Evening highlights (ticketed separately) include comedy from Sandi Toksvig; music from Equals Live 2012, Sinead O’Connor and Emmy the Great; and film with Birds Eye View Sound and Silents.

Join WOW at Southbank Centre on Facebook. We’re also talking on Twitter #WOW2012

For full programme and ticketing information: southbankcentre.co.uk/wow

0844 847 9910

In the case of Louise Mensch I doubt it will hurt that much for that long because she had the good sense to own up to it in a way that takes the sting out of it. Obama did the same when he was accused of taking drugs in his youth. Lots of people take drugs in their youth and some into their older youth so it’s not the vote loser that people may assume it is. Not that I’m going to necessarily talk about that. What I am interested in is the effect that this sort of press coverage has on people who might have been considering becoming an MP.

My friends tell me that no sane person wants to be an MP in this country and I have to say, there is some sense to that claim. The British public really doesn’t like it’s elected representatives. MPs are the second least trusted group of people in the country, just slightly more than journalists, which in this day and age is really saying something. (Not all journalists are bad, I know, I know). Who, in their right mind would want to play a role that is this hated?

Not only that, but when I ask women to come forward to stand as MPs lots of them say no and refer to the treatment that they might expect from the press, treatment a lot like Louise Mensch is experiencing today. They worry about their past and how that might impact on their families. It takes a brave woman to want to air her dirty laundry in public. We know that female politicians get treated differently from male politicians in scandals. Remember when Liz Truss, Tory hopeful was deselected from running for Parliament after having an affair? Some might think this was an appropriate response from the party but you only have to look at the fact it was a Tory MP she had the affair with, who quite happily kept his place. Is there a double standard? Yes indeed.

Good on Louise Mensch. She’s essentially saying, ‘Yes I’ve had a life. So what?’. I agree. Isn’t that what we want? To elect people to lead us who have lived? People that have had jobs outside of politics, who know what it is to battle with life, those that have experienced money worries, maybe even battled with addiction. People who know how relationships can go wrong and the work needed to keep them going. People that have allowed themselves to veer from the carefully crafted story of who and what a politician is, a story that can only end in disappointment for the voters because we are all human, full of fragilities and vulnerabilities. It’s a sham to pretend otherwise.

Lets select and elect more human beings please. And let’s not sit quietly as the press dig around in peoples lives, bringing up stuff that frankly just doesn’t matter.

Previously posted in The Huffington Post and Lib Dem Voice

“Elizabeth is an author, internationally renowned gender researcher, and cultural commentator. Her bestselling book, Mother Daughter Revolution: From Good Girls to Great Women, was heralded by Gloria Steinem and Carol Gilligan as “the book women have been waiting for.” Elizabeth received her doctorate in human development and psychology from Harvard University, where she was a founding member of the Harvard Project on Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development. Elizabeth has been sought as an expert on girls, women, and the evolution of gender roles by major media outlets in the US and abroad and has lectured in the US, Canada, and Europe. She has made multiple appearances on Oprah, Good Morning America, and NPR, and was featured in a major Lifetime documentary on girls’ development. She has also consulted to numerous films and television programs, as well as to foundations, nonprofit educational organizations, corporate law firms, and businesses. Elizabeth has taught at Harvard University, the New School for Social Research, and the Graduate Institute.”

This event is part of a weekend of speakers and explorations of subjects relating to the future of humanity. Check out the impressive lineup, including MP Michael Meacher. The event will be opened by Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North.

For a small discount for my blog readers please email me directly on lee@leechalmers.com

Theresa May, as UK Home Secretary, has one of the most important jobs in government. Many grand men have held the post before her, however, by virtue of her being born female she also has another role, Minister for Women (and Equalities). The ‘women’ part of this supplementary role is nonsense and should be done away with as soon as possible. A cursory look will tell us why.

Firstly, there is no correlative Minster for Men. The reason being most men would find the very concept bizarre. What sense does a Minister for Men make when the very category of men is so wide and diverse? What on earth would a Minster for Men do, what purpose would he serve? Aren’t men’s interests already covered by the departments that deal with the economy, education, defence, energy, transport, etc? Yes of course they are. And we have a range of political parties that men can chose from in order to express their particularly nuanced view on each of these issues. The notion of having a Minister for Men over and above this is redundant.

