Julia Hartley-Brewer v Stella Creasy

You seem obsessed by taxes.

volver

You seem obsessed by taxes.

I really think that it's time that people let go of this outdated idea that taxation funds spending. Then we might be able to have a more reasoned view of how we wold like the country's money to be spent. And be less accepting of such ridiculous and harmful notions as 'austerity' and the need to 'balance' the nation's books.

We are, I presume, mostly older women. We had all the benefits of the welfare state, free education, healthcare that was provided for us by the generations above us. I'm grateful to them for that.

We then, I presume, spent our youth fighting hard to gain equality and our working lives striving to succeed in a world where it was a given that men ruled the roost. We had access to more freedom and opportunity than any generation of women before us.

Now we have the chance to really stand up for and support the women coming after us and I can't understand why some seem to want to pull up the rope rather than hand down a ladder.

We have it in our power to make life easier and more equal for the next generations whether we meet those people or not. We should be banging on the door of power trying to make things better. If we don't do that then what is the point of us, society and humanity?

Well said (again), Coastpath.

Great post Coastpath
Can I say as well that somehow women seem to have lost out on the whole deal.
I have posted about how I was sent to a full time day nursery when I was 3 because my mum was ill. I was there all day, dad dropped me off and collected me on his bike after work. But we also had all the time mum was ill and recuperating. a cleaner, paid for by the local authority, who did the heavy work mum couldn't. Dads of course weren't considered able. My grans were both working and one had a husband with TB so they didn't help. I'm always shocked that no one our age seems to remember that the Welfare state really was that, created and maintained to improve the health and welfare of everyone but especially those who needed it most. It's something we seem to have completely lost sight of in this acquisitive age.

I do remember that trisher. What disappoints me so much is that everyone here, and I assume we’re all women, seems to focus on the rights of women to have equality and fulfilling careers rather than on how that impacts the lives of their children.

Do those things have to be exclusive?

Can a woman not have a fulfilling, successful career and well-balanced, healthy children?

That's what this is about, enabling access to the things that women need to make that happen. It could be creches at work, it could be flexible hours, it could be childcare vouchers, I don't know what.

So when people start having a go at Stella Creasey and saying that she's whinging, isn't she rich enough and all that, they are completely missing the point. JHB is completely missing the point, probably intentionally, so as to turn people against Ms Creasy and their families.

It’s still all about enabling women though, isn’t it?

Is that a bad thing?

Germanshepherdsmum

I do remember that trisher. What disappoints me so much is that everyone here, and I assume we’re all women, seems to focus on the rights of women to have equality and fulfilling careers rather than on how that impacts the lives of their children.

But that shouuld equally apply to men now Gsm . Fathers are well able to care for children it's not the preserve of women any more. Of course there will always be men (and a few women) who put their careers first but committment to raising a child should be a joint operation and not the sole responsibility of the mother. If a woman's career has to be put on hold so should a man's.

It depends on the cost to the children. Someone remarked earlier that the RF were brought up by nannies and what a dysfunctional lot they are. I knew another lawyer who had nannies and au pairs to look after her children whilst she furthered her career and when the hired help didn’t arrive one day sent her sick child to school. Turned out said child had pneumonia.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s still all about enabling women though, isn’t it?

No. For many women - probably most, putting food on the table and a roof over their heads needs to be met before anything else can be provided. Surely you can recognise that?

Which comes back to my comment about considering whether you can afford a child.

Germanshepherdsmum

I frankly don’t understand why it’s unacceptable to so many here that if a woman has chosen to follow a career which doesn’t have family friendly hours she should expect to make some compromises for a few years if she has children, in order to give the children a stable upbringing. Unless of course she has a partner who is able and willing to make the compromises. Is it acceptable to follow your high flying career come what may and have your children brought up by nannies? Children aren’t toys to be enjoyed when it’s convenient in the busy life you have chosen, taking second place to your career. As I have said I have always worked full time through necessity but I compromised on what I did within my chosen career and where I worked. I don’t regret that and it did my career no long-term damage. You have a child, you, not your employer or the state, have responsibilities to that child.

