BBC BANS MEN FROM PROGRAMME AUDIENCE

Yesterday evening the publicly funded BBC took the unprecedented step of banning men from the audience of BBC's Question Time programme as a way of "celebrating" International Women's Week (I always though it was Women's Day, but obviously there wasn't enough time to fit in all the misandry). The only men present were the host and two people on the panel, the Sun's Kelvin McKensie and the BBC's own Monty Don. Other panelists included the rather reasonable Jo Swinson of the Lib Dems, Conservative Justine Greening, and the Labour's quite hideous Carloine Flint.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the programme were not so much the topics discussed, but the unstated parallel that could be drawn throughout almost every single one of them. We had the Jamie Bulgar case discussed as well as the fact a man had been falsely accused of being his killer on Facebook (he has been forced into hiding and currently fears for his life). Later there was an intense discussion on the death of troops in Afghanistan due poor quality equipment being provided by the government, as well as the countless horrific injuries caused to survivors. We had mentions of the children horrifically tortured in Edlington there was an extensive discussion of the case of David Askew, a man with learning difficulties who died yesterday having being bullied over many years. 

So what's the parallel between every single noteworthy discussion of the week? Well rather ironically in this era of so much supposed "violence against women" and oppression and the resulting need for women only this and that, almost every single victim of every issue discussed throughout the entire hour was male. With just one exception every UK soldier killed in Afghanistan has been male. Similarly all the domestic vicitms of violence and murder discussed were male too, and we even had the key MRA issue of false allegations given a mention on top of all that!

Clearly it's hardly surprising that so many vicitms of violence were men given the vastly greater threat of violence they their daily lives compared to women and the resulting lower life expectancy. This was however a BBC programme we're taking about and it at least shows they perhaps can't control the questions the generally public want to ask to the same extent they censor so much other output. Also it was very refreshing to see that so many decent women in the audience aren't as misandric and self-obsessed as so many of their "elected" female sisters in Parliament, and so many clearly realise and are hugely concerned about the plight of men subconsciously at the very least.

The incredibly ironic theme of male victims continued right until the end of the programme, with a discussion of all women shortlists, and a quite magnificent older women in the audience (and others) condemning them as passionately and eloquently as anything you'll see on this blog.

One of the only two notable pieces of misandry we saw on the programme in fact came from a man in Monty Don, who suggested he'd be happy to see an all female parliament with no men in it at all as it couldn't' be any worse than the current lot (though it would seem he was playing to the crowd as much as giving a genuine opinion). This of course illustrates the idiocy of banning particular groups from an audience or any institution for that matter. It was clear the pressure of the all women audience not only influenced Don's answers, but also stifled McKensie at times too (albeit to a far lesser extent).

Thus there are useful lessons for us to take from the programme. Could Don have asked for a Parliament that excluded ethnic minorities and got such a round of applause? His conduct illustrates just how misandry works in practice with sexist comments about men encouraged and going unchallenged.  The make up of the event very much reflected the balance of genders one finds at the average primary school - where you have the odd token male teacher and token male parent against a sea of females. Further still, whatever anti male indiscretions occur in such an environment aren't subject to the scrutiny nor of millions watching at home on tv either and the resulting moderation of one's behaviour.

The most ill informed and sexist comment of the night came at the very end of the programme, with an audience member praising the fact men had been barred from taking part and suggesting that men could never organise their own International Men's Day as women have done. In reality there has in fact been an International Men's day for a number of years now, it's just that all the politicians we see week in week out on Question Time refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the event and the BBC are just as ignorant or dismissive of the event. If only we'd had some way for one of the many men behind International Men's Day to inform such ignorant parties of the existence of the event and it's importance? Maybe some sort of weekly nationally broadcast discussion forum, watched by millions where broadcasters, politicians and the members of the public of both sexes all come together and pool their knowledge and ideas in order to to be able to have an informed discussion of such issues?

I suppose given that gender segregation is so much on the increase these days this won't be the last time we see such misandry on the BBC. Kelvin McKensie at least stated he hoped not to see the sexist format return for anther 30 years. At the current rate the women on such a 2040 edition of Question Time will unfortunately be just as ignorant about International Men's Day as those taking part this evening.

Comments

[Thomas Pellow]

The BBC, in its subservience to Labour, and the Harman anti-men discrimination* incorporated in the Equality Bill, has no discernible commitment to the equal rights of both sexes.

