In the run up to Boris Johnson’s first bid for London Mayor in 2007, I got a call. A menacing male voice told me to stay away from the town centre (part of Johnson’s Oxfordshire constituency) the next day, or else. At first I thought it was Brian True-May, (then producer of Midsomer Murders who was later sacked amid claims of alleged racism) who often cordoned off large swathes of the town when filming in the area. It struck me as wholly inefficient to make house to house phone calls when the town’s newsletter would have sufficed. Everyone reads that. How else would we keep abreast of the WI’s forthcoming events.
For anyone who’s interested, the next one is a "Make do & Mend" talk by lady Clamidia Bottomley de Nuit, who graduated from the prestigious, Blessed Heart of Lost Souls and Causes, Girls School (only up the road) in 1942, before going on to court and later marry Lord Bottomley de Nuit of Bognor, who, some years later was convicted for fraudulent misconduct, but claimed it was part of his job description (he was a banker). This proved to be an unwise defence as it landed him in the slammer, where he will remain at her majesty’s leisure or until he pops his clogs, which is thought to be imminent (he’s 101), thus assuaging his burden on the taxpayer. At the age of 90, the now bankrupt Mrs Bottomley, is having to revert to skills acquired during the war, i.e. making do and mending. A lot. Having invested her last £100 in a 5 minute consultation with a life coach, she decided to turn her USP into an income generator, which takes us back to the next WI talk. See Newsletter for details. I digress.
Back to my mystery caller. My suspicions were further alerted when the man [with the menacing voice] indicated that he knew where I lived, but not in a good way. At that point I thought I was actually in an episode of Midsomer Murders, and was about to become yet another unsuspecting victim in a flammable crimplene nightie.
As the chat/salvo of intimidation continued, it became apparent that a piece I wrote for The Independent, as well as local Press, had caused a bit of a stir. A local Tory councillor refused to remove golliwogs from his upholstery shop window in the town centre, despite receiving numerous complaints from locals who found the display offensive. In fairness, there was a BOGOF at the time: buy a golliwog and get your sofa reupholstered free, but they still didn’t shift. So, there they languished in the window, sticking 2 (metaphorical) fingers up at anyone foreign/foreign looking, lest they harbour any notions of being welcome in this town. He did eventually concede to pressure. Either that, or Brian True-May had a lot of sofas reupholstered that week.
The mystery caller didn’t say which, if any, organisation he represented and wouldn’t be pressed to divulge his name. I was pregnant at the time and, although my radius was limited to the availability of public toilets (bladder control was a challenge), I was determined to go into town as an act of defiance. If only to stock up on big pants. However, having had a miscarriage a year earlier, after receiving a death threat (in person) at a human rights demonstration I had organised, I knew I couldn’t go. My first duty was to protect my unborn child. Who knew pregnancy could be so career limiting…
Although there is no evidence to suggest Boris Johnson had any knowledge of the threatening call, nor am I suggesting any connection, the fact that he had a conversation (with Darius Guppy), about roughing up a journalist renders him unfit, in my view, for public office. Eddie Mair did a sterling job exposing Johnson for “the nasty piece of work” that I also think he is. But why has the media protected him for so long?
Deference has no place in good journalism (unless you’re interviewing Tony Benn, Nelson Mandela or Paloma Faith). Integrity and pursuit of truth should be at the heart of what we do. It involves forensic research and the ability, and willingness, to ask the tough questions. People in power should never be given a free ride. They should always be sitting on the edge of their seats. Buttocks shifting from one to the other, knowing a journalist worth their salt will hold them to account. It wasn’t just the Financial Services Authority that was asleep at the wheel in the lead up to the greatest economic crash of our time, it was also the media. If Leveson bequeaths any legacy, it should be that anyone with a penchant for sycophancy is better suited to a career in sales, or as PA to Simon Cowell. Journalists should not have to contend with death threats, but at least you know you’re doing your job right when they outweigh dinner invitations to Chequers.
Friday, 5 April 2013
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
I'm sure Andrew Mitchell has some redeeming features but they're not obvious
What astonishes me about Andrew Mitchell, is not whether he said what he allegedly said, but that he has managed to fly under the radar until now. My first impressions of Mitchell, when he was Shadow International Development Secretary, were not good. He kept me waiting for ten minutes then when I was admitted to his inner chamber he proceeded to sign documents, gesturing with his hand impatiently for me to speak. Apart from his incredible rudeness, I was struck by how grey he looked. His hair, his pin striped suit, his pallor. All that was missing was the bowler hat. When I didn’t speak, he finally looked up and acknowledged me, albeit to say he could sign documents and listen at the same time. I mustered up my best Ann Widdecombe voice (difficult with an Irish accent) and said I had cancelled two client appointments and trekked half way across London for a ten minute audience with him. In return, I insisted on his undivided attention.
I did get his attention and went on to work constructively with him to raise the profile of the Darfur genocide. There were occasions early on when I had to remind him of his place, that is, as a public servant. There was an initial scrutiny of my credentials, the membership numbers for the organisation I represented, a general, “What’s in this for me”. I told him that his job description required him to hold the government to account on Darfur, irrespective of whether it put him in line for a Nobel peace prize, though I did flag that as a distinct possibility.
It was precisely because there was something in it for him, I believe, that Mitchell engaged with me. I offered to write an article on his behalf, as long as he promised not to water it down. I wanted to raise the profile of Darfur, he wanted to raise his own. It was a quid pro quo. I sent a piece to him for his approval. He returned a sanitized version, with anodyne language and dodgy grammar. I said something along the lines of “It’s a genocide. You either come out, all guns blazing, or move to the Department for Rural Affairs, where fence hogging is actively encouraged”.
Shortly afterwards, the campaign for Darfur took on a huge momentum. There were marches in cities around the world, with celebrities such as Thandie Newton fronting the campaign. The media was seduced. I got a call from a TV news editor wanting one of the celebs to do a live interview. They were unavailable on the grounds that they didn’t actually know enough about the subject beyond the initial sound bite. I said I could get Andrew Mitchell at short notice but no-one was interested.
