Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Whenever I read articles like the above that involve human rights topics, it always makes me think about how it would read the other way. What if there were an International Mens' Day, what if there were a White Police Federation...

Makes you think....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

- There is not an international mens day because there was not a problem with the equal rights of men. There is not a white police federation because there was not a problem with white police.
So for both reasons, there does not have to be a day or reason to celebrate, unlike the actual past difficuties.

@3 Yes there is a problem with equal rights.

If equal rights are good then the same thing should be done for both.

@4 -
So you think there should be a day to celebrate the fact that men and white police now have equal opportunities and a heard voice? - I don't believe there was ever a problem with the rights of men or white police.
There is no change so, What is there to remember? What was the movement with the rights of men? What was the movement with the rights of white police?

Remember, it is the movement that is being celebrated.

For some reason, the fact that today is international women's day has passed me by, which is strange as i read the press most days, subscribe to online news feeds and watch the news most days too - however while looking for something else on Ö÷²¥´óÐã IPlayer I came across Vanessa Engle's first of three documentaries and have just watched as my husband gently snored next to me! it was brilliant.
Thank goodness that there is still enough interest in the media to still make programmes about this topic and for mine and our daughters generation to be reminded that there was and to a large extent still is inequality for women around the world including the UK, US and it in spades in the developing world.
The fact that our daughters generation don't necessarily feel that there is still a fight is a blessing and demonstrates just how far we have come - and I dearly hope that we all continue to find our own ways to move the movement along. Women are still oppressed but more subtly in the workplace, in the media and in the family. Our problems now are probably that are expectations are now so high of ourselves (and of each other) that we don't know when we have got there. You can have it all - probably - I am just not sure you can have it all at the same time.

@ Catherine Thomas - Spot On.
Have you read the previous comments, diccussing the subject - they may be of interest.
Going back to what you said, - with the next generation, not having to go through with it, only reading about it in history books, yes, it is brilliant!

True and proper Equality and respect for the human rights of all = GOOD
Feminism and it's radical western morph into incessant men hating, complete and total male exclusion from children/offspring lives = BAD, very bad for childrens, their emotional well-being and the nations future.

There is NO EQUALITY for men or boys in present day NuLab driven britain, no proper exercise of the 'Equality Duty', irrespective of what HMG says, it is a complete whitewash. Every logical, rational person in the UK knows this.

To celebrate the corrosive influence of radical marxist feminism = BAD.

@Devon-Dad


Feminists do not hate men. They are fighting for their rights, not for their hatred of men, the protesting banners clearly illustrate that - they say, 'We Have A Voice' and 'Equal Rights For All', not 'We Hate Men' - That would be totally contradicting the point they are trying to express.



Children will not suffer in any way or form, there emotional well-being will be stronger as they understand and respect equal rights, like previously said, they will read this up in history books and think, Gosh that was an odd period, thank God it is no longer.



The nation’s future can only get better, it can only improve and every person, every individual, can overcome difficulties because of their rights.

To celebrate positive change = GOOD.

I think that the International Women's Day, like anything on this planet, can be used for bad or good purposes. If its supporters want to use it as a symbol of female hostility towards men, that is very sad. But if used to celebrate femininity as an aspiration towards peace, beauty, and love, then why not celebrate it?

@dukeofearl - I agree that there should be a balance, i.e., that there should be a counterpart for 8 March. In the Soviet Union and in modern Russia such counterpart exists - 23 February. It is officially called 'Defender of the Fatherland Day', and it used to be the Red Army Day, but de facto it is the day when women in Russia give presents to their male relatives, friends, and colleagues, irrespective of their age or occupation.

People don't have to think about political origins of these two days, 23 February and 8 March. I see them as a way for people to show appreciation of both genders and of good things that come from being either a man or a woman.

