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?

And something completely different - SAHMs do get the NI contributions made by the government so they are not disadvantaged esp when it comes to pensions later on.

Working women in Australia are not entitled to paid maternity leave because it's not fair on women who stay at home and have babies...

Work that one out and tell me we're badly off here...

hannahsaunt, I was refused permission to studt science (spec. Physics at school) as I wasn't bright enough and I was amde to study typing (rather ironically- gave it up in weeks, did needlework- bah- instead) as it was more suitable.

Last year I averaged B+ / A on my degree course (albeit a female dominated one).

Dense? moi?

..a bit long as I just read all that was added..

Yes but Peachy you only prefer it at home and your husband doesn?t because you?ve been conditioned to like it. What is there to like? Domestic drudgery and boredom? okay that?s just my view.

Glass ?the moment I said I wanted to he felt he had to back down purely because I am a woman.? ? that is a very very sexist position to have a in a marriage. He should not think like that. He should look at why he did think that.
It?s a pity some people hate work or any aspects of their life. Why shouldn?t it be a pity? I think it?s tragic and appalling and if you don?t like your work you should try to change it.

Texas, from the post divorce cynical standpoint I?d say don?t be so sure, so many men disappear abroad and never pay a penny of maintenance, although you may be lucky and I?ve never said if a father or mother love being at home they shouldn?t do it. It?s a free country. It should be a sexually neutral decision however without any pressure on men to be the ones who have to go out to work. I feel they need an advocate sometimes, someone saying hang on there ? it?s not really very fair on all these men who?d quite like to be at home and their women say because I?m female I get this choice you don?t get.

I certainly agree a lot of SAHMs are clever and working ones not, often. You can?t really generalise but their conversation level often seems to plummet to the colour of stools because that becomes their world. Thankfully not all of them get like that but those that do I always feel a massive gulf and presumably they find it hard to talk to me about stuff that interests me too.

Slug, women equals shopping thing always annoys me too.

I have no problems with sexism ever as far as I?m aware. Perhaps I didn?t notice it. Sometimes I use how I look to commercial advantage which I may not have done when I was 22 but I don?t have a feminist problem with that. It?s certainly not the major way I get work and make money.

MT, it?s not wanting to be a man to want to work as a woman and it?s not any natural woman?s role to stop economic work until the children are 12 or whatever. It?s just a gender neutral choice couples make the very very few who are rich enough or very poor enough to afford it.

..the fact I?m single? may be? it has an effect, if you?re post divorce etc. But when we were married we managed a reasonable amount of fairness over 19 years like most couples do who parent children together, rather than foisting one or other role solely on one of the couple.

Peacy disempowering women ? now that?s interesting ? I am probably saying for their own good these women who think they are making a ?choice? to wear a veil or clean the house should look at whether it really is an active choice in women?s long term interests and I?m not sure it always is. If men were making as many equal choices to be home and sacfirice their earning power I would find this idea of men and women making choices easier to see.

I don?t agree with the differences between men and women point to the same degree. I think either men or women can do domestic work and change nappies and love and care for a small child 9 ? 5 equally as well. What are these differences? Do you think women prefer to be in the home and not work because of something natural within them as homemakers that they like a kind of submissive supportive role where they look up to a man who goes out and earns in a sort of cave man sense?

?the issues women face ? hate all that ? those are not women issues at all and you just engrain the prejudices everytime you say flexitime, part time is a woman?s thing. They are issues all parents of both genders should be interested in and if not then go and sort your men out because they should be.

?science? they find it hard to get girls to do that except in my daughters all girls school including her loads do science. Science careers for clever men and girls tend to be worst paid than some others mentioned so girls with sense who want interesting lucrative careers may be avoid them on those grounds.
X?phew.. time to get twins to bed now.

I much prefer the Today programme to Women's Hour. Do I count as a SAHM? I do paid work from home about 4 hours a week. Most SAHMs have done paid work before starting a family and most of them will do so again, so the divide is not that great. And most working mothers do have some maternity leave.

I do a fair bit of voluntary work, but the difference is I don't feel so bad about crying off if I have a sick child at home. It's that lurching from crisis to crisis that I couldn't cope with when working. After all, the domestic responsibilities don't go away; you can delegate, but in the end the buck stops with mum. In our house anyway.

I take my hat off to the female high fliers, but I couldn't be one of them. And I feel sorry for women who have to work in dull boring repetitive jobs just to break even financially

Wow, do women really exist in 2006 who hold views like this "It's that lurching from crisis to crisis that I couldn't cope with when working. After all, the domestic responsibilities don't go away; you can delegate, but in the end the buck stops with mum. In our house anyway."

Why on earth does the buck stop with someone just because she is female. I don't think most people believe that and I'm glad they don't. It rather does fathers down too to suggest it. The buck stops with parents who love their children. And why are you happy for the buck to stop with the women? This is the key issue holding women back in the UK - it's not discrimination at work or laws needing to change, it's women believing and their husbands supporting that children are women's concerns and not men's.

On the 'women in science/engineering' discussion, I do think all girl's schools make a massive difference. I went to one, and it didn't even occur to me that it might be a 'male' subject. And our performance, contribution in class and (most importantly) confidence in our ability wasn't stunted by worrying about what "the boys" might think or say. I didn't pursue scientific subjects because my maths let me down, but many did.

Yes, same in my daughters' two schools. I was trying to find the stats for their science A level students but failed. Amazed to see how well one did (I can describe it as my daughter's left now). It was such a nice school too. No pressure. Not snobby, very very racially and socially mixed. It proves that if you select by IQ and not parents or background you get the best candidates I suppose.

It's an issue for women who choose not to work and thus deny their daughters a good education or an issue for women who eschew the politics which might enable them to change the country such that this kind of education is available to all.

"National Accolade for North London Collegiate School

North London Collegiate School was declared The Sunday Times "Independent Senior School of the Year, 2006" this week, in what is described by the paper as "the definitive guide to finding the best education for your children". This is the second time the school has won this award.
Parent Power CD

2006 has been another phenomenal year at North London Collegiate School which has appeared in the top three independent schools for the last eight years. The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma exam was taken for the first time by North London Collegiate students and their points score put the school straight in at the top of the league tables. It was a "best ever, table-topping" year for both A-Level and GCSE results too.

Academic achievement is underpinned by personal success stories:

GCSE results were the "best ever" - 96.9% of results were graded A or A.
39 girls achieved straight A grades in their GCSEs.

• Year 13 results were also the best in the School's history - 99% of all the examinations were passed at the top grades A and B, or their equivalent in the IB Diploma.
• 100 students achieved straight A grade in their A levels, or the IB Diploma equivalent.
• 5 IB Diploma students achieved "perfect scores" of 45 points (and this was the first year that the School presented candidates for the IB Diploma).
• More than a third of Year 13 students were offered places by Oxford and Cambridge.

However, it is not just exceptional exam statistics that have won North London Collegiate School this top "all-rounder" accolade. Consistently high academic achievement is only part of what the School, and its pupils, do.

There is a huge selection of extra-curricular activities which run at lunchtimes or after school. These range from an extensive music and performing arts programme, where all girls are encouraged to participate (37 productions and events each year); to a wide range of community service and charity work; sporting opportunities (up to county and national participation) and dedicated facilities; a highly successful Young Enterprise programme; and over 30 Senior Societies run by students for students (the 2006 "start-ups" were the Culinary Society, the Climate Change Society, the Architecture Society and the London Society).

In addition, the whole school community is eagerly anticipating the opening of their new, purpose-built, 350-seater Performing Arts Centre in Spring 2007. The building will provide exhibition space, an orchestra pit and rehearsal rooms as well as a state of the art theatre facilities."

Conditioned to prefer it at home? are you sure? have you met my mother? because she could seriously outdo you on all women should work values- she was most disappointed when I married and had children! I was conditioned to study, get a career and reject men as the Devils of society. Also, my at home life includes working for a degree; hardly drudgery is it? And Dh didn't like being home because there isn't a support network for at home dads the way there is for females; housework wise he does and always will do far more than me, its the way we are built.

Going through posts stating that X is conditioned and that B is oppressed- its not discussion its a random commentary. You seem ton have little empathy with either women in general or the notion of compromise. You also seem to dismiss arguments that you can't debate just by ignoring them, it oewuld seem- at least you completely ignored my examples of why some men give up at least as much in the interests of their famillies as any female.

