Robert Poste's Child

Bit illogical there. Why negligent? Sounds to me more like the relationship between the parents wasn't on a firm enough basis though. The idea used to be that before you had children you got to know the other person and agreed the basics of how you expected to bring up children including what would happen if things went wrong. Most people seem to have children in a romantic (or alcoholic) haze these days, and when it goes wrong they're unable to behave like adults. I see that in my own family. Hopefully now that mediation is compulsory divorcing couples will sort it out that way rather than in court.

My favourites are the ones got up like fishermen in a 1950s boys' comic. I passed three identical ones on Upper St recently and I'm afraid I laughed out loud.

Person behind me on the bus is eating an apple with their mouth open. I've known horses chew more quietly.

Might have to rename this thread 'desperate electioneering'. Today's instance: IDS wants to GIVE social housing tenants their house if they're on benefits and then find work for a year. I've had to turn the radio off.

More egg or more heat, Loz.

I don't think that's true, KK. These days in the event of divorce the law automatically presumes custody will be 50/50 unless there's a good reason not to. The greater issue, from the point of view of fathers who want to be a real co-parent, is that so many people don't get married before the kids come along, or have them before there is any real relationship between the parents, and that throws up all sorts of practical and legal difficulties. If you want to be a proper dad to your kids, the answer is to get to know the woman properly and get married first or at least make sure your name's on the birth certificate. One other point: in terms of history, women having custody is a very recent thing. Until well into the 20th century, in the event of divorce, particularly if the wife had had an affair, the father would have custody. Women tended to have custody only when the family was abandoned by the husband.

According to Zoopla the average purchase price in SE22 has dropped by nearly 3% in the last six months, but still up c10% YOY. I guess 3% is low enough to be not much more than a seasonal variation, though.

I agree that the Lido changing room is no better but the water seems more like you'd expect it to be. I also like the fact you can do decent lengths as it's twice the size of ED. Bloody freezing even in summer, though; I'd need a full deep sea diving suit at this tome of year. I've been sorely tempted to join Dulwich College or JAGS for their pools as if you go several times a week there's not much difference in price, but I'm hesitating in case I have to move out of the area.

Next was definitely quite classy when it first opened, SJ, kind of Hobbs and Jigsaw end of the market. I remember when the Knightsbridge branch opened. Great excitement. Never worked for me sadly as in those days they made for taller women.

Re girls' public schools, technically there aren't any as by the time education for girls was a thing they had already effectively become private. The ones for girls are known as independent, or so we used to be told.

Dunno, Loz, but over the last 5-10 years I've heard a fair few people criticise the fact that most trainee doctors are women and blame problems in general practice on that (rather than, for example, relentless exploitation of the system a la DMC, to use a local example.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok. I thought it was in this article > > http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/beyon > d-pink-bus-why-we-still-need-talk-about-womens-iss > ues > > But was actually in a tweet from Vicki Young at > the BBC > > Man intrudes on Harman's chat with women to ask > why she's not talking to men. > http://t.co/F2t2oRGqyT I think he was just taking the pi5s... She's an MP of long standing. This is a campaign to engage women. I agree with the campaign objective - I just think the approach is ill-considered as they don't appear to have taken secondary audiences into account.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it's about definition RPC but an > eveolved recognition of the role women play in > raising children. Wouldn't that be great? From a feminist perspective, what I've seem in my own adult life is that whenever women take on jobs formerly done exclusively by men, the job itself appears to be devalued by association. When men take on jobs traditionally done by women, it takes a lot longer for the perception of the role to change in the other direction. Either that or it's assumed more readily that it's a step to something better or only temporary.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RPC. How exactly was I patronising a woman? Tone. But not the first time we've had this exchange so perhaps it's just the way I hear you. > I was advising everyone het up about it, including > the men posting on here, to look at the "issue" in > perspective and used a recent Tory bus for > comparison. > > > Funny to see also that there are idiot men upset > about the fact that they haven't got a bus > addressing their needs. > > > Truly everyone wants to be offended these days. I don't see any men upset because they don't have a bus. What you're actually doing here is reductio ad absurdum to belittle someone you don't agree with. Maybe I was right the first time, then.

