The Inexorable Rise Of Mumsnet* Continues…

Employers are poor at promoting family-friendly policies, according to a survey of British mothers.

Oh, let me guess…

Most rated the UK behind countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece for general family friendliness, campaigning group Mumsnet found.

They're a 'campaigning group' now? *sigh*

More than four out of five said having children had made it harder to progress in their career, while three out of four said they were less employable.

Well, yes. That’s hardly surprising, is it?

I wouldn’t want to employ a woman of childbearing age either, in the current climate.

Justine Roberts, chief executive of Mumsnet, said: 'Other countries seem to welcome families with open arms but in the UK parents often feel their children are seen as an annoyance.’

Mostly, these days, they are an annoyance.

'At Mumsnet we want to work with business and government to change this, and that's what our Family Friendly campaign is all about.

'We want to see workplaces where parents don't have to deny that their kids exist. We want firms to state on the door that employees don't have to feel bad about asking to go to sports day.’

“‘We want’ doesn’t get..”, as I was always told.

'Being family friendly is good for business too. Companies shouldn't spend time and money training staff only to see them walk out the door once they've had children because their workplaces don't fit with family life.'

If it really was ‘good for business’, Justine, you wouldn’t need to hector and legislate, would you?

* Maybe it wasn't Skynet we were all supposed to fear..?

Ramping Up The Rape Rhetoric...

A Powys woman jailed for falsely retracting rape allegations against her husband has lost her Court of Appeal bid to overturn her conviction for perverting the course of justice.

I thought at the time, when I started getting the news of this on Twitter, 'There will, of course, be much frothing at this'. And I wasn't wrong. First out of the traps was our old pal, Vera 'I Scoop No Poop For Anyone!' Baird.

She concentrated on the 'injustice' of the case, and how it would prevent women from coming forward, despite the fact that, as a lawyer herself, she should have known full well it's unlikely to be repeated, as the comments by the judge prompted the DPP to issue fresh guidance:

Giving the decision on the woman's appeal against conviction on Tuesday, Lord Judge said: "The reality of this case is that the appellant was undoubtedly guilty of a serious crime, from which police officers did all they reasonably could to dissuade her.

"Compassion for her position, and indeed for any woman in the same or a similar position, should have produced a non-custodial sentence.

"That is why this court acted speedily to quash the custodial sentence and replace it with a community order which would offer practical assistance to the appellant in the immediate aftermath of her release from prison."

He added: "The court also expressed itself in clear and direct language, which was immediately considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has now issued fresh guidance about how cases involving false retractions of true allegations by vulnerable defendants will be addressed in the future."

In other words, we don't expect to see these sorts of charges laid against these women in the future?

If true, that's a monstrous injustice, isn't it? To the men falsely accused, that is. But does anyone speak for them?

Meanwhile, there's no subject so controversial that those axe-grinders Mumsnet can't make it just that little bit worse:

Another online survey, this time from Mumsnet, concludes that one woman in ten has been raped, and over a third have been sexually assaulted. The best data we have, from the British Crime Survey, suggests this is an overestimate.

Heh! I'll say. And how the hell can such a self-selected group be considered representative of anything?

The BBC reported it at length, but without challenging the Mumsnet figures. Doesn't the BBC College of Journalism include a course on statistical scepticism?

I don't think 'scepticism' is even in the BBC vocabulary.

It seems that, when it comes to rape sentencing propaganda, the booting out of such frothing feminists as Vera Baird and Harriet Harman did absolutely nothing. The myth persists that rape convictions are out of kilter with all other crimes, no matter how many times that myth is debunked.

It feels like I'm shouting into the wind, sometimes...

H/T: Mark Wadsworth and PJH via email

Why Can’t They Think Like Meeeeeee!

Dear, dear Yasmin again:

On Saturday we drove our daughter up to university where, for the next four years, she'll be studying for a degree in engineering… There she goes, a young woman who doesn't even consciously think it is her "right" to study a male-dominated course. She chose a subject and went for it.

So, you must be happy, right?

