Stale, male and pale

Good post, where.

If you meant me, Monty, what prompted it is that Esther McVey, who is 46, set up a business after leaving TV presenting. Since one of your concerns was her background in presenting, I'm curious whether you were also concerned about small business owners in politics.

I'm not sure it is important that they're credible. If one of the measures of privilege is the degree to which a member of the privileged class is seen as an individual vs a member of an underprivileged class being seen to represent the whole class (in this case women in parliament are "role models", men are allowed to just be MPs/cabinet members), then surely having a diverse range a crap and non-crap women who are evidently not all "role models" goes some way to unpicking the privilege?

That's a strange question Buffy and I'm not sure what prompts it. Have you understood my line of thought so far?

MPs and cabinet members are not always chosen because they're the best person for the job; there was pressure on Cameron to appoint more women to the cabinet and there is pressure on all parties to select more women MPs.
Therefore, we accept that in the current atmosphere, many women are chosen partly because of their sex. This is ok - we need representation and role models - but let's at least be honest about it.
One of our arguments for needing women in parliament is that we want to represent all sections of society - ergo, female MPs represent women on some level. It's dimwitted to only get half way through this logic and then get cross about it.
Given the additional scrutiny that women probably suffer, given their minority status and, therefore, importance and given their status as role models, it's important that they are credible. It's not important whether this is fair; moan about it all you want, but until women achieve parity in the house it has to be like that. At the moment, they are being judged as women as well as MPs.

When you use those quotation marks, Monty, who are you quoting?

By the way, do you think someone who has set up and run a business might have a good background for politics?

Oh I love this! "Women need to be represented in parliament. We're totally ok with all-women short-lists and fast-tracking and we'll vote for women just because we need more women in parliament. Hooray for women and boo for stale male and pale."

So, if female politicians are not just being politicians but being female politicians, we need to be aware that they are some sort of vanguard. They represent the social progress fought for by feminists, they will act as role models, they represent women.

"Woah! So it's like totally unfair that there's more expectations. I'm totally sick of this".

And - lol also at "a punch in the face is fine because:

stabbing
kicking
garroting..."

I shall regard all men as David Mellor then

Does everyone have to? I quite like DH being DH, I don't think I could ever fancy him again if I had to think of him as David Mellor

Bit fucking ironic that 'stale male and pale' is seen as so offensive by all the old white men considering the horrific words that have been used over time to describe everyone else.

A few choice ones

Slut
Nigger
Paki
Queer
Poof
Tart
Old bag

Etc

Poor delicate flowers...

Why the flying fuck is it in their remit to represent women?

This. So sick of this.

Good point, Norma.

Why the flying fuck is it in their remit to represent women?

Was David Mellor representing men? In his Chelsea shirt?

I shall regard all men as David Mellor then...

So because there are fewer high ranking female politicians, the ones that are added to those ranks need to be a higher quality than any males added to those ranks? Is that what you mean?

You can't make direct compariosons to male politicians (espescially that achieved prominance two decades ago). Female politicians are subject to far more scrutiny and, if we accept that part of their remit is to represent women, then they need to have credibility. I'm not saying tv presenters can't be politicians, I'm suggesting it may not be the best option.

I think we've agreed that 'best person for the job' is a naive expectation.

Hmmm.

One of the things with politics is that people come from very varied backgrounds, and their direct MP experience only has 4-5 yearly entry points, on the whole. John Major was a 16 year old school leaver who'd been a bus conductor.

Tony Blair was the youngest ever prime minister, I think - there's always someone who is "the youngest" "the oldest" "has no experience outside of politics" "grew up overseas and doesn't understand the country" etc etc and I think it's unhelpful to see it as more tokenistic because Esther is female.

Part of politics is selling the message - TV and presentation skills are not unimportant.

No, BillnTed. I don't. I think there need to be vanguards and role models.

This is 'within reason' obviously, but no one can seriously doubt that there are sufficiently qualified women available. However, we do need to be alive to the dangers of tokenism; if you over-promote too much then people won't believe they are there on merit. Was an ex-GMTV presenter the right choice? I don't know. Are women in their 20s a good choice? I'd rather see this element of doubt omitted.

"Yes. Although technically this denies the fast-tracking of those women that do. Arguably, they over-achieve muddying the water. Youngest ever cabinet member etc...."

Monty, do you think over promotion of inexperienced women is a problem?

Yes I hate the "best person for the job" argument. Because it implies that what we have today is a meritocracy and doesn't recognise the fact that the people who are overwhelmingly still in power look surprisingly like the people who were in power 200 years ago.

As if true societal change happens overnight and hey presto we're all equal now!

'Option 2: women are being prevented from realising their full potential'

Yes. Although technically this denies the fast-tracking of those women that do. Arguably, they over-achieve muddying the water. Youngest ever cabinet member etc....

Meritocracy is meaningless where only a specific group is given the opportunity to prove their merit, or only their merit is recognised

Thank you, Petula. I might just be borrowing this for work.

And I think the cabinet is like work, in that many of us make the mistake of defining "best person for the job" as "person who has the highest and most relevant qualifications and experience" when 'they' are defining it as, "person least likely to make me look completely incompetent and two-faced and who won't criticise me when I'm not doing as well as I could."

(Some bitterness about personal issues with current management tree may be showing in this post.)

Oops!

Errr, yes. So why do we have the current make up of male:female politicians, pray tell? Because a meritocracy it ain't.

Also, the world's tiniest violin is playing a sad song for the poor man who comes from the class who run the world. My heart bleeds.

Why is it always about share of the pie with the people who are at risk of losing privilege? I just imagine old white men clutching pie screaming "my pie!", as if it's inconceivable that the pie may grow as a result of being more equitable...

grimbletart that article is thoroughly depressing! He is so bloody blind to the privilege that's at work...

But to favour males over females, or vice versa, is ideology gone mad.
Errr, yes. So why do we have the current make up of male:female p

"Politics will remain dominated by middle aged men with sahws."

Politics along with many areas!

I think it was Jackie smith or maybe Harriet Hartman who coined the term 'male pale stale'.

There's a council near me that does even have a single female councillor out of c. 30.

As someone involved in low level politics it is going to take such a long time to change things.

People can't even agree about quotas!

Getting in in politics takes up lots of time (not necessarily a great skill set ) which just isn't done thing a lot if women ESP mothers have.

Until ordinary men are prepared to stay home and 'babysit' do at least 50% of the chores then more women just aren't going to break through.

Politics will remain dominated by middle aged men with sahws.

White males who aren't 25 can also be good at their jobs.

Of course they can be good at their jobs but that doesn't mean other people shouldn't get a chance when they are equally good or even possibly better.

Where you forgot option 3
Option 3: Women are not applying for the jobs because they don't want them because of their laydee brains.