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?

I don't think it is only women interested in vacuos rubbish Xenia (I prefer to call it relaxation anyway - the reason I read crime novels for instance!!) - My dh spends most evenings playing a glorified version of dungeons and dragons online and would much prefer to discuss footie than philosophy!! I went to uni to do politics with the romantic notion that I would be spending hours debating with likeminded souls in the pub - well I spent hours in the pub! But I found women much more interested in discussing the issues of the day while men concentrated on getting their end away... I don't think it is some inate or conditioned 'fluffiness' that stops women being fully equal in society I think it is a society set up for the convenience of men that makes it difficult for women to participate.

A Mothers contribution is invaluable and undervalued at the same time and maybe you are the conditioned one Xen lead to believe that you have to proove yourself in a mans world' in order to be valued and therefore value yourself?

Apologise for shite spelling in my post - probably down to being a sahm - my brain is melting afterall

I have a fantastic husband who looks after his tiny ones (1st lot all in their 20s). I feel very stuck. Dh is nearly 60. My 2 children are under 3. We have ageism and sexism and whatever you like going against us. Whatever next? Do we just die of starvation, or do we get on with it? I think we must press on....

Have anyone ever seen what men discuss online? Football and how crap women are. It's not exactly Schopenhaur.

And surely 'women's issues' is just shorthand for 'matters that women prioritise as being interesting and important'?

Men also discuss music for hours they are much more obssesive than women imo and much more 'black and white' in their views - a terrible generalisation I know but

Bugger! Schopenhauer

sub, there isn't a man's world. There is the world of work and politics and Govenrmfent and it is a world of men and women in which men and women are interested and play a part.

As for men talking about dull things - they do. I suppose we all try to pick people we find interesting to go out with. I'm sure I'm terribly dull to lots of people.

MrsO why do you feel very stuck and if he's doing the child care at over 60 surely that removes the ageism problem because he's not in a work place. Sounds ideal. May be if I have a child at 60 I'll want to stay home at that point with it.

Never said there was a 'mans' world I said the world was set up to convenience men and made it more difficult for women to particpate (and the way women often do participate is undervalued)as I found out in the transportation field where I was relatively rare in a culture of latent sexism and beardy bus spotters etc. it didn't bother me but pretending that division doesn't exist would be naive of me. I found many of the women in the transport field were more competitive and defensive with other women - I don't know wether they wanted to defend their rareity and the status quo or what!? Definately the working environment in this country is much easier for people without children ...

i'm not sure men are really interested in current affairs any more than / any less than women? surely it depends on your general outlook, interests etc. My DH never reads a paper, never watches the news and generally just reads tech websites (IT nerd...). we have 1 DS and another on the way, and many of our friends have kids too, but what do the guys all talk about when they are together - computers... and yes, the girls talk kids, but we also talk entertainment, environmental issues, tech, etc etc. but for some reason very little politics with either the boys or girls. maybe this is general Aussie apathy?!! 'pollies' don't get a lot of respect here.

if DH wants to know something about current affairs he generally asks me! I have much more interest in history and literature too - he is more into science and tech.

This thread has got me thinking about the people we meet and mix with, and how we develop/change our way of thinking or the things we think about.

I spent my formative years abroad and so didn't have any friends in the UK when I moved back aged 18. I worked with horses for a year and so only met/chatted with other horsey people and basically talked horses for that year. Nothing else interested me. Then I moved back to my parents' house in the south east, and went to college meeting other people, predominantly female as I did a bilingual secretarial course. So it wasn't until aged about 22 that I hit London and discovered a whole bunch of people at work with a diverse range of opinions about everything. It was fantastic and really opened my eyes.

But I look back from where I am now and see that actually, it was still a very small circle that I mixed in socially - the moneyed set in SW London really weren't that interested in anything other than parties, who slept with whom etc etc. I changed careers and locations and worked for an environmental charity which taught me a lot about an area that had been completely unknown to me.

I changed professions and became predominantly a woman in a man's world. And boy was I in for a shock. As the only female director on a multinational board of 11, I was the only one who didn't have a football team to support, who couldn't drink umpteen pints and remain standing, who wasn't interested in eyeing up women or chatting up cabin crew, whose only subject of chitchat was talking shop and company gossip. And then when I transferred to a Japanese company, it got worse. As the only woman in a meeting (despite being way more senior than every man present) I was expected to serve the tea/coffee, or to chase people up if they were late.

