Bloody hell: months of blogger apathy and uninspiredness and now two posts in a day. What's t'world coming to?
Before I go any further I'd like to make something clear. I don't AGREE with separatism, or the kind of feminism that criminalises sex workers, as the Icelandic goverment did, pre volcano, but I accept them as forms of feminism. I'm just keen to point out that they are not the only or indeed empirically best feminisms out there, and that the other feminisms often get dismissed or discounted both by some enemies of feminism and some feminists.
That said, back to Dr Who. When Russel T Davies regenerated the series back in 2005, it was with some amusement that I noticed that the term 'assistant' had been ditched and replaced by 'companion' when referring to the women who travel with the Doctor. It's totally acceptable that the power dynamic between them is anything but equal. It's not because of their respective genders that the Doc is superior, but because of their respective species. He is from a more advanced race, so it CAN'T be sexism when he patronises them and orders them about. But 'assistant'? That's an insult. I'm not knocking the doctor/companion dynamic and all credit to Russel T for mixing things up with a couple of male pseudocompanions. It was just something that made me smile.
The companions have a tough time of it though. They exist for bad shit to happen to them so that they can be rescued. It's ultimately a very passive model - although on Doctor Who it is quite often challenged with the Doctor placed in the role of distressed damsel from time to time. Still, it's there. Rose/Martha/Donna/Amy are there to be a bit stupid and need saving. No hiding from it.
There has been talk of the Doctor regenerating as female. Never going to happen. You know why? Because as soon as they do that it looks like an overtly feminist gesture. It becomes an ISSUE. A woman Doctor would be like the one ethnic kid in all early 90s school textbooks: A patronising and insulting piece of tokenism, which, because of the ridicule it would draw, would ultimately do the cause of equality more harm than good.
What I suppose I'm getting at here is that Doctor Who is an incredibly long running series and when the rules of the Whoniverse were first laid down a more sexist mindset was in play. We can't change that without changing the nature of the show itself so far as to be unrecognisable, so a lot of those old sexisms remain, under the guise of tradition. Kind of like real life, when you think about it.
There's one sexist Doctor Who tradition which I would love to see discontinued, though, and that’s the wholesale fanbashing of each new female companion the moment they show up.
Billie Piper? She’s a bimbo, she’s stupid, she’s got big teeth. She’s rubbish.
Freema Agyeman? She can’t act, she only got the part because she’s black. She’s rubbish
Catherine Tate? Good god the sheer venom that was spat at this woman for daring to be a comedian-turned-actor.
Now Karen Gillan is getting the treatment. The consensus seems to be that she’s the show’s weak point. What utter bollocks. Have you SEEN the woman act? She’s fab. She’s just a companion and as such to be hated.
My lovely wife - who actually likes the companions - suggested that this is because, regardless of our gender and sexuality we all fall in love with the Doctor, and thus see the companion as a rival. She’s not good enough for him. We would be so much better. She’s got a point there, I think. A woman in an enviable position always gets clawed at. There’s never a sense of “good for her”. It’s always “who does she think she is?” or, a personal favourite expression of mine “she’s no better than she should be”. Unless she dies, at which point she’s randomly a saint. See Princess Di and Jade Goody for concrete examples of this.
I’d say the venom aimed at companions comes from both sides of the gender divide. It’s not that women are bitchier than men. Some of the nastiest comments I’ve heard about companions have been from blokes. A straight, male acquaintance of mine publically advocated burning Ms Tate. In jest, I presume, but still, a very impassioned and violent reaction. However, there is a gender thing at work here. You see it all the time on reality shows with a phone vote.
This is how it breaks down:
Men will support other men out of a sense of tribalism. Male bonding and friendship are made much of in our society. The Carling ‘belong’ ads tap into this, as does the incredibly sexist expression ‘bros before hos’- i.e. loyalty to your male friends is more important than loyalty to your sexual partner, spouse, or indeed pretty much any woman in your life.
The problem with that is that women tend to do the opposite. Given a choice between supporting a man and a woman, most women stand by the nearest available man, and will criticise, undermine and judge a woman any way they can. For all the songs and slogans about sisterhood, somehow, it’s never really worked that way. ‘Women beware women’ is a far more accurate appraisal of cultural dynamics among western females than ‘friends foreva, boys woteva’ or indeed ‘zig-a-zig ah’. So why? Why is this?
