More pointless whinging from female journos

Major Tom · #1 4th-May-2007

Yes, that's right! More pointless whinging from female journos!

Oh Joy!

For starters we have...

Quote:

Men and women on an equal footing? Only in fiction

Jane Shilling

My colleague Alice Miles wrote earlier this week on the question of why women’s voices are so inaudible in the public conversation that both reflects the current state of national life and determines its future direction. Her article appeared just before the tenth anniversary of the election victory that brought Labour to power: an occasion celebrated with the notorious photoshoot of the new Prime Minister standing in a sort of herbaceous border of 101 brightly dressed female Labour MPs who had already acquired the patronising soubriquet of Blair’s Babes.
With so many women in Parliament – one in four of Labour MPs – it seemed certain that something extraordinary would happen to the very nature of political discourse. A decade before Sally Wainwright’s drama The Amazing Mrs Pritchard, in which Wainwright imagined a sensible, kind woman bringing these qualities to top-level politics, there seemed real reason to believe that all those prototype Mrs Pritchards could bring to the Commons chamber a kind of moral spring-clean, flinging open the windows to allow the strong, clear light of common sense, the common sense of busy women with rich lives outside Westminster, to illuminate the accretions of masculine dust and junk that had accumulated there over the centuries.
Mrs Pritchard’s story didn’t end well, and nor has that of the Blair Babes. A flick through the mental Rolodex of prominent women MPs brings up Clare Short – stroppy and unpredictable; Patricia Hewitt – insufferably patronising; Tessa Jowell – a Government Minister apparently capable of signing unread documents placed before her by her husband; Ruth Kelly and Diane Abbott – happy to flout Labour education philosophy by sending their own children to fee-paying schools; Hazel Blears – a collection of gimmicks in search of a personality . . .
These human failings apply equally to male politicians, to be sure. But there’s the point. A decade after the largest intake in history of women MPs, it is clear that those who have survived best are those who have learnt to adopt male tactics. Take the vile male bullying of women MPs – the gestures of cupping a pair of breasts. “The worst offender,” recalled Barbara Follett this weekend, “was Nicholas Soames, though we worked out how to deal with him. His ex-wife had said that being made love to by Nicholas was like having a large wardrobe with a very small key fall on top of you. So we used to make a key-turning gesture. That helped.” Well, yeah. But ever heard the expression “internalisation of oppressor standards”?
It’s not just in politics that women’s voices are inaudible, but in every other area of public life. The Equal Opportunities Commission’s racily titled annual report, Sex and Power: Who Runs Britain?, finds women in a tiny minority of those in top positions in politics, business, the public sector, the Armed Forces and even the supposedly female-friendly sector of media and culture. But why? Absence of flexible working opportunities in senior roles, concludes the EOC, which is certainly true, but still doesn’t explain why women, who now outnumber men in the UK population at all ages, apparently acquiesce in their own grotesque marginalisation.
Theories abound to explain the reasons behind the lamentable statistics, but for real illumination, it is worth turning to the one realm in which women regularly compete on equal terms with men: that of fiction. George Eliot’s Middlemarch was written in 1871. Its heroine, Dorothea Brooke, is a brilliant, principled young woman whose idealism promises much, but whose “full nature . . .” (writes Eliot in her final chapter) “spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts.”
Even in the context of the times in which it was written, Eliot’s rationalisation of Dorothea’s impotent conscientiousness, her “feeling that there was always something better which she might have done, if she had only been better and known better”, has a hollow ring. Amazing, then, that the character of Dorothea should seem so familiar a female archetype in 2007. But the statistics tell their own story, of passionate, idealistic natures exhausting themselves in the unproductive business of juggling work and domesticity, providing, with vast reserves of unacknowledged expertise and at huge personal cost, the ideal environment for countless modern Casaubons and Ladislaws to make their names, consoling themselves meanwhile with those seductively diffuse diversions: the book club, the nice-glass-of-wine-and-a-moan with friends, the wryly amusing blog.
“If women could find a way to harness their power. . . weought to be able to make a difference,” wrote Miles. There is, of course, already in existence an organisation that combines nonpartisan but effective political engagement with local activism and an admirable lack of furtiveness about the deliciousness of domestic detail. It’s called the Federation of Women’s Institutes. Virginia Woolf herself served as treasurer to the Rodmell Women’s Institute. What was good enough for Virginia . . .

