Cherie Blair vs 'yummie mummies'

dark crystal

Cherie Blair has provoked anger over comments that women who choose to raise their children instead of having a career, have turned their backs on feminism and that children of such mothers may lack independence;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9342635/Cherie-Blair-attacks-yummy-mummies.html

Mrs Blair, a QC and mother of four, criticised women who “put all their effort into their children” instead of working. Mothers who go out to work are setting a better example for their children, she said.

Addressing a gathering of “powerful” women at one of London’s most expensive hotels, Mrs Blair said she was worried that today’s young women are turning their backs on the feminism of their mothers’ generation.

Some women now regard motherhood as an acceptable alternative to a career, Mrs Blair said. Instead, women should strive for both.

Surely the whole point of feminism is giving women a choice. If women wish to bring their children up full-time, that's their choice. If women wish to combine a career with motherhood, that's their choice too. In many cases, working mothers are doing so more out of financial necessity rather than because of some noble cause - there is no other choice.



I also don't know where on earth she gets the notion that children raised by stay-at-home mothers would be any less independent than those raised by working mothers. Where is the evidence for such a claim?


I don't know why her comments have riled me so much. There's just an air of smug superiority coming off her comments which leave a bad taste in my mouth.

christmas2012

I think its wrong to judge one way or another,i wouldnt be on any side of that argument what works for one mother,mightnt work for another..

wes

Pretty awful for her to denigrate child rearing like that. If a Man or a Woman, choose to do this, then that is there choice. They should not be taught of any less imho, as raising children is a hugely important task. Basically, there is nothing wrong with parents wanting to spend more time with there kids, and if they have the opportunity to do so, then good for them.

Cookie_Monster

how dare you put your kids first eh?
While I'd never force anyone to give up their job or career if they didn't want to I think it's more beneficial in the long run for a child to have a parent at home rather than be dropped to a crèche for half the day.

eviltwin

You do whatever works for your own family and situation. What that means for one family is not the same as what might work for another. For all her brains Cherie Blair seems to be missing out on a bit of common sense.

girl in the striped socks

Well I would imagine that children in a crèche or childminders is more independent because they kinda have to be. They don't have mummy fussing over ever little thing that's wrong & basically turning them into a whiny brat.

dark crystal

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Well I would imagine that children in a crèche or childminders is more independent because they kinda have to be. They don't have mummy fussing over ever little thing that's wrong & basically turning them into a whiny brat.

Yeah, kids with two working parents are never whiny brats.

girl in the striped socks

dark crystal wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Well I would imagine that children in a crèche or childminders is more independent because they kinda have to be. They don't have mummy fussing over ever little thing that's wrong & basically turning them into a whiny brat.

Yeah, kids with two working parents are never whiny brats.

Sorry I didn't mean it that way at all.
Just had an overload of being told how wonderful my boyfriends nieces are by their overbearing mother. Whilst they wrecked my house.
Nothing worse than wild kids going crazy & their parents just stand there grinning at them.

Anyway back on topic, most kids I know who are in childcare do seem to be more independent & confident than ones cared for at home.

eviltwin

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mean it that way at all.
Just had an overload of being told how wonderful my boyfriends nieces are by their overbearing mother. Whilst they wrecked my house.
Nothing worse than wild kids going crazy & their parents just stand there grinning at them.

Anyway back on topic, most kids I know who are in childcare do seem to be more independent & confident than ones cared for at home.

To be fair brats are a product of bad parents and you get those kinds of parents in all walks of life, working, stay at home...

PickledLime

Yep, keep that income rolling in so you can pay the creché to raise the kids.

In all seriousness though, how idiotic is it for a woman who is supposed to be educated and a public figure to make such a sweeping, blanket statement?

up for anything

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Anyway back on topic, most kids I know who are in childcare do seem to be more independent & confident than ones cared for at home.

Odd that! The most independent and confident children I've met have in the main been home schooled children.

Having gone to boarding school at the age of four I know that while I was independent in many ways at a young age, underneath I was not so confident and very conformist while hiding the heart of a rebel. You don't raise your head above the parapet in school situation because you know that there is always an adult or a peer ready to blow to it off.

