Joan Smith: Macho politicians are turning back the clock
Friday, 11 July 2008
I've heard many things about Gordon Brown but no one's ever suggested that he beats his wife or tortures spaniels. Heathcliff, to whom the Prime Minister has allowed himself to be compared, does both these things in Wuthering Heights, a novel so savage that one contemporary reviewer suggested it was the product of a dyspeptic digestive system.
It may be that Mr Brown was thinking of the film and stage versions of Emily Bronte's novel, which tend to present it as a vapid love story; connoisseurs of travesty still treasure the moment when Sir Cliff Richard realised a lifelong ambition and starred in the musical Heathcliff. Its finale, a show-stopping number called "Misunderstood Man", might easily appeal to Mr Brown.
Heathcliff's treatment of his wife and child would make the most deranged member of Fath-ers4Justice blanch, but there is nevertheless something in the Brown-Heathcliff comparison.
Most Wednesdays, the Prime Minister faces the Leader of the Opposition like a wounded, angry outcast, sometimes giving the impression that he would like to bound across the chamber and strangle David Cameron.
Two days ago, when Mr Brown was at the G8 summit in Japan, Harriet Harman stood in for him at Prime Minister's Questions. It was a pleasure to see her at the dispatch box, remaining soignée and good-tempered throughout her exchanges with William Hague, an obsessive Europhobe who is fast becoming the Les Dawson of British politics. In a just world, Ms Harman would be Deputy Prime Minister, a position denied to her by Mr Brown even though she has the democratic mandate he lacks; it was one of his most Heathcliffian decisions, mean-spirited and contemptuous towards those who voted for her in Labour's deputy leadership contest.
But Mr Cameron's Tories are no better: where was Ms Harman's counterpart, shadow Leader of the House Theresa May, this week? Sitting on the Opposition benches, I'm afraid, while Mr Hague ranted and grandstanded. And I've heard it said that Tory backbenchers are not exactly heartbroken about the troubles assailing the party chairman, Caroline Spelman, who has pushed for more women and black people to be selected as Conservative candidates.
Back in 1997, when an unprecedented number of women were elected to Parliament in Labour's landslide victory, they were mocked relentlessly as "Blair's Babes". Even so, some of the decisions taken in those early years had a hugely beneficial impact on the daily lives of women and children; the introduction of a national minimum wage is a prime example.
But women are rarely selected for seats with big majorities, and many of the 1997 intake will be ejected from Parliament at the next general election. There are already signs that women's issues are slipping down the agenda; when Ms Harman tried recently to tackle the pay gap between men and women, her proposal to introduce transparency into the workplace foundered as soon as it reached her cabinet colleagues. Her insistence that men who have sex with trafficked women and girls are committing rape has caused outrage in some quarters, even though she is clearly right in law and morality.
The return to macho politics is not merely a British phenomenon. France currently has its weirdest-ever President, an irritable, hyperactive individual whose Napoleonic fantasies are comical to behold. Only a man with an unusual degree of vanity could look benignly on his new wife's public insistence that their relationship is incredibly hot, a message she has recorded for posterity on her latest disc. Actually, Carla Sarkozy-Bruni's breathy murmurings remind me of Nicole Kidman's sex scenes with Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut, and we all know what happened to them.
Over the border in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi continues to preside over his characteristic brand of authoritarian farce, fending off accusations that he asked a TV executive to give jobs to actresses he described as his "little butterflies". At the same time, Mr Berlusconi's newly-appointed minister for equal opportunities, a 32-year-old former model called Maria Carfagna, is threatening to sue over allegations that she had an "inappropriate" relationship with him.
I'm tempted to say you couldn't make it up: Mr Berlusconi behaving like an elderly Don Juan, Mr Sarkozy yearning to be Napoleon and Mr Brown fancying himself as the hero of a Victorian novel. I'm also not sure what we've done to deserve it at a moment when the Swedish and Danish social democratic parties have women leaders and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has declared himself a feminist. His country's sportsmen have just won everything in sight, and no-one thinks there's a problem with his masculinity.




Comments
34 Comments
I have been reading this column for some time now, and am feeling quite gobsmacked at the number of comments posted by some people who wilfully misunderstand the issues presented and all unwittingly give ironic support to Ms Smith's analysis (whilst also creating a fine mental image of the blustering, red-faced male spraying spittle while insisting that his worldview is the only right one, come what may). It is exactly because of this kind of misunderstanding and ignorance that gender politics is still necessary - because we live in a world where the rights of women AND men to make choices about how they live are restricted by artificially constructed social and cultural mores. Thankfully we have forthright and articulate people like Ms Smith to draw our attention to abuses that happen both visibly and subconsciously.
Posted by Sarah | 15.07.08, 16:24 GMT
Is it Ferdie Roberts' way to denigrate what he (presumably) doesn't understand, or is that just typical of the 'male thing'? It can be rewarding to try to see things from outside the confines of one's own narrow, repressed, fearful, boorish and pigheaded box.
