Jones is an intelligent woman and usually a good writer, although I felt her point got somewhat lost in this particular column, but the lack of objectivity, understanding and common sense she displayed yesterday in the Mail was astounding. She described Ruth Kelly's move towards the home as "a blow for women who work" and "a mortal blow against 30-odd years of feminist struggle", highlighting "cracks in her commitment" to the job and her "ill-timed actions" as if the soon-to-be-former Secretary of State for Transport has somehow let down the entire female population by making the (no doubt difficult) decision to give up her career and concentrate upon family life for the moment. I have to say I think exactly the opposite is true of Ruth Kelly, and I'm getting very tired of reading articles on this same subject over and over again, all written by women who appear to possess a rather shaky grasp of the correct definition of feminism. 

Liz Jones is famously divorced and childless, and spent the greater part of 2007 writing about how useless her ex-husband is (having chronicled his every failing during their marriage in her weekly column, which may possibly have contributed a little to the breakdown of the relationship). These days she has moved on, and now seems to spend most of her time writing about fashion and expensive, must-have possessions, in between criticising other women for no discernable reason. Trinny and Susannah are other recent victims of her withering tongue; last month she trotted out a long line of unflattering photos of them in their youth, which coincided with that great decade of style, the 1980s - didn't we all look awful then, Ms Jones included? And isn't it better just to look back and giggle, rather than pull apart two women who take great pleasure in making ordinary women (mostly with low confidence and no idea what suits them) look gorgeous - because wearing a properly-fitted bra, suitably-shaped clothes and appropriate colours actually does make a difference - but happen to deliver their verdicts in something of a blunt and jolly-hockey-sticks manner? Not very sisterly behaviour, is it, to lay into this pair who aim to do nothing more controversial than make women feel better about themselves. Yes, yes, I know they get paid handsomely for it, but they're not doing anything to which the aforementioned badly-dressed women don't agree, and you never see any of them complaining when the full-length mirror is uncovered and they are able to stand tall for the first time in years and realise they can look spectacular. More often, you see them weeping tears of joy. I'm the last person to believe that looks are the most important thing, but having some confidence in your appearance does make a difference to the way you feel about yourself. Liz Jones is a fashion writer, and obviously sees herself as feminist - so why the tirade against T&S? It's bizarre and inconsistent with what she claims to believe and to champion elsewhere. 

Anyway, to return to the original point, Jones is unimpressed with Ruth Kelly because she has "turned back the clock 30 years". No! What Ruth Kelly has done is take advantage of the fact that she can now make the decision for herself whether she works or stays at home with her family. True feminism is concerned with equal opportunities for both genders, and with women's rights and interests. Ruth Kelly has admirably demonstrated already that equal opportunities for women exist these days, given her long career as an MP. How on earth she has balanced the pressures of work and home for so long as it is, with a husband and four children to care for, is a complete and utter mystery to me. I have read that she refused to work "the long hours normally associated with the job" whilst holding the position of Economic Secretary to the Treasury, although I bet she worked the hours she should have done and merely baulked at sticking around for periods of overtime when she could instead have been at home in time for bathtime and storytime. Kelly has not allowed her brain to turn to mush or her skills to lie dormant - she has been making a significant contribution to the running of the country whilst attempting to juggle the needs and demands of four young children. She is likely to have extremely good (and private) reasons for wishing to step down and focus more upon her home life. From what I know of her, she seems to be a firm believer in the family. Liz Jones's article sounded to me like a campaign to encourage all women to relegate the family to the lowest possible level of priority and instead focus upon climbing the career ladder, smashing through the glass ceiling and kicking aside with your immaculate stiletto heel any tiresome men you might encounter on the way up there. The fatal flaw in that argument is that if we all choose that path, we are going to end up with, at best, a whole load of children who never have any time with their mothers (and whatever you might believe about the impact that might have upon their behaviour and development, there is not much point in having children in the first place if you are never able to see them), and at worst - no children, and therefore no population, at all! Clearly this is never going to happen, because - thank goodness - there are plenty of people who disagree with Jones's ludicrous opinion that women should not even consider doing anything else with their lives other than furthering glossy careers and fighting their way to the top. Not that I am for a moment criticising those women who do, you understand - I am delighted that we live through an era when such options are available to women as well as men. I am most grateful to Mrs Pankhurst and her merry band for fighting for my right to vote. Men and women are equal, but they should be allowed to be what they are: different. I am not saying, either, that the woman should always be the one to stay at home with the children, although that is more often that not the way things turn out when a family comes along. But the woman should be allowed to make that decision for herself, without poison darts being shot from the likes of Ms Jones who has chosen a different life for herself. 

I am only too aware that pregnancy and motherhood is not a lifestyle "choice", as it is so often described; with something like one in seven couples struggling to conceive nowadays, it needs to be acknowledged that it is a blessing and not a right. I feel extremely fortunate to have made it this far through a pregnancy and to have been given the opportunity of even one child to whose birth Ben and I can look forward. Clearly, being pregnant has coloured my view upon the constant raging debate between working and stay-at-home women, but I hope I can still see the point of view of those who either want to or must return to working full-time quickly once they have had children. I can't know what the future holds with regard to going back to work myself, and that is partly what maternity leave is there for - so you can make the decision when your life changes for good in ways you never even imagined, rather than making hasty pronouncements on a subject about which you currently know nothing. Working 10-hour days was perfectly normal when I first took over my job as Director of Music a few years ago, and I undertook to carry out everything expected of me in my new job, but my home life suffered for it. I saw a great deal less of my husband than I would have wanted for quite some time, and the state of our flat at times could charitably be described as chaos. Liz Jones's answer to this problem would no doubt involve getting a cleaner (hers, I was outraged to read today, was the recipient of a "really cheap watch" which the journalist kindly passed on after deeming it to be unsatisfactory as a Christmas present from a former boyfriend). Do I really need to justify myself to her because I want to spend some time at home, at long last, doing my own housework and taking some pride in my home and my family?

Several people have told me that my perspective on life is going to alter completely when our baby arrives, and I don't doubt it. I imagine that things like my job are going to assume a different perspective; in other words, something about which I don't any longer need or want to remain obsessive. The correct amount of hard work is one thing, but being made to feel guilty and somehow anti-feminist if I don't throw every bit of myself wholeheartedly into moving my career on is quite another. I refuse to be judged by someone who disagrees with me simply because she has chosen the opposite path and has not had children. Whether or not this was a choice Liz Jones made for herself, I don't know, but it's not relevant. As a journalist, she has a responsibility to at least attempt to think objectively, and she has completely missed the point here. Ruth Kelly ought to be praised and encouraged for making a brave decision, and she has done nothing of which she need be ashamed. By standing up for her right to go home and spend more time with her children, she is flying the flag for feminists everywhere. It's just not possible to "have it all", and we shouldn't pretend or imagine that it is. Never mind Superwoman - she is a figment of the imagination and always will be. I'm off to get the hoover out!

Contributors

• benjamin
• My name is Fiona,

© 2006 Merrick-Online | Blogger Templates based on a design by Andreas Viklund