Are we that different from the Victorians?

Because I am doing research on Victorian governesses, I was interested to read Rachel Johnson's article about middle class neglect of children in this week's Spectator.
With a few changes, it could have easily been written in the mid-Victorian period. then as now, women were expected to outsource childcare. Now it is for economic reasons, then it was for status and confirming economic status. Now children are expected to have a range of accomplishments, then they were expected to have a range of accomplishments.
Then, commentators worried about the effect of having a working class woman looking after children, now it is Eastern European. Interestingly, in the Victorian age, the nanny appears morel likely to have been English, possibly working class, where as the governess was more prized if she was foreign as then the children could learn another language. Then there was an obsession with homeschooling (in the Regency period there were boarding schools for girls), now among certain sections of society there is a return to homeschooling. How much longer until the governess does make a reappearance?
In other words, the obsession with the neglect of children is nothing new. The guilt women feel is nothing new. The fears about over indulgence by parents who see little of their children is nothing new. There are variations in the terms, but I read the article and thought -- oh, I have heard these arguments before and very recently, but being applied in a slightly different context. I think it is interesting. Are we entering a new Victorian age? Or is it simply that commentators do get worked up by the same things? Or that the problem of balancing childcare against external societal expectations never really goes away?
Oh the other great article in the Spectator is on the demise of the swashbuckling novel. I love swashbucklers and a good adventure story... The swashbuckler is not actually dead. Think Guys with Gear who go novels. Think James Bond. Think Alex Rider. It is these sorts of novels that turn children on to reading.
He has just changed. People still want that sense of adventure.
I love seeing echoes.

Mrs Beeton lite

A new compilation of Mrs Beeton has been published. This one edited by Kay Fairfax focuses mainly on the advice given for the management of the Victorian household and as such gives a fascinating glimpse into late Victorian life. Mrs Beeton was first published in 1861.

I have long enjoyed rereading Mrs Beeton in the original for the wonderful tips on how to manage a Victorian house and servants. One of the joys of going to the Lit and Phil in Newcastle is to look at their copy of the Edwardian version of Mrs Beeton. I loved reading about what the servants should be doing. As it was an aspirational book, it gives detailed instructions.

However, it is a huge tome with lots of recipes and hints on how to host a dinner party, so for the writer of the Victorian period, this new book is probably of more use. Fairfax has taken a room by room approach.

I see from the papers, Judith Flanders Consuming Passions is now out in paperback. Again, this is an excellent book for anyone interested in the growth of consumerism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Flanders' earlier book The Victorian House covers much of the same territory as Mrs Beeton's but it takes a wide view and uses a range of sources. Among other things, it has a detailed description of minutiae of mourning.

Personally I find the detail about how people lived and how society rules affected homes etc far more useful (and fascinating) than political history. My dh would disagree as he loves the cut and thrust of battles.