Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Godparents and other animals
I don't always get round to blogging my radio appearances (sorry!) but I did a little spot on BBC 5 Live Breakfast show today about godparents. You can "listen again" here for the next seven days. My contribution starts just after 1h 55 mins into the show.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
But Daily Mail - who should I blame?
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Questions About Catherine Hakim
A journalist has just asked me to answer some questions about "Dr" Catherine Hakim and her forthcoming report about women in the workplace. [Spoiler alert: she thinks gender difference are all down to us hopeless women and our biological pre-destination for the kitchen and the scullery]
What is your opinion on women's advancements in the workplace?
Anyway here is what I was asked and my answers - you may at some point see some of this quoted in an online paper called The Fresh Outlook.
What is your opinion on women's advancements in the workplace?
I think that women's advancement in the workplace is restricted by something called sexism. Reliable, tried and tested reports consistently show that it is discrimination, nothing else, at every level, that holds women back. The pay gap in this country is wide and shows little sign of narrowing at present.
Do you believe that equality has been achieved for women?
No, of course not. As a comedienne I am regularly told by promoters that they "simply" don't think women are funny. How can that be equality when my ability to do my job is pre-judged based on my gender? I battle daily to get half the work men around me get. I don't know a woman in any profession who hasn't been held back by sexism in some way at one time or another.
Do you think that women would like to marry a man who earns more than
them?
I think women are all different. I wouldn't dream of generalising like that. I think most people, men and women, can see advantages in marrying someone who has a lot of money. I think that's obvious. And given how tough it is for women to progress in the workplace it seems likely that this would encourage them to seek other means of securing their - and their families - future financially. I don't think seeking a rich partner means a person doesn't want to work or wouldn't prefer to earn their money themselves. It's a very practical choice.
Do you think women see their role as the primary carer of children in the
family?
Again some do and some don't. It would be weird, would it not, if women were all the same?And again those that do may do so because of what they sense as a biological urge, other may feel pressured to by society, family, and culture and others may do so because their workplace opportunities are so poor, they decide to focus their efforts elsewhere - or of course a combination of those reasons and others.
Further comment: This report has yet to be actually published so far as I can see. "Dr" Catherine Hakim is a terrible researcher. Last year she published a similarly misogynist report entitled "Erotic Capital" which I read and it's methodology was laughable. She quoted the book Belle De Jour as a key source without questioning it's veracity and made a series of bizarre and contradictory statements. That she is accepted by the academic elite serves only to highlight the entrenched and unquestioning sexism which permeates academia. That her "reports" are quoted as fact in every major newspaper before publication and peer review serves in turn to show the entrenched misogyny in the media. Only last year Cordelia Fine published a whole book (Delusions of Gender) debunking the "gender as innate" myths with painstaking, incontrovertible research and in a fun and easily readable way - it received little to no coverage. Personally I think every woman in the country should be sent a copy of that book and should gather as one and slowly beat Catherine Hakim to death with it.*
*Not the official view of the F-Word (through whom the request came) or the feminist movement. The official view of me however.
Do you believe that equality has been achieved for women?
No, of course not. As a comedienne I am regularly told by promoters that they "simply" don't think women are funny. How can that be equality when my ability to do my job is pre-judged based on my gender? I battle daily to get half the work men around me get. I don't know a woman in any profession who hasn't been held back by sexism in some way at one time or another.
Do you think that women would like to marry a man who earns more than
them?
I think women are all different. I wouldn't dream of generalising like that. I think most people, men and women, can see advantages in marrying someone who has a lot of money. I think that's obvious. And given how tough it is for women to progress in the workplace it seems likely that this would encourage them to seek other means of securing their - and their families - future financially. I don't think seeking a rich partner means a person doesn't want to work or wouldn't prefer to earn their money themselves. It's a very practical choice.
Do you think women see their role as the primary carer of children in the
family?
Again some do and some don't. It would be weird, would it not, if women were all the same?And again those that do may do so because of what they sense as a biological urge, other may feel pressured to by society, family, and culture and others may do so because their workplace opportunities are so poor, they decide to focus their efforts elsewhere - or of course a combination of those reasons and others.
Further comment: This report has yet to be actually published so far as I can see. "Dr" Catherine Hakim is a terrible researcher. Last year she published a similarly misogynist report entitled "Erotic Capital" which I read and it's methodology was laughable. She quoted the book Belle De Jour as a key source without questioning it's veracity and made a series of bizarre and contradictory statements. That she is accepted by the academic elite serves only to highlight the entrenched and unquestioning sexism which permeates academia. That her "reports" are quoted as fact in every major newspaper before publication and peer review serves in turn to show the entrenched misogyny in the media. Only last year Cordelia Fine published a whole book (Delusions of Gender) debunking the "gender as innate" myths with painstaking, incontrovertible research and in a fun and easily readable way - it received little to no coverage. Personally I think every woman in the country should be sent a copy of that book and should gather as one and slowly beat Catherine Hakim to death with it.*
*Not the official view of the F-Word (through whom the request came) or the feminist movement. The official view of me however.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Divorce Line-By-Line
Todays appalling piece of women-hating journalism is brought to you by one Harriet Sergeant who tells us all in the Daily Fail about The cruelty of women who use children as weapons in divorce (top tip by the way if you plan to use children as a weapon - sharpen their heads first...). Line-by-line as usual by yours truly...
"About ten years ago, I was standing in my son's junior school classroom. The teacher had stuck up on the wall the best essays on the topic: 'How I Spent Last Weekend.' One caught my attention."
"About ten years ago, I was standing in my son's junior school classroom. The teacher had stuck up on the wall the best essays on the topic: 'How I Spent Last Weekend.' One caught my attention."
Hankies out - who needs facts when a one-off tear-jerker case study will suffice...
"Not for this little boy a visit to the zoo or the excitement of a football game. Instead, he had chronicled a weekend's battle between his divorcing parents."
"'Mum calls dad names on the phone,' he had written in his laborious handwriting. 'We had cake for tea. My sister and I cry.' The teacher caught my eye. She had put up that story on purpose."
"My son recently bumped into that little boy. A decade on, he is 18, has dropped out of school and is on drugs."
"Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, agrees that something has to be done. He has accused separating couples, especially those from the middle classes, of using their children as 'both the battlefield and the ammunition' to try to score points in their personal disputes."
"'There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other,' said the country's most senior family court judge. 'The child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.'"
"Six years ago, my husband and I divorced. It came as a great shock. But we were all too aware our children were just becoming adolescents - and that adolescence is perilous enough without warring parents."
"We tried, not always successfully on my part, never to criticise each other in front of the children. Very occasionally, I even managed to emphasise his good points (of which there are many) - it was quite hard when at the time all I wanted to do was murder him."
"A female friend was shocked. 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' she asked. 'I would.'"
"These women are hurt and they want to get their own back through the children, money or both. They are determined the husband is as much divorced from his children as his wife.
"The strategy is very successful. This otherwise powerful man submits to every capricious demand."
"'With just two hours' notice, I had to cancel an important meeting and take them to the dentist,' he said. If he refused, his wife said, he would not see them for a month."
"An advertising director found himself equally powerless when his wife suddenly moved from London to the Midlands with their two sons."
"'How can my wife hurt me? How could she bring me to my knees?' he asks. 'Through my children.'"
"'She did not tell me. One day she just stopped answering the phone. Until then I had been seeing my sons every weekend,' he says."
"By the time the case reached court, the sons were settled in a new school. The judge admitted that what the woman had done was illegal, but because it was in the best interests of the children to be with their mother, he did nothing."
"'She had got away with effectively kidnapping my children,' said the father. His relationship with his sons has all but broken down. Their new home is too far for them to come to London."
"'The children get bored in an hour or two,' he says. 'They have their friends and their sports, which they would rather do instead.'"
"He tells me he finds the situation 'so goddamn painful. I try to play the role of a father - but how can I when I have been deliberately moved to the periphery of their lives?'"
"The situation leaves many men I have interviewed distraught. They describe the loss of their children as 'an emotional amputation' or 'a living bereavement'."
"It is no wonder that within two years of divorce, half of fathers lose contact with their children."
"As one man said sadly, divorce 'leaves many fathers on the edge of a bloody great abyss. Many fall off and are never seen again'."
"Douglas Alexiou, one of London's pre-eminent family lawyers, agrees that the wife holds all the cards in a divorce case."
"'Court order after court order is served. The wife claims the children are ill or just do not want to see their father,' he says."
"'There is very little a court can do if a mother has poisoned the minds of her children against the father. There is no sanction against the mother apart from a jail term - and no court will do that."
"'Perhaps one day a judge will be bold enough to jail a mother and finally set an example.'"
"U.S. author Kathleen Parker in her excellent book Save The Males points out that in depriving a child of their father, 'we reduce a child's chance of a successful and happy life.
'Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity.'"
"But this misery is not only the fault of the parents. The family court system is adversarial and encourages couples to fight, says Nadine O'Connor, campaign manager at the lobby group Fathers4Justice."
"And change, she says, will be a long time in coming - until lawyers stop making their own killing from warring parents, children will continue to be used as weapons."
As we all know - no-one argues in the park or at the zoo. And only couples who are divorcing argue - not those who have decided to stay together for the sake of the kids but actually hate each other. But interesting angle - I think the kid shows great potential as a columnist - lets hope he aims a bit higher than the Daily Mail.