Posted by Sarah | 14.07.08, 16:36 GMT
Thanks Ivan for all your input................but I still think Gordon Brown is more like Scrooge than Heathcliff.
By the way, a long wander across the moors (preferably in mist) does wonders for my blood pressure, and all my irritations melt away. Maybe you should try it sometime. I have some good routes I can let you have.
Posted by Alan Robinson | 12.07.08, 08:55 GMT
At least Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, unlike Brown have been chosen democratically by the people of their countries.
Posted by Roberto | 12.07.08, 08:42 GMT
This newspapers is basically for women - as a consequence it has the stupidity, lightness, absurd approach to life, uteral, moody, incompetent analysis that is typical of the female thing.
Grow up Independent - you are so silly...
Posted by Ferdie Roberts | 12.07.08, 08:22 GMT
Gender feminists exist in a solipsistic vacuum in which any suggestion of a world view that contradicts their own is considered heresy. Thankfully, however, there is another school of developing thought among feminists. The women in this group call themselves equity feminists. Their interest is in advancing and protecting the opportunities that women have fought for over the decades since World War II. But, they have a decidedly more optimistic view of the world.
Equity feminists are a more balanced group. They believe that the revolution of opportunities for women has been successful. But, at the same time, family and motherhood are not something to be skeptical about. It is an honorable and fulfilling option for them, not a conspiracy of the patriarchy.
Posted by Ivan | 11.07.08, 20:25 GMT
to their socialization within the patriarchy. Thus, THEY BELIEVE THAT THE PATRIARCHY NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AT ALL COSTS, even if that means converting our government to a totalitarian form of socialism that rewrites the supposed gender script and throws the Constitution out the window.
Finally, gender feminists believe that the most important characteristic of all women is their SHARED VICTIMHOOD. All government policies should therefore be oriented around alleviating the victim status of women. This, of course, is principally achieved through attacking the patriarchy.
The orthodoxy of gender feminism is represented by NOW. At one time, NOW was a legitimate leader in fighting for opportunities for women. In the past couple of decades, however, it has become the center-piece of the feminist victim cult. You will also find this brand of feminism on most college campuses, including the University of Washington.
Posted by Ivan | 11.07.08, 20:24 GMT
There are now at least two major schools of feminist thought. THE GROUP THAT IS MOST OFTEN COURTED BY THE POLITICALLY CORRECT MEDIA ARE THE GENDER FEMINISTS. This is a particularly humorless group that has no room for open debate. The label gender feminist is appropriate because THEY ARE OBSESSED WITH 3 FUNDAMENTAL THEORIES.
First, THEY BELIEVE that there are no real differences between the sexes. This is why they have pushed the term gender on us. GENDER IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT IS ASSIGNED, NOT INNATE. So, according to their theory, society and culture have assigned the male and female genders. In other words, if it werent for the evils of our culture, we would all be walking around as eunuchs.
The second belief that characterizes gender feminists is their obsession with a nebulous concept called the patriarchy. The patriarchy, according to gender feminists, is A CONSPIRACY OF ALL MEN TO VICTIMIZE WOMEN. Whats worse, THEY BELIEVE THAT ALL MEN ARE INNATELY VIOLENT due
Posted by Ivan | 11.07.08, 20:21 GMT
"The saddest part is that the logical solutions for this conundrum are the ones most violently decried in the media and by the wimmin." - That's FEMINIST-and-GAY-RIGHTS-ACTIVIST INTIMIDATION/BLACKMAIL of the politicians for ya. No ambitious politician wants an angry mob of feminists and queers crying "Homophobe!", "Male chauvinist pig!", "Fascist!" in front of the office of his political party. That would certainly cause him to lose votes, because other plain, gullible women, watching that on TV, would believe he really is what the feminist/queer mob is accusing him of. Women have an INNATE predilection for LIBERALISM, and also INNATE FEMALE EMPATHY GETS EASILY ABUSED: it's enough for a feminist or a gay-rights activist to have a way with words - and he/she will be able to appeal to the empathy of ordinary women; those ordinary women will begin to perceive them as "victims", "the oppressed", and such. Feminists and their stout allies,queer activists,have been EXPLOITING that thoroughly
Posted by Ivan | 11.07.08, 19:53 GMT
Ivan has failed to add one further non-PC addendum to his theses, namely that many female men-haters become men-haters because their demand to dominate men leads the men to leave them, thereby leaving them alone as they approach the menopause.
Men corralled by such an environment for years become impotent and cannot believe that women want them to be men. It's very sad, because most women do want them to be men.
The saddest part is that the logical solutions for this conundrum are the ones most violently decried in the media and by the wimmin.
Posted by Rhys Jaggar | 11.07.08, 19:37 GMT
34 Comments