Image: Hey Paul Studios Let's talk about girls and boys. We were doing so yesterday. Or rather a girl or a boy. We were very concerned. Or very concerned to voice our unconcern. Me? I wasn't bothered either way but if pressed I was gunning for a boy, because then there was a possibility it could be called Baby David. Like David Royale. But also gunning for a girl because I had been asked to write a piece about the first English royal girl who won't be overtaken in line for the throne by any baby brother.
Unless there is a massive, massive overturning of our affairs.
Of course this is missing out the important things. One, and probably the most important of all, is Kate Middleton's new project. Losing the baby weight. I don't know how she's going to do it but I expect, like all new mothers, it's top of her list.
Unless there is a massive, massive overturning of our affairs.
Of course this is missing out the important things. One, and probably the most important of all, is Kate Middleton's new project. Losing the baby weight. I don't know how she's going to do it but I expect, like all new mothers, it's top of her list.
Two, all the other babies born today in the UK are not going to have the privilege that this baby will have. Oh they will have commemorative coin and the seething resentment of my mother who has her birthday tomorrow: "If it is born tomorrow they will have to call it Susan" "After The High Queen Susan of Narnia?" "No, me." I would have enjoyed a royal boy named Sue.
But Sue is destined for greater things than his fellow July babies, a throne that isn't a euphemism and immediate medical attention should a fish bone go down the wrong way or he should slip on a corgi.
Of course the catch is a royal boy named Sue must endure media attention and already has a 'career' mapped out for him. A destiny, if you will. He may dabble in crossing the seas to shoot people in defence of the crown, or maybe become a passionate and regular letter writer. But the idea of Sue doing work experience in some mid level office or shop (I did mine, after expressing an interest in fashion, at fashion giant Warehouse) is unlikely. I don't think Eton would sort such a thing.
But Sue is destined for greater things than his fellow July babies, a throne that isn't a euphemism and immediate medical attention should a fish bone go down the wrong way or he should slip on a corgi.
Of course the catch is a royal boy named Sue must endure media attention and already has a 'career' mapped out for him. A destiny, if you will. He may dabble in crossing the seas to shoot people in defence of the crown, or maybe become a passionate and regular letter writer. But the idea of Sue doing work experience in some mid level office or shop (I did mine, after expressing an interest in fashion, at fashion giant Warehouse) is unlikely. I don't think Eton would sort such a thing.
| Today on a sweaty commute I saw a Metro headline that informed all those born in the 1980s that they would never own a house. I dread to think what those born in 2013, boy or girl or other will do for abodes come independence. Or not. Family homes will once again contain many generations, a decrepit baby boomer supporting them all perhaps. | unless you are of royal blood, girl or boy it seems it sucks to be you. But at least in 18 years you can vote. |
Today Tanya Gold used The Apprentice's woman winner as a jumping off point to discuss the current gender fear divide concerning the still notable and isolated (that's the clue) successes of women in business. "Those who insist we are witnessing the end of men, and cite (middle-class) female over-achievement at school, university and in the early years at work as evidence that feminism has done its job - and promise we will shortly regard a female-run planet..."
Citing the peculiar and ongoing trend of girls doing well in education, only to falter professionally (perhaps if people weren't so dismissive of their chosen paths in baking or botox), Gold states that this is not the case: "And that women should end so badly, having begun so well, is only more appalling."
In the same newspaper academic Anne-Marie Slaughter continues her argument that men need a men's rights movement. I disagree but I like this point Slaughter makes: "I really think we need a men's movement...and you're starting to see it. Guys are starting to speak up for themselves about masculinity, about care-giving. You know, women are hypocrites this way, because we would go crazy if men treated us in the workforce the way we typically treat them at home - if a guy in the workforce assumed he was more competent than you are, and told you what to do - but that's the way most women treat men in the household."
So I apologise all babies born yesterday, unless you are of royal blood, girl or boy it seems it sucks to be you. But at least in 18 years you can vote.
Squeamish Kate
Citing the peculiar and ongoing trend of girls doing well in education, only to falter professionally (perhaps if people weren't so dismissive of their chosen paths in baking or botox), Gold states that this is not the case: "And that women should end so badly, having begun so well, is only more appalling."
In the same newspaper academic Anne-Marie Slaughter continues her argument that men need a men's rights movement. I disagree but I like this point Slaughter makes: "I really think we need a men's movement...and you're starting to see it. Guys are starting to speak up for themselves about masculinity, about care-giving. You know, women are hypocrites this way, because we would go crazy if men treated us in the workforce the way we typically treat them at home - if a guy in the workforce assumed he was more competent than you are, and told you what to do - but that's the way most women treat men in the household."
So I apologise all babies born yesterday, unless you are of royal blood, girl or boy it seems it sucks to be you. But at least in 18 years you can vote.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed
