IT WAS ONE of the most “respectable” of the Suffragette arguments. Give women the vote. Allow them to stand for Parliament. Make them ministers – even prime ministers – and society will be transformed. The mere presence of women in the halls of power (respectable women, that is, because powerful men and disreputable women have never been far apart) can only soften the raw masculinity of the political process and usher in a more caring, a more productive, and – most importantly – a more peaceful world.
All nonsense, of course. No sooner was war declared in 1914, than the leader of the British suffragettes, Emmeline Pankhurst, and her ambitious eldest daughter, Christabel, were up on the nearest platform, loudly urging every able-bodied British male to enlist in the great fight for King and Country. From chaining themselves to railings, the Pankhurst’s impressive army of suffragettes were swiftly redeployed to handing out white feathers to any young man not in uniform. When it came to mass slaughter, the female of the species was determined to prove herself no less deadly than the male.
Or, even deadlier. Because, once again, when women did become prime ministers (be it Israel’s Golda Meir, India’s Indira Ghandi, or Britain’s Margaret Thatcher) they did not show themselves to be one whit less willing to unleash fire and death than their male counterparts. (As anyone familiar with the careers of Boudica, Isabella de Valois, Catherine de Medici, Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great could confidently have predicted!)
Old news, one might say. But, one would be wrong. Because no matter how many times it is knocked down, the argument that women, simply by being there, or by virtue of some magical essence peculiar to the female of the species, will make an important difference to the way everything from corporations to cabinets are run, keeps popping right back up again.
The argument’s latest protagonist is the broadcaster Rachel Smalley, who used the occasion of John Campbell’s appointment as Radio NZ-National’s new drive show host to lament the preponderance of male voices on prime time radio.
“The perspective a male host takes into an interview is often very, very different to that of a woman”, wrote Smalley, in her column on the Newstalk-ZB webpage. “The perspective any of these hosts take into an interview about domestic abuse, sexual violence, or funding cuts to women’s refuge will be very different to mine.”
Really? I would have thought that, on any issue, a journalist’s perspective – male or female – would be determined by their willingness to set aside stereotypes and prejudices and allow their professional judgement to be guided by the evidence on offer. And isn’t their personal response to domestic abuse and sexual violence as likely to be determined by their capacity for empathy as their gender? After all, it was a male, David Cunliffe, who told a women’s refuge conference that the statistics relating to sexual violence made him “sorry to be a man”. By no means all the people who pilloried him for that comment were men.
Indeed, Smalley’s assumptions regarding the positions a male journalist is likely to take on everything from paid parental leave, to aid for victims of the wars in the Middle East, might, themselves, be characterised as examples of sexist prejudice. Do fathers have no stake in the quantum of paid parental leave? Do journalists like Robert Fisk, and our own Jon Stephenson, not risk their lives to bring the stories of the victims of war to the world?
Smalley’s argument would have been a great deal stronger if she had couched it in terms of ideological, rather than gender, diversity. The problem with prime-time radio in New Zealand is not a preponderance of male voices, but of right-wing voices. It is, surely, the messages which are carried on the nation’s airwaves that matter most – not the gender of the broadcasters who carry them?
Mary Wilson (the broadcaster John Campbell is about to replace on week-nights between 5:00 and 7:00pm) will soon be playing a major role in shaping the messages coming out of Radio NZ-National. Reality TV suprema, Julie Christie, already plays a very similar role at MediaWorks.
Now, ask yourself: Are the radically different messages carried by these women’s respective networks more likely to be the product of their makers’ gender – or their politics?
“The perspective any of these hosts take into an interview about domestic abuse, sexual violence, or funding cuts to women’s refuge will be very different to mine.”
Both you and her have a point, cos where she comes from, National Party loving Newstalk ZB, its hosts are infamous for being Uber conservative, not so tolarant, possibly religious, signed up right wing choir boys. So I suppose their tainted views of the little woman must make it a fairly oppressive place to work in for a female who thinks otherwise.
“The problem with prime-time radio in New Zealand is not a preponderance of male voices, but of right-wing voices. It is, surely, the messages which are carried on the nation’s airwaves that matter most – not the gender of the broadcasters who carry them?”
While I can agree with that comment by Chris, I do honestly think, we could do with some more female presenters on radio, and with that also Radio NZ National.
But it should not be a prime concern at present, to simply share the roles 50 to 50 to each side of the gender line, as we should appreciate that John Campbell has found a new job and home, and that is a better one he came from, being real public broadcasting.
