Sunday, February 04, 2007

a triumverate of female leaders, led by the glamorous royal.

yum yum - oh come on, she is pretty attractive... maybe...

the 'news review' in the scottish version of the sunday times today asks 'will women rule the world' and reports on the possibilty that hillary clinton will take the democratic nomination in america joing angela merkel from germany as her country's leader. it seems also that france might join them with segolene royal "courting the french voters".

firstly, just imagine how entertaining it would be if boris johnston was british prime minister and he had to deal 'professionaly' with 3 women? secretaries running for cover everywhere...

secondly, what an interesting world we might live in. trying to avoid the usual sexism complaints here it is fairly accepted that women are less belligerent. unlike bliar who has declared war more times than any since days of empire.

sadly, the article promised much in the sense it might be illuminate the world of politics and the female role - it did try somewhat - but i felt it concentrated too much on their respective looks and femininity. has anyone else read the article? does it matter as much as 4 columns in a two page spread on what clothes they wear, what hairstyles they have and so on?

take this: "In common with Clinton and Merkel, Royal looks far more attractive today than she did a decade ago,.."

i have heard much made of cameron's supposed good looks and i vaguely remember bliar having the 'good looks' edge over john major (couldn't resist that one) but did the issue matter as much for them as it appears to do for clinton, royal and merkel? do women have to wory more about their looks than men in politics?

vis-a-vis the pic: i just didn't expect such humour from the times, will i still regard as stuffy.

No comments: