Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Nick Clegg v Gina - Times 2 Today

3 replies

RibenaBerry · 12/01/2010 09:27

Anyone else seen this article in Times 2 today and wanted to scream (or possibly lock the journalist concerned in a room until she promises to research her articles properly)?

I am not a mad Lib Dem fan or anything like that, but this poorly researched dirge is really getting me down. I mean:

"we shouldn?t really be surprised that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has rubbished the authoritarian care regime that Ford espouses. What is more telling is his conviction that all parents come ready equipped with a parental instinct that makes child-rearing a natural, rewarding and effortless experience."

Where exactly did Clegg (or others who don't follow Gina) say that having some form of parental instinct is the same as child rearing being an effortless experience?

She then goes on to talk about the assumption of a universal motherly instinct being unfair. Well, where did he say that either? All he said was that he had some and he felt it was being subcontracted.

Finally, what got me really was the flippant sign off: "My feeling is that, as a busy politician, Clegg?s reclamation of his own parental instincts will amount to changing the odd nappy, scraping baby puke off his lapels before PMQ and indulging in the peculiar fatherly phenomenon of throwing his offspring repeatedly in the air. To be honest, he betrayed his ignorance when he compared the Contented routines to sticking babies in broom cupboards."

Firstly, who is she to bloody judge how he shares parenting with his wife (who, by the way, is a respected lawyer, not a stay at home mum, so I suspect he shoulders more than she thinks. I doubt her model is workable if you both work). Secondly, the whole issue came up in the original interview because he had been up three times in the night with his 10 months old son and he explained that he and his wife take turns with that.

Argh, argh, argh

OP posts:
aquavit · 12/01/2010 09:39

Nauseating, yes. But then, I wouldn't expect anything other than weak writing, weak research, and shit politics in a paper from that stable.

I do wonder how strategic Clegg's comments were - I think I rather admire them either way, whether they were intended to start this kind of thing off (and court the MN vote even further), or were just the not-very-thought-out mutterings of someone who'd been up three times in the night...

RibenaBerry · 12/01/2010 09:52

Hmm, that's been debated on other threads. It was the interviewer who raised Gina, but I don't know if he saw an opportunity.

Even if it was strategic, was got me most was the fact that the journalist felt that she had the right to make negative assumptions about NC's involvement in parenting his children. That's just not on. Especially since the weak, sterotypical assumptions were the exact opposite of the context in which the issue of GF came up in the first place.

Actually, that's what I'm most mad about, the media feeling that they have the right to sterotype fathers. It doesn't help the cause of equal parenting does it (and, in this economic climate, whether out of choice or necessity, that's what needs to happen in more and more families).

Sigh. I should let these things wash over me..

OP posts:
aquavit · 12/01/2010 10:12

Yes I see what you mean, though there are two related problems aren't there - first whether it's OK to (try to) make political capital out of someone's parenting (I thought Cherie Blair in particular got a raw deal in this way too) - positive or negative; and second the general representation of fathers in the meeja.

But you're probably right that it's best not to get exercised by the Murdoch-tat.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page