Full Version: Women running things...
Patrick Moore says there are too many women in television
For context, Patrick Moore is primarily an astronomer who has been broadcasting "The Sky At Night" on the BBC for so long he has become something of a national institution. On matters astronomical, he has some interesting things to say.
On other matters, his opinions are just... interesting
Some of his ideas form the article...
Okay. Patrick Moore is a grumpy (very) old man whose own prime was "in the golden days" when men - upper class men just like him, for the most part - controlled (and formed the core audience for) television, so he would say that, wouldn't he?
Putting that aside, his description of modern television is fairly accurate at least in the UK. Prime time tv has been inching away from hard current affairs towards "magazine programmes", and from heavy-weight quality dramas towards soaps and Jane Austen adaptations for many years now. Of course, they still get ratings, which is why they get made, but - especially for the BBC, which has a public service remit - TV has at least some duty to inform and educate as well as to simply entertain. (This is probably not the case in the USA, where "public service broadcasting" has never really taken off. )
However, his comments do chime in with some other things I've heard, people, usually (white, middle aged, middle class) men say. Examples include:
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
For context, Patrick Moore is primarily an astronomer who has been broadcasting "The Sky At Night" on the BBC for so long he has become something of a national institution. On matters astronomical, he has some interesting things to say.
On other matters, his opinions are just... interesting
Some of his ideas form the article...
QUOTE
The trouble is the BBC now is run by women and it shows soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn't have had that in the golden days.
<snip>
I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching.
(Emphasis mine)<snip>
I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching.
Okay. Patrick Moore is a grumpy (very) old man whose own prime was "in the golden days" when men - upper class men just like him, for the most part - controlled (and formed the core audience for) television, so he would say that, wouldn't he?
Putting that aside, his description of modern television is fairly accurate at least in the UK. Prime time tv has been inching away from hard current affairs towards "magazine programmes", and from heavy-weight quality dramas towards soaps and Jane Austen adaptations for many years now. Of course, they still get ratings, which is why they get made, but - especially for the BBC, which has a public service remit - TV has at least some duty to inform and educate as well as to simply entertain. (This is probably not the case in the USA, where "public service broadcasting" has never really taken off. )
However, his comments do chime in with some other things I've heard, people, usually (white, middle aged, middle class) men say. Examples include:
- The lack of male role models afforded by family break-ups and one-parent families is said to be a cause of youth crime, and family break-ups or the choice to conceive when single, or continue with a pregnancy, are often, if not usually instigated or taken by women. (Contentious in itself, I know, but bear with me.
- A shift in schools away from infrequent, all-or-nothing examinations, towards continuous assessment, and a commonly-agreed (if age-old) deterioration in standards of respect and discipline in young people generally has coincided with the active recruitment of women into the police force, teaching and medical professions, etc.
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
Yes, it has a down side.
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
What we've lost, to some degree, is male initiative, in its positive and necessary form. For example, men have become emasculated by the feminist movement in that they can no longer feel comfortable just being MEN. There is this idea that men and women, to be equal, must be allowed to fill the same professions, despite innate ability, or lack thereof. An example would be the fire department and police force. Women are let in based on anti-sexism laws that supersede the laws of nature. Men are physically stronger and innately take on the role of protector more efficiently. They've been doing it for thousands of years, yet, because of some women's distorted view of feminism and equality, feel we must somehow try to erase the obvious differences and turn men and women into one and the same.
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
By teaching our young men that it okay to be masculine and that the differences and respective strengths of men and women are equally valuable.
Also, by teaching our young women that it is okay to be women and to fill the roles that have been deemed subordinate (i.e. being a mom).
Yes, it has a down side.
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
What we've lost, to some degree, is male initiative, in its positive and necessary form. For example, men have become emasculated by the feminist movement in that they can no longer feel comfortable just being MEN. There is this idea that men and women, to be equal, must be allowed to fill the same professions, despite innate ability, or lack thereof. An example would be the fire department and police force. Women are let in based on anti-sexism laws that supersede the laws of nature. Men are physically stronger and innately take on the role of protector more efficiently. They've been doing it for thousands of years, yet, because of some women's distorted view of feminism and equality, feel we must somehow try to erase the obvious differences and turn men and women into one and the same.