Andrew Mitchell personifies all that is wrong, in my view, with the Tory party and politics generally. Career, rather than conviction politicians, whose primary goal it seems, is self aggrandizement. Power is deemed a birth right, a commodity to be bought by the highest bidder, rather than earned. The real scandal is that a man so apparently bereft of interpersonal skills, passion (tantrums don't count) and talent could make it into the cabinet, never mind getting promoted to chief whip.
He’s not alone. I fear that David Cameron’s entire government is founded, not on meritocracy, but mediocrity. It’s an elite club, criteria for membership involves being the right gender, class and colour. Homogeneity on this scale leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. As long as this government is dominated by the bowler hat brigade, it is destined to be plagued by indecision and paralyzed by lack of vision.
I did get his attention and went on to work constructively with him to raise the profile of the Darfur genocide. There were occasions early on when I had to remind him of his place, that is, as a public servant. There was an initial scrutiny of my credentials, the membership numbers for the organisation I represented, a general, “What’s in this for me”. I told him that his job description required him to hold the government to account on Darfur, irrespective of whether it put him in line for a Nobel peace prize, though I did flag that as a distinct possibility.
It was precisely because there was something in it for him, I believe, that Mitchell engaged with me. I offered to write an article on his behalf, as long as he promised not to water it down. I wanted to raise the profile of Darfur, he wanted to raise his own. It was a quid pro quo. I sent a piece to him for his approval. He returned a sanitized version, with anodyne language and dodgy grammar. I said something along the lines of “It’s a genocide. You either come out, all guns blazing, or move to the Department for Rural Affairs, where fence hogging is actively encouraged”.
Shortly afterwards, the campaign for Darfur took on a huge momentum. There were marches in cities around the world, with celebrities such as Thandie Newton fronting the campaign. The media was seduced. I got a call from a TV news editor wanting one of the celebs to do a live interview. They were unavailable on the grounds that they didn’t actually know enough about the subject beyond the initial sound bite. I said I could get Andrew Mitchell at short notice but no-one was interested.
Andrew Mitchell personifies all that is wrong, in my view, with the Tory party and politics generally. Career, rather than conviction politicians, whose primary goal it seems, is self aggrandizement. Power is deemed a birth right, a commodity to be bought by the highest bidder, rather than earned. The real scandal is that a man so apparently bereft of interpersonal skills, passion (tantrums don't count) and talent could make it into the cabinet, never mind getting promoted to chief whip.
He’s not alone. I fear that David Cameron’s entire government is founded, not on meritocracy, but mediocrity. It’s an elite club, criteria for membership involves being the right gender, class and colour. Homogeneity on this scale leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. As long as this government is dominated by the bowler hat brigade, it is destined to be plagued by indecision and paralyzed by lack of vision.
Discrimination is at the Heart of Dale farm Evictions (October 2011)
I got an email this week from a builder blaming travellers for a late quote. The BT lines in his village were down, “Probably gypsies stealing the copper (ha ha!)”. When I saw him I asked if he knew any travellers. He didn’t. I asked if he’d ever met one, he hadn’t, but he was angry about the Dale Farm “squatters”. His reaction is not untypical. Most of us are struggling to know how to relate to a community for whom we have no frame of reference. In the absence of any real knowledge of travellers there’s a tendency to descend into stereotypes.
What’s particularly disturbing is the belief that it’s socially acceptable to overtly demean travellers. Vitriolic reader’s rants betray an underbelly of prejudice that is deemed appropriate to voice. In response to an article expressing fears that the eviction (scheduled for today) could have serious health implications for some travellers a reader opined, “If it was fatal it would solve the problem. Might save some money too”. Another proposed to “send them all back to Ireland”. Such unadulterated hatred would not be tolerated if targeted at any other ethnic group in Britain.
I was confronted with my own prejudices when I embarked on my career as a do-gooder at the age of 15. The nuns recruited me as a volunteer to teach literacy to some travelling children after school. They lived in a campsite on the north side of Dublin. Josephine was the same age as me and I was assigned to teach her on a one to one. She had a face more animated than a Disney cartoon. I wasn’t told beforehand but learned later that she had “broken” my predecessors. She refused to sit still for five minutes (sister Concepta diagnosed it as attention deficit disorder) and took pleasure goading me about my green uniform. Such was the abuse that travellers suffered (and still do) at the hands of settled people, that her life was necessarily insular. The taunting and bullying made mainstream schooling impossible for travelling children.
It was only when I relinquished the notion that Josephine was the only one with something to learn that we became friends. She taught me to approach people with an open mind. That because most of us live our life a certain way, doesn’t make that the only, or indeed the right way. When Josephine first invited me for tea I was terrified. I couldn’t tell my parents. Announcing my imminent elopement with Ian Paisley would have been more preferable than, “I’m just off to a traveller’s campsite. I’ll be back in time for mass”. My head was full of stories about “thieving drunken tinkers”. What I found couldn’t have been further from the myth. Josephine lived in a caravan with her parents and four siblings. Although her grandmother was staying at the time, she moved between her children’s families. They took turns looking after her and in return she imparted knowledge and love of her travelling heritage through story telling. When I arrived she had just started a story about her childhood. It lasted thirty minutes and all five children were gripped for the duration, as was I.
It occurred to me that it wasn’t these children’s attention spans that were lacking but the humanity of a society that made no attempt to understand them. A few years ago, whilst working with the police on stereotyping, I challenged an officer who referred to travellers as “pikeys”. He defended his prejudice as being acceptable on the grounds that they are “all thieving”. Fortunately, one of his colleagues pointed out that there was no evidence to support his claim. In fact the opposite was true. Our ability to dehumanise those that are different to us is one of the uglier aspects of human nature.
Almost every article I’ve read refers to Dale Farm as an illegal settlement. What is rarely explained is that the travellers legally bought the land, which was nothing more than a scrap yard at the time. They argue that it was only after they bought it that the council altered the status to greenbelt as justification for refusing subsequent planning permission. This would account for why some of the earlier settlers did get planning permission. If land had already been designated greenbelt at the time, as Basildon Council maintains, why did they sell it to travellers? What did they think they were going to do with it. Play croquet?
