This feminism thing has gone too far, has it?
I was just putting a stout cake in the oven last night, when sirboodle phones. "Have you got Channel 5 on?" he asks. I reply that I haven't. "Well, put it on," he says, sounding serious. Oh my god - who died?!!! I just hear him say "I'll phone you after the programme", as I trip up on the way to the tv and cut him off.
It turned out to be a programme entitled "What are Men for?" and it was presented by much esteemed news reporter, Michael Buerck. I missed the very start, but there seemed to be a lot of shock statistics concerning increased rate of suicide among men (women don't commit suicide because of work problems was one side-issue mentioned), the fact that most divorces are initiated by women, that more companies employ more women now, not just in low-skill jobs but high-ranking ones too... and all this was apparently because women are now winning.
Hang on, I thought - all this is very interesting, but surely explicable by other means.
Men have always been more likely to commit suicide than women - however it's now not just middle aged men topping themselves - rates of suicide among young men are increasing. The reasons behind these stats are complex, cannot be attributed to a single issue, and are not entirely explained by social causes.
Divorces initiated by women? Well, first of all, let's note that people ARE getting divorced. Not so long ago, divorce was a social stigma. Women are less accepting of the role of Patient Griselda these days, that's all. As for me, I may have initiated my divorce - but on the instruction of my husband!
Companies employing more women? That's because we're too grateful - and cheap. A friend of mine who broke that glass ceiling for a while was replaced by a man who was given twice her salary. They were both good at what they did, and brought different qualities to the company - was the difference entirely justified though?
Have I broken that ceiling? Have I heck! My boss thinks I have a good body though.
Well, so far the programme was quite interesting, albeit statistic grabbing without offering sufficient explanation for its findings. It would have been good if the programme had concentrated on the disposal of fathers from the family structure, as this would seem to be what the title of the programme was pointing to, but it spent a scant couple of minutes on Fathers for Justice etc before descending into fluff. It merely stated that women are now prepared to not have someone there in the role of father to their children, though none of the 'expert' women that were interviewed were asked exactly why. One 'life coach' just shrugged her shoulders and said she wasn't bothered.
Most of the programme was taken up by discussion of perceived blurring of feminine and masculine 'values'. Anyone who has read anything from Shakespeare to Wollestonecraft will know that this is not a modern argument. The fact that more men are buying moisturiser now was discussed with contempt - but people spend more on personal grooming these days anyway. Not so long ago not even women used moisturiser! What's wrong with smooth skin?
Women behaving loutishly was discussed - this was a problem in the 1930s according to yesterday's Metro! Let's face it, I'm a feminist and I don't like ladettes either!
The feminisation of men was symbolised by a long-haired man, in a frankly fab coat, hugging a tree (very harish!), and this was apprently a 'bad thing', because men had been duped into being all sensitive and caring when really women wanted 'b**tards', and didn't fancy the sensitive guys any more. Let me get this straight, with apologies to sirboodle, but that tree guy was a dish. What was wrong with tree guy? Admittedly, I used to hear that "oh, he wasn't enough of a b**tard" excuse from my friends when they dumped a boy - WHEN WE WERE ABOUT 15!! Talk about conditioning! Frankly, if a grown woman dumps a man and that's her reason, he's a lot better off because she is probably suffering some mental problem.
And women's taste in men was called into question. Jude Law (a confirmed lad, laddism being a backlash against new man and feminism) and Colin Farrell were discussed as men who looked slightly feminine. I'm sorry, but how? "In fact," one woman 'expert' said, "Colin Farrel could play a bisexual role." Good! He's supposed to be an ACTOR!
Rather than looking feminine, I would argue that Jude & Col (well, not so much him) are attractive men, and quite BOYISH. We wimmin go for boyish, because a boy is less close to dropping dead than a craggy, old man. Plus they are friskier! Or so our natures tell us (ahem!). Ask Germaine Greer - she'll tell yer! Boys!
Michael Buerck or Jude Law? No question, really.
"And there are more lifestyle programmes these days, aimed at women," whinged Buerck. "Rather than news or documentaries." Naha! Now we get to the crux of his problem!
The reason for the lifestyle programmes? "Women are either reponsible for or influence the choice of items purchased for the home" Surprised? No, I''m not either. Lots of men don't want to boast that they picked the wallpaper. Buerck is most shocked though that women are choosing cars too "Cars are even being designed with women in mind" showing a Ford Ka on the screen (My husband chose our Ka, copying our mate Mark who chose his, he he!). Yeah, and your point? Lots of women drive! In fact cars have been designed 'with women in mind' since the fifties!
The whole thing looked rather spiteful and bitter, and if I'm supposed to think that I've got it good, well, I'm sorry but I haven't changed my mind. I agree that more men are feeling alienated if they lose out on their role as breadwinners and fathers and have nothing to fill that space to boost their self esteem. And I would agree that the 'have-it-all' generation of women are finding they can't, and are ditching unsatisfactory partners - especially if they find 'have it all' really means 'do it all'. This may lead somewhat to alienation and consequent social ills - but this does not mean emancipation is being won to the detriment of men.
