Debating point
In the past few days I have been sticking in my two hape'th during an Economist online debate on the progress of women. Goodness knows why they asked a bloke to defend the motion that "women in the developed world have never had it so good." As I said in the opening exchange, it felt like a bit of a hospital pass. But somebody had to do it.
I'm not a big fan of the debating style that underpins the British system of advocacy in our judicial system and the kind of exchanges we can expect in Parliament. It's so combative, so much about winners and losers that you find yourself developing your debating skills rather than questioning the point at issue.
In this case there was no choice but to fight back. My opponent Terry O'Neill came out snarling from the start, testing the old glass jaw, pummeling away at the body, trying to get me on the ropes. I thought I rope-a-doped her quite nicely in the first round, absorbing a lot of her best punches. The second round did not go so well. She ducked well clear of my Mother Teresa hay maker and punished it with the sarcasm it deserved.
Not until round three did I feel confident enough to strike a few blows for my fellow blokes, scoring a point with the Chippendales and delivering a reasonable riposte to her corner man who weighed in with the housework. The vote gave me a clear win but I couldn't claim to have swayed the voting. That swung marginally away from the first round but I think a lot of the damage done then was self-inflicted by O'Neill's startling aggression.
The thing is - and I'm about as qualified to say this as I was to debate in the beginning (not at all) - I'm not sure I agree with the proposition. Most women I know are working harder than ever and some are pretty disillusion by the career ladder. For sure there is still a lot of stuff stacked against women in the workplace. But there is stuff stacked against men too. Work is not such a pleasant place to be right now. The reason so many people keep at it is that the alternative remains even worse.
I do think that there are some women out there who will not be content until they have emasculated every man on the planet and then they will be able to turn on themselves. I'm not a tree hugger, not much of a new man if truth be told. But I've worked all my life in a job where men and women knock along together and where the real equality is in the strength of the whinging. But, after reading some of the silly comments around this debate, I realise that I'm a mere amateur in that respect. Some people really do want their butter on both sides of the bread.
I'm not a big fan of the debating style that underpins the British system of advocacy in our judicial system and the kind of exchanges we can expect in Parliament. It's so combative, so much about winners and losers that you find yourself developing your debating skills rather than questioning the point at issue.
In this case there was no choice but to fight back. My opponent Terry O'Neill came out snarling from the start, testing the old glass jaw, pummeling away at the body, trying to get me on the ropes. I thought I rope-a-doped her quite nicely in the first round, absorbing a lot of her best punches. The second round did not go so well. She ducked well clear of my Mother Teresa hay maker and punished it with the sarcasm it deserved.
Not until round three did I feel confident enough to strike a few blows for my fellow blokes, scoring a point with the Chippendales and delivering a reasonable riposte to her corner man who weighed in with the housework. The vote gave me a clear win but I couldn't claim to have swayed the voting. That swung marginally away from the first round but I think a lot of the damage done then was self-inflicted by O'Neill's startling aggression.
The thing is - and I'm about as qualified to say this as I was to debate in the beginning (not at all) - I'm not sure I agree with the proposition. Most women I know are working harder than ever and some are pretty disillusion by the career ladder. For sure there is still a lot of stuff stacked against women in the workplace. But there is stuff stacked against men too. Work is not such a pleasant place to be right now. The reason so many people keep at it is that the alternative remains even worse.
I do think that there are some women out there who will not be content until they have emasculated every man on the planet and then they will be able to turn on themselves. I'm not a tree hugger, not much of a new man if truth be told. But I've worked all my life in a job where men and women knock along together and where the real equality is in the strength of the whinging. But, after reading some of the silly comments around this debate, I realise that I'm a mere amateur in that respect. Some people really do want their butter on both sides of the bread.
Labels: Parliament, Terry O'Neill, The Chippendales, The Economist
posted by Richard Donkin at
7:44 PM
2 Comments:
Interesting article (and debate) Richard.
As a woman I have to say, you have a point.
I'm 33 and was brought up to believe that our mothers (the full time housewives) were leading an unfulfilled half life, bereft of freedom and opportunity.
Now, as someone who struggles to split her time between a demanding job running a business, running (and cleaning) a house, while also fulfilling the roles of daughter, granddaughter, daughter in law and so on, I find myself challenged and, to be frank, just a little overstretched. Goodness knows what it will be like when I eventually have children.
Men, you'll forgive me for saying, have it so much simpler and clearer cut. They are expected to work, they are expected to do what is needed in the house (usually on the woman's request). Women now have so many roles that I can't help wondering that our feminist sisters battled for something that is now so restrictive to female progress that we're going backwards, slowing down, getting back to our roots.
Perhaps we've all lost sight of what's really important - and have spent so much time getting adept at battling, as you say, without actualluy considering what we're striving towards.
Which begs the question: what DO women want?
You summed it up nicely. If anything, you could have stood up for blokes a bit more. We die younger, experience more violence, crime, depression and loneliness, and have to carry the burden of our forefathers' unfair treatment of women.
So well done for having accepted to challenge, and for having valiantly defended your corner. I have a sneaking suspicion that the guys at the Economist knew exactly what they were doing by pairing gentle English male fishing columnist against snarling female American pitbull.
Post a Comment
<< Home