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?

But sub I sigh again .....because why is it you the woman are the one doing this, that your husband earns more, just like just about always. Why did you the clever one end up earning less and stuck at home whilst he goes out and plays an economic role in society? Because of this lack of choice conditioning point I suppose. Virtually always the women doing this. If you'd said at the end... and we decided it made sense for him to stay at home I would think phew there's hope....

Actually there is hope because girls out earn boys to age of 25 now and more women are millionaires under 40 in the UK than men - we make better entrepreneurs.

MT don't be silly. We don't need men of course not. We freeze sperm into eternity. Possibly we'll be able to make babies without sperm too which is quite an exciting prospect. www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1030456,00.html

Part of this issue is whether women opt out of the real capitalist world and instead meditate, care, volunteer and eschew Western society in a sense in any political or active sense, business sense. They can conviently do this and "find themselves" by living off male earnings so it's cheating really. It is also ultimately a bad thing for women long term that women (some) have this choice and most men don't. Unfair on men.

I've come to the conclusion that Xenia's point isn't about SAHM/WOTH women, it's an argument about money. Anything anyone does 'for free' is valueless in her eyes, but somehow becomes worthwhile if it is paid for. Thus, changing your own child's nappy is financially worthless but changing your next-door-neighbour's child's nappy in exchange for money is to be applauded. It's a good thing people such as Mother Theresa didn't think along such materialistic lines.

I am also puzzled as to the women Xenia meets. Where is this world of one-dimensional, cardboard cut-out characters? Who are these people who can only pronounce on one subject? Certainly, there are people in my world who are not to my taste but I don't think I've ever dismissed an entire section of society simply because of my perceptions of them. (Except maybe lawyers but even then there have been exceptions to the rule. )

I think I earn less Xen because I made the choice to go for a local government role where the money is pants but the job satisfaction greater i.e. - helping people get good public transport rather than being a well paid consultant in the private sector helping Tesco's get out of the planning constraints! My DH also earns less in the public sector than he would in the private - by choice. But I was guided by my father who lived and died working hard to make peoples lives better rather than earn mega bucks - he gave up a more lucrative career as an industrial chemist to become key in the industrial common ownership movement. He died with a pathetic pension for mum but a road named in his honour - thems the breaks.

Don't sigh for me Xenia.... theres a song in that somewhere!

where is the PMSL festive emoticon??

WWJD, but you simply assumed things about Dinosaur that were't true, and posted in a most patronising manner IMO about how she didn't understand how tricky it was for poor old Xenia (with her live-in nanny, millions in the bank and her blooming private island) to be a working mother or how awful it would be to be the main breadwinner with partner at home, when in fact she is a working mother, has a partner at home and has three young children, and I'd guess, no millions in the bank and no island of her very own.

I don't have any savings actually but I do have a house (with an incredibly big mortgage) and the island and I don't have a live in nanny but I certainly can't be classed as poor. There has been no surplus income in any month since the divorce but I could of course move or take the children out of school. We are getting by. The day to day issues of managing children as a single parent, very single parent as the father is 100% absent in all senses, are not always easy but I certainly wouldn't say my life was hard. The nicest bit of it seems to be my internal contentment which is an issue which is irrelevant to money.

Do I value people by their economic activity? No. I have harped on about my concern that men own 99% of the world's wealth and I think it's a pity it's always b loody women taking the financial hit, loving the left wing contribution to the world, leaving the men to earn more, such a shame really because you'll never get proper fairness on the planet unless we do get more equality between men and women.

Other issues like how we lead our lives whether men and women can be separately debated. What saddens me is SAH parents who hate it and working parents who hate their work. If you're not happy change things or change your mental processes so you enjoy what you have.

xenia

I suspect that the "internal contentment which is an issue which is irrelevant to money" does have a lot to do with money..imagine living in a 2 bedroom flat, with your 5 kids squashed in, and working bloody hard but for the minimum wage. Money - or at least lack of worry about not having enough to feed your family - does play a part in how people feel about themselves, regardless of who in the family earns it.

