Home
 
Previous | Memories | Tell a Friend | Next
 
SB
miss_s_b
[theyorkshergob]
13 November 2008 @ 10:28 am
Female Role Models, and Reality TV  
Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

While my personal opinion is that it's daft to insist that girls need female role models - why can't girls aspire to be like David Attenborough, or Brian May, or Clement Atlee? - I do recognise the fact that having women to aspire to emulate is a good thing. Watching my little one grow up is a lesson in how this works. Obviously, with me being a sci-fi geek, there's been a certain sci-finess to a lot of the entertainment media we consume together.

So we watch Star Trek (and she adores Captain Janeway) and we watch both old and new Who (she loves Ace). At the moment, she is really, REALLY into The Sarah-Jane Adventures. I love Sarah-Jane Adventures. It has great, well-rounded characters, and retells classic sci-fi tales in a new and relevant way. But most of all, it has a positive, strong, capable female lead. A woman who is resourceful, intelligent AND beautiful, and who has reserves of emotional strength which are shown as both natural and necessary. Sarah-Jane Smith is a great role model.

I bring this up because conversation in the politisphere has once more turned to the lack of diversity in Westminster. As far as women's rights are concerned, it is well known that my view is that Evan Harris represents my views far better than Nadine Dorries, and just because a person shares genitals with me does not mean that they will share life experience or views with me. Still, there is a place for the idea that lots of people think of doing jobs that are "for people like me", and thus the white male domination of Westminster carries on by inertia.

What worries me is that rather than changing the system, to make it more female-friendly, we try to change the women, to make them more Westminster-friendly. Jo Crispy-Strips has examined this in detail before - women who are selected to be candidates in the two major parties get a makeover, and all parties do women-specific training - telling us how to appear, what to say and how to say it to appeal to the selectorate and the electorate.

If we genuinely want parliament to be more representative, we need to allow women (and men, for that matter) to be themselves, and should not expect them to apologise for it. What is wrong with a home secretary who has the balls to show a bit of cleavage? Why must female MPs embrace shoulderpads and Jimmy Choos? Why is John Prescott's accent something to comment on? We'll know we have a truly representative democracy not just when we have more female MPs (or, for that matter, black and Asian ones), but when it's not unimaginable for an MP to have an eyebrow piercing, or green hair, or New Rock boots. We'll know we have a representative democracy when people are not frantically trying to lose their native accents to become more acceptable.

We'll know we have a representative democracy when candidates are assessed on the quality of their brains, not their wardrobes, their upbringing, their sex lives, or any of the other superficial stuff that we are all guilty of obsessing over.


In other news, I am actually wavering about breaking my embargo on ITV and watching I'm a Nonentity this year. Not only lovely lovely Brian, but Awesome George? Oh my! Is it too much to hope for that Kilroy-Silk suffers the most? I might actually have to watch...
Tags:
 
 
Current Mood: contemplative
 
23 rants | rant
 
( 23 rants — Post a new comment )
Andrew Ducker[info]andrewducker on November 13th, 2008 11:22 am (UTC)
It's not wrong for a home secretary to show a bit of cleavage. It will, of course, attract comment from certain kinds of people. The question is which fights you want to pick, and where you want to expend your energy.
rhythmaning[info]rhythmaning on November 13th, 2008 11:34 am (UTC)
Why oh why do people want to go on that show? Martina Navratolova? George Takei? Brian Paddick? Easther Rantzen? Who has stolen their dignity?
Mat Bowles[info]matgb on November 13th, 2008 11:40 am (UTC)
I'm sorry. You just uttered the words Rantzen and dignity at the same time.

Sure, she set up childline, but she also used to present That's Life. Dignified?
rhythmaning[info]rhythmaning on November 13th, 2008 12:53 pm (UTC)
OK, you've got me there... But the others?

That's Life used to be the highpoint of tv culture, you know...
Paul Alexander Mudie[info]pmoodie on November 13th, 2008 11:37 am (UTC)
The problem with British institutions in general is their adherence to stuffy traditions - that things have to be done a certain way because that's the way they've been done for centuries.

Do we really believe a politician is any better at his or her job because he or she wears a certain kind of suit or has a certain kind of hairstyle? I'm not saying that people should be wearing jeans and T-shirts in the House, but then again, why not? If they were more relaxed and comfortable, then maybe they'd be better able to concentrate on the job of government?

I say it's bad news if politicians are automatically presenting a false front from the word go. It hardly forms a good basis for honesty and integrity.
Mat Bowles[info]matgb on November 13th, 2008 11:41 am (UTC)
because that's the way they've been done for centuries.

Except mostly they've only really been done that way for less than one century. Single member constituencies and conformists in suits, for example, mostly came into being after 1947 :-(
Paul Alexander Mudie[info]pmoodie on November 13th, 2008 11:52 am (UTC)
Very true. But it seems like centuries...;)
XIV_Gemina: Buttercup[info]xiv_gemina on November 13th, 2008 07:35 pm (UTC)
Smith's cleavage? OMGZ NOES!
IAWTC (mostly).

"Do we really believe a politician is any better at his or her job because he or she wears a certain kind of suit or has a certain kind of hairstyle?"

We [the *ahem* ‘enlightened and intellectually-superior’ *ahem* readers of this blog] may know that politicians/candidates will NOT necessarily be more trustworthy/capable if they wear suits etc, but (alas) most of the Sheeple have been brainwashed by the likes of the Daily Fail to believe it.

