tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71412614503262231852024-03-13T12:07:58.180-07:00Mary TracyMary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-21953510240224427302012-11-22T10:36:00.003-08:002012-11-22T10:36:31.674-08:00Turn Widdershins - The New Adventure
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/wp-content/themes/sight/images/Logo%20Small.png" height="167" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Hello, my lovely blog. I haven't
written here in ages...</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
See, I'm on a new adventure now. I've
started a proper website. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The mission of this new adventure? To
help political activists heal, emotionally and spiritually.</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why? Because I'm realising there is a lot of
pain in our feminist & lefty communities. And that is bad for us
and our movement.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If we want to build a strong political
movement, and if we want political activists to be happy, we need to come up with a way to “do politics” that does not requires us to
sacrifice our wellbeing.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If we want to be world changers, we have to find a way to heal our pain; then we can go back to the political world with a new perspective. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Widdershins-poster-copy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Widdershins-poster-copy.png" height="320" width="243" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The name of this new adventure is
“Widdershins”... it's <a href="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/essentials/the-essence-of-widdershins/" target="_blank">the mystical word for “anti-clockwise”</a>.
And in order to get there, you have to “turn widderhins”, ie:
<a href="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/">turnwiddershins.co.uk</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Widdershins approach to politics is
almost the opposite of what you would expect. But I find it's the
only one that allows me to think about politics without going
mental.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It consists of separating between the
“personal” and the “political”. Using one set of ideas to
think about the “personal” and another set of ideas for the
“political”.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Intrigued?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Join <a href="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/about-us/" target="_blank">me and my imaginary monster</a> as we
try to redefine what it means to be a political activist.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You can follow us on Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/TurnWiddershins" target="_blank">@TurnWiddershins</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And don't forget to sign up for our <a href="http://turnwiddershins.co.uk/" target="_blank">Newsletter! (top right corner)</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I'll discuss politics as well, sure.
But hopefully I'll be doing it from a place of compassion, which may
turn out to be more effective than getting mad at each other over
who's the “rightest”. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
See you on the other side. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-42231064123886375632012-01-27T13:41:00.000-08:002012-01-27T13:41:26.645-08:00The Answer is No<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Readers of this blog will know that I tend not to engage with the “issues of the day” unless my hide gets seriously chipped.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Well… there’s a chip in my hide. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sometime this week, Conservative MP Louise Mensch wrote a poorly articulated piece on how you can totes be a Tory and a feminist. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Cue in the media frenzy that has everyone clicking and ignoring the issues that matter. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I ignored this media frenzy because, honestly, I have a life to live and a huge pile of irons to sock. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But today I read the last straw. </div><div class="MsoNormal">So I’m going to engage with this argument that “<i>you can totes be a feminist and a conservative because omg Emmeline Pankhurst joined the Conservative party</i>”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">British people do this all the time. They suffer from “me-centre-of-Universe” syndrome. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Teenagers believe they are the first generation to discover sex. <b>And white middle class people from Rich Industrialised Countries believe they are the first to invent Feminism</b>. Or Pacifism. Or Atheism. Or a whole host of other things.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but none of this is true. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And just because Mensch says that “feminism starts with Emmeline Pankhurst” it doesn’t make it so. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I am shocked, but not surprised, that all feminists up and down the country are willing to accept this: <b>a Conservative woman suddenly gets to decide WHEN feminism started, and (Quelle Surprise!) it turns out that feminism started with a Conservative woman. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m sorry, but WHAT???</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Fast forward a good decade; Mary’s knowledge of Emmeline Pankhurst extends to one mention in Mary Poppins. </div><div class="MsoNormal">But Mary attends high school, and eventually the curriculum stumbles onto a small oasis of feminism: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juana_In%C3%A9s_de_la_Cruz" target="_blank">Sor Juana <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Inés</span> de la Cruz born in 1651</a>. Mexican scholar and poet, and one of the first great writers of Latin America. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Her positions on women’s rights were so radical they would make most contemporary feminists blush scarlet.</b> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Then again, why travel so far?<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1740882441"> </a><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft" target="_blank">Mary Wollstonecraft</a>, who needs no introduction, was born in 1759. She is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers</b>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">So precisely why are we heralding Emmeline Pankhurst as the “founding mother of feminism”, born a good century after Wollstonecraft? Because Mensch says so? Because she was a conservative?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Why not choose <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman" target="_blank">EmmaGoldman</a>? Is it because she was an anarchist?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg" target="_blank">Rosa Luxemburg</a>, for that matter? Is it because she was a Marxist?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><b>Feminism has been around as long as patriarchy, because every time a man has said “you can’t because you are a woman”, there has been a woman who replied “unfair!”</b>. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Yet <b>Feminism is probably the only political ideology to lose itself in the name of “inclusivity”</b>. And the inclusivity agenda has gone absolutely bonkers: a conservative calls herself a feminist, and that makes her so.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">H*gh H*ffner calls himself a feminist and that makes him so. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">And those of us who want “Feminism” to mean SOMETHING are seen as arrogant. We have no right to exclude anyone from the Feminist label… </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Well, I’m sorry, but no. And to argue otherwise is to put the ideas of Louise Mensch and H*gh H*ffner above this feminist; and countless others.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><b>No, you can’t be a Tory and a feminist. Because to be a feminist means fighting to end the oppression of women as women. All women</b>. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Feminism does not mean “I am a wealthy woman and I want to end the oppression of wealthy women as women”.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">But the real reason why Tories can’t be feminists is this: <b>because Conservative ideology is so extremely patriarchal it would be 100% impossible to even end the oppression of wealthy women as women. </b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">To be a Feminist Tory is to fight a lost battle. Which is why I’m suspicious of any Tory who calls themselves a feminist: because most of the time what their goals amount to is “I want to end the oppression of myself”. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">And that’s not even a political movement, much less “Feminism”. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">One last thing. <b>Remember that when those in power want to appropriate your ideas and your language, that’s a sure sign that you are winning</b>. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">For a most excellent, well reasoned and original take on why these Tory powered “austerity measures” (ie: cuts) constitute an attack on women, you can read <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/09/why_the_public_" target="_blank">my post forThe F Word</a>.</span></div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-90064160508390653632012-01-08T09:51:00.000-08:002012-01-08T09:51:49.251-08:00An entirely different GodGuess who is a top doodler as well as a top writer?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF0JGdaxYYgYXSXoX4X_OtkhQYdJGn9w8u6ctWYvDpDOu_7tKkepYw2XfL0cSLCJ_-mra7n27huNn6ntVnI7sXPUCELgJS46O-qfGcrepkuZjiR0OgRzc-Z_4YfmV7N7pvPfPQ4pjmI3vm/s1600/Teh+Bible.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF0JGdaxYYgYXSXoX4X_OtkhQYdJGn9w8u6ctWYvDpDOu_7tKkepYw2XfL0cSLCJ_-mra7n27huNn6ntVnI7sXPUCELgJS46O-qfGcrepkuZjiR0OgRzc-Z_4YfmV7N7pvPfPQ4pjmI3vm/s400/Teh+Bible.png" width="267" /></a></div><br />
<br />
The other day I passed the church in the middle of the city. I stopped to look at the "nativity" scene and paused to reflect that this was the only representation of the real meaning of Christmas that I had seen, not just in the city but in the whole of the Holiday period.<br />
<br />
There it was, this church, surviving right in the middle of a crass consumerist bonanza, this collection of shopping centres that have grown so big as to take over the city centre entirely.<br />
<br />
Plenty of "Christmas" in the shopping centres. Christmas in your latte, Christmas in the fairy lights, Christmas in the sound comming from every speaker in every shop. <br />
<br />
Compare the loud consumerist "Christmas experience" with the quiet, humble, still figures leaning over a tiny baby.<br />
<br />
I thought of atheists, who usually have plenty to say during Christmas time... and I said to them: "People are worshipping an entirely different God".Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-15817841373248202612011-12-29T16:29:00.000-08:002011-12-29T16:29:58.630-08:00How Not To Use Politics - A Tale of Christmas Jealousy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">I felt good during Christmas Eve, when I would normally feel depressed. I made myself a tasty meal and watched The Sound of Music. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And I had a fun time on Christmas Day… I went to a friend’s house and spent the day with nice women… </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It wasn’t until I sat down to write the next day that the fish hit the fan. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JdjsD73ToCs/Tv0D_o86-rI/AAAAAAAAAJM/mYng4A72Etw/s1600/fish.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JdjsD73ToCs/Tv0D_o86-rI/AAAAAAAAAJM/mYng4A72Etw/s200/fish.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Like this</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> </div><div class="MsoNormal">First, I wasn’t even aware that there were troubling feelings lurking around. I just sat down to write. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I must have looked at the broken keys on my keyboard, which always triggers painful emotions. And this made me wish I had a new laptop… </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">At this point, the feelings started pouring over (not that I was aware of it then). Fresh in my mind was the memory of the nice presents the women exchanged the day before, and the modern gadgets they had. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But it wasn’t about presents or gadgets; these are only “symbols” for something else: a life that is lived. These women were living lives… they have jobs, a home, friends, adventures. They live. </div><div class="MsoNormal">And I don’t have any of these, you see. So my mind associates these “lack” with “not living”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Shortly after I started exploring these feelings, I found myself landing square into the field of politics. And this is where things get interesting</b>.</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kD5oqms8lB4/Tv0DEuqAvII/AAAAAAAAAIo/n42reBeRukY/s1600/Divider.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="26" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kD5oqms8lB4/Tv0DEuqAvII/AAAAAAAAAIo/n42reBeRukY/s400/Divider.png" width="400" /></a></div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">I know politics; a lot. I know far more than I let out. This means that I could have easily “made myself feel better” by using politics. Here’s how:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">* The women at the Christmas party had x, y and z</div><div class="MsoNormal">* I felt bad about not having x, y and z</div><div class="MsoNormal">* I use political arguments to undermine x, y and z, which has the effect of a) putting those women down and conversely b) pulling myself up.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So to take a completely random example: the old chestnut of “vegetarianism”. Someone has a nice, cushy job that allows them to have a nice, middle class living. I feel bad about not having a nice, cushy job and therefore not having a nice, middle class living. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I could easily pick at their choice of being a “vegetarian” and undermine their nice, cushy job and their nice, middle class life. How? </div><div class="MsoNormal">I could point out how hypocritical it is to care about the exploitation of animals and not the exploitation of humans. I mean, can you name one job in this global economy that does not result in the exploitation of someone? Exactly. I am knowledgeable enough to spot how any job contributes to the emiseration of people. </div><div class="MsoNormal">So I could easily argue: if “dropping out” of meat consumption is supposedly a good thing for animals because it boycotts the meat production industry… then why isn’t “dropping out” of the wage economy a good thing as well? After all, unemployed people do not, by definition, contribute their labour to the growth of an industry that will exploit people and the environment. Unemployed people do not contribute to capitalist production. </div><div class="MsoNormal">When seen under this light, unemployment is a very ethical choice indeed. If everyone was unemployed, we would soon see the capitalist system collapse. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Right?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Please feel free to point out where I’m wrong.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WtQftWJfBrk/Tv0D1jdeaRI/AAAAAAAAAJA/Cu3EM7809aY/s1600/Divider.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="26" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WtQftWJfBrk/Tv0D1jdeaRI/AAAAAAAAAJA/Cu3EM7809aY/s400/Divider.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> </div><div class="MsoNormal">But that’s not the point. <b>The point is I shouldn’t be using political arguments to put someone down in order to pull myself up. As my friend says, “that’s not on”</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The problem is not “vegetarianism” or “the economy” or “unemployment”. The problem is not that some people have nice, cushy, middle class jobs. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The real problem is that I felt depressed and that I don’t want to feel depressed. <b>What other people do or don’t do, have or don’t have should not impact on my wellbeing</b>. I should not get depressed because other people have better lives. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If my problem is that I feel like I’m not living, then I should either start feeling like I am living or start living. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Putting other people’s lives down is not going to bring me up. That is just a way for me to not deal with my pain. It’s just an “excuse”</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And if I don’t deal with my pain, if I don’t address my feelings of not living, then these feelings won’t go away. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This does not mean that I can’t question vegetarianism, or the economy, or unemployment, or the middle class. Of course I can. <b>But I shouldn’t do it because I am suffering from jealousy, or anxiety, or insecurity, or anger. I should do it because I believe in what's right</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It's not easy to separate the two, and granted I've only just begun. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If you find yourself using politics in a similar way, know that you are not alone. I have a sneaking suspicion that we all do it, more often than we realise. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-25947252557723516322011-12-20T15:33:00.000-08:002011-12-20T15:33:03.553-08:00On Consumer Choice... and the Lack of it<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/19/british-workers-losing-power-think" target="_blank">Aditya Chakraborttywrote today in The Guardian</a> about how the </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="MsoNormal">“British are more powerful shoppers than ever before, at work they are becoming less independent”.</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">He describes how the number of choices in a McGonnagal’s menu has gone from a few items in 1984 to some 49 or so dishes today. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But, he argues, the other side of this picture is worker’s loss of autonomy. In other words, today’s workers have less and less choice over what they do. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Aditya is missing a key piece of this puzzle, and without it the picture doesn’t make much sense: : why would the increase of menu options in a McGonnagal’s relate to the decrease in agency for workers? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What Aditya is missing is that this increase in consumer “choice” goes hand in hand with decrease in consumer “choice”. Yes, you read that right. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is true that McGonnagal’s menu now has a bazillion choices, but the important question is: who many alternatives are there to McGonnagal’s? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I wasn’t in Britain in the 80s but I’m pretty sure that back then there were far more independently owned restaurants, cafes and “chippies”. Keep in mind that one single independently owned business is a “one of a kind”, while yet another McGonnagal’s is another example of the same thing.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If we were to mathematically compute “choice”, then each independent business would count as “one”, while McGonnagal’s as a whole brand would count as “one” as well. McGonnagal’s may have thousands of restaurants, but they all sell exactly the same thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But forget about computing “choice”. The fact that I was having the same meal as Aditya while living in a different continent approximately 9 thousand miles away tells us all we need to know about the presence of “choice”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The political meaning of “choice” isn’t “how many combinations of McGonnagal’s ingredients are there in the menu” but rather “how many alternatives are there to McGonnagal’s”.(And if you wanna get really political, the question is actually "who owns these businesses").</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Incidentally, for a lot of poor people, the answer is increasingly “none”. There aren’t many places in town for the poor to go to relieve their hunger. Ok, I’m exaggerating: there’s always Burger Ming.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Speaking of which, yesterday I passed a coffee shop that is no more. It was open last month, though.</div><div class="MsoNormal">And in entirely unrelated news, another “Costa” has opened its doors, this one next to the Students’ Union. How nice. Now young people can pay their fees while learning the skills they will need for future employment… of barista, that is.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Aditya is right of course when he speaks about the loss of autonomy for workers. People have less and less “choice” or (“voice”) over what they have to do in their workplaces. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But how does that relate to McGonnagal’s menu choices?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Simple. Whereas before you had a McGonnagal’s, and a coffee shop, and a Chinese restaurant, and a chip shop, and a bakery, now you have… just a McGonnagal’s. Oh, and a PlanetsBucks, of course. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And what do those two have in common? They are humongous, global brands with thousands of venues. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s easy to understand why the larger a company is, the less power workers have over what they do. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For instance, if you work for a small Chinese restaurant and you want to change a recipe, all you have to do is talk to the cook and/or owner. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If you work for a McGonnagal’s and you want to change a recipe… well… you can’t. Those decisions are taken thousands of miles away, somewhere in the US, by someone so up the food chain that you would never have access to them. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And it’s not like you could just change a recipe and get away with it. Because brands like McGonnagal’s require that every product is the same everywhere. They call it “brand consistency” and it matters, for some reason, that everywhere in the whole planet people are tasting exactly the same burger as everyone else. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Brands like McGonnagal’s and PlanetsBucks get larger at the expense of smaller businesses; that’s why their menus grow. This can only mean that people are working for them instead of opening their own shops. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And the larger these brands get, the more hierarchical and “top down” workplaces get. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The same story repeats itself on every aspect of the economy, so you can apply the same idea to your area of choice. For example, the number of magazines at the supermarket rack hides the fact that they are all owned by a few companies. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">* I know that according to “journalistic” standards I should refer to him by his surname, “Chakrabortty”, but “Aditya” is such a nice name! </div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-56980713862499453972011-12-06T15:34:00.000-08:002011-12-06T15:34:09.756-08:00On Women Having to be More Like "Men" to be Seen<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">By now you have probably run across <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/04/why-british-public-life-dominated-men" target="_blank">Kira Cochrane’s most excellent article on CiF about her months-long research on the absence of women in British public life</a>. I wrote a <a href="http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/12/call-for-more-female-solidarity-in-british-public-life/" target="_blank">summary for Women’s Views on News</a> if you don’t have time for the 3400-odd word long original piece (yes, it was a tough summary and I’m bragging about it).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The response from the Feminist World has been positive; Cochrane’s statistics have left us asking “how come???”. The answer is “deregulation of the economy”, of course, but I’ve covered that many times already. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://bidisha-online.blogspot.com/2011/12/do-you-like-women-today-today.html" target="_blank">Bidisha has written about Cochrane’s piece and about BBC’s Todayprogramme</a> in particular. The “excuse” given by the editor Ceri Thomas for the huge disparity between male and female voices (2:1 at the best of times) is that: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="MsoNormal">“They are difficult jobs but the skillset that you need to work on the Today programme and the hide that you need, the thickness of that, is something else. It's an incredibly difficult place to work”.</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas’ argument picked my interest, because it’s given way too often to explain away “why there aren’t more women”. And it's nonsense.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas is missing the forest for the trees. Because things work precisely backwards from the way he’s thinking them.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>If an environment does not have an equal proportion of men and women, then it’s the environment’s fault. Not women’s</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>If an environment is too “tough”, too “demanding”, too “difficult”, too “sensitive to female cooties”, then that environment should change. The onus for change is on the sexist environment, not on women to become “tougher”, to wash off their “female cooties”, in short, to be more like men</b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But the problem is not that women are not like men, but rather that society is built under the template “men”. That is not the fault of women.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Women have been told since day one of patriarchy, that the problem is that they are not enough “like men”</b>. (At this point, you are encouraged to remember the song “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”, and keep it playing in the background of your mind). “Oh, if only you women were more like men, then you would fit perfectly in this society we have designed for men”, quoteth Patriarchus.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Well, no. This has never worked and it will never work. And <b>its only purpose is to divide women into “those who can pull off being like men” and those who can’t. And because only a few women will be able to at any given time*, those women rise and are used to shame the rest of us for not succeeding at being more like “men”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In short: <b><u>if the “Today” programme is “too difficult” for women, then they should make it easier</u></b>. And if that doesn’t work in bringing more women on board, they should try something else. Until there’s equal representation.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Alternatively they could just use quotas, but Thomas doesn’t appear keen on that. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Oh, and I won’t leave without saying this: working for the BBC, for the “Today” programme DIFFICULT??? HA! This is one of the clearest examples of the overblown sense of importance of the “managerial class” I’ve seen in a while. Your job is “too difficult”??? Where do you work? In the ER wing of a hospital? In a war zone? A rape crisis centre? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Always be wary of upper middle class people trying to make their work appear “difficult”. It’s nothing but an attempt to justify their position in the social hierarchy. You and I know that the most difficult jobs in this world are the worst paid. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> * In order to understand this you have to remember that for patriarchy to work, men and women must be clearly differentiated. So if a lot of women became "more like men" and, for example, grew a thicker skin, then the characteristic "having a tick skin" will stop being exclusively male. And Patriarchus would define its opposite, "having a thin skin" as the male and desirable characteristic and shame women for, you guessed it, "being different to men". </div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-38445811238853999722011-11-29T17:37:00.000-08:002011-11-30T09:49:58.034-08:00On the Matter of This Nov30 Strike...<div class="MsoNormal">Here it is; in just a few hours, the biggest strike in living memory will be taking place in Britain. Well, a big enough strike anyway.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And I have nothing but pain and disconnected thoughts in my head.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">First and foremost, yes, I am indeed very glad to see Unions getting their act together and finally taking industrial action.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And yet, I feel that familiar frustration with the nature of the strike and the kind of unions involved in it. I experienced the same feeling during the last “anti cuts” demonstration organised by the Unions a while ago. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">That frustration watches them and asks… “<i>Really? After all that’s going through only public sector workers go on strike and over the matter of pensions? Really?</i>”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It has a general feel of… middle class England wanting to better their lot. You know, that portion of Britain you see on the media, the only portion that seems to matter. They drink expensive fair-trade lattes, read the Grauniad, are ubiquitously white, and only “see” the misery of those at the bottom of society twice, three, four times removed. By which point the truth has been bleached and sanitised so much that they mistake making better consumer choices with saving the world. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I fully realise that these feelings are just that: feelings, not an accurate depiction of reality. And I know that the better conditions public sector workers have, the better the working conditions will be for all workers. That the better pensions they have, the better pensions everyone will have. And I’m also aware of the fact that Thatcher has made “general strikes” almost impossible, unless they are over pensions.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But still… pensions? Really? Did everyone miss the riots? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>I am entirely convinced that “middle class England” simply has no idea how bad things are for the poorest members of society</b>. And I literally mean NO EFFING CLUE. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>They don’t understand the desperation, or the urgency for that matter</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>They have the luxury of thinking about their “pensions” because their position in society is, relatively speaking, so “good” that they can physically think about the future and plan ahead</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>They cannot imagine how it feels to not be able to even think about next month, next week even, because the future can only mean more of the present, which is unbearably painful. </b>They can’t imagine what it’s like to be stuck in a cycle of “nothing ever gets better”, of “nothing to look forward to”, of “more of the same crap day after day”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">They are not, in short, “numb” to the future. <b>They have the luxury of thinking about pensions</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Then there’s the Occupy movement, which, by its very nature, is born out of desperation, out of frustration of seeing no other “tactic” work. Occupiers go and stay there; not because they hope to achieve something, but because they literally can’t stand to carry on like this. They share one certainty only: things have to change. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>People are so politically exhausted that they deal with their desperation by turning it into action</b>. Nothing is in the world works anymore, so they go and do something that doesn’t work either. And they keep on doing it. Because at least while the Occupation is taking place, “something” is working; even if it’s just a small general assembly, to try to keep functioning something that could be swept away at any minute. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Occupy movement feels like the politics and the actions of the hopeless. <a href="http://www.poetrymagazines.org.uk/magazine/record.asp?id=4541" target="_blank">“Work without hope”</a>, as a WWII poet once wrote. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The strike, the Occupy movement and the riots. From the most privileged workers, who “do the right thing” and “keep Britain running”, to the most desperate amongst us, who are literally told <a href="http://marytracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/talking-rubbish.html" target="_blank">“they do are not part of society”</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal">From public sector workers striking to keep things as they used to be, to the Occupy movement demanding an end to the “1% and the 99%”, to the riots, the most literal manifestation of “wealth redistribution” there could be.