Ruth Davidson is setting a positive example in talking about family choices

Ruth Davidson - Image credit: David Anderson/Holyrood

There has been much praise of Ruth Davidson’s frankness in talking about her experience of mental health problems and self-harm in a recent interview with the Sunday Times.

But I found the interview significant for another reason, and that was Davidson’s openness about prioritising family and mental health over her career.

When I said on Politics Scotland a few months back that I didn’t think the Scottish Conservative leader would want to make the move to Westminster now that she was having a baby – if indeed she ever did – people contacted me to say that was sexist.

And I have seen criticism, too, of Davidson’s comment in the interview that the idea of leaving her child in Edinburgh to work in London was “offensive” to her – this being seen as undermining the feminist cause by suggesting that no woman with a young child could be prime minister, even though she was clearly talking about her own feelings.

Actually, I find it hard to understand why anyone, male or female, would move from the relatively family-friendly Scottish Parliament – and in Ruth Davidson’s case, since she represents Edinburgh, which she can go home from every night – to Westminster.

Not to mention how much more she would be away from home if she were a UK Government minster, never mind prime minister.

It is a huge sacrifice in terms of family life and would put a strain on anyone and their family.

There needs to be more honesty about what’s involved in reaching the top of many careers, not least in politics.

Somewhere, something will have to give, whether it is career progression or time with children.

And if Davidson doesn’t make those sacrifices, then her partner, Jen Wilson, would have to.

Wilson would have to be willing to either live in Edinburgh taking care of a child alone several days a week or give up her job and move to London (and probably still spend a great deal of time on lone childcare).

People point to the example of Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand prime minister, who has recently had a baby, but her husband has given up work to be able to take care of their daughter.

And she must have exceptional capacity and resilience to be able to breastfeed a small baby all day and all night while also running a country.

Ardern also only took six weeks maternity leave and was contactable throughout – hardly a great triumph for feminism.

It’s just not a pattern for many women.

More positive, I think, is Davidson choosing to take four or five months’ maternity leave and warning in the Sunday Times interview that she’ll “not have as much to give” when she gets back.

That is realistic.

We need to move past that 1970s idea of ‘Superwoman’ who can do everything and the pressure this puts on everyone, and instead be able to say honestly that we can’t.

While we need to make sure that women are not prevented from reaching the top of their profession if they so wish, we also need to recognise that many women actually choose not to, and be honest about that.

Motherhood is important. But so too is fatherhood.

In reaching for equality, we should not so much be aiming for women to feel they always need to do more, aim higher, but that men, too, can openly say they need to do less or take time out, whether that is for family or mental health reasons.

We need to be able to say that reaching the top of your career isn’t everything.

Life balance matters. Health matters. Family matters.