Men Are Nothing But Sperm Donors

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,282
Location
Edge's beanie closet
according to this guy - is someone feeling a wee bit threatened or bitter? I don't know, maybe

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article306271.ece



The veteran BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has complained that "almost all the big jobs in broadcasting [are] held by women," and that men have been reduced to "sperm donors".

The former Nine O'Clock News presenter, who now reads the news on BBC World, also said that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far, saying that "life is now lived in accordance with women's rules".

Buerk, who was promoting a new channel Five series, said that when he started making the programme he saw that changes that have taken place in modern society were reflected in his own experiences.

"Almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC 1 television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear," he said in an interview with Radio Times.

At the time the programme was being made, the BBC 1 chief was Lorraine Heggessey, the channel's first female controller. She resigned in January after four years at the head of the channel.

Ms Heggessey was one of several female broadcasting executives who were promoted by the former director general Greg Dyke to senior BBC positions as part of a campaign to rid the corporation of its image as a network of middle-class white men. Others included the director of television, Jana Bennett, the BBC Radio director, Jenny Abramsky, the head of entertainment, Jane Lush, and the director of BBC News, Helen Boaden.

In October last year, another former director general, Alasdair Milne, sparked a furious response when he said that the dominance of female executives was to blame for too many "dumb, dumb, dumb" lifestyle and makeover shows.

Ms Heggessey has been replaced as BBC 1 controller by a man, Peter Fincham, while Radio 4 is still run by Janice Hadlow.

Buerk said that social changes were not only felt at the BBC, and that the majority of middle management positions were held by women - a development which has "changed the nature of almost every aspect of the marketplace".

He continued: "Products are made for women, cars are made for women - because they control what is being bought.

"Look at the changes in the workplace. There is no manufacturing industry any more; there are no mines; few vital jobs require physical strength.

"What we have now are lots of jobs that require people skills and multi-tasking - which women are a lot better at."

Buerk spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent before becoming one of the main anchors on the BBC's flagship news programme, but he is still best-known for his reporting from the 1984 famine in Ethiopia.

In the interview, he said that typically male characteristics have been sidelined. "The traits that have traditionally been associated with men - reticence, stoicism, single-mindedness - have been marginalised," he said.

Buerk said that the result is that men are becoming more like women. "Look at the men who are being held up as sporting icons - David Beckham and, God forbid, Tim Henman," he said. :rolleyes:

He admitted that some changes have been for the good, but asked: "What are the men left with?"

He said that, while men measure themselves in terms of their jobs, many traditionally male careers no longer exist.

"Men gauge themselves in terms of their career, but many of those have disappeared," he said.

"All they are is sperm donors, and most women aren't going to want an unemployable sperm donor loafing around and making the house look untidy. They are choosing not to have a male in the household."
 
Well, I don't actually agree with him for the most part, but if he had talked about the negative portrayals and stereotyping of men in the UK/Irish media, particularly in advertising, then he would have a point.
 
Any conservative leaning FYM'ers out there willing to say he has a point? Or are we all going to line up and accuse Michael Buerk of being bitter, having sour grapes, etc? :wink:
 
No; their too emasculated to raise objections.

There is a balance; society pays the price if it goes to any extreme. It is probably more field specific ~ I doubt that you will see drastic changes in fields like engineering or construction.
 
I am not familiar enough with UK media to determine the validity of his claim.

But, we have gone through years of pressuring companies to staff according to demographic goals.

Was this simple BS to generate jobs for protected classes? Or was this an honest goal?
 
i was thinking about posting my thoughts on just this issue in the masculinity thread, but i was too tired last week to translate my thoughts into coherent sentences.

i do think that as women have progressed in public life, this has certainly threatened the traditional male identity. after being the financial provider and head of the household for centuries, men are no longer as essential in women's lives as they used to be. more and more women are capable of supporting themselves, and sometimes quite well. as men become less financially necessary to women, it makes sense that a male identity crisis would develop. and in some cases, as with the opinions expressed by the man in this article, this could be a good thing. the more equality women gain in society means the less we are willing to tolerate sexism and chauvenism.

did he really say that stereotypical "male" characteristics have been marginalized? oh, the irony. :rolleyes:
 
What exactly does "emasculated" mean? So if women have equality or some sort of perceived advantage in the workplace or elsewhere, that results in men being "emasculated" ?

