15/10/2012 Newsnight


The Scottish referendum deal is signed and the two sides square up. What does processed food do to your brain? And what's the point of men? With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Today, the 300-year union between England and Scotland was put on


notice. Alex Salmond has got his referendum.


And now the battle has commenced over everything from the economy to


killing off Trident. As Mr Cameron leaves Scotland, the


question is, is the union safer or more in jeopardy?


We will hear from Scotland's leading "yes" woman, and Alistair


Darling, the man who says "no". You are what you eat, but do you


know what you are eating and what it does to your body and your brain.


Shrimp scampi for you, smell that garlic. While scientists begin to


look at how addictive food is. The lawyers are chasing big food for


billions. These companies will be forced to obey the law and be


forced to pay a lot of money, and they have brought it on themselves.


Is it game over for men, a sensational new book claims the


global recession is ushering in a matriarchy, not so says Mary Beard,


as she takes on the author of The End of Men.


Good evening, signed, sealed and delivered. At least Alex Salmond


and David Cameron have agreed there will be a legally binding


referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, even if that's all they


agree on. Less than 20 years after the referendum, which established a


Scottish Parliament, voters in Scotland, including 16 and 17-year-


olds, are going to vote on going all the way. The serried ranks,


some would say the unholy alliance of Labour, Conservative and Liberal


Democrats, are going to battle for the union, that has been in place


since 1707. We witnessed the historic deal between the Prime


Minister and the First Minister in the Scottish capital, and joins us


there from now. Kirsty, it's not often that


politicians can legitimately claim that in the course of their day's


work they have done something that could echo down the centuries. But


here in Edinburgh today, two leaders have met, they have shaken


hands, and they have agreed to do something. They have agreed to take


a gamble, that they are right, and the other man is wrong. For Alex


Salmond, the gamble is simple, for the last decade or so, the


electoral success of the SNP, and it has been successful, they have a


majority in the Scottish Parliament, has been to say to the largely


independent, sceptical Scottish public, don't worry, if you don't


agree with us on this, we can park this issue and decide another day.


That day is coming, it will be in the autumn of 2014. He is about to


define himself, he is defining himself on the other side of public


opinion, from the vast, or at least the majority, of the Scottish


public. For David Cameron, it is a gamble as well. He's saying that,


although he cares passionately about the future of the union, it's


probably more dangerous for him, in the course of that union's future,


to stand against a referendum. He has done everything he can today,


even going along with, what he would probably regard, as some


grandise choreography, to prevent - - grandiose choreography, to


prevent the Scottish showing him as a great English story for the date


with destiny. Two men take a gamble, and we won't know who it is for two


years. For a potentially momentous day in


Scottish history, the First Minister, at least, it started on a


microscale, reading to little children. But the text was, well,


apt enough. For those not familiar with the excellent We're Going On A


Bear Hunt, it is a tale of perseverence, of overcoming


seemingly insurmountable obstacles, bay facing them head on. -- by


facing them head on. "mud, boozing mud, we can't go over it, we can't


go under it, no, we have to go through the mud". Through all sorts


of political mud, Alex Salmond has squelched his way through to a


referendum. Not everyone thought he had the legal right to call one.


But today came the might of the Government of David Cameron who


lend him that right to have one, in return for certain conditions. If


this reminds you of a state visit, you might think that is one of Alex


Salmond's objectives, to show, with the choreography of this event,


that the Prime Minister visiting parts of the UK, is actually coming


to an already independent-minded country. Are you ready. OK.


signing had the appearance of an international treaty, which David


Cameron clearly won hands down. If If the objective was, who could


sign fastest. In terms of the agreement itself, a winner is


harder to call. Alex Salmond certainly got what he wanted in


terms of timing, the autumn of 2014, not only the anniversary of


Bannockburn, but also, it gives him more time to try to turn around


public opinion. He also got 16 and 17-year-olds eligible to vote. More


likely, some say, to vote for independence. And what did David


Cameron get? His big prize was, limiting the referendum to a single


question, independence, yes or not. No third option that the SNP wanted,


no option for Devo Max. We got what I have always wanted, not two


single questions, not Devo Max, a very simple single question that


has to be put before the end of 2014, so we end the uncertainty, we


put beyond doubt Scotland's position, either within the United


Kingdom, as I hope, or separating theself from the United Kingdom.


