In The Times today: Blind feminism has hurt our children

[twelveyeargap]

Blind feminism has hurt our children

The abysmal level of value our society places upon childcare is important here too. Surestart type nurseries are not going to attract large numbers of older, well-qualified and/or experienced staff - I doubt they pay that well. Some of our more vulnerable children are thus being placed in daycare for long periods of time, without the benefit of the best childcare staff, in order that their mothers can be removed from benefits.And that is without even considering the quality of some after-school clubs.

I agree with a lot of what he says, actually. And I don't see it as a WOHM/SAHM debate-igniter, either.

Message withdrawn

The subeditor will write a headline, which will be approved by the section editor.

There's a fab surestart nursery in a really deprived area in newcastle. Posh parents were trying to get theie kind in it.

their kids in it

Message withdrawn

It struck me as an inflammatory headline with a common sense article behind.

Agree about SureStart - but I think whatever was done it would be criticised. At least Labour have tried, albeit they may have failed.

Oooh spooky - Xposts with you all commenting on the contradiction between the headline and the text.

I think Oliver James has some interesting views.

Hmm not sure about criticism of surestart

My local surestart nursery is run by older staff, including men

It has a really good reputation and my children have been on the waiting list for over a year, and no sign of a place

sorry can't read this. because I saw the words oliver and james.

cod - i do both

I don't see it as a WOHM/SAHM debate either. I think it's about the quality of childcare. What Oliver James and a number of his peers are saying is that in forcing women to return to work, we are also forcing them to use poor quality although often very expensive childcare. His view and the view of Leach and others is that domestically based childcare - parent, relative, high-quality childminder, nanny -is generally preferable to group childcare (of course this isn't always the case - a good nursery is better than a bad mother). And yes, our grandmothers and previous generations of working-class women worked, but childcare was generally provided by other family members. Although this is a somewhat irrelevant point, as if you look back at the childhood of the 19th century urban poor, I very much doubt it's something you'd want to replicate in the 21st century.

dd is at nursery full time, 8-6 every day. She loves it, but comes home very tired and I think it's too much for her. We are having huge problems with her atm in the mornings and evenings. I really wish there was something I could do about it.

Can't give up working FT (am main breadwinner) and dh likes his work/life balance as it is and has refused to give up work to be a sahd.

It breaks my heart

I really believe that "real feminism" should mean that staying at home with your kids if that's what you want to do should be a viable alternative. It doesn't denote a lack of ambition, many sahm's are ambitious imo, but their ambition lies in the direction of givng their kids the best start in life. What could be more important than that?

True, cod and mmj, but haven't boarding schools had a system like this for years where the kids essentially are in a week long 'after school club'?

Oliver James is never as thorough as one would like

Citing studies left right and centre without references and throwing words like "disturbed" around - not very helpful TBH

Protective body armour on...

I agree with twelveyeargap...

there should be no SAHM vs WOHM debate

both should have equal status

and men (in general) should have more opportunity to spend time with their children as well, whether they work outside the home or within it.

So to conclude... The government and society seem to thrive on not respecting each others choices. Feminism has not helped the SAHMs choices WHY?!!! Generally people make the choices they do to try and help their families but the govt policies and societies views do not help.

He seems to be doing what most Jeremiah?s do - calling for revolution without any realistic idea of how to go about it.

?True, Labour has raised 700,000 children out of poverty, but that is not nearly enough.?

?It has failed to reverse the trend, started under Margaret Thatcher?

I think only Superman turning the world backwards could do that.

He?s promoting his book! And for a man so hostile to evolutionary science I think it?s very ironic that he seems to be rejecting a genetic argument for a memetic one.

Message withdrawn

Exactly MP. I had a correspondence with him a couple of years ago and he never properly sourced his quotes so you couldn't tell how misprepresented they were.

agree monkeytrousers

I am not really sure why he holds New Labour responsible for not reversing the trend towards consumerism ?!?!?

Message withdrawn

Yes Pruni, he is a good writer but he probably got a 2:2

OK, point taken about Surestart nurseries.

Just another silly self important man