Germaine Greer says here that she thinks women are less emancipated now than a few decades ago and that what was liberated wasn't women but porn.
True. Though I am 8 years older than my husband. It's a tough choice - what if you don't find a good partner till later. I think you just have to make the best choice you can at the time. I'm glad I went to school instead of waiting for Mr Right. Worked, the back to school. I finally met Mr Right back in school in my 30's. Too old for kids when all was said and done, but more important, I'm happy.
Sometimes you can have it all, sometimes you can't. Not everyone's meant to go to uni, and not everyone can be a parent. You can still be happy.
Who is this Allsop person anyway?
And I think that two of the last things this world needs are less educated women and more people.
That second part might seem cruel, but I do think it's an unfortunate reality that the survival of our species is, in part, dependent upon people having less children.
Girls stay in school. You have all the time in the world to have children.
Get your degree first, get the job you dream of, follow the beat of your own drummer.
Once you give life and hold a tiny baby in your arms, your life will change (beautifully so) forever. Every single choice you will make will be in relation to your child.
Even îf you wish to stay home and not work and raise your children, you'll be better off with a decent education. It will keep you safe from being dependent on any one. Educated and you'll always be your own person.
On the other hand, we are being told that we aren't having enough children to pay our pensions and that if things continue this way we're doomed.
On a personal level, many of our investments (property for example) are speculative investments on the basis that they will rise in value. What we forget is that they only rise in value because demand is outstripping supply. If the population shrinks, that trend reverses and property will become a depreciating asset, or growth will at least fall behind inflation. On the one hand, you can say, so much for being greedy. On the other hand, for many people their property is their nest egg. Their very survival in old age depends on more people having children today.
So ultimately there will have to be some compromise. But its nowhere near as simple as saying more children = bad.
Having children need not be mutually exclusive with education. I think in Denmark for example they've got a pretty nifty system with childcare in universities being either free or very cheap, and lots of other nice rules and regulations that ensure mothers are not unduly punished by their double roles. This doesn't come cheap of course, but as they say, if you think education is too costly, try ignorance.
Which is why Kirstie Allsopp has done the right thing in bringing this up.
Mother Nature is telling you this but nobody is listening, you cannot fight it. There is nothing wrong with women going to uni or having a career, but it should be made clear - if you want children then the clock is ticking. For some women this is more important than they thought and they realise it too late.
Put the facts on the table and let people make their choice.
When I was in school (25 plus yrs ago) huge emphasis was placed on an education and a good career, but nobody was even so much as allowed to whisper the husband or, heaven forfend, the child word. I don't know if this is still the case but my niece's experience at one of the top academic schools in the UK (she is currently doing university applications) would seem to bear it out. I constantly tell her "get an education, start on a career then have your children as soon as you can". I enjoyed my career. It was fulfilling and challenging but nothing, oh nothing, in comparison to having my children. How I wish I had done it sooner because anything that lessens the years I spend on this mortal coil in the company of my two children is, for me, nothing short of a tragedy. Now you won't be saying that about a career will you?
Kirstie is my guilty pleasure. She has hideous dress sense and Phil's probably been up there but............
The last 20 years has seen the mantra of "women can do what they want, when they want". Well, yes they can. Mostly. But at what cost?
The dream was sold - and now many people are realising that actually putting the family planning on hold was not such a wise idea. For some people having a family is what they want to do - something they only realise after the choice/option is taken from them.
The converse is therefore the case: these people should not be told that they should put their career first because there's plenty of time and should not be ridiculed for their choices.
It cuts both ways and the outrage shown here is primarily - I'd guess - from people who are educated and have careers and may or may not have successfully got a family. Great and good for you.
But there's plenty of people who don't see life the way you see it and could have done with being told the reality of the decisions they were making, and as a result of believing the hype are now hurting because of it...
And in all honesty, I think this debate should involve both women and men - it isn't just the women who put off having children.
Damn.
I think also time is passing by and in the middle of a career it is too easily forgotton. All of a sudden 10-15-20 years have gone by in which case for many couples it is too late.
Not to mention this extremely useful comment up here...
I opiniated that this woman thinks her way is the only way which is not true and speaks of low intelligence to me, therefore cannot take any of her statements too seriously. She is just trying too hard.
And the same goes for the person who automatically jumped to the conclusion of a "worthless degree" when the topic is women in education.
I don't expect her to know at 18 what she wants to do for the rest of her life, and it is important that she know there are other options and normally you do get second or even third chances to do something.