Not sure about the idea that women and men are equally designed to be at home either: I think either is fine and that it si the role of each family situation to work out what goes for them and that's fine. I do however find that men aren't half as good at brastfeeding as women.

Humanity is a spectrum. The idea that everyone can just be placed into slots f oppressed female and oppressor man is bullshit. Any stereotypical family dynamic could equally be discussed in the format of why the man is oppressed (responsibility of providing which is really not as liberatinga s you seem to believe for everyone- not all jobs are secure for example); why women are oppressed (lack of choice, stereotying etc). Equally why each one ahs the better life. Overall though ahs to be the acceptance that any family unit of two parents ahs to work as a tream and establish a way of functioning that works for them.

And you know aht- conditioning? If you've been conditioned to enjoy something and then you doa ctually enjoy that, why does it matter? Honestly? happy is happy, and that's damned rare in this world.

Good point but it's hard. Women (millions) around the world who are circumcised and want their daughters done they like it and are conditioned to like it. I would still say it's objectively wrong. Girls in India, Africa, the Far and Middle East and indeed some of the UK, fundemtalistit Christians in the US etc who are conditioned to marry at 16 and enjoy a life at home submissive to their husbands and to tolerate even domestic violence and are happy I suppose your argument is we leave them alone and same with all the happy English housewives wielding their mops or even studying for their degrees and helping with church flowers. Leave them be. But we chose to give them the vote over 100 years ago. May be we should have left them be then. We chose to let them qualify as doctors when men said our brains weren't good enough for that. So surely some of that progress, that fighting against unfair norms which see poor men pressured to work when they may want to stay at home and women with moral pressure on them to stay home when they'd rather work, surely we should fight against that inequality where it exists and even the conditioning which starts with the first barbie doll and moves to the crop top at 10 etc and seek to impose a view that sees men and women as equal and free and enables more easily those who would work to do so without sterotypes being imposed. And yes women breastfeed but most don't in the UK for any length of period at all ( sadly) and many work and breastfeed as I did so there really isn't a biological reason for female career destruction and financial dependence on men, career damage which sadly usually lasts for 40 years thereafter and something most men don't suffer.

There is research to say that women just don?t want to be engineers WWJD. Where they do, they are just as able as the men. Girls excel at science in school, they just don?t go on to convert that into scientific careers; by choice.

FestiveFrex, I really don?t like putting down any women, but when one woman attacks others for not being more like her, I will pick up the gauntlet. Feminism for me is about freedom of choice, of women finding their own voice and means of expression and satisfaction in life as best they can with the means they have.

It?s just a ridiculous presumption to say ?men? are more interesting than ?women?. It?s the same logic that used to say ?blacks? are less human than ?whites? ? an extreme analogy but the logic of conflation is the same.

Xenia, housework may be drudgery, being a mother isn?t; as I?m sure you know. But some women can?t afford cleaners so have to do it and to a certain degree have been habitualized in it by the example of their mothers. What they are exhibiting is institutionalised behaviour; they don?t deserve anyone?s contempt because of it.

How did you manage caring for your two daughters as a single mum? This isn?t a trick question. I?m just trying to get you to remember, perhaps empathise, with others in the same situation.

As for sexism in marriage, is it sexist that women have to have children? Of course it isn?t. The fact is that giving birth isn?t the end of it. Most, not all, but most women feel an inexorable pull towards their babies and want to be primary carer. What they don?t? choose, but what?s lumped in with that by our culture, is low status and meagre earning potential after those infant dependent years are over. This is where attention needs to be put. Someone needs to look after the baby for gods sake and women shouldn?t be punished for wanting to do it.

You seem to be advocating an individualist stance. This only works if you are in a position of privilege from the beginning and as is demonstrated in your posts, alienates you from the wider humanity of those lower down the social scale. You keep saying how things ?should? be but I?m afraid in real life they often aren?t, and if you want things to get better you have to deal with truths not ideals.

Yes men and women are different, yes women on average prefer to be with their children for the first two years ? if they have a real choice, that?s what they do, many working part time in a job they find stimulating ? but again that?s an ideal stance. In reality many women have to go back to full time work after months or work in demeaning part time jobs, which may find its expression in soaring levels of PND.

What women are not is submissive ? you keep making the category error here between what women want and what society imposes on them.