Within just two generations, my family has gone from barely any educated females to this.

Scratch ‘happy’ – you must be ecstatic?

Maybe this is why I am so grateful for the gains made by feminism – and also aware of its occasional drift into banality or hideous egocentricity.

Ah. I knew it couldn’t last.

One tires of middle-class, professional women prating on and on about how hard it all is – from "inconsiderate" nannies to husbands who don't sympathise enough with juggler mums in stilettos trying to keep all those plates spinning. These are but the gripes of small things.

OK, so, what should they be complaining about?

… such frustrations, though understandable, sound vain and flighty in these hard times, when various catastrophic national and international crises are gathering, affecting the life chances of millions of women and their children.

Such as…?

Would you believe, new film releases?

Yes, really:

And that brings me to the newly released film I Don't Know How She Does It, starring Sarah Jessica Parker about the many trials and tribulations of Kate Reddy, an ambitious and successful businesswoman, and also a mum with a loving husband.

AWFUL! OUTRAGE!

For feminists like myself the film irks not only because now Reddy seems selfish and greedy but because the highly dramatised domestic irritations of the privileged have been taken up by today's self-obsessed mumsy websites at a time when we have the global recession, wars, famines, undiminished male violence against women and evidence of increasing childhood trauma, even in rich countries.

‘Mumsy’ websites? Could she possibly mean….?

Oh. She could!

Look at the immensely powerful Mumsnet website and some other copycat ones and there is barely any mention of (or fundraising for) the famines in East Africa where mothers push dry breasts into the limp mouths of babies as they die.

Yazza vs Mumsnet – it’s like ‘Thunderdome’ only without the ugly mutants.

Not much about domestic violence either, or any serious take on the policies of the Coalition government which are leading to unprecedented numbers of female redundancies.

*yawn* Change the record, Yazz…

Some political issue occasionally slips in. Not nearly enough. In truth the new film and online chattering lasses are disturbingly apolitical and indifferent to class inequality between women and real gender parity.

Oh, how shocking! Maybe, unlike you, Yaz, they’ve just grown out of student politics?

I’ve A New-Found Respect For WH Smith…

The magazines, such as Zoo and Nuts, regularly feature photographs of semi-naked women on the cover and critics said the publications could negatively influence children with regards to their views on sex.

Of course they could. And so off went Mumsnet, to try to bully newsagents into compliance.

Supermarkets, including Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons and Co-op, agreed to move the magazines higher or shield them with plain covers, as did petrol stations including BP.

Idiots.

However, WH Smith did not. A spokesman said men's lifestyle magazines were placed away from children's and women's ones, adding: "We have a strict display policy in place that requires men's lifestyle magazine titles be displayed at a minimum height of 1.2m, equivalent to the average adult's chest or shoulder height."

/cheer

Justine Roberts, the founder of Mumsnet, an online forum for mothers which has embarrassed politicians with its direct questions, said WH Smith's stance was "frustrating".

Good. Frustrating the likes of you is probably the best thing WH Smith has ever done.

And for that, I’ll even forgive them their habit of shifting around all the stock every three months or so, so that I never know where to look for ‘Fortean Times’…

The Holy Grail: The Cause Of All Disobedience In Children!

Yes, folks, it’s been found!

One father complained his 4-year old son had taken to splashing in muddle puddles (Ed: sic. Yes, really...) on the way to school, imitating Peppa's favourite past-time.

Children never did this before ‘Peppa Pig’…

Others complained their children shouted "chocolate cake!" whenever they were asked what they would like for breakfast - just like George pig.

Children never did…

Oh, I can’t keep this up! Of course they did!

It’s just that, in the past, they’d be disciplined by their parents, who wouldn’t have dreamed of blaming some external force for children deciding to act like, well, children.

"The more I see, the more alarmed I am by the choice of behaviour put into this 'cartoon'," wrote one mother…

Wrote this where? And what's with the scare quotes, love? Do you doubt it's a cartoon?

… on parenting website Mumsnet.