OhLongJohnson

Considering that feminism these days amounts to the pursuit of forced equality, for the sake of forced equality, based on the sole issues faced by one gender, in a manner that only suits that gender, you can see why a lot of modern women are distancing themselves from it, be it in the workplace or at home.

It's quite funny that Mrs.Blair, in supposedly fighting against doing things purely because you're a woman, is now criticising women for not doing things they "should" be doing because they're women.

The Blairs are a vile collective one way or another. I wouldn't put much stock in what they have to say myself.

Richard Hillman

In fairness being a stay at home mother can be an easy way out for some women. For me personally i couldnt hack being with a stay at home mother and although it doesnt set a bad example to female children, i dont think it wouldnt exactly inspire them either. I wouldnt exactly want my daughter to grow up to be a housewife.

BIG BAD JOHN

Richard Hillman wrote: »

In fairness being a stay at home mother can be an easy way out for some women. For me personally i couldnt hack being with a stay at home mother and although it doesnt set a bad example to female children, i dont think it wouldnt exactly inspire them either. I wouldnt exactly want my daughter to grow up to be a housewife.

I presume you'd let her choose for herself though?

Smidge

That's a bit rich coming from a woman whose 16 son was arrested for being pissed in the street

Maybe if she had spent more time watching what he was up to instead of making stupid statements it wouldn't have happened.

Richard Hillman

BIG BAD JOHN wrote: »

I presume you'd let her choose for herself though?

Want and choosing are two separate things

brummytom

It's Cherie Blair, who gives a fuck what she thinks about anything?

Fromthetrees

Richard Hillman wrote: »

In fairness being a stay at home mother can be an easy way out for some women. For me personally i couldnt hack being with a stay at home mother and although it doesnt set a bad example to female children, i dont think it wouldnt exactly inspire them either. I wouldnt exactly want my daughter to grow up to be a housewife.

Feck sake like, I just hear Richard Hillman being nastey towards Gail ratface Platt when you post.



My opinion will go with the cosy consensus that a woman has a right to choose between having a career and being a full time mother, great for feminism but not for men, go figure eh. :rolleyes:

dark crystal

Fromthetrees wrote: »

My opinion will go with the cosy consensus that a woman has a right to choose between having a career and being a full time mother, great for feminism but not for men, go figure eh. :rolleyes:

What's not great for men?

Giselle

up for anything wrote: »

Odd that! The most independent and confident children I've met have in the main been home schooled children.

Having gone to boarding school at the age of four I know that while I was independent in many ways at a young age, underneath I was not so confident and very conformist while hiding the heart of a rebel. You don't raise your head above the parapet in school situation because you know that there is always an adult or a peer ready to blow to it off.

What boarding school takes children of four??

efb

She seems to have the same judgement skills as her husband.

Fromthetrees

dark crystal wrote: »

What's not great for men?

Lots of things...:(

Without going further than this site to illustrate the point than here is a good thread to start with, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056600216

If you want quotes from articles and that kind of jazz to back up what I wrote than ask.

dark crystal

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Lots of things...:(

Without going further than this site to illustrate the point than here is a good thread to start with, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056600216

If you want quotes from articles and that kind of jazz to back up what I wrote than ask.

I was asking in relation to the issue of working mothers v stay at home mothers, though. I don't see how it negatively affects men as such....

up for anything

Giselle wrote: »

What boarding school takes children of four??

Lots of them used take preps a good few years ago. Children of people who lived abroad and wanted their children educated at home or where the climate wasn't suitable (for the children of ex-pats that is). Mine was somewhere in Ireland. I was the very last of the little ones to be accepted at that age.

Fromthetrees

dark crystal wrote: »

I was asking in relation to the issue of working mothers v stay at home mothers, though. I don't see how it negatively affects men as such....

In this exact context off the top of my head, if we're talking about unmarried parents, the mother has all the rights and control, the father has absolutely zero rights towards his child.

What about the fact a single mother can collect various social welfare payments and still work 20 hours per week before it's considered income and that's not the fact with a father.

What about a married couple who have a child and we compare the paternity leave between the mother and the father of their child.
Who really has a choice in today's society of being able to choose between having a career or being a stay at home parent or trying to balance it?

Men don't.

PBroderick

You will find most politicians (or politicians wives) will encourage people to work at all costs.

For you see, it is workers who pay their wages.

Stay-at-home parents do not pay their wages and are of no interest to them.

Cameron's tory party are now pushing paid childcare on everyone.....again childcare workers and working mothers are of huge interest to Cameron's back pocket.....double whammy for tax collection.

He has no interest in children's welfare, other than his own children.

Interestingly, while he pushes UK parents to both work, his own wife works part-time.

"Go figure" as the Americans would say.

Giselle

up for anything wrote: »

Lots of them used take preps a good few years ago. Children of people who lived abroad and wanted their children educated at home or where the climate wasn't suitable (for the children of ex-pats that is). Mine was in the midlands. I was the very last of the little ones to be accepted at that age.

But four is infants, not prep. I went to a boarding school myself and I don't know of any in either Ireland or the UK who will take a kid of less than six or seven. Or ever did for that matter.

There are boarding schools that take the nursery classes as day pupils though, if thats what you mean.

Cookie_Monster

dark crystal wrote: »

What's not great for men?

less jobs available with more women staying in work rather than leaving to pursue motherhood...

perhaps the government should actively encourage mothers to stay at home, would make the unemployment figures look much better:D

December2012

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

Anyway back on topic, most kids I know who are in childcare do seem to be more independent & confident than ones cared for at home.

That's more to do with parenting styles and the children's personality than crèche / no crèche.

Also age and position in family are huge factors.

How many children do you know well enough to make this observation?

December2012

Richard Hillman wrote: »

In fairness being a stay at home mother can be an easy way out for some women. For me personally i couldnt hack being with a stay at home mother and although it doesnt set a bad example to female children, i dont think it wouldnt exactly inspire them either. I wouldnt exactly want my daughter to grow up to be a housewife.

Well having done both I can tell you both are hard work. One, for me, is much more enjoyable, with people that I love and who love me, friends every day (adults that is), walks in the sunshine, day trips here and there, playing on the mat or snuggling up for naps.

If you do something you love most of the time (whether inside the house or not) you'll be a very happy person.

And you can be just as inspiring a mother by being "at home".

up for anything

Giselle wrote: »

But four is infants, not prep. I went to a boarding school myself and I don't know of any in either Ireland or the UK who will take a kid of less than six or seven. Or ever did for that matter.

Bizarre.

This was back in the 60s and before. A lot of Irish boarding schools had preps. Among them were schools like Killashee (now Killashee House Hotel). It was a boys preparatory boarding school ages 4-12. The usual age in the UK was 7 but there were places which accepted younger children.

PBroderick

December2012 wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

That's more to do with parenting styles and the children's personality than crèche / no crèche.

Also age and position in family are huge factors.

How many children do you know well enough to make this observation?

If anyone thinks a child is better in a creche than with their mother or father, they are deluding themselves.

Those with real money will hire a nanny.....one person 24/7 on call to look after the child.....a hired Auntie if you like.

Those with some money will hire a childminder.....one person 8 hours a day to look after child, while parents work.

Those with no money will drop baby in creche at 7am and collect at 6pm, with the 2-for-1 discount in mind for baby number 2.

Like I said, governments love paid-for childcare......two PAYE incomes hit, mortgages based on 2 incomes rather than 1 means big profits for banks, two cars on the road means huge motor tax.....the tax collection benefits go on and on.

The politicians salaries are well fed by private childcare.

Giselle

Oddly enough, I don't think she'd dare say a stay at home dad was a bad example.

It seems more acceptable for women to preach to other women on how they should live their lives. Its supposed to be an improvement over the days when men got to preach to us.

December2012

Why am I being quoted / referred to above?

Giselle

December2012 wrote: »

Why am I being quoted / referred to above?

If you're referring to my post, I am neither quoting nor referring to you. I'm making a statement regarding the subject of the thread.

