![]() |
|
You are here Home | Culture | From Buerk to a Berk? Next or Previous « Government recognition of UVF ceasefire is a "crackpot situation". | Main | NI Priest to stand trial in Kenya »
SOS - Save Our Slugger!
Help fund Slugger's new software: Or mail it direct to Slugger! |
August 16, 2005 From Buerk to a Berk? BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has obviously got a bit 'hot under the collar' about the prominence of women in the BBC and beyond and bemoans the fact that it is no longer a man's world. Is he just out of step or is he reflecting some widely held male fears/beliefs? Men are now 'unemployable sperm donors', says Buerk Claire Cozens and agencies Former BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has risked provoking the ire of his bosses by claiming that that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far, and men are now little more than "sperm donors". Buerk cited women in the top jobs in BBC broadcasting as an example, saying "these are the people who decide what we see and hear", and said society needs to admit there is a problem. "Life is now being lived according to women's rules", he told the Radio Times. "The traits that have traditionally been associated with men - reticence, stoicism, single-mindedness - have been marginalised. "The result is that men are becoming more like women. Look at the men who are being held up as sporting icons - David Beckham and, God forbid, Tim Henman." The former Nine O'Clock News presenter said some changes have been for the good, but asked: "What are the men left with?" "Men gauge themselves in terms of their career, but many of those have disappeared. All they are is sperm donors, and most women aren't going to want an unemployable sperm donor loafing around and making the house look untidy. They are choosing not to have a male in the household." Buerk, whose views will also be screened in a Five series on personal hobbyhorses, Don't Get Me Started!, this week, said that when he started making the programme he "came across what I considered a very personal example of the changes that have taken place". "Almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC1 television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear." The BBC1 controller, Lorraine Heggessey, has since left the BBC and been replaced by a man, Peter Fincham, while BBC4 is still run by Janice Hadlow. Recently one of the BBC's most influential former director generals, Alasdair Milne, sparked a furious response when he accused the corporation of producing "terrible" programmes and laid the bla "Men are now 'unemployable sperm donors', says Buerk " Posted by: Dessertspoon at August 16, 2005 04:57 PM So, reasonable rates for doing what exactly? Posted by: Alan McDonald at August 16, 2005 06:38 PM WEEMEN - KNOW YOUR PLACE IN ULSTER You say binlids Posted by: BogExile at August 16, 2005 07:05 PM Michael Buerk's comments make him sound to be about sixty or seventy. I think he is younger than that, but he is still senile and/or out of his mind if he thinks the world is now being run by "women's rules". What he probably means is, he can now see the influences of women's presence in public life, and that that is a very different world than say thirty or forty years ago when men and women still tended to live in two very separate spheres. He needn't lose sleep over it; women still only earn about 58% of what men earn and still meet with the proverbial 'glass ceiling' in many professions. He needn't worry that the scales have suddenly tipped overnight. These comments make him sound very insecure and behind the times. I suppose next he'll be saying "There are too many Blacks getting promoted over whites"? Posted by: Caroline Ryan at August 16, 2005 08:32 PM Women in the media... whatever next...? Who would you rather see present the 10 o' clock news? The 'authoritive' Michael Buerk, or the 'glamorous' Fiona Bruce? Or is it the other way around? In NI, all the 'tough' political TV interviews seem to be done by men - Noel Thompson, Mike Nesbitt, Devenport, McKinney, even Big Ivan the odd time. (Note to self: Martina's going to kill you...) Posted by: Gonzo at August 16, 2005 11:17 PM Well educated people like xxxxxx xxxxxxxx are shunted aside for more anodyne presenters like that double act with the patronising jovial comments who now appears on Newsline. Posted by: slug at August 17, 2005 12:18 AM The Guardian Blog's Ros Taylor has his number - "Not to bring up a sensitive subject, Michael, but that's bollocks" Posted by: peteb at August 17, 2005 12:25 AM Berk: Train a monkey to read an autocue and he'll imagine his opinions somehow matter. Posted by: Denny Boy at August 17, 2005 02:41 AM Oh we're all so PC. He has a point. That doesn't make him a chauvinist. "Women in the media... whatever next...? " If you want to attack his views, attack his views. You're attacking for him he hasn't said or even implied. Take an example. If you see a character acting competitively on TV, how likely is that character to be portrayed positively? Re: the guardian comment, I fail to see what Equal Opportunities and the number of women in middle management (nationwide) has to do with the issue of the media promoting feminine traits over masculine ones. The author is also clearly one of those women who "sometimes misses the central thesis." since the quote from the Adam Smith Institute she proves the opposite of her point. She claims "the Adam Smith Institute recently suggested that it was just these qualities in women that made them less likely to obtain firsts at Oxford and Cambridge." Actually the quote cited an example of a male acting like a male and a female acting like a female both of whom were awarded firsts.
Posted by: beano at August 17, 2005 11:47 AM The Beeb have a report.. based on a Daily Telegraph interview with Anna Ford.. seemingly.. although, surely someone in the Beeb newsroom could have just asked her?.. ANYway.. Anna Ford - "He's bonkers. He's a dear old-fashioned chauvinist of the first order." and there's a plug in the piece too.. "Buerk's opinions are to be aired in a new Five programme called Don't Get Me Started, which gives a platform for the airing of strongly-held views." Hmmm... Posted by: peteb at August 17, 2005 02:13 PM From that BBC article:
Posted by: beano; EverythingUlster.com at August 17, 2005 04:51 PM Personally speaking, I have come to the conclusion, although it will and does offend a lot of people, that the blame for the preponderence of utterly mindless garbage in the popular culture of our times is to be laid squarely at the door of womankind. I realise that may sound sexist. But think about it. Ask yourself these questions - Are men really into boybands/girlbands to anything like the same extent as women are? Are men as obsessed with reality TV to anything like the same extent as women are? Would soap operas have lasted as long as they have without the predominantly female audiences who are glued to such shite? Are Posh & Becks REALLY that important? REALLY? How can a such a complete tosser as James Blunt be no. 1 in the singles AND the album charts? Musicals? I could go on...
