In defence of Kirstie Allsopp
|
Version 0 of 1. Kirstie Allsopp has been called antiquated, prejudiced and anti-feminist for saying that women should consider delaying university to have children earlier. It was interesting to see her attackers include Jo Heywood, head of Heathfield school, and Helen Fraser, chief executive of the Girls' Day School Trust. I don't know about you, but I've never been sure that those running single-sex education for rich people's daughters are the best arbiters of what is or isn't "old-fashioned thinking". Don't get me wrong; I went to an all-girls independent school myself and probably benefited from it, but it would be hard to argue they are at the forefront of modern social mobility. Look, I'm sure that these are good, bright and well-meaning women. I'm sorry if I was rude, but I'm genuinely upset with them. As devoted educators, they will, I'm sure, be receptive if I mark their work. Point one: why did they need to criticise a well-known woman for expressing her opinion? Do they think that women are so vocal on the public stage these days, so under-attacked, so bullish with gender-wide intellectual confidence, that a public shooting down is beneficial? I understand they considered her opinion dangerous, but why make it personal? Does Heywood think that calling Allsopp "patronising", rather than merely offering a different view, is a good demonstration to Heathfield pupils of how an argument should run? Point two: sloppy argument. Helen Fraser said: "Girls who leave university at 22 should not be told by anybody that they have to decide between a career or a relationship and children." I agree, but Fraser is prodding a straw man there. Allsopp said she would advise her own daughter, if she had one, to postpone university until the age of 50 and start work straight after leaving school. It wasn't about choosing between career and children, but building a career early before taking time off to have children while still relatively young. That's not what I would advise my own imaginary daughter to do, but let us be clear that Allsopp was suggesting the very opposite of a choice between work and family: it was a timetable for planning both. I'm really bored by the constant vilifying of people (especially women) for things they didn't say. I seem to spend half my time in this column trying to credit the nuances that numbskull controversy prefers to ignore. Gwyneth Paltrow, for example, has been given hell for saying that online hatred is like fighting in a war. Everyone from Cindy McCain to the last troll on Twitter has hurried to scream out the difference between bullets and words, trenches and screens, Vietnam and the Oscars. But Paltrow didn't say that online hatred is like fighting in a war. She said that the experience of reading horrible things about herself is a dehumanising process, analogous to that which soldiers experience in combat. I think this is quite an interesting comparison. It's not about the literal detail of the experience but the protective instincts of the human mind. It makes sense that Paltrow, who is both internationally recognisable and the target of quite staggering personal abuse, would safeguard her sanity by thinking about her savaged public self as a sort of third person. Soldiers do something similar, to shield their deeper humanity from the horror of having killed. Is this an enlightening comparison? I don't know, but schoolgirls (who should be learning to analyse the information around them with rigour) might benefit from looking at this as an example of the way words are misread and meanings missed – or, at least, benefit from that more than from seeing the chief executive of the Girls' Day School Trust slam Allsopp for the near opposite of the point she was actually making. Point three: incomplete logic. Fraser said: "University education is incredibly important for girls. It's the end point of everything we do in our schools." Heywood was not so absolute about the end point, referring more vaguely to "the generation I am preparing for university and beyond". But neither addresses the nature of being 40. Society is notoriously stupid in its failure to harness the wisdom of older women, in everything from television to politics, family life to boardrooms, and here is one reminiscing with honesty and realism about women's particular challenge: to create our professional and financial structures in the same period as our peak fertility. (Relevantly, in the same interview, Allsopp talked about losing her mother and the way that our culture treats death.) It just won't do to reply that university is the "end point" or talk airily about a mysterious "beyond". It is the beyond that's in question. Fraser called Allsopp's comments "a throwback to the 1950s", but neither of these critics is addressing the reality of 2014. It would be wrong to reassure young women, or men, that a university degree will guarantee them a decent career. An earlier, debt-free start might actually get them further. Energy and innovation seem to be more valuable, in current climes, than CVs to impress a long-term employer. It could be that Allsopp's is the most progressive view we've heard in a long time: if women skipped or postponed university, might they soon outstrip men professionally as they currently do at school? To be discussed. My own, purely personal view is that reading, study, poetry and scientific experiment might be more rewarding than a job or children, so I would never advise anyone against university if they're going for the right reasons. But one of the right reasons is to help raise the level of debate in public life. Fraser and Heywood – no doubt clever, kind and highly educated women – could do better. |