[Article] New MEP in controversy over women's rights

Victor

I was going to post this in humour.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/3631646?view=Eircomnet

New MEP in controversy over women's rights
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 20th July, 2004

One of the UK Independence Party's new Euro MPs triggered a storm of protest over women's rights today, within hours of starting work in the European Parliament.

Investment fund manager Mr Godfrey Bloom , from York, was given a place on the Parliament's Women's Rights Committee on his first day in Strasbourg.

He told journalists he wanted to deal with women's issues because "I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough".

He added: "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men's rights."

Later, Mr Bloom went on television to expand on his views on women's rights, saying: "The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment. No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.

"That isn't politically correct, is it? But it's a fact of life. I know, because I am a businessman."

Mr Bloom also told a British news website that maternity policy should be: "If you want to have a baby, you hand in your resignation and free up a job for another young lady."

His public utterances on the need to take Britain out of the European Union were immediately forgotten as Mr Bloom 's words spread like wildfire through the Strasbourg building.

Labour MEP Ms Glenys Kinnock said: "We know UKIP are Neanderthal in their attitudes, but it is absolutely terrifying that Mr Bloom can fly in the face of what we have worked and fought for, to establish equal opportunities and rights for women."

She added: "I will be watching what he does with great interest. He cannot strut around here saying things like that."

The leader of the Party of European Socialists, Poul Nyrup Rassmussen, said Mr Bloom 's remarks were "outrageous" and "absolutely unacceptable".

arcadegame2004

Just shows how idiotic they are.

BUMP!

Q - Why do women get married in white????
A - So they can match the fridge!!!

Seriously though - is this story for real? How does an idiot like that ever get elected???

Nuttzz

sadly a lot of what he says is true, i have met more than one client who has said that they wouldnt again or will not hire females from their mid 20's to late 30's because of the "risk" of them getting "up the duff", and more than one female has said that to me.

seamus

Originally posted by Nuttzz
sadly a lot of what he says in true, i have met more than one client who has said that they wouldnt again or will not hire females from their mid 20's to late 30's because of the "risk" of them getting "up the duff", and more than one female has said that to me.

You can see where they're coming from. They have to pay someone to be out for quite a long time, not doing any work, or anything even remotely relevant. They also usually have to pay someone higher rates to do the work on contract until she gets back.
That's not so bad for big employers, but for smaller employers, it's not a lack of compassion, it's a matter of staying afloat.

I would like to see maternal leave heavily subsided by the Government.

Nuttzz

they (employers) dont actually have to pay anything if they dont wish. But the main reasons cited to me were: loss of experienced staff, re-training costs, costs of mat leave cover, some staff dont return after mat leave, some staff look for flexi time after mat leave.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by BUMP!
Q - Why do women get married in white????
A - So they can match the fridge!!!

Seriously though - is this story for real? How does an idiot like that ever get elected???

The EURO elections in England,Scotland and Wales were done on a list system
That meant you voted for the party and the party provided a list of candidates who got elected in order of that parties choice on the list depending on how many votes the party got in the constituency in question.

So effectively he is damaging his entire parties future vote by coming out and saying this as he's likely to be losing a lot of female votes.
Thats despite the fact that theres some merit in what he is saying even though it's an extremely politically incorrect thing to say.
You've got to hand it to him for his frankness and straight talking though.
On his interview on BBC news yesterday he even stated that he knew that what he was saying wasn't very politically correct.
The BBC news reader ( a woman ) was noticeably trying to avoid grinning when the camera went bak on her.

BUMP!

I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home.

Whatever about trying to bring a debate on how maternity leave is dealt with in the working environment - these kind of statements really have no place in the world. Next, he'll be insisting on all black people going back to slave labour cos that was easier on employers aswell!!!

And with this list system - no wonder they have such a sceptical view on Europe. Seems a bit like jobs for the boys to me...

Sand

I heard this guy on the radio and he seemed to be talking from the perspective of his own bussiness, where he had said hed often seen great female candidates who youd want to hire but then if youd hire them theyd get pregnant and then where would you be.

He practically admitted to discriminating against women hes interviewed based on their gender. How comes hes not getting sued left right and center by failed candidates?