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
By teaching our young men that it okay to be masculine and that the differences and respective strengths of men and women are equally valuable.
Also, by teaching our young women that it is okay to be women and to fill the roles that have been deemed subordinate (i.e. being a mom).
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
Isn't there a down side to all change?
I think, yes, there has been a negative impact of female emancipation and it has to do with the fact that not every one agree's on it.
Example: In Denmark it is culturally acceptable for a woman to enter a public swimming pool with men, in fact it is utterly normal. In other countries and cultures (and cultures within Denmark) it is a taboo for a woman to enter a swimming pool with men and to allow them to do so is destructive and even dangerous. It can get the woman into a lot of trouble, even killed. From this other perspective however, allowing women to intermingle with men is itself the danger for the woman's family's 'honour' is at risk. Simply changing the law, or moving to Denmark doesn't change the risk involved for these women, nor does it change the basis for the taboo with those who are concerned with 'honour'. From their perspective, such a law is a very dangerous idea that must resisted at all costs.
In other words, for as long as there are people who cannot accept female emancipation then there will be a negative impact. Sir Patrick Moore seems not to have understood that luke warm TV presented by women is not a product of female emancipation but rather of market forces. Programmes dealing with science and weighty issues do not bring in the same ratings as programmes about Famous People, decorating homes or cooking 'intellectual food'.
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
There is a serious problem at the BBC and it is one of a socio-political bias, that much is true. The institution is rife with crusading left wingers, that much I will readily agree on, but it has nothing much to do with female emancipation as much as with a perspective that seeks to control and influence other people for a socio-political cause, a part of which embraces female emancipation and would rather see an immigrant lesbian taking over from an English man as host (I'm refering specifially to Radio 4's News Quiz as an example).
By herself, an immigrant lesbian is just another human being and quite entitled to host a show on the BBC, but when the said individual uses this position to promote other people like herself, then what the BBC has actually done is replace one set of chauvanisms with another. Three decades ago it was practically fashionable in Britain to be a male chauvanist, today
female chauvanism seems to have become the fashion, at least amongst the British (and Swedish) intellectual set.
What we have lost, is the balance.
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
Is education a male virtue? No one told me
I think what is needed is a good long hard examination of the values we claim to ascribe to in modern western society. Not with the idea of scrapping them, but asking ourselves, just what exactly do we believe in? Why is one set of values bad just because they are old?
Take nationalism for example, why is it considered so bad to be proud of your country in this day and age? Nationalists are subjected to all manner of slurs and demonization and yet for the most part, they are just people who are concerned about the society they are living in. There are extremists, but these are present in EVERY political perspective, not just nationalism.
There is a mentality to be found all over the globe, that seeks to put down its opposition, regardless of merit and this is what Moore is doing here too. Blaming women for something which he is just as much a part of as any one else. Extremism has to be gotten rid of, whether its socialist extremists freaking out because their candidate didn't win or religious zealots blowing up sinnners, it makes no difference. These attitudes must not be allowed to influence the majority.
Isn't there a down side to all change?
I think, yes, there has been a negative impact of female emancipation and it has to do with the fact that not every one agree's on it.
Example: In Denmark it is culturally acceptable for a woman to enter a public swimming pool with men, in fact it is utterly normal. In other countries and cultures (and cultures within Denmark) it is a taboo for a woman to enter a swimming pool with men and to allow them to do so is destructive and even dangerous. It can get the woman into a lot of trouble, even killed. From this other perspective however, allowing women to intermingle with men is itself the danger for the woman's family's 'honour' is at risk. Simply changing the law, or moving to Denmark doesn't change the risk involved for these women, nor does it change the basis for the taboo with those who are concerned with 'honour'. From their perspective, such a law is a very dangerous idea that must resisted at all costs.
In other words, for as long as there are people who cannot accept female emancipation then there will be a negative impact. Sir Patrick Moore seems not to have understood that luke warm TV presented by women is not a product of female emancipation but rather of market forces. Programmes dealing with science and weighty issues do not bring in the same ratings as programmes about Famous People, decorating homes or cooking 'intellectual food'.
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
There is a serious problem at the BBC and it is one of a socio-political bias, that much is true. The institution is rife with crusading left wingers, that much I will readily agree on, but it has nothing much to do with female emancipation as much as with a perspective that seeks to control and influence other people for a socio-political cause, a part of which embraces female emancipation and would rather see an immigrant lesbian taking over from an English man as host (I'm refering specifially to Radio 4's News Quiz as an example).
By herself, an immigrant lesbian is just another human being and quite entitled to host a show on the BBC, but when the said individual uses this position to promote other people like herself, then what the BBC has actually done is replace one set of chauvanisms with another. Three decades ago it was practically fashionable in Britain to be a male chauvanist, today
female chauvanism seems to have become the fashion, at least amongst the British (and Swedish) intellectual set.
What we have lost, is the balance.
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
Is education a male virtue? No one told me
I think what is needed is a good long hard examination of the values we claim to ascribe to in modern western society. Not with the idea of scrapping them, but asking ourselves, just what exactly do we believe in? Why is one set of values bad just because they are old?
Take nationalism for example, why is it considered so bad to be proud of your country in this day and age? Nationalists are subjected to all manner of slurs and demonization and yet for the most part, they are just people who are concerned about the society they are living in. There are extremists, but these are present in EVERY political perspective, not just nationalism.
There is a mentality to be found all over the globe, that seeks to put down its opposition, regardless of merit and this is what Moore is doing here too. Blaming women for something which he is just as much a part of as any one else. Extremism has to be gotten rid of, whether its socialist extremists freaking out because their candidate didn't win or religious zealots blowing up sinnners, it makes no difference. These attitudes must not be allowed to influence the majority.
QUOTE
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
That would be hard to say, considering that all of the barriers in American society have not been broken down. While Britain has had a famous, female PM, and also India, Israel, and Pakistan, the good old US of A still hasn't had a female President. I think perhaps the Brits' Patrick Moore might feel a lot more comfortable in American culture as it is.
The possible downside might be that men have had to reexamine just what masculinity means, considering that women who have been given--but more likely earned--the opportunity to be CEOS of corporations have had to demonstrate the same leadership qualities that men supposedly had exclusively. Maybe testosterone is not the secret ingredient for success in today's society. Ambition is not exclusive to one gender.
QUOTE
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
I'm not sure that a balance has been achieved yet.
QUOTE
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
Male-inspired virtues? Patrick Moore is assuming that women don't have the same emotions and drives as men do. I've got news for him. When provided the opportunities, women can be every bit as aggressive, patronizing/matronizing, overreaching, and violent as men. But we do have some basic differences in the way we look at culture. We have been conditioned over the centuries to make decisions on behalf of family. The fact that some (indeed many) women aren't as willing to stay home these days and mind the hearth fire while men go out and do the Sir Edmund Hilary thing doesn't entirely negate the conditioning. Humankind could benefit from the concept some of us still retain that sacrifices are made for the good of each other, that not all of us have taken on the role of "great (wo)man" while the needs of family members take a back seat.
The cliche' "there is no 'I' in team" was probably not originated by Rupert Murdoch, I'll wager.
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
Women are suffering from the illnesses that used to be pretty much masculine diseases: high blood pressure, heart attacks, fits of depression. Or maybe the medical community is taking notice, whereas before it was ignored.
Otherwise, I've worked for women without any more problems than working for men. Some have been different. Men and women do seem to have fundamental differences in thinking, but not all. And it depends on age/experience for both sexes, intelligence, motivation, agendas -- all that.
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
Don't think we've lost or gained anything. Conditions have changed. Apparently the BBC audience has changed and the Star Trek series has finally pooped out, although it had a remarkably long run. One thing is for certain: 2007 is a lot different from 1967. Women have more choices these days, as do men. Whether that's good or bad depends.
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
Got me on this one. Seems to depend on how one looks at recent history. If one had it good in 1967, which I did not, there might be nostalgia for the good old days. Or one might be thankful for things like the Internet and online business transactions as simplifying things, if things are working out today. That's an iffy thing for me right now.
Actually, I think we need to work harder at getting rid of male-inspired sins rather than bringing back the virtues, whatever they might have been. Lying, cheating and stealing seem to have gotten out of hand, and I've been directly affected by these sins of the fathers, except they're not much older than I am. Some have been younger, the punks.
Anyway, I don't care if I work for a man or woman. I do care if the boss is honest, has some level of integrity, and isn't trying to rip the company blind. I also don't care what's on television, although I do pay attention to local news. I don't care what gender the talking head is though. Both men and women do the job well, from what I can see.
