In The Times today: Blind feminism has hurt our children

[twelveyeargap]

Blind feminism has hurt our children

But he's right, there are very few women in politics demanding that the work of SAHM's be recognised for the valuable contribution it is and actually recommending that society puts its money where its mouth is.

There is a lot of lip-service - you will never, ever hear a politician doing a Xenia and saying that it is a bad thing for women to be SAHM's, they'll always say that of course that is a good thing if women want it; but they will never ever say that it is equally valid as WOHM, and therefore should be supported equally in the fiscal system.

The only woman I can remember saying anything useful recently is Beverley Hughes, as mentioned about a week ago further down this thread.

Yes and that was really my point too, that women and men who want to spend the early years of a child's life at home, full or part-time, are actually disadvantaged through the tax system and through all the expensive schemes (that our taxes pay for) that are designed to have children looked after in nurseries, even where parents would prefer financial support to spend that time BEING the carer rather than PAYING the carer. For many it is not a choice, it is a necessity and it needn't be that way IMO.

Of course people who would PREFER to work should be able to find QUALITY childcare, especially where family is not available for this purpose - but I am not talking about people who feel this way, because the issue is not relevant to them.

And there may be a point that parents who are working long hours for low-ish pay in jobs that they do not particularly love, whilst their dc's are in overcrowded government funded nurseries, are disadvantaged in their ability to provide the kind of nurturing they would IDEALLY wish to because they have no option to stay at home or work part-time for a year or two.

And this may contribute to children's well-being (and health) suffering.

But that's the fault of stay at home mothers. Why don't you enter Parliament or if that's agianst your principles get a man under your control to do it, to change things? Or go to Greenham common or go on the pro fur march which I think is about to take place or anti hunting or whatever. Presumably SAHM have a lot of time an energy to devote to the revolt of the proletariat or imposition of a Stepford Wives model or whatever your aim might be.

Very caustic Xenia. Actually, IMO it is the fault of a society that only gives a voice to the people with the most material wealth.

I am not really interested in your misinterpretation of everything I am saying (or your inability to read?). I have every respect for both SAHMs and WOHMs because I tend to be quite liberal in my approach which means that I believe in personal choice amongst other things (something the government does not appear to allow for in its fiscal policies). I guess from your post that you don't understand this. I do actually campaign on issues that matter to me, such as child welfare (and, although I am sure that a campaign for the welfare of Stepford wives might be considered a worthy cause by some, I am not one of them). I am sure that you find this laughable.

SAMparents probably have the least time of anyone to do such things. You can tell you've never done it, xenia. And it's you who is making the war. Rantmum et al have just explained patiently, AGAIN, why there's nothing wrong with working in or outside the home, and you've just ignored them AGAIN. Please read Rantmums posts. Please answer her points.

What is the "fault" of SAHM's, Xenia?

I meant Rantum, of course. Blah!

Droile, you know that's never going to happen!

Rantmum, Xenia will nearly always ignore any points she doesn't like and just pick up on some irrelevant red herring that she can distract the thread with. It's such a bore.

LOL I've done the Rantmum thing now!

Yeah, I was thinking that there might be a trend emerging. I would really like to start a thread about Mum's Capable of Impersonal Debate (call them MCID's) versus Mum's with a Personal Axe to Grind (MWPAG's)

Rantmum is better than Rantum! Name change coming on....

Xenia deserves an MN award for "Paranoid Love of Stereotypes" !

I mean that in the politest way possible as a lard arse SAHM who is rapidly losing her legal brain due to lack of sufficient intellectual input and capitalist stimulation

Xenia, when are you going to learn that in some peoples' lives, work is NOT a priority?

It's just something they do as a necessary evil to pay bills.

It's not that they haven't found their passion, or work they love, it's that their passion is something else besides work.

I can't read everything on the tread. Post again one specific questino and I'll answer it. I doubt there's really much disagreement. We have our own values and we impart them to our children. Mine might be capitalist. Some might be socialist. Some might be women's place is in the home and others might be woman's place is in the Cabinet.

