Stella Creasy

[StarryNightSparkles]

Just had a little look on Twitter and seen Stella Creasy is having a rant as she can't take her 3m old into work with her.

This has pissed me right off. How many parents in the UK have child care problems.

Her argument is based on Mat leave which to me is a completely different fight.

Am I being unreasonable to be pissed off by this?

YANBU there is a nursery at the Houses of Parliament where babies can be cared for.

I don't think she's doing this out of a lack of childcare. She's doing it to prove a point that politics actively discriminates against working mothers. She's involved with a campaign that wants to get more mums into politics so she's raising the issue that the system is not set up with the needs of all people in mind. It links into a wider point about workplace discrimination. Of course she doesn't expect to be able to take her baby everywhere with her at work. But the response she's had neatly exposes the attitudes towards working mothers.

I don't think she's doing this out of a lack of childcare. She's doing it to prove a point that politics actively discriminates against working mothers. She's involved with a campaign that wants to get more mums into politics so she's raising the issue that the system is not set up with the needs of all people in mind. It links into a wider point about workplace discrimination. Of course she doesn't expect to be able to take her baby everywhere with her at work. But the response she's had neatly exposes the attitudes towards working mothers.

Exactly. For a forum that is predominantly based around mothers there are some outdated and ignorant views here. Men don't need to worry about losing their privilege - we are fighting their corner on here.

She's using her profile to raise awareness of issues relating to childcare pregnancy and maternity and so that's got to be a good thing.

But is doing it like this really the way to do it?

Why not focus on the fact she is lucky to have on site childcare which is open until late and push for people to have more access to similar?

Making a point about taking the baby to work isn’t helping anyone because most jobs with the best will in the world that isn’t going to be an option.

I don't think MP with a four year job term is a suitable choice of employment for someone planning to have a baby.

Do you not have a pairing system in the UK, where a member of the opposition agrees to waive their vote to match an MP who is out for illness?

@MorrisZapp

I don't think MP with a four year job term is a suitable choice of employment for someone planning to have a baby.

Male and female??

Male and female??

precisely!

@MorrisZapp

I don't think MP with a four year job term is a suitable choice of employment for someone planning to have a baby.

So nobody planning for a family should ever have a fixed term contract. That limits the options for parents somewhat...

Having a baby is a choice, having a career where you know there is no maternity allowance is a choice. I say that being currently pregnant and self-employed, having had to save like a demon before making the decision to have a baby, as I get no maternity leave either.

I will have to step down from my clients, live off my savings, and hope I can build my career again. I'm confident I can, but I won't be taking a year, it'll be six months.

I made that choice though. I prioritised my desire for a family over my career continuation and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I wanted stability and support through my maternity, I should have got a job that offered maternity cover. If I wanted to become the next Alan Sugar, I shouldn't be having a baby.

She knew the situation when she became an MP, and when she became a mother. Sorry, but I'm unsympathetic.

@SlipperTripper

Having a baby is a choice, having a career where you know there is no maternity allowance is a choice. I say that being currently pregnant and self-employed, having had to save like a demon before making the decision to have a baby, as I get no maternity leave either.

I will have to step down from my clients, live off my savings, and hope I can build my career again. I'm confident I can, but I won't be taking a year, it'll be six months.

I made that choice though. I prioritised my desire for a family over my career continuation and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I wanted stability and support through my maternity, I should have got a job that offered maternity cover. If I wanted to become the next Alan Sugar, I shouldn't be having a baby.

She knew the situation when she became an MP, and when she became a mother. Sorry, but I'm unsympathetic.

But would you not like to see change?

But there is an imbalance and an unfairness isn't there? Women are the only ones able to be pregnant and have children. They are the primary care giver for most babies and infants. So society should recognise that structures and systems shouldn't disadvantage them whilst allowing men to carry on regardless.

Saying well don't have children then or get a different job isn't the answer.

Why should women have to comprise?

*Compromise

@SarahDippity

Do you not have a pairing system in the UK, where a member of the opposition agrees to waive their vote to match an MP who is out for illness?

Yes.

@NashvilleQueen

But there is an imbalance and an unfairness isn't there? Women are the only ones able to be pregnant and have children. They are the primary care giver for most babies and infants. So society should recognise that structures and systems shouldn't disadvantage them whilst allowing men to carry on regardless.