Having refused the travellers planning permission, the pragmatic solution would have been for the council to find a culturally appropriate alternative. One that does not involve separating the families. This is not peripheral but central to the travelling community’s continued existence. A fact that was recognised by the UN when it said the eviction should be halted until such an alternative was found. Dispersing and dismantling the travelling community is like severing limbs and arteries. One part cannot function without the whole. But Basildon Council has refused to budge, despite allegations that it intends to allow developers to build on greenbelt land elsewhere. Demanding that travellers (the clue is in the name) live in council housing is to deny their culture and their dignity. It’s asking them to become one of “us” and that’s unacceptable.
I’m not quite sure what David Cameron means by “the big society” (answers on a postcard please) but if it’s about getting involved in the community and shifting dependence away from the state then there’s a living example of it in Dale Farm. The travelling community don’t look to the state to provide child care or to care for their elderly. They don’t (currently) place a burden on council housing. No-one in Josephine’s family claimed benefits and they would rather wear rags than accept charity. They didn’t want anything from anyone, except to be accepted for who they were.
Apart from the moral case, evicting travellers from their homes makes no business sense. The cost of the proposed eviction alone is estimated at £18 million. When the costs of re housing each of these families are considered, the bill to the taxpayer will be astronomical. For the travellers this fight is more about survival than land. It’s a test case. If they go the travellers believe the 3,600 other “illegal” sites across the country will also be wiped out and with them their race. So when they say they’ll fight to the death today, they probably mean it. The politics of pragmatism may yet prevail over that of prejudice but time is running out for the good people of Dale Farm.
What’s particularly disturbing is the belief that it’s socially acceptable to overtly demean travellers. Vitriolic reader’s rants betray an underbelly of prejudice that is deemed appropriate to voice. In response to an article expressing fears that the eviction (scheduled for today) could have serious health implications for some travellers a reader opined, “If it was fatal it would solve the problem. Might save some money too”. Another proposed to “send them all back to Ireland”. Such unadulterated hatred would not be tolerated if targeted at any other ethnic group in Britain.
I was confronted with my own prejudices when I embarked on my career as a do-gooder at the age of 15. The nuns recruited me as a volunteer to teach literacy to some travelling children after school. They lived in a campsite on the north side of Dublin. Josephine was the same age as me and I was assigned to teach her on a one to one. She had a face more animated than a Disney cartoon. I wasn’t told beforehand but learned later that she had “broken” my predecessors. She refused to sit still for five minutes (sister Concepta diagnosed it as attention deficit disorder) and took pleasure goading me about my green uniform. Such was the abuse that travellers suffered (and still do) at the hands of settled people, that her life was necessarily insular. The taunting and bullying made mainstream schooling impossible for travelling children.
It was only when I relinquished the notion that Josephine was the only one with something to learn that we became friends. She taught me to approach people with an open mind. That because most of us live our life a certain way, doesn’t make that the only, or indeed the right way. When Josephine first invited me for tea I was terrified. I couldn’t tell my parents. Announcing my imminent elopement with Ian Paisley would have been more preferable than, “I’m just off to a traveller’s campsite. I’ll be back in time for mass”. My head was full of stories about “thieving drunken tinkers”. What I found couldn’t have been further from the myth. Josephine lived in a caravan with her parents and four siblings. Although her grandmother was staying at the time, she moved between her children’s families. They took turns looking after her and in return she imparted knowledge and love of her travelling heritage through story telling. When I arrived she had just started a story about her childhood. It lasted thirty minutes and all five children were gripped for the duration, as was I.
It occurred to me that it wasn’t these children’s attention spans that were lacking but the humanity of a society that made no attempt to understand them. A few years ago, whilst working with the police on stereotyping, I challenged an officer who referred to travellers as “pikeys”. He defended his prejudice as being acceptable on the grounds that they are “all thieving”. Fortunately, one of his colleagues pointed out that there was no evidence to support his claim. In fact the opposite was true. Our ability to dehumanise those that are different to us is one of the uglier aspects of human nature.
Almost every article I’ve read refers to Dale Farm as an illegal settlement. What is rarely explained is that the travellers legally bought the land, which was nothing more than a scrap yard at the time. They argue that it was only after they bought it that the council altered the status to greenbelt as justification for refusing subsequent planning permission. This would account for why some of the earlier settlers did get planning permission. If land had already been designated greenbelt at the time, as Basildon Council maintains, why did they sell it to travellers? What did they think they were going to do with it. Play croquet?
Having refused the travellers planning permission, the pragmatic solution would have been for the council to find a culturally appropriate alternative. One that does not involve separating the families. This is not peripheral but central to the travelling community’s continued existence. A fact that was recognised by the UN when it said the eviction should be halted until such an alternative was found. Dispersing and dismantling the travelling community is like severing limbs and arteries. One part cannot function without the whole. But Basildon Council has refused to budge, despite allegations that it intends to allow developers to build on greenbelt land elsewhere. Demanding that travellers (the clue is in the name) live in council housing is to deny their culture and their dignity. It’s asking them to become one of “us” and that’s unacceptable.
I’m not quite sure what David Cameron means by “the big society” (answers on a postcard please) but if it’s about getting involved in the community and shifting dependence away from the state then there’s a living example of it in Dale Farm. The travelling community don’t look to the state to provide child care or to care for their elderly. They don’t (currently) place a burden on council housing. No-one in Josephine’s family claimed benefits and they would rather wear rags than accept charity. They didn’t want anything from anyone, except to be accepted for who they were.
Apart from the moral case, evicting travellers from their homes makes no business sense. The cost of the proposed eviction alone is estimated at £18 million. When the costs of re housing each of these families are considered, the bill to the taxpayer will be astronomical. For the travellers this fight is more about survival than land. It’s a test case. If they go the travellers believe the 3,600 other “illegal” sites across the country will also be wiped out and with them their race. So when they say they’ll fight to the death today, they probably mean it. The politics of pragmatism may yet prevail over that of prejudice but time is running out for the good people of Dale Farm.
When Different Rules Apply (November 2011)
When David Cameron talks about a culture of greed and the need to take individual responsibility he’s not referring to the miscreants in suits. The ones who stole our savings, pillaged our pension and left us on the brink of financial and moral bankruptcy. He’s referring to the hooded variety.
