why teh article in the Times mag is cringe inducing

[WarrenPeace]

apart from its "nothing new there" general theme and i DONT CARE whether women work after birth or not at all but sheesh these bits

" i like the role of a fifties housewife"

then one woman bleats on about how hard it is and no status and her cv on her t shirt ( ie she only has a degree fgs) then says her H wants to swap but she " wouldnt for the world"

then laura allen HAS to put a cupcake in. " i dont sit around all day eating cupcakes" er no.

then Layala Rodham SERIOUSLY says "i like to have a hot meal on the table when steve gets home"

OHMY CHUFFING GOD

I hope the ones who aren't married have protected themselves legally and financially.

I think maybe I should apologise, and rephrase that none of the women in the article had a "career" as used in the media within the phrase "career-woman". I did not mean to denigrate anyone's choice of career. I was merely surprised that an article saying 'look these women are staying at home' did not include anyone for who they would have previously classed as a "carer-woman" (since of course according to the media every woman must fall into one of their categories).

The Sisterhood?
It's what we feminists called each other back in the day. Before the sex equality act came into force. When women had few rights and even less choice.

Half of them are not even married so have no security

How is that statemement ignorant please handydad?

Dammit, can't type. Career-woman/carer-woman almost sounds like the kind of divide they would write another article about.

'goblinchild a SAHH? oh forgoodness sake - dont you know that a child needs its mother silly.'

That's what my sister thought, but we still agreed that people are free to make their own decisions without being ranted at for decades.
Our children are nearly grown up now, and we all get on fine.
OH is a better cook than me.

trillian if it's the article I'm thinking of there won't be career women in there because journo specifically was talking about young mums - so much less likely to have a career obviously.

so has this article got people's backs up because it's about SAHMs, or because it's about young mums?

I dont beleive a word of it Goblinchild, They must be at least as screwed up as mine.. mine are full time with a childminder.

although not as screwed up as those dumped at nurseries all day long..

Could someone please come up with a definitive list of the worst things you can do to screw up your kids please, just so we can all know just how wrong we are getting it.

I am also confused that I do work and i like to have a hot meal ready for DP in the evening... I have a head ache.

No thanks Cornysilk; enough vinegar already

'I dont beleive a word of it Goblinchild, '

Oh, OK. There's not much I can say to respond appropriately to a statement like that.

Have a present < ' ie , >

Surprised Murdoch's media juggernaut is apparently supporting the right of young single mums to live on welfare, and probably rely entirely on it in their old age, as they are probably not contributing to private or work-related pension funds since they're not working outside the home.

Although from a purely practical point of view, it makes sense to have your babies in your teen years and then start on further study and a career (or something more than casual or entry level job anyway) when they start school and your life is more your own. I know plenty of women caught in the ticking biological trap who got on the university/ career track and found it wasn't all that easy to accommodate marriage/babies/reasonable family life. For some it was impossible.

Women are damned if they do and damned if they don't, it seems.

But, HandyDad, you should know that 'bitterness' is not a nice thing to accuse women of. It's an adjective rarely used for men, so quite a sexist thing to say.

MathsMadMummy - at least one I remember was 24 when she had her child - enough time to go to university, work at some big city firm for a le of years, then have a revelation and jack it all in for babies instead (and make an interesting story).

It's got my back up because it made out as if something interesting/novel/unusual was happening, when in fact a bunch of young women who wanted babies and largely who thought that having/raising children was more important than work have (surprise surprise) decided to have children and not work. There is no story.

Oh, and I hated the use of the phrase 'farm out'.

*couple of years

(no idea where my letters are going today)

heyho, maybe I would've been too boring for the article as I would've said something like:

"I'm young. I'm a SAHM. I'm doing a degree so I can have a career later. Being a SAHM is quite hard work, but then, working is too I should think. Swings and Roundabouts and all that. I'm married. We share the housework. I like my life. Different people do different things. That's about it."

The thing that disturbed me most about the artilce was the styling... why was it necessary to doll them all up Stepford Wives Stylee? or is that really what they look like in their day to day lives?

I objected to it as I didn't think it was trying to say anything fresh or insightful or that would make me think about my choices and wonder about my daughters... just came across as another dig at those who don't or can't make that choice.

And it certainly isn't 'ignorant' to point out that if they are not married they are much less protected. Thank fuck I do have an earning capacity or I would be raising my child on benefits right about now.

Very attention-seeking. You're nearly ready to be in the paper.

nah, I'm not 'yummy mummy' enough apparently!

I found it rather depressing and cringeworthy. Even though I have made the same choice as them - I am a SAHM and live the life of a fifties housewife at present - there is a huge difference i.e. I had a career for some years before making the decision to be a SAHM (at 30). So, if anything went wrong I could return to work and provide for myself and DCs. I think that is very important. Those girls have really trapped themselves.....

why have they trapped themselves? I'm a young SAHM, I don't feel trapped. Should I?!

Because they haven't established themselves in their own right first.....

it was the bit about not buying nice clothes anymore cos it was her partner's money she was spending that made my heart sink

hope they do a follow up in 5 years time - might prove interesting

me too sanfairy - that was the point at which I realised that my SAHM-dom was very different from theirs. Even though I contribute nothing financially to our family at the moment I don't for a minute consider my DH's earnings "his" money!

Hated the fact they were all wearing high heels & "going out" clothes. Why? presumably the babies of young SAHM's don't have runny noses, leaky nappy or dodgy tummies?