A couple of comments in response to this:

Quote:

One of the major suppositions informing this article (and indeed informing feminism generally) is that there is a set of options open to politicians that, in some mysterious way, only women can see. The unfortunate fact is that the available solutions to any particular political problem are blindingly obvious to everybody but the intellectually enfeebled -- the difficulty lies in putting these solutions into effect while still balancing the books and not alienating voters. To suggest that women will offer some hitherto unguessed at way of resolving the day-to-day problems of politics is a bit like suggesting that women will offer us radical new ways of digging holes or drinking water. In the final account, political problems demand practical solutions, and the practicality of solution is determined by the nature of the problem -- not on whichever side of the gender division its originator happens to hail from.

James, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Quote:

Is it not possible that the women that you describe as showing 'male' traits as politicians, might just be patronising, stroppy, dappy, hypocrites who happen to be women. I believe that some women outside of the political spectrum also demonstrate these characteristics. To suggest that they are successful (questionable in itself) because they act like men is a sexist slur of the highest order. Not all women are saintly - perhaps they just act like 99% of politicians.

matt, london, uk

Quote:

The cause of women in whichever environment is not aided by columnists like Ms Shilling, who are constantly obsessed by the fact that they are female. There is nothing so sexist as maintaining a divide, and by repeatedly writing on the topic of female persecution, often with hints of misandry and scant regard for relevance, Ms. Shilling is maintaining that divide as much as anyone.

Colin, Earlsdon,

-----
-----

A second helping of shite for you sir?

Quote:

Where are all the women in public debate?

Alice Miles

I t was, as is so often the case, reading The Guardian that did it. There was page after page, 15 of them, yesterday morning, of men writing about men: not a single female byline, nor a single prominent female photograph (there was a tiny one of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller), in the whole of the home news pages. Barely a woman in sight till I got to Polly Toynbee. There were male suicide bombers, and their male barristers and a male judge and male home affairs spokesmen, and there were broadcasters – not one woman among the long list of Sony radio award winners – and there were fat politicians, and all these men writing about what all these other men were doing.
I say there were no women. My apologies: there was one – a large picture on page three of Kate Moss modelling in Topshop, accompanied by a female byline. (And, yes, The Times did that too on its own page three.)
What has happened to us women? Was there really nothing of any note done by any woman in Britain over the weekend? Were there no female journalists in The Guardian to report the news on Monday? Or have we, as The Times suggested all over its front page, given up the fight and crept back into our kitchens? “Nurseries feel pinch as mothers stay at home . . . first evidence of an end to the ‘have-it-all’ generation [with] mothers choosing to care for young children themselves.”
Is this, in the end, I thought, the cultural revolution wrought by ten years of new Labour: to send women back to the past?
Thankfully, the figures in the study reported by The Times tell a slightly less depressing story. Yes, a higher proportion of nursery places are empty than in the past – but only because the number of places has doubled in the past four years. There are, according to the report by market analysts Laing & Buisson, some 725,000 nursery places available, with 580,000 children attending them. Four years ago there were 407,000 kids attending nursery and a total of 425,000 places. Far from scurrying back to our kitchens, there are well over a third more children at nursery today than there were four years ago. Phew.
And yet . . . and yet . . . what are we doing, we women? Nothing, according to most of the news yesterday (thank goodness for Ségolène Royal). Posing in shop windows.
From time to time, writing these columns and bombarded by hostile mail from you male readers – “Dear ‘Ms’ Miles, as I suppose you call yourself” – you have to wonder where are the women in public debate in Britain today? Looking up something on the Times Alphamummy website the other week, I was astonished to find a whole colony of intelligent, working women giving up their time to discuss nannies, flexible working or the merits of Caesareans. All important things, sure, but where are these voices in the debate over Trident or the future of the health service?
Any newspaper columnist will tell you – and look at Comment Central in timesonline or any of the political blogs if you need confirmation – that public debate today is overwhelmingly dominated by men. There are some common opinions about why this is so. Women don’t have time, is the commonest view among women. That isn’t true. Look at Mumsnet or Alphamummy. If a woman has time to discuss her nursery or the relative merits of the different sippy cups, then she has time to post a comment on the failings of the school system or whether we should pull out of Iraq. By allowing men to dominate public discourse, through both politics and the media, women remove their own voices from the debate.
Then there is the view that women “don’t have opinions”. That isn’t true either. All the women I know, from newspaper executive to nurse to nursery assistant, have plenty of opinions. Nor are they uninterested in politics: women are always the first to volunteer for playgroup committees or school governing boards – raw politics – when men claim that they haven’t got the time.
What is true is that to be a woman and to proffer an opinion on a “man’s” topic – for which read any hard issue from al-Qaeda to the transferable tax allowance – is to invite derision, ridicule and patronising commentary; and this from men who often have (take it from me) nothing but prejudice to argue with. The level of hostility is enough to put off any woman, and a lot of men too, I imagine, from joining in public debate. Hence the popularity of Mumsnet and the like; it isn’t so much that the topics are soft but that the language of the audience is. It’s a safe place to speak.
I wish I knew how to stop the bullying, and encourage women to make their voices heard more. Just as the internet (and other media) ought to be allowing women to gain a voice in the public sphere, they actually seem to be doing the opposite, leaving women chattering among themselves in the online version of the ladies’.
Even in the House of Commons, it’s going to get worse. It is likely that after the next election, there will be fewer women MPs than we have now: a disproportionate number of female MPs occupy Labour marginal seats, and a swing to the Tories always tilts power back towards the male member. This matters, as it is because of the macho, confrontational maleness of our political system that so much time is wasted and so little gets done.
If women could find a way to harness their power, then we ought to be able to make a real difference to the public sphere. Now here’s a girly admission: I have very little idea how we could best go about it, but I would love to see Mumsnet and the other leading women’s websites leading the debate. Or do they, too, secretly believe that we are too busy changing nappies to be bothered with changing the world?