I think it’s because women have been viewed as weak, as inferior, as property, as morally flawed for millennia. And when you are oppressed, one way to survive is to keep the oppressor sweet. We are, as women, socialised around making men happy through either nurture or sex. There’s an element of survival of the fittest as well. We are told that we have to ‘keep hold of our man’, that ‘man eating’ women will ‘steal him’ from us. (It is, of course, never the guy’s fault). These ideas run so deep in our society that we completely internalise them. I do it all the time. If a male acquaintance offends me I’m either long suffering or indulgent. If a female does the same I find myself pouring bile on her behind her back. I have to make a conscious choice not to do that. Sisterhood does not come naturally – there’s a lot of self hatred to unlearn.
So when a new assistant/companion takes her first steps into the Tardis, the male fans, on the ‘bros before hos’ model, compete for the affections of their Galifreyan ‘brother’ by slagging off his girl. The female fans want her out of the way so they can fantasise about taking her place. And all the hapless woman can do to become beloved by her public is suffer some godawful fate, because we can only allow ourselves to love a martyred woman. A happy one is far too threatening. Same with hookers, it would seem.
What an astounding number of people don’t realise, of course, is that this bone-deep internalised sexism affects feminists too. And, as such, feminism has a huge hurdle to overcome. As feminists in a patriarchal culture, we have to challenge the sexism ingrained in our own mindsets before we can even THINK about changing the world.
And just a note to all those feminists jumping down the throats of women like Brooke Magnanti, Jen 'Boobquake' McCreight, Penny Arcade and all other women who make an assertive and conscious choice to use their sexuality as a means to an end... Those women scare you because, deep down, you think they might be sexier and more loved than you are. You see them not as traitors to their sex, but as competition, and you feel the need to take them down any way you can. It’s not our fault, We're socialised into it. Just don’t pretend it’s not happening, otherwise it can never, ever change.
WG x
Sunday, 30 May 2010
The Flaw in Feminism. Parte ye firste.
I'm on one about feminism at the moment. My little brain is ticking away all the time with a combination of righteous indignation at the inequalities that women still have to face and just pure head-in-hands embarrassment and frustration at how bloody self sabotaging the whole movement is.
It's like in this week's episode of Doctor Who, Cold Blood, the Doctor assures the Silurians who live beneath the surface of the Earth (turns out the wacko Hollow Earth Theory is right on the money. Nice touch) that Humans are peaceful, noble, highly evolved beings who are worth negotiating with, and you just know he's deliberately stretching the truth to give humanity a chance to be all he sees in them, and you also just know that humanity is going to let him down. Again. And they (we?) do. (By the way, if you're not a DW fan. well, I'm sorry. Doctor Who is guest starring as the frame story for today's rant. Deal with it, and go and watch some - it's right good. But I digress.)
Anyway, that's what feminism's like for me. I try to live my life according to feminist principles, advocating for women's rights and being aware of - and challenging sexism in society. I also advocate for feminism to people who think that it is a redundant/outmoded/hostile/sex-negative/sexist/hypocritical bitchfest. No it's not, I tell them. That's a misconception of what feminism means. Of course you'll meet hostile, man-hating, humourless women who claim to represent the women's rights movement in its entirety but there's so much more to it than that. there are male feminsits, sex positive feminists, funny feminists, genderqueer feminists who REALLY render the separatist argument null and void. Do one of these lovely, atypical feminists come along to illustrate my point? No. Instead, a "typical" feminist - some hostile, man hating, humourless woman - will come along and tear a strip off me for not being a proper feminist. Total Doctor Who facepalm time.
Example. When Billie Piper somewhat inexpertly interviewed Brooke Magnanti following the revelation that she, (Brooke), an intelligent, assertive and sane scientist was the mysterious Belle de Jour - previously believed by many to be either fictional or a tragically damaged and deluded victim - I leapt out of my seat and actually cheered when she linked her decision to go into prostitution to feminism:
"One of the main tenets of feminism is a woman actively choosing what she's going to do." she said to a blinking and uncomfortable Piper. i.e. it was her RIGHT as a woman to CHOOSE whether or not to be a prostitute, just as it was her right to stop when she was ready. If a woman has a right to say no, surely she has a right, just as inalienable, to say "yes, and that'll be three hundred quid, please."
So, great. B de J (snigger) is a feminist. You can be a feminist and be paid for sex. It's nothing to do with wearing dungarees and shouting at blokes, any more than wearing pink and having limp wrists makes you gay. It's a state of mind which says 'don't tell women what they are and aren't allowed to do based on their gender: that's ridiculous'. Done. And on international TV. Really. I was just so happy.
And then, oh the humanity, this. Brooke Magnanti renounced her feminism. I actually cried.
But who could blame her? In the absolute vile shitstorm that rose up in the comment boxes and internet forums following her 'coming out',who had the most faeces to fling? was it the religious right? Not really. Was it sexist arseholes making comments such as 'I wouldn't pay £300 for that'? Well they came close, but that, sadly, was to be expected. No, the stinger was that it was self proclaimed feminists who lined up to put the boot in. I, for one, genuinely did not see that coming. Naive of me.
