O'Reilly's partial win

The judges' ruling in O'Reilly's case is a perfect example of the glacial pace of change in social attitudes. So they "do not accept that this particular decision [by the BBC to sack O'Reilly because of her age] involved combined age and sex discrimination" although they have agreed that it did involve age discrimination and victimisation. Is it a professional requirement for judges, as well as Justice, to be blind? This would explain their failure to note the disparities of age between male and female presenters on TV, admirably spelt out by Kira Cochrane in today's Guardian. I'm sorry to note though that every single one of the older female presenters illustrated on the second page of her article (mostly from the US) do not have grey hair. Are they all naturally dark-haired or blonde? And is O'Reilly really naturally dark-haired? I'll know things are really changing when I see a grey-haired female presenter on prime time TV.

But Cochrane's focus on the media ignores the discrimination that most of us older women face frequently. I last discussed this (in relation to the BBC, as it happens) on 31st December 2009 (see my blog for that date, "Looking your Age") and nothing much has changed since then, though it'll be interesting to see whether the BBC now finally bites the bullet and applies equal opportunities in its employment of male and female presenters.

But it's not just looks. Whether or not I actually am habitually aggressive and nasty to people (I don't think so: I'd prefer "assertive") I do know that the men (not that many, thank goodness) who have shown unprovoked aggressiveness and nastiness to me and others - and I'm talking about professional contexts here, not the street - have not been constantly nagged and ticked off by their bosses for inappropriate behaviour. You can be "assertive and outspoken" if you're, say, Pete Buckingham or Alastair Campbell, but women who would like to be genuinely assertive and outspoken risk being termed aggressive and shrewish.