You talk about money endlessly Xenia! You are obsessed with it!

dara - I know that dinosaur is not a single working mother to a famille nombreuse. Believe me, a very different proposition to being the breadwinning half of a partnership, and mother to three children (I have been in both situtions, incidentally) so there were no patronising assumptions.

funnily enough, although I cant answer for xenia, my (childless ) sister accused me recently of being money-obsessed. I have nightmares about being jobless, losing our house etc, and the whole thing coming crashing down. Something that most breadwinners probably worry about, but I dont have any backup, there is nobody to jump in and get a job to save the family if I lose mine. It doesnt help that I work in a high risk industry, and have watched colleagues falling to redunedancy around me on several occasions. Money obsessed? you bet I am.

Xenia has made very derogatory comments in the past about sahms who do voluntary work - I did ask whether she felt it should be the sole reserve of the blue rinse brigade rather than anyone under 60, but she didn't respond.

I would imagine that if her marriage has broken down then that might explain why she has such a jaundiced view of men.

She has also stated that she couldn't stand being stuck at home with a baby, and has never convincingly posted that she would understand a 'career woman' who would actually prefer to give up work in favour of staying at home to look after her own child - she always sees it as something that has been foisted upon women by men.

I was sahm for 12 years and had a great time - I certainly wasn't a drudge! Like suburbanjellybrain I now work part time in Local Government because - although the pay is relatively poor - I feel that I am contributing to my local community.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of taking a friend's horse out for a ride on a beautiful sunny, breezy morning - while Xenia was stuck in her office I presume.

I for one CERTAINLY don't feel that I'm missing out.

Xenia you are right that what is sad is sahm who ahte it and the opposite. They can't all change it though. many cannot work- they have caring roles that can't go elsewhere (you ever tried to get a cm for a disable child?) or where the care isn't reliable enough for a job to be absed on it- my friend is desperate to get back into work but her dad has alzheimers, SS are past useless and her Mum died of the same illness aged 39. To blame her for not changing her life is rather crass.

PeachyIsNowAChristmasFruit - I've seen posts where Xenia has described herself as 'extremely tolerant'...

No, WWJD, what you have posted doesn't make any sense.
Dinosaur asked Xenia, 'are your views the same where it's the man who stays at home and the woman who is the family breadwinner?'
And you chose to reply: 'I'll answer that one dinosaur, because I've done it. it is extremely difficult.'
So what did you do then that is relevant to Dinosaur's question? And how can you answer for Xenia's views on couples where the male partner stays at home to care for the the children? (a question she later answered with a farrago of insulting nonsense about knicker drawers)
As it happens, from what I've read here, Dinosaur actually has more, and younger dependent children than Xenia, as three of her children are adults at university. Though that is irrelevant to Dinosaur's question.

This kind of reminds me - when fairpack went down the BBC has some guy on saying that these people shouldn't be pitied because they didn't hire a financial adviser and put their money 'where it would work best for them'.

These are the people who read the selfish gene (or actually don't read it but say they have) and think it's message is for humans to be as selfish as possible - and don't pity the deserving poor. It's all rubbish of course.

I saw that MT too, boy was I seething (not least because farepak is still distributing posh hampers to M&S, its just the little people that go wthout...)

I have read the Selfish Gene LOL, for a Psychology essay.

dara,
xenia's last point was that a situation where one partner stays at home, was difficult. And dino asked if her view would be the same if it was the man who stayed at home. And I said, yes, I think it is very difficult.

Is that clear?

Is that a fact Peachy, about Fairpack and M&S? How can that be ethical??

Definite fact, Dh works for their transport company. have no idea how that works or why, just that theya re still shipping out M&S hampers from the premises that are labelled Farepak all over. have no idea how that works with administration or whatevr, but makes Dh very angry to see it.