Maybe if men like this guy and others started thinking differently, they might have better "people skills" .

I don't see how the difference in TV or in the decline in manufacturing can be blamed on women.
 
financeguy said:
Any conservative leaning FYM'ers out there willing to say he has a point?

What exactly is his point? That there's more women than men in his industry? Oh well. Sounds to me like those men are finally getting a taste of their own medicine.
 
Well he has a point about there being no manufacturing anymore. But his point is despite himself - that's a factor of long historical changes, and you can hardly blame on feminists or any other enemy of the week the fact that countries like Britain don't do their business the way they did a century or two ago. None of which makes it right, of course.

'Men gauge themselves in terms of their career'? How nice, and what a lie. Life goes on, with or without a 'career'.
 
Kieran McConville said:
what a lie

I agree. Maybe some men have spent so much time defining themselves and their "masculinity" in that one narrow way that they're neglected so many other aspects of themselves, maybe that causes them to have problems relating to and with women.
 
I see the statement that men guage themselves largely in terms of their careers as being for the most part correct.
 
What's wrong with this if the women are doing a good job? Isn't that what it's all about? This guy is complaining about nothing.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Michael Buerk... The former Nine O'Clock News presenter, who now reads the news on BBC World, also said that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far, saying that "life is now lived in accordance with women's rules".

Uhh... first & foremost, life is NOT lived in accordance with women's rules. It is still very much "a man's world" -- just ask some of the ladies in Afghanistan or Pakistan, etc. for some more severe examples. :eyebrow:

Secondly, ' "the shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far'? What -- and all was well in the world before this shift? Sure... if you are a man. :|

Personally, I fully realize and accept that it is a man's world. Women have made great strides in the last 50 years; my grandmother couldn't imagine working outside the home, while I can't fathom not taking a job in the workplace. But it will be at least another 150 years (if ever) before a woman will be fully welcommed as a valued employee in ANY occupation, not just an acceptable subsitute for a man. And it'll take at least that long for her to be paid the same salary as an equal male counterpart. :shrug:

I'm not an uber-feminist or a man-hater or anything like that. :no: But as for this annoying prat, I say: If you're such the big, masculine specimen that you seem to want folks to believe your are, isn't whining like a baby rather, um.... girly?? :scratch: :evil: :giggle:
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
At the time the programme was being made, the BBC 1 chief was Lorraine Heggessey, the channel's first female controller. She resigned in January after four years at the head of the channel.

I believe that she was also the one responsible for bringing "Doctor Who" back, so kudos to her!

Melon
 
financeguy said:
I see the statement that men guage themselves largely in terms of their careers as being for the most part correct.

Well, then, there you have the problem....not the fact that women are doing better jobs.
 
i think this is true.

ironically, i work for a large media company that is being infilatrated and controled by females crossing the pond from the BBC!

from what i have seen in my still limited work experience, women do tend to be better multitaskers and have smoother interpersonal skills. a general comment, but i think there's some truth there.

i would also add that the big mystery in television programming these days is "where have all the young men gone?" males in their 20s and 30s aren't watching much TV and aren't seeing movies as much as they used to, and this is a concern because they are a highly valued demographic. many people point to video games as the primary source of young male entertainment, and i think there's some truth to that, but could it be that television isn't speaking to young males anymore precisely because of this phenomenon?

just food for thought.
 
I think TV is crap, because network executives look at something in terms of what appeals to which demographic, rather than looking at a show and seeing if it is good. So, as a result, we have all these stereotypical TV shows that appeal to one key demographic really well.

Then, of course, they're all lame, because we have the Christian Taliban breathing down their neck every single moment, so don't dare try anything "risky," because then you'll get an FCC fine.

As a result, we've reaped what we've sowed: boring, crappy television.

Melon
 
Irvine511 said:

i would also add that the big mystery in television programming these days is "where have all the young men gone?" males in their 20s and 30s aren't watching much TV and aren't seeing movies as much as they used to, and this is a concern because they are a highly valued demographic. many people point to video games as the primary source of young male entertainment, and i think there's some truth to that, but could it be that television isn't speaking to young males anymore precisely because of this phenomenon?

just food for thought.

This is what I was thinking when I read the comment about make-overs. I'm thinking of my 18 year old brother....when he comes home from work, he prefers to crash in front of the computer and play a hunting game or online poker. When I think of myself....I like to crash in bed and watch an hour or so of TLC while I'm either cat-napping or looking at magazines. I really don't think companies as big as BBC are dumb enough to just let women take over and do makeover shows just for the hell of it. There's a reason they show what they do and it's because that's what the people watching TV want to see.
 
