Politicians with babies on stage

Take parliament. Going way back (and pre Corona).

Had to be there in person. In London no matter where you lived. Away from children generally. And the other things that women have going on more often than men.
Mat pay from very recently.

When Corona attending parliament, well it can be remote. Remote voting.

JRM said nope. Can't remember details. You have to be here to vote. He wanted attendance in person as well. Can't remember what happened.

There was (is?) no proxy voting. Remember the female MP going on in hosp trolley because it was av important vote.

I suppose what I'm saying is that imo working and looking after babies and little kids. Is shit. Full attention not given to either.

Push how great it is and well it's women in mind.

So we get to do two important things at the same time. Prob really stressful for the mum. And neither task getting full attention.

Trying to combine is why so many women do. Low pay part time work that they are overskilled and too experienced for. Of necessity. Things like selling stuff on net. Getting drawn into MLM. Because still. Need money + need to look after kids. Same as ever.

I'm not saying that anything here is 'wrong'.

What I feel is there's too much pressure etc. SAH Vs woh. We've all seen the threads on here. And I don't get why it's so polarised and angry.

The aim is for family groups whatever they look like. To have much more genuine choice in how they work and live. SAH - fab! 2 parents both part time- why not? Work full time assuming that's her preference and child/ ren got what they needed when tiny and are well looked after now. Great!

In the end it is still mainly. Men carrying on as usual. Women when have babies. Big decisions. Lots of change. Organising things and knowing whatever you do you're judged. Deciding to change jobs for local PT however much loved old industry.

All of it. Same. As for centuries.

And I really don't think women + babies + the vast majority of jobs = good news for us.

In the end we live and have for a very long time lived in a world that was built by men for men.

We have always- then and now- tried to fit in however we can in a system that does not fit us.

And our roles, duties, etc have always been controlled by men.

Chattel. Banned from loads of jobs. Responsible for children. Caring feeding clothing. How much we did and how much we could share the load etc was dependent on men. If they were a violent drunk, kept all the money, left etc. Women had to get on with it. We have done our best and kept going whatever the situation, generally for our children. And this still is often the case.

I am not feeling the comments about women in the past (when? Where?) always working with babies and young kids around. With a sort of impression (as others have mentioned) that this was good/ better.

So many things but in general.

Before contraception. There were loads of children in loads of families. There was a lot of poverty. Things were pretty grim for most.

Would the women have had children/ however many if they had a choice?

Not all women are happy looking after babies children. It gets done. But it was something that was... I mean it had to be done. It was invariably the woman's job. Something positive? To do that and try to work?
The older children used to care for the younger. Children were left to themselves much more.
And the work was generally very physically hard.

That's post industrial revolution.

Before that. Was it better? Around the world now women do long hours of backbreaking work. With a baby strapped to them. And when they get bigger.. not sure. The mum is still out planting the rice or getting wood water etc. Dunno where the toddlers go..

In the UK women and children went down the mines until the govt found out and banned it. Lost income meant more poverty.

I mean I'm just not at all sure about all this.

If not bf then dads can and do care for children. DH loves it. I didn't. Horses for courses. Choice. Sharing responsibilities, with an eye to preferences and practicalities.

It's not a universal truth that mothers want to be with their children for however long. Yes babies need their mother. That's all a newborn knows. And that it's not a short term need. But it's not a must after a certain age either.

apologies if the breast/feet image came across as somewhat odd ... bit tired tonight!

Agree, Babdoc that there's no use in romanticising the past, and I'm not suggesting life was rosy or easy back before antibiotics and analgesics.

But as pp says, surely with all our tech and our ingenuity, we can do better, now?

Do we really all need to work 40 hour weeks? Couldn't many jobs be done with babies at the breast/feet of the parents? Has the pandemic accustomed us to children/pets/housemates moving around during work calls, and does it really matter for all jobs that this happens? Of course there are exceptions, and some jobs where one must absolutely focus 100% with no interruptions or noises off stage, but if the only reason it is 'not acceptable' to mix work/domestic life is because of a perception of what is socially 'correct', then perception can feasibly be changed.

