Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
it's been a slow day.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO, KIRSTIE!
you mean you don't have a rich mum who can fund you whilst you find Mr Right?
no desire whatsoever to bring a child up in poverty after observing the shit people i know go through and have gone through to do so.
getting married seems like the biggest extravagance of all.
I'm not sure she's necessarily advocating getting married early.
that is, to pay for two x notices of intention to marry and hire the registrar for 20 minutes at the register office. Think of what you save in tax, it's practically a no-brainer.
But I wouldn't call £130 for something that is really important to lots of people extravagant.
i would, personally, and that's what i was talking about; irrespective of the fact that you can marry cheaply, it's still money frivolously spent that would be better put towards being able to afford to eat.
age is not the best indicator of wealth and level of adjustment.
she put her husband first over her kids....just think that's a weird thing to come out in public saying, and to put a grown man ahead of dependent children. She probably didn't say exactly that, but that's the quote she gave in my head and I'm sticking with it.
For instance, say you were considering moving somewhere. Your children were happy to go, but your husband wasn't. Surely you'd go with what your husband wanted? Or vice versa, if you and he wanted to move for your or his job, but your children were sad about moving school. You'd consider them, but not not do it because of that.
not sure I agree. I obviously wouldn't be surveying and making choices based on my children's opinions on key things because they are stupid and can't make informed decisions about their long-term welfare. But if my partner wanted to move for a new job that I thought wasn't in my kids best interests, either short or long term, due to being worse schools etc whatever, then I would put da kidz first and the partner would have to lump it
She's a dickhead.
I don't know why they have these random non-politicians on there, to be honest.
Absolutely hate her constant implications that all the gross shit she publically speaks out for like chauvinism and capitalism and conformity is somehow 'natural' for women. Brr.
but the headline doesn't exactly reflect what she said, does it?
Guardian attempts to drum up Daily Mail-style controversy; fails.
they're playing off a quote she made in the original article.
"Darling, do you know what? Don't go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I'll help you, let's get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you're 27."
rather than all young women though.
although there's nothing in that article to suggest she'd advocate different advice for any other woman.
She's claiming that we all live longer now so we prioritise having kids then go to university at 50. But then the article is spurred on by her mother dying young at 66, and her explaining that she didn't actually have anyone to marry or settle down with aged 22. Sounds like she's having morose, regretful thoughts about how her life could have been and projecting them onto society.
my dad's about that old and he's very active (in the sense that he works, rather than exercises) but if he died tomorrow i'd not say "oh so young" but then he is twice as old as my mum was when she died so that might colour that
Obviously disease can kill us or accidents, but these days I think it's fair to expect a person to live into their 80s.
But mainly I'm going off Kirsty reckoning you could go to Uni at 50 meaning she mustn't think 66 is very old.
"Kirstie Allsopp tells young women: ditch university and have a baby by 27" is clearly going to be intepreted as her saying women's place is in the home and they shouldn't aspire to a university education.
That's pretty second-rate journalism, done solely to make people angry rather than address some of the wider issues which she's rather clumsily weighed in on.
The headline represents her view, which is that owning property and having kids young is the most important thing. And, yes, people are going to see it as implicitly supporting a sexist worldview because right now our society does its best to uphold that.
Really what should happen is the government should be funding childcare so that no parent should have to not go back to work because they can't afford to. That's a solution to this.
Isn’t she actually saying that young women should aspire to “having it all” (©Daily Mail), but that the only aspect of that with a “deadline” is having a baby and that’s not always discussed openly? So for her privileged daughter who presumably won’t need to take a minimum wage job to make ends meet, she would recommend she has a kid before considering university or a career.
I don’t agree with any of that, but I think it’s a subtly different point to the one she’s being presented as having made which suggests 1950s housewifery for all women.
And yes, childcare/maternity and paternity leave/wage inequalities/gender binary roles in childhood and adulthood, etc. etc. are all part of a much wider problem.
And there are reasons for doing a degree early in life: it can be important to a career and it's certainly a stage in your life when your brain is rapidly taking in information. Sure, mature students go to uni all the time but that doesn't mean it's the best option.
I mean, with the ridiculous debt levels associated with uni I'd probably say that everyone should avoid it. My issue is really that she seems to feel this is an issue that women should have to deal with. If she'd applied the logic to everyone I don't think we'd be seeing this sort of response.
There's also a large consideration of exactly how she thinks anyone's going to be able to bridge this gap of costs without help from home. It's not some golden 100% employment world out there where you can just waltz out of school and work your way up to a good wage to get a deposit together for a flat.
Which I'd like to think all men and women could aspire to if they want to Theo, you massive sexist.
You realise I'm not disagreeing with you? I just think the Guardian has sensationalised her comments (for some stupid reason I still think they should be better than that) and tried to imply she's a monster when she's just clumsily thinking out load on a lot of complicated and emotive issues through the prism of her own child's future.
All of which deserve a broader discussion, so at least that's something anyway as wwwo says below.
whether they leave the mother of their children or else whether the mother of their children is happy to sacrifice her own life and time to allow them to work more, which also means them sacrificing the time they spend with kids.
