Can you do the school run and run the country?

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

We've been reading this story about Nick Clegg "killing himself" to take his children to school in the morning - and we wondered what you all think...

Is Miriam Clegg right to insist that she and her husband share the school run - or should Nick, as the Telegraph suggests, be concentrating on running the country?

And clearly, in my opinion, the woman who wrote the article is seething with jealousy that her husband never did the school run...

I heard mumsnet and quentin lett debate yesterday and i am shocked to say that i agreed with quentin lett on this occasion... he is in such an important post for the country for only a short time it seems inconceivable that he might be leaving national security meetings to nip to school playground...

The worst part of the article, imo, is the really horrible tone taken about Miriam GD ('a feminist' - read 'satanic harridan'!), describing her as 'ball-breaking' just because she expects Nick to do his fair share of parenting! I hardly think that this constitutes 'emasculating' him! The implication that marrying a career woman and having to do 50% of parenting duties is emasculating for men is frankly offensive. The journalist who wrote this seems to be living in the dark ages.

Completely agree MotherofPearl I nearly vomited.

Also find it disgustingly offensive to her Spanish origin: Scoop up those ninos with their Dora the Explorer rucksacks

I don't think that any deputy Prime Minister -be they male or female should do the school run. This is not about sexism for me, if this was NICOLA Clegg we were talking about, my feelings would be the same.

Politics is not a 9-5 job, these politicians should pay for their powerful positions and that means that certain domestic tasks have to go.

Um, at my ds' last school there were two parents both with VIP gov jobs and they both did the school run in turn.

I agree with Wamster, we need a DPM who can concentrate wholly on his job!

No doubt Miriam also does a job that needs most of her attention and therein lies the problem.

Maybe a Nanny should do the school run.

Test

Oh, my long post "had an error..."

What a 3waste of time... all I was saying was that women should not accept sexist marriages, that if you earn a lot more than your husband as presumably Ms Gonzalez does (and I earned 10x my children's father) then that affects matters. Even if you don't earn more (and if you don't I would exhort you to go forth and do so, it's huge fun and great for families, you can then avoid slumming it in state schools with the children of Cameron and Gove et al) you still should ensure lack of sexism in the marriage as a matter of principle.

It was good that Cherie Booth also managed to give a good example too in that respect and did not do a Hilary Clinton. Sadly Sarah Brown let us all down in terms of her career. Let's hope Mrs Cameron gets back to full time work soon and sets a good example to the nation.

Whenever I see Judith Woods's byline pic I always think she should have run a comb through her hair first.

But it would be a terribly sexist thing to say about a woman holding down an important job. As well as being vilely bitchy.

Why are they even bothering with this article? We should be concentrating on the man and his policies, who cares if he drops his kids off to school or not! I'm more worried if he's going to bugger this country up, and I'm sure he is!

People care because it appears that a job which could be given to another person such as a nanny is being done by somebody who, frankly, has more important matters to attend to.

I have just really myself in the office while screaming at the computer, ranting about this stupid 'journalist'.

Firstly - the undercurrent of racism...'Senora' 'Ninos'... necessary? No. Inflammatory? Yes.

Secondly - the suggestion that doing his fair share of childcare is somehow demeaning to his masculinty. But not demeaning to her?

And who is this 'journalist' that thinks she can dictate what someone else's nanny does? Is he being forced to do this? Probably not. With the amount of money she makes, I'm sure they could find a solution to doing drop offs at school. Perhaps he - I don't know - enjoys spending time with his kids first thing in the morning?

Grrrr.... I am so angry at this article.

A lot of journalists make a pittance and sem to marry sexist men who can keep them to the standrds to which they are used so they tend to be with rather sexist men whilst trying to appear to be modern. So you get rather strange bias in their writing. Whilst of those us who are very high paid in business careers just don't come across those types of relationships where husbands earn loads and expect female careers to play second fiddle.

She is apartner at DLA which is not that brilliant a firm but it's okay.
www.dlapiper.com/miriam_gonzalez/

Ths is a bit old 2009

"DLA Piper has posted a one per cent drop in fee income for the 2009 financial year, as PEP fell by 18 per cent. The EMEA and Asia section of the business, which currently report on a calendar year basis, made £581m last year, down from £585m in 2008. Over the same period PEP fell from £645,000 to £527,000. At 189 the firm had on average one additional equity partner in 2009 compared with 2008. The equity spread runs from £225,000 to £1.5m, compared with £325,000 to £1.5m in 2008."

