(Sky News now) Stella Creasy is coming up against the biological basis of sexism

[RubberTreePlant]

The irony.

I wonder whether the penny will drop?

I am not comfortable with the idea someone non-elected would be representing my constituency for a year.

It is a valid point, and it does again highlight the problem whereby women make all the sacrifices for child rearing and care in Britain. Those few months at the start are necessary and ought to be respected as such - because of that pesky biology Stella despises so much - but the rest are not.

I also think that we need more MPs, not less, despite recent calls to reduce their numbers. Numbers of MPs haven't substantially changed since the 19th century when the population was so much lower than now, so no wonder their workload is increased and representation is reduced. I'd like to see two MPs for each constituency, one male and one female, as standard.

I wish Stella the very best and deeply sympathise with her struggles with pregnancy and her miscarriages but that's some cognitive dissonance she's got going on.

Stella, I'm all right Jack, Creasy is now realising that women, i.e. adult human females, now need help when on possible maternity leave,

I've noticed this a lot from people in the public eye, whether politicians, celebrities or journalists. They only sit up and notice an issue when it personally affects them. Then they get all indignant about "Why does nobody care about this?" when of course people do care, and have cared for a long time, but they just weren't arsed to listen because it didn't affect them.

I'd like to see two MPs for each constituency, one male and one female, as standard.

That is an excellent idea Dark

This is the reason why mumsnet is the one place where people get the fact that you can't identify out of your biology or how you are treated because of your biology. A TW will never be met with suspicion on getting married at 30 and interviewed for a new role or promotion. Most women would be looked over in this instance because of being seen at major risk of pregnancy and maternity leave.

I'd like to see two MPs for each constituency, one male and one female, as standard.

What about the NBs? You'd end up like the Green Party with one non-man and one non-woman!

It is a valid point, and it does again highlight the problem whereby women make all the sacrifices for child rearing and care in Britain. Those few months at the start are necessary and ought to be respected as such - because of that pesky biology Stella despises so much - but the rest are not. I also think that we need more MPs, not less, despite recent calls to reduce their numbers. Numbers of MPs haven't substantially changed since the 19th century when the population was so much lower than now, so no wonder their workload is increased and representation is reduced. I'd like to see two MPs for each constituency, one male and one female, as standard.

Overall many western countries seem to be going for less representation in that way. Here we've recently reduced the number of health boards, and totally replaced elected school boards with an executive position. It's why the idea of a locum bothers me so much.
Though it is weird because at the same time people have become very focused on things like referendums, constitutions, or elected second chambers, which can in different ways challenge representation although they seem like extensions of the public will.

I often feel at cross-purposes about the female representation in politics question. Generally I don't care if some types of work are female or male dominated, but I think in politics there needs to be balance. I also think that its a mistake to try and socially engineer women into work when their children are very small.

I sometimes think maybe in politics we should be electing elders anyway, who are able to take a longer view. I'd guess that would be a counter-cultural stance at the moment though, people seem to think the elders are trying to sell us all down the river and are out of touch. But it would mean the women in leadership would mostly not be mothers of smalls, they'd have finished that part of their lives.

By male and female MPs I meant biological!
We have demolished local government in Britain, and all the interest in politics occurs at a national level with a top-down control attitude. People are speaking lately of an authoritarian wave sweeping round lately; it didn't come from nowhere. It has its roots in the lack of local democracy imo and destruction of the public sector.
I'm in favour of giving men and women both other options for looking after young children, along the lines of Finland's extended family benefits, not making women alone responsible. Britain's men need to shape up.

Do women really overall want to share that kind of work equally with men, though? I don't think I've ever seen that question answered in a way that I thought was really satisfying.

I would yes, once it's gone beyond breastfeeding. You'd have to ask other women. I see no benefit to being turned into a domestic slave to some man who thinks he is wonderful as a result. There is a problem around employment and wages.

Breastfeeding can last a while. Especially if you have more than one child.

