Secret diary of a businessperson who is also female

Naked nudity.

The New Statesman's Businessperson Who Is Also Female asks why some women happily prance around naked in the office gym changing room only to then cover up in the presence of men in the boardroom.

Topicality Watch! By coincidence my esteemed peer Board Babe has recently written about a very similar subject over at the Telegraph.

As a woman who is also a businessperson, I have recently spent time in the gym. Maybe it's something to do with the Olympics?!? (Topical). I went to the gym recently, and couldn't help but notice that there were a lot of women in the women's changing room. Women who looked different from each other. Women putting their socks on, women opening and closing lockers. Some of these women had literally no clothes on them at all.

All this got me thinking. Why is it, that in the changing room, women will happily wear no clothes - confident as wood nymphs frolicking in an autumn glade - yet in the boardroom will often "cover themselves" through wearing several layers of clothing (this point is metaphorical)?

In a recent meeting, in which our company announced that half the staff were about to be made redundant, I noticed that many of the women were quiet, with defensive body language, eyes on the floor. I felt like we had returned to the 1950s, or migrated to Saudi Arabia, or been flung forward into some futuristic dystopia where women are quiet/clothed. Where was the "naked ambition" they had shown after real tennis? Surely they could have pulled their socks up (metaphorically), rolled up their sleeves (metaphorically), and come up with some ideas to pull this company up by its boot straps? Why are women so rubbish apart from me?

My advice to women? Be better.

 

Dita Von Teese is almost naked in this picture. Photograph: Getty Images

Businessperson Who Is Also Female is a woman. She is currently enjoying Board Babe, a Telegraph blog by a female who is also a businessperson. Great minds..!!

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.