The lamentable (and lamentably-) widespread adherence to this fallacy is partly responsible for the success of that nice Lord Archer, and (in the 1930's) was also partly responsible for the political ‘success’ of the Fascist movements across Europe.
Their Brownshirt-ed and Blackshirt-ed young followers were, after all, such smartly dressed young men - so they ‘must’ have been pushing respectable and desirable policies, eh?

Furthermore, as my (eye-wateringly Right-wing) brother points out, the only social group that he can think of whose members are never shabbily dressed is con-men.
Gah!
Paul Alexander Mudie[info]pmoodie on November 13th, 2008 11:53 am (UTC)
As for cleavage, I stand firmly in favour of it! :)
A Yorkshire Muffin[info]muffin_nuffin on November 13th, 2008 12:09 pm (UTC)
Im sorry, Jacqui Smith is showing "too much cleavage"? In my sixth form, that was deemed appropriate, I have seen FAR worse!

*is currently wearing a roll neck cardigan, so can't really comment*
if it bites it's probably interesting.: aye aye[info]ginasketch on November 13th, 2008 12:28 pm (UTC)
I would not have even noticed it had it not been pointed out. I tend to, you know, look at people's faces when they talk anyway.
rhythmaning[info]rhythmaning on November 13th, 2008 12:59 pm (UTC)
I hadn't realise dwe were talking about cleavage. I've just google "jacqui smith cleavage", and the Sun kindly provided a photograph. (Surprising, that - the Sun covering politics.)

As a bloke, I wouldn't say her cleavage was the slightest bit inappropriate.

Rather Jacqui Smith's than Dominic Grieve's cleavage is what I say!
if it bites it's probably interesting.[info]ginasketch on November 13th, 2008 12:27 pm (UTC)
Oh Christ. All that fuss over cleavage you can barely see? Only seems to be people who read the Daily Mail who get so worked up over it that they concentrate all their energy on it and STARE at it.

Gee I wonder why.:P
The Evil Atheist Your Mother Warned You About: Marvin[info]davegodfrey on November 13th, 2008 12:40 pm (UTC)
Even supposedly rational intelligent liberal people do it.

PZ Myers recently posted a video of a young, intelligent (and admittedly attractive) woman advocating her views on religion and the harm it does when it enters the political sphere. Something like 50% of the comments to the entry were either "hubba-hubba", or criticisms of how she was dressed that wouldn't have been out of place on a "fundie" blog. Deeply, deeply depressing really.
Amanda: girl scientist[info]neohippie on November 13th, 2008 03:47 pm (UTC)
It's David Attenborough's fault I'm where I am today!

And also Jane Goodall. She didn't help either. Female role models are important to show girls that they can do cool stuff too, not just men. If all the cool people are men, a girl might notice that and think she can't do that too.

And yeah, women in positions of authority are often pressured to be more masculine. It's like they're moving up the gender heirarchy, unfortunately.
subversive submissive[info]ihavecake on November 13th, 2008 05:02 pm (UTC)
Your thoughts, Miss SB?

I'm quite amused, but then I don't have a young child. And can't quite imagine how I'd react if I did.

Edited at 2008-11-13 05:02 pm (UTC)
SB[info]miss_s_b on November 13th, 2008 06:28 pm (UTC)
I don't think I'd mind Holly being given that. She and I have baths together and splash about a lot; and to a child, that's all that would look like. There's nothing explicit there.
XIV_Gemina: Buttercup[info]xiv_gemina on November 13th, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC)
A Rant
Why oh why oh why did I follow that link to the Mail's website?
By now, I ought to know better than to expose myself to the offensively stupid dribblings thereon.

One Fail reader commented as follows on that article:
"In today's liberalist immoral society, children are increasingly dependent on parents/carers vetting access to unsuitable material."

HELLO?
Who the fuck do you expect to be responsible for your children's upbringing?
Me?
How much are you going to pay me to do your job for you?

You expect everybody else in the whole fucking world to look after your kid because you can't be bothered to?
FRO, you Oxygen Thief.

[/Rant]
And my apologies for venting it here.
subversive submissive[info]ihavecake on November 13th, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC)
Re: A Rant
Oh dear me, I didn't go near the comments section for this reason. That way madness lies.
SB[info]miss_s_b on November 13th, 2008 07:53 pm (UTC)
Re: A Rant
A third of Fail readers vote Lib Dem you know; I like to think they read it for know thine enemy reasons, but it still fills me with bone-knawing terror.

Edited at 2008-11-13 07:53 pm (UTC)
Liz Williams[info]lizw on November 14th, 2008 11:42 am (UTC)
My youngest kid is a nine-year-old girl, and I find that amusing too. I wouldn't mind her seeing the page about sharing baths, but the suggestion of handing out your mobile number to strangers would bother me a bit. She's a sensible kid who questions what she sees, though, and has been taught about the importance of keeping your personal details private in the context of internet use, so I think she'd realise that it was a bad idea.
Padawanpooh: Q[info]padawanpooh on November 13th, 2008 08:20 pm (UTC)
So George Takei IS on Celebrity?!?! WOOHOO! *digs out only ST icon* I'd heard rumours that the Man With The Deepest Voice in Showbiz was going to be on there but I'm so happy for confirmation ;-)

And yes, Kilroy Silk suffering will pander to my sadistic tendancies almost as much as if Jeremy Kyle was in the jungle...(almost)
Liz Williams[info]lizw on November 14th, 2008 11:38 am (UTC)
What worries me is that rather than changing the system, to make it more female-friendly, we try to change the women, to make them more Westminster-friendly.

I worry about this a lot, too, not just in the context of Westminster - in fact, mostly in the context of law firms, since that's where I spend most of my waking hours...