One, single, simple question, that, for me, was always the key. Don't


expect David Cameron to be making too many visits to Scotland to make


the case for the union. Before fearless Felix stepped out


of his balloon capsule, the previous free fall record was held


by the Scottish Conservative Party. They haven't fully emerged from the


sizeable impact crater they have made. Don't expect them to be


leading the way for the union in Scottened la, instead, expect


Labour to do much of the -- Scotland, instead, expect Labour to


do much of the heavy lifting. To have people like David Cameron,


very ideaable with England, talking about the advantages of being in


the union, is that actually damaging to your cause? No, I don't


think so. I think he's quite comfortable in St Andrew's House,


because the affectionate name for the SNP is, "the tartan Tories", he


will find fellow travellers there. The question of whether we remain


in the union, transcends political parties. It is about what's good


for the people of the country. You will find people come together,


from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, those in a party, those not even


aligned at all, because they care about the future of Scotland.


If you are Alex Salmond, how do you claim to have won the negotiations


game, set and match, without appearing smug? Well, off the cuff,


entirely unscripted, you could say, something like this. I used to have


in my notes, which no doubt came from the special advisers, it says,


"do not look triumphalists", so in this press conference, I'm doing my


absolute best not to look triumphalist! At his press


conference, the First Minister tried to he can sued the air of a


man who had -- he can sued the air of a man who dexude the air of a


man who had everything he wanted. In Edinburgh they will everything


they wanted, that will be built on behalf of the Scottish people. That


is the substantial and important step forward, do I believe that


independence will win this campaign? Yes, I do. We will win it


by setting out a positive vision for a better future for our country,


economically, and crucially, socially. It is that vision of That


is a vision of a compassionate and confident society moving forward in


Scotland that will carry away. What he hasn't won -- Carry the day.


What he hasn't won yet is the referendum itself. And the polls


suggest now he won't. The majority in Scotland are opposed, only 28%


are in favour. But with two years left to go, perhaps he still has


time to squelch through that obstacle as well.


In a moment we will hear from a leading figure of the "no" campaign,


Alistair Darling. Before coming on air, I spoke to the Deputy First


Minister of Scotland, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon.


Nicola Sturgeon, consistently polling shows 2-1 against


independence, isn't this going to be like pushing a boulder up a


giant mountain? It is a challenge, I readily accept that. But it is a


challenge we relish. You will remember, Kirsty, back in January


of 2011, the SNP was ten fifteen points back in the opinion polls,


people wrote us off and we won a majority in the election. If we put


the argument for independence as effectively and compellingly as we


know it can be put, I'm confident we can turn the polls around and


win the referendum. Let as talk about the economy, that is


obviously uppermost in people's minds, you want to stick to


sterling, what control will you have over the sterling, except to


leave it? We will have fiscal independence, we don't that have


that now. You will be like Greece and Slovenia, and what have you?


The comparisons with Greece and Slovenia are not particularly


credible comparisons. Scotland and the rest of the UK have similar


levels of productivity, it is described as an optimal currency


area, it makes sense for Scotland and the rest of the UK to retain


that currency union. We would have fiscal independence to take


decisions about tax and spending, that best reflect our needs in


Scotland. Who will set the interest rates in Scotland? As is case at


the moment, that would be done through the Bank of England.


the benefit of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, primarily? That


would be done for the benefit of the constituent parts of the stairl


sterling parts owing. What we would have that we don't have now, is


fiscal independence, it would allow us to ensure we have tax and


spending controls for our needs, and control over the welfare system.


Right now we see a Conservative Government dismantling the welfare


state, independence would allow a welfare system that suits our needs.


You are heavily dependant on oil revenues, in our new system, you


don't know what percentage of revenues you are going to get. You


don't know what the price will be, you haven't even done that


negotiation, how can you promise Scottish people more? But you look


at the Government extendure and -- expenditure and revenue account,


published independently by Government economist, the most


recent version of that, the 2010 will be 11 figures, shows Scotland


was better off d2010/1 figures, shows Scotland better off to the


rest of England. If we were independent then, we could have


choices we could have made. We could have spent more and reduced


borrowing more, and cut taxes or a bomb nation of all of these things.


