Labour's pink bus

[Louisa]

I'm not personally offended, but as pointed out above, it's just another symptom of Labour's pretty nasty pre-election flu which they're just struggling to shift. It's one gaff after another, and it sums up why the two main parties are even stevens in the polls.

Louisa.

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > 80% of adult women have had children? Is it really that high?

>

> According to the ONS

> (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/

> cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2011/sty-1-in-

> 5-women-are-childless-at-45.html) unless the red

> mist was so strong I misread it.

Ah, so 1 in 5 women at age 45 or above don't have children. That make more sense. I assume they used 45 as a rough 'now or never' marker.

[Blah Blah]

You say that Louisa but I think apathy towards both parties and politics is general is more at play, as we reach the end of 30 year process of free market economy. People in general are poorer, not richer. People in general work harder and have less to show for it. And people in general see both the Tories AND Labour as responsible for getting us there.

If people really are influenced by the colour of a bus or the face Miliband pulls when he eats a bacon sandwich then it says more about how we relate to politicians than what we think about policy. And the media are culprits in it all.

Take for example one policy in Labours election manifesto. They are going to raise the minimum wage to ?8 per hour. That will save the country billions from the working tax credits and housing benefit that other tax payers have to provide to subsidise low wages. The opposers would be able to make equally valid points on the impact on small business of that. There's an interesting debate to be had there from both sides of the fence. But we are not seeing the media deliver that debate to us. Instead all we get is cheap mockery, unless you are Nigel Farage that is, and soundbites. Where's the detail?

[Robert Poste's Child]

The focus on women as mothers is so strong that when I tried Googling for stats on men who don't have children all the answers were about women. Same for marriage. Clearly there are still strong assumptions that these are things that define women but not men. Not sure if the ONS even collects stats for men as they do for women. Depressing.

[BrandNewGuy]

Largely agree with Blah Blah, but disagree about Farage. He's been mocked at least as much as the other party leaders, surely? Maybe not so much by the sympathetic papers, but then Red Ed hasn't been mocked by The Mirror or The Grauniad either.

[Blah Blah]

I don't think it's about definition RPC but an eveolved recognition of the role women play in raising children. When men start changing nappies, cleaning the house, AND keep a full time job going, then we'll see different stats. Men are as guilty for the traditional roles they play, as women are for theirs. Perhaps try looking for stats on how many children of single parents live with their fathers? Men still on the whole play a complimentary role, not the foremost role in raising children.

There ya go....92% of all single parents are female.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2011/sum-lone-parents.html

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The focus on women as mothers is so strong that when I tried Googling for stats on men who don't

> have children all the answers were about women. Same for marriage. Clearly there are still strong

> assumptions that these are things that define women but not men. Not sure if the ONS even

> collects stats for men as they do for women. Depressing.

Quite. And such assumptions hurt men as much as it hurts women. Be it in custody battles or paternity leave or other child issues. And I put a lot of blame on us men for allowing the under-appreciation of fathers to continue. When that news about Miliband doubling paternity leave came out the other day, the number of guys posting sarcastic/negative comments under the Guardian article really just annoyed me.

And as for incidents like this reported today... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/557543/Elm-Park-man-fired-Chadwell-Heath-Sainsbury-s-taking-time-off-newborn-son-and-sick-wife

[Blah Blah]

Do you/ have you guys changed nappies? Got the kids up, dressed them, dropped them off to school, washed all their clothes, cleaned the house, cooked their dinner, bathed them before bed AND gone to work, every day for five years? Because that's what my wife did. I helped some days, but I wasn't doing it every day. So no way would I even claim that I'm underappreciated as a father. I'd argue the opposite to be honest.

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you/ have you guys changed nappies? Got the

> kids up, dressed them, dropped them off to school,

> washed all their clothes, cleaned the house,

> cooked their dinner, bathed them before bed AND

> gone to work, every day for five years? Because

> that's what my wife did. I helped some days, but I

> wasn't doing it every day. So no way would I even

> claim that I'm underappreciated as a father. I'd

> argue the opposite to be honest.

It sounds as though you're right, you were a very lucky guy who's wife deserved a medal.

[Blah Blah]

I think Loz, that article is more a reflection of how employers treat employees these days (especially ones not protected by a union) than his reason for absence. I think he may have a good case for tribunal who I am sure would decide his absence was more than reasonable.

[Blah Blah]

Quite Otta. And I have known guys who do nothing. In some ways it's about getting your hands dirty. Changing nappies is not a pleasant thing to do, but mums have to do it. Gone are the days where someone could stay at home all day whilst the other worked. It takes two salaries to pay for a household, and that's hard work, esp for mothers.

[StraferJack]

RPC. How exactly was I patronising a woman?

I was advising everyone het up about it, including the men posting on here, to look at the "issue" in perspective and used a recent Tory bus for comparison.

Funny to see also that there are idiot men upset about the fact that they haven't got a bus addressing their needs.

Truly everyone wants to be offended these days.

[Robert Poste's Child]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RPC. How exactly was I patronising a woman?

Tone. But not the first time we've had this exchange so perhaps it's just the way I hear you.

> I was advising everyone het up about it, including

> the men posting on here, to look at the "issue" in

> perspective and used a recent Tory bus for

> comparison.