Star Trek lost its audience, and that's not because a woman took over the Enterprise. It's because the writers ran out of ideas. It's also because space exploration lost its jazz, and that might be attributed to a certain 1980s shuttle accident. So you see, gender issues are pretty irrelevant in the grand view of how things work. Did it matter that a woman died in the shuttle accident? Or was the bigger impact that the accident happened and a lot of us witnessed it on live TV? I say the latter. How about HP's problems? Did it matter that a woman was CEO and got fired? Or was it a setup so she would take the fall and not one of the good ol' boys? The latter on that too, happens all the time in business.
This time two years from now, a woman might be the President of the United States of America. Will she really mess things up? It's hard to imagine a bigger mess than we have now, but I suppose things can get worse. Or they might get better. Whatever happens, it won't be due to gender differences but how the thinking goes, how the execution of plans go, that sort of thing. It would be good to restore some old virtues, like honesty. Like integrity. I don't think those are gender-based virtues.
I also don't think those were strong virtues in 1967. In this sense, 2007 isn't much different. SOS, DD
Women are suffering from the illnesses that used to be pretty much masculine diseases: high blood pressure, heart attacks, fits of depression. Or maybe the medical community is taking notice, whereas before it was ignored.
Otherwise, I've worked for women without any more problems than working for men. Some have been different. Men and women do seem to have fundamental differences in thinking, but not all. And it depends on age/experience for both sexes, intelligence, motivation, agendas -- all that.
If so, what have we lost and what have we gained, and how do they balance?
Don't think we've lost or gained anything. Conditions have changed. Apparently the BBC audience has changed and the Star Trek series has finally pooped out, although it had a remarkably long run. One thing is for certain: 2007 is a lot different from 1967. Women have more choices these days, as do men. Whether that's good or bad depends.
Presuming that simply turning the clock back (as Patrick Moore seems to want to do) is not a viable option, how can we get back some of the male-inspired virtues that we seem to have lost in civic life, education, and so on, while keeping the newly-acquired female ones?
Got me on this one. Seems to depend on how one looks at recent history. If one had it good in 1967, which I did not, there might be nostalgia for the good old days. Or one might be thankful for things like the Internet and online business transactions as simplifying things, if things are working out today. That's an iffy thing for me right now.
Actually, I think we need to work harder at getting rid of male-inspired sins rather than bringing back the virtues, whatever they might have been. Lying, cheating and stealing seem to have gotten out of hand, and I've been directly affected by these sins of the fathers, except they're not much older than I am. Some have been younger, the punks.
Anyway, I don't care if I work for a man or woman. I do care if the boss is honest, has some level of integrity, and isn't trying to rip the company blind. I also don't care what's on television, although I do pay attention to local news. I don't care what gender the talking head is though. Both men and women do the job well, from what I can see.
Star Trek lost its audience, and that's not because a woman took over the Enterprise. It's because the writers ran out of ideas. It's also because space exploration lost its jazz, and that might be attributed to a certain 1980s shuttle accident. So you see, gender issues are pretty irrelevant in the grand view of how things work. Did it matter that a woman died in the shuttle accident? Or was the bigger impact that the accident happened and a lot of us witnessed it on live TV? I say the latter. How about HP's problems? Did it matter that a woman was CEO and got fired? Or was it a setup so she would take the fall and not one of the good ol' boys? The latter on that too, happens all the time in business.
This time two years from now, a woman might be the President of the United States of America. Will she really mess things up? It's hard to imagine a bigger mess than we have now, but I suppose things can get worse. Or they might get better. Whatever happens, it won't be due to gender differences but how the thinking goes, how the execution of plans go, that sort of thing. It would be good to restore some old virtues, like honesty. Like integrity. I don't think those are gender-based virtues.
I also don't think those were strong virtues in 1967. In this sense, 2007 isn't much different. SOS, DD
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 9 2007, 07:09 AM) 
This time two years from now, a woman might be the President of the United States of America. Will she really mess things up? It's hard to imagine a bigger mess than we have now, but I suppose things can get worse. Or they might get better. Whatever happens, it won't be due to gender differences but how the thinking goes, how the execution of plans go, that sort of thing. It would be good to restore some old virtues, like honesty. Like integrity. I don't think those are gender-based virtues.