Scotland more than pays her way. The question is, do we want to have


the economic and political powers that allow us to take the decisions


about how those resources are spent. Both you and Alex Salmond are very


keen to say that you admire the cultural ties you have with England


and so forth. How much do you think has Scotland


gained from the union? I think Scotland has gained in some ways


from the union, but I do think the lack of political and economic


powers outweighs. That I want Scotland to have a close and


constructive and friendly relationship with people right


across these islands. I'm the granddaughter of an English woman,


I cheered Mo Farah in the Olympics, as loudly as Andy Murray. We're not


asking people to choose a flag or a national identity, we are asking


people to consider where political and economic power best lies.


Surely the people that are best placed to take these big decisions


of Scotland, are the people who have the biggest stake in the


future of our country. The people who live and work here. That is the


essence for the case for independence. When we put it like


that, and when people realising those arguing for the "no" vote are


offering no guaranteed change. You will then see the opinion polls


change. Alistair Darling is, of course, the


former Chancellor, he's acting as the chair of the Berry -- Better


Together Campaign. Does it feel right to be in cahoots with a party


that has one MP out of 129? disagree with David Cameron and


George Osborne and Nick Clegg on many issues, that doesn't stop me


from choose to go share a platform with other people who believe we


are better off together within the United Kingdom. It doesn't mean you


agree with all their policies. We are not talking here about electing


a parliament for five years, or whatever. You are talking about


something that could last another 300 years. I think most people, the


majority of people in Scotland believe that we are better together


as part of the UK. This is all a bit rich, for people like you and


Gordon Brown, and Charlie Kennedy, had decided to eschew Westminster


and gone to parliament in Edinburgh, the idea is we wouldn't have been


in this position, because you would have lent your weight to


devolution? The fact is the Scottish Parliament wasn't there


when we stood for election. It wasn't until 1997 when it was set


up. You could have absented yourself? It could have done,


except I chose to remain in Westminster. Because it was better?


No, because if you take the economy, I was responsible for many things


that affect Scotland. That doesn't get away from the fact that the


nationalists, who won the Scottish election last year, are entitled,


because this is what they believe in, to put before people, the


option of leaving the United Kingdom. I think that is profoundly


wrong. Which is why I'm leading thism ka pain. Its not about me or


-- this campaign, it is not about me or Gordon or Charlie, this will


be something that will be there long after we are going down.


are leading a negative "no" campaign? It is called Better


Together. It is the "no" campaign. You want to characterise it like


that. No to independence? We are better together as the United


Kingdom, because we have a single economic market, most of what we


sell goes to England. It also, because it builds on the strong


cultural ties we have. And a third part, it gives us more influence,


not just in Europe, but the wider world. Just as Andrew Mitchell


finds it hard to say the word "pleb" you find it hard to say "no",


you are leading the "no" to independence campaign?


emphatically against independence, I'm very much in favour of staying


in the United Kingdom, because I believe as a country, as Scotland,


we don't have to choose between being Scottish and British, we can


be proud to be both, it is in the best interests of Scotland in terms


of jobs and security, as well as recognising that the United Kingdom


is more than the sum of the parts. We can be ambitious about our


prospects for the future, as part of the United Kingdom. You have put


out as the leading face for the "no" campaign against Alex Salmond,


are you a better politician or he better as a politician than you?