Some comments in response to this:

Quote:

ANY person who proffers a political opinion is open to " derision, ridicule and patronising commentary", not just women. Why do women always single themselves out in this way? Are you assuming its any easier for us men? Perhaps this self-centric attitude is the reason women dont get involved in wider politics? Get involved, change things, stop navel gazing.

James, Manchester,

Quote:

If women actually did stuff, rather than spending all their time man-bashing, then maybe they would warrant more stories in the paper.

Darren Blacksmith, Brighton,

Hahaha!

Quote:

I would say the feminisation of the Western world is a much more pernicious problem

Alena, Amsterdam, Holland

Quote:

Alice Miles makes an interesting point. There is not enough female input or comment in todays politics. However I really do not agree that this is "because of the macho, confrontational maleness of our political system" or because of condesending bullying.

It seems that Alice, like Ségolène Royal, beleives that a womans way of doing things would some how transform politics. Ségolène crypticaly said recently its because as a woman she knows that everything is connected. What the hell does tha mean?!
I have worked in a female dominated work enviroment and I tell you that the office poltics were unfortunately nasty bullying and yes, very condesending.

I think it would be great to have more women journalists talking politics etc. However can they please stop taking every single opportunity to take a swipe at us men, we are doing the best we can and if you think you guys can do any better get involved, inspire us show us this way. If not just stop complaining!!

Chris, London, England

Quote:

Your comments betray the victim mentality so prevalent in champions of Women’s rights. “but what a great loss to the world that these women are not being allowed to get to the top, or feeling unwelcome there” and “Women would join the debate if the debate was civilised and not neanderthal”. Get real! It’s a big hard world out there and, to quote a pragmatic politician “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. In the politically correct world that this has become, it is not permitted to even think that, just possibly, women are simply not as good as men in certain fields, but in any unbiased assessment this should at least be considered. You’ve had almost 50 years of (effectively) positive discrmination in favour of women (at considerable financial cost to companies). If they haven’t achieved anything with it yet, perhaps women just aren’t suited to success in business and politics.

Bob Finbow, HAverhill, England

Yan Yan · #2 4th-May-2007

Yes, Major Tom, the tide slowly turns.

How many million disgruntled men are out there and how do we tap this wave of popular outrage?

IMHO trying to organise on a political front will have less impact than a wholesale marriage strike, although it will probably take longer.

The lonely lesbian activists will eventually fade. The middle-aged, pseudo-feminists will start to ask why they have neither family nor friend.
They're already asking, "Where are all the good men?"

Answer: "As far away as we can get from you, princess".

In every society there are always people that can't wait to form a f**k-up committee and put their personal agendas first. Listening to these idiots is the road to Hell.

Time to think outside the box.

Dr David Banner · #3 4th-May-2007

I agree with Tolkiens assertion that the only thing newspapers are good for are lighting fires with.
Seeing this feminist whinging for decades in print....snoozepapers
DONT BUY em!Why wade through this, I dont any more.THEY are borrrring

As ever note feminazi speak "male" -they use a biological term for men contrasted with more human term: "women"

Quote:

The lonely lesbian activists will eventually fade. The middle-aged, pseudo-feminists will start to ask why they have neither family nor friend.
They're already asking, "Where are all the good men?"

