I hate yummy mummies

There are set 'weeks' for everything from colon cancer to bungee jumping and this week it is Yummy Mummy week... ughhh. I hate everything yummy mummies stand for. Strikes me it is a totally regressive term, a 21st century attempt to reinvent the 50s housewife and put the feminist cause back 50 years. Everytime a friend of mine has kids and tells me they're going to 'stay at home', keep house and generally be a 'yummy mummy' (it's always kind of in quote marks even when spoken) a small piece of me dies. Bascially yummymummyhood is a great idea at 30 when you and the kids look oh so cute in your matching beribboned outfits from Boden, but a bloody disaster at 40 when you look less yummy and more wrinkly, are deathly dull because all you've done for 10 years is clean up baby sick, do the school run and visit the John Lewis flooring department and your husband goes, "oh, what happened to that smart, independent career girl I married? She's a boring old bag with no conversation, maybe I'll trade her in for a younger model."

This sounds harsh, but it's true. There is a certain breed of chap out there who takes macho pleasure in taking a clever girl and filling her head with yummy mummy fantasies to get her to stay at home and play second fiddle - to be the breeder, and run his household. Great for the chap, not so great for the intelligent woman whose world shrinks and whose power in the relationship (and the world) diminishes with each passing week of not having her own income or things to think about beyond the home sphere.

Yummy mummy-hood - staying at home, keeping house, and looking pretty while you do the drudgery and your husband swans around on the world stage doesn't work. Glorifying it and reinventing housewifery as a glamorous option is a masterful piece of marketing and spin. Don't buy it ladies. There's nothing yummy about endlessly reloading the dishwasher, the washing machine, cooking endless meals, heaving in the shopping and being a middle class taxi service. Just say no.

Pic: a Boden mum. Being a yummy mummy isn't always as pretty as life in a Boden catalog.

Comments

[don]

SUPERMOTHER...

No they have child centred horizons that simply differ to yours. They also, very probably, have the common sense and decency to understand that women have struggled for so many years to have CHOICE (along with their husbands/boyfriends/partners or whatever) to raise their children as their own personal circumstances may dictate, without being demonised by their own kind (or anyone else for that matter) for exercising those choices.

As a general statement, it cannot be denied that children do better cared for by mum....or dad! The FACT is that any other form of 'parenting' comes 2nd to that ideal. Now to support your rant, you may wish to ignore that fact (as has been evidenced) but your so doing doesn't make it any less so!

Your stubborn denial and outright dismissal of this very basic fact (not backed up by even the merest hint of your own 'facts') have done nothing whatsoever to support your argument.

It's as simple as.....I can see why mothers (or fathers) choose to work. I can also see why mothers (or fathers) choose to stay at home. I respect both choices. I believe you should too. A little more humility would be in order.

[Karen]

OK - I give in. I was drawn in by the title of the blog, but have clearly been mis-sold. I was expecting reasoned debate, you know - argument/counter-argument, that sort of thing.

It is clearly not to be; I'm a busy woman and have no time for unpleasantness and nonsense, in my real life or otherwise. I'm off to have a gin and tonic and catch up with my husband - who swears blind that he is not Don.

[supermother]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree with the original article'/post here 100% and being home is demeaning and dull and any woman who says otherwise must have very small horizons. Thank God women like that are dying out.

[don]

Quite right too Karen. I agree completely!!

Hear hear....

[Karen]

Yes, we need women in all those roles. We need them there both as skilled professionals and positive role models for future generations.

And yes, it is 2007, and there’s no need for any educated woman to accept a servile domestic role because that’s what society or her husband expect. That would indeed be wrong on many levels.

Hey look, common ground, I think we might be getting somewhere!

But…

It’s 2007 – we’ve moved on from women’s lib. There’s no longer any need to bring up our children to believe that the home-based life is always, and without exception oppressive, demeaning servitude, only left unchallenged by the terminally dim and idle.

That’s because in 2007, that view is outdated and unnecessary.

It’s not that I’m ungrateful for the efforts of the glass-ceiling-smashing ball-breakers of the late 20th century, quite the opposite. They’ve given women of my generation the choices that we have today. That’s precisely why today’s smart, educated parent is no domestic servant, and their equally smart, educated partner doesn’t expect them to be one. They’ve worked hard, earned themselves a strong financial position and have every right to structure their family life as they see fit.