Why only women? Don't fathers have any obligations? Should they be expected to make compromises and put their careers on hold?

Entirely up to the couple themselves to negotiate. In some cases the better decision is for the father to make career compromises, in others the mother.

There are dysfunctional families and inadequate parents at all levels of society Gsm I've seen mothers who are at home send an ill child into school. I've seen children cared for by loving and excellent nannies and carers who probably did a far better job than the child's parents. It's nothing to do with money, nannies, careers or anything else. There's no standard way of raising a child and some children love having a working mum while other wish there mum would do something. But involving two parents, making proper provision for child friendly work places, providing high quality child care and recognising that one of the most important things anyone male or female can do is raise a child to the best of their ability is vitality important. But it won't happen until women are fully equal and men are regarded as equally responsible.

Great post coastpath
I feel fortunate to have benefitted from the nhs, decent education, never been hungry
I can’t imagine resenting paying tax to benefit the next generation
I’d pay more to subsidise early years, including child care. It’s an investment ?

Germanshepherdsmum

Which comes back to my comment about considering whether you can afford a child.

Thankfully, I hadn't seen that. Definitely beyond the pale as far as I am concerned. There is nothing more to be said to people with views like that.

volver

Do those things have to be exclusive?

Can a woman not have a fulfilling, successful career and well-balanced, healthy children?

That's what this is about, enabling access to the things that women need to make that happen. It could be creches at work, it could be flexible hours, it could be childcare vouchers, I don't know what.

So when people start having a go at Stella Creasey and saying that she's whinging, isn't she rich enough and all that, they are completely missing the point. JHB is completely missing the point, probably intentionally, so as to turn people against Ms Creasy and their families.

Apparently not.

Though I’ll have to make sure I tell some friends that they did it all wrong and their children only look well adjusted.

Germanshepherdsmum

It depends on the cost to the children. Someone remarked earlier that the RF were brought up by nannies and what a dysfunctional lot they are. I knew another lawyer who had nannies and au pairs to look after her children whilst she furthered her career and when the hired help didn’t arrive one day sent her sick child to school. Turned out said child had pneumonia.

Is hired help worse than using your mother as daycare then?

Does it get looked down on?

Really, you should have just quit your job while your child was young.

Or is that only what todays mothers of young children should do?

If it weren’t for the fact that my mother lived nearby and was delighted to have a grandchild to care for I wouldn’t have had a child. I knew I couldn’t afford not to work and I couldn’t have paid a stranger to bring up my child.

Germanshepherdsmum

If it weren’t for the fact that my mother lived nearby and was delighted to have a grandchild to care for I wouldn’t have had a child. I knew I couldn’t afford not to work and I couldn’t have paid a stranger to bring up my child.

From the age of 5 Gsm your child was cared for during the school day by a paid professional who probably was a stranger to you until your child started school. Why was. that OK but early years professional care wrong?

My choice trisher. Of course he had to go to school at 5. Many professionals would happily pack their offspring off to boarding school at 7 for convenience . Why, if the intention from the outset is to pay a stranger to look after your child the moment you can get back to the office (or whatever) do you actually bother to have a child? When you finish work said child may be in bed and the only time you spend with them is at the weekend (assuming you’re not working, which with many jobs you will be) and holidays. Unless you’re doing it to keep up the birth rate, what’s the point? Mother first, child a poor second.

I don't know many solicitors, lawyers, that kind of thing. The only ones I've had contact with were when I was doing jury duty. Seemed to me that the person was taking a position that they may or may not have agreed with, but they were determined to use any and all discussions about angels on the head of a pin that they could, to make their point and cast doubt on the testimony of the other side.

Why have I thought of that today, I wonder...?

The lawyers you saw on jury duty were paid to put forward their clients’ cases.
I have put forward my case which favours children’s welfare over women’s short term career ambitions. It’s entirely clear that the jury will convict me as a throwback to the 50s. I was however a woman who had it all, just not all at once. And quite likely a lot more in terms of status, equality and income than many of my critics - plus the closest relationship with my child that I could ever wish for. It was worth a wait and being patient. In my professional experience of negotiating with men, you get much more without aggressive demands.