Answer: "As far away as we can get from you, princess".

In every society there are always people that can't wait to form a f**k-up committee and put their personal agendas first. Listening to these idiots is the road to Hell.

YanYan

QUOTE of the week Yan Yan IMHO!

Yes !Yes lads ignore them. It is time we did. Fill your life with better things.
Let them write and talk about and only to themselves

A wise man IGNORES the feminazi BORES
who after all are only ATTENTION WHORES

Thankyou and Good Night

Tyrael · #4 4th-May-2007

Quote:

Where are all the women in public debate?

Where are all the i.e. female sewage workers? There are aren't many of those at all. But wait they don't want those jobs. They want to skip such dirty jobs and only seek cleaner jobs etc.
They should prove their worth like anybody else. No special support for women only, because that results in a false start since women would get a advantage and support that men don't get.

**knight-errant** · #5 5th-May-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr David Banner

I agree with Tolkiens assertion that the only thing newspapers are good for are lighting fires with.

This is doubly true now they aren't even used as chip paper anymore

Sir Loin · #6 5th-May-2007

"Where are all the i.e. female sewage workers? There are aren't many of those at all. But wait they don't want those jobs. They want to skip such dirty jobs and only seek cleaner jobs etc."

As obvious as this is, I'm a bit dismayed to say I've never presented this argument before. Very spot on. I'll be keeping this one in my mental arsenal.

**knight-errant** · #7 5th-May-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

"Where are all the i.e. female sewage workers? There are aren't many of those at all. But wait they don't want those jobs. They want to skip such dirty jobs and only seek cleaner jobs etc."

As obvious as this is, I'm a bit dismayed to say I've never presented this argument before. Very spot on. I'll be keeping this one in my mental arsenal.

Yep one of the key jobs along with refuse worker, garbage hauler and front line soldier that females aren't keen to take on.

Marx · #8 5th-May-2007

It's similar with house work too... they only include the types of work that women do when they're taking their surveys - they completely skip the repair of brickwork, cleaning the garage out, sorting the basement, etc.

Yan Yan · #9 5th-May-2007

Good points from all!

Anybody got an up-to-date-link to occupations / by gender?

The US would probably have good stats. The UK might have have something recent.

I'm leaving my desk for a while to have a look.

(my mentor and guru - as in sig below - had much to say about this social shift. While feminists preach about 'two for the price of one', he wrote a good article, 'half for the price of two'. Recent comments by TSP on the medical profession come to mind.)

Fruit_Cake · #10 5th-May-2007

lol this is funny but then i dont see to many men jumping at the chance of being toilet cleaners, midwives or old people carers either...

Fruit_Cake · #11 5th-May-2007

im not trying to be argumentative or anything but it is true isnt it?

Marx · #12 5th-May-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruit_Cake

im not trying to be argumentative or anything but it is true isnt it?

Yes & no. Men are certainly referred away from and looked down upon in disdain, if they take on said positions you mention. I personally was an old people carer for a good while, and as others can vouch here - I helped look after my grandmother prior to her death as the same with my mother only very recently. I was also a stay at home Dad, changing the vast majority of my daughter's diapers, etc. And I can assure you - it is NOWHERE even remotely close to as hard as what women claim it is. When I mentioned on here a while back that I was my daughters primary carer - my wife denied this... because she didn't want to let on that I was looking after her the vast majority of the time.
So upset by the fact that I was able to legitimately claim myself as 'primary carer' was she, that she took the extreme of hiring a sitter during day times for the sole purpose of ensuring I could no longer make the claim of primary carer.

So, where does that put your stereotypes now?

**bachelor tom** · #13 7th-May-2007

If Jane Shilling thinks women can be better at politics I'd like to hear about her own work environment: Do the females support each other there? Are they selfless and altruistic in media boardrooms? Do they display a kinder gentler style of social interaction? Do they value truth above expediency? I haven't seen these wherever I've worked with women

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Female Teacher Charged with Sexual Assault of Female Student	Tyrael	Abuse - DV	1	9th-October-2009 06:06 PM
A pointless rant about a debate on another forum	byslexic_danana	Chit chat (MAIN)	21	25th-May-2008 12:48 AM
Show me some female soldier ? any female ?	christianj	Australian Men's News	0	1st-May-2007 04:10 AM

More pointless whinging from female journos

More pointless whinging from female journos

Similar Threads