And if Mum believes that she’s smarter than your average nanny, more capable of setting a great example, and better equipped to supply appropriate role models (including non-parental ones where appropriate), then that’s her privilege.

I hope that eventually, women will be able to make their educated, informed choices without risking the bitter vitriol of other women who have chosen differently. Men seem to be able to manage it, what's the difficulty?

[supermother]

I still keep coming back to this.... very wise original article:

"This sounds harsh, but it's true. There is a certain breed of chap out there who takes macho pleasure in taking a clever girl and filling her head with yummy mummy fantasies to get her to stay at home and play second fiddle - to be the breeder, and run his household. Great for the chap, not so great for the intelligent woman whose world shrinks and whose power in the relationship (and the world) diminishes with each passing week of not having her own income or things to think about beyond the home sphere.

Yummy mummy-hood - staying at home, keeping house, and looking pretty while you do the drudgery and your husband swans around on the world stage doesn't work. Glorifying it and reinventing housewifery as a glamorous option is a masterful piece of marketing and spin. Don't buy it ladies. There's nothing yummy about endlessly reloading the dishwasher, the washing machine, cooking endless meals, heaving in the shopping and being a middle class taxi service. Just say no."

As for why do housewives damage women and take a poor moral choice - loads of reasons. We need their skills in the work force. We need them doing surgery on our children. We need them to teach our children and lead our country. We don't want them all back in the kitchen keeping the male ego happy. It's a very bad example to girls - that women serve and men keep women. It's disgusting. I am surprised any educated woman is prepared to accept that dynamic in 2007. They should be ashamed of themselves or perhaps they're just brainwashed.

[don]

Interesting personal experience.

//My mother did too. She never finished university (no money - nasty divorce) and married a glamarous foreigner she didn't know very well in order to escape depressing future of low-paid work and insufficient family life. She always admired and felt rather inferior to her highly-educated and high-powered working women friends, but the fact is she was far more interesting than most of them, which is why they liked her. Someone seemed to have switched off their brains after graduation,they never seemed to pick up a book or feel confident expressing an opinion about anything not work-related. In contrast, my mother continued to learn and try new things all her life and was never bored (still isn't, in her 70's). The fact that she didn't work, valued her job at home and was a bit of a risk-taker gave my father a lot of flexibility in his job, travel and so on. They lived an amazingly interesting life that simply wouldn't have been possible if they were both tied to employment. Not easy all the time for either of them, but neither is working.//

Actually that is not to dissimilar to my own mother Delilah. Apart from mandatory schooling until 16 years old, she has not received any further formal education. She is extremely well read and applies herself to self teaching. At 68 years of age (and divorced - painful experience) she is very well known amongst her friends, social circle and peers as being one sharp of mind possessing a brain overflowing with wisdom. For example only last week she was telling me how she spent the afternoon with one of her best friends (aged 29) who approached her for relationship advice. Not only that but she can be a comedienne, she can be serious and is also known for her occasional acerbic wit (if ever needed to get her point across).

Did she ever work in professional employment? No. Did she ever feel as though she missed her opportunity? Hell no.

It is these types of individuals that SUPERMOTHER incredulously ignores. Bizarre!!!

[don]

Karen.....you're clearly a very discerning lady ;-)

In all seriousness, I agree completely with your comments. Nodding in agreement as I read.

Hear hear....

[don]

A balanced view?? Perhaps...perhaps not?? You can decide.

http://main.saga.co.uk/magazine/relationships/family/Stay-At-HomeMumsVsCareerGirlsDebate.asp

It's nothing remotely to do with morals. Those that think it is are just emotional control freaks.

In my opinion it is no different to, say, deciding whether or not ones children should attend summer school. Or maybe whether they should go to that school down the road or perhaps travel further to one a few bus rides away (that in the long run will prove more beneficial).

It choices, that's all!!! Choices that every parent should be able to make but, FIRST & FOREMOST, for the benefit of the child!!!

[Karen]

"I don't agree with some people's first premises here which is that children under 5 need a blood parent there for X number of hours a day or they suffer. Isn't that the crux?"

