Many thanks for your thoughtful and extremely informative response, which deserves an explanation as to where I am coming from. Mine is a classical liberal worldview that places a high premium on individual autonomy and self-worth. While an antipathy to the pervasive State is the traditional focus of this worldview, in societies such as Sri Lanka, it would extend to an opposition to socio-cultural practices, and religio-ethical and moral norms that undermine individual freedom. I believe that the emancipatory potential of both religion (within its limits) as well as pre-colonial morality (again within limits) has been subsumed under the late 19th Century dominant trope of revivalism, which although primarily an anti-colonial political project, nevertheless has deep moral and cultural implications (and therefore gender-related consequences) by virtue of its brutally majoritarian nature. This as we know is a continuing phenomenon, with a recently acquired new lease of life. I would therefore view such practices as illegitimate in the extreme where they serve to undermine the full realisation of potential and the self-worth of women.

However, the key here is that defeating this has to be undertaken through the liberal discourse of individualism, not through the collective language of group rights and affirmative action where the individual identity of a woman is subordinated to the greater interest of the group, even one formed for the utilitarian and just purpose of defeating a larger history and experience of oppression. Women are not some amorphous anthropological category negotiating rights in the abstract. They are individuals who are entitled to pursue the good life as INDIVIDUALS.

It should be added nevertheless, that I am not a libertarian fundamentalist who sees the free market as the universal equalising mechanism, once procedural equality is guaranteed through constitutionally protected fundamental rights and the Rule of Law. Thus I am willing to recognise the concern implicit in your comments, that something more by way of substantive equality is needed. In this respect, and some of the initiatives on gender inclusivity you have mentioned are to be entirely welcomed.

But my admonition here would be that we need to be very careful in conceptualising that substantive vision of both equality and participatory democracy, so as not to undermine the non-negotiable requirement of freedom, namely individual autonomy. If we get this wrong, then we have conceded the conceptual battleground to the phallocentric communitarianism that we are both trying to defeat, in my case in this respect, as a (male) feminist.

Finally, by way of explanation of my initially peremptory tone, it has been my experience (and I note that it has perhaps been your’s too) that women’s journalism in Sri Lanka is of generally poor quality, and certainly intellectually barren (with some very significant exceptions), never more so than in the annoyingly frequent blunder in engaging the imagery of gender stereotypes that can be expected of your common or garden misogynist. This is, to say the least, wholly unhelpful both in terms of constructing the intellectual case for complete and unequivocal gender equality as well as advocacy.

Can you tell me how journalists know “facts”? Do “facts” exist outside of subjective interpretation?

I agree with you that the simplistic assumption that women are by nature or nurture more sensitive is a typical fallacy that should be eschewed in favour of a more rigorous examination of women, gender and media.

The problem of gender equity, representation ad equality, however, is far from banal or non-existent – and I take it that you are not a media person or journalist. This is not about being politically expedient. It is about better and more professional journalism, by men and women, by recognising gender as a cross cutting issue that affects all reporting, and for a country like Sri Lanka, esp. issues like development and peace.

See as interesting interview here – http://www.nwmindia.org/Newsmakers/gloria_steinem.htm:

“There are a lot more women employed in the media as a result of the women’s movement, but rarely at decision-making levels. There’s no shortage of terrific writers, editors, journalists, and scholars who report women’s experiences — and thus present a more accurate story, whether it’s about local health or globalised labour — but they’re either in alternate media, or they’re fighting to get a story past a white male mainstream boss.

What some people mean by “feminisation” is that salaries go down once a category of work is about a third female. What others mean is that, say, Oprah has become successful by telling stories about real people. Since many men have been taught that real peoples’ stories are less important than statistics from the top, they resent this success and dismiss it as trivialising.

Currently, only about a third of news items — in print, broadcast, and Internet combined — cite any female source at all. After the terrorist attack of September 11th, the number of female authorities interviewed on US TV plummeted, even though the heads of all the relevant Congressional committees were women, and even though the only prosecutor to successfully prosecute a case of foreign terrorism in the U.S. was a woman. Instead, TV producers dug up retired generals who knew very little, all because terrorism is “hard news” and women are relegated to “soft news.” How gendered is that?!

Even now, the Sunday morning TV talk shows that set the political agenda have nine times more male guests than female guests. On newspaper op-ed pages, the usual rule is that one female writer and/or one writer of colour is enough. Women are fewer than 10 percent of board members of major media companies, and only 3 percent of so-called “clout” titles-positions with the power to set budgets and make news decisions.

Yes, we got as far as tokenism, but nothing much has changed for a decade. For example, it’s now okay to have a female “co-anchor” — a big change from the 1970s when TV executives said audiences would never accept “hard news” in a female voice — but the male is still the “anchor,” not the “co.” Not until late last year did we get the first solo female anchor of a major news show on American television, Katie Couric.

There’s also the double standard. Because women on camera are still expected to be ornamental, they’re about fifteen years younger than men. They also may be fired just as they become experienced and authoritative. That’s why there’s no female Walter Cronkite or Ed Bradley.

You can see why we started the Women’s Media Center. It’s a not-for-profit foundation composed of women media professionals who might not have been there ten or 20 years ago, and who now can band together to help get women into decision-making positions, and to create a bridge of media training and pitching stories to make the female half of the world more visible. We have space for briefings, press conferences, etc. And we have a website — http://www.womensmediacenter.com — with hotlinks to progressive women columnists, and original WMC reporting. Last spring, we broke the story of the abortion ban in South Dakota — which wouldn’t have been overturned in the last election if it hadn’t got national attention — and right now, we’re running otherwise unreported stories, from a U.S. military rape of a 14-year-old and murder of her and her family in Iraq to women’s access to sports.

The point is not only to get women jobs in the media, but to make the news more accurate and useful. Instead of stories about whether a starlet is pregnant or not, we need reports on the international crime of sex trafficking. Instead of a national security that’s measured in fighter jets and nuclear weapons, we need one that’s also measured in access to fresh water, education, jobs, contraception, health care.”

Rita died in March 1996, and the (new) Sunday Times carried this brief tribute: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/960331/frontm.html#Pioneer

There is nothing wrong in congratulating anyone who reaches commendable heights in their careers, but organisations like SLPI need to be more cautious in making sweeping statements that are not factually correct or supported by history. After all, one of journalism’s basic tenets is: facts are sacred, comment is free.

SLPI will do well to remember the words of the poet and philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

As for the manifestly absurd assertion (if made by a man it would have been described as boorish) that women are somehow more “sensitive”, well, we have the experience of two Bandaranaike chief executives is this country who could give any man a run for his money on the autocracy stakes. Unless Dudley Senanayake was a woman in reverse drag…