I recently heard Harriet Harman give an interview in which I was reminded that her position in government is that of Minister of Women. Now, I have to confess that I can’t remember what subject she was being interviewed on because to be honest, whenever she comes on TV, I find she has little of interest to say and therefore, I just switch off, mentally that is!
Quite apart from whether or not Harriet Harman is the right person to represent women, other than of course the fact that she is one, I am left wondering why women need their own minister? If I were a woman, I would find it quite patronising that this politically correct Labour government felt that women were so weak or under-represented, that they needed their very own Minister for Women. The reality is, today more and more women are in powerful and highly influential positions, they have achieved this, with the notable exception of politics, on merit. So why did this government believe that women should be sectioned off and dealt with as if they were ‘different’ rather than equals? Surely this weakens the cause, if you can describe it as such, rather than strengthens it?
I believe it is as wrong to practice positive discrimination as it is to practice any form of discrimination. The implication that women need a minister to represent their individual interests whilst men do not is simply ludicrous. I ask myself, what next, a Minister for Fat People, a Minister for Drug Users, a Minister for Transsexuals? Quite frankly it is ridiculous. In my opinion, this is not about equality, it is about discrimination, it is to suggest that women are incapable of fighting their corner.
I have seen a number of TV programmes recently where every successful women interviewed stated that gender was not an issue. Furthermore, they made clear that they did not want people (specifically men) to believe that they got where they were based on the fact that there were different rules for women. But based on the fact that their success was through merit. Quite rightly so. I can honestly state that when I was looking at recruiting or promoting people, I did so on ability and merit, not gender or race and I know many, many people that adopt a similar philosophy.
The other problem is when you create a job such as Minister for Women, you find that the minister is having to scratch around for something to do, in other words, they feel have to create new legislation to justify their jobs. In a recent example, I recall the Minister of Women speaking up for the rights of prostitutes and guess what? The prostitutes when asked, made clear that they felt the Minister of Women had no idea what they needed and worst still, the proposed legislation was likely to end up with the prostitutes being less protected than if the minister did nothing. Needless to say, in this particular example, the Minister of Women claimed she knew better because all the prostitutes she has spoken to said something different.
I do not deny that there was a need in the past to introduce legislation that ensured women were treated equally and I believe for the most part, that legislation and education has achieved that goal. There is now a risk that legislation for the sake of legislation will have a detrimental affect as will, for example, suggesting that women should be placed in certain positions based on gender rather than ability. It will weaken what was an otherwise perfectly reasonable, legitimate and worthwhile cause.
One example in terms of politics, is David Cameron’s suggestion that women should be selected to stand for parliament based on gender because they are under-represented, rather than because they are the best candidate. I can say, with all honesty and humility, that it would not bother me what race, or gender a candidate was, provided I felt that they could represent my interests. David Cameron’s actions may be politically correct, but they set back the cause of women by decades, the last thing women want to believe is that men are questioning whether they achieved their position based on being the best candidate or their gender. It is as much about perception as it is reality.
Just in case any women out there decide that this post is anti-women, I would ask them to read it again, I am for equality, not against and I am against any form of discrimination, be that against women or men.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I do not disagree with the posters views at all. I’d like to pick up on a point made: “The other problem is when you create a job such as Minister for Women, you find that the minister is having to scratch around for something to do, in other words, they feel have to create new legislation to justify their jobs.”
If we are to be incumbered with a Minister for Women then why on earth has she not addressed the obvious issues yet? 1. VAT on sanitary products, a tax on women pure and simple. In this century I dont think anyone, man or women would argue that these are not essential items, luxury does not come into it! 2. Wage gap between men and women. The HMRC have the data through PAYE and NI payments for every employer, this needs analysis and employers need to address this issue on the basis that they will be named and shamed if they are found to be paying women less. Investors In People should expand thier remit to analysis of pay before rewarding the status. In the current climate with more men losing jobs than women, surely this shows that employers are shedding the workforce that costs them more - men! I apologise for the generalisation in this post but my aim is purely to raise a point.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
An excellent post. I have a couple of points to make, though: as you say, legislation may have been required in the past to protect women, however, you said it - the resulting changes and education… it’s education that changes attitudes, not bullying and frequently incomprehensible legislation! It takes time, of course, but education is the key to almost everything and legislation is NOT the answer to almost eveything - that fact alone should relegate this government into history under the general heading of “Mistakes of The Past”.
I agree entirely with you regarding positive discrimination - it stinks. Try changing the system so prospective candidates feel they might actually be LISTENED to and have the opportunity to change things! THEN you might get better quality MPs of all sexes and races!
Harriet Harman - Britain’s answer to Sarah Palin - just as stupid and useless, but, to be a bit male about it, not even good looking - MIWWF, even if it meant the end of humanity (WW stands for Wouldn’t Want!).
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
J.Day: Thanks for your post. I did not realise that VAT was charged on such items, I learn something everyday, but agree with your sentiments completely, it is ridiculous to be charging VAT on essential. In terms of your other points, again I agree, if we are to have a fair and equitable arrangement based on merit, there should be no differences based on gender or race.
CJ: Thanks for visiting. I think you make the point well when you make clear that we require education, not legislation. However, I come back to the point made in my original post and that is Harriet Harman is making legislation to justify her role, rather than because it is needed. A very sad state of affairs. I also agree with your point regarding Harriet Harman, she is inept, but we could also add Jacqui Smith to the same mix.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Yes, I take your point, but isn’t that what politicians do (both national and local)? They mostly begin empire building to increase their importance and, as soon as they are in a position to do so, they start legislating in order to justify their existence and keep their empire going!
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
CJ: You are completely right, I was highlighting the Minister of Women, but given New Labour’s history of one piece of legislation after the other, it could be applied equally to most MP’s.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Like most of the ministerial posts, this is just an excuse to create one; Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (How does that not overlap Communities and Education?), Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (as if we need a Cabinet Minister purely for Energy!), Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, (Education?), Minister of State for Housing (?), Minister for Employment and London, (once under the remit of Home Secretary now we have a highly paid minister for purely for Employment!), Minister for Children, Young People and Families (change the words around and create a new minister it seems - Either that or Ed Balls and Beverley Hughes are doing the same job!)
I fully expect to see a Minister for Muslims, a Minister for Homosexuals and a myriad of other pointless posts for MPs within my lifetime. I now view the Ministry for Silly Walks not as a witty sketch, but a frighteningly accurate prediction by the Monty Python team.
It was also interesting to hear that the other pointless, expensive and useless crony vehicle - the racial equality commission, or whatever PC title it now has, actually pays men more than women and whites more than blacks! Clearly a case of do as I say, not as I do.
I think that Minister for Women is about 90 years too late. Margaret Thatcher kicked open the door for women, but the likes of Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith are bricking it back up again.
They have been promoted simply because they are women and are using their position to simply get other women in to make up the numbers. Quotas first and ability second is no way to run anything, let alone a nation.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
@ Charlie: Well I couldn’t agree with you more, I was trying to work out the other day just how many new ministerial posts have been created under this government.Whatever the total, it has hardly been progressive, because they clearly lack the talent to run the departments.
December 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Why is it so hard to expose abuse in countries like USA, CA or Australia? and so very easy when it comes to Africa, India, Pakistan… Is it about the double standard? We are better than you?