* Of course, Harman is a hypocrite on this, when it comes to the case of her husband, Mr. Dromey:

"Harriet Harman's husband handed a safe seat by Labour"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254114/Harriet-Harmans-husband-handed-safe-seat-Labour.html#ixzz0hx6Ol2CO

[K]

Did anyone notice the audience member right at the end who, in response to the 'have the Beeb given into political correctness' question said something like: "If Harriet Harman gets her way we wouldn't be able to hold a programme like this because she's going to bring in discrimination against men."?

Oh, the irony:)

[John Kimble]

I didn't really understand what that woman at the end was on about TBH.

[Porky Domesticus]

" men could never organise their own International Men's Day as women have done."

The sexism of such a statement in a world where men have organized everything else is stunning.It's like looking at motown and claiming blacks cant sing!

[K]

"I didn't really understand what that woman at the end was on about TBH."

I wouldn't worry about that as I don't think she did either, John;)

[Paul]

International Men's Day is November 19: http://www.international-mens-day.com/

The day is gathering lots of momentum. All you need do is mark it on your calendar and *Do* something on that day.

;-)

[Pete UK]

"International Men's Day is November 19: Do* something on that day."

I'll tell you what I'll be doing on that day, the same as I did on IWD, getting on with my life, that's what I'll be doing.

I can't see how a tit for tat campaign is helpful, equality is about everyone being given due consideration, be they male/female, black/white, gay/straight, able bodied/disabled.

Harriet Harperson's pro-female laws are discriminatory, they seek to redress the balance through social engineering, and that has never worked. As an example I'll cite the divorce laws of 1972, which were introduced to give women equal footing in a marriage, unfortunately some women take advantage of the biased system and lie and cheat their way to a disproportionate share of the spoils of marriage.

While it is easy to accept that women in the workplace face discrimination, what isn't so readily accepted is that men face discrimination in domestic issues.

[Jim]

Unbelievable. To think the BNP were going to be banned for not allowing blacks into their party, but the state-owned BBC can have a no-men policy and hardly anyone bats an eyelid!

It just goes to show how much discrimination against men has become accepted both by men and women in this country.

What we need is a national men's strike day (week?) to help us on the way to equality both in the home and the workplace - yes I said workplace! I believe that it is men who are discriminated against at work.

That's certainly my personal experience in the education and health-care systems.

[amfortas]

Amfortas says:

Excellent reportage, John. It looks like another successful attempt by the BBC to shoot itself in the foot.

Remember the old speculation (exploited by Morecombe and Wise) about what the newsreader chaps wear that is out of sight below the desk? I can just imagine the chaps on the panel that you mentioned wearing ladies' unmentionables.

[Jon]

I know I am way late to the party, but I can't believe this, I really can't. I have complained to both the BBC and OFCOM, let's see what happens.

[John Kimble]

There's nothing wrong with it so long as they also have a men only audience sometime too. I wonder if that will occur next Thursday?

[Jon]

John...

BWAHAHHAHAahahaha!! Hahaha! Phew. Good one.

Just got a response from the Beeb re my Question Time complaint by the way:

Dear Mr ...

Reference 189866

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Question Time' broadcast on 11 March.

Firstly, please accept our apologies for the delay in our response. We appreciate that our correspondents expect a swift response and we regret any inconvenience you may have experienced.

With regards to y our complaint about the make up of the audience for the edition of 11 March, we forwarded concerns on this issue to ‘Question Time’ Executive Editor Gavin Allen who explained in response that:

“Question Time has been running successfully for more than 30 years. That equates to more than 1,000 editions. Very, very occasionally we have varied the production of the programme: either changing the panel selection - to include a People's Panellist for example - or the make-up of the audience - such as a 50:50 old: young mix. The all-female audience was one of those rare instances. Political parties want every vote available of course, but it is particularly striking this year how prominently the issue of women in politics is playing - from the universal courting of Mumsnet and the question of all-female shortlists to the centrality of the family/marriage as a topic and the distinct voting concerns of women from men (whether in relation to party leaders or political issues). For that reason we felt it worth seeing whether an all-female audience would offer a different type of debate from the norm, different questions raised and perhaps a different atmosphere. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with bias, political correctness, a lack of impartiality or sexism and everything to do with a determination to be open to new ideas and to experiment occasionally. We were happy with the resulting programme.”

Please be assured I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

Thank you once again for taking the trouble to share your views with us.

Kind Regards

Richard Carey