In programme 2, Vanessa Engle repeatedly asked a question which was something like "of the two of you, who do you think works harder?" In its context, this rather odd question (most of her respondents thought it so) was apparently to investigate equality or inequality between men and women in a relationship.
Relationships vary in their complexion over time. I have been with my wife for nearly four decades now, and every phase has involved a different allocation of "work". Before we were married (living separately, then living together), our mutual allocation of tasks and paid employment was one way; after marriage it changed. When our children came, it was different again, with my wife's work being largely child- and home- focussed. A decade later she was working part-time and still focussing much of her labour and energies (but less time) on the (teenage) children and the house - I was doing a proportion of those things but was intensively building a career. A decade later again, the children had left home, the routine house maintenance ("housework") was small, and the hours she "worked" compared with her other activities became much smaller, whilst my work career was reaching a peak.
After her retirement, the proportion of time she devoted to "work" was very much smaller, whilst mine continued apace, albeit usually without the previous stress levels,and with flexibility to coordinate to do things jointly with her. In my retierement, I continue to choose to do external work which is satisfying, as well as "work" on the allotment and such domestic activities suh as cooking; she devbotes much thought and energy around the (grown-up) children as well as the "household" tasks.
We're both active at the moment, but if we are typical (see the ONS stats - "Focus on older people" ch 6, I think!) my wife is more likely to be a carer over the next decade, but after that, I am four tmes more likely than her to be a carer. There would then be a futhr massive change in the allocation of "work".
Allocating relative "time" proportions to work in an intimate relationship requires a long time scale to get a picture (as I know some academic researchers have pointed out). I think Vanessa Engle's questions seemed determined to sidestep this.

Oh dear!
The interveiw in Vanessa Engle's prgramme (was itshe herself? I dont know) several times referred to "1950s wives" (or words to that effect). People in Britain then were enormously diverse, and social patterns varied immensely. She said that women commentators wrote of their boredom and unsatisfied lives. Surely,some high profile women did, and no doubt others felt so. But many, many, felt like the Oxford graduate who was interviewed, and found life to be busy, demanding, satifying, but hardly "boring" (or isolated) looking after children. I was one of six, so mum and dad were stretched to the limit,financially and physically, but I dont think mum regretted in the least staying at home to care for us while we were young. She worked in external employment before we came along, we were always poor, and she worked in the external job market part-time once we were all settled in school. There was a wide social circle of other families. Extremely hard work, as the war had been, but hardly unsatisfying or boring.

I found last night's programme (the second in the Women series) incredibly disappointing. As a thirtysomething professional woman who would never hesitate to identify herself as a feminist, I found the cohort of couples 'analysed' in this programme incredibly skewed. Not only were all the couples middle class, I would classify them as rich. The luxury of the husband working while the wife stays at home (all with houses in London or farms in Dorset, no less!) is often just that - a luxury. Furthermore, if the topic of the programme was mothers, why were none of them single mothers (no, I'm not counting the one who'd only just separated from her husband - what about those who never had the support of a man)?

If the premise was – why are educated upper middle class women no longer fighting for women's rights (assuming of course that only such women could and should be feminist) but staying at home? – then that should've been noted from the beginning (at which point I fear we would've switched off).

As each white professional South East English couple was introduced, my partner and myself became more enraged (and when the lawyer appeared we couldn't help but laugh as you had finally gotten all the traditional professions - doctor, businessman, professor & lawyer). As a man, he found it completely infuriating - routinely asking how who does the laundry determines just how feminist a home is.

For a series of programmes that should have been progressive and modern, we found this entirely out of date and narrow. We both enjoy Ö÷²¥´óÐã4 and usually love the documentaries. One wonders if it's sexist to do such a shoddy job when it comes to a topic like women. What was the purpose of the discussion? What research regarding half the population only includes a very small minority?

Very disappointing - you can do better.

