Ian Duncan Smith suggests having a family makes for a better leader

[squeezed]

I know that I might be reading too much into this given my excessive consumption of the news in the last few weeks. IDS has stated that he supports Andrea Leadsom because "I believe that Andrea's strong family background, business experience, compassion, commitment to social justice and dedication will make her a great prime minister for the UK," link Is this suggesting that Theresa May is less capable because she doesn't have children? There does seem to be judgement on people who are not parents, particularly women, and their abilities due to not having children. By the way I don't support the Conservative party, so it is merely an observation.

[DetestableHerytike]

Strong family background usually means how you grew up, doesn't it?

May has a massive lead at present.

[WashboardAnkles]

'Strong family background' doesn't necessarily mean having children. We all have a family background, some stronger than others.

I think you are taking offence for the sake of it TBH and I find this kind of nit picking very annoying.

I hope Theresa May wins. TBH anyone other than Gove will do.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

I had a rant on a thread that touched on this issue in AIBU yesterday. I knew it would only be a matter of time before Teresa May's not having children was wheeled out as if it were in any way relevant to her capabilities. It riles me when code words like "strong family background" are used. Say what you mean! You don't trust people, particularly women, who deviate from the "norm".

Here's the rant I pasted, the thread I took it from ( here ) moves on to touch on why women can't ever get it right, children or no children, because the game's rigged.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Oops, posted before I finished. I wanted to conclude that politically, I care for neither Sturgeon or May, can't abide either of them really, but the fact that they've never sprogged is completely irrelevant to their leadership capabilities.

[annandale]

Interesting. I think increasingly that men are judged in the same way about this in fact - they will wheel out their children at calculated moments and I'll admit to quite liking the image of a family man that presents despite knowing it shouldn't affect my judgment of them. However, it's plain weird to have that as the first qualification on the list for someone and I haven't heard that for a man, no. So I think you're right, it's a not very subtle differentiation between May and Leadsom.

[NikiSaintPhalle]

I agree, OP, and think it's fairly obvious. Only the 'strong' bit is also code for 'respectable' eg. 'no children out of wedlockand/or at an age the average Tory considers inappropriately young, and no divorces'.

[FreshwaterSelkie]

Bum, the original link didn't paste over: here it is

[DetestableHerytike]

Ugh, freshwater. That's all horrible.

I have no idea if Ids, Crabbe, leadsom, fox have children. I assume leadsom does from the context of the post.

I know may doesn't from an interview and I know gove does because of some furore about which school they went to.

I think it's utterly irrelevant to politics. Politicians need to represent thousands of people who aren't like them: young, old, male, female etc. Why would commenters pick on this one characteristic?

[FreshwaterSelkie]

I think that's how it should be, Herytike - we should genuinely not be able to remember if our leaders have children or not, or if as Niki says, they have them in Daily Mail approved ways or not, because it's irrelevant. But we do know, and judgements are made at a knee jerk level. annandale, the phrase "family man" is a weird one, isn't it? Interesting shorthand for reliable, stable, trustworthy etc, but why do these characteristics attach to fathers, and what does that say about how we think of men who aren't fathers? Not quite the vitriol attached to women who aren't mothers, but the suspicion and mistrust that it speaks to aren't pleasant either.

[VikingVolva]

I would take 'strong family background' to mean any part of your family, not specifically the having of children.

But I can't ever remember a male politician having their family background highlighted, unless it's part of a biog. It's just not a quality that's mentioned of men in terms of leadership. OTOH, they might be praised for having a fragrant wife, and that's probably no better.

[LurcioAgain]

The "family man" thing used to be used a propos of men as a piece of homophobia ("look, he has a wife and kids, he's 100% not gay!") - and I absolutely agree it is used in connection with women as a piece of misogyny.

[powershowerforanhour]

If he means upbringing, does that mean he is slagging off Stephen Crabb?

[squeezed]

In this statement "strong family background" is suggested as a quality to make you a good leader. I think it has been referred to as something that has been consciously worked towards rather than born into. Almost like it's a professional achievement or a personality trait that someone has a spouse, children and supportive extended family. Therefore it references the immediate family she has rather than the family are was born into. Of course the statement could also mean that IDS doesn't think someone who is single and from a chaotic background has the qualities to be leader.

[squeezed]

powershower I was thinking that could also be the case.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

I'm in Scotland but unlike so many mumsnetters I don't read the Daily Mail so I don't recall there being anything said about Sturgeon's lack of suitability on those grounds. There were plenty of substantive reasons for opposing independence, all of which still exist.

[VestalVirgin]

Well, it has been found that male politicians with daughters make more women-friendly laws than male politicians who don't have daughters.

However, for women, no such connection has been proven, so ... whether they have children is only ever relevant for male politicians, and sons don't count.

And, in the end, you can just look at someone's politics, anyway - there's no guarantee that men with daughters love their daughters enough for that to impact their politics.

[Jenesaberpas]

Having a personal stake in the future of the country after you're gone certainly can't be a bad thing for the person in charge.

[DetestableHerytike]

Very few childless people have ok personal stake in the future - nieces, nephews, godchildren etc.

Regardless, politicians know that pensioners tend to vote more and that they need to bear that in mind if they want to be around for a second five year term

[ladyballs]

I agree OP. And as a childless woman it is wearing to hear that I have no stake in the future.

[Owllady]

Freshwater, it had already been mentioned 're her not having children and ite why I started the thread (as it made me angry and I'm not a Tory!)
Ids is an odious toad

[Jenesaberpas]

Straight in with the sarcasm there.

For the majority, the love for their own children is on a different level to that for other people's children.

[Dozer]

He obviously does mean having/not having DC, or else he's implying that to be PM you have to have had naice, reputable parents and siblings, which would be equally pointless criteria since candidates can't pick their family!

William Hague had this kind of stuff and stories implying he is gay.

[ladyballs]

Sarcasm? Just irritated at unthinking adherence to a patriarchal trope.

[Owllady]

Yes, 're William Hague and his poor wife had miscarriages :(
It's just vile

[DetestableHerytike]

Sarcasm? When you dismissed a whole swathe of people including many MNers?

The love of one's children doesn't mean you have the first clue about politics!