Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Lorca]

wonder if any labour mps have ever tweeted support/agreement with anything from another party

 

[timeforanother]

They didn't mind Peter Hain joining. No tweeting back then.

 

[Buckaroo]

 

[Pickman's model]

yeh i always get peter haining, the anthologist of horror stories, confused with peter hain, the former anti-apartheid activist, too.

 

[timeforanother]

Sighs. Hain did stuff while a Liberal that would probably stop them from letting him join Labour now, before his soul ran dry. He even got sent a letter bomb, presumably by apartheid sympathisers.

 

[Buckaroo]

wonder if any labour mps have ever tweeted support/agreement with anything from another party

eta I think that's what I was confused about but now I'm not so sure.

 

[scifisam]

There seems to be a suggestion here that Corbyn making some shit sweeping generalisation about "men" and "women" and childcare roles isn't up for discussion, because it wasn't part of the main focus of the speech. So calling him on anything other than the main body speech is 'sexist' ?

Riiiiight.

Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the main carer of a young child?

I'm not asking "does the father ever do the main caring role," because sometimes they do, just in smaller overall numbers. Those men who can't attend afterwork drinks due to childcare responsibilities lose out too, but that's because parenting isn't valued by employers, and that's partly because it's a role traditionally alloted to women.

And the fact that parents who have to go home straight from work for childcare responsibilities lose out on networking, and that said parents are usually female, is part of the reason for women not being promoted despite being equally qualified. It is relevant to bring up gender here because gender is involved.

 

[timeforanother]

Bah. This was a daft one; want to ban socialising with workmates?
It is even dafter to blow it out of proportion.

 

[scifisam]

Bah. This was a daft one; want to ban socialising with workmates?
It is even dafter to blow it out of proportion.

Who said anything about banning socialising with workmates?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Who said anything about banning socialising with workmates?

Corbyn the Stalinist, obvs. Crushing fun with his Iron Fist whilst using a velvet one to wank over archive footage of Gulags.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the main carer of a young child?

I'm not asking "does the father ever do the main caring role," because sometimes they do, just in smaller overall numbers. Those men who can't attend afterwork drinks due to childcare responsibilities lose out too, but that's because parenting isn't valued by employers, and that's partly because it's a role traditionally alloted to women.

And the fact that parents who have to go home straight from work for childcare responsibilities lose out on networking, and that said parents are usually female, is part of the reason for women not being promoted despite being equally qualified. It is relevant to bring up gender here because gender is involved.

Exactly.

It's pretty bleeding obvious if you spend more than half a second thinking about it rather than pretending to be outraged on behalf of women when your usual MO is to talk about women as if they are pieces of shit.

 

[scifisam]

Exactly.

It's pretty bleeding obvious if you spend more than half a second thinking about it rather than pretending to be outraged on behalf of women when your usual MO is to talk about women as if they are pieces of shit.

Just to be clear that it was skyscraper I was replying to and I don't think you mean him as someone who's usually anti-woman.

 

[kabbes]

It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men. I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.

 

[Pickman's model]

It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men. I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.

Diamond is a constant surprise to all of us

 

[redsquirrel]

It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men. I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.

I think it's less "taken aback" and more not wanting to admit something they do has consequences.

EDIT: And an opportunity to confirm their existing prejudices/politics.

 

[bluescreen]

It has genuinely surprised me that people are so taken aback by the suggestion that after-work drinks may cause more problems for women as a whole than men. I thought it was the textbook example of its class of unintended structural sexism.

Oh come on. It's not as straightforward as that. It's played as if he's accepting the situation where small children are mostly cared for by their mothers (is that still true?) and by accepting, endorsing it. He doesn't endorse that, of course, but that is how it's being played.

 

[timeforanother]

I was at home looking after the kids for a few years. I left a decent job to do it. It was difficult to get a job after that.

It doesn't mean you should stop people socialising after work, or how you can police when that is within reason.

Of course taking time out with kids impacts womens' careers more often then mens', I don't see how you can do more than ameliorate this by better childcare, after school clubs and so on. A lot of women WANT to be the principal carers, and that changes how much you get paid over the course of your life.

The only realistic kind of change is one that changes everything, and allows us to live a little more humbly but more equally.

 

[bluescreen]

I was at home looking after the kids for a few years. I left a decent job to do it. It was difficult to get a job after that.

It doesn't mean you should stop people socialising after work, or how you can police when that is within reason.

Of course taking time out with kids impacts womens' careers more often then mens', I don't see how you can do more than ameliorate this by better childcare, after school clubs and so on. A lot of women WANT to be the principal carers, and that changes how much you get paid over the course of your life.

The only realistic kind of change is one that changes everything, and allows us to live a little more humbly but more equally.

