In The Times today: Blind feminism has hurt our children

[twelveyeargap]

Blind feminism has hurt our children

I think you make very sensible and sane points Droile. I could work full time, but I'd miss my children and be miserable. I happen to think my own happiness is important, and when my best interests coincide with my children's best interests, well, everyone's a winner, eh?

Yes I get that madamez, but our children will come across values which conflict with ours as soon as they start interacting with the world outside our homes (or even inside, if they watch TV) - I don't really think you need to seek out an environment where the values are different, in that sense.

Caligula: I'm not suggesting that anyone should actively seek to expose their DCS to totally opposite values to those they hold themselves - that would be even wierder than refusing to allow DCs to be exposed to any opinion other than one's own. I was merely pointing out that, while we can try to educate DCs according to our own values, they'll make up their own minds in the end no matter what we do. But I do think that kids should be exposed to a variety of viewpoints so that they learn, if nothing else, that not everyone feels the same way about everything, and that doesn't necessarily mean that one set of feelings on a certain subject (SAHM, vegetarianism, road pricing... trying to choose examples where there are valid reasons for one's position on both sides) is right or wrong.

Much better put Aloha, thanks. I don't think anyone will be giving me 70K to make a book out of my blathering posts any time soon.

I rather liked your posts Droile, unfortunately I can only offer 70p for the bound version.

Every little helps, Walnutshell!

Perhaps the same as the issue of whether if you believe a religion is right you can't believe the others are right too. The absolute/relative issue or whatever it's called. If I believe on fairness, feminist and other grounds that say parents should both work outside the home then that's a value I impart by working (we best impart values by working).

If instead as many of my neighbours bere believe I believed girls ought to marry not long afer 16 to someone chosen by their parents, be subservient to men and not work outside the home then I would set that example and they would follow that mould. I would also protect them against the prevailing British culture which encourages them to choose their own husband etc. In the same way I suppose I protect my children against the influences of stay at home mothers and those who think girls belong at home although I doubt I have isolated them enough to ensure 100% indoctrination.

But I think seeing different views helps them. That's why I think two parent families are better than one for a start and one reason I like my older 3, adult, children around as another influence on the youngest rather than just mine.

But Xenia what do you mean by the "influences of stay at home mothers"?

Just because male-dominated economics have placed a zero monetary value on raising your own children, does not mean those who choose to do so are not helping to progress the position of women in society by claiming that it is a valid role. We are by no means at the 'end' of feminism or the wider examination of gender roles and 'stay at home mothers' are not all doing so lightly or without a voice that will carry into the next generations.

Walnutshell and Xenia - now isn't this a classic example of how important it is to expose DCs to a variety of values? If a DD grows up with ambitions and plans for a life outside the home but sees her own mother - and all the mothers in the street where she lives - stuck in the home with greater or lesser degrees of resentment, what does that teach her? If a DS grows up with an urge for quiet domesticity but only sees examples of men going 'out into the world to thrust and strive', that's not going to make him feel happy either. DCs exposed to a variety of family lifestyles have a better chance of buiding happy lifes for themselves than those explose to one 'right' way of doing things which doesn't allow for diversity.

Ah, but that's the difficult issue. If you as a woman think it really is best for a mother to be there most of the time with under 5s you are wrong to suggest to a girl that she should do otherwise. You can't have it both ways. You either believe it or you don't. If you're not sure then of course you might present both views.

I am not happy about some of my children's Indian friends (by no means all) where the girls serve the boys at home. I don't like that dynamic and I am happy to tell them it's objectively wrong. I won't say - it's one way and there's our way. I am not prepared to present both positions. So to that extent I'm imposing my values on them and happy to do that.

I feel that no matter who the primary care giver is so long as a child is loved & instilled with morals it does not matter who the caregiver is.

Some Woman would be awful SAHM's as would some Men...Some Grandmothers, Nannies, Au-pairs, Uncles can also be bad role models for children.

At the end of the day it's upto the child to make his/her decisions in life.

If the Politicians & journalists were to be believed I as a product of a Single Parent family would be useless to society, I happen to believe that I turned out a much more well rounded individual than many of my peers!

