Political correctness can go one step too far

On Thursday last week, amidst the usual political intrigue and gloomy economic forecasts, a tiny slither of news escaped Parliament, and also perhaps your attention.

The interesting tid-bit features a beer called ‘Top Totty’ and a female politician who would never be described as such. It was announced that the beer would be withdrawn from Parliamentary bars because a picture of a woman wearing a bikini adorns the tap. For most of you, an explanation for this prohibition is superfluous – it is abundantly clear that such a picture is both hugely offensive and utterly demeaning, a disgusting relic of a bygone age in which sexism was inherently acceptable.

Oh no, wait. What is that you are saying? You are not offended by a picture of a woman in a bikini? Well, obviously such a picture displays women as a sex object, an invitation for sleazy older men (or ‘Tory Politicians’ – the two terms can be used interchangeably) to leer and slobber over. And the name of the beverage is distasteful, as ‘totty’ again suggests women are merely objects designed to arouse male attention, and their over-riding characteristic is to be physically attractive i.e. ‘top totty’.

Wait. Nonsense again. The picture is not a photograph, nor is it based on anyone in particular. It is essentially a cartoon woman in a white bikini. Seeing as the UK does not adhere to strict Sharia law, an image of a woman’s body cannot really be deemed shocking or offensive. And the name. The only way ‘Top Totty’ could perhaps offend women is if it was shouted by a builder and accompanied with a wolf-whistle and an uncomfortably loud ‘I’d leave her looking like a painter’s radio’. Unequivocally, in that context, the term is insulting.

But it is worth remembering we are talking about a beer, not an all-female government commission. If a little light-heartedness is barred from the pub, where on earth is it acceptable?

This latest travesty is yet another example of political correctness ‘over-protecting’ women. Late last year, a great deal of controversy surrounded the Sports Personality of the Year shortlist because not one woman featured on the list. Why? Because there was not one female British athlete that merited inclusion. There were no glaring omissions. If for example, in 2004, had double gold-medal winning runner Dame Kelly Holmes not been nominated, that would have been a clear example of anti-female bias. But, with all due respect, though women such as Rebecca Addlington and Beth Tweddle deserved consideration, their absence was hardly worthy of a public outcry.

Last weekend, the final of the Australian Open demonstrated another ludicrous over-interference of so-called gender equality. The parity of winnings for male and female competitors sounds reasonable, but in reality, it simply doesn’t work. Djokovic overpowered Nadal in a five-set thriller whilst Azarenka ambled to a 6-3 6-0 victory over Sharapova. (My colleague Isaac Leigh has written an article ‘Overpoliticizing pay in Tennis’ which explores this line of argument).

Finally, in October last year, Cameron was forced to apologise for telling female MPs to ‘calm down dear’. Now Mr Cameron has a lot to apologise for, but impersonating Michael Winner is not one of them. Had he told a male colleague to ‘keep your hair on, mate’ or indeed advised Clegg to ‘pipe down, you silly sausage’ would there have been such a fuss?
Clearly not.