Yesterday David Cameron wrote an op ed piece in the Daily Telegraph. It's actually a fairly rousing call to arms for all neoliberals and very inspirational. The problem is it was written in Neoliberal, the language of the laissez-faire, Ayn-Rand-loving capitalist and therefore very hard for ordinary people to parse. I thought it was my public duty to translate the first few paragraphs for those people (Nick Clegg? Vince Cable?) still not fluent in Neoliberalism.
Brick by Brick, we're building ourselves a fort
Last year, in these pages, I set out my vision for opening up new markets. It’s simple. I want us to create new ways in which we can exploit people and bring about unprecedented wealth for those already in power. In place of what we currently have, I want truly open public service market, where companies can choose to run the profitable hospitals and schools, with the government and taxpayers subsidising the provision of information that allows companies to make that choice; where large transnational companies, with no interest in the outcomes for society, no interest in serving anyone other than their shareholders, can come in and offer poor services that poor people access free while the wealthy can buy access to superior services; where we only help those that are absolutely destitute; and where these politicians or bureaucrats in Whitehall do not have to be held accountable for the mess they create by creating a completely hollow government.
Our public servants work incredibly hard, but we neoliberals have systematically dismantled the state sector and so not enough people get the great service they have paid for and have a right to expect. I want to bring to everyone the illusion of choice and and make them forget about the standards they previously enjoyed. That means not just a change in structures but a genuine culture shift that changes the attitude of the public, making them revile public sector workers and government by providing scapegoats such as immigrants, unions, socialism, multiculturalism and the “mess we inherited from the last government”. This will leave them disempowered and feeling apathetic toward collective responsibility, allowing them to focus only on individualism and therefore paving the way to greater wealth for those already wealthy.
Just as these principles guiding reform are simple, so are the reasons driving it. We want to be richer. We are greedy and selfish and do not care about those that are vulnerable. We misguidedly believe that we are not privileged , but entitled. We have no understanding of society and how factors such as race, class, gender, disability and sexuality have led to a socially constructed state that allows white, middle class heterosexual men with large foreheads to prosper at the expense of others"
Here's the original:
Brick by brick, we’re tearing down the big state
Last year, in these pages, I set out my vision for improving the quality of our public services. It’s simple. I want us to end once and for all the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it. In its place, I want truly open public services, where people can choose the hospitals and schools they go to, with the right information at their fingertips to make that choice; where different providers, from the private and voluntary sectors, can come in and offer new services that people can access free; where funding is directed to helping the most disadvantaged; and where these services are truly accountable to local people, not to politicians or bureaucrats in Whitehall.
Our public servants work incredibly hard, and yet not enough people get the great service they have paid for and have a right to expect. I want to bring to everyone the choice and standards that the best provide. That means not just a change in structures but a genuine culture shift that changes the attitude of public service providers to make them more responsive to users, and makes users feel truly empowered.
Just as these principles guiding reform are simple, so are the reasons driving it. State bureaucracy has proved too clumsy and inefficient, stifling the innovation we need at a time when value for money is so critical. I also have an instinctive belief that parents, patients and professionals are so much better equipped to make the choices that will drive improvements in our public services. Give the power to them, allow new providers to come forward with new ideas, and good things will happen.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Friday, October 22, 2010
I can't stand it any more.
There's a lot to be said about the ConDem Coalition and their latest Spending Review but I've been holding my tongue. I'm largely too overwhelmed by the scale and the savagery of the spending cuts for detailed analysis. But there is something I just have to put out there because I am sick to death of not hearing anyone counter one particular argument about welfare reform.
Today Conservative Home posted "twenty reasons why the Coalition is compassionate". Number one on that list is this:
Here's the deal: reforming the benefit system so that "people are always better off when they work than when they are on benefits" means millions of people accepting extremely low paid work. That's the reality of that statement. It means staving people into accepting exploitation by companies forced to pay a minimum wage, but not a living one. It means starving people into working 80-120 hours/week, performing back breaking, unskilled, monotonous tasks, and still living their lives in debt. It means starving people into living in over-crowded situations, sharing rooms and homes with strangers. This is not "compassion". This is not "fair".
People don't remain on the dole because it "pays not to work". They remain on the dole because they cannot afford to accept low paid work and pay their bills. For many, taking that job in a sandwich shop for 35 hours/week at minimum wage means having to take another part-time job to pay for that job. Fine and dandy if you're single but absolutely no good if you have any dependants whatsoever. (And by "dependants" I don't just mean children, I mean relatives who are dependent on all kinds of undocumented, unrecognised social care support systems). Trapping people into dignity draining, emotionally debilitating lifestyles by gouging the welfare state is not compassionate, it's barbaric.
The other idea I must contradict is the one that suggests that the the richest 2% will be "hit hardest" by the spending review because they are contributing the most money. These people will still be able to feed and clothe themselves and their children and do so in the manner in which they have long been accustomed. They will lose some money, but very little else. Their dignity, their sense of self and belonging will remain intact while those forced into becoming under-employed and over exploited will find themselves increasingly alienated from the rest of society.
Today Conservative Home posted "twenty reasons why the Coalition is compassionate". Number one on that list is this:
- BENEFITS REFORM: Reform of the benefits system so that people are always better off when they take work than when they are on benefits.
Here's the deal: reforming the benefit system so that "people are always better off when they work than when they are on benefits" means millions of people accepting extremely low paid work. That's the reality of that statement. It means staving people into accepting exploitation by companies forced to pay a minimum wage, but not a living one. It means starving people into working 80-120 hours/week, performing back breaking, unskilled, monotonous tasks, and still living their lives in debt. It means starving people into living in over-crowded situations, sharing rooms and homes with strangers. This is not "compassion". This is not "fair".
People don't remain on the dole because it "pays not to work". They remain on the dole because they cannot afford to accept low paid work and pay their bills. For many, taking that job in a sandwich shop for 35 hours/week at minimum wage means having to take another part-time job to pay for that job. Fine and dandy if you're single but absolutely no good if you have any dependants whatsoever. (And by "dependants" I don't just mean children, I mean relatives who are dependent on all kinds of undocumented, unrecognised social care support systems). Trapping people into dignity draining, emotionally debilitating lifestyles by gouging the welfare state is not compassionate, it's barbaric.
The other idea I must contradict is the one that suggests that the the richest 2% will be "hit hardest" by the spending review because they are contributing the most money. These people will still be able to feed and clothe themselves and their children and do so in the manner in which they have long been accustomed. They will lose some money, but very little else. Their dignity, their sense of self and belonging will remain intact while those forced into becoming under-employed and over exploited will find themselves increasingly alienated from the rest of society.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Why I hate tony Blair.
I wrote this in response to a column by John Rentoul.
Here's why I hate Tony Blair.
I grew up on a council estate in South London in the 1980s. It was Thatcher's Britain. One of five children, I lived with my mother and two of my brothers in a tiny little house while my older brother and sister were housed in a flat on the same estate but across the road. There were no council houses available that would fit us all in.
One of my brothers has a learning disability and couldn't share a bedroom. As a result I was required to share a room with my other brother; we're six years apart and he hated sharing a room with his little sister. I was only ever in the room to sleep and get dressed as the space was limited and big brothers take up lots of room.
We had no money. We lived on benefits. We ate the same things over and over. I dreamed of coming from a family where they had huge overly stocked refrigerators filled with coke and juice and tasty snacks.. I also wanted a BMX and a skateboard. At other times I wanted a new winter coat but we couldn't afford one.
I had free school dinners, a free bus pass, school uniform vouchers, when there was a school trip my mum only ever had to pay a small proportion of the cost because she was unwaged.
At school we never had enough text books or footballs or netballs or anything. The teachers were fed up constantly and for most of the final two years - during my GCSEs - I didn't have a permanent Maths teacher. Often there was no substitute teacher at all and so we were left to our own devices, free to talk, draw, quietly mess about, waiting for our statutory formal education to conclude.
When I left school I went to FE college (our six form had been closed down) and spent a lot of time drinking in the pub and smoking in the common room. To supplement my child benefit (which my mum was kind enough to give to me) I worked in a McDs. I scraped my way to A levels good enough to get to a "New University". I was entitled to a grant which was intended to be supplemented by the new student loans system. I still had to keep my job because there was no one back home who could help me out so I transferred to a McD's in my New University town.
