Is Sunday Times running out of good writers?

[FairyMum]

Is it just me or has the Sunday Times started publishing a lot of badly written shit lately?
Wasn't it only the other week the published some bizzarre article where SAHMs were described as "ladies who lunch" ? Well, this week it was one of their columnist's Minette Marrin who made me choke on my wine.
(You can find the story by going to www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2086,00.html and searching for Marrin)

She writes: "Our high numbers of working mothers have coincided with our fast-growing numbers of delinquent children, teenage pregnancies and failures at school, especially among boys".

This is the second time in a few months she has stuck her own opinion in as if was a well researched fact. It really makes me se red. Surely you might as well argue that the reason behind these statistics of delinquency and teen pregnancy is that an increasing number of children are being brought up by SAHMs who feel depressed and isolated at home, don't stimulate their kids but sit in front of the telly eating cream cakes and watching daytime soaps?
Stupid, I know, but IMO just as valid an argument as Minette's.

These kinds of articles wouldn't even have passed as a scool essay by the lack of examples and back-up statistics.

Why is it not possible to take a balanced view that it is fine both to stay at home and work fulltime? Surely, what's important isthat each family is given a choice and is happy with their situastion? I think I might stop buying the ST. Any suggestions for a good sunday paper?

Stop buying it. It is the most poorly written paper I have come across, although all the Sundays are just as bad, IMO. I cancelled ours and subscribed to a couple of magazines (Prospect, TLS) instead.

You could have sparked a rather unpleasant debate here with the cream cake assertion FairyMum, I'd duck if I were you...

quite right fairymum.

Not to mention that teen pregancy is going down and fewer kids fail at school (although there was a blip with GCSE results this year). Don't know about delinquency, but i suspect she doesn't either.

mmm, cream cakes.

Enid, I didn't mean it like that at all. I hope it didn't come across as my opinion of SAHMs? My point was just that both the cream cake-eating telly-watching SAHM and the Working Mum who only spends 5 minutes a day with her delinquent and soon pregnant child, are just bad stereotypes and I SO dislike these stupid articles. Especially as they give fuel to my FIL who thinks all mums should stay at home (including me)

I work fulltime, but have plenty of time for cream cakes,) Hope ST writer doesn't read this and write long piece of working mums who spend all day at work eating cream cake.....

STOP TALKING ABOUT CREAM CAKES! Am getting married soon and so cannot eat such delights but this thread is making me hungry

I agree the ST is pretty awful. Agree with ks, if you know anything detailed about the subject they are writing about you immediately realise that almost everything written is (a) poorly researched (b) inaccurate and (c) not at all comprehensive.

I want a cream cake too.

Just read it and its bang out of order. In defending SAHMs (very laudible of course,) and the choice to stay at home she has attacked working mums. I don't arrange indifferent childcare for my daughter, and in fact there was some published research a couple of months ago that demonstrated that children receiving childcare whilst mum works are not disadvantaged developmentally or otherwise.

Perhaps we should all make the effort to write and complain to the Sunday Times (if we can find the time in between teaching our children to become delinquent and forcing them into early pregnancies)

I've got a cream cake and I'm sitting here at work eating it and watching telly. What does that make me?

lucky bettys.

I agree FairyMum. I've been annoyed by ST articles attacking mothers lately.
Handlemecarefully (I will!), I think we should write and complain, but it needs to be done all together. Perhaps we could co-ordinate something between us.

FWIW, I was under the impression that Minette's pieces are usually just opinion and not researched facts. I mind less when Minette has written tripe, as she's well known as a right-wing nincompoop. It's some of the others that have been been creeping into the ST recently that are more disturbing.

Did you see the article on page 18? I think it's more balanced than Marrin's column.
After the ridiculous article about why you should be a working mum the other week, I was actually quite glad to see articles giving an alternative view.
I speak as a mother of boys aged 4 and 2, who became a SAHM mum 5 months ago (made redundant). I'm doing what I want to do, and may or may not go back to work, depending on how I feel in the future, not because of other peoples opinions.

