大変な家族。

実家をを出ることにしました。

 

我が家で普通の人だった母がなくなり、

悩みは私にすべておしかかってしまいました。

 

性格が几帳面でこだわりのある弟と、変な性格の父の間にはさまって、

ノイローゼになりそうな日々を送っています。

 

母はきっとこの二人の間にずっといて、病気になったのではないかと思います。

弟と父は同じ屋根に住みながら、30年ほど口をきいていません。

きいていないというよりも、弟は父がイヤで返事をしないというのが

正直な話です。

 

父は弟が返事をしないので、何かあると私に伝えろと言います。

弟も同じです。

 

私がいやがって断る場合は、お互いに紙に書いて食卓の上において、

それでやり取りをしています。

 

まるで小説の中に出てくる話のようです。

弟は父が嫌いだし変なので相手にしたくないのです。

 

しかし弟もなかなか大変な性格だと私は思います。

夜の仕事だとは分かるのですが、昼に出て行き夜の10時くらいに

帰ってくるのですが、朝まで起きていて寝ず昼まで休んでいます。

 

 

12時くらいに寝て、朝ある程度の時間に起きればいいものの、

ずっと深夜テレビをみて幽霊のように起きています。

 

父は父で本当に変なので、通っている病院から2度と来ないで

欲しいという宣告をあちこちから受け、病院を点々としています。

 

病院で何をしでかしているのか私には分かりませんが、きっと余計な発言をして

いるのでしょう。

 

数ヶ月前常連の保険の会社から、ちょっと知的に不足なセールスマンの女性が来

られました。

 

なんでも我が家の担当になったという話です。

それで父が、あなたはちっと頭が足らないので、保険のセールスを

しないでお寺で尼になるほうがいいといって、冗談ならまだしも

来るたびに説得をしていました。

 

父の話では、なんでも天から啓示を受けたという話で、

呆れてものが言えませんでした。

 

尼になることを説得する手紙などを書いて渡したりして、とうとう来なくなって

しまいました。

 

あげくのはては、恩知らずだと怒りまくっていて、私は本当に

つかれてしまいます。

 

弟と父が年に何度か、家の壊れるような大喧嘩などもするしで、

母についで私まで病気になりそうです。

 

このまま、家を出たら、どうなっちゃうだろう・・・?

でも、決めました・・・

 

 

3 Comments on “大変な家族。”

  1. ?Sample essay
    The remainder of this essay composing tutorial is depending on a short sample ‘divorce essay’ (about 1,000 words).
    To carry out all of your associated tasks, it is easiest any time you have the sample essay in front of you.
    A major change that has occurred around the Western family is surely an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas while in the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become very commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only a single marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is a lot more than an individual in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change appears to have been a substantial increase during the variety of one parent families along with the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997).
    An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. In such a essay I will seek to critically examine many different sociological explanations with the ‘divorce phenomenon’ and also consider the social policy implications that each individual explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the most efficient explanations are to be found inside of a broad socio-economic framework.
    Just one type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now a great deal more unstable. It is conceivable, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes around the law have been significant, when you consider that they have provided unhappily married couples with ‘accessibility to some legal answer to pre-existent marital problems’ (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates may be easiest explained in terms of changes inside of the legal method. The problem with this type of explanation however, tends to be that it does not consider why these laws have changed inside of the to start with position. It could be argued that reforms to family law, too since the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of alot more fundamental changes in society.
    Another type of explanation is a single that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. 1 example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on each spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both equally homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart’s explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce – for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her tactic, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would sound to be way more probing than an individual that looks only at legislative change.
    The two explanations described previously mentioned have very different implications for social policy, certainly in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability may perhaps be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this particular domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This solution, just one imagines, would lead to some reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine choice to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would appear to be to be a alternative directed a little more at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the knowledge of social workers, working during the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple’s accessibility to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate current marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to a lot more restrictive divorce laws appears to be a alternative small favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990).
    Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), crafting from the Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes inside of the capitalist economic strategy and their resultant effect about the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know however, how this sort of an analysis could very well be translated into practical social policies. This is merely because the Hart program would appear to require on the to begin with site a radical restructuring from the economic scheme. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it isn’t really achievable during the existing political climate. Hart is right however, to suggest that a great deal marital conflict is generally linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in a large number of statistical surveys which exhibit consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). This situation suggests then that social policies might need to be geared to providing service and security for these styles of families. It is tiny cause for optimism however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have revealed an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind.
    It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation to the growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even increased difficult to locate solutions that may ameliorate the problems created by it. Clearly though, as I have argued on this essay, essentially the most useful answers are to be found not inside a narrow legal framework, but in a broader socio-economic a person.
    Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living in a very time of increased family instability, research suggests that historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, inside the past, one parent and step families had been added regular than is assumed – although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of just one or each parents. This situation suggests that in studying the modern-day family, a particular needs to employ a historical perspective, such as the possibility of hunting to the past in searching for ways of dealing with problems within the existing.
    References
    Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Divorces, Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Services.
    Bell, R. and G. Zajdow (1997) Family and household. In R. Jureidini, S. Kenny and M. Poole (eds). Sociology: Australian Connections. St Leonards. NSW: Allen and Unwin
    Bilton, T. K. Bonnett and P. Jones (1987). Introductory Sociology. 2nd edition. London: MacMillan.
    Haralambos, M. (1995). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 3rd edition. London: Bell and Hyman.
    Harrison, M. (1995). Grounds for divorce. Family Matters. No 42 pp 34-35.
    Johnson, V. (1981). The Last Resort: A Women’s Refuge. Ringwood: Penguin.
    Kilmartin, C. (1997). Children divorce and one-parent families. Family Matters. No. 48. ( Available in the market On-line )
    McDonald, P. (1993). Family Trends and Structure in Australia. Australian Family Briefings No 3. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
    essay for sale over at this site

コメントを残す

メールアドレスが公開されることはありません。