If different rules apply for the privileged, the principles of fairness and justice that underpin a democracy are severely undermined. A fair leader will be just as tough dealing with criminality in the police (none of whom were prosecuted for the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson), corporations and politics, as she is when dealing with youth rioters. It wasn’t hoodies or women that brought RBS to its knees, yet they’re the ones paying the highest price. Meanwhile, Fred Goodwin, who was amongst those irrefutably responsible, languishes in the Costa del Tax Haven at the taxpayers’ expense. Cameron promised to regulate bankers and stop obscene bonuses. Yet, despite being 83% owned by taxpayers, the new CEO of RBS awarded himself and his top staff a collective bonus of £950m in January. What merited that amount? Making a loss of £1.1bn. Those lucky enough to still have jobs are suffering pay freezes, irrespective of their performance. Different rules apply.
Criminality is wrong, whether you’re rich or poor and the punishment should fit the crime. David Cameron undermines his credibility as a bastion of morality when he issues a get out jail (or avoidance of consequences) card to those with power and wealth. At the same time that the Tories are talking about seizing the rioters’ benefits (why not just put them in orange jump suits and chains) George Osborne has alluded to scrapping the 50p tax rate. Cameron’s cowardice in dealing with the haves is matched only by his callous disregard for the have nots. He describes the rioters, many of whom were children, as sick. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
When I worked with disturbed children, often in care, it was crucial to understand the whole family dynamic. Children don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re products of their environment and as such often become symptomatic of a broader dysfunction. Most of the families were in the poverty trap (generational unemployment, poor education, mental illness) and were struggling to cope. With early intervention many of these families could have been salvaged. If we invested a fraction as much in failing families as we do in failing banks, society as a whole would benefit.
My best friend refused to feign Catholicism (despite having red hair) in order to get her child into a “good” neighbouring school. Instead, she took responsibility to try to improve her child’s not so good school in Tottenham. She became a governor with the intention of attracting better teachers but they didn’t want to work in a “problem” school. There are certain things parents can do to take responsibility but some things are out of their control. David Cameron needs to recognize the government’s responsibility in removing structural barriers that serve to undermine individual responsibility and perpetuate inequality.
Mr. Cameron promised to form a family friendly government but, in practice, he has cut child benefit, tax credits, maternity support and child trust funds. It’s tantamount to robbing our children’s piggy banks to pay the debts of the bankers. Youth unemployment has soared and job centres, like the one in Tottenham where there has been a 75% cut to youth services, have been closed. Still, there’s all that traffic to play with. Meanwhile, in London 20% of the people own 60% of the income. Economic inequality leads to a sense of alienation, injustice and social instability.
The mantra “greed is good” has pervaded and damaged society. Rabid consumerism has forced families into debt so parents work ever longer hours to pay it off. Joel Bakan, the author of “Childhood Under Siege” describes the hostile takeover of childhood by corporations, resulting in narcissistic mini consumers and media addicts He accuses society of betrayal and failing to protect our children.
Also in the news last week, though blink and you’d miss it, there were predictions of a double dip recession. World leaders were accused of lacking in vision and purpose as stock markets plummeted. The governor of the bank of England predicted this in January. He warned that lessons had not been learned by the banks leaving us exposed to another recession. Einstein argued that problems cannot be solved by the people and thinking that created them.
Six years ago, I challenged an academic luminary at a leading business school for declaring that ethics had no place in business. He dismissed any suggestion that employees should be protected from discrimination by asserting “Capitalism is about survival of the fittest. The weak will fall by the way side and that’s how it should be”. He didn’t get that women and minorities sometimes fail, not because of inherent weaknesses on their part but because of a system that is skewed in favour of an elite few (positive discrimination in favour of men is not illegal).
Despite capitalism, in its current form, having failed spectacularly we continue to prop it up. Rather than look at new and more efficient paradigms to correct the system, we have left intact the culture (short termism, rewarding failure, excessive pay, tax havens), inept regulation and "talent" that facilitated its demise.
Fortunately, there is a solution. There’s a profusion of talented women out there with plenty of practice cleaning up after other people’s mess. They can’t do any worse. Unfortunately, precisely when we need women’s contribution the most, they’re being driven out of the workforce by prohibitive child care costs. Policies that undermine the family and discriminate against women go to the heart of the social unrest that led to the riots. Excluding women from positions of power is harmful to the economy and society. In the wake of Enron, the Higgs report found that a few men held multiple boardships and that they were being appointed by a tap on the shoulder rather than competing in a fair process. Isn’t that positive discrimination? Yes, but as long as the beneficiary is not female or black it’s perfectly acceptable. Different rules apply.
Homogeneity leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. The status quo cannot be an option if we are to prevent further crises. Now is the time to radically rethink how we structure our institutions, such as the family, work and politics. Let’s start by reframing the gender debate. It’s not about men versus women. It’s about balance of power and opportunity. Children, such as those seen rioting, need fathers as well as mothers and UK plc needs women as well as men at the helm.
If different rules apply for the privileged, the principles of fairness and justice that underpin a democracy are severely undermined. A fair leader will be just as tough dealing with criminality in the police (none of whom were prosecuted for the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson), corporations and politics, as she is when dealing with youth rioters. It wasn’t hoodies or women that brought RBS to its knees, yet they’re the ones paying the highest price. Meanwhile, Fred Goodwin, who was amongst those irrefutably responsible, languishes in the Costa del Tax Haven at the taxpayers’ expense. Cameron promised to regulate bankers and stop obscene bonuses. Yet, despite being 83% owned by taxpayers, the new CEO of RBS awarded himself and his top staff a collective bonus of £950m in January. What merited that amount? Making a loss of £1.1bn. Those lucky enough to still have jobs are suffering pay freezes, irrespective of their performance. Different rules apply.
Criminality is wrong, whether you’re rich or poor and the punishment should fit the crime. David Cameron undermines his credibility as a bastion of morality when he issues a get out jail (or avoidance of consequences) card to those with power and wealth. At the same time that the Tories are talking about seizing the rioters’ benefits (why not just put them in orange jump suits and chains) George Osborne has alluded to scrapping the 50p tax rate. Cameron’s cowardice in dealing with the haves is matched only by his callous disregard for the have nots. He describes the rioters, many of whom were children, as sick. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
When I worked with disturbed children, often in care, it was crucial to understand the whole family dynamic. Children don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re products of their environment and as such often become symptomatic of a broader dysfunction. Most of the families were in the poverty trap (generational unemployment, poor education, mental illness) and were struggling to cope. With early intervention many of these families could have been salvaged. If we invested a fraction as much in failing families as we do in failing banks, society as a whole would benefit.
