In The Times today: Blind feminism has hurt our children

[twelveyeargap]

Blind feminism has hurt our children

There seems to be something in ?British (?English?) culture that prizes sending your children away - children in aspirational medieval households would be sent to live in a house the 'next rung up' IYSWIM, then think of Jane Austen boarded out in the village until she was 7, which was quite common, then the poshest people I know all do seem to consider boarding school the ideal (I used to know one man who was sent at 5). Very, very odd.

Not the same as daily childcare, I know, but is there some cultural link there? I don't have any PhDs so I have no idea.

My boys love their nursery where they go 3 or 4 days a week, depending on my work routine (I have my normal part-time job for 3 days a week plus I'm a NED for a NHS Trust so attend meetings about twice a month). They don't even look back to wave goodbye when I'm leaving.

When we are with the boys, we talk to them, play with them, read to them, reassure them,take them for walks to show them the beauty of mother nature, discipline them, inspire them, feed them well, nuture as well as encourage their inquisitiveness about everything and generally give them unconditional love. What we don't do is spoil them with material stuff, neglect them or deprive them of our time. IMO, that is where a lot of problems arise.

I don't think there's anything particularly "british" about sending your kids away, it's been done all over the world throughout history for a variety of reasons.

Yes, we have an economic setup now that makes it particularly hard for families to survive on one income alone, but this is going to be solved by economic measures not by putting women on guilt trips and citing unnamed "studies" of the aggression levels of kids in daycare.

What, are we supposed to just magically find an extra 30k from somewhere so we don't have to work?

i actually read the article - very unlike me - Please can someone explain to be where feminism comes into it? it the phrase meant to be an irony i am missing?

as far as i can see the whole argument is saying - our society is so messed up with consumerism and wanting things, more money...affluenza! that there are sections of society that suffer through a capitalism system

so i just don't get it. i hope i'm not on a thick day. but wtf has feminism got to do with this article atall?

your explainations would be welcome

Custardo, I think it was the fact that Oliver James seems to blame Labour Party policy and the general economic climate on Polly Toynbee and her ilk.

He writes: "The great obstacle for new Labour was ?the wimmin?. The party bought into a ?men in skirts? version of feminism that is vigorously hostile to parents being at home when their children are small."

So, all society's problems stem from the emancipation of women then? Change the F**ing record.

its not feminism he describes, its thatcherism

its got nowt to do with feminism really, except that some women call themselves feminist when in fact they are not (ooh there's uncontentious...)

agree with much of what he says really, especially the bit about men needing to spend more time with kids BUT

WHY have that daft title then when what he actually means (and he ACKNOWLEGES this) is Thatcherism/hardcore capitalism

so it's the fault of women polititians..ergo feminism.......nope erm... nope

is that link just so tenuous or is it just me?

we put kids in childcare becuase we have to work to afford a life - thats not feminism.

sure start and its creation - nope not feminism - i do agree with him its a major fuck up, waste of resources and millions of pounds worth of money. my dh used to work for SS and as a communioty worker i have often worked with them.

thanks mizzgolightly btw

Well to be fair, the title was probably the subeditor's

has xenia been on yet? oliver james is a twonk IMO. my ds adores his nursery and he is loved and feels secure. Yes he is only there 2 days a week but still he loves it.its just all so Zzzzzzzzzzzz another guilty rod to bash us women over the head with.and as for Surestart bashing...I think what they have done in a relativly short space of time is just brilliant. I wish I was as articulate as MP and MT but I'm not

"we put kids in childcare becuase we have to work to afford a life - thats not feminism"

Custardo I SO agree. My mum was a SAHM and a total feminist in the best sense of the word.

My BIL works 1 hour per day as a rdaio DJ (need I say more?). His wife runs a decently-sized business employing a good few people and works hard herself. She pays for everything for the family and is happy to do so. He, on the other hand has asid that 'working is not for him' (quote) and despite being at home nearly all day, they have a cleaner, a gardener and their one and only DD is in the after-school club until 6pm. I think feminism has worked very nicely for him.

Their DD, on the other hand, has everything money can buy but is spoilt and clingy because she is dumped on anyone who will look after her. That is not SIL's fault. She is supporting the family, he is at home but not taking care of his DD or anything else for that matter. Just arsing around. I'd have to give him a swift kick in the bollocks if I was married to him.

Agree custardo. How is it feminism's fault? These people are off the planet - they have no idea what motivates people, or they wouldn't write such utter tripe.

Politicians using nannies while promoting daycare for other parents.

Anyway, the central premise that feminism is to blame is so flawed. Feminism did not insist that working mothers had to work. Economic reality did. And in terms of cost of living, the blame for this doesn't lie at the door of two income families. It lies at the door of policy makers, globalisation, capitalism and the yawning divide between rich and poor.

yep

its women bashing

again

by the times

oh the

Oh Cloudhopper. You always say it so well.

it's amazing how oj turns the whole money/aspiration is bad for you into a an ummm money-spinning thing forhimself

Well said Cloudhopper

hm, sped read the article, but I can't see why people feel he critizises working parents...I thought he actually said that the government is often forcing parents out to work without htinking of the consquences for the children and that he is for more flexibility in working hours, etc...also raising the point that grandparents would be great carers where possible (so, maybe hinting that one could pay them instead of a stranger to care for the chidren, etc...).....
I don't think he is saying that women work because they are feminists.

I must be having an extra thick day, as I can not see the women bashing thing in the article....hm....ignorance is bliss they say

3love, I think he's saying that women are being forced to work BY feminists.

i am an educated sahm.... people forever ask me what i do / did

i want to say 'this is what i do and its all i have ever really wanted' i would just look feeble and unambitious.

i would not have it any other way - but do feel looked down upon by society. i am a great believer in feminism.

hm..........you think?

Surely feminism in it's truest form gives every woman the right to choose what they do. Most women work through financial necessity, but how is that the fault of feminism? It's because this country is so expensive to live in. Feminism has no place in his argument.