New Equalities Commissioner Jessica Butcher

GG you really do not understand about choice. There is no real choice without equality and there’s no meaningful equality for many in this country - sex, ethnicity, disability and socio-economic status are the main drivers in how meaningful a choice is on offer and for many there’s none at all. When I see a daughter of JRM or David Cameron or those of their ilk choose to be a topless model, or a grid ‘girl’ or as Galaxy said a surrogate, I might believe choice exists. Atm what I do see for example, is schools in the most deprived areas of the UK, Hull being a very live example, having to send a high % of pupils home over and over again and an elitist government refusing to consider the inequalities this will lead to in next summer’s exams ( and that’s more inequality being heaped on already pre Covid inequalities). Young people of both sexes will be denied choices and life opportunities because of this. JB hadn’t got a clue not a clue . Which is exactly why she’s been appointed because who wants an EC who might actually understand and care about equality.

Galaxy and growstuff are so right. I think that an Equalities Commissioner who can make such a statement cannot have a grasp of the fact that gender inequality is fundamentally a question of power, and choices are limited for women because of this.
Even now in the 21st century women are routinely judged by their looks.

No it isnt. Choice is complicated. Those who hold power have endless choices, those who dont well what we describe as choices arent really choices at all.
If you take the example of paid surrogacy for example when very famous rich women are acting routinely as the surrogate rather than being the recipient then I may believe it's a genuine valid choice.

Surely it is down to the individual women’s choice as to what place in society they want?

Everyone is equal under the law, some folks are more suited to high powered influential positions some aren’t. There are still women who thoroughly enjoy being homemakers and rearing their children. They are happy to put their career on hold.

My AC have friends where husbands are staying home and doing the childcare/housework etc as their wives are high flyers .

The choices are out there it is up to women/girls to take them.

(Covid-19 has limited employment prospects for both sexes for the foreseeable future)

. Womens.

That's not the equivalent I am afraid. Womens breasts are seen as sexual so a penis is the closest comparison. I think many people would argue the same about porn stars, that's it's a free choice.
I am not equating the two for what it's worth. It completely ignores the issues around womrns position in society.

You asked how their lives panned out .all I was doing was giving you the information.They were glamour models not porn stars so your men with their penis's out isn't the same thing .I do know men who posed with their tops off for calendars...and made a good living from it ,does that answer it for you? In fact there are many "stars" including Cliff Richard who produce topless calendars every year for their adoring fans...I've never bought one .

I do apologise I seem to have spent the last couple of weeks on GN talking about mens body parts.
Growstuff has expressed it much more eloquently.

Do you know many men who posed with their penis out who went on to marry rich women. Or do you think there might be a slight discrepancy between the sexes on that one.

suziewoozie

You said it was probably a poor choice of words - you should be concerned about what that choice says about her. Not poor but wrong, prejudiced, reeking of entitlement, lack of knowledge of the lives of those not like her. In fact a perfect choice of Commissioner in Johnson’s Britain.

I agree with you. I think it also ties in with Patel's and Badenoch's comments about racism.

They're saying that they are part of certain groups and they've done well, so anybody else can too. It's another version of "I lived in a council house when I was a child and now I'm a millionaire, so sod anybody who didn't manage to escape their background".

I'm sure there are plenty of "rags to riches" stories of males and females.

I'm uncomfortable that an equalities commissioner should highlight the case of females seeing themselves based on their appearance. I don't really see a fundamental difference between what they're doing and what courtesans did in the past. In the eighteenth century, there were many who made a lot of money and went on to have comfortable lives.

What message does this give to girls? What about the short dumpy ones with some kind of disfigurement? What about those with skills, who could go on to become scientists, lawyers or politicians? Do any of these girls go on to positions of real power? It seems it's a distraction from real equalities issues.

Any kind of glamour work usually involves males' being in control and depends on objectification of female sexuality. In my opinion, there's a real contradiction with what the EHRC was set up to do.

PS. I didn't realise this was said two years ago. It's being reported in some places as a recent comment.

Galaxy I worked in studios in Glasgow in the heyday of the page 3 girl and the Tennants can girls ,if you remember them .
Without exception ALL those girls went on to have really nice lives,some while they were still earning opened little Boutiques in Glasgow and Edinburgh , or restaurants some married the "rich men" I mentioned some just settled down with the boyfriend they had at the time ,one local girl now practicies Family law in a firm a mile from my door.It really wasn't the car crash most think .It did give some girls who wouldn't have ever had a chance to go to university a decent start .If the only page 3 you know of is Katie Price I can see why you might think otherwise ,but I think she had other big issues that caused her life to implode not the page 3 career

Galaxy the average right of centre person is imo incapable of understanding the concepts of power dynamics

You said it was probably a poor choice of words - you should be concerned about what that choice says about her. Not poor but wrong, prejudiced, reeking of entitlement, lack of knowledge of the lives of those not like her. In fact a perfect choice of Commissioner in Johnson’s Britain.

But if you cant understand the implications of power and how that affects choice well you are going to be rubbish as an equalities commissioner.

suziewoizie please read my last post I posted

“I am definitely not supporting her choice of words”

GrannyGravy13

Suziewoozie I am definitely not supporting her choice of words.

I do however support the right of women and men to work in their chosen profession, whatever that might be within the boundaries of the law.

I’m not talking about choice - I’m talking about you excusing her words. Perhaps you don’t think an ability to choose words carefully matters in a an Equalises Commissioner.? Shane on you.

Her overall critique of modern feminism is very blinkered imo.

Suziewoozie I am definitely not supporting her choice of words.

I do however support the right of women and men to work in their chosen profession, whatever that might be within the boundaries of the law.

I would be very interested in looking at some facts on what happened to those page 3 women especially if they were very young, for some it looks like an utter disaster to me. The statement also shows no evidence of thinking about why it is predominantly women who were placed in that role. It shows a very depressing lack of critical thinking and class analysis.

GrannyGravy13

^Working class girls^ was probably a poor choice of words

Poor choice of words in a public speech - oh yes, the Johnson style of stating one’s views. Imo the words we choose, and especially those in a prepared speech, show us for what we are. I’m a bit surprised at your being an apologist for her

Working class girls was probably a poor choice of words

Quite frankly, if she can speak so easily in public like that about a certain ‘group’ of girls , and clearly have absolutely no self awareness at all of the complete inappropriateness of what she’s said, then how can she fulfil the role?

Ooops sorry , I missed the ‘working class’ .

Think its the "working class girls" bit that grates more than anything else...of course in your class system working class girls should be used as entertainment or servants.THAT I object to.IF she had said young women are being denied a chance to make a career that MIGHT lead to better things(or rich husbands) she might have got away with it.Maybe not the rich husbands bit,