Women are forever subjected to the "tick tock" body clock media narrative. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

We know we won't be fertile forever – we don't need misinformed media dropping "fertility timebombs" to keep reminding us

A message to those constantly deploying the "tick tock" body clock narrative: we already know we can't "have it all", so stop reminding us.

I can’t be the only one who wants to crawl into a hole whenever the phrase “fertility timebomb” hits the news. To have your entire multifaceted being reduced to the status of a time-stamped broodmare with a ticking clock chained around its neck is not the most pleasant of sensations, especially when accompanied by statements such as Professor Geeta Nargund’s, who said over the weekend: “We can’t rely on net immigration to increase the country’s birth rate. It’s not a permanent fix.” Well, excuse me if my decision to procreate involves a few more considerations than the “obligation” to maintain population levels.

The coverage of Nargund’s comments was yet another example of the kind of haranguing pressurised remarks that always make you want to throw up your hands and declare in a thick New York accent, “who are you, my mother?” Despite the fact that it was revealed two years ago that the “wisdom” that a woman’s fertility “falls off a cliff” in her thirties (another charming analogy – why don’t you just push all the selfish childless whores off Beachy Head and have done with it?) is actually based on a study of peasant women living in France in the 1700s, this debate continues apace. Yet I’d hazard that modern women share very little in common with those living in French hamlets 300 years ago other than a nagging sense of malaise at being reduced to little more than our biological parts and a desperate desire for carbohydrates.

More irritating still, if that is indeed possible, is the suggestion that women of my generation are ignorant of their fertility to the point where we just rock up to the doctors one day in middle age, menopause looming, and demand to know why we are not yet impregnated. In reality, the pressure to conceive from the media is so predictably frequent that you might as well set a reminder in your phone. It’s only a matter of time before they start putting little slogans on your contraceptive pills. “Tick, tock…”

It’s all rather quaint, really, this notion that we’re all just hanging about, as though it’s a lazy Sunday on the sofa, Netflix punctuated by frenzied masturbation, and tea. It’s not as though women of my generation have other concerns, such as how exactly we can go about being responsible for a whole other human being in the midst of a housing crisis, the quagmire of zero-hours contracts, patchwork careers and low-paid work, and a post-Tinder dating market. The need for a reliable partner is, for many, a concern. Last time I checked, unattached women who had babies who couldn’t afford it were feckless, scrounging single mothers. The same newspapers surely couldn’t be telling us to throw caution to the wind and get birthing? Could they?

I suppose you could argue that delaying motherhood is the plight of the modern urbanite, and that all these educated women in their late twenties should be shipping themselves out to the suburbs or even the country if a child is what they really want. Sure, it’s an economic model that belongs in the Fifties (pass the barbiturates), but what’s the alternative? Affordable housing and childcare? Proper paternity leave? Don’t make me laugh. A future of garden cities populated by frustrated, lonely Stepford baby-machines surely awaits those of us who know we want children but can barely afford a studio somewhere in Zone Q.

We’ve been told that we can have it all, but any woman living in Britain today knows that this is some savage bullshit. In my more optimistic moments I comfort myself with the knowledge that skint human beings have been procreating and managing for hundreds and hundreds of years (see aforementioned French peasant women), but one must also take into account the fact that they had support networks of mothers, sisters, aunts and grandmothers to help share the childcare.

When most of the work available to career-minded, educated young women is concentrated in urban areas, this is not always achievable. Also to consider is the disturbing notion that women who are starting to think about children might also seek fulfilment in other areas, and that the fear of a disrupted career path is not one solely dominated by financial considerations, but ideals and ambition and the desire to create, to change, to influence, to be independent. I know that, should I choose to have a child now, there is a very real risk that I would lose the chance to have that. I know others feel the same.

The choice to be a stay at home mum is, of course, a valid one. But many of us who want both (and do not have parental financial support, nor will marry rich) are in an impossible situation, with many factors against us. I wish, truly, that it were easier, but it isn’t. Indeed, thinking too much about the obstacles that we face induces a kind of despair that is difficult to articulate. It is a despair rooted in the knowledge that a tough, anxiety-inducing choice and almost inevitable sacrifice awaits us. It is scary, profoundly sad, and, like the hum of an intrusive fridge, is difficult to tune out.

So, to anyone who feels the need to invoke the “fertility timebomb” argument in public again, I say only this: we know we won’t stay fecund forever. We know with painful clarity of thought. For fuck’s sakes we know. We know, we know, we know. You’ve told us enough. Now shut up.

Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a writer for the New Statesman and the Guardian. She co-founded The Vagenda blog and is co-author of The Vagenda: A Zero Tolerance Guide to the Media.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The future of the Left is London

Far from debating it and arid pamphlets, local politicians in City Hall and across the country are bringing change today, says Fiona Twycross. 

Broadly, London is viewed as a left-wing city. This is an assumption backed up by polling. That same city, however, has twice voted in Boris Johnson defying tribalism and defining a new order in which politicians will be defined less by the colour of their rosette and more by their pragmatism and how they make you feel about the world.

With the concepts of left and right as inaccessible and irrelevant as ever to most members of the public, the future of political ideas will be understood and judged by voters less by their ideological purity and more by their actions and effectiveness. On a recent canvass session on a housing estate in Outer London, it was a change to the bus route not Trident the people I spoke to wanted to discuss.

The future of the left – and of the Labour Party – isn’t something that will be shaped in the future. The future of the left is being shaped now. It is being shaped wherever those of us who define ourselves as left of centre are using whatever power we have to directly or indirectly effect change. In Labour run town halls, in Select Committees, through carefully worded press releases – however, we can. Limited by the budgets and rules laid out by central government – with the Tories in Westminster, politics is a game in which the dice are loaded against the left but in which we can sometimes win a round.

At the London Assembly, we have played a part in shaping the direction. We have won the occasional round. London Assembly Members have proven that shaping the debate is not only reserved for those who wield power. The banning of water cannon, the promotion of universal free school meals, the Government’s climb-down over devastating cuts to the police budget and not least exposing the Mayor’s vast record of vanity projects. As the largest party in City Hall, Labour has achieved sometimes small but often fundamental victories against Boris Johnson. Victories that have allowed the public to better understand the alternative we could provide as politicians who stand with their communities and protect the services they rely upon.

City Hall offers a challenging yet pragmatic forum to shape policies. With just 25 members in total, and no party having a majority, you really have to be able to work together to get anything done. The electoral make-up of the Assembly, including groups from minority parties as well as the two main parties requires a much higher degree of pragmatism, collaboration and in the end compromise than Parliament. As a result, policy - particularly that coming out of City Hall’s scrutiny committees - often commands cross-party support and a certain degree of legitimacy that political point scoring rarely achieves.

However, while we can change things round the edges; highlight injustices and propose alternatives that may sometimes be adopted, we must never lose sight of the fact that you can do immeasurably more if you are in power. Winning power to enact positive change, should be the guiding aim of any centre left politician.

With the next general election still likely to be more than four years off, the first major electoral challenge since 2015 comes in the shape of this May’s elections in local councils across the country, in devolved countries and in London.

The upcoming Mayoral election means throwing off the abstract and painting an image for Londoners of what a left wing alternative in London would look like. That picture will resonate far beyond London - the future of the left really is being shaped today.

That is exactly what we are doing and what Sadiq Khan is offering. Standing up for hard pressed Londoners who are increasingly forced into poverty or priced out of the capital altogether.

From building affordable homes to tackling London’s air quality. From freezing fares to protecting neighbourhood policing. All of these are policies with mass appeal but at the same time, all are ones which disproportionately benefit the least well off in our society. The left, if anything has to stand for a fairness.

But voters don't want just abstract vision, they want tangible change. Sadiq Khan is putting forward ambitious, progressive policies for London, but to implement them as Mayor, with the Conservatives in power nationally, he will have to not just argue with government but make the arguments for London to get the best deal he can. 

With high levels of child poverty in Conservative run boroughs like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea, he knows he can’t afford only to be able to work with Labour boroughs if he wants all young Londoners to have better life chances. What matters isn’t just what works it is working with all those you need to build and deliver change.

From City bankers to environmentalists, a Labour Mayor will need a range of allies. In charting his own course, having his own voice and putting London and Londoners at the heart of his policies. What works for London won't necessarily work everywhere, that will mean a necessary element of independence, that's not disloyal, its the job. 

Whether in London or beyond, the left needs a message relevant to people like those I met on that housing estate in outer London. Authenticity and independence matter. In a world where tribal politics has broken down ensuring you don’t look like you put your party before the people you represent matters. But you can do this and still stay true to your values.

Our opponents like to paint a horror story image of what the country would look like under Labour. A win in London offers the chance to dispel that myth and will show the success to be had with a Labour politician who is willing to govern in the interests of the majority rather than just the few.

A win in London will show the progressive left has a future, here and now. A future that delivers.