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You know what I would like to see? More strikes; for longer periods of time; over many more issues. Public sector workers should leave the workplace and stay out. Or occupy it and not work. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not enough to strike over pensions. <b>Public sector workers, as the most privileged members of the work force, need to show solidarity to everyone else.</b> I don’t know how; but they need to find a way to do it. <b>Enough of trying to fix a broken system, or forcing the bad to not get so much worse; we need to start moving towards building an alternative</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Perhaps public sector workers could organise sit-ins with unemployed people? That could be rather fun. And I am pretty sure it would build solidarity like nothing else.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In a few hours most of us will be either striking or joining demos. Remember this: 2.5 million workers will, according to David Cameron, “draw Britain to a halt”. </div><div class="MsoNormal">Presumably the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/28/strikes-different-this-time-editorial" target="_blank">2.6 million workers</a> who are unemployed merely provide the desperation that keeps the cogs in the machine compliant and obedient? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As for me, I won’t be striking, since I don’t have a job. Instead, I’ll be doing by first ever “subbing” session for <a href="http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/" target="_blank">Women’s Views onNews</a>. Voluntary work I hope one day will turn into paid employment. </div><div class="MsoNormal">Because I’m desperate. And I only know one this: things have to change. </div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-87419071895924726252011-11-20T17:22:00.000-08:002011-11-20T17:22:06.839-08:00Wanted: An Alternative to Debate<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Ok, I admit it: I’ve only been half-heartedly following the “Occupy” movement. And I’m not sure why. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When you are a political activist, you spend your whole life dealing with the question at the back of your mind… “if things are so bad… why aren’t people on the streets?”. Then, like the proverbial three buses arriving at the same time, all of a sudden there are people on the streets. On the actual streets; occupying them; refusing to go anywhere. </div><div class="MsoNormal">And I fail to muster more interest than the average politically minded person. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Part of the reason for my lack of interest in the occupations has to do with the absence of… well… politics. There are no grand theories to explain the present, no plans on how to change things for the future… Everyone is rightfully and mightily pissed off, but when it comes to the “whys” and the “hows” people get so anxious they can’t take a step forward. A simple debate on producing a list of “demands” turns into “well, should we or shouldn’t we?”. And the conclusion to that is… “we need to have a debate over this”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Ah, yes. “Talking” will surely provide the answer. “Talking” is, however, the only answer being provided. And I would be more excited about the prospect of “debating” within the Occupy movement if I hadn’t seen its effects within the feminist movement way too many times.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This trend takes place throughout the political spectrum, actually; I’m just focusing on feminism because it’s what I know best. <b>Whenever you see a feminist in the mainstream media, and she’s asked about the “solution” to any problem that could be filed under “regulating industries”, aka: “telling corporations to do as we want, not as they want”, said feminist’s reply will invariably be… “I think we need to have a national debate over this”.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“This” could be pr0n, lapdancing, maternity leave, sexualisation in the media, etc. Feminism’s answer to it all is “let’s have a big debate”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m beginning to fear that calls to “debate” are actually an attempt to “disengage” from the situation, to not deal with the issue at hand. Because to arrive at an actual plan of action would mean upsetting someone who disagrees, leaving someone out. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">True, the “we are the 99%” surely joins everyone under the same collective grief. But when it comes to deciding what to do with that “99%”, everyone freezes. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This scares me for several reasons. First, because <b>“life must go on”, and if “occupiers” don’t spring into action, the momentum of the status quo will sweep over them</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Madrid was one of the first cities to become “occupied”. It was so early on, in fact, that nobody thinks of it as part of the “Occupy” movement. Never mind the fact that the very word “occupy” was used, since the word “ocupa” in Spanish describes “squatter”, and the tactics were the same, ie: tents, kitchen, pharmacy and, you guessed it, “public debates”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">That was summer. 15<sup>th</sup> of May, to be precise. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Today, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/20/spain-election-peoples-party-victory" target="_blank">the Conservative party has won a “landslide victory”in Spain</a>. Something tells me this is not what the “occupiers” at Puerta del Sol wanted, seeing as how they rejected “all political parties”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What are the plans of the conservatives to deal with the economic crisis and reduce unemployment? If your answer contains the words “austerity” and “deficit reduction” give yourself 1000 points. The very same “policies” that the Tory government has been ruthlessly forcing through since they rose to power… achieving precisely no reduction of unemployment or bettering of the “economic crisis”. As my dad said about the elected president: “he also wants to fail, he doesn’t want to be left out”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What happened to the occupiers? I don’t know. What came out of their debates? I can’t remember. And I say this having listened to actual members of the Puerta del Sol occupation during Marxism in July. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now, political debates are lots of fun. <b>But eventually a decision must be agreed on and actions must be taken. The alternative is no alternative at all; that is, if we fail to change course, course doesn’t change. We get the same politicians, with the same policies favouring the same people</b>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But there’s something else lurking under the surface… and that’s a general sense of “frozenness” throughout the whole of society. <b>People are emotionally and ideologically exhausted. Nobody can come up with an alternative, and nobody is enthusiastic about the future</b>. It’s a sense of “bleh”, followed by “what’s on the telly”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I am by no means the first to point this out. <a href="http://www.zero-books.net/index.php?id=99&p=358" target="_blank">Mark Fisher does so in his book “Capitalist Realism”</a>, for instance. There’s a collective “apathy”, fear of moving in any direction, and the result of that is paralysis. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And I’m scared because I don’t just see it all around me, showing up also within the Occupy movement. I’m scared because I feel it in my bones. I struggle with this feeling of “frozenness” every day. I notice other people struggling as well. We want to move, but we don’t know how, or where to. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We are petrified, literally scared stiff. And because we can’t do much else, we talk. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m afraid I don’t know what the answer is. But I do know that it isn’t more “talking”. <b>Something must be agreed upon and put into action. Quickly. Before the momentum of the status quo squashes us with “more of the same”. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>It’s getting to the point when anything, yes, “anything”, would be preferable to “more of the same”. If only to save our minds and hearts from paralysing ennui.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-66916323278115575972011-11-18T14:39:00.000-08:002011-11-18T14:44:41.723-08:00Fem 11 – The Personal - Coming clean with our feelings<div class="MsoNormal">This is an account of my own personal feelings at the Fem 11 conference last Saturday. My feelings aren’t “wrong” or “right”, they just are. I’m not holding Fem 11 accountable in any way for what I felt. I just want to share my experience. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I went to Fem 11 with three feminist friends. Me-from-two-years-ago couldn’t be more surprised if she heard this. </div><div class="MsoNormal">This helped with feelings of loneliness, social anxiety and general awkwardness which, I’m happy to report, remained at minimum levels. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I was excited to see so many feminists when we got together for the first session of the day at the Friends Meeting House. And I was even more excited when I saw Sandi Toksvig standing up to speak. *OMG, SANDI TOKSVIG!!!*</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sandi spoke about the differences between the “Right” brain and the “Left” brain, and how this correlates to men thinking with the “right” and women thinking with the “left”. In essence, men and women think differently, and the “male” style of thinking is linear, based on a logical succession of things. Or something like that.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This made me think along the lines I had already been thinking in for the past few weeks. I had been wondering lately whether the “scientific” mode of thinking is somewhat based on the type of thinking that corresponds to the more “autistic” part of the spectrum. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And this was followed by a conversation with a woman who was slightly autistic herself. She told me how she needs to know exactly what is required, in a detailed, logical sequential order.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As the day went on and I heard from other women, a thought began to form in my head. A slightly upsetting thought. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Other women kept talking about how “inspiring” someone’s words have been. And all I kept thinking was… “where are the arguments, the ideas, the facts, the theory, the economy”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sandi had said that men are the “thinkers” and women are the “doers”. And the penny dropped. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">OH F*CK. <b>I think like a man</b>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This explains why I am getting nowhere within the feminist movement. While other women want to discuss how they feel empowered by doing this or that, or how someone has “privilege” of some kind or other, I want to discuss the very real fact that THE ECONOMY DETERMINS EVERYTHING. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And nobody listens.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">While other feminists want to organise campaigns and conferences, I stop and think “yes, but what exactly do you want to talk about? What are the ideas behind it? How radical is it when we are working for a solution within patriarchal capitalism…”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I want to discuss philosophy… feminists want to talk about how we organise and “do”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This brought me, understandably, down. It triggered the old and well known feeling of being an “outsider”, ie: “I’m too feminist for the left and to lefty for feminism”. Great.</div><div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm;"></div></div><br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">Oh No, I'm Ugly!</span></u><br />
<br />
Then there was the fact that I was, after all, in a room with one thousand women. Most of whom were young. And pretty. And white, and blond. And dressed in pretty, feminine dresses and wearing pretty, feminine shoes. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Oh, look at that, the girl sat next to me is about ten, she’s wearing a skirt and eating a salad. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Yes, something had to give. It wasn’t long before a small but loud monster inside me started wailing…</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“ALL THE OTHER GIRLS ARE PRETTIER THAN MEEEEEEE!!!!!”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I tried to remind myself that this was a feminist conference and that focusing on prettiness was totally missing the point. Which was a huge mistake, because monsters don’t understand logic or reason. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So off my monster went, quietly wailing inside me “I bet it’s easier to be a feminist when you are white, blond, pretty and feminine and normal and you all probably have boyfriends and I hate you”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Luckily I was with friends, so I had other people to interact with, which stops you from even hearing your monsters. And that helps a lot.</div><div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm; padding: 0cm;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">Oh, Man! When Me?</span></u><br />
<br />
Last but not least was the now familiar feeling of “omg, I could totally ran a workshop, why am I not giving a workshop, I know so much, I want to give a workshop, I’m ready, why am I not giving a workshop…” Which, in its loudest, angriest form, says “I AM SO MUCH BETTER THAN *HER*, I KNOW SO MUCH MORE, WHY AM I NOT GIVING A WORKSHOP, EVERYONE SUCKS”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I know this feeling, I am good at spotting it when it shows up. And I’m getting better at dealing with it. Soon I’ll feel confident enough to give workshops and talks. Watch out world!</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><u><span style="font-size: large;">Feelings within the Feminist Community</span></u><br />
<br />
Ok, if you have made it to this point (thank you!), I want to say a few words on why the hell I’m bothering talking about my feelings and stuff. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>I believe there is a lot of pain in the feminist community</b>. This is entirely understandable! We live in a woman-hating world; we are women. We are bound to feel hurt.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>But here’s the thing: we never talk about it</b>. And the thing about pain is, when it goes unacknowledged, it finds another way through.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So at Fem 11, I noticed a lot of anger from the participants. A few of them actually shouted from the audience during the talks. And a few of the questions were dripping in anger and maybe even hate.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And I know this is not “common” because during Marxism it practically never happened. Keep in mind that Marxism brings together the same number of people, and for 5 days at that. And yet I never saw anyone shout at the chair person, or at a member of the audience who can’t stop rumbling (and believe me, there’s an awful lot of rumbling during Marxism). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And I understand anger and hate; really I do. I have just talked about my own!<b></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Instead, it would be far more productive if we started by talking about it. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For example: “I am angry when I see a sexualised ad. It makes me really angry. I feel silenced and insulted; my personal boundaries have been violated. And I’m so pissed off.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I know we do this, but we tend to shift the focus on to why it’s wrong. We go from “I feel angry” to “advertising makes money off titillating men, and men want to see women being objectified…”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And that’s good too, and it has its place. But it may be worth spending a few moments on how something makes us feel as women.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Then, we have to stop and spend a few moments thinking on how something makes us feel as “us”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For example: “I know that for me, Mary Tracy, seeing pretty feminine blond women makes me upset because it triggers my insecurities and feelings of being too ugly, too brown and unfeminine, and all in all unworthy of being loved”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">See? Coming clean with our feelings might not be easy, but it always helps. </div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-7427518283423349082011-11-09T13:33:00.000-08:002011-11-09T14:32:06.676-08:00The Answer to Online Abuse - CompassionAs you have probably heard by now, this past week has seen an outpour of writing by women who are sick and tired of experiencing online abuse. I wrote a <a href="http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/11/women-writers-speak-out-against-online-verbal-abuse/" target="_blank">small summary for WVoN</a>, <a href="http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2011/11/07/women-speak-out-about-online-abuse/" target="_blank">and Cath has gathered all the links on her blog</a>.<br />
