Prospective women MPs
A depressing article in the Observer about a scheme helping ‘women break down bastions of male power’. Women have to have special parliamentary positive discrimination to get them into the Commons. So what are we getting? Some parody of the Stepford wives. The females taken onto this scheme are party apparachicks – all with the regulation long hair, plucked eyebrows, lippy, and mid-thigh coats. They’re all, of course, Multi-Taskers, and all have Empathy, something which their male counterparts lack totally. Their being in the Commons will mean that Women’s Issues are properly addressed and the Woman’s Perspective on all other issues is aired.
Of course we’ve got to have lots of women MPs: there are lots of women. Of course women have to be encouraged to become MPs, and of course the public-school-Oxbridge male dominance must be broken. But WHY do ‘successful’ women all have to be women first and individuals very, very second? Why do they all have to look and think the same?
If we want more women at the top of professions, let’s: a) stop gendering childhood, because there’s sod all difference between pre-pubescent boys and girls, except what gets bullied into them at a very early age; b) encourage every child to be individual, not just exam-fodder and economic units; c) give men and women exactly the same rights over children; d) dish out the same uniform to males and females of every age in every role which needs uniform; e) stop showing endless images of women with their tits out or almost out; f) stop having groups like the ‘lady barristers who go and have a gin every month to talk about the female perspective on law’; g) stop jolly well talking about the sodding ‘female perspective’ full stop. And while we’re at it, let’s stop talking about ‘male power’ – if we don’t think of men as especially powerful, they’ll cease to be so.