Minor rant - shouldn't watch the telly!

Got a reply. Of course we all know women can't be sexist so that's just dandy then

Mind you they do concede they could have done with a longer discussion. (Where's the straw...)

"Thanks for contacting us regarding ?The One Show? broadcast on the 10 November.

"We raised your concerns with ?The One Show? team who replied as follows:

?We are sorry to hear you were unhappy with The One Show?s item on ?Female Finance?. The focus of the report was on how women manage the money they earn rather than exploring the gender pay gap or the discriminatory influences at play on women?s income. We certainly did not set out to perpetuate any stereotypes and apologise if the item was interpreted as such. Our intention was to report the findings - and explore the implications - of recent empirical research by both industry and academia. Amongst other things, this research showed the percentage of women being declared insolvent has risen by 28% this year (compared to 8% in men) and that almost half of women don?t have a pension. This seemed to the production team a compelling reason to look at how women can take better control of their finances.

"From the off, the team were conscious of the need to ensure the film was not sexist, rather it was to be a piece that reflected of credible, evaluated evidence. We quoted research from, variously, The Insolvency Service, ICM, Barings Bank and the University of Hertfordshire and ensured that the statistics quoted were clearly sourced. We used onscreen graphics to give the date and source of the research, and in the case of the research published by the University of Hertfordshire, the basis of the methodology also.

"Whenever any of the content risked supporting a stereotypical image of women, our reporter, Anita Rani, challenged such clichés. Indeed, she opened the piece by saying:

"?I for one am not buying the idea that women are worse with money than men?.

"We represented opinions and experiences from different members of the public, all women. The four interviewed in a Brighton cafe described their own real life stories and the production team did not seek to influence these contributors in any way. The anonymous headlines handwritten on white boards were genuine statements from a cross section of women. The views expressed by the interviewee Simone Gnessen were her own, and based on published academic research she carried out at the University of Hertfordshire.

"Ms Gnessen has been advising and coaching clients on their finances for over 18 years. In her experience of coaching women, she says all her client?s financial problems have been within their own control. Interestingly, it was a predominantly female team who pushed for this story to be told. All agreed it was important to address this subject and let women who need help know there are financial advice centres who can provide advice specifically tailored for women.

"Further, in defending any allegations of sexism, it?s important to emphasise the film was presented by a woman and that the expert and contributors were also women, and that all the opinions and experiences contained therein were those of women.

"We?re aware statistics showing women are more prone to emotional spending makes uncomfortable listening. However it would be wrong to ignore credible evidence. While we recognise most women are in control of their saving and spending, we do not think it is helpful to disregard facts such as ?4 million women have built up £13 billion of debt? (ICM/Barings) or ?36% of women say they spend more than they can afford.? (University of Hertfordshire).

"The item set out to cover a complicated issue in just a few minutes of air-time. We acknowledge it would have benefited from a more detailed and wide-ranging discussion in the studio and, therefore, we must apologise if you felt let down by the programme.?

"Thanks again for getting in touch.

"Kind Regards

"BBC Audience Services"

rofl @ A3 planning consent....

LOL A3 planning consent

good thinking re Ofcom Bec.

I watched on i-player through my fingers... And have complained to BBC.

I think it's also worth complaining to the regulator, Ofcom, here:

stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg

and quoting the Ofcom broadcasting code point 2.3 (my highlights below, you can read the whole thing on their site).

2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of "context" below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

I can't see how the context of 'The One Show' justifies the sexism in that article...

Yes how true pip. "Women, we've got one!"

SSM:

"sorry you were offended but you are wrong"

"light-hearted piece"

"playing on popular culture stereotypes of men and women"

"it complies with the BBC code of conduct point 3.714b and had A3 planning consent"

I think Miranda Hart is in the unfortunate position that if she allows herself to make angry or political points she will be seen as a young Jo Brand... and the BBC have only got room for one token, normal, funny woman.

if they ever bother replying we can play Pathetic Response Bingo.

I reckon they're going to say 'This was a light-hearted piece'.