I also don't think those were strong virtues in 1967. In this sense, 2007 isn't much different. SOS, DD
I also don't think those were strong virtues in 1967. In this sense, 2007 isn't much different. SOS, DD
Honesty. Integrity. Things Hillary Clinton is known for... NOT!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
Seriously. Well, not that I don't think that the Clintons are crooks, but if a woman (other than the one that stood by a liar, who was an accomplice to felony theivery, etc) were to be elected I believe that she might have the motivation to be a great President in that she's the first. I believe that Gender differences might be a part of her success/failure, but might also help in some areas.
I think a conservative woman, for instance, might be for a big defense and small government, however do a good job with promoting the issues of the underpriveledged or poverty stricken. I think issues that evoke empathy are more likely to find the heart strings of a woman. I think women might do a better job of not fighting the issues of the "party" and bringing the sides of the aisle together. (again NOT including Hillary Clinton... I'm not even sure she's a woman).
The real issue for me would be, if not Satan Clinton, then who? Condi? She doesn't want it. There really aren't any other women in US politics that I believe would have a shot.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ May 9 2007, 09:54 AM)
Honesty. Integrity. Things Hillary Clinton is known for... NOT!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
Funny, really funny.
I'll bet you spilled coffee on your keyboard when you proofread this. Does your boss know about this? QUOTE
Seriously. Well, not that I don't think that the Clintons are crooks, but if a woman (other than the one that stood by a liar, who was an accomplice to felony theivery, etc) ...
There seems to be a contradiction within these few words. A crook or not a crook, that is the question, but you say "not a crook" then "a crook." Shakespeare would never have made it with this type stuff.
QUOTE
were to be elected I believe that she might have the motivation to be a great President in that she's the first. I believe that Gender differences might be a part of her success/failure, but might also help in some areas.
Being first might be a motivational factor,
but I think historians generally rank presidents based on the challenges they face and how they dealt with them. There's an old saying "great times make great presidents." Is it surprising that Washington, Lincoln and FDR have long been considered the top three? I would think most of the men elected president have aspired to greatness. In some cases the milieu wasn't there, in others they couldn't rise to the challenge. The current resident of the White House has had great times to deal with. Sadly his response, (to honor the queen on her recent visit to the U. S. with a British understatement) has been lacking. 
In other words, no one can become a great president by will or motivation. Richard Nixon, for example, had all the "tools" to become a great president. I think he desired greatness, was motivated in that direction, but he let his paranoia override all else. Bush is often compared to Nixon. There's a big difference. Bush never possed the "tools" for greatness, but Nixon had the potential. I think Hillary Clinton has all the right tools for greatness. If she is elected she has the potential. The times - Iraq, terrorism, expanding the American dream to more people (in an economic sense) rather than constricting it, dealing constructively with the environment, health care, (including stem-cell research) dealing with decaying infrastructure in cities, improvement in "No Child Left Behind," an enlightened rather than an xenophobic (immigration is as close to greatness as Bush gets) immigration policy, etc. How she handles these questions, the success or failure she encounters, will determine her place - not your perception of Clinton. In short, she becomes great if America once again becomes the "little engine that could," rather than the current engine that can't.
If she meets some or all of these challenges, she might really become a great president.
QUOTE
I think a conservative woman, for instance, might be for a big defense and small government, however do a good job with promoting the issues of the underpriveledged or poverty stricken. I think issues that evoke empathy are more likely to find the heart strings of a woman.
Ah, stereotypes enter the picture. What better way to show your paternalistic attitude than bringing up the maternal nurturing angle.
QUOTE
I think women might do a better job of not fighting the issues of the "party" and bringing the sides of the aisle together....
You may be correct, but this statement needs some explanation. Do you have a link to support this assertion?
QUOTE
(again NOT including Hillary Clinton... I'm not even sure she's a woman).
Not a woman! Well what in hell do you think she is -Oscar Mayer sliced b-o-l-o-g-n-a? Would you kick her out of bed for eating crackers?
QUOTE
The real issue for me would be, if not Satan Clinton, [inserted by BoF 
] then who? Condi?
] then who? Condi?Such intellectual prowess. I'll bet you check your closet for spooks every morning before getting your clothes out.
