This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/mother-top-job-andrea-leadsom-theresa-may
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Being a mother is irrelevant to a woman’s ability to do the (top) job Being a mother is irrelevant to a woman’s ability to do the (top) job | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| Just days before she announced that she wouldn’t be running for Conservative leader, Andrea Leadsom had child-free women up and down the country rolling their eyes at her assertion that, unlike May, she had “a real stake in the future” because she’d had kids. It was incredibly insulting to women who are child-free by choice like me, and downright cruel to women like May who wanted children but couldn’t have them. | Just days before she announced that she wouldn’t be running for Conservative leader, Andrea Leadsom had child-free women up and down the country rolling their eyes at her assertion that, unlike May, she had “a real stake in the future” because she’d had kids. It was incredibly insulting to women who are child-free by choice like me, and downright cruel to women like May who wanted children but couldn’t have them. |
| The idea that having produced heirs is in any way a qualifying characteristic for running the country is patently ludicrous (ask Edward Heath, who had no kids and endured no debates about it), but what vexed me most was Leadsom’s suggestion that someone without children has no interest in the future. She implied that someone without descendants doesn’t care what’s coming next. I can’t imagine anyone, man or woman, would go into politics with that attitude. | The idea that having produced heirs is in any way a qualifying characteristic for running the country is patently ludicrous (ask Edward Heath, who had no kids and endured no debates about it), but what vexed me most was Leadsom’s suggestion that someone without children has no interest in the future. She implied that someone without descendants doesn’t care what’s coming next. I can’t imagine anyone, man or woman, would go into politics with that attitude. |
| These comments reflect a long-held societal belief that women without kids are selfish. It’s the one word women like me hear more than any other when we mention that we’re disinclined to procreate. I take issue with the idea that putting your own welfare before a theoretical human who doesn’t yet exist is wrong, and I’d love to know how choosing not to add to this overstretched, overpopulated planet is more selfish than acknowledging you’d be a rubbish parent. Perhaps if a few more people said the same, we’d see fewer harrowing headlines about abused, neglected and abandoned children. | These comments reflect a long-held societal belief that women without kids are selfish. It’s the one word women like me hear more than any other when we mention that we’re disinclined to procreate. I take issue with the idea that putting your own welfare before a theoretical human who doesn’t yet exist is wrong, and I’d love to know how choosing not to add to this overstretched, overpopulated planet is more selfish than acknowledging you’d be a rubbish parent. Perhaps if a few more people said the same, we’d see fewer harrowing headlines about abused, neglected and abandoned children. |
| Even if you do believe that keeping your genes to yourself is an act of selfishness, there’s a resounding hypocrisy in the sanctimonious suggestion that you have to have a child to care about the future. If you’re only invested in what happens after you’re gone because you’ve still got some genes in the game, I’d argue you’re actually tremendously more selfish than someone who cares about the future for everyone. | Even if you do believe that keeping your genes to yourself is an act of selfishness, there’s a resounding hypocrisy in the sanctimonious suggestion that you have to have a child to care about the future. If you’re only invested in what happens after you’re gone because you’ve still got some genes in the game, I’d argue you’re actually tremendously more selfish than someone who cares about the future for everyone. |
| I've never seen a headline weighing up two male candidates' suitability for the premiership in terms of their progeny | I've never seen a headline weighing up two male candidates' suitability for the premiership in terms of their progeny |
| In the UK, it’s illegal to ask an interview candidate if they’ve got kids or plan to have them, because it’s completely irrelevant to their performance – and because, as we’ve seen here, either answer can result in unfair discrimination. Usually, it’s those who do have kids who are passed over for jobs and promotions, but Leadsom’s comments prove that – as with many things – women simply cannot win. | In the UK, it’s illegal to ask an interview candidate if they’ve got kids or plan to have them, because it’s completely irrelevant to their performance – and because, as we’ve seen here, either answer can result in unfair discrimination. Usually, it’s those who do have kids who are passed over for jobs and promotions, but Leadsom’s comments prove that – as with many things – women simply cannot win. |
| If you’re a mother, you’re seen as a risk and a burden in many companies – we’ve all heard bosses complaining about mothers taking time off with sick children or leaving early to pick them up. Meanwhile, child-free women are considered heartless and hedonistic, and are often stuck working weekends and holidays instead of their parent coworkers, because if they don’t have babies they can’t possibly have lives or commitments. But worst of all is the situation that faces the woman whose wish for children didn’t come true. I can quite happily chat about why I don’t have babies when asked (constantly), but the same question to a childless woman can be a dagger to the heart. Instead of being viewed with suspicion, they’re seen as objects of sympathy and patronised, as evidenced by Leadsom’s remark that May “will be really sad she doesn’t have children”. | If you’re a mother, you’re seen as a risk and a burden in many companies – we’ve all heard bosses complaining about mothers taking time off with sick children or leaving early to pick them up. Meanwhile, child-free women are considered heartless and hedonistic, and are often stuck working weekends and holidays instead of their parent coworkers, because if they don’t have babies they can’t possibly have lives or commitments. But worst of all is the situation that faces the woman whose wish for children didn’t come true. I can quite happily chat about why I don’t have babies when asked (constantly), but the same question to a childless woman can be a dagger to the heart. Instead of being viewed with suspicion, they’re seen as objects of sympathy and patronised, as evidenced by Leadsom’s remark that May “will be really sad she doesn’t have children”. |
| It almost goes without saying that none of this applies to men. Somehow, childrearing is still seen as women’s work, and I’ve never seen a front-page headline weighing up two male candidates’ suitability for the premiership in terms of their progeny. “Being a father gives me the edge on the other guy,” said no politician ever. | It almost goes without saying that none of this applies to men. Somehow, childrearing is still seen as women’s work, and I’ve never seen a front-page headline weighing up two male candidates’ suitability for the premiership in terms of their progeny. “Being a father gives me the edge on the other guy,” said no politician ever. |
| Ultimately, someone’s parental status has no bearing on whether they will make a good leader or boss. You can argue all day about whether a child-free woman is more focused and driven, or whether her motherly counterpart is more empathetic and organised; but you’re never choosing between those two broad categories of human. You’re choosing between two people, with all their strengths and experience. Perhaps if Leadsom had had a little more to offer in that department, she wouldn’t have been accused of embellishing her CV – it seems “mother” isn’t enough of a qualification after all. | Ultimately, someone’s parental status has no bearing on whether they will make a good leader or boss. You can argue all day about whether a child-free woman is more focused and driven, or whether her motherly counterpart is more empathetic and organised; but you’re never choosing between those two broad categories of human. You’re choosing between two people, with all their strengths and experience. Perhaps if Leadsom had had a little more to offer in that department, she wouldn’t have been accused of embellishing her CV – it seems “mother” isn’t enough of a qualification after all. |