Jo Swinson

So first it is that children need mothers rather than fathers, which is why they usually get custody.

Then, people (men, I assume) have to 'bend over backwards' to give unsuitable women jobs.

Then it is just 'high flying' women who shouldn't have careers (so all women should be content with 'little jobs' giving them pin money?)

Now it is ok for women to work, but only if they are there at bedtime. Or is it ok if they work out of necessity?

Oh for goodness sake.
Why do you have to be so aggressive Doodlebug?
To answer your questions

1) Yes that is what I do think.
I think it
It is my opinion.
I may not be right.
2) if there is gender bias then obviously it may well be that there is a man who is more suitable for a job than the woman who was given it.
I did not agree with all women shortlists for Labour Oarty candidates.
Is that fair?
Did you?

3)
I am not talking about women earning “pin money”
I was a school teacher but not a leader of a political party
4) If a woman needs to work out of necessity and is not there at her children’s bedtime -she may do evening work when her husband or partner returns from his job -she is likely to be there for them during other times of the day .

Apologies Doodledog ,I wrote your name down incorrectly.
I am actually trying to write Christmas cards.!
Happy Christmas to you all.

No problem about my name - it's not real

I'm not being aggressive. A bit defensive maybe, but then we all try to do the best we can for our children, and people we don't know generalising and suggesting that we have caused harm to our children is bound to hit a nerve.

There is little point in saying anything, as you just keep saying that 'it is your opinion', so we can get nowhere; but Equal Opportunities is not gender bias. It is giving the job to the best person, regardless of gender.

If an organisation has a large discrepancy in the number of men/women/people of colour/disabled people whatever in particular roles, then they will very occasionally make that right by encouraging particular groups to apply.

It is many years since the LP did that, and when they did it was to redress such an imbalance, which was needed. After many years of sex discrimination, it would have taken forever for there to reach a sensible balance and have women (who represent roughly 50% of the population) represented by other women in parliament.

Your concern for the very rare man who loses out as a result of positive discrimination does not take into account the vast number of women who have been (legally in the past, and out of prejudice in more recent times) been passed over for positions that have gone to men. Current gender pay gaps are a testament to the fact that even now, there is discrimination in the workplace.

Why should it be a woman who can only work out of necessity (and who defines necessity?), and what sort of career can be done when her partner returns from his job? What if she has a female partner? Do they both need to be there in the evening?

Allowing women only jobs instead of careers is keeping them in a permanent state of dependence, which is not a good role model for children, surely? As has been mentioned, it also means that even in old age, women are poor, as unless you have 35 full years of NI contributions you will not get a full state pension, and working in the evenings only is unlikely to qualify you for a private one of any use.

I really don’t know how one decides which is a high-flying job and which isn’t, Lancslass1. Is it okay to merely be deputy leader of a political party? Or an MP in a constituency far away from London? What about if two gay men have a child? Are they not both permitted high-flying job, say like Elton John & David Furnish?

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but don’t be surprised to have that opinion labelled as sexism.

Ruth Davidson....as per article in The Scotsman 2 days ago
There is a hint she may return.... ""It may well be that my time in politics doesn't come again until we're in opposition." she has said.. Well it may be if we are very lucky that very soon the conservatives may well be opposition. However the point being she may be planning a retur n to work and in a high powered role when her child is very young and why not.

Haven't read all the previous posts but why does TiggyW conclude that Jo Swinson doesn't want to be with her family?
I expect she misses them dreadfully.

MPs have very generous holidays so she probably gets to see them more often than you think.

As the SNP are likely to sweep the board on Thursday she may even lose her seat. Then she will definitely get to see her family a lot more!

To be honest Sue I would think it would be very difficult for any woman MP with young children to be able to cope with the un sociable hours that MPs have to put up with especially if they live hundreds of miles away from London.
I hadn’t given thought to two men having a child as the main point raised at the beginning was about a woman who until very recently thought she might become the next Prime Minister.
When I have responded to points made in the past I have said my piece once and that has been that but now it seems we have gone off the main point that Tiggy W brought up.
I can’t say I am going to quit whist I am winning but I must go and get the meal ready!