is not that question. He believes in taking Scotland out of the


United Kingdom. I believe Scotland is better together as part of the


United Kingdom, and that is the basis of a campaign. He has won an


election, straight in Scotland? is interesting, a lot of the polls


that have been carried out, people say, yes, for the Government of


Scotland, they voted for him, but nearly a third of SNP voters, last


time round, said they are not going to vote for independence. People


vote given ways at different times. This isn't an argument about which


politician is better than another. It might come down to that? No, it


doesn't. People in Scotland will have to decide whether or not they


and their country are better together as part of the UK, with


all the strengths, all the traditions that builds on, or


whether we take what is in effect a one-way ticket into a deeply


uncertain future. Would you live in an independent Scotland? Of course


I will carry on living in Scotland. My argument isn't that Scotland


couldn't go it alone. And indeed, Nicola Sturgeon was quoting figures


there, plucking one set of figuring out of a series of 20, many of


which show the complete oppositement when you look at the


problems you are going to have in entering into a eurozone-style


single currency, you have to enter into a fiscal pact that doesn't


allow different countries to go their own way. It rather binds them


together. And ultimately it ends up in political union. When you look


at the arguments the nationalists are putting forward, it makes no


sense at all. They are trying to argue that everything will change,


but nothing will change. The next time you buy packaged food,


peer at the ingredient, all of them, and try to work out what they all


are. Chances are if it is processed you won't be able to figure out


exactly what you are eating, and so concerned are health specialists


and campaigners about the sometimes horrible stuff you unknowingly put


in your mouth, and the health implications, diep II diabetes,


that American lawyers are prepared to go after billions of dollars.


They have had a huge victory before. In the first of a series of films


this week about what we eat, here is our science editor.


# It's just a cigarette # It will soon be only ten


# Honey can you trust me # When I want to stop I can


Cutting smoking was one of the great public health battles of the


last century. At first, the idea that cigarettes


were bad for you, was dismissed, out of hand.


By the end, the toe bab co- companies admitted, in court, that


smoking was -- to be back co- companies admitted, in court, that


smoking was harmful, and they agreed to pay substantial damages.


The to be back co-lawsuits hit those companies -- tobacco lawsuits


hit those companies hard, over �$2 billion. Now the food industry is


facing the same argument. Some food producers survive on a business


model that means exploiting children from a young age, and


having foods high in sugar, fat and salt, because people consume those


things, it is labelling things in questionable questions. The food


companies have mis-branded many, many of the packaged foods that


they sell as healthy, and natural. Also as sugar-free. You can't say


it is all natural when it is choc full of preservatives. They are


lying about it, and they have to stop. Don Barrett led the fight


against big tobacco, he worked on the Jeffrey Wigand case, the


whistleblower who told all. movie was spot on with what


happened. I have this vivid rex collections that The Insider we


flipped in parliament who testified for us at great personal risk.


Jail? Possible, yes, that is one of the possible consequences of your


testifying today. I remember him, as he made his decision, and it was


fascinating to watch Russell Crowe do the same thing. Let's go to


court. Now Barrett and many of those lawyers are turning their


guns on big food. The case against the food companies is simple, that


they are not being honest about what's in their product. They have


a right to know, and that's what our litigation is about. It's about


freedom of choice, and to have free choice, you have to have accurate


information, what that means is, that the big food, the food


companies have to start telling the truth about what is in their


products. The law requires it. years ago, Mr Barrett began his


campaign against big tobacco here in Lexington Mississippi. Since


then the number of obese Americans have doubled, the ballooning


medical costs already rival those of smoking. What is in our food is


becoming the public health battle of this century. And labelling is


the first battleground. One lawsuit concerns a yoghurt maker, Chobani.


You look for sugar, because you don't want any, there is none there.