Now, I'm not telling this as a sob story (by and large I had it easier than a lot of people on our estate). No, I'm detailing all this in order to contextualise my hatred for Blair. You see, the thread that runs through that narrative, (which is perhaps unseen by a white, middle class, privileged male like Rentoul), is a burning hatred for Margaret Thatcher.
Every time I opened that fridge and wanted juice or cola or a snack that wasn't Jacobs cream crackers and marge, I blamed Maggie. She was the one that cut benefits we needed. When I got a D for GCSE Maths, I blamed Maggie. She was the one that launched a war against teachers. Every time I longed for a room of my own, I blamed Maggie. She was the one that eroded the housing stock. When I couldn't pay my rent, I blamed Maggie - how was anyone supposed to live on grants and loans that totalled £3600 a year?
I was also acutely aware about how Maggie was destroying the lives of miners, nurses, social workers - public servants up and down the land, similar to the ones who had helped my family. I was aware that as I had grown up things had become worse on my estate: so many jobless, so many penniless, so many depressed.
It was in that context I first perceived Tony Blair. I didn't read a single word of New Labour's manifesto, I just knew that they were Labour. They were Labour and they would take back all the things that Maggie had done to make life so dreadful for so many of us. I just thought "New Labour" was a tactic to get all those mug Sun voters to get behind them. If I had known that New Labour was a stop gap in Thatcherite neo-liberalism, maybe I would have been less optimistic and ultimately less disappointed.
I suppose Rentoul is right. It is self loathing. My hatred of Blair is partially disappointment in myself for trusting him on the basis of very little. I allowed my tribal loyalty to suspend criticism of him and his administration for years because I simply refused to believe I had could be so easily duped. I can't speak for everyone, but I think we hate him so much because he made such fools of us all for so long. We trusted him implicitly and ignored the creeping doubts until it was too late. By the time he crossed the final line (Iraq War), we had been completely humiliated and exploited. We were left perplexed as to how we had fallen for such an obvious confidence trick and allowed ourselves to we vote in our very own Maggie. The policies may not have been the same but the deception identical and so is the end result: blind hatred.
Of course I don't hate Blair with the same kind of irrational, personalised hatred my younger self had for Maggie. But I am filled with outrage and anger on behalf of a 17 year old Iraqi counterpart who might not know to say "fucking Tony Blair" when she's contemplating how much worse things have become during her lifetime. My loathing for Tony Blair will remain on her behalf, just as I retain my antipathy for Maggie for my 17 year old self. It's the least he deserves.
Here's why I hate Tony Blair.
I grew up on a council estate in South London in the 1980s. It was Thatcher's Britain. One of five children, I lived with my mother and two of my brothers in a tiny little house while my older brother and sister were housed in a flat on the same estate but across the road. There were no council houses available that would fit us all in.
One of my brothers has a learning disability and couldn't share a bedroom. As a result I was required to share a room with my other brother; we're six years apart and he hated sharing a room with his little sister. I was only ever in the room to sleep and get dressed as the space was limited and big brothers take up lots of room.
We had no money. We lived on benefits. We ate the same things over and over. I dreamed of coming from a family where they had huge overly stocked refrigerators filled with coke and juice and tasty snacks.. I also wanted a BMX and a skateboard. At other times I wanted a new winter coat but we couldn't afford one.
I had free school dinners, a free bus pass, school uniform vouchers, when there was a school trip my mum only ever had to pay a small proportion of the cost because she was unwaged.
At school we never had enough text books or footballs or netballs or anything. The teachers were fed up constantly and for most of the final two years - during my GCSEs - I didn't have a permanent Maths teacher. Often there was no substitute teacher at all and so we were left to our own devices, free to talk, draw, quietly mess about, waiting for our statutory formal education to conclude.
When I left school I went to FE college (our six form had been closed down) and spent a lot of time drinking in the pub and smoking in the common room. To supplement my child benefit (which my mum was kind enough to give to me) I worked in a McDs. I scraped my way to A levels good enough to get to a "New University". I was entitled to a grant which was intended to be supplemented by the new student loans system. I still had to keep my job because there was no one back home who could help me out so I transferred to a McD's in my New University town.
Now, I'm not telling this as a sob story (by and large I had it easier than a lot of people on our estate). No, I'm detailing all this in order to contextualise my hatred for Blair. You see, the thread that runs through that narrative, (which is perhaps unseen by a white, middle class, privileged male like Rentoul), is a burning hatred for Margaret Thatcher.
Every time I opened that fridge and wanted juice or cola or a snack that wasn't Jacobs cream crackers and marge, I blamed Maggie. She was the one that cut benefits we needed. When I got a D for GCSE Maths, I blamed Maggie. She was the one that launched a war against teachers. Every time I longed for a room of my own, I blamed Maggie. She was the one that eroded the housing stock. When I couldn't pay my rent, I blamed Maggie - how was anyone supposed to live on grants and loans that totalled £3600 a year?
I was also acutely aware about how Maggie was destroying the lives of miners, nurses, social workers - public servants up and down the land, similar to the ones who had helped my family. I was aware that as I had grown up things had become worse on my estate: so many jobless, so many penniless, so many depressed.
It was in that context I first perceived Tony Blair. I didn't read a single word of New Labour's manifesto, I just knew that they were Labour. They were Labour and they would take back all the things that Maggie had done to make life so dreadful for so many of us. I just thought "New Labour" was a tactic to get all those mug Sun voters to get behind them. If I had known that New Labour was a stop gap in Thatcherite neo-liberalism, maybe I would have been less optimistic and ultimately less disappointed.
I suppose Rentoul is right. It is self loathing. My hatred of Blair is partially disappointment in myself for trusting him on the basis of very little. I allowed my tribal loyalty to suspend criticism of him and his administration for years because I simply refused to believe I had could be so easily duped. I can't speak for everyone, but I think we hate him so much because he made such fools of us all for so long. We trusted him implicitly and ignored the creeping doubts until it was too late. By the time he crossed the final line (Iraq War), we had been completely humiliated and exploited. We were left perplexed as to how we had fallen for such an obvious confidence trick and allowed ourselves to we vote in our very own Maggie. The policies may not have been the same but the deception identical and so is the end result: blind hatred.
Of course I don't hate Blair with the same kind of irrational, personalised hatred my younger self had for Maggie. But I am filled with outrage and anger on behalf of a 17 year old Iraqi counterpart who might not know to say "fucking Tony Blair" when she's contemplating how much worse things have become during her lifetime. My loathing for Tony Blair will remain on her behalf, just as I retain my antipathy for Maggie for my 17 year old self. It's the least he deserves.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
David Laws: Huge Fucking Hypocrite.
I have been trying to examine why I feel so incensed by the calls for sympathy for David Laws. Journalists, politicians, various bloggers and an editorial in today's Observer, insist that we feel some sympathy for this man who claims he cheated on his MP's expenses because he was too scared to come out of the closet.
I have been in the closet, I know it can be terrifying. It's a close, suffocating place, filled with fear of both imaginary and real horrors. You imagine an ex-lover breaking your mother's heart by sending her photographs of the two of you in a casual embrace. You fantasise about your best friend shutting her front door in your face after she realises you have been lying to her for years. You visualise work colleagues scurrying for the exits every time you walk into the bathroom. Whenever someone asks "How was your weekend?" or "What did you do for your birthday?" you flinch before muttering one of several previously prepared evasive, dismissive answers.
Sometimes, tired of all the deception and "privacy", you think about coming out. You envy the freedom enjoyed by your (seemingly) heterosexual friends and colleagues. They share anecdotes and cute little stories about their loved ones. They expresses their crushes and desires, endlessly droning on about Colin Firth or Russell Crowe. They talk freely about their holidays or refurbishments to their homes. They don't have to pretend to have separate bedrooms. How much closer to people would you be if you didn't have to hide so much of your life? How much easier would it be to escape the isolation?
But then you look at all those out queers and you see so many of them struggling. Because you're closeted you hear the homophobic remarks that follow behind them. You see the looks secretly exchanged by the homophobes when some queen sashays by. You hear stories about people being ostracised by their families, about people being attacked, beaten up - killed! The closet might be a horribly suffocating, painfully isolating, terribly cold and dreary place, but at least it's safe. It's safe and most of the time it's comfortable. "Anyway", you say to yourself, "there's something slightly delicious about having a secret lover". The two of you don't need anyone else. You enjoy each other immensely, alone in your little bubble, why mess that all up by telling people about it? Stay safe, stay comfortable.
