Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  Quote
Kirsty Young has slammed the "ridiculous" dearth of older women on screen.

The former news anchor, 41, said it was "interesting" that veteran Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow was always paired up with a younger female.

The presenter of BBC's Crimewatch told Easy Living magazine: "People who run TV will say there isn't ageism, but there are hardly any older women on screen. Who is there?"

She went on: "There's Anne Robinson and that's it. And then you look to America, where you have Barbara Walters, who's in her seventies and still on primetime television: they have a much healthier outlook.

"We need to sort that out. I think it's ridiculous. Hopefully things will change and I'll still be doing the job when I'm 55, but right now it certainly seems that there is a significant imbalance."

Kirsty, who was dubbed the "younger woman" when she replaced Fiona Bruce on Crimewatch, criticised the way women on TV are subject to the type of scrutiny that is not applied to men.

She said: "It is horrendous. But if you're in television, you either get out if it bothers you so much, or you try to find a way of participating in the game that is acceptable to you."

Kirsty said she had her hair done and spent more money on clothes than she would if she wasn't working in TV, but added: "I've chosen an area of the media where, I hope, how I look is secondary to how well I do my job."




http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jFlb6CRLoZ6TB9L6C43vq76110zw



You have probably already seen the above story, rehashed in one or other of the mainstream newspapers.


What I find baffling is that no-one seems prepared, publicly, to take up the issue of her blatant hypocrisy.


Not only does she admit that she herself is complicit in the kind of stuff (constantly having her hair done and spending vast sums on new outfits) that promulgates the discriminative systems she rails against so publicly, but seems blind to the fact that her entire career has been based on the worship of youth: when she got married, did she change her surname to her husband's (Jones) as per widely accepted custom? No - she made her decision to stick with the name "Young". I don't think I need to say much more.

cate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this posting for real? Why should she change

> her name? Why shouldn't she spend money to look

> good?


Because her point is that the whole industry values appearance over competence. And yet she happily plays along with it. If she really wants to make a point, she should spend her money on some sort of education or training instead, and cut back on her beauty spend, and challenge her employers to accept this and if they don't, then make a big fuss and an example of them.


It's not hard to understand.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I would have thought she has a clothing allowance

> expense account for her TV appearances so why not

> spend it.


Exactly the kind of thinking that ended up with the MPs scandal.


It's the "I wus just following orders guv" defense.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't think of single reason why television

> production companies, mostly headed-up by

> lecherous married men in their forties and

> fifties, might be inclined to have their

> productions fronted-up by buxom jelly-headed

> eyelash-batting crumpet.


Might it be that their wives mayn't altogether approve.

And that when they bring their daughters into work on that BRING YOUR DAUGHTER TO WORK DAY, they might feel quite awkward about the whole thing.


Kirsty Young, buxom jelly-headed eyelash-batting crumpet?

Not so sure *Bob*, she's crumpet, of that there's no question, but as for the rest, aren't you thinking of the quare one off of Channel Sky.


Name escapes me for the moment, buxom jellyhead who could eyelash bat for Britain. Even Great Britain.

Siobhann something? Toni?

Mariette, with an onomatopoeic surname? Sslam? Hitt? Flutter?

I'm sure it's one of those or similar. Smilar? No that's not it.


But to get back back to my original point *Bob*, I mean to say really. I mean, what? I shall leave it at that and fair's fair.

But in future...well, you know what I mean.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...