They do have evaporated cane juice, that sounds, sort of vague, and


some how healthy, and natural. Evaporated cane juice, if you live


in southern Louisiana, in Cuba, you understand what that is, that is


sugar. The law says, you have to call ingredients by their common,


ordinary name, calling sugar evaporated cane juice is deceptive,


it is a lie, it is illegal. Chobani told us they have built


their business on being authentic and transparent, and they fully


stand behind their products. Don Barrett is suing the makers of over


20 item, including fruit juices, crisps, soft drinks, chocolate,


tinned tomatos, canned fruits, baby milk and tea. Under federal law, if


a product is mis-branded, it cannot be sold. There is a four-year


statute of limitations, the damage in these cases, is how much have


they sold of this mis-branded junk in the last four years. One of the


potato chip companies we are suing, you know, sells $13 billion worth


of product a year. My goodness. are seeing the beginning of what


could be a much larger set of legal actions taken against the food


industry. This is one of the world's leading experts on obesity


and public health. He thinks the industry will fight as hard as


tobacco did, to keep its business model intact. The industry in the


United States and elsewhere in the world has been happy to make some


small changes, but when it comes to taxing their products, they have


gone completely ballistic. When it comes to restricting portion sizes,


they have done the same thing. They are doing lots of the things the


tobacco industry did to fight these massive lobbying. Resources put


into political campaigns, heavy public relations and advertising


campaigns they are running. Creating fun groups with community,


wholesome-sounding names. Researchers here at Yale are


looking much more closely at the links between processed food and


diet-related illness. They are increasingly convinced


that it is the particular combination of sugar, fat and salt,


and its concentration in refined form, that leads us to want to eat


more. Lawyers talk about informed choice. But scientists are asking


whether some have the ability to choose at all.


It is pretty year that some foods, sugar in particular, activate the


same reward pathways in the brain, the classic substances of abuse,


still, heroin, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, et cetera. Nobody claims


that food has that strong of an effect, as those classic substances,


but in effect, nonetheless, -- an effect, nonetheless. There are


signs from animal and human studies that you get cravings from these


foods, you get withdrawal when people stop consuming them. There


might even been be something called toll reign, that you need more of


the same substance over time -- tolerance, that you need more of


the same substance over time to get the same effect. Why does


scientific research tell us about how what we eat is affecting our


bodies. Here at the National laboratory in Long Island, they are


looking at the effect of diet on our brains. It is an early area of


research, but it could push the whole debate in another direction.


This is one of the US Government's leading addiction labs. I have


shrimp, scampi for you, smell that garlic and the shrimp. Researchers


allow subjects to see, smell and taste foods they like, and monitor


how vigorously their brain responds. By measuring how much dop dopamine


is released. Dopamine is one of the brain's messenger, it helps us


engage in rewarding exercises. Addicts are addicted to the


dopamine, rather than the drug. you feel hungry now, give me a


number, one to ten? Nine. They say people who are very obese, are less


able to pick up their own dopamine signal, so need more of what makes


them feel good. I'm starving. me a number, one to 10. I'm passed


the ten, 14. Some people who crave food or drugs, want more and more,


because they are never satisfied. Taste that banana cream pie, isn't


that good, OK that's it. We found that the obese person, their brain


dopamine receptor imaging, very similar to drug abuser, such as


cocaine abuser. The higher rate means the higher activity, the one


in the blue means a low activity. Dr Wang's scans shows the brain's


dopamine response to food in obese people and cocaine in drug users,


the parallels are striking. So that means also they have roughly around


15-20% of the less dopamine receptor, we can see these are very


similar between the obese person and the drug abuser. And though it


is early days, there is evidence that the brains of some people


might be changed over time, if they eat calorie-dense food. The more


you need processed food, the brain gradually is less sense yif to each


mouthful and you have to -- sensitive to each mouthful and you


have to eat more and more. I would be surprised if this doesn't enter


the legal picture. Whether that is premature or not, those will be


decisions a court will have to make. Is the science strong enough, have


we really proven these are addictive. But the science is


building and building. So far the food debate has centered


on content and labelling. The food industry argues such things are


best left to theself. But many believe that self-regulation can't


work. They, like any industry, want to maximise consumption and


purchase of their products. Hard to blame them for that, that is what


they are in business to do, so expecting and hoping industry will


effectively regulate theself, is just wishful thinking, I believe. -


- themselves, is just wishful thinking, I believe. That is why I


believe you have to have Government or the courts involved. There is


one thing that corporate America pays attention to. And that's


getting hit in the pocket book, it is all about profit. And if only


when you affect their -- effect their profit will you affect their


behaviour. We intend to do that. # It is just a cigarette


# Like you always used to do # I was different then


# I don't need them to be cool Big food knows what happens in


individual lawsuits can radically affect all of their brands.


The tobacco lawsuits led to rapid and lasting change in attitudes to


cigarettes, how they were marketed, labelled and regulated. The food


companies will be watching Don Barrett's cases closely.


