Women Rule the World

Women apparently rule the world - so howcome nobody told us!

The world, that is, according to Michael Buerk (BBC Broadcaster) - appearing on Channel 5 this eve for a rant on how women have taken over every aspect of life, much to his dismay:

"The game of life is being played by women's rules."

"Success is measured by women's criteria."

"Men have been reduced to mere sperm donors."

What if we really did rule the world? What would we change? Would there be any wars? How would we deal with crime and criminals? Would the world be a better place?

As sexist as Buerk's rantings is the assumption that somehow all women would form a consensual opinion on the matters mentioned above in my view.

On a slightly similar note Karen Coleman was talking to somebody at the weekend about Angela Merkel (German opposition leader and tipped to be next Chancellor), her status as a role model for women and comparisons that have been made between her (Merkel) and Margaret Thatcher in terms of style an policies. Coleman at one point asserted that Thatcher wasn't really much of a role model for women since she was more or less a man in a dress! Coleman never fails to surprise me with the level of inanity that she's capable of coming out with...

Vive la difference in terms of opinions - regardless of sex.

What if we really did rule the world? What would we change? Would there be any wars?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Ask the people of the Falklands?
Unless Coleman was correct of course.

Isn't it strange that when a women makes comments similar to Buerk's about men no one bats an eyelid, but when a man (even a respected and intelligent one like Buerk) makes them about women, he's sexist and becomes the subject of Radio Talk shows and Newspaper column etc.

Doesn't that double standard kind of lend some weight to his argument.

If women ran the world the would would be no different, because women are still people, and the kind of women who get to run countries are pretty much the same as the kind of men who get to run a countries.

-Rd

Condoleezza Rice is fairly powerful too by world standards, and hardly a flag bearer for the 'no war' camp.

Yeah...I agree with daltonr's comments. The type of women who get into power are very often not exactly peace-pipe smoking hippies. Condeleeza Rice being a good example.

Reverse sexism is everywhere. As a man I notice these things...you only have to switch on the TV. How many ads depict women in control...with men as mere objects of their affection? Do you hear us moaning about it though? Hell no...as long as we've got a beer in front of us you gals can knock yourselves out with as much reverse sexism as you like...haha...!

How many ads depict women in control...with men as mere objects of their affection?

Click to expand...

So what channel have you been watching Gabriel????

Interesting that all the comments so far have been from the lads!

I didn't think Mr. Buerk's comments were sexist, just thought they were a bit ridiculous - everyone knows it's a man's world.

delgirl said:

Interesting that all the comments so far have been from the lads!

Click to expand...

Why is that interesting and why do you think that the sex of individuals who comment is significant?

I didn't think Mr. Buerk's comments were sexist, just thought they were a bit ridiculous - everyone knows it's a man's world.

Click to expand...

Yeah - from what I've heard since the comments were more ridiculous and attention seeking that sexist.

Advertisers know that women make most household purchases and have a greater influence than men on what holiday or car is bought so the ads that they produce patronise women and make men look foolish.
For example the ad being run at the moment about bed clothes where a well groomed woman locks her dishevelled husband outside the front door so that she can go to bed on her own or all the ads where the woman knows all about the product and the man hasn’t a clue. These ads are sexist, not because of any innate sexism in society but because of a shift in spending patterns.
Women don’t rule the world but there is a double standard when it comes to sexism. The most glairing example of this in recent years was the disgusting poster campaign about domestic violence saying, “It’s a crime to hit a woman”. The implication was that it’s all right to hit a man or at the very least that women were the only victims of domestic violence. The reality is that men account for a significant minority of domestic abuse sufferers who have no voice at all in society. If the ad had been that biased against women there would have been uproar.

If the ad had said "It's a crime to hit a man" I don't think women would have passed much heed. Most women have the utmost sympathy with any victim of violence. It's a shame that with all the so-called reversal of sexism that women still suffer far more than men in serious domestic violence situations, up to and including murder and rape at the more violent end of the scale and all sorts of other societal injustices.

I don't know if women rule the world but anyone who thinks the pendulum has "swung too far" could definitely do with opening their eyes. I think the problem is that people are bored with the message but that doesn't render the message invalid.

As regards female politicians being "men in dresses". I don't agree with this as there are plenty of examples of female politicians who didn't become so hardened to do well in politics (Mary Robinson, Mary O'Rourke, Mo Mowlam etc) and likewise with men. I certainly agree that society would benefit if more women entered politics, but I also think society would benefit if there were less of family lineage politicians. And also I think we could do with politicians with a far more rounded background; more scholars, artists, sociologists are needed to balance out the glut of publicans and accountants we have at the moment.

