Sorry - it's another link to the DM - but I KNOW this couple

LMAO at all of these men who've married women to be mothered. There's enough material there for a whole thesis on the Oedipus complex...

I actually think it reflects worse on the men. But if they're all happy and these women chose their roles rather than being subjected to them than IMHO that's feminism. The right to choose I mean. Not the right to mother your husband.

He doesn't sound too upset then!

Ok yes sorry Treats, I think I misunderstood - if it's the DM spin on the situation that has caused the outrage (it was the posts following yours that I was referring to really) then I absolutely agree, I just think the only criticism that can be levelled is at the DM, not the couples featured in it (although why anybody would speak to the DM is beyond me!!)

As I said, I have been far too nervous to come anywhere near the feminism threads before so just wanted to clarify if the mumsnet feminists are anti-SAHM - having clarified that you're not then that's fine, thanks for clearing it up!

How extremely depressing.

No need for the - it's good to see I'm not the only one spotting how the quote could have been taken out of context.

Sorry, x-posted with Trillian

zikes I did grimace at that quote, I think she may just be trying to justify though why she has spent taxpayers' money on a university education (another favourite bashing ground of the DM) to then not use it in the conventional sense.

This is all a good reminder of why not to read the DM etc!

"I think my university education has served to make me a better ­companion for my husband."

They asked her

"What's the point in your university education if you just look after the chliden, don't you think you wasted taxpayers' money?"

and she rightly answered that people tend to want to marry people of similar educational backgrounds, and they are better suited and their relationship is better because of it, even if she is not technically 'using' her education.

Very easy to see how this could have been twisted.

I don't believe for one minute that they knew that the title of the article was going to be "High fliers with the ultimate status symbol" and I bet that they are fuming.

After reading the article that Seth linked to, I would bet my dog on them being wildly misquoted.

She does say that she trained to be a teacher, but her salary would barely cover childcare. So does not rule out working ever again, just that it is financially not viable at the moment.

I suppose in some ways it's fine if he is transferring half his salary to her on a monthly basis, for her to invest as she sees fit, in her name only to protect against future financial instability. But you can bet your bottom dollar that he(they) isn't.

Oh the fact it's the Daily M@!l is enough to make me vom, so for me it was indeed the tone of the article and the quote: "I think my university education has served to make me a better ­companion for my husband."

I've no problem with sahms, I am one.

Well ok Feegle but I doubt I agree with many headlines in the DM! The OP was specifically commenting on the relationship of her friends, not slating the DM (which I am more than happy to do!). The headline is deliberately sensationalist which is not a great surprise with the DM!

I don't think Jon comes across as saying that having a wife who is a housewife is a status symbol, I think the point of the article is that they can only afford to choose due to their incomes. It's a choice they have both made. Would you still have a problem if the salaries were the other way around and the husband had decided to stay at home?

Was just genuinely interested to see what the upset was in relation to as I don't think being a housewife would be automatically un-feminist (if that's even a word!)

Darlene - what makes these women more 'leaveable' - if anything they're making themselves indispensable! And in what way would they ever be left homeless or penniless?! They would get at least 50%, regardless of who "earnt" the money.

I understand that it's not for everyone but I don't understand where the shock and disgust at their choices comes from? If it's just the tone of the article that you don't like rather than the underlying content, that's what you get for reading the tabloids!!

I'll be interested in what Treats 's friend says about the truth of the article.

Especially after reading the blog from the lady in seth's link.

I must be the anti-status symbol as I expect dh and me to do 50/50 everything in childcare and house stuff even though he has the 'bigger' job then me - and to actually spend some time with the children and not be either a) at work all hours or b) at the cricket on a sunday.

They were almost certainly told that it was an article about how they both chose this way of living and it benefits both of them.

Then cherry picked quotes (if not making them up entirely) to make it more controversial.

Well, I have to admit that it would not occur to him to make cupcakes.

But he is at toddler group while I laze around in bed (day off). So on balance, I can live without the cake.

Feminism is about opportunity. It's fine to be a housewife/SAHM and a noble calling indeed, but those of us who didn't choose a partner for his earning potential, or who discovered we have a talent for doing a "man's" job, find it pretty handy to have the choice to work.

It is a bit nauseating how it's portrayed by if you must read the DM what do you expect?

she looks so much out of his league in terms of looks. I would ask if that was a true reflection of how they look in RL but you can't really answer in case they find the thread!

I think when dh comes home tonight I'm going to ask him if I'm a status symbol and if he shows off about me much at work. I'm sure I could be the perfect partner for black tie events too, pity we never get to go to them