Joining me now from Washington is Justin Wilson of the Center for


Consumer Freedom, and here in the studio is a cardiologist, who has


been outspoken on obesity. Do you agree with the thesis that


essentially unhealthy junk food is addictive? As your report has shown,


I think that there is definitely a science that suggests sugar in


particular, is not only toxic, but acts on a brain that drives


appetite, and stops us from feeling full. Whether that's objective, we


need more data on that, certainly there is a theory this could be


true. And when you look at some of the patients that you see, and you


obviously see clinically obese people, but you see people with


heart problems, who are not obese, is there a co-relation between


their lifestyle, in terms of the food they eat, and how they are


presenting to you? Absolutely. Let's look at the statistics at the


moment, even for children, in this country one in three children in


this country are overweight or he obese. More recently, we also


discovered that there are markers of cardiac disease in country,


there was a study showing children with markers of high cholesterol


and issues with the heart, that is related to diet. If the food


companies won't regulate themselves, is there a need for some form of


regulation about the content of food? Let's be clear the debate


about food addiction is ridiculous. We are addicted to food, it is


clear, it is called hunger, if you try to go cold turkey, good luck,


you won't survive it. If salt and sugar were addictive substances,


that would make my grandmother a big drug dealer with the cookies


she used to make. I reject this notion fully, that Americans cannot


tell the difference between a banana and a banana split. If


someone is saying we need to sue a crisp manufacturer for making


something that people thought was healthy, come on, people know


potato chips shouldn't be enjoyed in large quantities. We are missing


the point. I'm not at all. What people choose to eat is determined


more by the promotional information put on the products, not objective


information about the nutritional content. We know there are cereals


out there, marketed as being full of vitamin, they are loaded with


sugar and salt. This is not allowing people to make informed


decision. These words, "evaporated cane juice", why not call it sugar,


"evaporated cane juice" sounds like something special. That argument,


one I have been following closely I think it represents 1%, and it is a


problem. Do you know who doesn't make a claim about their food, ice-


cream manufacturers, there is not a label on the front of ice-cream


that says the calcium in this milk makes your bones strong. Nobody


makes those claims about the vast majority of foods being claimed


unhealthy. That is not the problem here. Fundamentally, I don't


understand at what point we decided it was OK for the Government to


decide how much we are allowed to weigh. That is not a point, I don't


think, that the Government should have to make. Even though it has an


impact on the healthcare system? have two different healthcare


system,ly speak to everyone. In the UK everyone pays for each other's


bad behaviour, but obesity is only one of many bad behaviours that


contribute to rising healthcare costs. Why is it the one that we


seem to be allowing to regulate it. I have talked to a lot of people,


you have a lot of people looking down their nose at people who are


overweight, saying they know what is best for you, and protect you


from yourself, it is paternalistic. You were behind one of the moves


against the supermarkets that didn't go on, would that have


helped? There is strong evidence that suggest traffic light systems


makes it easier for people to know what they are eating and


encouraging healthy choice. If we have a traffic light system that


displays the levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat in foods, it will


encourage the food companies to reformulate their products and make


them healthy. Wouldn't that be a positive way forward? The traffic


light system, to a certain extent we already have it. It seems we are


trying to force more and more manufacturing, we have a good


balance. If you want to know what is in your food, it is on the back.


Its clear, whether in the United States or Europe or anywhere else.


At the same time, we live in culture of warning labels and


lawsuits, we are going to get to a point where we have to put a little


bit of responsibility on the consumer. Like I said before, it


doesn't like a PhD in nutrition to tell the difference between a


banana and a banana split F someone is trying to eek out a calorie or


two savings, they are not trying to lose weight. What we are losing


track of, we are not trying to encourage people to lose weight


with the policies. The stream of allegations of child


sex abuse by Jimmy Savile continues on an almost daily basis. The BBC


has ordered three separate independent investigations into


claims thatm so of the assaults took place on its premises. Tonight


the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said there should be a public