"'Mum calls dad names on the phone,' he had written in his laborious handwriting. 'We had cake for tea. My sister and I cry.' The teacher caught my eye. She had put up that story on purpose."
If the kid hears Mum calling Dad names there are two conclusions we can draw: (1) We have no idea what Dad is doing - where he is, who with, what he's saying to Mum. (2) Mum is looking after the kids, including making them tea with cake.
"'I want the parents to see what divorce they are doing to their children. They should be ashamed of themselves,' she said."
Shouldn't teachers be better at grammar than this? Also I do pity the child whose story was really well written but who didn't get picked to go up on the board because the teacher was pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with the national curriculum or quality education.
"My son recently bumped into that little boy. A decade on, he is 18, has dropped out of school and is on drugs."
Most drug-users I'm aware of are pretty secretive about their habit. If this kid told your son about his habit I'd be prepared to suggest a possible explanation: maybe your son takes drugs too. In fact maybe your son is the dealer! But do carry on telling the rest of us how to parent.
"Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, agrees that something has to be done. He has accused separating couples, especially those from the middle classes, of using their children as 'both the battlefield and the ammunition' to try to score points in their personal disputes."
Yes and how down to earth and clued up is Sir Nicholas Wall? Well lets put it this way - in his spare time he enjoys "composing clerihews". Exactly. And even he is talking about parents - both parents - not just mothers.
"'There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other,' said the country's most senior family court judge. 'The child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged.'"
I've got one! Something worse for a child than their parents denigrating each other: the parents denigrating the child. Also famine, disease, child labour and having parents who read the Daily Mail.
"Six years ago, my husband and I divorced. It came as a great shock. But we were all too aware our children were just becoming adolescents - and that adolescence is perilous enough without warring parents."
So you were "all too aware" of the issues but now you feel the need to harp on about them for the rest of the world's benefit? Thanks. I don't even have kids and you're getting right up my nose.
"We tried, not always successfully on my part, never to criticise each other in front of the children. Very occasionally, I even managed to emphasise his good points (of which there are many) - it was quite hard when at the time all I wanted to do was murder him."
So you were actually doing this dreadful thing that we all need to be told (by you) not to do. And even in retrospect you admit you "wanted to murder him"? Easy now, remember your son is reading this on drugs.
"A female friend was shocked. 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' she asked. 'I would.'"
My friends are not like this. Your friends are.
"Her reaction is not unusual. The battlefields Sir Nicholas Wall describes are too often of the wife's choosing."
"Her reaction is not unusual. The battlefields Sir Nicholas Wall describes are too often of the wife's choosing."
How often is "too often"? I mean I think the one in four women in the UK who is a victim of domestic violence is pretty much entitled to "badmouth" her partner. Particularly after he has "blackeyed" her. And bear in mind the most common time for violence to start in a relationship is while the woman is pregnant, so there's a really good chance kids will have been witnessing violence.
"This is because most divorces are initiated by women due to their husband's infidelity, as the fatherhood research body Fathers Direct points out."
Aaargh! No! In 100% of these cases it is the husband who has instigated divorce by BEING UNFAITHFUL. Oh dear Fathers Direct - seems almost like you might be some sort of "men's rights" organisation... Mind you I was guessing that when your website said your aims included "helps shape national and local policies to ensure a father-inclusive approach to family policy" and no mention of "helps end domestic violence perpetrated by men".
"These women are hurt and they want to get their own back through the children, money or both. They are determined the husband is as much divorced from his children as his wife.
One wealthy man I know finds himself, despite his riches, at the beck and call of his former wife."
Are women supposed instead to lie to their children - tell them "Daddy's been totally faithful, he's just friends with that aerobics teacher with the huge breasts"? And if you do tell your kids that then no doubt they respond by blaming Mum for the divorce. You've surely got to be honest with your kids at very least.
"The strategy is very successful. This otherwise powerful man submits to every capricious demand."
Though presumably the strategy wasn't effective enough to stop him screwing around in the first place. Ho hum.
"'With just two hours' notice, I had to cancel an important meeting and take them to the dentist,' he said. If he refused, his wife said, he would not see them for a month."
And what if the wife had an important meeting just at the same time as an emergency dentists appointment? Presumably she should cancel it...? Gosh, it's almost starting to sound like kids are a responsibility, not a fun weekend treat...
"An advertising director found himself equally powerless when his wife suddenly moved from London to the Midlands with their two sons."
Almost like she was trying to get away from you huh? Why would that be?
"'How can my wife hurt me? How could she bring me to my knees?' he asks. 'Through my children.'"
Of course if you really loved her - she could hurt you by leaving you. But that bit doesn't seem to bother you much does it mate?
"'She did not tell me. One day she just stopped answering the phone. Until then I had been seeing my sons every weekend,' he says."
OK that sounds harsh, but we'd need to hear her side to pass judgement wouldn't we? Not at the Daily Mail!
"By the time the case reached court, the sons were settled in a new school. The judge admitted that what the woman had done was illegal, but because it was in the best interests of the children to be with their mother, he did nothing."
Now of course the judge had the power to remove the children from the law-breaking mother and place the kids with dad instead but decided not to do that. But don't let a little gap in information like that prevent you drawing sweeping conclusions about how awful women are.
"'She had got away with effectively kidnapping my children,' said the father. His relationship with his sons has all but broken down. Their new home is too far for them to come to London."
So go visit them - it's only the Midlands - not the Middle East.
"When he goes to see them, he has to stay in a hotel."
How awful. I do hope there's no pool.
"'The children get bored in an hour or two,' he says. 'They have their friends and their sports, which they would rather do instead.'"
So take them out. As I understand it there are zoos, theme parks and fun fairs in the midlands. Or since you're visiting them - take them to play sports or meet their friends.
"He tells me he finds the situation 'so goddamn painful. I try to play the role of a father - but how can I when I have been deliberately moved to the periphery of their lives?'"
Try? Not very hard by the sounds of it.
"The situation leaves many men I have interviewed distraught. They describe the loss of their children as 'an emotional amputation' or 'a living bereavement'."
No doubt there are guys who mean well and want to see kids but there are also plenty of Dads who don't bother to see their kids and don't bother to contribute financially. In the interests of balanced journalism shouldn't we hear briefly about them too... Well I guess we would but we're too busy laughing at the concept of "balanced journalism" being mentioned in the same blog post as "The Daily Mail".
"It is no wonder that within two years of divorce, half of fathers lose contact with their children."
Yes women just love single parenthood so much they're filled with contempt at the idea of someone actually helping them out. What is frightening is that within two years of divorce 50% of mothers are effectively on their own raising kids.
"As one man said sadly, divorce 'leaves many fathers on the edge of a bloody great abyss. Many fall off and are never seen again'."
Maybe they should think about this before they start screwing around?
"Douglas Alexiou, one of London's pre-eminent family lawyers, agrees that the wife holds all the cards in a divorce case."
That is odd since most judges are men and the law is designed so that the number one priority is the kids. Now if it turns out that most women have much better relationships with their kids than men, that would work in their favour. Men could combat this by spending more time with their kids. I know, I know, it's a radical idea...
"'Court order after court order is served. The wife claims the children are ill or just do not want to see their father,' he says."
We all know in real life kids are never ill and never don't want to see their father.
"'There is very little a court can do if a mother has poisoned the minds of her children against the father. There is no sanction against the mother apart from a jail term - and no court will do that."
A court could also award custody to the father. Of course that would only be relevant if the father was prepared to do the hard work of parenting, not just the odd visit.
"'Perhaps one day a judge will be bold enough to jail a mother and finally set an example.'"
Yes no doubt single motherhood would be greatly enhanced by being jailed.
"In all this there is only one real victim - the children. If one of those wives was handed an axe and ordered to hack off a limb of her child, she would be appalled. Yet so many women are happy, even gleeful, to commit the equivalent emotional amputation on their children by depriving them of their father."
"In all this there is only one real victim - the children. If one of those wives was handed an axe and ordered to hack off a limb of her child, she would be appalled. Yet so many women are happy, even gleeful, to commit the equivalent emotional amputation on their children by depriving them of their father."
Yes - ruthlessly keeping their kids playing sports with their friends instead of in a creepy hotel with Dad. How evil.
"U.S. author Kathleen Parker in her excellent book Save The Males points out that in depriving a child of their father, 'we reduce a child's chance of a successful and happy life.
'Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity.'"
Yes Kathleen growing up without a father is a reliable indicator of poverty. One parent families do worse. And poverty is an excellent indicator of all sorts of future problems. That wouldn't be the case of course if fathers paid towards the upkeep of their absent kids. Yet the statistics show that many don't. And if they're not sharing the cost - why should they share the fun parts?
"But this misery is not only the fault of the parents. The family court system is adversarial and encourages couples to fight, says Nadine O'Connor, campaign manager at the lobby group Fathers4Justice."
Fathers4Justice? That would be the discredited organisation that had to be disbanded after revelations that a number of senior members were perpetrators of domestic violence...
"And change, she says, will be a long time in coming - until lawyers stop making their own killing from warring parents, children will continue to be used as weapons."
Even Nadine thinks it's lawyers at fault. Harriet it's only you who has managed to blame women here...
How is it that you write a whole article about how male infidelity leads to divorce and unsupported single motherhood and wind up coming down on the side of blaming women for problems their kids have?