Do you reckon women tend to want this more than men, and if so, do you think it's possible to work out how much of that is social conditioning? I don't know, to be honest, trying to keep an open mind. But sure as eggs, so long as childcare is seen as a women's issue things aren't likely to change.

 

[timeforanother]

They do now (much more often). I was the only bloke at the playgroup. If it is nurture or nature, I have no evidence, and don't want to say something uninformed.

It is easy to spout reasonable sounding stuff, harder to make it fact.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh come on. It's not as straightforward as that. It's played as if he's accepting the situation where small children are mostly cared for by their mothers (is that still true?) and by accepting, endorsing it. He doesn't endorse that, of course, but that is how it's being played.

Why wouldn't he endorse it, though? And surely it is still the case that small children are mostly cared for by their mothers.

Isn't this looking at the problem the wrong way round? Some people, mostly women, are less committed to/able to attend worky things and so are losing out on opportunities - shown by the way the gender pay gap is wider among parents. But it's good that kids form strong attachments from a young age with at least one parent - it's a good thing for a parent to step back from work commitments to be a parent for a bit at least. If that parent is more often the mother than the father, is that necessarily something that shouldn't be accepted?

This is a massively tricky problem, one that no country in the world has managed to address, at least partly for the above reason - because this is a part of something that many people, many women, want to do.

 

[bluescreen]

So meantime, we have to go with what is, rather than what anyone thinks it should be? And what is, is that women do the bulk of child-rearing, even now? Hmm. And let's not overlook the not-so-subtle social cues that encourage women to think they are uniquely programmed, and which disparage male parenting skills.

 

[DrRingDing]

 

[timeforanother]

Why wouldn't he endorse it, though? And surely it is still the case that small children are mostly cared for by their mothers.

Isn't this looking at the problem the wrong way round? Some people, mostly women, are less committed to/able to attend worky things and so are losing out on opportunities - shown by the way the gender pay gap is wider among parents. But it's good that kids form strong attachments from a young age with at least one parent - it's a good thing for a parent to step back from work commitments to be a parent for a bit at least. If that parent is more often the mother than the father, is that necessarily something that shouldn't be accepted?

This is a massively tricky problem, one that no country in the world has managed to address, at least partly for the above reason - because this is a part of something that many people, many women, want to do.

But it would be good if the menfolk didn't feel stupid for helping out too (not just because of man pressure), because that is how it sometimes feels like.

 

[bluescreen]

But it would be good if the menfolk didn't feel stupid for helping out too (not just because of man pressure), because that is how it sometimes feels like.

Does it? Who makes it feel like that?

 

[bluescreen]

Why cannot men be as good as women at looking after small children?

 

[timeforanother]

Boys thinking you don't have a proper job, girls thinking what are you doing here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So meantime, we have to go with what is, rather than what anyone thinks it should be? And what is, is that women do the bulk of child-rearing, even now? Hmm. And let's not overlook the not-so-subtle social cues that encourage women to think they are uniquely programmed, and which disparage male parenting skills.

Part of what should be, though, is surely that kids should have lots of time with a primary carer? And the mother is the one who goes through pregnancy, gives birth, has functional nipples. There is some biology to this, surely.

The problem, as noted above, has to be more related to the low status attached to child-rearing. It's a deep structural problem. Not easily addressed.

 

[bluescreen]

Boys thinking you don't have a proper job, girls thinking what are you doing here.

 

[scifisam]

I was at home looking after the kids for a few years. I left a decent job to do it. It was difficult to get a job after that.

It doesn't mean you should stop people socialising after work, or how you can police when that is within reason.

Of course taking time out with kids impacts womens' careers more often then mens', I don't see how you can do more than ameliorate this by better childcare, after school clubs and so on. A lot of women WANT to be the principal carers, and that changes how much you get paid over the course of your life.

The only realistic kind of change is one that changes everything, and allows us to live a little more humbly but more equally.

Not nobody, not even the Great Dictator himself, has suggested banning workmates from socialising. Part of the reason for commenting on it is because people ask why women don't get promoted as often. Well, this is one of the reasons. It's simple acknowledgement.

However, while bans on socialising would be counterproductive, it would be beneficial for everybody if socialising organised by the employers were reduced. In some workplaces Friday night drinks are practically obligatory - for example, if you don't go you won't even hear about a new project coming up that would help you in future promotions. Anyone claiming this sort of thing doesn't happen is either lying or very stupid.

 

[bluescreen]

Part of what should be, though, is surely that kids should have lots of time with a primary carer? And the mother is the one who goes through pregnancy, gives birth, has functional nipples. There is some biology to this, surely.

The problem, as noted above, has to be more related to the low status attached to child-rearing. It's a deep structural problem. Not easily addressed.

Functional nipples?
Right.