Ok I'll bite! :evil: But only to stimulate discussion, not to agree with this guy. I didn't find much of what he said to be anything more than sour grapes, and opposition to women being in the majority in any career field for the sake of being opposed to it is sexist.

The more interesting bits are the actual responses to his post, particularly in regards to the lack of equity of pay between men and women. So, I'm just going to throw this up here to stir the pot and see what everyone thinks.

Equal rates of pay for men and women. I know that statistically this is true. But is it because of inequality or is it because of other factors? Do the statistics reflect a static work force that does not take time off to have children? As an employer, do you hire a married woman over a married man in their late 20's that have equal skills? All other things being equal, you would hire the man because he is less likely to take time off to have a kid, or may be willing to kill himself as your employee, where the woman might have a child which may necessitate less time at the office. Is this sexist or is this rational? We all know that the man could become more unreliable than the woman, work less hours, take time off to take care of the child and have his work suffer as much or more than the woman, but does this occur at a rate that makes hiring a man over the woman sexist, or just smart? What percentage would make it rational and not just stereotypical? If you had a 50 / 50 chance of losing your employee to motherhood or fatherhood it wouldn't be a factor, but what if it's 70/30 chance of losing your employee or productivity. Or 80/20? Is it ever rational to make judgments like that when you hire or even promote employees? Or is it always sexist? Have fun with this one :wink:
 
melon said:
Then, of course, they're all lame, because we have the Christian Taliban breathing down their neck every single moment, so don't dare try anything "risky," because then you'll get an FCC fine.

Dude, the 'Christian Taliban' or whatever you want to call them has precisely zero influence on British TV. One or two of the more conservative leaning Anglican bishops might occasionally put their heads above the parapet and complain about an allegedly blasphemous comedy routine or whatever, but they generally aren't listened to.

Your comments may or may not be true in relation to US TV but it really has no bearing on this discussion to be honest.
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:
Dude, the 'Christian Taliban' or whatever you want to call them has precisely zero influence on British TV.

Your comments may or may not be true in relation to US TV but it really has no bearing on this discussion to be honest.

It is relevant, when I'm replying to Irvine511's comment, and he works in American television--not to mention that *I* work in American television. Hence, the "FCC" comment.

So, frankly, it IS relevant, considering television is seemingly crappy on both sides of the Atlantic, and our television isn't "female dominated."

Do you catch my drift, or shall I expect another rather rude retort to my input?

Melon
 
melon said:
It is relevant, when I'm replying to Irvine511's comment, and he works in American television--not to mention that *I* work in American television. Hence, the "FCC" comment.

So, frankly, it IS relevant, considering television is seemingly crappy on both sides of the Atlantic, and our television isn't "female dominated."

Do you catch my drift, or shall I expect another rather rude retort to my input?

Melon


No, it isn't relevant because Michael Buerk is speaking about the BBC. And Christian conservatives have no influence whatsoever on the UK television! They have about as much influence as a Tibetan monk. If television is dumbed down in the UK too (and I don't necessarily accept that it is) then the 'Christian Taliban' have absolutely nothing got to do with it. Maybe in the US they have, I don't know, but not over here.
 
I wasn't even talking about the BBC! Jesus Christ...

But since we're on the topic, happen to remember Mary Whitehouse? BBC, at one time, did have its own version of "Christian Taliban," but no, they currently don't have one.

This is completely besides my point.

Melon
 
melon said:
But since we're on the topic, happen to remember Mary Whitehouse? BBC, at one time, did have its own version of "Christian Taliban," but no, they currently don't have one.

Yes and they largely ignored her. She kept looking for them to tone down the more frightening scenes in Doctor Who and they rarely if ever did. So even back then the Christian Taliban had little influence.
 
melon said:
I wasn't even talking about the BBC! Jesus Christ...

But since we're on the topic, happen to remember Mary Whitehouse? BBC, at one time, did have its own version of "Christian Taliban," but no, they currently don't have one.

This is completely besides my point.

Melon
You use the name Jesus Christ to make a point and yet you dont believe in his story.....:scratch: weird.
Totally off topic, sorry. I just found it ironic
 
Back
Top Bottom