Sunday, May 23, 2010
May Gay May Gay!
So Home Secretary Theresa May has changed her view on gay adoption. Good. Check out though her "reasons". She claims this is because she thinks a child is better off with a family than in an institution. But that wouldn't explain why she was previously in favour of straight couples and single people adopting. I mean what were her previous choices: Clearly (1) Straight and single adoption (2) institution (3) gay adoption. So now her choices are (1) Straight or single adoption (2) gay adoption (3) institution. Still hasn't actually suggested that gay adoption may be AS VALID AS straight and single adoption. And what a weak reason to support gay adoption - because it's better than having children in an institution*? Where is the mention of how there's nothing wrong with being gay. More to the point where exactly is the apology for her previous votes and views?*There's another issue here with Theresa May's choice of words because while many children in residential homes may be better off with appropriate families, there are also children who benefit from the culture and atmosphere of a residential home. So to suggest that children are never best off in an "institution" is misleading and actually an insult to kids who benefit from quality residential home care. What is best for each child is for that child's needs to be catered to carefully and fully.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Melanie Phillips line-by-line...
Melanie Phillips is a genius. When you're faced with a real problem often there are different choices about the best way to tackle it. Different approaches may have different merits associated with them. It takes a real genius though to come up with a suggestion that has no merits whatsoever and is so terrifyingly awful that no-one would dream of taking it seriously. Here's what I mean...
Here's my radical cure for the epidemic of single mothers... pay men to commit to their families
Yes lets pay men to do something they should be doing anyway. Why not pay men to shave and have a wank too!
"Once again, the alarm is being sounded over family disintegration and the apparently unstoppable rise of lone parenthood and mass fatherlessness. Support for marriage looks set to become an election issue."
Yes the alarm bell is being sounded Melanie - by you. Everyone else is a bit more concerned about the illegal wars we're in, the recession, poverty...
"The Catholic Church is publishing a report this week urging people to consider marriage and the family when deciding where to place their vote. The issue could not be more urgent."
Melanie this is not a Catholic country. If we are to follow the Catholic Church's teachings we will also have to, as a nation, accept transubstantiation. I am out of this move.
"Devastating new research by sociologist Geoff Dench shows that not only is one in four mothers single, but more than half of such mothers have never lived with a man at all and are choosing to live alone on state benefits."
How does never having lived with a man show that a mother is choosing to live on state benefits? What it shows is that the father of her child has never lived with her. Maybe she was raped. Should she then have moved in with the rapist? Maybe she is a lesbian. Are lesbians forbidden from getting pregnant in your world? Actually don't answer that.... Maybe she prefersto live alone because she doesn't know any suitable, available men who she thinks would be a positive influence on her child. Some of these teenage mothers are actually too young to legally move in with a guy anyway!
"They believe they have no need for a man in their life and that their children have no need for a father."
Perhaps they're right. Where is the evidence that children "need" a man living in the house? I've seen evidence that two-parent families offer greater financial stability to a child (obviously, given how paltry single parent benefits are) but the only parenting evidence seems to suggest the best model (only by a fraction) is lesbian partners.
"The founding premise of the Government's £280million sex education strategy - that young mums get pregnant through ignorance - is thus very far from the truth."
I don't remember the government saying this but I know teenage mums who got pregnant because they didn't think contraception worked. I personally think a far bigger problem is lack of opportunities. We need to give young women living in poverty the opportunity to go to college. Like cutting tuition fees and quality access programmes.
"It is, therefore, hardly surprising that Britain still has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe."
We also have (second to Poland) the least amount of compulsory sex ed in schools. Co-incidence? No.
"In the light of this deeply troubling record, eyebrows were raised at the weekend by prize-winning author Hilary Mantel, who claimed that girls are ready to have babies when they are 14 years old."
Well biologically THEY ARE. I think some teenage girls are surprisingly smart and sensible. But if we think teenage girls aren't ready for children we should (a) enforce the law on statutory rape - someone is fucking our kids!! and (b) make contraception and abortion widely and easily available to young girls so they have the freedom to choose not to be mothers if they don't want to.
"With so much flailing around over the family, I have a modest proposal to help break through the confusion. It is that the Government should introduce a Man Benefit."
So which societal group spends the most on drink, drugs, gambling, prostitution and abandoning their family to go off and watch football? Lets give them more money... that'll help the family. Also poking this pen in my eye will probably cure my short-sightedness right?
"Before people assume that I have confused today's date with this time next month, let me say that my somewhat light-hearted proposal is based on a deeper point that I believe has been generally overlooked."
No confusion here Melanie, if it was a joke it would be funny.
"This is that the most important force behind elective lone parenthood is not ' feckless' men, but the attitude of women and girls."
'Elective' lone parenthood is a pretty meaningless concept. I think most people would like to share their life and family with another person provided that person was the right person. Those who chose to parent alone are in my experience exclusively those who don't know such a person. So if you don't want to live with an abuser or a rapist - is that elective? What if you don't want to live with an alcohol or drug abuser who you fear may turn violent? What if you don't want to live with someone who is involved in crime? Or someone who is prone to anger and shouting or to belittling you and behaving unreasonably, someone who refuses to do their share as a parent, someone who spends more time out with their mates than with the family, someone who tries to indoctrinate your child with views you don't share or who insists you send the child to a school or church of their choosing... Who exactly is electing and who exactly is choosing "no partner" rather than "unsuitable partner"?
"It is the way they think about their interests which drives the pattern of relationships between the sexes. And they have simply changed their opinion of where their interests lie. "
Really - better tell that to the two women a week killed by their intimate partners. guess they must be thinking about their interest wrong huh?
"Back in the mists of time before the Pill, all-women short-lists and Harriet Harman, relationships between men and women were based on a bargain between the sexes which, although never stated openly, everyone accepted as a given."
Back in the mists of time women were considered the chattels (property) of their husbands, 'witches' were burnt at the stake and half the country had the plague. This doesn't mean it was good.
"Women realised they needed the father of their children to stick around to help bring them up."
Actually it's more like the mothers of illegitimate children were persecuted to the point of death in many cases.
"In turn, men committed themselves to the mothers of their children on the basis that they could trust they were indeed the father because the woman was sexually faithful."
Yes Harriet Harman invented infidelity. The 21st century is THE FIRST time in the history of humanity that a man can actually be 100% certain that a child is his. Few men seem in a hurry to prove they are fathers - many more are in a hurry to prove they're not and thus shake off the responsibility involved.
"Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men. The first has been that so many women work and are therefore economically independent."
Ah that's it - women working - that's the root of all evil isn't it? Did Harriet Harman invent that too?
"Next was the sexual revolution which saw women becoming as sexually free as men."
Men cannot EVER have been having more sex than women unless they were all gay.
"In short order, any stigma over having babies out of wedlock was abolished."
Yes there's no stigma left about illegitimate children is there - except of course the stuff coming out of your mouth Melanie.
"Then there was the collapse of manufacturing industry, which deprived many boys of the job prospects which once made them an attractive, marriageable proposition."
And it was only men who worked in manufacturing? Nothing turns me on like a guy saying "I screw the lids on toothpaste jars all day".
"Finally, the coup de grace was administered by welfare benefits to single mothers which enabled them to live without the support of their babies' fathers."
Yes we should have just left single mothers to die on the street, shouldn't we?
"The result of all this was that many women and girls decided they no longer needed their children's fathers to be part of the family unit."
Great - they no longer NEEDED these men there, which meant they could still CHOOSE to have these men around. Also it meant that those women whose partners left them and their children didn't die of starvation.
"Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men. This has given rise to an increasing number of women-only households where fathers have been written out of the family script for three or four generations or more."
It wasn't a bargain, it was women being held hostage by financial circumstances to stay with men whether they liked them or not and even whether their own lives and those of their children were put at risk by them or not.
"The consequences of such family disintegration - as is now indisputable - are in general catastrophic for both individuals and for society."
Show me one piece of evidence that shows that the benefits of a two-parent family cannot be largely explained financially? And how exactly is forcing women to live with guys they don't want to good for society? Is the worth of a society directly proportional to female misery?
"This problem will not be cracked, however, unless women come to believe once again that their interests lie in attracting one man to father their children and then stick with them. Which is where my proposal of a Man Benefit comes in."
I think to convince women that their interests lie in living with a guy we should maybe start by tackling domestic violence...
"At a meeting last week of the Centre for Policy Studies to discuss Dench's research, the veteran anti-poverty campaigner Frank Field came up with an inventive suggestion to counter the catastrophic impact of joblessness among young men at the bottom of the heap."
How about creating more jobs? Seems like an obvious choice...
"He suggested that the state should pay a dowry to couples who undertook to stay together, and that this dowry should be paid to the girl in such a relationship."
Lets bribe people to stay in relationships that aren't working. This will not have any negative consequences...
"It seemed to me, though, that girls already have a kind of dowry in the form of Child Benefit, paid to mothers on the birth of every child - a dowry with a destructive effect. For the great unsayable is that Child Benefit acts as a huge incentive to have children outside marriage."
Actually child benefit is paid to the parent who takes responsibility for the child. If should act as an incentive to encourage people to take care of their children. Actually very very rude here to ignore the many men who do raise children alone.
"When it was introduced in the Seventies, it replaced child tax allowances, which were set against the earned income of fathers. It was, therefore, hailed as a transfer of family income 'from wallet to purse'."