I do think this is something we need to talk about more. Until we do so, and maybe try to find solutions, we are restricted to choosing between work and family life, effectively.

My mum always took me to work when I was a baby. She was a hairdresser though.

Does the UK parliament have a crèche yet?

I would rather normalise politicians being given proper maternity leave than normalise politicians taking their babies to work with them.

There was a time before that when yes young children made some contribution and human societies were not perfect but had a better balance than now. It is estimated that pre agriculture “the work” of providing food, shelter etc took about 3 hours a day, the majority of the food was gathered by women working in groups with small children in tow. Older children had a “play village” and teenagers were known as “shade experts” because they spent so much time lolling around in groups under the trees.

I refer you to Nisa! by Majorie Shostak

We surely have enough human ingenuity and imagination to work out something better for mothers and babies now.

I get what you're saying, OP. I think many women arrive at parenthood and find this idea that you can have it all - two parents with fantastic full-time careers and also be brilliant parents - is really not so straightforward. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some people manage it, but I think many don't and I think it helps to be realistic about that. But maybe normalising the idea that sometimes your family life "entering" your work life might actually help that balance feel more achievable. (I like the fact that people have adapted to people's home lives interrupting Zoom meetings!)

Usually a public relations or psychological perspective,

I am amused at the PP who thinks there was a pre industrial “golden age”, when mothers had their children around them while working.
Children as young as five would be out working as well! The boys out scaring birds off crops or minding sheep, the girls churning butter and doing domestic work.
Come the industrial revolution, 8 year olds were working 14 hour days down mines and in mills. When mothers began working factory shifts, the children were left to a granny or neighbour or just their older siblings to mind.
I don’t think there was ever a good time for women re childcare. Apart from (as always) the privileged wealthy, who had nannies and/or boarding schools, while not even needing to work themselves.

In my opinion we should be looking at how we can make society more mother and baby friendly.

It has really irked me for a long time that women in politics or any position to actually get things done would have no understanding of the lives, experiences and values of those of us who choose to spend the early years being with our little ones 24/7.

It has too long been the case that motherhood and the importance of the mother-infant relationship has been devalued.

When I saw the photo of the baby on the stage I was glad to see a woman mothering while working.

In my opinion it is not very feminist to hide mothers and small children away from public life and working life.

Babies and small children need their mothers, mothers need interaction with other adults and the satisfaction of making a meaningful contribution as well financial resources to survive.

We are dependent on partners/husbands or the state when we become mothers because in the modern day Western world we are prevented from supporting ourselves by rules and structures which exclude mothers and small children.

For more about the benefits of keeping little ones close and how they benefit from seeing their mums work

The Continuum Concept

And

Our babies, ourselves

Not all jobs can be done with little ones around but perhaps we can give all new mothers a choice to work temporarily in a different area/sector while their little one needs them close by.

Public life and work life has been designed to fit the requirements of men, taking the needs of women into account when restructuring should necessarily consider how to combine motherhood with participation in the workplace and public life that supports mothers who want to keep their children close and breastfeed for the WHO recommended minimum of 2 years.

My MP before I moved, Tulip Siddiq, from Wiki:
She gave birth to a son in January 2019. Two days before the birth she attended the Commons in a wheelchair, for a critical Brexit-related vote. On 29 January, following a constitutional change, she became the first ever MP to vote by proxy

Interesting discussion.

I like seeing mothers with babies in the public eye. I like that mothers are prioritising their baby's needs.

Good points 're the fact that a baby or child can't be fitted in in between meetings, but maybe this should lead us to change work so that it can be done? Change the workplace and work practices?

Historically women had their children with them or around them as they worked. Thinking of pre industrial revolution and pre enclosure etc.

The rigid split between home and work hasn't really gone so well for humans so far.