Apart from that - if thats they way he feels then thats the way he feels. Obviously the British voters who voted for the UKIP feel the same way so hes only representing his voters.

Earthhorse

Yes, but one has to wonder who gave him a place on the Parliament's Women's Rights Committee in the first place given his opinions on the matter.

Moriarty

I'm sure if he was given a seat on the wheel building committee he'd be advocating the advantages of triangles. It's just a symptom of the blatant toy/pram attitude that the ukip thrive on.

sceptre

Originally posted by Moriarty
I'm sure if he was given a seat on the wheel building committee he'd be advocating the advantages of triangles. It's just a symptom of the blatant toy/pram attitude that the ukip thrive on.

Indeed (and funny by the way). I've never been a fan of the gravy-train aspects of the EU (particularly the lack of accountability with regard to expenses and the democracy gap (I still call the Commission the Politburo) but the entire aim of the UKIP is to "wreck" (as Kilroy-Silk put it) the EU. They may have the exposure of corruption as one of their oficial aims but if they're going to go on like this and follow Kilroy-Silk's plan of spending as little time in Brussels as possible it looks like they're going for a practical demonstration.

When I first heard of the UKIP a few years ago I thought of Humphrey Appelby's thoughts on the Common Market and why Britain joined: not to participate but to wreck it from the inside out. Still funny but there was a time when it was just satire.

Tommy Vercetti

It seems to be at odds with that perma-tanned twat Kilroy-Silk's criticism of the treatment of women by Arabs!

Imposter

Originally posted by Earthhorse
Yes, but one has to wonder who gave him a place on the Parliament's Women's Rights Committee in the first place given his opinions on the matter.

Wouldn't it be pretty predictable and boring if everyone on this committee thought the same? At least it might get some serious discussion going on the issues rather than just being PC and agreeing with almost everything that's proposed.

Earthhorse

You think comments like, "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home" are going to spark serious debate? I didn't realise unpredictability and excitement were something we sought from committees. There should be room for dissenting voices, not idiots.

Imposter

Originally posted by Earthhorse
You think comments like, "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home" are going to spark serious debate? I didn't realise unpredictability and excitement were something we sought from committees. There should be room for dissenting voices, not idiots.

Yes I agree some of his comments don't help but questioning why he is on THAT commitee given his views was what I was responding too. I'm not saying he's not an idiot but I am saying he will bring a rather different perspective to the commitee which I think could be useful.

Rev Hellfire

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Thats despite the fact that theres some merit in what he is saying even though it's an extremely politically incorrect thing to say.

Just because something not politically correct, it should not effect the merit of it. You really need to resist the thought police a bit more.

Anyway isnt this just part of the disruption which the party is setting out to create within the european instituations.

Earthhorse

Originally posted by Imposter
Yes I agree some of his comments don't help but questioning why he is on THAT commitee given his views was what I was responding too. I'm not saying he's not an idiot but I am saying he will bring a rather different perspective to the commitee which I think could be useful.

I guess more what I meant was why put a crank on any committee. I dunno, maybe they had to appoint him to some committee and this was just the unlucky one that got landed with him. In my experience people who dissent simply for the sake of dissention, or the attention it brings them, are of no use whatsoever.

Moriarty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3920295.stm

Kilroy 'may stand in Hartlepool'

Robert Kilroy-Silk is "seriously considering" standing in the by-election caused by the nomination of Peter Mandelson as an EU commissioner.

The UKIP MEP said he was "coming under considerable pressure" from the party to run for the Westminster seat.

The pro-euro Lib Dems claim they are in pole position to snatch Hartlepool from Labour.

But Mr Mandelson, who has a 15,000 majority, said he believed Labour could hold on to the seat.

And - although Hartlepool famously elected monkey-suited football mascot Stuart Drummond as its mayor - Mr Mandelson told Sky News the town's people took parliamentary elections "more seriously".