That may well be what some people are arguing - based on the research and evidence that I've read on the subject, it's not quite as black and white as all that. However, there is a strong case to be made that children do best of all when in the care of one constant adult - long term; several brilliant private nannies isn't the same thing, I'm afraid.

That's not to say that any other arrangement is, by default, bad and causes children to suffer; but it's a nonsense to pretend that the evidence in favour of doing your own parenting doesn't exist. Waving a (virtual) dismissive hand and saying that you disagree won't make it go away.

"And why can't I say women work because they enjoy it and also because it is morally right?"

You can. And if that is what you actually said, then no-one would be arguing with you. But it isn't. You said that women should work 'rather than having to part their legs and iron his shirt in return for the allowance that pays for their leggings and sweat shirts.'

You also said full-time motherhood was 'a politically bad choice that damages other women and our children', and that 'It ruins things for others. It's self indulgent and wrong.' I asked you to back those comments up and, unsurprisingly you didn't bother,

What else is there?

'Becoming a housewife is like some kind of hare kare to no good end and you end up ...having rather precious non independent children who have had an appalling role model of woman as servant thrust on them.'

Well yes, if you're dim enough to let that happen! But you see, some full time mothers are - believe it or not - clever, and know how to avoid such negative role modelling.

Don - you are also creeping me out because you are still saying exactly the same things my husband says in an argument and yet I know he can't possibly be posting when you are...

[supermother]

I don't agree with some people's first premises here which is that children under 5 need a blood parent there for X number of hours a day or they suffer. Isn't that the crux?

And why can't I say women work because they enjoy it and also because it is morally right? I have hundreds of reasons why women should work. We can't put them all on this thread.

So any sacrifice to stay home is completely pointless becauae the children don't benefit by your very presence wiping the bottoms. Of course all parents who work spend time with and want to be with their children and constantly put their own needs second, their hobbies, the extra late work they might choose to do but that's just a matter of work life balance. Becoming a housewife is like some kind of hare kare to no good end and you end up like the 50 year old mentioned below as well as having rather precious non independent children who have had an appalling role model of woman as servant thrust on them. Lose lose all the way.

[don]

Now now Delilah...

When did I say I was right 'all the time'?

Having children means that one has to put their offspring before them. A sacrifice of time, a sacrifice of putting oneself in front of everything else in ones life. A financial sacrifice.

Your twisting what I said.

[Delilah]

Oh God, I must stop double-posting - but I just wanted to add that spending too much time on gossip and coffee is guaranteed to make being a housewife very boring. In order to have interesting things to talk about with your friends you need to be out and doing - vegetable gardening, writing a scurrilous book about local history, free-range budgie breeding, whatever. That's how you meet interesting people and have interesting conversations (which your working spouse will actually find entertaining too), not grinding round the same old school/charity shop/PTA gossip mill year after year.

[Delilah]

Oh dear, Don, I've fallen out of bed with you. I can't accept that you're right all the time, nor can I accept your dreary view that "someone has to sacrifice for the children". What an dreadful reason for doing one of the best jobs ever. Perhaps this viewpoint is why you're so pleased your wife made the sacrifice, not you. I think it's a great shame that time at home with the kids is constantly portrayed as a waste of one's gifts, rather than the massive opportunity it really explore those gifts in a way that you often can't do at work; and coincidentally to really enjoy life rather than seeing it pass by outside a grimy office window.

My point is that if people gave the role of SAHWM/ SAHWF (still waiting for their posts, by the way, Don) the respect it actually deserves - rather than writing vitriolic articles putting down yummy mummies - more parents (of either sex) might feel good about choosing it when it presents as an option.

I do agree with Carol that it is all about attitude. The housewives she described clearly were in desperate need of assertiveness training, invested way too much in the sacrificial madonna role (see my comments to Don above) and their friends' opinions and failed to develop the job to please themselves as well. They probably would have ended up just as twisted after retirement, if they had worked. In contrast, your mother sounds like someone who knows all about turning lemons into a drink she actually enjoys (margarita, anyone?) and it shows.

