A pretender for the Burchill crown?

[monkeytrousers]

nice of her to put so much effort into it..

[Caligula]

But she doesn't specify that, Custy. She doesn't make any distinction whatsoever between poor SAHMs and rich ones. She just pretends they're all by definition rich.

Which presumably in the world she's lucky enough to inhabit, they are. She just needs to get out a bit and meet some of the majority.

[aloha]

She absolutely makes no distinction. To her all 'full time mothers' are the same and contemptible. And she says ' I expect we (who are 'we' I wonder) will never know what they do all day..', well, um, she could make it her business to find out.

[iota]

I agree with Aloha - if I could find a "9.30 - 3pm local, satisfying and well paid job" I might be tempted to return to work when ds2 goes to school next yr.

Alternatively I will be SAHM and custardo can despise me for being able to afford to go to the gym instead of sitting at home watching daytime TV

[hatstand]

Aloha - I so agree with everything in your post. I could spend all day countering virtually everything she says, and adding in all the things she has utterly failed to take into account. I didn't know she had no kids. On the one hand that might help explain her ignorance but on the other hand it puts an even more deeply unpleasant sheen on it. What does she get out of it? Presumably she is quite intelligent so where does she get off promoting such misogynistic crap? And in the GUARDIAN ffs. The phrase sell out springs to mind

[Tortington]

she does make a distinction she begins by comparing them to posh spice - mentions of 4 x 4 s and nail salons - she is saying their rich - shes talking about the rich ones

[monkeytrousers]

It's an indiscriminate swipe, Custy. Which other sector of society, other than 'women' is it acceptable to make such contemptible and wholly inaccurate claims about? It's misogynist in the basic premise that it sets out to mislead, demean and ridicule.

If she were to be more specific her argument would become irrelevant as who flaming well cares what the tiny percentage of 'rich' SAHM's do with their time?

[iota]

I don't understand why it's wrong for rich women to be SAHM - is it OK to be SAHM if you are poor and can't afford a 4x4 or to go to the nail salon?

[Tortington]

i read it as shes saying that they are pretending to be sahms but their not - as they are rich they are off to the nailsalon in their 4x4's

soooooooooooooo, the message i am getting is that shes having a go at the pretence of sahmdom by rich people who have nothing else to do.

so its the pretence bit - " ohhh i am a stay at home mum.......my kids go to private school from 8 am until 6 pm and inbetween i lunch...... go to the nail parlour...get my hair done..... but i am a stay at home mum.

no luv - your not. you may be rich and enjoying it but the lable sahm implies a hard working mother. so hide behing a different lable

[monkeytrousers]

But she's not holding that up for comparison to a norm is she? She's invoking some golden age when women buried themselves in their domestic roles and didn't exist in any real way outside of that context. It's the kind of rhetoric F4J loves to use. As well as constructing a straw man she's also excluding the middle. It might be nothing more than a lazy rant, but that only helps to entrench lazy stereotypes of lazy manipulative women. All thing being equal it wouldn?t matter in the long run. But they?re not equal, are they?

[Caligula]

Exactly - she doesn't ever anywhere mention in contrast, poor SAHM's who don't have 4x4's. She only mentions women in the 1940's / 1950's/ 1960's whichever you interpret, as if they are the only ones who had a legitimate reason for being a SAHM. The whole implication of her article is that women of today who are SAHM's, are rich parasites, because those are the only type this ignorant woman ever comes across. She just doesn't have any awareness whatsoever of how normal SAHM's live, and frankly, she's not interested - she despises them, and her article shouts it loud and clear.

[Tortington]

she did say that poor people did both and middle class people did proper housework - when it was "real" - whatever that means.

so i gues that was the norm she was holding it up to.

where you see it as a rant i see it as an observation. shes not doing a phd in social studies

[tortoiseshell]

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I repeat what others have said...

I do think that expectations have changed, of mothers. When I was little in the late 70s it wasn't expected that children would be played with/taken to activities etc etc etc. My mum worked part time, and when she was working I either went with her in the buggy (she was a uni lecturer and the professor babysat me) or I was looked after by my Gran's cleaner while she cleaned my Gran's house. I can't imagine either of those being 'acceptable' solutions today. I also think any mother who said 'I only spend 15 minutes with my child each day and they're left to amuse themselves the rest of the time' would be shot down! Especially on here!!!

I'm sure there are mothers who drive 4x4s to nail parlours, but I don't think they're the majority! My day seems to be a mixture of taking the children to various activities (gym, music, swimming) and joining in the activities, and time at home spent doing reading, playing trains, cooking etc. It's probably physically less taxing than beating carpets, but is mentally exhausting!!!

[hatstand]

did anyone else notice what I thought was a rather sad and possibly embittered reflection on her take on relationships? ie the bit about trusting your dh/dp not to run off with all the money. Her implication was clearly that such trust is stupid and misplaced. Call me old-fashioned (ironic given her own stance) but without trust any relationship is on a bit of a non-starter isn't it? Or maybe it's only rich men who are untrustworthy. Cos we all know how evil they are.

[monkeytrousers]

I might be being a tad reactionary Custardo but it just fits the brief of so many other mum bashing nitwits.

[Caligula]

Well what she's saying is that housework nowadays isn't "real".

And for women she knows, it probably isn't. Because they employ cleaners. And then don't understand what other women are doing with their time.

[monkeytrousers]

What really bugs me about it is that women have to constantly justify what they are doing with their time. And not only that, there are so many threads on MN about men coming home to an untidy house and asking what their partners have been doing all day. It just feeds that kind of ignorance. It's a challenge to the idea of women being paid to stay at home, of it being a job worthy of renumeration.

[monkeytrousers]

Haha! Carol Sarler - a 5th columner named and shamed!

[Enid]

I read it the way custardo does actually

thought she was having a go at SAHMs who in fact do very little 'mothering' during their day but are basically dilletantes.

[Enid]

?

but there are lots of lazy, manipulative women around monkeytrousers

think yourself lucky that you dont know any

[monkeytrousers]

But Enid, there are lots of lazy manipulative men around too but they don't get it in the neck half as much as women or especially mothers. It's pandering to a pervasive misogyny that she obviously knows is there.

And regardless, who are we to judge dilletantes so harshly? Again, it's just double standards.

[monkeytrousers]

Oh, and I know a few.

[Caligula]

There are lots of lazy, manipulative anything-you-like around, but they don't get a whole article dedicated to how lazy and manipulative they are.

This article nowhere shows any respect for any SAHM who is not spending her time getting her nails done, unless she was Carole Sarler's mother or the same generation as Carole Sarler. I just can't find anywhere in this article, the implication that a) there is any such thing as a SAHM who doesn't spend her days skiving and living off a hard-working man and b) that even if there were, that would be worthy of respect.

Perhaps I'm missing it. Please show me where CS makes an exception for present day SAHM's. Because I just can't find it. (Not that I've tried too hard, must admit!)

[Caligula]

sorry that should say the same generation as Carole Sarler's mother.

[aloha]

That line about children not wanting their mothers under their feet has bugged me all day. Yeah, so it's Ok if the mothers of 4 to 16 year olds just disappear and leave the kids at home alone then? No? Oh, you mean that someone else - eg a nanny/childminder/au pair should be there for them, because that would be worthy and not lazy at all - but heaven forfend their own mother should do the job for no money. How lazy and parasitic that would be!
The whole point of this seems to me to be that someone has to look after kids. You can't put them in a box or take their batteries out.
And WTF is the Guardian doing publishing this crap?