wanted, but no real words of encouragement. is that love?

or some of the filipina mothers who send money home and i've seen them cry after every conversation with their 13 girl left at home with sister /grandmother.

so frankly, this is a stupid, unintelligent question: the cultural aspects of love are complex and obviously subjective and based on our own experiences and emperical data.

that like when people ask if a mother animal 'loves' her offspring; there are 'bad' mothers among other mammals also; and among some, motherhood is learned so that a bad mother will raise future 'bad' mothers (goats spring to mind);

well, my two cents (which are rapidly deflating even more...)

bina

israel

edited to delete specific country stereotypes i was going to use as examples. but u can all fill it in as u want...

Edited March 17, 2008 by bina

[garro]

i think that everyone here has to take a step back and rethink what their definition of love or 'mother love' is really about: is it instinctive? is it learned? is it born of neccesity?

i will use myself as an example: i dont like children. yuck. BUT i love my own three kids. i never worked with young kids, didnt know how to take care of kids (never babysat and wasnt exposed in the suburban us to lots of babies in our two kid area)... but when mine were born, i bonded and breast fed and never bothered to read child educ. books or anything else. my mother always laughted and said that i dealt with my kids as if they were my puppies: i carried them with me wherever i went (when they werent in the baby house in the kibbutz while i was working); i nuzzled and licked and played with them in my own way. i dont think i ever used the words 'i love u' to my kids but they feel it through and through. my kids are surrounded and were raised by my (ex) extended family here also.

HOWEVER, i have a very super intelligent, coming from a wealthy family , woman doctor friend, who never had 'mother love'. her mother raised her, fed her, sent her to the best schools, but she til this day, feels unloved. her idea of love is based on what she gives she should get back from her children. which makes it hard for her kids. she is nasty with them verbally, doesnt always like them, but claims to them and to me that she loves them. and she does. in her own way, she would fight to the death to protect them even as she emotionally destroys them.

my ex loves his (our) children but he hs very different ways of showing it, and his expectations of love from them are different then mine as he was raised by parents who had no parents (holocaust survivors so dysfunctional family and old fashioned kibbutz set up)but who love him. but were awful parents since they didnt know how to be parents.

so how can anyone here decide that a mother leaving her kids doesnt love them and a mother staying with her kids does love them.

is protecting your children love? or is nurturing them emotionally love? for many poor thais, food (and money) = love. and it is love. these are (or were) hard commodities to get, so when given it means 'i love u'. jewish mothers running after their kids stuffing them with food then 'food=love'.

i would feel very unloved but perhaps stimulated intellectually in some of the more european (germanic and french just as examples as 'cold' as opposed to 'warm' families that express or dont express 'love'.) families that i have met. i didnt see one aspect of anything i would call 'mother love'.

and i've seen rich and poor mothers here giving their kids every kind of junk item needed or wanted, but no real words of encouragement. is that love?

or some of the filipina mothers who send money home and i've seen them cry after every conversation with their 13 girl left at home with sister /grandmother.

so frankly, this is a stupid, unintelligent question: the cultural aspects of love are complex and obviously subjective and based on our own experiences and emperical data.

that like when people ask if a mother animal 'loves' her offspring; there are 'bad' mothers among other mammals also; and among some, motherhood is learned so that a bad mother will raise future 'bad' mothers (goats spring to mind);

well, my two cents (which are rapidly deflating even more...)

bina

israel

Good post bina

[Maizefarmer]

............................ another of these stupid questions that come up on ThaiVisa on a regular basis, grounded in the "them and us" perception about Thais which is more a reflection of ignorance than any thing else.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Maizefarmer

[DB84]

Ofcourse Thai's love there kids, what sort of a dumb question is that?

Whats next? Do Thai people have blue blood?

Technically, we all have blue blood until it's exposed to oxygen

On a serious note, I agree with your assessment that it is a dumb question.

[TheDon]

Thaivisa is starting to produce some really stupid threads lately, this site was pretty good a few months ago but seems to be taken over by trolls lately.

Whats up with the mods?

[burman]

............................ another of these stupid questions that come up on ThaiVisa on a regular basis, grounded in the "them and us" perception about Thais which is more a reflection of ignorance than any thing else.

So very true.

[dominator]

Have you ever noticed Thais riding motorcycles, not only the girls. Where do 90% of them put the children.........in the front of course. In an accident the child acts as an airbag for the adult. Thus the child gives up it's life to save an adult. Of course children love their parents. Oops, wrong way round, still that is the Asian way is it not?

[TheDon]

Have you ever noticed Thais riding motorcycles, not only the girls. Where do 90% of them put the children.........in the front of course. In an accident the child acts as an airbag for the adult. Thus the child gives up it's life to save an adult. Of course children love their parents. Oops, wrong way round, still that is the Asian way is it not?

So you actually think they put the child there for an airbag?

That's probably the worst thing I ever heard? The asian way? Are you serious or what?

[dominator]

Have you ever noticed Thais riding motorcycles, not only the girls. Where do 90% of them put the children.........in the front of course. In an accident the child acts as an airbag for the adult. Thus the child gives up it's life to save an adult. Of course children love their parents. Oops, wrong way round, still that is the Asian way is it not?

So you actually think they put the child there for an airbag?

That's probably the worst thing I ever heard? The asian way? Are you serious or what?

Ah! you use the word 'think', now you think about it.

[way2muchcoffee]

It's pretty easy to see why it happens. Public transportation in the sticks is sparse. Public transportation in BKK can be exceedingly time consuming, and can cost more than a quick trip on the motorcycle. Most people can't afford cars. Taxis are too expensive. Tuk tuks are almost as dangerous as motorcycles and more expensive than taxis. Families need to get places.

[meadish_sweetball]

Well, this has gone completely off topic by now, and while some posts are reasonably well thought out and remain within the rules, most do not.

Closed.