My mother did too. She never finished university (no money - nasty divorce) and married a glamarous foreigner she didn't know very well in order to escape depressing future of low-paid work and insufficient family life. She always admired and felt rather inferior to her highly-educated and high-powered working women friends, but the fact is she was far more interesting than most of them, which is why they liked her. Someone seemed to have switched off their brains after graduation,they never seemed to pick up a book or feel confident expressing an opinion about anything not work-related. In contrast, my mother continued to learn and try new things all her life and was never bored (still isn't, in her 70's). The fact that she didn't work, valued her job at home and was a bit of a risk-taker gave my father a lot of flexibility in his job, travel and so on. They lived an amazingly interesting life that simply wouldn't have been possible if they were both tied to employment. Not easy all the time for either of them, but neither is working.

[Carol]

I don't have personal experience of this (yet, or not) but have observed the working out of many choices.

On the one hand, there is my friend's mother, highly intelligent, who was told to stay at home and be a SAHM by her husband and essentially fulfill the role of a yummy mummy. She was, as far as I have been told and seen, an amazing mother, very creative, spent tons of time with her two natural (and one step) children. However, none of them are able to be fully independent, even though the eldest is in her 30s she still relies on her parents for financial support, as do the other two. The middle child (mid 20s) only managed to live away from home for a month and emotionally is very immature and self-centred. The mother, now in her 50s, feels incredibly frustrated, having nothing to call her own (effectively) and having few interests outside her family and neighbourhood. She can't divorce him (as she has no money of her own).
On the other hand, my mother, who is very old school Victorian values (woman's place is in the home etc.) ironically went back to work as a teacher for financial reasons, at times as the sole breadwinner, when I was about 9. She still works(as a teaching assistant. She doesn't want to be a teacher any more: too much bureaucracy) and loves it. The other members of the faculty view her as a substitute mother, and many of the children as a substitute grandmother. Her friends (all of which were housewives) are bored, have little that is their own and are visibly ageing, while my mother is out dressing up as a pirate and taking children to the seaside.

Another friend's mother worked full time, even when her kids were very little, and has no regrets. I asked her once, if it was difficult having small children and working full time and her answer was "No. It's all how you look at it."

[don]

SUPERMOTHER's argument is weak. It's also an argument characterized by vanity and self importance alone.....with the needs of her children coming a poor second place behind the needs of herself. In actuality, her children don't even get a look in because she's already decided that the few hours in the week plus those wedged in to what must be a very busy weekend is just about what they need - they should be so grateful ey?? That is the starting point, a position that personally I cannot agree with.

And yet she attempts to validate it all by accusing SAHWM (but oddly enough not fathers) of being immoral?! Work it out for yourself.....if you can!!!!

It roughly goes "I'm prepared to bear a child but there is no way I'm going to get my hands dirty because I'm farrrrrrr' too clever, lively, as opposed to dull, and (self) important to make such a sacrifice. Certainly far more clever, (self) important and intelligent than the beta working mothers and the working class hoipolloi!! Huh, get someone else do it!!!".

All presumptous snootiness and snobery all rolled into one!!

By the way, for Delilah, you're agreeing with me for no other reason than I'm right. In which case I'm honoured that that makes you feel creepy.
;-)

[J]

Supermother's argument has morphed rather oddly, from: you should work as it is a moral imperative to give something back and not waste your talents; to: you should work as it is more entertaining.

Netiher argument quite works. Delilah is right that culture and leisure are civilised, if they are done in the context of pulling your weight overall (as opposed to being a lazy drone). Supermother paints a picture of drudgery and loneliness but I suspect a lot depends on your networks.

I went back to work for two main reasons. One was serious: my brother and father both died, leaving my mum high and dry as a life-long carer whose vocation was suddenly over. I didnt want to have all my eggs in one basket as she had (for good reasons) ended up doing.

But the other reason was more tivial: all my friends started going back to work and there was no-one to have coffee with, no chance of music during the day, and no new interests for me to keep up my share of the gossip.

It's about balance, supermother. And timing, over what we both hope is a long and happy life.

[supermother]

I said if one has to stay at home (and it's completely unnecessary anyway but if they had to...) then it should be the man to right the past wrongs but more importantly I said it's very dull at home and most clever parents can't stand it and don't stay home.

