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?

SAHM v WP posts are pathetic.

The only reason people sink to that level is because they are jealous of what the other camp has.

Why don't women offer each other support for their lifestyle choices instead of entering into a stereotypical female bitching session?

GROW UP!!

dara - you beat me to it!! Totally agree

I'm with dara and fortyplus on this - we get enough of a bashing from men, why do we do it to each other. Support for our own choices, please!

Thank you Ho Ho.

Well, just to be pedantic, women don't hate other women any more than men hate other men. Lets not be discriminative about it

Actually, to be even more pedantic - looking at crime stats actually tells us that men hate other men much more than women hate other women.

See it's not all bad!

But at least they only punch & stab each other - that's far more honest

So let's have a thread synopsis here, then.

People are gits who hate others who aren't like them.

Monkeytrousers - I very rarely (never?) hear men saying things like 'Oh I hate men. I have no male friends. They are just to stupid and trivial to bother with"
But there are women who say stuff like this all the time, and with such pride, as if it makes them better, deeper, more substantial people.
I really, really find it creepy.

And don't you think that crime statistics are more to do with opportunity (being out alone at night/being drunk) and the male penchant for fighting than with men hating men in general? I can't imagine most violent men would say, 'Oooh, I hate men. They are just so silly. I much prefer female company'

I'm with you, dara. I cut women who say this a wide berth. I think, 'Oh, so in other words, you're such a b*tch, women can smell it a mile away. Thanks for the warning!'

I mean, I've got female pals who are definitely popular w/the males.

But they are friends w/women, too.

'Oh I hate men. I have no male friends. They are just to stupid and trivial to bother with." I'm totally on your side with the women stabbing each other in the back thing being BAD, dara but have to say I've heard quite a few men saying this sort of thing. It may have been part of their attempts to get into my good books or maybe even my good pants though.

I actually think that - as women - we have more of a choice than most men. Stay at home Dads are often portrayed as weak/inadequate. It must be even tougher for them.

"i work in tv news and the way the main bulletins have been dumbed down - esp the one - to 'appeal' to stay at home mums (ie nappy brains), oaps and students is offensive. and there is no excuse for womans hour. it's smug, middle class and second rate. ...complain! the bbc reads the logs - it does see your comments. ...tell them you don't like to be patronised."

Fantastic, EnormousChanges! Right, I'm off to cause trouble amongst the self-professed feminist intellectuals, the blokes who like to taunt them and the WI mob who squat on WH's website.

Says a lot that the really interesting and heated debates appear on mumsnet not the BBC

dara, I do actually know men who prefer women. I think it's just how some people are made.

On the subject of choice I don't think having an education and being clever means we make any more of a choice than someone who isn't. Surely we are all kind of programmed (even me) by how we're brought up and the influences around us.

On the dullness of SAHMs surely it's obvious and likely - if the tasks of your day are washing powder and whether the colour of stools surely that's what you want to talk about and so you seek out others with the same issues and interests so some working mothers may not have the same interests. That's why I have found some conversations boring - I suppose we seek out those we have things in common with. What is dull to one person is not dull to another. Some people only talk about their work and that's very dull too.

I do wish women would play more of a part in the political process and I suspect there are more men than women with an interest in politics which I think is a shame as it's so important.

We certainly need to ensure that men are not discouraged from staying home if they want to. Obviously my thread doesn't help because I'm saying it's tedious at home and why would anyone choose it? That's a sexually neutral comment - dull for everyone presumably why more men don't choose it. They have more sense.

So do you think that people who work in, say, a tax office can talk about nothing but tax because that's what they 'do all day'? And they ever only seek out other people to talk about tax with? It's nonsense!
You don't seem to have answered any of the questions people ask you or acknowledged anyone else's experiences either. I suspect you actively refuse to think about the reality of other people's lives in case it challenges your prejudices, I honestly do.

Men are just as devious - just look at politics!

Okay, I?m going to get scientific now. Sorry if I begin to bore you..But actually, there is are evolutionary explanations why men are more prone to turn to violence - basically because they are built for violence. Very basically, this is why men are usually bigger than women - because in our evolutionary history, women chose men who were good providers and could also protect them and their offspring from other rogue males.

