For years, women have been pressured by this ideation of what a normal family should be. Husband goes to work as the breadwinner, wife stays at home to cook, clean and to fill her days with ‘nesting’. The 2.5 children go to school, perform above average and return to a harmonious home life.

I don’t know a single family in my area that conforms to this ‘normality’. Most have step-parents, adopted siblings, 2 Dads, an absent parent and so on. Some of the girls I went to school with are doting mothers, some are ambitious career women; the difference doesn’t make either any less of a woman.

Following Helen Goodman’s support of Yvette Cooper- “as a working mum, she understands the pressures on modern family life.”

Implying that women in politics aren’t as likely to succeed if they don’t have children or even a boyfriend. What?  Does she mean that a woman who doesn’t choose to have children (or who can’t) are less likely to understand the public’s hectic family lives, demanding schedules and so how can they decide what is best for the majority? If they can’t manage a relationship how can they manage a country? What?

As if finding someone to share your life with is that easy? Psst! It might be easier to run the country!

If a man chose to go into politics and chose his career over starting a family, no one would bat an eye. But because it is the woman’s ‘job’ to procreate and she neglects or is unable to fulfill this role, she should be overlooked for a job she does well? No.

As if we care that the future Miss Prime Minister doesn’t have a boyfriend? As long as she runs the country with passion, honesty and fairness, I couldn’t give a hoot if she shags half of Parliament and Pippa Middleton! Who cares? David Cameron has a wife and 3 kids and look at the state we’re in. Having the support of loved ones at home doesn’t seem to improve his politics!

A xo