Gender Inequality, Laissez-faire and Positive Action

Last week, in the run-up to International Women's Day, there were efforts made in Germany to tackle inequality between the genders in the workplace. While a new law was passed for gender quotas to be introduced to the boardrooms of large companies (The Guardian, 2015), there was still ongoing resistance to legislation aimed at exposing, and ultimately undoing, gender inequalities in pay (Osborne, 2015).

The fact that these moves are necessary in a wealthy and developed country like Germany - or in the UK where the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for similar moves for some time, particularly in the face of a failure of the Conservative 'voluntary' reporting system (Wintour, 2015) - highlights the scale of the problem. Quotas, in turn, represent the practical response to the continuing inequality (Saul, 2015).

And yet, resistance remains to levelling the playing field. There is an insistence in the Western world upon trusting in laissez-faire - removing the obvious formal institutional obstacles and letting the world right itself. That attitude is not helped much by gender quotas being considered an imperfect solution (White, 2015).

However, the world is uncomfortably unequal. In the face of plain unfairness, the simplistic, and false, answer to the struggles of others is victim-blaming (Burkeman, 2015). There is a determination, witnessed in the wider struggle against inequality, to shift the responsibility for unfairness from the established order and those who benefit, and to turn it into blame to be placed on those who aren't succeeding (Seabrook, 2014).

The facts are pretty clear: matters can't just be left to right themselves (Topping, 2015). It was true for the poverty and desperation in Victorian England that led to the collapse of the old Laissez-faire economics, and made way for the gradual rise of social insurance, pensions, welfare and the public healthcare. It is true now tackling gender inequality. The world needs a helping hand to combat problematic institutional biases (Dudman, 2015).

The feminist rallying-calls of public figures like Emma Watson is a reminder of how to tackle these great challenges (HeForShe, 2015): positive thought and positive action, in the pursuit of progress.

In the pursuit of social progress, the old ways of thinking have to change. The 'let alone' attitude is not good enough, particularly when the solutions of negative liberty - simply keeping people free from outside interference - don't, and can't, bring meaningful equality of opportunity, or offer the people the path to the better, and more fair, lives they want.

There is a pressing need to demand a more positive liberty. Affirmative action, in this sense, is about acting to make the principals of fairness in a free society a fact. That burning heart of feminism, is the same one that beats in the breast of all struggles for equality and fairness. Quotas may not be a perfect solution, but they are a positive and practical solution in a world that is imperfect and unfair.

Doctor Who and the patronising, paternalistic, patriarchy

The past two episodes of Doctor Who, The Caretaker and Kill the Moon, have seen the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion Clara shift towards something a lot more paternal, and uncomfortably more patronising.

Clara began the season as the responsible adult and carer to the Doctor's increasingly alien psychopathic detachment. But the most recent episodes have seen her caught between two very paternalistic, patriarchal male figures, against whom it felt like Clara deserved to put up a greater resistance. She was, after all, once the commander of some Space Romans and said no to their Emperor, and even resisted conversion into a Dalek.

From being a strong counterpoint to the Doctor, she was flipped into uncertainty, and was somewhat patronised, as she found herself caught between the Doctor and her new boyfriend, former soldier now maths teacher, Danny Pink.

It would not be the first time that the show has been paternal and patriarchal towards female characters. That has, historically, been the result of women being written by men for men, in a less culturally aware past. There have been amongst those many strong female characters, even though they usually existed within a (very) male framework (and gaze).

But right now there is a need for more strong female characters, written for women, as visible role models. Women who can show the full and complex range of human emotions, and be strong for it, while being resolute and kind, heroic and compassionate in the face of danger.

In this latest episode, Clara's angry response to the Doctor's patronising attitude was a positive move - even if it was not necessarily helpful to follow that with this strong female character being encouraged, rather patronisingly, to calm down and act when less emotional, by her former soldier boyfriend. It did take a little of the sting out of the moment.

These latest changes in the character dynamic could all, of course, easily be part of an arc - either for Clara, or for the Doctor, particularly regarding his manipulative, sometimes quite patronising, heroism. It is too early in the series to draw any conclusions.

It would be great to think that we are in the middle of a really meaningful arc for the show, in which a lot of the old sexisms can be drawn out, critiqued and then hopefully discarded. We will have to wait and see.

==========
References:
==========
+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'The Caretaker'; Series 8; on the BBC; 27 September 2014.

+ Stephen Moffatt's Doctor Who: 'Kill the Moon'; Series 8; on the BBC; 4 October 2014.

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Asylum of the Daleks'; Series 7 Part 1; on the BBC; 1 September 2012.
[Buy Now]

+ Stephen Moffat's Doctor Who: 'Nightmare in Silver'; Series 7 Part 2; on the BBC; 11 May 2013. [Buy Now]

The Man Who Would Be Disraeli

Earlier this month I wrote what might be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Cameron. Well today I feel I should adopt a pose more suitable to any self-respecting rational gentleman. So here is a more different stance from which to consider the enigmatic Mr Cameron; and to also consider how well he is to be trusted with the faith put in him by some voters (and the voters who put their trust in someone else and still got Mr Cameron).

Benjamin Disraeli, was born in 1804 and was in office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom first in 1868 and again between 1874 and 1880. His methods for successful conservatives are described quite succinctly by The Times (2010), in his own words, as 'Tory men and Whig measures'. During his term in office his most memorable act for many in the north - such as Ormskirk, which is graced with a statue of him - was his policy of enfranchisement (Reform Act, 1867).

It seems to be this focus upon the working class that best represents the reformist spirit that Cameron is seeking to emulate as he edges the Conservatives towards the moderate middle. Cameron also seems to fancy the rebel in Disraeli, as he has also drawn criticism from his own side for his 'radical' positions (Kenneth Clarke, 2009).

David Marquand went further with his assessment comparing Mr Cameron to a 19th Century 'Whig Imperialist':

'We can't know if Cameron will become a second Baldwin, Butler or Macmillan, but there is not much doubt that he would like to. Of course, he will not be a clone of his Whig imperialist predecessors. He aspires to govern a different country, with a different class system and economic structure; and he has learned a great deal from that magician of ambiguous populism, Tony Blair.'

Critique of Disraeli's approach (and motives) to pass the reform acts seem to be aimed at who he really wished to enfranchise, the people or the party. But whatever Disraeli's motive, his Reform Act is still the basis of the electoral system we use today, 143 years later, though much amended by subsequent Representation of the People Acts.

Cameron has come under similar criticism. This leads me to ask if it matters about ulterior motives when reform is on the cards.

+ First, whether a reformist approach, when ultimately for personal or affiliate interest will have a lasting impact upon the political process.

+ And secondly, if the individualist approaches suggested above are able to effect positive societal changes, does this signal that trickle down approaches really offer society viable & consistent affluence on all levels?

For me, motives matter. However, when results are achieved it is harder to get serious criticisms and anxieties taken seriously. Just look at the Labour years. Not until the sun began to set on 'New Labour' did we see the knives and old grievances coming out. When you're winning, few seem to care how you're winning.

==========
References:
==========
+ Reform Act, 1867; formally titled as: Representation of the People Act 1867

+ Dominic Lawson's 'Cameron, the Whig in Tory clothing';

+ David Marquand's 'Labour has got Cameron wrong: this is no crypto-Thatcherite but a Whig';

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";