Search blog.co.uk

Posts archive for: 11 July, 2008
  • Women learn to create your own space or fall at your own peril.

    No matter where I am in the World, I like to explore the national treasures of the land. Whilst in Canada last week, I stumbled across the Canadian national treasure – the Maclean's magazine which was once re-named over 100 years ago as the busy man's magazine. Well anything good enough for a busy man is good enough for me hence the rather heavy suitcase on my return home filled with numerous copies - for the sake of proving a point. Whilst skimming through the articles which aim to inspire readers, I stumbled across an article about "why men are getting happier and women more miserable." Contrary to the aim, I felt a little less inspired and more provoked.

    However, I was far from surprised. The gap in gender happiness is something I have been well aware for some time now. I only need to look at examples of couples belonging to family, friends and colleagues. You cannot escape it. The levels of unhappiness amongst women have developed since they began establishing themselves into the workplace in the 70s and 80s.

    Women have come a long way since the feminist movement of the 70s. But what is it about attempting to create a gender neutral society that that has led to overall diminishing happiness amongst women? Having spent the past few months mingling in the company of high powered couples I can say with utmost certainty that if you are aspiring to be such a power duo or at least emulate aspects of it that you fully appreciate that this certainly will be the road to men getting happier and women more miserable. You may be wondering at this stage, how can this possibly be a destructive thing? Well it is, when roles and responsibilities begin overlapping and expectations are mismanaged.

    Welcome to the era of the alpha female – the new trophy wife. We are currently in the wake of a historic shift. The rules of the mating game are transforming. Men were once good catches because they were high earners. This now also includes women. Amongst the circles of high powered couples I gauged a reoccurring sentiment amongst the men. They were proud of their partners/wives CVs. Most men are not interested in someone who does not have to offer them as much as they have to offer her. Only fair and square especially when considering compatibility. But how has this re-defining of masculinity and femininity played a role in making women unhappy?

    Women have made the greatest progress over the last 35 years. Irrational exuberance has perhaps played a part in their declining scale of happiness. The woman's movement promised the moon and the stars but did they not realise that most things would in fact be unattainable. It is the story of the juggling act and chemicals. You do not necessarily have to have a career and kids to be tired. There is an exhaustion felt by women that is distinct to women, proven by the fact that psychiatric data reveals nearly twice as many women as men develop depression-related disorders at least once in their lives.

    What has the role of men been in the framework of a high powered relationship that has contributed to female misery? Women have been encouraged to reach perfection – being accomplished, smart, a good mother, to look fashionable all the time. Not realising those expectations can only aggravate the female sadness. Her compulsion to reach perfection for the sake of managing expectations can ultimately lead to bone-numbing fatigue.

    There is decreasing trend in the traditional corporate wife who stays at home and an increase in the high powered-wife who has the stresses of her own career. Great in theory, if men could fend for themselves but the modern corporate wife is still desired and partially expected by most men to participate in aspects of entertaining and travel. Do these women possess supernatural qualities? On the surface, these women know how to play the supporting role ever so well. Evolution has mostly played a part in programming it into our psyche. Below the surface is quite possibly a different story.

    What if careers overlap in areas and the couples involved are public figures? The expectations can therefore be truly destructive. Take Cherie Blair, one half of the well known power couple for instance. In her recent memoir, ironically entitled: "Speaking for myself," she reveals grief of having to mourn for her un-born child through stage-managed directions by her husband's team of spin doctors – for the sake of managing expectations. Judy Finnagan, part of the Richard and Judy brand also comes to mind. If there is anything apparent about this power duo then it is the fact that Richard has managed to reduce Judy to a mumbling mess. Judy's inability to lead interviews is the result of constant put downs by Richard. Their programme is embarrassing viewing for this reason alone.

    My fixation of being able to do anything a man can do perhaps needs to be re-examined. If there is one thing clear, I do not want to end up sad like the increasing female population. I and many others need to realise that men and women are fundamentally different in many aspects. Women have to set the stage for space in order to prevent a loss of their identity, motivation, confidence and energy. Perhaps this is what the woman's movement should have focused on. We may now be living in a 50:50 society as exemplified by most power couples. However, women will forever make the greatest sacrifices by default due to their child rearing abilities – a tradition that will never evolve.

  • Leave the moronic club and join the switch off protest

    To criticise something without seeing it is generally bad practice. To critisise something and then to continue seeing it is pure stupidity. That is what I feel about Big Brother viewers. Some television pundit at this point probably cannot wait to correct me with the fact that The Big Brother audience is more up market than might be expected: 44.2 per cent of viewers are from the ABC1 demographic. I do not believe that a moronic state and belonging to the ABC1 demographic are necessarily mutually exclusive. And what do I feel about the fact that 59% of the audience is women – take a wild guess.

    Big Brother has been running for nine years now. I congratulate myself on not tuning in once this series. In fact, the last time I caught a glimpse of the mind numbing programme was when it was graced with a Bollywood starlet. But if you ask me about the latest controversy in this latest series then Alex the gangster wannabe comes to mind. How do I know? You do not need to be stupid to tune in. The non-stop coverage in newspapers, magazines and news outlets keeps me updated involuntarily.

    The term stupid really does no justice for the wider implications to a group of people who year in year out religiously follow the lives of housemates. What does it say about a person who eagerly tunes in to follow the bullying tactics and abuse of a house mate? Or how about the few eager men that tune in to the household hoping to catch some female assets? Is that not equal to voyeurism? Let us not forget that Big Brother streams out 24 hours live. Who are these viewers? Perhaps they are enthusiasts of watching paint dry? Do viewers actually realise that Big Brother is predictable and quite frankly orchestrated for sadistic pleasure?

    The makers of Big Brother - Endemol and Channel 4 - have consistently got into deep water for subjecting the public to indecency and not stepping in early to make a stand on important issues such as racism and bullying – almost excusing the behaviour by being slow to react and eject the offending culprits. But the truth is, record numbers of complaints get logged regarding Big Brother. But we are still watching it. It is now time to stop blaming the producers and commissioners. The real culprits are the viewers who freely accept their viewing destiny by tuning into a bunch of misfits who allegedly represent British society plucked from no man’s land in order to follow their every move, yawn, burp and other obscenities in their 15 minutes of fame.

    Although viewers are diminishing, there are still viewers in the region of 3.8 million and when controversy strikes, even more people tune in. Proof of this was two weeks ago. Euro 2008 had reduced Big Brother’s viewing figures dramatically but the Alex de Gale’s removal from the show was watched by 703,000 viewers on the Channel 4 +1 between 10pm and 11pm according to unofficial viewing figures. The time shift channel benefited from one of its highest ever viewing figures because the public were intrigued by a bully. The fact that Big Brother possesses a cross-media impact is why Channel 4 wants to continue with Big Brother and why ITV1 craves it.

    It is time that this generation took the lead in the moral opposition: switching on the critical eye and then switching off. Just think of the power of the “Switch-Off” campaign. It may put regulators out of business but the good news it may actually lead to the extinction of Big Brother. A far more effective alternative than to actually go through the motions of complaining. If the switch off campaign does not take off then producers will continue to manipulate the format, cast for sexual explosion, mental implosions all for the sake of maintaining the brand’s attractiveness to the youthful and affluent viewers or should I say the moronic demograph? And worst of all, I will still know about the latest controversy involuntarily.

Footer:

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.