Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Darling Mr Bob,


I am indeed a very Yummy Mummy and I have a full time job as well as being a mummy. The reason I work is because my darling children are such very hard work. I have so much respect for all the full time mothers - especially those who are now entertaining their little ones for the long school holidays. Indeed I am pampered and terribly well turned out (even my underwear is simply divine). I must admit your earlier post made me giggle, because I sense such bitterness in your tone. You poor man!

Only just seen this thread, and got to thinking.


I first heard the term "yummy mummy" the same weekend I first heard the term "chav". Both were used by lads I was on a stag weekend with in 2004.


Now Yummy Mummy was used to describe a very attractive woman who was with her equally attractive daughter at the airport. Yummy Mummy simply meant MILF.


Chavs was used to describe a really nice bunch of lads we bumped in to from Essex, a couple of whom were sporting the Burberry caps that were so linked with the term. In this case it was used affectionately.


Now it could well be that I just stumbled on to these late, but the point is that chav was a bit of a joke about a fashion sense, and yummy mummy simply meant good looking mother.


However, as time passed, the people that love to make everything about class got hold of these terms, and yummy mummy no longer ,meant "fit mother", it meant "Middle Class, 3 wheeler buggy, mid 30's mother". Chav meanwhile started being used to describe working class lads, and anyone involved in a pub fight!


Now I admit that I have used both terms, because they have taken on certain meanings, and everyone knows what you mean. However, they shouldn't have done, they were harmless terms, which have been turned in to class definitions, and as usual, it's a load of bo!!ocks.

Yet again, Keef, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

As per my previous post, I imagined most people were also aware of this but perhaps I was wrong.


'Yummy Mummy', in popular parlance, no longer means a competent, able Mother who also manages to be well turned-out, fashionable and still attract wolf-whistles. No. It means an over-privileged, 'kept' woman with nothing better to do than shop for organic vegetables, do lunch and cut loose with hubby's credit card after one Sauv too many.

They're not 'our' definitions.

It's linguistic class war.

The MCs appropriated 'Chav' for the purposes of mockery.

Now the WCs have appropriated 'Yummy' to the same end. Though I have to say, when I see someone pushing a ?700 Bugaboo into Green and Blue for a champagne lunch and openly referring to themselves as a 'Yummy Mummy', I think they have a point.

DM, don't be disappointed. Perhaps MILF was rather crass, my point was simply that the term "yummy mummy" simply started as a term to describe an attractive mother. It is only more recently that it has been used to describe a "type" of person.


Asset is a Bugaboo a pram? If it is, I would be royally p!ssed off (as I am 100% sure would Mrs Keef) if someone got me that for MY birthday...... Why would the mother want a pram for her birthday, next she'll be getting a new iron! ;-)

I can't believe 'yummy' has changed it's meaning. I think 'yummy mummy' is a compound noun. In fact thinking about it it's mummy that has always been laced with all the class baggage. I grew up calling my dear one, 'Mum'.


Best YM/MILF ever had to be that advert where the lad watches his mates mums assured hand movements as she prepares their breakfast while correcting a pleat in her skirt, and puts a shoe on, and once she's gone he says

"Sean, I fancy your mum" and then the advert finishes in silence.

Genius.


Mind you must be rubbish as advertising as I couldn't tell you if it was for shoes, breakfast cereal, fairy liquid or Crystal Clear face cream.

not for her birthday Keef - just for the baby. It's quite common for family members to chip in and buy stuff when a new baby comes along. The champagne lunch was for her birthday.

I had a Bugaboo for my daughter and they are fantastic as I have droned on here before. I sold it a while ago for 70% of cost after using it for 2 years. 15% depreciation p.a. not too bad! (can I just add that I got mine before they became ubiquitous).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...