I'm not quite sure what I'm saying except I think that it's not just about conditioning, the role models our parents set us etc. It's also about where life takes us, the opportunities that are presented for us, the choices we make. Would I have chosen to become the one female director knowing about the disadvantages - yes probably as I could satisfy my intellectual and artistic needs in other ways. Would I work for a Japanese company in the same circumstances again? No way, because that was a deeply painful experience - being isolated not because of what I was interested in etc but just because of my gender was not pleasant.

Now being at home, I have more time to follow current affairs, to develop my thinking (even if I don't sound too rational this morning!!!), to work out how to give my children an insight into the world etc. I'm rambling now and will stop for some more coffee and to mull things over while I go and tidy up the garden.

It's an interesting thread for sure.

(And MT, my nickname is from the Hitchhikers Guide - I used to have a horse called Marvin)

Okay thanks

Will I ever find a Radiohead kindred spirit on MN I wonder..

pablo honey yes

ok computer no

Dull men... well I never date men who don't have a kind of broad knowledge about lots of subjects, not just business, a kind of thirst for knowledge, renaissance interests in a way, sponges who whatever they read they are interested in. I suppose we seek out what we think we want. Someone just interested in their work or not much else, like I think the man (dull) I had dinner with this week are not what I'm after. I need the enthusiasm and joi de vivre of people fascinated to be on the planet whether they're talking about the ecological balance on my island or their company, my children or PMT, Blair or Cameron, psychology or history. Sadly most people in the UK are not as interested in current affairs as they should be although I wouldn't make voting compulsory.

PA, interesting post. What I would tell my daughters is don't pioneer. Don't pick the police because of the sexism if you want to get to the top. Choose wisely and above all pick something you will enjoy and will keep you in whatever modest or immodest style you want to live. For example pick the professions with more than 50% women where most recruitment is on merit rather than a Japanese bank...although my own prejudices were confirmed earlier this year when I had a Japanese delegation here and expected no women and guess who was in charge .. the one woman although I'm sure that's not the norm. But thank God for the earlier pioneers otherwise we wouldn't have the vote or the right to work in many areas, those women who put up with the discomfort and discrimination.

Women only have problems in the so called man's world because they let their men be excused from responsiblity for children which it pathetic and women's faults. Instead for all adults with children or elderly parents or sick horses it is hard to manage life and work but this should never be a woman's issue and women make it so and thus dig their own graves and those of their daughters.

Don't you think that one of the reasons that people aren't interested in current affairs is that they cannot see 'it' as being related to their own lives. Unless of course it is something like - asylum seekers taking all the jobs / paedophile lives round the corner from you / bird flu might get you etc etc. People feel that unless they live in a marginal seat, their vote isn't going to make a difference so a) why bother voting and b) what happens in politics is remote and untouchable. What are your views on proportional representation? Could this be a way of getting people more involved and therefore more interested? It certainly has some merit which may be why of course it is not being discussed by the two main parties!!!

the prospect of spending years in middle age dating men is horrible

PA, true. People have always been like that. May be it was better when only those over 30 who owned properties and paid rate/council tax could vote so the voice of the clever and successful was heard and the stupid and poor wasn't.... I expect that's too controversial and at first even women were excluded in that category even if they met the requirements.

Dating at my age... sometimes it's fun; it feels more honest than all those other 40 somethings (male and female) who sneak around having extra marital sex, actually. It's not my choice. I married for life originally. Sometimes things don't work out.

What's the one before OK Computer - is it The Bends? I really like that one.

I'm too lazy to read this thread so not sure where radiohead came into it

perhpas I should have said tha t dating middle aged men sounded a horrible chore.....

(I love OK Computer!)

Xenia - I think that's - erm - a slightly controversial view to say the least! I have to be honest and say I don't agree with it. I think that is where education comes in. Educate people to believe they can make a difference whether it be globally or locally, and give them the tools to progress in life. But then who sets the education agendas? The government of the day. So is it taking it too far to say the government are happy to keep people in their place? You can't have too many people getting to know too much and becoming uppity? Or am I just being paranoid

"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. "

The thing about this comment Xenia, is that if both parents choose to work, then someone has to look after their child, be it at home, at a childminder or in a nursery. To me, your comment infers that people who choose childcare, cleaning or housekeeping as a vocation are dull. Consequently, if you value your children so much, would you allow these dull people to have so much influence in shaping their attitude, behaviour, beliefs etc because unless you decide to look after them 24/7 yourself, that will happen to a lesser or larger extent, depending on how much time the carer has with the child.