Apparently, feminists who want to 'protect' women from the nasty side of the sex trade don't want voices FROM the sex trade that are off message. Voices saying "Actually, I've done this and might be able to bring my experience to the table when fighting for the rights of sex workers and women." They want broken and vulnerable women who will illustrate their point and strengthen their argument. They want, genuinely, to help and protect and rescue these women from the evils of sex work, because they, not the sex workers themselves, know best.
A noble and laudable goal, sure: as well as all the happy, well paid, safe-ish call girls out there, There are millions of unhappy, vulnerable sex workers in dire need of support and rights. But do just explain to me again how speaking FOR sex workers but verbally attacking them when they speak for themselves is feminist. Wasn't that the argument against giving women the vote? "We will speak for you. We know what's best. And if you disagree we will drag you through the mud."
And so, as usual, we're down to words.
Is a feminist a) A person who believes that it is a woman's right to choose her own lifestyle, her job, her value system, whether or not it is considered too dangerous and irresponsible for a woman to do, or is a feminist, b) a woman who, in the name of feminism, seeks to dictate what is or is not acceptable behaviour in other women, because an anomaly (if such Belle de Jour is) in the grim picture of sex work simply cannot be tolerated?
I know which one I think it is. It's the one who doesn't call herself a feminist anymore.
But that's oversimplifying things. Sometimes it feels like the meaning of the word has been hopelessly lost and only the destructive, self-hating culture that has sprung up around it remains, but that isn't true: the dichotomy above is not an accurate portrayal of all feminisms.
The problem, in the UK more than any other country I've visited, is that the feminists who don't fit the stereotype have stepped away from the label, lending credence to the myth that feminism is indeed nothing but a redundant/outmoded/hostile/sex-negative/sexist/hypocritical bitchfest.
Ladies, gentlemen and others who feel excluded by the 'members only' culture, take heed; it is our right to own our feminisms. Reclaim the label. (And the night, of course).
WG x
There's more to this. I want to talk about WHY it is women put the boot into women, even under the guise of fighting for women's rights. Why men will band together against a woman out of a sense of brotherhood but nine times out of ten, women don't.
In short, why 'Bros before hos' but never, particularly in the case of Brooke Magnanti, 'Hos before bros?'
I've got more to say about Dr Who as well. I'm sure you just can't wait.
It's like in this week's episode of Doctor Who, Cold Blood, the Doctor assures the Silurians who live beneath the surface of the Earth (turns out the wacko Hollow Earth Theory is right on the money. Nice touch) that Humans are peaceful, noble, highly evolved beings who are worth negotiating with, and you just know he's deliberately stretching the truth to give humanity a chance to be all he sees in them, and you also just know that humanity is going to let him down. Again. And they (we?) do. (By the way, if you're not a DW fan. well, I'm sorry. Doctor Who is guest starring as the frame story for today's rant. Deal with it, and go and watch some - it's right good. But I digress.)
Anyway, that's what feminism's like for me. I try to live my life according to feminist principles, advocating for women's rights and being aware of - and challenging sexism in society. I also advocate for feminism to people who think that it is a redundant/outmoded/hostile/sex-negative/sexist/hypocritical bitchfest. No it's not, I tell them. That's a misconception of what feminism means. Of course you'll meet hostile, man-hating, humourless women who claim to represent the women's rights movement in its entirety but there's so much more to it than that. there are male feminsits, sex positive feminists, funny feminists, genderqueer feminists who REALLY render the separatist argument null and void. Do one of these lovely, atypical feminists come along to illustrate my point? No. Instead, a "typical" feminist - some hostile, man hating, humourless woman - will come along and tear a strip off me for not being a proper feminist. Total Doctor Who facepalm time.
Example. When Billie Piper somewhat inexpertly interviewed Brooke Magnanti following the revelation that she, (Brooke), an intelligent, assertive and sane scientist was the mysterious Belle de Jour - previously believed by many to be either fictional or a tragically damaged and deluded victim - I leapt out of my seat and actually cheered when she linked her decision to go into prostitution to feminism:
"One of the main tenets of feminism is a woman actively choosing what she's going to do." she said to a blinking and uncomfortable Piper. i.e. it was her RIGHT as a woman to CHOOSE whether or not to be a prostitute, just as it was her right to stop when she was ready. If a woman has a right to say no, surely she has a right, just as inalienable, to say "yes, and that'll be three hundred quid, please."
