Sorry - it's another link to the DM - but I KNOW this couple

[Treats]

this article

Ironically I was just googling 'Feminism' and the name of the town I'm moving to in a few weeks because I was inspired by a thread on here to think about joining a feminist group. Coincidentally a couple I know from uni live in the next street and they've just popped up as the first couple featured in this article.

I think I'm going to faint........

"I think my university education has served to make me a better ­companion for my husband."

They asked her

"What's the point in your university education if you just look after the chliden, don't you think you wasted taxpayers' money?"

and she rightly answered that people tend to want to marry people of similar educational backgrounds, and they are better suited and their relationship is better because of it, even if she is not technically 'using' her education.

Very easy to see how this could have been twisted.

zikes I did grimace at that quote, I think she may just be trying to justify though why she has spent taxpayers' money on a university education (another favourite bashing ground of the DM) to then not use it in the conventional sense.

This is all a good reminder of why not to read the DM etc!

Sorry, x-posted with Trillian

No need for the - it's good to see I'm not the only one spotting how the quote could have been taken out of context.

How extremely depressing.

Chessy

Just to be clear - especially as they will know who I am - I wasn't expressing any 'shock and disgust' at their choices. I appreciate that I just posted the link without any comment but I think you've put your own interpretation on it.

I'm disturbed by the way their choices are portrayed and I find the whole tone of the article offensive. I don't think that being a housewife if 'unfeminist' - nor do I even think that Rebecca's choices are unfeminist - but I object to the way that it's portrayed here as being something that makes him look good rather than a choice she might have exercised in her own right for her own reasons.

Ok yes sorry Treats, I think I misunderstood - if it's the DM spin on the situation that has caused the outrage (it was the posts following yours that I was referring to really) then I absolutely agree, I just think the only criticism that can be levelled is at the DM, not the couples featured in it (although why anybody would speak to the DM is beyond me!!)

As I said, I have been far too nervous to come anywhere near the feminism threads before so just wanted to clarify if the mumsnet feminists are anti-SAHM - having clarified that you're not then that's fine, thanks for clearing it up!

He's emailed back to say they were 'highly selective and rather inventive at times' but is saving the details for the next time we meet. But I think that confirms the general view that they're just window dressing for the Daily Mail's ongoing propaganda war against working mothers........

He doesn't sound too upset then!

hi Chessy - no apology needed . I know your comments weren't specifically directed at me, but just wanted to clarify in case either of them see this.

To be fair, Katisha, it was a dashed off email, and he is a VERY busy man (as we know). But, no, he's not foaming at the mouth with outrage........

LMAO at all of these men who've married women to be mothered. There's enough material there for a whole thesis on the Oedipus complex...

I actually think it reflects worse on the men. But if they're all happy and these women chose their roles rather than being subjected to them than IMHO that's feminism. The right to choose I mean. Not the right to mother your husband.

it could be a fun discussion, then, when you get together!

oh dear, Daily Mail, not doing yourselves any favours, are you?

Kate, I don't think feminism is fundamentally about choice, but that's def for another thread

I am a SAHM but they make me hate all SAHM! So smug and full of themselves.

dittany - what's your problem? If a man is happy to be a breadwinner and a woman happy to be a SAHM, that is a perfectly valid life choice.

I've just been teasing him about some of the comments under the article . Loving the woman who's taking them to task for his 'unwashed and unironed' trousers....... Think he'll think twice before accepting the Daily Mail shilling again.

Katie - echoing sakura (and this is a general point, not about Jon and Rebecca) - I think the whole 'feminism is about choices' line is a red herring. You only get the right to choose if your household can afford it.

but that Rebecca (or at least the DM version of her) is a slave/servant. What has tidying the sock drawer and laying out the breakfast got to do wiht being a SAHM? I'm at home for my children not my husband.

x posts with dittany

It seems like a perfectly reasonable trade-off to me: husband out working all hours, wife taking on domestic chores for her husband. What on earth is wrong with that? It's a private arrangement that is not immoral or illegal or dangerous.

no, but before I met DH for example, he worked all hours for over seven years while he lived a bachelor. He didn't lose the ability to load the washing machine, cook and tidy up upon marrying me.
After having kids, we divided the labour: he has able to push forward in his career with free wrap-around childcare (me) and I've been lucky enough to be able to stay with my little ones while they're small.

it's got nothing to do with housework though. I do what I can around the house, I cook more than him at the moment, but I put my energies into things that will enable me to return to a satisfying job in the future.

FWIW, I think outrage can be in order when both a man and a woman in a relationship WOH and the woman also takes on the full domestic burden (sock drawer sorting etc). But not when a man is supporting a woman. Not that there are any rules at all - it really is up to couples how they distribute the workload.