Therefore, instead of making derisory comments about SAHPs, especially SAHMs, maybe you should remember that you have been able to work full time for your whole career because of the dull people that you employed to run your home and look after your children.

I actually like the Kid A, Amnesiac period best. Thom Yorkes solo album was very good too. From what I've seen on YouTube I'm very much looking forward to the new Radiohead one too.

If I say I find it boring it doesn't mean anyone else would. I'd rather read the FT or do my work but lots of people would say what I do is boring. So why do you think I'm criticising. I don't feel I've ever criticised a stay at home parent. I feel sad it is always women virtually in that position and there really isn't a gender neutral choice no matter how much all the SAHMs say well my husband and I discussed it and surprise surprise it was the woman who found mopping up and home interesting and the man who chose to go out and earn a crust. What a coincidence that that is so often so but I suppose it's great all these women so enjoy being at home.

I have had nannies who love children and being at home and there are lots of male nannies, mannies around now too. Childcare suits a certain kind of person and many fathers and mothers love to do it too. Is any of this choice at all though....if you feel emotionally bereft to leave your child is it a choice to stay with it or a natural biological response?

"it's not just about conditioning, the role models our parents set us etc. It's also about where life takes us, the opportunities that are presented for us, the choices we make".

Have been thinking about ParanoidAndroid's comments on parents/society vs life experience. Particularly parents vs life experience.

Isn't it fair to say that your parents are hugely influential in where you end up in life (I think xenia may have made this point once or twice?!).

Actually (my god!) my parents were text book Xenia! Mother working full-time. Fought for the right to return to work asap after having her 1st child - unheard of then. Resigned from 1 job in protest at their attitude. All female members of the family worked, including grandmothers. Father (would have preferred a boy, truth be known) pushing me into 'serious' (non-arts) subjects. Encouraged to read 3 newspapers a day from about age 13 (oh, the luxury I think now!).

Result: great career, complete disrespect...no....it was lack of understanding of non-working mothers. But life's a great educator, and here's 2 things I learned very recently.

1. Looking back, I can't remember my mother being happy until she retired. I can't remember us playing together. She was constantly stressed and irritable. I have no idea how to play with my daughter.

1. My dad missed one very important point - it's important to do what makes you happy and fulfils you. And to be your own person. And it's a critical point in your life when you finally ditch the parental conditioning, find your own way and trust your own instincts. (i think this point coincides with the point you also think 'yes, I'm a contrary old cow but I'm too old to change now!".

1. (I forgot, there's a 3). The level playing field stopped being so level after having my first child. So unfortunately the society i thought was totally equal until entering the delivery suite is still riven with issues that need sorting. Having followed this thread for a few days though, I am (mostly!) convinced by those that challenged me on this being a 'woman's issue'. But i still refuse to concede my assertion that unless women do something about it, it will NEVER change. Because no one else is being bleedin' inconvenienced by it! I guess on that point, I sort of agree with Xenia then.

But it's only an unlevel playing field at work if your other half at home doesn't see children as 50% his job. As long as couples domestically have a structure where if the woman wants to return to work it's her job to fix child care etc you won't get your level playing field. In other words in how people are at home they are actually digging with a massive shovel to unlevel the field in the fairness and structures at home and in how they see the childcare and who does what. Not all couples. Loads do things fairly but many don't and women moan but tolerate.....

Influences... I';ve always thought our first 7 years were important but not in terms of hour by hour time with a mother but parental influence in general, what kind of home is it, values etc. I've also found how different children are simply because their DNA differs even amongst siblings which means parents are silly to blame themselves for how their children turn out a lot of the time. Don't take so much of the glory and don't take so much of the blame. You borrow your child for a little time. I always think this sums it up well. And then I've got 3 through teenage yeras when friends are very influential - one reason if they're bright and 100% of their friends are going to univesrity mostly with As may be that might rub off a bit if they're at that kind of school when peer pressure is more important than parents.

"And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children."

And he said:

Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.

Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;

For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable. "