Downing Street goes family (time) friendly
I was delighted to learn today that British Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, have taken to organising some Cabinet meetings around their children’s bedtimes and have expressed their desire to make this a regular occurrence so that they can remain involved with their family lives. Despite what I may think of their partnership and other policies, Cameron and Clegg seem to have taken a firm stance on the importance of spending time together as a family and a work-life balance by not just talking the talk but walking the walk, or at least trying to. And I admire that, even though I think Cameron’s definition of what a family is is entirely too narrow.
But of course, it wasn’t long before the criticisms of Cameron and Clegg’s new ‘flexitime’ practices started coming: ‘What the hell are they THINKING?! Shouldn’t their wives or nannies be doing that? These are important men with important, full-time jobs and a country to run! They need to sort out the economy, not doing little Johnny’s nappies and night-time sing-songs! Working parents all over Britain hardly get to see their children because of the demands their job(s) places on them; why should these rich boffins get to swan off home and rearrange meetings around their little dears?’
That was the sum of the content and comments on this Daily Mail article [I read them so you don't have to; believe me, it's a hot shower needed afterwards].
So, to sum up: Men should stick to the important stuff like running the country and making decisions about all of our lives and The Wives should shoulder the entire burden of childcare/rearing and household management (in addition to their own piddling ‘careers’ if they have one) because what you produce and how much you earn are more important than family and any man who doesn’t realise that is a threat to his own financial security and that of the World Order of Dudeliness And Other Masculine Pursuits.
No wonder we have such a long way to go in allowing women more options and flexibility in their professional lives and men more options and flexibility in their personal lives. Until we can break down these kinds of stereotypes, we’re just running in circles.
This just shows how much further we still have to go. Funny how so many people still think men are the only ones capable of doing the important jobs and that they should really have nothing to do with bringing up children. Yet these same people criticise women for being single parents and excluding fathers. There is something completely contradictory in these two beliefs. Fathers can be fathers without spending any time with their children apparently because they’re doing important jobs but mothers must be constantly present – still trying to get my head round that one
.-= Jilly´s last blog ..Valerie Solanas =-.
[Reply]
The country benefits when women are allowed to lead. The family benefits when men are allowed to parent. Happy families make happy citizens. Bloody hell!
[Reply]
Kelly Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 11:55 PM
@Shannon Drury
Also; the family benefits when women are allowed to lead; the country benefits when men are allowed to parent!
Thanks for the post. Once again you hit it out of the park.
.-= Kelly´s last blog ..Bagels =-.
[Reply]
If we had a woman prime minister now, what do you think the reaction would be if she did the same? I think people would be much harder on her: scheduling meetings round kids’ bedtimes would make her unfit to run the country, I imagine.
.-= Iota Manhattan´s last blog ..Taking a break =-.
[Reply]
You and me both, sister.
[Reply]
[...] Downing Street goes family (time) friendly posted at Fertile Feminism. [...]
It’s a tricky one this, I can totally understand why cameron and clegg would want to spend as much time as possible with their kids rather than leaving it to the nannies and to a certain extent it should be their choice and as long as they get the job done that they were elected to do then surely everyone wins
[Reply]