Britain has become one of the most family-unfriendly countries

The feminist agenda has been hijacked by the well-educated professionals

By BELINDA BROWN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Why is the success of female emancipation and equal opportunity — both cornerstones of the modern feminist movement — measured by the number of women who are in top jobs such as directors of FTSE 100 companies or High Court judges?

The depressing answer is that the so-called feminist agenda has been hijacked by one group of women who have turned it into a self-improvement manifesto for their own social type: the well-educated, professional and political elite of high-flying woman.

Recently, Professor Alison Wolf, an economist at King’s College London, argued that feminism has become obsessed with these ambitious over-achievers and is ignoring the concerns of the majority of women — those who didn’t go to university, those who are stay-at-home mums and those in low-paid jobs.

Scroll down for video

The so-called feminist agenda has been hijacked by the well-educated, professional and political elite of high-flying woman

While Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has predictably criticised Baroness Wolf, I couldn’t agree with her more.

This privileged middle-class sisterhood — who have enough money to farm out their childcare to a small army of nannies, au pairs and nursery school teachers — judge themselves by the success of their working lives.

Sadly, they judge all other women, too, by the same unreasonable yardstick.

In doing so, they patronisingly ignore millions of other women, many of whom would prefer to stay at home and raise a family — at least until their children start full-time education.

The fact is that many of those women who choose to work treat their often low-grade, poorly-paid job principally as a financial means of supporting their family, rather than as an end in itself.

In short, whereas there is a powerful feminist elite who live to work, the vast majority of women work — if they have to, for economic reasons — simply as a means to live.

The tragedy is that, in their blinkered attitude, modern feminists are causing deep damage to the latter for not espousing their values. Thanks to their high public profiles and influential positions, they are able to dictate how the success of female emancipation and equal opportunity should be measured.

To watch the video in full please click here

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman (pictured) has criticised Baroness Wolf for her comments on feminism

And, of course, they measure it as they measure their own success — strictly in terms of work.

As a result, the policies of governments of all political parties over recent years have been dominated by the principle of getting all women into work or back into work.

This, in my view, is utterly misguided.

For the unforeseen consequence is that Britain is now one of the most family-unfriendly countries in the developed world — with a distorted tax and benefit system to match.

Astonishingly, given how often David Cameron talks about the importance of marriage and the family, he continues to head a government that has a particular bias against single-earner households and which seems to be driven by the belief that even mothers with young children should go out to work as much as possible.

There are millions of women who, for all sorts of reasons — relating to their life-priorities, wealth and education or social background — have no interest in pursuing a career. Belinda Brown, honorary research associate at University College London

This emphasis on working-women perfectly suits those well-educated, professional, middle-class couples in which both husband and wife work. Their double incomes allow them to buy a big house, good schools for their children, more exotic holidays and, crucially, round-the-clock childcare.

But for governments to adhere to such a distorted mindset does not help the millions of women who do not feel defined by their job — but who care passionately about keeping their relationships and families together.

By ignoring the wishes of this large group of women, the blinkered feminists — unable to conceive of a world where not all women think like them — make the tough lives of so many mothers even tougher.

What these feminists seem to have forgotten is that not all women are the same.

Admittedly, some women will always strive to succeed at the highest level — and it is absolutely right that they have the equal opportunity to do so.

But there are millions of women who, for all sorts of reasons — relating to their life-priorities, wealth and education or social background — have no interest in pursuing a career. They simply want to have happy, healthy children; a supportive, loving husband, and enough money to get by. The problem is, however, that as a result of the pressure from modern feminists and their influence on people such as Mr Cameron (whose high-flying wife once earned an estimated £400,000 salary as creative director of an upmarket stationery firm), women with more modest, family-oriented ambitions suffer.

Prime Minister, David Cameron (pictured), often talks about the importance of marriage and the family while he continues to head a government that has a particular bias against single-earner households

At the top end of the social ladder, successful working women are invariably supported by an equally well-remunerated husband. But at the other end of the social scale, life is very different.

Encouraged by government incentives to go out to work (for example, given childcare vouchers) — and, of course, through economic necessity — they feel they have to take a job . . . even if they don’t want to.

Every morning I see women leave the council estate where I live, to go to work — stopping with a heavy heart at the nursery or child-minder to drop off a young child. This is the routine of millions of women all over the country.

FRENCH LESSON The term feminism, first used in Britain in the 1890s, comes from the French word ‘feminisme,’ coined by utopian socialist Charles Fourier. Advertisement

There is another side-effect. The increase in the number of women at the lower end of the social scale who feel they have to go out to work inevitably means a reduction of the numbers of men in the workplace.

Indeed, all the official statistics show that male unemployment is on the rise.

As a result, working women — if they have a partner — often return home from work to find an unemployed partner who’s been kicking his heels at home all day, seething with resentment and low self-esteem.

Not surprisingly, she, in turn, will often seethe — in despair at the lack of gratitude.

This can easily lead to a downward spiral, with couples much more likely to break up.

Then, sadly, the great risk is that this will damage the couple’s children, with boys, in particular, suffering at school, experimenting with drugs or drifting into crime.

And so, in the next generation, male unemployment is the almost inevitable outcome.

And all this is because of the power of a feminist elite who have relentlessly promoted social policies that sacrifice the values and interests of ordinary and relatively happy family lives in the name of ‘equal opportunity’.

The damage, I fear, they are doing to conventional family life in this country is enormous.

So what can be done to reverse this?

Professor Alison Wolf (pictured) argued that feminism has become obsessed with these ambitious over-achievers and is ignoring the concerns of the majority of women

Of course, nobody wishes to stop any talented and ambitious woman from achieving at the highest level and it’s absolutely right that such women compete with men on a truly level playing field.

But there needs to be an acknowledgement that a woman’s worth cannot be judged solely by the job she does, and that a woman who stays at home to bring up a family is every bit as valuable as other more professionally ambitious women.

What’s needed is a major sea-change in thinking, one that acknowledges that men and women are not the same — but also that all women are not the same, either.

I’m not saying that those who choose to stay at home should be offered unfair financial inducements to do so — but they should certainly not be punished for doing so.

Yet that’s exactly what the current tax and benefits system does.

This is perverse. Why, for example, shouldn’t a stay-at-home mother be able to transfer her

personal income tax allowance to her husband and partner, thereby reducing the tax burden on hard-pressed family finances.

But that should only be a first step. Since the feminist revolution began in the Seventies, billions of pounds must have been spent on promoting sexual equality and women’s role in the workplace. The great irony is that its success has resulted, today, with the Government worried about levels of male unemployment.

For the incontrovertible fact is that men are suffering: falling behind women in education; in the numbers taking up apprenticeships and, increasingly, in the workplace, too. This isn’t a development for feminists to crow over; it’s a potential social disaster.

It is a truism that men in work are happier men, and they make better husbands and more attentive fathers.

I believe that if more men could be helped to find jobs, while more women choose to stay at home, society would benefit with a virtuous circle of happier husbands, happier wives and, of course, happier children.