THERE’S nothing like a dose of old-fashioned chauvinism to get me waving my Marigolds in the air.
So I had to take a deep breath (and pinch myself that I was in the 21st century) when a book landed on the features desk this week.
Express Housekeeping is a simple guide to keeping your home clean and tidy, with lots of pictures and tips. Perfect for anyone who needs to brush up on their domestic skills and ideal for a young person leaving home for the first time.
So it’s a shame that publishers Dorling Kindersley seem to think that housework is solely for women.
The front cover features a feather duster, brush pan, pail and rubber gloves all in brightest pink – so the book is hardly going to be tucked into a son’s rucksack as he heads off to uni by a thoughtful mother.
Ironic really because, since women still perform the bulk of household chores, it is more likely to be men who need idiot-proof advice on how to clean the oven and disinfect the loo.
And before any male readers protest, the facts speak for themselves. Research shows that among couples, wives and live-in girlfriends do more than 12 hours every week, while men put in four or five hours a week. Interestingly, shacking up seems to lead to even more chores for women, as single women only spend seven hours on housework.
Sadly, housekeeping isn’t the only battleground where women are failing to make advances.
The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality, reports how women in the UK typically earn less, own less and are more likely to live in poverty than men. Women are also underrepresented in Parliament, in public life and in boardrooms. They also make up the majority of low-paid workers, do the bulk of unpaid work and are most likely to live under the breadline in their old age. Some 40 years after the Equal Pay Act, women can expect to earn 15.5 per cent less than men. There are about 45,000 women currently fighting equal pay claims.
The Fawcett Society predicts women will fare worse under the cuts too. “Women now face a ‘triple jeopardy’ of slashed benefits, jobs cuts, and a reduction in the core public services they rely on for themselves and those they care for. Far from the fight being over, the fragile gains women have won so far are now under threat.”
One arena where women have more successfully competed with men is in the sexual one – but you do wonder at what cost? For a snapshot of modern women today, I dare you to watch Take Me Out, billed as the “new Blind Date”. A more accurate title might be “Desperate would-be Housewives” as 30 young women, straight out of the Cheryl Cole and Jordan finishing school (big hair, minimum clothing), practically beg the male contestant to pick them for a date. The worse moment has to be when the man switches off the lights of the women he doesn’t fancy. It’s unbelievably brutal and undignified. Girls just wanna have fun, but surely not at any price?
On a brighter note, there was one snippet of news this week that seeks to advance equal opportunity.
Labour MP Keith Vaz is sponsoring a bill to change Britain’s archaic rules of succession. Blatantly sexist, they order that male children have preference over their older sisters – set out under the 1701 Act of Settlement.
The bill will come up for debate in May – after the Royal Wedding. Let’s hope it wins the full support of MPs.
It would give a first-born daughter of William and Kate the right of succession over a younger brother. If only gender inequalities could be settled so easily for the rest of the sisterhood.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel