In The Times today: Blind feminism has hurt our children

[twelveyeargap]

Blind feminism has hurt our children

Oliver James is a prat anyway, but what lovely comments from retards his piece has attached.

Where the "blindness" comes in is that too many people, mostly male ones, still don't think that women are actually human. Women are "biologically destined" to be housewives just like men are "biologically destined" to be farmers. ie not at all.

That article is fuel for yet another SAHM vs WOHM punch up.

Anyone selling hard hats?

I mostly agree with him. I think the policy of shifting parents wholesale into fulltime work leaving children in often frankly inadequate childcare is wrong. I think he is right that a better society would allow BOTH parents much more time to look after their children.

And I agree with him re the fiasco of Surestart.

but if we compare ourselves to other countries in Europe, like Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc what is the difference? these countries came out top in the unicef report for child wellbeing, so it isn't women that fail their children it is society, women are an easy target imho

arguments like this perpetuate division between women i.e sahm versus wohm

I don't see this article attacking women at all - he deliberately talks about both sexes. And he does talk about our greedy, superficial society too. But I wonder, has it always been a bit like this, that English culture has always been a bit rough and aggressive.

The message I took away from this, is that the writer believes that there should be no SAHM vs WOHM debate; that both should have equal status and that men (in general) should have more opportunity to spend their children as well, whether they work outside the home or within it.

I didn't read any further into it than that.

Message withdrawn

Yes, of course they did. My mum worked, my dh's mum worked, but not in this out all day 8-7 baby in nursery sort of way. Dh was looked after by his godparents for example, and she worked shifts so was around more. She wasn't pushed out of the house by the government and told it would be best if her sons went to a state nursery. She is over 80, btw, so I'm talking about the same age a grandmother to you young 'uns.
What is wrong about thinking that a system that supported BOTH parents being around more for their children would be a good idea?

FiFio, very true, especially for my family.

Also, he says the status of looking after children should be higher.

Message withdrawn

I agree. Especially when they have no choice - must be heartbreaking

I meant to put a after 'you young 'uns', but dammit, you are annoyingly young

I think on the article makes some good points; I think it's just a pity the title comes across as a bit inflamatory. But maybe that's done deliberately to draw people in!

And you have to remember that Oliver James wouldn't have written the headline, just the article. The headline is deliberately inflammatory.

He completley undermines a very reasonable argument by attacking a made up straw man feminism.

Attack government policies by all means, but not feminism.

Aloha I didn't realise that, that makes sense.

Message withdrawn

Who writes the headline, the editor?

Message withdrawn