Rebecca

delgirl said:

So what channel have you been watching Gabriel????

Click to expand...

All of the major ones. Why do you ask? Purple has already given some good examples of reverse sexism in TV ad campaigns. They're everywhere if you look.

Not that I particularly care mind you...just pointing the obvious out.

delgirl said:

Interesting that all the comments so far have been from the lads!

Click to expand...

And if I said something like "Interesting that all the comments so far have been from the ladies!" would I get away with that? Hmmmmm.....

delgirl said:

I didn't think Mr. Buerk's comments were sexist, just thought they were a bit ridiculous - everyone knows it's a man's world.

Click to expand...

Actually, in affluent Western society I personally believe the scales have definitely tipped and I wouldn't presume myself it is such a man's world.

Teachers account for the biggest group who are TD's at the moment. A few more accountants may not be a bad thing.
I agree that the pendulum has not swung too far but I disagree that women are sympathetic towards men in abusive situations. I have hears women refer to men who are abused by their female partners as wimps.
Whatever sexism against men that exists in the media or in society at a superficial level it is no where near as bad as the deep rooted sexism that women still have to face.

The problem with ads is that they are there to manipulate us (all of us; men and women) and most of the time it happens subconsciously but nobody (man or woman) likes it when it is blatant. There are lots of things about ads that drive me nuts; not least the perpetuation of stereotypes; the woman doing most of the cleaning, the henpecked man, longsuffering wives, men drivers in car ads etc. etc. The Yorkie ad "It's not for girls" caused a bit of a stir, but only because it is so blatant. I don't like the ads for nappies/wipes/toilet rolls that show little kids in the nip.

Rebecca

What was that Channel 4 programme during the week where a woman showed another woman how to "train" her husband by showing how to train a pet dog beforehand?

I'd dearly love to see the uproar if there was a programme showing us men how to train our women (possessive tone intended as a joke!) .

I saw a clip of that and assumed that it was a comedy or otherwise intended facetiously. I wouldn't get too worked up about it personally to be honest. Just another silly TV programme. I think in discussions such as this there is too much focus on and attribution of motive and opinion to sex/gender when, as grown adults, we should be able to see beyond these differences in many cases and discuss what's best for people (of both sexes) in general rather than taking a sex/gender divided approach to rights, obligations etc.

But Clubman the point with telly ads and programs like training your husband like a dog (or whatever) is that they are on so much, they do begin to infiltrate the culture and become harder and harder to remain independent of. All these media messages must have an effect on adults but even moreso on kids or the companies wouldn't spend so much money on advertising. It's not something that keeps me awake at night but I do believe there should be a "watchdog" to keep an eye on this stuff to make sure that we are shaping the kind of telly we watch rather than the telly we watch shaping us(albeit subliminally).

Rebecca

Purple said:

I agree that the pendulum has not swung too far but I disagree that women are sympathetic towards men in abusive situations. I have hears women refer to men who are abused by their female partners as wimps.

Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from but there are plenty of women (and men) who cannot fathom why women stay in abusive relationships too and will say "why does she put up with it, the stupid woman" etc. etc. Some people are just better with compassion/empathy/understanding than others and that goes right across the gender divide.

Didn't know that about teachers but you would wonder that if "those who can do and those who can't teach" where that leaves us with our politicians!

Rebecca

MissRibena said:

But Clubman the point with telly ads and programs like training your husband like a dog (or whatever) is that they are on so much, they do begin to infiltrate the culture and become harder and harder to remain independent of. All these media messages must have an effect on adults but even moreso on kids or the companies wouldn't spend so much money on advertising. It's not something that keeps me awake at night but I do believe there should be a "watchdog" to keep an eye on this stuff to make sure that we are shaping the kind of telly we watch rather than the telly we watch shaping us(albeit subliminally).

Click to expand...

There's always the off button and independent thought to counter such messages.

I'd dearly love to see the uproar if there was a programme showing us men how to train our women

Click to expand...

Forget the uproar, I'd just love to see the show.

To any men afraid of being made redundant in this new femanine world, Fear Not.
Until women figure out how to open Jam Jars, they'll always have a use for men.

-Rd

ClubMan said:

There's always the off button and independent thought to counter such messages.

Click to expand...

This seems like an awfully naive view to take on the power the media/ TV has over society in the modern world. Do you really believe society is not affected by television? Or that people just switch off to anything they don't like or agree with?

People, in general, are not always so savvy as to be able to cut through the subliminal messages or other bullsh*t on tv. That's why reality tv is so popular.

Not at all. Don't underestimate the power of independent thought and critical faculties.