Some of Michael Buerck's arguments were so laughable, that I appear to have lost much of my respect for him.
It turned out to be a programme entitled "What are Men for?" and it was presented by much esteemed news reporter, Michael Buerck. I missed the very start, but there seemed to be a lot of shock statistics concerning increased rate of suicide among men (women don't commit suicide because of work problems was one side-issue mentioned), the fact that most divorces are initiated by women, that more companies employ more women now, not just in low-skill jobs but high-ranking ones too... and all this was apparently because women are now winning.
Hang on, I thought - all this is very interesting, but surely explicable by other means.
Men have always been more likely to commit suicide than women - however it's now not just middle aged men topping themselves - rates of suicide among young men are increasing. The reasons behind these stats are complex, cannot be attributed to a single issue, and are not entirely explained by social causes.
Divorces initiated by women? Well, first of all, let's note that people ARE getting divorced. Not so long ago, divorce was a social stigma. Women are less accepting of the role of Patient Griselda these days, that's all. As for me, I may have initiated my divorce - but on the instruction of my husband!
Companies employing more women? That's because we're too grateful - and cheap. A friend of mine who broke that glass ceiling for a while was replaced by a man who was given twice her salary. They were both good at what they did, and brought different qualities to the company - was the difference entirely justified though?
Have I broken that ceiling? Have I heck! My boss thinks I have a good body though.
Well, so far the programme was quite interesting, albeit statistic grabbing without offering sufficient explanation for its findings. It would have been good if the programme had concentrated on the disposal of fathers from the family structure, as this would seem to be what the title of the programme was pointing to, but it spent a scant couple of minutes on Fathers for Justice etc before descending into fluff. It merely stated that women are now prepared to not have someone there in the role of father to their children, though none of the 'expert' women that were interviewed were asked exactly why. One 'life coach' just shrugged her shoulders and said she wasn't bothered.
Most of the programme was taken up by discussion of perceived blurring of feminine and masculine 'values'. Anyone who has read anything from Shakespeare to Wollestonecraft will know that this is not a modern argument. The fact that more men are buying moisturiser now was discussed with contempt - but people spend more on personal grooming these days anyway. Not so long ago not even women used moisturiser! What's wrong with smooth skin?
Women behaving loutishly was discussed - this was a problem in the 1930s according to yesterday's Metro! Let's face it, I'm a feminist and I don't like ladettes either!
The feminisation of men was symbolised by a long-haired man, in a frankly fab coat, hugging a tree (very harish!), and this was apprently a 'bad thing', because men had been duped into being all sensitive and caring when really women wanted 'b**tards', and didn't fancy the sensitive guys any more. Let me get this straight, with apologies to sirboodle, but that tree guy was a dish. What was wrong with tree guy? Admittedly, I used to hear that "oh, he wasn't enough of a b**tard" excuse from my friends when they dumped a boy - WHEN WE WERE ABOUT 15!! Talk about conditioning! Frankly, if a grown woman dumps a man and that's her reason, he's a lot better off because she is probably suffering some mental problem.
And women's taste in men was called into question. Jude Law (a confirmed lad, laddism being a backlash against new man and feminism) and Colin Farrell were discussed as men who looked slightly feminine. I'm sorry, but how? "In fact," one woman 'expert' said, "Colin Farrel could play a bisexual role." Good! He's supposed to be an ACTOR!
Rather than looking feminine, I would argue that Jude & Col (well, not so much him) are attractive men, and quite BOYISH. We wimmin go for boyish, because a boy is less close to dropping dead than a craggy, old man. Plus they are friskier! Or so our natures tell us (ahem!). Ask Germaine Greer - she'll tell yer! Boys!
Michael Buerck or Jude Law? No question, really.
"And there are more lifestyle programmes these days, aimed at women," whinged Buerck. "Rather than news or documentaries." Naha! Now we get to the crux of his problem!
The reason for the lifestyle programmes? "Women are either reponsible for or influence the choice of items purchased for the home" Surprised? No, I''m not either. Lots of men don't want to boast that they picked the wallpaper. Buerck is most shocked though that women are choosing cars too "Cars are even being designed with women in mind" showing a Ford Ka on the screen (My husband chose our Ka, copying our mate Mark who chose his, he he!). Yeah, and your point? Lots of women drive! In fact cars have been designed 'with women in mind' since the fifties!
The whole thing looked rather spiteful and bitter, and if I'm supposed to think that I've got it good, well, I'm sorry but I haven't changed my mind. I agree that more men are feeling alienated if they lose out on their role as breadwinners and fathers and have nothing to fill that space to boost their self esteem. And I would agree that the 'have-it-all' generation of women are finding they can't, and are ditching unsatisfactory partners - especially if they find 'have it all' really means 'do it all'. This may lead somewhat to alienation and consequent social ills - but this does not mean emancipation is being won to the detriment of men.
Some of Michael Buerck's arguments were so laughable, that I appear to have lost much of my respect for him.