2001 GENERAL ELECTION
Peter Mandelson (Lab) 22,506 (59.15%)
Gus Robinson (C) 7,935 (20.85%)
Nigel Boddy (LD) 5,717 (15.02%)
Arthur Scargill (Socialist Lab) 912 (2.40%)
Ian Cameron (Ind) 557 (1.46%)

Lab maj 14,571 (38.29%) Turnout 56.25%

Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox accused Mr Mandelson of deserting his constituents to take up what he considered a better job in Brussels.

"The people of Hartlepool will punish Labour whenever they are given the opportunity," Dr Fox told BBC News 24.

It is thought the by-election may take place on Thursday, 4 November - but it will not be on the same day as a referendum on a regional assembly for the North-East, which also due to take place in the autumn.

Hartlepool is one of the safest Labour seats in the country, but the party will be taking nothing for granted after the Lib Dems overturned a 13,000 Labour majority in Leicester South earlier this month.

'Gravy train'

Labour gained an overall majority on Hartlepool council in elections last month and led in votes cast in that contest and the European Parliament election.

In a survey of the results carried out by the Press Association, Labour took 32.5% of the vote, with UKIP in second place on 19.8%, followed by the Conservatives 17%, Lib Dems (13.6%) and the BNP (6.2%).

But Liberal Democrat campaigns manager Lord Rennard said recent local elections in Hartlepool showed his party was a clear contender.

In these, Labour won 31%, Lib Dems 23% and the Tories 12% of the vote.

"Liberal Democrats will be fighting the by-election as the clear challengers to Labour at a time when public trust in Labour is at an all-time low," he said.

UKIP is expected to mount a lavish campaign, bankrolled by its campaign director, the millionaire businessman Paul Sykes.


This appointment of Mandelson shows that the European Union is a gravy train for failed politicians
Robert Kilroy-Silk

A UKIP spokesman said it would be targeting the Lib Dem's backing for EU fishing quotas, which he claimed had "destroyed" Hartlepool's fishing industry.

Mr Kilroy-Silk, a former BBC chat show host who resigned following comments about Muslims in a newspaper column, said: "This appointment of Mandelson shows that the European Union is a gravy train for failed politicians.

"He has never been the natural person to represent the people of Hartlepool. Now the prime minister has found him something better to do he is off, without a thought for his constituency.

"If I was a constituent I would feel very used and angry and would want to take my revenge on Labour at the by-election."

The party did not field candidates in Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill, as it was "keeping its powder dry" for the expected Hartlepool contest, a spokesman said.

villain_97

What a crowd of idiots

da_deadman

There is nothing wrong with not being politically correct. There is far too much PC in the world. And equally, there is nothing wrong with having personal opinions and speaking your mind. In fact, I would personally prefer politicains to have their own opinions about matters and to be capable of putting forward their ideas and thoughts.

This particular party has the goal of wrecking the EU and did well in the elections. This shows that they do have support in Britain so of course they are going to continue with their policy. Kilroy-Silk got a lot of publicity on his first day too making comments referring to Thatcher asking for their money back 20 years ago and saying how they were working to get their country back. So far this party has done well politically by having a successful election campaign and keeping themselves in the spotlight, across Europe, since then.

Maybe they should look at Parnell, O'Connor Power and a few others from the Irish Home Rule Party and their policy of obstructionism in the House of Commons. That policy could raise a few eyebrows in the european parliament and get them more of the publicity they need. I suspect we will hear a lot more from this party in the near future.

sceptre

Originally posted by da_deadman
There is nothing wrong with not being politically correct. There is far too much PC in the world. And equally, there is nothing wrong with having personal opinions and speaking your mind.

I don't think anyone's said "oooh, he can't say that" on this thread. Most of the comments seem to recognise his right to act the arse if he wants as long as the rest of us get to point out when he's acting the arse.

da_deadman

Well sceptre, BUMP! said earlier "these kind of statements really have no place in the world".
I just said that I believe it is his right as a person to have his own thoughts and to be able to speak them, whether or not other people agree.

sceptre

One person possibly then (though putting BUMP!'s comments in that box may be stretching it a little, though it may well be what he meant). Either way the guy is acting the idiot - regardless of "being PC", I fail to see what whinging about some bird not cleaning behind his fridge has to do with the job he's getting paid to do. He may have a reasonable point about the cost of maternity leave but apart from the headline he's managed to get, few will take the guy's position seriously owing to comments like that. Of course he's got the right to say almost anything that doesn't incite hatred or violence but as I said above, we get to point out idiocy and that's the price for honest stupidity. Honesty gets no points from me if it's tempered by stupidity.

