a vintage year for scoundrels

1) First of all, via Anna at FWD/Forward, it looks like blind voters had trouble voting last Thursday. According to one of the commenters, this is at least partly due to the templates for blind voters not coming with any instructions, so the staff at the polling station had no way of knowing how to use them. This is on top of other people not being able to vote due to long queues and polling stations running out of ballot papers. GREAT.

2) Re: our new Tory overlords, I am a) not happy and b) waiting to see exactly what grade and variety of D: we're going to get.

3) Friday's Quote of the Day in the BBC Magazine made me a little angry, since it seems to think that the idea of a woman being too embarrassed to ask a man to stop harassing her is a) hilarious and b) something that only happens in Japan.

4) LJ is being skeevy again, it appears. SIGH.

5) Hey, actually this last bit's sort of positive: Facebook has fiddled with the privacy settings again, but now it lets you hide a lot of things that were previously public only! Of course, they haven't announced this so far as I can see, and everything defaults to still being public, but it's something anyway.

Apparently there is a new report out which urges us to "focus on women's work needs" with more family friendly policies and the like. (Do not click on the "send us your comments" link, I did and the very first one I saw was from Mike in Dundee who says: "Not an issue for me; I decided long ago women of child-bearing age were too much of problem for me to employ. I expect if this latest round of 'pandering to parents' happens, more and more employers will choose the same path." THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT, MIKE.) Hurray, thought I! But then I listened to the discussion about it on the Today program this morning. First of all, the report is titled "What Woman Want" - you know, women, that homogenous mass of people whose goals and desires are all identical - and then Christina Odone, the report's author, clarified that she was only talking about "real women", by which she meant "the majority of women". HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE. So now there is some majority Woman Opinion to which we must conform, lest we be considered fake women? As far as I am know, there is only one way of determining if one is a "real" woman, and that involves one's answer to the question "do you consider yourself female?" If the answer is yes, then congratulations! You are a bona fide ladyperson. Your certificate and badge are in the post.

Back to the article. You know, I thought the bit on the Today program was infuriating, but at least they brought in Harriet Harman (♥) for a bit of balance. The web version is full of lovely statements like "most women realise themselves in their other roles as carers, partners, community members and above all mothers" and "The writer and broadcaster, [...] said notions of women's progress over the past decade have been measured by the "wrong" things, such as more women in top jobs, a shrinking earnings gap and better state-funded childcare". Yes, equal pay for equal work is a terrible thing and we should put a stop to it at once. *headdesk* Goodness knows I am not criticising women for finding fulfillment in being carers, just because it's traditionally a female role doesn't mean it's in any way one less deserving of respect, but to suggest that it is and should be the only way women can "realise themselves" is incredibly limiting. The thing is, I agree with a lot of the report's conclusions and I think more support for women and men who end up caring for children or other relatives instead of or as well as working is definitely needed, I just disagree with a the framing. It purports to be about what women want, but it excludes women who are childless, either by choice or circumstance, and women who do want to work, who "realise themselves" to a greater or lesser degree through their jobs. Oh, but I forgot. Those women aren't "real" women, are they?

(On a somewhat less rageful note, I am off to Cheltenham tonight! It is the first weekend of the Literature Festival and the Mother and I are going to see Michael Palin tomorrow lunchtime. Tonight we are meeting up with Jess and Vanky and going to see Shappi Khorsandi. Yay!)

- On the US healthcare debate: the more I read the more horrified I am. The NHS may not be perfect but at least the principle - that everyone has a right to healthcare regardless of income - is sound. Here is something from the Guardian on the subject: "My most significant childhood memory is knowing exactly how much I cost, and regretting the expense."

- Old news, I know, but I have things to say about it: Alesha Dixon to replace Arlene Phillips on Strictly Come Dancing. I do like Alesha Dixon, but the fact remains that she doesn't have the knowledge and experience that Arlene Phillips does, and it seems like the BBC is essentially saying "never mind all that, they're both women and therefore interchangeable, right?" Not to mention the dubiousness of replacing a women in her sixties with one who's just turned thirty. I used to like Strictly but I do not think I shall be watching it any more.

- Stargate: Universe spoilers, of a sort that have entirely killed off any interest I might have had in actually watching it. sheafrotherdon has lots of posts unpicking all the problems with this; I just want to add that I find the "it's an early draft" thing a bit troubling, as it smacks of suggesting that prejudice is totally fine as long as you only think it in private.

This is a very depressing post.

- On the US healthcare debate: the more I read the more horrified I am. The NHS may not be perfect but at least the principle - that everyone has a right to healthcare regardless of income - is sound. Here is something from the Guardian on the subject: "My most significant childhood memory is knowing exactly how much I cost, and regretting the expense."

- Old news, I know, but I have things to say about it: Alesha Dixon to replace Arlene Phillips on Strictly Come Dancing. I do like Alesha Dixon, but the fact remains that she doesn't have the knowledge and experience that Arlene Phillips does, and it seems like the BBC is essentially saying "never mind all that, they're both women and therefore interchangeable, right?" Not to mention the dubiousness of replacing a women in her sixties with one who's just turned thirty. I used to like Strictly but I do not think I shall be watching it any more.

- Stargate: Universe spoilers, of a sort that have entirely killed off any interest I might have had in actually watching it. sheafrotherdon has lots of posts unpicking all the problems with this; I just want to add that I find the "it's an early draft" thing a bit troubling, as it smacks of suggesting that prejudice is totally fine as long as you only think it in private.

This is a very depressing post.