Now I know that in the UK work was never the be all and end all. In fact if you had actually to work for a living rather than have a private income you were even looked down on not so long ago here. We've always been a nation to respect our eccentrics and Idlers and even have go slow etc movements. The ability to use your leisure time in ways you enjoy is something all working parents do too. I hope we all have interesting hobbies and one of the main things I've tried to give the children over the last 20 years has been a range of interests such they have a broad choice of hobbies and things they enjoy doing which are nothing to do with work (one of the reasons I pay school fees as they get those skills and chances better)

Having children is a sacrifice to all parents including couples where both work. Instead of the leisurely drink after work you rush home although I've worked with men and women who will go out for long lunches and then call the husband/wife or nanny at 5 to say they've 3 more hours work to do (because they'd quite like to avoid the bed time hassle for once).

I still can't get over how any sane adult can enjoy being a stay at home parent. I suppose if you have staff and married well enough you can avoid the chore nasty parts of it and do child care only or even just 2 or 3 hours a day child care and your hobbies in the rest of the time. I'm not sure that Idler lifestyle though is actually morally as good.

[Delilah]

For once, I find myself in agreement with Don. Creepy. But perhaps because Supermother is now winding us all up.

"There's nothing yummy about endlessly reloading the dishwasher, the washing machine, cooking endless meals, heaving in the shopping and being a middle class taxi service."

If that's all there was to being a yummy mummy, who would want it? The article ignores the best thing about yummy mummies, which is that they have leisure AND the means (including mental means) to enjoy it. Some people can't cope with leisure. They don't know what to do with it except go out and get drunk, or they feel guilty because pleasing themselves is taboo (or both at once!). We all know people who can't exist unless they are working flat-out pleasing other people all the time. These are the sort that fall to pieces when they retire or are forced out of the office for a family vacation or a serious illness. They were probably originally dreadful children who wandered around whining that they were bored if they weren't allowed to watch TV. Maybe their parents over-scheduled their lives. Maybe they never saw their own mothers lying on the sofa with an improving book or practicing Bach while the washing-up piled up in the sink. Other people enjoy leisure and know how to use it constructively. You can reduce your life at home to an endless series of tasks you hate; or, if you are intelligent and well-educated, you can enjoy taking the dog for a walk through an empty park in the morning after dropping the kids at school, making geranium cuttings, or reading up on things. Men seem to like playing golf or sailing. It doesn't have to be terribly worthy; working in a bank or manning a call center isn't either. I don't imagine Supermother is working for world peace, in fact her argument is entirely about pleasing herself - and that's a good thing. If you don't please yourself, you'll end up a bitter and twisted old hag, whether you work in the home or out.

If leisure is worthless, why do we bother getting our kids to learn music or to read great literature? Why not just apprentice them off at 12? Banking is no more complicated than computer hacking - teenagers would probably make very good ones.

[Don]

Ooh by the way, the below comment was addressed more specifically to SUPERMOTHER.

Supermother, forgive any unintended rudeness. I respect your comments....I guess I just type as I think.

All the best in whatever it is you do.

[Don]

And once again I repeat that breastfeeding is (a) more convenient in the home and (b) will, more often than not, be one of a number of considerations (by both man and woman) when deciding childcare arrangements.

Anyway back to the main point.

I think your very general point is just about that.....GENERAL only! In my opinion, choosing to be SAH or FTWM is simply a matter of choice. Choice based upon personal circumstance. Some FTWM mothers (alpha or otherwise) are intelligent and clever. Others are not. Some SAHW mothers are intelligent and clever. Others are not. To extend the argument, some nannies are intelligent and clever. Others are not. To pompously suggest otherwise is, frankly, deluded fanciful nonsense from individuals that need to get out more and meet a few people.

In making a decision to have a child, the parent HAS to acknowledge that, somewhere along the line, a sacrifice HAS to be made.....by someone, somewhere. The child cannot raise him/herself?! Now your argument is that you're not the one prepared to make that sacrifice; because you think its too demeaning. Let someone else do it you've consistently argued!!

But strangely enough you're also at ease with the idea (from one of your earlier messages) that men should be willing to be SAHWF's, if for no other reason than to right the wrongs of years gone by....strikes me as highly sexist as well as being an incoherent argument lacking any real consistency?!? Is it not also demeaning for the male?

What you want is your cake and to eat it as well, which off course is your right totally. Just as long as you realise the sacrifice STILL has to be made - and too often that sacrifice is the children themselves!!