Back in the 70's when I had my daughter, I applied for maternity leave from the place I worked. My boss called me in for a meeting and said virtually the same things as were said at the beginning of this thread, that I would miss out on seeing my child developing and had I thought it through properly, etc. Yes, I had thought it through, at that time my husband's job was very precarious whereas I was in a secure job, and so we thought if we were ever going to afford to buy a home of our own it was best if at least one of us had a steady job! I asked my boss whether he asked the same question of male employees who were expecting a child and were planning on continuing to work. I was fortunate that my mum was able to care for my daughter, and I only worked a 15 minute walk away from home, so all worked out well. Fast forward 40+ years, my daughter is the one with a career that means she works long hours, currently about an hour or so drive each way every day, and sometimes she has to travel further afield and stay overnight in hotels. In the case of my daughter and son in law, she was the one with the best qualifications and career prospects, so that has now enabled my son in law to be a stay at home dad and be there every day for the grandchildren. As long as children get love, care and attention does it matter which of the parents is out earning the family income? Sadly many families don't really get much choice, as many people are in jobs that have such low wages that both parents have to work full time to make ends meet.

And yet many women (and men) in Govt positions across the world who have young families cope just fine. Thank goodness for them, otherwise outdated,, sexist attitudes would never change.

Margaret Thatcher worked full time and it didn't do her children: Cawole, or the son who got lost in a desert any harm

So did Dennis Thatcher

"Nothing goes over my head - My reflexes are too fast!"

I'm poking my head out from under my rock. I'm with TiggyW and the very small minority who wonder why have children and pay someone else to look after them. Early years are so important and for me, more rewarding than a career (I was a primary teacher until DD1 was born, stayed at home and started a completely different career when the DDs were in top primary/lower secondary).

You mean people like DH and I?

Times have changed.

When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s my mother was unusual because she worked and most of the mothers of my friends did not.

My first child was born in 1970 and I did what I think most of my generation did, I stopped work a month before she was born and did not go back to work until my youngest child started school at four. Then I worked part-time for the most part (with occasional temporary full-time stints) until the children were older.

Perhaps we were a privileged generation. My daughters have not been able to spend so much time with their children when they were small but have been expected to develop their own careers. Going back to work quite quickly seems to be the norm.

I would have hated to have been stuck at home with the kids, relying on someone else for an income, not utilising my university education, not paying into my pension pot and finding myself in the same position as many of the Waspi women and older with meagre pensions, doing part time work for pin money. We have so many opportunities that weren’t afforded to my mum and her friends born in the forties - I consider our generation to be privileged, with options and choices. My mum would have lived to have worked in the 70s but there was absolutely no childcare facilities back then (or rather, very few, and not regulated in the same way as they are now).

Like your mum,Sir Chenjin,I was born in the 1940s.
When I was first married we had no car ,washing machine ,Central heating etc.
If my housekeeping money ran out on a Wednesday that was tough .
I had to go out to work to make ends meet.
I was worried about putting my toddler child into a nursery but was told by a doctor than it was good for both the child and the mother to have a break from each other for part of the day.
I have a photograph of him playing in the snow with a bucket and spade.
I doubt that could happen now.
Health and Safety.
On the day he started school the other children were clinging to their mothers, crying
He, spotting toys in the room rushed in smiling without a backward glance

*I have a photograph of him playing in the snow with a bucket and spade.
I doubt that could happen now.
Health and Safety*

It most certainly does happen now, I can assure you from recent experience. I presume you don’t have young children in your family if you think that? Google Forest Schools for example. Outdoor play is an essential part of the early years curriculum here.

Delighted to hear it Sir Chenjin.
I thought because schools now seem to close the moment there is any snow that they wouldn’t allow children to play in it.
The winter of ‘46/‘47 was particularly cold but we made slides in the playground and pretended the frozen cream which pushed up the top of the milk in our 1/3 pint bottles was actually ice cream.
We didn’t have the thick anoraks ,coats and boots children seem to have nowadays only wellingtons and gabardines but we coped OK.

She is power hungry and her polices are essentially about her. Can’t stand the woman.

LibDem policies are not about Jo. They are determined by the democratic vote of constituency representatives at the party conference.

All leaders want power - but perhaps the fact that she’s a woman and not at home raising her children makes that unpalatable for some.

Power is a good thing when used wisely - it can be a force for great change. So far we haven’t seen much of that from the blonde buffoon.

Don't worry, she's thick as mince. After Thursday she'll be toast!