Mumsnet Webchat about women/mums in politics with Stella Creasy and Caroline Nokes - 1st February

[Bosky]

Anyone got any questions for Stella and Caroline?

Go to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/4468388-Webchat-about-women-mums-in-politics-with-Stella-Creasy-and-Caroline-Nokes-1st-February

Both of them seemed to significantly misjudge their audience. Creasy kept banging on about having to hold her baby, I think assuming that we were all mothers of small children and would therefore sympathise. Now, as it happens, I have tried to work while simultaneously caring for a baby - not very successfully, because it's bloody impossible - but the baby stage is now a distant memory for me. I don't know the personal situation of every woman taking part in yesterday's chat, but I suspect that most of us have older children, and some have no children at all. Also, as a PP pointed out, a lot of us have professional jobs. So we view a web discussion like yesterday's not as a time to say "Gosh, it's so difficult being a mum! If only we had more opportunity to take part in public life" and more an opportunity to raise really serious issues about a systematic attack on women's rights. Some of us spend a lot of our time reading, discussing, researching and campaigning on this issue. We therefore hoped yesterday would give us the opportunity to have an intelligent debate about it. But Nokes and Creasy were simply unprepared - and apparently angry because we wouldn't play ball.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Mimmybirthingfury still ranting about how awful we are.

Perhaps she could set up MimmyMumsnet? I'm sure it would be a roaring success.

MimmyMumsnet 🤣🤣

That's inspired!

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/31/eddie-izzard-becoming-an-mp-is-still-my-goal

Eddie does plan to stand for election, for Labour. Stella must know this and it was a perfectly valid question.

I thought Stella Creasy and Caroline Nokes came across well. I also thought it didn’t reflect well on MN. I suppose MN could have done a better job of moderating it to help the GC side

Still trending.

I forget who, but some smarty pants said "women have all the rights they need - the right to remain silent"

@RavensburgerPuzzle

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

It was deeply sexist.

It was 'Look how I identify with you. Did I mention I have a baby, like you. Ohhh a baby. My identity is purely gaga googoo'.

Its the whole, MN should only do prams mentality in a nutshell.

Its was cringeworthy and utterly, utterly patronising.

You don't exactly attract women to parliament, by doing that. You just think 'what an UTTER prat'.

Women want people to be inspired by and to be thought of in professional terms, as more than just 'a person who gives birth' and which is what it reduced us to instead of having our own independent identities.

If we are to be judged by our merits rather than our biological reproductive qualities, its hardly a progressive step.

'Wiggly baby' is a term which is even worse than simply baby, because it kind of infantilises women by the use of language.

I noticed it was used multiple times, and it grated, because it looked scripted, almost as if she had notes saying 'emphasis how you have the baby with you RIGHT NOW'. I'm glad others also picked up on it.

Why on earth was my post deleted?! This is getting out of hand.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Still trending.

I forget who, but some smarty pants said "women have all the rights they need - the right to remain silent"

#14

4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/

@RoyalCorgi

Both of them seemed to significantly misjudge their audience. Creasy kept banging on about having to hold her baby, I think assuming that we were all mothers of small children and would therefore sympathise. Now, as it happens, I have tried to work while simultaneously caring for a baby - not very successfully, because it's bloody impossible - but the baby stage is now a distant memory for me. I don't know the personal situation of every woman taking part in yesterday's chat, but I suspect that most of us have older children, and some have no children at all. Also, as a PP pointed out, a lot of us have professional jobs. So we view a web discussion like yesterday's not as a time to say "Gosh, it's so difficult being a mum! If only we had more opportunity to take part in public life" and more an opportunity to raise really serious issues about a systematic attack on women's rights. Some of us spend a lot of our time reading, discussing, researching and campaigning on this issue. We therefore hoped yesterday would give us the opportunity to have an intelligent debate about it. But Nokes and Creasy were simply unprepared - and apparently angry because we wouldn't play ball.

This is a clash of expectations that happens now every time a political figure comes to MN.

The women of MN want to speak to them and be heard as intelligent women with actual inner lives and interests and careers, and to express their concerns that they would like that figure to address.

The visitor invariably wishes to tell women what is useful to them to put into the public sphere, sees it as a 'sharing soundbites' and downloading experience rather than a receptive one, and often is making use of the optics of here am I talking to the mummies, aren't I accessible and diverse?

As a result, both groups end up extremely fed up with each other.

My mum lives in Nokes' constituency. When I told her what's going on she initially didn't believe it. She now understands (betterthan CN does) and is informing her many voting friends.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Still trending. Being kept off the number one spot by Boris.

Mimmybirthingfury still ranting about how awful we are.

Is'nt it funny that the questions raised were about women and women's rights, but twitter and the reporting is about "anti-trans"?

I'm not aware of "anti-trans" on here. Am I missing the terrible hate, or is talking about women and women's rights inherently anti-trans nowadays?

The obvious conclusion is that the trans political movement is anti-women and anti-women's rights.

I think it's been fairly obvious for a long time, but helpful that this is now being explained openly in the public sphere by well known figures such as Mimmy.

It's fairly simple: women can have rights, or men can have a lot of additional privileges and freedoms.

It's rather like 'be kind' in fact means 'woman, subordinate yourself to male people with needs'.

