Are women interested in current affairs? (And why I hate Woman's Hour)

[BrummieOnTheRun]

I spent the last few days ranting to DH about the fact that certain stories that primarily affect women don't appear in the media.
Like the nationwide policy of downgrading local maternity services (only reported locally, ignored by national media) putting 1,000s of women and babies' lives at risk each year. Or is that each month?
Like loans to women entrepreneurs being at higher interest rates than those to men as we are perceived to be higher risk.
Like the cost of childcare and impact on (primarily women's) employment being treated as a minority issue. We're 50% of the population and most of us have/will have children.
Blah, blah, blah.
Have always been pissed off that Woman's Hour, instead of having the political and intellectual clout of the Today programme, has spent approx 6 minutes superficially covering important issues to cut them off to discuss bloody borsch recipes. Or drama 'that women might enjoy'.
Then a depressing thought occurred to me...maybe it isn't that most 'current affairs' isn't interested in women, maybe most women just AREN'T INTERESTED in current affairs and that's why women-centric issues aren't widely covered?

Not me, I listen to the news all day long. Well, I'm a journalist, but I'd listen to it anyway, that's why I ended up in this job.

I think there's a circular argument about hard politics being covered in a way that doesn't appeal to women in general though... it's all about men trying to pee higher up the wall than each other, lots of stuff that is interesting to Westminster political anoraks rather than debate about actual policies and the issues behind them.

I'm interested and regularly read a more serious daily newspaper. I was quite interested when magazines were being promoted as being aimed at women but with a more serious, current-affairs slant (First and In the Know). I bought First a couple of times and then realised that the 1-2 pages of topical photographs really didn't make up for the fact that the rest of the magazine was indistinguishable from a 1000 other "women's" magazines. In the Know is a bit better, but not much.

I would love to hear more serious debates/reports/articles on things which affect women (I think you might find that we actually make up slightly more than 50% of the population), but most attempts at this then simply slide into cooking/fashion/slebs, etc.

I'm fairly addicted to current affairs tbh.

ditto carmenere dp calls me news bunny I love current affairs!

I am interested.
I just don't get a lot of time to listen/read. I can't listen tot he radio and ds - who talks a lot, non-stop.
Women's Hour thrills me occasionally but more often it's a depressing view of what women might want to listen to. I listened to a segment about a man who'd had a kidney donated by his wife, and found himself liking shopping afterwards...I was really embarrassed for Women's Hour, tbh, it was more of a Take-A-Break story.

I am very interested in current affairs, and TBH think that as soon as we stop thinking of things as women's issues and men's issues the more chance we have of things becoming mainstream.

Children do have more than one parent - and issues like childcare/maternity provisions/ entrepreneurship - affect everybody not just women. The sooner we, and the media wake up to that, the more likely we are to see this issues dealt with in the mainstream!

I agree Soapy. I was just thinking that the downgrading of maternity services is not just a women's issue, but affects men too as the fathers.

Oh and as an aside, Pruni, I can't cope with JinglePrunes (conjours up images of what happens when you have too many), so would you consider becoming ChristmasPrunePudding instead?? .

Sorry, have now lowered the tone completely......

Oh but I love my new name!
"conjours up images of what happens when you have too many" - the mind boggles!!!!!!

Soapy,
I think you're absolutely right that a large % of issues that affect women also affect men and vice versa and maybe they shouldn't be labelled 'women's issues'.

But let's take childcare. If a large proportion of the male working population found it unfeasible to work after having their 1st/2nd/3rd (delete as applicable) kid due to inadequate or costly childcare, it would be a MASSIVe political issue that would have debated to death in parliament and sorted years ago.

As it is, I still feel it's still dealt with as a minority issue that's pulled up when politicians want the female vote. (Mr Cameron!)

Shouldn't women be doing 50% (or more!) of the agenda setting? Are the issues you see being debated on Mumsnet reflected in national media and political agenda? I'm not so sure.

I'm obsessed with current affairs
I get withdrawls if I cannot get to daily braodsheet and online news and channel 4 news.

I don't think we can just blame it on the fact that the vast majority of agenda-setters (MPs) are men either. Even the women MPs don't do anything to help. Either they are career-minded single women, or married with children but rich enough to be able to afford all the help they need so that the problems that beset the rest of us just don't bother them. You can bet your life if a female MP didn't turn up to a 3-line whip vote and claimed that she couldn't find the childcare, the relevant party would be shouting from the rooftops, but that isn't going to happen.

Brummie - no they aren't but that may be because they are viewed as women only issues.

IN fact women aren't structurally stopped from returning to work any more than men are - men could just as easily be the childcarers and women the workers. Why isn't this more common? Why is it women's careers not men's careers that suffer? Choices are made, that are not political choices, but choices within the family and within the control of the family. Women are not stopped from returning to work because of costly childcare - one parent is stopped from returning to work because of costly childcare.