It was about getting the money where it was most likely to directly benefit the child - major research showed giving it to the primary caregiver was the best option. Where is the research showing this is no longer true? Or did you make it up Melanie?
"This was considered a great advance, on the grounds that men were universally irresponsible and would spend any welfare money on drink, while women were entirely responsible and would spend it as intended on the needs of their children. But the greatest need children have is for their two parents to bring them up."
Yes the number one thing kids need is a drunk bloke stumbling in at 2am and passing out on the kitchen floor. This is well known.
"And what few anticipated was that, along with the impact of all the other social and economic changes, some women used Child Benefit to help junk men altogether as superfluous to requirements."
Child benefit in case anyone was wondering isn't actually the same as being added to the civil list. No-one chooses to live on child benefit unless the other options are seriously undesirable. So this in fact means only that women who really don't want to remain with their partners are able to leave. As such it's vital to society. Yes society, Melanie, the thing the rest of us live in.
"Since marriage has always helped turn young men into responsible adults..."
Sadly not responsible enough to stop them murdering their partners twice a week. And anyway when exactly did it become the job of women to render men "responsible". Sort yourself out assholes and call us when you're done.
"... this marginalisation gave them a green light to be as irresponsible as they wanted - thus creating a vicious circle in which girls would dismiss these wastrel youths as a 'waste of space'."
So these dreadful girls would describe "wastrels" as a "waste of space". Isn't that the definition of wastrel?
"What's needed, therefore, is to help turn men once again into an attractive, marriageable proposition."
Sounds like a job for Gok Wan!
"The most important thing they need is, of course, a job - which is why the policy of pushing lone mothers out to work is actually disastrous, particularly in areas of high unemployment."
Yes lets have mothers stuck home in poverty and give men access to subsidised jobs so they can choose whether to bring the money home to their families or to spend it on booze and gambling. How is this better than just giving the money direct to the people actually looking after the children?
"But welfare must stop reinforcing the idea that men are dispensable. The best way of underpinning marriage is probably through transferable tax allowances for married couples."
Darling, I've been meaning to ask you for some time. Would you consider sharing a transferrable tax allowance with me? This will SO work Melanie...
"But in addition, my modest proposal is that men who marry for the first time might be given a state 'dowry' to increase their worth to women."
Ha ha ha. Bring in dowries for men. It is April Fool's right? The next line is... Also when women die can we have their husbands burnt alive on a funeral pyre? That would help me to understand how firmly committed to their families these men are. It might also reduce the two women a week killed by their intimate partners sinc ethese would now effectively be suicide attacks.
"Such a Man Benefit would also send a powerful signal that men are not worthless creeps but are essential to family life - which would in turn help address their demoralisation and consequent irresponsible behaviour."
Yes if you had to pay me to marry a guy I'd think he was clearly a brilliant individual...
"The undoubted expense of such measures would be more than offset by reducing the astronomical cost to this country of family breakdown."
Any evidence for this? What about the increased cost of medical bills for all those women forced back to live with a guy whose violent to them? The extra murder enquiries - it could all add up.
"By themselves, of course, any such financial initiatives wouldn't stop the rot."
The rot?!! The rot!! What about the 6% rape conviction rate? The fact that 1 in 4 women is a victim of domestic violence in her life? How about stopping that "rot"?!
"The main drivers of family breakdown are cultural, not economic; they emanate, moreover, from the intelligentsia at the very top of society even though their worst victims are at the very bottom. It is those limousine liberals who developed the core idea behind the recalibration of women's interests - that equality meant women should behave in exactly the same way as men."
Yes ever since feminism I do piss standing up. Equality means women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. We are far from achieving it and yet what is evident is that even given those rights and opportunities women do not on the whole behave like men. We continue to dedicate more time to family and caring, we start less wars, we commit much much less crime...
"This would have appalled the earliest feminists..."
As would your article/career/existance...
"...who fought for votes for women on the basis that women stood for moral constraints that would civilise the public sphere."
No the sufragettes wanted votes for women because it was right and just.
"The irony is that, as a result of modern notions of gender equality, it is men who now need special help to restore the sexual bargain that will not just benefit the male sex but stop the degradation of women and family life that so threatens us all."
Poor poor men. All they've got is 19 out of 23 cabinet member, nearly half as much pay again, a fraction of the unpaid work, a 6% conviction rate if they rape. Yes they probably need government hand-outs right? How will we pay for these extra manefits? How about a special vagina tax...? Long live equality!
Here's my radical cure for the epidemic of single mothers... pay men to commit to their families
Yes lets pay men to do something they should be doing anyway. Why not pay men to shave and have a wank too!
"Once again, the alarm is being sounded over family disintegration and the apparently unstoppable rise of lone parenthood and mass fatherlessness. Support for marriage looks set to become an election issue."
Yes the alarm bell is being sounded Melanie - by you. Everyone else is a bit more concerned about the illegal wars we're in, the recession, poverty...
"The Catholic Church is publishing a report this week urging people to consider marriage and the family when deciding where to place their vote. The issue could not be more urgent."
Melanie this is not a Catholic country. If we are to follow the Catholic Church's teachings we will also have to, as a nation, accept transubstantiation. I am out of this move.
"Devastating new research by sociologist Geoff Dench shows that not only is one in four mothers single, but more than half of such mothers have never lived with a man at all and are choosing to live alone on state benefits."
How does never having lived with a man show that a mother is choosing to live on state benefits? What it shows is that the father of her child has never lived with her. Maybe she was raped. Should she then have moved in with the rapist? Maybe she is a lesbian. Are lesbians forbidden from getting pregnant in your world? Actually don't answer that.... Maybe she prefersto live alone because she doesn't know any suitable, available men who she thinks would be a positive influence on her child. Some of these teenage mothers are actually too young to legally move in with a guy anyway!
"They believe they have no need for a man in their life and that their children have no need for a father."
Perhaps they're right. Where is the evidence that children "need" a man living in the house? I've seen evidence that two-parent families offer greater financial stability to a child (obviously, given how paltry single parent benefits are) but the only parenting evidence seems to suggest the best model (only by a fraction) is lesbian partners.
"The founding premise of the Government's £280million sex education strategy - that young mums get pregnant through ignorance - is thus very far from the truth."
I don't remember the government saying this but I know teenage mums who got pregnant because they didn't think contraception worked. I personally think a far bigger problem is lack of opportunities. We need to give young women living in poverty the opportunity to go to college. Like cutting tuition fees and quality access programmes.
"It is, therefore, hardly surprising that Britain still has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe."
We also have (second to Poland) the least amount of compulsory sex ed in schools. Co-incidence? No.
"In the light of this deeply troubling record, eyebrows were raised at the weekend by prize-winning author Hilary Mantel, who claimed that girls are ready to have babies when they are 14 years old."
Well biologically THEY ARE. I think some teenage girls are surprisingly smart and sensible. But if we think teenage girls aren't ready for children we should (a) enforce the law on statutory rape - someone is fucking our kids!! and (b) make contraception and abortion widely and easily available to young girls so they have the freedom to choose not to be mothers if they don't want to.
"With so much flailing around over the family, I have a modest proposal to help break through the confusion. It is that the Government should introduce a Man Benefit."
So which societal group spends the most on drink, drugs, gambling, prostitution and abandoning their family to go off and watch football? Lets give them more money... that'll help the family. Also poking this pen in my eye will probably cure my short-sightedness right?
"Before people assume that I have confused today's date with this time next month, let me say that my somewhat light-hearted proposal is based on a deeper point that I believe has been generally overlooked."
No confusion here Melanie, if it was a joke it would be funny.
"This is that the most important force behind elective lone parenthood is not ' feckless' men, but the attitude of women and girls."
'Elective' lone parenthood is a pretty meaningless concept. I think most people would like to share their life and family with another person provided that person was the right person. Those who chose to parent alone are in my experience exclusively those who don't know such a person. So if you don't want to live with an abuser or a rapist - is that elective? What if you don't want to live with an alcohol or drug abuser who you fear may turn violent? What if you don't want to live with someone who is involved in crime? Or someone who is prone to anger and shouting or to belittling you and behaving unreasonably, someone who refuses to do their share as a parent, someone who spends more time out with their mates than with the family, someone who tries to indoctrinate your child with views you don't share or who insists you send the child to a school or church of their choosing... Who exactly is electing and who exactly is choosing "no partner" rather than "unsuitable partner"?
"It is the way they think about their interests which drives the pattern of relationships between the sexes. And they have simply changed their opinion of where their interests lie. "
Really - better tell that to the two women a week killed by their intimate partners. guess they must be thinking about their interest wrong huh?
"Back in the mists of time before the Pill, all-women short-lists and Harriet Harman, relationships between men and women were based on a bargain between the sexes which, although never stated openly, everyone accepted as a given."
Back in the mists of time women were considered the chattels (property) of their husbands, 'witches' were burnt at the stake and half the country had the plague. This doesn't mean it was good.
"Women realised they needed the father of their children to stick around to help bring them up."
Actually it's more like the mothers of illegitimate children were persecuted to the point of death in many cases.
"In turn, men committed themselves to the mothers of their children on the basis that they could trust they were indeed the father because the woman was sexually faithful."
Yes Harriet Harman invented infidelity. The 21st century is THE FIRST time in the history of humanity that a man can actually be 100% certain that a child is his. Few men seem in a hurry to prove they are fathers - many more are in a hurry to prove they're not and thus shake off the responsibility involved.
"Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men. The first has been that so many women work and are therefore economically independent."
Ah that's it - women working - that's the root of all evil isn't it? Did Harriet Harman invent that too?
"Next was the sexual revolution which saw women becoming as sexually free as men."
Men cannot EVER have been having more sex than women unless they were all gay.
"In short order, any stigma over having babies out of wedlock was abolished."
Yes there's no stigma left about illegitimate children is there - except of course the stuff coming out of your mouth Melanie.
"Then there was the collapse of manufacturing industry, which deprived many boys of the job prospects which once made them an attractive, marriageable proposition."
And it was only men who worked in manufacturing? Nothing turns me on like a guy saying "I screw the lids on toothpaste jars all day".
"Finally, the coup de grace was administered by welfare benefits to single mothers which enabled them to live without the support of their babies' fathers."
Yes we should have just left single mothers to die on the street, shouldn't we?
"The result of all this was that many women and girls decided they no longer needed their children's fathers to be part of the family unit."
Great - they no longer NEEDED these men there, which meant they could still CHOOSE to have these men around. Also it meant that those women whose partners left them and their children didn't die of starvation.
"Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men. This has given rise to an increasing number of women-only households where fathers have been written out of the family script for three or four generations or more."
It wasn't a bargain, it was women being held hostage by financial circumstances to stay with men whether they liked them or not and even whether their own lives and those of their children were put at risk by them or not.
"The consequences of such family disintegration - as is now indisputable - are in general catastrophic for both individuals and for society."
Show me one piece of evidence that shows that the benefits of a two-parent family cannot be largely explained financially? And how exactly is forcing women to live with guys they don't want to good for society? Is the worth of a society directly proportional to female misery?
"This problem will not be cracked, however, unless women come to believe once again that their interests lie in attracting one man to father their children and then stick with them. Which is where my proposal of a Man Benefit comes in."
I think to convince women that their interests lie in living with a guy we should maybe start by tackling domestic violence...
"At a meeting last week of the Centre for Policy Studies to discuss Dench's research, the veteran anti-poverty campaigner Frank Field came up with an inventive suggestion to counter the catastrophic impact of joblessness among young men at the bottom of the heap."
How about creating more jobs? Seems like an obvious choice...
"He suggested that the state should pay a dowry to couples who undertook to stay together, and that this dowry should be paid to the girl in such a relationship."
Lets bribe people to stay in relationships that aren't working. This will not have any negative consequences...
"It seemed to me, though, that girls already have a kind of dowry in the form of Child Benefit, paid to mothers on the birth of every child - a dowry with a destructive effect. For the great unsayable is that Child Benefit acts as a huge incentive to have children outside marriage."
Actually child benefit is paid to the parent who takes responsibility for the child. If should act as an incentive to encourage people to take care of their children. Actually very very rude here to ignore the many men who do raise children alone.
"When it was introduced in the Seventies, it replaced child tax allowances, which were set against the earned income of fathers. It was, therefore, hailed as a transfer of family income 'from wallet to purse'."
It was about getting the money where it was most likely to directly benefit the child - major research showed giving it to the primary caregiver was the best option. Where is the research showing this is no longer true? Or did you make it up Melanie?
"This was considered a great advance, on the grounds that men were universally irresponsible and would spend any welfare money on drink, while women were entirely responsible and would spend it as intended on the needs of their children. But the greatest need children have is for their two parents to bring them up."
Yes the number one thing kids need is a drunk bloke stumbling in at 2am and passing out on the kitchen floor. This is well known.
"And what few anticipated was that, along with the impact of all the other social and economic changes, some women used Child Benefit to help junk men altogether as superfluous to requirements."
Child benefit in case anyone was wondering isn't actually the same as being added to the civil list. No-one chooses to live on child benefit unless the other options are seriously undesirable. So this in fact means only that women who really don't want to remain with their partners are able to leave. As such it's vital to society. Yes society, Melanie, the thing the rest of us live in.
"Since marriage has always helped turn young men into responsible adults..."
Sadly not responsible enough to stop them murdering their partners twice a week. And anyway when exactly did it become the job of women to render men "responsible". Sort yourself out assholes and call us when you're done.
"... this marginalisation gave them a green light to be as irresponsible as they wanted - thus creating a vicious circle in which girls would dismiss these wastrel youths as a 'waste of space'."
So these dreadful girls would describe "wastrels" as a "waste of space". Isn't that the definition of wastrel?
"What's needed, therefore, is to help turn men once again into an attractive, marriageable proposition."
Sounds like a job for Gok Wan!
"The most important thing they need is, of course, a job - which is why the policy of pushing lone mothers out to work is actually disastrous, particularly in areas of high unemployment."
Yes lets have mothers stuck home in poverty and give men access to subsidised jobs so they can choose whether to bring the money home to their families or to spend it on booze and gambling. How is this better than just giving the money direct to the people actually looking after the children?
"But welfare must stop reinforcing the idea that men are dispensable. The best way of underpinning marriage is probably through transferable tax allowances for married couples."
Darling, I've been meaning to ask you for some time. Would you consider sharing a transferrable tax allowance with me? This will SO work Melanie...
"But in addition, my modest proposal is that men who marry for the first time might be given a state 'dowry' to increase their worth to women."
Ha ha ha. Bring in dowries for men. It is April Fool's right? The next line is... Also when women die can we have their husbands burnt alive on a funeral pyre? That would help me to understand how firmly committed to their families these men are. It might also reduce the two women a week killed by their intimate partners sinc ethese would now effectively be suicide attacks.
"Such a Man Benefit would also send a powerful signal that men are not worthless creeps but are essential to family life - which would in turn help address their demoralisation and consequent irresponsible behaviour."
Yes if you had to pay me to marry a guy I'd think he was clearly a brilliant individual...
"The undoubted expense of such measures would be more than offset by reducing the astronomical cost to this country of family breakdown."
Any evidence for this? What about the increased cost of medical bills for all those women forced back to live with a guy whose violent to them? The extra murder enquiries - it could all add up.
"By themselves, of course, any such financial initiatives wouldn't stop the rot."
The rot?!! The rot!! What about the 6% rape conviction rate? The fact that 1 in 4 women is a victim of domestic violence in her life? How about stopping that "rot"?!
"The main drivers of family breakdown are cultural, not economic; they emanate, moreover, from the intelligentsia at the very top of society even though their worst victims are at the very bottom. It is those limousine liberals who developed the core idea behind the recalibration of women's interests - that equality meant women should behave in exactly the same way as men."
Yes ever since feminism I do piss standing up. Equality means women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. We are far from achieving it and yet what is evident is that even given those rights and opportunities women do not on the whole behave like men. We continue to dedicate more time to family and caring, we start less wars, we commit much much less crime...
"This would have appalled the earliest feminists..."
As would your article/career/existance...
"...who fought for votes for women on the basis that women stood for moral constraints that would civilise the public sphere."
No the sufragettes wanted votes for women because it was right and just.
"The irony is that, as a result of modern notions of gender equality, it is men who now need special help to restore the sexual bargain that will not just benefit the male sex but stop the degradation of women and family life that so threatens us all."
Poor poor men. All they've got is 19 out of 23 cabinet member, nearly half as much pay again, a fraction of the unpaid work, a 6% conviction rate if they rape. Yes they probably need government hand-outs right? How will we pay for these extra manefits? How about a special vagina tax...? Long live equality!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Keeping It In The Family
A minor, but worrying development - the BBC website has changed the title of it's "Education" section to read "Education and Family". In my experience when politicians or think tanks, etc talk about "family" it is bad news. "Family values" means "get back in the kitchen women". People who talk about the importance of "family" are usually trying to stigmatise single mothers or something similar. It's meaningless anyway because we're all in families. Whether you count me, Mr Cru and the cat or whether you include other relatives who don't live with us - it's all family.
This seems to have been timed to co-incide with David Cameron banging on about tax breaks for married couples. This is now the top story on what used to be the education section of the BBC site. Underneath it says:
"'End of nuclear family' forecast
Cameron backs family support
'Toxic cycle' of family breakdown"
Which all comes back to this hideous notion of assuming that "family" = good. When we know perfectly well that for 2 women a week in the UK "family" = murder. We know that child abuse is happening all over the country, domestic violence, forced marriage, marital rape, all these things. Seems to me that if we're going to have a news section about "family" these things should get some coverage - not just David Cameron's largely meaningless quotes.
This seems to have been timed to co-incide with David Cameron banging on about tax breaks for married couples. This is now the top story on what used to be the education section of the BBC site. Underneath it says:
"'End of nuclear family' forecast
Cameron backs family support
'Toxic cycle' of family breakdown"
Which all comes back to this hideous notion of assuming that "family" = good. When we know perfectly well that for 2 women a week in the UK "family" = murder. We know that child abuse is happening all over the country, domestic violence, forced marriage, marital rape, all these things. Seems to me that if we're going to have a news section about "family" these things should get some coverage - not just David Cameron's largely meaningless quotes.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sisters Doing It For Themselves
Oh dear - Luisa Dillner in the Daily Mail. Has the civil war in Darfur suddenly ground to a halt and peace spread across the middle east while I was napping? Because otherwise I don't see much in the way of a valid excuse for padding out a page-worth of a national newspaper (o.k. I exaggerate - the Daily Male) with this absolute dross.It's called "Your best friend - and deadly rival: Why the love-hate bond between sisters is the most precious relationship of all" which sort of means "I don't really have anything to write here but I'm trying to make it seem exciting". She describes her two daughters "One has stolen the favourite spot in the bed, and the other feels short-changed on cuddles." Brilliant - this is the sort of information than when someone starts telling me on the phone I switch on the TV subtitles so I can murmer along in agreement while actually catching up on House or Scrubs.