I imagine that the closet is much more comfortable for someone like David Laws than it was for me. As a black woman from a council estate in South London one could argue that I had a lot less to lose. I was already missing out on the privileges that come with being male, being white, being wealthy, why not abandon the heterosexual privileges as well? You see, because as well as being stifling, the closet is a place you remain to maintain your privileges. Which is all well and good for a private citizen, but for someone in political office it's completely unacceptable.
By hiding his homosexuality David Laws was sending the message that he understood, (subconsciously at least), that sexuality is more than just a private matter. He's saying he knows that by coming out people put themselves at risk and, to a certain extent, become second class citizens in this country. He's saying he understands that there are very real economic, social and health inequalities brought about through capitalism, and these inequalities are disproportionately experienced by queers. He saying he understands these inequalities have a substantial impact on well being of millions of LGBT people worldwide. By extension, he's saying he understands that the proposed age of austerity will disproportionately affect queers because they are queer. He's saying he understands that if queers are going to be disproportionately affected, then so are women, people from black Asian and minority ethnic communities, people living with disabilities and the working class. By staying in the closet he's saying he understand all that, but he doesn't give a shit.
Well, Fuck Him. He's basically a HUGE fucking hypocrite. I understand the pain and discomfort of being dragged out of the closet. However, his desire for wealth and political power in a neo-liberal government hell-bent on destroying public services means he can get stuffed. If he wants to be part of a government that insists there needs to be inequality, then he deserves to experience the sharp end of that inequality like so many queers already do. Go straight to the back benches, Do Not Pass Go and count yourself lucky you ain't sleeping on the streets tonight.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Climate Shame
I have so many thoughts crashing through my head at the moment. The Copenhagen Accord, which was announced today at COP15, falls so short of expectations that I cannot even begin to analyse the implications. It is not just the implications for averting catastrophic climate change, it is the political implications for every global issue we come across from now on. If we could not move toward change on this, what hope is there for anything else?
This is an emergency. Copenhagen was a chance for us to respond to that emergency. Instead our leaders sought to respond to science, with which they fundamentally agree, with an Accord that is downright mystifying to anyone who understands what is at stake. This is not just about the poor people, we will ALL lose with this.
I know people are sat there thinking that if it was truly a problem the leaders would have done something about it. The lack of political will shown by the US, China, South Africa and India has probably left most people thinking there might not be that much of a problem to answer after all. Or maybe, there is a quick technological fix that will be found at the last minute, it happens in the movies after all.
Well, let me just dispel the technological argument right now using the example of the search for a vaccine against HIV. We are over 25 years into the epidemic and a vaccine that will be distributed globally and provide sufficient protection and see HIV eliminated is, at the very least, 5-10 years away. Even if it is discovered tomorrow, once we get through all the trials and find the money for roll out and do all the things we need to do, elimination of this disease is probably 40-50 years away. We would have lived with pandemic HIV for around 75 years by then. Millions of dollars, man hours and lives will have been lost by the time we get there - if we do.
We do not have the same time luxury with green house gases and climate change as we do with the search for an HIV vaccine. We do not have 75 years or 50 years or even 25 years. We have 10. The compromises we make politically are as legally binding to the planetary ecosystem as the Copenhagen Accord is to the US, China and all those other countries. The climate is not going to wait while we slowly come around to the idea that we cannot sustain the constant growth in emissions. We have until 2020, at the very latest, for emissions to peak; after that we will have destabilised the climate to a point where there is no return.
When a person goes on hunger strike their body adapts to the changes in food and water intake. Their metabolism adjusts and they can live for many days without food. After a while organs begin to fail and after a certain point it is too late - even if that person starts eating again they will die. Our planet is no different, only it won't die, we will - in our millions.
Right now, I have no real feeling of hope about any of this. It may look better in the morning, but tonight it just looks like greenwash. Obama is right, the Copenhagen Accord is meaningful. It means that millions more people will suffer just because a few people wanted to stay rich for a little while longer.
We should all feel deeply ashamed about how we have failed our planet.
This is an emergency. Copenhagen was a chance for us to respond to that emergency. Instead our leaders sought to respond to science, with which they fundamentally agree, with an Accord that is downright mystifying to anyone who understands what is at stake. This is not just about the poor people, we will ALL lose with this.
I know people are sat there thinking that if it was truly a problem the leaders would have done something about it. The lack of political will shown by the US, China, South Africa and India has probably left most people thinking there might not be that much of a problem to answer after all. Or maybe, there is a quick technological fix that will be found at the last minute, it happens in the movies after all.
Well, let me just dispel the technological argument right now using the example of the search for a vaccine against HIV. We are over 25 years into the epidemic and a vaccine that will be distributed globally and provide sufficient protection and see HIV eliminated is, at the very least, 5-10 years away. Even if it is discovered tomorrow, once we get through all the trials and find the money for roll out and do all the things we need to do, elimination of this disease is probably 40-50 years away. We would have lived with pandemic HIV for around 75 years by then. Millions of dollars, man hours and lives will have been lost by the time we get there - if we do.
We do not have the same time luxury with green house gases and climate change as we do with the search for an HIV vaccine. We do not have 75 years or 50 years or even 25 years. We have 10. The compromises we make politically are as legally binding to the planetary ecosystem as the Copenhagen Accord is to the US, China and all those other countries. The climate is not going to wait while we slowly come around to the idea that we cannot sustain the constant growth in emissions. We have until 2020, at the very latest, for emissions to peak; after that we will have destabilised the climate to a point where there is no return.
When a person goes on hunger strike their body adapts to the changes in food and water intake. Their metabolism adjusts and they can live for many days without food. After a while organs begin to fail and after a certain point it is too late - even if that person starts eating again they will die. Our planet is no different, only it won't die, we will - in our millions.
Right now, I have no real feeling of hope about any of this. It may look better in the morning, but tonight it just looks like greenwash. Obama is right, the Copenhagen Accord is meaningful. It means that millions more people will suffer just because a few people wanted to stay rich for a little while longer.
We should all feel deeply ashamed about how we have failed our planet.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Countdown to Cop15
Well, I am up late and I have much time to kill so I thought I'd post here. In a couple of hours I am off to Copenhagen to join with thousands of others to ensure that our leaders - both elected and unelected - do not sign a suicide pact that'll condemn us all.
I cannot stress enough how much this summit means. In my own personal terms I am taking a 20 hour train journey at great cost so that I can play my small part in all this. It feels like nothing, but this is both the most and the least I could do. If I had had to walk there I would have done so.
I can understand that it seems crazy to many people. The media have cast those who can see the immediate importance of a strong climate change mitigation as liars, freaks, cheats, religious fanatics, treehuggers and anarchists. Over the past ten years climate scientists have grown frantic in their calls for something to be done in order for us to continue to maintain our civilisation with minimum disruption. The calls remain unheeded by much of the populace and almost zero political will has been forthcoming from those that govern us. Column inches abound but while journalists and politicians equivocate over scientific ideas long rejected by over 97% of climate scientists, we waste valuable time and large-scale ecological injustice is now almost inescapable.
Almost. We still have time and we absolutely must ustilise all our collective power to ensure that the Copenhagen Protocol if fair, ambitious and binding. A useless protocol, one that refuses to acknowledge all the science or one that is a suicide pact between rich nations, will ruin us. There is no exaggeration here; if you want an idea of the problems that will lie ahead for us all, please, just switch on the news.
So, what can you do?
Join your local climate change demonstration this Saturday. I will be representing myself in Copenhagen, you can represent yourself in your locality. Failing that contact your leaders and demand they take real action. Write a letter or an email. Phone them. Do something to let them know you will not sit still while they bargain away this planet's future.
Well I'm going to shower now. My train is in 3 hours and I'm nervous as all hell.
Good luck in your activism.
I cannot stress enough how much this summit means. In my own personal terms I am taking a 20 hour train journey at great cost so that I can play my small part in all this. It feels like nothing, but this is both the most and the least I could do. If I had had to walk there I would have done so.
I can understand that it seems crazy to many people. The media have cast those who can see the immediate importance of a strong climate change mitigation as liars, freaks, cheats, religious fanatics, treehuggers and anarchists. Over the past ten years climate scientists have grown frantic in their calls for something to be done in order for us to continue to maintain our civilisation with minimum disruption. The calls remain unheeded by much of the populace and almost zero political will has been forthcoming from those that govern us. Column inches abound but while journalists and politicians equivocate over scientific ideas long rejected by over 97% of climate scientists, we waste valuable time and large-scale ecological injustice is now almost inescapable.