My best friend refused to feign Catholicism (despite having red hair) in order to get her child into a “good” neighbouring school. Instead, she took responsibility to try to improve her child’s not so good school in Tottenham. She became a governor with the intention of attracting better teachers but they didn’t want to work in a “problem” school. There are certain things parents can do to take responsibility but some things are out of their control. David Cameron needs to recognize the government’s responsibility in removing structural barriers that serve to undermine individual responsibility and perpetuate inequality.
Mr. Cameron promised to form a family friendly government but, in practice, he has cut child benefit, tax credits, maternity support and child trust funds. It’s tantamount to robbing our children’s piggy banks to pay the debts of the bankers. Youth unemployment has soared and job centres, like the one in Tottenham where there has been a 75% cut to youth services, have been closed. Still, there’s all that traffic to play with. Meanwhile, in London 20% of the people own 60% of the income. Economic inequality leads to a sense of alienation, injustice and social instability.
The mantra “greed is good” has pervaded and damaged society. Rabid consumerism has forced families into debt so parents work ever longer hours to pay it off. Joel Bakan, the author of “Childhood Under Siege” describes the hostile takeover of childhood by corporations, resulting in narcissistic mini consumers and media addicts He accuses society of betrayal and failing to protect our children.
Also in the news last week, though blink and you’d miss it, there were predictions of a double dip recession. World leaders were accused of lacking in vision and purpose as stock markets plummeted. The governor of the bank of England predicted this in January. He warned that lessons had not been learned by the banks leaving us exposed to another recession. Einstein argued that problems cannot be solved by the people and thinking that created them.
Six years ago, I challenged an academic luminary at a leading business school for declaring that ethics had no place in business. He dismissed any suggestion that employees should be protected from discrimination by asserting “Capitalism is about survival of the fittest. The weak will fall by the way side and that’s how it should be”. He didn’t get that women and minorities sometimes fail, not because of inherent weaknesses on their part but because of a system that is skewed in favour of an elite few (positive discrimination in favour of men is not illegal).
Despite capitalism, in its current form, having failed spectacularly we continue to prop it up. Rather than look at new and more efficient paradigms to correct the system, we have left intact the culture (short termism, rewarding failure, excessive pay, tax havens), inept regulation and "talent" that facilitated its demise.
Fortunately, there is a solution. There’s a profusion of talented women out there with plenty of practice cleaning up after other people’s mess. They can’t do any worse. Unfortunately, precisely when we need women’s contribution the most, they’re being driven out of the workforce by prohibitive child care costs. Policies that undermine the family and discriminate against women go to the heart of the social unrest that led to the riots. Excluding women from positions of power is harmful to the economy and society. In the wake of Enron, the Higgs report found that a few men held multiple boardships and that they were being appointed by a tap on the shoulder rather than competing in a fair process. Isn’t that positive discrimination? Yes, but as long as the beneficiary is not female or black it’s perfectly acceptable. Different rules apply.
Homogeneity leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. The status quo cannot be an option if we are to prevent further crises. Now is the time to radically rethink how we structure our institutions, such as the family, work and politics. Let’s start by reframing the gender debate. It’s not about men versus women. It’s about balance of power and opportunity. Children, such as those seen rioting, need fathers as well as mothers and UK plc needs women as well as men at the helm.
Belle de Jour/Brooke Magnanti is a Turn Off. Fact (2010)
Spare me the hackneyed, hollow, "There’s still work to be done", headlines that surround International Women’s day. What about the other 364 days of relentless media stereotyping? There’s the nag (frigid feminists banging on about women’s rights), the hag (women too old to be on tele, i.e. over 40), the WaG (Coleen “the handbag” Rooney) and the reality show must have -"glamour models".
Dr Brooke Magnanti's life is currently being serialised in “Secret diary of a call girl”. Magnanti’s account of the happy, well adjusted hooker, as portrayed in the series, is as flawed as it is misogynistic. But, like Twiggy’s wrinkles and Kate Winslet’s curves, inconvenient truths are airbrushed out.
Recent research highlighted the “pornification” of society and that 60% of teenage girls aspire to be “glamour” (AKA soft porn) models, like Jordan, the woman who thinks Silicone Valley is the place to go for breast implants. The woman whose two year old daughter recently appeared “tarted up” on face book. Glamour models are ubiquitous. Women who dare to make a bid for power, using their minds rather than their bodies, however, are either invisible or pilloried by the press. The media’s handling of Brooke Magnanti “coming out” as Belle de Jour is just one example of how disconnected it is from women and feminism. From my own cursory research I encountered a lonely, insecure woman who saw prostitution as a kind of dating agency. A way to meet men and have an excuse to get dressed up on a Saturday night. “Belle de Jour” is an alter ego created, in my view, to escape the demons that possess Magnanti. Her marketing campaign hangs on us buying into a series of unconvincing myths, which have been perpetuated, not exposed, by the press.
Myth 1: Honesty: In her blog Magnanti recounts scenes of a waltonesque family life. She claimed, “My parents stayed married and I’m close to them both”. They’re not and she isn’t. When she “came out” as Belle she said of her father, “He’s a bit of a do gooder, he helps women”. It has since emerged in the press that he's actually a drug addict who has used over 150 prostitutes, some of whom he introduced to his daughter (as you do). A female relative is also a prostitute. Not quite the wholesome family scenario Magnanti invented.
Myth 2: Healthy sexuality: Magnanti said she watched porn as a teenager and had anal sex with a man twice her age at 16. The same time that she was grappling with the “disfigurement” of acne (ahead of a recent TV interview with Billie Piper Magnanti grudgingly divulged that teenage acne left her with facial scars). Far from being sexually empowered, it seems more plausible that a troubled, insecure Magnanti sought comfort and approval from an older man by offering him what she knew (from porn) would please him. Sex.