"No one can hurt you like your sister. With a man, you have the nuclear option: you can leave. You don’t have that with a sister." Well unless that man is your brother. Or father, son, etc, right? And actually you can leave your sister. If you really don't get on you can - once you reach adulthood - part company and lose touch if you want.
"It doesn’t seem to matter how big or small your family, or whether you live in Britain or Outer Mongolia - if you’ve got a sister, you’ve got the woman who can change in a heartbeat from being your best friend to being your deadliest rival." Really? Cos my sister and I get on pretty well when we see each other which is a few times a year. If she's my deadliest rival - or best friend - she has a pretty clever way of hiding it by acting like she lives in Southhampton and works in HR...
Who on earth actually lives in Daily Mail world? No-one! Really Luisa Dillner - give up now, there has to be something better you can do with your life!
[And fittingly that is not a picture of me and my sister. It's me and my friend Karen from down the road - I'm having to improvise because I don't have any recent pictures of me and my sister...]
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Truth About Antenatal Classes
Re-posted from The F-Word where I am currently guest-blogging.
A report out from Sweden says that attending classes teaching breathing techniques and relaxation methods has exactly no effect on your likelihood of needing an epidural. And no impact on your likelihood of needing a C-Section. And no impact on your overall satisfaction with the birth.
Now that's not to say that there aren't some worthwhile things to be taught to expecting parents. To get the low-down I spoke to my sister (Lynda) who had a baby almost a year ago and attended both NHS and NCT (National Childbirth Trust) classes before the birth. She said neither even mentioned breathing techniques or relaxation as discussed in the Swedish report. But she did have some good points about several aspects of them. Here is what she had to say:
1) NHS classes: free but a total waste of time. Around 40 individuals and couples in a theatre-style auditorium. During question and answer sessions she couldn't really hear what other participants were saying and they ran out of handouts. Pain relief methods were discussed briefly as more or less a list of options.
2) NCT classes: £140 for 2 days and one evening, much more useful. Eight individuals and couples with practical opportunities to try things, etc. The most useful thing was the focus on the emotions around birth and new babies, for instance talking about how the mother's partner might feel coming home to find the house a mess and the mother exhausted and desperate to hand the baby over. Provided lots of useful advice for the birth itself - such as bringing along glucose sweets for energy and a kneeling cushion if you wanted to try a kneeling position. Probably much of this is available in books on maternity but also in this class friends were made and a support network accumulated.
As far as pain relief was concerned she was expecting there to be real pressure on women to reject pain relief. In the event there was a run-through of different options with participants asked to make a list of the pros and cons of each type. This might sound even-handed but in fact the "cons" is a long list of unlikely medical complications while the "pros" is one single item "reduces pain" which applies in most cases. Drawing the list like this gives the impression that one pro equals one con when in reality cons like "baby may be sleepy for first hour after birth" may well be pretty trivial against the pain thing.
Worryingly they were told that using the pain-reliever pethidine gives your child a greater risk of becoming a drug addict later in life. Both Lynda and I doubt this statement - though there may be a correlation between hospitals in underprivileged areas who dish out pethidine when they don't really have enough midwives around to cope with all the women in labour and the hospitals where kids turn up eighteen years later with a drug problem. In any case the information is nothing more than a scare tactic unless it says how much the risk increases and where the data is from.
3) Pain. No class can prepare you for the pain. To quote Lynda directly "The only way they could explain to you in a class what the pain is like is if they made you stand barefoot on upturned drawing pins while they loaded you with heavy sandbag after heavy sandbag to weight you down and the only way to make it stop was to shout 'EPIDURAL'!". ...and I am supposed to be the comedienne in the family!
4) Reality. The one thing no class really told despite asking repeatedly at the NHS one was what the most likely outcome was - what percentage of women manage without pain relief, etc and what percentage of pain relief interventions lead to problems, and what type of problems. In the end of five women Lynda is still in touch with, including herself, there were two without epidural and three with epidural. In all three of the latter cases there were complications associated with the epidural (one didn't work - the pain continued, one the needle kept coming out and having to be refitted and one woman was left on crutches for several months with a small baby to look after!). Of course without access to the relevant data we just can't know how much of that is to be expected from an epidural and how much is down to bad luck or overworked staff, etc.
5) Birth plans. Apparently the NCT went on and on about how important it was for women to write a "birth plan" to take with them to hospital. Now it's understandable that women would want to have a document in hand to tell nurses what they want in different scenarios, to avoid having procedures they didn't want forced upon them when they are in too much pain to discuss things. However of those in the group who made a "birth plan" (Lynda refused despite repeated demands by class instructors) 100% ended up not sticking to it and then feeling they had somehow "failed" to have the birth they wanted. In any case who would write a birth plan that says "experience extreme pain, demand an epidural, discover it's too late, baby's heart rate slows, rushed in for emergency cesarean". Everyone writes "no pain relief, baby slips out in 2 minutes, I look stunning", and then nobody lives up to it. So sure take in some notes about particular things you're worried about seems to be good advice, but stay open minded about what happens - don't make too many plans!
6) What they don't mention. There were a few things that didn't seem to get mentioned. Particularly some of the graphic details. Like for instance "you will definitely sh!t yourself at some point". Not to freak women out but so that when it happens they know not to be surprised or embarrassed. Maybe just reading out a few accounts from women who have had babies recently would help.
So in conclusion, there seem to be some real positives from a supportive class covering what to expect throughout maternity, birth and the first year or so of a child's life, although clearly such classes should be available freely (although the NCT does offer discounted classes if mothers have financial difficulties). Information on pain relief doesn't seem to be getting through so well. What is needed in this area is accurate information about all the options and how likely the various outcomes are both nationally and by hospital and clinic so that women can make a considered choice. What is not needed is a load of piffle about trying to relax while you're in excruciating pain.
Footnote: The moment I put this up someone messaged me on Facebook to say they read it. This friend of mine said she had a planned cesarean because of problems identified earlier in the pregnancy. When they told her this she felt ... relieved. What a shame that a woman can't just decide she wants a planned cesarean and discuss that with her antenatal teacher. What's so bad about not wanting to go through a lot of pain? Give women all the information and let them choose what they want for themselves.
(By the way there is a response to this post by another feminist here).
A report out from Sweden says that attending classes teaching breathing techniques and relaxation methods has exactly no effect on your likelihood of needing an epidural. And no impact on your likelihood of needing a C-Section. And no impact on your overall satisfaction with the birth.
Now that's not to say that there aren't some worthwhile things to be taught to expecting parents. To get the low-down I spoke to my sister (Lynda) who had a baby almost a year ago and attended both NHS and NCT (National Childbirth Trust) classes before the birth. She said neither even mentioned breathing techniques or relaxation as discussed in the Swedish report. But she did have some good points about several aspects of them. Here is what she had to say:
1) NHS classes: free but a total waste of time. Around 40 individuals and couples in a theatre-style auditorium. During question and answer sessions she couldn't really hear what other participants were saying and they ran out of handouts. Pain relief methods were discussed briefly as more or less a list of options.
2) NCT classes: £140 for 2 days and one evening, much more useful. Eight individuals and couples with practical opportunities to try things, etc. The most useful thing was the focus on the emotions around birth and new babies, for instance talking about how the mother's partner might feel coming home to find the house a mess and the mother exhausted and desperate to hand the baby over. Provided lots of useful advice for the birth itself - such as bringing along glucose sweets for energy and a kneeling cushion if you wanted to try a kneeling position. Probably much of this is available in books on maternity but also in this class friends were made and a support network accumulated.
As far as pain relief was concerned she was expecting there to be real pressure on women to reject pain relief. In the event there was a run-through of different options with participants asked to make a list of the pros and cons of each type. This might sound even-handed but in fact the "cons" is a long list of unlikely medical complications while the "pros" is one single item "reduces pain" which applies in most cases. Drawing the list like this gives the impression that one pro equals one con when in reality cons like "baby may be sleepy for first hour after birth" may well be pretty trivial against the pain thing.
Worryingly they were told that using the pain-reliever pethidine gives your child a greater risk of becoming a drug addict later in life. Both Lynda and I doubt this statement - though there may be a correlation between hospitals in underprivileged areas who dish out pethidine when they don't really have enough midwives around to cope with all the women in labour and the hospitals where kids turn up eighteen years later with a drug problem. In any case the information is nothing more than a scare tactic unless it says how much the risk increases and where the data is from.
3) Pain. No class can prepare you for the pain. To quote Lynda directly "The only way they could explain to you in a class what the pain is like is if they made you stand barefoot on upturned drawing pins while they loaded you with heavy sandbag after heavy sandbag to weight you down and the only way to make it stop was to shout 'EPIDURAL'!". ...and I am supposed to be the comedienne in the family!