QUOTE
She doesn't want it. There really aren't any other women in US politics that I believe would have a shot.
Let me guess who your model for a woman president would be -ah, a Margaret Thatcher
clone. Fortunately, we don't have one of those hanging around in any closet (with the spooks, 
of course) that I know of.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ May 9 2007, 10:54 AM)
I think a [...] woman, for instance, might be for a big defense and small government; however do a good job with promoting the issues of the underprivileged or poverty stricken. I think issues that evoke empathy are more likely to find the heart strings of a woman. I think women might do a better job of not fighting the issues of the "party" and bringing the sides of the aisle together.
Does this perception explain why the Democratic Party, still predominantly male in Congress, is viewed ineffectual in war, sympathetic to lazy/undeserving persons in peace, and generally "wrong headed" when members advocate "empathetic" issues like health insurance coverage? Does a woman really need to be front and center promoting these ideas to "get away with it"?
She can't help it if she feels for the poor. She's a woman. Unlike her male colleagues, she's genuine about the subject and deserves our attention. Ugh!
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
I don't know. What do I care whether my brain surgeon is female or male? I care that they're a good surgeon. If they can hack a physically demanding job, let them at it. One recent COPS show had this short and stocky woman make a routine stop. All of a sudden the guy tried making a run for it and she took him down without a taser. Afterwards she said something to the effect of: "You think you can get away because I'm a woman. Do you have any idea how long I've been doing this?" That was a good laugh.
Taking a long view, has female emancipation and the breakdown of barriers into professions that used to be "all male" had a downside?
Maybe this is just a British phenomenon. According to the Writer’s Guild of America:
Patrick Moore does sound like a very grumpy old white man. I’m sure he liked it much better when the women “knew their place”, wore feminine little skirts and blouses and fetched him a gin n tonic at the crook of his pinky.
I have no patience with this brand of bologna. Women who can perform as well as men in so-called "male professions" should have the opportunity. 40 years ago, it cost a lot of women a lot of heartache, criticism, blood, sweat and tears so that women today have the opportunities they have. Sadly, 40 years ago is ancient history to many, and there seems to be a reversing of trends where young women want to return to the Father Knows Best 50’s era female.
And as others have pointed out, this country has yet to see a female president (or even vice-president), and even though women make up half the workforce, there are only 10 female CEO’s on the Fortune 500 and even fewer female executive board members.
The only downside I see is that women are now suffering from the same stress-induced health issues men have been dealing with…but of course, they deal with the unpleasant fact that they will likely also receive worse treatment (or none) than men by the health care system for those ailments.
Maybe this is just a British phenomenon. According to the Writer’s Guild of America:
QUOTE
Despite gains by women and minorities in recent years, most people who write TV shows and movies are still white males, according to a study released Tuesday by the Writers Guild of America. MSNBC
Patrick Moore does sound like a very grumpy old white man. I’m sure he liked it much better when the women “knew their place”, wore feminine little skirts and blouses and fetched him a gin n tonic at the crook of his pinky.
I have no patience with this brand of bologna. Women who can perform as well as men in so-called "male professions" should have the opportunity. 40 years ago, it cost a lot of women a lot of heartache, criticism, blood, sweat and tears so that women today have the opportunities they have. Sadly, 40 years ago is ancient history to many, and there seems to be a reversing of trends where young women want to return to the Father Knows Best 50’s era female.
And as others have pointed out, this country has yet to see a female president (or even vice-president), and even though women make up half the workforce, there are only 10 female CEO’s on the Fortune 500 and even fewer female executive board members.
The only downside I see is that women are now suffering from the same stress-induced health issues men have been dealing with…but of course, they deal with the unpleasant fact that they will likely also receive worse treatment (or none) than men by the health care system for those ailments.
Men would have women kept in their place. However, men are uneasy in their dominance, for behind many powerful men is an even more powerful woman. The divine Augustus ruled the world, but Livia Drusilla ruled Augustus. Most such women are clever enough to let men think themselves in charge; however few will long put up with any man who gets in their way. When Augustus persisted in having his way, Livia did away with him - as she was rumored to have done with all who stood in the way of her ambitions. Few in history have wielded more power or exerted more influence (albeit perversely and perniciously) than the Augusta - even mighty Tiberius forsook Rome to escape the Argus eyes of his malicious mother.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.