Almost. We still have time and we absolutely must ustilise all our collective power to ensure that the Copenhagen Protocol if fair, ambitious and binding. A useless protocol, one that refuses to acknowledge all the science or one that is a suicide pact between rich nations, will ruin us. There is no exaggeration here; if you want an idea of the problems that will lie ahead for us all, please, just switch on the news.
So, what can you do?
Join your local climate change demonstration this Saturday. I will be representing myself in Copenhagen, you can represent yourself in your locality. Failing that contact your leaders and demand they take real action. Write a letter or an email. Phone them. Do something to let them know you will not sit still while they bargain away this planet's future.
Well I'm going to shower now. My train is in 3 hours and I'm nervous as all hell.
Good luck in your activism.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Rod Liddle: Fuck off and Die.
I have a grudging respect for people who get paid to write a weekly column. They have to deal with the pressure of putting down words to a deadline. On the other hand, they do get paid and they do get to shape the minds of thousands of people worldwide. It's a lot of pressure and occasionally some folk must feel completely overwhelmed by the task at hand.
One can only assume this is what happened to Rod Liddle when he sat down to write in The Spectator this week. Don't get me wrong, his column is usually dreadful, but this week he surpassed himself with one of the most racist ramblings I've read in years.
Here's his argument: multiculturalism in Britain doesn't work because two morally repugnant young men tried to murder a pregnant 15 year old girl.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml
Go on, read it for yourself. I'm sure that it makes prefect sense to some people. But I just don't see how he's worked this one out. "Goat curry"? What the fuck does that even mean? Let's forget that one of these men is of Nigerian descent or that both these young men probably were raised and socialised in the UK. Those are just incidental facts that get in the way of the main thrust of the argument: people from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities make Britain a worse place to live.
The crippling recession, the unfair, unjust corporate favoured, neo-liberal policies of the Blair and Brown governments are bad, but what makes it oh-so-much-worse are the presence of African Caribbean "human filth". African Caribbeans commit the most crime in London (untrue, but let's stick with it for now) and they have contributed nothing good to this country other than food and music. I'm sure Rod Liddle doesn't think this is a racist stance. He's sure of the supremacy of British culture and traditions. He knows that if African Caribbeans weren't here, this country would be better.
It's not wise to focus on one person; Rod Liddle is not the only one to express such views. The appearance of this article simply indicates just how far to the right this country has moved. It also indicates the desperate and serious financial situation we are in globally. As the ongoing economic downturn converges to meet the very real possibility of climate catastrophe, those most responsible, with the most to lose, are looking for scapegoats and distractions. It's a story from history that is both familiar and immediately recognisable as the foundation of brutal, authoritarian, draconian regimes. It's a story that often ends in the state sanctioned murder and incarceration of minority and/or impoverished peoples. It's the raw bones of fascism, imperialism and colonialism.
As things around us begin to unravel, I expect to read more and more articles about racial hygiene (as it was once known). I expect the revival of ideas about racial and cultural superiority to continue to gain currency in science, media and the arts. But I also expect a backlash. I and many others will not sit still while this happens. I will stand up and be counted, so that Rod Liddle, Nick Griffin, Benyamin Nethanyahu and all their supporters know that they will not go unchallenged. We will not allow them to destroy our lives with their oppression, their violence or their limited visions for humanity. We claim this world for the good people and they can fuck off and die.
One can only assume this is what happened to Rod Liddle when he sat down to write in The Spectator this week. Don't get me wrong, his column is usually dreadful, but this week he surpassed himself with one of the most racist ramblings I've read in years.
Here's his argument: multiculturalism in Britain doesn't work because two morally repugnant young men tried to murder a pregnant 15 year old girl.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml
Go on, read it for yourself. I'm sure that it makes prefect sense to some people. But I just don't see how he's worked this one out. "Goat curry"? What the fuck does that even mean? Let's forget that one of these men is of Nigerian descent or that both these young men probably were raised and socialised in the UK. Those are just incidental facts that get in the way of the main thrust of the argument: people from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities make Britain a worse place to live.
The crippling recession, the unfair, unjust corporate favoured, neo-liberal policies of the Blair and Brown governments are bad, but what makes it oh-so-much-worse are the presence of African Caribbean "human filth". African Caribbeans commit the most crime in London (untrue, but let's stick with it for now) and they have contributed nothing good to this country other than food and music. I'm sure Rod Liddle doesn't think this is a racist stance. He's sure of the supremacy of British culture and traditions. He knows that if African Caribbeans weren't here, this country would be better.
It's not wise to focus on one person; Rod Liddle is not the only one to express such views. The appearance of this article simply indicates just how far to the right this country has moved. It also indicates the desperate and serious financial situation we are in globally. As the ongoing economic downturn converges to meet the very real possibility of climate catastrophe, those most responsible, with the most to lose, are looking for scapegoats and distractions. It's a story from history that is both familiar and immediately recognisable as the foundation of brutal, authoritarian, draconian regimes. It's a story that often ends in the state sanctioned murder and incarceration of minority and/or impoverished peoples. It's the raw bones of fascism, imperialism and colonialism.
As things around us begin to unravel, I expect to read more and more articles about racial hygiene (as it was once known). I expect the revival of ideas about racial and cultural superiority to continue to gain currency in science, media and the arts. But I also expect a backlash. I and many others will not sit still while this happens. I will stand up and be counted, so that Rod Liddle, Nick Griffin, Benyamin Nethanyahu and all their supporters know that they will not go unchallenged. We will not allow them to destroy our lives with their oppression, their violence or their limited visions for humanity. We claim this world for the good people and they can fuck off and die.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Tips on being a black woman runner
When I saw Caster Semenya running in the 800m heats of the World Athletics Championship, I said to myself "She's wearing the wrong outfit". Rather than don the ubiquitous running knickers and sports bra, so popular with all the other women, she opted for cycling shorts and a running vest that just wasn't "strappy" enough. When you compare Semenya to Carmelita Jeter, the USA 100m Bronze medal winner, you can begin to see where the young South African went wrong. Jeter's physique is similar to Semenya's and neither woman is endowed with fine facial features. But Jeter, an African American, understands the pressures of Western femininity and preemptively strikes out at anyone who might dare say she looks like a man. Her arsenal of feminizing weapons include a range of male identified adornments, including the teeny tiny bikini running outfit.
So here's some tips for Semenya and anyone like her on how to pass as a woman so the suspicions of a bunch of old fuckwits from IAAF aren't aroused. Do this and you won't be subjected to a bunch of humiliating and degrading "gender" tests under glare of the media.
Caster Semenya has actually been fantastic about the way the IAAF have treated her. She's said that she doesn't give a damn, admirable in a 18 year old kid. They are planning on making her undergo not only chromosomal and hormonal testing but psychological and gynaecological tests too. The mind boggles at what psychological markers they will be using to "prove" she is woman enough to run as a woman. Black Looks has suggested that what the IAAF is doing is gender terrorism a sentiment I agree with 100%.
Disclaimer: I understand the complexities of determining the sex of an athlete. I also understand that the suspicions are not simply down to the way she looks but the way in which she has taken the sport by storm. Additionally, I realise that much of this has to do with bias against Athletics South Africa. However, my main issue is with the stupid shitty criteria used by the IAAF to determine sex and the way in which this case has been handled in the media. Completely fucking bogus.
So here's some tips for Semenya and anyone like her on how to pass as a woman so the suspicions of a bunch of old fuckwits from IAAF aren't aroused. Do this and you won't be subjected to a bunch of humiliating and degrading "gender" tests under glare of the media.
- Straightened hair / hair weave.
Nothing says "I'm a woman" for black women of the more muscular build like a long horse batty hair weave. Failing that, if you want short hair then it's gotta be processed, straightened and slicked to your head. If you're a black woman and you want to keep your hair natural then dreads or twists are acceptable. Steer clear of corn rows or cain rows as these have been appropriated by black male hip hop stars. - Make up.
Do feel free to cake on the lipstick, mascara and eye shadow as this will assure any doubters that you care about looking attractive to straight men. Jeter actually goes one step further and wears false eyelashes - a brilliant move that DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT make her look like a drag queen. - Pencilled in eye-brows.
