"no if you ARE a shit mother (any one willing to give a definition of a shit mother, I have quite a few) then you shouldn't be a role model to any one - aint't that fecking obvious now ? "
May I hesitantly and politely disagree? There are, I suspect, legions of men who have been extraordinary artists, explorers, writers, scientists, philanthropists, political leaders, military leaders, philosophers and radicals who have probably also been deeply inadequate even 'shit' fathers. The proportion of poor fathers amongst male 'role models' is probably greater than the norm because all that thinking, writing, radicalising and stomping off to the North Pole rather undermines one's ability to be an involved parent. I admit that Darwin is an exception her as both the 'father of evolution' and loving and involved father to his children. However, I reserve the right to admire Churchill as a role model of leadership, strategy, determination and courage, however piss-poor he might have been as a parent. Can't we apply the same standard to women or must all female role models be frightfully well-balanced and emotionally rounded high achievers rather than tortured geniuses? If so, it's not surprising many of the role models cited tend towards the worthy but frankly uninspiring.
Less Libby Purves, more Amy Winehouse.