It looks like in 2009 equity partners (and she may just be on a salary and lower down the food chain - I don't know) ranged then from £225k to £1.5m.

What does Mr Clegg earn?

We don't all marry sexist men, dammit. I'm not married at all. And the father of my children damn well does his share of the housework and childcare and is quite explicitly aware that it's my feminism that keeps him up to the mark

Xenia - well we know the PM earns £150K into his bank (ignore the massive perks for now) so she's earning at least 50% more than he is by those figures!

Wamster - are you suggesting that the DPM should be work from 7am til midnight without anything else getting in the way? After all, running the country is more important than watching House or having dinner with the wife. Maybe they shouldn't take a summer break. Good God, what if they're needed at a slplit second's notice?!!!

His kids are young. Chances are they're in bed when he gets home most nights. You really want a man who is able to work flexibly to still be an absent parent for at least 5 years?

HMTheQueen: my sentiments exactly! Indeed, it's the journalist's assumption that his wife is 'forcing' him to do the school run which is demeaning to Clegg, not the fact that he does it, which I think we can assume he does of his own volition! I'm not a big Clegg fan, but presumably he can and does exercise his own free will at home! They're his children too ffs. Did anyone read the comments after the article in the Telegraph online? Avoid, unless you want a massive rise in blood pressure! All the Torygraph types piling praise on the article...

Yes, the female journalist are pretty sexist and not used to marriages where women earn al ot as most female journalists earn a pittance. They are just not part of the world of women who earn over £100k or £1m. More fool them for thnking you can make a lot (JKR excepted) from writing.

I have known working couples for over 25 years (my oldest is 26). Then and now where they both earn good sums they sort things out between them amicably, who will be home first, who does what. Inteligent high paid women do this. Thicker women who earn a pittance often don't even have the intelligence to negotiate chores or duties around the house or are more prepared to accept sexism.

I don't know if MG is an equity patner or not though. She may just be a salaried partner and earning about £100k like her husband so a marriage of parity rather than one much better off than the other.

So do all of you think that all politicians should not be married or have any children? Or that if they are, they should be bad spouses and fathers by neglecting their spouses and children and simply being in the office all the time?

Because that appears to be the substance of that argument.

Er...not my argument.

I don't even think they should be bad cohabitees and/or women.

I'm guessing that if it were a female politician whose DH/ DP was doing the school run, she'd be criticised for spending too much time on politics, MI, when she ought to be doing the school run...

What an unfortunate turn of phrase ' kills himself'. Not sure what his security men will make of this information being in the public domain. But school runs are stressful sure - back to them after 5 years of home education (GCSEs) and boy it was nice not havng the arbitrary starting gun in the morning. Mass education requires it, I know, but it is so uncivilised...[hconfused]

Oh god yes. There were quite a few posters back in the day when Ruth Kelly got the job, who effectively said no woman with children should be doing a job like that anyway.

I still think the school run is rather nice, anyway. You get to spend time with your children, you get to see some other charming parents at the school gate, network madly about who is going to palm whose child off with whom at what point, fix a drink to take your mind off the kids, and bugger off.

blimey, what a nasty anti-women article. more the DM style surely. The sneery tone is horrible. Of course she prefers to be knows as Miriam G D; that's her name Judith! Do you live in a small town in the 1950s?

I am astonished that a woman has written this. How about celebrating the fact that it is a great example to the nation that he values time with his children and shares parenting with his wife? And more workplaces should allow flexible working to enable parents to do this? And I haven't read the original interview with Miriam, but I presume we are not talking about every day here, did Judith ever think she might be refering to once a week or once every half term?

I'm fuming about this article in the mainstream media, I think this is an old-fashioned sexist point of view and I'm amazed the telegraph have published it.

Sorry, I can't help myself, I'm so cross I have to come back and add to my other posts! Thinking about it, I reckon it's even more insulting to men than it is to women - the implication of the article is that no men naturally want to participate in caring for their children, and only do so when forced by 'ball-breaking feminists' like Miriam G-D!