I immediately thought of Judy Dench's performance of "M" in James Bond. Turns out, the code name for the real position is "C" (which is in the article).
As the article says, the new "C" has been promoted from being "Q", her former position in the Service, while in 2021 she was "K", an even lower position.
rzz3 · 6h ago
Why is this news? Obviously I want gender equality anywhere and everywhere, but these headlines feel tired.
tday1 · 6h ago
I would agree. I celebrate her achievement but she isn’t a “female chief”, she’s just a “chief”.
aaaja · 15m ago
It shows that the glass ceiling for this role no longer exists.
Keep in mind that many women and girls have been socially conditioned to believe this type of job is not for them. Headlines like this can be inspirational in pushing back against this conditioning.
goku12 · 4h ago
Disclaimer: Take this as a criticism of news articles like these, rather than as a commentary on gender politics.
It think that articles like these are celebrating the institution itself, rather than the individual's achievement. In particular, this paragraph stands out:
> Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the appointment "historic" at a time "when the work of our intelligence services has never been more vital".
When an institution faces challenges, you need a competent and bold individual at the helm. Not someone from a specific demographic group. I'm certain that Ms. Metreweli fits the bill, since this hers one of the rare jobs where the professional skills align with the personal skills required to climb up the organization hierarchy. But the statement itself seems to emphasize that the MI6 achieved something. A declaration of "we are progressive too".
The article itself says more about MI6 and C's duties, rather than about Ms. Blaise Metreweli. Granted that this is one job where the personal achievements cannot be divulged beyond a limit. But then, the article could be equally brief. This is a common pattern. Such stories use the achievements of these remarkable individuals to advertise the job instead.
In the defense such article, there is one meaningful purpose that they serve. It may attract the attention of girls and women who are a good match for the job, but may not have considered it otherwise. It also gives them the reassurance that their career growth won't be limited by their gender. That's not a bad deal in my opinion.
slaw · 3h ago
Unlike you I prefer hiring based on merit and not gender.
IcePic · 2h ago
..but you don't find it strange that merit somehow only ended up in one gender over the last several hundreds of years? Especially given that there seem to have existed competent women in this time, but for some reason men chose to elect only men into high positions, to the point of preventing women from applying or getting such jobs. Then suddenly we all collectively decided that from now on, only merit is measured, but we pipe up when a woman gets elected to say that "did these people really check merit?"
It feels a bit too close to "lets only choose people like we did the last hundreds of years" when noone batted an eye if some man got chosen. If you didn't comment "but did they really check this mans credentials and merits" every time MI6 gets a new boss, then it feels a bit odd to do it only now, don't you think?
slaw · 1h ago
No
antithesizer · 4h ago
Are rainbow-colored cluster bombs just too much to ask?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_(James_Bond)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Secret_Intelligen...
Keep in mind that many women and girls have been socially conditioned to believe this type of job is not for them. Headlines like this can be inspirational in pushing back against this conditioning.
It think that articles like these are celebrating the institution itself, rather than the individual's achievement. In particular, this paragraph stands out:
> Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the appointment "historic" at a time "when the work of our intelligence services has never been more vital".
When an institution faces challenges, you need a competent and bold individual at the helm. Not someone from a specific demographic group. I'm certain that Ms. Metreweli fits the bill, since this hers one of the rare jobs where the professional skills align with the personal skills required to climb up the organization hierarchy. But the statement itself seems to emphasize that the MI6 achieved something. A declaration of "we are progressive too".
The article itself says more about MI6 and C's duties, rather than about Ms. Blaise Metreweli. Granted that this is one job where the personal achievements cannot be divulged beyond a limit. But then, the article could be equally brief. This is a common pattern. Such stories use the achievements of these remarkable individuals to advertise the job instead.
In the defense such article, there is one meaningful purpose that they serve. It may attract the attention of girls and women who are a good match for the job, but may not have considered it otherwise. It also gives them the reassurance that their career growth won't be limited by their gender. That's not a bad deal in my opinion.
It feels a bit too close to "lets only choose people like we did the last hundreds of years" when noone batted an eye if some man got chosen. If you didn't comment "but did they really check this mans credentials and merits" every time MI6 gets a new boss, then it feels a bit odd to do it only now, don't you think?