So why does this common sense not apply when we are dealing with the female of the species? The category ‘women’ is in fact larger, when seen purely in numbers, due to women comprising the majority of the population. There is a stunning range and diversity of women; old, young, tall, short, intelligent, not, right wing women, left wing women, Lib Dem women, apolitical women, to name a few. In fact in the UK women even make up the majority of graduates so we can’t say they lack diversity in academic interest. So why a Minster for Women?

The answer can be found by looking in two places. Firstly, as feminists have noticed, when there are no women in positions of power the needs of women get overlooked. They have argued that we need someone specifically tasked with paying attention to these issues to ensure that resources get adequately channelled to support these needs. There is some truth to this as it applies to women qua women (rape centres and battered women shelters for example) but for the most part what they are really pointing to is women as mothers. And herein lies the problem.

Not all women are mothers but we’ve been solely defined by that role for so long that culture still can’t conceive of us in any other way. There are substantial issues faced by mothers in our society such as access to childcare, an ability to return to work after childbirth, etc. But these issues are parental issues not women’s issues. Anyone taking time out to care for children will face these challenges and increasingly our men have a desire to step into this role. They often find that they can’t because parenting is largely still seen as women’s work. Just look at the disparity between maternity and paternity leave. It tells men that society does not condone them being at home with their children.

If we want to open up the home to more men, to allow them to participate in the raising of their children, which allows women to give up some of the burden of childcare so they can participate in business and politics, we need to move these ‘issues’ from the purview of the Minister for Women and into a department that deals with parenting. Get men involved because when we apply the tag ‘women’s issues’, we exclude them.

The second place we can look to see why a Minister for Women is a dumb idea is in the concept of in-groups and out-groups. Those working in the area of diversity and inclusion are all too aware of the inevitable forces of power dynamics. There are in-groups and out-groups everywhere we look and we are all part of them. In government and business, in most positions of power in fact, men are the in-group and women the out-group. (It’s actually white men that are the in-group but that’s another post.)

The in-group, whatever demographic holds the power, has a set of norms which it adheres to and a set of nuanced distinctions it understands. There is meaning conveyed in the colour and pattern of an old school tie, a crest pinkie ring, an accent. These norms need not be voiced but the in-group understands them only too well and takes action based upon them.

The in-group doesn’t have the same level of distinctions with regard to the out-group. They think the out-group are all the same. They can’t read the out-group and see the complexity and range that exists within it, hence the stereotyping that occurs around race, gender, class and religion. ‘All Muslims are…” “The Tories are all evil”, etc. It’s wrong and it’s explainable by in and out-group dynamics. We all make judgements based on our lack of distinctions of groups that are ‘other’ from us.

Whilst that might be understandable in our private lives it’s certainly not acceptable that it’s enshrined in our government and that is just what is happening when we appoint a Minister for Women. The in-group (men) assume that all the full range and diversity of the needs of women can be covered by this role because they have no sense of what is actually contained in the category. Most so called ‘women’s issues’ could be covered by other departments. And they should be, with powerful, political women in those departments alongside men ensuring that resources are allocated.

What does need to be addressed in our society though, is the status of women. Women are still not held as equals to men, in any area. The pay gap reflects this, as does the lack of TV coverage of women’s sport and the fact that female politicians clothes are reported on more often that the contents of their minds. These things all point to the lack of understanding of the distinctions in the category ‘women’ and the status that is given to it. This is partly because we have been solely identified with being mothers for so long that the public world still does not know how to recognise and value the contribution of women as people.

Of course some may suggest that if we get rid of the Minster for Women role we will be putting the course of women’s empowerment back 20 years. Possibly, unless we replace it with the role such as the one they have in Canada and Australia: a Minister for the Status of Women. This Minister could be male or female, as there are plenty of men interested in increasing the status of women. Under a banner like this all people could participate; together we could make a difference and work to bring the talents of women to the political and business table. This would take a radical shift in thinking on behalf of government, moving from seeing women as a special interest group (the women’s vote?) to being another category of person, capable of intellectual rigour, creativity, public service as well as childbirth. Bring on a Minister who can usher in the time of women as human beings, in all their complexity.

