I wasn't coming back but the Times today has an article-I can't link because you have to subscribe, but the relevant part is:-
But men behaving badly isn?t the reason why so few women go into politics in Britain. In France, where Dominique Strauss-Kahn still prowls, four are vying to become mayor of Paris. Yet fewer than a quarter of all MPs in Westminster are women and only one in six Cabinet ministers.
This is because it is an increasingly unattractive job, particularly if you are a mother. The first generation who made it to the top ? Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher ? either didn?t have children or sidelined them for their careers. Carole Thatcher says she communicated with her mother through her secretaries.
Parliament has slowly changed to accommodate families but not as much as parenting has altered. Women now expect to spend more time with their children. They are not prepared to miss crucial child-rearing years staring at Pugin wallpaper unless they feel that what they are doing is worthwhile.
Increasingly, it feels like it isn?t. Being an MP has become less interesting with more scrutiny but less significance. Ministers are ground down by the daily cycle of petty news stories; backbenchers find their jobs time-consuming but often unfulfilling. While they are expected to act as social workers in their constituencies and keep their heads down in the Commons, decisions are made by small, powerful cliques. It?s no wonder that a sixth of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs have divorced or separated since they were elected.
Ruth Kelly managed to juggle four children with her job as Education Secretary. The Tory MP Louise Mensch combined being on a select committee with having three children. Both are resilient women and both quit. Neither mentioned sexism, but instead talked of tiredness and the impossibility of making both roles work.
Even the ballsy health minister Anna Soubry says she would find it almost impossible with a young family. ?There is too much pressure for MPs to live in their constituencies with little financial assistance any more to have their families near them. One friend would love to have her small child with her during the week but she would be condemned for moving out of her seat. We have to sort this out.?
Maria Hutchings, the Tory candidate in Eastleigh, had to move her family of six to a bungalow by the railway line to contest the seat. She is unpaid, and one of her children has special needs. She has had to sell her car and worries constantly about money while her husband commutes two hours to Essex each day to keep his job.
For most mothers, it wouldn?t be worth it, especially when they?re going to get pilloried by the voters. We should make it easier ? and this is where Lord Rennard has let women down. In his determination to prevent boundary changes, he helped to scupper Tory plans to modernise the Commons by having fewer, better-paid MPs. It is for that piece of political opportunism as much as any alleged personal failings that women should blame Lord Rennard
I can't see how things can change unless working practices are changed and childcare can be done differently. It is actually easier when the DCs are little, school makes it much more difficult because it is about education and not childcare.
Because of the age of my DCs I know a lot of young adults starting a career. It is the girls who are the switched on ones who know where they are going-and getting there. The problem comes when they want to have children-and see something of them.
I agree that we need to educate girls-I thought we didn't from my personal family experience-but it becomes obvious from reading MN, among other things, that we do.
However I think it sad that there is such a narrow tunnel of 'success'. A girl who is an A' student is not expected to have a career with the Early Years for example, even if it is her dream job. One who has a real vocation for nursing is told they need to aim higher.
There now seems to be a tremendous pressure for girls to succeed. If I was young today I would feel almost apologetic to say that I wanted to teach 5 year olds ,and beyond becoming a better teacher of 5 year olds , all my ambitions were outside paid employment.
I see that, to my sadness in my smart, switched on daughter- for example, they had an all day rehearsal for a school show on Sunday. All the girls turned up on time- the boys straggled in anything up to an hour late. The girls were exasperated and cross, but it was obvious that they just sort of expected boys to be flaky
While I agree that this is fairly typical not all boys are like that and they get deeply frustrated and can't do anything either. Even at University, where you would imagine everyone was motivated and wanted good results, my DSs have had tremendous worry as to who they would get in any group work-and heaved a sigh of relief when they have got a 'good' group. My nephew who was heavily into drama at school got driven to distraction by the example above-he couldn't change them either.
exotic it seems as though you braced yourself to expect people to condemn your choices?
I generally avoid feminist boards-they are not for the faint hearted-being called tedious is very mild! I thought that I was a feminist -but I seem to be the wrong kind. The worst was being told not to post at all. So yes-I was braced.