The Cameron-government commisssioned Bailey Review is due to be released on Monday. It was a review to investigate and make recommendations regarding the ‘sexual commercialisation of childhood’.
The snippets revealed thus far sound good – age-related watersheds and restrictions on music videos (similar to film classification), responsible retailing particularly on sexualised clothing/underwear for young girls, pre-blocked (porn) on computers sold, and finally, for Lads’ Mags to be put on the top shelf and/or sold in covers (we feminists have been protesting this one for years!).
The Mothers’ Union is a Christian-based one (and I think has the support of wackos like Nadine Dorrie, who practice Christianity on a picky-choosey basis, see Cath Elliot’s site for more).
None of that is my main beef today!
It is the mention of the Chief Executive of the (UK) Mothers’ Union, one Reg Bailey, after whom the report is named.
This is not a “Parents’ Union” it is a Mothers’ Union. It pisses me off that a male is head of it, considering it is a mainly/majority group of mothers (or at least should be, given the name).
Males cannot be “mothers”. They can be ‘parents’, they can be ‘fathers’, but they cannot be ‘mothers’.
And no male should be head of an organisation called “Mothers’ Union”. How about we let women speak for women for a change? It’s not like we have achieved 50% representation in top jobs, and this is yet another slap-in-the-face for females, that a male should head a female organisation. What’s more, he gets ‘immortalised’ by the report’s title. Females are 51% of the population FFS.
I feel better now. 😛
– – – – –
07 June UPDATE
The basic highlights of the Bailey Report here in the Daily Mail. The main response by Cameron is the four month compliance for adhering to the existing 9pm watershed by broadcasters and regulars (specifically things like music videos and ‘raunchy’ pop performances on general family programming).
THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
- Make Ofcom ensure the 9pm watershed better meets the concerns of parents.
- Put ‘lads mags’ in plain wrappers or behind modesty screens.
- Ban celebrities under 16 from advertising products to children.
Introduce cinema-style age ratings for pop videos.
- Give parents greater powers to block internet pornography.
- Develop a new retail code on the sale of suggestive clothes to children.
- Ban raunchy adverts near schools and places where children gather.
- Create a website where parents can complain about sexualised products, adverts and broadcasts.
It pisses me off that radfeminists have been campaigning for years and years on getting Lads’ Mags out of sight – Reg opens his mouth, and all hail Sir Fucking Reg. Way to ignore females dudes.
Also from the DM, a blurb on Reg, head of the Mother’s Union (specifically the last par):
The man behind the report, Reg Bailey, is best known as the first male chief executive of the Mothers’ Union – but there was a time when he was the Man From Del Monte.
A committed Christian since he was 16, he has been chief executive of the family values group since 1999.
He was the unanimous choice of the 22-strong all-female board.
Mr Bailey is also a former managing director for Del Monte Foods in North Europe.
He started his working life as a graduate trainee with Sainsbury’s. After working for Del Monte, he earned a six-figure salary as chief executive of the Danish Bacon Company Food Service. His appointment at the head of the Mothers’ Union was an attempt to modernise the image of the group, which once banned divorced women and became associated with tea, cake and jam.
When he was appointed, Lady Christine Eames, then worldwide president of the group, praised Mr Bailey’s ‘considerable experience in management’ and ‘very successful business career’.
Married with two children, Mr Bailey is one of just 150 men in the organisation, which has one million members worldwide.
So males make up 150 of 1,000,000 members of the “Mothers’ Union”. So tell me, out of the other 999,850 female members, there was no female suitable for the CEO job? Are they seriously telling us that? That even within a female-majority organisation, they still get tossed over for “some dude”.