Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

David Cameron tells Angela Eagle to "calm down dear" at PMQ

714 replies

Bennifer · 27/04/2011 13:25

I posted this in feminism but think this is appalling, if true.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577

OP posts:
huddspur · 27/04/2011 23:08

Although I still don't think it was an acceptable thing to say. The PM should not sink to these levels of behaviour

forkful · 27/04/2011 23:10

RobF -

There are less women than men that are prepared to put in the hours and live the lifestyle that is necessary to succeed in politics. It's nothing do do with sexism. There are what, ~650 MPs. So you are saying that there are not 325 women in the whole of the UK what are prepared to be MPs!? Shock

It's no different to the world of business. Women aren't prepared to sacrifice their home and family life in the same way that men are.

Sorry - can't let that statement go. It's pure sexism.

There are many women without DC.

Many women who's DC are now adults.

Many women who have partners who are SAHDs.

Many women are discriminated against in the workplace when then announce their pregnancy.

Many women are paid less that men for the same job.

Many women are penalised for taking time out to have a DC.

BTW - there is no need for women or men to "sacrifice their home and family life" - this is just the way the current system works.

As for "Child benefit is for children. Not women. The fact that so many women regard it as "their" income is one of the main problems with it.".

Well, just Biscuit. I know this is a derail but can't let it pass.

You obviously no nothing of the history of child benefit. It's predecessor was the "family allowance".

In the first half of the last century women campaigned for a family allowance to be paid to mothers. It was brought in due to the gendered impact of poverty. It is a lifeline to many women as unfortunately their male partners withold and control £ (which is financial abuse).

smallwhitecat · 27/04/2011 23:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

edam · 27/04/2011 23:12

Lil - so you genuinely believe there are only three women in the country fit to sit in the Cabinet? And that male cabinet members such as Andrew Lansley are doing such a mighty fine job that it's impossible to think of any woman who might not fuck up quite as badly?

forkful · 27/04/2011 23:13

huddspur - she was correcting a glaring factual inaccuracy! i.e. that the former Labour MP DC was crowing about had in fact stepped down and not lost his seat!

byrel · 27/04/2011 23:14

Do people really care how many women there are in the cabinet? The cabinet could be made up of transexual martians and I couldn't care less provided they are competant.

QuelleLeJeff · 27/04/2011 23:17

Maybe you could educate yourself a bit to elevate the boredom of posting on these sort of threads SWC?

I suggest a quick browse though this It will decrease your feeling of superiority against other women and it might stop you posting such ill-formed and pointless contributions such as those you have made to this thread.

Who knows, it might make you actually stop being so hateful...just an idea Smile

QuelleLeJeff · 27/04/2011 23:19

and did Lilmeena actually just use the phrase "token black"?

I might actually sick.

FFS

Outragedmum · 27/04/2011 23:19

it's not an issue anyone complaining about a 'FUNNY' throwaway comment like that needs to get a life there are a lot more serious issues for you to get your knickers in a knot about....Angry

Lilmeena · 27/04/2011 23:20

Edam - why does there have to be any women in the cabinet? Where is it written that women have to make up 50% of cabinet posts?
There are far more men in politics than women, so it's bleeding obvious they'll be more men in the top jobs -

smallwhitecat · 27/04/2011 23:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

edam · 27/04/2011 23:22

byrel - if appointments were made on the grounds of competence, you'd expect a cabinet that was fairly representative of the population. So, something around 50% female, 8% Black or ethnic minority, that kind of thing.

In reality we have three women. So, either women really are inferior to men or the odds are still stacked against us. Black and ethnic minority representation is just as shit, btw.

forkful · 27/04/2011 23:22

smallwhitecat - sorry, but what's going on with you? Why are you seemingly upset at people here calling out a sexist remark? IIRC you identify as a feminist and have started a thread this evening in Feminism topic about being "nauseated by the sexism of much of the media coverage of the royal wedding".

byrel · 27/04/2011 23:26

The current cabinet members are those who both Cameron and Clegg deem to be the most capable in their respective parties. I would trust their judgement as they have worked with their MPs rather than just trying to crowbar in people simply to fit a demographic sample. The whole representation debate seems very banal to me though

QuelleLeJeff · 27/04/2011 23:27

SWC - I called you on your post calling me a LIAR because I said that I would object to this phrase being said by any PM regardless of party - you followed that up by calling me dim and sanctimonious and up my own arse...