inquiry carried out by an outside body. I think we need a broader


look at the public institutions, the BBC, some parts of the NHS,


potentially. Broadmoor. A judicial inquiry? I'm still open-minded


about how it is done, it has to be independent. I don't think you can


have the BBC board, I'm great supporter of the BBc but I don't


think you can have the BBC board leading its own inquiry. Do you


this this is a surprising intervention by Ed Miliband,


everyone else has piled in? There are many reasons, and I will go


through them. He interferes in those situations, after the Milly


Dowler inquiry he piled in. It is because he has a theory about


British society right now, which is establishments are crumbling,


exactly the thing in the spotlight with the BBC investigation, the


1970s, that period where you had an establishment and people wouldn't


say boo to a goose, and people are coming out and doing. That he wants


to support that. The other problem for that is the BBC, it relies on


trust, the number of inquiries, the one inquiry on the Thursday, two


inquiries being announced on the Friday. It didn't inspire much


confidence in many people in parliament. Does the pressure on


the BBC continue? It does, today George Entwistle, the director-


general, has said he will bring forward his appearance in front of


an MPs' committee to October 23rd, he will have to have more rigorous


answers than he had when he appeared on Friday. Many people


weren't impressed with that appearance.


Imagine the scene, the recession hits, and suddenly it's the rise of


the valkaries, scattering all the hunter gatherers in their wake. The


women have been able to take the circumstances in their stride, they


thrive while men shrivel and quake, unable to adapt. That is the thesis,


in a nutshell, of Hanna Rosin's new book, The End of Men. In a molt I


will be talking to the author, and the historian, Mary Beard, who


disagrees we are becoming a matriarchal society. First a man


comfortable in his skin. Stephen Smith. Our island story was once


about the great man theory of history, Cromwell, Nelson,


Churchill Thatch...you get the idea. In the work place, the man was top


dog, earning big wages in traditional metal-bashing


industries. It was tough to get a look in as a


woman. An ordinary dinner party. I wonder


if the Government should return to the gold standard? I think it


should. I think the Government should stay off the gold standard,


so that the pound can reach a level that will keep our exports


competitive. The lady has foolishly attempted to join the conversation,


with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own, what half baked drivel.


Women, know your limits. But now look, men are in turn


around, the Hary Bikers are on a diet. What about Aussie sports


legend, Shane Warne, whisper it, he uses product.


Never mind the great man of history, men are history, period, or so says


a new book. In China women own more than 40% of businesses. By 2008,


working-class women in America had a higher median income than the men.


And the number of women with six- figure incomes is rising at a much


faster rate than it is for men. In the shadow of West Ham United's


ground in East London, we called in at a Working Men's Club to discuss


Hanna Rosin's book. These fans of the Irons, turned out to be dab


hands at pressing their shirts. Are you pretty tastey with an iron?


pretty good. Did you do that? Nice piece of work, if I may say so.


You can say it. All the industry around here is finished, the docks


all closed down. Do you think, that look like the book for me? No. It


just doesn't seem my type of book. A bit heavy? Probably very heavy, I


should think. To go through this, I would probably get a little bit,


you know, here we go! Journalist, Nicholas Lezzard, has written about


the trials of modern manhood, are we washed up? I like to think I'm


still good for getting a spider out of the bath, changing a lightbulb


or blown fuse. That is where you come into your own? Absolutely,


yeah. Real crises like that! Never mind being sacked and not having


any money, this is where the real stuff is. I still class myself as


the master of my house. I don't class myself as demeaning myself by


doing tasks. I'm helping my wife out, because my wife is going to


work and being the bread winner, basically. What will your missus


say when she watches this tonight, if she does, what will she say?


Superstar! No, she'll just probably have a chuckle to herself, I should


think. I'm joined by the author of The End


of Men, Hanna Rosin, and the Cambridge professor, Mary Beard.