4) Reality. The one thing no class really told despite asking repeatedly at the NHS one was what the most likely outcome was - what percentage of women manage without pain relief, etc and what percentage of pain relief interventions lead to problems, and what type of problems. In the end of five women Lynda is still in touch with, including herself, there were two without epidural and three with epidural. In all three of the latter cases there were complications associated with the epidural (one didn't work - the pain continued, one the needle kept coming out and having to be refitted and one woman was left on crutches for several months with a small baby to look after!). Of course without access to the relevant data we just can't know how much of that is to be expected from an epidural and how much is down to bad luck or overworked staff, etc.
5) Birth plans. Apparently the NCT went on and on about how important it was for women to write a "birth plan" to take with them to hospital. Now it's understandable that women would want to have a document in hand to tell nurses what they want in different scenarios, to avoid having procedures they didn't want forced upon them when they are in too much pain to discuss things. However of those in the group who made a "birth plan" (Lynda refused despite repeated demands by class instructors) 100% ended up not sticking to it and then feeling they had somehow "failed" to have the birth they wanted. In any case who would write a birth plan that says "experience extreme pain, demand an epidural, discover it's too late, baby's heart rate slows, rushed in for emergency cesarean". Everyone writes "no pain relief, baby slips out in 2 minutes, I look stunning", and then nobody lives up to it. So sure take in some notes about particular things you're worried about seems to be good advice, but stay open minded about what happens - don't make too many plans!
6) What they don't mention. There were a few things that didn't seem to get mentioned. Particularly some of the graphic details. Like for instance "you will definitely sh!t yourself at some point". Not to freak women out but so that when it happens they know not to be surprised or embarrassed. Maybe just reading out a few accounts from women who have had babies recently would help.
So in conclusion, there seem to be some real positives from a supportive class covering what to expect throughout maternity, birth and the first year or so of a child's life, although clearly such classes should be available freely (although the NCT does offer discounted classes if mothers have financial difficulties). Information on pain relief doesn't seem to be getting through so well. What is needed in this area is accurate information about all the options and how likely the various outcomes are both nationally and by hospital and clinic so that women can make a considered choice. What is not needed is a load of piffle about trying to relax while you're in excruciating pain.
Footnote: The moment I put this up someone messaged me on Facebook to say they read it. This friend of mine said she had a planned cesarean because of problems identified earlier in the pregnancy. When they told her this she felt ... relieved. What a shame that a woman can't just decide she wants a planned cesarean and discuss that with her antenatal teacher. What's so bad about not wanting to go through a lot of pain? Give women all the information and let them choose what they want for themselves.
(By the way there is a response to this post by another feminist here).
Monday, April 06, 2009
Murder vs Murder
Two reports of murder in the news today. One in The Independent, one on the BBC. There are some similarities. In both cases a parent murders their own children. But in one case the murderer is a guy, in the other case a woman. Look at the difference in the reporting:
James Harrison murdered his five children "because his wife was leaving him". That excuse is given in the headline. He killed them but it was her fault. Later it emerges he may not have been quite the devoted heartbroken husband he was making out "Candy Johnson, an aunt of the mother, described Harrison as a strict, controlling husband and father who didn't allow his wife to make decisions without asking him first. 'My niece has been so controlled from the time she was young,' Johnson said, adding that Harrison had got the mother pregnant when she was 13."
There is however no excuse given for Jael Mullings murder of her two children. Authorities were called to her home shortly before the murders because she was seen screaming and mumbling in the street but didn't have the good sense to take the children somewhere safe at that time. No mention is made of the children's father who had left the mentally ill mother in sole charge of his two children. Doesn't anyone think as a 21-year-old woman, being left to look after two small boys might actually be the cause of mental health problems?
Or do men have a right to leave women in the lurch that women don't have?
James Harrison murdered his five children "because his wife was leaving him". That excuse is given in the headline. He killed them but it was her fault. Later it emerges he may not have been quite the devoted heartbroken husband he was making out "Candy Johnson, an aunt of the mother, described Harrison as a strict, controlling husband and father who didn't allow his wife to make decisions without asking him first. 'My niece has been so controlled from the time she was young,' Johnson said, adding that Harrison had got the mother pregnant when she was 13."
There is however no excuse given for Jael Mullings murder of her two children. Authorities were called to her home shortly before the murders because she was seen screaming and mumbling in the street but didn't have the good sense to take the children somewhere safe at that time. No mention is made of the children's father who had left the mentally ill mother in sole charge of his two children. Doesn't anyone think as a 21-year-old woman, being left to look after two small boys might actually be the cause of mental health problems?
Or do men have a right to leave women in the lurch that women don't have?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
All In The Family
I am not usually one for discussing my family on here - I am not very close to very many of them - mostly for reasons I have discussed at length. That said I thought I would share this article which has just came out about my Great-Uncle Tony and Great-Aunt Doreen. I can claim no credit since I have yet to meet either of them but I have been chatting to Doreen on Facebook recently, who sent me the link to the piece. If nothing else it should inspire you to get up and out and enjoy the rest of the afternoon!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
What Were We Expecting?
Very interesting article on Alternet about the parrallels between the octuplet-mum in the news recently and Angelina Jolie. Caught my eye because I'm currently on my hols in China and observing the one child policy in action. Aside from the use of resources issue* I have to say the one-child family does seem kind of peaceful. There is none of the focussing on one child to turn round and realise the other one has just broken some valuable porcelain and with two parents (assuming both are involved parents) both focussed on one child seems that the child soon realises it doesn't have to scream to get a bit of attention. I think in the past - gatherer/hunters time - women would most likely have had their children spaced out, the career-focussed trend for having two or three in quick succession seems to have obvious flaws. A modern solution is to just have one I think. Of course there are issues with running such a policy in a place where girls are widely not wanted. But then there's a straight-up problem with any place where girls are not wanted anyway. I'm up for a global programme of one-child incentives, there are too many people - especially on the Great Wall today, I could hardly move!
*And yes I know the smell of my carbon footprint coming out here to China is a resources issue in itself. In my defence I had work in Hong Kong last week. I got the train up to Beijing from there. Also in my defence I am, like Angelina Jolie and Nadya Suleman "33 years old, having been born in 1975", and I have NO children farting out greenhouse gases...
*And yes I know the smell of my carbon footprint coming out here to China is a resources issue in itself. In my defence I had work in Hong Kong last week. I got the train up to Beijing from there. Also in my defence I am, like Angelina Jolie and Nadya Suleman "33 years old, having been born in 1975", and I have NO children farting out greenhouse gases...
Friday, April 18, 2008
Polygamy and Abuse
I found this series of video clips on CNN very interesting. Interviews with escapees from polygamist cults and those still involved with the compound at the centre of the recent FLDS (a kind of Mormonism) raid. And some more, also from CNN. Personally I am horrified that people are allowed to mistreat children in this way and that nothings been done about it for so long.What is strange for me about the coverage is how much of it focuses on the subject of polygamy. I am not all that horrified by polygamy. Obviously in this case it's been a marker for a number of other types of abuse, but in general taking more than one consenting wife or consenting husband (polyandry) is not something I care much about. Lots of people maintain several relationships at the same time and as long as all concerned parties know what is going on I don't see anything wrong with that. For me multiple marriage is no more or less of a crime than having multiple partners and multiple families, the relationships themselves are what is important, not their legal status.
And the focus on the "horror" of polygamy for me is a distraction from the obvious follow-up question: How many other insular communities are getting away with mistreatment of their women and children in this way too? What about those who abuse children and force young girls into early marriage but do not have multiple partners? Is that somehow ok?
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Good News, Badly Presented
Interesting report from the NY Times which has only just come to my attention. In short it turns out that young guys for the most part are pretty respectful of the women they date. Very few in the survey conducted by the Journal of Adolescence appeared to be obsessed with sex, the majority were interested in women because they liked them and wanted to get to know them better.Now the NY Times seems surprised by this. I'm not, the vast majority of guys I know of all ages are nothing like the noxious stereotypes portrayed everywhere from the lad mags to "teen" films like American Pie. By the same token the number of young women I know who act like Clueless is, well, zero.
Now to start with they title the article "Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter", which plays straight into the idea that sex is some sort of predatory act perpetrated by evil men on innocent unsuspecting women. And then it goes on to say "The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships." Cultural beliefs from the 19th century maybe but I don't know anyone who really believes that.
There is also a fairly undisguised SEX IS WRONG message hidden between the lines. "Let’s give boys more credit,'’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship."
But there's really nothing wrong with "just wanting sex" as long as you are open and honest about what you are doing. There are plenty of young women out there interested to learn about sex through experience, who may be comfortable doing so outside the confines of a relationship. And that's ok, in fact it's pretty healthy to feel that way and have that desire to learn. Even if you're somebody's daughter.
The report concludes that parents should talk to their sons as much about relationship-forming as they do their daughters. Which is a bit like stating the obvious - although I have to say I never had any advice off my parents about relationships (well unless you count thinly veiled hints that I shouldn't expect too much...). Mr Cru by contrast did, but I think that had more to do with the families we came from than any gender issues.
Friday, January 04, 2008
A Family Affair
This is a strange issue. J.D. Wetherspoons has announced that it's pubs will serve no more than two drinks to parents who dine in their pubs with their children. And it won't serve families with children (under 14) who don't dine.Now I actually think that's just silly - I think we have it all wrong in Britain with the pub culture in which children are never seen. It really hurts the children who are seen as a burden because they restrict where their parents can go. You never see cafe's in France which bar children. Parents and children alike enjoy sitting around and chatting or playing games, sometimes eating and sometimes just having a drink - alcoholic or otherwise.