Saying well don't have children then or get a different job isn't the answer.

Why should women have to comprise?

I've read a few threads where women won't let the father have the baby. Because mothers are the natural care takers. Maybe women have to get their partners involved to take paternity leave so care can be shared.

@SlipperTripper but the current situation is shit. Don't you think it could/should be better?

I'm confused (as a working mother)

She has access to good, and flexible childcare...what is the point she's making?

Every family has to make decisions around childcare, and it's never going to work having two high flying parents without there being compromise to one/both parents careers.

What is the point she's making? That childcare is woeful and inadequate?

That's a good point, because it is.

If it's that only mother's take the hit?

Surely some of this starts at an individuals level? We need to work the thinking about mom=primary care giver to both parents = primary care giver.

I just don't see her point. I absolutely couldn't take my children to work, and my employer doesn't provide childcare.

It does provide enhanced maternity and paternity pay, and offer shared leave, so that's good?

Im just confused by her point, why people are defending it and what the talk about "race to the bottom" is.

I'm very tired and under a lot of stress so my brain really isn't working as well as usual. But if someone could explain, simply to me, the issues I'd be very grateful.

@SarahDippity I'm all for change, but I'm also realistic.

In jobs where there is adequate cover, or cover can be hired in, of course - maternity leave should be a given. But in those instances, it already is. To varying degrees admittedly, but you can have a baby, take mat leave, receive payments, and have a job to go back to.

That said, there's MILLIONS of people in her/my position. Looking at this from a 'well everyone else gets what I think I should have, why shouldn't I?' Point of view is ridiculous. Everyone else DOESN'T get it, and unless there's a serious about turn in employment laws (which there will never be, because there'd be a total riot over the repercussions) her argument is totally pointless.

It's about as logical as me saying: 'she has a support team and all of her expenses paid. I think I should have that. Why am I not getting that?' Totally irrelevant that we do different things, with different demands, different contracts and different employers. I want what she's got! The principle just doesn't work?

Ella, sitting in the chamber can involve hours of just sitting, brain surgery and teaching are hardly fair comparisons

I've read a few threads where women won't let the father have the baby. Because mothers are the natural care takers. Maybe women have to get their partners involved to take paternity leave so care can be shared.

Shared parental leave is a great thing when it's available (it isn't always, like if you've been in your job less than a certain amount of time).

But only mothers can breastfeed and this affects childcare arrangements. Yes, formula and expressing milk are options, but there are many benefits to babies taking milk directly from the mother. We cannot pretend that mothers and fathers fulfil exactly the same the same role, especially in the early months.

I'm on Team Stella.
Quiet babies (easy to be quieter than most of the MPs) up to 5m old should be allowed in chambre in most circumstances.

But she’s not actually employed, and she can take maternity leave she just doesn’t get extra money to pay for cover. There is also childcare available in Parliament. Why doesn’t she use the childcare available in her place of work, most people aren’t lucky enough to have that.

Presumably she wants to keep her full time pay and the taxpayer to stump up for her cover as well. I’m sure lots of self employed people would like that.

I don't see the issue with a quiet baby being with its mother in the HOC when it's less than a certain number of months old. Stella Creasy's baby is about 12 weeks if I remember correctly, so probably will only be just about eligible for the on site nursery. Would you really want to leave a 12 week old baby in a nursery all day every day when you could have it with you and feed it when it squawks?

@EdgeOfACoin

I've read a few threads where women won't let the father have the baby. Because mothers are the natural care takers. Maybe women have to get their partners involved to take paternity leave so care can be shared.

Shared parental leave is a great thing when it's available (it isn't always, like if you've been in your job less than a certain amount of time).

But only mothers can breastfeed and this affects childcare arrangements. Yes, formula and expressing milk are options, but there are many benefits to babies taking milk directly from the mother. We cannot pretend that mothers and fathers fulfil exactly the same the same role, especially in the early months.

She'll be off on leave for 6 months. After that she can stop bfing or she can express. There are many countries across the developed that don't get 1yr maternity leave and their children are just as healthy as the UKs. So having 6 months off is not going to compromise the baby's health. To get true equality between the sexes, men need to be involved in childcare too. Obviously men can't b/f but they can give a bottle and do everything else. It gets a bit tiresome to hear women criticising men for not doing enough and then when there's the opportunity for a man to do 90%, women go, oh men can't do that.