So, great. B de J (snigger) is a feminist. You can be a feminist and be paid for sex. It's nothing to do with wearing dungarees and shouting at blokes, any more than wearing pink and having limp wrists makes you gay. It's a state of mind which says 'don't tell women what they are and aren't allowed to do based on their gender: that's ridiculous'. Done. And on international TV. Really. I was just so happy.
And then, oh the humanity, this. Brooke Magnanti renounced her feminism. I actually cried.
But who could blame her? In the absolute vile shitstorm that rose up in the comment boxes and internet forums following her 'coming out',who had the most faeces to fling? was it the religious right? Not really. Was it sexist arseholes making comments such as 'I wouldn't pay £300 for that'? Well they came close, but that, sadly, was to be expected. No, the stinger was that it was self proclaimed feminists who lined up to put the boot in. I, for one, genuinely did not see that coming. Naive of me.
Apparently, feminists who want to 'protect' women from the nasty side of the sex trade don't want voices FROM the sex trade that are off message. Voices saying "Actually, I've done this and might be able to bring my experience to the table when fighting for the rights of sex workers and women." They want broken and vulnerable women who will illustrate their point and strengthen their argument. They want, genuinely, to help and protect and rescue these women from the evils of sex work, because they, not the sex workers themselves, know best.
A noble and laudable goal, sure: as well as all the happy, well paid, safe-ish call girls out there, There are millions of unhappy, vulnerable sex workers in dire need of support and rights. But do just explain to me again how speaking FOR sex workers but verbally attacking them when they speak for themselves is feminist. Wasn't that the argument against giving women the vote? "We will speak for you. We know what's best. And if you disagree we will drag you through the mud."
And so, as usual, we're down to words.
Is a feminist a) A person who believes that it is a woman's right to choose her own lifestyle, her job, her value system, whether or not it is considered too dangerous and irresponsible for a woman to do, or is a feminist, b) a woman who, in the name of feminism, seeks to dictate what is or is not acceptable behaviour in other women, because an anomaly (if such Belle de Jour is) in the grim picture of sex work simply cannot be tolerated?
I know which one I think it is. It's the one who doesn't call herself a feminist anymore.
But that's oversimplifying things. Sometimes it feels like the meaning of the word has been hopelessly lost and only the destructive, self-hating culture that has sprung up around it remains, but that isn't true: the dichotomy above is not an accurate portrayal of all feminisms.
The problem, in the UK more than any other country I've visited, is that the feminists who don't fit the stereotype have stepped away from the label, lending credence to the myth that feminism is indeed nothing but a redundant/outmoded/hostile/sex-negative/sexist/hypocritical bitchfest.
Ladies, gentlemen and others who feel excluded by the 'members only' culture, take heed; it is our right to own our feminisms. Reclaim the label. (And the night, of course).
WG x
There's more to this. I want to talk about WHY it is women put the boot into women, even under the guise of fighting for women's rights. Why men will band together against a woman out of a sense of brotherhood but nine times out of ten, women don't.
In short, why 'Bros before hos' but never, particularly in the case of Brooke Magnanti, 'Hos before bros?'
I've got more to say about Dr Who as well. I'm sure you just can't wait.
Saturday, 29 May 2010
Let's give this another go then, shall we?
I am a bad blogger.
If my blog were a goldfish, or a puppy, or even a bonsai plant, it would currently be dead from neglect, and the RSPCA (or bonsai equivalent) would be knocking on my door.
As it is, I am going to have a bash at resuscitating the poor thing and see if I can get back into the habit. Discipline! Routine! Focu...ooh! iSketch... Back in a bit...
Well. we'll see how it goes.
x
WG
If my blog were a goldfish, or a puppy, or even a bonsai plant, it would currently be dead from neglect, and the RSPCA (or bonsai equivalent) would be knocking on my door.
As it is, I am going to have a bash at resuscitating the poor thing and see if I can get back into the habit. Discipline! Routine! Focu...ooh! iSketch... Back in a bit...
Well. we'll see how it goes.
x
WG
Monday, 9 November 2009
No Hetero!
I've discovered a new reason to love the internet: Bryan Safi's 'That's Gay' segments from a US show called infoMania. This guy is a genius: He's funny, camp-but-owns-it, rather than camp-to-amuse-straight-people, and he identifies and dismantles casual and not-so-casual homophbia in popular culture.
The title 'That's Gay' is spoken in a disparaging tone (as in 'ew, that's so gay') but the title graphics are a cute, cheery rainbow design, immediately forcing the viewer to remember that the negative use of this phrase and the second class citizenship of the queer community are, in some mysterious way, linked. It's a very clever show.
The thing that really caught my eye was a segment on the use in hip-hop music of the phrase 'No Homo' - i.e. "Not that I'm gay or anything!", possibly short for "I'm no homo, but..." Click here to watch. It has typical gangsta rap lyrics that get quite graphic, so watch out if playing it in the office...