I'm not sure why I'm expected to produce a ladylike answer to either of these, being neither insane nor a masochist.

I can't teach kids with a baby on my lap.

My friends working various ICUs can't.

Midwives can't have their own baby in the room while they deliver others.

Prison officers can't.

She's saying that "look I can be an mp with a baby" (using said baby as a token) "so can you!"

How is this any different to hoodwinking MLM mums to think they can be a full
Time mum and run a business at the same time?

She should be campaigning for MUCH better support for new mothers in parliament. They don't get much maternity leave. That's why so few women with kids or hoping to have kids go into parliament. Unless their husbands take the sahp role. But that can mean different parenting choices.

That's why AWS were created. Making them "inclusive" defeats the purpose.

I know a consultant paediatrician who breastfed her kids way past 1 but her husband took the career break.

I find it a bizarre stance to want to dictate the conversation on webchats when you're an elected MP. I understand why a lot of people come onto mn to flog a book or something want to talk about that but surely your role as an MP is to listen to your constituents and ensure their voices are heard. Isn't that literally what they're paid to do?

In all honesty, I have met very few MPs (or counsellors) that have a 'receive' mode as well as a 'broadcast' mode.

@DottyDoge

I thought Stella Creasy and Caroline Nokes came across well. I also thought it didn’t reflect well on MN. I suppose MN could have done a better job of moderating it to help the GC side

I thought they came across quite poorly. There is a massive issue with women in politics being targeted for abuse, whether it's to do with their views, their looks, their family set up etc etc and part of the reason why women spend less time in office than men. The impression I got from the continual refrain of 'being kind' and 'raising the level of debate' was that you'll be OK as long as you hold the right sort of views. Nothing to say in practical terms how such abuse would be addressed and tackled - there's lots of handwringing about how 'it's such a shame that Rosie Duffield feels under siege' but no condemnation from her party about the kind of abuse she's been receiving. Nicola Sturgeon, to this day, still hasn't publically addressed the credible rape threats that Joanna Cherry, a member of her own party, received from another member of the party. Not one word. Because she holds the 'wrong sort' of views.

Someone on this thread I think made a really good point about how it's hard for women even to speak to their own elected representatives, let alone go into politics themselves, due to councillor's surgeries being held only face to face, at 7pm most often, and any request for online meetings (to make it easier for women in particular) is simply rejected because 'councillors prefer it face to face'. There's very little point talking about crèche services for serving MP's etc if women can't get involved or their voices heard at grassroots level. Those who are tackling the issue are addressing it at the wrong level.

And the whole question of 'what is a woman' is important because if a 50/50 representation can be 50% men and 50% transwomen, the barriers which we are pointing out don't exist - maternity leave issues, breastfeeding, taking on the lions share of child rearing. What's the point? You might as well just do a generic 'encouraging 'people' into politics' and drop the whole aspect of encouraging women into politics entirely.

Lurker here, been reading for ages but only just signed up. I've just read the webchat today and I'm really puzzled. I don't understand how we're meant to record the number of women in politics (or anywhere) correctly if we can't use the biological, dictionary definition of woman as adult human female, thereby excluding males from the numbers. It makes all statistics meaningless, doesn't it, if males are included in stats for females. What's the use of collecting fudged data?

Yes, precisely the issue, Twinkie. Or one of the issues.

@Artichokeleaves

In all honesty, I have met very few MPs (or counsellors) that have a 'receive' mode as well as a 'broadcast' mode.

Oh, that's a very interesting observation. Yes. How depressing.

@Twinkietinkly

Lurker here, been reading for ages but only just signed up. I've just read the webchat today and I'm really puzzled. I don't understand how we're meant to record the number of women in politics (or anywhere) correctly if we can't use the biological, dictionary definition of woman as adult human female, thereby excluding males from the numbers. It makes all statistics meaningless, doesn't it, if males are included in stats for females. What's the use of collecting fudged data?

Well this was the whole root of FairPlay for Women's successful challenge of the census. If you can't determine who is male and who is female, how can you use the data for anything? It's utterly meaningless.

Thank you, Arabella.

@Artichokeleaves

In all honesty, I have met very few MPs (or counsellors) that have a 'receive' mode as well as a 'broadcast' mode.

And yes, I think you're right. I don't know any politicians now but I did meet some aspiring ones at university and they were much more concerned about themselves than the students they professed to represent.

is talking about women and women's rights inherently anti-trans nowadays?

Either 'rights aren't pie' and there is no conflict between women asking for and receiving protections as set out in the Equality Act (single sex spaces, asking for female HCPs, single sex prisons, etc) - or there is a conflict of rights between women wanting spaces & rights for women and some people wanting males to have the right to be added into the category of 'women'.

Women ask for single sex (female spaces). Protected in EA.
Males ask for access to female spaces (rendering them mixed sex).

At some point the govt are going to have to decide if women are allowed to have rights & single sex spaces, or if everything is to become unisex/mixed sex. At least the latter would be more honest, and possibly safer.

News Thump seem to be sitting on the fence on this one...

newsthump.com/2022/02/01/woman-who-visited-mumsnet-looking-for-advice-on-baby-food-now-a-trans-exclusionary-radical-feminist/