Edwina Currie on the pay gap...

As evil as the lure of procrasination might be, it did mean I stumbled across a gem of an interview with Edwina Currie on The One Show concerning the continuing pay gap between women and men. Such discrepencies don't seem to cause any alarm in Currie; her responses implying that this is the way it is and even, this is the way it should be. The justification behind this? The matter of choice. Edwina Currie talks about the choices women make during their careers, choices involving children (think taking a 'break' in employment when you decide to start a family*). Of course, we women make such choices so it is only right that women's pay reflects such...la di da da. The point at which Currie starts throwing around this buzzword of choice I am reminded of Catherine Hakim and her Preference Theory (basically the notion that patterns in women's employment reflect the lifestyle preferences of women rather than patriarchal structures in society). Do we see the problem here? We can talk about 'choice' and 'preference' and doll this situation up as women being active decision makers of their life, their roles, their careers because that's the easiest option isn't? It's just merely an attempt to mask the fact that despite equal pay legislation and work by the women's movement, our society, to put it simply, still sucks on this. Why pretend that this is what women want because clearly it really isn't. And of course Edwina will talk about 'choice' because it can, to an extent, be a matter of choice for women like her because of their background affording them more opportunities than perhaps the rest of us.

And all of this from day-time tv.


Laura

*Feeling the sarcasm?...

Disclaimer: I don't particularly like The One Show and I feel the fact I found myself watching this episode on demand this morning was purely a reflection of my avoiding work...


(x-posted over at Subtext)

Belle De Jour

So recently I ended up reading Belle De Jour's The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl because a) I don't believe in commenting on a book/film/article until I've read/watched it and b) I had read all of the books I had with me and it was the lesser of many evils on my sister's/mum's bookshelves. Anyway, I can see what all the fuss was about when the TV adaptation came out. The book does completely glamourize prostitution. No acknowledgment of the dark side of the job is made or potential dangers (Belle De Jour is even happy to comment on how she never feels unsafe walking at night) - everything is fine, fine, fine.

Even more worrying is that there's apparently a second book been released now? I doubt that would fare any better.

A WI Lady's Guide to Brothels

Last night I watched A WI Lady's Guide to Brothels on Channel 4. The programme, I think, emphasised for me that despite disagreeing with prostitution, lap-dancing, strip clubs and so forth, I do agree that if such things are going to take place that legislation should be in place to protect those involved. I was speaking to my partner during the programme and he doesn't seem to have such a strong opinion as I do. I did try to put across to him though the fact that such things as lap-dancing clubs further emphasis the opressed position of women in society. It's saying it's ok for men to pay to ogle at women. It's ok to understand women as purely sexual objects which are a commodity. It's the same mentality of magazines such as Zoo and Nuts. Some people might argue that that's not the case, that it's just some fun and the women do it for themselves; it's not a reflection of women's position in society, nor is it derogatory. If that was the case then why is it that women are in the sexualised position and not men? Do we have women's magazines on the smale scale as lad's mags (well, ok, More sometimes verges on this but still not as bad...)? And why is it then where I live that there are strip bars/lap-dancing clubs featuring women but men are absent from this objectification?