The Bailey Review

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.

/rant
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”.

6 thoughts on “The Bailey Review

  1. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    Although it looks as if the Bailey Review recommendations will be voluntary, and industries have 18 months to “clean up their act” or legislation will be implemented. Dammit, there is some legislation that could be put in place NOW.

    The Lads’ Mag one for starters. This one particularly has been voluntary compliance for years … do retailers follow it? Nope.

    And it is piss-easy to start the ball rolling for things like music videos on tv. Most of them have a basic R-rated or not-R-rated system already (for the worst of them).

    It seems I still had a little bit of rant left in me… *shrug*

    Like

    Reply
  2. Sargasso Sea

    Men running everything. Pfft. 🙄

    Our local grocery has the Cosmo and Shape (?) behind pieces of opaque material at the checkstand. And that gives me a happy 🙂

    Of course all the other propahgandah* rags, People and Good Housekeeping and the like are all on full view but they are not considered boner inducing. Perhaps the family-run, small-chain store’s CEO does not realize there is quite a huge variety of pervs who find any number of things sexually stimulating?

    *the ‘h’ is for het-centric!

    Like

    Reply
  3. Hecuba

    Immediately I learned male Reg Bailey is the CEO of the Mothers Union I thought how is it possible that a male is in charge of a women’s organisation? Is Bailey a mother? Is Bailey a woman? No to both those questions so logically Bailey cannot be CEO because he is not female and did anyone listen? No instead it went over their heads because male means ‘I’m the one who must be in charge of those women because they can’t possibly appoint a woman to head up a female organisation.’ Oh and by the way fact women are 51% of human population is irrelvant because women are not human so therefore the human population is 100% male!

    Or perhaps I got it all wrong and the Mothers Union does in fact admit male mothers (sic) only no one has bothered to inform malestream media. Yes folks men who father children can now be termed ‘mothers’ because male Reg bailey is in charge of the Mothers Union and so he too is a ‘mother!’

    But of course men are the ones who must be accorded power must they not and especially power within supposedly women-only organisations otherwise that would be discriminating against men’s rights to participate in women only organisations. Now that makes sense does it not because we mustn’t discriminate against men but its fine to keep women out of positions of power because that is not discrimination just enactment of ‘right person for the right job’ which means of course men are always the ‘right people for the right jobs!’

    As regards claim that industries will have 18 months to implement voluntary changes. Oh goody this means industries can continue promoting and selling pornographic clothing to girl children; portray girls and women as men’s dehumanised sexualised objects in those music videos and actually pretty much do what they have been doing for the last decade. And what is that you ask? Why sexually exploiting women, girls and even female babies because profit is the god of these industries and that is why sexually exploiting women, girls and female babies is not ‘exploitation’ but selling to the consumer what the consumer demands (sic). Remember folks all women, girls and female babies choose and enact agency whenever they are exhorted to turn themselves into men’s disposable sexual service stations and no we mustn’t criticise men or the male-dominated industries must we? That would be discrimination to men and/or man-hating!

    What are the odds that 18 months down the line industries will have done nothing and government will claim ‘look we’ve done what we can but we do not have the power to compel industries to adopt an ethical stance and cease sexually exploiting women, girls and female babies because it is a free market and the state mustn’t interfere in free market enterprises.’ Another cop-out by Cameron and his minions.

    Easy to talk much harder to actually initiate real change because that would mean holding male-dominated industries accountable. Now when it concerns men demanding the right to be perceived as female that is a wholly different issue is it not? Because men must be accorded the right of defining their gender (sic) and no it doesn’t necessitate men submitting themselves to surgical mutilation of their sexual organs because men’s rights are always paramount. That’s why the gender assignment act or whatever it is termed was so swiftly passed because men’s needs/men’s interests are central and women’s, girls’ and female babies right not to be reduced to disposable sexualised commodities is irrelevant.

    That’s the male supremacist system enacting rational – sorry irrational so-called logic.

    PS It is not ‘children’ who are the ones being sexualised it is girl children. I’ve yet to see boys clothing with the tagline ‘I’m yours’ or skimpy, skimpy boys’ knickers emphasing their genital areas. Or even boys’ skimpy, skimpy shorts which are like tiny handkerchiefs because ‘skin’ must be on show for girls to view!

    Like

    Reply
  4. rahelle

    Chief Executive of the (UK) Mothers’ Union, one Reg Bailey

    Disgusting. And so typical. I’m not even surprised.

    All the liberals I’ve seen commenting on the Bailey Review keep saying that things have always been like this, and yet the world’s just fine. Really? I mean, do they really believe “the world is just fine”?

    Like

    Reply
  5. delphyne

    The Mother’s Union is part of the Anglican church. Its big thing is getting women in the developing world to join it. So it’s basically christian imperialism. Not surprising they put a man in charge of it.

    Like

    Reply
  6. FAB Libber aka Dave the Squirrel

    I have added an update to the post.
    And yes, apparently I had to rant some more…

    Like

    Reply

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s