On this organ we sometimes debate the complicated ground occupied by the stark binary issue of whether we’re either (1) out of touch with the 21st Century world and therefore should justifiably be treated as irrelevant simply because of our supposedly ‘old-fashioned’ views and the stage of life (old age) we have reached; or, alternatively instead (2) bleating from an entirely sane and rational viewpoint about the way that the campaigning PC & ‘diversity rules’ brigade are skewing the way human beings conduct themselves and thereby potentially fundamentally weakening the fabric of Western society.
I want to begin by listing some examples of the issues that prompt my post today:
First off – one might have thought – since in these days of right-on gender equality the Scout movement is open to girls as well as boys, logically there’s at least an issue as to whether the Girl Guides organisation needs to exist at all.
Arguably, perhaps, the Girl Guides should simply merge with the Scouts – but for present purposes let us leave that one aside.
Secondly – as I understand it – the Girl Guides policy on transgender people seems to be decidedly contradictory.
On the one hand, the organisation now offers unqualified membership to those born as male but who now self-identify as female (so that they can then share toilet and sleeping quarters with those born as girls).
This is without any regard to whether they possess male genitalia, are in some way ‘transitioning’ and/or indeed taking any medical treatment or hormones etc. with the intent of doing so as they continue their journey through life.
At least, that’s what I understand the position to be.
And that’s just weird given the policy now adopted for people journeying the other way as mentioned above.
Being in thrall to PC, someone high up in the BBC has clearly decided that it would be a good idea for the new ‘chairperson’ (and I use that word advisedly) to be female: this is why the ‘short list’ being widely discussed in the media consist of now fewer than six or seven females and just one male (Nick Robinson)
See here for a link to the report on the subject by Tara Conlan as appears today upon the website of – THE GUARDIAN
Some might argue that skewing the candidates’ list in favour of females is a justifiable tactic in the cause of redressing previous historical gender bias. Others might contend that true gender equality will only exist when the sole criteria for job selection is ‘the best candidate for the job’, irrespective of gender.
Next in evidence I produce another (this time opinion) piece from the website of The Guardian, written by former female England football player Eni Aluko – see here – FIFA MUST DO MORE TO HIGHLIGHT THE QUALITY IN THE WOMEN’S GAME
My immediate response to the thrust of the articulate and intelligent Aluko’s piece is to ask “what quality?”
In the sports of football and rugby union, and no doubt others too, the English governing bodies have bowed to political correctness and – in responding to the clamour from its vocal campaigners – have taken massive steps to treat female players better than in the past in the cause of supposed gender equality.
We now have an increasingly more widely-publicised Women’s Super League in football, not least via live TV coverage of its matches every week. This is obviously great for the campaigners and the teams involved – and indeed those girls who will be attracted to take the game up and are talented enough to make it as elite players one day.
But is the women’s game actually any good?
And what proportion of females will ever take it up … compared, that is, to those who would never touch football with the proverbial barge pole, no matter how well covered or publicised it was by the media, or indeed how well-paid female players ever become?
Arguably, the same applies to female rugby players. Yes, the celebratory bunting has been recently been broken out over the RFU’s decision to centrally-contract the leading national elite players in the 15-a-side version of the game. But, come on now, how many females are actually ever going to take up playing rugby union?
A tiny fraction, that’s how many. Yes, it’s great that elite players of any sport are able to get paid for playing it – even when they’re women. But let’s not pretend – as some organisations currently broadcasting coverage of them are pretending is the case when their commentators and pundits are discussing them on air – that women’s football or rugby are exactly comparable to men’s. Because they aren’t.
The most notable things about women’s football and rugby are firstly, that there are women playing these games at all; and secondly, that – inevitably, as with all sports involving physical contact – those women who most resemble men in stature, power, speed and aggression are always going to come out on top.
“A good big ‘un will always beat a good little ‘un” is an axiom that most likely originated in the context of boxing, but it often applies to other sports as well. And it certainly applies with bells on in the women’s version of any of them.
Meanwhile, still in the word of sport, here comes an interview of female football reporter/presenter Seema Jaswal by Nick Ames that I spotted today, also upon the website of – THE GUARDIAN
Once again, many would argue that it is a huge advance for gender equality that in the past decade quite so many females have managed to gain jobs in sports media coverage. Good luck to them, I say.
But at some point in proceedings there is going to come a time where ‘positive action’ (which is how I’d describe the weighting of job opportunities in favour of females, and indeed also ethnic minority candidates whilst we’re at it) has been deemed to have run its course.
Either that, or we males are going to have to get used to all our versions of sports and games being commentated upon and presented exclusively by women.