To think taking a baby to Parliament is ridiculous?

[iawbuwes]

Stella Creasy MP taking her baby to the Commons - I think it is utterly ridiculous.

Everyone else has to find childcare. Labour have lost the plot and don’t seem to care what people think (I say this as a life long Labour vote who cannot stomach voting for Labour as it now is). Parliament even have a nursery! www.parliament.uk/about/working/nursery/

Baby is only 3 months old. No maternity leave or maternity cover. What else is she supposed to do if her constituents still want to be represented.

It's not a normal job.

The best part of this thread is that OP thinks she’s a radical feminist.

If the mere image is a woman with her baby is “dragging up all down,” you might have some internalised misogyny.

The potential for motherhood is a defining part of being a women. If you think acknowledging that is reducing women to motherhood, it’s only because you yourself think it’s less than and consider the male-bodied adult experience to be the gold standard.

@nosyupnorth how is SC "doing less"?

@iawbuwes

Maybe some jobs are just less compatible with children. Of all jobs, this is one of them

As a "radical feminist" you think its incompatible for women of children bearing age and mothers of young children to be elected representatives?

@iawbuwes

It is unreasonable for elected representatives not to be given maternity leave - they are elected as individuals. But if they are speaking in parliament they can surely find childcare for that time period. And maybe your term in parliament is not the ideal time to have a baby, give that your focus is meant to be on your constituents.

I was going to ignore but this point was so utterly stupid. So everyone should be represented in parliament apart from fertile women aged c. 18-50? Because a) set term in office is usually 4-5 years so a fairly hefty chunk of time to avoid getting pregnant, particularly if you're already towards the later stages of being able to conceive naturally (which most women MPs will be, there aren't many MPs in their early 20s). Then most people often want to run again (which is often a good thing for their constituents if they know the role and have done a good job) - should they either retire from a job they have gained experience in and are good at, or just write off having a baby entirely for 10-15 years, by which time it might be too late to conceive.

As pp have said it’s different

You can’t have maternity cover for an MP

You have to physically vote- if remote voting were allowed permanently it would be a different thing

Her constituents have to have her there - it’s their right - and a tiny baby wouldn’t be left in childcare by most people

If there was plentiful space for nannies/ the father etc. to look after babies in an ante room, and breaks given for MPs to go and feed etc you might have a point!

@Heidipi

The baby is 3 months old. She should be on maternity leave but MPs don’t get any.

They get leave, but not cover.

She shouldn't be an MP if she can't get childcare.

Tiny babies are fine. Had baby in a sling and it was sound asleep. Dont see the issue.

@TalkToTheHand123 her baby is three months old and she is breastfeeding. Would you leave a 3-month old in a nursery? I wouldnt.

As a "radical feminist" you think its incompatible for women of children bearing age and mothers of young children to be elected representatives?

This. OP you're having a bit of an identity crisis if you think you're a radical feminist.

@nancy75

And maybe your term in parliament is not the ideal time to have a baby, give that your focus is meant to be on your constituents

Has anyone told Boris this?

Maybe they would tell Boris that, if he was bringing his kids into parliament?

[quote Notonthestairs]@nosyupnorth how is SC "doing less"? [/quote]
In SC's case she isn't giving the job her full attention.

Doing less stems from my understand from various news articles is that she's arguing that her decision should be standard in other work places and since you can't answer emails and change a baby at the same time, etc, that will mean individuals who go along with her ideas are doing less of their jobs in order to care for their children yet thinking it is 'feminist' to expect to get treated like they are still doing their jobs properly.
It was certainly something I noticed a lot of in the pandemic, when people who had children at home would constantly be taking extra breaks or being disrupted in the middle of work activity in order to deal with them -- which was forgiven at the time as the circumstances prohibted other childcare arrangements but certainly shouldn't become the standard.

It isn't ridiculous. Breastfeeding women should be supported, and enabled to do their job without stress, especially so soon after a birth.

@boobiegrabber

The best part of this thread is that OP thinks she’s a radical feminist.

If the mere image is a woman with her baby is “dragging up all down,” you might have some internalised misogyny.

The potential for motherhood is a defining part of being a women. If you think acknowledging that is reducing women to motherhood, it’s only because you yourself think it’s less than and consider the male-bodied adult experience to be the gold standard.

OP is a man

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

You seriously call yourself a radical feminist. Your attitude puts feminism back 70 years! Perhaps she does does the blue hair, not the rest of it

Thanks sisterhood, no wonder we are all still screwed.

What about those MP's we have seen sleeping in the house, playing games on their phone in the house, who are more focussed on sleeping with other colleagues in the house? Are they giving the job their full attention?

I would suggest that she is there, focussed sufficiently on the job, easy enough to do with a placid, fed, changed and sleeping baby, to be a fuck load more effective than the afore mentioned 'honourable' members.

@mbosnz

What about those MP's we have seen sleeping in the house, playing games on their phone in the house, who are more focussed on sleeping with other colleagues in the house? Are they giving the job their full attention?

I would suggest that she is there, focussed sufficiently on the job, easy enough to do with a placid, fed, changed and sleeping baby, to be a fuck load more effective than the afore mentioned 'honourable' members.

Well said.

Boris Johnson was seen apparently asleep at Cop 26 and gave that bizarre speech yesterday. And an MY bringing a tiny sleeping breastfeeding baby into Parliament is what is criticised. Misogyny is alive and well.

@iawbuwes

At the very least she should have someone who can hold the baby when she is speaking. I object to the image of woman tied to baby, it drags all of us down because it suggests that as mothers this defines us. The fact that she is standing up with a baby in a sling just feels like making a point for the sake of it. Honestly all working women juggle (even those without maternity leave)

Yeah cos that will keep a baby quiet. You clearly have no idea of the immense joy that both parties get from baby wearing.

@iawbuwes

It is unreasonable for elected representatives not to be given maternity leave - they are elected as individuals. But if they are speaking in parliament they can surely find childcare for that time period. And maybe your term in parliament is not the ideal time to have a baby, give that your focus is meant to be on your constituents.

Perhaps she didn't chose to get pregnant?

@DartmoorChef

Nobody forced her to be an MP, and nobody forced her to have a baby either. They were her choices and I don't believe that having a potentially crying child in the house of commons is professional.

Well this is a dangerous argument that could be used to argue against all maternity and paternity rights.

On a basic salary of £81,932 she can afford a bloody nanny!

YABVU

Shes the mother to a 3 month old breastfed baby!

If she could take maternity leave and not need to bring her young child with her to work, great. But she can't because parlimentry rules are outdated and discriminatory to women.

Perhaps look up what you're moaning about before moaning!