//As for the general issue I still remain completely bemused as to how any alpha mother who is clever and likes her work would want to become in effect a domestic servant doing very dull stuff when if you do work you still have all those gorgeous moments of seeing the children (at weekends and before and after work). I don't think fathers and mothers really do miss out.//

And what about the chidren??

[Karen]

It's not sense, it's just an opinion, with which we are all entitled to agree or disagree, without being 'right' or 'wrong'.

For some women, the day-to-day lifestyle and tasks involved in bringing up your own child are always going to seem like mundane drudgery compared to the buzz of the workplace, the self-esteem and satisfaction that comes with being great at your job, earning your own money, having recognition for your talents, etc - this seems to be the side of the fence on which Supermother has come down, and no-one should criticise her for that, at least not based on the overview that she has presented here.

However, there is also the other side of the fence - that from which some women (clever and motivated ones too) find that promotions, pay rises, great appraisals or delivery of superb projects become insignificant, meaningless exercises in corporate carrot-dangling comparison. Watching your child shriek in excitement going down the slide, take his/her first steps, smile and hug you after you have cleaned up the food from the walls for the 15th time that week - you get the idea. It's all just another perfectly valid personal choice.

So I'm back to my original point again - we are very fortunate to live in a society where such choices are available to women in the first place. We're even more fortunate if we are in a financial position to have that choice to make - either we earn enough money to pay for great chilcare, or our family unit can manage drop to one income without things becoming too uncomfortable.

I do think it's a bit silly to argue that a woman who stops working becomes a 'domestic servant'. In many instances, families are only in the privileged position to make that choice because of prior joint earnings. But each couple needs to work that one out for themselves.

I've not much sympathy for anyone with the choices I spelt out earlier available to them, who gets themselves stuck into a role that they hate, whether it's the stay-at-home parent who's found they'd much rather be out at work, or the investment bank VP who despises their 6-figure-salaried job but stays because their sense of self is so tied up in what they earn. If you've got those choices, then you have to use them well!

In my view, it's how you choose and subsequently handle your role, not what your role is - and how much it pays - that defines whether or not you possess 'alpha' attitudes and abilities. The brightest and most interesting people that I know ceratinly do not always correlate to those with most senior and highly paid jobs.

[supermother]

I meant that breastfeeding the twins directly in the working day was easier than expressing milk; that's all. I didn't really enjoy expressing but if you're balancing all the other pluses or working and not working then that's 0.1% disadvantage so tiny and worth it if you can't have the children brought to you to feed.

As for the general issue I still remain completely bemused as to how any alpha mother who is clever and likes her work would want to become in effect a domestic servant doing very dull stuff when if you do work you still have all those gorgeous moments of seeing the children (at weekends and before and after work). I don't think fathers and mothers really do miss out. If you go back and read the original article it has a lot of sense in it.

"Glorifying it and reinventing housewifery as a glamorous option is a masterful piece of marketing and spin. Don't buy it ladies. There's nothing yummy about endlessly reloading the dishwasher, the washing machine, cooking endless meals, heaving in the shopping and being a middle class taxi service. Just say no."

[don]

Not wishing to sound rude SUPERMOTHER but I have a feeling you keep repeating the same old messages in this mantra like fashion to prove to yourself (more than anyone else) that going through the basic (bodily??) functions of parenting represents the blueprint for excellent modern day parenting methods. Off course, it's entirely your choice to parent your children as you feel best but to criticise other choices in parenting as being second to yours - I can't help but wonder whether you're qualified for making such an assessment???

Not to mention all your comments appear to be based on supposition, guesswork, generalisms and I'm yet to smell the merest hint of fact.

Do you really think wheeling the children into the office for their daily dosage of the very finest breastmilk (and then to be duly wheeled back out the office again - presumably for the nanny to get their wind up) is 'much nicer'? Much nicer for whom? Them or YOU?

Go on admit it.....you're just being a tad mischievous aren't you??!!

[jane]

"even if you have 5 children as I do"

Only five? Oh come now, SM, that investment banker in the City has eight, and she puts up with a husband who is a Buddhist monk to boot! And I bet none of your children even has leukemia....

Plus, I don't see you putting in the extra effort required to have a high PR profile in the press either, let alone start your own fund management company!

You're sounding a tad too smug for your modest achievements, my dear....