Women! Pah!

Victor Meldrew Michael Buerk says that women have too much power in society, citing the increasing influence of women at the BBC.
Hmm. Let’s just do a quick headcount of all the female presidents and prime ministers around the world. And also the female company directors (increasing, but still a minority). Yes, more products, policies and thinking are geared towards the needs and wants of women, but I don’t feel like an "unemployable sperm-donor making the house look untidy" yet (although Hels might think otherwise).
EDIT: Buerk "bonkers" according to Anna Ford.

3 Replies to “Women! Pah!”

  1. He lives in telly land, which is different from our world.

    I really could go on about this for along time, but will restrict myself to two observations:

    a) BBC3 is currently showing a programme about what happens when Mums go away and leave Dads looking aftr the children. In my world, this is a non-event. Even though my mother was the classic stay-at-home Mum, I was often cared for by my father or my grandfather, who both knew perfectly well how to look after children. My partner often looked after his children, and I see this as being the norm for very many people not especially motivated by right-on-ness, feminism, New Manishness. It’s just the reality of ‘normal’ lives. As is the fact that many decisions in the domestic sphere have traditionally been made by women; it’s only belatedly that this has been understood by companies and the State. If I was running a company I would want to maximise the number of those decisions made in my favour because it would improve my profitability. Not dissimilar arguments also apply to the State.

    b) Buerk wants to define everyone by function or genre. I don’t want sperm donors, anonymous or otherwise. I want to be in a loving relationship with a man (because that’s my preference, I have no problem with other people’s preference), I want to enjoy the company of the diverse selection of male people I call my friends and relatives.

  2. Before criticising it’s a good idea to check what he actually said – no quotations in the post here. It also seems that some “quotations” were invented. He’s said that as a journalist he’s embarrassed at the inaccuracy of some of his fellow journalists:

    “Buerk is currently in dispute with the Radio Times for allegedly misquoting him, but the source of his agitation evidently lies deeper than this.

    While the row has been dominated by his supposed misogyny, his heartfelt opinion that children need both a father and mother has been largely ignored. It is clearly a deeply ingrained view, and its origins lie in his own family background.

    … Buerk’s “rant” is something far more complex and interesting than any insults his critics can throw at him.

    So much for interpretation. But when he opened this can of worms, what did Michael Buerk mean?

    “Well, for a start, I did not say women are taking over the world,” he says. “However,” he adds hastily, “I am not saying that would be a bad thing.

    “What I am saying is that it is women who set the agenda. OK, they don’t have the commanding lights in politics or business – but to some extent they do in the media, where the agenda is set, if not run, by women, for women.

    The television programme, Buerk tells me, is half-flippant, half-serious. “It’s not about just knocking women – it’s about men going through a bit of a crisis. And, to be honest, it’s my wife’s rant as much as mine. She feels even more strongly than I that many young men feel redundant.

    “Either they get in touch with their feminine side, use moisturiser and all that, or they reject it and become badly behaved lads. All at a time when many young women are drinking more, committing more crime and becoming more sexually predatory. Or maybe that is an old man’s fantasy,” he smiles, shrugging.

    he has been a little hurt at the barbed jibes from old friends, particularly Anna Ford.

    “I did e-mail her saying I hadn’t actually said all that had been attributed to me,” he says, “and her response was an e-mail that was even more vitriolic. I was under the impression,” he says rather dolefully, “that we were great mates.”

    Does he feels bitter that Fiona Bruce replaced him as presenter of the 10 O’Clock News in 2002? Definitely not, he says. “She is quite the finest newscaster I know. I have worked with a lot of alpha females – Sue Lawley and Kate Adie. I think women reporters are more hard-working, more committed and more competitive than men. Some are more ruthless.”


Comments are closed.