It Ain’t Right …

It’s funny how the modern world operates sometimes – I’m thinking of such recent phenomena as the ‘diversity’ row over at the recent BAFTA awards which even Prince William felt necessary to complain about, even though he’s President of the ruddy organisation.

As an oldie, what strikes me like a baseball bat between the eyes are the underlying inconsistencies, illogicality and indeed occasional hypocrisies behind many of these ‘campaign hardy perennials’.

Okay, items like the BAFTA awards come with their whacky element by definition.

To my mind, real meritocracy awards can only occur in e.g. simple exams – in which answers are either right or wrong – or perhaps (I was going to say) sports games or events such as the final of the women’s Olympic 100 metres event … but then again, of course, you’ve got to discount even those because of the potential for performance-enhancing drug abuse amongst the contestants.

With artistic/creative awards, it is never about an attempt to anoint the greatest film or film contributor of the year, as it is played in the media.

Why?

Because the decision is necessarily both subjective to the voting panel (and who are they, and who chose them?) and also to the quality and verve of those tasked with promoting each contender movie for the awards season – and indeed, most particularly, the size of their marketing budget – some of which can run into tens of millions of US$s and even sometimes more than the cost of making the movie in the first place.

Next, of course, there’s the self-congratulatory ‘luvvie’ aspect.

Many award events – the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes – even the Oscars themselves – are in reality little more than yet another excuse/opportunity for everyone involved to turn out, ride the media-blitz on the red carpets and ‘after match’ party roller coaster, wear the latest and most-bizarre fashions of the moment, see and be seen, get into the news bulletins and glossy magazines, appear before the cameras and microphones to both take advantage of either the interest in their latest screen outing .. or else, if there isn’t one, simply take out a metaphorical loud-hailer and scream from the proverbial roof-tops: “I’m here – and still available for work, anyone out there who might have some to offer!

What I’m creeping slowly towards saying is “The actual outcomes as to who gets what in the awards is actually not even the reason that everyone is there at all.”

And that’s also why – frankly – the whole politically-correct, banging on about diversity (basically the lack of female, black or disabled people among the nominations, or even eventual award-winners) campaign gets its chance in the spotlight at all.

I’m not saying it’s just another cynical, luvvie promotional tool invented for the media – just like all those that I’ve listed above – but it might just as well be.

It’s rather like the ‘lack of ‘diversity’ hoo-hahs over the composition of the boards of City Top 100 companies and the House of Commons.

That is, the thrust that – because City boardrooms could theoretically be peopled by both men and women – and because both women and men can also stand for election to Parliament – some think, as part of some pious virtue-signalling righteous re-balancing/improvement of the human condition, that exactly 50% of those on City boards and on the green benches of the House of Commons ought to be women.

I’d just ask: “Whatever happened to how qualified, good, suitable even qualified for any of these roles any of them are?! That is, what ever happened to meritocracy?!”

And, while we’re at it, supposing one day some huge and respected research project published its findings in The Lancet, effectively proving beyond all doubt e.g. that – by nature – men are just better at women at certain things, the list of which included being a member of a City board or an MP … but also that women were better at doing others, including having and nurturing babies, cooking, doing housework, looking after elderly relatives … and so on?

Would any of the women’s quality campaigners quietly accept the findings? Not a chance! They’re after total parity for females.

And, by the way, do you suppose that – if the research project had come up with the fact that women were better at being board directors and/or MPs than men – they’d down tools and begin campaigning for men to get 50:50 representation at either?

Again, not a chance – they’d be using the findings to promote the notion that less men should be taking those roles because they’re less good at them!

Overnight I spotted another “cracker” on the website of the Daily Mail that will get the feminist lobby’s knickers in a right twist.

See here for a link to said piece, penned by Latoya Gayle, about a 19 year old girl who decided to let all her body hair grown as a form of body empowerment – DAILY MAIL

I can see just how this one will pan out.

Fifty percent of the ‘sisterhood’ – steeped in “the right to celebrate and comfortable in your body, even if you’re morbidly obese” – will be screaming “You go, girl!”

And the other fifty percent will be averting their eyes in horror, thinking to themselves “My God – how simply awful! I’d never be so disgusting as to do anything like that!”

It must be tough being at the forefront of the Women’s Liberation Movement these days, you know …