Her first “job” as a prostitute (according to her blog) involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay, having sex, sleeping there, then having had such a lovely time, she gives the client her direct number. Other incidents include a client urinating on her neck and having a chewed finger nail stuck up her vagina (you won’t find these unsavoury scenes in the secret diary series). Anyone who describes this as healthy sexuality or worse, empowerment, is deluded. It’s disturbing that the BBC’s This Week didn’t spot the tragic irony when they recently invited Magnanti to lecture teenagers on sex and self respect. In the Piper interview Magnanti gaily described being made to wear a pair of glasses so a client could come on her face. She was then ordered to wipe the sperm on the carpet and lick it up. Magnanti said she does what she’s told because it’s inappropriate “etiquette” to question clients. It was like listening to someone tell a story of excruciating abuse in a manner that made Lady Macbeth look like Morrissey on Prozac. The dissonance and psychotic disconnect between her light hearted banter and the actual humiliation she described made for cringe worthy viewing. Has she become so desensitised (from growing up on porn), so accustomed to being abused by men, that she can no longer recognise when she is being demeaned and humiliated? Or does she think being treated like a dog (literally) is OK as long as you get paid for it?
Magnanti suggests that women bereft of skills should be allowed to sell their bodies. The fact that 70% of prostitutes start as children and have suffered abuse seems insignificant to her. Dr Magnanti is currently working on child health. She might be interested in one of my previous cases. Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties. The adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors. Respectable people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised. She was bright, and beautiful. But she wasn’t “qualified,” or rather psychologically or physically capable, of doing anything (according to her pimp) except prostitution. It fed her habit, which numbed the pain.
There was no fairytale ending for Cathy. The best Dr Magnanti, a child health specialist, can do is tell Cathy, and girls like her, that the only thing they’re good for now is prostitution. Magnanti will know that Cathy’s scenario is more typical than Belle’s fictitious one. It’s not in her interests to dwell on the unpleasant reality of the sex industry. It would sully her brand. Magnanti is sanctimonious when talking about street walkers like Cathy. She places herself in a higher league. As if charging £200 makes the urine running down her neck Chanel instead of the £60 version of Eau de toilette. Women of her class should be allowed to dip in and out of prostitution, depending on the need for shoes, but street walkers should stick with it. It’s all they’re good at, or for.
Myth 3: Feminism: Setting aside the aforementioned acts of degradation, Magnanti claims she’s a feminist. Her lack of female friends makes that declaration tenuous at best. “The surest way to tell the prostitute walking into a hotel at Heathrow is to look for the lady in the designer suit. Fact”. On behalf of all the women harassed by sleazy men in flammable shirts, we thank you Dr Magnanti. Boob tube or business suit, unaccompanied women are always fair game. She does have concerns about rape though. We should stop banging on about it. Yes, women get raped but… “If being a man was easy, hookers wouldn’t exist. Fact”.
Myth 4: Passion: Magnanti claims to like sex and boasts about being good at it. If she likes it so much why fake orgasms? and if faking orgasms is criteria for being good at sex then we can all do that (women obviously). If not enjoying being urinated on and other acts of degradation means I’m frigid (as Magnanti implies), I’m guilty as charged. Sex without intimacy is like Glastonbury without mud, an anticlimax. Prostitution has nothing to do with passion. See Magnanti’s blog. The only passion I discerned was in response to her critics. Reacting to protests against her winning a Guardian blog competition she wrote, “Reckon your life is more interesting, your insight more relevant, your wit more sparkling? The Guardian hath spoken and laid a garland at this doorstep”. There was something menacing about her tone. Magnanti offered to donate her winnings to charity but reneged after all the to do. In order to teach her dissenters a lesson, she decided to keep the money because, “Mama needs a new pair of Jimmy Choos” (so there).
Myth 5: “There’s no comeuppance”: Only people without a conscience can sever the link between their actions and consequences. They’re called psychopaths.
The consequences I’m concerned with are socio-cultural. The sexualisation of girls has become so endemic we don’t even notice it. Playboy duvets, “tart in training” shorts, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting sex at 14 as normal. Half of school girls are considering plastic surgery to make themselves thinner and prettier and 90% of eating disorders are amongst females, with a disturbing trend in five and six year old girls presenting with the illness. Girls have never been under so much pressure to conform. But to what? An airbrushed, pumped up, sexualised fantasy of perfection.
Portraying women as sex objects perpetuates gender inequalities. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse (or discriminate against) a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. The sex industry, of which Dr Magnanti is a part, has vested interests in normalising the objectification of women. To them women, and girls, are just commodities. To be bought and sold. Magnanti is still a prostitute, albeit with a more lucrative remit. Publicity. Along with her cohort of pimps (step forward ITV and the BBC), she’s selling women and children down the river without a paddle. Magnanti reckons “everyone has their price”. I say to her what I said to the man who assumed I was a prostitute (I was in a hotel lobby, alone and wearing a suit. It was reckless). “I’m not for sale. Not at any price. Fact.”
Dr Brooke Magnanti's life is currently being serialised in “Secret diary of a call girl”. Magnanti’s account of the happy, well adjusted hooker, as portrayed in the series, is as flawed as it is misogynistic. But, like Twiggy’s wrinkles and Kate Winslet’s curves, inconvenient truths are airbrushed out.
Recent research highlighted the “pornification” of society and that 60% of teenage girls aspire to be “glamour” (AKA soft porn) models, like Jordan, the woman who thinks Silicone Valley is the place to go for breast implants. The woman whose two year old daughter recently appeared “tarted up” on face book. Glamour models are ubiquitous. Women who dare to make a bid for power, using their minds rather than their bodies, however, are either invisible or pilloried by the press. The media’s handling of Brooke Magnanti “coming out” as Belle de Jour is just one example of how disconnected it is from women and feminism. From my own cursory research I encountered a lonely, insecure woman who saw prostitution as a kind of dating agency. A way to meet men and have an excuse to get dressed up on a Saturday night. “Belle de Jour” is an alter ego created, in my view, to escape the demons that possess Magnanti. Her marketing campaign hangs on us buying into a series of unconvincing myths, which have been perpetuated, not exposed, by the press.
