Politicians with babies on stage

[MrGHardy]

What does mumsnet think about this?

After Jacinda Ardern I saw another story today with someone taking their baby on stage. I do not understand this. The vast majority of jobs this would just not work. What makes politicians think it is ok? Is this progressive for women's rights? I hardly think so given almost no one can do this, i.e. it just reeks of privilege.

My mum always took me to work when I was a baby. She was a hairdresser though.

Does the UK parliament have a crèche yet?

Agree, Babdoc that there's no use in romanticising the past, and I'm not suggesting life was rosy or easy back before antibiotics and analgesics.

But as pp says, surely with all our tech and our ingenuity, we can do better, now?

Do we really all need to work 40 hour weeks? Couldn't many jobs be done with babies at the breast/feet of the parents? Has the pandemic accustomed us to children/pets/housemates moving around during work calls, and does it really matter for all jobs that this happens? Of course there are exceptions, and some jobs where one must absolutely focus 100% with no interruptions or noises off stage, but if the only reason it is 'not acceptable' to mix work/domestic life is because of a perception of what is socially 'correct', then perception can feasibly be changed.

I do think this is something we need to talk about more. Until we do so, and maybe try to find solutions, we are restricted to choosing between work and family life, effectively.

apologies if the breast/feet image came across as somewhat odd ... bit tired tonight!

I am not feeling the comments about women in the past (when? Where?) always working with babies and young kids around. With a sort of impression (as others have mentioned) that this was good/ better.

So many things but in general.

Before contraception. There were loads of children in loads of families. There was a lot of poverty. Things were pretty grim for most.

Would the women have had children/ however many if they had a choice?

Not all women are happy looking after babies children. It gets done. But it was something that was... I mean it had to be done. It was invariably the woman's job. Something positive? To do that and try to work?
The older children used to care for the younger. Children were left to themselves much more.
And the work was generally very physically hard.

That's post industrial revolution.

Before that. Was it better? Around the world now women do long hours of backbreaking work. With a baby strapped to them. And when they get bigger.. not sure. The mum is still out planting the rice or getting wood water etc. Dunno where the toddlers go..

In the UK women and children went down the mines until the govt found out and banned it. Lost income meant more poverty.

I mean I'm just not at all sure about all this.

If not bf then dads can and do care for children. DH loves it. I didn't. Horses for courses. Choice. Sharing responsibilities, with an eye to preferences and practicalities.

It's not a universal truth that mothers want to be with their children for however long. Yes babies need their mother. That's all a newborn knows. And that it's not a short term need. But it's not a must after a certain age either.

In the end we live and have for a very long time lived in a world that was built by men for men.

We have always- then and now- tried to fit in however we can in a system that does not fit us.

And our roles, duties, etc have always been controlled by men.

Chattel. Banned from loads of jobs. Responsible for children. Caring feeding clothing. How much we did and how much we could share the load etc was dependent on men. If they were a violent drunk, kept all the money, left etc. Women had to get on with it. We have done our best and kept going whatever the situation, generally for our children. And this still is often the case.

Take parliament. Going way back (and pre Corona).

Had to be there in person. In London no matter where you lived. Away from children generally. And the other things that women have going on more often than men.
Mat pay from very recently.

When Corona attending parliament, well it can be remote. Remote voting.

JRM said nope. Can't remember details. You have to be here to vote. He wanted attendance in person as well. Can't remember what happened.

There was (is?) no proxy voting. Remember the female MP going on in hosp trolley because it was av important vote.

I suppose what I'm saying is that imo working and looking after babies and little kids. Is shit. Full attention not given to either.

Push how great it is and well it's women in mind.

So we get to do two important things at the same time. Prob really stressful for the mum. And neither task getting full attention.

Trying to combine is why so many women do. Low pay part time work that they are overskilled and too experienced for. Of necessity. Things like selling stuff on net. Getting drawn into MLM. Because still. Need money + need to look after kids. Same as ever.

I'm not saying that anything here is 'wrong'.

What I feel is there's too much pressure etc. SAH Vs woh. We've all seen the threads on here. And I don't get why it's so polarised and angry.

The aim is for family groups whatever they look like. To have much more genuine choice in how they work and live. SAH - fab! 2 parents both part time- why not? Work full time assuming that's her preference and child/ ren got what they needed when tiny and are well looked after now. Great!

In the end it is still mainly. Men carrying on as usual. Women when have babies. Big decisions. Lots of change. Organising things and knowing whatever you do you're judged. Deciding to change jobs for local PT however much loved old industry.

All of it. Same. As for centuries.

And I really don't think women + babies + the vast majority of jobs = good news for us.