Ian Duncan Smith suggests having a family makes for a better leader

[squeezed]

I know that I might be reading too much into this given my excessive consumption of the news in the last few weeks. IDS has stated that he supports Andrea Leadsom because "I believe that Andrea's strong family background, business experience, compassion, commitment to social justice and dedication will make her a great prime minister for the UK," link Is this suggesting that Theresa May is less capable because she doesn't have children? There does seem to be judgement on people who are not parents, particularly women, and their abilities due to not having children. By the way I don't support the Conservative party, so it is merely an observation.

What a fascinating insight into a selfish mindset masquerading as altruism!

Having a personal stake in the future of the country after you're gone certainly can't be a bad thing for the person in charge.

And you think that thinking like that is a positive attribute, one to be encouraged?

Let me turn that on its head for you and see what you think

"No-one with children is able to be dispassionate enough to run the country, because they won't be able to put aside their natural desire to advance their children at the expense of other people's".

Does that stand? If not, why not?

I have typed and deleted so much more, and deleted it again and again. I don't have kids and I get mighty fucking tired about attitudes like this pointing out how people without children don't have access to the full suite of human emotions. It's almost enough to make me support Theresa May (not quite).

Whether we're talking about coming from a loving stable extended family or having children of your own.....Elizabeth I comes to mind as somebody who did pretty well for the nation with neither.

freshwater My most hated phrase is "as a parent....", like it is a magical insight. It is actually used to justify their own opinions and disregard those of others. I didn't have a complete personality and skill overhaul from having children, but maybe that's just me.

I know, right, squeezed?

I cheer myself up when I see the phrase "as a parent" by substituting "as a self-centred twat" and seeing if the sentence still works.

It mostly does *

None of my parent friends believe in this mythical insight transfusion that you get the second the baby is out. It is genuinely an interesting one - as I have got older, I feel like I have a lot more insight into stuff, I understand people better, I have a more mature take on stuff, and I wonder if parents who think that children make them better, more compassionate and altruistic people realise that this can also happen just as we age...?!

*tongue VERY FIRMLY IN CHEEK, some of my best friends are parents, etc etc...

I didn't realise Stephen Crabbe's mum had fled an abusive partner. So probably a dig, yes.

The army used to have rules about certain promotions only being possible once married (as a proxy character and stability test, I guess)

I have seen so many hateful comments BTL about TM not having children, when of course it doesn't stop her being a successful politician at all.

I do think having children gives you a new perspective that would be difficult (not impossible) to gain otherwise

Strong family background, what nonsense. Even if it's not code for 'must 'have children' why does coming from a 'strong' family make a good leader. Maybe coming from a crappy family and overcoming all the difficulties that would have makes a better leader.

Oh, and the way May was basically made to apologise for not having children and say that it's not her fault, she wanted them really. Disgraceful.

I thought the usual line was that women with children don't have the time or the energy to do politics properly as they're too focused on their families. Once again, women can't win.

Once again, women can't win.

Except when it really matters, of course. By October, we will almost certainly have a woman PM (either May or Leadsom), a woman leader of the official opposition (Eagle), the leader of the Green Party, the leader of the Scottish Parliament, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the leader of Plaid Cymru, and the leader of the world's largest exporters of Freedom, Hillary Clinton.

I'd say that's not a bad list of winners.

A historic moment indeed, Grimarse. To set against centuries of your sex holding all of the above positions and no one finding that at all notable.

Good, so we agree. Women can win.

Nicola Sturgeon has spoken about this, her childlessness is frequently brought up by interviewers. Interestingly the fact that Alex Salmond didn't have children was never brought up.

Theresa May has said 'it just didn't happen' when asked about her childlessness which implies it might not have been through choice. And that's the thing, you shouldn't question people about not having children because it is not always a choice that people make. Just manners really.

There was a New Statesman article about this:[http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/motherhood-trap The Motherhood Gap] which is interesting.

Fuck Link fail The Motherhood Gap

I would not deny that men and women can be judged on different things. But Ted Heath was, and is, the subject of much innuendo and rumour due to his unmarried status. And in the USA, male politicians are frequently judged on their military service record, whereas I am not aware that women are.

It isn't right, but politics is a dirty game, and opponents will seek to exploit any apparent weakness or non-conformist characteristic, and obviously heterosexual relationships and families are seen as the norm. I hope this is slowly changing.

I wouldn't bet on Eagle, given that she is in the process of being deselected by her CLP.

Sturgeon had, and continues to get stick for not being a mother, as did Gillard who also got stick for not being married and for her partner's job. I don't remember any male leader being portrayed as unfit for leadership because of their wife/partner's job.

On the subject of Gillard, I doubt there has been a dinner held by the senior members of a shadow cabinet where the menu was written in terms that degraded the body of the male first/Prime minister of a country.

That Crabbe's mother fled abuse makes his behaviour and policies even more abhorrent than I thought they were up until now.

Crabbe's views and policies are awful.

Women haven't "won" anything yet. And we aren't disputing whether they can win. We are hoping that them "winning" becomes as normal as men winning and therefore not worthy of comment.

I also read about May that her being married since 1980 was a good thing . Surely it depends on the state of her marriage. Staying married to an arse for 36 years wouldn't be a good thing, for example!

It certainly seems that women's performance is based on their relationships and men's on their body of actual work.

I think being a parent does give one a perspective on life that you cannot get otherwise.

Also it's important for men in political campaigns to be married, as in Ed, and be fathers.

Interesting, why?

what perspective is that? I'm curious. i just don't think you can generalise- I know clueless, selfish stupid parents, empathetic, compassionate wise non-parents and vice versa. has there been any research done to demonstrate this effect? or is it mostly anecdotal?

and why on earth should men be married? does same sex marriage count?

I think Iced meant that a man being married and a father is perceived to be important in politics, as it marks him out as 'normal' - not that it makes him a better person or politician per se. The last PM I can remember who wasn't was Edward Heath, and there were plenty of rumours surrounding him.

William Hague got married around the time he became Conservative leader, there was talk of rushing him into marriage to make him more "acceptable" as a political leader.
I don't know who pushes these views, but maybe that's what the general public actually thinks.

Yes, Grim, I had worked that out.

What I'm interested in is why it is used a measure of "normal" when it really says nothing about a persons worth or values; what that says about attitudes to marriage and parenthood; and how those who don't fit the stereotype are othered.

For example. You can be married and a wife-beater, or an adulterer, or a workaholic or abusive or any of eleventy million ways there are to be a shit spouse. You can be a parent and abuse or desert your children.

Parents and married people don't have a monopoly on goodness, or even on "normality".