But in the vast majority of the homes, the man earns the larger salary, so, if one parent is prevented from returning to work, it is far more likely to be the woman. This then renders it a "women's issue", which it shouldn't.

I'm obsessed with current affairs. I hate the dumbing down that goes with the territory of women's magazines, and I dread the fact that women seem to like lightweight magazines like Hello rather than the newspapers.

I do think that the media, politics, and law are London-centric and dominated by ex-public school boys and girls. Sometimes I feel that the views and values of the silent majority are very under-respresented at any level. I think this is possibly why current affairs fail to reach many people.

The issues you pointed out are of interest to people, and yet get largely ignored. Meanwhile I am sure I could give a blow by blow account of Middle East conflicts over the past 30 years.

But Festive Frex - how the heck does that happen.

Given the vast spread of earning capacity amongst men and women - how the heck does the woman always choose a man (and vice versa) that earns more than them?

I just can't see how that turns out like that?

Is attraction within a relationship bound up in men earning more/women earning less? Are we biologically programmed to make this choice?

Soapy, you're right that it isn't that simple. I earned more than dh at one stage, but I still went part time rather than him.

I suppose the childcare tends to be a woman's issue for emotional reasons. I dread to think what sort of childcare would suffice for most dads to get to work. Whereas mothers are much more reluctant to leave the children in any circumstances. So it is, I think, a woman's issue, despite wishing it weren't.

I'm interested in current affairs but not particularly women's issues I don't have an agenda as a woman

I think it's old fashioned to think like that

I'm often surprised at how much more interested mumsnetters are in style eg than news but that's what makes it interesting the mix of people (not necessarily women)

But soapy there isn't that much of a spread of earning capacity for both men and women, is there? When you factor in the fact that most people end up having children with people who are fairly similar in social terms to themselves. Men are consistently paid more for doing the same job or type of job.

I agree with that, Soapy. It isn't the political system that has structured it so women are the ones most frequently impacted by childcare cost et al.

But women ARE the ones most frequently impacted by it, and I guess what I'm saying is that if it was blokes rather than women that were most adversely impacted there would be a much bigger hoo-ha about it!

I think my question is more about whether women's voices are as heard - and treated as seriously - as men's in the public domain?
And whether we have weighty-enough outlets through which to speak?
Because without those 2 elements, the issues that do end up affecting us more than men surely can't be debated and dealt with effectively? And how else is the political agenda set?

Soapy, I have no idea how it happens, but I'm sure if you did a survey of all your friends, most of the men would earn more than their partners.

Perhaps women are psychologically programmed to look for men like that so they have the option of staying home, etc. As a man, you are not brought up with any suggestions that it might be possible in the future for you to stay home with your children whilst your wife goes out to work, so perhaps men's attitudes towards their careers are driven by this.

In my own case, I was not brought up to expect that I would become a SAHM, but, as soon as I had my first child, I knew that this is what I wanted to be - at least until the youngest was at school full-time. Did I choose dh because he earned a good salary? I can't say that I did. But equally I can't be totally sure that my sub-conscious didn't.

Hmm- not sure about that santaprunes, even within social classes there is a wide spread of earning capacity - and whilst women's earnings are lower than men's, the biggest impact on that is post children - so after the decision to give up has been taken.

If though you are saying that equality of earnings for women underpins these decisions, then I do think that equality of earning is and has been a part of mainstream current affairs.

I think this is how it works, broadly:
Let's say you work in education.
Chances are you will have a partner who works in education, or in a comparable sector.
Men usually earn more than women for a similar job.
Ergo, your partner will earn more.

x posts

Equality of earnings is kind of mainstream agenda, but how many of us accept disparities? Lots, I think.

Men are always paid more than women, and I think this reflects that men are valued higher than women in society.

I think that taking time out to look after children, and prioritising the home plays a part. And I think aspirations from a young age play a part.

Men gain a larger proportion of their self esteem from their careers as well, so are more likely to strive to advance their earnings.

Yes, FF - possibly they would - although I have a suspicion that it would be pretty even, one way and the other - but I do have many female friends in the legal, accountancy and medical professions - which isn't typical, I guess.

What I am trying to say, is that the decisions made by families as to who stays at home, if indeed anyone stays at home, what childcare etc is used, is actually more in the control of the family than determined by the political agenda of the day.

If it is women being drawn to being the childcarers that influences the decision as to whether to work or not, (and it is a big if in my mind) then no matter how affordable child care is, then women will not return to work.

I don't disagree that this issue needs to become more mainstream, but it won't until it is seen as an issue affecting men and women. And what you are posting here tends to suggest that that is not how it is seen within the family context.