And happy well adjusted kids can get a good education in comps too, who ever is the breadwinner at home.

Out of interest, who does the buck stop with in your house?

?Good point but it's hard. Women (millions) around the world who are circumcised and want their daughters done they like it and are conditioned to like it. I would still say it's objectively wrong.?

Xenia, from our perspective of course it?s wrong. But saying it?s wrong doesn?t help stop it; it?s simply expressing an opinion not offering any insight that might lead t9o a solution.

?But we chose to give them the vote over 100 years ago. May be we should have left them be then.? Erm sorry ? who is ?we??

I went to a comprehensive girl school and gained a BSc and PhD in chemistry. I was always the only black female student. I have been with my company for 15 years and still have not met another black female scientist. I performed well in my job, was promoted, managed groups of 50 scientists and engineers, promoted some more, travelled round the world (BA, business class - very nice). I then married at 36yo and after 2 years decided to start a family. Had my DTS sons when I was 39 yo but before they were born, I knew I wanted to work part-time because I did not want to miss out on their formative years. I also did not want to spend those years dragging suitcases or my laptop from one airport to another. So I decided to retrain as a system engineer in the same organiation and I have not regretted my decision.

I have the best of both worlds. I'm still involved in research and spend more time with my boys than if I had worked full time. That was my choice and if it means that my salary will not increase as much as someone working full time, so what? There is more to life than money and I do not define myself by the amount of zeros in my annual salary!

monkeytrousers - imo, engineering always has been and still is, badly sold to sixth formers.

My job is cutting edge, I get access to new stuff before it gets into the shops. My job has more in common with solving crossword puzzles than oily rags. I can work all over the world, because my job is international (Paris, south France, Berlin, Brussels? USA, Australia?), and my colleagues come from all over the world.
Communication is an important part of what I do, and I often have to explain complex ideas in words of one syllable to managers. Since my colleagues are mostly male, I get to meet loads of guys (which I am glad about, because I am single and would never meet any men if stuck in a completely female job).
And, its more interesting than accountancy.

But do sixth form girls get told these advantages? No, they get crappy posters with coloured cog wheels on them, and photos of girls in builders helmets.(not to run down site engineers)

Xenia, yes I do exist and I'm even more surprised than you are that I do, because I thought a lot more like you before I had children. But now I absolutely love being at home and in control of my own time. I'm fitter, more relaxed, more intellectually stimulated and happier being at home. Hated working for an employer, being messed about by idiotic bureaucracy and sitting in traffic jams and having to be dressed smartly when I didn't want to. Hated letting colleagues (not to mention punters) down when sickness or other crisis happened. I did a short term contract last summer, and did not like what it did to our domestic life. Dh works long, sometimes unpredictable hours and earns at least twice what I could earn if working full time. He is often away overnight. It is unrealistic to suggest he can take the same responsibility as I do for the children in our situation. He is out of the house before they get up - so the choice is either I supervise getting them off to school, or a 3rd party is paid to do so. Many families get on v well with said 3rd party, but it's not for me.

I'm very happy that choice exists for women in this, and for those who can hold down a career and a satisfactory homelife, good for them. I'm probably happier because I know I have some choice in the matter.

And by the way, back to the matter in hand, I am interested in current affairs and have had a letter published in a national newspaper this year as well as in other national publications before that.

Whatwouldjesusdo, what do you do? Are you an engineer in the oil business?????

I am certain the female engineers in the northsea oil business number more than 10. (unless you mean specifically peopl who are currently on a platform/barge). Even then I would doubt it though. It is still male dominated, but not unheard of to have a woman engineer.

I am a female engineer in the oil business. I have actually jumped ship for a role that is closer to IT, but I sit next to another woman who is a process engineer, I know a female mechanical engineer, and a few more and that's just at my company. There are ceratainly more in the business, especially since much of the oil work is not in the North Sea.

Gosh - what an interesting debate, and certainly plenty of really important points being made on all sides.

I suppose Xenia and others, if you want to understand why women act as they do (ie tend to be the primary carer, not do science and engineering etc.) then listening to people who have made those choices might be a good start.

Firstly I do think that the expectations of society play a large part. I know if my MIL/SIL come round here and the house is dirty and messy, I am judged for it. And it is all very well to ignore it, but these people form a significant part of my world, my community.

This view is so firmly ingrained that I can't see a way around it. I remember once moving into a student house that had been occupied by 7 men, and the landlady said to me "I blame the girlfriends" (who hadn't lived there?). The sheer number of programmes on TV like How Clean is Your House, Perfect Housewife, Wife Swap tell women day after day that they are responsible for the running of the home.

So for now, domestic responsibility does reside with women, and this is wrong, but decades of feminism have not made a dent in it. Affording a cleaner is your only way out, but unless you have a live-in housekeeper, there is so much else that needs doing.

As for Science and Engineering. I was the top Science student at school and sixth form college, winning all the prizes and went on to do Engineering at Oxford with a sponsorship from BT. I just found it too boring and unrewarding, and dropped out after a year to do Philosophy at Leeds instead.

I have since risen out of these ashes and have now got a good career, with a lot of potential for future progression and success. If I hadn't had the second child then I was poised to break through into a far more prestigious and lucrative career. This tells far more about why women do less well. When you are hampered by maternity leaves and being part time, it restricts movement and career continuity, not to mention those who get made redundant. Employers do hate pregnancy and maternity.

Xenia has one answer to this, but it isn't that easy for less high flying women or those that cannot emotionally disconnect to this extent.

But on balance, I am happier this way, and I envy women who can give it all up. We are not on a domestic treadmill, it is an easier life. I love looking after the children - every single moment is more precious than any success I ever had at work.

I think what I am trying to say is that I used to agree with you in every respect, but life has worn me down and I have lost the energy to keep fighting it.

Xenia, I wouldn't agree with female citrcumcisionn no, because it removes options and inflicts pain. Bit if someone marries at 16 brcause that iasa cepted in their culture and they are happy I have no issues with that on the whole. There is a huge gap between surgically invasive techniques performed on children and voluntary marriage. In many cultures the only alternative to marriage is to remain alone, often without a support network or else as a burden ona financially overstretched family. Criticising practices such as aearly marriage is meaningless in these circumstances.

Came to this late I?m afraid. My first post in a contraversial thread. I find MTs points very thoughtprovoking, men and women are DIFFERENT , and it is this difference which needs to be celebrated and valued.
John Gray (he of Venus and Mars fame) is very interesting on this point, he talks about the ways in which the roles of men and women have changed unrecognisably from what our parents experienced. He said that in the world of work, (partic work in which a woman has to work in a ?linear? way with ?targets? and be ?to the point?),our feminine side is not nurtured and the shift from this?masculine?at the end of the day can be a source of pain and conflict if she cannot then find her ?feminine? self because eg she is being kept too busy problem solving, organising and unable to just talk freely (like the suncream women further down I suppose) I?m rambling a bit, but basically we shouldn?t have to be like men because we are NOT like men , and pretending we are can cause women to feel isolated, unsupported and miserable.
Now I struggle with this a bit because it sounds perilously close to saying that we (women) are victims of our biology, but I do take the point that if the so called feminine traits were understood more and valued more, we?d wouldn?t be so polarised on the sahm/woth debate.
In addition so much has been lost when inflationary house prices took away the choice of a lot of women whether to work outside the home or not.(Was the selling off of council homes seen as a ?women?s issue??) It also spelt the loss of neighbourly support systems for a lot of women, who found that their friends and neighbours were not available for a chat and support cos they were at work.
As to why don?t women listen to the news, I think one reason people don?t follow for eg the Middle East conflict is because a lot of news coverage lacks any real context or explanation, so it can feel like missing the first part of the story. And no, many people do not have the time to do the background research by themselves.
Oops, sorry discussion has moved on since I was writing this.

Ah but it's all an issue of qhat is voluntary isn't it? Victorian women who when they married all their property passed to their husbands probably voluntarily in their view supported that system. The women below who have been brainwashed into thinking women should stay home or think they want to and it is a choice may not be making a choice any more than I was making a choice because of the influences I put myself udner at 15. I wonder what any of us really truly choose as we're at the mercy of our DNA and our upbringing.

Is there a way to see what gives girls and the nation a better and happier life? If we think children do better with a mother at home then the country should work to ensure women grow up and give up work for a good few years. If we think it is better if parents work then we should be working towards that. Do we think it best women can vote? If they are content without the vote should we have just let it be? I expect many women in Saudia are quite happy without the vote and unable to drive a car. Do we want happy pigs or unhappy philosophers or whatever?

