Jump to content

Recommended Posts

buggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who'd have thought when you wanted it all to kick

> off a few weeks back

> that all you'd need to do is talk about fairy

> stories ;)

> See you at Chris & Pui?



I know, this is gold.


Yeah, hoping to do C&P...

Well at 43 I'm still loving princess stories & happy to go out wearing something pink & sparkly ....with pride.


Then again I also love to go clubbing with my gay male friends, so I blame it on them!


There is no hope for my 2 girls.


Bad, bad Mummy.

I can sort of understand the angst - particularly wanting to protect little girls from living in a world of commercial Disney pink - but I have to say I think worrying too much about the Cinderella story misses the complexities of growing up. I loved Cinderella - and spent many happy hours with my grandmother sweeping the hearth with her pretending to be the ugly stepsisters - for some reason I liked dramatizing that bit rather than the finale of finding the shoe and getting the prince? As I grew up I became more and more of a feminist - and I find it quite easy to reconcile the career woman, main bread winner, feminist I have become with the little girl who loved Cinderella. Fairy stories have been part of our culture from time immemorial - every culture in the world has a version of the Cinderella story (granted our Disney version is a pretty drippy sanitized one compared to more ancient versions where death, mutilation and virginity were much more prominent elements of the tale!) but personally I think (some) little girls love pink and princesses for a while, but it doesn't automatically make them passive or weak - and they are just as likely to go onto having a phase of tomboyness. To me the far far more important role model is their mother and father - and how they share roles and responsibilities, childcare and work. Where parents share this equally - I think little girls and boys grow up to expect that from their own lives and relationships - whatever their interest in Disney/ Cinderella as a child.

katgod Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmmm cannot help thinking that if we applied the

> 'Syrian mothers test' to most of the EDF it would

> pretty quickly close.



The obsevation was not meant to "close" the dialogue. It was actually a positive observation about what a good place and time our children are growing up in, that we have the comparative luxury of being able to discuss such things as the minutiae of Cinderella etc.


(But what you say is nevertheless very likely true! ;-) )

The Nappy Lady Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well at 43 I'm still loving princess stories &

> happy to go out wearing something pink & sparkly

> ....with pride.

>

> Then again I also love to go clubbing with my gay

> male friends, so I blame it on them!

>


:)

"> Plus, I don't think it's necessary or even useful

> to stereotype girls who do like pink, dressing as

> fairies etc, as conforming to what some adults

> possibly perceive as a media-driven frenzy of

> thinly-velied antifeminism. Being feminine --in

> whatever form be it pink or otherwise-- does not

> necessarily relate to being subservient........"


Dressing in pink does/should not equate to being "feminine"!

My 5yo and I recently saw cinderella at the rose theatre kingston, where they had modernised it a bit: Cinders was much less subservient, argued with her father and stepmother and was going to leave, became friends with the prince early on, no marriage at the end (just a kiss and dance) etc.

Blokes in pink, sparkly dresses maybe Otta, but pink is OK in a shirt.


Got me thinking that most of the posts in this thread focus on the impact of these stories on girls, but as a bloke and father of a bloke, I think their impact on boys is also important i.e. that they're presented with strong female characters.

My daughter turned into a princess around the age of 3. She wore princess dresses and a tutu more or less constantly for a good 2/3 years and played with her barbies whilst watching Disney films all the time. Aged about 6/7, the gaggle of barbies looked like they had joined Siouxie and the Banshees, she'd chopped their hair off, coloured it all shades of black and blue and they all had black lips and ripped clothes.


She's now 23, and has been in and out of uni and I'd say she's quite princessy again. She loves her make up and her sense of style (edwardian at the mo!!) but boy, if any male took her for a passive, girly girl they'd be in for a shock.


Edited to add. I think the greatest role model for a little girl is her mum. If she has a ballsy, intelligent mother (and you all sound like you'd fit that description) then she will no doubt turn out the way you hope she will.

Re dressing in pink. It should of course not equate to "being girly and feminine". I agree but it often does. I would never dream of dressing in anything pink at work.


