The upside of patriarchy and war

Needlessly and childishly provocative title aside, have a read of bits of these two letters that appeared in the FT earlier this year.

"When I joined the Australian Commonwealth Public Service in the 1970s, those in the senior positions (invariably male) had often started their working life during the Great Depression before serving in the second world war. Upon demobilisation they had patiently worked in a seniority-based promotion system for a modest salary in return for security of tenure and a superannuation scheme. By the time I left the service in the mid 1980s they were to be replaced by an increasingly university-educated mobile meritocracy on short and long-term contracts willing and able to transfer in and out of private enterprise. Since then many of the traditional areas of government service delivery (in Australia at least) appear to be constituted by web pages advertising mission statements and core values supported by call centres. Service is no longer a personal virtue but a commodity to be delivered."

Paul Stockley, Jan 31

&

"Pre-1974 there was an overall 17 percent quota limit on female medical students across the UK. The male-dominated profession was led by men who had been the backbone of military medicine during the second world war. We, their trainees accepted and enjoyed the challenge of long hours and the camaraderie of hospital mess life. Central to the "can do" philosophy was the continuity of care for every patient by a designated consultant team from admission to discharge. Society rewarded and respected this arduous work rate....
"What do we now face? The consequences are clear. Whereas my generation achieved consultant status after approximately 30,000 hours of broad and intensive training, the plan from April 2009 indicates that 6,000 hours is acceptable. imagine the outcry if airlines cut pilot training to 20 per cent of what was previously considered acceptable."

David Skidmore, Jan 5

There is of course the risk of rose-tinted spectacles. If things were that good, why did we need the civil rights movement, second-wave feminism etc. But in important ways, I think Stockley and Skidmore point to what has been lost (or stolen) along the way.

• an ethic of social solidarity/noblesse oblige
• an understanding that quality take time, diligence and patience and that the current "corporate culture"(sic) of karoshi and turbo-Taylorism has (steadily more visible) consequences

So, what is to be done?

Journalistic decline

"We old-fashioned types expect industrialists to understand how their machines work; we expect chief constables to know what it's like to arrest a miscreant on the street; we believe journalists are enormously improved by knowing the hell that breaks loose when you mis-spell the name of the winner of the dahlia class at the flower show."

Matthew Engel "Sorry tale from four men in denial" Financial Times, Feb 11 2009

Yup. My dad (who met my mum when they were both young journos on a local paper) has this as one of his bug-bears. If you got someone's name or age wrong on a local paper, your editor called you- because he'd heard from the person, and you got a bollocking. You learnt quickly not to get the fine details wrong again. That was the old-fashioned 'apprentice' system.

Now you've got "journalists" being produced by universities, then going to work for nationals. And there isn't that nitty-gritty feedback. And so you don't learn the ropes.

Oh, it's all falling apart, end of western civ etc...