NationStates Jolt Archive

Cherie Booth, wife of a certain Mr. Tony Blair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvc9FUEkGaM&feature=related), has made what I see as some rather strange comments:

Women should see the recession as an "opportunity" to show how valuable they can be in the workplace, Cherie Blair has told the BBC's The Politics Show.

The human rights barrister and wife of former prime minister Tony Blair said firms were more likely to "take a chance" on a woman during the downturn.

"This is an opportunity for women... to be part of the solution," she said.

Mrs Blair also said "well-funded, well-resourced childcare" was the key to gender equality in the workplace.

Speaking to BBC One's The Politics Show, Mrs Blair said companies that did employ women in key positions were often more successful.

She said "diverse people on the boards" tended to do better "than boards that are all full of, dare I say it, white males in suits".

Mrs Blair continued: "This is an opportunity for women to show how much they can contribute and be part of the solution and not the problem.

[Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7916596.stm)]
Anyone else find her comments odd and, well, rather demeaning?

Also, isn't she forgetting a whole section of working women: those without/not planning on children?

Or am I being too harsh?

She's an idiot, end of story. Next!

No, I thought she was being a bit patronising when I read it. I mean, Britain isn't quite there in terms of gender equality but I'm pretty sure most women don't need to be told that they have a part to play in the workplace.

Also, does anyone else find it strange the Rev. Smiler has only just made his first visit to Palestine despite being made middle east envoy quite a while ago?

go BOOBS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqGrgaQsIIE&feature=channel_page)

somehow you didn't want to give her a kick in the **** for trying to bring evangelicalism to the UK?

We must all salute this princess...


....


OF RETARDIA!

they are quite odd. what does she mean? the only thing i can think of that is an "opportunity" is to get paid less than men so you get the job instead of some guy. otherwise there is the same or more opportunity to shine in a good economy.

the day care thing seems to me to be another bit of wrong. yes, its a detriment to a woman's long term earnings if she has to stay home to take care of her young children due to not having adequate daycare. but that is not the whole problem with job equality is it? childless women are not paid equally. men who stay home to care for their children still have an advantage when they go back to work. (not that they dont suffer in lifetime earnings also). its a plank but not the key to equality.

The human rights barrister and wife of former prime minister Tony Blair said firms were more likely to "take a chance" on a woman during the downturn.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not a feminazi type. But that hiring a woman is taking a chance is news to me. I thought female employees are just regular employees like everybody else. Yes, not without troubles (harassment lawsuits, maternity leaves), but certainly nothing like a poker game to take chances at.


Mrs Blair also said "well-funded, well-resourced childcare" was the key to gender equality in the workplace.
Lots of money is a solution to everything.


Mrs Blair continued: "This is an opportunity for women to show how much they can contribute and be part of the solution and not the problem.
'cause now they're part of the problem.

The problem, I think, is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi7ZIqDJ1I).

I think she didn't think before she spake.

It makes sense to me: On the opportunity thing - employers prefer to employ men, although they are more expensive than an equally qualified and experienced woman. At the moment, they are tightening their budgets and will consider the cheaper option. Although this doesn't sound good for women, I think she is saying that women will find it that bit easier to get the jobs they are qualified for and will then be able to prove themselves capable. Perhaps in the long term, this will help salaries to equalise.

On the childcare thing - this is an issue even for women without children since employers tend to assume that there will be children at some point. I've often been asked outright about my child bearing plans at interview, although there are now rules about it and the questions are much more oblique. There is still a belief that women have caring duties and will put them before their employment, whereas men will have a woman to do it for them and will therefore be more reliable.

It makes sense to me: On the opportunity thing - employers prefer to employ men, although they are more expensive than an equally qualified and experienced woman.
More expensive by the sticker price, but cheaper in the long run.

With a man, you can expect him to stay with the company longer, as he needs job security more badly, and consistently work longer hours. In the event of a marriage, there's a high probability that the woman will quit their job (completely or switch to another) or at least cut the overtime, a man on the contrary tends to cling to the job.
It's not just a belief, but still the common case, not without exceptions, but common. And as long as the gender relations stay as they are, it will remain common.

The time for women and subprime workforce in general comes during rapid economic development and shortages of workforce - not during recessions. After all, if there's a deficit of jobs, you can just get men to work for a lower cost. While the price of female workforce might not drop as much, percentage-wise, due to hitting the legal or practical minimum. Women aren't inherently cheaper, they're paid less because they're in lower demand.

Absolute piffle. There are less jobs around, so I'm not sure why she believes there's suddenly greatly opportunities to get into and advance in the workplace for any group. Her ability to spew out incoherent nonsense is evidently approaching that of her husband, our esteemed former leader Phony Bliar.

As Gloria Steinem once explained at a talk I attended, we live in an age where childcare cost and availability have a major impact on women's careers and only a minor impact on men's careers.

The "taking a chance on a woman" bit does seem a bit... ah... negative.

With a man, you can expect him to stay with the company longer, as he needs job security more badly, and consistently work longer hours. In the event of a marriage, there's a high probability that the woman will quit their job (completely or switch to another) or at least cut the overtime, a man on the contrary tends to cling to the job.


To play devil's advocate, would not the current economic situation cause women to to 'cling to the job' more?

To play devil's advocate, would not the current economic situation cause women to to 'cling to the job' more?

Women are far too flighty to cling to jobs, duh.

To play devil's advocate, would not the current economic situation cause women to to 'cling to the job' more?
It does, but so it causes men.

And when the demand drops and the supply increases... Imagine there's an 8-story home with quarters ranging from rooms in the basement shared with plumbing to nice clean apartments at the top. With according prices.

Now here comes a recession. People have less money, the supply increases, the demand decreases. So what is going to happen to the house - will everyone take the bottom 5 floors, because they're cheaper, and the top 5 floors sit empty?
No.

Same with workforce.

The "taking a chance on a woman" bit does seem a bit... ah... negative.

I did that, not regretting it so far.

Wait... we are talking about something else.

I'm losing my job in June. Guess I didn't take advantage of all the opportunities around... :rolleyes:

I'm losing my job in June. Guess I didn't take advantage of all the opportunities around... :rolleyes:

Because there are just so many oppurtunities... to become homeless.

Cherie Booth, wife of a certain Mr. Tony Blair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvc9FUEkGaM&feature=related), has made what I see as some rather strange comments:


Anyone else find her comments odd and, well, rather demeaning?

Also, isn't she forgetting a whole section of working women: those without/not planning on children?

Or am I being too harsh?
I think her basic message makes sense. I've heard lots of politico-types say that the recession is an opportunity to try out new things, get rid of stuff that doesn't work, etc. It's as close to a clean slate we can get. And gender equality is of course a good thing. I don't know if it's as bad in the UK as it is in the US, but I imagine there is a significant difference in hiring and pay.
Now, that being said, her actual comments were odd and demeaning. I can see why she was not the one to be elected prime minister; public speaking doesn't seem to be her thing.