2013-05-19T02:21:36-04:00 John L. Adams http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=john-l-adams Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for John L. Adams Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2546127 2013-01-24T18:34:25-05:00 2013-03-26T05:12:01-04:00

John L. Adams http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-adams/
I'm not offended by either of these phrases but to my mind they basically mean the same thing; a mother or father that you find physically attractive. I was broadly in agreement with @basfordian that yummy mummy and dishy daddy are only slightly more polite ways of saying MILF or DILF (Mum / Dad I'd Like to, well, you figure out what the F stands for).

A more liberal view was put across by @ProudMumaUK. She said that dishy daddy doesn't have the same connotations as yummy mummy (hold that thought, we're going to revisit this point shortly). She also said that her friends refer to each other as "yummies" when arranging to meet up socially.

Used in this context, it's very hard to object to the phrase yummy mummy. I totally understand that following childbirth and months of breast feeding a mother might take it as a compliment to be referred to as "yummy". I probably would if I were in that position, we all want to know we're looking our best after all.

But what if the context is changed? For argument's sake let us imagine that a group of yummies has gone out for the evening and left their men to hold the babies. They're sat round a table at All Bar One chatting, drinking wine, minding their own business. They're looking good; the kitten heels are on and the hem lines are at the knee or slightly above. A group of three men recognise the women as local mothers and fancy their chances. They sidle up to the table and try to break into the conversation by repeatedly referring to the women as "yummy mummies".

Okay, so we all know this group of socially inept men are doomed to fail and need a lesson in the very basics of social etiquette. I'm sure, however, that we've all seen similar cringe worthy scenarios unfold. In this context yummy mummy takes on a more sinister meaning. It isn't about managing to look good while raising young children, it's all about sex.

So what of the dishy daddy? Is it all about sex? In fairness you rarely hear the phrase and I've never had a woman sidle up to me in a bar and use the phrase "dishy daddy" as her opening line.

I decided to googlewhack the phrase to see what the media and a search engine's algorithms made of the phrase. Among the results were topless photographs of Orlando Bloom and Robbie Williams with their children, not to mention several male actors I'd never heard of with their kids. The list was small but was made up of stereotypically good looking males.

I tried the same experiment with yummy mummy. I was presented with images of women in various states of dress including Angelina Jolie, Jessica Alba, Victoria Beckham and, er, mum of one Vicky Moore who was voted Hyndburn's Hottest Honey back in 2008 (Hyndburn is in Lancashire, should you be interested).

As I expected, there were many more images compared to the dishy daddies but it was still limited to attractive women. It's hardly peer reviewed research but both examples send a clear message; the dishy and yummy club is limited to the youthful and beautiful.

Just to prove the point, I went one step further, took a deep breath and googlewhacked MILF and DILF. I don't need to tell you what delights I was offered after placing MILF in the search engine. As someone that struggles with the exploitation and desperation of the porn industry it was uncomfortable viewing, but not particularly shocking.

The results of the DILF experiment were interesting to say the least. I was presented with huge amounts of graphic gay porn. There was enough of the stuff to keep the Roman Pretorian Guard entertained for months. I rapidly wound the experiment up to ensure I wasn't caught by Mrs Adams. I really didn't fancy having to explain my actions if caught.

But what of the phrases MILF and DILF? Are they offensive?

I personally think MILF is a dreadful phrase, not because of what it explicitly says, but because of what it implies. It suggests that post-childbirth women automatically lose their sex appeal and any man that stands by his post-childbirth partner should be applauded for his benevolence. The idea that a woman might lose her sex appeal just because she's had children is appalling and a dreadful message for women to deal with.

The phrase also reflects very badly on men. It suggests we don't find women attractive once they've had kids. I've never heard of a man rebuff a woman's advances simply because she's proved her fertility. Men are many things, but generally speaking they aren't that vain.

What of DILF? Let's face facts, these things don't bother men quite as much as women. Call a man a DILF and he's likely to take it as a compliment.

On a more serious note, a father won't have been through childbirth. Compared to a childless man, however, a father is likely to be older, not have the disposable income he once had to spend on clothes and unable to visit the gym as much. The phrase implies that a man should be lucky if he's considered attractive after he becomes a father. If it's unacceptable to think of mothers as MILFs then perhaps us men should be cautious of tolerating similar language.

So where am I going with all this? I'm not a puritan and have no wish to censor what people say. @ProudMumaUK has subsequently written a blog in which she says she has no objection to her husband calling her a MILF. I have no doubt the same applies for many other couples (I must also add that @basfordian has blogged on the yummy, dishy, MILF, DILF debate).

In conclusion I'd say that yummy, dishy, MILF and DILF are all about sex appeal. I just think we need to be honest about it. There's a time and a place for saying such things and we should all be very careful how and when we say them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2406875 2013-01-04T01:45:32-05:00 2013-03-05T05:12:01-05:00

John L. Adams http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-adams/
My wife and I recently went through the application process on behalf of our eldest daughter. We've listed our schools in order of preference and all we can do is hope and pray she gets a place at one of the schools we've requested. It's going to be a tense time while we wait for the outcome.