Oh. I might have known…

Psychologist Dr Aric Sigman said in recent years there had been a "significant increase" in children using "adversarial, snide, questioning, confrontational and disrespectful behaviour", which he attributed to cartoons.

Cartoons have been around for a hell of a lot longer than that, so I think something else must be involved, frankly.

Maybe it’s women talking b******s to other women on websites like ‘Mumsnet’?

"There is nothing special about Peppa Pig - the same applies to all programmes. Some 80 per cent of brain development is between birth and three years old, so if they spend a lot of time watching the TV, they will copy the forms of behaviours that they see on the TV," he told the Daily Mail.

Or, just perhaps, it’s the case that the sort of mothers who use TV as a babysitter tend not to be the sort who’d raise obedient, well-behaved children irrespective of cartoons?

Brown: I Can Haz Sympathy Vote, Ladeez?

Well, Barbara Ellen certainly thinks so, anyway:

Did anyone else feel that Brown had been handed the third-place rosette before he even took to the podium? That, even before Brown screwed up with Gillian Duffy, everything he said and did, was to an accompaniment of abuse, insults and gloating – with Brown, the equivalent of a bull, determinedly trying to keep on its feet, despite a baying media crowd, and a back full of pollsters' spears. A "Get Gordon" bloodlust, which, in the end, was so obvious as to be foolish. After all, attack a guy often enough (for everything, for nothing) and it just may backfire and ignite the sympathy vote.

But, it appears, only with the distaff side:

I don't know a single person who's been asked their opinion for a poll. However, I do know quite a few people, many of them women, none of them ragingly partisan, who are quietly disgusted by the way Brown has been treated during this election.

Say what..? Did I miss something? Has he been pelted with eggs, or harangued by students?

Nope. After all, he has a security team to handle the latter. So what has he faced? Just questions from members of the public, whom he then sneers at and belittles when he thinks they can't hear him.

But apparently and unbelievably, for a certain type of female, this is unbearable:

"Even if it's time for him not to be prime minister, he seems like a decent man, and it's too much," said one woman. "Would Cameron or Clegg have done any better with his hand, I doubt it," sniffed another.

Oh, my giddy aunt!!

Always, at times such as these, the female vote ("the Mumsnet factor") is discussed as if it were a pink, fluffy silly thing – with women needing to be courted, flattered and directed, or – bubbleheads that we are – we may go mad and vote for someone because he is wearing a shiny tie. A reductionist view that is as untrue as it is insulting.

Reading the above, is it any wonder? You see a man who has been purely the architect of his own downfall and say 'Awww, they are SO MEAN!' like some bubble-headed California Valley girl...

In truth, most women are clever and pragmatic creatures, perfectly capable of assessing the core issues and thinking for themselves.

Well, not based on your own admissions in this article, Babs!

But it's a mistake to assume that she speaks for all women. She speaks for that (thankfully) rare species, Journalistus islingonii, and it's purely the yummy mummy, ladies-who-lunch demographic who are likely to be suckered into believing that Gordon deserves their vote because all the popular boys have been flushing his head down the toilet.

At least, I hope so....

Clash Of The Titans*

It is a battle for the hearts and minds of middle England. In one corner stands perhaps the nation's best-known retailer, in the other, legions of the most vocal – and sharp-elbowed – mothers in the country.

Yes, it's Mumsnet going head-to-head with Marks and Spencer over their decision to make all their female sales staff go topless.

Oh, wait. That's not quite right. It's actually about...

...Marks & Spencer's decision to sublet a former "Simply Food" outlet to the US restaurant chain Hooters...

Yup. A business subletting some of its property to another business.

Maybe it's because I'm not a mother empty-headed, shrieking harriden but I really, really can't see the problem here. Ladies, some explanation?

Members of the forum are calling on the site's one million monthly visitors to boycott the retailer for "selling women and girls down the river ... to make a quick buck", and have started a letter writing campaign urging M&S to reconsider.

Yes, as we head towards recession, these idiots think that driving a new business out of their town (not even their town, in the case of most of the posters) is the way to go.

Who the hell are these women again?

...what is important to Mumsnetters is important to retailers and advertisers. The site is frequented in the main by affluent mothers with considerable spending power and a high degree of self-regard. In the main they are aged between 30 and 45 and live in London and the South-east.

Ah. Right. Exactly the sort of people we shouldn't be paying the slightest attention to....

* - albeit with more harpies and uglier medusae...

Women! There’s No Pleasing Them…

At least, the ladies of the Fawcett Society, the mad-as-a-box-of-snakes radical feminist group:

The Fawcett Society said the policies offered ahead of the election were “depressing” for anyone who cares about gender equality, and the few measures mentioning women ranged from “disappointing to downright disturbing”.

Oh, have a cupcake and forget about it, sweetie…

It accused Labour of having “stagnated”, despite Harriet Harman’s radical ideas, and called the Conservatives’ plan for marriage tax breaks “backward”.

You aren’t likely to get what you want by stamping your foot and screaming, you know…

Its criticisms come even though party leaders have tried desperately to win over female voters by appearing on Mumsnet, campaigning with their wives and talking about their family lives in interviews.

They shouldn’t have bothered. There’s no pleasing some….

Sauce For The Goose, Hoplophobes!

Sporting a cover image of a blue-eyed family with guns clipped to their belts, a new American children's picture book is setting itself out as the solution for all those parents who "carry a gun and sometimes struggle with how to best explain the reasons" to their children.

My Parents Open Carry, by Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, co-founders of the pro-gun Michigan Open Carry, has been released by small US publisher White Feather Press.

The picture-book fellows a "typical Saturday running errands and having fun together" for 13-year-old Brenna Strong and her parents, say the authors. "What's not so typical is that Brenna's parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defence."

If it sounds familiar, well, we all remember how this tactic has been used by the progressives, don’t we? And are they happy their tactics have been used against them? Reader, they are not:

"Modelled on the gay parenting books of the 1980s (right down to the moustache) this is a vital instruction book for everyone who wants to teach their children tolerance. Tolerance of moustaches that don't match the wig, and tolerance of people who need to over-compensate for 'something' by brandishing a gun in public. Don't worry, we get both messages, loud and clear," wrote one reviewer on Amazon.

"This started out as a 5 Star rating, but quickly went downhill as the evening progressed," wrote another. "After saying our prayers to Jesus and Charlton Heston, I sat on the edge of my kids' bed to read them this book, when I shifted my position and accidentally set off my 9mil that was strapped to my hip, shooting myself in the thigh."

It was described by Raw Story as portraying a "day in the life of 'typical' gun nut family", and "a primer for the children of gun nuts who'll be lucky to see their 10th birthday". "As a prologue to the kids … I'd like point out that – no matter what mommy and daddy say – over 10,000 kids are shot each year in the United States and having a gun in the home makes you less, not more safe," wrote TBogg at Raw Story.

Oh, is there anything more delicious than seeing the Righteous squirming and frothing as they are hoist on their own absurd petard?

Children's book publisher Elizabeth Laws, meanwhile, took to Twitter to say that it was the first time in 25 years that "a children's book leaves me speechless".

"Would love to deconstruct everything wrong with this. #1, Open Carry isn't a verb," she wrote. "Bad enough that her parents pack heat, but who made a teen wear a granny blouse? Or tease her hair? #badparenting."

Could have been worse, though. They could have been depicted smoking:

Concerns about the message this depiction of smoking sends have been raised by parents in online reviews and on parenting website Mumsnet. On Amazon, one wrote: "Why on earth would a children's book contain even the idea of smoking! Disgusting!"

Another had it that: "It's a lovely book up until you reach the smoking pages. Even though it makes the point that smoking is a bad idea, it makes me really uncomfortable to see any depiction of it in a children's book,"…

These people have reproduced and are raising children. No wonder we are in a mess!

War Stories…

How does an author make a subject as brutal as war appeal to a child?

*sigh*

Only a modern BBC employee could possibly consider that a dilemma. War stories have been enthralling children for years. Even the article can’t get away from the fact that ‘Carrie’s War’ and ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ have been popular children’s classics for decades.

