Martina Milburn
: What Makes a Great Role Model
Alistair Darling
: Salmond's Default Position Bankrupts His Credibility
Nicola Sturgeon
: Scotland Has Every Right to Be Confident About Our Economic Prospects
Duncan Weldon
: Chancellor Should Heed IMF Advice and Increase Infrastructure Spending Now
Harry Cooper
: A Referendum on Europe Tomorrow Would Not Stop Ukip
Why did it take Rebekah Brooks so long to resign? Did she want to stay or did Murdoch want to keep her? We may never know. But the whole saga looks to me like a bad case of gatecrasher syndrome.
Gatecrasher syndrome afflicts members of minorities who enjoy rapid advancement to the top table - but are pretty much the sole representative of their group. Think of Condoleeza Rice or Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. They're grateful to be there, desperate to fit in. Very often they don't want to be seen to be advancing the cause of others of their group - that might look like favoritism - so they remain isolated. What they think will make them successful is assimilation: fitting in so well that no one will notice that they're different. Like gatecrashers at parties, they want to blend in, fearing that otherwise they'll get thrown out.
For women, this means being as tough, ruthless driven as men - or more so. For minorities, it can mean a lot of golf and back slapping. Both are forms of protective coloration: acting like the majority so successfully that the difference disappears. The risks in such extreme assimilation is that, when it succeeds, it may bring rewards - but it also brings dependency. Sure, you can stay at the party - not because of who you are, but because of who you imitate. Someone is being successful; it just might not be you. Dependency isn't the same as power.
By all accounts, Rebekah Brooks was treated as part of the Murdoch family. But the more assimilated she became, the less able she was to see her industry and her business through any different lens. She amplified the Murdochs, she didn't and couldn't challenge or warn them. She ended up with the worst of both worlds: neither one of them nor her own woman.
I would tend to think she was already unworthy and perhaps chosen for advancement on that basis.
Whether this was the case with the ravishing redhead is something we don't know. But there's the prospect of tell all books and the movie....
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/../../dan-ehrlich/uk-phone-hacking_b_900646.html...
www.hard-truths.blogspot.com
There's nothing at all in her bio or demeanor that she's some poor female trying to camouflage her way to the top. She's almost universally described as ruthless and her rise to the top was engineered by her and only her.
By the way, when minorities play golf, it's usually because they enjoy golf. This blog reads like you have a problem with anyone but white males ascending to the top and have to find psychological reasons to excuse the rise of anyone else. I'm sure that's not how you meant it to sound but it really is how it turned out. Especially when you use Condaleezza Rice to illustrate your point. Agree or disagree with her, she was an exceptionally gifted woman who had every right to be in her position and didn't ever appear desperate to fit in or be accepted.
There's no evidence that Brooks saw the business through a different lens or that she wasn't her own woman and you don't offer anything up to the contrary other than opinion with nothing to back it up.
A less flattering portrait here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/rebekah-brooks-profile-phone-hacking
Ms. Heffernan wonders why it took so long for Ms. Rebekah Brooks to resign.
I think it is entirely possible that Ms. Brooks was busy negotiating the size of her Golden Handshake.
I think it is wrong to portray Ms. Brooks as a downtrodden woman who has been poorly treated. The lady is no shrinking violet; she proved herself to be a hard and merciless woman who believed that sex and sleaze would sell newspapers and bring her great success. Unfortunately for her, she got caught out.
Sincerely, Derek Lantin. http://dereklantin.booksabuzz.com
I think she was even better able to serve up sex and sleaze by virtue of being a woman. A male editor would have been vilified for the sleaze.
But back to Brooks...maybe she is just a driven, ruthless, climber who is liked and trusted by the Murdochs??? Is this the first time an exec who works at the top oversaw wrongdoing? Was both maybe guilty and also took the fall for others? And her wrong doing has NOTHING to do with not promoting women. It has to do with phone hacking and ethics. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GATECRASHERS SYNDROME?