Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think this article actually is sexist

15 replies

Applenotapear · 10/04/2015 09:59

Even if it's well meaning

m.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/Sophie-s-voting-column/story-26302271-detail/story.html

OP posts:
Applenotapear · 10/04/2015 10:01

How do you do a click link?

OP posts:
FeijoaSundae · 10/04/2015 10:02

Clickable link. :)

Sadly, it's true...

Birdsgottafly · 10/04/2015 10:08

It was one time factual and still is in some regions of the World, so no not Sexist.

Applenotapear · 10/04/2015 10:11

But isn't it just the usual tosh about old boys networks? Nothing new there. And there wasn't universal suffrage for men until 28...

OP posts:
Katnisnevergreen · 10/04/2015 10:13

I'm only getting the suffrage poster, is that what everyone else can see? In which case it was made in 1913 as propaganda for female suffrage... I don't understand the sexist point though?

Applenotapear · 10/04/2015 10:14

It's just a shame that this woman is presenting women as victims, when in reality male services are under funded.

www.ibtimes.co.uk/male-suicide-scandal-uk-men-are-paying-system-that-drives-thousands-them-death-1493340

OP posts:
Birdsgottafly · 10/04/2015 10:16

Ok, then.

Applenotapear · 10/04/2015 10:21

Ah the article won't link, just the poster. Here's the body of it, cut and pasted old skool stylee.

"

It wasn't until 1928 that women were granted the same voting rights as men. Before that, both men and women campaigned against women having the vote.

I was curious to know what arguments were used to undermine women participating in politics. Here are my top five, taken from a leaflet published between 1910 and 1914 called "Fifteen Good Reasons Against The Grant Of Female Suffrage":

Other countries would think less of Britain if women were granted the right to vote.

If women were permitted to vote, they might want to do other things they weren't allowed to do, like be an MP or a judge.

Women didn't have the "temperament or balance of mind" to make political decisions, and should stick to their "proper sphere".

Most women didn't even want the vote. Most men didn't want women to have the vote. Even if women had the vote they probably wouldn't use it apart from in "emotional excitement".

No-one knew what would happen if you let women vote, and it was far too risky an "experiment".
Fast-forward to 2015 and, despite having the vote, women are massively under-represented in politics.

The Parliament just dissolved was made up of 502 men and 148 women – that's more men than the total number of female MPs in history.

The Hertford and Stortford constituency is yet to have its first female MP, like 319 other constituencies in the UK.

Does equal representation matter? Reason No 12 in the leaflet claimed that women don't need to be involved in politics because men can represent them just as well as they could represent themselves. I am inclined to disagree.

Last year, UN special rapporteur Rashida Manjoo said that the UK has a "boys' club sexist culture". She said that the UK had more obvious sexism than many of the other countries she had visited. I'm not convinced that women should rely on others to act on their behalf.

Women, as we know, are a diverse group, and having more women in Parliament would mean fairer representation of that diversity.

Some issues, generally speaking, impact women more directly than men; equal pay, maternity services, costs of childcare and access to flexible working, for example. Women are more likely to have a deeper understanding of these issues and more motivation to make them their political priority.

Since becoming a mum, I have had more experiences with public services than ever before. Yet only 12% of MPs are mums who share that experience.

If we carry on as we are, it will take more than 100 years to reach equal representation in Parliament.

The #50:50ParliamentPetition is calling for a debate on how to speed up gender parity in Westminster. If you would like to see an equal balance of men and women in politics sooner rather than later, you can sign the petition online at www.5050parliament.co.uk.

If you haven't registered to vote yet, you have until April 20 to do so. All you need is your National Insurance number and this website: www.gov.uk/register-to-vote. If you are unsure about which party's policies best represent you, you can visit www.voteforpolicies.org.uk.

In the last election, the successful candidate in Hertford and Stortford won with 29,810 votes from a potential 79,255 voters. More than 23,000 people in the constituency didn't vote at all. Your vote matters.

Read more at www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/Sophie-s-voting-column/story-26302271-detail/story.html#ttOrZJ5IgDzIlURS.99

OP posts:
TiredButFine · 10/04/2015 10:36

are you saying it's sexist because it's not talking about underfunded men's services? The whole point of the article is that services women access are not accessible or fit for purpose, that being a case of indirect sex discrimination against women, so it's "ist" to highlight an under represented group who are being discriminated? And that makes the discriminated group "victims" does it?
How best might one of an under represented group highlight the issues of said group in a way that isn't "ist" then OP? The BBC may have a public service remit to give "balanced" views in articles but no-one else does. I'm left feeling very "have a Biscuit"

Oswin · 10/04/2015 10:38

Hmm. Righto.

enjoyingscience · 10/04/2015 10:50

Eh? That's a bit like saying you aren't keen on an article about potato blight, because carrots also suffer from crop damage and it's just not fair. It is perfectly possible for more than one problem to exist at a time. (And let's be honest, men being under-represented in society really isn't a thing, is it.)

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 10/04/2015 10:54

I don't think that she's presenting women as victims, she's talking about women being under-represented in parliament. Which is a fair point.

FYI all men over 21 got the vote in 1918. Only women with property over the age of 30 could vote in 1918. Voting rights for women were not equal to men until 1928.

YABU.

TheCowThatLaughs · 10/04/2015 10:57

By that logic, every time anyone wrote about any problem, they should also mention every other potential or actual problem that exists, in the interests of balance and fairness? Bollocks!

noblegiraffe · 10/04/2015 11:03

How is it sexist to point out that women are woefully underrepresented in politics? Confused

SolomanDaisy · 10/04/2015 11:04

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying it's not true that women are underrepresented in UK politics?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread