Julia Hartley-Brewer v Stella Creasy

I perhaps know a bit about the legal profession, having worked in it for over 40 years. Women had to prove they could do the job well and then firms didn’t want to lose them. No woman in any of the firms I worked at ‘made a fuss’. It wouldn’t have got them what they wanted. More ways than one to skin a cat.

Gsm I happen to know that at least one women in the legal profession has been criticised during her yearly assessment for not dressing attractively enough. The idea that somehow women have reached equal status or are treated equally in all firms is so wrong. If it was done to her it was undoubtedly done to others some of whom would be junior to her and might think "sexing it up a bit" was the only way to make progress.

Did I say women were treated equally? No. I said there has been a big movement towards accommodating women with children rather than losing their skills.
I’m not in the least surprised about the comment. Dress code was still very important in the City pre-pandemic but I gather from my son that things have relaxed a bit now. However it’s a fact that if a firm wants to win business it won’t field someone who doesn’t care much about her appearance.

Lucca

Germanshepherdsmum

I would like to know whether volver and Daisy had children and if so what work they did when their children were small. I’ve shared my own experience. Would either of you, who are enjoying telling me how behind the times I am and generally criticising my attitude, care to share?

Volver already said she doesn’t have babies,

Although why that is relevant I don’t know. We can comment on things of which we don’t have direct experience surely ?

I also wonder why this information is relevant. We all have a point of view built on many sources of information. I am certainly not going to be coerced into giving information on an open forum that I previously chose not to give, just to satisfy someone else's curiosity.

I have not, as far as I am aware, said you are "behind the times" GSM. Nor have I "generally criticised" you. I just didn't agree with your argument. I still don't but that doesn't mean you shouldn't hold it or try your best to convince others. Just allow others the same privilege.

It might help if we could clarify what 'Make a fuss' means.

To stridently and constructively put forward a case for the right to equal and fair treatment isn't making a fuss.

On the subject of appearance, the most successful, convincing and influential business woman I ever met did not care a jot about her appearance - in fact she looked a bit of a mess - it never held her back. She would not let it hold her back.

A lot of very successful men are a right state - our PM falls into this category. Why should women have to achieve a standard that men do not?

Lucca

Germanshepherdsmum

I would like to know whether volver and Daisy had children and if so what work they did when their children were small. I’ve shared my own experience. Would either of you, who are enjoying telling me how behind the times I am and generally criticising my attitude, care to share?

Volver already said she doesn’t have babies,

Although why that is relevant I don’t know. We can comment on things of which we don’t have direct experience surely ?

I agree with Volver.

I have both children and grandchildren. I took my children to work when necessary in the 1980s, it never caused any problem; I am not a firefighter.

I have taken my grandson to work and I am very happy for anyone in my team now to bring their children if it fits in with their work.

But as I said somewhere up the thread "Just because I can't then you shouldn't" is not an argument.

I think women are perceived as having to try harder in spaces that were traditionally mens.

Just as stay at home Dads have to also.

There's quite a lot of detail here but some might be interested. I don't know much about the legal profession but I do know about STEM.

Best line: Inadvertently discovered neutron stars

Most relevant comment: Global data shows culture, not women’s brains, is the problem

indico.ictp.it/event/a14298/session/5/contribution/2/material/slides/0.pdf

That’s very true GranyGravy. And however much we wish they didn’t, appearances matter. It’s been said many times that we make up our minds about people and houses very quickly. If you were presented with a female lawyer who had taken care to dress appropriately and wash and brush her hair and one who had pulled on an old cardi and looked as though her personal hygiene might be questionable, which one would you think more likely to give your work the care it deserved?
Rather the same when you view a tidy house and a messy one.

Personally I think any job where you are in the public eye requires a professional woman to look smart and presentable, or at least clean and tidy. It isn't always easy, but I used to have two suits on the back of my office door which I hastily put on when needed, whilst often traipsing around the building in an old tracksuit at other times. I would never welcome a visitor or client looking a mess.

I don't care if Stella Creasy takes her baby to work with her.

What I dislike is the assumption that is a possible option for most women. I can't think of any of the large or even smaller companies I worked for that would have countenanced children/babies in offices on a regular basis. Not even the SCOTTISH life assurance company I worked for

Do we have to denigrate SAHM "staying at home to look after a child is very odd" how can that bloody well be? my days were crammed packed just looking after mine pre school years and taking them to and from child based activities yes definitely on another planet!

When I went back to work when my youngest went to school, I was lucky enough to work for my husband's firm, so very, very occasionally, if I was really stuck I could bring them in. If they'd been pre school, there was no way I could have got on with what my job entailed and attend to the demands of a young child/ren or baby. Who hasn't been on the phone to friends at home which most will know is an automatic trigger to have any conversation punctuated with a mantra of "mummy, mummy, mummy" sometimes even going to the loo was a luxury, so the practicalities of taking two young pre school children into a business environment and getting children to occupy themselves whilst I whizzed through my working day would have been nigh impossible, the only stamping going on would be their feet making contact with some piece of office equipment.

The sort of reverse judgey comments on here remind me of those that I had to put up with from nuns at my snotty convent school when some bloody nun would proclaim to me and and anyone else in the same boat "you of course have a working mother that explains at lot!"

"Judge not, lest ye bed judged"

Very refreshing post TerriBull.

