Sarah Teather was a poor Families minister because she has no children

[Lottapianos]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10313013/Sarah-Teather-was-a-poor-families-minister-because-she-has-no-children-ex-Minister-suggests.html

What a complete and utter plum. I know how personally devastating comments like that can be and I really hope she's doing ok and is able to take it on the chin. I work with children and have very occasionally had similar comments about not possibly understanding 'what it's like' because I'm not a parent myself.

Just another way for women to be deemed inadequate. This quote was particularly telling:
“I am absolutely up for the task of standing up to Harriet Harperson as being the vanguard of that ghastly regiment of feminists who have taken us so far from family values."

The phrase 'family values' always has me reaching for the giant sick bag. People who believe in 'family values' only seem to believe in one type of 'family' and have little respect for the woman/mother within that family.

Vile man

So by this logic, no minister can be minister of something that they don't do on a daily basis? (Since Sarah Teather clearly is a member of a family despite not having children).

Would he ever have said this about a male minister?

It's a bit rich coming from a party who seem to be determined to make life as hard as possible for families. I hadn't noticed much support from the government full stop.

I'm not the least bit surprised by the nasty dig - it's misogyny at its finest. Mothers are doing all wrong, obviously - and non-mothers are unnatural, anti-family feminists.

I've heard similar comments on here: today's dig was that women without children don't have anything with which they can 'occupy themselves'.

I agree with you about family values. The phrase uttered ad nauseam by this government - 'hard working families' is code for one man, one woman and two kids. Bleugh.

Well I wondered that, but as far as I can tell, there's never been one since the office was created:

Elizabeth Truss (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare)

Sarah Teather (Minister of State for Children and Families)

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families)

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families)

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Children and Families))

And there the trail goes cold. So successive governments appear to have believed that only women are capable of fulfilling the role, either a glorious example of positive discrimination or an indication of how little the role is valued in Parliament?

However, the point still stands of course - he would never have made that comment about a male minister. It is a ludicrous statement and I hope that he is rebuked by his own party and the others.

Btw I notice on Twitter that Tim Loughton is denying having made [some of] the statements the Telegraph is reporting.

Well I guess that makes sense tribpot because after all, it's the women who are biologically programmed to care about children

He deserves a severe rebuking. Very much not holding my breath on that one

Gosh, he is an appalling knobber if any of those quotes are correct. Clearly his only interest in 'the family' was in getting through the married couple's tax allowance.

I sincerely hope that the minister for children and families can behave in a dignified and professional matter that is so lacking in her colleagues, I care not one jot about their background as long as they follow through well thought out policies.

Timothy Loughton was a minister of something for a while, got the push, then people said he was lazy, so he is hitting out wildly like an angry toddler.

no, it's because she has no clue. If you cut public spending, you cut spending on women - jobs, services, benefits. The policy of this govt is to make public sector pay for bankers' crisis

Saying she has no clue is fine - if you disagree with her policies and her actions as Minister, that's a perfectly legitimate criticism. But to suggest she was not good at her job because she does not have children is bollocks.

yes Buffy