A pretender for the Burchill crown?

[monkeytrousers]

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

[katierocket]

well aloha, that last sentence pretty much sums it up. I mean why print it? Are they just trying to be controversial. There must be so many interesting topics and talented journos, why print this garbage. good mind to write a letter in.

[aloha]

And nearly all real 'full time mothers' that I know and know of, do lots of other things. They fundraise for their school, they are on the board of governors, they volunteer, they help out with other people's children, they pursue their interests - as well as looking after their children. Why do we allow money to be the sole measurement of the worth of any activity?
Could she be - maybe - jealous?

[hatstand]

yes there are just trying to be controversial. I know the editor (vaguely) and have met her recently. I found out then she enjoyed having a bash in order to get the mag talked about, but am quite disappointed at the extent to which she's prepared to go.

[aloha]

It risks alienating so much of your readership though. And it's so low rent.

[aloha]

Hatstand, how come you met her? She used to live at the top of my road!

[Caligula]

I find it a bit depressing actually. Because it falls below the standards of journalism I'd expect from the Guardian. I honestly would expect this sort of thing in the Daily Mail, because it's purely based on a sort of instinctive gut dislike. She obviously just hasn't done any research at all. And I hope it's not part of a dumbing down, "let's get a stroppy Lynda Lee Potter/ Burchill-type controversial ole bint in to stir the readers, then we can claim we're dealing with wimmin's issues in a hard-hitting way." I do hope this is an uncharacteristic one-off, and not the future direction of columnists. Because it is just silly - there are no real arguments in it, apart from, aren't women who've got lots of money and get their nails done, annoying. Well, yes, if you're inclined to be that annoyed about it, but I'd rather read a more interesting analysis of, for example, why metropolitan childless journalists feel the need to slag off a minority of unimportant mothers. Let's face it, nail-painting mothers do not have any influence whatsoever on policy, society, economics or anything else. They just don't matter. That's why I'm disappointed that the Guardian would content itself with such a mindless, Daily Mail-esque set of stereotypes with no real analysis.

Ooh, I could rant about this for days. (And probably will! )

[Caligula]

Oops, just read your post Hatstand. So it is part of a dumbing down process then.

Lucky there's Mumsnet then, isn't it, if the Guardian's going to go stoopid.

[iota]

actually nail-painting non working rich women help the economy by spending lots of money and freeing up jobs for other people who need to work

[monkeytrousers]

And it's that instinctive gut like reaction that you get when reading it. It is so tabloid and makes me doubt my own reaction. But that's probably the point. Perhaps I should be more disapointed in myself for reading the daft..bint!

[aloha]

What next? An article about asylum seekers coming here and infecting us all with HIV? Or how kids with disabilities bring down standards in schools? Or how boring and smug those doctors who save the dying in Africa are? lovely and controversial topics, aren't they.

[monkeytrousers]

It's a slippery slope!

[Tortington]

i agree that its more the daily mirror than the guardian. but i just cant see what you all seem to see. your saying shes proving points by omition.

[Blu]

I will read this article again and see whether I change my view in the light of everything people have said here - but my first impression on skim-reading this at the w/e was exactly as Custy describes it...but possibly I am under the influence of bile having spent the week in the natural holiday habitat of the 4x4 nail polisher .

And I thought - if she IS talking about the comfortable middle-class (which I thought she was, and lazy for it) - that she made a couple of good points.

Could be envy. I have never had my nails done, not ever!

[bossykate]

agree with custy and blu.

she's talking about a small and unrepresentative section of the population.

tbh, if i had the chance to have lots of beauty treatments and swan around in a flash car while my children were at school (it would be a sporty merc convertible for choice, not a 4x4) - i'd jump at it!

[Tortington]

me too!

[Tortington]

but i wouldnt say i was a Sahm

[monkeytrousers]

And you shouldn't have to be vilified because of it Bossykate.