It's important that you pluck your eyebrows until they disappear and then draw them in again with a black pencil. The eyebrow arc must be about 15mm above the natural location of your eyebrows as this indicates what you might look like during exhilarating, really super hot straight sex with a man with a huge penis. - False nails
Being a woman is about being uncomfortable and while many women have learned to live with 12 inch acrylic nails soldered onto their fingers, it does take quite a bit of getting used to. Like make up, false nails show that you care about attracting men and are willing to sacrifice being able to wipe your arse without lacerating your labia. - Earrings
Hoops and long dangly, sparkly pink ones are best. Steer clear of studs as men are also permitted to wear studs. - Skimpy knickers and bra top
It's all about skin, skin, skin. It's not just enough to wear skin tight lycra - after all, the fact that your body is 95% muscle means that your breasts are more memory than mammary. You need to reassure all viewers of your femininity by showing as much bare flesh as possible. Being nearly naked indicates your gender far better than actually being naked as women are modest.
Caster Semenya has actually been fantastic about the way the IAAF have treated her. She's said that she doesn't give a damn, admirable in a 18 year old kid. They are planning on making her undergo not only chromosomal and hormonal testing but psychological and gynaecological tests too. The mind boggles at what psychological markers they will be using to "prove" she is woman enough to run as a woman. Black Looks has suggested that what the IAAF is doing is gender terrorism a sentiment I agree with 100%.
Disclaimer: I understand the complexities of determining the sex of an athlete. I also understand that the suspicions are not simply down to the way she looks but the way in which she has taken the sport by storm. Additionally, I realise that much of this has to do with bias against Athletics South Africa. However, my main issue is with the stupid shitty criteria used by the IAAF to determine sex and the way in which this case has been handled in the media. Completely fucking bogus.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Equality
Disclaimer: I've given myself approximately twenty minutes to type this post & post subsequent link on Twitter before I go home, so if it's filled with spelling mistakes, grammatical horrors, inaccuracies or all around Gibber, you know why.
Quick recap: @blacknerds hosted a debate on Twitter today, that against all odds I found myself sucked into. I was steadfastly trying to ignore it and concentrate on doing dull administrative tasks, but Tweets kept catching my eye. The debate was about light skinned vs dark skinned black people (I'm gonna use the term black as it's inclusive of all those in the African diaspora, whereas African American isn't).
In essence, it seems that some people were arguing that the light skinned people - those who past the notorious paper bag test no doubt- have access to more privileges than dark-skinned people. The lighter you are, the more society favours you.
While I can accept that to a certain extent, and I appreciate that Western perceptions of beauty are very much influenced by this which in turn has a negative impact on how many black people see themsleves, I see no evidence that those of us who are light experience significant advantages on a global or even national level.
To me, this division is internal. While it may have its basis in historical notions of white supremacy and certain elements of it are perpetuated by the media, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the benefits of being lighter are significant.
A colleague of mine recently completed a study where she spoke to black Caribbean males & females aged 16-24 about sexual health needs. A lot of the young girls expressed preferences to light skinned guys, with "good hair" so they could have pretty babies. This is disturbing on many levels, but I don't think this suggests that we must see this light vs dark division as anything other than a distraction.
Because let's face it race, as a socially contructed phenomenom, isn't just about colour. And the discrimination faced by black people of all shades isn't just about race: it's about class, gender, sexuality, disability - the works.
So rather than further divide ourselves trying to decontruct, analyse and solve an issue that really isn't an issue, perhaps it's best to focus on what we are trying to achieve: equality for everyone.
Shit. Two minutes over my time.
Quick recap: @blacknerds hosted a debate on Twitter today, that against all odds I found myself sucked into. I was steadfastly trying to ignore it and concentrate on doing dull administrative tasks, but Tweets kept catching my eye. The debate was about light skinned vs dark skinned black people (I'm gonna use the term black as it's inclusive of all those in the African diaspora, whereas African American isn't).
In essence, it seems that some people were arguing that the light skinned people - those who past the notorious paper bag test no doubt- have access to more privileges than dark-skinned people. The lighter you are, the more society favours you.
While I can accept that to a certain extent, and I appreciate that Western perceptions of beauty are very much influenced by this which in turn has a negative impact on how many black people see themsleves, I see no evidence that those of us who are light experience significant advantages on a global or even national level.
To me, this division is internal. While it may have its basis in historical notions of white supremacy and certain elements of it are perpetuated by the media, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the benefits of being lighter are significant.
A colleague of mine recently completed a study where she spoke to black Caribbean males & females aged 16-24 about sexual health needs. A lot of the young girls expressed preferences to light skinned guys, with "good hair" so they could have pretty babies. This is disturbing on many levels, but I don't think this suggests that we must see this light vs dark division as anything other than a distraction.
Because let's face it race, as a socially contructed phenomenom, isn't just about colour. And the discrimination faced by black people of all shades isn't just about race: it's about class, gender, sexuality, disability - the works.
So rather than further divide ourselves trying to decontruct, analyse and solve an issue that really isn't an issue, perhaps it's best to focus on what we are trying to achieve: equality for everyone.
Shit. Two minutes over my time.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Join me in an incandescent rage
I don't care about gay marriage. Not really. I am terrified that my girlfriend of nearly 12 years will wanna make me get married and I don't really like commitment. Seriously though, it's not something that ever really set off any political rage switch in me. When I was growing up so few of my friends had married parents, perhaps subconsciously I didn't think that "marriage" was a civil right worth fighting over.
As the campaigns for/against Prop 8 in California raged on last year, I still found it hard to give a shit and the only thing that really bothered me about the outcome was the speed with which black people were blamed for its passing. Recent rulings riled, but did not get to me; after all, just allowing gay marriage isn't gonna stop many people from remaining second class citizens.
All-in-all, I figured that the gay marriage debate could never leave me feeling like I had to douse myself with kerosene and set myself on fire. Well, fuck me if I didn't come across something that has highlighted to me just how important this fight is.
Read this: The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It's supposedly a critique of gay marriage that isn't bigoted or biblical in origin. It's actually an insidious, homophobic bag o'shite masquerading as high brow intellectualism. This article is so disgusting and patronising in it's denigration of gay people. Quite simply, it argues that we are not part of a kinship system and no rules or traditions that bind heterosexual marriage apply to gay marriage.
An example:
What? Really? REALLY? No evidence to support a single statement in the whole article. None. On the contrary there is vast amounts of evidence to dispute virtually everything in it, most especially the sexist and false idea that marriage is there to protect the sexuality of women (fucker has never heard of rape WITHIN marriage).
Gay marriage is different from straight marriage in that one involves gay people and the other involves straight people. That's fucking it. Beyond that of unassisted reproduction (something that is rapidly becoming unavailable to many heterosexual couples as infertility rates rise) any additional argument about the difference between gay and straight marriage is socially constructed BULLSHIT.
It's because of people like the author of that article that gay marriage needs to be legalised globally as soon as possible. It's time to end any type of pseudo-intellectualised critique of queers as being somehow okay, but not okay enough.
As the campaigns for/against Prop 8 in California raged on last year, I still found it hard to give a shit and the only thing that really bothered me about the outcome was the speed with which black people were blamed for its passing. Recent rulings riled, but did not get to me; after all, just allowing gay marriage isn't gonna stop many people from remaining second class citizens.
All-in-all, I figured that the gay marriage debate could never leave me feeling like I had to douse myself with kerosene and set myself on fire. Well, fuck me if I didn't come across something that has highlighted to me just how important this fight is.
Read this: The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It's supposedly a critique of gay marriage that isn't bigoted or biblical in origin. It's actually an insidious, homophobic bag o'shite masquerading as high brow intellectualism. This article is so disgusting and patronising in it's denigration of gay people. Quite simply, it argues that we are not part of a kinship system and no rules or traditions that bind heterosexual marriage apply to gay marriage.
An example:
Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry (someone from the right clan or family, of the right age, with proper abilities, wealth, or an adjoining vineyard), but, more important, whom one may not marry. Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one's few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter.... If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill's daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can't be fitted into the kinship system.
It is repellent and viciously homophobic and so much worse than some fuckhead fanatic screaming about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. This person actually believes they have reasoned out a rational, sociologically based argument against gay marriage. In actuality it is just right wing, heterosexist, crap. Take this bit:These four aspects of marriage are not rights, but obligations. They are marriage's "a priori" because marriage is a part of the kinship system, and kinship depends on the protection, organization, and often the exploitation of female sexuality vis-à-vis males. None of these facts apply at all to love between people of the same sex, however solemn and profound that love may be. In gay marriage there are no virgins (actual or honorary), no incest, no illicit or licit sex, no merging of families, no creation of a new lineage. There's just my honey and me, and (in a rapidly increasing number of U.S. states) baby makes three.
