To urge you all to get in touch with the BBC ...

[TheMartorialist]

... about this poor excuse for journalism on their website?

Yes, there are several more important things happening in the world, but I shall be shamelessly bumping this up throughout the day.

x post with ratspeaker sorry.

Pop.

well presumably because if they were at home looking after their children the children would be less at risk of being kidnapped.

if these women are going out and leaving their children with a "home help" maybe this has increased the number being taken?

so yes, a slightly cock-eyed way of viewing it, but essentially right... if mothers felt they could stay at home rather than having to go out then perhaps there would not be so many children taken?

It is like Toby Young's piece in the Telegraph yesterday. An opinion of one person.

Well at least that sounded like a spud gun rather than heavy artillery!

Well that's their opinion... Their view.

absolutely, it is his opinion.
where do you stand on freedom of speech OP?

I am from and can see how this whole discussion is going to get pear shaped very soon.

I hope OP comes on here and gives proper background information on some of the cultural beliefs that are responsible for that article.

I am not a violent person, hmc.

This is an african journalist giving an 'African Point of View' - it's not a BBC journalist. It's unsurprising that an african pov will be different to a western pov. I don't agree with her, but it doesn't outrage me.

YABU.

BBC gave their platform to a person with a view. BBC is not a party political broadcaster pedaling the current ideology and it is OK to disagree with what their contributers say. It is OK to debate the opposing view on BBC, ITV or Sky.

If you disagree with the journalist's argument, make it clear. BBC has nothing to do with that.

Popping in and out of workshops all day, hence the lack of full information. Popping back into one now, so forgive me if I don't respond straight away. You may be right about asking the thread to be pulled, so I shall certainly consider that.

I've only refreshed as far as hmc's comment, so if there have been more after, forgive me if I haven't responded/don't respond to them for a while.

Eric is right, in most cases, an African point of view will be very different to a Westernes's point of view on so many levels.

op, i got it and i am with you, how african woman dare to go to work while having small children instead of being home as their husbands ordered? and that is different that european woman how? it is misogynist, very, expected more from the bbc, and i don't care is a personal opinion, if trevor macdonalds was saying is his personal opinion that uk woman should stay at home taking care of the kids or deserve any bad coming to them, he would be the main piece of the news rather than the reader.

It's an African pov, but presumably many Africans would take issue with it. This is the same guy's take on women in politics.

i was thinking "just what is the OP's problem", but having read all the way to the end of the article ready to post YABU to the OP...

I actually get what the OP later clarified as being the problem.

Yes, it may be an opinion piece. And not by an official BBC employee. But the content is deeply misogynistic and simplistic in that it attempts to lay blame at the mothers here for "abandoning" their children.

Just look at how the writer mentions women leaving their children, and weaning them from 4 weeks so they can stay attractive.

The last few paragraphs have made me tbh, and I for one don't understand why the BBC has allowed the last half of the content on its website.

Deeply, deeply offensive, and downright upsetting if you're a working mum. Or any kind of mum for that matter. Who is the author to say that women should be blamed if anything (kidnap, accidents, illness, whatever) if they work outside the home?

The link between women not staying at home = "bad stuff will happen to your kids" message is one that I'm not comfortable with. The mindset is too black and white, from that written piece.

The issue that OP raised was not with the article as such, but that BBC had the audacity to publish that pov.

Thank god we live in the country where free speech and plurality of opinions exist for all to enjoy. I would push for even more if I could.

That is not to say that the opinion expressed in the article is something I subscribe to - far from it - but I would defend anybody's right to express their opinions or broadcaster's right to publish them if they so desire.

I don't really understand the content of the second part - "I am all for it", etc.

How do we know it is a male writer? I know at least two female Solas.

Anyway, thanks for an introduction to an interesting series of articles. I enjoy readng points of view which are different from my own - I don't have to agree, the writer isn't about to pass any law or take any action which impedes my own freedom, so why would I complain about it being published? I can respond, engage in the dialogue - but why complain?

bemybebe, but it's also badly written and poorly structured. it's also quite deceptive in that the last few paragraphs are just a rant against the emancipation of women, as opposed to being a thinkpiece about the effects of women joining the labour force in increasing numbers - it doesn't try to address any of the social or economic changes which may be a factor in all of this.

the piece is written as if by someone who cannot grasp that the issue of the effect of women in the workplace is a highly complex issue, with so many pressure forces influencing society, and the way it's changed (for the worse, in the writer's opinion).

i might be able to get away with that on here, but believe me, in my job i'm in charge of compiling reports and have an acceptable grasp of English

so, my own problems with it are that a) I find the opinions offensive and almost childish. but b) (and the reason why i am surprised the BBC put it on there) it's not even a particularly good opinion piece. it's just shite.

so, B coupled with A means i'm surprised. i have no issue with reading opinion pieces on newspaper websites, even if i don't agree with them

p.s. especially loving the bit where these foul mothers had the audacity to head out into the labour market, rather than guard their own children against armed militants.

actually i disagree. it isn't about how bad mothers are for wanting to work, or how them going to work means bad stuff will happen

it's surely based on the fact that they can't (for whatever reason) get trustworthy, reliable childcare whilst they do so?

it may be a fact of being forced to work because they need the money, and not being able to get good enough childcare. and maybe this kind of situation, where a hired help is actually a kidnapper is becoming more common as it's an easy way of getting children?

so the point is, if women didn't feel that they HAD to go to work and if they did have to they weren't reliant on handing their children over to just anyone, that this wouldn't be as bad as it is right now

frgr with respect your point a) is not relevant in the society where free speech is respected; if you disagree - DEBATE. Point b) may be of relevance, but OP did not raise that as an issue. Should we be banning Salman Rushdie also or is he ok, because his language skills are superior??

sorry, my post is not well structured

I asked Professor Google about the gender of the journalist, just because I was curious that earlier posters assumed he was female.