I don't really see childrearing or even domestic work as being a slave to a man. I also think domestic work is going to become more important, so there's that too.

Domestic work does not pay, and I grew up in a household where my mother was a slave to my father. If you don't get pay for work, you are a slave. Women being trapped in domestic abuse by children and economics is on the increase again.

I am not sure why you would say working without pay makes you a slave. Most work isn't paid.

You seem to have an agenda of pushing women back into minding the homes and babies for nothing. That takes away economic power and makes women dependent on men, while men go back to their traditional position of power without responsibilities. I'm not sure exactly you think you can make that attractive.

exactly how you think

Do women really overall want to share that kind of work equally with men, though? I don't think I've ever seen that question answered in a way that I thought was really satisfying

I agree with your sentiment. Often the woman, or the mother, 'hovers' over the male to make sure he's 'doing it right'. And he never is or can, of course......

*I don't really see childrearing or even domestic work as being a slave to a man. I also think domestic work is going to become more important, so there's that too8

I agree! Domestic work has real value - even if it is not valued by many ( including some women). The main problem is economic dependency and the feelings of being trapped and dependent. But that doesn't negate the value or the importance of the role in real terms.

I'm going to stop feeding this outright male propagandist shit now. Men in Britain are becoming ever more aggressive in defence of their total lack of ability or responsibility in the home and want everything their own way again.

Just read an article in the Times that seems to suggest that not only do MPs continue to receive full pay when they take maternity leave but they can apply for financial assistance to hire more staff.

I'm not suggesting this is an ideal model, but saying MPs don't get maternity leave isn't quite the whole story.

I really do feel a re-calibration is on the cards for feminism. The equality ( same as men) idea has been pushed for decades, and of course, one one level it has validity: in the sense we are all human beings, first and foremost, with our individual talents and skills to offer regardless of sex.

And yet when it comes to the biological reality of pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing we still face the inevitable......Short of not having children ( which on some level is a shame if only pursued because of career concerns), what is the best solution?

It will be different for different people; but it remains true that many women, once they have children, want to be with them in the early years; and if in a situation which permits them to do so, quite happily give up outside work even if it entails the feelings of dependency and entrapment that can also follow.

*I'm going to stop feeding this outright male propagandist shit now. Men in Britain are becoming ever more aggressive in defence of their total lack of ability or responsibility in the home and want everything their own way again8

That is a very big generalisation. Many men actually want families and are happy to support them. The reality of the two sexes and their differing roles in reproduction and child-rearing cannot be fully escaped. It's not ideal, for certain - but exists nonetheless.

Genuine question: what happened with parental leave when the parents have split? What if they both want to take nine months etc?

If this is taking it too far from the thread subject I'll start another.

I'm going to stop feeding this outright male propagandist shit now. Men in Britain are becoming ever more aggressive in defence of their total lack of ability or responsibility in the home and want everything their own way again.

I think denigrating work that's been traditionally associated with women is an interesting way to be a feminist.

The problem with the employment situation is about how capitalism is structured. It was a problem for men before second wave feminism, and it was a mistake to say that equality would come from entering the same exploitative situations.

The effect has been to put women, men, and children even more under the thumb of business, less able to work for themselves, more beholden to the corporate class. It's given them less choice, not more.

Just read an article in the Times that seems to suggest that not only do MPs continue to receive full pay when they take maternity leave but they can apply for financial assistance to hire more staff. I'm not suggesting this is an ideal model, but saying MPs don't get maternity leave isn't quite the whole story.

That's an interesting twist. What is it that she is looking for, then? That seems pretty reasonable to me, time off plus help for the practical stuff.

It may be that ultimately you can't represent people in parliament if you don't want to be in parliament. There is no way we can fix up a life so people don't have to make decisions about choosing one thing or another.

Genuine question: what happened with parental leave when the parents have split? What if they both want to take nine months etc?

I think it is the same here if they are together or not. There is so much time given to the parents, and they can divide it how they like. They can also take it at the same time if they want though most people don't.