What I don't like is indoctrination of daughters through the example of a mother such that she isn't really making a proper informed choice - the cult religion or culture has girls put down and kept down and the daughter thinks she is choosing that option but she isn't really.

On lobbying huge shame a woman's main political concern is child safety though isn't it? Women's issue, women's concern. Why isn't it some other issue?

On having a voice we have a vote so whether you have material wealth or not you have influence via that and you don't need wealth to stand for Parliament.

My ideal would be both parents working part-time with the child(ren) going to nursery some of the time to get other influences and time with kids - especially important for only children - and mums (and dads) need a rest.

When my son starts school in September I will get some way towards this nirvana - with me doing a 4.5 day week, hubby doing a 4 day week (as 3 full days and 2 half days) so ds gets collected by us 3 afternoons a week and childminder 2 days a week.

I did think that his comments about the Danish nursery were somewhat flawed as from my experience, 18 months to 2 years was the time when my son didn't want me to go when I left him at nursery. He was fine up to then and fine after 2 (and was also fine 20 seconds after I had left the room from 18 months. So it was the worst age group to choose to comment on.

Anyway I don't see lots of disfunctional kids coming out of the countries where mums work and kids go to nurseries - in fact in other countries there isn't all this angst - why is it here? Why is parenthood so politicised in this country?

Also with this cortisol thing - has anyone looked at 5 year olds going to school and the stresses they endure? And what, as you get older, are you likely to remember - when you were 18 months old or when you were 5?

I do think the working vs on-working (mum - never dad is it?) is a non-debate - what really matters is that people can do what is right for them and that family life is supported fiscally so I completely support tax allowances against childcare (I'd like to see them against transport season tickets too mind you - completely off topic sorry) and I completely support transferable tax allowances between couples - should have been done yonks ago - it's only 5K you're transferring but I guess in most cases it's at the 40$ tax bracket so it would cost the govt a lot and then the childfree would be up in arms.

I agree with much of your point Muminfife, certainly if two people wish to have the set up where one person works and the other does not they should not expect to generate the same income as a two income family. However, I do not think that the tax system should create a disincentive for men and women who wish to spend part or all of their children's EARLY years at home. I am not a tax specialist but I do believe the current system creates financial MOTIVE for people to believe that it is better to work and put their child in a nursery group, even for a low wage, than to spend a year or two at home.

Muminfife - only other disagreement - i quite like menzies!! [grin}

Xenia , I agree totally with you about indoctrination of women, but I really da on't think that having mother or father providing the majority of pre-school (under 3) care at home, is going to teach young girls to feel unequal. In fact, if fathers were able to spend more time at home with their boys it might have more chance of breaking down gender stereotypes about the full-time nurturing roles being "feminine" and therefore worthless.

Muminfife - thanks - I admit to being a very lazy SAHM - the only intellectual imput I get is from dh (we have long conversations about politics even on the phone when he is at work !) just come and look at the pile of dishes and the dirty kitchen floor while I am here on MN - I am a slob but DS loves being home with a slob

xenia as I've said before, I do agree that a baby will attach to whoever the primary caregiver is...however, given that the mother has carried the baby for 9 months inside her, the baby DOES experience separation from the smell, taste and touch of the most important person to them at birth if the mother is not available to them in the immediate time afterwards. That separation I believe can be and in most cases is deeply painful for the baby (and oftentimes for the mother).

I think there is a strong argument to be made for a mother staying with the baby for at least the first 3 months. Often called the 'fourth trimester' as the baby is still developing in huge and rapid ways as it was in the womb. that period is the one where the baby acclimatises to life outside the womb and it is my belief that the best (not only, but best) way for the baby to do this is to spend a lot of skin on skin time with its mother....breastfeeding if possible, touching, sleeping and generally feeling held by the same body that held it inside.