What? Really? REALLY? No evidence to support a single statement in the whole article. None. On the contrary there is vast amounts of evidence to dispute virtually everything in it, most especially the sexist and false idea that marriage is there to protect the sexuality of women (fucker has never heard of rape WITHIN marriage).
Gay marriage is different from straight marriage in that one involves gay people and the other involves straight people. That's fucking it. Beyond that of unassisted reproduction (something that is rapidly becoming unavailable to many heterosexual couples as infertility rates rise) any additional argument about the difference between gay and straight marriage is socially constructed BULLSHIT.
It's because of people like the author of that article that gay marriage needs to be legalised globally as soon as possible. It's time to end any type of pseudo-intellectualised critique of queers as being somehow okay, but not okay enough.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
It's not just a game.
I have resisted the urge to comment on the story about the Kenyan man who hanged himself after Arsenal's semi-final exit last week. In part this has been because I have way to much work to do and should be devoting my writing energies to more important things. However, I can no longer let this pass.
I think it is a completely naive person who understands nothing about depression and despair who believes that Sulieman Omondi killed himself because Arsenal lost a football match. The initial reports from the BBC and other news outlets were made with a tinge of wry humour - African fan, so wild and deranged with grief over the loss of a match he kills himself, they said. Much of the reporting included comments about the passion for football in Africa and how fights and brawls have cast shadows over televised European matches in many African countries. This story, it seemed, epitomised just how out of control an African man can become.
This portrayl of African men as overly-emotional, with wild, uncontrollable passions set off by the smallest (or craziest) things is a long established cultural meme. It dates back hundreds of years and is a stereotype established in stark contrast to Anglo-Saxon notions of male supremacy based depictions of cold, calm, ruthless efficiency - i.e. the British stiff upper lip. To be in possession of one's emotions, to control them and suppress them, is a valued expression of male business acumen and denotes an level of intellectual supremacy.
While I am not going to go as far as to say that the reporting and commentary on this event has been racist, I would suggest that the stereotypes and controlling images described above have had an impact on the way this story has unfolded. The idea that Mr Omondi might have killed himself because he feared for his life after making a large bet he could not honour or because of existing pressures and troubles, did not appear in those initial reports. The complex issues surrounding depression and mental ill-health have not been discussed by those bloggers who continue to write about Mr Omondi as if he was an emotionally unintelligent fool who could not discern the difference between football and his own life.
In all walks of life men and women take their own lives for reasons most people cannot understand. Desperation can make people do all sorts of things as can depression and other mental or physical illnesses. To suggest that Mr Omondi took his life because of a football match is overly simplistic and is perhaps a way for us to make peace with an act many do not understand and could never contemplate. However, it does not do to make light of the plight of this man. For whatever reason he decided his life was not worth living and that is where the tragedy always lies.
I think it is a completely naive person who understands nothing about depression and despair who believes that Sulieman Omondi killed himself because Arsenal lost a football match. The initial reports from the BBC and other news outlets were made with a tinge of wry humour - African fan, so wild and deranged with grief over the loss of a match he kills himself, they said. Much of the reporting included comments about the passion for football in Africa and how fights and brawls have cast shadows over televised European matches in many African countries. This story, it seemed, epitomised just how out of control an African man can become.
This portrayl of African men as overly-emotional, with wild, uncontrollable passions set off by the smallest (or craziest) things is a long established cultural meme. It dates back hundreds of years and is a stereotype established in stark contrast to Anglo-Saxon notions of male supremacy based depictions of cold, calm, ruthless efficiency - i.e. the British stiff upper lip. To be in possession of one's emotions, to control them and suppress them, is a valued expression of male business acumen and denotes an level of intellectual supremacy.
While I am not going to go as far as to say that the reporting and commentary on this event has been racist, I would suggest that the stereotypes and controlling images described above have had an impact on the way this story has unfolded. The idea that Mr Omondi might have killed himself because he feared for his life after making a large bet he could not honour or because of existing pressures and troubles, did not appear in those initial reports. The complex issues surrounding depression and mental ill-health have not been discussed by those bloggers who continue to write about Mr Omondi as if he was an emotionally unintelligent fool who could not discern the difference between football and his own life.
In all walks of life men and women take their own lives for reasons most people cannot understand. Desperation can make people do all sorts of things as can depression and other mental or physical illnesses. To suggest that Mr Omondi took his life because of a football match is overly simplistic and is perhaps a way for us to make peace with an act many do not understand and could never contemplate. However, it does not do to make light of the plight of this man. For whatever reason he decided his life was not worth living and that is where the tragedy always lies.
Friday, May 1, 2009
United we stand for what?
So I came across this site via Twitter: http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com/
I have been following their Twitter account for a while and was thinking about dumping them because their take on things is so U.S. focused that I find their tweets a) boring and b) really fucking irritating. The other day their twitter feed picked up their "Word of the Gay" (another thing that has been trying my patience) as "Ginger beer". They had poorly defined this as being insulting when it's just cockney rhyming slang for "queer" and as such to be seen as empowering and reclaimed if one wishes. So, I go off to their site to post a pissy correction and I notice their site slugline:
Queers United: The activist blog Uniting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual community & Allies in the fight for equality.
I mean, come the fuck on. Where exactly is the "Intersexual community"? Or the "Asexual community"? What legislation or media endorsed, society wide discrimination exists for the "asexual community"? What exactly does being "asexual" mean anyway? Supposedly this image below helps you identify whether you are "asexual" or not.
Whether this is a real thing or not, I really don't give a shit; but what I do what to know is what "asexuality" has to do with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender political activism and why there should be one unifying cause for them all. Maybe I am just turning into a mardy old cow, but it seems to me that the whole Western gay civil and human rights movement has been hijacked by idiots. Rather than campaign for the rights of LGBT folk in places where homosexuality is outlawed and queers face an increasingly harsh and oppressed existence, people jibber on about issues that have no political or even sociological basis for activism.
The whole hysteria on Twitter over AmazonFail is indicative of just how far wrong Western LGBT activists have gone. In this case people were outraged and mobilised with amazing speed over the supposed discrimination of LGBT communities by Amazon. The story remains unclear but it seems that Amazon's algorithm for tagging books as "adult" or not was either hijacked or messed up. As a result thousands of books tagged as "gay" or "lesbian" disappeared from the bestseller rankings and did not show up in searches. Amazon customer services at first said this was policy in order for the site to remain "family friendly". People were annoyed and outraged that a book with zero sexual content but merely talking about homosexuality would be deemed as "adult" and, quite rightly kicked up a fuss. Then Amazon spokespeople said that there had been a "glitch" and that the books were unintentionally tagged, i.e. there was no policy. This was not the end of the outrage however and many people still maintained a boycott against Amazon and suggested that the algorithm was homophobic.
Now, I am all for highlighting corporate irresponsibility and boycotts of big business whose activities impact on the human and civil rights of communities. I urge everyone to join the BDS movement against Israel (- reports show that this tactic is working in Europe). However, there is something rather bizarre about calling for a boycott of a company that doesn't have a policy to - or indeed a persistent, inadvertent mechanism for - discriminating against LGBT people. What is equally bizarre is that the discriminating practice in question - poor visibility of LGBT folk - is something that is practiced by every major television and news network out there. Demonstrative homosexual activity is non-existent on mainstream television here as I am sure it is in the U.S. Sure, there are gay characters in soaps and dramas, but you rarely see them kiss or display the samekind of affection and intimacy as heterosexual characters.
Strangest of all though is the reaction to Amazon as though it is a state run utility or indeed a Nation State in and of itself. The victory dance of activists over the issue hitting the mainstream media within 24 hours was understandable; issues such as these often take months to work their way into wider media psyche, so this was a real achievement. It's testament to the power of social media like Twitter, obviously, and it all occurred at a time when Nafta Flu was incubating in a pig so it was good enough to make the news.
But a tiny bit of perspective allows us to see this for what it really was: at best a corporate entity bowing to the purchasing power of queers and their allies. At worst? A trite little distraction that allows people to feel safe and smug about victory in a battle that never was. Maybe I'm being cynical - perhaps people will draw strength from this and go forth and fight state sponsored discrimination and intolerance. Or perhaps people just don't recognise or understand the difference between fighting transnational businesses and fighting sovereign states any more and think one is as good as the other.