Myth 1: Honesty: In her blog Magnanti recounts scenes of a waltonesque family life. She claimed, “My parents stayed married and I’m close to them both”. They’re not and she isn’t. When she “came out” as Belle she said of her father, “He’s a bit of a do gooder, he helps women”. It has since emerged in the press that he's actually a drug addict who has used over 150 prostitutes, some of whom he introduced to his daughter (as you do). A female relative is also a prostitute. Not quite the wholesome family scenario Magnanti invented.
Myth 2: Healthy sexuality: Magnanti said she watched porn as a teenager and had anal sex with a man twice her age at 16. The same time that she was grappling with the “disfigurement” of acne (ahead of a recent TV interview with Billie Piper Magnanti grudgingly divulged that teenage acne left her with facial scars). Far from being sexually empowered, it seems more plausible that a troubled, insecure Magnanti sought comfort and approval from an older man by offering him what she knew (from porn) would please him. Sex.
Her first “job” as a prostitute (according to her blog) involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay, having sex, sleeping there, then having had such a lovely time, she gives the client her direct number. Other incidents include a client urinating on her neck and having a chewed finger nail stuck up her vagina (you won’t find these unsavoury scenes in the secret diary series). Anyone who describes this as healthy sexuality or worse, empowerment, is deluded. It’s disturbing that the BBC’s This Week didn’t spot the tragic irony when they recently invited Magnanti to lecture teenagers on sex and self respect. In the Piper interview Magnanti gaily described being made to wear a pair of glasses so a client could come on her face. She was then ordered to wipe the sperm on the carpet and lick it up. Magnanti said she does what she’s told because it’s inappropriate “etiquette” to question clients. It was like listening to someone tell a story of excruciating abuse in a manner that made Lady Macbeth look like Morrissey on Prozac. The dissonance and psychotic disconnect between her light hearted banter and the actual humiliation she described made for cringe worthy viewing. Has she become so desensitised (from growing up on porn), so accustomed to being abused by men, that she can no longer recognise when she is being demeaned and humiliated? Or does she think being treated like a dog (literally) is OK as long as you get paid for it?
Magnanti suggests that women bereft of skills should be allowed to sell their bodies. The fact that 70% of prostitutes start as children and have suffered abuse seems insignificant to her. Dr Magnanti is currently working on child health. She might be interested in one of my previous cases. Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties. The adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors. Respectable people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised. She was bright, and beautiful. But she wasn’t “qualified,” or rather psychologically or physically capable, of doing anything (according to her pimp) except prostitution. It fed her habit, which numbed the pain.
There was no fairytale ending for Cathy. The best Dr Magnanti, a child health specialist, can do is tell Cathy, and girls like her, that the only thing they’re good for now is prostitution. Magnanti will know that Cathy’s scenario is more typical than Belle’s fictitious one. It’s not in her interests to dwell on the unpleasant reality of the sex industry. It would sully her brand. Magnanti is sanctimonious when talking about street walkers like Cathy. She places herself in a higher league. As if charging £200 makes the urine running down her neck Chanel instead of the £60 version of Eau de toilette. Women of her class should be allowed to dip in and out of prostitution, depending on the need for shoes, but street walkers should stick with it. It’s all they’re good at, or for.
Myth 3: Feminism: Setting aside the aforementioned acts of degradation, Magnanti claims she’s a feminist. Her lack of female friends makes that declaration tenuous at best. “The surest way to tell the prostitute walking into a hotel at Heathrow is to look for the lady in the designer suit. Fact”. On behalf of all the women harassed by sleazy men in flammable shirts, we thank you Dr Magnanti. Boob tube or business suit, unaccompanied women are always fair game. She does have concerns about rape though. We should stop banging on about it. Yes, women get raped but… “If being a man was easy, hookers wouldn’t exist. Fact”.
Myth 4: Passion: Magnanti claims to like sex and boasts about being good at it. If she likes it so much why fake orgasms? and if faking orgasms is criteria for being good at sex then we can all do that (women obviously). If not enjoying being urinated on and other acts of degradation means I’m frigid (as Magnanti implies), I’m guilty as charged. Sex without intimacy is like Glastonbury without mud, an anticlimax. Prostitution has nothing to do with passion. See Magnanti’s blog. The only passion I discerned was in response to her critics. Reacting to protests against her winning a Guardian blog competition she wrote, “Reckon your life is more interesting, your insight more relevant, your wit more sparkling? The Guardian hath spoken and laid a garland at this doorstep”. There was something menacing about her tone. Magnanti offered to donate her winnings to charity but reneged after all the to do. In order to teach her dissenters a lesson, she decided to keep the money because, “Mama needs a new pair of Jimmy Choos” (so there).
Myth 5: “There’s no comeuppance”: Only people without a conscience can sever the link between their actions and consequences. They’re called psychopaths.
The consequences I’m concerned with are socio-cultural. The sexualisation of girls has become so endemic we don’t even notice it. Playboy duvets, “tart in training” shorts, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting sex at 14 as normal. Half of school girls are considering plastic surgery to make themselves thinner and prettier and 90% of eating disorders are amongst females, with a disturbing trend in five and six year old girls presenting with the illness. Girls have never been under so much pressure to conform. But to what? An airbrushed, pumped up, sexualised fantasy of perfection.
Portraying women as sex objects perpetuates gender inequalities. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse (or discriminate against) a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. The sex industry, of which Dr Magnanti is a part, has vested interests in normalising the objectification of women. To them women, and girls, are just commodities. To be bought and sold. Magnanti is still a prostitute, albeit with a more lucrative remit. Publicity. Along with her cohort of pimps (step forward ITV and the BBC), she’s selling women and children down the river without a paddle. Magnanti reckons “everyone has their price”. I say to her what I said to the man who assumed I was a prostitute (I was in a hotel lobby, alone and wearing a suit. It was reckless). “I’m not for sale. Not at any price. Fact.”
