Conservative Woman readers

In response to Ann Farmer’s thought for today: Never mind the foster child, get Mum out to work paul parameter wrote:

It seems that the term ‘childcare’ is limited to a specialised meaning. For the politicians, it appears to mean ‘care provided outside the child’s home by someone who is not related to the child, but is paid to provide it, and who can wash their hands of the child once it has been delivered back to its family’.
The concept that childcare might also consist of the provision by someone related to the child and inside the child’s home, without payment but delivered out of genuine love and concern for the child’s long-term mental, emotional and physical health, and where there is no end of that commitment and investment until the child is old enough to take care of itself, just doesn’t seem to register; still less that it might be a better form of childcare; less still that it might actually be the very best form of childcare yet discovered.


  1. I guess I should not be commenting on my own comment, but since CW has drawn particular attention to the word “love”, I would just add a follow up question. When was the last time you heard a politician, of any stripe, use that word? In any context? As opposed to how many times you have heard the word “hate”?

    I am sure I have asked, on this or other forums, whether the word “love” even exists in the vocabulary of feminists. I really cannot recall ever seeing it in any publication written by them, or heard it come from any of their mouths. But I am not just getting at them. I guess I could extend the question to many others in the public domain; and sadly get to the same answer.

    • The word ‘love’ has too many connotations of self-sacrifice, obligation, lifelong care and concern, for it to be used by politicians (and feminists).

      • Or it has been transported to mean “infatuation” or simply lust. After all the debate on gay marriage included frequent appeals to allow “two people who love each other” to get married. The love referred to was always of the infatuation stripe, the modern notion that relationships should be an end in themselves and an entirely personal self serving situation. “Love” is frequently used in popular culture in jus such a “consumer” cast.

    • Sir Roger Scruton uses ‘love’ and ‘hate’ as one of the defining differences between the right/ conservatism and the left/ socialism.

      Conservatives (small ‘c’) love, unconditionally. Socialists hate, unconditionally.

    • This is a very good point and it is far too seldom discussed. Like many things unfortunately, the press and MPs have defined the window of “acceptable” debate and it’s entirely focused around who hates who and trying to fix it with rules and cash, never any attempt to address the better side of human nature and the responsibility and self-sacrifice that goes with it.

  2. My wife used to work in a nursery in well-heeled Dulwich and the real eye opening thing for me was that, actually, it was the nursery staff who seemed to have to do the real parenting. One of the most common things they would have to deal with is children who were wearing nappies at home (usually because the parents didn’t want them making a mess of their fancy sofa when they wet themselves) but would come to nursery in pants for potty training.

    Of course the result of this was horribly confused children who staff were trying to potty train at nursery who would then be put in a nappy as soon as they returned home. Unsurprisingly, none of them were learning anything through these mixed messages because they didn’t know when they were or weren’t supposed to be using a potty and consequently many of the children were still unable to control their bladders right up to the point where they were about to go to school.

    There’s many more stories of this sort and it really shocked me the sheer callousness of these people that their child seemed to be some sort of fashion accessory and they thought someone else should have to deal with the actual difficult work of raising their children for them. This is the dystopia middle class liberals have created for themselves.

    • Well really it is the dystopia they have created for the “under class” . Despite in fact being remarkably conventional themselves they have steadfastly refused to support those less fortunate than themselves in “social capital” to understand the “how to” parent. Expecting it to happen despite the fractured families and “alternative” families and then refusing to acknowledge their lack of leadership.

      • The underclass is forced to endure it, but these middle class people seem to revel in not having to raise their own children, it’s bizarre. Perhaps it’s their envy of the upper class who can afford a full-time nanny.

        • Yes there is a great deal of irony in Social Work since it became degree only. While the “Professionals” busily try to sort Fostering and Adoption for children to meet their needs for “attachment” (one ceratainly can’t say love”) they are childless or use childcare. Do as I say not as I do.

Comments are closed.