As for the list of women that Chris mentioned, including Thatcher, not showing much “progressiveness”, there have been women in politics, and there are some, who would be on our sides.
And history also had such personalities as Rosa Luxemburg, that is a long time ago, I know, but she was truly revolutionary, was she not.
We need to rid the media of all these right wingers and sell out journos, who firstly think of their careers, their ego profiles, their sponsors and political friends, and then we may have time again, to share roles more fairly, amongst true journalists, who actually write and talk about what matters, not this endless crap and drivel I just watched on the news again.
Why is a jerk like Donald Trump even considered “news” to be presented on NZ television, I wonder?!
Pretty well put Chris, cant argue that logic.
Good call.
Rachel used to be so good in her last role as TV reporter but sorry her handlers at Radio live have all but spoiled her logic and balance.
Not her fault as the saying goes “one bad apple will rot the while bin”.
My blog disappeared again hello? what is going on there?
Has GCSB,CIA/NSA burgled our The Daily blog?
I’m having the same issue.
There is also significant disparity in the votes which makes me think a minor digital invasion has occurred.
@ Chris Trotter . Dead right. No pun intended. Though we live in hope.
Smally’s as Right Wing as a Chernobyl Chicken . Two right wings .
I’ve watched her , admittedly with a cynical eye, and was never disappointed in my keen instinct for a bullshitter and a promotor of dreaded Pro Right Wing logical fallacies .
And let us not forget this list of charmers ;
Paula Bennett
Judith Collins
Hekia Parata
Anne Tolly
Jenny Shipely
Ruth Richardson
And believe me , I could go on.
Like we need more of Rachel’s ‘heifers and lardos’ type of female perspective. When you’ve shown the country your real face and it’s that nasty, you’ve no credibility when you claim to represent other women.
It is great to have a man (old, white) explain these things
The meta-myths of the mainstream, Chris. ‘No true Scotsman’ and all that.
I can only hope that Mary Wilson will take her dirt-digging attitude to some place distant. The fem version of ‘Truth’ or Whaleoil. A curtain twitcher by nature and the signal to dive for Concert FM where they’re ALL nicely spoken. :-))
She and Sean Plunkett – what a team!!! (That is not a compliment of a complement.)
For me, Rachel Smalley represents too small a cross-section. ‘We’ are not ‘her’. I want to hear different viewpoints, not the same ones in treble or bass.
Thank you for taking the risk to challenge the myth, Chris. Keep your head down…
Hmm. Gremlins in the ether again…
If this becomes a double post – apologies.
The meta-myths of the mainstream, Chris. ‘No true Scotsman’ and all that.
I can only hope that Mary Wilson will take her dirt-digging attitude to some place distant. The fem version of ‘Truth’ or Whaleoil. A curtain twitcher by nature and the signal to dive for Concert FM where they’re ALL nicely spoken. :-))
She and Sean Plunkett – what a team!!! (That is not a compliment of a complement.)
For me, Rachel Smalley represents too small a cross-section. ‘We’ are not ‘her’. I want to hear different viewpoints, not the same ones in treble or bass.
Thank you for taking the risk to challenge the myth, Chris. Keep your head down…
Maybe this is just a little off topic, but I saw the first program of the ‘Story’ tonight on TV3, with Duncan Garner and Heather DuPlessis. I was taking a bit of interest in the first item, as it involved real estate agents, of whom I have not had much of a positive view anyway for some time.
But what they showed was “set up” stories, created stories, news they “make”, which seems to be the future trend and direction. This is scary stuff, very worrying, as it involves getting “sensational” exposure of facts, some of which may not happen had it not been for journos setting people up and catching them out.
So they sent a guy around to set a trap for some ruthless, opportunistic real estate agents, who would bend rules to make extra money for themselves, and then confronted the agents and their bosses with what was said and filmed. Naturally it caused a real stir, and for some persons to lose their jobs (that apparently rightfully).
Then another item was on a security man from First Security or so, who showed how ankle bracelets could be easily “removed”, but it was ridiculous. Of course you can cut off a bracelet fairly easily, if you have the right tools, but that means nothing, as it will be near impossible to put it back on intact, so nobody would detect it.
A person on home detention would soon be found out, and once sprung for having cut it off, would be back in prison in no time.
This is US style reality TV style “journalism”, and I do not like it.
Where will this head, where will it end, what “stories” will be made up with hidden cameras, with situations where persons will be intentionally tempted, caught in traps and exposed on camera, for then having to face the public and give answers.
This is not the traditional careful researching stuff, these are not the OIA and ask the politician, business person, or wrongdoer caught out in ordinary kind of situations.
It is also presented with hard hitting effects, in short message communication, with very blunt and aggressive questioning. Who will in future front up in such a program format, to answer to allegations or more ordinary questioning?
Once we have “created news”, then we are heading into fable land news, and other crap. This is a space that needs to be watched, I dread it will become much more ugly than this first show I saw.
So I wonder what Rachel Smalley and others will have to say about this modern day “journalism”?
When I clicked on the headline I was not expecting to read something like this, but I find myself pleasantly surprised. Good job Mr. Trotter.
I agree. Smalley has been seemingly Pro Natz right wing for a long time. I have found her to be generally closed minded and uncomfortable to watch, especially when she interviews those with broader minds and open hearts.
We just deserve better and more intelligent journalists whether they are male or female – and ones who are not so biased !
Two points…
1) The women who make it into leadership and then have to send men (and women) to war do so under a condition that men don’t have to face… that the opposing factions is trying to exploit her position as a female leader to get her back down in the face of war and so presses for advantage to a greater degree than if she were a man.
2) It should also be pointed out that the type of women who reaches leadership in a male dominated arena, where all the most aggressive of male attributes are valued, is going to have different characteristics to a typical women on the street. So, yes, women who reach leadership nearly always have to be as deadly as the male because they are playing, and have had to play, a male game but that forgets the vast majority of women who choose not to play the game and that makes them different.
Helen Clarke tried to keep up out of the Middle East until the American’s threatened our trade with them (so I have been lead to believe). Under her leadership, the armed forces did huge amounts of peace keeping in many places around the world. So it’s not like all female leaders are warlike.
My post appears to get lost so I’ll try again.
A women leader has to be as deadly as a male in war because her male opposition will try to exploit her position as a female to get her to back down first.
Women who make it to political leadership have had to play a male game amongst male players where aggressive male characteristics are rewarded. In that arena, why would you expect a women leader to play anything other than the game she has learned to play … but in choosing to play the game it makes her very different to all the women you choose not to play … so it’s not possible to attribute a woman leader’s characteristics to all women.
But, as a counter example, Helen Clarke tried to keep us out of the Middle East until America threatened our trade (or so I am led to believe) and our armed forces did huge amounts of peace keeping in many places around the world. So, perhaps, all female leaders aren’t the same…
“Mary Wilson (the broadcaster John Campbell is about to replace on week-nights between 5:00 and 7:00pm) will soon be playing a major role in shaping the messages coming out of Radio NZ”
Given Wilson is such an amazing interviewer who cut no-one slack, including the government, I’m more inclined to think she has been sidelined by being given a management role. It will be hard to tell from the outside what is actually going to happen to her.
I am so relieved to see the back of Mary. Her style was counter productive in her attempts to get to the truth. Hectoring is not pretty whether done by men or women.
We need more competent journalists, skilled in gaining the facts, telling the story and presenting a balanced view.
I do not believe that we need one sex or the other. What we need is quality. And we have lost that. it is a while since we had a crop of good journos who knew their craft.
So Rachel, learn your craft and we will listen to you. You have some way to go yet. And it would be great to see you become skilled and in demand in your own right as a professional. Not because you are a woman.
The repeated coverage of Smalley’s comments on The Daily Blog is hardly any better than the repeated coverage of the Kardashians on The NZ Herald.
I expect more from you lot.
“The problem with prime-time radio in New Zealand is not a preponderance of male voices, but of right-wing voices”
No. It’s both.
And whether or not female voices would be different to male there is still the issue of fairness and justice.
The logic is very simple. Either you believe there’s something intrinsic about being white and male that makes for a better business leader / politician / board of director / primetime radio host / insert any of the other positions of power and wealth in here that white men dominate…
OR…
Selection of people to those positions is not just based upon merit, there’s something else happening. Racism and sexism most likely.
Which is not something most white males understand because they don’t feel the brunt of racism or sexism.
But yeah, whatever. So used to white males insisting there’s no racism or sexism.
And so used to seeing mostly men make laws and decisions on things that primarily affect women, such as abortion for example. Ugh. Over it.
“Which is not something most white males understand because they don’t feel the brunt of racism or sexism.
But yeah, whatever. So used to white males insisting there’s no racism or sexism”
Oh the irony….
That’s kind of like saying most brown males commit crime and then expecting those who don’t not to be offended because you used the classic disclaimer of a racist/sexist with the ‘most’ term.
look at the the new boss….same as the old boss
Comments are closed.