I think the issue of mothering seems to me the one where feminism really struggles. How do you reconcile all the different pressures?

Mixed feelings.

Many jobs cannot have babies there. So this is difficult for some mums to see. Extra pressure.

At the same time I don't want women not to be able to speak up because they've recently given birth and are breastfeeding (the most likely explanation.) when you start to leave baby for longer periods your supply starts to reduce considerably.

My (male) cousin took more parental than his wife and brought their daughter to her every few hours for a feed at around 6 mo, when she went back to work and when their daughter was starting solids - obviously this is also so that mum's supply doesn't begin to reduce. His wife is a senior researching scientist in nutrition so that was how she continued to juggle both with a v supportive husband.

Ideally extremely good childcare would be a priority in this country.

I do get concerned when i see maternity leave being so visibly reduced or viewed as holiday, "being off" etc as it's extremely necessary time for mum and baby.

If I'm quite honest, in my experience, you need 2 years to recover and nurture. But I'm not sure what that would do to women's careers without correct input.

I'm torn. when my children were little, walking away from them in the mornings to go to work NEVER felt right, but I knew I both needed and wanted to keep working. I needed mental stimulation and money. I also needed to keep my hand in - a long career break would not work in my industry.

why is society set up so that to get those things mothers must separate themselves from their babies?

so seeing women with power challenge that is overall a good thing I think.

It's part of the bind we find ourselves in as women isn't it? part of the things only people with bodies that can gestate babies (or bodies that can gestate babies but have got a problem) really get

I’m not a fan really overall. I get the reasons why etc but really it’s not practical. Yes ok maybe with a small baby but children do not stay babies and Jacinda on the stage addressing the NZ public with a tantrumming toddler or a child asking “cute” questions every 5 mins is annoying and disrespectful to the audience or fellow work colleagues. A cute child on zoom gets old very quickly when as a colleague you just want to get the meeting over so you can do other stuff.
Even Jacinda couldn’t bring her young child to the daily Covid pressers, that would be very disrespectful to the audience waiting for info.

Well said, Malin52. It's absolutely progressive.

It's weird to see people saying that women shouldn't use the power available to them to model progressive change. Sounds like mere jealousy. Jacinda hasn't said she's better than any other mother for doing this.

It's misguided. I think it degrades motherhood to something you can do between board meetings when babies really do need someone available full-time (whether it's parents, families or paid).

When did Jacinda take Neve on stage? I don't remember seeing this. She took her to the UN General Council with Clarke, who is her primary carer, looking after her because she was 3 months and still breast feeding.

In face she said "“I have the ability to take my child to work, there’s not many places you can do that. I am not the gold standard for bringing up a child in this current environment because there are things about my circumstances that are not the same,” Ardern said.

Ardern outlined the exceptional circumstances that make it possible for her to raise Neve while continuing as prime minister, which she has frequently stated she hopes will one day be the norm for all women wanting to balance a career and parenting.
“If I can do one thing, and that is change the way we think about these things, then I will be pleased we have achieved something.”

That sounds pretty damn progressive while realising you are privileged but hoping you can help to start to change the narrative. I don't know what's to not like about it?

I think it is great to see mothers and babies are not being separated.

For most of human history mothers kept their babies close to them while working.

I do think it is progressive for the rights of mothers and babies.

Just because it isn’t possible in every workplace doesn’t mean that no-one should do it and if it becomes common among the “privileged” then there is a basis and evidence to argue for policies that support mothers and babies more widely. Perhaps including better financial support for mothers who want to be at home with their babies for longer than they currently can because it wouldn’t be safe or feasible to take their babies to work.

I used to think it was progressive and showing that it could be done. But having had a baby I think it’s irritating. You need nat leave to recover physically. If you have a sleeper you’re lucky but if not it’s sleep deprivation madness. You have a 7m+ and you are unable to sit and hold a conversation as they’re on the move - it’s a fantasy that you can work well with them.