As Safi points out, this phrase is highly offensive. The idea is that it allows straight homophobes to act in ways that might be construed as effeminate or gay (male to male affection, appreciation of beauty in anything other than female sex organs, use of sexual slang towards other men) without allying themselves with the queer community they hate so much. I guess this is KIND of a step forward in that it frees them up to be slightly less macho absoloutely all of the time. However, the people specifying that their words or actions 'no homo' usually make multiple references to their heterosexual exploits as well. By sayin 'no homo' they are not giving us shock breaking news that they aren't gay, the are making quite sure we remember that they don't LIKE gay people and don't even want to share your train of thought with a bunch of queers.
When Lil Wayne says 'no homo', Peter Tatchell does not fall onto the floor weeping in shock & disappointment that one of the most promising gay hip hop role models has gone back into the closet. We can extrapolate that he's 'no homo'(or at least that he's not comfortable with any homosexual feelings he might be experiencing...) from the desperately overt heterosexuality portrayed in his songs, videos and lifestyle. Why say it at all?
But now I am worried. If doing something as innocuous as stating affection for friends, admiring a landscape or rhyming 'luck an'' with 'buttfuckin' throws doubt on hip hop artist's sexuality, what about the thousands of ostensibly heterosexual things I say and do? Things like showing affection to a male friend, deciding to wear make-up, even (gasp) enjoying hip hop! I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about me, I mean, gross. Imagine people thinking I'm hetero. I'd never live it down. But I've come up with a solution: No hetero. It works just like no homo, but you say it after doing something terminally straight.
"I just bought the most gorgeous pair of heels! No hetero!"
"I think David Tennant's kind of hot... no hetero."
"Fuck you, Nick Griffin! No hetero."
and for the boys,
"Hey who cares if my accessories don't match! And sandals are just more comfortable with socks! No hetero."
"Hey! Golddigga! I love this song! No hetero."
"No hetero, but Megan Fox has an amazing body..."
I think it could take off.
WG
The title 'That's Gay' is spoken in a disparaging tone (as in 'ew, that's so gay') but the title graphics are a cute, cheery rainbow design, immediately forcing the viewer to remember that the negative use of this phrase and the second class citizenship of the queer community are, in some mysterious way, linked. It's a very clever show.
The thing that really caught my eye was a segment on the use in hip-hop music of the phrase 'No Homo' - i.e. "Not that I'm gay or anything!", possibly short for "I'm no homo, but..." Click here to watch. It has typical gangsta rap lyrics that get quite graphic, so watch out if playing it in the office...
As Safi points out, this phrase is highly offensive. The idea is that it allows straight homophobes to act in ways that might be construed as effeminate or gay (male to male affection, appreciation of beauty in anything other than female sex organs, use of sexual slang towards other men) without allying themselves with the queer community they hate so much. I guess this is KIND of a step forward in that it frees them up to be slightly less macho absoloutely all of the time. However, the people specifying that their words or actions 'no homo' usually make multiple references to their heterosexual exploits as well. By sayin 'no homo' they are not giving us shock breaking news that they aren't gay, the are making quite sure we remember that they don't LIKE gay people and don't even want to share your train of thought with a bunch of queers.
When Lil Wayne says 'no homo', Peter Tatchell does not fall onto the floor weeping in shock & disappointment that one of the most promising gay hip hop role models has gone back into the closet. We can extrapolate that he's 'no homo'(or at least that he's not comfortable with any homosexual feelings he might be experiencing...) from the desperately overt heterosexuality portrayed in his songs, videos and lifestyle. Why say it at all?
But now I am worried. If doing something as innocuous as stating affection for friends, admiring a landscape or rhyming 'luck an'' with 'buttfuckin' throws doubt on hip hop artist's sexuality, what about the thousands of ostensibly heterosexual things I say and do? Things like showing affection to a male friend, deciding to wear make-up, even (gasp) enjoying hip hop! I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about me, I mean, gross. Imagine people thinking I'm hetero. I'd never live it down. But I've come up with a solution: No hetero. It works just like no homo, but you say it after doing something terminally straight.
"I just bought the most gorgeous pair of heels! No hetero!"
"I think David Tennant's kind of hot... no hetero."
"Fuck you, Nick Griffin! No hetero."
and for the boys,
"Hey who cares if my accessories don't match! And sandals are just more comfortable with socks! No hetero."
"Hey! Golddigga! I love this song! No hetero."
"No hetero, but Megan Fox has an amazing body..."
I think it could take off.
WG
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Bad women drivers, funny foreigners and stereotypical poofs? It's OK: It's "edgy".
