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?

On the equality of earnings thing, I experienced something very wierd with DH.

I had always earned more, then as soon as DD1 was born, DH turned into a risk-taking caveman, demanding pay rises and better roles. He's now MD of his own company.

Whereas I (previously supposed career woman) took a new look at all the political games the blokes played in the office, thought "get a life" and opted out of the madness (hence lower wage increases).

Men are sometimes paid more because their employers are conscious that they are likely to be the main breadwinner. Certainly, when I worked in the legal profession, I discovered that a male colleague doing the same job was earning more than I was. When I queried this (for which read kicked up a stink), I was told by my male bosses that I would probably have the chance to be supported financially by my husband, whereas my male colleague wouldn't. Bear in mind that all of these male bosses earned loads and had SAH wives who probably had never earned much in their lives beforehand.

After I'd scraped myself off of the ceiling, they gave me a pay rise (might have mentioned something about sex and discrimination, but I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with their decision ).

'Men are always paid more than women', that is just not factually true!

Brummie - I suspect that is actually quite common.

But if someone is working like long hours, getting results and totally committed to the company, and the person next to them is a strict 9-5er, not that motivated and doing just about ok, should greater rewards not flow to the person getting greater results - irrespective of their gender?

Possibly, but if the person doing the fewer hours is female because she has to dash home to collect children, is it fair that her male counterpart, who doesn't have those commitments, should be paid more?

I'm far more interested in current affairs than my dh, I earn more than him, have a better chance of promotion than him, work in the same profession as him, run the house and sort the childcare. He does walk the dog though

Well I still stand by my contention that regardless of 'how' they happen, certain issues like expensive childcare do impact women more than men but these are not as high up the political agenda as they should be.

Which can only be because we aren't having a proportionate impact or influence on the political and social agenda in this country.

Yes, sorry Soapy, you're right. They aren't always paid more than women. THat looks really stupid written down.

What I was getting at was that in my experience, that for the same job, men are usually paid more unless there is such a rigid pay structure that there is no room for negotiation.

Festivefrex - I think that is exactly my point!

If both parents work - why is it the woman who is running out the door at 5pm - isn't it a shared responsibility!

DH and I are both in pretty high performing jobs - he does 2 nights a week and I do 2 nights a week and I work at home 1 day which I also cover!

Why is it not the man leaving on time? I just don't get it!

Men can only concentrate on one thing at a time, so it will always be women that have to juggle everything else

I really disagree with that - I think men will try and get away with doing what they fancy doing, unless challenged.

Why on earth can't a man leave the office at 5pm to pick up his own children? And that doesn't even involve multitasking anyway!

And I am starting to sound worryingly like Xenia

It's down to attitudes and expectations, both in the workplace and in the home. Employers seem to expect female staff to dash off on time, but for their male colleagues to work ridiculous hours (part of the macho work-culture). And, within the family, I doubt that the question of who is responsible for the childcare even gets debated in most households. It's just assumed that it will be the mother.

And do women help perpetuate this ridiculous state of affairs?

What about - sorry dear, I did last night, your turn tonight!

(to Soapy's comment...)
(bah too late)

Again, I can only speak from experience, but I feel that men are not prepared to put the children first, and women are. So as a default, we end up bearing the burden of domestic responsibility.

For example, dh has the sort of job where he cannot seem to switch off from. He puts in way too much extra time. Meanwhile I have the higher paid, higher status job but I pretty much put in the 9-5 and no more.

His job will advance, mine will stagnate, but financially this makes no sense at all for us. As i said to him the other day, if I put in the extra hours that he does, I would be Finance Director by now!

Then why don't you?

A lot of sexism on this thread. Do I avert my gaze?
I don't like to consort with women who aren't interested in current affairs. I suppose it is tradition with the Taliban and Saudi and I suppoise some homes in the UK that women's interests are hearth and home and men's arena is the wider world. Perpetuate that if you wish but you do women and your daughters a disservice by doing so.

It would be ridiculous if it were decided little women are just interestsed in babies etc. Childcare is an issue for both parents. If men want it more in the media (or women) write about it, bring it up but don't whinge. I often write to the press about issues which are important to me and that might be either tax, pensions, politics or it could be sexism.

I like women's hour whenever I get the chance to hear it by the way.

Whensanta that is my main issue, main point. Women ensure things don't change. They need a good kicking. Their tolerance of those kinds of things is completely uhjnfair on their daughters. They will regret how you've been with your men by such tolerance and letting the sexism etc happen and by silly assumptions about untrue male and female differences.

Xenia, I am grinning from ear to ear at the fact that you have basically just said I need a good kicking.

I think the reason I don't do this is because it suits me better to have him as the "breadwinner". I am part time and I get to see my children and at the moment that is what I like doing in life.

I love my job, but the fact is that I am very all or nothing. I am either going to be successful in my career or not bother to progress at all.

I don't think that he would be as fulfilled with a greater domestic role as I am, and so for the meantime I am happy to take on the traditional second career.

Behind all of this is a sneaking suspicion that my employer would not allow me to progress now anyway, as I have marked my copy book by being part time and having maternity leave.

Ah well that is different then!

You are choosing to prioritise all of the child care.

I am certainly interested in current affairs.

In my nature of news studies at the moment there is research that says women are not as well served by the media as men, along with minority groups.

Perhaps women are responsible for bringing this on themselves. Have I failed the sisterhood in giving up a well-paid, respected legal career to concentrate on my family? Or should I have (controversial suggestion alert) failed my children by concentrating on my career?

My view (and it is my view) is that if you want career and a family as a woman, then you have to compromise and accept that you are not going to do either as well as you would if you didn't have to deal with the other. Men rarely have to confront this dilemma.

I heard quite unofficially that one firm of solicitors locally has decided they will take on no more female partners, because they'd had two who had to take maternity leave more than once each and it distrupted things. Can't imagine them deciding that about male partners as it won't ever arise.

Festive Frex - that is fine if it is what you have chosen to do - but the thread started off from the assumption that women were almost forced into the situations they are in.

My point is that the decision as to who stays at home, indeed if anyone stays at home, is often made within the family and is not terribly affected by policy making.

Men rarely confront the dilema, because women often don't make them!