More to the point though - have these decision-makers BEEN to a Wetherspoon's pub (for the benefit of overseas readers a selection of their best-looking clientèle is pictured)? I think we should have a national-level law barring Wetherspoon's customers from reproducing. Could they put contraceptives in the cheap alcopops? Failing that we should DEFINITELY have a national-level law banning all parents from allowing their children to eat the re-heated processed pap that passes for "food" in these places.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Return of the Fuckwits
They're back! The guys who think good parenting starts with disturbing the peace.So time maybe for a recap on their aims and what is so horribly wrong with them.
(from their own site)
"AIMS:
Early Interventions & Mandatory Mediation
Before couples seek legal recourse, the government must recognise that ALL couples should be bound to enter into mandatory mediation, with appropriately trained mediators."
This is what we would all commonly call bullying. Mediation is and always has been available to those who wish to make use of it. Making it compulsory means that women who have been victims of physical or psychological abuse during their relationships are forced to either accept the demands of the father of their children or face intimidation and a risk of further abuse in the mediation process. Everybody and anybody in a legal situation has the right to take the matter directly to court. Anyway who are these mediators and who is going to train them?
"Presumption of Contact & Shared Parenting
The best parent is both parents. The starting point after separation should be to maintain where possible what the status quo was before separation. Children currently have no right in law to see their parents. The principle of shared parenting creates a level playing field where conflict can be reduced, as opposed to the current "winner takes all" scenario which generates maximum conflict."
The advantages of raising a child in a two-parent family are more than 80% explained financially. So if F4J really cared about children they would be campaigning to force absent fathers to contribute more to their child's maintenance.
Maintaining the status quo after separation is obviously not possible when one partner has moved out. The principle of shared parenting would mean that most children in separated families would spend 3 nights per week at one house and 4 at another. Evidence suggests this is hugely destructive to children's well-being.
One in four women in the UK is a victim of domestic violence at some point in her life. Of course some men are also victims of domestic violence, although the numbers are much lower. No parent should be expected to hand their children over to someone who is or has been violent towards them.
Raising children is hard work. Very few women would refuse genuine well-intended help from someone they considered trust-worthy with their children. By the time you get to courts, you have already fallen at that hurdle.
Last time around in the UK Fiona Bruce did a great job of tackling them head on and actually got them to close down for a while after it was revealed that a large number of their key spokespeople had convictions for domestic violence. At the time Matt O'Connor insisted that he did not encourage his members to intimidate court officials and legal professionals. This time around doing so is one of their stated aims!
Monday, July 30, 2007
The Ultimate In Outsourcing
Apparently now you can have your baby carried by a woman in India and just delivered (literally!) to you when it arrives. That should cut back on discrimination at work.Of course the article is really about surrogacy in cases where the mother has fertility problems. I still can't help thinking it would be better if we encouraged adoption more enthusiastically.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Standards Falling
Tuesday's Evening Standard ran an article which sadly isn't available on the wed by Lucy Cavendish and her husband entitled "Why I Had To Give Up My House Husband". I should really have hung onto it so I could quote vast chunks and then dissect them but I left it on the bus, I think. Anyway the gist of it was "Lucy and her husband spent a year trying to have him raise the kids and it didn't work". The not-very-hidden sub text was "men can't raise kids, women should do it". But the article - when you read it through - was, well, odd for a few reasons.1) He wanted to be a house-husband mainly because he thought it would be easy. He told neighbours he'd have time to go out for a game of squash every week. He doesn't seem to have realised that his kids need full-time supervision. It didn't work because he felt so tired and hadn't anticipated it being a full-time job. So his point is - men shouldn't stay home, it's too hard, only women are capable of doing such hard work. Neither of them bother to discuss the implications of that on the state of the women's pensions deficit.
2) Ms Cavendish herself hasn't ever been a housewife. She's been a journalist all along (and a very successful one thanks to big name papers publishing low-quality stories like these). So when at the end of the piece she says how she enjoys dropping them off at classes, buying their stuff and making their packed lunches, etc, even though she finds it below herself, she doesn't mention that she then enjoys having a meeting with her editor and planning her next two-page feature about how other women should live their lives.
3) She does however work from home an claims to have found it impossible to go out and leave him in charge. So who was in charge? And is it any surprise he couldn't do the job up to her standards while she was stood over one shoulder all the time looking angry?
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Not Enough Honour
The three men convicted of the so-called "honour"* killing of Banaz Mahmod have been handed lengthly prison sentences. Those sentences are: 23, 20 and 17 years (which for overseas readers means realistically with good behaviour, etc they'll serve 10-15 years each). Which is long, but I guarantee if the victim had been white and blond the sentences - for two hours of rape, sexual degradation, torture, including stamping on her neck, and ultimately drawn-out agonising murder - would have surely been "life" with a substantial minimum tarrif.But for me regardless of sentence-length - I still feel that the response is NOT ENOUGH. There are three other defendents who should be in the docks today too.
1. The Community
Look at the quote in this report from Judge Brian Barker: "You are hard and unswerving men to whom apparently the respect from the community is more important than your own flesh and blood." If we accept that respect in that community** here in the UK is best gained by murdering your own daughter, then we have to face up to that. Going back to the first report (linked top), we read "Relatives weep as three men are sentenced". That may well be bad reporting, perhaps they in fact wept at the details of the murder and/or the relief of seeing justice done. The way it's explained though it sounds as though there were people present who believed the men did the right thing and were bewailing the 'injustice' of their convictions.
Encouraging crime like this is itself a crime, as is harbouring the criminals and covering up the crime. We need to let people know that the law comes first, not religious or cultural considerations.
2. The Police
As the BBC reports "Ms Mahmod had asked police for help four times but her claims were said not to have been taken seriously." Apparently on one occasion she called the police after being trapped by her father at her grandmother's house, having broken a window to escape, and they threatened to arrest her for breaking the window. Police need better training to identify those who may be at risk from this kind of thing and to be able to offer such women immediate protection and assistance in escaping the community.
3. The Government
Attempting to control the behaviour of someone through acts and threats of violence infringes on their human rights. We need to make sure everyone in our country knows that. We need safe houses for those who wish to leave communities who are mistreating them in this way, and we need to make sure everyone knows what to do if they believe themselves to be at risk, or if they no longer wish to live in these communities.
Mahmod Mahmod in prison or out poses a limited threat to others. Of his two daughters, one is dead and the other has run away from him. Other women in the community however are still at risk and until all three of my suggested co-defendants address that head on, they will remain that way.
*Using the term "honour" to describe someone raping, torturing and murdering their own daughter is clearly the wrong term. We should find a better one.
**And I don't mean "The Muslim Community", because many Muslims are as horrified as I am by the murder. I don't believe that we can treat Muslims as a single amorphous group. Besides which there are other religions within which the concept of "honour killings" exists.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Oxford - City of Mums?
News flash: the whole women-with-careers thing is over. It was fun while it lasted eh? But now we've all decided we want babies and OBVIOUSLY we can't have both. Well that's the news according to today's Independent anyway, which reports female students at Oxford are literally queuing up to "choose having a family over having a career".Now the whole article is a series of specific examples, there are no actual statistics involved which already has me smelling the sweet smell of Eau De Rat.
I went to Oxford ten years ago and my female friends from there are now:
Alison - teacher, married, no kids
Sam - lawyer, married, one kid, going back to work as soon as maternity leave's over
Susie - accountant, married, one kid, now back at work
Laura - works for a charity in Kenya, two kids, still working
Plus me - stand-up comic, no kids
So, err, I guess that's enough research for my own article on "Oxford Women NOT Rushing To Quit Their Careers".
Now maybe my friends are freaks, or maybe the "trend" has changed in the last ten year. Maybe even the women still at Oxford are young and haven't experienced the thrill of having their own jobs, their own steady income and making their own choices in life. But then if you're going to start an article claiming to have identified "a trend", wouldn't you want to ask why that trend is taking off?
Firstly the article doesn't question why women should feel they have to choose. When I was a student we were all set to do battle with anyone who said we would have to choose. Secondly I always hear this posed as a "give up" your career thing. Unless you plan on home schooling, why not "take a career break" and return to work when, for example, the youngest child goes to school.
And then there are some really bewildering lines from the interviewees:
"She believes women with children often find themselves sidelined or opting to stay at home, and that we should acknowledge that fact." I don't think anyone has failed to acknowledge that some women choose to stay home when their kids are small, but if we acknowledge that some women with children are sidelined at work then we should be kicking and screaming and demanding fair treatment.
"Female students believe that it remains more difficult for women to balance a family and a job because society still assumes that women will do the child-rearing." And why exactly do female students believe that they have to do what society assumes they will do? When I was a student we wanted to do anything and everything we could to upset the apple-cart. (We still do!).
"When you are in a career for a few years, you reach a point when a possible career change or pay rise comes up ... Then you have to choose whether you want a family or not." Really? Yeah it could be so hard to have a family if you were earning extra money. I guess that'd be all those hours counting it and putting it in the bank. What?!
Sad to see the Indie publishing piffle again. If young women out there do feel they can't have anything and everything they want in their lives - then our universities (not to mention media messages) are failing them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