What the hell is happening to comedy? For most of my teenage and adult life, 'alternative' comedy has been pretty much mainstream, with the Jim Davidsons and Bob Monkhouses of the world being viewed as bigoted has-beens. Jokes about nagging mothers in law, black people with 'hilarious' accents and mincing, prancing gay men were disdained as offensive or, more damningly, unfunny. Comedy got surreal, monologue rather than one liner based, and was even occasionally delivered by the women, ethnic minorities and queers who had previously been the butts of the joke .
I'm not saying that the new breed of comedy was clean, wholesome and politically correct. Where would the fun be in that? It was just that prejudice and bigotry were perhaps more likely to be the target of the comedy than its basis, also with the more culturally diverse collection of comedians, routines about minority cultures were more likely to come 'from the horse's mouth' than from a platform of straight white male superiority.
I suppose my generation has been spoiled by the range of alternative comedy available. The old-school hasn't gone away, it just stopped being the be all and end all, and a generation rejoiced.
But in the newish, now somewhat shop-soiled millenium, a scary new trend has taken place. Comedians show up making jokes about the queen both being old and having a vagina*, smelly gypsies** and gay men liking musical theatre***. Are they washed up, old school comedians on tired reruns on 'the worst of the 80s' compilations? Nope, they're just "edgy". It's postironic, apparently. These guys are deliberately being provocative and making us laugh out loud in shock as they break the taboos no-one else will touch. They're laughing AT the racism and sexism and homophobia we all secretly harbour. That's the theory, anyway. To me it just sounds like old recycled crap. I heard some of it on radio 4 the other day. RADIO BLOODY FOUR! (think NPR if you're in the US) If you can't get PC liberal bias on radio 4, what's the world coming to? And yet, I was hearing jokes about the collective noun for young frogs being 'french exchange trip', a German guest was ridiculed for having an incomprehensible accent (it wasn't) and laws against women drivers were touted as a good idea in a panel game hosted by David Mitchell. Mitchell is pretty funny, and is definitely not old hat, so why is he, like so many comedians, going for this tired old material? Is it an eighties trend too far, or was the halcyon decade of jokes not based purely on the prejudices of the hegemony an abberation in a centuries old tradition of comedy?
Watch out women, queers and foreigners: Normal service has been resumed.
*Frankie Boyle, **Jimmy Carr, ***Demetri Martin for god's sake! Is no-one safe?
That silly woman and hairy lesbian Word Geek
I'm not saying that the new breed of comedy was clean, wholesome and politically correct. Where would the fun be in that? It was just that prejudice and bigotry were perhaps more likely to be the target of the comedy than its basis, also with the more culturally diverse collection of comedians, routines about minority cultures were more likely to come 'from the horse's mouth' than from a platform of straight white male superiority.
I suppose my generation has been spoiled by the range of alternative comedy available. The old-school hasn't gone away, it just stopped being the be all and end all, and a generation rejoiced.
But in the newish, now somewhat shop-soiled millenium, a scary new trend has taken place. Comedians show up making jokes about the queen both being old and having a vagina*, smelly gypsies** and gay men liking musical theatre***. Are they washed up, old school comedians on tired reruns on 'the worst of the 80s' compilations? Nope, they're just "edgy". It's postironic, apparently. These guys are deliberately being provocative and making us laugh out loud in shock as they break the taboos no-one else will touch. They're laughing AT the racism and sexism and homophobia we all secretly harbour. That's the theory, anyway. To me it just sounds like old recycled crap. I heard some of it on radio 4 the other day. RADIO BLOODY FOUR! (think NPR if you're in the US) If you can't get PC liberal bias on radio 4, what's the world coming to? And yet, I was hearing jokes about the collective noun for young frogs being 'french exchange trip', a German guest was ridiculed for having an incomprehensible accent (it wasn't) and laws against women drivers were touted as a good idea in a panel game hosted by David Mitchell. Mitchell is pretty funny, and is definitely not old hat, so why is he, like so many comedians, going for this tired old material? Is it an eighties trend too far, or was the halcyon decade of jokes not based purely on the prejudices of the hegemony an abberation in a centuries old tradition of comedy?
Watch out women, queers and foreigners: Normal service has been resumed.
*Frankie Boyle, **Jimmy Carr, ***Demetri Martin for god's sake! Is no-one safe?
That silly woman and hairy lesbian Word Geek
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Equal Pay for Equal Work
Recently I've found two of my long standing kneejerk reactions in conflict with one another.
Immovable Truth #1: Workers who are unfailry treated can and should strike and should have the support of the public. As a child of the north and the eighties, it would be difficult fo strikes not to be an emotive subject for me. As such, when the bin men in Leeds went on strike, my reaction was 'right on, go for it!' - as weirdly70s as that may have sounded.