I love Miranda Hart. But she has made a whole career out of self-deprecating, hardly likely to stop now, sadly.

Elephants, I have completely gone off that Matt character after that unnecessary last comment. No longer will I be cheering for HIM on Strictly! And yes, I noticed that Alex didn't look very impressed. I was hoping Miranda Hart - whom I happen to really like - would get riled up about it with some cutting humour, but sadly not, she just made a joke reinforcing the stereotype.

The One Show is on at 7pm. Not that I am advertising the sexist bollocks. The only thing that could have made that report worse would have been having to listen to/look at Adrian Chiles afterwards, so thank goodness he's gone.

well, it's not the best thing you can do, but it's true that if everyone stopped watching TV it'd be better for gender equality.
Problem is, the people who need to stop watching TV the most aren't going to...

The best thing you can do for gender equality, is to not watch daytime TV.

why would women need to cheer themselves up so much more than men?

Why indeed...

"79% of women go shopping to cheer themselves up" - they might go into town and wander around a bit with their friends, but I doubt that is where the debt is coming from.

Also just a quick point - if they were earning more they might not be in so much debt?

SSM - good. And it's good I suppose that we're all ppicking up on similar but not the same points.

I hated that end remark from Matt if that's his name as well. Just a thought - maybe Matt's sisters aren't as well off as he is? Long shot obviously, knowing how underpaid TV presenters are.

Did anyone else notice the female presenter looking really pissed off/uncomfortable at the end of the report?

I picked up on that in my complaint - I said there was absolutely no evidence women's higher levels of debt were because they were buying designer clothes and that it might well be because they were more likely to have caring responsibilities and no money.

I must say even apart from this ghastly report I found the programme pretty much unwatchable - too much simpering.

there was just too much to say. You could also question why exactly credit card debts are equated with frivolous spending. Plenty of people use CCs to pay for essentials like childcare, car maintenance, travel, etc etc. And even typical "shopping" use of CCs is far more likely to include such "designer" items as kids' clothes, supermarket shops, stuff needed for the house etc etc etc.

Do you see a lot of men volunteering to do the family shop? not really. let alone going into town on saturday to get little Jimmy new football boots for school or to pick up hooverbags or the other million little expenses that accumulate.

Also of course a far greater number of women have dependents living with them, in terms of children.

Ah, you see, it would all go on women's pensions if the feckless prostitutes didn't rush out and spend it on food pimps rent heating rent designer handbags instead.

done it.
not very polished, but very angry.

what about the massive sex industry. Men spend loadsa money on prostitutes. That money could go on women's pensions instead

Mine:

In a report about why fewer women have pensions, there was no discussion about the real economic factors that might contribute to this, instead the focus was on women's alleged "reckless and emotional spending" as the root cause. Nor were other generalisations about women, such as that they "tend to like tangible assets" and are unable to cope with abstract concepts like pensions, called into question. If such claims were made about any other group - an ethnic minority perhaps - playing into offensive stereotypes, the producer/editor would rightly be hauled up and told that this was unacceptable. That should be the case here.

When I heard the introduction to the report, I assumed they would be covering some of the core issues, such as problems with NI contributions for women who take time out to raise children, women doing more low-paid work in general, the refusal of some companies to promote women to higher paid positions etc. Instead the report put the blame for their likely poverty in old age on women, essentially arguing that they are too stupid and greedy to plan for the future. I find this grossly offensive and utterly baseless.

The ordinary women interviewed for the report mainly reported that the reason they were not investing in a pension was due to a shortage of money. Yet this was not examined in any further detail, instead the presenter signed off with a totally irrelevant remark about designer handbags, feeding into a common stereotype of women as being superficial and stupid enough to prioritise fashion above their future.

Insults about women being too "emotional" to make sensible choices, and the outrageous claim that women are unable to see the value of intangible things (education for instance - oh wait, more women than men go to university) made this report outdated, sexist and offensive. Moreover it promotes wrong information to women who may be worrying about their future, and instead of being advised, are being told its their fault for over-spending - something that imagine will come as a shock to the nearly 50% of women who have a personal income of less than £100 a week.