While there's no doubt the whole process is stressful, it has, for me, unearthed an element of the English state school system that should be celebrated. It strikes me that we don't acknowledge or celebrate how diverse our education system is. We've all become obsessed with league tables and Ofsted reports and fail to appreciate that every school has a different approach and ethos and the benefits this brings.

It's almost as if parents and education authorities are in league to pressure schools to become universally good and produce universally good results. The schools themselves seem to be waging a cold war against this as they try to keep an individual ethos and stand out as individual institutions for the benefit of the pupils.

My wife and I visited a huge number of schools. We saw several state schools plus voluntary aided church schools of different denominations. I should add that we also saw the one independent fee paying school but decided not to go down that route at this point in time, although we were very tempted.

While some might see this as a negative thing, every state school was different, in some cases radically so. We saw the one state school that put a real emphasis on friendship and was known as being a warm, welcoming place. The church schools all put emphasis on building community, didn't seem quite so hung-up on league tables and made greater effort to celebrate success.

There were a couple of other schools we saw that had superb facilities and really pushed the pupils hard to achieve. It struck me that being very pushy and having good facilities seemed to go hand in hand for some reason. If I'm really honest, these pushy schools seemed a little too obsessed with meeting Government targets and so we've applied elsewhere. It's easy to criticise this approach, but I can appreciate some kids need to be pushed so it might be a good fit for these individuals.

I'd be the first to admit the English system of state schools, voluntary aided schools, free schools, academies and so in is incredibly complex. It's easier elsewhere in the UK. My Scottish in-laws tell me "you just go to your closest school" north of the border.

Having done the rounds of school visits, however, I'm not convinced the Scots have the correct approach. I'm glad that in England we have a choice because every family and every child is different. Parents at least have a chance of finding the school that best meets their child's needs.

The real test is whether your application is successful and your child gets a place at the school you wish them to attend. This is the one major down side to the English system, especially in the South East where demand for school places outstrips supply.

Those of us going through the application process will have to wait until April to find out if we've been successful. I'm sure we'll all have the occasional sleepless night over the next few months while we wait for the results. I wish everyone success and I'll write a follow-up post from the 'other side'.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2354881 2012-12-23T06:15:06-05:00 2013-02-22T05:12:01-05:00

John L. Adams http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-adams/
I quickly came to the conclusion it was the most intellectually vacuous statement I had ever read. Or at least that's what I thought until the US National Rifle Association claimed that armed guards should be placed in schools but, hey, that's an entirely different blog for someone else to write.

To be fair to Clark, who was standing for a seat on Kent County Council, he was only calling for a "review" of his ideas. He wasn't suggesting they be adopted as policies. His review, however, included the following proposal; "compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family."

This really is the strangest of ideas and was clearly drafted on the back of a cheap, used envelope. Apart from anything else, it suggests that every pregnant woman would be required to have an amniocentesis test, an invasive medical procedure that has a 1 in 100 chance of ending in miscarriage. Pity the parents of any baby that returns a positive test.

Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes a "similar syndrome"? The muscle wasting condition muscular dystrophy can have both a major impact on an individual's life and their life expectancy. Conversely, however, there have been rare cases where the muscular dystrophy was so mild the individual was in their sixties before discovering they had it.

I struggle to see how Clark's proposals would distinguish between a foetus showing signs of severe muscular dystrophy, where the individual would need support throughout their life and the child with the mildest form of the condition. Before I get misunderstood and get in trouble, it's important to stress that Clark is wishing to create a debate about those people that might be a "burden on the state as well as on the family". To my mind we shouldn't draw any distinction between the severely and less severely disabled.

There is a further gaping hole in Clark's proposal. Occasionally a woman has a complicated birth or the medical team get it wrong and the child receives a brain injury during the process. What if a young child is involved in a car crash and is severely disabled as a result? What would Clark suggest in these scenarios?

Let's not forget that Clark wasn't just proposing a review of care for the young. He also suggested offering free advice on euthanasia for those over 80 years of age. I blog about parenting issues so I'm not even going to venture into this territory, but I can see huge ethical problems this would pose.

Thankfully Clark wasn't taken seriously by the people of Kent. He failed to get elected and even Ukip gave him the cold shoulder saying he wouldn't have represented the party if he had been successful. I just hope Clark has learned something from this episode and realised how ill-educated his views are.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2267920 2012-12-10T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-09T05:12:01-05:00

John L. Adams http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-adams/ The Sexist World of Parenting outlined just how sexist the world of parenting can be and highlighted some of the barriers us fathers face.

There are without doubt barriers to us men becoming the enthusiastic and involved fathers we would like to be. Sexist product branding, poor childcare provision and ignorant healthcare providers are all guilty of making dad's life difficult.

It is, however, very simple to point the finger and whinge about the status quo. The truth is that only us fathers can change the world of parenting and break down the ovarian Bastille I referred to. I'll go a step further and say that sometimes us men should do more to become active parents and make this happen.