Immovable Truth #2: Men and women should be paid equally for equal work. Not just the same job, but EQUAL work, so that could be two different jobs that are equally as challenging as each other, but one might be a job more dominated by women, e.g. care work, while another might be something we associate with men, e.g refuse collection, but they should still get the same pay. Especially if both jobs are paid by the same agency, e.g. Leeds city council.
I'm pretty good on non-sexist language, but even I struggle with saying refuse collector, or 'bin-person', as much as I struggle with 'dinner person' or 'lunch supervisor'. It's dinnerlady, and part of my soul rebels, even when I'm talking about a MALE dinner...man. I have no problem with a guy serving fishfingers and chips* in the school cafeteria, or a lady emptying my wheelie bin of a Tuedsay, in fact I rejoice on the rare occasions I see these things, but the societal sexism around certain jobs runs deep, language-deep. As a result, not many women are binmen. I've NEVER seen one, in fact. The odd dinnerbloke, and male care assistant, yes. Female bus drivers, rare, but getting more common. Binladies? Nope. Nada. And funnily enough, which sector of Leeds city council employees turn out to be getting paid loads more than their equivalents? Binmen. Funny that.It's not the guys' fault. Rubbish collection is a strenuous but well paid job. competiton for jobs is high and these guys have worked hard to get them, and bought houses and cars in good faith that their paycheques weren't going to suddenly get slashed. It's shitty to suddenly pull the rug out from under them like this. Care assistants, on the other hand, are incredibly poorly paid, and I can tell you first hand that anyone claiming that helping a stroke victim with senile dementia get up, get washed and dressed, go to the toilet, and eat breakfast while reassuring them that everything's OK despite the fact that they've forgotten that their spouse died 20 years ago and aren't really sure who you are even though you've done the same thing every day for a year takes LESS skill, strength and sensitivity than collecting wheelie bins and emptying them into the back of a lorry can only be being deliberately obtuse.
But this is the council we're talking about.
Equal pay legislation has been around for decades now and yet women take home considerably less than men. Not because, as has been suggested by some pundits, they 'choose lower paid jobs' but because they are socialised towards certain skillsets, and those areas are devalued simply BECAUSE they are 'women's jobs' Cooking, cleaning, care of children and vulnerable adults: none of these are seen as occupations worthy of a 'real man'. Recent UK legislation demands transparency from councils in what they pay jobs of equivalent skill, and now decades of disparity in 'masculine;' and 'feminine' jobs has come to light. Leeds is the tip of the iceberg. Bin strikes are planned in Brighton and may go nationwide as councils are forced to even up the pay. This has to happen, but by making the bin men take the brunt of the changes in savage cuts, the council risks further polarising male and female workers by creating bad feeling between them, and then claiming that the much needed payrises in 'women's jobs' are impossible because of the stubbornness of the bin workers.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think there's a lesson here.
Much like the recent MP's who've been forced to pay back extravagant put previously legal expense claims, binmen have enjoyed an unfair advantage. It's not their fault and they did nothing legally wrong, and now they are losing that advantage, which really stings.
So if you're offered a job with benefits that just... seem too good to be true, proceed with caution, because at any moment it could get whisked away.
WG
*Um, I mean sustainably sourced grilled fish slices and fat free potato wedges, which in NO WAY resemble the junkfood they replaced. Thanks, Healthy Schools Initiative!
Immovable Truth #1: Workers who are unfailry treated can and should strike and should have the support of the public. As a child of the north and the eighties, it would be difficult fo strikes not to be an emotive subject for me. As such, when the bin men in Leeds went on strike, my reaction was 'right on, go for it!' - as weirdly70s as that may have sounded.
Immovable Truth #2: Men and women should be paid equally for equal work. Not just the same job, but EQUAL work, so that could be two different jobs that are equally as challenging as each other, but one might be a job more dominated by women, e.g. care work, while another might be something we associate with men, e.g refuse collection, but they should still get the same pay. Especially if both jobs are paid by the same agency, e.g. Leeds city council.