(Incidentally, this is by far and away THE WORST flow chart I have ever seen. What precisely is the point of all those boxes when it seems that the ONLY criteria needed to define asexuality is whether a person experiences sexual attraction?! Idiocy!)
I have been following their Twitter account for a while and was thinking about dumping them because their take on things is so U.S. focused that I find their tweets a) boring and b) really fucking irritating. The other day their twitter feed picked up their "Word of the Gay" (another thing that has been trying my patience) as "Ginger beer". They had poorly defined this as being insulting when it's just cockney rhyming slang for "queer" and as such to be seen as empowering and reclaimed if one wishes. So, I go off to their site to post a pissy correction and I notice their site slugline:
Queers United: The activist blog Uniting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual community & Allies in the fight for equality.
I mean, come the fuck on. Where exactly is the "Intersexual community"? Or the "Asexual community"? What legislation or media endorsed, society wide discrimination exists for the "asexual community"? What exactly does being "asexual" mean anyway? Supposedly this image below helps you identify whether you are "asexual" or not.
Whether this is a real thing or not, I really don't give a shit; but what I do what to know is what "asexuality" has to do with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender political activism and why there should be one unifying cause for them all. Maybe I am just turning into a mardy old cow, but it seems to me that the whole Western gay civil and human rights movement has been hijacked by idiots. Rather than campaign for the rights of LGBT folk in places where homosexuality is outlawed and queers face an increasingly harsh and oppressed existence, people jibber on about issues that have no political or even sociological basis for activism.
The whole hysteria on Twitter over AmazonFail is indicative of just how far wrong Western LGBT activists have gone. In this case people were outraged and mobilised with amazing speed over the supposed discrimination of LGBT communities by Amazon. The story remains unclear but it seems that Amazon's algorithm for tagging books as "adult" or not was either hijacked or messed up. As a result thousands of books tagged as "gay" or "lesbian" disappeared from the bestseller rankings and did not show up in searches. Amazon customer services at first said this was policy in order for the site to remain "family friendly". People were annoyed and outraged that a book with zero sexual content but merely talking about homosexuality would be deemed as "adult" and, quite rightly kicked up a fuss. Then Amazon spokespeople said that there had been a "glitch" and that the books were unintentionally tagged, i.e. there was no policy. This was not the end of the outrage however and many people still maintained a boycott against Amazon and suggested that the algorithm was homophobic.
Now, I am all for highlighting corporate irresponsibility and boycotts of big business whose activities impact on the human and civil rights of communities. I urge everyone to join the BDS movement against Israel (- reports show that this tactic is working in Europe). However, there is something rather bizarre about calling for a boycott of a company that doesn't have a policy to - or indeed a persistent, inadvertent mechanism for - discriminating against LGBT people. What is equally bizarre is that the discriminating practice in question - poor visibility of LGBT folk - is something that is practiced by every major television and news network out there. Demonstrative homosexual activity is non-existent on mainstream television here as I am sure it is in the U.S. Sure, there are gay characters in soaps and dramas, but you rarely see them kiss or display the samekind of affection and intimacy as heterosexual characters.
Strangest of all though is the reaction to Amazon as though it is a state run utility or indeed a Nation State in and of itself. The victory dance of activists over the issue hitting the mainstream media within 24 hours was understandable; issues such as these often take months to work their way into wider media psyche, so this was a real achievement. It's testament to the power of social media like Twitter, obviously, and it all occurred at a time when Nafta Flu was incubating in a pig so it was good enough to make the news.
But a tiny bit of perspective allows us to see this for what it really was: at best a corporate entity bowing to the purchasing power of queers and their allies. At worst? A trite little distraction that allows people to feel safe and smug about victory in a battle that never was. Maybe I'm being cynical - perhaps people will draw strength from this and go forth and fight state sponsored discrimination and intolerance. Or perhaps people just don't recognise or understand the difference between fighting transnational businesses and fighting sovereign states any more and think one is as good as the other.
(Incidentally, this is by far and away THE WORST flow chart I have ever seen. What precisely is the point of all those boxes when it seems that the ONLY criteria needed to define asexuality is whether a person experiences sexual attraction?! Idiocy!)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Cat mail
This is paris typing an email. He is so clever. Shame he cant work out that the hoover is not a cat eating monster.
I am woman.
You know, just because people mistake me for a man, doesn't mean I ought to be one. I am just me.
As the constant debate about gender and sexuality within LGBT circles rages on, where people discuss "gender fluidity", more and more butch lesbians transition and more women refer to themselves as "boi", some of us find ourselves under pressure to redefine themselves.
There was a time when women like me - who some might call "butch dykes", others might refer to as "boyish" - found it acceptable to refer to themselves as women. That we did not wear the traditional uniform of women (skirts, dresses, blouses and bras) and did not carry ourselves with the traditional (Hollywood informed) feminine demeanour was not an issue. We were still women, albeit women that did not conform to the stereotypical gender roles assigned to us.
I grew up in the 80s and came out in the 90s and by the time I was at university gender ambiguity was very much the height of fashion. Various fashion designers and models exploited this look - taking it out of the clubs and into the mainstream and I was very happy to be young and keen in a world where androgyny was accepted. When I went out on a Friday night with my mates few outside the LGBT world would be able to discern who among us was male and who was female.
And while our ostentatious gender identities may have been blurred to those looking in, most of us were quite sure that a man who wears high heels and make up is still a man and a woman puts on a shirt and tie is still a woman. Sure there were times I found myself being checked out by gay guys but that didn't make me think I should become one or that I was secretly male. Neither did it make me think that I should start wearing make up and skirts so gay men wouldn't hit on me or straight women wouldn't try throwing me out of the ladies toilets.
Somewhere along the line things changed and A LOT of women who were like me started transitioning and/or calling themselves something else. They went from being butch lesbians, seemingly proud of identifying as women, (albeit women who don't fit into mainstream gender stereotypes), to identifying as men. Their femininity could no longer be expressed in the way it had been previously, it had to be redefined as masculinity. While I was quite happy for that to go on - people can do what they want, right? - I find that the more women there are that do this, the less legitimacy I seem to have in saying "I'm a woman, just not your type of woman".
I am not a boy, boi, guy or man. I am a woman and I am very proud and happy about that. I enjoy being a woman. I like having breasts and occasionally I even enjoy having a fucking period. I like the fact that I can get pregnant and give birth, I like that I was once a girl. I like that I have a vagina and not a penis. I like that one day I'll go through the menopause. I even like that now that I am in my 30s I seem to have fucking acne again. I may not accept my place in society as a woman, but I do like how it has shaped my life. I am woman.
But I also like wearing the clothes I do and I feel comfortable in who I am, even if that means that occasionally people mistake me for being a man. I am not going to start redefining myself as "gender queer" or start transitioning so I fit in with other people's definitions of what is male and female. I wouldn't dress differently so I can accommodate the thoughts and feelings as mainstream society, so why start calling myself something new? Just as I refused to accept being ushered out of the ladies toilets because I don't fit mainstream definitions of femininity, I refuse to accept being labelled "gender queer" by those who think I look like a man.
It seems to me that many of those who are embracing these trans roles and definitions, particularly lesbians, do so thinking that they are challenging and redefining traditional gender stereotypes. I would argue that the opposite is true - rather than redefining gender stereotypes they are perpetuating them. Rather than building on the work of all those feminists and lesbians of the 60s, 70s and 80s they are dismantling all their progress. Not only do they return us to the binary that they themselves are trying to escape, they devalue womanhood and femininity in all its forms.
Interestingly, if I find myself in the position of having to chose between defining myself as "gender queer" or "trans" or changing the way I dress and act so that I can be accepted in a more traditional female role, I would choose that latter. Perhaps that shows an inherent transphobia on my part or perhaps it illustrates just how much identifying as a woman really means to me.
As the constant debate about gender and sexuality within LGBT circles rages on, where people discuss "gender fluidity", more and more butch lesbians transition and more women refer to themselves as "boi", some of us find ourselves under pressure to redefine themselves.
There was a time when women like me - who some might call "butch dykes", others might refer to as "boyish" - found it acceptable to refer to themselves as women. That we did not wear the traditional uniform of women (skirts, dresses, blouses and bras) and did not carry ourselves with the traditional (Hollywood informed) feminine demeanour was not an issue. We were still women, albeit women that did not conform to the stereotypical gender roles assigned to us.
