to ask does DM hate working parents

[AuntiePickleBottom]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2036266/Putting-baby-nursery-raise-heart-disease-risk-sends-stress-levels-soaring.html

now i have read it all, once a child is settled the nursery worker will not be strangers

Yes. And SAHM's, immigrants, anyone who works for the NHS, gay people, religious people and those 'coloured' people that take all our jobs etc etc

No, sorry, DrCoconut. You lose because my best friend is a single mother from Eastern Europe who works for the BBC. She is quite proud of being the ultimate DM hate figure.

Every time I feel down about my single parent status or have a twinge of working mother guilt I remember that the DM wouldn't approve so
I must be doing something right

Well, I'm a working (f/t) single mother, with a DD with SN. Plus I work for the public sector (lazy, workshy, etc). And I'mScottish (living off English money, etc). So I think I must be in the running for the DM - and it's readers - contempt, scorn and derision :o

....oops readers' (missed an apostrophe)

Dr John Bowlby would be proud. Sounds just like the propganda leaflets he produced in the 1940's to guilt trip mothers into staying at home to prevent their children turning into delinquents...

AmIthatbad - the best DM stories are those where the Scottishness or BBCness of the story are of marginal relevance (or less) and yet they manage to screech Scottish! or BBC! into the headline thus inducing predictable anti-whatever bile from the comments.

DM bingo is fun...

Excellent post, Smellslikecatpee :)

I don't understand what the DM expects us to do about this situation, though. We have ended up with a society in which it is impossible for many (or most) families to afford even the basics (housing, bills, food) on one income. We certainly couldn't afford our very modest house in a shit area if I didn't work.

Anyway, I like my job. And DS likes his CM. So ner.

DM is read by more people than any other UK newspaper except the Sun....one may pause to reflect on why :o

Having a child raised solely by their parents, and mainly by one parent, isn't a natural state. In hunter gatherer communities a baby would be looked after by its parents for the first few months. This would result in the parents being able to find less food so the rest of the community would provide food to compensate. When the child is old enough it would go into a creche or playgroup to be looked after by older women and men from the community. The parents would then go out and collect food during the day. The careers would be paid in food by the parents.

That sounds very like modern childcare although I doubt many nurseries would accept a basket of home grown produce as payment

MIL gets it but says it is because she doesn't want to read too much news . I think a lot of the readership of most papers is through inertia rather than ardent belief.

At least I hope so..........

Why thank you Count Baps,

I read this article and went

FWIW, I am a SAHM as our household would be losing money if I put DC into nursery. That was our choice and it suits our lives for me to stay home with DC.

I also agree with posters who say that DM is just a whinge-a-thon about women - too fat, too thin, too rich, too poor etc.

What makes me a bit sad is that the numbers of people who just swallow their bullcrap and don't think about it. What about the men, what about people who can't afford to not work etc?

My MIL is an avid DM reader - everything out of her mouth is, "Ohh, TLC I read a really interesting article in DM the other day....."

She and her DH couldn't afford to not have 2 incomes when they were raising their boys so DH and his siblings were looked after by relations and CMers. 30-something years later and she is still guilty about this and looks at me and other mums she knows being at home and laments that, "being at home is the best thing for the children."

I actually don't think that it is always best for kids to be looked after at home by their mums, but that's another issue for another day.... what I mean is that even after 3 decades my MIL is still affected by this guilt peddled by the shitehawk 'journalists' of DM who just want someone to rag on.

Sorry my post was so long

I got on my soapbox a bit!

YABU

The Daily Mail hates working women. And SAH women. And women. And womeny women. And women who are women. And women who dare to be women.

Proudnscary

"womeny women" hahaha

vair, vair true

The DM do not hate working mothers. They are doing their job; reporting on what 'expert' has claimed.

They counter balance the article with quotes from other opposing sources.

It is similar to writing an essay; you have to include recent evidence but also find opposing opinions. It does do not mean the authour agress- just that they are reporting the lastest news.

The Daily Hate Mail manages to spout venom on both sides of many questions. If you don't like it don't read it and ffs don't buy it.

It has a use but I buy something soft and absorbent from Tesco for that.

Cocoflower, the Daily Mail does have an agenda. They report surveys and research that accords with their very specific view of the world. They are as guilty of this in the field of medical reporting as they are in social policy (though I think most other newspapers are as culpable when it comes to health research they are worse than most on social issues).

Look at this. So you read the first bit as a working mother, and think "phew, it's ok after all. But then you read further down and the journalist essentially debunks the study with a few paragraphs that say "other people say this is rubbish and you are STILL AN EVIL BITCH WHO DESERVES TO BURN IN HELL FOR SENDING YOU CHILD TO NURSERY"

There was a great website that used to let you link to and read DM stories without a direct hit on the website, so you could avoid driving traffic there (www.istyosty.com). But it's vanished - I think they were sued by the DM and took it down last month.

"essentially debunks the study with a few paragraphs that say"

Yes Andrew but they also have quotes in the article of this thread debunking what the expert has said too. It is exactly the same. If you subscribed to any publication on childcare or education it is likely to have the same articles. When research is peer-viewed and approved it often gets published.
They are reporting new findings by people outside of the newspaper but are counter balancing things also. No different to how one would approach an essay or thesis.

Coco, I salute your valiant attempts to defend the Mail, but as a journalist I can tell you they do most definitely have an agenda and all stories must be angled to fit. Whatever the actual facts are. They will spike a story if it turns out they really can't stretch the facts to make them fit, however hard they try.

All case studies must be nice middle class women wearing skirts, with no visible tattoos or piercings. Married women are always 'Mrs' whatever mode of address they actually prefer.

The Mail has been very successful - although has taken a hit over the past couple of years along with everyone else - because they have a very clear agenda and a very clear worldview and write all their stories to fit. It has been working very well for them.

And it's definitely not how any reputable person would approach an essay or thesis, unless they were horribly biased. (Although researchers are not immune from bias, of course.) It goes in heavily on the claims, using inflammatory language, tries to build his authority by mentioning the Dept of Health (when this study is nothing to do with the DH and it's not clear exactly what the 'experts' connection with government really is), and it's not until the sixth par that you get any hint that it isn't an undisputed fact that children will die...

(In fact I smell a hack who really didn't want to over-egg the pudding in this way so has desperately tried to get some rational comment in, but of course it's been put right at the very bottom because that doesn't fit the headline.)

Cocoflower I don't think your last was meant for me, was it?