I said the person at home has a service role (whether male or female) anf that might involve tidying your knicker drawer. Why is that insulting? I then said I could understand service as a concept bceause of my catholicism and the huge amount of service I do give (working mother are parents do and spend many hours parenting) but I do think it's boring at home and I don't know why so many women and not very many men choose it.

I was more interested in what is choice actually. Do any of us really choose anything?

Other interesting point was happiness and what someone said below. I said I was happy and that internal contentment seemed to matter most, whether you work at home or not. The Nigerians I think are the happiest people on earth and aren't very rich. So I don't correlate it to being well off. But it may be so that if you have a reasonably settled life with a few assets that's why I might be happier than if I were a farepak customer with Christmas ruined.

wwjd - Xenia did NOT say it was 'difficult'. She said it was subservient and degrading and that people who stayed at home to look after their children were 'glorified servants' (is that better than prostitutes? I'm not sure).

I said or meant service could be noble. Jesus kissed the feet of others. I was just chatting about the topic. You do serve if you're at home in exactly as I've described below but in today's age service can be demeaned. I didn't use the word degrading and a lot of people enjoy subservience anyway. In my vocabulary it is not on a list of bad words.

MT - when I talked about being driven by biology, I was responding to Xenia's comment "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"

Having been a WOHM for several years (and supporting DH as a part-time SAHD) I thought I'd made a well-informed, and conscious, choice to become an SAHM. But I guess in Xenia's eyes, I was a) conditioned to do so and b) conforming to the stereotype.

I guess there are several aspects to this debate that annoy me....

1. This view that because the feminists fought for women's rights, those women who conform to type are somehow 'letting the side down' or not being grateful enough.

1. The sweeping generalisations that are actually quite insulting - the mentions of prostitution

1. The comments about conversational topics being dull and trivial, and that life is too short to be spent talking such rubbish. What happened to being 'well rounded' as I think expat said. I'd far rather be able to have conversations about lots of different things - suncream included - than just having a one-track, supposedly heavyweight mind.

1. The comment about the person at home being 'subservient' - why is it more subservient being at home? My DH is deeply envious of me being at home, and I suspect he feels like the subservient one, the one having to earn the money to support his family. I guess I consider myself as the matriarch in my family!!

1. Do I feel "stupid" because I, although well qualified and from an extremely good career, have chosen to be at home? Nope.

1. Was I programmed as a child to believe I should stay at home? No, in fact the female role models in my life had a variety of careers - some heavyweight business based, others literary and others artistic.

1. I absolutely believe we need more women in politics. Do I have any answers on how this might be achieved? No frankly. Everytime I hear the debate starting in the media, it just goes into things like breastfeeding in the house of commons which, whilst important, isn't the b-all and end-all of this issue.

1. In this country, one needs a certain amount of money before one can claim any sort of internal contentment. Comparisons with other countries, particularly on the African continent, are ridiculous.

Right, I've rambled on (in post-Xmas fair exhaustion) so apologies if it doesn't make sense!

Xenia, I live in Nigeria and can assure you that Nigerians, whatever they like to think, are not the happiest people on earth. They are aggressive, rude and violent and are as keen on money as anyone else, hence all the 419 scams. Also they are disliked by many other African nations.

As for this idea that sahm's are 'glorified prostitutes' - it could also be said that many people are prostituted to their jobs in order to earn enough money to live.

Very good points, ParanoidAndroid.

Women in politics thing particularly interesting - you're totally right about how it gets reduced to a work/life balance and breastfeeding in House of Commons debate!

The sitation is surely circular. Women won't get involved in politics while politics doesn't focus on the issues of interest and importance to them. And let's face it, we all deal with issues of personal importance and inconvenience as a priority, so no suprise that a bunch of middle-aged blokes aren't exactly 'in tune'.

Until it's women setting the political agenda directly, or being a right royal pain in the arse for male politicians, women's priorities won't be adequately reflected in the day-to-day political debate.