Patrick Crozier has some interesting remarks about ‘Labour women’
This article in the Telegraph got me thinking.
First of all there is Mrs Kinnock’s use of the term “real women”. It sounded far too much to my ears like “all women”, or the “only women of any worth”. The truth is that some women go out to work and others stay at home. Is that really such a terrible idea to bear?
Maybe it is. Maybe, to dyed in the wool feminists like Glenys Kinnock, the idea of total sex equality shines so bright that any woman who chooses what we might describe as a “traditional” role is in some way a traitor to her sex. Perhaps, Mrs Kinnock understands only too well that to many women home and family are far more important than boring old work. Thus they have to be forced into the workforce by economics or, as in this case, ridicule.
It is the economics that frighten me. If I ever marry or have children I want my wife to stay at home – at least for the first few years – just as my mother did with me. I believe that (usually) a mother’s love brings huge benefits to child rearing – benefits for which a child minder or a creche is no substitute. I want that choice. But I can’t have it. In London it is virtually impossible for one person on one salary to buy a house (certainly not in the careers that I am considering). Thus we are more or less forced (apologies for the quasi-Marxist terminology) to set up two income households. And hence stay-at-home mums are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
The answer is to build (or at least allow to be built) more houses, semis and apartment blocks. Same demand, more supply, lower prices. But that is more or less impossible in London – the State decrees it. And that is a whole other issue.