If you were listening to right leaning UK politicians and political commentators recently you’d think so. Last week Peter Oborne was pointing to the decline of the nuclear family and the impact that has on care for the elderly. He argued that the welfare state was originally designed to supplement the care and support already given to the needy by the family, not to replace it. He portrayed a strong family, which felt responsible for the future of itself in a largely self-contained way, not seeing state support as the default option. In the article he refers to the crucial role that women play in this traditional family situation.

“And so it goes on – the daughter’s labours are in a hundred little ways shared with the older woman whose days of child-bearing (but not of child-rearing) are over. When the time comes for the mother to need assistance, the daughter reciprocates by returning the care she has herself received.”

This nod to the place of women chimes with the comments made recently by David Willetts, Conservative universities minister about the impact of feminism on the employment opportunities available to men. The Guardian reported:

“Willetts said feminism was probably the “single biggest factor” for the lack of social mobility in Britain, because women who would otherwise have been housewives had taken university places and well-paid jobs that could have gone to ambitious working-class men.”

Of course women were deeply offended by these words, understandably so but, the fact of the matter is, Oborne and Willetts are right. Women’s actions have changed the nature of family life and the nature of the job market for men and we all know it. Women stepping outside the home, away from the traditional roles which have been their only option for hundreds, if not thousands of years, has indeed changed everything. How could it not? Men and women’s futures are intertwined. They are so connected that when one gender shifts its orientation to life, claims another role, this cannot but help impact the life, opportunities and role of the other.

Men left Platos cave years ago, to forge a new future in culture but women didn’t go with them. Men have been free to create, to discover, to adventure, to go into politics and business largely because they didn’t have to bear and raise children. Women were, until very recently indeed, totally and utterly defined by that role. Why bother educating women if you believe their real value in society is the production of children? It makes sense when seen from that perspective. In some parts of the world it’s still seen from that perspective.

But the western cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s changed all that. Eve decided to eat from the tree of knowledge herself and now women are revelling in their education. New research shows that 43% of educated western Gen X women (aged between 33 and 46) have opted to be childfree. In a world that gives very little status and absolutely no financial reward to having children, this is a rational choice for a person to make. Rational when viewed from the level of the individual, the level we value in western culture, but utterly catastrophic for the species.

The political right understand this. They see that the writing is on the wall for humanity if women are not willing to assume their place as the mothers of us all. And this is problematic because women are not going to quietly go back to this life of unpaid, low status, grindingly hard work. Society cannot go back, we can only go forward. We evolve or die.

Rather than wishing for what has come before we need to ask hard questions of ourselves and create something new. What structures do we need to create that allow women to contribute to society with their brains as well as their wombs? If the majority of our graduates are now women and we want that talent in our businesses and political parties, are we willing to change how we work in order to allow them to contribute whilst ensuring that we still have enough children? These are not just questions for women, these are questions for all of us.

Faced with the complexity of these challenges it’s understandably easier to say ‘let the women stay at home and raise children.’ Easier to wish for what worked so well for society before. And this is not about men dictating the terms, it’s easier for women to say this too. It’s been our role for so long that we are compelled to it. We often unthinkingly slide into this function and then lead lives of confused desperation because we haven’t yet figured out how to do it differently.

Women are capable of more than childrearing, difficult and valuable as that is, and culture needs us to give more, it needs our intellectual contribution as truly equal partners to men. The challenges we face in the future such as peak oil, population aging, water shortages, require the best minds of our generation and those may be sitting in female bodies. Do we really want to ignore that potential contribution and encourage women to go back home? I think quite the opposite, we should be encouraging women to take their place in business and politics and solve the problem of making life more family friendly, so both men and women can share life in both the private and the public worlds.

Does this mean, as Willetts suggests, that we will take men’s jobs? Yes and no. Being in the job market means we will take jobs but they are in no sense men’s anymore. That ship has sailed. We are facing a reconstruction of our society on the scale of that required when we disallowed that other source of unpaid work, slaves. I’m sure there were those arguing for the slaves to go back to work, servitude being in some way seen as their natural place. But we evolved, both morally and structurally. We need to do the same again. Are we ready?