<br />
I have given this matter a lot of thought these past days, trying to find a way to either share my experience or ignore the issue altogether. <br />
<br />
I had to fight a few “demons” on the way. “Outsider Syndrome” came out in full gear, and I was left feeling, once again, like the “odd feminist out”. <br />
<br />
Because, you see… Well… there really is no other way to say this, but…<br />
<br />
<b>I have never experienced online abuse</b>.<br />
<br />
So when I read <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/04/how-womens-voices-are-silenced-online-through-trolling/" target="_blank">Ray’s words</a>, saying <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“the internet is a society where being (perceived as) female and writing about feminism invariably leads to responses on the theme of *nasty abuse*”</blockquote><br />
I was left feeling… well… “different”. <br />
<br />
For I am on the internet, and have been blogging for 3-4 years now. I am universally perceived as female and I write about feminism. But…<br />
<br />
<b>I have never experienced online abuse</b>. <br />
<br />
Faced with this reality, my demons (aka “Outsider Syndrome”) began screaming with rage, and expressing irrational, incorrect, and downright silly ideas: <br />
“<i>OMG, how can they say that all feminists experience abuse? I haven’t! What is she trying to say? That I’m not a feminist? Or perhaps it’s because, oh, I don’t know, NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF ME! NOBODY READS WHAT I WRITE. And so nobody even bothers sending me abuse</i>.”<br />
<br />
And when I say silly, I mean it. For a split second my demon went on:<br />
“<i>You know what? They should be downright grateful they are getting abuse! At least it shows someone is reading what they write. How would they like it if nobody took any notice of them? HUH? ‘Cuz that’s what happens to me! You know what, I wish I was getting…</i>”<br />
<br />
Yeah, my demons are silly. They are made up of an emotional response to a painful situation. It’s complicated, but <a href="http://www.fluentself.com/blog/personal/the-negotiator-the-monster-and-the-scribe/" target="_blank">you can read about how they work in Havi’s blog</a>.<br />
<br />
So I had to calm them down before I could think clearly about what is going on. And I have a couple of theories.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Is it possible that I haven’t experienced any abuse online because I’m just not that popular? After all, if nobody reads what you write, then nobody can get angry at you.</li>
</ul><br />
<ul><li>Or is it possible that what I write about is not all that “feminist”? Or controversial? I have been keeping a low profile on the feminist front, mainly because I’ve been bored of it. But then again, I have written a post titled “Feminism: it’s all been co-opted”. And “The meaning of sexualisation”. So yes, I do write feminist-y things. </li>
</ul><br />
<ul><li>This is the most interesting and exciting one of all. Is it possible that the language I’m using to write is somehow not “triggering” to those people who are most likely to spout abuse at women/feminist writers?</li>
</ul>Oh, if only this last one was true. If you’ve been following this blog, you’ll know that I’ve been trying to come up with a different language to use when discussing politics for a while now. A language that is less confrontational, which seeks to explain things rather than “force” one’s argument onto someone else. Based in dialogue rather than fight. <br />
<br />
The answer is likely to include all of the above, along with things like “sheer luck”. But it’s the last one that provides the gate to “the alternative”. <br />
<br />
I believe that the people sending abuse to women are in a lot of pain. It has been said before, I’m not breaking any new ground here. But it’s important to remember. <br />
<br />
Perhaps it’s because I’ve been in a lot of pain myself. Perhaps it’s because the Universe decided I should be extra sensitive to it. But the fact is that I can see the suffering that many men are under. For it appears to be mostly men who are “triggered” by feminist words.<br />
<br />
Sometimes this knowledge scares me, for I have no idea where on Earth it comes from. Compassion, I suppose. It is a difficult thing to have compassion for the oppressed and for the oppressor. But fortunately, compassion is unlimited.<br />
<br />
So<b> if this is true, and a different “language” helps to not trigger abuse, then my suggestion to women/feminist writers would be… compassion</b>. <br />
Yes, I know it’s difficult. It’s only taken me 4 years to get here, and I’ve only just started. But it seems to be the only thing that works, judging by the success of other writers. <br />
<br />
Not to mention that Buddhists would not have it as one of their core practices if it didn’t work in some way. <br />
<br />
Notice that I use the word “trigger” to mean “what makes abusers angry”. I do this for a reason. When we are in pain, a few words can trigger an emotional response much like the one I had when I read Ray’s post. <br />
<br />
In my case, her reference to “all feminists getting abuse” triggered by Outsider Syndrome, along with my “Popularity Deficiency Affliction”. My emotional response (or demon) said “<i>Omg I’m different to all of them! And I’m unpopular as Hell!</i>”. <br />
<br />
And it drove me so angry and sad that I was within meters of saying not-so-nice things at Ray (in my head). Things like “<i>Oh, you should be grateful you get abuse, you popular feminist; I bet you sleep in a bed of roses and bath in Champagne</i>”. <br />
<br />
Because the demons responsible for this kind of response are very silly. (And in my case, also funny). <br />
<br />
<b>These demons only come out when we are in pain. So when you see abuse, this is in all likelihood the words of someone’s demon raging in their heads and driving them to type horrible things.</b><br />
<br />
I hope this makes some sense. What I’m trying to say is this: “people say horrible things when they are in pain”. And it helps if we remind ourselves that the horrible things are an expression of someone’s pain, and have nothing to do with us.<br />
<br />
Just like in my case, the reactions from my demons had absolutely nothing to do with Ray, who is an amazing feminist doing a fantastic job. My rational, not-in-pain self has nothing but positive things to say about her.<br />
<br />
I give my own experience as example because I think it will help. Because it shows how the “hurling abuse at someone on the internet” gene is present in all of us. Because we are all human, we all have pain, and we can all be triggered at any point by anyone. <br />
<br />
And that’s why the answer to abuse is likely to be compassion. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Note 1:</b> I want to make it extra clear that I do not have a single negative feeling towards Ray. I really think she's great. And I don't hold her responsible in any way for how I felt, because that would be stoopid. I believe she said the right thing, and my own personal demons have nothing to do her. <br />
<b>Note 2:</b> For more about compassion and Buddhism, Pema Chodron's cds are a good place to start.<br />
<b>Note 3:</b> I want to make it absolutely clear that having compassion for online abusers does not, in any way, condone their violent behaviour. Nor does it mean we should stop talking about what we need to talk about, ie: feminism. It just means that we can both a) put a stop to escalating abuse and b) we can use less triggering language. Though as my example shows, it will be pretty impossible to eliminate all triggering language, for anything at all can provide a trigger. Just think of it as sanding off some rough edges so that our words are not unncessesarily spiky.Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-69350737973560196112011-10-30T15:03:00.000-07:002011-10-31T09:59:08.875-07:00Housing Benefit as Business Subsidy<a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/10/31/how-the-bbc-and-others-fail-to-understand-housing-benefit/">Cross posted at Liberal Conspiracy. YAY ME!</a><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Last Thursday night I had the unenviable experience of watching “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016ltsh">The Future State of Welfare Reform</a>”, with John Humphrys. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favour: don’t. Watch Tory propaganda instead; the two are barely indistinguishable.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I want to use a small point made during the programme to make my own point on a topic I know too well: <b>housing benefit, and the Tory plan to push poor people out of London</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Humphrys and his production crew managed to find one of those “Daily Male” benefit cases that tick all the boxes. An Ecuadorian family, all of them with brown skin, living in a big-ish flat in Islington, apparently unable to utter a single word of English. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The father and sole earner of the family was a cleaner. His wages wouldn’t have been enough to pay the rent for such a “palace”, so, as a person on “low income”, he is entitled to housing benefit to help him bridge the gap between what his employers feel like paying him and what he actually needs to live. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Mr Humphrys asked the man “whether he feels the state should subsidise his flat”. Or something like that.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Mr Humphrys, being, of course, well educated and doing a job that is reserved for those who are as well educated as him or more, got it wrong. Very wrong indeed.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The state isn’t subsidising Mr Housing Benefit Recipient; the state is actually subsidising Mr Cleaning Company Who Employs Mr Housing Benefit Recipient because he cannot cough up the wages that his employee would need to live on.</b> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This point is hardly ever made by the Left, and I can’t understand why. <b>This is an unashamed transfer of public funds into private landlord’s and private companies pocket’s</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is up to employers to pay enough for employees to live, that is what wages are all about. If employers don’t feel generous enough, then employees need to go somewhere else. Low wages, no employees. At least that’s what would happen in a functioning “free market”. Instead, the state steps in and gives Mr Housing Benefit Recipient enough money to pay his rent. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Notice that neither him nor his family get to “enjoy” this wealth, for having a roof above their heads is non negotiable; it is a pre requisite for any worker to go and do their jobs. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The ones who do enjoy “extra” wealth are the private companies who <b>get away with paying, essentially, below subsistence wages</b>, safe in the comfort that the state will step in and fill in the gap so that their workers can make do.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If private companies were to pay living wages, it would make their profits sink. See? <b>Housing benefit neatly translates into private profit.</b> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is the reason why the Welfare State doesn’t “work”. <b>Benefits are supposed to be there to provide workers with a safety net; they were never meant to compensate for low wages simply because employers cannot be bothered to pay more</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But don’t expect Humphrys to tell you that. I suspect he’s too educated.</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-25566915185126601252011-10-23T16:56:00.000-07:002011-10-25T12:30:03.577-07:00The Crisis within the Crisis<div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">---</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.fluentself.com/blog">I have been soaking in some self-helf-y-ness</a>. This doesn’t mean that I’ve given up on politics, far from it. I was ranting earlier in the shower about how my generation won’t be able to say “I’ve worked hard” because, hello, there are no jobs; and how that constitutes “externalising the costs” and passing them to the workers. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So yes, politics is still there, but I need to focus on helping myself at the moment. Because I need the strength to find an income and a roof above my head and let’s face it: I can’t wait until the economy recovers, or the Tories are no longer in power, or worse, “The Revolution Cometh”. I need to sort out my life now.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You know how I’m always going on about “coming up with a different way to do politics”? Well, this is it. I mean, this is the moment when I’ll find out this “different way”. Because I need it now, and I can’t wait for it any longer.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Don’t ask me how that would work, because I have absolutely no idea. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m guessing it will involve this:</div><div class="MsoNormal">* A different language, one that is less confrontational and less “angry”. </div><div class="MsoNormal">* More compassion, patience, caring. </div><div class="MsoNormal">* Acknowledging the pain and troubles of the world without ending up paralyzed and unable to move. (Ahem.)</div><div class="MsoNormal">* Solving the conflict of “The personal is political” and “the political is personal”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So I’m going to start experimenting here on the blog. Sometimes there will be politics… sometimes there will be personal stuff. And hopefully, something will change, either in me or the world or both. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">---</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Earlier on today, a woman in a much better place than me was starting her Sunday having tea and cake.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">At this very moment, I am also having tea and cake. Well… pie. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s important for me to remember that even though I am going through the toughest time of my life, I and she don’t live in different worlds. Even if sometimes it feels that way. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Yes, things are unbelievably hard right now. But one day I hope to enjoy a similar level of safety and comfort as she has. And it’s important to remind myself that her reality is within my reach, because it’s within the same planet.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Also, it appears to be a yoga practice. So I’m doing it, even if I don’t understand its benefit fully. </div><div class="MsoNormal"></div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-58038720883162549352011-09-25T09:45:00.000-07:002011-09-25T09:46:38.949-07:00Added bonus: "The Problem with Favouring Women"<div class="MsoNormal">Continuing on the fine tradition of writing after getting angry at something someone said on Newsnight… <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/09/why_the_public_">I ended up writing a guest postfor The F Word</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">That’s right! I have published something on The F Word. I have only been trying to do it for 5 years… YAY ME!</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now, about the actual post… <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/09/why_the_public_">It’s on the attack on publicsector jobs as an attack on women</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The point I was trying to make was that <b>since women are socialised to be the carers in society, any attack on the jobs that provide the “care” will constitute an attack on women</b>. And an attack on what we could even call “women’s values”. Not because women are intrinsically more caring than men, but because patriarchy has decided that they are, and socialised them accordingly. Throughout the world, “caring” is seen as something women do, more often than not, for free. So any attack on the “caring” jobs will be an attack on women’s labour and women’s values.