UK: "Hold tight, daddy wars are here"

"Don’t get me wrong. I’m not whingeing." Well that's a relief.

More propaganda from the Marxist media. Almost 45% of all births in the UK are out-of-wedlock. The TFR or Total Fertility Rate is 1.7, not enough to replace the population. Of the children being born, the majority are to Muslim families. Next year, Muhammed is expected to overtake Jack as most popular boys name in the UK. The media can fantasize all they want about the unisex family but that's all it is, a fantasy.

Does anyone know what study is being referred to here? I haven't seen it.
Note "working mothers"...not women. This could be interpreted any number of ways. They work 15 days a year more than who? Men? Childless women? Single women?

"Don’t get me wrong. I’m not whingeing. Despite last week’s research about how working mothers do a “double workload” (according to a new 20-year study by the Economic and Social Research Council, we work an extra 15 days a year when you add in home responsibilities)"

The demands of juggling a job and a family means mothers are working the equivalent of an extra 120 hours a year, a study has said. Women suffer more than men from Britain's long office hours because many have to look after children and cook or clean once they get home, a report claims. The report, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, says that women's family relationships are "more adversely affected by such employment practices than men's".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YWVIRZIJ053PVQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/14/nwork114.xml

I have mixed reactions to this piece which pretends to celebrate a new generation of fathers; when in fact it's more about class privilege.

This Brit yuppie couple enjoys choices and a lifestyle that is available only to a select elite of well-educated professionals.

While they may have earned and deserve their domestic utopia complete with a nanny and telecommuting flex-time, I doubt that many Detroit auto workers can relate to this story.

The wanna-be Mr. Moms on the fast disappearing assembly lines are too busy worrying about when the Chinese are going to start selling their version of a Lexus for $6,999 at the local Wal-Mart.

The personal is not only political; it's also macro-economic.

What's 120 hours/year, anyway? 2 extra hours per week? Big deal.

I'm not all that informed about Muslim culture in the U.K., but wouldn't you assume that the majority of married Muslim women are stay-at-home mothers and not commuting office cubical dwellers?

In which case, the survey would have excluded a significant population of women as "non-working?"

The whole report is sloppy and confusing, starting with the question "working extra compared to what?"

The article conveniently ignores multiple studies showing that men spend on average 3-5 hours more time per week "at work" than women.

And of course there is no consideration of the domestic "second-shift" services men provide through changing the oil, washing the cars, cleaning out the gutters, mowing the yard, maintaining furnaces, garbage disposals, water heaters, etc.

The study is a good example of how feminist research starts with the desired P.C. conclusion and then works backwards to manufacture the "data."

Thanks for the link, Roy. But I'm actually trying to hunt down that study but it doesn't appear to be published anywhere.

Also, this statement...

"If you count the effects of the pressures, how they have increased, and look at their statistical effect, the strain of working like this is equivalent to working an extra 120 hours a year."

Its LIKE they are working 120 extra hours a year?!?!?!? But NOT working an extra 120 hours a year?!?!?! What the fuck does THAT mean?

Man, I NEED to see their research methodology before I even BEGIN to take that seriously.