Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Mills's article in the Sunday Times

57 replies

MyBrainIsOutOfTune · 03/04/2011 13:24

Did anyone read it? It's called 'Be My Baby' and is about Eleanor Mills's reaction to reading Rebecca Asher's Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Illusion of Equality. As it says on top of the page: 'Eleanor Mills is furious with a mother who wants the state to force men to share the burden of childcare so that women can regain their independence.' It says, basically:

  • women never had it so good
  • most women want to be home and take care of their babies
  • poor men, who are supposed to both work and take care of the babies
  • and anyway, if the men should ask for leave or for their work hours to be flexible, they're seen as unmanly, so they couldn't do that, of course. Poor men again.
  • and anyway, it's stupid to think that workers should be given more rights to be with their children when there's a recession on

I might have been able to read what she wrote without seeing red if she hadn't been ridiculing Asher (whose book I haven't read) throughout, by calling her arguments 'rants' and constantly exaggerating her opinions. Arghh.

Thoughts?

OP posts:
karmakameleon · 03/04/2011 18:50

im22 you have managed to read a lot into the OP that isn't there. Just as an example, where does anyone say anything about a "book which is advocating giving FEMALE workers more rights to be with kids" apart from you? How did you make that up?

As to my points, I didn't offer any critique of the book, merely corrected some inaccuracies you stated about it.

StewieGriffinsMom · 03/04/2011 18:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

im22 · 03/04/2011 18:43

And to Lois, again, i may not have read the article as you have, but I did read the OP's post, she is asking for analysis of the Telegraph article, not on Ashers book. Since she has summarised the article for us (in an obviously academic and unbiased way), why should I bother to read it? If I wanted to argue with the contents of the article, I would do so on it's forum, not here.

im22 · 03/04/2011 18:38

karmakameleon, I stated that I had read neither. I also stated i was basing my analysis on the OP's analysis ergo it is her that you must believe to have missed the point. As to your points, your are critiquing the book, not Mill's article giving her critique of the book, as the OP requested.

StewieGriffinsMom · 03/04/2011 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

karmakameleon · 03/04/2011 18:19

I've just read this article and was furious too.

im22 most of what you have written either misses the point of the book or the article, which isn't a huge surprise if you haven't read either.

(1) Asher isn't arguing about whether women have ever had it so good. She is making the point that motherhood affects a woman's life more than fatherhood affects a man's. Mills manages to miss her point as do you.

(2) I don't believe it's a fact that most women want to give up work to take care of their children full time. They may want to care for babies full time but as children start school, I suspect that most want to work part time or flexibly. Working flexibly or part time is much easier if your partner is willing and able to do the same.

(3) There is no suggestion that men should do more work outside the home and take equal responsibilty for their children. Asher is suggesting that men get more rights to parental leave and flexible working so that they can take equal responsibility for their children.

(4) Again Asher argues for better rights to paternity leave so your point is moot.

(5) The book is not about giving FEMALE workers better rights to parental leave. The book is about men taking an equal part in the care of their children.

im22 · 03/04/2011 18:04

Thoughts?? You haven't given any yourself, but here's mine for what they are worth (I haven't read the article so am going to base my analysis on your analysis):

  1. "women never had it so good" Is simply a statement of fact, women today have more rights than they did 20 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. I assume even though you seem to be arguing with Mill's analysis I will assume that you aren't arguing with this point.
  1. "most women want to be home and take care of their babies" I would assume is another fact, but if you provide some links to credible studies/statistical analyses to contradict it then i will happily read them.
  1. "poor men, who are supposed to both work and take care of the babies" The poor men i would assume is your opinion, without reading the article I will assume these words do not appear in it, so I will ignore this part of your point. As to the main point of the argument, I would assume that Mills is making a point about the book she is critiquing, ie. that Asher's book advocates men working more in the labour market than women while also doing equal childcare. Do you honestly feel this is fair?
  1. "and anyway, if the men should ask for leave or for their work hours to be flexible, they're seen as unmanly, so they couldn't do that, of course. Poor men again." I agree with your objection to this point. Although I would like to point out that a father asking for similar treatment as a mother in regards flexible working, parental leave will in most cases NOT receive it, so your argument here is moot.
  1. "and anyway, it's stupid to think that workers should be given more rights to be with their children when there's a recession on" I bet Mill's article didn't slant this point is the way you have. She is critiquing a book which is advocating giving FEMALE workers more rights to be with kids, not the androgynous "workers" as you put it.

That's my two cents, queue the, I am wrong/misogynistic/patriarchal comments telling me I am wrong, most of which will not bother to counter any argument I have made