I found myself on a blog entry today that sent my blood pressure sky high (I’m getting old, I can’t help it). It’s @MumsnetBloggers fault. Anyway, the entry in question (“Congratulations Fearne Cotton! Now how soon before someone mentions the ‘M’ word?“) written by ‘yummy mummy’ Louise, questions the modern practice of having babies out of wedlock.
Apparently one can only be committed enough to raise children if you’re married; you can only find the ‘incentive’ to work through troubles with a ring on your finger and a marriage certificate. I might be paraphrasing slightly.
I don’t know where to begin listing the ways this bugs me. For starters, what business of Louise is Fearne — or anyone else’s — relationship status? What about those who choose to conceive by donor? Gay couples? Are the requirements of marriage vital there too?
After over 10 years with Karl, 2 cars, a mortgage and numerous pets, what difference would a dress and a piece of paper have made to our decision to bring 2 children into this world? How could a ceremony provide me more inspiration to work on my relationship than my beautiful, clever babies?
Louise insists that just because this setup works for me, doesn’t mean it’ll work for everyone:
— Yummy Mummy? Really? (@ymummyreally) August 9, 2012
I say that going by the divorce rates in this country, neither does bloody marriage.
- – -
In completely unrelated news, how adorable is this nappy I bought from Fill Your Pants? (product shot – pic not mine)
I am in love with this nappy. They are not completely bomb-proof, so I wouldn’t use it for a long journey or overnight etc, but they fit incredibly snug and are super soft inside. I don’t know how I’m going to justify splurging on the other prints but I’m sure I’ll find a way!