Obviously it tends to be easier for men to have a career, but the notion that they can just get on with it is fairly dubious, in my view.
And yes, I don't think you're particularly standing up for her, I just think her comments are silly and while it's possibly too harsh to attack her personally for an opinion, the fact is that her opinion is being splashed over newspapers so we should still definitely challenge it strongly.
I'd like to think most people would actually read the article rather than going off the headline alone and even then, the headline is not about "ditching" education altogether or work it's specifically about higher education and maternity.
which is pretty stupid
Read the whole of this thread after misreading the header as Kate Adie.
I love my dad and all but I remember when I was in my teens/early 20s him giving an impression that if I'd got pregnant it would have been some major catastrophe, like the worst thing in world that could've ever happened to me, life runied! He honestly scared the hell out of me about it. And now I'm like, what was he on about, what was the massive panic, it wouldn't have been a bit deal at all.
you want your children, male or female, to be as independent as possible when they grow up and at least with things as they are at the moment it would be very hard to be wholly independent as a young/teenage mother.
I guess there shouldn't be extreme views either way, no pressure to have them early and no pressure to wait until you're a 'success' first
and he and your mum would be left having to look after the kid loads *just* at the point where he was thinking you were going to leave home and let them have some 'me' time. ;-)
Which would've been awful for you
(Haven't clicked the link.)
Saw her talking on Newsnight last night about being barren and eggless by 35 or summats. Hasn't that been shown to be some accepted wisdom based on dodgy French research from a century ago, though?
and they said it was fine!
she merely derives an income from 'being a celebrity' (and being on some peoples 'bizzare crushes' lists. (not mine))
PS if i am wrong please let me know what her job is?
Then celebrity House Salesman and gingham cushion maker.
I seriously doubt if she's made more than 20.
and when you say 'house sales' what you mean is that she walks around rooms in houses whilst making sounds with her vocal chords.
.....a bit like an infant at nursery school
Are you just objecting to the concept of TV Presenter being considered a job?
she is rich, has connections, doesn't really have many skills, but fits the profile that lets her connections help her become a celebrity and being a celebrity then goes on to have opportunities to make money.
people cannot 'plan' a career to be a celebrity, that is down to the whim of fashion as to whether one becomes a celebrity, one can take opportunities, when they present themselves, to become a celebrity.
I do not think that 'celebrity' is a career, one cannot chose to follow a path to be a celebrity as that is dependant on the whim of fashion.
One can grasp an opportunity to become a celebrity, but much of her opportunities come from being initially rich, privilaged and well connected.
Once one is a celebrity there are various opportunities to make money by having the semblance of a 'job' but for some celebrities it is not a 'job' in any sense that most of us know
I agree that her background, connections or upbringing will have helped her do that, but she’s hardly a career celebrity, is she?
(Really need to stop defending Kirsty Allsop)
I also feel the need to defend people who I fancy
My point was more that I assume you wouldn’t call Jeremy Paxman or Jamie Oliver or Jeremy Clarkson someone who “doesn’t have a career” because the thing they do is done on TV. Might want to check your privilege, creaks.
was a chef who ran kitchens. Running a busy commercial kitchen is difficult and requires skills, and as such I would describe this as a career, as it requires work and application to aquire the skills necessary to suceed in that job. From 'the career' that he followed, an opportunity for celebrity occured and he took it, he has a career, irrespective of his celebrity.
Anyone who isn't Allsop?
I object to them all (I think there is someone called Phil) except they dont all then go on to go on television playing with fuzzy felt
which was presumably successful enough for her to be offered a TV show doing those very things.
It's exactly the same.
sprinkly glitter creatively?
Do you think Jamie Oliver is "an expert" on school dinners, or the history of Italy, or educating troubled teenagers or any of the other topics he's made programmes about?
I don't really care either way, you just seem to be operating a weird double-standard that suggests this particular woman is talentless. When actually she seems to have followed a very well-trodden path from expert in one field to expert TV presenter on that subject to generalist TV presenter.
I havn't singled her out, this thread has singled her out.
I was not commenting on her uselessness or not as a celeb, I was merely pointing out that 'being a celebrity' is not a career, in that you cannot take a path whereby with skill and application you can succeed at it, it is wholy subjective.
You also probably know that I have plenty of bile for many other 'celebs' .
Anyway Im not particularly against her at all, all I have said is that she hasnt really persued a career, so it is not really the most informed advice she is giving, as hardly anyone can just flounce around like she does and still be considered a success. Thats fine, good for her, she isnt particularly offensive, but I am commenting on the suitability to give advice on taking up careers, although of course it is probably admirable advice for other 'Honourable' Ladies (Im sure she earnt this as well, and is in no way due to privilage)
is a journalist/interviewer, which many regard as a career, through his particular (and acknowledged) skills and tenaciousness and insight, he has become a celebrity, by not only having an opportunity (most tv interviewers do not become celebrities) but by his renowned skillset.
hobbycraft is now 75% kirstie allsopp
she'll have her own brand of dresses next
does not speak for me! She is a Super Sloane like from the 80's.
(Obviously she ignores the Guardian's role in whipping up the "vitriol" in the first place, but I guess that sort of circularity is just how newspapers get by these days.)