Otta- my hubby does look V V hot in a pink shirt under a sharp suit I have to say:).


X

I agree about mothers being role models for girls (and boys?) but you can't ignore thousands of years of tradition of story telling as a means of communicating values to children.


And to make this point for me, at bedtime tonight I read (again!) the version of Cinderella which inspired my OP: Amanda Askew's work (i use the term loosely) in which Cinders is particularly meek and forlorn looking. I noticed for the first time this evening, right at the back, a page entitled "Notes for Parents and Teachers". There is then a list of questions for discussion.


The last question states:


"Cinderella is hard-working and is rewarded by the Fairy Godmother. Ask the Children what jobs they could do at home and what rewards they could receive."


I kid you not.


There is absolutely no spin, no satire, no angle on the modern-standard version of the tale in this book. Take it from me, where the question says, "hard working", read "obedient domestic slave". (It's straight up, unpaid labour with "nothing but scraps" for Cinderella to eat and in which "only when evening came was she allowed to sit for a while by the fire, near the cinders".) For "reward" read (of course) "a frock and a husband" (whom there is no reference to Cinder's actually having wanted or asked for).


If Cashewnut, I and others are in a minority in believing that fables/mythological stories of this kind carry moral and social messages, it is at least a minority which includes the publishers of this book.


The message, "scrub the floors and you'll live in a clean house" I wouldn't mind.


This book was published for the first time in 2010.

I see what you mean but that's just one book. And I'm definitely in the camp of exposing them to all, including negative things and discussing it. I mentioned this thread to said daughter and she said parents need to be careful not to suppress their daughters femininity and to make sure you don't get that mixed up with feminist ideals.

Tillie I'm not in the ban and censor camp either. If I were, this book would have vanished on Monday. My 2 yo old picked this book out for herself at the library. I'm not making a big thing of it being crap, as I don't want her to feel like she shouldn't like whatever she likes. And the library would be no fun if they couldn't choose their own stuff.


We have lots of Cinderella at the moment, all if it pretty shite. Askew's version is by no means far-out. It's typical. It's only the explicit comment/question at the end which marks it out.

WM you say you are not making a big thing of it being crap, but it does

seem to be a big thing for you.I think i'd be more worried my conceern would

cause confusion. I'm sure you said earlier you've discussed things whilst reading it.

Your children will encounter many gender stereotypes in life and meet people who have been

abused, but as children the innocence of liking a story, without

having to think of all that shit, should be celebrated.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WM you say you are not making a big thing of it

> being crap, but it does

> seem to be a big thing for you.I think i'd be more

> worried my conceern would

> cause confusion. I'm sure you said earlier you've

> discussed things whilst reading it.

> Your children will encounter many gender

> stereotypes in life and meet people who have been

> abused, but as children the innocence of liking a

> story, without

> having to think of all that shit, should be

> celebrated.


I have not made a big deal of it bring crappy TO MY DAUGHTERS (not shouting, can't do italics). A big deal, to them, would be hiding/removing the book, refusing to read it. I haven't done those things.


Yes I made a comment a couple of days back. It didn't confuse them. Everyone is allowed their own tastes/thoughts in this house. My 2 year old knows that Mummy doesn't think that much of this book. My comment hasn't stopped her from asking me to read it each night since Monday, nor from enjoying it herself.

Oh dear re the bit for discussion at the end, although a small part of me wouldn't mind working hard (for a little while at least, obviously in a comfy office not a kitchen) to be visited by a kindly fairy godmother rewarding me with a glam frock and handsome prince!


If she could turn up at about 10.30 tomorrow morning that'd be nice!

  • 2 years later...

So...2 years on and after the 110000033th time reading "cinders" to my 3 yr old son I cant help but cringe when reading my wisdom of 2 years ago...just as I felt with my crying reflux baby in the newborn days when I had spent years tutting and glaring at parents and their noisy (wtf?) babies...

My intentions were there, I had it all worked out but after flying solo all week, intense days at work, and ds screaming " I WANT MOOOOORE CINDEEEEEELAAAAA" i am just giving in


Oh how times change...

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

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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