I'm planning to go. Looks excellent!

The focus on women as mothers is so strong that when I tried Googling for stats on men who don't have children all the answers were about women. Same for marriage. Clearly there are still strong assumptions that these are things that define women but not men. Not sure if the ONS even collects stats for men as they do for women. Depressing.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it's not QUITE as bad as vans telling peolpe to go > back home tho is it? > > I can't say the buses make me do anything other > than shrug. People getting het up about it might > be better served looking at issues rather than > window dressing not aimed at them A man patronising a woman for being offended. Nice.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you ever considered that it's not people like > you that they're aiming for? Of course I realise, but my point is they're talking down to the converted at the same time, which is just stupid. > Little girls only wear so much pink because they > have mum's (and dad'd) who dress them in it... Someone close to me is married to another woman and they have two children, a boy and a girl. Despite the fact that the entire house is blue or black and made of cotton the girl is STILL going through the pink stage. They get out blue clothes for her and she'll say no, I need to wear this one because I look pretty in it. The difference is that these days parents give into to pester power. I'm sure I'd have had everything pink when I was that age but it wasn't my decision.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I also deeply resent the fact that when > politicians talk about women voters, they > > immediately mention childcare policies, as > though that's what defines women. > > But surely also the outdated view that only women > can talk to women about such serious matters? I know, I know, don't get me started. > Most people can have an equally political conversation > with a member of either sex. I can understand that > you would want a good showing by female MPs as a > way to show role models of women in politics, but > a blanket ban on any men is pretty offensive to > both genders. I acknowledge your right to be offended. (Thanks for not saying a man can be a feminist; now would not be the moment.) > > Why are men never defined in terms of whether > they've produced children? Why aren't children > seen to be the > > responsibility of men and women equally? Why > hasn't this attitude moved on in thirty years? > > In the same week, Ed M has announced a good policy > in increasing paternity leave, so it's a bit one > step forward, two steps back going on with > Labour. Ed. The same man who's going to put an end to offshore tax havens. He can say anything he likes but in six months time he'll be out of a job. > > Half the women in the country aren't married and > a fifth don't have children. Keep up. > > 80% of adult women have had children? Is it > really that high? According to the ONS (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2011/sty-1-in-5-women-are-childless-at-45.html) unless the red mist was so strong I misread it.

Shall I put on Countryfile and make us a nice up of tea?

And in a classic move, they are trying to get around it by claiming the bus isn't pink - it's magenta. Yes, because that works, doesn't it - we're so stupid we believe you when you say, it's not pink actually, it's a shade of pink that isn't called pink. I also deeply resent the fact that when politicians talk about women voters, they immediately mention childcare policies, as though that's what defines women. Why are men never defined in terms of whether they've produced children? Why aren't children seen to be the responsibility of men and women equally? Why hasn't this attitude moved on in thirty years? Half the women in the country aren't married and a fifth don't have children. Keep up. Urgh.

It's as though they think the ability to recognise an ironic reference implies knowledge of the subject it's referring to.

You have a point there. In hipster culture, irony has become the new sincerity, so the entire premise is f@cked as it makes it impossible to differentiate between genuine value and a kind of hollow post-modern resonance.

To answer your question more directly, as I understand it the bus is aiming to engage women who don't currently vote and, specifically, to convince them to vote Labour. However, bright pink is overwhelmingly associated with little girls these days, so using it implies an infantilised and trivialising view of adult women, which is reductive and undermines the value of our opinions - and ultimately our claim to a right to vote, frankly. You have to ask yourself whether the PR behind it has a hidden agenda. Either they're secretly a UKIP voter or Wallace is trying to shore up his own chances by holing Harman's career below the waterline.

Put it this way, Otta, if you were a non-voter yourself, would a bus covered in Bob the Builder stickers convince you that Labour were taking you seriously?