Before I continue, I'll admit that I've based this blog on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Nevertheless I like to think it proves my point.

A good example of where men mysteriously fail to engage is the school Parent Teacher Association (or its equivalent for those whose children are at nursery and not school). I'm the only father that sits on my daughter's Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and I can never figure out why because plenty of men drop off and collect their children each day.

If you think about your child/children's PTA, I'll guarantee the majority of members, if not all, are mothers. The obvious reason for this is that many mothers don't work full time so have greater availability to get involved with the PTA. This logic doesn't wash with me and a quick look at any school's governing body will reveal why.

I was, albeit only for one academic year, a Local Authority appointed School Governor. The role of School Governor is more demanding than sitting on the PTA. It carries a significant legal responsibility and involves attending mandatory training, often organised at the weekend. Pages and pages of background materials need to be read before each meeting and failure to attend meetings will see you losing your post altogether.

You'd imagine fathers in full-time employment would give the governing body a wide birth. In my experience the reverse is true; most school governing bodies have a healthy male to female ratio, especially when compared to the PTA. One can only assume the power and glory of the governing body appeals to the male ego.

The world of blogging and digital communications is a much more simple example. The mummy blogging market is saturated with women writing about parenting and family life. Father bloggers like me are a much rarer beast. I really don't understand why because there are some fantastic daddy bloggers out there and a few more would not hurt.

Along with a lack of daddy bloggers, men are less likely to use social media to engage on parenting matters. The example that springs to mind is the hugely successful Mumsnet. Despite the website's name it is open to men and tellingly its strapline is "by parents for parents". I've also seen the site's twitter feed leap passionately to the defence of us fathers.

Mumsnet has a dedicated Dadsnet section but it is absolutely tiny. Maybe the association with Mumsnet puts dads off signing up. This is a shame because it can be a great source of information on a variety of parenting issues.

I've used the example of Mumsnet but the same can be said for similar sites such as Babycentre or Parentdish. Us boys just won't play with the girls.

A further very simple example is the coffee morning. Mothers will think nothing of organising coffee mornings for their friends and children but I've only ever heard of one father doing this for his male counterparts. The thought of getting together with a group of people, encouraging the kids to socialise and collectively helping out with the childcare for a couple of hours sounds blissful to me but such an invite is yet to arrive.

I'm not for one second saying that everything is the fault of the male. We get blamed for far too many of the world's ills as it is. Barriers are put in our place because we do not have breasts and ovaries. These barriers are very real and fathers have to tolerate sexism that women haven't for at least 20 years.

It is up to us dads to change the world. We need to engage with the PTA and provide constructive feedback to the hospital when the sonographer ignores us. We need to complain when advertisers portray us feckless and incapable of changing nappies and we should use social and traditional media to raise the profile of father's contribution as parents.

It's a simple call to action. Now who's in?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2224323 2012-12-03T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-02T05:12:01-05:00

John L. Adams http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-adams/
While the Church family is coming to terms with sexism within its ranks, I wish to draw attention to another form of sexism, one in which us men need to fight. Over the few years I've been a father, I've been the primary carer for our children. I somehow balance employment and family life but as my job is less demanding than my wife's it's generally me that deals with childcare, the playdates, the doctors' appointments and so on.

It's been a fascinating and enjoyable experience but it has opened my eyes to how mother-centric the world of parenting is. It can be unacceptably sexist and I've experienced and witnessed some eye-opening examples.

Before sitting down to write this, I had a quick flick through the most recent copy of a well known parenting magazine for parents of new born children. It features articles about dressing your baby, activities for your baby and baby skincare. These are hardly subjects that are of sole interest to women.

I counted 20 full-facial photographs of women on the editorial pages and only one of a father. In addition to this only one father seems to be quoted in the entire publication.

A few months back I accompanied my wife to the 20 week scan for our youngest daughter (born just a couple of weeks ago). The sonographer didn't even look at me, introduce herself or offer me a chair. If you speak to other fathers you'll find this is a depressingly common experience. Us men are not unreasonable, we expect the sonographer's attention to be focused on our partners at these scans, but to cut us out of the situation entirely is just plain wrong. The overwhelming majority of us want to be involved.

I can also think of a local childcare provider that I have twice heard referring to her business as being "for mums". I struggle to see how childcare is only of interest to mothers. The male pound is clearly not good enough for her and so I've taken the decision not to cross the threshold of her business premises.

I'm not some kind of jock-strap burning masculist and I am no fan of political correctness. I do, however, feel strongly that men should stand up and shout about the contribution they make as parents.

I am a relatively old and (even if I say so myself) confident father. I can imagine that a younger, less confident man, consistently faced with examples like those above, might feel very confused about their role as a dad and leave it all up to mum.

There are only two things that a man cannot do as a parent; gestation and lactation. While our sisters fight for the right to become bishops, us men must make every effort to break down the ovarian Bastille that exists in the world of parenting.]]>