da_deadman

He got elected to the job on the premise of wrecking the EU. Therefore his responsibility is to the people who voted for him. Since he is on this commission then he has started to try and wreck the EU starting in his own commission. His comments will enrage a lot of people who will accuse him of sexism and maybe some people will refuse to work with him or have dealings with him. This will wreck the effectiveness of this commission to work properly, and help with their goal of wrecking the EU.

With this in mind his comments would show that he is not that stupid and is in fact making a pretty clever move toward his partys' main policy. Or maybe I am giving him too much credit and he is simply a stupid sexist.

uberwolf

this is from the Sunday Times last, where I first heard baout this. She makes some very valid points particularly in relation to the smaller businesses. Also worth noting that Bloom was being facetious (sp) in relation to the fridge comment afaik.


__________________________


July 25, 2004

By gosh Godfrey, you're right
He might be politically incorrect, but UKIP’s Godfrey Bloom has a point, says India Knight. Women are in a muddle about work and babies

To have your say on Godfrey Bloom's comments, go to www.timesonline.co.uk/sexismdebate

Godfrey Bloom, new MEP and women’s spokesman for the UK Independence party, said on his first day at work last week, a) that in Yorkshire women were women and had the dinner ready on the table when the man got home; b) that these paragons also cleaned behind the fridge; and c) that “no small businessman with a brain would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age”.

Predictably enough, there followed a deluge of outrage, particularly at the third contention, and eventually Bloom produced an apology: “I am not a neanderthal . . . I do the cooking at home.”

Talking to me last Thursday, though, he was bullish all over again. “I’m an Englishman, and I like a bit of humour,” he said, Pooterishly. “And anyway, it’s a joke I have with my wife: she beasts me for not mowing the lawn, or not washing the car, and I beast her about not cleaning behind the fridge. It doesn’t mean anything.

“I’m here in Strasbourg with Robert Kilroy-Silk and this morning he asked a Scandinavian lady if she cleaned behind her fridge, and she looked so serious and said (puts on Swedish voice), ‘We are a very tidy people’.” Bloom sighs.

“But I thought it was funny. The fridge stuff, I mean. The other stuff isn’t funny. It’s uncomfortable. But I happen to know it’s true, being a smallish businessman myself. I’ve spoken the truth.

“I was on the radio with Glenys Kinnock and she was going absolutely mad about all this, adopting the Europhile socialist feminist position. But this isn’t about ideology. It’s about the poor lassie on the streets of Hull being done out of a job because she looks like she might get pregnant and that’s more than her potential employer’s worth. What is she to do, the poor little lady?”

uberwolf

cont.
______________________
It seems mightily peculiar that a representative of an absurd party who refers to grown women as — aargh — “little ladies” should, almost by accident, have alighted upon such a delicate question.

Really Bloom was making the usual Europhobic point about legislation needing to come out of Westminster, not Strasbourg. But, much as it pains me to say it, Bloom is at least partly right: you don’t have to like it, but people do shy from employing women who look like they might shortly go off and have a baby. One friend of mine has lost three consecutive PAs to maternity leave. His unofficial policy is now to hire only men or older women — which would land him in very hot water if he ever made it public, or shared it with Mrs Kinnock.

And small businesses do suffer when the one person in the company who knows her way round the books suddenly takes six months’ maternity leave, and then decides not to come back at all. I know someone who has had four children at the rate of one a year: she’s pretty much on endless paid leave. How could this not be a problem for the small company by which she is employed? She knows this herself. When she recently announced the fourth pregnancy, her exasperated boss said, only half-jokingly: “No more pregnancies, please. That’s enough now, otherwise. . .”

And the woman said: “Stop right there. Believe me, you don’t want to say what you were going to say next.” What kind of a state of affairs is this, when a decent and kind — and female — employer can’t express her perfectly genuine irritation for fear of legal action? And yet pointing out that there is a problem is considered woman-hating and reactionary. Well, I think it is woman-hating to ignore it, or to be so indignant at the very idea that there are problems with women breeding and working that we pretend there isn’t a problem. Not with us, at any rate. With the law, yes. With employers, naturally. With, er, the state. With Godfrey Bloom, if you must. But not with us.

We have a right to babies, and a right to work, and any difficulty that arises from that particular combination is always somebody else’s fault, and never our own.

Women who set out to say big things about womanhood are often accused of betraying some eternal standard of feminist accord. It’s very tiresome. So I’m going to say this anyway: modern women have to recognise that the need to have children will often run counter to any (quite admirable) instinct they have to be equal to men in the workplace.

Success at work brings not only the rights that feminists fought for, but also the responsibilities they are now very shy of — because doing well at work will sometimes mean forsaking all others (including babies) to breed success.

It is a modern fantasy to imagine we can really have both. Back in the real world, having children and bringing them up properly means leaving your desk, and leaving your desk very often means waving bye-bye to ambition.

Feminists like nothing more than sticking their heads in the sand. How else to explain the curious (and pathetic) fact that they keep on talking the talk regardless of the fact that nobody is walking the walk? What is truly baffling is that anybody still takes even feminism’s most basic tenets seriously.

Let me recap, for those who forget, what was once shouted from the barricades: an end to patriarchy (in government, in the home, at work, in the bedroom), the “freedom” to behave as badly as men (in all of the above places), equal pay, the burning of bras and the end of lipstick. And, of course, the right not to be obsessed by one’s attractiveness to men. Does that sound like today’s woman in the street to you? Granted, women now have the freedom to throw up on their own shoes in public of a Saturday night. But as for the rest — I don’t think so.

Yet we’re busy believing that “ordinary” people find Bloom’s remarks wildly offensive, as opposed to mildly comical, because they offend the sturdy feminist sensibility that we’re all supposed to have developed over the years. Here’s the news for the sisterhood: most young women in Britain today aren’t feminists — they’re not even close. And it’s not by accident, it’s by choice.

The truth is that a very small and very vocal minority is offended by talk such as Bloom’s — professors of women’s studies, employment lawyers — while a huge and silent majority thinks: “Tactless, but true.” Which it is.

Take the remark about the dinners — about having supper ready, steaming on the table when the man walks in from work. Well, there isn’t a man alive who doesn’t wish that for himself, just as there isn’t a man alive who doesn’t prefer a waxed leg to a hirsute one, or a clean, tidy house to a grubby dump, or the offer of sex to the suggestion of a headache. That doesn’t make men stupid, or obvious, or unacceptably patriarchal in their attitudes. It makes them people who like home comforts. Sometimes a plate of pasta is just a plate of pasta, and having cooked it doesn’t make you a victim or a loser or a doormat or a drudge.

There are usually two arguments put forward at this point. The first is that once the government sorts out adequate childcare provision for all, the problem will go away. Actually, it won’t. Yes, women who don’t work because it’s not worth their while once they’ve paid for childcare will be better off financially. But the problem is at least as emotionally debilitating as it is financially so.

Women today know perfectly well that desperately wanting a child, and then handing that child over to be cared for by somebody else, is not an ideal solution — not for the mother, and not for the child. They know that not being there at bedtime can be awful. They know that being jealous of their nanny/nursery assistant is pitiful and sad. They feel guilty about that, too. And that corrosive emotion can’t be legislated against.

The second solution suggested by feminism consists of the theory that women really will have it all, work and baby, when more men embrace househusbandry and leave their female partners to go out and be the only breadwinner. This simply isn’t going to happen — not now, not ever. Which is just as well. I remember a conversation with one particular friend a few months ago: an academic and old-school feminist since the age of about 16, she was absolutely appalled to discover that her man’s temporary cooking, cleaning and caring for the children had turned him into a sort of wet blanket in her eyes. Suddenly she found him unmanly, and irritating to boot.

The truth of the matter is that in the 21st century the only way you can even begin to think of having it all is to have a nanny. And if the reintroduction of domestic staff turns out to be the great feminist triumph of the past few decades, well forgive me for not being overly impressed.

