Log in

No account? Create an account

Eagle Eye

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Amol Rajan: Cameron's Cuties vs Dave's Divas

Posted by Eagle Eye
  • Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 12:20 pm
The Mail takes a dislike to all-women shortlists in its second leader this morning. Andy McSmith's explainer in our paper is an excellent, historically informed account of how we got to where we are on the vexed subject.

My chief interest lies slightly elsewhere.  Clearly the most important question is how we should describe the Tory version of 'Blair's Babes'.  The aim, of course, should be to combine alliteration, affection, and a resistance to misogyny.

'Blair's Babes' is rather patronising, suggesting their attractiveness was their principal asset.  'Cameron's Cuties', which the Mail plumps for, is similarly chauvinistic and faux-superior.

'Dave's Divas' isn't much better. But it does move the emphasis slightly, from focusing on the relative attractiveness of incoming female Tory MPs to focusing on their relative operatic ability.  And, though the word has lately come to imply a tendency toward hysteria ("Stop being such a diva", etc), it's originates from the Latin for goddess, feminine of 'divus', meaning God.

And there's a better rhythym to 'Dave's Divas': it's one-two, one-two, rather than one-two-three, one-two, like 'Cameron's Cuties'. And it's doubly alliterative: there is are two d's and two v's.

On both moral and literary grounds, then, 'Dave's divas' it is.


The Mathew Horne Appreciation Society - inaugural meeting.
ron_broxted wrote:
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 02:46 pm (UTC)
What is it with "Eagle Eye"? All over "Independent Minds". You lot are staffers, what of bloggers? Is I.M going belly up? There is too much free speech here if you ask me...