Kirsty Allsop

[ReallyFuckingFedUp]

Can she not just stick to making pebbly shit and making people buy inappropriate homes?

(I actually quite like it when she does that stuff)

The "feminist" stuff not so much

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jun/02/kirstie-allsop-young-women-ditch-university-baby-by-27

I agree. She doesn't really believe in the Sisterhood...

Her name is in the URL and you still managed to spell it incorrectly.

Ugh she really annoyed me with this. Of course there is an abundance of men (let alone women) who want to have kids in their 20s, have found the right person to have them with and are in a financial and practical position to do it. And most people have parents who can put down a deposit for a flat for their offspring's presumably single income family. And employers who are willing to hire a woman in her late 20s, 30s or 40s with zero work experience.

Posted too soon... what I really didn't like was putting the onus on women, "oh I'd tell my imaginary daughter to do this", no mention of what she would tell her actual sons. Perhaps she has been quoted out of context, I've read her saying "I just meant we should be discussing this with women, and includinh men, because nature isn't feminist". Still I groaned a little when I read it.

Kirstie Allsop is a passionate feminist?? News to me.

Does anyone actually take this woman seriously?

Her name is in the URL and you still managed to spell it incorrectly.

Sorry, I didn't realise spelling was being graded too

It's a very special little bubble she lives in ppoupeedson

Hadley Freeman has written a marvellous response to Kirstie's musings. Well worth reading.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/03/kirsty-allsopp-advice-nigel-farage-woman-life-choices

Well I haven't read the original Telegraph article but from this Guardian article I'm not sure what she's said is all that bad. She isn't saying 'don't go to university' or 'don't have a career', she's just questioning the order in which we do things and when you think about it, the 'normal' order is kind of set up for men who don't have to worry about declining fertility in their late 30's.

I did it this way round - had my DC young (22 and 25) then went to uni aged 30 and then began establishing a career. It's worked very well for me. As it happens I've had an early menopause so if I had done things the traditional way round I would probably have missed out on children altogether. Also I really wasn't mature enough at 18 to make the most of uni, I would probably have dropped out. It was noticeable when I was there that those who really worked hard and made the most of it were the mature students. The youngsters were mostly still in 'school mode' - this may have changed now the fees are so stupidly expensive.

I'm sure it's not sensible advice for everyone - not everybody even wants children and it wouldn't suit every type of career - there are a few where it's important to establish yourself while you're young - but I'm struggling to understand the outrage.

It just sounds like "women, you're doing it wrong" to me. Men don't need to worry about declining fertility, but usually a woman needs a man to make a baby; Kirstie's stance barely touches that, it's apparently mostly the woman's responsibility.

And her quote "as a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue." is pretty patronising, as if women are too stupid or ignorant to realise themselves that you need to cram a lot into a short space of time if you want it all. Of course women realise that without a tv personality and the "we" she speaks of (whoever they are) being honest with them. Some women have kids first and it works out great, for others it's not feasible or desirable. There is no useful wisdom on the subject that anyone can give because everyone is so different.

I thought we had all agreed that the fertility advice we'd been worrying about was based on a hideously out of date (by about 200 years) study?

Also while I can see the appeal of doing it your way pubes I can see that in reality for most people it would not be feasible. SO many women suffer trying to get back in to work after taking time off to have children after having already been previously employed.. what happens when they are pushing 30 and have never had relevant employment

And when she is in a poorly paid entry level job who is going to end up doing the school runs? Whose job will be sidelined?

I think the reality is many women would hope to do it but life would get in the way and thye'd ennd up losing their chance

I had mine from 23 but have had no need for any career gaps. Had 2 weeks, 7 months and then 2 weeks for 3 babies. On my cv that means no children so no one ever has asked me. I have done a degree, masters, worked full time etc and havent found there to be much difference to before really. I wouldnt mind all my dds doing that, but would be hugely disapointed if they didnt have a decent career.

very good article everythingcounts

There is something (oddly) very likeable about Kirstie Allsopp even though I disagree with her on almost everything. She's like my most annoying friend with whom I have long and unresolvable arguments because we inhabit different ideological spheres - but yet her very feistiness belies all the traditional values she professes to espouse. KA is entitled to her opinion, I suppose. I don't buy it but I don't abhor her for having it either.

There is something (oddly) very likable about Kirstie Allsopp

Oh I don't disagree. I absolutely loved her show where she went around knitting shit and blowing glass. But I would just prefer she not make comments like that where actual people can hear/read them.

There is enough pressure without the constant onslaught of when and how and why we should have babies.

I am not sure why a woman, if she had her life partner lined up at 27, could not have already finished university, started her career, had a child and continued working. There is nothing to give up.

Ah, but maybe that is because Kirsty herself did not go to university and in fact had her first child at 29.

Interesting article there, Everythingcounts.

Och I don't know. I am from the 'having it all' generation as I think she is too (although with enough privilege that having it all could really be a thing for her) and I think it is good to talk about timing. Agree though that framing it round 'things I'd tell me daughter' rather than her sons weakens the arguement.

I do hear posters who are saying that re-entering the workplace after having children young is no picnic, but then it's no picnic later on either. I think if both parents take a hit earlier on then it will surely be easier for both parents to recover?

I think the more we talk about this the better tbh and she's right - fertility does decline. Maybe not in the way the Fail would have you believe it declines, but it does decrease...

I had my DS at 39 and would have been a much worse mother if I had done it sooner. I wanted to spend my 20s and early 30s having fun and building up a career, and if I actually ended up childfree I wouldn't have minded.

I had mine youngish (1st at 26), and my career has only really got established recently (late 30s-early 40s) due to much moving about for the exH's job and choosing part-time work while DC were small.

A couple of my school friends waited until pushing 40 to have babies, gave up successful careers to raise them and are wondering how to reconcile their glittering CVs with low-commitment employment while their DC are young.

We did all go to university though, I think Kirstie is very wrong to suggest that it's just for intellectual satisfaction. Not going can be a significant barrier to future prospects, whenever you have babies.

Kirsty's "find a man and forget university" comments are extremely irritating as I think they encourage the worst sort of woman i.e. the ones who are looking for a bread ticket for life, a type that I thought we should be shot of by now.

However, I did things "arse backwards" and it worked for me. I elected to train at work after A levels and earn some dosh, got married at 23 and had my two DCs in my 20s. I got my degree part time while they were small, studying at night and keeping my hand in at work by freelancing. By my early 30s I was ready for career take-off. For me it really worked well. Looking back I would have hated to have been at the nappy stage in my thirties and teenage angst in my 50s.

Of course, times were different e.g. no maternity leave (which, ironically actually helped me, purely on a personal level, as there was no reluctance by employers to employ me).

Also, I deliberately shunned university straight out of school, turning down my offers, as I felt I wanted some real life experience (and money) first. The universities of the 1960s were the days of kids smoking lots of weed and putting the world to rights, all from zero experience of the real world and all its mess.

There are different ways of achieving the same ends, and while Kirsty's stupid "find a man" comments put my back up there may be something to be said for some of us doing things the other way round.

I didn't get an education I have three young children (although not young, I'm 31, but the idea is the same)... I just don't see how I could go to university now? We could never afford it as we have small children. You get more help when you are young and unmarried to cover tuition.

Interestingly because this is all about apparent fertility.. but I gave up the opportunity to go to university because we were trying to conceive. I had applied and been accepted and then I decided that if we wanted kids I should wait... it took me three years to get pregnant and then I wanted to have more than one..and then boom. Being young is no guarantee of getting pregnant straight away. So how long do you work in shitjobs because you want a baby?

It's basically a given now that when my children are old enough to be in school that I will be in charge of doing all the sick days all the school runs because I have no earning potential and we are dangerously close to working poor as it is with out making dh give up his job to do his half of the child care.

Oh no!!! Apparently womens fertility falls off a cliff at 35! No one told me that and I had two babies in my 40 !!! Am I a frank of nature ???

Anyway, all women everywhere should run their lives the way I have because I'm a celebrity and therefore an expert on Everything

This doesn't really make sense. Kirstie reckons you should have children in your twenties then be "free as a bird" by 45...but then at 45 your children will be in their early twenties, the time at which Kirstie said her ficitonal daughter should be saving for a flat with her parents' help. So how are you expected to help put a deposit on your child's flat when you are just getting established in your own career and paying your own mortgage and student loan (not exactly free as a bird hey).

I think that if you put off university with the aim of going when your children are older - you just won't end up doing it. University is hard, it requires time, effort and focus, all of which are ten times harder with kids in tow.

This advice is likely to make women put it off with a view to never getting it done - yet another thing to add to the list of life's regrets and things put to one side for the sake of children adn a husband.

A recipe for resentment...

Here's a bit out of Merryn Somerset Webb's "Love is not Enough" which is well worth buying. It was published in 2007 and the author acknowledges the Daily Mail fertility scare stories before saying,
"The optimum time financially to have a baby is 30 or later, when your career is firmly on track and you have something to come back to. Women further down the career tree when they give birth very often just stop climbing it. Why? Their salaries aren't high enough to pay for childcare and their jobs aren't yet senior and interesting enough to drag them away from their babies. And even if they do go back to work they are unable to put in the long hours the workplace requires of juniors trying to get ahead these days so they are fast overtaken by ambitious co-workers without dependents. If they wait until they are more senior in an organisation they will have the clout to demand flexible hours and the confidence to go home when they need to....
..The Institute of Public Policy Research suggests that women face a "fertility penalty" if they have their first baby early. A mid-skilled woman on a salary of £22,000 who has a baby at 24 will earn £564,000 less over her lifetime than a childless woman. If she waits until 28 that figure drops to £165,000 and so on. So there you go. Enough with the guilt about delaying motherhood. Doing so makes perfect financial sense. The longer you wait the less it will hurt (career-wise that is)."