Riot Women sums up everything wrong with the BBC

That is not the same, as well you know. Black and white minstrels shower were full of racist tropes it was not an homage to Black people.

This is a barely noticeable character, in a strong female led cast in a female written play. They were not up front and in our faces talking about highs and low of the menopause. If someone can't suspend belief on something so minor maybe they should watch fictional dramas. Trans women are entitled to exist, be employed, have families, access to health care etc. I don't have a problem with any transwoman that respects the boundaries of females.

The trans character was a very minor role - just a backing singer in the band. I wasn't entirely sure whether the character was supposed to be trans, or whether it was a trans actor playing a female role, iyswim.

The series was incredibly dark. It was sold as some kind of jolly drama about a bunch of "angry" middle-aged women setting up a rock band, but in fact there were relatively few scenes with the rock band rehearsing or performing. Instead we had storylines about the gang rape of a 12-year old girl, domestic abuse, sexual harassment, the violent assault of a young female police officer and revenge porn. It's the sort of thing Andrea Dworkin might have come up with if she'd strayed into writing tv drama.

It's actually embarrassing that he is moaning that the main characters were all women and that the men were just stereotypes. This is about eighty percent of films produced. Even children's characters are hugely weighted towards bejng boys with some token girls in.

I think Riot women is fabulous television and it isn't about women lolling about Sofas i couldn't finish reading that article because "the spectator " it is all about " the poor men" anyway back to Riot women and the portrayal of men, they are showing flawed men and men who refuse to tolerate women. It is a great representation of what women encounter without showing men as complete "monsters" well except the police man , I am only on episode 3 and really enjoying it.

The point is there are journalists all over that political spectrum who are sex realist, and increasingly some right wing feminists getting some airtime whose position ISN’T default “freedom for women is being able to look after children as God intended.”

Nuance goes all ways, isn’t it grand?

Yeah, it tried hard but ultimately missed. If you look to an actual band of kickass menopausal women, Breeders spring to mind, they’re not playing dress up and singing about their lady parts but still producing brilliant, relevant music like they did in the nineties while being unashamedly middle aged women.

Also agree that not all the men were portrayed poorly. The draughtsman was treated badly by both the Mum and her horrible daughter and kept coming back for more.

Still, a well meaning miss is better than nothing and it’s a starting point for more visibility for older women.

Why is that the conclusion we have to come to? Many women didn't understand why a man who wants to be a woman can be in the band and shown as the only level headed character. As was said on the thread you wouldn't have someone who wants to be black made up like a minstrel in a show about African heritage.

Miranda is just there. They are not taking over the band, they are literally a fill in.

@DuesToTheDirt

No comment from me on Riot Women as I haven't seen it. Someone said there's a trans woman in it singing about menopause - is that true, because it puts me right off giving it the time of day.

Erm, ok then - yeah, its all Miranda and their trans battles and how wonderful they are.... oh wait, they are there. and in a minor part, like others have said

It is a fictional drama using a transwoman in a minor role. That it sparked that level of distraction and debate speaks more about irrational hatred than perspective. Just like the person moaning about mixed race families up thread.

Yes, that would have been a much more interesting interview. I didn't understand the character at all or the need for it.

It seemed to be saying that although all of these crazy things happen to women, if you put on a spangly dress you as a man can still become one, but without all of the drama. Highlighted as the only "sane" character. I don't understand why this is the outcome of a programme about women.

I'd love to know if SW wrote it as BBC portrayed or did they put their own spin on it, especially the casting of trans woman?

I liked the idea of a show for women by women, but this is not that. I don't particularly agree with the Spectator but I didn't like it because it shoehorned in a trans character that distracted from the point. There was a long thread about the trans character on here that went on for over a week, which shows the point that that has taken over for what it is memorable for, with zero explanation as to why he is there or what he adds.

Normal IS quirky, demented, chilled, funny, bonkers, grumpy, timid, happy, sad and a thousand other personality characteristics. Intelligent can be added to all of those types of women.

Yes, they could have been in the band and shown their wisdom - they just tottered around giving knowing looks.

Suszanne Moore and Hadley Freeman at the Guardian
They got kicked off the Guardian for precisely those views.

Transwomen in changing rooms, sports etc I agree with you but feeling that it has spoiled your experience because they are playing a woman a majority female cast...

Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face?

It is brilliant!
Humour, pathos, tongue-in-cheek combined with serious social commentary. A genius piece of writing and acting ...

Agree, ticking boxes, same as the inevitable mixed race family. As an old woman myself, disliked the way they were portrayed as demented (Anne Reid) or "quirky" (Sue Johnston). We can be normal and intelligent and still interesting.

I wondered whether SW had her arm twisted by the BBC ....

James Kirkup at the Spectator has been GC from early on, along with Helen Joyce at the Economist, Helen Lewis at the New Statesman, Suszanne Moore and Hadley Freeman at the Guardian and Janice Turner at the Times.

With all of the above, there has been “balancing” pushback against women’s rights by other columnists. Left-leaning ones do it with TWAW, right-leaning by calling for women to be economically dependent.

WTF?

No one owes any source of information / news / journalism ANY loyalty whatsoever.

We should all be engaging our critical thinking skills whenever we read anything, and reading a wide range of sources if we don't want to be on the receiving end of misinformation/ propaganda / taken for mugs.

Exactly. I didn’t know how to word it.

Spectator - wasn't that one of the first, or maybe the first to get GC and support?

No prizes for guessing why GC issues are associated with the far right
My god, i thought this had been done to death already …