If we’re ever going to evolve on this one, we need to understand that the idea that having it all would ever equal freedom was flawed in the first place.

Doing everything doesn’t spell freedom: it makes me want to lie down with a cold compress. Men don’t have it all. Why should we? What is so intrinsically unreasonable about a division of labour, and a division of expectancies? Working fathers know and accept that they’re missing out on all sorts of lovely things, like their children’s bath time. I don’t see them torturing themselves over it.

And yet a woman in the same position will be having 15 kinds of fit because it is her right to be present at bath time but it is also her right to be in the office while bath time takes place. And part of her suffering will derive from the feeling that she is sneered at by other women, whether she’s at home with the rubber duck or number-crunching behind her big desk. And then, of course, she’ll torment herself with being an appalling parent if she missed bath time and being an appalling employee if she doesn’t. Who needs this?

None of this groping in the dark for a manageable modus vivendi would matter terribly if women were happy. But women aren’t. Women are miserable. A great many working women are staggering around trying not to collapse under their burden of guilt; survey after survey shows they would leave work if they could afford to.

They are aggressive and filled with contempt for their more domestic counterparts. Stay-at-home mothers are trying their hardest not to succumb to boredom and frustration, and directing venom at women who enjoy their work. Working women profess to despise stay-at-home mums; stay-at-home mums think working mothers are heartless fiends.

Everybody’s absolutely paranoid about their children, and about the question of childcare. Research shows — surprise! — that children who go to nursery ludicrously early are less chipper and more likely to run into trouble later than children who stay at home with their mothers.

We pretend to be shocked by this and try to make the numbers say otherwise. But babies need their mothers. And still we can’t quite come to grips with the idea, because we want both. We want the baby and the desk, but we don’t want the baby to be sad. So we make ourselves sad instead, at the desk.

Something’s got to give. There is no subtlety in the argument that women have a “right” to great careers, lovely smart children, great sex, fabulous dinner parties, and to be proud of themselves. That’s not freedom: that’s a burden of expectations, a punishing to-do list, a headache in waiting.

How did we get to this self- defeating exhausting definition of success in our lives? The time has come for a new definition of feminism. My new feminism would entitle women to freedom of choice. Freedom to choose between the desk and the baby, the kitchen and the restaurant, the gym and the bag of crisps, without being blamed, sniped at, undermined or made to feel less of a complete woman.

uberwolf

jaysus didn't realise it was this long.
_____________
This is something we women must do for ourselves as it is usually other women who are the worst at making us feel guilty about our choices. Of course the government has a role to play; proper compensation for businesses with women off on maternity leave would be a start.

But really you can pass all the legislation in the world and you still won’t get anywhere until women begin to understand that there is no need for the state of anxiety many of them exist in. That all choices are valid and that there is no hierarchy of merit for choosing domesticity or a career. When that time comes there won’t be a woman in the country who won’t call herself a feminist.

Until then, I’m with Godfrey Bloom.

Moriarty

S'a good article alright.

Victor

Originally posted by da_deadman
He got elected to the job on the premise of wrecking the EU. Therefore his responsibility is to the people who voted for him. Since he is on this commission then he has started to try and wreck the EU starting in his own commission..

He's ona committee, not the commission.

Mr Kilroy-Silk, a former BBC chat show host who resigned following comments about Muslims in a newspaper column, said: "This appointment of Mandelson shows that the European Union is a gravy train for failed politicians.

Oh, the ironing.

BUMP!

Uber - you have way too much time on your hands!!!

Good spiel though - nicely thought out, well structured, good use of grammar, got your points across.... A+ (the + is for effort!!)

Well sceptre, BUMP! said earlier "these kind of statements really have no place in the world".
I just said that I believe it is his right as a person to have his own thoughts and to be able to speak them, whether or not other people agree.

He can talk about the problems facing small business all he wants - but I draw the line when it comes to talking about reducing the rights of any one demographic for the gains of another. What he is portraying is a belief that women should be chained to the sink (exagerated) which means a reduction in rights to work, which is a reduction in civil rights, which is very wrong and indeed has no place in this world.