It's not a good article I think we can all agree on that. I do see something a bit more sinister in the language and especially the tone. All the inverted comma's..it's that post-modern irony beast again, isn't it?

[Caligula]

God I definitely would. Personal trainer as well. Bugger volunteering and the PTA.

I've just thought of something else, more nebulous about being a SAHM. One of the things about not having a job around which nearly all your waking hours and brainspace is organised, is that you have the leisure to concentrate on other stuff. I know that when I worked full-time, I was so involved in my jobs, that my head was full of them. I would arrive home in the evening absolutely exhausted, physically and more importantly mentally. There was no way I wanted to think about anything other than vegging out in front of Ab Fab or Big Brother or whatever. I simply didn't have the mental energy to think about my relationship, home, child, or anything else. Whereas now that I work from home only part time, I can actually spare some brain-space for my kids. So that if they have difficulties at school, nursery or wherever, I'll have the brainspace and energy to confront them. Whereas when I was working f/t in London, I just couldn't. Even when I knew my relationship was going down the pan and all was not well with xp's parenting of my DS, I just couldn't face confronting it.

And I think that's one of the very difficult to measure benefits of having more of your own time. I know that's probably a bit of a controversial thing to say and I'll probably immediately get 20 posts from f/t WOHM's sayign they're quite capable of dealing with home as well, thank you very much, but I must stress this isn't a criticism of anyone who works ft - horses for courses. It's just one of the benefits I've noticed for me, of working pt and from home - I'm just not as physically and mentally attuned to my paid employment, so have more antennae for other stuff going on around me than when I was in that position. And the benefits of that are so difficult to measure or quantify, because you don't know what your or your kid's lives would be like if that wasn't the case (or in fact if it would make any difference).

But I can't see someone like Carol Sarler even beginning to apprehend that there might be something in that.

[hatstand]

BK - (and custy and Blu) yes, she is talking about a small unrepresentative part of the population but at no point does she make that clear. She repeatedly tars all sahms with being exactly the same. you couldn't do that and get away with it about virtually any other group than mothers. And, as a Guardian fan I find that really unsettling and sinister. Caligula "I'd rather read a more interesting analysis of, for example, why metropolitan childless journalists feel the need to slag off a minority of unimportant mothers." nice line!!! Aloha - I was at university with her

[monkeytrousers]

But that's the masculine model, isn't it Caligula? Even as the workplace becomes more feminised, the working day still confounds any hope of a work/life balance.

[Blu]

Hatstand - I agree. And I was so exasperated by the insultingly complacent level of her assumptions that i just couldn't be bothered to read it with much attention.
Agree with M'trousers about the irritating 'post-modern irony', too.

The Silly Sunday story that had me swearing to never read the Observer again (except when they have the food supplement) was the leading item in the Review section - 'There can be frew more traumatising events in a family than the death of a pet' trumpeted the opening credits - before a 3 page article about the death of a goldfish, ffs. And no, the phonecall to the child-development speciallist SIL on the 2nd page didn't transform it into a 'serious' article, either.

Ooops: excuse my rant!

[TwoIfBySea]

As I said on the other journo-attacking-SAHMs thread I am happy being a SAHM despite the fact this seems to offend these women.

Perhaps I should offer myself up to Carol Sarler and her ilk to put me in the stocks and start throwing veggies at me, just to make their own sad little lives that little bit better. Well, you know what they say about bullies, attack the weaker to feel better about themselves.

Sorry, I just found the article extremely hurtful and am getting a little peeved with having to defend my choice. DH isn't well off, I don't own a 4x4 and would walk to school with dst if it wasn't 7 miles away, and I don't and never will have acrylic tips. Jeez!

[Caligula]

One day I will have acrylic tips. And I will be able to type with them. And drive with them. And keep them on for longer than 48 hours.

One day.

[monkeytrousers]

They're only good for nose picking anyhow!

I don't have the hands for them either..