We have just started buying the Saturday Times which is much better (not so vacuous and celebrity obssessed) and seems to last until Sunday too (by the time we have got to reading it all!). Also is 50p cheaper!

Well I get doubly wound up by the ST because on top of writing annoying articles on mums, they also tend to write stupid articles on french people (ie find something a bit bizarre in france then write about it as if it were commonplace... Grrrrrrr)

I can't slag off the ST this time because they plugged Netmums for us, which got my site one member (Prestonians aren't renowed for their love of broadsheets!) and other sites around 10! So it was good publicity for us.
I agree that the government do not do enough to support mums who want to stay at home and raise their kids, there is too much pressure on mums to go out to work and raise their families. But I do disagree with a lot of the quotes regarding SAHMs. After all, we are doing the job of paid childminders and au pairs put together, and I for one am fed up with people telling me that I don't work!

Do you really think there is a pressure on SAHMs to go out to work? What kind of pressure is that? IMO,It is very difficult both logistically and financially to combine work and childcare and much easier to choose the SAH-option.

I understand that it is annoying when you hear that you "don't work". Of course SAHMs work as hard as anyone working outside the home.

One of my main objections about these latest articles is that it seems like you either have to be on the side of working mums or SAHMs. It's a constant debate what is best for children and for society. We should instead ask what is best for each individual family and make sure mothers (and fathers) have a choice!

Fairymum, I was referring to the numerous incentives the government now offers to mums to get them back into the workplace. After all it is in their interests to have us in paid jobs rather than look after our own children. They would much rather take your money through tax, than give it to you in tax benefits.
Also society puts some pressure on mothers to do paid work too. I do a lot of voluntary work from home, as well as look after my dd, but to some people I still don't work and I am constantly being asked how I will fill my time when dd starts school.

But yes I do agree that you are expected to be on one side or another. It is very difficult to stick up for women's choices without someone forcing you to take a side.

Fairymum ... surely the cost of living alone is enough pressure for mothers to work??
I don't want to start and either/or argument but I found working a much easier option than being a SAHM ... I am a SAHM now out of choice because I feel it is best for my son but we had to move to NZ in order for that to be possible.
In the 18 months since being a SAHM I have realised how much easier sending my DS to nursery all day was and me to go to work compared to what I do now ... but I still wouldn't change it ... I see this as my job (although I do run a small business from home too) ...

Ghosty, you have to have quite a well-paid job to aford childcare costs. As a mother of two children working fulltime, I spent a whole year paying my whole salary in childcare costs. My dd is now at school, but I would like another child and I cannot see myself being able to afford going back to work with 3 children. Unless you are earning quite a good wage, it is not a given that you are better off working outside the home.
Rhubarb, I think you hear more about these incentives than you actually see them in the workplace (perhaps it is better in female-dominated professions?).

I do agree that working at home is a job too, and it must be very irritating when people ask you "what you do all day". Similarly, as a working mum, you can get pretty fed up with people questioning how you can leave your children with "strangers" all day.
I think the truth is that there is a pressure on all mums and it seems you cannot make the "right" choice because someone will always disagree. Unfortunatly, I often think it is us mothers ourselves who are the quickest to critizise other mothers.

I work as an admin assistant (hardly a top range salary) and dh is a teacher and we get no help or incentives. I am lucky in that I don't have to pay for childcare (my mum has her) but before I moved closer to my parents I would have been paying out half my salary on nursery fees.

I think it is only minimum wage workers who get any help and even that doesn't completly cover childcare. My predecessor in my current job was told by the tax credit people to give up work when she enquired about childcare help as it wasn't worth her while.

Well Julief then if you had two kids it wouldn't have been worth your while. My childcare for 1 child is 1/3 of my salary. I work 3 days but if I worked 5 days it would still be 1/3 but 1/3 of a larger sum IYSWIM.