>

>

> Funny to see also that there are idiot men upset

> about the fact that they haven't got a bus

> addressing their needs.

>

>

> Truly everyone wants to be offended these days.

I don't see any men upset because they don't have a bus. What you're actually doing here is reductio ad absurdum to belittle someone you don't agree with. Maybe I was right the first time, then.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you/ have you guys changed nappies? Got the kids up, dressed them, dropped them off to school,

> washed all their clothes, cleaned the house, cooked their dinner, bathed them before bed AND

> gone to work, every day for five years? Because that's what my wife did. I helped some days, but I

> wasn't doing it every day. So no way would I even claim that I'm underappreciated as a father. I'd

> argue the opposite to be honest.

OK, so you failed to pull your weight as a dad. I kind of hope you look back with a little disappointment at what you missed and how you failed to contribute. But you are but one type of father.

I've had friends that have gone into it 50/50 and are great fathers. Changed nappies/bathed/dropped off to school, the lot. Yet when it came to the first year off - probably the most important year - guess which parent got to take time off work? Personally, I'd award parents 26 weeks each, use 'em or lose 'em. Single parents can have all 52.

[StraferJack]

I didn't make it up.

I saw a link to an article where some man was accosting harman and (apparently seriously) upset men weren't getting similar treatment. If I find it I will link to it here

[Robert Poste's Child]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think it's about definition RPC but an

> eveolved recognition of the role women play in

> raising children.

Wouldn't that be great?

From a feminist perspective, what I've seem in my own adult life is that whenever women take on jobs formerly done exclusively by men, the job itself appears to be devalued by association. When men take on jobs traditionally done by women, it takes a lot longer for the perception of the role to change in the other direction. Either that or it's assumed more readily that it's a step to something better or only temporary.

[StraferJack]

Ok. I thought it was in this article

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/beyond-pink-bus-why-we-still-need-talk-about-womens-issues

But was actually in a tweet from Vicki Young at the BBC

Man intrudes on Harman's chat with women to ask why she's not talking to men. http://t.co/F2t2oRGqyT

[Loz]

Lets not pretend there is any altruistic reason in Labour's focus on women. The last few elections have shown that women are more likely to vote Labour, so the simple maths would suggest more women = more Labour votes.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with a man in Hattie's constituency asking exactly why he should vote for someone who seems entirely focussed on only canvassing her female constituents?

[miga]

.

[Robert Poste's Child]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ok. I thought it was in this article

>

> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/beyon

> d-pink-bus-why-we-still-need-talk-about-womens-iss

> ues

>

> But was actually in a tweet from Vicki Young at

> the BBC

>

> Man intrudes on Harman's chat with women to ask

> why she's not talking to men.

> http://t.co/F2t2oRGqyT

I think he was just taking the pi5s... She's an MP of long standing. This is a campaign to engage women. I agree with the campaign objective - I just think the approach is ill-considered as they don't appear to have taken secondary audiences into account.

[StraferJack]

Loz, that's odd thinking

Politics generally is pretty male led and driven. Men are mightily represented

Why does this bus even suggest she is "entirely focussed" on female constituents

[miga]

.

[StraferJack]

Zactly miga

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From a feminist perspective, what I've seem in my own adult life is that whenever women take on jobs

> formerly done exclusively by men, the job itself appears to be devalued by association. When men

> take on jobs traditionally done by women, it takes a lot longer for the perception of the role to

> change in the other direction.

Is that just your perception though, RPC? In the past doctors, architects, police, lawyers, politics, bankers and business in general have all been considered 'male' roles. None of those, I think, have been devalued by females entering their ranks. In fact, I think females make up the majority of trainee doctors. Banking has been seriously devalued, but that's not because of any female influence! And no one has ever thought much of politicians.

[Blah Blah]

'I've had friends that have gone into it 50/50 and are great fathers.'

You miss the point Loz. Most men do not go 50/50 with the mother on all aspects of childcare. And until that changes, men can't expect to be seen as equal in effort to women. Add to that, that 92% of single parent families are women too. That's a lot of women doing most of the work when it comes to children.

And you don't have to be 50/50 on all that stuff to be a great father either. What do you guys want? All men to share childcare equally so that we as a gender can be recognised on equal footing?

'From a feminist perspective, what I've seem in my own adult life is that whenever women take on jobs formerly done

exclusively by men, the job itself appears to be devalued by association. When men take on jobs traditionally done

by women, it takes a lot longer for the perception of the role to change in the other direction. Either that or it's

assumed more readily that it's a step to something better or only temporary.'

This is true RPC, hence the quote from Charlotte Witton 'Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good.' There is still a helluva lot of sexism out there, especially in corporate environments and private mens clubs, the city etc. Public schools are a great example of that, where boys schools like Eton and Harrow are hailed, but most people couldn't even name one public school for girls. And that world of privilege (which btw pervades our legal system, the tory party, the establishment etc) is a deeply sexist culture - which explains a lot, when lack of advancement of women in certain circles is concerned.

Labour have been active in trying to redress the balance in their own party at least, for a while (remember Blair's babes?) and Harriet Harman has been at the forefront of that. So it's no suprise to me that she stills speaks out to the female vote for the Labour party.