But there has to be a modern angle, so the Beeb can push this new Imperial War Museum exhibition:

A new exhibition suggests young readers today get a less sanitised version of the horrors of warfare, says Sanchia Berg of BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Really?

The Imperial War Museum in London has a new exhibition, Once Upon a Wartime, which illustrates a shift in the way war has been depicted to young readers, and brings five novels to life.

Interesting! Go on, then…

Geoff Fox, a consultant to the exhibition, remembers reading books and comics about war during the 1950s. "The children's books I used to read, we always won - often with a 'straight to the jaw'. Death, if it was there, was no different from a cowboy shooting an Indian, as we used to say."

Ah. I see where this is going…

Now, he says, death is described in detail. Subjects once considered taboo for children are now the topics of many books, even the Holocaust. The Final Journey by Gudrun Pausewang takes place almost entirely in a cattle truck with families going to Auschwitz, and spares the readers nothing, says Fox.

He says children are far more "acculturated" now to violence, through the films and television they watch, and the computer games they play. "What's important is to deal with it in a very good novel, responsibly."

Those are all good novels. They do all deal with it responsibly. So what’s the problem?

However, not all books have age guidance, the equivalent of film certification for children's literature.

Some parents may worry whether their own children really are able to deal with the detail of wartime violence, or whether it will give them nightmares.

Ah. Right. Parents need to worry, damn it! And the progressives are going to make sure they do.

Mumsnet are going to love this one, aren’t they?

'Ladies and gentlemen, the Prime Minister...'

Over at 'Harry's Place', we learn that our Prime Mentalist cannot even manage to tell a bunch of radio-listening housewives the name of his favourite biscuit:

The question was put to Mr Brown no fewer than 12 times (which, as it happens, is the exact number of times Jeremy Paxman put his question to Michael Howard in the notorious 1997 Newsnight interview).

Time and again they asked what has become a staple question of Mumsnet interviews. “May I ask you what your favourite biscuits are?” said one mother. “What biscuit, Mr Brown, please, before you leave!” pressed another. Steadfast to the end, Mr Brown refused to answer. One member, MadameDefarge, said: “Maybe he needs to consult with his advisers on what would be the most vote-winning biscuit to admit to liking?”

Dear god, won't someone take charge and put this nincompoop out of his misery?

It Seems That The Latest Bugbear For The NuPuritans...

...is 'raunch'.

First up, the Brighton 'Echo' leads the charge (helpfully illustrated with a picture of...well, I wouldn't exactly call it 'raunch'..):

A crackdown on sex and raunchy behaviour has been unveiled.

Brighton and Hove City Council is looking to introduce strict quotas to ban any more sex shops and lap dancing clubs within the city’s boundaries.

You know, I don't think people go to Brighton for the climate. Or the tea dances. So I rather think they are cutting their own throats here...

Next, Mumsnet campaign co-ordinator Kate Williams has this CiF article on the latest 'raunch culture' for kids (illustrated by a picture of not-a-kid Miley Cyrus...):

We may instinctively recoil from products like these; but we may also think twice about criticising them too loudly. Raunch culture has been extraordinarily successful at rebranding all criticism as prudishness – allowing it to march to the heart of mainstream culture, almost unchallenged.

Are you kidding me? We never stop hearing from people complaining about every aspect of modern culture!

So, who can turn back the creeping tide? Parents – absolutely.

Hallelujah! She's seen the light!

Oh:

Retailers, too, must step up to the plate. Some will argue that it is not their job to make judgments on parents' behalf. But as a general rule, we don't allow the market a free rein if its imperatives conflict with the well-being of children. We self-regulate – and if that doesn't work, we legislate.

In other words, if we allow people the choices and they STILL make the wrong choices, we have to bring in the banhammer. For their own good.

Same as it ever was...

Happy Non-Nominative Parent Figure Day...

Karla said: 'When I picked her up in the afternoon, I had no idea they were doing Father's Day cards, she just came out with it.