Cherie Blair is giving her opinion on stay at home mums. I'm saying that I doubt she would feel comfortable denigrating the work of stay at home dads, as this would be seen as unegalitarian. I find great irony in a woman denigrating the work of other women who choose a different path. Historically, when society was male-dominated, they put women down for going out to work and 'neglecting' their families.

December2012

Welllllll you have my text in there ......, so.....

Cookie_Monster

December2012 wrote: »

Welllllll you have my text in there ......, so.....

you're not quoted anywhere in this thread

dark crystal

Fromthetrees wrote: »

In this exact context off the top of my head, if we're talking about unmarried parents, the mother has all the rights and control, the father has absolutely zero rights towards his child.

Again, not the issue at hand. By the by, it is male politicians who enacted current family law.

What about the fact a single mother can collect various social welfare payments and still work 20 hours per week before it's considered income and that's not the fact with a father.

Lone Parent's allowance can be paid to either men or women, depending on whoever is the lone parent. Earnings taken into account in this case are the same for either gender.

What about a married couple who have a child and we compare the paternity leave between the mother and the father of their child.
Who really has a choice in today's society of being able to choose between having a career or being a stay at home parent or trying to balance it?

Men don't.

Paternity leave is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed in this country. However, women obviously need time off work after giving birth to physically heal. Many women go back to work before the 24 weeks maternity leave are up.

There's nothing stopping a man from being the stay at home parent if the couple can afford to do so, instead of the woman.

Giselle

up for anything wrote: »

This was back in the 60s and before. A lot of Irish boarding schools had preps. Among them were schools like Killashee (now Killashee House Hotel). It was a boys preparatory boarding school ages 4-12. The usual age in the UK was 7 but there were places which accepted younger children.

I'm glad those days are gone to be honest. Four is waaaay to young to be sent away from home.

PBroderick

Giselle wrote: »

I'm glad those days are gone to be honest. Four is waaaay to young to be sent away from home.

Giselle, there are 6-month old babies in creches for 50 hours a week these days.

Progress, they call it

up for anything

Giselle wrote: »

I'm glad those days are gone to be honest. Four is waaaay to young to be sent away from home.

It surely is far too young but they were different days and attitudes. As my own children turned four in their turns I couldn't imagine sending them away and them managing for three months at a time. They were only babies at 4, and yet I remember lots about my first year there and in some ways I was quite capable and my reasoning and manipulation skills were better than they are now.

dark crystal

PBroderick wrote: »

Giselle, there are 6-month old babies in creches for 50 hours a week these days.

Progress, they call it

Luckily for Mrs. Blair, she and her husband were able to avail of full-time nannies for their children, so her children were never stuck in a creche for 50 hours a week.
She paid another woman handsomely to do all that demeaning stuff at home she was too busy to do.

PBroderick

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

most kids I know who are in childcare do seem to be more independent & confident than ones cared for at home.

"Ah loves his creche.....can't keep him away from it.....he loves the other kids, so he does....a real independent little fella he is"

Translation:

He's going to the creche whether he likes it or not, so I'll convince myself and you that it's the best thing for him.

After all...the best barometer of what's best for children is what they enjoy.

Whether that's sitting in a creche, eating twisty fries from their high chair tray or sitting motionless for hours on end in a buggy, staring into space.

After all, why would I spend every day looking after him, when I can be swanning about this office drinking tea pretending I have a "career". Hey, I might even work until six so I can avoid the whole "putting him to bed" mess too.....PERFECT!

Nodin

PBroderick wrote: »

"Ah loves his creche.....can't keep him away from it.....he loves the other kids, so he does....a real independent little fella he is"

Translation:

He's going to the creche whether he likes it or not, so I'll convince myself and you that it's the best thing for him.

After all...the best barometer of what's best for children is what they enjoy.

Whether that's sitting in a creche, eating twisty fries from their high chair tray or sitting motionless for hours on end in a buggy, staring into space.

After all, why would I spend every day looking after him, when I can be swanning about this office drinking tea pretending I have a "career". Hey, I might even work until six so I can avoid the whole "putting him to bed" mess too.....PERFECT!

You do realise that a great many working mothers work because of necessity rather than choice?