Posted by: Dandyman at August 17, 2005 05:20 PM It is sexist, dandyman, as well as stupid. Boybands are forced at gunpoint to perform are they? Who are the svengalis of the pop world? Hmmm, mostly men. We weemin are just to stupid not to fall for it I guess. Actually, are women into boybands, or is it little girls? I suppose you think sport and car shows are so much more stimulating than soaps? Would Match of the Day, watching grown men chase a ball up and down a field, last as long as they have without predominantly male audiences who are glued to such shite? (Personally I cannot really abide much in the way of TV, but I know I am a snob and loathe soaps and sport with equal vigour)
Posted by: Printemps at August 18, 2005 10:24 AM Printemps you may have a point (however one I disagree with) about football, but seriously - you can't blame men for boybands. If I could make a fortune by getting girls to go out and buy some godawful substitute for music because I put a picture of a pretty boy on the front, you bet your ass I'd be cashing in too. Oh and whatever you think of football, please don't compare it to reality TV. Posted by: beano; EverythingUlster.com at August 18, 2005 04:10 PM I think that we are coming to an interesting time in social evolution (for want of a less pompous expression). Although boys and girls are still brought up diffierently, these differences have been decreasing and those coming of age now are doing so with less expectation of difference than ever before. Are we getting to a time when there will be abslolutley no difference as to how the sexes are brought up (and how they view themselves) or are we going to level out to a place where the differences are not down to tradition but to something more instinctive. How valid will the notions of "The traits that have traditionally been associated with men " be in the future? Posted by: bertie at August 23, 2005 04:41 PM Ask the thousands of men who have always done right by their kids,and wives when together. Soon as they split they are seen as money machines and the scum of the earth. Even when women get married again they are still treated as single, I am a man living with one child and the other is with her. I receive £48 a month and I payout £198. On the breadline while she is laughing at me. Posted by: bill at August 23, 2005 07:39 PM I am male and proud of it. Men are the true creative force behind this world. Art, science,Philosophy, Medicine, Music, all these great advances were and still are being done 98% of the time by men, but the old excuse comes out that women were oppressed and that is why they aren't visible. If we take music as an example and that women have had artistic freedom for at least 30 years, where are the female Beatles or Pink Floyd? Look at most albums of female artists and you will find they are written or co-written by men. Posted by: DrPepper at August 23, 2005 09:08 PM Men have a bit of a handicap in the motherhood stakes! Anything I have read is that men and woman overall are equally intelligent. There are more men proportionately at both extremes of the intellectual spectrum. Unfortunatley people in general excel at mediocrity and the education system and the employment sphere, especially the public sector renforce this. Posted by: bertie at August 23, 2005 09:21 PM Isn't it time someone spoke against this female favouring insanity that's rife in the BBC and just about everywhere? Buerk does just that and now he gets crucified. It isn't feminists or even women for that matter but limp-wristed quisling males like Greg Dyke who make things like they are. Male chivalry will eventually slaughter all men who are obviously their own worst enemies! Don't say I didn't warn you. Posted by: Masculist at August 24, 2005 09:54 PM ~ Posted by: Redeemer at August 26, 2005 01:31 AM Where have all you gone, wanted to get into serious debate about the issues raised. BBC have been rapped about a programme about men being DOG TRAINED by women. Adverts on TV intimating women are the only one's in their child's lives. Posted by: bill at August 31, 2005 09:34 PM MY mother and other women like her who campaigned for womens equality are totally disgusted by the double standards now employed by the young women of today. the real feminists wanted 50/50 not 99/1 . why do fathers have hardly any rights after seperation. There are thousands of men like Bill above. Posted by: MARTIN at August 31, 2005 10:04 PM Bill, Posted by: GurnyGub at August 31, 2005 10:22 PM |
Slugger O'Toole records news, commentary and diverse opinion on Northern Ireland. Produced by Mick Fealty News, tips or crits here: mick.fealty -at- gmail.com Topics a long peace?books Britain Conflict Culture Economy Education election 2003 Election 2005 Enviroment environment Europe Gaeilge Glossary Government Highlights Human Rights Humour International Manifesto Media Nationalism Negotiations Parties Policing Soapbox Society Sport the south unionism
Highlights
Out with the crystal ball...Just a Mo... Commenting Policy A backgrounder on the McCartney affair Northern Bank raid and political fallout, so far
Readers comments
More corrupt than last year? - (4)Living on an island or in a state? - (31) a combination of historical ignorance and monumental self-pity - (42) Payout time... - (4) New Lansdowne revealed - (24) Far right 'imagination'... - (13) Nazi comments were a sectarian slur - (3) The price of peacemaking... - (17) belfast metropolitan area plan unveiled - (23) Why (or rather how) Alec Reid was right... - (37)
Archives
October 2005September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 July 2004 March 2004 October 2003 September 2003 May 2003 |
|
Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered:
Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com
All rights reserved.
|
<a href="(URL)">hyperlink</a>
It is important that you include http:// when adding the URL.