This is something that still isn't well known, but via sexual selection, men and women actually shaped the other sex into what we see today. This was an inexorable process which happened over millions of years.

But anyway, back to the subject A women's first, or even second or third resort isn't usually violence (and it's usually a man's second resort, but they are still more quick to violence than women)

It's true, women adapted different conflict strategies BUT they also adapted to have stronger supportive relationships with women too. Men generally compete for resources, our culture asks women to do the same, but they have different evolved strategies, not better, not worse, just different.

I actually think I agree with Xenia about something!!

Women should take more part in the political process! Question is, how do we get a foot in the door? It seems that, when the labour party introduced its legion of female MPs, they were labelled 'Blair's Babes' by the tabloids!!!! Even when some of them were so far removed from being 'babes'. It is derogatory and demeaning and reminds me of the Harry Enfield satirical sketch 'Women, know your limits' (Oh, I don't really know about the Gold Standard, but little fluffy kittens are so adorable, aren't they)

dino and dara - there are very few single, full time working mothers to large families (4+ children) on mn.
it is a different experience from having a partner, or from having fewer children. not meaning to belittle anyone else's experience.

I tend not to have too much time to answer every point. If you give me one precise question to answer I'll try to answer it.

Yes, most violence is by men. Men are dying out - the Y chromosome is in a few million years. Men get the bad sight, most of the behavioural disorders, 98% of the prison population etc. May be an argument for ridding the planet of them I suppose as indeed will be how it goes if we just bide our time anyway. Some women take testosterone to improve performance at work (read an article about it once) so all these mumsnetters supposedly making informed choices are really just marrying big strong higher earning partners without much choice and driven by their biology.

I was sceptical about Norway's 40% of boards women rule but I think it's going really well and I hope we introduce it here. I am on one board and I would be great on many others but the process of picking is not always good or tranparent (or non sexist)

Men are dying out? How so?

And I think you'll find if they do die out, women will too.

In a million years we won't be here are a species, male or female.

Great to know I am just driven by my biology . And there was I thinking I was in control of my life.....

Where have I stated that we are only driven by our biology? Don't fall for the biological deteminist bogey Paranoidandroid! Biology means 'pertaining to life' and that includes everything, genes, environments, the lot.

BTW are you are Radiohead fan??

So really we are biologically determined; imagine if we had to make a conscious effort to breathe every breath, or digest our food, or oxygenate our blood, or blah, blah, blah.

Our biology doesn't negate conscious choice though.

this is the first thread i have read through where Xenia has posted at length and I have been picking my jaw off the floor so many times i have rsi! Very invigorating debate somewhat off topic though.

As a sahm it is difficult not to be offended by your sweeping generalisations Xenia I don't disagree with everything you say but it is difficult for me to find much common ground with you.

I am better qualified than my husband more politically active and he would say more intelligent - i don't agree on that point - he is a senior civil servant while I worked for a local authority as a transport planner until baby no.1 and as no.2 came along quickly going back to work didn't make economic sense the cost of childcare in London would mean I would be working almost just so I could pay someone to look after the children - privately I also feel why have children then hand them to be raised by others? I would be quite happy for dh to be main carer but this arrangement suits and no doubt i will find a flexible way to work in order to contribute to the household finacially when the kids are schoolage. I don't think that is unliberated it makes sense and i feel fortunate to have the opp to stay at home when so many do not. Having an intelligent politically engaged mum at home is good for the children - i enjoy making things, painting, playing silly games etc. with children - who wouldn't? Housework is drudgery but it has to be done and is the flip side of being at home - same as the god awful commute and mindblowing boredom of many looong often pointless meetings that i experienced are the downsides of working. tbh as I spent a lot of time dealing with politicians in my old job I challenge anyone to find a better preparation for coping with toddlers - than the average smallminded petty egocentric local councillor - tantrums and toy out of pram throwing being the way most issues are addressed!!!!

quite like womans hour though