I think if I go back to my Catholicism and my beliefs that we are all equal whatever colour or brain power or sex then we have to have both a legal system which gives people equal rights under the law (which largely we have) but also a social system which tries to change children even against their parents wishes so that those in cults don't marry the 45 year old uncle when they turn 16, girls aren't shipped back to Pakistan for forced or even arranged marriages at 15 and girls in London don't have their clitoris removed even by expert doctors. I think I would intervene because I think I know best. I believe many women need the shades lifting from their eyes to realise a life where they are beaten is not a norm. Cultures like parts of Africa where it is normal to wife beat and there is acceptance of it I would say are wrong. In other words I think there are objective moral standards and they should include letting grils and boys make a real informed and proper choice, which makes them look at divorce statistics, financial consequenes of putting all your eggs in the husband's basket and comparing the mental health of women who work and those who don't and so they with their husband take a sexually neutral decision in which both sides have a real and informed choice and right about who works and who doesn't.

I think I was asked a direct question - where does the buck stop in my house. As my children's father has chosen to absent himself from their lives after 19 years it has to stop with me and what a mess we'd been in if 22 years ago I'd chosen to stay at home. How wise I was to work.

At the moment, I am sat in my open plan office surrounded by men (I'm the only female here), and wrt to the original question about whether women are interested in current affairs, well today these guys have spoken about football, cricket, how much they drank at the weekend and now one of them is talking about what he would have on his Christmas card if he designed it! The only thing they ever seem to discuss of any depth is their current research project. Everyone of them has a degree in engineering and science (I'm the only one with a PhD in this group by the way and one of the senior managers said to me last week that my parents must be so proud of me as they are Jamaican immigrants)

I wonder if those of you who knock women for talking about lipstick etc would equally criticise these men?

Why consider people banal just because you do not have an interest in their interest? Does it not occur to you that people talk about so called banal, vacuous things because it is a much needed relief from the seriousness of work and life? It is called light relief and I bask in it as much as I can when I need to de-frazzle.

LOL, speedymama! I had a wonderful lunch with a girlfriend yesterday where we put the world to rights then moved swiftly onto the Take That debate.

Our worlds have moved in very different directions since we worked in telecoms together. She's single & childfree at the moment. I'm now married (although I choke on the word after swearing I'd never do it) and have 2.75 children (ditto).

What we DO have in common is that we both packed in very well paid jobs. We got totally disillusioned with the bad management of most companies and have decided there must be a better way. Or at least we can have a go at cocking it up ourselves rather than relying on other people to do it.

I do wonder how many SAHMs are also driven by a sort of mid-life crisis / fatigue with office bullshit. Hopefully there will eventually be more women-owned businesses doing it a different, BETTER way. A revolution from within!

I work with almost all men. One of them has a 7 month old DD and another has a 9 week old DS. We talk lack of sleep, nappies, and maternity leave. (Their wives are still at home on mat leave)

It always cracks me up when I listen to male engineers on the phone advising feeding techniques while the ret of laugh because you can hear the baby screaming down the phone from three desk away.

So, are nappies and feeding female subjects? I don't think so. Not around here.

Well, me and my ex can easily talk about dd's routine, sleep, behaviour for ages. I think he finds it difficult to talk to others about it but that is because - I think - most of his friends are not parents.

I agree. Know lots of men who talk about their children. I think most people don't live particularly sexist lives and younger men are better.
Some subjects are dull and it depends on your interests. So yes men talking about football to me is as dull and unimportant - my family used to call it little men kicking a ball around a patch of grass so I'm not sure if my lack of interest in watching any sport is really just how I happened to be brought up - choice again... and just as dull as women talking about shades of nail varnish. We pick the people we enjoy being with by whether they can talk about subjects we find of interest to some extent.

But current affairs per se ought objectively to be a concern of women or else why bother to get the vote if you just want to leave decisions about whether we go to war, whether we ban XYZ and how we spend taxes to men? It think it's particularly important women show an interest so make your daughters be interested in it. Take them to the house of commons instead of macdonalds next holiday. The power is in our hands as parents.