Why does it always ‘have to be a woman’?
THE news that David Dimbleby is giving up anchoring Question Time fills me with dread. Not so much because we will all miss his incomparable style, patience and wit at dealing with both public and politicians, but because, inevitably, it has triggered the politically correct cliche of our age: the vacancy MUST be filled by a woman.
Of course, there would be nothing wrong with a woman getting the job. There are plenty of brilliant female candidates out there — from early favourites such as Kirsty Wark and Kirsty Young to outsiders like Radio 5 Live’s Emma Barnett, fast building a reputation as a fearless questioner, and TalkRadio’s Julia Hartley-Brewer.
But none of these women are defined by their gender. They are simply talented people with sharp brains and a wide intellectual bandwidth of the kind that chairing a show like Question Time requires. And that is the only thing that should count when it comes to deciding the right person for the job.
But that is not how it works these days. What happens is this: the second a high-profile incumbent steps down — whether it be in TV, politics, the arts or any other arena of public life — the clarion calls go out: the replacement MUST be a woman.
DOcTOR Who, chief of Police, head of this or that quango, a new MP. The pressure to make it a woman is now so great that if Aidan Turner ever decided to hang up his breeches on Poldark, the BBc would probably replace him with a female actor — and by the way, we’ve currently got a female Hamlet at the Globe Theatre.
The liberal consensus is that this is striking a blow for equality. The more women who are seen to be taking on traditional male roles, the more the self-appointed great and the good feel they can sleep sound at night, safe in the knowledge that they’ve made the world a fairer place.
But it takes much more than tokenism to achieve that. And the worst part of this obsession is that it doesn’t actually do women in general any favours.
In fact, if anything, it becomes a source of resentment. It also induces a sense of hopelessness in the male population — who after all make up 50 per cent of us — and a feeling that, through no real fault of their own, they are being squeezed out of society.
I simply don’t buy the argument that my gender — for reasons of historical disadvantage that, frankly, have very little relevance in today’s world — is somehow ‘owed’ this privilege.
And just as I would never prejudge someone according to their colour, creed, sexual orientation or background, I don’t make judgments about people according to their gender.
The only thing that matters is: can they do the job or not?
Betty Boothroyd was a great Speaker. Margaret Thatcher was a great prime minister. Dorothy Parker was a great writer. None would wish to have had their achievements diminished by the label of ‘positive discrimination’.
Besides, if you want to know what a world run solely by women looks like, just tune into Woman’s Hour on Radio 4. The irony of a show that did more than almost any other to promote the rights of women turning itself into an example of how deadly dull life can be without a man in the room cannot be overstated.
In today’s Britain, women have all the tools they need to do whatever they want with their lives. Only last week, we learned that there are now more women solicitors than men. Good on them.
We can — and do — get there on merit alone. And if we don’t, then it’s really no victory for anyone.