Your support helps us to tell the storyFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.Read moreRachel Reeves has said she is “sick of people mansplaining how to be chancellor” to her, and Independent readers have shared their thoughts on why some of the criticism she faces carries sexist undertones.Many readers highlighted that much of the scrutiny has arrived even before Reeves has announced her Budget, though the chancellor insisted she is “not going to let them bring me down by undermining my character.” Others noted the aggressive and personal tone of the commentary, pointing out that male chancellors rarely face the same level of demeaning treatment.One reader highlighted that referring to Reeves as “Rachel from accounts” when critiquing her decisions was both patronising and sexist. Several agreed that while scrutiny is part of high-level government roles, the tone and language used by some critics suggested an attempt to undermine her confidence because she is a woman.The consensus among commenters was that calling out this sexist treatment is valid, even as legitimate questions about her policy choices continue to be raised.Here’s what you had to say:Judge her after the BudgetLove all the other blokes on here proving Reeves’ point exactly. By getting all snowflakey about her daring to say it’s mansplaining. It goes on in all walks of life and it’s a disgrace. I see some of my own colleagues having to put up with it. Do us a favour, flakes, and pipe down. Let her do her job and judge her afterwards if she has done the job or not.sainteskyPatronising and sexist criticismThe fact that she’s had a rocky time and should be open to scrutiny doesn’t negate her point that some of the language used has been patronising and sexist. Her performance has been patchy (though given the international situation, that’s not entirely her fault), but the aggressiveness of the criticism and the personal nature of some of it is far greater than usually levelled at a male chancellor. I think most women in senior positions would recognise this – it’s a tediously familiar way that some blokes try to undermine women in the workplace.I don’t blame her for being irritated. Everyone, from her own backbenchers to all sections of the media and every think tank and lobby group known to mankind, has been queuing up to hector her and pass judgement on what she’s rumoured to be planning. It’s time Budget purdah was reinstated. Its purpose was to protect the chancellor from undue pressure, give them the space to draft their Budget without interference, and prevent Budget negotiations from impacting the financial markets. The government is constantly being badgered by the media to provide more narrative and explanation of what it is doing, which I guess is why this Budget has been widely leaked and debated in public. It should resist this in future. Budget details are financially sensitive, and Reeves should not have been exposed to this amount of interference.Tanaquil2Focus on the decisionsIt’s a high-profile role in government, and it’s to be expected, male or female. The important issue is: are her decisions right for the country?Cousinjack‘Rachel from accounts’There might be a problem when she is widely referred to as “Rachel from accounts” when being criticised and told how to do her job.Strangely EnoughUnfair and sexist languageThe demeaning description [Rachel from accounts] is unfair and sexist too. Although the nature of being a politician puts a “target” on you, in an ideal world all public figures deserve respect and should act with respect… shame it isn’t.TheframeI wouldn’t want to be chancellor right nowThere’s an interesting economic quiz you can all take in the Guardian on how you’d fare in the Budget if you were chancellor and whether you’d keep the voters happy, the markets happy, and Labour’s backbenchers happy – and it isn’t an easy feat. I tried it, and both the backbenchers and markets would be happy, but the voters wouldn’t. I’d hate to be chancellor right now, and I just hope she makes the right choices.AmyCriticism is part of the jobHmm, name a chancellor who hasn’t had critics. Heck, name one who hasn’t had critics saying they’re the worst thing since Napoleon and are going to ruin the country. Criticism, even unfair and exaggerated criticism, is just part of high-level government, and framing that as an issue of sexism just isn’t very impressive, to be honest. I mean, sure, if people are using demeaning and sexist language, that’s something else, but being exposed to lots of criticism and advice is just part of a job like that. Describing it as “mansplaining” just comes across as playing a card to win sympathy points or discredit her critics without addressing their actual criticisms. In other words, maybe there’s something to it, but in the absence of evidence, it just sounds like an excuse.LeesheepGender not the issueI’m not sure that politicians’ shortcomings, which evidently are in need of some further input from others, must come down to a gender fight. If anything, Reeves is yet another person who sadly and unfortunately further discredits women in senior political roles. So maybe the Labour government should find better-qualified people, because I’m sick of an underperforming Labour government with thin skin.ItReallyIsNotMansplaining misused“Mansplaining” is defined as a man explaining something to a woman in a patronising way about a subject she already understands. That’s certainly not the case here. Reeves is about to deliver a major Budget, so scrutiny is the norm and necessary. Calling that “mansplaining” is an incorrect use of the term and reads more like an attempt to deflect criticism she’d rather not address.MusilSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More
