to be shocked and appalled by the lesbian mum article in The Times...

[peeringintothevoid]

Their six year old son has an iPod.... he's six, for chrissakes!! Do they not care about his developing hearing, sticking earphones in his delicate wee ears?

And isn't that even worse in terms of spoiling them than a DS??

I don't see the connection with Lesbian Mum and the iPod element of this story.

Why not say "article in the Times" and leave it at that?

Or am I missing something?

I opened this thread thinking it would be something shocking relating to the mums (though there is nothing shocking about lesbian mums IMO) and find out it is about iPods.

Phew, I've come back to lots of replies!

emptyshell I'm at it being normal for kids this age to have iPods.

violethill I don't - I read the Guardian - but they'd sold out so OH got The Times.

Sorry TrillianAstra - I fucking well am being reasonable, and if you say I'm not then you are just a big poo.

@ not having headphones spanxaremyonlyfriend .

Ragged I think dyke is one of those terms that can safely be used by dykes themselves, and fairly safely used by those with no malice/close dyke friends/personal experience of dykery. I think you have to be a bit careful about the situation and the intent, IYSWIM.

babybarrister I didn't find it dull at all - thought it was an interesting personal interest article regardless of whether she was plugging a book. To you and BigBadMummy, that's the whole point; there is no connection between sexuality and ?'spoiling'? your kids. When you read the thread title, you opened it expecting to be outraged at someone else's outrage at lesbian mothers. Which wasn't the case, obviously. The reference to 'lesbian mothers' was merely a reference to the article (a little more directive than just the mystery 'a times article'). It could have been 'the article about Canadian mothers', or 'the article about a mother who's an author'.