'When I looked at it and it said Happy Special's Day, it angered me.

'I was told [by the nursery] that it was not fair for children without dads to make Father's Day cards. Last year she did a Father's Day card, what's new this year?'

What's new is probably the nursery deciding that they were missing out on all that wonderful praise for virtue signalling... 

'For Mother's Day, I got a card which had photos of her inside it and it said clearly on it 'Happy Mother's Day'. A big fuss was made of it.'

There's a lot less chance of a child not having a mother than a father, I suppose. Or they didn't want to incur the wrath of Mumsnet.

Still, no-one could possibly think that this was OK? 

One social media user said: 'I'm saddened by how many people on this thread lack the compassion or imagination to understand what it must be like to be a child without a father when everyone is celebrating their dads.

'This isn't the only way to deal with Father's Day - and certainly the same approach could be taken with Mother's Day.

'But to be so dismissive or angry at teachers trying to be considerate and inclusive of children seems bizarre to me.'

Oh, maybe they could. 

"Do Their Parenting For Them, Apple & Google & Amazon!"

"Because they shouldn't have to do any work!" scream the people who want to strip every last decision away from parents:

Parenting websites are reporting greater numbers of parents being billed £500 or more after their children have made "in-app purchases" (IAPs) while playing games. The problems begin when children wish to explore new areas of a game or wish to obtain better weapons for their character – they are often able to buy these with a single click.

Well, so what? Isn't that up to the user of the game to decide in 'Settings'? And as Bucko points out, that isn't necessarily always a child. Why shouldn't it be 'with one click' if I so decide?

Siobhan Freegard, founder of Netmums...

Oh oh!

...said: "We have heard of cases where parents have been hit with bills for hundreds of pounds as the apps are often linked to their card details through iTunes. Often the bills aren't immediate and it takes days to find out they have been charged."

Well, they should take more care then! If you've forgotten that you set up a game to accept single-click purchase of in-app goodies, and you then hand your iPad to your toddler, you're asking for trouble!

But I expect you've got some sad stories to highlight, right?

"I contacted Apple and discovered I wasn't the only naive parent in the world. This is a common occurrence and Apple refused to issue any kind of refund. Needless to say that I have now disabled all in-app purchases on my devices. Lesson learned."

Good! That's the end of it, right?

Most devices allow users to restrict access to IAPs or block them completely – it is parents who do not install these measures who are at risk.

Responsibility where it needs to lie!

"App developers are not often altruistic," said Spencer Whitman of app protection firm AppCertain. "They often include in-app purchases hidden behind the free price tag. Either they offer a small amount of play, then charge for continued use; offer in-app purchases for more in-game content such as extra areas of play or upgrades; or they constantly interrupt game play to ask for in-app purchases."

Boooo! Eeeeeeeeevil corporations!

Justine Roberts, founder of Mumsnet...

Oh, lord! Here we go again...

...said: "It's all too easy for our children to get sucked into games and, before you know it, they've racked up huge costs buying coins, berries and doughnuts. You do need to keep an eye on your child's device settings and to keep your password for purchases private at all costs."

Typical, she just expec...

Wait. What? It's up to parents to be responsible? Say it ain't so! That must be a first.

So...just who is whipping up all the fuss?

Adam Levene, chief strategy officer at Grapple Mobile, said: "The simplicity of making instant purchases and the allure to progress the game further at the touch of a button, without necessarily understanding the monetary value, has raised concerns. Developers have a greater responsibility to ensure that an in-app purchase is obvious and feels distinctly different from the standard game play."

Developers have a responsibility to build the game to their employer's specifications. No more, no less.

Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: "It's far too easy for children to run up huge bills on phone apps when most default settings allow 'in-app purchases' without asking for a confirmation or password. If your child has run up a huge bill without your knowledge, contact the app store or manufacturer, as you may be eligible for a refund."

Like the sad story says, that doesn't always work. And nor should it.

But good grief, it's no wonder we have a personal responsibility problem in this country, isn't it? With so many enablers around, what else could we have?