His article has a fundamental contradiction at the beginning too, when he actually says that men cannot be trusted. However, the thing that got me the most was with how he believed that Harriet Harman's proposals were about the "womanliest women available" getting the top jobs, which he believes Jordan epitomises. However, this is his own sexual conception, as Harman was arguing in terms of women's talent, not in terms of what women look like. Therefore, in other words, Opik believes that someone who sticks plastic in her boobs and runs as a contender in the 2001 General Election promising women free breast implants and more nudist beaches is someone who would constitute as being the top woman for a top job. A flawed conception of providing women more rights, if I do say so myself.
Criticising Harman for outlining credible ways of promoting women, Lembik Opic reinforces the male dominated culture of politics. He does rightly (except the derogatory use of the word 'lasses')say that
"Lots of lasses in Parliament are qualified to do these jobs and their talent should be recognised"But the fundamental issue is that he has missed the whole point. Harman stated this quite clearly, that there are a lot of talented women in Parliament, but they are often overlooked. Opic basically says that if women had big boobs and were super models they would stand a better chance in politics. He has the wrong conception of talent, and what being a woman is.
Quite rightly the opposition have picked up on the story, with Henry Macrory, the Head of Press at the Conservative Party saying on Twitter:
"Massive snub to Huhne...Lembit Opik calls on Jordan to be made Home Secretary in his Daily Sport column today!"And this all comes in the same week that the Lib Dem's made some progress in terms of tackling airbrushed images of women, which I commented on in a previous blog.
It makes you think there might be some hint of truth in his claims for Jordon to be the new Home Secretary, so watch out Jordan, be aware Katie Green...