Labour leader Ed Miliband has criticised the lack of promotion of women by David Cameron's ruling Conservatives in a fiery Prime Minister's Questions session.
Describing the Conservatives as an "old boys' network", Miliband slammed a decision by the party to deselect long-serving Member of Parliament Anne McIntosh for the next General Election.
Embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, his front bench was full of male MPs for the session, while Miliband packed his front bench with women.
Miliband also noted that there are just as many members of David Cameron's cabinet from two fee-paying schools as there are female members. The ruling coalition has been criticised in the past for hindering social mobility, with the current cabinet the least diverse in years, if not decades.
There has been activity in all of the major UK political parties in recent years to promote more women to Parliament, occasionally controversially in the form of 'all-women shortlists' in some parliamentary constituencies.
The coalition parties have been wholly unsuccessful in returning women to Parliament though. In the aftermath of the 2010 General Election, 31 percent of Labour MPs were female, compared with 16 percent of Conservatives and 12 percent of Liberal Democrats.
This deficit has given the government a headache, as Labour has a broad pool of female talent to draw from. In contrast, promising female MPs on the government benches have largely fallen by the wayside.
Louise Mensch was part of the parliamentary committee charged with interrogating Rupert Murdoch over the phone-hacking scandal that engulfed his newspapers. Following that role, she suddenly stood down as MP citing family reasons and now writes for Murdoch's Sun newspaper.
Other promising female careers in the coalition government have also fizzled out, including that of Sarah Teather - now a regular rebel against government policy. Teather has announced she is stepping down at the next election.
Others, including Nadine Dorries, have also taken to frequently opposing their own party. Indeed, Dorries has also criticised the Conservative leadership, dismissing them as "posh boys."
However, there must inevitably be an allowance for the prospect that any MP, regardless of gender, may fail to fulfil early promise - at best serving as a good constituency MP. The problem for the coalition is there are still not enough female MPs to source talented potential cabinet members in sufficient numbers.
The true failing, it would seem, is not just the failure to get enough talented women into high-profile government roles, but getting them into Parliament in the first place.
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Why feminism must free itself from people like Louise Mensch
Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP for Corby, never struck me as much of a feminist, despite what she may say. Real feminism engages with serious issues, such as the vote, pay, workplace and violence. Yet, when put to the test, self-styled feminists such as Louise Mensch fail to campaign effectively for their comrades. Her feminism, if it can be described as such, is more of the individualist variety.
Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.
Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)
The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.
Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.
The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.
When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.
This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.
That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.
Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.
In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.
Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.
Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)
The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.
Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.
The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.
When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.
This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.
That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.
Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.
In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Which women's fashions do men dislike?
Many women spend a lot of time over their appearance. Sometimes it may be to impress someone, most of the time it is simply to look good. Inspired by one of those recent MSN articles-by-numbers (those effortless things their editors throw together on a Friday afternoon), I aim to explain why this article slightly misses the spot in terms of trends men 'hate'. At least this man, anyway.
The article in question has caused uproar. Even allowing for the usual tirades of criticism online articles and posts usually attract, the article has attracted criticism from men and women alike. From men, there are claims the writer Sarah Hecks has simply got wrong what men dislike. From women, the understandable response is they dress for themselves, not for the benefit of men.
With that in mind, I am sure my opinions will barely register - though I am prepared to express them.
Some of the trends Hecks argues men dislike, I do actually (shock, horror) dislike, though I have to admit most of them us men can surely live with. The first picture (number 10) is very showy, but when I see someone wearing something similar on the street, my head tends to move towards the clouds and my thoughts become consumed with the word 'awkward'. Short shorts are great, but they ought to cover up what is necessary.
But other fashions, such as the large beach bag and string bikinis, are fine when used in the right context - on the beach. However, there are some inclusions I for one am delighted about.
The oversized sunglasses are currently big among the posh ladies in south-west London. Do I... (a) tell them they look ridiculous, (b) I have just seen Katie Price (Jordan) wearing them in the above article I refer to, or (c) say nothing and have a good laugh to myself? Okay, I will dispense with the suspense - (c) is the only option.
There are one or two current monstrosities I am disappointed not to see in Hecks' article. First of all, leggings. Ladies, just because your legs and bum are covered in an opaque black material does not mean you look 'decent'. Often that awful material clings to everything, and you are left leaving nothing to the imagination. There is one crumb of consolation though - that material would look ten times worse on men.
And finally, tracksuits. I feel great lounging around in them at home. But for men, and certainly women, they look dreadful.
The article in question has caused uproar. Even allowing for the usual tirades of criticism online articles and posts usually attract, the article has attracted criticism from men and women alike. From men, there are claims the writer Sarah Hecks has simply got wrong what men dislike. From women, the understandable response is they dress for themselves, not for the benefit of men.
With that in mind, I am sure my opinions will barely register - though I am prepared to express them.
Some of the trends Hecks argues men dislike, I do actually (shock, horror) dislike, though I have to admit most of them us men can surely live with. The first picture (number 10) is very showy, but when I see someone wearing something similar on the street, my head tends to move towards the clouds and my thoughts become consumed with the word 'awkward'. Short shorts are great, but they ought to cover up what is necessary.
But other fashions, such as the large beach bag and string bikinis, are fine when used in the right context - on the beach. However, there are some inclusions I for one am delighted about.
The oversized sunglasses are currently big among the posh ladies in south-west London. Do I... (a) tell them they look ridiculous, (b) I have just seen Katie Price (Jordan) wearing them in the above article I refer to, or (c) say nothing and have a good laugh to myself? Okay, I will dispense with the suspense - (c) is the only option.
There are one or two current monstrosities I am disappointed not to see in Hecks' article. First of all, leggings. Ladies, just because your legs and bum are covered in an opaque black material does not mean you look 'decent'. Often that awful material clings to everything, and you are left leaving nothing to the imagination. There is one crumb of consolation though - that material would look ten times worse on men.
And finally, tracksuits. I feel great lounging around in them at home. But for men, and certainly women, they look dreadful.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Women: "Slut Walks" or self-preservation?
Women should enjoy the freedom to wear whatever they want. It is what differentiates our culture from those where women are influenced to believe it in their interests to cover-up all their features, separating themselves from other people in society in the process.
Conversely, it is their right to be able to cover up as well. There should be no rulebook on who should wear what. This is why the thoughts of Michael Sanguinetti, of Toronto's police force, notably the comment "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised," should have been kept to himself.
As a consequence of Sanguinetti's loose talk, a protest movement called "Slut Walks" has emerged in North America. Women (and many men as well) are marching in protest, dressed sexily, and displaying various messages in order to make a statement of defiance.
Most decent folk are capable of self-control. They do not view females in minimal attire as those to be manhandled, violated and victimised. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that. This leads to an uncomfortable truth, and that truth is women who rightly took offence to Sanguinetti need to consider the deeper meanings behind his moralist and prejudiced rhetoric.
What follows is not another dose of 'victim blaming' - nobody deserves to be victimised, regardless of what they wear. But for too long, debates such as these have been framed in gendered terms - and it has to be remembered that some radical feminists reject the body exhibiting culture which is socialised into young women by the media.
The fact is that if something is easily accessible, the risk of that something being violated is higher. It is simply wrong to suggest that encouraging women to dress more conservatively is male patriarchy in action, while men can live without boundaries.
If men go out and get stupidly drunk, then the risk of violation of them is increased as well, particularly through theft or attack.
If men carry expensive items visibly, they are at a heightened risk of robbery.
And so if women lower their security, they too run the risk of violation. That is the world we live in.
A slightly more condescending, but more virtuous message could have gone something like this:-
The best we can do as individuals is to manage the risk. People, male or female, should go out in groups when being social during rather unsocial hours. Non-essential valuables need not be exhibited. If you feel you may be at risk, it is basic self-preservation to use the means to reduce it. That involves - sadly - covering up a little if necessary. Not only that, but arrange lifts from people you know, as even licensed taxis are no guarantee for they are effectively driven by strangers.
As this argument shows, the need is to put a safety message, not make moral judgements and call people sluts.
Conversely, it is their right to be able to cover up as well. There should be no rulebook on who should wear what. This is why the thoughts of Michael Sanguinetti, of Toronto's police force, notably the comment "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised," should have been kept to himself.
As a consequence of Sanguinetti's loose talk, a protest movement called "Slut Walks" has emerged in North America. Women (and many men as well) are marching in protest, dressed sexily, and displaying various messages in order to make a statement of defiance.
Most decent folk are capable of self-control. They do not view females in minimal attire as those to be manhandled, violated and victimised. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that. This leads to an uncomfortable truth, and that truth is women who rightly took offence to Sanguinetti need to consider the deeper meanings behind his moralist and prejudiced rhetoric.
What follows is not another dose of 'victim blaming' - nobody deserves to be victimised, regardless of what they wear. But for too long, debates such as these have been framed in gendered terms - and it has to be remembered that some radical feminists reject the body exhibiting culture which is socialised into young women by the media.
The fact is that if something is easily accessible, the risk of that something being violated is higher. It is simply wrong to suggest that encouraging women to dress more conservatively is male patriarchy in action, while men can live without boundaries.
If men go out and get stupidly drunk, then the risk of violation of them is increased as well, particularly through theft or attack.
If men carry expensive items visibly, they are at a heightened risk of robbery.
And so if women lower their security, they too run the risk of violation. That is the world we live in.
A slightly more condescending, but more virtuous message could have gone something like this:-
The best we can do as individuals is to manage the risk. People, male or female, should go out in groups when being social during rather unsocial hours. Non-essential valuables need not be exhibited. If you feel you may be at risk, it is basic self-preservation to use the means to reduce it. That involves - sadly - covering up a little if necessary. Not only that, but arrange lifts from people you know, as even licensed taxis are no guarantee for they are effectively driven by strangers.
As this argument shows, the need is to put a safety message, not make moral judgements and call people sluts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)