I grew up in the 80s and came out in the 90s and by the time I was at university gender ambiguity was very much the height of fashion. Various fashion designers and models exploited this look - taking it out of the clubs and into the mainstream and I was very happy to be young and keen in a world where androgyny was accepted. When I went out on a Friday night with my mates few outside the LGBT world would be able to discern who among us was male and who was female.
And while our ostentatious gender identities may have been blurred to those looking in, most of us were quite sure that a man who wears high heels and make up is still a man and a woman puts on a shirt and tie is still a woman. Sure there were times I found myself being checked out by gay guys but that didn't make me think I should become one or that I was secretly male. Neither did it make me think that I should start wearing make up and skirts so gay men wouldn't hit on me or straight women wouldn't try throwing me out of the ladies toilets.
Somewhere along the line things changed and A LOT of women who were like me started transitioning and/or calling themselves something else. They went from being butch lesbians, seemingly proud of identifying as women, (albeit women who don't fit into mainstream gender stereotypes), to identifying as men. Their femininity could no longer be expressed in the way it had been previously, it had to be redefined as masculinity. While I was quite happy for that to go on - people can do what they want, right? - I find that the more women there are that do this, the less legitimacy I seem to have in saying "I'm a woman, just not your type of woman".
I am not a boy, boi, guy or man. I am a woman and I am very proud and happy about that. I enjoy being a woman. I like having breasts and occasionally I even enjoy having a fucking period. I like the fact that I can get pregnant and give birth, I like that I was once a girl. I like that I have a vagina and not a penis. I like that one day I'll go through the menopause. I even like that now that I am in my 30s I seem to have fucking acne again. I may not accept my place in society as a woman, but I do like how it has shaped my life. I am woman.
But I also like wearing the clothes I do and I feel comfortable in who I am, even if that means that occasionally people mistake me for being a man. I am not going to start redefining myself as "gender queer" or start transitioning so I fit in with other people's definitions of what is male and female. I wouldn't dress differently so I can accommodate the thoughts and feelings as mainstream society, so why start calling myself something new? Just as I refused to accept being ushered out of the ladies toilets because I don't fit mainstream definitions of femininity, I refuse to accept being labelled "gender queer" by those who think I look like a man.
It seems to me that many of those who are embracing these trans roles and definitions, particularly lesbians, do so thinking that they are challenging and redefining traditional gender stereotypes. I would argue that the opposite is true - rather than redefining gender stereotypes they are perpetuating them. Rather than building on the work of all those feminists and lesbians of the 60s, 70s and 80s they are dismantling all their progress. Not only do they return us to the binary that they themselves are trying to escape, they devalue womanhood and femininity in all its forms.
Interestingly, if I find myself in the position of having to chose between defining myself as "gender queer" or "trans" or changing the way I dress and act so that I can be accepted in a more traditional female role, I would choose that latter. Perhaps that shows an inherent transphobia on my part or perhaps it illustrates just how much identifying as a woman really means to me.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
This is what we should be afraid of
I have grown increasingly worried about the resurgence of fascism and extreme right wing doctrine since the start of this Deprecession (It's a new, unprouncable word that means Deep recession or Depression). There is nothing like economic hardship to sharpen the minds of the right wing elite while dulling the sensibilities of the media. What I find really strange about this report of the war between fascists and anti-fascists in Russia, is the idea that Russians, (Russians?), are putting up with Nazi symbolism and propaganda. Twenty odd million Soviets died in that war.
"Low hanging fruit" - Why intervention in developing countries is always easier.
So the following is an extract from a New York Times article
someone showed me yesterday. The article presents data from a review paper in Nature Geoscience that cites Black Carbon (BC), which is produced from sources like cookstoves in developing countries:
A major programme to introduce and replace cookstoves in these countries is comparable to developing and delivering any major intervention, such as polio vaccinations, malaria net distribution or indeed male circumcision. However, for some reason changing the lifestyle of perhaps over a billion people represents "low hanging fruit" in comparison attempting to get far fewer individuals and corporations in the West to reduce their carbon dioxide output. (And remember, BC reduction will only delay not prevent runaway climate change. Also remember, that cookstoves in developing countries do not represent the total BC production).
Fact is, it's not just about the "simple" technology. Intervention (and the accompanying research) is always easier in developing countries because the rights of the target individuals are never in question. It's cheaper because these people's lives are worth much less than ours - the constuction, delivery, installation and training for use of these stoves will cost peanuts because the labour is cheap. A similar programme to perhaps fit biomass boilers in all homes in the UK, or perhaps legislate against non-energy efficient lightbulbs would be unthinkable, indeed refusing to open a new coal powered plant in the UK is unthinkable!
"Low hanging fruit" is just a euphemism for "low ethical standards". It means "We can mess about with these people and there will be fewer financial and political ramifications and no one will ever know if things go wrong". It's the reason why it will always be easier to go into Africa, Asia and Latin America to solve problems that affect us all.
someone showed me yesterday. The article presents data from a review paper in Nature Geoscience that cites Black Carbon (BC), which is produced from sources like cookstoves in developing countries:While carbon dioxide may be the No. 1 contributor to rising global temperatures, scientists say, black carbon has emerged as an important No. 2, with recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s warming, compared with 40 percent for carbon dioxide. Decreasing black carbon emissions would be a relatively cheap way to significantly rein in global warming — especially in the short term, climate experts say. Replacing primitive cooking stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot could provide a much-needed stopgap, while nations struggle with the more difficult task of enacting programs and developing technologies to curb carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
In fact, reducing black carbon is one of a number of relatively quick and simple climate fixes using existing technologies — often called “low hanging fruit” — that scientists say should be plucked immediately to avert the worst projected consequences of global warming.
Let's not bother with the fact that the article missed out the most important line in the original paper:In fact, reducing black carbon is one of a number of relatively quick and simple climate fixes using existing technologies — often called “low hanging fruit” — that scientists say should be plucked immediately to avert the worst projected consequences of global warming.
It is important to emphasize that BC reduction can only help delay and not prevent unprecedented climate changes due to CO2 emissions.
Instead, I wanna focus on what the scientists and the reporters claim to be the solution to significantly reducing BC. They want to go into hundreds of thousands of villages across Asia (and possibly Africa and Latin America) and replace soot producing cookstoves with solar powered or gas ones. The stoves cost about $20, which is no doubt prohibitively expensive for both individual villagers and governments of the countries in which they live. Therefore I envisage a Euro-American funded programme to tackle this one. In order to persuade villagers to not only accept and use the new stove, but resist having two stoves, the programme will have to include various training and education elements. But before that we'd probably need feasibility and acceptability studies and once we're through with the pilots and started the community preparedness programme and constructed a timetable for delivery, we'd embark on the statutory monitoring and evaluation to ensure that things are being delivered effectively. Oh and let's not forget that we might also need an intervention programme to persuade governments to legislate against the old cookstoves, just in case voluntary behaviour change is not as forthcoming as the pilots first suggested. The new stoves may also have significant health benefits, so perhaps stepwise, clustered, randomised controlled trials would be in order and... you perhaps see what I am driving at.A major programme to introduce and replace cookstoves in these countries is comparable to developing and delivering any major intervention, such as polio vaccinations, malaria net distribution or indeed male circumcision. However, for some reason changing the lifestyle of perhaps over a billion people represents "low hanging fruit" in comparison attempting to get far fewer individuals and corporations in the West to reduce their carbon dioxide output. (And remember, BC reduction will only delay not prevent runaway climate change. Also remember, that cookstoves in developing countries do not represent the total BC production).
Fact is, it's not just about the "simple" technology. Intervention (and the accompanying research) is always easier in developing countries because the rights of the target individuals are never in question. It's cheaper because these people's lives are worth much less than ours - the constuction, delivery, installation and training for use of these stoves will cost peanuts because the labour is cheap. A similar programme to perhaps fit biomass boilers in all homes in the UK, or perhaps legislate against non-energy efficient lightbulbs would be unthinkable, indeed refusing to open a new coal powered plant in the UK is unthinkable!
"Low hanging fruit" is just a euphemism for "low ethical standards". It means "We can mess about with these people and there will be fewer financial and political ramifications and no one will ever know if things go wrong". It's the reason why it will always be easier to go into Africa, Asia and Latin America to solve problems that affect us all.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