Women Only Question Time Panel. Big Deal. 2010
A few years ago, a then executive at the BBC and I went head to head in Sydney, debating the motion that the BBC is an ethical broadcaster. He argued for. I against. Despite the audience being initially almost militantly pro BBC, out of a packed auditorium, he only managed to secure two votes. There were no abstentions. It was his arrogance, rather than my perspicacity, that was his nemesis. I asked him why only 18.7% of participants on panel programmes (where there’s ample opportunity for balance) were female and why 89.2% of them were chaired by men. I asked if he thought it was ethical to exclude women from the Question Time panel that had previously been broadcast from Belfast. The home of two female winners of the Nobel Peace prize. The defining moment in the debate came when said executive dismissed my questions saying, “Ethics have nothing to do with editorial decision making”.
Despite a decade long campaign to persuade Question Time to give women an equal voice on the panel, the BBC has doggedly resisted. When I asked an executive at Mentorn, who produce QT for the BBC, why women aren’t more equally represented, her acerbic response was “you can’t blame us if there are hardly any women in parliament”. I challenged the logic that their criteria for inclusion of women, and minorities, should be based on parliamentary representation. I suggested that their obligation was to license fee payers, over 50% of whom are women. Besides, once the three main political parties are represented, there are two further places, usually filled by male commentators, or Monty Don. Last Thursdays ladies night just added insult to injury. Hackneyed hollow gestures just won’t do.
The issue of female representation pervades the BBC. Week-end TV is a veritable lads fest. Here’s a snapshot: Top gear, Have I got news for you (an occasional token woman on the panel), QI (ditto), Match of the day, A Question of sport (box ticked with female chair) and Mock the week (AKA Mock the Women). Either there are no funny women or they are even more threatening than intellectual ones. The BBC’s contempt for female licence payers was at its most blatant when it defended Frankie Boyle’s vicious attack on Rebecca Adlington (for the audacity of not conforming to his stereotype of what a woman should look like). He was eventually given time out on the naughty step but never apologised. Some reward for bringing back two Olympic gold medals.
Elsewhere, the BBC’s This Week recently invited Brooke Magnanti, or Belle de Jour (famous for being a “happy hooker”), to talk about the rise in teenage pregnancies. The fact that she knew little of the subject didn’t get in the way of an opportunity to promote her book, which glorifies female degradation. Magnanti’s first “job” as a prostitute involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay (classy), having sex, sleeping there, then giving the client her direct number. This is the person the BBC thought appropriate to lecture teenagers on safe sex? Sadly the BBC didn’t spot the disturbing irony.
Thursdays Question Time stopped short of an all female panel. The idea of replacing a Dimbleby, even for one show, would be a step too far. What if a woman could do the job just as well, or even better? The very idea. If QT wants to appeal to female viewers it’s not rocket science. Regularly put more women on the panel (maybe even outnumber men occasionally) and take more questions from female members of the audience (men are generally invited to speak more frequently than women) If you’re really keen, appoint a female chair, such as Janet Street-Porter.
In 2003 the BBC published research indicating that where women have a less than 20% representation in any group they are reduced to stereotypes. Its response to this shocking finding? Drop more women (Moira Stewart, Arlene Phillips, the pregnant Denise Van Outen, Martha Kearney moved from Newsnight to radio 4, the list goes on).
The women who survive, particularly at decision making level, are unlikely to have done so by challenging the status quo. The print media in particular is awash with women willing to demonstrate their masculine credentials. Rebecca Wade didn’t get where she is by tackling sexism (see p.3) in the Sun. Until there are sufficient numbers of women in top jobs to break free of the dreaded stereotype, the malestream media culture will prevail.
Despite a decade long campaign to persuade Question Time to give women an equal voice on the panel, the BBC has doggedly resisted. When I asked an executive at Mentorn, who produce QT for the BBC, why women aren’t more equally represented, her acerbic response was “you can’t blame us if there are hardly any women in parliament”. I challenged the logic that their criteria for inclusion of women, and minorities, should be based on parliamentary representation. I suggested that their obligation was to license fee payers, over 50% of whom are women. Besides, once the three main political parties are represented, there are two further places, usually filled by male commentators, or Monty Don. Last Thursdays ladies night just added insult to injury. Hackneyed hollow gestures just won’t do.
The issue of female representation pervades the BBC. Week-end TV is a veritable lads fest. Here’s a snapshot: Top gear, Have I got news for you (an occasional token woman on the panel), QI (ditto), Match of the day, A Question of sport (box ticked with female chair) and Mock the week (AKA Mock the Women). Either there are no funny women or they are even more threatening than intellectual ones. The BBC’s contempt for female licence payers was at its most blatant when it defended Frankie Boyle’s vicious attack on Rebecca Adlington (for the audacity of not conforming to his stereotype of what a woman should look like). He was eventually given time out on the naughty step but never apologised. Some reward for bringing back two Olympic gold medals.
Elsewhere, the BBC’s This Week recently invited Brooke Magnanti, or Belle de Jour (famous for being a “happy hooker”), to talk about the rise in teenage pregnancies. The fact that she knew little of the subject didn’t get in the way of an opportunity to promote her book, which glorifies female degradation. Magnanti’s first “job” as a prostitute involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay (classy), having sex, sleeping there, then giving the client her direct number. This is the person the BBC thought appropriate to lecture teenagers on safe sex? Sadly the BBC didn’t spot the disturbing irony.
Thursdays Question Time stopped short of an all female panel. The idea of replacing a Dimbleby, even for one show, would be a step too far. What if a woman could do the job just as well, or even better? The very idea. If QT wants to appeal to female viewers it’s not rocket science. Regularly put more women on the panel (maybe even outnumber men occasionally) and take more questions from female members of the audience (men are generally invited to speak more frequently than women) If you’re really keen, appoint a female chair, such as Janet Street-Porter.
In 2003 the BBC published research indicating that where women have a less than 20% representation in any group they are reduced to stereotypes. Its response to this shocking finding? Drop more women (Moira Stewart, Arlene Phillips, the pregnant Denise Van Outen, Martha Kearney moved from Newsnight to radio 4, the list goes on).
The women who survive, particularly at decision making level, are unlikely to have done so by challenging the status quo. The print media in particular is awash with women willing to demonstrate their masculine credentials. Rebecca Wade didn’t get where she is by tackling sexism (see p.3) in the Sun. Until there are sufficient numbers of women in top jobs to break free of the dreaded stereotype, the malestream media culture will prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)