Work and parenthood

[Deleted member 28]

What's that to do with price of fish? The employer never regards terms as being cast in aspic; neither should the employee.

You on drugs, it's like me turning up at work one day and saying "you know what I don't fancy doing call out anymore ", and yes it has been tried and people have been told "well perhaps this isn't the job for you then ".

Must be that real World I don't live in again.

 

[Bromptonaut]

You on drugs, it's like me turning up at work one day and saying "you know what I don't fancy doing call out anymore ", and yes it has been tried and people have been told "well perhaps this isn't the job for you then ".

Must be that real World I don't live in again.

She's not refusing to do something.

What she wants is a reasonable adjustment to allow her to represent the electorate of Walthamstow while she has a babe in arms.

I'm still trying to understand the actual problem the child causes. More risk of it being traumatised by others on the green benches than of it causing a difficulty.

 

[Pale Rider]

The Speaker has said some women MPs have contacted him to say they don't want the rules changed, partly because they don't want to be treated differently to their constituents.

It will come a surprise to @Bromptonaut and @mudsticks they don't speak for all women, but it won't stop them trying to do so.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The Speaker has said some women MPs have contacted him to say they don't want the rules changed, partly because they don't want to be treated differently to their constituents.

It will come a surprise to @Bromptonaut and @mudsticks they don't speak for all women, but it won't stop them trying to do so.

I'd heard that on the radio and mentioned it upthread but I cannot find any detail.

If their rationale is the bolded bit then I think they may have misunderstood Stella Creasey's point.

 

[Mugshot]

The real problem seems to be allowing women of child bearing age to have jobs outside of the home.

 

[Pale Rider]

If their rationale is the bolded bit then I think they may have misunderstood Stella Creasey's point.

Bless 'em, what would women MPs understand about what it's like to be a woman MP?

Or could it be that a retired male civil servant doesn't have much of a clue about what is an unusual occupation, let alone what it's like to be a woman doing it?

As a fellow ignoramus, I suspect the women MPs grasp the need to have a simple rule which can be understood by all, and preferably, a rule that doesn't shout 'one rule for us, another for you lot' to constituents.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Bless 'em, what would women MPs understand about what it's like to be a woman MP?

Or could it be that a retired male civil servant doesn't have much of a clue about what is an unusual occupation, let alone what it's like to be a woman doing it?

As a fellow ignoramus, I suspect the women MPs grasp the need to have a simple rule which can be understood by all, and preferably, a rule that doesn't shout 'one rule for us, another for you lot' to constituents.

I would simply like to understand their point. Are they women who have had babies whilst being an MP? Are they recently elected or old hands? Is there a difference between the parties?

If the Creasey tactic of taking the baby in the chamber so as to properly represent her constituency can look like exceptionalism then that needs to be understood.

 

[mudsticks]

I'd heard that on the radio and mentioned it upthread but I cannot find any detail.

If their rationale is the bolded bit then I think they may have misunderstood Stella Creasey's point.

Where does this completely false idea that any woman is trying to to speak for all women, come from anyway.??

Just as no man ever tries to speak for 'all men' does he??

It's just another nonsense on stilts straw man*

A woman, with experience, having an opinion about the experience of being a woman gets translated into

"Trying to speak for all women"

It's complete tosh..

Plus we haven't even heard the full detail of what those other women's rationale even is yet.

But still it will be suggested that because some women don't appear agree with the change of rules, then the change of rules must therefore be 'wrong' in and of itself.


Extraordinarily fuzzy logic..

*Edited to add I don't think it is a straw man, is it a false premise..

Not totally sure, but anyway nonsense.

Now it's dark and cold so I need to stop work and go indoors.. >>>>

 

[Pale Rider]

Where does this completely false idea that any woman is trying to to speak for all women, come from anyway.??

Just as no man ever tries to speak for 'all men' does he??

It's just another nonsense on stilts straw man.

A woman, with experience, having an opinion about the experience of being a woman gets translated into

"Trying to speak for all women"

It's complete tosh..

Plus we haven't even heard the full detail of what those other women's rationale even is yet.

But still it will be suggested that because some women don't appear agree with the change of rules, then the change of rules must therefore be 'wrong' in and of itself.


Extraordinarily fuzzy logic..

If the cap fits...

 

[Rusty Nails]

If the cap fits...

Or the Stetson.........

 

[Deleted member 28]

She's not refusing to do something.

What she wants is a reasonable adjustment to allow her to represent the electorate of Walthamstow while she has a babe in arms.

I'm still trying to understand the actual problem the child causes. More risk of it being traumatised by others on the green benches than of it causing a difficulty.

It probably doesn't cause a problem at all because they achieve nothing anyway, the point is there are rules and regulations that need to be adhered to and that's the way of the World.
Just because some splitarse wants to change those rules is of no consequence.

 

[Rusty Nails]

It probably doesn't cause a problem at all because they achieve nothing anyway, the point is there are rules and regulations that need to be adhered to and that's the way of the World.
Just because some splitarse wants to change those rules is of no consequence.

There have always been rules and regulations in every organisation.

And they are always being changed, often after being challenged by people who see them as unfair and/or unnecessary.

Things change, and that is the way of the world, even Shep's Real World.

 

[slowmotion]

The picture of the contented mother and baby gave this story legs. Would it have got off the ground if it showed the infant screaming his/her head off and projectile vomiting?

 

[Unkraut]

Would it have got off the ground if it showed the infant screaming his/her head off and projectile vomiting?

Would depend who was in the line of fire ...

 

[slowmotion]

Would depend who was in the line of fire ...

I'm assuming they practice (ahem) social distancing in the House of Commons.