Stale, male and pale

[ladyblablah]

I bloody loved this description of the yawny white middle class man who dominate the upper echelons of many of our institutions and businesses.

On a very general level, I see very little inspirational about these grey types, just robotic, boxed in values, there 'by the grace of God'.

And at last a term to insult them.

Yay.

The only thing I'm a bit wary of is the "stale" part, because I'm not sure whether that's an ageist thing, or whether it's referring to their values/practices/opinions/behaviour/background etc - if solely the latter then fine. Mind you, men tend not to come in for the ageist crap so much anyway, so maybe I'm being over sensitive on their behalf

The rest - absolutely!

It's maybe slightly ageist but it's more "no fresh ideas, been in the job too long". Gove, Hague and Clarke are all very different ages.

The backlash on the comments section of the BBC News website after that comment was fairly strong.

Lots of comments along the lines of how it's wrong to unfairly promote women and PoC etc etc. They want the right people for the job, but they can never envisage that the right person for the job might be a woman or PoC, what they really mean is, they want the right white man for the job.

How very ageist, sexist and racist of you all.

The "meritocracy" comment always seems to come up when lack of diversity is mentioned. "Oh, we must promote the best person for the job". It comes up at my workplace a lot at the moment as they're struggling with diversity and the old white men at the top don't like the implied insults associated with highlighting their bias.

If take the "meritocracy" line of logic to it's full extent...

• apparently it's a meritocracy, and this is a superior by virtue of being "fair" (thus making anyone arguing against you appear to favour unfairness)
• as it's a meritocracy (apparently) in the past the best person for the job has been chosen
• coincidentally the best person for the job is often an old, white, man (not ageist, accurate. Sometimes they are young, this is rarer)
• by extension, this is because PoC and women must just be less competent...

Really, REALLY? They want to use a "meritocracy" argument and expect it to not be wildly offensive?? It makes me Very Cross (DH may have been on the receiving end of this rant a few times!).

Yy where.

Michael Gove is 46, AICM. I don't think the stale refers to his age.

I accept I was being over sensitive about the "stale = ageist" thing.

Meritocracy is meaningless where only a specific group is given the opportunity to prove their merit, or only their merit is recognised

"Meritocracy is meaningless where only a specific group is given the opportunity to prove their merit, or only their merit is recognised"

Yy!

Oh yes AICM, how very dare people want those who are supposed to represent them be actually representative of them.

When it comes to Tory cabinet ministers, to be honest I'd rather they were 'stale'. It's the ones like Gove who have bright ideas that I fear. "Let's reorganise education completely!" "Let's privatise everything!"

How can people expect, that accompanying the first shoots of breaking free a history of patriarchal domination, women won't rejoice in the barbed derision that now meets middle-aged white men. Whilst celebrating everything that is female (and of colour and gay etc), we should not hesitate to stick the boot into the oppressors. The patriarchy's demise can be hastened through ridicule of its representatives and pithy slogans like 'stale, male and pale' are absolutely right. As has been said above, to say that this gleeful barracking is hypocritical or offensive in some way is to deny that power should be representative.

Hehe - this is funny because it's spot on!

Rofl @ Monty

Petula and where just what I was trying to say on the AIBU thread about the media presentation if the reshuffle, except you said it better.

'Really, REALLY? They want to use a "meritocracy" argument and expect it to not be wildly offensive?? It makes me Very Cross (DH may have been on the receiving end of this rant a few times!)'

It's a good rant and well worth having!

'Best person for the job' makes me laugh. It's either that or pull my hair out. Do ANY of the current Cabinet strike anyone as the best possible people to fill those roles? Or even the 10th best person to do their respective jobs? Are we supposed to believe that everyone who holds a position of power and influence got there on merit? REALLY??????? Shiny Dave who couldnt lead or manage his way out of a paper bag? Gormless Gideon? BORIS JOHNSON??????

Please give us all a nice long break

Which elected MPs would you put in the cabinet then Lotta?

MPs who appear to have their heads screwed on and appear to actually care about something beyond the end of their noses:

Tom Watson
Simon Danszczuk
Harriet Harman
Gloria De Piero
Stella Creasy
Meg Hillier

Yes they are all Labour MPs - I can't bear the thought of choosing a Tory cabinet.

And Yvette Cooper, forgot her

i would like mps who aren't afraid of experts

by that i mean that they don't feel threatened by experts so they want to control them

Some good names there. I'm a conservative voter, but Harriet would still get a place in my 'dream cabinet'

You obviously have excellent taste Trapper

"Meritocracy is meaningless where only a specific group is given the opportunity to prove their merit, or only their merit is recognised"

This is great, I've been trying to find the words to say to counter the 'Meritocracy' argument I've been hearing a lot of.

Meritocracy is meaningless where only a specific group is given the opportunity to prove their merit, or only their merit is recognised

Perfectly put.

ie to explain the status quo...
Option 1: women are a bit crap and the current male bias in roles of power is correct
Option 2: women are being prevented from realising their full potential

Option 1 is clearly bollocks.