Cameron has appointed not one person to replace Maria Miller, former Minister for Women and Equality and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport but two. Miller, who has announced her resignation conveniently before the Prime Minister had to go head to head with Ed Milliband (Which is a shame because I bet Ed had some great, great jokes up his sleeve. Real zingers about Miller's expenses. To be delivered with his excellent timing.) has had her post split between Nicky Morgan and Sajid Javid. New Culture Secretary Sajid Javid has acquired the post of Equalities Minister. This is because Morgan voted against the legalisation of same sex marriage. Or Downing Street made the decision in a champagne haze. We will NEVER KNOW.
This potentially means any gay women might feel a little sidelined by their new Women's Minister. But the Women's Minister will have someone to whip her into shape: "Morgan, the new financial secretary to the Treasury, will attend cabinet as the women's minister. But Downing Street admitted that women's issues fit within the "over-arching" equalities portfolio, which will be run by Javid in the culture department." This also means that for the first time since the post was created that the Women's Minister has been subordinate to a man but LALALA let's talk about Maria Miller.
| Even before this recent expenses scandal and rubbish apology Maria Miller has never really been a candidate for being carried shoulder high through the streets of London. Or her constituency Basingstoke. Or anywhere really. She's never really captured our imaginations other than with a meme you have no doubt seen doing the rounds on your social networking sites. You know the one. Yeah you do. This one! It listed a record that would probably make someone incompatible with the post and term equality. The blogTips for Radicals posted about it with some corrections: "Presumably someone immediately jumped onto Public Whip to check her credentials. Yet it's a strange image - there are no sources, no identifier as to who put it together, and the wording of some of the claims is very peculiar. So, after seeing it shared for about the 200th time, I thought I'd check it out" | Miller has never really been a candidate for being carried shoulder high through the streets |
Of course one only has to look at the date parliament took votes on gay adoption rights, 2001 and 2002. Miller did not become an MP until 2005. And although "The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in 2007 had some bearing, being the legislation which led to a dispute between Catholic adoption agencies and government - but this certainly wasn't a fundamental question of whether gay people could adopt. In any event, Maria Miller doesn't appear to have voted on this bill at all. So as far as I can see, this claim is a complete fabrication."
By linking to John Rentoul's pieceIn Partial Defence of Maria Miller Mary Beard has found herself in the no doubt unexpected position of kind of, sort of…defending Maria Miller. Or rather pointing out there are plenty of real flaws to pick on without falling back on fabrication or focusing on Miller's womanhood.
Beard clarified: "I'm not supporting Maria Miller (or more important the expenses system);but am shocked by aggressive, sexist, misogynist tweets against her." Beard invited people to look up the words "Miller and cunt" on Twitter to see the treatment the minister was receiving.
How do we deal with women who commit criminal acts or offend us with their ill thought out behaviour? How do we express our anger? The best way is of course to stick to the facts. That's facts based in what Miller or any other woman has done that has resulted in either a Good Thing or Bad Thing. This should not be hard.
Just as we should not equate Eric Pickle's fatness with his poor policies. He does not make those decisions because he is fat. Nor is he fat because he makes those decisions so what's the point in mentioning it? Of course I could have picked another politician who I think awful with another physicality society sees as a flaw. It would not have made them any more or less controlled by said flaw. We must not equate a woman's cunt with her cuntiness. Attack MPs and other public figures for ill-judged or wrong actions. There's plenty to choose from, anything else is a distraction.
Stick to the facts and don't cite genitals.
Squeamish Kate
By linking to John Rentoul's pieceIn Partial Defence of Maria Miller Mary Beard has found herself in the no doubt unexpected position of kind of, sort of…defending Maria Miller. Or rather pointing out there are plenty of real flaws to pick on without falling back on fabrication or focusing on Miller's womanhood.
Beard clarified: "I'm not supporting Maria Miller (or more important the expenses system);but am shocked by aggressive, sexist, misogynist tweets against her." Beard invited people to look up the words "Miller and cunt" on Twitter to see the treatment the minister was receiving.
How do we deal with women who commit criminal acts or offend us with their ill thought out behaviour? How do we express our anger? The best way is of course to stick to the facts. That's facts based in what Miller or any other woman has done that has resulted in either a Good Thing or Bad Thing. This should not be hard.
Just as we should not equate Eric Pickle's fatness with his poor policies. He does not make those decisions because he is fat. Nor is he fat because he makes those decisions so what's the point in mentioning it? Of course I could have picked another politician who I think awful with another physicality society sees as a flaw. It would not have made them any more or less controlled by said flaw. We must not equate a woman's cunt with her cuntiness. Attack MPs and other public figures for ill-judged or wrong actions. There's plenty to choose from, anything else is a distraction.
Stick to the facts and don't cite genitals.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed
