If you are fed up of the WOHM vs SAHM debate (I know I am) DO NOT open the News Review bit of the Sunday Times....

[foxinsocks]

just don't do it

She is a tosser

She's a lousy writer as well.

Arghh! I read it this morning (only chance I've had to read the review section the whole week & I'm a sahm,). I can only hope it was an attempt by this Waugh person to be funny or maybe she's bored & wanted to stir thngs up.

Yes. She is a lousy writer. She can't possibly be related to the Waughs?!

daughter of auberon who is son of , I'm afraid!

now where did that "evelyn" go?!

lol

Your answer is in another column of the News Review section (the one in support of she who should not be named).

It says a column only survives if there are a lot of letters about it. There you have it.

quite! I wonder how those book sales are doing?

I'm a WOHM - not by choice - who stays off trains to avoid tossers like Daisy Waugh.

You'd think w/her having used nepotism to get writing deals she'd have the dosh not to have to take a train w/the unwashed masses.

Well yes presumably that's why she wrote the column - to get lots of outraged letters.

Still very cynical though. Even worse than if you were stupid enough to believe it.

If those children had been appallingly behaved & yelled blue murder the entire journey, I'm sure Ms Waugh still have blamed SAHMs and used the incident to illustrate her prejudices against them anyway. That moronic article's hardly worth debating - she's an idiot, pure and simple.

I work, and it's precisely because I work, and miss the DSs so much, that when I take them anywhere at the weekend I do give them my full attention. Whereas DH, who is at home with them, sits and reads the paper and ignores them (should he ever condescend to come out with us at the weekend, which is rare).

Can't help thinking that whenever these 'debates' crop up, most people seem to think "each to their own, if I was in a different situation, maybe I would do things differently", while a very small number of hardliners (who seem to have limited life experience) keep the debate going. I honestly don't think SAHM and WOHM are at each other's throats all the time.

An update(from today's Sunday Times):

Cor. I hit a nerve with my piece last week about the effectiveness of working versus non-working mothers. My computer is close to exploding with sanctimonious and/or wrathful e-mails from full-time mothers accusing me of chippiness, inadequacy, spite, selfishness, jealousy, stinking mothering skills, ugly hair and so on.

Soz, ladies, to have ruined your breakfast, but I stand by every word. Benign neglect, as practised by necessity by many working mothers, is without doubt the most effective form of child rearing.

Furthermore ? while we are on the subject of sanctimony ? I think it?s worth remembering how, not so long ago, women were throwing themselves under racehorses, being locked up and force-fed so that their daughters and granddaughters might be allowed to play a part in the world beyond their own kitchens.

That so many educated, affluent women these days choose to retreat back there, to turn away from the freedom and responsibility that were so bitterly fought for on their behalf, is of course their business and their choice. I am very grateful that they have one.

This is at the tail-end of an article where she advocates bringing back the stocks

And nowhere does she state how she knows that all these women are SAHMs.

Pathetic.

Thanks to Daisymoo for sharing Daisy. Waugh's update....I couldn't have put it more eloquently myself.And I totally agree with her.

What do you agree with Mozhe? That WOHM's are doing a better job at mothering than SAHM's?

Because if so, I'd like you to present the evidence, seeing as Ms Waugh hasn't seen fit to do so.

what really concerns me is that i work part time does this make me crap on both counts ?

The thing that really pees me off in these debates is the assumption that SAHMs have wasted their freedom and education :-

comments such as

"Furthermore ? while we are on the subject of sanctimony ? I think it?s worth remembering how, not so long ago, women were throwing themselves under racehorses, being locked up and force-fed so that their daughters and granddaughters might be allowed to play a part in the world beyond their own kitchens.

That so many educated, affluent women these days choose to retreat back there, to turn away from the freedom and responsibility that were so bitterly fought for on their behalf, is of course their business and their choice. I am very grateful that they have one."

from Daisy Waugh are completely ridiculous.

I have a degree and had a 20+ year career before taking the last 3 yrs off to be SAHM - how can anyone say that my education has been wasted because I am taking a career break for a few years?

It's complete nonsense.

And I know I am not the only one on MN who's had a career before children (by a very long way).

India Knight used to rile me so badly i wanted to slap her, now Daisy Waugh makes me want to do the same.
I wasted a week of my life reading her book Bordeaux Housewives.( it is a pile of you know what.
now i 'm switching papers- or at least will be lighting the fire with the Newsreview section.

Well also, the absurd notion that work=freedom (arbeit macht frei anyone?). For many women (and men) the work they have access to, isn't freedom, it's wage-slavery. And as for equating work with responsibility, like parenting is just something feckless kids do... well, the argument is just so dated apart from anything else. Grow up Daisy fgs.

Iota, she used a word there that blew her argument completely out of the water.

choose

They choose to go back.

Yes, and I've always thought that was the point. That we have a choice. If I ever have a daughter I won't berate her if she has children and goes out to work as it suits some people to do so. The money issue gets banded about but unless you were earning good amounts then living on a budget, and on dh's wage, we have as much as we did when both of us worked pre-children!

I am enjoying this stage in my life and that is what I think bitter opinionated crones like Daisy have a problem with. That we are not doing what they expect us to do. No doubt if every one of us went out to work she would be wailing and whining about how children have been abandoned or whatever sh*te comes from the other side of this pathetic argument.

It is like I say to dh, there is no sisterhood, women are their own worst enemies. If someone stays at home or if someone goes out to work then that is their business. Discussions about pros and cons are fine but articles like this are a waste of paper and insulting to all of us.

Iota I agree, I have had a very successful career, degree, PG qualification and further professional qualification. I am well respected in my profession and know that when I choose to go back it won't be a problem. This doesn't make me any less intelligent, just lucky enough to have a choice.

Incidentally, my mum was the one who talked me into being a SAHM a go for a year or 2. She was a consultant psychiatrist until she retired a few years ago and spent very little time at home with us.

I thought the suffragettes were fighting for the vote, not the right to work non-stop for 50 years without a break!

LOL MadameP!