Nobody's saying that a mother should be there most of the time with under 5s. A father can do it just as well. If I had a daughter it would be up to her what she did. It's up to my son what he does, when the time comes.

'influence of SAHMs', eh? I'm not one, never have been, I've always worked p/t. Xenia, you're stuck on the feminism thing, which I think we've moved on from. Nobody is saying a mother's place is in the home - for me, it's a genderless issue about children. Personally, I have borrowed money from myself for my lifestyle and I'll pay myself back by earning f/t when they're older. ffs, we're going to be working till we're 70! I started work at 16, so doing 10-15 years of p/t isn't going to make a shite of difference in the long run.

'At the end of the day it's upto the child to make his/her decisions in life. '

you meant parents didn't you? didn't you????

No Sophable, she meant child. Xenia was worried about her children becoming indoctrinated by SAHness if they were brought up by a parent who stayed at home. We pointed out that it's up to said children to make up their own minds when they are adults. I might wear leggings or flares during my kids childhoods, but it doesn't mean I'll be expecting them to wear same when they grow up sorry, couldn't resist..

I personally can't remember being an under 5 so I have no idea why so many people are under the impression a Mother should be at home for the first 5 years of her childs life???

I do understand that role models are important but I don't think you have to model one way of life that you will then expect your children to follow. I work p/t and MIL has ds on my days at work; when we move in the next couple of months, I will stay at home with ds while dh and I evaluate our options: I may return to study p/t, work p/t, look for f/t work so dh works p/t ... really there are several options none of which are straight forward or easy but which are based on mine and dh's belief that it is beneficial for ds's early years to be spent largely with a close family member, pref myself or dh. I certainly won't dictate to ds or any other children we might have that the choices we have made represent the best choices for all situations.

You wouldn't remember being locked in a cage for the first 5 years, but you'd be a different person because of it. Nobody is saying a mother should be at home for the first 5 years. They are saying that there is less stress for young children if they have a secure and loving caregiver in a 1-2/3 environment. Some of us are saying that we preferred that to be ourselves or our partners, for reasons that I can't be bothered to go into again, but which include the fact that you'd be very lucky to find a paid caregiver who could love them like their own child for long periods of the day, but some people have been lucky and have found such a caregiver and that's great, but we personally didn't happen to find one and some people weren't crazy about their jobs anyway and earned little so preferred to do the job of caregiving themselves but are not prescribing this as law for everyone, just trying to say why Oliver thingy was both right and wrong in his article of 100 yrs ago, but by no means saying that nursery is tantamount to locking your child in a cage for 5 yrs and oh my God give me a wall to bang my head against.........

Caligula, walnut et al...please...help...me...I..can't...breathe....................................................................................................

Scottish Thistle, it is largely irrelevant that you cannot remember this period of time, it is still cruicial to a child's development. But I don't suppose this time does have to be spent with a child's mother for the 'best' outcome. Not at all.

Xenia, perhaps some of your strong feelings come from the extreme situation you see around you where choice is not apparent for women/girls, I would feel the same.

Now, I'm off to pick up a pink and grey ra-ra skirt for ds - just like I had...

Slow, deep breaths Droile.
Ah go on, give your reasons AGAIN, I so liked them the first time.

I'm off too. Got to ban self from thread and get some work done.

No need to get your knickers in a twist, I understand the discussion totally!

I'm a Nanny & believe I have in all cases given the children I have cared for better care than their Parents would have had they stayed at home.

If you wish you or your Husband to be Primary caregiver that's fine but I can't see why so much pressure is put upon Women of today to be SAHM's as it's not always what's best for the child!

Had I been locked in a cage for the first 5yrs of my life I'm sure I'd remember it!!!

ScottishThistle, it has been proven beyond all doubt that the first 3 years of a childs life are the most crucial in terms of their future development & the following 3 years are only marginally less important.
Whether you remember them or not is largely irrelevant, but those years have a huge impact on all our lives.

I am aware the first few years in a child's life are very important it's what I studied at college, this does not mean they need their Mother at home though does it???

No, I don't believe it does. It does mean that children need consistent, reliable, loving care. I think this can be provided through a number of different methods. However, I don't believe we offer working parents in this country good enough access to affordable good quality childcare.