You might explain this in a bit more detail - the bit in bold in particular.

After all, why would I spend every day looking after him, when I can be swanning about this office drinking tea pretending I have a "career".

Fromthetrees

dark crystal;79319265]Again, not the issue at hand. By the by, it is male politicians who enacted current family law.

In my currupt way of thinking those laws were inacted by men but in the name of the catholic church, gurr and all that like.

Lone Parent's allowance can be paid to either men or women, depending on whoever is the lone parent. Earnings taken into account in this case are the same for either gender.

Yeah but generally both parents are alive so single parent allowance is only given to the mother if she is not living with the father, it simply doesn't happen the other way around.

Paternity leave is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed in this country. However, women obviously need time off work after giving birth to physically heal. Many women go back to work before the 24 weeks maternity leave are up.

There's nothing stopping a man from being the stay at home parent if the couple can afford to do so, instead of the woman.

If the father would like to be a stay at home father to his child and happens to not be married to his baby moma than he has very little say over anything, the mother does, that's what pisses me off. A man who cares about his child has no rights or responsibilities attached to the fact yet women are essentially treated like fantasticness in the same situation.
And I love woman it's just I find the whole situation deeply sexest yet no one will ever talk about discrimination against men, or suicide ect.

Please excuse my spelling.

up for anything

PBroderick wrote: »

"Ah loves his creche.....can't keep him away from it.....he loves the other kids, so he does....a real independent little fella he is"

Translation:

He's going to the creche whether he likes it or not, so I'll convince myself and you that it's the best thing for him.

After all...the best barometer of what's best for children is what they enjoy.

Whether that's sitting in a creche, eating twisty fries from their high chair tray or sitting motionless for hours on end in a buggy, staring into space.

After all, why would I spend every day looking after him, when I can be swanning about this office drinking tea pretending I have a "career". Hey, I might even work until six so I can avoid the whole "putting him to bed" mess too.....PERFECT!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this! I think I'll laugh because you surely must be joking.

That last paragraph is the most amusing part. :rolleyes:

PBroderick

Nodin wrote: »

You do realise that a great many working mothers work because of necessity rather than choice?

You might explain this in a bit more detail - the bit in bold in particular.

I'll explain it clearly. A career is not becoming a middle manager for some poxy insurance company and missing out your entire childrens' childhood.

It is a false notion that corporations have made you think is a career so that you work your bollix off for them.

A career is a heart surgeon, or a teacher or a sportsperson, not some tit who starts as a junior, becomes a team leader and then a manager and then a senior manager and then retires.....that is what used to be called "a job".

You think these clowns working in middle management think they are doing it for a career?

They're doing it because their mortgage is based on TWO incomes when the Financial Regulator should have made that illegal from the start.

But why would they, eh?

Nodin

PBroderick wrote: »

I'll explain it clearly.(.........)should have made that illegal from the start.

But why would they, eh?

Why are you so angry?

BIG BAD JOHN

What is true is that for some couples there is actually no choice because both have to work outside the home to keep the bank manager content.
Cherie is of course wrong in placing more value on a woman who goes out to work than one who works full-time in the home.

Zulu

dark crystal wrote: »

Luckily for Mrs. Blair, she and her husband were able to avail of full-time nannies for their children, so her children were never stuck in a creche for 50 hours a week.
She paid another woman handsomely to do all that demeaning stuff at home she was too busy to do.

While I agree with the salient point you are making, "demeaning", really?
It's not demeaning unless people use language like that. I'd be cautious that using language like that could be part of the problem...

Frankly Blair is a tool.

December2012

Giselle wrote: »

December2012 wrote: »

Why am I being quoted / referred to above?

If you're referring to my post, I am neither quoting nor referring to you. I'm making a statement regarding the subject of the thread.

Cherie Blair is giving her opinion on stay at home mums. I'm saying that I doubt she would feel comfortable denigrating the work of stay at home dads, as this would be seen as unegalitarian. I find great irony in a woman denigrating the work of other women who choose a different path. Historically, when society was male-dominated, they put women down for going out to work and 'neglecting' their families.

Sorry, not yours. P broderick.