You are suggesting there is no way back from this, Industrial Society


has changed, and men as hunter gatherers is doomed? It is about


women adapting to the new economy and men having a harder time doing


that. It is getting the degrees and credentials they need, and men are


stuck. Men are rabbits in the headlights and women are already


there, because they have had so many jobs in the house? It is also


because they have been marginalised, they are like immigrants, they


hustle and feel like they get paid less than men, they are working


twice as hard, and afraid to fall through the cracks. I think Hanna,


in a funny way, are on the same side. We both think things are


changing. If things weren't changing for women, the feminist


movement would have done a really bad over the last 50 years. Things


are getting better, that is absolutely true. Look at women on


the boardrooms and executive positions, they are in a vast


minority? I think it is great book, which proves the opposite case for


what it has claimed. The The type says that the age of testosterone


is decisively over. Well, maybe I just mixed in the wrong circle, but


it is not decisively over in my university, it is not decisively


over in most work places. We see horrible examples every day, in


fact, in the way the day of testosterone is still alive and


well. Hanna's point is women necessarily doing things in a


different way are picking up the testosterone themselves? You can


have a huge amount of social upheaval and things look the same


at the top. People say look at the corporate boards. I travel my


country and it is a world turned upside down. In very conservative


places where people are not feminist, you have a large number


of women supporting their families, not because they are feminists,


because they have to. I think what you are suggesting in the book, far


from being an asset is the man who irons their shirts, men are just a


burden in the house? That is what I think, rather brilliantly proven


time and again in the book. You get these awful slobs who are


exploiting, yet again, the female of the species. I think it is easy


enough to cite statistics, and say, look, men's unemployment has risen


faster than women'sen employment in the recession. In some ways that's


true, but it always negligents the way that -- neglects wait that


women are always in the disadvantaged careers. Would you


say that through history? They are working part-time, women have


always been in those professions that are undervalued, easy to


ignore, easy to cut. We can say, these poor old working-class.


about the real matriarchyy? It is patriarchy's myth. Every patriarchy


has always said, do you know what men, the one thing to fear is


matriarchy, most of all, they say once spon a time women ruled the


world and made a fright -- once upon a time women ruled the world


and made a frightful mess of it. Now they pick up on Hanna and say,


women are about to rule the world. That is an eccentric definition of


matriarchy, you have large swathes of society where where the women


are raising the children and earning the money. I don't think it


is a good thing, it is not that pleasant, it means that the women


are doing everything and the men are dropping out and not being


fathers. There is a chapter in the book with the see-saw partnership,


and the see-saw marriage, a 20th century thing, at different times


the men are the bread winners and then the women. The Obamas have had


that marriage, she was a healthcare executive when she was at law


school and then they switched place. Is that a professional thing?


is a professional thing. I divide the book between elite college-


educated marriages and everyone else's marriages. It is not a


triumphalist feminist book, most of it is not good. The poor old woman


who falls asleep between floor one and floor four in the book because


she was so knackered. Likewise the 40% of the women working in this


country are working in low-paid, part-time jobs, they are supporting


their families. 20% of families are, and it is thankless. And you know,


there might be a certain definition on, which we might call that


matriarchy, it is not the definition that makes any sense to


me. Who said it was a utopian dream, it just means a sense of control


and lack of dependance, that is the big historical shift, women were


once dependant on men, now if the men drop out, the women by


necessity are independent. What should happen, then, in the rust


belt where women are picking up and taking menial jobs, the husbands,


having been these big welders, won't do, there will have to be an


evolution of these men? Yes, I don't think they are genetically


incapable of evolving, there have been many periods in history, after


World War II, when the Americans men came back, they went to school,


there was the GI belt, it wasn't like they were incapable, they are,


it just isn't now. Women are going into things like nursing, in ever-


larger numbers, the only trouble is, they are squeezing the women out.


Thank you very much. I'm sure we will talk about this long after we


come off air. That is it from us in our new home in Broadcasting House.


From all of us, a very good night. From all of us, a very good night.


I will be back tomorrow night. On the anniversary of a great storm


of 1987, I'm not expecting a repeat performance. It will stay pretty


damp across parts of zone Scotland on the far north of England


throughout much of the way. Elsewhere sunshine, it will be very


windy for a time across parts of the Midlands and central England.


Lots of sunshine across the south, temperatures not doing too badly,


14-15 grease, the odd rogue shower, dry nearly everywhere, it would


have been a very windy start to the day across a good part of Wales.


The strongest of the wind will tend to subside later on. It will keep a


lot of sunshine going, the odd dot of blue, a few isolated showers.


Northern Ireland, after a damp start, things should dry out to


some extent, keeping cloud here. Disappointing low cool. It will be


a chilly day across Scotland, despite a frosty start.


Temperatures not getting high, bleak and damp across Scotland.


Further ahead into Wednesday, the weather will not be settling down.


More wind and rain spreading across many parts of the UK, from south to


north, following in southern areas by something brighter, even then


Download Subtitles