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And that is how you explain <b>the Tories’ cuts as “ideologically motivated”. They are driven by the assumption that caring is expendable, certain in the belief that if caring is needed, women will step up to do it, for free. Women’s work is therefore devalued and made invisible</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is just a template to understand the cuts; it is not enough to explain them. For instance, police services are being cut as well, and these are not “caring” jobs, and neither are they more popular with women than men. So this “template” has its limitations; but I believe it’s useful anyway. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: large;">And now for an added bonus</span>... (that is, something I wanted to add to the original piece but had to leave out). For your reading pleasure, I give you the reason why the Right's idea that "doing things for women is bad for them" is a whole load of cobblers. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">During the debate, Charlotte Vere came out with the old chestnut of “treating women as grown ups”, by which she means “<b>don’t do things for women because they are women</b>” because that is just “equality for equality’s sake”. Of course, being a conservative, she failed to actually acknowledge the real world.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">On the surface, this argument sounds good. I mean, why should we do things for women just because they are women? That doesn’t sound like equality; it sounds like “favouritism”, which is the opposite of equality. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This idea is powerful because nobody believes that any group should be “favoured” above any other. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s important to understand exactly what the Right is doing when they come up with arguments like this one.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What they do is this: forget about the real world and imagine everything in it works wonders. Then present any attempts at “changing” the world as suspect and devious. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, who wouldn’t agree with Vere’s argument that favouring women is infantilising them? <b>Women are more than capable to stand on their own two feet, thank you so very much, and to assume that women need “help” is simply offensive</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And you know what? I agree. I don’t believe that anyone should be favoured over anyone else. Regardless of gender.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And if I played my cards correctly, you will have understood where Vere’s argument fails. <b>Because while she can see that “favouring women” is not good for them, she fails to realise that FAVOURING MEN IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM EITHER</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Vere, being a conservative, excels at failing to understand the real, concrete world in which we live. She simply assumes that the world is full of equality, and then she says that “doing things for women” is not according women the respect they deserve as adults. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And while the second part of her argument is true, her assumption is completely false. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The world is not full of equality. And what feminists want is for the world to <b>STOP DOING THINGS FOR MEN BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. Because that is not treating men as grown ups. That is infantilizing men. That is assuming men can’t do things for themselves without the whole world giving them an extra hand</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">THAT is the real, concrete world where we live. It is men who are being favoured for being men. And that is what feminists want to change. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And one of the ways we can do that is creating equal favouritism: if men are being favoured for being men, then women should also be favoured for being women.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If, after all these arguments, you can see why “quotas” for women will not, on their own, bring about equality, you can give yourself 1000 points. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I will have to leave that for some other time. </div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-69755341867338788722011-09-13T17:04:00.000-07:002011-09-13T17:04:51.223-07:00A Magical Door to Beat the Corporation-Gods<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <div class="MsoNormal">So here I was, reading “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_in_the_Air">Castle in the Air</a>” (“An exotically magical sequel to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl%27s_Moving_Castle">Howl’s Moving Castle</a>”) when I came up with this handy analogy for how corporations work. And why we can’t beat them in their own game. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Imagine you work in a country where the wages are highest, say The US. But you also live in a place where taxes are lowest, like the Cayman Islands. While at the same time you are domiciled in the country with the best welfare state, so you get lots of quality stuff for free, like Sweden. Yet, when you do your shopping, you go to the country with the weakest currency, like Vietnam.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s easy to see how you’d be pretty minted. You’d be earning lots of dollars (cheers, US), you’d give up none of them (cheers, Cayman Islands), you’d get education, healthcare, safety net and the like for free (cheers, Sweden), and you will be spending peanuts on life essentials (cheers, Vietnam). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately you, and I, and the vast majority of people in this world, can’t do that. On account that <b>we are a single human entity and cannot live in more than one place at the same time</b>. Most of us have to live where we work, which means that wherever we are we end up spending as much as we earn just to live.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Corporations, on the other hand, are not single human entities</b>. <b>They are human “creations” and they are allowed to “live” in as many places as they like</b>. Notice my use of the word “allowed”; at any given time we could stop “allowing” them to do anything we didn’t want them to. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So corporations make their products where wages are the lowest (Vietnam), then come to rich countries, where they can sell those products at tens of times the amount the cost to produce (US), while at the same time they are domiciled in the Cayman Islands and pay no taxes. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I believe this means that they delay the well known “Marxist crisis”. (Though I could be wrong).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>We have created these entities which are larger than us</b>. In a different epoch, we would have justifiable called them “Gods”. This is probably the first time in history when colossally powerful entities have been brought to life, by humans, without at least the pretence of acting for the benefit of all. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In order to compete fairly with corporations, we would need a magical castle like Howl’s. A door with access to different worlds, and different places within the same world, would mean that we would have at the very least the same rights as a corporation. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Without Howl’s door, however, we become mere pawns in the chess game played by the Gods that these corporations have become</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And the reason why I will be one of the best political writers out there is because I can hold simultaneously in my head the world of politics and the universe of fantasy.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Note: Do read the books if you haven't. And watch the movie "Howl's Moving Castle". Really, you won't regret it. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-16844597359529177992011-09-11T16:29:00.000-07:002011-09-11T16:29:03.735-07:00Mock Their Ignorance<div style="border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;">Did you hear what happened today in “Mock The Week”? Me neither. But I have twitter, so I don’t have to know. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;">Apparently they made some sexist jokes. I know, knock me over with a feather. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;">At any rate, feminists on twitter called them out on their crap, and a “twitter-debate” followed. I caught this much:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br />
</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Mock The Week</b>: “we're just saying that gender does not matter to us when we book a comedian”</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br />
</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/EllieCumbo"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Ellie Cumbo</b></a>: “It should matter. You are failing to cater to the experiences of over half your audience”</div></blockquote><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Mock The Week</b>: “are we? We've millions of female viewers who keep watching”</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm; padding: 0cm;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNormal">Let’s put aside the, frankly, unjustifiable claim that “gender does not matter when we book a comedian”. So, how do comedians audition? Behind a screen and with a voice distorting machine thingy? </div><div class="MsoNormal">If gender really didn’t matter, there would be more female comedians. End of.<br />
<b>Speaking of which, why doesn’t <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/ShappiKhorsandi">Shappi Khorsandi</a> have her own programme already? </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What I want to focus is on their defence “argument” that “<b>we have female viewers who keep watching</b>”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It turns out, for those who may not be aware of it (like me, 10 minutes ago), that “Mock the Week” is produced by an independent company and is then broadcasted on BBC 2.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Allow me to make a huge mental leap here and conclude that <b>the show is, effectively, bought by the BBC. With taxpayer’s money</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal">Now the BBC is a “public service broadcaster”, supported by the public. Which means that it’s there to serve the public. And the public should have the ultimate say into what goes on. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>So if the public is saying “oi! Sexism!”, what should the BBC do? That’s right: it should respect the will of the public and do as the public says</b>. At least that is what should happen if we truly lived in a “democracy”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">See, I talk endlessly about the “free market” and nobody listens because it’s not a “hip and cool” topic. Unfortunately, though, it’s precisely what underpins most of our problems with mass culture. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So despite the fact that MTW is, effectively, financed by the public, Mr MTW Twitterer has the nerve of coming out and defending its sexist actions under “well, customers buy our product”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">No. It doesn’t work that way. Because the BBC is a public service paid by the public. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For a similar example, imagine what would happen if we all complained about sexism in the NHS and Mr NHS representative came out and said “well, customers keep coming”. We would probably laugh in his face. The NHS is a public service paid by the public. Which means that the public gets to decide what happens with it. NOT THE “CUSTOMER”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">*sigh* I really don’t know how to make this clearer.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Public service</b>: paid by the taxpayer because we all agree that it’s a public good. And because we pay for it, we decide what happens with it.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Private service</b>: paid by “customers”. What happens with it is somewhat decided by whether customers buy a certain product or not. If they don’t, the company loses. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">See? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now there will be people who try to apply a “private service” or “free market” mentality to MTW and try and defend the show on the grounds that “female viewers keep on coming”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Here’s the thing: <b>the public not always knows what is best for themselves</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Does that sound paternalistic? Perhaps. Unfortunately, under the current political system, the choices are either “free market” or “estate paternalism”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The NHS is supported by the public, and it’s the public who (ideally) has the ultimate say. However, not everyone’s opinion will carry the same weight. For example, it doesn’t matter if most members of the public smoke: the NHS’s approach is to treat smoking as a silent killer. That’s because there are doctors and specialists who know better than “the public” what is best for “the public”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And we are all cool with that. Because, ultimately, we can’t all be doctors. And so we trust doctors to know what’s best for us. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Similarly, there is one group of people who are experts in what constitutes sexism. They may not be regular consultants for the BBC, but they should be</b>. Can you guess who they are?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>That’s right: feminists. It matters little whether most women “don’t notice” the sexism in MTW. Because if they did, they would be feminists</b>. And they would be calling it out, like we do.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Most women may or may not be “feminists”, but that shouldn’t be here or there. When it comes to noticing sexism, feminists are experts. And if we say “oi! Sexism!”, it’s because it’s there. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And it shouldn’t be.</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-66289140012574276922011-09-07T08:02:00.000-07:002011-09-07T08:02:44.639-07:00New NHS Bill - Who will be responsible for the NHS?<div class="MsoPlainText">(Woop Woop! <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/07/how-the-conservatives-are-pushing-for-less-accountability-at-the-nhs/">A shorter version of this piece has just been published at Liberal Conspiracy</a>). </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">I have just made it my goal to explain one aspect of the new NHS Bill and give it some political context. Why? Heaven knows.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">This is what I’ve learnt. At the moment, and in accordance to the “2006 National Health Service Bill”, the Secretary of State for Health has the “duty to provide” health services for people. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Yet this new NHS Bill making the rounds removes this “duty” from the Secretary of State for Health. They are no longer “legally and constitutionally responsible” for providing these services.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">So who will be responsible for providing these services? “Clinical commissioning groups”. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">You may be wondering, “does it matter who is responsible for providing these services so long as the services are provided?”. I’m glad you asked. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">It matters because it has to do with “accountability” and “responsibility”. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Under this new bill the “duty to provide” will be passed on to unaccountable “clinical commissioning groups”. What does “unaccountable” mean? It means that we don’t vote them in, and, correspondingly, we can’t vote them out. That’s the trouble with taking roles away from elected officials and passing them on to unelected groups. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">And as for “responsibility”. Try to take your mind back to the boarding school you never attended, and picture an authority figure towering before you after you have done something naughty and booming “who’s responsible for this?”. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">If this new bill becomes law, nobody will be ultimately responsible. The people in charge will be “clinical commissioning groups”. Not people who can be held responsible for their actions and brought to a court of law if need be. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Do you know who these groups are? Me neither. </div><div class="MsoPlainText">Granted, you may not even know who the Secretary of State for Health is. But at the end of the day, Mr Andrew Lansley had to be voted in by the citizens of this country before he was given this “duty”. And we know his name. He is a real person, alive and everything. Ultimately, the ball stops at his feet. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">This whole situation reminds me of this documentary I saw a few months ago. These female hotel cleaners in London were trying to get their wages raised to the London living allowance. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">But they were caught in the middle of this “lack of accountability” dance. The workers would go to the hotel and say “raise our wages”, only to be sent back with the excuse that “the hotel doesn’t manage your wages, it hires an agency”. Then they would go to the agency and say “raise our wages”, only to be sent back with the excuse that “the hotel doesn’t give us enough money to raise our wages, nothing we can do, go to the hotel”. Three years on, and they keep dancing.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">This is what the “lack of accountability” dance looks like. You may have found yourself caught in it more than once. We often experience it as “the failure to get anything done because nobody seems to be responsible for it”. So, for instance, you call a phone number and ask for something to be done only to be told that “we don’t deal with this issue, you have to call somewhere else”. After they gracefully give you this other number, and you call it, you find almost the exact same response from the person at the end of the line “we don’t deal with this issue, you have to call somewhere else”. At its most ludicrous, the second “somewhere else” may in fact turn out to be the first place you called, which instantly sends you into a spiral of rage, confusion and hopeless frustration. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">And this is what corporatism does: it dilutes responsibility to the point that nobody can trace it any longer, and nobody is found responsible for anything. Above all “Nobody” is responsible. Which means the ball never stops at the feet of a real, breathing human being.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">This also means that when things go wrong, they go very very wrong indeed. If I can direct your attention to the Grand financial crisis of 2008… Who caused the crisis? The banks, of course. But “who”? Well, “nobody”. Of course, when it came to paying for the damage, “Nobody” was nowhere to be found, and the taxpayer had to foot the bill. Also, when it came to taking responsibility for the damage, “Nobody” did not make an appearance. And nobody else did either. The Government couldn’t be held responsible because the Government has very little responsibility over banks. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">For yet another example you can look at the Oil Spill in the Golf of Mexico. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Now, the Grand financial crisis of 2008 was bad enough. But can you imagine what could happen if some shady “clinical commissioning group” messed up somewhere? What would we do? We would understandably rise in anger and point our finger at the government. We would ask the Secretary of State for Health to take responsibility for what happened under their watch... And then we would see the Secretary of State shrug their shoulders and say something akin to “we don’t deal with this issue, you have to call somewhere else”. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">That is what happens when you remove accountability. The ball no longer stops at a person we all know because we elected them. Instead, some group or other is in charge of things, which means that when things go wrong and we confront this amorphous, inhuman entity, the response we get comes from its PR department is something like “measures will be taken to avoid similar outcomes”. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Yet when it comes to matters of Health, “similar outcomes” could be personal tragedies.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-6280317708341748042011-09-04T17:37:00.000-07:002011-09-04T17:37:23.129-07:00The Meaning of Politics<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">I wonder why keep going back to politics. Surely if the ultimate goal was finding “truth”, I could choose other fields to go about it? </div><div class="MsoNormal">Nicer fields, more popular, more “people friendly”… more compatible with earning a living and actually living a life. More “womanly”. Like history of art, or literature. Or even philosophy. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I have a complex about not being more “womanly”. And my obsession with politics doesn’t help. When I say to people that I want to be a writer, they inevitably ask me “what do you want to write?”. And at that moment I know that I would have a much easier life if the answer was “well, I want to write about nature and surrealism” or “postcolonial history” or “romance in Victorian England”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But no. What I want to write is politics. And to make matters worse, my answer never takes the form of “well… *whispers demurely* politics”. Oh, no! What I say is “Politics!”, with a strong emphasis on the “P”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s not that I’m not interested in other fields. I’m passionate about philosophy, and I really enjoy Fantasy. That’s all well and good, but when I go back and <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/wilful-ignorance-media-journalism-riots-tony-evans">read something like this</a>, clear, to the point, and aimed unapologetically towards changing the world, I get a feeling of “THIS! THIS! Say no more!”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Other fields are… you know… interesting. And you can read about them for ages. It’s all very instructive; you do expand your mind and your consciousness and as a result you can better appreciate the world around you. This, I believe, may be the reason why we humans have this compulsion to learn, to understand: because it allows us to experience more of the world. It’s like opening new eyes and seeing something for the first time, even though you may have seen it many times before. Now that you understand how trees grow in forests, you don’t see those trees you passed everyday in the same way. They are now richer, fuller.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Yes, learning is fascinating. I could easily spend my life doing it. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But politics? Politics puts “humans” at the centre. And I mean “humans” with an “s”. <b>Politics has a very clear goal “we live better”</b>. I’m not speaking Tarzanian here. Politics is the language we use to say to God, the Universe, those in Power, ourselves, that “we” are going to “live better”. No apologies.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As fun and enriching as learning is, politics is not learning for learning’s sake. It wants to change things, and unlike other fields,<b> it measures its “usefulness” by how much it cares about people, and how much it improves their lives. It is the practice of medicine on society</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It has a strong moral component: it says “this is wrong”. And it’s not interested so much in finding “absolutes”. Politics says “this is wrong because it’s bad for people, see?”. <b>What guides us is a moral compass we are more interested in using than finding and defining. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Too often politics is about saying what we all feel and know, but no one has the guts to spell out loud</b>. As such politics is intrinsically “honest”. It is the direct articulation of our wants and needs in a social level. It is the demand for our wants and needs to be recognised and met. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And that takes guts. It’s one thing to say “I need this”; quite another to say “we need this”. And another still to say “we need this and you better give it to us”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As for why I keep going back to politics? I have been blessed and cursed by a childish ingenuity and hopeless outspokenness to point to the Emperor and denounce his absence of garments.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And that’s why politics has chosen me as one of its many writers. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span>Note: Re: this whole post. Don't ask. It was midnight, I suddenly get the urge to start writing and this is what comes out. 'Cuz, ya'know: I'm a writer. </span></div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-61990663771574638252011-08-28T17:52:00.000-07:002011-08-30T07:55:12.719-07:00"Rule Britannia"<div class="MsoNormal">Today I went to a festival in my city, where I was greeted by a small choir singing “Rule Britannia”. The chorus is catchy, I'll admit it. However, all I kept hearing was “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves. Britons never ever ever shall be sane”. I am not joking, that is exactly what I could make out. I had to ask my boyfriend, who promptly filled me in on what the lyrics actually said. “Britons never ever ever shall be slaves”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s interesting to note that the choir was singing this song here in Wales. </div><div class="MsoNormal">Wales; a country whose history, for what I have gathered, consists of the pillaging and plundering by England. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is even more interesting to note that yesterday, for the first time, I found myself saying out loud that <b>I believe the British have been colonised by the American Empire, much like the rest of the World, only with far less opposition by its citizens.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And I stand by my words. Britain is a proud country, used to rule the world after being an Empire for centuries. It seems easier for British citizens to carry on believing that they (more or less) still rule the world. They seem content with the fact that everyone else speaks English, just like them. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">They don’t question, for instance, why is it that there’s a McGonnagal’s, a Burger Minging and a PlanetsBucks in every British High Street. Every effing British High Street. Would the British react differently if the forsaken fast food establishment were called, say, “Don Alonso’s”? </div><div class="MsoNormal">I saw an ad on the telly some time ago for this “New British Drama!”. Except that it seems to take place in America, everyone has an American accent, the look and feel of the images is indistinguishable from an American Drama and, wait for it, there’s an American flag waving at the end of the ad.</div><div class="MsoNormal">I could go on all day.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let me say this loud and clear:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u><b>Britain is not America. And the ruling empire is the American Empire, not the British Empire. </b></u></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Britain is not pulling the strings, America is. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">As a foreigner, I notice how every culture in the world is being superseded by the Great American Culture. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I have felt for the culture of every country I’ve lived in, its personality, charm and unique qualities trodden upon by a big, unstoppable Monster nobody is supposed to acknowledge or question.</div><div class="MsoNormal">I feel for British culture as well. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But of course, British culture is not the only victim of the American Empire. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There's also the British Welfare State. A source of national pride and a strong example of “doing it right” which American activists themselves have relied on to prove to their governments that “there is a better way to do things”. That British Welfare State is being decimated by policies and laws that have a distinct Neoliberal appearance.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Put it bluntly, the welfare state is being killed by the American economic system that rules the world.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Put it more bluntly still, in a few more years, the British economy will be indistinguishable from the American one. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is simply a continuation of the American Empire exercising its influence over Britain. And it’s only a taste of what the rest of the world has been dealing with since the beginning of the American Empire. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Yet you don’t hear right wing groups like the EDL crying about defending “British Values” while opposing American ones. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">-----------------------------------</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I was just listening to this very song on ITube. The video consisted of a long series of paintings showcasing the might of the British Empire. The last one? “Side by side Britannia”, an image of Uncle Sam and Britannia herself, their arms locked, smiling at each other.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Perhaps the artist forgot to add a speech bubble: Uncle Sam whispering to Britannia "Do as I say or else". </div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-8607922521054389692011-08-26T14:26:00.000-07:002011-08-26T14:26:37.684-07:00"Savages"<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><b>Savages. “Feral savages”</b>. Those words have been used to characterise the rioters. Not just the rioters, but all the people who belong to the “class” that rioters are presumed to come from. And because there isn’t a social class called “rioters”, pundits have rushed in to fill the description by making unfounded assumptions: they are black and brown, they have single mothers, they are on benefits, they live in council housing, they don’t have fathers. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And every time someone has referred to the rioters as “savages”, this very song would pop up in my head. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/v1klLTb1rbE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Melanie Phillips is the picture of a friendly, progressive, liberal lady who goes to yoga classes and makes vegetarian soups. It came as a shock to learn that she’s a rightwing Daily Male pundit. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I don’t usually engage with the insanity that pesters in the Daily Male, so I’ll just use her words to make a wider point. In a recent piece of hers, Phillips wrote:</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">“(…) the most important thing that socialises children and turns them from feral savages into civilised citizens”</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">That most important thing turns out to be a “father”, in case you were wondering. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I want to go back to this song because it provides a neat context on which to judge this accusation of rioters as “feral savages”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For those who haven’t heard of it, the song is from the movie “Pocahontas”, which tells the story of British Settlers arriving to the “New World” with the intention to pillage and plunder in good old British fashion. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The word “savages” is, as you may have guessed, used by the settlers to refer to the natives. The settlers were “civilised”, and the natives were not. This state of affairs was essential for the settlers to justify the carnage they inflicted upon several peoples in order to steal their land</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Some of the descendents of those peoples, referred today as Native Americans, are still around and there is no shortage of activists ready to condemn the carnage and the destruction that the settlers brought to their ancestors. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But that’s the thing, you see: they condemn the Americans for their actions. And Britain is left off the hook. To my knowledge, Native American activists have not laid the blame for the actions of the White Man at the feet of the “Mother Country”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It was British settlers who first arrived to America. And <b>the idea of natives as “savages”, and of Europeans as “civilised” grew, partly, on British soil. It clearly hasn’t been extirpated yet. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I find it fascinating that these ideas share the same root with the accusations of rioters as “feral savages” in need of “civilising”. The words are the same for a reason. </div><div class="MsoNormal">And <b>the template for dealing with the rioters is the same as the template for colonization: there are “feral savages” in need of “civilising” by the White Man or Great Father</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I also wonder if Melanie Phillips would have been able to get away with using these words in a country like Australia. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It didn’t work in the case of Native Americans, and it won’t work with the rioters. That much is obvious. The mindset that considers “brown people” or “children” (notice how in the case of the rioters those two categories are blurry) as “feral savages” is not the mindset that will “civilise” them. If by “civilising” one means educating them, clothing them, feeding them; all the noble goals that colonizers adopted and which, as you might expect, amounted to nothing. Instead, the "savages" were exterminated or turned into "second class citizens" of a nation they didn't not choose.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The problem is Patriarchy. The problem is Civilisation. And we must end both</b>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Note: Yes, I do know that "Pocahontas" is problematic in a bazillion ways, but I'm making a very basic point here, which still stands. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-32110140188812168742011-08-25T17:58:00.000-07:002011-08-25T17:58:22.161-07:00News: I "Published" Something!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]-->I’ve just joined the website “<a href="http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/">Women’s Views on News</a>”. I am a “co-editor”. My mum was well impressed by that title! <div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/08/the-truth-behind-erotic-capital/">And my first piece consists of debunking the idea of “erotic capital” that some subpar academic has been writing about. I write about exploitation, commodification, “feminism and attractiveness”, the market and homo economicus. Plus I mention Laurie Penny</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s has had a great reception, where “great” means a couple of people on twitter liked it, and all feedback has been positive. I’m really happy about it, I won’t lie.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now, <b>here’s what I’ve realised from “publishing” my first piece: it hasn’t changed the world</b>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In my previous post,<a href="http://marytracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-review-of-uk-feminista-summer-school.html"> I mentioned how attending UK FeministaSummer School</a> taught me that it’s not enough to understand something for it to change. It sounds silly because it is. I always knew this on a conscious level, of course I did. But something clicked during that session on reproductive rights: my understanding of an issue does not make the issue go away.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A similar thing happened yesterday: I wrote about something, but the world didn’t change. The problems I addressed (and they weren’t many) are all still there. <b>Somehow my subconscious seemed to convince itself that “once I publish my ideas, the world will change and everything will be much better”</b>. Again, a silly thing to believe, but that’s the delusion my subconscious seemed to be under.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Never fear, though, for my subconscious seems to have come up with a solution: I shall keep writing. Surely after I’ve written lots and lots, the world will change. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>I am pointing all this out because I am worried about the mismatch between “knowledge” and “change” that is prevalent in our society. We seem to “know” what is wrong, but we have no idea how to change it.</b> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I don’t have an answer to this dilemma and believe me that in itself has caused me enough suffering. What could be more painful than knowing that your writing is essentially useless? Furthermore, I don’t even know myself how to go on about changing the world. So what good could my writing do if I can’t say to people “this is how we change things”?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>What I’ve done is to settle for “explaining” things rather than “informing” people about them</b>. I have always been eager to distance myself from the word “journalist”. I am a writer; I don’t just inform people of what is going on. I want to explain to them the whys and the hows. For instance, we all know that the economy is “effed”, but people don’t seem to know why that is the case, or how we can change it. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m beginning to realise that I like explaining politics to people, so who knows? Perhaps that’s what I’ll devote my life to.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And if you have come across a way to deal with this dilemma of “knowing what is wrong but being unable to change it”, then please let me know about it. I’ve been searching for an answer for a really long time.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-85351295428110303782011-08-21T13:49:00.000-07:002011-08-21T13:49:35.154-07:00My Review of UK Feminista Summer School<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">I said that I would try to write something a bit more positive about UK Feminista Summer School. So here it is.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I want to start with the best outcome of the School for me. And that was <b>the opportunity to meet a very special feminist from my home country. <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/Feminist_Inti">Her name is Inti</a>, and she’s committed to the daunting task of bringing some badly needed feminism to a deeply sexist and misogynist culture</b>. I admire her bravery; I didn’t stay to fight sexism, I just left the country.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A small part of me started to heal from my talk with Inti. It’s a part I never acknowledge, full of pain, shame and confusion. For once in my life someone understood what I felt when I was a teenager. I could never make people understand it, and nobody was keen to do so anyway. But for a split second, in between our conversation, a single shred of understanding shone through, imperceptible to anyone but me. And it was enough. For now, it will be enough.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And had it not been for UK Feminista, this encounter would not have taken place. I am immensely grateful to the organizers, just for this opportunity. <b>So thank you, UK Feminista organizers, for creating a space where feminists can come together and meet each other.</b> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now I got this off my chest, on to the actual school. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u>"How to run an effective campaign"</u></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">From Eve Sadler, I learned about campaigning. I find it very difficult to be “practical” and get things done; I am a natural thinker, not a doer. So Sadler’s focus on strategy and her “what to do when” approach, helped me actually picture “how to get stuff done rather than read and dream”. It’s a strange feeling, to suddenly imagine yourself actually “achieving change”, even if it is small, rather than passively waiting for a Revolution. To top it all, Sadler gave us all a nice handout with detailed instructions on how to run an effective campaign. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What could have worked better?</b> Perhaps focusing the campaigns a bit more on “feminist” goals. And a passing comment about the “Revolution” would have been nice. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I don’t want to be a party poop, but we have to acknowledge that we won’t be able to change the world just by writing to our MPs. Yes, I realise that this may be the easiest way to achieve “some” change, but what are our chances to bring in Real Feminism to our lives when most of our MPs are men, and (roughly) all of them support the current economic system?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u>"The attack on women’s reproductive rights"</u></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Darinka Aleksic and Helen Collins opened my eyes to the reality of women’s reproductive rights. Or rather, the current attack on women’s reproductive rights. </div><div class="MsoNormal">I’ll be honest with you, the subject bores me slightly. The reason is quite… silly. I am a theory junkie: I like political arguments. And the “arguments” used to undermine abortion rights are more or less of the “nonsense ranting by people gone bananas” kind. That presents no challenge to my grey matter. So, I have more or less kept aside from the Grand Abortion Debate. Also, up to now, I believed the attack on Abortion was merely an example of Crazy American 'Sugar'. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Turns out, I was wrong. And the Crazy American Sugar has already made it to the British Isles. There are anti-abortion groups in this country spouting the same ranting nonsense as they do in the US. </div><div class="MsoNormal">This eye opening session taught me a lesson about how my mind works. I subconsciously seem to believe that once I “understand” a subject, the battle has been won, justice has been made and I can move on to other stuff. That may be a great strategy for “learning” things, but it’s a non-strategy for fighting for social justice. It will take a little bit more than me understanding how something works for that something to stop taking place in the real world. (Yes, I do live inside my mind, it’s a much happier place. I’m working on it.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What could have worked better?</b> I would have really liked some political “context”. I wanted to ask if anyone knew what motivates these people gone bananas into ranting nonsense. What is to them if a woman has an abortion or ten? Does anyone know why they care so much? Don’t they have cakes to bake, dogs to walk, children to read stories to, teacups to paint?</div><div class="MsoNormal">But there’s a bigger question that I don’t think anyone has tackled yet. Why do these groups get so much money? Yes, they are funded by the religious right, but why. Why is it in the interest of the Right to undermine abortion rights? WHY? Doesn’t make sense to me. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“<u>How the cuts are hitting women hardest</u>” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Another eye opening talk. I already knew the basics of this, but its sheer scale made me, and probably everyone else in the room, jump a mile high. I really appreciated <a href="http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp">Anna Bird'</a>s summary of the cuts as “ideological threats” (yay! Back to theory). </div><div class="MsoNormal">The talks by Sandhya Sharma (<a href="http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/index.html">Southall Black Sisters</a>) and Aisha Mirza were really inspiring. They reminded me once again (and I do need a lot of reminding) that even the smallest actions can lead to change, and that all it takes is one small step in the right direction. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What could have worked better?</b> A bit more focus on Trade Union movement. Bird described these cuts as a “threat to employment protection, maternity rights and equality law”. Excellent. It would have been grate if she had kept on that track and framed these cuts around “class”. The best tool at women’s disposal for fighting the cuts is to join unions and strike; and strike good. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u>Summary</u> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">UK Feminista Summer School is not, and it should not be, about what “I want to hear”. The School helped me realise how easy it is, when doing feminism online, to just drift towards our favourite topics and forget the rest. Similarly, it’s easy to just fall back on a single mind groove (“I’ll wait for a Revolution”) and stay there. However, during a feminist conference, one has relatively little say over what others will talk about, or how they will frame the issues. This can backfire, of course, if it gets too “top down”. However, it can be a good thing if it opens our eyes to a reality we hadn’t seen before. It’s easy, in the internet world, to hover around a few “niche” issues, because we are most comfortable around them. Yet, every now and then, we have to come out of our comfort zone. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What could have worked better?</b> </div><div class="MsoNormal">*A more “bottom up” approach. Having a few sessions were activists just got together and talked to each other. </div><div class="MsoNormal">*More “political context”. The word “neoliberalism” was only articulated once in the whole day and I’m sad to report it was done by a man. There was a general lack of awareness of “how the world works”. Listening to all those amazing activists working hard to make things a bit better, I got this image in my head: “Feminist activists work on putting out the fires set off by men”. For instance, it is men who crash the world economy and it’s women who go out and care for the vulnerable and needy. I don’t like this set up. Putting out fires is all well and good but some of us should be sparing the occasional glance to those who are setting them off. </div><div class="MsoNormal">*More focus on “herstory”. </div><div class="MsoNormal">*Also, class and race. </div><div class="MsoNormal">*An opportunity to “get to know one another” that is a bit more structured, so that we all participate. As opposed to “go out and talk to strangers whenever you can find the time”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"> *Also, I think UK Feminista could be clear on what their goals are. Is it supposed to be an “umbrella type organization”? If that’s the case, then it should work towards highlighting all kinds of feminism. There isn't a direct acknowledgement that UK Feminista's feminism is one of a multitude of feminisms. </div><div class="MsoNormal">*I leave my bitchiest comment for the end. It would have been great if the “talks” had been overseen by the organizers beforehand. Just because the speaker has letters after her name and works within academia does not mean that their talk will be up to scratch. Or remotely related to “feminism” for that matter.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For a critique of the talk about "the men", <a href="http://madamjmo.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-about-mens.html">don't miss MadamJ-Mo's post</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-19150425305668937072011-08-16T17:15:00.000-07:002011-08-17T16:05:46.112-07:00My Experience at UK Feminista Summer School<div class="MsoNormal">Today I want to try something different. I want to write about my experience at UK Feminista Summer School on Sunday. But I don’t want to bring in politics, or pass judgement; at least not yet.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I only attended the School on Sunday. I went with a friend from Cardiff Feminist Network. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">From the very beginning of the event, specifically during the “Welcome & Introduction” session, I felt disconnected from everyone else in the room. I am not entirely sure why. I was experiencing the familiar feeling that “everyone else is much better than me”. This meant that I was feeling quite low. And things only got worse.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Throughout the day I had to struggle with this feeling of “lowness” or depression. Everyone was smarter, prettier, more successful and more sociable. Everyone wanted to be with everyone else. Except me.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Lunchtime was Hell. The meal I had lovingly made for myself sucked. And all the other women were happily chatting away with all the other women. I was confronted, once again, with the cold, harsh reality that I am quite shy, and struggle to interact with strangers. I was unhappy. I felt as if all the other women had learnt something I never did: how to be happy and chat to complete strangers. So I remained on my own. I paced around the room on my own. And eventually ended up where most loners like me end up: behind books. It was high school, all over again.