Oh dear! Vanessa Engle's documentary gave the impression that only very well-to-do families in lovely posh houses have children, and furthermore that nobody north of Watford ever reproduces. I found the programme offensive. Surely the Ö÷²¥´óÐã isn't so cash-strapped it couldn't have driven a camera up the M1 to see what motherhood might be like outside of north London. The documentary maker seems unwilling or unable to get outside her comfort zone and talk to the great unwashed - in the middle of what we're constantly told is an epochal economic disaster, there is something very wrong about setting a film like this solely in managerial, affluent suburbia. As 'social history' it was a complete failure and as 'public service braodcasting' it was a bit of a sick joke.

I completely agree with the two comments above. I too found that the programme was so skewed towards upper/middle class that it was impossible to take seriously. The question of whether to stay home with your kids was never framed in economic terms, but always as some sort of blissful personal choice. It appeared that all the families were well-off Londoners who sent their children to posh schools and spent their days picking fresh berries in the garden.
It was great to see such nice camera, sound, and editing- good production values...but fell completely short as a documentary.

Watched 'Mothers' last night and was struck by the fact that almost all of the women interviewed had an AGA in their kitchens. This gave the impression they'd been selected on the basis of AGA ownership, and this leads one to conclude all were mates of, or mates of mates of Ö÷²¥´óÐã people making the programme. In fact it rendered the thing risible. AGA ownership, it should be noted, renders your opinions pretty much irrelevent.

I find the more I watch the "Women" series the more I feel empowered and liberated to be on this gender side. I can't help but feel proud of and admire those women who stood up for equality 50 years ago. Thank you Ö÷²¥´óÐã for making a documentary that celebrates all they did so that the unaware generation I am apart of can learn it didn't come easy. That said, I do feel a tendency in my thoughts to dislike men the more I'm watching this, which I didn't expect and am not really proud to say. Although I guess it shows when my boyfriend was laughing all the way through the "mothers" episode, whilst I couldn't stop cringing at the men who paused too long to explain why they didn't help with the chores, or empathise with the women who did the chores to avoid household arguments! Being 22 and not a mother I have a lot to learn, but I'm already cleaning up after the boyfriend and tidying his room! Do I really need to put up with this in my future? No.

Oh God, middle class women going on about their lives. How tedious. There are a great many of us out here who struggle on in council/social housing with our children who actually don't have AGAs , drive 4x4s or send the children to public school. Feminism means nothing to us - money gives women the choice to have feminist views - we don't have that luxury.

Good review, latter part of this article.

I thought the first and third programmes were excellent. I agree with the previous comments about the second programme being focussed on too narrow a section of the population. My guess is that it would have taken a lot more time to interview a wider selection of people and maybe that's why it ended up so monocultural. The third programme was really inspiring.

Here's a bit from a song by Jules Gibb:

"Nana was a Suffragette, its as if she's still alive
Nana was a Suffragette, their voices still survive
Singing votes for women, is just a beginning, you haven't seen anything yet
O Nana was a Suffragette"

I too felt very disappointed with this series. In common with many of the other postings, I did feel that the the interviews reflected a very narrow band of people and although Vanessa says that she was trying to target women who had benefited from 70's feminism and to explore the choices that they made, I can't quite believe that these are the people she came up with. It seems like very lazy research; many, many women benifited from feminism. I am from a lower working class household but was given the opportunity of University (full grant + working, no help from parents) as many of my friends were. I consider myself a feminist, work full time in the media, mother of a one year old, my partner is full time carer for our boy. We are unmarried. I'm not unusual, but I think it would have undermined Vanessa's arguments/pre-determined judgments to have had a more varied sample to question. She would have come to some more complex and interesting conclusions. More than this though, I felt offended by the mocking tone of questioning, often on pointless/unilluminating subjects ('who makes the decision to switch washing powders?'), and for example the ridiculous focus on lentils/food preparation for the feminists convention which was not affectionate and felt more like they were being slightly laughed at. I was pleased that most of the young feminists were bemused by the question 'are you angry?' - most of us are angry about something. The questions felt limiting, lame and uninspiring, resulting in a strange feeling that the subjects felt restricted in what they wanted to say or could have said.