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.

I do think if you have kids, like if you've ever been hungry or ever worked in a factory gives you a perspective on things you may otherwise not. Like being a parent means you are more aware of midwives and their struggles, hospitals and healthcare, you may have more investment in education, see front line cuts and so on. Does that make you a better politician? All being equal? yes. Does experiencing poverty make one more likely to have an idea about being poor? Yup.

That's what I mean.

And the perception is that if you're married, even same sex, you are somehow "normal" "must be nice to someone" etc.

Politics is rarely about actual fucking policy these days.... it's all about perception.

I completely agree. But I think you are getting into the territory of 'why do we have stereotypes'. And that seems to be a fundamental human attribute. They save time. They reduce the level of effort required for critical analysis and thinking. Then we can get back to celebrity gossip and the X Factor.

It's a bit like having a strong Brummy accent may make you sound less of a leader than if you have a wanky Etonian accent, you could have got a third in chemistry at Oxford over a first at Leeds uni.... all that crap.

My 'completely agree' was to Selkie's post.

Iced, I think having kids might make some people think that way. But equally, if you don't have kids, you might have more time to analyse the plight of the poor and needy anyway. Imagine having a whole day to read the Sunday papers grin

The Cameron's had a disabled son. That did not stop his government royally screwing over those on disability benefits in the UK, did it?

No you're right. Of course. But I think it's a bit more likely.... or maybe it's not. Perhaps I'm as gullible as the rest.

Fair enough Iced, I don't agree, but thanks for explaining what you meant.

What I think is that men or women who don't have children and rise to the top of the political tree and who are unable to empathise with those who do shouldn't be there. That having children or a family in no way gives anyone some sort of amazing insight into families unlike theirs. Or even into families like theirs a lot of the time.

Unless politicians are up to no good in them, their personal lives should be just that. Which also goes some way toward explaining the interest in Heath's sexuality, because until not long before he became PM, it was illegal and, had he indulged in any kind of sex act he had broken the law, so arguably in the public interest then. Nowadays it shouldn't be an issue.

I dont think there is any relevance with regards to ability whether a politician has children or not. However I think it is more likely that a female politician without children will be in a cabinet position. I think there is a debate about this which is important to have, but I can't imagine IDS would be that interested in that discussion.

One in five UK women have no children by the age of 45, according to google.

That's a substantial number to "rule out" if that's IDS's thinking.

That is true if IDS thinks that a 'strong family background' is only important for women. Did he say that?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is in support of a female candidate for Prime Minister. A snidey comment here and there should not disguise that we are almost certainly going to end up with a woman as PM.

Woot, the second ever female UK PM. Get out the bunting.

Yeah, fuck it. Let's hope Gove wins. That'll learn ya. Woe is me!!

Is it not possible to celebrate the present without griping about history? Because that is the bit that we cannot change.

Don't be a patronising Grimarse.

Let's not forget also that the 'PM' of Scotland is also a woman. And that May herself is the longest every serving Home Secretary in British history, which is the second most powerful seat in government.

I hate the fact that you are making me say nice things about the Tories, but they have powerful, senior women who are in their positions purely on merit.

I will stop it if you will stop with the hair shirt shit. We cannot undo the past. If every major achievement by women is met with an attitude of 'yeah, but wasn't it shit back in the day', what is the point of anyone trying to make things better?

Do you think women get to senior positions, not on merit, Grim?

I'm with Herytike and wishing that May being a woman wasn't something to celebrate (if she does indeed reach those lofty heights).

And stop telling us what we should and should not be upset about.

Do you think women get to senior positions, not on merit, Grim? I don't quite understand why you are asking this. I never said anything other than TM and her peers are there purely on merit.

And where did I say 'thou shalt not be upset by this or that'. I can point out why I think is self-defeating. It isn't the same thing at all.

Next time there is a thread on here celebrating something like, I dunno, the decriminalisation of sex workers, I will await you saying 'yeah, get out the bunting'.

It isn't history, Grimarse. It's the here and now, including the decades since thatcher was elected.

Two female Home Secretaries. One female foreign secretary. No female chancellors. Ever.

You came on the thread with a post about how the sexism around childless women didn't matter much because a few women were likely to be in positions more political power by the end of the year.

Don't make out that if you'd started a thread purely to celebrate that, you'd've got sarcastic replies. What you did was very different. Do you go onto threads about racism and cite Obama as a reason to celebrate, being dismissive of other concerns?

Seriously. Check your privilege. I'm done.

But why would you even say that they got to their position "on merit"? Surely that is a given? Yet you felt it necessary to say that.

And well said Herytike.

'Ooh, well said, herytike'. Please, have some self respect.

I said they got there on merit because they did. I said they are women because they are. I said they are politicians because they are.

Whatever women do, whatever they achieve, however far they get, some people are so dismissive.

There was the Women's Equality Party started last year in the UK. It was roundly condemned on here because it didn't fit the narrow, blinkered view of society by the loudest posters on FWR. And all the acolytes - the 'ooh, well said Buffy' brigade - went along with it. Because some women got off their arses and did something rather than bitch and moan on an internet board.

I remember a few years back on here there was a poster who had been a feminist for donkey's years. She was sick of this board because, in her words, it was full of moaners, unlike her generation who actually went out and did stuff. She was probably the same generation as Leadsom and May.

I'm done too. I'll leave you to wallow in self pity. The footie is on.

The point about "merit" is it Isnt a term used to describe men in senior positions but is often used to justify women being in those positions or to discredit them if someone believes they haven't the qualifications in their eyes. But you know that.

Not sure what on earth you are on about with "Please have some self-respect". Are you sure you used the right term there? Bizarre.

Your posts are really quite unpleasant. And not at all supportive of women, as you claim. Neither me or Herytike are unsupportive of women in higher positions of office. We just wish there was more of them. That is not self-pity as you seem to think. That is wanting and wishing change was faster. There are woefully few women in positions of power and just because we may get another one doesn't mean that there isn't a long way to go. And it smacks of tokenism. And for you to interpret that as unsupportive is also quite bizarre.

But as usual you aren't arguing in good faith. You just want to get some digs in and tell us how we should be doing feminism.

No point scallops, he has proven how we're all doing feminism wrong so he won't be back on this thread.