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">After lunch I attended a talk titled “Activism in Theory and Practice: from research to the ‘real’ world”. </div><div class="MsoNormal">The word I used to describe the talk when taking notes was “crap”. Yes, it’s harsh, but that’s how I felt then. The talk made me feel unbelievably lonely because I could tell I was the most radical person in the room. This made me feel like a “black sheep”. It was as if I was standing on the other side of a pane of glass: I was next to everybody, but I just wasn’t “there”. Feelings of hopelessness and despair followed through. The experience left me wondering “why bother trying to be a political writer? It’s all a waste of time because I can’t get on with people”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The talk was “crap” because the women who gave it belonged to the “fine” tradition of postmodernist thought, and were therefore quite careful not to think or, heaven forbid, give their opinion on anything. Yes, even though they were in a room full of feminists. Even though they were not “lecturing” us on anything, because we were not their students. They still tried to appear “objective”. Which meant, inevitably, that they spoke of nothing. That’s the essence of postmodernism right there. It appeared that nobody else but me could see that, however.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The non-lecturers asked us to form groups and discuss what they had brought up. Once again, just like high school. We went around saying our names and what we “did”. One woman from a “public sector/voluntary sector/good job helping people”, and three young women with glamorous student careers. When it got to me, I lost it. What was I supposed to say? “I am unemployed, have depression and dream of becoming a writer”? I was feeling too low even for that. So this is what I said “I sit at home and suffer”. Which is pretty accurate anyway. And I am nothing if not a drama queen. </div><div class="MsoNormal">Then, two more talks followed. “How the cuts are hitting women hardest” and “The global struggle: international feminist resistance”. The feelings brought up by the first talk only grew stronger with the second one. I felt decidedly unimportant compared with the women giving the talks. Their presence brought up feelings of resentment: they had nice jobs going around changing the world. And then they got to give talks to fellow feminists. I felt there was a hierarchical set up, and I was at the bottomest bottom. And I grew resentful because of it. The hierarchy seemed to say “these women have done worthy things, they spend their lives doing worthy things, that is why you should listen to what they have to say; and no, you have nothing worthy to say because you don’t spend your life doing worthy things”. In order to “defend” myself from this hierarchy, I had to remind myself that, worthy as these women’s deeds may be, they get paid to do them. That’s right: their feminist work is a full time job. Meanwhile, my feminism is done for free. So why should they have something worthy to say and not me?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">These feelings are not pretty. These thoughts are less so. But that’s what I felt and that’s what I thought. My feelings and thoughts are what they are. I am not “blaming” anyone over them. My feelings are not “right” nor are they “wrong”. The thoughts I had were an attempt to counter very painful feelings. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">If you wonder why the blazes I am writing about painful feelings of depression, social exclusion and inadequacy, I give you <a href="http://www.ordinarycourage.com/my-blog/2011/8/8/courage-is-a-heart-word.html">Brene Brown on courage</a>: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">The root of the word <i>courage </i>is <i>cor</i>—the Latin word for <i>heart. </i>In one of its earliest forms, the word <i>courage </i>had a very different definition than it does today. Courage originally meant “To speak one’s mind by telling all one’s heart.”</div></blockquote><blockquote>(...) I think we’ve lost touch with the idea that speaking honestly and openly about who we are, about what we’re feeling, and about our experiences (good and bad) is the definition of courage</blockquote><blockquote>(...) Ordinary courage is about putting our <i>vulnerability </i>on the line. In today’s world, that’s pretty extraordinary. </blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">(I'll try to write something a bit more positive on UK Feminista Summer School soon.)</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-38594032279965324182011-08-15T11:55:00.000-07:002011-08-16T09:40:46.608-07:00"It's Not Fair"<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_2106340714" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjakIO_wRWS3JY4qHQMYcCyM8bSiO7QcSdUBMkIOjludfu0UYk3CEiC97-RNOaKUCj1lU3Qzz1n8siokNUB2bd8eRGuUc1q0fCv3YY0Sx5krpa3ltqYA8mrmRB0JcYbEYTGdrZdBmIBk2V6/s400/Amateurs.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52379724-82/bagley-cartoon-facebook-gate.html.csp">Pat Bagley's editorial cartoon for The Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, August 14, 2011</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/08/competing-common-senses-of-riots.html">Richard Seymour (aka “Lenin”)</a> has argued that <b>the connecting thread behind the riots is “injustice”</b>. I agree. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is fascinating to observe how much can be connected by that single thread. But it’s particularly interesting when the thread is used to frame the desperate cries of the media.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>“It is not fair!”, they all seem to say, before dwelling over the personal crisis of innocent “victims” of the riots. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“It’s not fair that 15 families had to see their business burn down. A business that had been in the family for generations, a business that survived the great depression and two world wars. I mean, why target them, eh? It’s not fair”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“It’s not fair that three men were killed after they tried to protect their homes. Honestly, it wasn’t their fault, was it?”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“It’s not fair that so many people lost their homes because of arson attacks. These people lost everything! How can it make sense for members of the community to lose how little they had?”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“It’s not fair that small businesses were looted. The businesses of hard working people were vandalized. How can anyone justify that? These are members of the community”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You know what our answer to all these cries should be?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>“Precisely”</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">None of the above things are fair. But at the same time, there are other many things that are not fair.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not fair that young black men are stopped and searched twenty times in one month because their skin makes them suspect of criminality in the eyes of the police.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not fair that poor youths about to enter the labour market cannot find jobs that will support them. I mean, people who have never had a stake in the labour market cannot, in all conscience, be blamed for what has happened with the labour market. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not fair that people born in poverty have no chance of escaping poverty. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not fair that young people will never be able to afford higher education.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not fair that people die under police custody and nobody is charged.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is not fair that some severely ill people see their disability benefits cut because they are deemed “fit enough to work”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Some media heads have pointed out that the reason given by the rioters for their rioting was “because we can”. </div><div class="MsoNormal">That’s it. Those in power inflicting “injustice” on everyone else are also doing it “because they can”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>If those in power have no higher purpose for their actions other than “because we can”, why should we expect any different from the poorest, most desperate and most vulnerable members of society?</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Similarly, if the richest people in the country are not “fair”, why should the poorest be?</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>If society is run under the premise of “it’s not fair”, why should we be surprised when things turn out to not be fair?</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>A society that breeds injustice should not be surprised to find injustice.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The riots are not a revolution. Rioters are not trying to replace our current system with a “fairer one”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Riots are a continuation of the theme of injustice, which has become acceptable and par the course, so long as it flows mainly in one direction.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>So when somebody from the media cries out that the riots are “not fair”, our response should be “<u>No, it’s not fair. That’s precisely the problem</u>.”</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The answer to injustice, of course is, “justice”. But for that you need a Revolution.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">(<u><b>Note</b></u>: It’s interesting to notice how journalists pick on the examples of poor, hard working people being affected by the riots as evidence of “unfairness” on the part of the rioters. What they are NOT SAYING, and not saying very loudly, is: “If the rioters had only targeted the rich, then it would have been fair”. It’s a lie, of course: when people do target the rich the media still blames them. <b>But another response to these journalists pushing the whole “rioters were mean to fellow poor, brown people” could very well be: “<u>so you’re saying that if rioters had only targeted rich, white people, it would have been justifiable?</u>”</b>. At which point I can easily imagine the journalist squirming in their seats.)</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-83101496927437512542011-08-10T09:50:00.000-07:002011-08-10T09:50:26.269-07:00"Talking Rubbish"<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">A microcosm of the reasons behind the riots appeared on public telly last night, apparent to anyone with a caring heart and some attention to detail.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A young black man talking about laws on “joint enterprise laws” and their effects on young and poor people. A white woman interrupts him (and apologizes to the presenter for doing so) and says that he’s “<b>talking rubbish</b>”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Talking rubbish. No “you’re misguided” or “that’s incorrect, wrong, inaccurate”. No. The black man was “talking rubbish”. Afterwards, when the other young man from an ethnic minority was talking, she went on “I’ve never heard so much rubbish”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And while the two white, middle aged (most certainly middle class) people on the panel took turns to present rioters as “vile people”, “thugs” and “scumbags” who need discipline, and then proceeded to cry out for their mothers to interfere, the black man tried to remind them that “they are still part of society”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The white woman would have none of it. She could be heard saying “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">they are not part of <u>my</u></b><b> society</b>”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is it. This is precisely what is going on. <b>White people from privileged backgrounds refusing to acknowledge rioters as members of their society, going so far as to deny that they are “human”</b>. I probably don’t need to remind the world of what happens when a group of people is considered “less” than human.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There is such a thing as basic human decency. And it’s possible to disagree while remaining civil. <b>However, dismissing another person’s words as nothing but “rubbish” shows a deep seated lack of respect and an inability to grant the other person the same level of worth one would grant a member of their own class or race.</b> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Poor black people try to explain, and rich white Britain doesn’t want to listen. It’s all “rubbish”. It comes from the mouths of poor people; black people. Worthless people. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Would Ms White Middle Class Woman have dared to say to a Rich White Man that he’s talking “rubbish”? I personally happen to think that Jeremy Paxman talks rubbish on an almost constant basis, but I would stop at saying that to his face. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What astonishes me is how nobody seems to have picked up on this word. The lack of respect towards the most vulnerable in society is so great that a white woman can say to a black man to his face that he’s “talking rubbish” on public television and nobody bats an eyelid. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The name of the black man, a student, is Yohanes Scarlett. I won’t do Ms White Middle Class Woman the courtesy of writing down her name. She’s not part of “my” society.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Before I leave, I want to say this. If there is one good thing that has come from the riots is witnessing people from poor backgrounds being so spot on. It’s been a while since I saw so much common sense on the telly. While it is heartbreaking that it has taken violence and riots for the media to shine its light upon the dispossessed and broadcast their voices, it is truly inspiring to realise that they know precisely what is going on, why and what needs to change.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The Revolution is round the corner</b>.</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141261450326223185.post-41943476147252241372011-08-08T14:38:00.000-07:002011-08-08T14:38:07.893-07:00Dear Britain...<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">At first I was surprised, perhaps even slightly amused. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now I stare in disbelief. My brain struggles to accept the reality of what I see. Riots? In London??? </div><div class="MsoNormal">I have never seen or heard of anything as grave as what is taking place in "the City" today.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There were riots in my home country once. They lasted one day. People targeted supermarkets mostly, and took food. There were no fires. Those of us with a critical eye suspected they must have been coordinated somehow by the opposition, seeing as how they broke out on the same day, all around the country and seemingly out of nowhere. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If what is happening in London had taken place in my home country, the whole world, my people included, would have said “third world country, what do you expect”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And yet, looking at poor people in London, with their dark skins, their poor housing, their broken neighbourhoods, their ordinary clothes… I could easily fool myself and see any impoverished, suburban neighbourhood in Latin America. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But this is not Latin America. This is the capital of one of the richest nations on Earth. The birthplace of the industrial revolution. The living proof that capitalism doesn’t end poverty. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In Latin America, we have the excuse of poverty. When something bad happens, when the poor are really poor, we can comfort ourselves by saying “we are a poor country, there isn’t much we can do”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But there is plenty Britain could do. This country has just spent 9.5 billion pounds in preparing itself for the “Olympics”. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Dear Britain. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Thank you for showing your human self. Humans react when provoked. And it’s a relief to discover that despite centuries of indoctrination and “civilization”, you can respond to the violence done upon you. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/15/theresa-may-cut-police-budget-without-violent-unrest">Thank you for proving Theresa May wrong</a>. I sincerely wished you hadn’t had to resort to this. I’d like to believe I tried to stop things getting to this point. I promise you I’ll carry on working so that you will never see yourself in this situation again. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I wish you the strength and compassion to see yourself as you are, take responsibility for what you have become and heal yourself accordingly. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Love</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Mary</div>Mary Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207819303495310169noreply@blogger.com2