Of course its not possible for most women TerriBull

That's the point

We can keep on saying that its just not possible for most women, or we can try to change things so that it becomes more possible for more women. And for those who can't take their babies to work, make it possible to have better childcare. Or make their maternity leave work better.

And if a person doesn't need/want to work outside the home, then that's fine. But don't let's deny changes in the legislation to women who want it. or keep telling them how hard our lives were.

Forcing employers to provide crèches or to allow children in the workplace would surely have an adverse effect on their willingness to employ women likely to need those facilities.
Better childcare outside the workplace must be a more favourable option. Not sure what’s wrong with maternity leave at present?

GSM My daughter is also a solicitor and is now a very senior partner in a large City firm.
She always knew she wanted a career and also to have children. She has gone on to have four children all the time working for the same firm.
This is how she did it. When the first child arrived she hired a young nanny. She paid her very well, was flexible and gave the nanny many extra benefits. It took virtually all her salary.
Over time the same nanny had two children herself and they were included in the childcare arrangements.
After 20 years the nanny has just left. The peace of mind my daughter gained from having excellent childcare arrangements has been worth every penny.

I'm delighted to hear that. When I had my son I couldn't afford a nanny but my Mum really stepped up and did a wonderful job. Without her I don't know how I would have managed. Working locally so as to be the best Mum I could meant that my salary wasn't anything like what I earned as a partner in a City firm much later on but your daughter will probably tell you that if she had kicked up a fuss and made demands of her firm it wouldn't have gone well. As it is, she has doubtless proved to be an excellent role model for other women in her firm. Good for her. I'm sure we will both be criticised and told 'it's all right for some', but that's GN for you, never can win!

Germanshepherdsmum

Forcing employers to provide crèches or to allow children in the workplace would surely have an adverse effect on their willingness to employ women likely to need those facilities.
Better childcare outside the workplace must be a more favourable option. Not sure what’s wrong with maternity leave at present?

This is just a version of the "forcing employers to pay living wages will reduce the number of jobs" argument.

Although of course there’s nothing wrong with providing care outside the workplace.

Workplace creches are not that unusual, it's usually the more progressive companies that provide them.

I cant believe we are still telling women to 'be kind' 'keep quiet', it would be the last advice I would give to my daughter.

What's interesting though is that organisations that choose to provide crèches experience easier recruitment of a wider, better qualified and experienced selection of candidates. Those candidates tend to stay with the company longer, take less sickness absence and are happier and more productive in the workplace.

If this information was more widely distribution, known and understood perhaps employers would be fighting to be first to provide or subsidise these services and there would no need for them to be forced to do so.

What is good for employees often pays back dividends for employers.

I noticed yesterday that Ursula von der Leyen has seven children as well as being a physician and President of the EU. She took time off to be a stay at home mum in the 90s and has still achieved all she has. Women are incredible.

Galaxy

I cant believe we are still telling women to 'be kind' 'keep quiet', it would be the last advice I would give to my daughter.

It happens on GN too, Galaxy

Posts get reported and deleted because we want to behave like Mumsnetters and Gransnetters should be kind and know their place.

I noticed yesterday that Ursula von der Leyen has seven children as well as being a physician and President of the EU

The other point is that SAHMs are often out and about more than working mums. It doesn't mean they literally Stay at Home and do nothing.
Although getting seven children ready to go out must have been some task
The EU Presidency might be a doddle in comparison!

Germanshepherdsmum

Did I say women were treated equally? No. I said there has been a big movement towards accommodating women with children rather than losing their skills.
I’m not in the least surprised about the comment. Dress code was still very important in the City pre-pandemic but I gather from my son that things have relaxed a bit now. However it’s a fact that if a firm wants to win business it won’t field someone who doesn’t care much about her appearance.

This wasn't about someone not being smart. This was about someone being expected to dress in a certain fashion. (if you've seen the Apprentice the women on that do it). Fitted clothes, low neckline, high heels. "You could undo a button on that shirt," was one suggestion. It was out and out sexist behaviour.
As far as creches and nurseries go the government can and did fund them. During WW2 there were more state nurseries available than at any time before or since. Because women were needed to keep the factories open and supply munitions. After the war they gradually closed, I just made it to one of the last in 1948, because women were being firmly put back in the home.

paddyann54

Yammy I often say I live on a different planet to most on here ,when I was young the mantra was that a new baby should slot into your life NOT take it over. I didn't know ANYONE who stayed at home when they had a baby ...no one.Most went back to work in offices and factories within 6 weeks,some lucky to have creches ,some shared child care with friends or family .No one had a husband who stayed at home .
My mothers generation was the same in our street there were two women who didn't work ,one was my mother the other an older mother who was more my granny's age and had a son my age ,born in her mid forties .I thought the whole SAHM thing was very odd,especially people who still sat at home when their kids went to school .
I did think life had moved on but apparently not .Of course its daft to expect a fireman/woman or surgeon to take baby to work but where its possible it should be acceptable .

What job would you suggest as appropriate to take a child to work with?
How do you concentrate and give your best when your own child makes demands.
Jacinda Aherne is not holding her baby she obviously has someone who knows the baby and the baby knows them.
As I said previously we need to make sure that women who return should go in at the level they had reached.More creche and nurseries should be provided.
But there will always be jobs that women cannot do with a baby.

This is a dispiriting thread. Feels like going back in time where interview panels could ask if you planned to have children. Well, they could ask females that, it wouldn’t enter their head to ask men.
I was asked at interview in 1981 who was at fault in my divorce