to find the Guardian article "The Dummy Mummy Decade" offensive?

[PenguinProject]

See here. Then again, perhaps I should be polishing my bugaboo rather than reading the Guardian...

top post, rempy

I think the Obs should recruit a number of the posters on this thread, including rempy- they would at least be getting intelligent considered debate fully backed up by evidence, rather than that the ill-argued opinionated polemic that seems to pass for journalism these days. I feel insulted that I am meant to want to buy a paper for this tripe. And the papers wonder why they are losing market share...

I'd really like to see an article addressing how we can shift our society from the current position where EVERYTHING in a childs life is the cause/fault of the mother, where fathers are still lauded and praised for participating in a tiny fraction of childcare, but aren't actually trusted by women and society as a whole to have a complete role as a parent in the community, where parents are bombarded with advertising of products that are "essential" for your childs well being and development, where health and safety obliterates the fun in many activites, etc etc etc.

Because if we could support parents, and remove some of the (largely media generated) anxiety and competitiveness, maybe we would be less boring at parties.

I am sure Rachel Cooke won't be in the slightest bit interested in anyone's reply to her ridiculous article. Why would she be? Remember she is totally self centered.
Otherwise she wouldn't have written it in the first place.

She's obviously mixing with the wrong crowd, if you ask me. Needs to make some more intelligent friends. Then they won't be so boring.

Good post Rempy, but doubt the likes of Rachel Cooke would be able to write an article that interesting.

Rempy - we're not worthy. I think we need your brains and knowledge to construct our response.

I'm losing track of who's up for writing a reply...Please say if you're in!

MrsMerry - in
BigEyes - in

Who else?

This theory doesn't add up. Being a mother is the least selfish role you could choose. She has chosen? not to have children yet which could also be considered selfish. If she leaves it much longer she won't have a choice.

Goodness, vezzie. You obviously feel very strongly about this!

Errm.

Would like to be in, but am probably not online enough to contribute - snatching an hour or so today as DD finally got to nursery.

I think vezzie's problem is in having had any high hopes for Zoe Williams at all!

Okay, rempy, once we have an idea of our deadline maybe we could check in with you again and see how you're doing time-wise? Would be a shame if we missed out on your brains.

agree with the - bore is a bore - line here.

lots of people you just meet start banging on about one thing or another. so what.

RC seems to be offended that intelligent, educated woman are approaching childraising the same way they would any career challenge - with enthusiasm and knowledge.

PV also casts a narrow net, ignoring the reality that about one-third of educated women born around the same time as her will never have children. Surely society IS having it?

And what a B for saying - "seriously?" about her infertile friends crying on her shoulder.

yawn

I buy the Times on Sunday - the business section is much better.

Oooookay, I've just read the '20 reasons' article - couldn't be arsed, could he?

And also just read PV's piece. All three articles are just like polystyrene fillers in a delivery box, really, aren't they? I'd love to see what PV's mum would say in reponse to: "Your condition is self-inflicted, you made the choice to get knocked up, and you presumably knew it'd leave you incapacitated in this way". Right, Polls, let's take this thought full-circle: the world would clearly be a much better place had your ma decided not self-inflict by getting knocked up with you. Is that what you're saying?

ha ha Mrs Schmaltzy - you are probably right. What was I thinking of?

But - sorry to derail - who is / what is good to read these days? I feel like everything is so dull and fluffy and unthought out and it is insulting to be asked to pay to read such recycled dross. Miranda Sawyer for instance - another one going through the motions. I know you can just read books, but if you want to read something a bit more topical, what is there? Are there any papers or magazines worth buying?

I am in, just got back in house. I am on a date with DH tonight - its our valentines thingy. is tomorrow ok or will I miss all the action ...ah...erm... I mean meeting of minds and a carefully thought out, well articulated response.

WOuld it be rude to suggest, seen as it was your idea Mrs MH for you to draft a reply, as basic as you like and we can suggest changes, but only you do them. Do we need a new thread, or is there some other way.

I bet the Observer had gazillions of letters. If you don't do it straight away, it will be too late.

rempy, so would I but it's how things have been in misogynistic societies ever since Eve was blamed for the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden by tempting man with the apple. We are teh source of all evil and to blame for everything. Of course that's not true but it seems to suit many men and a good few women to maintain these myths.

Oh, gawd, please don't write a reply. That's how they gauge the success of an article. It will only encourage them.

If they thought the opposite Zoe Williams would have got the boot ages ago.

Look at ZW today in her eggs-are-good=you-can-cook-them-lots-of-nice-and-quick-ways piece today (what next - cheese between bread makes a tasty and portable meal?) - in her first para is EXACTLY that "blah-de-blah, don't expect me to be specific ha ha ha ha" tic I bitched about yesterday:

"a combination, researchers believe, of their fullness factor and something they do to your metabolism. No, I cannot be more specific; what do you think this is, Men's Health?"

btw I admire you in principle for composing a clever reply but agree with MT - you will encourage them to print similar shite in future, and you will waste your time and intelligence on them - just free editorial that is better than their own won't make them raise the bar next time, they will (knowingly) commission more shite hoping that better and cleverer writers will have something they can put in the next issue for free.

I read these articles at the weekend and found them incredibly sad. No doubt this is because I have smug feelings of superiority.

The 20 reasons was incredibly depressing and made the author sound shallow and desperate. There are lots of benefits for women not to have children and these should be respected - but these are positive life affirming reasons, not merely the absence of irritations. It is like never falling in love because you want to choose what you watch on TV and don't want to share a bathroom.

The authors cries of 'these people are so boring, why aren't they more interested in me' sounds pathetic and spoilt.

Monkeytrousers, don't you think they gauge the success of the article by how many MN posts it generates?

The 20 reasons were random, almost all financial, how bizarre. Here's my equivalent.

20 Reasons Not To Buy A House:

1. It will create an unwieldy millstone around the neck of your otherwise healthy bank balance
2. If you are a sub-prime house buyer you may unwittingly precipitate an economic catastrophe greater that the Wall St Crash
3. When the floods eventually overwhelm the South East of England you'll lose your home and your investment
4. The amount of aluminium waste created by a single new house build would be enough to replace all the UK's passenger planes (that has to be the most badly presented and most random statistic in the article!).

I could go on. But I think you get the point.

I take your points, vezzie and MT, and I actually agree that there's no point in penning a direct rebuttal or an 'angry mum' type piece. But I do think it's possible to come up with something interesting and, all-importantly in keeping with the house style of the publication. Whether that 'something' is the article I have in mind, only time will tell. Anyway I'm drafting something today and once I've written it I will CAT those of you who are interested.

Vezzie - yes, what was that about? Did Zoe wake up on deadline day and in her sleep-deprived state momentarily confuse herself with the cooking-in-a-bedsitter columnist?

bagsforlife you are right - Rachel Cook will think a reply from indignant mothers - especially if they make reference to Mumsnet - just confirms she hit the nail on the head and is likely to be more smug than ever.

And such columnists take a position designed to provoke. If she checks on here I imagine she will be delighted at the success of her article and feel completely vindicated.

Well, now I'm having second thoughts. Shall we put it to vote? How many of you say 'aye' to an article, and how many say 'leave it out! She ain't worf iiiiit!'?

I think we all have a right to voice our opinions and there's no reason not to speak if you feel moved to do it. I'm sure it will make no difference to Rachel Cook (she was probably exaggerating her feeling for effect anyway). But it might make a difference to others who felt pissed off. Just work out what you want to achieve by bothering to do it. And good luck if you do!