I'm pretty good on non-sexist language, but even I struggle with saying refuse collector, or 'bin-person', as much as I struggle with 'dinner person' or 'lunch supervisor'. It's dinnerlady, and part of my soul rebels, even when I'm talking about a MALE dinner...man. I have no problem with a guy serving fishfingers and chips* in the school cafeteria, or a lady emptying my wheelie bin of a Tuedsay, in fact I rejoice on the rare occasions I see these things, but the societal sexism around certain jobs runs deep, language-deep. As a result, not many women are binmen. I've NEVER seen one, in fact. The odd dinnerbloke, and male care assistant, yes. Female bus drivers, rare, but getting more common. Binladies? Nope. Nada. And funnily enough, which sector of Leeds city council employees turn out to be getting paid loads more than their equivalents? Binmen. Funny that.It's not the guys' fault. Rubbish collection is a strenuous but well paid job. competiton for jobs is high and these guys have worked hard to get them, and bought houses and cars in good faith that their paycheques weren't going to suddenly get slashed. It's shitty to suddenly pull the rug out from under them like this. Care assistants, on the other hand, are incredibly poorly paid, and I can tell you first hand that anyone claiming that helping a stroke victim with senile dementia get up, get washed and dressed, go to the toilet, and eat breakfast while reassuring them that everything's OK despite the fact that they've forgotten that their spouse died 20 years ago and aren't really sure who you are even though you've done the same thing every day for a year takes LESS skill, strength and sensitivity than collecting wheelie bins and emptying them into the back of a lorry can only be being deliberately obtuse.
But this is the council we're talking about.
Equal pay legislation has been around for decades now and yet women take home considerably less than men. Not because, as has been suggested by some pundits, they 'choose lower paid jobs' but because they are socialised towards certain skillsets, and those areas are devalued simply BECAUSE they are 'women's jobs' Cooking, cleaning, care of children and vulnerable adults: none of these are seen as occupations worthy of a 'real man'. Recent UK legislation demands transparency from councils in what they pay jobs of equivalent skill, and now decades of disparity in 'masculine;' and 'feminine' jobs has come to light. Leeds is the tip of the iceberg. Bin strikes are planned in Brighton and may go nationwide as councils are forced to even up the pay. This has to happen, but by making the bin men take the brunt of the changes in savage cuts, the council risks further polarising male and female workers by creating bad feeling between them, and then claiming that the much needed payrises in 'women's jobs' are impossible because of the stubbornness of the bin workers.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think there's a lesson here.
Much like the recent MP's who've been forced to pay back extravagant put previously legal expense claims, binmen have enjoyed an unfair advantage. It's not their fault and they did nothing legally wrong, and now they are losing that advantage, which really stings.
So if you're offered a job with benefits that just... seem too good to be true, proceed with caution, because at any moment it could get whisked away.
WG
*Um, I mean sustainably sourced grilled fish slices and fat free potato wedges, which in NO WAY resemble the junkfood they replaced. Thanks, Healthy Schools Initiative!
Friday, 16 October 2009
One of these bloody things
I've been tagged by Riot Kitty, so here goes. One word answers are required for all these questions. I hereby tag Hannah, Bunbury, Don Alhambra, Michael and anyone else who can be bothered.
Where is your cell phone? AWOL
Your hair? overlong
Your mother? Traveling
Your father? *shudder*
Your favorite food? steak
Your dream last night? lateness
Your favorite drink? Tea
Your dream/goal? Published
What room are you in? bedroom
Your hobby? performing
Your Fear? hatred
Where do you want to be in 6 years? Berlin
Where were you last night? bed
Something that you aren’t? conventional
Muffins? blueberry
Wish list item? wisdom
Where did you grow up? keighley
Last thing you did? breakfast
What are you wearing? vest
Your TV? Scrubs!
Your pets? Pets?
Friends? varied
Your life? disorganised
Your mood? Alert
Missing someone? many
Vehicle? no
Something you’re not wearing? basque
Your favorite store? Lush
Your favorite color? purple
When was the last time you laughed? this morning
Last time you cried? last night
Your best friend? inspiring!
One place that I go to over and over? Berlin
One person who emails me regularly? John
Favorite place to eat? Wasabisabi
Where is your cell phone? AWOL
Your hair? overlong
Your mother? Traveling
Your father? *shudder*
Your favorite food? steak
Your dream last night? lateness
Your favorite drink? Tea
Your dream/goal? Published
What room are you in? bedroom
Your hobby? performing
Your Fear? hatred
Where do you want to be in 6 years? Berlin
Where were you last night? bed
Something that you aren’t? conventional
Muffins? blueberry
Wish list item? wisdom
Where did you grow up? keighley
Last thing you did? breakfast
What are you wearing? vest
Your TV? Scrubs!
Your pets? Pets?
Friends? varied
Your life? disorganised
Your mood? Alert
Missing someone? many
Vehicle? no
Something you’re not wearing? basque
Your favorite store? Lush
Your favorite color? purple
When was the last time you laughed? this morning
Last time you cried? last night
Your best friend? inspiring!
One place that I go to over and over? Berlin
One person who emails me regularly? John
Favorite place to eat? Wasabisabi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
