to think that feminism should have thought about the consequences and set some rules.

[TulisaLover]

I've been chatting with DP this evening and mentioned a post that's been doing the rounds on facebook. It's from a lady sending a message to This Morning about the cost of childcare - on the surface it's a powerful post.

To cut it down:

'I am looking to return to work next year and child care will cost 810 every 4wks - this is more than our mortage!!. The government should help with child care costs.'

DP and I agree with it's sentiment - that child care costs are crippling families, but not necessarily with helping for the costs - he said:

"This is why feminism should have laid down some rules. Both parents earning an income meant banks salivated and started lending for homes based on both. This has forced up prices to cover this as house prices are a function of the amount being lent. Society as a whole loses, bankers win. What should have happened is when you have kids, both parents should be encouraged to work part time so that childcare is shared - or failing that the higher earner whichever gender should have been the one to work. Problems like this wouldn't have happened."

It struck a chord with me - what do you ladies think?

AnnieLobesedar, you can't have careless lending without careless borrowing. Nobody made anybody borrow more than they could afford.

I haven't read the whole thread.

I agree with your DP, Tulisa. This is something I predicted, ranted about muchly in letters to newspapers and politicians and was comprehensively put down for in feminist meetings. The union movement was alert to the issue but was declawed by the same administration that deregulated banking and saw houses become 'investments'.

The original articles of feminism (sorry, cba to look up proper name & date) were very big on free childcare for all - that is, state and/or employer funded provision. It was not realised at the time that so many women would prefer to stay at home as mothers; women's liberation developed in unpredictable ways, and this is one of the most fundamental.

As things stand, I agree wholeheartedly with you & DP that all responsibilities should be equally distributed between a couple, including parental leave and working adjustments. Some of the Scandinavian countries make it compulsory for both parents to take full, equal, parental leave. That would be a good start.

Additionally - with apologies for sounding like Xenia - if women weren't so flippin' eager to make all the concessions to family life, things would be a darn sight more equal. When governments won't legislate, markets dictate. Whilst a male workforce exists, which can afford to be wholly committed to the job thanks to a Little Woman at home, employers will carry on preferring male workers.

YABU to say feminism set rules, though! I wish!!

Nobody made anybody borrow more than they could afford.

We could afford it then. You could put down a 5% or 10% deposit and get a smart-arse mortgage for way less than the rent on the same place. If you remember, most of these smartarse schemes later fell foul of mis-selling judgements, but not before half the country was in negative equity with their mortgage lenders demanding 5 times the monthly payments they had originally set out.

Don't be silly though. We all had to do the old calculators what if interest rates went back up to 10% or 15%.

The banks didn't make you borrow.

thank you garlic! I knew dp was right, even though he could have phrased it better.

tulisa,stop yapping about dp.you are high flyer lawyer
no need for you to refer to him,he's small fish compared to you Hun
you're the brains,do tell us about quantitative easing

qe, again is more theft from savers to bail out the idiots who overborrowed. un one of my previous jobs, I worked very closely with Ben bernanke. guys a tool.

I still want to hear more about last years next suits. I refuse to believe anyone in the magic circle is allowed to wear next polyester - some sort of povo alarm would probably go off

Yes, because "feminism" is in charge of the government, is a single unit and can set economic rules for everyone.

The frugal nature of our lives comes from our deep understanding of Plato and his works. Tulisa is a modern philosophers - I believe a direct descendent of euripedes. I bargained 79 percent off a superb pant suit in the next sake that had my female colleagues raging with jealously and male ones hot under the collar.

you're like ghetto da lawyer
spill beans then.sir mervyn king, are you and he as one on qe?
has the qe input really increased spending,what outcome measures did you use

hehe,pant suit in Scottish parlance obviously has v different meaning
pant suit would be yer chuddies and they suited you
one vpcould say twas a nice pant on

This thread has been such a treat on a miserable Saturday morning.

I may well become a fan of tulisa
she's a goddess,multilingual,professional, and despite that still shops in next

Dp says King is only now speaking truthfully knowing he is about to retire. QE had maintained asset prices - nothing else. You will not get savers spending no matter how much you punish it. We 'd rather see it burn then let the speculators and over indebted win by making us join their filthy debt debauchery.

now tulisa,stop being wee wifey and dp says dis,dp says dat
youre a linklater partner (pending press release)
you don't need to refer to him.he's small fry

I think you are misunderstanding what feminism is.

It is the belief that people should be treated equally, valued equally , and given equal opportunities, regardless of their sex/gender.

It's not the kind of entity that is in any shape to "think about consequences" and "set out rules".

Dp and I for the most part speak as one. All the best power couples find a harmonious voice.

eh,hang on I've had the feminist rule book speech on mn
you're not feminist if dont fulfilf x,y,z ideological criteria
so no.I've experriencec the rules and expectations speech.and if deviate then it's all what about da menz, mra, antifeminist

Well if feminism isn't the kind if entity that thinks about consequences before defining its acceptance criteria, then maybe it needs to take a different path in future. I am a chess player of grandmaster level and assure you, before I n
move king to bishop 4, every possible circumstances had been analysed and accounted for. Feminism would do well to do the same.

Feminism can't think about anything
It can't take a path
It is set of beliefs

I didn't read the whole thread before I posted that and now I see that this has really gone quite bonkers.

I miss GabbyLoggon.

if feminism cannot think, how can it be?

feminists habitually discuss ideological consequences,1st wave vs 3rd wave
can you be a feminist pole dancer enacting own choice?
tulisa how did I nit guess you'd be chess master?