Last night the television program Q & A featured an all-female panel.
It was an interesting mix of old-school feminism (Germaine Greer), conservative commentator (Janet Albrechtsen), indigenous opera singer (Deborah Cheetham), former sex worker (Dr Brooke Magnanti) and online publisher (Mia Freedman).
It was somewhat disappointing to begin with a discussion on chivalry (and I’m surprised the young women in the audience still regard this as a feminist dilemma). Sometimes men open doors, sometimes they don’t, let’s not condemn either way, moving on.
The presence of Magnanti saw much discussion on the sex industry. While that topic could have filled an entire program it left me a little disappointed at the amount of time it did take up on what was to be a program on feminism in general. Magnanti has obviously taken a lot of positives from her experience as a sex worker and sees herself as an advocate for women in the industry. I am highly uncomfortable with the notion that sex worker could be a job to aspire to! I think it’s also irresponsible to only discuss the “empowering” and “spiritual” aspects of the work without acknowledging there are women in this industry who find themselves in dangerous situations, disempowered and desperate.
One telling moment occurred when the announcement of Margaret Thatcher’s death came through and host Tony Jones, opened up comments on the former British Prime Minister. A young school girl in the audience began a question with something about Margaret Thatcher coming from an elite background, the panel (Greer and Magnanti ) shot her down before she could finish her question “she was a shopkeeper’s daughter”. To me that was a moment symptomatic of some of the issues facing modern feminism – the stronger more powerful silencing the weaker. Later Cheetham graciously returned to the girls half-asked question to offer that essentially Thatcher as a white, highly-educated woman did come from a privileged position. Cheetham proved to be a calm and reassured voice on the topics presented.
Greer offered nuggets of wisdom, often wrapped in her usual off-topic asides – she’s still got a thing about jackets – this time she’s moved from criticising our female PM’s suits to having a go at what James Bond wears! Although at least in the appearance she seemed a little more tempered and reasoned offering some strong statements worthy of a woman who led the march against inequality.
Albrechtsen offered a call for a more inclusive feminism, and seemed to win over a few surprised online commenters this morning. Perhaps whatever side of the political fence you sit on when it comes to feminism we are more alike than unalike? Or perhaps that’s a naive dream.
Freedman showed her metal sticking by an article she had written critical of Greer after the last “PM has a big bum” Q&A appearance, while still respecting Greer’s important place in the women’s movement.
All the panelists gave thoughtful responses to the questions, and knew their stuff. Yet the show seemed to be over before it begun – I was left thinking “isn’t there more?”. It seemed a little “flat” and didn’t even begin to delve into the complexity of modern feminism.
Do we need all-female panels? Would it be possible to have a prime-time TV panel discussion on feminism featuring men and women? Do women’s voices get lost in these panels when you add men to the mix?
oh synchronicity Janine! The best part about the school girl was the ‘awkkkkward’ response she made after they shot her down. If we dont show young women the skills in offering thoughts – even those that arent full formed yet – then we run the risk of not showing them the power of speaking up and of telling our own stories. I often get frustrated at qanda but last night held so much promise, which is probably why it was such a let down x
I know, so funny I posted mine and went on to Facebook to see your post pop up! That is such a great point that we have to show young girls the power of speaking up. I was really looking forward to the program but just felt a bit deflated afterwards, that there really wasn’t the opportunity for the panel to get stuck into the serious issues.
You have so clearly articulated exactly what I was thinking about the program. I was more inspired by Imam Muhamed Abdullah in the week before than I was by this panel.
I really wanted to hear what Deborah Cheetham had to say, but the show was dominated by Magnanti’s talk about sex work. Also, I thought it was in poor taste, whatever one feels about Margaret Thatcher, to make a comment about drinking champagne at the news of her death.
Thanks for writing this post. I was hoping someone would write it, but I never thought it would match what I was thinking so perfectly.
Thanks Shelly, it’s always nice to know you aren’t alone in what you are thinking. I think it is important that there are advocates for sex workers and Magnanti obviously has a unique perspective on the issue – but perhaps because it’s not an area relevant to my life it just seemed to take up a lot of the conversation- when I was perhaps hoping for a more rounded discussion???
I think what it comes down to is that an hour is just not enough time to talk about all the things that need discussing!
So true.
The salad just arrived at my table for dinner but I decided to push it away because I want to answer these questions (first). I think we do need all-female panels – there’s a different dynamic in an all female group, for better for worse. I went to an all girls high school – with some of the smartest girls that I have ever (and probably will ever) meet in my entire life – and it brings something to the table. I think women who are shy also find it easier to talk in front of an all women panel, ESPECIALLY in the work place because all of the women who have made it to management positions have been there and know what females are dealing with to get noticed and make it to the top. Does this mean the same thing for prime-time TV? I’m not sure. I think adding men would be an interesting component, but it brings out something different in females – some of them might get defensive, some of them get louder because they feel like they need to compete, and some of them feel shy. I mean, clearly this isn’t all women – but I definitely see the dynamic changing. I think men would have something interesting to say on the matter though, that’s for sure. I don’t think all women’s voices get lost if you add men’s to the mix, but I do think that there are certain perspectives that would be lost. There are certain women that men listen to more easily – usually ones who have already proved themselves, but if it’s somebody who’s starting from the bottom, sometimes it’s difficult to get somebody’s attention. As for women shooting down other women – I think that’s a personality thing. Also, if the woman doing the shooting down is in the spotlight, I think she is more likely to shoot the other person down – sad, but true. What an interesting topic. Thanks for sharing, Janine.
I love the thought you put into your responses. Yes I think it is a different dynamic when it is an all female panel. My daughters go to a co-ed school but my youngest has just been moved up to the top maths group and they have divided the class so there is an all boy class and an all girl class, I think in a bid to encourage girls to like maths, and hopefully have them a bit more keen to participate when it’s not in front of boys. The male/female dynamics in the workplace are always interesting. I’ve worked in offices dominated by very opinionated women and sometimes that wasn’t healthy! Neither was my experience in male dominated offices brimming with sexism! Somehow there has to be a nice mix, and you are right personality comes into it too!