I'm a bit at a loss as to how to address you at this point. I have plenty of ideas

smallwhitecat · 27/04/2011 23:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RobF · 27/04/2011 23:29

"So you are saying that there are not 325 women in the whole of the UK what are prepared to be MPs!?"

No, I'm saying of the people in the UK that are prepared to be MPs, are prepared to put the graft and hours in, a lot less than 50% of these people are female. I'm sure you could find far more than 325 women prepared to do it. But it's not just a matter of finding someone who can do it. It's a matter of finding people that are good at it. So many of the Labour women were simply there to make up the numbers. A lot of them left of their own accord because it was too much for them. Some of them were voted out. You can only parachute candidates into safe seats so much. People eventually get pissed off the person paid to represent them isn't up to the job and is just in the job for the money and status.

KatieMiddleton · 27/04/2011 23:31

Lilmeena: ^Edam - why does there have to be any women in the cabinet? Where is it written that women have to make up 50% of cabinet posts?
There are far more men in politics than women, so it's bleeding obvious they'll be more men in the top jobs^

Now I don't pretend to answer for Edam (she js perfectly capable of doing that herself) but I just wanted to say - FUCKING HELL!

Why do women have to make up 50% of cabinet posts? Because we make up 50% of the population. Government is there to represent the people it serves. It cannot do that if half the population are unrepresented. And the moronic "There are far more men in politics than women... so they'll be more men in the top jobs"... well I could weep! There should not be more men in politics for the reason I have posted before. It is unrepresentative. One problem does not validate a consequence of that problem.

Angry Sad

smallwhitecat · 27/04/2011 23:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RobF · 27/04/2011 23:33

"It was brought in due to the gendered impact of poverty. It is a lifeline to many women as unfortunately their male partners withold and control £"

Wouldn't it be better if women did not get themselves in the position of relying on men for money? Is relying on the state for money really any better? Sooner or later, the state simply won't be able to afford it.

If women want to become liberated, they are no better off to be reliant on the state than they are reliant on men.

forkful · 27/04/2011 23:34

No, I don't agree with everything other feminists say. I thought your original posts on this thread were along the lines of why are MNers spending so long talking about this "sexism" and I just thought that seemed odd given your other thread. Apologies, if I've misunderstood.

RobF - I take it you are a man? So much hate in your post to women. Sad.

QuelleLeJeff · 27/04/2011 23:36

Maybe!

If we're really lucky we'd get a woman to try the case..oh wait..

laInfanta · 27/04/2011 23:37

I think it just slipped out. It probably does reflect on some deep-seated sexism, but mostly I think he thought he was being funny by quoting the insurance ads, and then didn't realise it was sexist for a few seconds, and then was too pig-headed to withdraw it.

Thatcher called people 'dear' all the time, sometimes in quite a patronising way.

Lilmeena · 27/04/2011 23:40

So men in politics only represent men do they?
Female politicians only campaign on issues affecting women and men can go to hell? - if you're a politician your job is to represent your constituents who are both male and female -

Margaret Thatcher wasn't exactly Germaine Greer was she

RobF · 27/04/2011 23:40

I am a man. I don't hate women. I am not fond of women who expect the world to change to accomodate them. Simply because it can't be done. It's just sugar coating things at massive expense that is ultimately unsustainable. Women who want to become MPs should be prepared to compete with any other candidate, male or female, and be prepared to put in the same hours, level of work, and sacrifices to do the job. Putting up with substandard services in order to accomodate people's "Work/life balance" is one of the reasons we pay such a large amount of taxation in this country and recieve shoddy service in return. Public sector jobs (which MPs have) are not there for the purpose of giving someone a job they can fit around their "lifestyle"! They are there to provide a service to the public. They are public servants. I will say that again. Servants. They work for us, not the other way round.